Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2010BFJGriffithetal Assesmentoffoodsafetyculture
2010BFJGriffithetal Assesmentoffoodsafetyculture
net/publication/241701153
CITATIONS READS
149 27,778
3 authors:
Deborah A. Clayton
Cardiff Metropolitan University
13 PUBLICATIONS 1,233 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
The extent of the cognitive and psychophysiological stress level benefits of exposure to nature View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Deborah A. Clayton on 04 January 2016.
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).
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
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
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.
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).
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).
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).
Corresponding author
C.J. Griffith can be contacted at: chris@vonholyconsulting.com