See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/241701153

The assessment of food safety culture

Article  in  British Food Journal · April 2010

DOI: 10.1108/00070701011034448

CITATIONS READS
71 7,729

3 authors:

Christopher J. Griffith K.M. Livesey

Broadmayne Hygiene Consultancy Cardiff Metropolitan University
105 PUBLICATIONS   4,690 CITATIONS    3 PUBLICATIONS   159 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Deborah A. Clayton
Cardiff Metropolitan University
13 PUBLICATIONS   801 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The promotion of creativity in learners in Higher Education View project

Food safety culture , increasing compliance with hygiene requirements View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Deborah A. Clayton on 04 January 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0007-070X.htm

The assessment
The assessment of food safety of food safety
culture culture
C.J. Griffith
Von Holy Consulting CC, Bellville, South Africa, and 439
K.M. Livesey and D. Clayton
Cardiff School of Health Sciences, University of Wales Institute Cardiff,
Cardiff, UK

Abstract
Purpose – The concept of food safety organizational culture, whilst largely ignored in the past, is
attracting increasing interest. The purpose of this paper is to examine a possible framework for
assessing a business’s food safety culture.
Design/methodology/approach – The literature on health and safety culture and organizational
culture is examined and relevant components applicable to food safety are identified and discussed.
Findings – A total of six possible groupings including: food safety management systems and style;
food safety leadership; food safety communication; food safety commitment; food safety environment
and risk perception were identified as “culture” factors that could contribute to food safety
performance. These can form the basis for assessing food safety culture and how this may be done
practically along with the creation of a positive food safety culture are discussed. Management is
traditionally talked about in food safety but a distinction is drawn between this and food safety
leadership.
Originality/value – For the first time a method for, and the potential benefits from, assessing food
safety culture is presented and this will be of value to auditors, environmental health practitioners and
industry. Utilizing the suggestions in the paper could help improve compliance with third-party
hygiene standards, and reduce the risk of food poisoning.
Keywords Food safety, Organizational culture, Risk management, Occupational hygiene,
Communication
Paper type Research paper

Background
Failure to comply with quality and food safety management system requirements can
be both widespread and problematic. Environmental health inspections within the
public sector (FSA, 2005) and audit reports from the private sector of food businesses
have identified varying and often significant degrees of non-compliance with
requirements. Of concern is the extent of the non-compliance, as well as the nature and
level of associated risk. Whilst some non-compliances may affect quality, others may
have a major impact on food safety. Businesses identified as a source of food poisoning
outbreaks can suffer significant damage to brand identity, financial losses and
possibly, in up to a third of cases, bankruptcy (Griffith, 2000). It has been repeatedly
reported that food safety is not just a microbiological problem but that it also has a
major behavioural component (Griffith and Redmond, 2009). It has been suggested that
97 per cent of outbreaks traced to non-manufacturing food businesses involved a food British Food Journal
Vol. 112 No. 4, 2010
handler error/malpractice (Howes et al., 1996). pp. 439-456
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Why food handlers choose not to implement known hygiene practices has been 0007-070X
studied and approaches to predicting behaviour examined (Clayton and Griffith, 2008). DOI 10.1108/00070701011034448
BFJ Such studies indicate that whilst some aspects of behaviour relate to the individual
112,4 over 40 per cent may be related to the prevailing food safety organizational culture.
Organizational work culture is to do with groups of people (not individuals alone)
within a business, how they interact, what an organization is about and how they
behave (Griffith et al., 2010). Food handlers can only be as hygienic as the business and
the leadership within it requires, allows and encourages them to be and this is
440 influenced by the facilities provided as well as the management systems and culture in
place (Griffith, 2000).
The concept of workplace culture affecting employee behaviour, whilst largely
ignored in the food industry, has been studied in a number of other industries,
including aviation, nuclear, etc. (Griffith et al., 2010). Many industries around the world
are showing increased interest in safety culture as a means of reducing the potential for
disasters and accidents (Cooper, 2007). Calls have been made for more specific research
on food safety culture. with the concept and its importance, poorly understood by all
levels in the food industry , including middle and top management.(Griffith et al., 2010)
Some requirements to assess culture, although mostly subjective, are a component of
third-party standards such as ISO 22000 and the BRC Global Food Safety Standard.
Within the UK, environmental health officers, in the risk rating of businesses, attempt
to assess “confidence” in their management systems.
All businesses possess a “food safety culture” this can be on a continuum from
positive to negative. In a positive culture, food safety is an important business
objective and there is compliance with documented systems. In a negative culture, food
safety is not perceived of prime importance with often other business priorities
dominant (Griffith et al., 2010) and there is poor compliance with documented food
safety requirements. The formation or existence of both types of culture may be
managed or unmanaged. A negative culture may be the result of lack of effort or
inappropriate leadership and management. In a negative culture any attempts by
individuals to improve safety may be ineffective (Clayton and Griffith, 2008). Having
an appropriate positive food safety organizational culture is essential to maintaining a
successful brand. Top management need to be aware of their own role and
responsibilities in culture formation and to equip their managers with the skills to
create and maintain a positive food safety culture at all levels but particularly at
middle management /unit level (Griffith et al., 2010).

Organizational factors contributing to culture/climate

The differences and overlap between organizational climate and culture have been
previously discussed (Griffith et al., 2010) although the term “culture “ will be used to
cover both in this paper.In order to measure them it is first necessary to know what you
are measuring i.e. what are the component factors making up (food) safety culture.
Previous attempts to define the components of organizational culture have found
between two and nineteen separate factors (Harvey et al., 2002).
Killimett (2006) argued that safety culture is definable and measurable in practical
terms within high-performing organizations that show consistently high levels of
trust. Within such businesses effective communication, management credibility and
an overall value of safety were considered important. McAleese and Hargie (2004)
identified five guiding principles of culture management. These included formulating
an overall culture strategy, development of cultural leaders, sharing the culture with
staff by empowering, motivating and providing performance feedback, establishing a The assessment
measure of cultural performance and continuous commitment to customer of food safety
satisfaction. It is argued that these dimensions of culture create social order and a
collective identity (Guldenmund, 2000) that increase levels of job satisfaction when
culture
the values of individuals and the values of the organization work in tandem (Lee,
1998). However, as yet there has been no unanimity as to what constitutes the key
organizational factors that measure safety culture in applied organizational settings 441
(Harvey et al., 2002).
Critics of safety culture claim that safety culture is a fuzzy academic concept,
lacking in empirical validation (Clarke, 2000) partly because, as yet, there is no
agreement as to what constitutes a valid and reliable approach to measuring safety
culture against performance (Dodsworth et al., 2007). However, safety culture remains
an attractive approach to enhancing organizational efficiency and effectiveness and
have been conceptually linked to context dependent organizational factors that are
grounded in empirical research (Cox and Flin, 1998). These include leadership
processes (Bass and Avolio, 1994), organizational commitment (Cox et al., 1998) and
communication (Nieva and Sorra, 2003).
Whilst often different terminology, categories and categorizations are used they
often describe the same basic underlying concepts. In applying work on organizational
and safety culture to food safety, six indicators of safety culture from other highly
regulated environments, were identified as applicable to studying food safety culture in
relation to food safety performance (Figure 1):
(1) management systems, style and processes;
(2) leadership;
(3) communication;
(4) commitment;
(5) environment; and
(6) risk awareness, perception and risk taking behaviour.

Figure 1.
Factors influencing food
safety performance
BFJ Food safety management style and systems
112,4 The International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA) reported two main features as
supporting a good safety culture:
(1) the management framework designed by organizational policies and
procedures;
442 (2) how individuals respond to and perceive the benefits of the managerial
framework (IAEA, 1991).

Management systems should set out how things should be done within a business and
management has been defined as[...] the attainment of organizational goals in an
effective and efficient way through planning, organizing, staffing, directing and
controlling organizational resources (Daft, 1999).Although most employees seem
aware that their actions contribute to food safety they perceive they have little
influence on company policies for maintaining food safety. Cooper (2007) suggests that
the link between management systems and operator behaviour is reciprocal and
requires further investigation.
A documented food safety management system (see Table I) should contain an
overall food safety policy containing aims supported by food safety objectives setting
out how the aim will be achieved (Griffith, 2009). This provides a marker for food safety
leadership and communication. Secondary levels of the documentation should cover
operating methods, instructions and procedures and a tertiary level report forms and
procedures. HACCP is a food safety management system that is currently promoted
internationally because it enables food business operators to control food safety risks at
all points along the production line, rather than waiting for microbiological testing of the
final product (Tuominen et al., 2003). However, the food industry covers a very broad
spectrum of business size and sophistication (Griffith, 2000) and some safety
management systems have been considered to be too expensive and labour intensive for

Organizational factors Definition

Food safety management Food safety management: Coordinated activities to

direct or control food safety. The attainment of
business food safety goals in an effective and
efficient way through planning, staffing, organizing,
directing and controlling organizational resources
Food safety management systems All the documented procedures, practices and
operating procedures which influence food safety.
Preferably consisting of 3 levels – policy, practices
and record forms. Systems should be based on
Prerequisite Programs and HACCP, for smaller less
developed businesses they can be based upon
HACCP principles or good hygiene practices only
Management involvement The extent to which managers/supervisors get
involved in the daily operations which can affect
Table I. food safety and how much food handlers perceive
Organizational food them to be concerned about food safety. Managers
safety culture and involvement in training, inspections and other food
management safety related activities
SMEs (Tuominen et al., 2003). Food safety legislation across the EU now requires all food The assessment
businesses (other than primary production) to have in place documented food safety
systems based on HACCP principles. This provides considerable scope for flexibility
of food safety
from classical “codex” HACCP to simpler models based on codex principles (Griffith and culture
Redmond, 2009). Selecting the right type and design of system for a businesses is
important and “one size is unlikely to fit all”. Part of the potential success of HACCP is
that it allows flexibility for all food types at all points in the food chain and should be 443
“designed by the business for the business” (Griffith, 2009).
Yiannas (2009) argues that there should be a move away from traditional food
safety management systems with a focus on “process, food science and a simplistic
view of food handler behaviour” to ones ”incorporating people as well as process,
behavioural science and the belief that behavioural change is complex and not based
on mere provision of factual information”.
Also part of management is the extent to which managers get personally involved
in food safety activities (see Table I) including training, and the ability to stay in touch
with day to day food safety issues (Wiegmann et al., 2002). The successful application
of any management system is therefore dependent on managers being proactive.
Health care environments with lower staff injury rates negatively correlated with
higher levels of proactive actions undertaken by organizational leaders (Vredenburgh,
2002). Food companies that have excelled in the European Business Excellence Model
attributed their achievements in part to effective management (Mann et al., 1999).

Food safety leadership

All organizations need good leaders and better-led businesses are more productive,
competitive and responsive. Their employees have a greater idea of where they are
heading and why, and are more engaged and motivated. The terms leadership and
management are often used interchangeably although they are two distinct but
complementary processes (Ssee Table II). Kotter differentiates between leadership and
management but states that if either are missing success will be elusive (Kotter, 1990).
Yiannas (2009) also makes a distinction between leadership and management and
notes that in food safety”, management is often spoken about but leadership is rarely
mentioned”. Leadership is more about influencing people whilst management is about
control and creating predictable results. It has been said that leadership is one of the
most observed but least understood phenomena (Bennis and Nannus, 1985). The roles
and responsibilities of leaders are different depending upon their position within an
organization (see Table II). Key to leadership is having a food safety vision combined
with goals and standards. Organizational culture must possess an underpinning vision
and this articulates the organizations goals and values and leadership helps align food
handlers with these goals. Taurel (2007) believes” the first thing I think any leader
should be judged by is a very strong set of values” and “leadership is to do with getting
people to follow you to a place you have not been – which is the future”.
There is a vast amount of literature covering leadership theories and it is beyond the
scope of this paper to review them in depth. One simple way of classifying them is into
traditional and contemporary styles. The former includes trait, situational and
contingency theories and relates the personality of the leader to the context. The focus
is on selection of the leader rather than their development. Some contemporary
approaches involve transactional and transformational models (Table III and Table IV)
and move away from the type of leader dealing more with how leaders can get the best
from themselves and from their followers. This approach has been found useful in
BFJ Management Leadership
112,4
Direction Planning and budgeting Creating vision and strategy
Keeping an eye on the bottom line Keeping an eye on the horizon
Alignment Organizing and staffing Creating shared culture and values
Directing and controlling Helping others develop
Creating boundaries Reducing boundaries
444 Relationships Focusing on products and services Focusing on people – inspiring and
Based on a position of power/authority motivating followers
Acting as boss: controlling Based on personal power
Acting as leader: coach, facilitator
Personal Emotional distance Emotional connections,
qualities Discipline initiative,inspiring, involvement
Talking/lecturing/telling Listening and exhorting/inspiring
Ensuring compliance-checking and Suggesting new ideas/ new ways
Table II. feeding back
Comparison between Outcomes Maintain stability Creates change
management and
leadership Source: Adapted from Schoemaker and Russo (1993)

Organizational factors Definition

Food safety leadership Food safety leadership is a measure of the extent the business’s
leader(s) are able to engage staff in hygiene/safety performance
and compliance to meet the business’s goals/vision/standards.
Traditional and contemporary styles. One contemporary style is
based on transactional and/or transformational leadership
Transformational Transformational leaders motivate subordinates to set aside
personal goals and adopt the organizations goals
Transactional Transactional leaders gain compliance from followers by setting
goals, monitoring performance and reinforcement
Laissez-faire Leadership style that operates with a minimum of control.
Leaders do not provide vision, assistance or guidance. Likely to
result in weak food safety culture
Goals, vision and standards Goal is an objective target or performance level that is to be
achieved in food safety. Should be observable and measurable
Vision defines the intended or desired future state of the business
in terms of food safety. Leaders must have a vision of how/what
they want food safety to be. They need to communicate and
motivate the food handler to achieve the goals. Mission defines
the fundamental purpose of an organization and should include
reference to food safety
Standards. A reference point against which the food safety
Table III. performance of food handlers is judged. Can be high or low and food
Organizational culture handler performance can be acceptable/unacceptable
and food safety Yiannas (2009) talks about setting goals but also performance
leadership expectations

improving patient safety in healthcare environments (Flin and Yule, 2004).

Transactional leadership concerns motivating followers by clarifying their role,
meeting their needs and providing appropriate rewards. Transformational leadership
is about being able to achieve radical change and relies less on rewards and more on

Transactional behaviour
Supervisors Monitoring and reinforcing workers’ safe
behaviours
Participating in workforce safety activities
(can also be transformational)
Opening and closing checks
Internal auditing
Middle Becoming involved in safety initiatives
managers (can also be transformational)
Managing rewards and sanctions
Senior Ensuring compliance with legislative
managers requirements
Providing resources for a comprehensive
safety programme
Overseeing food safety practices &
documentation
Decision making about 3rd party
standards
Source: Adapted from Flin and Yule (2004)
The assessment
Transformational behaviour
of food safety
Being supportive of safety initiatives culture
Encouraging employee involvement in
safety initiatives
445
Emphasising safety over productivity
Adopting a decentralised style
Relaying the corporate vision for safety to
supervisors
Demonstrating visible and consistent
commitment to safety
Showing concern for people
Encouraging participatory styles in
middle managers and supervisors
Giving time for food safety
Inspiring staff about food safety
Table IV.
Leadership styles for food
safety at different levels

vision and values, to convince staff to put aside their self interests and work towards
the collective good. Transactional styles appear to reinforce employees safety
behaviours when attention to monitoring has been effective at supervisory levels (Flin
and Yule, 2004). This has been sustained when supervisory staff have been given some
autonomy for innovative safety ideas that are responsive to the changing work climate.
Other newer forms of leadership theory involve; complexity or chaos theory, diversity
theory and stakeholder theory. What is common is that leadership starts at the top of
an organization and permeates down. New managers to a food business may need to
either maintain a good status quo or bring in an entirely new food safety culture if the
existing one is unsatisfactory. Managers may well need to employ more than one style
of leadership and change their style at different times and with different people. Top
managers or owners have a crucial responsibility to provide food safety leadership and
that this contributes to the food safety culture within a business but they should also
encourage/foster leadership abilities at all levels in the organization. For larger
companies with many sites or units the leadership provided by middle management is
particularly crucial in ensuring that the food handlers within their control behave
hygienically. Leaders are needed at all levels although the top management may
involve themselves with “macro leadership “ and supervisors/middle management
with “micro leadership” (Table IV). The motivation they provide along with the food
safety standards, goals and values they set will be transmitted or communicated
overtly or subliminally to the food handlers they employ.

Food safety communication

Communication is central to the functioning of any organization, is generally easier but
more informal in small companies although the latter can take communication for
BFJ granted. Yiannas (2009) believes “you can tell a lot about the food safety culture within
112,4 an organization by their communication or lack of it”. There are an increasing range of
communications options within a company although they all have the same purpose:
the transfer of information from one person to another and this may involve one or
many steps. Organizations involve people and they cannot interact without internal
communication. Without communications people would not know their roles and
446 responsibilities or the businesses’ objectives and this includes what a food business
believes, feels and wants to achieve concerning food safety. Communication is defined
as a business process that described how individuals, groups, and organizations
transmit information to other individuals, groups and organizations both within and
outside businesses (Greenberg and Baron, 2008). Leader-member exchange (LMX) is a
measure of the quality of social exchanges between leaders and employees that has
been found to influence culture (Flin and Yule, 2004). It is founded upon the principle
that managers do not use the same communication style when relating to different
subordinates and an individual relationship can develop with each subordinate over
time (Bauer and Green, 1996). The relationships can vary between those based purely
on contracts of employment to those characterised by reciprocal influences (Liden and
Maslyn, 1998). It has been found that individuals with high LMX appeared more likely
to engage in larger volumes of safety-related communication and appear committed to
safety (Hofmann and Morgeson, 1999). However crucial in any communication, not
least food safety, is that the message communicated is the correct one. Communication
is divided into stages of encoding and decoding, whereby senders shape ideas into a
form that can be transmitted as messages to receivers who decode, or translate, the
messages (Greenberg and Baron, 2008). The information appears to be processed in a
loop between the receivers and the sender of each message. Channels of communication
vary according to their degree of formality, the work environment and the amount of
technology utilized by the business with organizations supporting proactive
communication systems having lower accident rates than organizations with
reactive communication systems (Vredenburgh, 2002). Channels of communication
can range from face to face meetings or discussions through print based or electronic
media. Informal communication (e.g. conversations in the workplace) about food safety
can often have higher impact and influence on behaviour than formal communications
(e.g. e-mail sent to whole company). However a good communications policy will be
balanced blend of different approaches including formal, semi formal and formal.
Communicating with employees effectively can help them to feel involved and
empowered, increase productivity and reduce staff turnover by increasing staff
motivation and commitment. Under – communication can be a common business
problem (Table V).
Uzzi (1997) found that positive associations between employees tends to build
reciprocity that promotes the transfer of knowledge not explicitly included in training
schemes. When employee social unity is reflected in cooperative behavioural norms
transfer of appropriate knowledge appears to be facilitated between staff (Argote et al.,
2003). The greater the degree of safety attitude alignment between senior management
and employee attitudes, the more likely they are to adopt positive behavioural
attitudes, such as “handling food safely is good for the business”.
Approach intention describes how confident a colleague would feel about talking to
another colleague engaged in an unsafe behaviour. This willingness to “speak out” has
 The assessment
Safety factors Definition
of food safety
Food safety communication Food safety communication is a measure of the quality of the culture
transfer of food safety messages and knowledge between
management, supervisory staff and food handlers
Leader-member exchange Measures the extent to which leaders have high-quality social
exchanges with their supervisor 447
Approach intention The likelihood of one team member approaching another who is
engaged in unsafe behaviour
Reporting system/culture Identifies weaknesses and vulnerability in safety management
BEFORE an outbreak can occur. Reporting of potential problems
or unsafe practices should be free and uninhibited
Feedback Knowledge of the results and consequences of your own food
safety behaviour and beliefs
Blame culture/just culture A work situation whereby errors are overtly attributed to
individual members of the workforce leaving potential failings in
management systems and other situational factors unexplored.
In a “Just Culture” employees should not experience reprisal or
negative outcomes. Developed over past 15 years based on
premise humans are fallible and no system is perfect. Encourages
open communication so that any errors/mistakes can be used
positively to prevent future problems. Mistakes can be
investigated using root cause analysis. Middle ground between Table V.
blame culture and blame free one Organizational food
Communication policy Documented practices methods and procedures using formal and safety culture and
informal mechanisms for communicating food safety issues communication

been significantly related to levels of unsafe behaviours (Hofmann and Stetzer, 1996),
and could be used as an indicator of safety culture. This appears to be mediated by
blame culture where employees who have made mistakes are named and shamed
(Reason et al., 2001). This could undermine a positive safety culture because error
management systems, such as this, appear to foster a culture where individuals are
used as scapegoats and faulty management system left to pass uncorrected (Reason
et al., 2001). Organizations who have adopted this mode of safety communication have
been found to discourage individuals from identifying or owning up to mistakes
because of the potential consequences and increasing the likelihood of adverse
organizational consequences (Reason et al., 2001).
The term “noise” describes organizational factors that can impede or interrupt the
flow of information (Greenberg and Baron, 2008). Noise can arise in a range of different
forms, such as, distortion of the message, the availability of appropriate channels of
communication, time pressure, and the complexity of the message. Verbal
communication incorporates both oral and written media such as telephone and
face-to-face talking or letters, e-mails and notice/posters. The term communication also
includes nonverbal communication that is routinely expressed through dress, use of
interpersonal space, which can sometimes confuse the communication of appropriate
safety messages (Lingard et al., 2004). One problem is that unknowingly a business
may send out the wrong messages and this has been found to be the case in
non-compliance with food safety requirements – -the food handlers believing that other
things, such as saving money (Griffith et al., 2010) are more important than practicing
BFJ food safety. Businesses should therefore have a communications strategy based on
112,4 communications objectives, choosing the most appropriate form for message delivery
followed by measurement, evaluation and feedback. This strategy should be an
integral part of the business rather than a last minute or ad hoc add on.
Safety communication frequently features in the research that measures the quality
of safely-related interactions between workers. Positive safety cultures are often
448 characterized by employees who “feel free to discuss safety issues with supervisors”
(Hofmann and Morgeson, 1999). Each industrial setting emphasises different aspects of
safety communication. Hofmann and Stetzer (1996) found that safety communication
in a utility company significantly influenced the causal attributions made by
employees about industrial accidents. Errors were attributed to employees whose
behaviour was consistent with safety information that was openly discussed. Safety
communication was also significantly related to the priority given to safety-related
issues and the mode of communication between supervisor and shop-floor worker in
the manufacturing industry (Hofmann and Morgeson, 1999). Safety communication is
strongly related to the successful transfer of safety messages between hierarchical
levels in a health care setting and the how managers communicate their commitment to
safety with the workforce (Singer et al., 2003). A recent inquiry into an epidemic of
equine flu in Australia specifically cited ”lack of clear communication channels
between those responsible for formulating procedures and work instructions and those
implementing them “ as a major causative factor in the outbreak (Davis, 2008).

Food safety commitment

The International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA) stated that “success depends on
commitment and competence, provided in the policy and managerial context and by
individuals themselves” (IAEA, 1991). Both the BRC Global Food Safety and the SQF
2000 standards contain clauses requiring a commitment from top management, to food
safety. One scheme for classifying commitment included organizational commitment:
continuance commitment, normative commitment, and effective commitment
(Greenberg and Baron, 2008). Continuance commitment describes individuals’ desire
to continue working for an organization because they are unable to afford to do
otherwise. Normative commitment describes continuing to work for an organization
because of facing pressure from others to do so. Affective commitment describes
individuals who continue working for an organization because they agree with it and
want to remain there. Individual commitment towards food safety can be determined at
interview in hiring new staff but it is the maintenance of a positive food safety
commitment amongst all the workforce, especially in difficult economic times and in
the face of competing financial imperatives, that is more difficult.
A number of organizational commitment models have been developed to better
understand the construct of organizational commitment (see Table VI) because it has
frequently been found to influence employee behaviour (Greenberg and Baron, 2008).
Commitment indicators vary between models, but rewards and incentives (Pfeffer and
Sutton, 1999), job satisfaction (Harvey et al., 2002; Lok and Crawford, 1999) and regard
for personal responsibility (Ostrom et al., 1993) are commonly included (Greenberg and
Baron, 2008) and have also been indicators of safety culture. For example, Lok and
Crawford (1999), and Adkins and Caldwell (2004) found there were significant
correlations between commitment and measures of safety culture, and job satisfaction.
 The assessment
Safety factors Definition
of food safety
Food safety commitment Food safety commitment is a measure of the extent to which food culture
handlers and supervisors consider their own values and beliefs
about food safety are aligned with those of the organization
Reward valence The value placed on the reward expected
Reward instrumentality The belief that an individual will be rewarded according to his or 449
her performance
Reward expectancy The belief that increasing personal effort will influence
performance positively
Role overload Role overload can arise from role ambiguity (insufficient
information to adequately perform their job) or role conflict (staff
have differing expectations of the work expectations of the role
holder) whereby the role holder tends to work harder to satisfy
role expectations or to meet the demands of the conflicting
demands which may be impossible to complete within the
specified time limits
Role underload Role underload can also arise from role ambiguity or perceptions
of role conflict and can result in role holders employed in
undemanding jobs where they feel their skills are under-utilized,
resulting in boredom, or they are required to perform excessive
attention to minute details
Job satisfaction Measures the emotional state that arises from appraising job
experiences
Employee empowerment Employees clearly understand their critical role in food safety
and employees feels motivated to “make a difference” – they
have the ability to go the extra step and take responsibility for Table VI.
ensuring safe food i.e. the food handler themselves have a say Organizational food
and responsibility for food safety and can initiate food safety safety culture and
actions and take pride in the food safety record of the business commitment

Pfeffer and Sutton (1999) found that members of organizations were unlikely to convey
knowledge to others in the organization unless they were recompensed with monetary
or social rewards. Yiannas (2009) talks about the”, consequences for creating improved
food handlers food safety compliance” and that immediate and certain consequences
were more effective at changing behaviour”. He noted that penalties and punishments
could have a negative effect and that it was better to determine the cause of any
non-compliance.
Employee attitudes towards safety actions have also varied according to their level
of responsibility within the organization (Harvey et al., 2002). These findings suggest
that other environmental factors could also influence the importance attributed to
monetary and social rewards and feelings of job satisfaction, such as willingness to
approach team members and the level of blame that employees believe could be
attributed to individual errors. The concept of rewards for hygienic behaviour links to
motivation to behave hygienically and job satisfaction. A range of models exist for
understanding motivation. Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene theory (Herzberg, 1974)
includes salary and also company policies and status as the hygiene factors with the
work itself and recognition included as “ satisfier “ factors. Maslow (1987) constructed
a hierarchy of needs that emerge in a predictable sequence. Goal setting theory (Locke,
BFJ 1968) postulated that goals drive behaviour and people make decisions about
112,4 behaviour based upon their desired goals. It is considered important to help people set
themselves goals but feedback is important on how well they have performed. Use can
be made of this in food safety by using audit results or other forms of metric data to
increase motivation. With these and other theories motivation can be seen to be
complex and good managers and supervisors must motivate and make it worthwhile
450 for staff to behave hygienically. One of the roles of a leader is to provide praise and
recognition. Workers receiving appropriate praise and recognition are more likely to
act hygienically and engage with their colleagues (Roth and Clifton, 2004).

Food safety environment

A wide range of psychological and situational factors can contribute to the food safety
environment of businesses. They include obvious or tangible factors such as the
availability and accessibility of hand wash basins or other hygiene equipment but also
sufficient numbers of staff to fully perform all the required safety practices (Clayton
et al., 2002). This works both positively and negatively. If sufficient facilities are
available then there is support for food safety but also if absent then food safety is
perceived not to be important. Perceived organizational support (Table VII) is a
measure of the level of support that employees perceive the organization has provided
for them in terms of availability and usefulness of resources and the safety measures
employed (Hofmann and Morgeson, 1999).
Research in the manufacturing industry found that individuals with higher
perceived organizational support (POS) were more likely to engage in safety-related
behaviours. The organizational support was communicated across the workforce in
different ways, such as, sustained quality standards set by the organization and the
approaches used to measure food safety excellence (Reason et al., 2001).

Safety factors Definition

Food safety environment Environment describes the visible or discernable

organizational structures and processes that characterize
the internal dimensions of businesses
Tangible factor Visible facilities and equipment for food safety
Complacency Measures overconfidence in food safety management
systems due to underestimating food safety risks and the
dangers of ignoring warning signs or near misses
Standards Measures values of hygiene practices against UK legislative
or other standards and best practice guidelines
Type of excellence Consideration of whether the food safety monitoring
systems collate data that is useful for improving or
maintaining hand hygiene
Consistency Ensuring rules, training practices and knowledge work
practices are understood so that food safety priorities are
Table VII. clear and achieved throughout the business
Organizational food Perceived organizational support Measure of the support (financial, practical, psychological
safety culture and and emotional) that employees believe is committed by the
environment organization to food safety
Risk perception, awareness and risk taking behaviour The assessment
Risk can be defined (Dillon and Griffith, 1996) as the probability of an adverse event in of food safety
conjunction with the seriousness or severity of that event. Perceived risks are the
judgment and decision making processes which enable individuals to evaluate the culture
chances of being affected by a particular risk. Risk perception links closely to risk
communication and should be a specific component of any food businesses
communication strategy. In a food business risk communication could be defined as 451
the interactive process between employees within an organization for identifying risk,
projecting its relevance and potential impact, and enacting practices to eliminate or
minimize the threat (Novak et al., 2006). In terms of the risk of food poisoning occurring
two problems have been encountered with food handlers (Redmond and Griffith, 2009):
optimistic bias and the illusion of control. There is evidence that both can affect food
handler behaviour and safety culture. With optimistic bias the food handlers perceive
there is an overall risk but that their business would not be affected by it. One reason
for this maybe although they perceive there are poor food practices implemented this
does not apply not in their business i.e. they practise good food safety. This maybe in
spite of manifest poor practices being used. Unless they are convinced of both the
probability and seriousness of the risk they are unlikely to implement food safety
requirements.
Yiannas (2009) argues that in trying to get the risk message over to food handlers a
personal qualitative approach is more successful than a quantitative approach i.e.
rather than present statistics on number of people ill it is more productive to present
examples/accounts and pictures of those made ill or killed by food poisoning. This
approach helps to overcome attitudinal ambivalence which is likely to be a particular
problem in food service operations and occurs where although handlers may want to
practice food safety something else is considered more important, e.g. serving
customers quickly maybe considered more important than hand-washing. Some
workers perceive that concerns about food safety are exaggerated or there is little they
can do to control food safety.
The so called “hygiene hypothesis” (sometimes referred to as “a little bit of dirt does
you good”) can cause some people to be less inclined to clean and be hygienic on the
grounds that it does not really matter. Risk awareness and risk taking behaviour are
highly relevant for safety culture (Harvey et al., 2002) and the same is likely to be true
for food safety. Risk taking behaviour is influenced by a range of variables including
personal risk, disposition, locus of control and mood as well as performance feedback.
A range of factors impact on whether people will change their behaviour as a result of
risk information including trust in the source of information (Frewer et al., 1996) but a
good risk communication strategy is considered essential to a good food safety culture.
It has been said that “employees who are active in the process of generating and acting
on risk related information are more likely to be act in ways that avert or interrupt
potential crises” (Seeger et al., 2003).

Assessing food safety culture

If a business wishes to assess its own food safety culture (or any third party
assessment of a businesses’ culture) the first stage is to decide which components are to
be assessed once identified then the method of assessment needs to be considered.
These are likely to vary between businesses and types of businesses – there is no “off
BFJ the shelf” means to assess food safety culture. Methods used can be broadly split into
112,4 qualitative and quantitative, each having their own advantages and disadvantages
(see for example Redmond and Griffith, 2003) and the method chosen should relate to
the needs of the investigation. Qualitative methods can include a range of data
collection tools including group interviews, focus and discussion groups and narrative
interviews. Quantitative methods include questionnaires and in many cases are chosen
452 due for their ease of administration, time constraints and the needs for the study. The
third stage is to decide which levels within the businesses will be involved, food safety
culture can vary between levels especially in larger organizations with many sites or
units. The fourth stage is to consider, at time of the study design, how the data will be
analyzed, this to an extent depends on how the information will be used and who the
results will be communicated to.
Cooper (2000) has proposed a tri-component model, based upon Bandura’s model of
reciprocal determinism, as a theoretical and practical framework with which to
measure and assess food safety culture. The first element covers the subjective internal
psychological factors and are assessed by means of food safety climate questionnaires.
The second element is food safety related behaviours which can be assessed by one of
the various observational methods. The third component the situational or
environmental aspects of food safety can be measured by audits. Audits on their
own however cannot be used to assess food safety culture (Cooper, 2000). The
approach, to assess the components of food safety culture outlined in this paper, could
be used to quantify safety culture in a meaningful way and to provide a common
reference framework for benchmarking food safety culture within and in some cases
between businesses. The reasons to measure food safety culture are listed as follows:
.
assess potential compliance with safety management systems to avoid error/food
poisoning costs;
.
help to raise awareness of food safety;
.
benchmarking/comparing sites/units;
.
inform decisions about training/remedial action;
.
promote commitment; and
.
identify weaknesses and evaluate risk.

Although often used in isolation climate questionnaires are not without criticism as
they measure climate at one point in time. Nevertheless, a wide range of surveys and
questionnaires of safety culture have been developed within a variety of industries,
such as the chemical, construction and nuclear industries which have produced a broad
spectrum of organizational factors that have been used to predict compliance with
safety-related behaviours (Wiegmann et al., 2002). Most safety culture research studies
have practical and applied aims that are industry specific (Guldenmund, 2000) which
limit their degree of applicability to other industries (Durey and Lower, 2004). This has
generated interest in identifying methods that measure key components of
organizational culture within industry specific sectors (Dodsworth et al., 2007).

Summary: food safety performance

The basis of good food safety performance is a good food safety management system
however in isolation this is insufficient and a high level of compliance with it is
necessary for the production of safe food. Studying an individual’s food safety actions The assessment
alone is insufficient (Clayton et al., 2002) and it has been suggested to improve of food safety
compliance attention should be given to the organizational food safety culture (Clayton
and Griffith, 2008). The concept of food safety culture has evolved from organizational culture
culture via health and safety culture. Safety culture has frequently been linked with
safety performance in other highly regulated environments (Guldenmund, 2000) and
has been described as a “performance shaping factor” in health care settings (Nieva 453
and Sorra, 2003). Various definitions exist of safety culture and components of these
can be applied to food safety. They include attitudes and beliefs about various
components of the overall business culture often referred to as food safety climate.
Various attempts have been made to assess these and apply them to predicting safety
behaviour and if validated this could prove attractive to food safety managers. Food
safety attitudes are influential in food safety performance of employees (Hofmann et al.,
1995). Attitudes, values and beliefs are central components of definitions of most safety
culture definitions because attitudes are generally considered to be stable personality
predispositions that can be measured against performance targets (Harvey et al., 2002).
Food safety culture is starting to be used in outbreak inquiries as a risk factor
within the businesses involved and this is likely to increase in the future (Griffith et al.,
2010). Given the potential consequences of a food poisoning outbreak an assessment of
the food safety culture could help to; assess the likelihood of an outbreak occurring,
evaluate the results of food safety initiatives and training effectiveness, identify
priorities, assist in staff recruitment, etc. However, there is no unanimity of what
should be assessed. This paper reviews some of the literature surrounding safety
culture and identifies components that may be transferable to food safety culture. Five
major components are proposed each made up of further sub categories and these can
be arranged or grouped in different ways if required. For example Wiegemann et al.
(2002) use a five-component structure based upon organizational commitment,
management involvement, employee empowerment, reward system, and reporting
system. Although arranged differently the same basic components are covered. There
is considerable overlaps between each category and sub category, e.g. risk
communication. In different business some cultural themes will be stronger than
others and there will be variation in how they are expressed or manifested (Cooper,
2000). It is possible for a business to have a high level of compliance by being stronger
in some areas than others what is important is how all the components fit together to
contribute to the complete or overall food safety culture.
Assessing a business’s food safety culture can be used as a measure of how it can be
improved and Yiannas (2009) has proposed a model for creating a “behaviour based
food safety management system”. This uses some of the themes or elements outlined in
this paper and starts with creating food safety performance expectations. Food
handlers then need to be educated and trained in relation to the required food safety
practices. Then a comprehensive food safety communication system needs to be
developed. Food safety performance then needs to be assessed, measured against
standards and the results feedback to employees who should be accountable.
Consistent consequences related to performance then need to be developed in terms of
rewards and sanctions. Moving more towards this behavioural/food safety culture
based approach to food safety management may help to reduce the burden of food
borne disease.
BFJ References
112,4 Adkins, B. and Caldwell, D. (2004), “Firm or subgroup culture: where does fitting in matter
most?”, Journal of Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 25, pp. 969-78.
Argote, L., McEvily, B. and Reagans, R. (2003), “Managing knowledge in organizations:
an integrative framework and review of emerging themes”, Management Science, Vol. 494,
pp. 571-82.
454 Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1994), “Transformational leadership and organizational culture”,
International Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 17 No. 3/4, pp. 541-54.
Bauer, T.N. and Green, S.G. (1996), “Development of leader-member exchange: a longitudinal
test”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 396, pp. 1538-67.
Bennis, W. and Nanus, B. (1985), Leaders: The Strategies for Taking Charge, Harper & Row,
New York, NY.
Clarke, G.C. (2000), “Safety culture: nnder-specified and overrated?”, International Journal of
Management Reviews, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 65-90.
Clayton, D. and Griffith, C.J. (2008), “Efficacy of an extended theory of planned behaviour model
for predicting caterers’ hand hygiene practices”, International Journal of Environmental
Health, Vol. 18, pp. 83-98.
Clayton, D., Griffith, C.J., Price, P. and Peters, A.C. (2002), “Food handlers’ beliefs and
self-reported practices”, International Journal of Environmental Health, Vol. 12, pp. 25-39.
Cooper, D. (2007), Behavioural Safety Approaches: which Are the Most Effective, White Paper,
BSMS, Brighton, August.
Cooper, M.D. (2000), “Towards a model of safety culture”, Safety Science, Vol. 36, pp. 111-36.
Cox, S. and Flin, R. (1998), “Safety culture: philosopher’s stone or man of straw?”, Work & Stress,
Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 189-201.
Cox, S., Tomas, J.M., Cheyne, A. and Oliver, A. (1998), “Safety culture: the prediction of
commitment to safety in the manufacturing industry”, British Journal of Management,
Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 3-11.
Daft, R.L. (1999), Leadership Theory and Practice, Dryden Press, Hinsdale, IL.
Davis, M. (2008), “Horse flu inquiry slams AQIS”, available at: www.smh.com.au/news/national/
horse-flu-inquiry-findings-damning/2008/06/12 (accessed 12 June 2008).
Dillon, M. and Griffith, C.J. (1996), How to HACCP: An Illustrated Guide, 2nd ed., M.D. Associates,
Grimsby.
Dodsworth, M., Connelly, K.E., Ellett, C.J. and Sharratt, P. (2007), “Organizational climate metrics
as safety, health and environment performance indicators and an aid to relative risk
ranking within industry”, Process Safety and Environmental Protection, Vol. 85, pp. 59-69.
Durey, A. and Lower, T. (2004), “The culture of safety on Australian farms”, Rural Society, Vol. 14
No. 1, pp. 57-69.
Flin, R. and Yule, S. (2004), “Leadership and safety in health care: lessons from industry”, Quality
Safety Health Care, Vol. 13, pp. 45-51.
Foods Standard Agency (2005), “Survey of hygiene standards in food premises”, available at:
www.food.gov.uk (accessed December 2009).
Frewer, L.J., Howard, C., Hedderley, D. and Shepherd, R. (1996), “What determines trust in
information about food-related risks? Underlying psychological constructs”, Risk Analysis,
Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 473-86.
Greenberg, J. and Baron, R.A. (2008), Behaviour in Organizations, 9th ed., Prentice-Hall
International, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Griffith, C.J. (2000), “Food safety in catering establishments”, in Faber, J.M. and Todd, E.C.D.
(Eds), Safe Handling of Foods, Marcel Dekker, Toronto, pp. 235-56.
Griffith, C.J. (2009), “Why don’t food handlers always implement the food hygiene practices they The assessment
know they should”, Report of the CIES Conference, Barcelona, Spain, February.
Griffith, C.J. and Redmond, E. (2009), “Good practice for food handlers and consumers”,
of food safety
in Blackburn, C. de W. and McClure, P.J. (Eds), Foodborne Pathogens. Hazards, Risk culture
Analysis and Control, Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge, pp. 518-46.
Griffith, C.J., Livesey, K.M. and Clayton, D. (2010), “Food safety culture: the evolution of an
emerging risk factor?”, British Food Journal, Vol. 112 No. 4, pp. 426-38. 455
Guldenmund, F.W. (2000), “The nature of safety culture: a review of theory and research”, Safety
Science, Vol. 34, pp. 215-57.
Harvey, J., Erdos, G., Bolam, H., Cox, M.A.A., Kennedy, J.N.P. and Gregory, D.T. (2002),
“An analysis of safety culture attitudes in a highly regulated environment”, Work &
Stress, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 18-36.
Herzberg, F. (1974), Work and the Nature of Man, Crosby Lockwood Staples, London.
Hofmann, D.A. and Morgeson, P. (1999), “Safety-related behavior as a social exchange: the role of
perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 84 No. 2, pp. 286-96.
Hofmann, D.A. and Stetzer, A. (1996), “A cross-level investigation of factors influencing unsafe
behaviours and accidents”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 49, pp. 307-39.
Hofmann, D.A., Jacobs, R. and Landy, F. (1995), “High reliability process industries: individual,
micro, and macro organizational influences on safety performance”, Journal of Safety
Research, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 131-49.
Howes, M., McEwen, S., Griffiths, M. and Harris, L. (1996), “Food handler certification by home
study: measuring changes in knowledge and behaviour”, Dairy Food Sanitation, Vol. 16,
pp. 737-44.
International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA) (1991), “International Atomic Energy Authority
(IAEA) Safety culture – A report by the international nuclear safety advisory group”,
Safety Series, No. 75, INSAG-4, Vienna.
Killimett, P. (2006), “Organizational factors that influence safety”, Process Safety Progress, Vol. 25
No. 2, pp. 94-7.
Kotter, J.P. (1990), “What leaders really do”, Harvard Business Review, May/June.
Lee, T. (1998), “Assessment of safety culture at a nuclear reprocessing plant”, Work & Stress,
Vol. 12, pp. 217-37.
Liden, R.C. and Maslyn, J. (1998), “Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: an empirical
assessment through scale development”, Journal of Management, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 43-72.
Lingard, L., Espin, S., Whyte, S., Regehr, G., Baker, G.R., Reznick, R., Bohnen, J., Orser, B., Doran,
D. and Grober, E. (2004), “”Communication failures in the operating room: an observational
classification of recurrent types and effects”, Quality & Safety in Health Care, Vol. 13 No. 5,
pp. 330-4.
Locke, E.A. (1968), “Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives”, Organisational
Behaviour and Human Performance, Vol. 3, pp. 157-89.
Lok, P. and Crawford, J. (1999), “The relationship between commitment and organizational
culture, subculture, leadership style and job satisfaction in organizational change and
development”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 20 No. 7, pp. 365-73.
McAleese, D. and Hargie, O. (2004), “Five guiding principles of culture management”, Journal of
Communication Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 155-70.
Mann, R., Adebanjo, O. and Kehoe, D. (1999), “Best practice in the food and drinks industry”,
British Food Journal, Vol. 101 No. 3, pp. 238-53.
Maslow, A.H. (1987), Motivation and Personality, Harper & Row, London.
BFJ Nieva, V.F. and Sorra, J. (2003), “Safety culture assessment: a tool for improving patient safety in
healthcare organizations”, Quality Safety Healthcare, Vol. 12, pp. 17-23.
112,4 Novak, J.M., Sellnow, T.L., Venette, S.J. and Nganje, W.E. (2006), “Perceptions of risk
communication messages: applications in a food processing environment”, Food
Protection Trends, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 236-43.
Ostrom, L., Wilhelmse, C. and Kaplan, B. (1993), “Assessing safety culture”, Nuclear Safety,
Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 163-72.
456
Pfeffer, J. and Sutton, R.I. (1999), The Knowing-doing Gap: How Smart Companies Turn
Knowledge Into Action, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Reason, J.T., Carthy, J. and de Leval, M.R. (2001), “Diagnosing vulnerable system syndrome: an
essential prerequisite to effective risk management”, Quality Safety Health Care, Vol. 10,
pp. 21-5.
Redmond, E.C. and Griffith, C.J. (2003), “A comparison and evaluation of research methods used
in consumer food safety studies”, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 27 No. 1,
pp. 17-33.
Roth, T. and Clifton, D.O. (2004), How Full is your Bucket – Positive Strategies for Work and Life,
Gallup Press, Washington, DC, p. 39.
Schoemaker, P.J.H. and Russo, J.E. (1993), “A pyramid of decision approaches”, California
Management Review, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 9-31.
Seeger, M.W., Sellnow, T.L. and Ullmer, R.R. (2003), Communication and Organizational Crisis,
Praeger, Westport, CT.
Singer, S.J., Gaba, D.M., Geppert, J.J., Sinaiko, A.D., Howard, S.K. and Park, K.C. (2003),
“The culture of safety: results of an organization-wide survey in 15 California hospitals”,
Quality and Safety of Health Care, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 112-8.
Taurel, S. (2007), “Northwest Airlines”, Traveller Magazine.
Tuominen, P., Hielm, S., Aarnisalo, K., Raaska, L. and Maijala, R. (2003), “Trapping the food
safety performance of a small or medium-sized food company using a risk-based model
The HYGRAMw System”, Food Control, Vol. 14 No. 8, pp. 573-8.
Uzzi, B. (1997), “Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: the paradox of
embeddedness”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 42, pp. 35-67.
Vredenburgh, A.G. (2002), “Organizational safety: which management practices are most
effective in reducing employee injury rates?”, Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 33 No. 2,
pp. 259-76.
Wiegmann, D.A., Zhang, H., Thaden, T.V., Sharma, G. and Mitchell, A. (2002), “A synthesis of
safety culture and safety climate research”, available at: www.humanfactors.uiuc.edu/
Reports&PapersPDFs/TechReport/02-03.pdf (accessed 1 November 2006).
Yiannas, F. (2009), Food Safety Culture: Creating a Behaviour Based Food Safety Management
System, Springer, New York, NY.

Corresponding author
C.J. Griffith can be contacted at: chris@vonholyconsulting.com

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

View publication stats