Measuring Food Safety Culture in Food Manufacturing-59-173-1-50

MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING
Chapter 3 Food Safety Maturity Model
Introduction
Maturity models and social cognitive models were identified in the literature review as a
possible way of measuring food safety culture and both of these methods were explored to seek
answers to the overall research questions posed by this work. Approval was given from the
Research Ethics Board at the University of Guelph to collect data involving humans.
Theories and perspectives
Through the literature review, it was evident that to understand what food safety culture
is it is necessary to understand the interlinking of three theoretical perspectives: organizational
culture, food science and social cognitive science. Organizational culture can be considered
different from other cultural definitions (e.g., geographical, national culture) and consists of
generic attributes such as artifacts, espoused values, beliefs, and ways to characterize culture
regardless of the area, function or discipline. The perspective from food science brings food-
specific considerations, such as working environments, and how to measure and evaluate these.
Food science searches for answers to questions related to the definition and quantitation of risks
associated with a given product and process, introducing risk management concepts, such as
HACCP, to evaluate how an organization manages its long term and daily decisions to ensure the
safety of their products. The third perspective from social cognitive science brings methods to
define, measure, and predict human behaviours. Methods from social cognitive science can be
52
applied to specifically measure an organization’s intent to perform behaviours specifically within
the scope of its own rules and values. For example, a manufacturer is guided by a set of values,
one may be, for example, dare to be transparent. This value could be translated into a behaviour
such as this: “Today I told a new colleague that he missed sanitizing his hands after washing and
helped him understand why this is important to the safety of our food.”
Cultural dimensions
Five dimensions of culture were chosen as the theoretical framework to organize the
various theoretical perspectives, food safety capability areas, and food safety culture measures.
The cultural dimensions defined by Schein (2009) were used to characterize culture and have
been applied extensively in research and practical culture studies (Table 1-2). It is important to
note that a dimension contains many characteristics. These attributes guided the literature review
in determining where studies have already been completed and where gaps still exist.
Method
Two methods were applied to develop the food safety maturity model and the behaviour-
based scale. An industry panel was engaged to assist in the development of the content of the
model and a social scientist to assist in breaking down the individual components of the model to
pinpoint behaviours.
Capability areas
The capability areas, and the subsequent food safety maturity model, were developed
with a panel of industry experts: Dr. John Butts, Raul Fajardo, Martha Gonzalez, Holly Mockus,
Sara Mortimore, Dr. Payton Pruett, and John Weisgerber. The experience of leaders in food
53
manufacturing was critical to capture as no reference was found to an existing food safety
maturity model. The individual expert was chosen based on the person’s demonstrated
knowledge, experience, and leadership as evident in their biographies (Appendix C). A seven-
member panel was struck to meet quarterly during the development phase of the maturity model.
The purpose of a capability area is to translate a generic cultural dimension into areas of specific
importance to food manufacturers. As such, the capability area links a generic cultural attribute,
e.g., training, as part of the cultural dimension reality and truth to food manufacturing specific
language and priorities, such as performance of a manufacturer’s people system, which also
includes training (Table 3-1).
54
Table 3-1: Mapping theoretical perspective to cultural dimensions and capability areas
Theoretical perspective Culture dimensions Capability areas
Organizational culture External adaptation Perceived value
Internal integration People systems
Social cognitive science Human nature, activity, and People systems
relationship
Human nature, activity, and Process thinking
relationship
Food science Reality and truth Technology enabled
Reality and truth Tools and infrastructure
The five capability areas represent the core of the food safety culture measurement
system and the capability areas were all defined individually on a scale of maturity in the food
safety maturity model. The Perceived value describes the extent to which food safety is seen as
only a regulatory must (stage 1) or as critical to business performance (stage 5). People systems
describes if an organization is task-based with signs of misinterpreted accountabilities (stage 1)
or responsibilities or if it sets accountability in behaviour-based working groups (stage 5).
Process thinking describes how problems are solved as independent tasks (stage 1) or problem
solving is seen as an iterative process built on critical thinking and data (stage 5). Technology
55
enabled describes how the organization turns data into information; manual and independent
(stage 1) compared to automatically and as part of a company-wide information system (stage 5).
Tools and infrastructure can be illustrated by whether an employee needs to walk far to a sink
(stage 1) or sinks are conveniently located (stage 5). These descriptors are similar to those
developed by Greenstreet Berman Ltd. and adopted in the Food Standards Agency Food Safety
Toolbox (Wright & Leach, 2013).
The pinpointed behaviours and the behaviour-based scale
Behaviours were defined based on the descriptors in each maturity stage and capability
area with the guidance of social scientist, Deirdre Conway. The list was discussed with
stakeholders in the participating company to pinpoint and select those behaviours believed to
have the most impact on the descriptor in the maturity model. All pinpointed behaviours were
defined at two stages of maturity; doubt and internalized.
The objective of the scale was to collect data related to the overall group segments (plant,
function, and role). The scale was constructed as a self-assessment tool and each participant was
asked to rate their own behaviour against a series of questions and statements. Answers were
grouped into demographic attributes and the behaviour predicting variables; attitude, perceived
control, social norm and past behaviour and intention for each of the capability areas.
Each question in the scale was structured the same way for each variable and for each
pinpointed behaviour. For example, a question regarding the variable attitude would read “My
behaviour to always design my own tools such as spreadsheets and forms to gather food safety
data is…” and the participant was asked to rate how strongly this reflected the respondents
56
attitude on a scale from 1 (beneficial) to 5 (harmful). Every question related to the variable
attitude was structured this way and rated on similar scales (Table 3-2).
57
Table 3-2: Question design by variable
Variable Standard start Example pinpointed behaviour
Attitude My behaviour to … …always design my own tools e.g.
spreadsheet to gather food safety
data…
Perceived I am confident that for the …always design my own tools e.g.
Control next three months I will … spreadsheet to gather food safety
data
Social Norm Most people, outside –and …always design my own tools e.g.
at work, whose opinion I spreadsheet to gather food safety
value would approve of … data
Past Behaviour I have in the past three …always design my own tools e.g.
months … spreadsheet to gather food safety
data
Behavioural I intend to … …always design my own tools e.g.
Intent spreadsheet to gather food safety
data
58
The responses from survey participants were analyzed in data were imported into Minitab
10 (Minitab Inc. State College, PA) using an anonymised numbering convention. Minitab 10 is a
general-purpose statistical software package designed as a primary tool for analyzing research
data. The examination of the data was conducted using descriptive statistical principles and
statistical tests (e.g., ANOVA) to explore differences between levels, roles, plants, and maturity
stages.
Scale administration.
The data were collected in a Canadian food manufacturing company from February to
April 2014. The company employed approximately 19,000 employees across 48 plants at the
time of data collection and produced meat and meals. The scale (Appendix E) was constructed to
gather data for all capability areas in the food safety maturity model. The scale was administered
through an online survey tool and all responses were anonymous and each respondent was
rewarded with a $5 product voucher for their participation. Employees in supervisory roles and
leadership positions (n=1,030) within the two functions food safety and quality and
manufacturing were given the opportunity to participate. Survey responses were received from
219 employees (21.3% response rate).
59
Results
The food Safety maturity model.
The food safety maturity model (Table 3-3) was developed based on learnings from the
literature review and input from the industry expert council. There are five stages of maturity in
the model. Stage 1 is Doubt and is described by questions such as “Who messed up?” and “Food
safety – QA does that?” Stage 2 is React to and described by questions and situations such as
“How much time will it take?” and “We are good at fire-fighting and reward it.” Stage 3 is Know
of and is described by statements such as “I know it is important but I can fix only one problem
at a time.” Stage 4 is Predict and described by statements such as “Here we plan and execute
with knowledge, data and patience.” Stage 5 is Internalize and described by situations such as
“Food safety is integrated into sustaining and growing our business.”
Each intersection of a stage (e.g., doubt) and a capability area (e.g., perceived value) was
defined by completing the sentence “We [STAGE] food safety and our [CAPABILITY AREA]
are described by X.” For example, in the case of doubt the perceived value X would become
“completing tasks because regulations makes us.” Each definition was discussed and the industry
expert panel reached a consensus on the most important one or two definitions and did not
produce a comprehensive list of definitions, as this was thought to be of little value when
defining a measurement system.
60
Table 3-3: Food Safety Maturity Model
Stage name Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5
Doubt React to Know of Predict Internalize
Capability Area
Tasks are completed Little to no investment in Issues are solved one at a Preventing issues from We consider food safety
because regulatory systems (people or time to the root of the occurring based on past an avenue to continuous
agents tell us to. processes) to prevent food issue because we know it history and leading improvement.
safety firefighting. protects our business. indicators.
Perceived Value
Performance data is not Little understanding of true Strong, data-based
collected and reported food safety performance. understanding of food
regularly to all safety performance.
stakeholders.
Completing tasks by top- Responsibility for problems Evidence of Defining and proving Strategic directions
People System down "tell" without is established as problems understanding the need antecedents for improving across the organization
evidence of individual are discovered and solved for food safety systems. processes through and its functions to
61
Capability Area
responsibility and mostly by use of negative knowledge and data. include food safety as a
understanding for why consequences. key business enabler
tasks are important. with clear defined
accountability and
. responsibility for food
safety performance.
People Systems Tasks being completed Antecedents being invented Improvements are made Responsibilities and Pinpointed behaviours
out of fear for negative as problems are solved and one issue at a time with accountabilities are and consequences are
consequences. seldom incorporated in clear responsibility discussed and carefully defined and continuously
systems after the fact. identified and decided upon. reinforced.
communicated.
Top management Consequences are mostly Consequences - positive
approve the accuracy of managed when an error and negative - are defined
62
Capability Area
food safety information needs correction and and managed proactively.
seldom through pre-
planned consequences.
Process Thinking Unstructured problem Continuous improvement Structured problem Continuous improvement Risks are identified
solving to remove the with emphasis on solving with a high risk with emphasis on study through horizon scanning
immediate pain. checking/inspecting and of over analyzing not checking or and continuous
expectation of 100% problems and continuous inspecting .It is generally improvement as part of
perfect solutions from the improvement accepted that the food safety system.
start. opportunities. improvements are
iterative.
63
Capability Area
Technology Little to no technology Responsibility left to the Standard technology is Data is collected in a Data is used in an
Enabler adopted and few people individual to identify data adopted and provided to consistent and accurate integrated way to
realize this to be an needed and a high degree the individual user in a manner to inform the automate workflows,
issue. of reliance on the standardized way. continuous improvement provide tools to improve
individual to derive activities. food safety and make the
information from the data. enterprise quick to adapt.
Data driven information
is used sporadically to
solve problems and
design preventive actions.
64
Capability Area
Tools & Necessary tools are not Need for tools or Investing readily in the Food safety tools and Investment in tools and
Infrastructure available to everybody. infrastructure changes right tools and infrastructures are in place infrastructure is
when problems arise that infrastructure when and continuously evaluated at part with
require immediate solves. solving a problem improved for ease of use other business
requires it. and cost of operation. investments and
objectively invested in.
65
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
Pinpointed behaviours.
Each role and function had a minimum of 25 pinpointed behaviours that were used in the
self-assessment scale to determine maturity level (Table 3-4). As such, a Food Safety and
Quality supervisor might associate with the following behaviour “I rarely have time to identify
root cause of problems and mostly find myself firefighting.” This behaviour is the pinpointed
behaviour for the process thinking capability area when the supervisor finds her or himself at the
maturity stage of doubt. If the supervisor found her or himself in the maturity stage of
internalized within the process thinking capability area the behaviour “I collect, analyze and
report food safety data daily to plant staff to bring transparency to emerging challenges” might
resonate more.
Each pinpointed behaviour was designed to include four components: action, target,
context and timing for consistency and specificity in definition of each of the behaviours
(Fishbein & Ajzen, 2009). For example, “I always design my own tools such as spreadsheets and
forms to gather food safety data,” which was a pinpointed behaviour for the Food Safety
supervisors in a maturity stage of doubt and within the capability area technology enabled.
The list of pinpointed behaviours cannot be considered an exhaustive list of behaviours
important to the individual role but were suggested as the most critical behaviours in each
maturity stage and capability area.
It was hypothesized that pinpointed behaviours were different for the two functional
areas: manufacturing and food safety. It was also hypothesised that pinpointed behaviours
66
differed between the four roles: supervisor, leader, functional leader and executive. Pinpointed
behaviours were defined for the two end-point maturity stages doubt and internalized (Tables 3-4
and 3-5). The complete set of pinpointed behaviours by function, role, and maturity stage can be
found in Appendix D.
67
Table 3-4: Sample pinpointed behaviours by function (food safety and quality), role and competency
areas in the maturity stages of doubt.
Capability Supervisor Leader Functional Leader Executive (Vision)
area (Execute) (Tactic) (Strategy)
People System I immediately remove I provide my direct I always have to I make sure
food safety issues by reports with direction manage negative somebody is

(DOUBT)
myself to avoid to remove food safety consequences when a managing negative
negative consequences problems immediately food safety problem consequences every
for myself and my to avoid negative occurs. time a food safety
team. consequences. problem occurs.
I check if my teams
I always have to learn I plan improvements have the needed food I seldom get involved
how to solve food of my own or my safety knowledge, in discussions
safety problems as team’s knowledge, skills or ability on an regarding food safety
they happen. skills or ability in ad-hoc basis. knowledge, skills or
food safety as needs ability needs.
I always ask others arise. I direct leaders to
before taking action to always ask somebody

I hold leaders
solve a food safety before solving a food
I always direct my accountable for
problem. safety problem.
team(s) not to take consulting wiht FSQ
action to solve a food experts before taking
safety problems action on food safety.
without asking
68
others .
Table 3-5: Pinpointed behaviours by function (food safety and quality), role and competency areas in
the maturity stages of internalized.
69
Capability area Supervisor Leader Functional Leader Executive (Vision)
(Execute) (Tactic) (Strategy)
People System I take action daily to I take action daily to I take action daily to I minimum monthly
let anybody know provide positive complement my check in with

(INTERNALIZED)
when they go over feedback when peers in other functional - and
and beyond for food others take action to functions of their business leaders to
safety. remove perceived demonstrated food ensure food safety is
food safety risks. safety ownership. built into their
I only act as coach business plans.
whenever the plant I take daily action to

I minimum weekly
teams solve food congratulate plant I systemically and
openly congratulates
safety issues. teams when they openly celebrate
a plant manager on
solve food safety individual leaders
his/her good business
I always correct food problems with for their food safety
decision(s) made for
safety behaviours minimal competency and
food safety.
immediately when I involvement from leadership.
see an opportunity. FSQ.

I check in with teams
I systemically, once
or peers minimum
I minimum weekly a quarter, review
weekly to ensure
check in with my summary of
they have the
supervisor(s) or behaviours requiring
authority to make
others to ensure they celebration or
business decision for
have the necessary correction.
food safety.
authority to make
70
business decisions
for food safety.
Overall company behaviour-based maturity.
The overall company behaviour-based maturity is in maturity stages react to and know of.
The capability areas perceived value and tools & infrastructure scored the highest average scores
of 3.1 in both areas. The capability areas people systems and process thinking scored within the
maturity stage of react to just ahead of the capability area technology enabler also within the
maturity stage of react to. Mean maturity score for each capability area and range (minimum and
maximum average by plant) were plotted on the maturity model (Table 3-6).
71
Table 3-6: Overall company behaviour-based maturity

(Identifier) Doubt React to Know of Predict Internalize
Capability Area 0 .1 0 .2 0 .3 0 .4 0 .5 0 .6 0 .7 0 .8 0 .9 0 .1 0 .2 0 .3 0 .4 0 .5 0 .6 0 .7 0 .8 0 .9 0 .1 0 .2 0 .3 0 .4 0 .5 0 .6 0 .7 0 .8 0 .9 0 .1 0 .2 0 .3 0 .4 0 .5 0 .6 0 .7 0 .8 0 .9 0 .1 0 .2 0 .3 0 .4 0 .5 0 .6 0 .7 0 .8 0 .9
(Identifier)
Perceived Value l
l
People System l
l l
Process Thinking l
l l
Technology
Enabler
l l l
Tools &
Infrastructure
l l
72
The results would indicate that the organization’s mean maturity lies in the stages react to
and know of. Overall, no significant difference (p = 0.003) was found between maturity of the
food safety and quality function (N=306) and the manufacturing function (N=724). A difference
was found for one of the five capability areas namely technology enabled with the manufacturing
function being more mature than the food safety and quality function. The data collected by role,
supervisory (N = 890), leader (N = 223), and functional leader (N = 98), showed a significant (p
= 0.000) difference in overall maturity; ranking leaders highest on the maturity scale (mean =
2.096), followed by functional leader (mean = 2.080), and lastly supervisors (mean = 1.983).
Plant behaviour-based maturity.
A maturity model was developed for each of the eight plants (Appendix E) and the
difference between the plant’s overall maturity rating was evaluated using a one-way ANOVA
analysis. It was determined that there was a statistically significant difference between one or
more of the plants (n = 6,735, p value = 0.000).
The mean maturity score was calculated for each capability area and the overall maturity
of the plant. Percentage of maximum score (5) for each plant’s overall maturity was calculated as
a measure of the individual plant’s food safety culture strength (Table 3-7).
73
Table 3-7: Mean maturity score by plant, capability area and total
Capability Area
Plant Perceived People Process Technology Tools Mean
value systems thinking enabler and score (%
infra- of total)
structure
1 2.9 3.0 2.8 2.7 3.1 2.9 (58%)
2 2.9 2.4 2.6 2.4 3.3 2.7 (54%)
3 2.6 2.6 2.9 2.3 3.0 2.7 (53%)
4 3.0 2.6 2.4 2.6 3.0 2.7 (54%)
5 2.9 2.1 2.5 1.8 2.7 2.4 (48%)
6 3.3 2.7 3.0 2.5 3.2 2.9 (58%)
7 3.3 2.7 3.0 2.9 3.2 3.0 (60%)
8 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.4 2.5 2.7 (53%)
Table legend: Food safety culture score by plant for each capability area. Each capability
area could average scores between 1 and 5 depending on the participants responds to each
capability area question. Maximum maturity level equals a score of 5 indicating a internalized
74
state of maturity and minimum score of 1 indicating a doubt state of maturity. Average for each
plant was calculated and a percentage achieved calculated to quantify strength of each plants
food safety culture.
The results would indicate that the average maturity of all plants are in the stages react to
and know of. Three plants (1, 6, and 7) had the strongest food safety culture with scores between
58% and 60% and ranging from 2.9 - 3.0 in average maturity score. Extrapolating from these
scores and the food safety maturity model, the culture in these plants can be described as one
where food safety issues are solved one at a time and a solid understanding of food safety
performance through data acquisition and analysis exists. There is a clear understanding of
responsibility and consequences are mostly managed when a problem occurs. These plants make
good use of data but can over analyze them. Technology has been adopted to help manage food
safety systems but it is unlikely that these plants uses their data to prevent problems from
occurring. Investments in tools and infrastructure are made when required to solve a problem.
The plant with the lowest score (Plant #5) scored 48% and its maturity scored placed it
in the react to stage. The culture in this plant can be described as one where there is little to no
investment in food safety and the perceived value of such an investment is not clear.
Responsibility for problems is assigned as they occur and antecedents (e.g., training, job
descriptions, performance measures) are developed in reaction to food safety problems.
Problems are solved as they arise and there is little evidence of systematic continuous
improvement. In this plant the responsibility to decide what data to collect is placed on the
75
individual and not the collective group and needs for investment in tools and infrastructure
changes as new problems arise.
76
Discussion
The purpose of this research is to investigate existing literature for measures of food
safety culture and meet two objectives. The primary objective of the current study was to define
characteristics to assess food safety culture in food manufacturing. A second objective was to
translate these characteristics into capabilities relevant to food manufacturers as measures to
assess and improve food safety culture. The result was, in this context, successful and it was
shown that a maturity model approach incorporated with a behaviour-based scale could be used
to characterize food safety culture and describe a roadmap for any given plant for maturing its
food safety culture. A detailed measurement tool was developed to assess overall food safety
culture in a Canadian food manufacturing company.
The overall food safety culture was measured on a scale based on the reasoned action
model and food safety specific maturity stages. As a result, the food safety culture in plants of
this specific company ranges between maturity stage 2 react to and maturity stage 3 know of.
The organization finds itself in a stage of maturity where food safety is accepted as an important
part of business, decisions are increasingly made based on science and data, training is
increasingly standardized, and investment in infrastructure and tools are readily available as
needs arise. However, in certain plants, there is also a tendency to not invest in systems
(protocols or technology), that responsibilities for problems are assigned as problems arise, and
on occasions, the company reacts to problems more than prevents them.
77
When ranking the eight plants by maturity score and strength of their food safety culture
these all fell into the same maturity stages as the overall company and the strongest food safety
culture was measured at 60% (Plant 7) with the weakest at 48% (Plant 5). When the ability of
plants to meet food safety performance standards was assessed, Plant 7 was in the top half and
Plant 5 in the bottom half, which suggests that the two measures are related. There is no
correlation between the two strength measures (R-squared = 0.040) which is likely due to the
degree of clustering of the data around the 49% to 61% scores (Figure 3-1).
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Strength
50%
40%
30%
20%
Maturity strength
10% Performance standard strength
0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Plant
Figure 3-1: Maturity and Performance standard strength by plant
78
Figure legend: Food safety culture measures by plant. Strength of each measure;
performance standards and maturity was calculated by plant as percentage achieved of total
available score; performance standard max score was 53 (100%) and maturity max score 50
(100%).
Table 3-8: Plant ranking by performance standard score and maturity score
Performance
Maturity score
standard
Plant Plant
Mean score
Total score
(% of total)
(% of total)
1 36 (62%) 7 3.0 (60%)
3 36 (62%) 1 2.9 (58%)
4 36 (62%) 6 2.9 (58%)
7 34 (59%) 2 2.7 (54%)
2 30 (52%) 4 2.7 (54%)
5 30 (52%) 3 2.7 (53%)
8 30 (52%) 8 2.7 (53%)
6 28 (48%) 5 2.4 (48%)
Table legend: Food safety culture measures by plant. Strength of each measure;
performance standards and maturity was calculated by plant as percentage achieved of total
79
available score; performance standard max score was 53 (100%) and maturity max score 50
(100%).
The overall company measures were segmented by function (food safety and quality and
Manufacturing) and role (Functional leader, Leader, and Supervisor). The role segmentation is
similar to that proposed by Griffith et al. (Griffith, Livesey, & Clayton, 2010a). The purpose was
to measure maturity for each function and test for differences. This can help a company target
interventions with function-specific messages and senders should there be a difference.
In this specific case there was no difference in maturity between functions – food safety
and quality compared to manufacturing - and it would not be valuable for this company to
differentiate interventions as both functions are at the same food safety maturity level.
The purpose of the role segmentation was to measure maturity across the different formal
working groups and test if any group was more or less mature in their food safety sub-culture
than others. In this specific case a difference was detected. Both functional leaders and leaders
rated the level of food safety maturity significantly higher than the ratings provided by
supervisors. This is very useful as the company can use this to re-evaluate its current food safety
interventions and decide if they are adequate for enhancing the rated maturity across the
supervisory group. This difference could infer that supervisors are less mature or actually
assessing the situation as it truly is. This should be explored in future research as an important
measure of a particular group’s food safety culture.
80
The difference between roles is not surprising given the many references from
researchers of organizational culture and food safety culture to the importance of the group (Ball,
Wilcock, & Aung, 2009; Hinsz, Nickell, & Park, 2007). As such, the analysis would indicate that
the focus of this particular company on functional leaders and leaders is different to supervisors
and this represents a significant opportunity for improving food safety culture within each of the
eight plants. Each role is represented in all of the plants e.g., plant manager, quality supervisor,
and maintenance lead hand and by closing the gaps between roles a plant could improve its
overall food safety culture by bringing behaviours of different roles closer and potentially make
the strength of the plants food safety culture stronger and more sustainable.
The limitation with this research resides in the behaviour-based scale. The questionnaire
was long (96 questions) and it is believed to have influenced the final response rate. Measuring
food safety culture is a complicated matter and further research is suggested to modify the survey
questions based on the findings of this research. The expert panel was not selected at random but
built on knowledge and experience in the individual’s resume. This too could be perceived as a
limitation of the research.
This research suggests that combining a food safety maturity model with a self-
assessment, behaviour-based scale does provide factual answers for one meat processing
company, which can be applied to other food manufacturing facilities to characterize and
measure food safety culture. It brings a method to a question asked by many “what is food safety
culture?” and how to measure food safety culture that can influence a food manufacturing
81
company’s intervention effort and priorities on its chosen maturity path. Is is suggested that
further data analysis is completed of questions to determine the basic questions for measuring
foods safety culture through a responds surface methodology with a multivariate responds.
82
Chapter 4 Discussion and Conclusions
The purpose of this research was to search for ways to characterize and measure food
safety culture. The results suggest that some generic characteristic found in organization culture
theory can be applied to food safety. Two methods were identified to measure food safety
culture; a performance standard scoring system and a behaviour-based food safety maturity
model.
The food safety maturity model was built on the experience from food safety industry
expert panel and learnings from working maturity models in other disciplines (e.g., quality and
occupational health and safety). The overall food safety culture was measured using a behaviour-
based scale derived from the reasoned action model and food safety specific maturity stages. As
a result, the food safety culture for plants in one manufacturing company ranges between
maturity stage 2 react to and maturity stage 3 know of. The food safety maturity model describes
each maturity stage and qualitative descriptions of the manufacturing company can be drawn. As
such, the organization finds itself in a stage of maturity where food safety is accepted as an
important part of business, decisions are increasingly made based on science and data, training is
increasingly standardized, and investment in infrastructure and tools are readily available as
needs arise. There is also a tendency to not invest in systems (protocols or technology), that
responsibilities for problems are assigned as problems arise, and on occasions, the company
reacts to problems more than prevents them. Knowing its position the company can now make
informed decisions on where means (financial and resources) all allocated.
83
The performance standards were identified as a potential part of a measurement system in
the literature review but it was also clearly stated that such a system would not cover all culture
characteristics. Although a difference was detected between the eight plants, no plant was found
with a maximum potential score and the strength of any plant’s food safety culture, measured as
percentage of maximum score, ranged between 48% to 62%. The scoring system is found
valuable as an input to a food safety culture measurement system but limited by coverage of
organizational culture dimensions in the three performance standard documents to stand alone as
a complete measurement system.
In comparing the plant scores for each measurement system there does appear to be some
correlation between the performance standard and maturity scores. As such, six of eight plants
had less than 8%-points difference in the two scores and the other two had higher than 9%-points
difference. This suggests that in this specific context a relationship does exist and that the two
scores can be used to guide the individual plant food safety team on where to priorities efforts for
improvement.
The measurement system is unique in that it combines food safety performance standard
scoring with behaviour-based maturity. Performance scoring systems such as the Baldridge
award follow a similar model but in contrast to this research the Baldridge model does not take
specific food safety requirements or situations into account. Behaviour-based studies have
proved the applicability of social cognitive models to assess food safety (Ball, Wilcock, & Aung,
2009; Nickell & Hinsz, 2011b) and these studies clearly indicate the opportunity for the use of
84
generic models in food safety. Maturity models are widely used in organizations to improve
processes and cultures (Crosby, 1972; Goonan, Muzikowski, & Stoltz, 2009), however, no model
has been developed specifically for food safety. The measurement system developed in this
research combines all of these learnings into one food safety culture measurement system. This
adds to our current knowledge of food safety culture by providing a quantifiable method for
evaluating a food manufacturer’s food safety culture.
Given the lack of a control group or other validation activities it cannot be precluded that
the performance scoring and self-assessment score covers all characteristics of food safety
culture. The research could be strengthened through validation activities such as focus group
interviews at a participating plant. The research was conducted within one food manufacturing
organization and without the opportunity to compare with other organizations. It is difficult to
say if the measurement system is robust enough to detect differences caused by the individual
organization, their geographical location, and the role they play in the global food chain (e.g.,
grower versus manufacturer versus retailer). It is recommended that research be carried out to
validate the measurement system in other organizations across the food chain and test the
model’s applicability to assess food safety culture across multiple organizations in the food chain.
The measurement system developed in this research can be used as a practical tool for
manufacturers to gain visibility as to the strength of their food safety culture and allocate
resources in those areas that need it the most in this changing environment.
85
References
Ajzen, I. (2011). The theory of planned behaviour: Reactions and reflections. Psychology &
Health, 26(9), 1113-1127. doi:10.1080/08870446.2011.613995
Arendt, S. W., Paez, P., & Strohbehn, C. (2013). Food safety practices and managers'
perceptions: A qualitative study in hospitality. International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, 25(1), 124-139. doi:10.1108/09596111311290255
Ball, B., Wilcock, A., & Aung, M. (2009). Factors influencing workers to follow food safety
management systems in meat plants in ontario, canada. International Journal of
Environmental Health Research, 19(3), 201-218. doi:10.1080/09603120802527646
Chapman, B., Eversley, T., Fillion, K., MacLaurin, T., & Powell, D. (2010). Assessment of food
safety practices of food service food handlers (risk assessment data): Testing a
communication intervention (evaluation of tools). . Journal of Food Protection, 73(6),
1101-7.,
Clayton, D. A., & Griffith, C. J. (2004). Observation of food safety practices in catering using
notational analysis. British Food Journal, 106(3), 211-227.
doi:10.1108/00070700410528790
86
Clayton, D. A., & Griffith, C. J. (2008). Efficacy of an extended theory of planned behaviour
model for predicting caterers' hand hygiene practices. International Journal of
Environmental Health Research, 18(2), 83-98. doi:10.1080/09603120701358424
Clayton, D. A., Griffith, C. J., Price, P., & Peters, A. C. (2002). Food handlers' beliefs and self-
reported practices. International Journal of Environmental Health Research, 12(1), 25-39.
doi:10.1080/09603120120110031
Crosby, P. B. (1972). Quality is free McGraw-Hill.
Edwards, Z. M., Takeuchi, M. T., Hillers, V. N., McCurdy, S. M., & Edlefsen, M. (2006). Use of
behavioral change theories in development of educational materials to promote food
thermometer use. Food Protection Trends., 26(2), 82-88.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2009). Predicting and changing behavior : The reasoned action
approach. London, GBR: Psychology Press.
Goonan, K. J., Muzikowski, J. A., & Stoltz, P. K. (2009). Journey to excellence: How baldridge
health care leaders succeed. Milwaukee, WI: American Society for Quality, Quality Press.
Griffith, C. J., Livesey, K. M., & Clayton, D. (2010a). The assessment of food safety culture.
British Food Journal, 112(4), 439-456. doi:10.1108/00070701011034448
87
Griffith, C. J., Livesey, K. M., & Clayton, D. A. (2010b). Food safety culture: The evolution of
an emerging risk factor? British Food Journal, 112(4), 426-438.
doi:10.1108/00070701011034439
Griffith, C. J. (2010). Do businesses get the food poisoning they deserve? British Food Journal,
112(4), 416-425. doi:10.1108/00070701011034420
Hanacek, A. (2010). SCIENCE + CULTURE = SAFETY. National Provisioner, 224(4), 20-
22,24,26,28-31.
Hinsz, V. B., Nickell, G. S., & Park, E. S. (2007). The role of work habits in the motivation of
food safety behaviors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 13(2), 105-114.
doi:10.1037/1076-898X.13.2.105
Hirschhorn, L. (1990, c1988). The workplace within : Psychodynamics of organizational life 1st
MIT Press paperback ed.
Jespersen, L., & Huffman, R. (2014). <br />Building food safety into the company culture: A
look at maple leaf foods. Perspectives in Public Health, (May 8, 2014) doi:DOI:
10.1177/1757913914532620
Kwon, J., Ryu, D., & Zottarelli, L. K. (2007). Food-handling practices and operators' food safety
attitudes at faith-based louisiana organizations that provided hurricane evacuee shelters in
2005. Food Protection Trends., 27(2), 84-89.

88
MacAuslan, E. (2013). Developing food safety cultures – are small catering businesses being
neglected? Perspectives in Public Health, 133(6), 304-305. doi:10.1177/1757913913506643
Medeiros, L. C., Chen, G., Van Horn, J., Fralic, J., Hillers, V. "., & Kendall, P. (2006). Essential
food safety behaviors for older adults. Food Protection Trends, 26(8), 586-592.
Meyer, R. (2013). The positive impact of behavioral change on food safety and productivity
Mullan, B. A., Wong, C. L., & O'Moore, K. (2010). Predicting hygienic food handling
behaviour: Modelling the health action process approach. British Food Journal, 112(11),
1216-1229. doi:10.1108/00070701011088205
Nickell, G. S., & Hinsz, V. B. (2011a). Having a conscientious personality helps an
organizational climate of food safety predict food safety behavior. In Marion B. Walsch
(Ed.), Food supplies and food safety (pp. 189-198)
Nickell, G. S., & Hinsz, V. B. (2011b). Having a conscientious personality helps an
organizational climate of food safety predict food safety behaviour. Food Supplies and Food
Safety, , 189-198.
Pilling, V. K., Brannon, L. A., Shanklin, C. W., Roberts, K. R., Barrett, B. S., & Howells, A. D.
(2008). Food safety training requirements and food handlers' knowledge and behaviors.
Food Protection Trends., 28(3), 192-200.
89
Powell, D. A., Jacob, C. J., & Chapman, B. J. (2011). Enhancing food safety culture to reduce
rates of foodborne illness. Food Control, 22(6), 817-822.
doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2010.12.009
Robinson, J. S., & Heidolph, B. B. (2009). Food safety-A current perspective for stakeholders:
Creating a food safety culture through audits and best practice sharing. Cereal Foods World,
54(6), 248-252.
Sarter, G., & Sarter, S. (2012). Promoting a culture of food safety to improve hygiene in small
restaurants in madagascar Elsevier. doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2011.10.023
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: San Francisco :
Jossey-Bass.
Seward, S. (2012). Assessing the food safety culture of a manufacturing facility. Food
Technology, 66(1), 44.
Staskel, D. M., Briley, M. E., & Curtis, S. R. (2007). Food safety knowledge and behaviors of
cooks in texas childcare centers. Food Protection Trends., 27(2), 90-94.
Taylor, J. (2011). An exploration of food safety culture in a multi-cultural environment: Next
steps? Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, 3(5), 455-466.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.subzero.lib.uoguelph.ca/10.1108/17554211111185836
90
Wendler, R. (2012). The maturity of maturity model research: A systematic mapping study.
Information and Software Technology, 54(12), 1317-1339. doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2012.07.007
Wilcock, A., Ball, B., & Fajumo, A. (2011). Effective implementation of food safety initiatives:
Managers’, food safety coordinators’ and production workers’ perspectives. Food Control,
22(1), 27-33. doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2010.06.005
Wright, M., & Leach, P. (2013, Achieving an effective food hygiene culture: The next step in
assuring excellence. International Food Hygiene, 24, 21-23.
Yiannas, F. (2009). In Frank Yiannas. (Ed.), Food safety culture creating a behavior-based food
safety management system / New York : Springer, c2009.
91
Appendix
Appendix A: Analysis of quantity, methods and sectors.
Quantity.
Thirty-two publications were published in the period 2002 to 2014 (YTD) with 69% of
literature published after 2008 (from total 10 publications until and including 2008 to 22 from
2009 to 2014 YTD) (figure 1).
Figure A1: Food safety culture publications by year
Applied methods.
Of all studies under review, 53% used quantitative research methods such as
questionnaires and surveys. Some findings, 22%, was not classified as research and no method
92
was assigned followed by 19% making use of empirical methods such as case studies and
literature reviews. Surprisingly only two studies applied a qualitative method and this was
interesting in a field that historically have been referred to as hard measure. Quantitative
measurement methods are the once most often used. (figure 2).
18
16
14
Count of References
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Emperical Literature n/a Qualitative Quantitative
Review
Figure A2: Food safety culture publications by research method
Sector analysis.
Majority of the publications are related to food service (42%) followed by literature in the
category of general (22%). General publications are content related to the broader food industry
and not sector specific. Fewer publications were specific to food manufactures (19%) and the
remaining was found to target the retail sector and consumers (figure 3). Majority of the
93
publications were found in peer reviewed journals (75%) and the remaining in books and
magazines.
Figure A3: Food safety culture publications by sector
94
Appendix B: Plant Data
Table B-1: Plant scoring by performance standard documentation
Document Sub-measure Plant Plant Plant Plant Plant Plant Plant Plant
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Audit reports BRC audit non- 5 5 5 1 3 5 3 3
conformances
Audit reports Internal audit non- 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1
conformances
Food safety HACCP 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
scorecard Performance
Food safety Sanitation 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1
scorecard performance (ATP)
Food safety Sanitation 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
scorecard performance
(Visual inspection)
Food safety EMP 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
scorecard
Food safety Training 5 1 5 5 5 1 5 5
95
Document Sub-measure Plant Plant Plant Plant Plant Plant Plant Plant
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
scorecard
Food safety Closed on time 3 3 1 3 1 1 5 1
scorecard
Performance Actions defined 5 1 5 5 1 3 3 5
minutes
Performance Plant manager 3 1 5 5 5 3 3 5
minutes engagement
Performance Internal audit team 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1
minutes
Performance HACCP team 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
minutes
Total 36 30 36 36 30 28 34 30
Average 3.00 2.50 3.00 3.00 2.50 2.33 2.83 2.50
96
Appendix C: Biographies of Industry expert panelists
Dr. John Butts, Ph.D. Food Safety By Design LLC and Vice President – Research,
Land O’ Frost, Inc.
Land O’ Frost is a privately held company and is the 3rd largest sliced lunchmeat brand
in the US. Dr. Butts has been in the primary technical role for 40 years and continues full time
employment with Land O’ Frost. As part of his succession plan Food Safety By Design LLC
was founded and consulting services outside of LOF are ongoing with the full consent and
support of LOF.
In 2010 FoodSafetyByDesign, LLC. was founded to help producers of high risk products
learn how to prevent and manage food safety risks. Risk identification and management by
FoodSafetyByDesign incorporates root cause identification and development of preventative
methodology. Dr. Butts’ specialty is the incorporation of Food Safety Practices into company
culture. Preventative Controls have proven to be the most successful method to manage the risk
of environmental pathogens. Root cause identification using the Seek and Destroy Strategy
enables visualization of need. Interventions to manage high risk areas eliminate firefighting and
the solving of the same problem over and over again. The company culture next moves into the
preventative state and companies learn how to use data collected in their own facility to predict
and prevent product contamination.
In the early eighties LOF entered the shelf stable meal business with retort pouches. Dr.
Butts’ activities included:

97
 Responsible for Product Development, Process Improvement, and Quality
Assurance.
 Serving as a host and liaison for a technical exchange with a Japanese food
manufacturing company
 Process control for the packaging of an enteric feeding solution
 Commercialization of a retortable, peelable and microwavable entrée tray
 Development of a proprietary sealing method to eliminate flange
contamination as a critical factor for a hermetically sealed tray
Dr. Butts also provided technical and management support to Frigorifico Canelones, the
largest beef processing plant in Uruguay, from 1991-2001. LOF owned and managed this
business during this period. Key achievements:
 Implemented a HACCP program to qualify for export to the US, EU, and Japan
 Implemented a USDA compliant pathogen intervention and control program
 The further processing portion of the facility was designed and built to
operate in a Foot and Mouth infected area. Successfully obtained APHIS
approval for export to the US.
Trade Association Activities:

98
 Founding member of Special Poultry Research Committee to obtain approval
of nitrite in poultry during the President Carter - Carol Tucker-Foreman
administration.
 American Meat Institute (AMI)
 Active member of the Scientific Affairs Committee (SAC) for over thirty five
years
 Past Chairperson of the SAC
 Meat Inspection Committee
 Facility Design Task Force
 AMI Listeria Intervention and Control Workshop team member, presentation
co-author and instructor.
 AMI Board Member – Pork and Processed Meats Committee
Board Membership’s,
 Member of the AMI Board of Directors
 Editorial Advisory Board of Food Safety Magazine
 Food Safety Advisory Committee Miniat Foods South Holland Ill
99
Dr. Butts is actively involved in pathogen reduction and control of pathogenic organisms
in cooked processed meat products, seafood, leafy greens and other RTE products .
From 1998-2000 he worked to develop practices and procedures to minimize and control
construction risk at an LOF plant undergoing multiple major high-risk construction projects
within the RTE area.
A focus has been on development of investigative tools enabling plants to identify and
control growth niches. The use of hurdle technology to minimize transfer to and within high risk
areas. These are now a part of the AMI Workshop.
Current work includes the application of scientific principles and quality management
technology to develop Sanitation Process Control Methods and Procedures. This includes
identification and control of critical factors coupled with the deployment of a real-time
monitoring and visual training program delivered by a ruggedized tablet computer during the
sanitation process.
Other related activities:
Developing and teaching environmental pathogen control technology, facility and
equipment design principles to allied trade groups, equipment manufactures and customers in the
industrial, food service and retail trade
100
Equipment design and pathogen control presentations given to our equipment suppliers
both domestically and in Germany to top management as well as the design engineers
responsible for the sanitary design of equipment used in the United States.
Worked with Ireland Sea Fisheries Board and Australian (NSW Food Authority & Food
Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ)) to develop an Industry wide process for Listeria
control in further processed seafood and meat plants.
Awards:
Outstanding Food Science Award, Inaugural class recipient, Purdue University,
2005 Food Safety Leadership Award , NSF International presented at NRA national
convention
2006 Food Safety Magazine Distinguished Service Award recipient presented at Food
Safety World Conference
2008 Meat Processing Award from the American Meat Science Association. Presented at
the annual Reciprocal Meats Conference.
2009 Scientific Achievement Award American Meat Institute Foundation
2013 Certificate of Distinction, the highest award given by the Ag Alumni of Purdue
University
101

Measuring Food Safety Culture in Food Manufacturing-59-173-1-50

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Measuring Food Safety Culture in Food Manufacturing-59-173-1-50

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING

Chapter 3 Food Safety Maturity Model

Theories and perspectives

is it is necessary to understand the interlinking of three theoretical perspectives: organizational

applied to specifically measure an organization’s intent to perform behaviours specifically within

includes training (Table 3-1).

Theoretical perspective Culture dimensions Capability areas

Organizational culture External adaptation Perceived value

Internal integration People systems

Social cognitive science Human nature, activity, and People systems

Human nature, activity, and Process thinking

Food science Reality and truth Technology enabled

Reality and truth Tools and infrastructure

describes if an organization is task-based with signs of misinterpreted accountabilities (stage 1)

or responsibilities or if it sets accountability in behaviour-based working groups (stage 5).

Toolbox (Wright & Leach, 2013).

The pinpointed behaviours and the behaviour-based scale

defined at two stages of maturity; doubt and internalized.

Table 3-2: Question design by variable

Variable Standard start Example pinpointed behaviour

Attitude My behaviour to … …always design my own tools e.g.

spreadsheet to gather food safety

Control next three months I will … spreadsheet to gather food safety

at work, whose opinion I spreadsheet to gather food safety

value would approve of … data

months … spreadsheet to gather food safety

Behavioural I intend to … …always design my own tools e.g.

Intent spreadsheet to gather food safety

219 employees (21.3% response rate).

The food Safety maturity model.

“Food safety is integrated into sustaining and growing our business.”

defining a measurement system.

Table 3-3: Food Safety Maturity Model

Stage name Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5

Doubt React to Know of Predict Internalize

safety firefighting. protects our business. indicators.

collected and reported food safety performance. understanding of food

regularly to all safety performance.

Stage name Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5

Doubt React to Know of Predict Internalize

understanding for why consequences. key business enabler

tasks are important. with clear defined

. responsibility for food

systems after the fact. identified and decided upon. reinforced.

Top management Consequences are mostly Consequences - positive

Stage name Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5

Doubt React to Know of Predict Internalize

food safety information needs correction and and managed proactively.

seldom through pre-

start. opportunities. improvements are

Stage name Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5

Doubt React to Know of Predict Internalize

individual to derive activities. food safety and make the

information from the data. enterprise quick to adapt.

Data driven information

solve problems and

design preventive actions.

Stage name Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5

Doubt React to Know of Predict Internalize

requires it. and cost of operation. investments and

objectively invested in.

The list of pinpointed behaviours cannot be considered an exhaustive list of behaviours