Measuring Food Safety Culture in Food Manufacturing
by
Lone Jespersen
A Thesis
presented to
The University of Guelph
In partial fulfilment of requirements
for the degree of
Master of Science
in
Food Science
Guelph, Ontario, Canada
© Lone Jespersen, August, 2014
ABSTRACT
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING
Lone Jespersen Advisor:
University of Guelph, 2014 Professor M. Griffiths
This thesis is an investigation of. This body of work introduces five capability areas
that food manufacturers should be aware of and willing to be measured against in order to
understand strengths and weaknesses in their food safety culture. The capability areas are based
on theories of organizational culture, food science, and social cognitive science. The research
suggests measures to quantify, evaluate, and predict performance within each capability area
using a food safety maturity scale. The capability areas and maturity measures were tested in a
Canadian food manufacturing company with input to content and interpretation of results from
leading food safety practitioners in the U.S., Canada, and UK. To measure the strength of the
food safety culture in the test company two measurements were taken: strength against
performance standards and strength against a behaviour-based maturity model. The test showed
consistency between the two measures for eight individual plants.
iii
Acknowledgement
A very special thank you to thesis supervisor Dr. Mansel Griffiths, co-advisor Dr. Tanya
Maclaurin and advisory committee Dr. Ben Chapman, and Dr. Carol Wallace. Also, thanks to
my Industry Expert Panel who have advised on the content and practical aspects of the measures,
Dr. John Butts, Raul Fajardo, Martha Gonzalez, Holly Mockus, Sara Mortimore, Dr. Payton
Pruett, and John Weisgerber. Thank you to Deirdre Conway for her help and guidance in
behaviour definitions
iv
Contents
Acknowledgement ......................................................................................................... iii
Contents ......................................................................................................................... iv
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1
Organizational culture; people and groups ..................................................................... 1
Food safety culture at work ............................................................................................. 2
Food manufacturing ........................................................................................................ 3
Purpose and Objectives ................................................................................................... 6
Chapter 1 Literature Review ............................................................................................... 7
Scope and search areas of the literature review. ................................................................................... 8
Theoretical framework and culture dimensions. ................................................................................... 9
Applying organizational culture dimensions to characterize food safety culture. .............................. 11
Measuring and evaluating food safety characteristics. ....................................................................... 16
Validate measures and evaluations of food safety characteristics. ..................................................... 26
Conclusion and Recommendations ............................................................................... 27
Chapter 2 Assessment of applied performance standards in meat processing .................. 30
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 30
Method .......................................................................................................................... 30
Audit reports ....................................................................................................................................... 31
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING
v
Food safety scorecard.......................................................................................................................... 33
Performance minutes .......................................................................................................................... 36
Results ........................................................................................................................... 38
Audit reports. ...................................................................................................................................... 38
Food safety scorecard.......................................................................................................................... 40
Performance minutes........................................................................................................................... 42
Coverage of cultural dimensions in performance standard documentation ........................................ 44
Plant scoring ........................................................................................................................................ 46
Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 49
Chapter 3 Food Safety Maturity Model ............................................................................ 52
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 52
Theories and perspectives ................................................................................................................... 52
Cultural dimensions ............................................................................................................................ 53
Method .......................................................................................................................... 53
Capability areas ................................................................................................................................... 53
The pinpointed behaviours and the behaviour-based scale ................................................................. 56
Results ........................................................................................................................... 60
The food Safety maturity model. ........................................................................................................ 60
Pinpointed behaviours. ........................................................................................................................ 66
Overall company behaviour-based maturity. ...................................................................................... 71
Plant behaviour-based maturity. ......................................................................................................... 73
Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 77
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING
vi
Chapter 4 Discussion and Conclusions ............................................................................. 83
References ..................................................................................................................... 86
Appendix A: Analysis of quantity, methods and sectors. ............................................. 92
Appendix B: Plant Data ................................................................................................ 95
Appendix C: Biographies of Industry expert panelists ................................................. 97
Dr. John Butts, Ph.D. Food Safety By Design LLC and Vice President – Research, Land O’ Frost,
Inc. ...................................................................................................................................................... 97
Martha Gonzarlez, Director Global Quality Systems, McCain Foods Limited ................................ 108
Holly Mockus, Product Manager, Alchemy Systems ....................................................................... 110
Dr. W. Payton Pruett, Jr., Vice President of Corporate Food Technology aand Regulatory
Compliance, The Kroger Co. ............................................................................................................ 112
Sara Mortimore, VP, Product Safety, Quality & Regulatory Affairs, Land O’Lakes, Inc. .............. 113
John Weisgerber, VP Quality and Food Safety, Ed Miniat, LLC ..................................................... 114
Appendix D: Pinpointed behaviours ........................................................................... 116
Appendix E: Behaviour-based Maturity Scale ........................................................... 138
Appendix F: Plant Maturity Models ........................................................................... 150
Plant 1. .............................................................................................................................................. 151
Plant 2. .............................................................................................................................................. 153
Plant 3. .............................................................................................................................................. 154
Plant 4. .............................................................................................................................................. 155
Plant 5. .............................................................................................................................................. 155
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING
vii
Plant 6. .............................................................................................................................................. 157
Plant 7. .............................................................................................................................................. 158
Plant 8. .............................................................................................................................................. 159
Appendix G: Glossary................................................................................................. 160
1
Introduction
The concept of food safety culture has received increased attention in recent years from
both academics and practitioners. Frank Yiannas thrust the concept to the forefront in 2009, with
the publication “Food Safety Culture: Creating a Behavior-Based Food Safety Management
System” (Yiannas, 2009). This book provides an overview of food safety culture and presents
measures and tactics to change food safety culture in food service establishments. Chris Griffith,
a renowned researcher in food safety culture, published a series of papers in which he discusses
food safety culture based on learnings from other disciplines, such as organizational culture and
occupational health and safety (Griffith, Livesey, & Clayton, 2010b). Griffith et al. suggests that
dimensions of food safety culture are similar to those found in these other disciplines so that
knowledge gained from studying other organizational cultures can be applied to food safety
culture. They go on to define food safety culture and proposes components to consider when
assessing the effectiveness of food safety culture but leaves out the significance of the work
group. Formation of organizational culture, including food safety culture, takes place in groups
of individuals (Griffith, Livesey, & Clayton, 2010b). As such, without a group there is no culture
(Schein, 2010). The working group can be formed as an unstructured gathering of individuals or
dictated by organizational structures where the group leader typically is responsible for its
formation. Culture can be thought of as being for the group, what defense mechanisms are for the
individual (Hirschhorn, 1990).
Organizational culture; people and groups
In his work Schein (2009) defines organizational culture as:
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING
2
A pattern of shared assumptions that was learned by a group as it solved its problems.
The group has found these assumptions to work well enough to be considered valid and are
therefore taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think and feel in relation to
these problems (Schein, 2010).
Schein’s definition highlights the role of the group within organizational culture. In
particular how the group teaches beliefs to new members as how things are done “around here”
This phenomenon was also observed in research conducted by Ball, Wilcock, and Aung (2009b)
who found that work groups have a significant impact on food handlers’ intent to perform
adesired food safety behaviour.
Food safety culture at work
Some advocates speak of food safety culture as a combination of “people + science”
(Hanacek, 2010). Science is, in this context, the protocols applied to identify and control food
hazards or risks, such as an environmental monitoring program for Listeria or a raw material
segregation policy. Integration of science and thinking from three separate disciplines;
organizational culture, food science and social cognitive science is required to form and maintain
an effective food safety culture. As such, this interdisciplinary approach integrates protocols
from each discipline in a way that people and groups know, allow them to recognize the
organization’s commitment to food safety and understand their individual and collective roles in
executing food safety tasks; they know how to and they want to execute food safety tasks
correctly (Powell, Jacob, & Chapman, 2011). For example, a sanitation group is provided with
the knowledge, skills, and abilities (also referred to as competencies) needed to control Listeria
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING
3
in a food manufacturing facility. The group knows the protocol for Listeria control and was
trained on sanitation-specific tasks to control Listeria. The sanitation group’s working
environment is designed to encourage desired behaviours through supervisor feedback and group
meetings and the work group knows how to consistently perform these behaviours, such as
swabbing the conveyer scraper to test for the presence of Listeria after sanitation is completed.
As illustrated by this example, to effectively control Listeria, the sanitation working group must
work in an organizational culture that sets clear expectations and visibly shows support for a job
well-done (organizational culture); the sanitation working group must understand the basic
science of Listeria growth and survival (food science). The individual member of the sanitation
crew must know both the “how” and the “why” and foster an attitude and social norm to
guarantee a job well done to eliminate Listeria. This scenario illustrates the interdisciplinary
requirements through a practical, everyday example.
Food manufacturing
Food manufacturers are organizations that design, produce and distribute food for sale
through retailers and/or food service establishments. It is estimated that 82% of all people
employed in the North American food industry are in food service, 11.7% in food manufacturing,
and 6.3% in pre-harvesting1. This employee distribution between the two sectors, food service
and manufacturing, is somewhat mirrored in the literature on food safety culture. With 42% of
literature, found specific to food service and 19% to manufacturing there could be a perception
1 U.S. Census, 2010 and Canadian Industry Statistics, 2011
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING
4
that food manufacturers are not in-tune with the concept (Appendix A). There is however,
evidence of food manufacturers’ awareness of and actions on food safety culture and
publications have appeared in which manufacturers write openly about their solutions to food
safety culture challenges (Hanacek, 2010; Jespersen & Huffman, 2014; Seward, 2012). Food
manufacturers are also supported through providers of services in the food industry who have
proposed methods for task observations and behaviour measures (e.g., Alchemy Systems and
NSF). Regulators are also taking action in developing tools for inspectorates to assess and
provide feedback to food manufactures –and handlers on food safety culture (e.g, Food
Standards Agency).
Two studies have been completed in food manufacturing plants and both studies identify
food safety culture as an interdisciplinary challenge that can be resolved by applying tools from
cognitive social sciences to provide further knowledge (Hinsz, Nickell, & Park, 2007; Wilcock,
Ball, & Fajumo, 2011).
Researchers and industry often express a belief that food safety culture is comprised more
of individual initiatives or protocols than interdisciplinary practices. Authors have published
under the thematic title of food safety culture when, in fact, the publications describe well-
defined and executed studies on, for example, training effectiveness and impact of
communication strategies (Robinson & Heidolph, 2009). Whereas, training and communication
are both integral components in the development and maintenance of a food safety culture, they
do not provide a comprehensive view of food safety culture.
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING
5
Therefore, to inform the discussion of food safety culture in food manufacturing it is
important to understand what culture is and what it is not. It is also important to highlight
concepts often thought to be related to food safety culture but cannot be considered so when
applying the definitions given earlier. Firstly, the food manufacturing climate needs to be
considered. Social scientists define climate differently from culture and the two are not
interchangeable. Climate is based on the individual’s perception of the policies, procedures and
practices of food safety (Nickell & Hinsz, 2011a) and stands in contrast to culture, which deals
with the group’s external adaptation and internal integration. In relation to its external
environment the organization has to build consensus around its core-mission, function, specific
goals, means for meeting these goals, and remedial or repair strategies. In relation to its internal
systems the organization has to build consensus on criteria applied to select a common language,
define group boundaries, group composition, allocation of power, status and rewards. Secondly,
some believe that culture is solely about behaviour change and forget the external adaptation and
internal integration that must take place. Thirdly, projects or initiatives are often short-term with
a start and an end date, which may result in leaders losing sight of the longevity required in most
organizations to develop and maintain a sustainable food safety culture. Although, all three areas
are important they do not provide a comprehensive method to characterize food safety culture in
food manufacturing when considered individually.
Most organizations select or are required to follow a defined performance standard.
These performance standards define the most critical food safety tasks, competencies, and
behaviours required by the organization and standards are either defined by the organization
itself or provided by external bodies. Performance standards from regulatory bodies (e.g., CFIA,
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING
6
FDA) and private standard owners (e.g., BRC, SQF) provide a measure against which an
assessment of a food manufacturer’s food safety management system can be made and would, by
some, be considered a measure and evaluation of food safety culture in a food manufacturing
plant.
Purpose and Objectives
Despite the apparent interest of industry, service providers and academia, food safety
culture in food manufacturing has received little attention. 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.
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING
7
Chapter 1 Literature Review
To write a review about the concept of food safety culture poses a dilemma because there
is presently little agreement on what the concept does and should mean, how it should be
observed and measured, and how it should be used in efforts to improve food safety performance.
The review covers multiple disciplines such as organizational culture, food science, and social
cognitive science. To coordinate findings in these very different disciplines a decision was made
to apply the mapping method (Wendler, 2012). This method analyzes literature by mapping
findings to predefined questions. As such, five questions specific to food safety culture were
defined (Table 1-1) and used to search for relevant literature, to provide a summary of the
broader concept and to provide an understanding of where the concept of food safety culture was
covered in-depth and where there were gaps.
Table 1-1: Literature review mapping questions and objective
# Question
Objective
1 What characterizes food safety
culture?
Define food safety culture and its
characteristics. It investigated proposed
characteristics of food safety culture in
published literature and highlighted current
gaps.
2 How have applied methods and
amount of research changed over
Build an understanding of work completed
over time to define and characterize food
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING
8
# Question
Objective
time? safety culture. Investigated applied methods
within the topic, analyzed methods for their
applicability, and highlighted gaps.
3 How is food safety culture measured
and evaluated? Are findings validated?
Define methods for measuring and evaluating
food safety culture and highlighted gaps.
Defined validation and investigated methods
applied to validate findings in published
literature.
4 How can the effectiveness of food
safety culture be predicted?
Build an understanding of how to predict
effectiveness of food safety culture and
highlight potential gaps.
5 How is the focus on food safety culture
distributed across the food supply
chain? (from farm to fork).
Investigate if some sectors are more active in
sharing knowledge of food safety culture than
others and discussed the risk of a potential
topic gap.
Scope and search areas of the literature review.
The review was focused on all literature dealing with food safety culture and sought to
find knowledge specific to food safety culture in food manufacturing organizations. A food
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING
9
manufacturer was defined as any organization that designs, produces and distributes food for sale
through retailers and/or food service establishments.
The literature search was conducted in Primo Central at the University of Guelph. The
Primo Central database was accessed to find books, peer-reviewed journal articles, e-books, e-
journals and news articles. The search was extended to Google Scholar to identify and access
non-peer-reviewed reports (e.g. government research reports) in addition to peer-reviewed
sources.
Theoretical framework and culture dimensions.
Reason (1998) determined that there is no universally accepted definition of culture. In
order to study how to characterize and measure food safety culture a definition is required. One
definition of organizational culture refers to how a group solves its problems relative to external
adaptation and internal integration and proposes that organizational culture is:
A pattern of shared assumptions that was learned by a group as it solved its problems.
The group has found these assumptions to work well enough to be considered valid and
are therefore taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think and feel in
relation to these problems (Schein, 2010).
Research specific to food safety culture suggests a definition with less emphasis on
external adaptation and the group aspect and more emphasis on the attitudes, values and beliefs
existing within a particular food-handling environment (Griffith, Livesey, & Clayton, 2010b;
Yiannas, 2009). In some cases, food safety culture is simply about behaviours (Yiannas, 2009) or
as a combination of people and science (Hanacek, 2010). For the purpose of this research
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING
10
Schein’s definition of organizational culture was adopted and applied to identify research gaps,
and used as the basis for discussion of the literature review findings.
Theoretical framework.
Dimensions of organizational culture as defined by Schein (2010) were found helpful as
a theoretical framework to characterize an individual organization’s food safety culture and also
useful to compare multiple organizations (Table 1-2). The analysis of the existing literature was
conducted to identify existing knowledge in each of the five dimensions.
Table 1-2: Summary of culture dimensions and characteristics adapted from Schein’s organizational
culture dimensions (Schein, 2010)
Dimension Characteristics
External Adaptation Mission and goals, means (day-to-day behaviours, skills,
knowledge, time and technology) to reach goals, degree of
autonomy, how does the organization decide what to measure,
measures (what and how), how to judge success, remediate and
repair processes, and crisis history.
Internal Integration System of communication, common language, group selection
and exclusion criteria, allocation systems (influence, power and
authority), rules for relationships and systems for rewards and
punishment.
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING
11
Dimension Characteristics
Reality and truth High vs. low context, definition of truth, information – data and
knowledge needs; training and competencies; systems e.g. sign-
off, continuous improvement.
Time and space Four different dimensions for characterizing time orientation;
assumptions around time management.
Human nature, activity and
relationship
Theory x/y managers, the doing/being/being-in-becoming
orientation, and four basic problems to be solved in a group:
identity and role; power and influence; needs and goals;
acceptance and intimacy, individualism/groupism, power
distance and accepted behaviours & practices.
Applying organizational culture dimensions to characterize food safety culture.
External adaptation.
Management is essential for the effectiveness of food safety culture. Management
includes governing systems used to execute food safety practices and the enforcement of
compliance with these systems (Griffith, 2010). It is suggested that management commitment, or
top-down commitment, and the approach that management takes to integrate a food safety
management system will impact food safety culture (Ball, Wilcock, & Aung, 2009; Hanacek,
2010) Management is a broad term and it would be incorrect to assume that the same
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING
12
management principles and tactics will work at any given stage of maturity for any given food
safety culture (Hanacek, 2010). Managers must ensure that food handlers have the appropriate
means to effectively turn learned theory into safe food handling practices and managers play an
important role in adding knowledge to employees through on-the-job coaching (MacAuslan,
2013; Pilling et al., 2008).
An important characteristic in external adaptation is employee autonomy. Research
findings support the notion that employee autonomy and facilitation of better solutions strongly
influence hygiene behaviour changes (G. Sarter & Sarter, 2012) External adaptation was
covered well by the existing literature with the exception of crisis history. It is argued that an
organizational culture is impacted by crisis history (e.g., recall, incident) (Schein, 2010) and
there were no findings of its importance in the current literature.
Internal integration.
Continuous and varied communication is an important factor for managers to drive food
safety behaviours (Arendt, Paez, & Strohbehn, 2013; Ball, Wilcock, & Aung, 2009; Chapman,
Eversley, Fillion, MacLaurin, & Powell, 2010; Griffith, Livesey, & Clayton, 2010a). One study
quantifies this through analysis of quotes from 36 food service professionals where the majority
focused on the characteristics of communication systems (Arendt, Paez, & Strohbehn, 2013).
Other communication tactics, such as positive feedback on food safety practices well
executed by a supervisor, will also affect future food safety practices (Ball, Wilcock, & Aung,
2009). Edwards et al. (2006) discussed the importance of having a set of communication tactics
available that may be applied at different stages of changing culture, as one communication
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING
13
tactic cannot be expected to be equally effective at all stages of change (Edwards, Takeuchi,
Hillers, McCurdy, & Edlefsen, 2006). Having the right means, such as time, resources and staff,
is suggested to affect food handlers’ self-reported intent to carry out food safety practices
(Clayton, Griffith, Price, & Peters, 2002). Griffith et al. (2002) suggest workload impacts how
an individual considers food safety as part of their own value and belief system and continue on
to discuss the importance of report reward systems as an important driver for an individual to
commit to food safety (Griffith, Livesey, & Clayton, 2010a). The presence of a formal reward
and recognition program and the significance of having such a program owned and driven by
senior leadership are important (Seward, 2012).
Internal integration was covered well by existing literature with the exception of
measures (Seward, 2012). As argued earlier, food safety culture is an interdisciplinary concept
and, although a few authors argue the importance of individual components, these were not
researched in existing literature as an integrated interdisciplinary system.
Reality and truth.
The importance of training is highlighted not only for an individual carrying out a task
but also for managers who are supposed to support individuals in performing desired food safety
behaviours daily (Arendt, Paez, & Strohbehn, 2013; Ball, Wilcock, & Aung, 2009; Edwards,
Takeuchi, Hillers, McCurdy, & Edlefsen, 2006). Meyer argued that deconstructing a process
step followed by determination of desired behaviours and targeted training can drive sustainable
behaviour change if combined with training, task observations, and feedback (Meyer, 2013). Yet
few training programs effectively incorporate elements of food safety culture in the curriculum
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING
14
(MacAuslan, 2013). It is suggested that unless training is developed using a risk-based approach,
training might not influence food handler and consumer behaviours as needed and intended
(Clayton, Griffith, Price, & Peters, 2002; Kwon, Ryu, & Zottarelli, 2007; Medeiros et al., 2006).
Gaining the appropriate knowledge and skills through training can enable employees to sign off
on food safety records, which by some are seen as important to demonstrate desired behaviours
(Ball, Wilcock, & Aung, 2009). Mandatory training was assessed and it was found to be
associated with improved compliance with some food safety behaviours (Pilling et al., 2008).
However, institutionalizing an audit or inspection system to reinforce the use of food safety
knowledge is needed to continuously develop consistent, desirable food safety attitudes and
behaviours (Staskel, Briley, & Curtis, 2007). Reality and truth were covered well by the existing
literature, especially around training characteristics. Some studies were focused on measuring the
impact of training and training effort. A gap was found in connecting the various information,
data, and knowledge needs. Each were mostly addressed individually, as was the case with
training, and few looked at the on-going data need and how this could be applied to measure and
predict an organization’s food safety culture.
The nature of time and space.
The cultural dimension of time and space is a description of the basic orientation in terms
of past, present, and future and investigates what time units are most relevant for the conduct of
daily affairs. There are no references found in the literature to time and space knowledge and this
was determined to be worthy of future research.
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING
15
Human nature, activity and relationship.
Hinsz et al. (2007) propose that human nature can be described through self-reported
behaviours and they present a model where food safety behaviours are predicted by intention to
behave, attitude towards the behaviour, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control.
Further, this model proposed that work habits influenced food safety behaviour (Hinsz, Nickell,
& Park, 2007).
Leaders’ behaviours can be characterized as transactional or transformational and,
depending on the mix of these in an organization’s leadership, it will affect if there is an
overwhelming long-term view to food safety or an immediate, fire-fighting view to food safety.
Transactional leaders tend to be more focused on immediate responses, whereas transformational
leaders have a long-term vision (Griffith, Livesey, & Clayton, 2010a). Nickell and Hinsz (2011)
argue that food safety climate and the personal trait, conscientiousness, influence and predict
food safety behaviours (Nickell & Hinsz, 2011b). Ball et al. (2009) argue that a positive outlook
and attitude of an employee will influence the likelihood that food safety practices are adhered to.
They also stated that a good relationship with peers also positively influences employees to
follow appropriate food safety practices.
To characterize food safety behaviours, it is argued by many that an emphasis should be
placed on a detailed breakdown of process steps and desired behaviours defined in detail so that
these can be accurately explained to others and observed for compliance (Chapman, Eversley,
Fillion, MacLaurin, & Powell, 2010; Clayton & Griffith, 2004; Meyer, 2013). The detailed
definition of desired behaviours can be applied to investigate how mistakes are dealt with in an
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING
16
organization. Is it one of blame or absolution? Either can affect any level of the organization,
management, supervisors and food handlers, and their food safety practices (Griffith, Livesey, &
Clayton, 2010a).
Human nature, activity and relationships were found to be covered very well in the
existing literature through the application of social cognitive models specific to the field of food
safety (Ball, Wilcock, & Aung, 2009; Clayton & Griffith, 2008; Hinsz, Nickell, & Park, 2007).
However, only a few studies dealt specifically with food manufacturing and those that did were
found to apply acknowledged social cognitive theories combined with statistical evaluation
methods. A gap exists in integrating measures such as these into other disciplines to provide an
integrated approach to measure all dimensions of food safety culture.
Measuring and evaluating food safety characteristics.
While some research has described a process of measuring food safety culture in
manufacturing it is not clear what theory or practices these were founded on (Seward, 2012).
This section seeks to find methods that have been applied to measure organizational culture. The
methods were grouped in three categories; performance standards, maturity models, and social
cognitive models.
Measuring using standards for award applications and performance standards.
Different standards exist for any organization to select when evaluating its food safety
culture. Award standards (e.g., Baldridge Award, Black Pearl) are those against which
organizations are evaluated when applying for a specific award. The Baldridge award evaluates
several dimensions of an organization, many of which would fall into the dimensions of culture
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING
17
and is considered multidisciplinary in both its assessment and requirements. The Black Pearl
Award also measures against a number of categories and many of these fall into the culture
dimensions. Performance standards (e.g., ISO9000:2003, GFSI benchmarked standards (such as
British Retail Consortium (BRC), and Canada Gap) and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s
Food Safety Enhancement Program (FSEP), though very system oriented, also evaluate some
characteristics of culture.
Measuring using maturity models.
Maturity models are used to evaluate the current state of a given culture and process,
improvement against a scale of maturity and competency. Maturity models are most often
specific to a subject matter (e.g., information technology or occupational health and safety) and a
wide range of industries has defined maturity models for use in improving organizational culture
performance. Three maturity models were reviewed to investigate their value for measuring
culture.
Quality.
In 1972 Crosby published the book “Quality is Free” (Crosby, 1972) one of the first
written references to the use of maturity models. Crosby speaks of management as responsible
for establishing the purpose of an operation, determining measurable objectives, and taking the
actions necessary to accomplish those objectives. Although management is usually thought of as
having to do with chartered corporations, it operates elsewhere also.
The need for long-range programs in quality can be deduced through the Management
Maturity Grid. Anyone can spend a few minutes with the grid and decide where an organization
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING
18
is at, or go to the next stage and know what needs to be done to move forward. The grid is
divided into five stages of maturity. Six management categories serve as the experience relations
that anyone must go through to complete the matrix. By reading the experience condensed in
each block within the grid, it is possible to identify a specific organization’s cultural situation.
Stage 1 is Uncertainty and can be described as confused and uncommitted. A self-
fulfilling prophecy is created that unsolved problems will always be around. The result is
emotion at the management level best defined by the question “who did it?” The cost of quality
is not in the uncertainty vocabulary. Everyone in the uncertain stage works hard and most are
frustrated at the amount of brute force that is required to keep the organization moving.
Stage 2 is Awakening; simpler but no more complex than the stage of uncertainty.
Management realizes that quality can help but is unwilling to devote the time and money to make
it happen. Inspection and testing is performed more often in the stage of awakening but the basic
problems are not solved. Teams are set out to solve problems but their scope is limited to the
near future. An organization in the stage of awakening puts together a motivation package, gives
speeches and has special lunches. More is required and it is usually when this is clear to
management is the time that change happens and pushes the organization forward or back to the
stage of uncertainty.
Stage 3 is Enlightenment and signified by the establishment of a formal quality policy.
One of the most recognizable signs of this is in how the organization solves its problems. Facing
problems openly, without individuals to blame, produces a smoothly functioning system for
resolving problems. It is acknowledged that systems are only road maps and that personal
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING
19
enthusiasm makes them work or not. The cost of quality will now get its first fair evaluation. An
official quality improvement team now heads quality. The team’s purpose is to establish a
system and attitudes that will last for a long time; one so entrenched that it would take a hard-
working quality reduction team to deactivate it.
Stage 4 is Wisdom and is an entirely different matter. The stage of wisdom is a great time
to run a company. Any task you want to accomplish can be tackled successfully. The attitude, the
systems, and the enthusiasm are all there waiting.
Stage 5 is Certainty and you know a company at this stage if you see one. It is summed
up in one sentence “We know why we do not have problems with quality.” It is the stage of
complete defect prevention. Errors are not expected and not taken lightly if one occurs.
Health Care.
Goonan et al. (2009) describes the journey of health care organizations towards their
Baldridge award (Goonan, Muzikowski, & Stoltz, 2009). The Baldridge award is part of the U.S.
National Quality Program and the Malcolm Baldridge National Quality Improvement Act was
signed into law in 1987. The focus of the program is to help companies improve quality and
productivity and recognize these achievements as an example for others to follow. The program
has established guidelines and criteria and provides specific guidance to companies who wish to
improve quality (Baldridge Performance Award, 2014). Many organizations that are preparing
for the Baldridge assessment have reached a plateau in their achievements and are looking for an
impetus for change. Many have been on a journey to change culture for years before the
assessment. While none of the recipients characterized Baldridge as the silver bullet, most
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING
20
described seeking a systems model to help them unify around one common framework (Goonan,
Muzikowski, & Stoltz, 2009).
The maturity model developed by Goonan et al. (2009) has five stages to maturity:
Reaction, Projects, Traction, Integration, and Sustaining and a specific journey was mapped to
illustrate the development in performance and the dynamics of this journey (Figure 2-1).
Figure 1-1: "The Journey" described by Goonan et al. (2009)
Stage Zero is Reaction, which defines a compliance-focused organization, waiting for the
next external mandate to improve, not capable of broad-scale measurable excellence or
innovation.
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING
21
Stage 1 Projects is the stage during which there is a belief that projects will address
problems and can make a difference. The limitations to this approach, however, arise when the
organization seeks transformational change, when the leaders set out to achieve more
fundamental and broad-reaching culture change. No single initiative or set of unaligned projects
will likely be enough to produce system-level results. Organizations can see that other sector
competitors are simply performing better and improvement is not optional for survival. The stage
is typified by the following remark made by Sister Mary Jean, Saint Luke’s Health System “We
realize that we wanted to change the culture, not just conduct projects. It proved much harder
than we thought but also much more important.” (Goonan, Muzikowski, & Stoltz, 2009).
Baldridge may be delegated and managed like a project but this approach typically flounders
because without engaged and committed senior leadership, the initiative fails to gain the traction
needed to instigate fundamental culture change.
Stage 2 is Traction and this stage reflects how senior leaders describe their experience of
gaining a toehold on cultural transformation. It is during the stage traction that executives begin
to consolidate and leverage their investments in transformational change, allocate resources to
identify and design key leadership and management processes and start to gain momentum.
Messaging around the Baldridge award turns from “we are chasing an award” to “we are
improving”. The award recipients describe the step of feedback as enlightening and provocative
but sometimes painful. Good-to-great companies continually refine the path to greatness by
taking account of the brutal facts of reality. It is reported that companies successfully
implementing organizational transformation are more likely to communicate the need for change
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING
22
in a positive way, encouraging people to build on success rather than focusing exclusively on
fixing problems.
Challenges to the traction maturity stage occur when organizations treat Baldridge as a
project. When staff and employees who are mired in the daily challenges of work assume
leadership is making an investment of time and resources to obtain another trophy, a “cultural
award toxicity” appears that can undermine the learning process and it is easy to be caught in
crisis and abandon the journey.
Stage 3 is Integration, which follows the stage of traction and usually occurs after a few
cycles of assessment, feedback and improvement. Leaders begin to see the connection between
Baldridge elements during the integration stage. This is illustrated by a quote from John Heer,
CEO, North Mississippi hospital (Goonan, Muzikowski, & Stoltz, 2009), who stated that: “It
takes three to five years to build a truly capable organization. After four years of focus and
learning it is time to focus on alignment and integration across categories”. In other words,
culture change is not a project. In this stage, leaders grow process literate and activities such as
huddles and other regular communication events start to cement themselves within the
organization. Through their Baldridge journey, organizations are provoked to align and integrate
their communication process with other knowledge management processes or their organizations
as a system. Interdisciplinary behaviours start becoming natural to leaders in the integration stage.
Stage 4 is Sustaining and is best illustrated by a successful senior leader who learns and
changes their personal style over time. This is the mark of a strong leader. What distinguishes the
CEOs of Baldridge recipients is how they measure their own personal success against the
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING
23
maturity of their organizations and the degree to which their systems are sustained despite
changes in incumbents. This is found to be a significant descriptor of any organization reaching
the sustaining stage.
Control Objectives for Information and related Technology.
Obtaining an objective view of an enterprise’s own performance level is not easy. What
should be measured and how? Enterprises need to measure where they are and where
improvement is required, and implement a management tool kit to monitor improvement.
Control Objectives for Information and Related Technology (CobiT) (“COBIT 5”, 2014)
deals with these issues by providing tools, such as maturity models, performance goals and
metrics and activity goals. The maturity model, as defined by CobiT, has five maturity stages and
six attributes; (1) Awareness and communication, (2) Policies, plans and procedures, (3) Tools
and automation, (4) Skills and expertise, (5) Responsibility and accountability, and (6) Goal
setting and measurements.
The maturity model helps an individual organization understand what industry peers are
doing and how the latter’s performance compares to its own. The model summarizes acceptable
industry practices and allows the organization to identify what will be required to reach a certain
level of management and control of these practices.
A generic definition is provided for the maturity scale and interpreted for the nature of
CobiT’s IT management processes. A specific maturity model is provided for each of CobiT’s 34
processes. The purpose is to identify issues and how to set priorities. They are not designed for
use as a threshold model where one cannot move to the next higher level without having fulfilled
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING
24
all conditions of the lower level. A maturity scale has to be practical and easy to understand and
can facilitate raising awareness, capture broader consensus and motivate improvement. Thus, the
maturity model is a way to measure how well-developed the management process and supporting
culture is.
Measuring using social cognitive models.
This section provides a definition of social cognition and a brief overview of three
models applied in the food industry and a summary of their differences. A number of social
cognitive models deal with description and quantification of organizational culture (Taylor,
2011) Social cognitive theory is a learning theory based on the idea that people learn through
observing others. Cognition is the act of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought,
experience, and the senses. It is important to note that learning can occur without behaviour
change. While behaviour change is the most common sign of learning, it cannot be assumed
(Bandura, 1988; Howes, 1996).
Health action process approach.
In the health action process approach (HAPA), predictive models were defined and
applied in studies of food handling behaviours with contradictory results (Mullan, Wong, &
O'Moore, 2010). Mullan et al. introduced the intention-behaviour gap and argue that some
models other than HAPA are a better predictor of intention than behaviours. HAPA was
developed as an attempt at closing this gap. This model of health behaviours argues that health
behaviour change is a process consisting of two phases, a motivational (formation of intent)
phase and a volitional phase. Formation of intent is driven by risk awareness, outcome
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING
25
expectancies, and perceived self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is defined as a measure of the belief in
one's own ability to complete tasks and reach goals and is seen as the strongest influencer of
motivation and strongest predictor of intention. The volitional phase involves turning intent into
actual behaviours and includes three variables (1) planning, (2) maintaining self-efficacy, and (3)
recovery of self-efficacy. Habit is introduced in the model as a potential important predictor of
food handling behaviours, as food safety behaviours are, in this study and for this application of
HAPA, considered habitual.
Health Belief Model.
Individuals within the Health Belief Model will adopt a health-related behaviour when
they consider themselves susceptible to a risk (perceived susceptibility). They will consider the
consequences of the risk to be serious (perceived severity), and believe the benefits of adopting
the behaviour (perceived benefit) outweigh the personal costs of adopting such behaviours
(perceived barriers) (Edwards, Takeuchi, Hillers, McCurdy, & Edlefsen, 2006). Self-efficacy and
cues to action is another important part of the Health Belief Model. Edwards et al. (2006) defined
self-efficacy as an individual’s belief that she/he can take personal action to reduce the chance of
foodborne illness.
Reasoned Action Model and the Theory of Planned Behaviours.
The Reasoned Action Model describes how intent can be used to predict behaviour
through the measurement of Attitude and Subjective Norms. The difference in the Reasoned
Action Model and the Theory of Planned Behaviours is the inclusion of Perceived Control in the
Theory of Planned Behaviours (Ajzen, 2011; Clayton & Griffith, 2008; Fishbein & Ajzen, 2009).
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING
26
The Theory of Planned Behaviour provides a tool whereby scientists can evaluate an individual's
belief-based attitude(s) regarding a particular action or behavior and social influences
surrounding the individual, and to possibly predict a behavioral outcome from that person's
intentions to perform the behaviour. The model assumes that all behaviours are entirely
volitional and does not offer a construct for dealing with non-volitional behaviours. In other
words, attitude and subjective norms might not be the only reason for a person’s decision to
behave in a certain way. The Theory of Planned Behaviour does offer a tool for non-volitional
controlled behaviours with the introduction of perceived control. The Theory of Planned
Behaviour has been found to be a significantly better predictor of behaviour than the Reasoned
Action Model. Theoretically, perceived behavioural control addresses both external (e.g., money,
time) and internal factors (e.g., skills, will power) and provides a basis for identifying where and
how to target strategies for changing behavior.
Validate measures and evaluations of food safety characteristics.
Validation in this study refers to how well a test measures what it is purported to measure
(Colin, 2005). A lesson learned from occupational health and safety is the validity of the
behaviours being measured. It was found that care must be taken not to focus on everyday
observable behaviours only and lose sight of less observable behaviours such as management
response to the discovery of an unfavorable test result (Wright & Leach, 2013).
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING
27
Conclusion and Recommendations
Food safety culture must be considered as an interdisciplinary concept where
organizational culture, food science, and social cognitive science overlap. This overlap will help
define characteristics and measures specific to food safety culture based on substantial existing
knowledge in all three areas.
Much work has been completed to characterize and measure organizational culture. In his
book “Organizational culture and leadership”, Schein (2009) describes dimensions applied
widely across sectors and disciplines to build understanding and improve organizational culture.
Schein’s dimensions of organizational culture: external adaptation; internal integration; reality
and truth; time and space; and human nature, activity, and relationship brings a simple theoretical
framework upon which the literature review was structured and analyzed. Research was
completed, although papers were structured differently than the dimensions, with the exception
of reality and truth. No research was found on this organizational culture dimension.
The review provides insight into three methods for measuring organizational culture:
performance standards and awards; social cognitive models; and maturity models. Performance
standards and awards are, with the exception of the Baldridge award, specific to food
manufacturing and contain clear requirements and processes for measuring a food
manufacturer’s performance against these requirements. The challenge with this approach as a
stand-alone measure of food safety culture is that audits are often carried out once per year,
which makes it difficult for results to indicate performance of a given food safety culture at a
frequency that allows immediate actions.
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING
28
Social cognitive models have been applied in studies of food safety behaviours and
practices. These methods delve deeply into what drives humans to perform a given behaviour
and have been applied across many industries and disciplines. The challenge with this approach
as a stand-alone measure of food safety culture is that these methods only take into account
internal integration and human nature, activity, and relationship. Social cognitive models leave
out important characteristics such as means to act (financial and technological), how to correct
and remediate a mistake, how to judge success, and knowledge needs.
Maturity models provide a tool for organizations to map their current level of maturity
and project a path for its journey forward. Models applied in quality management, health care,
and information technology were reviewed and all provided good detail of the maturity journey
for their respective areas. The challenge with this approach as a stand-alone measure for food
safety culture is that each maturity stage does not pinpoint exact behaviours and therefore makes
it difficult to measure any organizational culture with great precision. Without precision, it is
difficult to prioritize where to focus effort to improve culture.
Gaps were identified in each of the five organizational dimensions and weaknesses
associated with each measurement method were uncovered. It is proposed that a behaviour-based
food safety maturity model be defined by the food science literature and industry experts to act
as a food safety culture map for any given food manufacturer. Further, the measurement system
must be defined by merging organizational culture theory, social cognitive science and an
evaluation of the food manufacturer’s food safety performance. Food safety performance should
be evaluated through documented evidence of performance specific to the individual company.
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING
29
Characteristics and measures for food safety culture must be defined and tested to
provide the impetus for food manufacturers to focus, in times of great change, on the ongoing,
long journey to improve food safety culture and it is suggested that research is continued to find
answers to the questions: What characterizes food safety culture? and How can food safety
culture be measured?
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING
30
Chapter 2 Assessment of applied performance standards in meat
processing
Introduction
Performance standards are an important component of any food manufacturing
organization. As these standards are applied in any given food manufacturing organization
documentation is often required to ensure evidence of performance and as a baseline against
which plants can plan and execute corrective and preventive actions. These documents were
investigated as a potential measure of food safety culture and evaluated as a tool for
enhancement of culture in a meat processing company.
Method
Written documentation from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013 was examined from
eight meat plants: five prepared meat plants and three fresh meat plants. The written material
comprised of audit reports, a food safety scorecard, and performance minutes. Each of these
three sets of documents were analyzed for dimensions and characteristics of organizational
culture as defined in Schein’s (2009) theoretical framework (Table 1-2).
The documents were imported into NVivo 10 (QSR International, Burlington, MA) using
an anonymised numbering convention. The convention enabled the analysis of findings specific
to a plant without revealing the plant’s identity. NVivo 10 software is a qualitative research tool
designed to organize and analyze non-numerical or unstructured data, such as audio, video,
photos and text. The NVivo qualitative analysis was conducted using a content analysis
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING
31
following the process defined by Berg and Lund (2012). Each coded paragraph was counted and
analysis completed to quantify factors e.g., role, continuous improvement important to measure
food safety culture.
Audit reports
The audit reports contained findings from two audits for each of the eight plants, an
external and an internal audit. The findings were described in the form of conformance or non-
conformance to the specific performance standard. The standards in this investigation were the
external British Retail Consortium (BRC) standard and the company’s own internal product
compliance standard.
All audit reports were carefully read to define open codes based on the dimensions and
characteristics of organizational culture. Each open code was further broken into axial codes to
analyze for evidence of the individual characteristic. For example, the cultural dimension and
characteristic internal integration and role was coded in each audit report and the collective
findings in the role open code was further explored in the axial codes: Quality, Plant manager,
Maintenance, Sanitation, Employee, Accredited lab, CFIA, Customer, and Outside contractor
(Table 2-1). Occurrences of both open and axial codes were captured in NVivo for all 16 audit
reports.
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING
32
Table 2-1: Audit report open- and axial codes
Open code Axial codes
Role Quality, Plant manager, Maintenance, Sanitation, Employee,
Accredited lab, CFIA, Customer, and Outside contractor.
Continuous improvement Inspection, verification, corrective action, calibration, testing, and
measures.
Training Training, education, knowledge, and proficiency (competency).
Technology Specific systems, plant specific systems
Group Established teams, references to groups (structural or ad-hoc)
Communication Written, spoken, and dialog (e.g., interview).
NVivo was used to code the following questions related to audit reports and their use in
measuring food safety culture.
1. What evidence was there of established groups? Evidence of responsibility?
2. What evidence was there of systems of communication in the group?
3. What evidence was there of training needs? Training effectiveness?
4. What evidence was there of technology application?
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING
33
5. What evidence was there of who is doing the work?
6. What evidence was there of accepted behaviours and practices?
Food safety scorecard
The food safety scorecard was developed and implemented by the company in 2010 and
the procedure for collecting, reporting, and analyzing the scorecard data had been in place for
two years before January 1, 2013.
This documentation was selected for the research as a representative measure of the
company’s track record against the specific performance standard chosen within the company.
As such, four measures in the food safety scorecard were analyzed: Hazard Analysis Critical
Control Point (HACCP) performance, Sanitation performance, Performance in the
Environmental Monitoring Program (EMP), and Training performance. These measures were an
integrated part of every plant’s food safety system and data were made available covering 12
months for all eight plants.
The food safety scorecard data was 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 to understand level and consistency in
performance for each food safety scorecard metric. As such, mean, standard deviations, and
capability indecies (Cp, Cpk) were calculated.
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING
34
Each measure was analyzed to determine the mean performance by month, stability in
performance over time, and ability to meet company-determined standards over the course of the
year (Table 2-2).
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING
35
Table 2-2: Food safety scorecard measures, metrics, and performance standards
Measure Metric Company specific
performance standard
HACCP Deviation count
Deviations closed on time
Minimum 5 deviations
reported per period
100%
Sanitation
Percentage compliance to visual inspection
standard
Less than80% compliance
Percentage compliance to ATP standard 100%
EMP Percentage positive Listeria L1 swabs Zero findings
Training Percentage compliance to training standard 1 training event per employee
per period
The analysis in Minitab helped address the following questions related to the food safety
scorecard and its use in measuring food safety culture.
1. Describe the overall company performance.
2. What was the comparative performance ranking of capability within the eight plants?
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING
36
3. What was the comparative ranking of the four measures?
4. Was there any significant statistical difference between plants?
5. Was there any significant statistical difference between measures?
Performance minutes
The performance minutes were plant-specific documents designed to capture the
discussion of the monthly food safety performance by the plant leadership team. The format had
been standardized across all of the company’s plants since 2010 and used to documented specific
actions and assigned responsibilities based on the measures reviewed. As such, the performance
minutes were treated as evidence of the plant’s success and failure perceptions and actions to
correct and remediate if the plant did not meet the company’s performance standards. These data
(covering a 12 month period) were selected for this research as a representative measure of
evidence of food safety discussions and actions within each of the eight plants.
Two parts of the performance minutes were investigated: summary of the plant
leadership’s discussions and assigned actions by month by plant. Each part was analyzed to
determine if there was evidence to support the dimensions and characteristics of organizational
culture identified in the literature review (Table 1-2). A qualitative analysis was completed
searching for answers to questions related to food safety culture e.g., completeness of actions,
group engagement.
The questions were defined to help analyze the data for comparison between plants.
1. Were the performance minutes completed? Detailed? Lacking?
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING
37
2. How were actions on performance standards reflected in the performance minutes?
3. How was group engagement and accountability reflected in the performance minutes?
The questions explored the completeness of the performance minutes, the performance
against standard, and if there was evidence in the performance minutes of group engagement and
accountability.
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING
38
Results
Audit reports.
The content analysis identified 1,452 paragraphs coded across the 16 audit documents in
the six open codes and percentage per open code was calculated (Table 2-3).
Table 2-3: Organizational culture characteristics and open code results
Organizational culture
characteristic
Open code Open code result
Internal integration: Group
identification, engagement, and
accountability
Role 56% (813 paragraphs)
Reality and truth: continuous
improvement approach and
evidence
Continuous improvement 24% (347 paragraphs)
External adaptation: means (e.g.,
finances, people) identification
and allocating
Means 9% (136 paragraphs)
Internal integration:
communication approach and
frequency
Communication 5% (79 paragraphs)
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING
39
Organizational culture
characteristic
Open code Open code result
Reality and truth: measures and
technology applied
Technology enabled 5% (67 paragraphs)
Internal integration: Group
identification, engagement, and
accountability
Group 1% (10 paragraphs)
Results indicate that some organizational culture characteristics are evaluated and
documented through the audit reports. Specifically, internal integration through the individual
roles within the group (56%) and reality and truth through evidence of continuous improvement
(24%) were found in the audit process and coding exercise. Other culture characteristics were
mentioned less in the audit reports, including external adaptation through identification of means
(9%), internal integration through communication (5%), reality and truth through measures and
technology (5%), and internal integration through the group identification (1%).
These results suggest that the audit reports are not sufficient on their own to measure
food safety culture as only two cultural dimensions and characteristics were found to be part of
the audit reports.
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING
40
Food safety scorecard.
Results from the overall company were analyzed through the food safety scorecard
measures and standards (Table 2-4).
Table 2-4: Food safety scorecard analysis
Measure Standard Result
HACCP Number of deviations > 5 per
period per plant.
Mean 30 deviations raised per
period (median 13)
All deviations closed out on time. Mean percentage closed on time
78% (median 92%)
Sanitation Eighty percentage or less
compliance to visual inspection
standard
Mean percentage acceptable visual
96.6% (median 0.97)
Pass on all ATP test to plant
standard
Mean percentage passed ATP tests
68.9% (median 0.91)
EMP Zero Listeria level 1 findings 5 findings
Training 1 training event per employee per
period
Mean percentage training per
employee per period 1.5 (median
1.4)
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING
41
Analysis of HACCP performance revealed that a substantial number of deviations
markedly above the company standard was reported; with plants reporting, on average, 30
deviations per period. Of all deviations, 78% were closed on time leaving closure of 22% of
deviations below the company standard. Sanitation performance showed 96.6% of all visual
inspections met plant specific standards with 68.9% of all ATP tests passing the plant specific
ATP standard. The plants detected 5 Listeria L1 findings against a standard of zero findings.
Finally, on average plants were found to deliver 1.5 training events to each employee per period.
This average was substantially above the company standard of 1.0 training event per employee
per period. All plants reported a higher number of deviations than standard (min. 5 per period).
One plant was at standard for closing deviation corrective actions on time, three were close
(more than 96% closed on time), and four met the standard (all corrective actions closed on time).
All plants failed to meet the standard set for visual inspections (less than 80% compliance) and
four plants were close to the standard of 100% ATP compliance and four were below standard.
Three plants trained people substantially more than once per month, two were above, and three
plants below standard (Appendix B).
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING
42
Table 2-5: Mean performance per plant per measure
Measure
Plant
1
Plant
2
Plant
3
Plant
4
Plant
5
Plant
6
Plant
7
Plant
8
Number HACCP deviations 6 5 8 15 71 8 9 39
Percentage HACCP corrective
actions closed on time 100 99 2 99 75 86 96 69
Percentage acceptable visual
inspections 99 93 96 97 98 97 97 95
Percentage ATP swabs meeting
plant standard 96 79 0 98 0 90 95 93
Number of training events per
employee per month 2.4 0.3 2.8 0.8 3.1 0.1 1.5 1.4
These results suggest that the food safety scorecard is not sufficient as a stand-alone tool
to measure food safety culture as only two cultural characteristics, external adaptation through
what and how to measure and reality and truth through a clearly identified data need were
covered by the food safety scorecard data.
Performance minutes.
Results from the overall company were analyzed using the performance minutes (Table
2-6). Each plant’s performance minutes were evaluated based on answers to questions defined in
the method and a score assigned. The three-point scoring scale was defined as, (1) no evidence
found, (2) three or less instances found, and (3) four or more instances found. An instance would
be a direct mention of action item, plant manager engagement, internal audit team engagement,
and HACCP team engagement in the performance minutes for any given month.
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING
43
Two of eight plants showed evidence in the performance minutes that actions were taken
based on the food safety scorecard and other performance measures. Five of eight plants did
document engagement by the plant manager e.g., as owner of actions, escalation of issues, in
both the meetings and in solving food safety problems. Aside from recording names of the
meeting participants on the meeting minutes, little evidence was found of group engagement and
accountability across the plants including reference to already established food safety groups,
such as the Internal Audit team and HACCP team.
Table 2-6: Summary of performance minutes by plant and evaluation criteria. (1) = no evidence
found, (2) = little evidence found, and (3) = good evidence found.
Plant 1 Plant 2 Plant 3 Plant 4 Plant 5 Plant 6 Plant 7 Plant 8
Action
evidence
1 1 3 1 1 1 2 3
Plant Manager
engagement
3 1 3 3 3 2 1 3
Internal Audit
team
1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2
HACCP team 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2
Total (% of
total)
6 (50%) 4 (33%) 10 (83%) 8 (67%) 7 (58%) 5 (42%) 7 (58%) 10 (83%)
These results suggest that the performance minutes are not solely sufficient to measure
food safety culture as only three cultural characteristics, external integration through success
measures, internal integration through group selection, and human nature, activity, and
relationship, were found covered through the performance minutes.
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING
44
Coverage of cultural dimensions in performance standard documentation
Some evidence was found that performance standards could act as a measure of food
safety culture. To understand this better three sets of documentation were analyzed for coverage
of organizational culture dimensions and characteristics (Table 2-7). The results were obtained
through the coding by cultural dimension across all three sets of documents from all plants.
Results indicate that only three of five dimensions were covered and within each only some of
the characteristics of the dimension were included. These results suggest that performance
standards can be a part of a food safety culture measurement system but cannot be seen as a
stand-alone measurement tool.
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING
45
Table 2-7: Coverage of cultural dimensions by individual documentation across all plants
Cultural Dimensions
Documentation External
Adaptation
Internal
Integration
Reality and
truth
Time and
space
Human
nature,
activity, and
relationship
Audit reports Not covered Covered Covered Not covered Not covered
Food safety
scorecard
Covered Not covered Covered Not covered Not covered
Performance
minutes
Covered Covered Not covered Not covered Covered
These results suggest that coverage of cultural dimensions in performance standard
documentation is individually not good. Each document covers two to three dimensions and for
the documents to be considered part of a food safety culture measurement system these must be
analyzed as a collection of evidence and supplemented with tools to cover the time and space
and human nature, activity, and relationship dimensions.
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING
46
Plant scoring
Based on the analysis of all three performance standard documents, a scoring system was
developed to quantify food safety culture based on these standards. Detailed findings by plant
were captured (Appendix B) and scored to rate each plant’s performance and calculate a total
score (Table 2-8). The audit report scoring was based on the plant’s ability to maintain (score of
3), increase (score of 1), or decrease (score of 5) number of non-conformances for both audits. A
plant could receive maximum score of 10 from the audit reports. The food safety scorecard
scoring was based on the plant’s ability to meet (score of 3), not-meet (score of 1), or exceed
(score of 5) the company standard. A plant could receive maximum score of 20 from the food
safety scorecard. The performance minutes were rated for plant’s actions, management
engagement, and group involvement and scored 1, 3, or 5 depending on the occurrence of
answers to the questions mentioned earlier. A plant could receive maximum score of 23 from the
performance minutes. Total score by plant was 53 and the total score for each plant was
achieved by adding the three individual scores; audit reports, food safety scorecard, and
performance minutes. .
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING
47
Table 2-8: Plant score based on performance standard documentation
Performance standard documents
Plant Audit reports Food safety
scorecard
Performance
minutes
Total score (% of
total)
1 10 16 10 36 (62%)
2 10 16 4 30 (52%)
3 10 14 12 36 (62%)
4 6 16 14 36 (62%)
5 8 14 8 30 (52%)
6 10 10 8 28 (48%)
7 8 18 8 34 (59%)
8 4 14 12 30 (52%)
Table legend: Food safety culture score by plant for each standard document. Content of
each document was scored 1, 3, or 5 depending on the degree of meeting preset criteria relevant
to food safety culture. Each plant could achieve total 53 scores and a percentage achieved
calculated to quantify each plants food safety culture.
These results suggest that all plants did not achieve the maximum score. Plants 1, 3, and
4 came closest with an average score of 36 or 62% of the possible maximum score. The
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING
48
remaining five plants; plants 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8 all scored less than the average score of 34 or 59%
of maximum score. All plants had the lowest scores in the area of sanitation performance (8 of
possible 53 total score), HACCP team engagement (8 of possible 53 total score), and Internal
audit team engagement (10 of possible 53 total score). From these results it can be concluded
that, documented performance relative to standard, is at best average across most of the
performance standards.
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING
49
Discussion
The purpose of this research was to find answers to the questions: what characterizes
food safety culture? In addition, how can food safety culture be measured? This chapter
investigated the application of food safety performance standards and supporting documentation
as a means of measuring food safety culture. The results show that such standards and
documentation can be part of a food safety culture measurement system but cannot act as the
complete measurement system on their own. It was shown that three of five organizational
culture dimensions (external adaptation, internal integration, and reality and truth) found
coverage in two of the three document sets and two of five dimensions (time and space; human
nature, activity, and relationships) found no or very little coverage in any document analyzed.
A scoring system was developed based on the performance standard documentation to
quantify the strengths of the individual plant’s food safety culture. Although a difference was
detected between the eight plants, no plant was found to maximize its potential scoring and the
strength of any plant’s food safety culture, measured as percentage of maximum score, ranged
between 48% to 62% . The scoring system was 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.
The audit report analysis placed an emphasis on individual roles and provided some
indication of a plant’s approach to continuous improvement. Little to no evidence was found to
support any other cultural dimensions and characteristics. The food safety scorecard analysis
showed evidence of how the plant’s judged success, quantified training, and indicated what the
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING
50
company had decided to measure and judge its success. The performance minutes covered the
most cultural dimensions with evidence of the plants focus on resolving deviations from the
standard. These gave an indication of involvement from management (i.e. plant manager), and
the extent to which groups were referred to or involved in the performance meetings. Again,
none of the documented evidence was, by itself, a measure of food safety culture but important
characteristics were covered in great depth (e.g., measures, how to judge success, and data
needs).
In comparison to existing literature, measuring food safety culture solely through
performance standards would not provide enough detail to understand and improve food safety
culture in totality. Performance standards lack a measure of human relationships (Clayton,
Griffith, Price, & Peters, 2002; Nickell & Hinsz, 2011b). In contrast to these studies,
performance standards are a useful component of a food safety culture measurement system
through their coverage of external adaptation, internal integration and reality and truth and it
would give an incomplete picture to leave an evaluation of these findings out of any method to
measure food safety culture.
Limitations of the study were found in the partial coverage of the organizational culture
dimensions and characteristics. The measure cannot be seen as a complete measure of food
safety culture but must be regarded as an important piece of the integrated interdisciplinary
measure of food safety culture.
In summary, the work revealed that performance standards and documentation can be
part of a food safety culture measurement system but cannot act as the complete and only
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING
51
measurement system. Audit reports, food safety scorecard, and performance minutes can, when
combined, cover parts of three organizational culture dimensions. A plant specific scoring
system was developed and this cannot only be used to measure the strength of the individual
plant’s food safety culture but also provide direction for where improvement efforts are best
prioritized. As with the performance standard documents, the plant scoring cannot stand on its
own as a measure of food safety culture and must be combined with a social cognitive measure
to include the dimension of human nature. It is suggested that further work needs to becompleted
to develop a method for measuring the human nature of food safety culture by leveraging work
already completed in this area. Further, it is suggested that a food safety maturity model be
developed to provide food manufacturers with a complete tool for measuring the current state of
their food safety culture and develop a food safety culture road-map specific to its organizational
needs.
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING
52
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
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING
53
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
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING
54
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).
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING
55
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
relationship
People systems
Human nature, activity, and
relationship
Process thinking
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
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING
56
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
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING
57
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).
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING
58
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
Control
I am confident that for the
next three months I will …
…always design my own tools e.g.
spreadsheet to gather food safety
data
Social Norm Most people, outside –and
at work, whose opinion I
value would approve of …
…always design my own tools e.g.
spreadsheet to gather food safety
data
Past Behaviour I have in the past three
months …
…always design my own tools e.g.
spreadsheet to gather food safety
data
Behavioural
Intent
I intend to … …always design my own tools e.g.
spreadsheet to gather food safety
data
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING
59
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).
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING
60
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.
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING
61
Table 3-3: Food Safety Maturity Model
Stage name Stage 1
Doubt
Stage 2
React to
Stage 3
Know of
Stage 4
Predict
Stage 5
Internalize
Capability Area
Perceived Value
Tasks are completed
because regulatory
agents tell us to.
Little to no investment in
systems (people or
processes) to prevent food
safety firefighting.
Issues are solved one at a
time to the root of the
issue because we know it
protects our business.
Preventing issues from
occurring based on past
history and leading
indicators.
We consider food safety
an avenue to continuous
improvement.
Performance data is not
collected and reported
regularly to all
stakeholders.
Little understanding of true
food safety performance.
Strong, data-based
understanding of food
safety performance.
People System
Completing tasks by top-
down "tell" without
evidence of individual
Responsibility for problems
is established as problems
are discovered and solved
Evidence of
understanding the need
for food safety systems.
Defining and proving
antecedents for improving
processes through
Strategic directions
across the organization
and its functions to
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING
62
Stage name Stage 1
Doubt
Stage 2
React to
Stage 3
Know of
Stage 4
Predict
Stage 5
Internalize
Capability Area
responsibility and
understanding for why
tasks are important.
.
mostly by use of negative
consequences.
knowledge and data.
include food safety as a
key business enabler
with clear defined
accountability and
responsibility for food
safety performance.
People Systems Tasks being completed
out of fear for negative
consequences.
Antecedents being invented
as problems are solved and
seldom incorporated in
systems after the fact.
Improvements are made
one issue at a time with
clear responsibility
identified and
communicated.
Responsibilities and
accountabilities are
discussed and carefully
decided upon.
Pinpointed behaviours
and consequences are
defined and continuously
reinforced.
Top management
approve the accuracy of
Consequences are mostly
managed when an error
Consequences - positive
and negative - are defined
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING
63
Stage name Stage 1
Doubt
Stage 2
React to
Stage 3
Know of
Stage 4
Predict
Stage 5
Internalize
Capability Area
food safety information needs correction and
seldom through pre-
planned consequences.
and managed proactively.
Process Thinking Unstructured problem
solving to remove the
immediate pain.
Continuous improvement
with emphasis on
checking/inspecting and
expectation of 100%
perfect solutions from the
start.
Structured problem
solving with a high risk
of over analyzing
problems and continuous
improvement
opportunities.
Continuous improvement
with emphasis on study
not checking or
inspecting .It is generally
accepted that
improvements are
iterative.
Risks are identified
through horizon scanning
and continuous
improvement as part of
the food safety system.
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING
64
Stage name Stage 1
Doubt
Stage 2
React to
Stage 3
Know of
Stage 4
Predict
Stage 5
Internalize
Capability Area
Technology
Enabler
Little to no technology
adopted and few people
realize this to be an
issue.
Responsibility left to the
individual to identify data
needed and a high degree
of reliance on the
individual to derive
information from the data.
Standard technology is
adopted and provided to
the individual user in a
standardized way.
Data is collected in a
consistent and accurate
manner to inform the
continuous improvement
activities.
Data is used in an
integrated way to
automate workflows,
provide tools to improve
food safety and make the
enterprise quick to adapt.
Data driven information
is used sporadically to
solve problems and
design preventive actions.
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING
65
Stage name Stage 1
Doubt
Stage 2
React to
Stage 3
Know of
Stage 4
Predict
Stage 5
Internalize
Capability Area
Tools &
Infrastructure
Necessary tools are not
available to everybody.
Need for tools or
infrastructure changes
when problems arise that
require immediate solves.
Investing readily in the
right tools and
infrastructure when
solving a problem
requires it.
Food safety tools and
infrastructures are in place
and continuously
improved for ease of use
and cost of operation.
Investment in tools and
infrastructure is
evaluated at part with
other business
investments and
objectively invested in.
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
66
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
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
67
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.
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
68
Table 3-4: Sample pinpointed behaviours by function (food safety and quality), role and competency
areas in the maturity stages of doubt.
Capability
area
Supervisor
(Execute)
Leader
(Tactic)
Functional Leader
(Strategy)
Executive (Vision)
People System
(DOUBT)
I immediately remove
food safety issues by
myself to avoid
negative consequences
for myself and my
team.
I always have to learn
how to solve food
safety problems as
they happen.
I always ask others
before taking action to
solve a food safety
problem.
I provide my direct
reports with direction
to remove food safety
problems immediately
to avoid negative
consequences.
I plan improvements
of my own or my
team’s knowledge,
skills or ability in
food safety as needs
arise.
I always direct my
team(s) not to take
action to solve a food
safety problems
without asking
I always have to
manage negative
consequences when a
food safety problem
occurs.
I check if my teams
have the needed food
safety knowledge,
skills or ability on an
ad-hoc basis.
I direct leaders to
always ask somebody
before solving a food
safety problem.
I make sure
somebody is
managing negative
consequences every
time a food safety
problem occurs.
I seldom get involved
in discussions
regarding food safety
knowledge, skills or
ability needs.
I hold leaders
accountable for
consulting wiht FSQ
experts before taking
action on food safety.
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
69
others .
Table 3-5: Pinpointed behaviours by function (food safety and quality), role and competency areas in
the maturity stages of internalized.
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
70
Capability area Supervisor
(Execute)
Leader
(Tactic)
Functional Leader
(Strategy)
Executive (Vision)
People System
(INTERNALIZED)
I take action daily to
let anybody know
when they go over
and beyond for food
safety.
I only act as coach
whenever the plant
teams solve food
safety issues.
I always correct food
safety behaviours
immediately when I
see an opportunity.
I take action daily to
provide positive
feedback when
others take action to
remove perceived
food safety risks.
I take daily action to
congratulate plant
teams when they
solve food safety
problems with
minimal
involvement from
FSQ.
I minimum weekly
check in with my
supervisor(s) or
others to ensure they
have the necessary
authority to make
I take action daily to
complement my
peers in other
functions of their
demonstrated food
safety ownership.
I minimum weekly
openly congratulates
a plant manager on
his/her good business
decision(s) made for
food safety.
I check in with teams
or peers minimum
weekly to ensure
they have the
authority to make
business decision for
food safety.
I minimum monthly
check in with
functional - and
business leaders to
ensure food safety is
built into their
business plans.
I systemically and
openly celebrate
individual leaders
for their food safety
competency and
leadership.
I systemically, once
a quarter, review
summary of
behaviours requiring
celebration or
correction.
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
71
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).
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
72
Stage name
(Identifier)
Capability Area
(Identifier)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
Perceived Value l l
People System l l l
Process Thinking l l l
Technology
Enablerl l l
Tools &
Infrastructurel l
Stage 1
Doubt
Stage 2
React to
Stage 3
Know of
Stage 4
Predict
Stage 5
Internalize
Table 3-6: Overall company behaviour-based maturity
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
73
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).
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
74
Table 3-7: Mean maturity score by plant, capability area and total
Capability Area
Plant Perceived
value
People
systems
Process
thinking
Technology
enabler
Tools
and
infra-
structure
Mean
score (%
of total)
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
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
75
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
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
76
individual and not the collective group and needs for investment in tools and infrastructure
changes as new problems arise.
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
77
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.
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
78
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).
Figure 3-1: Maturity and Performance standard strength by plant
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Str
eng
th
Plant
Maturity strength
Performance standard strength
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
79
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
Plant
Performance
standard
Total score
(% of total)
Plant
Maturity score
Mean score
(% 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
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
80
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.
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
81
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
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
82
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.
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
83
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.
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
84
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
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
85
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.
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
86
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
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
87
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
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
88
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.
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
89
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.
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
90
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
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
91
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.
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
92
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
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
93
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).
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
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Emperical LiteratureReview
n/a Qualitative Quantitative
Co
un
t o
f R
efe
ren
ces
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
94
publications were found in peer reviewed journals (75%) and the remaining in books and
magazines.
Figure A3: Food safety culture publications by sector
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
95
Appendix B: Plant Data
Table B-1: Plant scoring by performance standard documentation
Document Sub-measure Plant
1
Plant
2
Plant
3
Plant
4
Plant
5
Plant
6
Plant
7
Plant
8
Audit reports BRC audit non-
conformances
5 5 5 1 3 5 3 3
Audit reports Internal audit non-
conformances
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1
Food safety
scorecard
HACCP
Performance
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Food safety
scorecard
Sanitation
performance (ATP)
1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1
Food safety
scorecard
Sanitation
performance
(Visual inspection)
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Food safety
scorecard
EMP 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Food safety Training 5 1 5 5 5 1 5 5
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
96
Document Sub-measure Plant
1
Plant
2
Plant
3
Plant
4
Plant
5
Plant
6
Plant
7
Plant
8
scorecard
Food safety
scorecard
Closed on time 3 3 1 3 1 1 5 1
Performance
minutes
Actions defined 5 1 5 5 1 3 3 5
Performance
minutes
Plant manager
engagement
3 1 5 5 5 3 3 5
Performance
minutes
Internal audit team 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1
Performance
minutes
HACCP team 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
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
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
97
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:
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
98
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:
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
99
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
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
100
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
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
101
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
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
102
Publications:
“AMIF Listeria Control Manual”
Contributor to publication MMT December 2003
Butts, Ph.D., John. “Seek & Destroy: Identifying and Controlling Listeria
monocytogenes Growth Niches.” Food Safety Magazine April/May 2003, Vol.
9, No. 2:24
Cover Story National Provisioner Apr 2010“Science + Culture = Safety”
Employee Hygiene “Success in Simplicity” National Provisioner Jan 2011.
“The Journey to a State of Control” Food Safety Magazine Mar 2011
A Team Approach for Management of the Elements of a Listeria Intervention
and Control Program, Food and Analytical Bacteriology Vol. 2, Issue 1, 2012
“Building Trust via food-safety management” National Provisioner Apr 2013.
Interviews:
“From Lab to Plant Floor,” Meat Processing Magazine January 2004.
“Machines on the Move,” Meat Processing Magazine December 2003.
“Breaking Ground in Sanitary Facility Design” Food Safety Magazine June 2005
Panels:
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
103
Rapid Detection Technologies, Measurement of Pathogens in Food and Water,
Washington, DC – University of Maryland. (2004)
Food Safety Summit 2005 Facility Design
Presentations:
“The Development and Production of Shelf Stable Entrees” a People-to-
People Meat Processing Technical Exchange and Trade Mission to Germany,
Hungary, Russia, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia. - 1989
“Methods to Control Listeria in RTE Environments” ,Armour-Swift-Eckrich
Pathogen Control Workshop–1999
“Construction Process Control “,Conagra Pathogen Control Workshops - 2000
& 2003
“Microbiological Data Collection and Analysis”,Silliker Pathogen Control
Workshop San Antonio – 2001
“Data Collection and Trend Monitoring in Problem Prevention”,IFT Annual
Meeting – Chicago - 2003,
“Identifying and Controlling Listeria monocytogenes Growth Niches”,Food
Safety Summit, Washington DC - 2003
“Preventative Food Safety Designs & Practices”, Food Safety Summit,
Washington DC - 2004
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
104
“Sanitary Equipment Design & Maintenance”, Ecolab Maintenance and
Engineering Sanitary Practices Workshop. St. Paul, Minnesota – 2004, 2005,
2006
“Sanitation Process Control”, Kraft-Oscar Mayer Plant Managers Food Safety
Annual Meeting, Davenport, Iowa - 2004
“The Prevention and Control of Environmental Pathogens in Food Processing
Environments”
Refrigerated Foods Association - RFA Technical Web Conference – July 2004
“The Use of Predictive Sampling as a Tool for Sanitation Process Control:”
Kraft-Oscar Mayer Food Safety Annual Meeting 2005, Glenview IL
“Facility Design Case Study”
Food Safety Summit 2005, Washington, DC
Food Equipment Manufactures Association 2005, Oakbrook, IL
Pack Expo 2005, Las Vegas, NV
Food Safety World Conference and Expo – 2006, Washington, DC
“FSIS Food Safety Assessment – Risk Verification Testing”, Kraft-Oscar Mayer
Food Safety Annual Meeting 2006, Glenview IL
“Lessons Learned” from Years of Meat Plant Environmental Pathogen Control
Efforts
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
105
FMI Food Safety Workgroup, Joint AMI-FMI Meeting March 2006,
Washington, DC
“A Case Study on Time and Temperature Controls”, Food Safety World
Conference and Expo – 2006, Washington, DC
“Listeria Intervention and Control”, 3M Sales Meeting – 12/05, San Diego, CA
“Case Study on Condensation Control”, World Wide Food Exposition - AMI –
Oct 2005, Chicago, IL
“Critical Factors for Process Control in Ready-to-Eat Manufacturing”
Reciprocal Meats Conference American Meat Science Association Annual
Meeting. Univ Illinois June 2006.
“Application of Principles to Facility Design” World Wide Food Exposition -
AMI –Oct 2007 Chicago, IL
Numerous presentations on Sanitary Control Procedures in Retail Deli
Operations – Affiliated Foods 2006 & 2007
“Strategies for Controlling Listeria” Twenty-Seventh University of Wisconsin
- River Falls Food Microbiology Symposium and Workshop October 21-24,
2007
Keynote Speaker “Control of Listeria monocytogenes in a Seafood Processing
Environment” Bord Iascaigh Mhara, Irish Sea Fisheries Board. Nov. 2007,
Dublin Ireland
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
106
“Lessons Learned in the Meat Industry:Control of Listeria in RTE Meat and
Poultry Products” Canadian Meat Council, Toronto, Canada September 9,
2008
“The Integration of Sanitation and Sanitary Design”. Weber National Sales
Meeting Jan 2009
AMI Board Members - Pork and Processes Meats Committee
Listeria Control Self Assessment - Fall 2008
Listeria Benchmarking – Spring 2009
AMI Details Industry Advancements in Listeria Control at FSIS Public Hearing
on Retail Risk Assessment. Washington DC June 2009
“Improving Sanitary Design” IAFP Workshop July 2009
Food Industry Microbiology Round Table “A Process Control System for
Listeria in RTE Meat Plants” Glenview IL Oct 2009
Canadian Meat Council “Sanitary Design” October 2009, Toronto, Canada
IAFP Webinar “Challenges with Wet Cleaning” May 2010
University of Wisc. “Developing A Food Safety System” FRI and UW Meat
Science Food Safety and Meat Microbiology School. Madison Wisc Aug 2010.
NSW Food Authority Auditors “Data Analysis, Investigation and Corrective
Action” Sydney Australia July 2010
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
107
Keynote Speaker NSW Food Authority Conference “Listeria Intervention and
Control” Sydney Australia July 2010
IAFP. “Seek and Destroy Team Approach to Listeria Intervention and Control”
Arkansas Chapter Sept 2010, Nebraska Chapter Oct 2010,
“Food Safety War Stories - A Perspective on Continuous Improvement and
the Development of a Proactive Food Safety Culture”. Maple Leaf Foods Food
Safety Symposium. Toronto Canada May 2011.
“Investigation Intervention & Control”, Saputo Foods Annual Food Safety
Workshop Green Bay WI June 2011
“Data Driven Construction and Sanitation Process Control” Refrigerated
Foods Association Annual Convention Palm Springs Ca Mar 2012
Principles of Hygienic Design and Application, Midwest Food Processors
Association, MWFPA Sanitary Design Seminar, La Crosse, WI – Apr. 2012
The Evolution of Foreign Material Control and Prevention. Webinar for
Maple Leaf Foods FSQ Leader Summit Feb 2013.
Developed and presents four ongoing presentations for the AMI Listeria Intervention &
Control Workshops: Construction Process Control, Data Analysis, Investigation and Corrective
Action, and Sanitary Equipment & Facility Design
These presentations have been given at:
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
108
Workshops (Nov 2000 – present)have been presented to industry at 25+ different
locations/events throughout the US, to FSIS staff at the Omaha Technical Center and
Washington, D.C., NAMP National Conference Chicago, 2007, Lm workshop and case studies
FDA Policy Group Univ Maryland – Mar 2009, and Lm workshop and case studies FSIS Policy
Group Washington DC – July 2009.
Martha Gonzarlez, Director Global Quality Systems, McCain Foods Limited
Food Engineer; Quality and Food Safety professional, with a proven record of
accomplishment in leadership, coaching and service in the food industry; driven continuous
improvement in the entire supply chain through effective corporate deployment of a quality
assurance and food safety strategic plan.
Introduction
USA resident, Citizen from Bogota- Colombia (South America), where has received a
professional degree as Food Engineer; attended a post grad program in International Business
Management, and executive programs such as project management, business administration, and
integral management. Even though the preferred area has been associated with strategic
leadership, has evolved within the functional process of Total Quality, and Quality Assurance for
the Food industry (ISO 9000, GMP’s, Prerequisites for Food Safety, HACCP).
Core Competencies
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
109
With experience at Country, Regional, and Corporate level: Mentoring and Coaching *
Interpersonal Skills * Strategic Management based on Total Quality approach * Multicultural
Leadership * Personnel Management * Crisis Management * Project Management * Negotiation
* Budget Management * Quality Assurance and Quality Control * Customer technical support *
Supplier Quality Management * International Regulatory Compliance.
Professional Experience
Director Global Quality Systems Oct 2010 - Current
McCain Foods Limited – Global Quality Office, Lisle- IL USA
This is a corporate (global) role. Accountable for planning, and directing the
implementation of the quality and food safety policy, corporate programs and initiatives
regarding quality assurance and food safety management system (FSQMS). Oversees all aspects
of the organization’s FSQMS improvement efforts, develop; promoting education, cultural
change, its implementation, and verification. Coordinate global work streams to establish and
execute strategic plans, policies, and procedures at all levels so the quality system meets
regulatory, internal and external customers’ needs and expectations.
Experience and knowledge in regards to following standards: GFSI benchmarked
schemes- BRC, SQF2000, and FSSC22000- ; GMP's - AIB International; Customer audits.
Others: Global Quality Metrics. Support to the Americas for the interpretation of
LATAM regulations.
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
110
Member of:
- AIB International, Food Safety Advisory Committee;
- ASQ, ASSOCIATE Member.
- GMA Latin America Working Group;
- Center of Excellence Kestrel Management.
Holly Mockus, Product Manager, Alchemy Systems
With more than 30 years of experience in the food industry, Holly Mockus has had the
privilege of working with many exceptional professionals and organizations throughout her
career and is thrilled to a Product Manager with Alchemy Systems. Her industry experience
includes food safety, quality, food defense, pest control, sanitation and plant regulatory affairs
with a variety of food products — from flavors to meat and poultry to snack and bakery items to
frozen meals. She is actively involved in industry activities including GFSI working groups and
NSF Certificate Program Advisory Committee, and very much enjoys working with people.
After all, teamwork makes it all happen! Holly graduated from Southern Illinois University
with a bachelor’s degree in microbiology.
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
111
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
112
Dr. W. Payton Pruett, Jr., Vice President of Corporate Food Technology aand
Regulatory Compliance, The Kroger Co.
Dr. W. Payton Pruett is Vice President of Corporate Food Technology and Regulatory
Compliance for The Kroger Co. Payton joined Kroger in 2005 from ConAgra Foods in Omaha
where he served as Senior Director of Food Safety and Laboratory Services. During his career,
Payton also managed food safety, quality, and laboratory services at ConAgra Refrigerated
Foods and Silliker Laboratories.
Payton earned his M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Food Science and Technology from
Virginia Tech. He received his B.S. in Microbiology and minor in Chemistry from East
Tennessee State University.
Payton has written and presented extensively on the microbiological safety and quality of
foods. He has served on a number of scientific committees and has been a member of several
professional organizations including the International Association for Food Protection, the
Institute of Food Technologists, and the American Society of Microbiology. From 1997-2002,
Payton was certified as a Specialist Microbiologist through the National Registry of
Microbiology and was an editor for the Journal of Food Protection from 2004-2009. Payton is
currently a food science adjunct professor at Purdue University, a member of the Global Food
Safety Initiative (GFSI) Foundation board of directors, and serves on the Virginia Tech food
science department advisory board. He is a Certified Professional - Food Safety (CP-FS)
through the National Environmental Health Association (NEHA).
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
113
Sara Mortimore, VP, Product Safety, Quality & Regulatory Affairs, Land O’Lakes,
Inc.
Sara Mortimore, Msc, FRSPH, MIFST, is a Food Scientist with around 30 years of
practical experience. She started her career with Glaxo SmithKline, working as a Research
Technologist and then moved to a division of Croda International where she again worked in
R&D before transitioning into Quality Assurance. In 1989 she joined Grand Metropolitan Foods
which later became Pillsbury and subsequently was incorporated by General Mills Inc. She
stayed there for close on 19 years moving through a series of global assignments all in Food
Safety and Quality. Sara joined Land O’Lakes in 2008 and is currently Vice President of Product
Safety, Quality and Regulatory Affairs with enterprise wide responsibility.
Publications include,
"HACCP: A Practical Approach", Sara Mortimore and Carol Wallace, (3rd
Edition 2013), Springer (New York)),
“Food Safety for the 21st Century”, C. A. Wallace, W.H. Sperber, S.E. Mortimore
(2011), Wiley-Blackwell (Oxford, UK).
"Food Industry Briefing Series: HACCP", Sara Mortimore and Carol Wallace,
(2001), Blackwell Science Ltd. (Oxford, UK) (2nd edition scheduled 2014)
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
114
“Making the Most of HACCP”, Mayes, A. and Mortimore, S.E. (2001),
Woodhead Publishing, (Cambridge, UK)
John Weisgerber, VP Quality and Food Safety, Ed Miniat, LLC
John Weisgerber graduated from Purdue University in 1970 with a B.S. in Biology. He
spent over 33 years working in various aspects of quality, food safety and regulatory systems
management with Oscar Mayer/Kraft Foods. During his career he worked at five Oscar Mayer/
Louis Rich manufacturing facilities across the US. In addition, John continues to be an instructor
for the AMIF Listeria Intervention & Control Workshop, has co-authored an AMIF White Paper
on Airborne Listeria, has volunteered through the United Nations to provide food processing
expertise to the government of Lesotho and was a contributor to the AMIF Listeria Control
Manual published in December 2003.
John retired from Kraft in May 2004 as Director of Quality for the Oscar Mayer, Louis
Rich and Kraft Pizza brands. Since then, he has formed Weisgerber Consulting, LLC to provide
quality and food safety system support to the food processing industry. He has presented Process
Control and Quality System seminars at the Alkar Processing Validation Seminar in May 2005
and the Food Safety World Conference and Expo in March 2006. Additionally he has published
an article in the April/ May 2006 issue of Food Safety Magazine titled “Automating Process
Controls with a Supply Chain View” and has been a speaker in the Listeria Control workshop at
the 2009 IAFP annual meeting as well as the keynote speaker at the 2009 Canadian Meat
Council Advanced Listeria Control Symposium. He is also a member of the Maple Leaf Foods
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
115
Co. Food Safety Advisory Council and is the leader of the Ed Miniat, LLC Food Safety Advisory
Council.
In May 2011 John put his consulting business on hold and accepted the position of VP
Quality and Food Safety working for Ed Miniat, LLC, a processed meat manufacturer in South
Holland, IL. In 2013 he was promoted to the position of VP Quality and Food Safety
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
116
Appendix D: Pinpointed behaviours
Table D-1: Pinpointed behaviours by function (food safety and quality), role and competency areas in the maturity stages of doubt.
Capability area Supervisor (Execute) Leader (Tactic) Functional Leader (Strategy) Executive (Vision)
People System I immediately remove food safety
issues by myself to avoid negative
consequences for myself and my
team (MOTIVATION)
I always have to learn how to
solve food safety problems as they
happen (COMPETENCE)
I always ask others before taking
action to solve a food safety
I provide my direct reports with
direction to remove food safety
problems immediately to avoid
negative consequences
(MOTIVATION)
I plan improvements of my
own or my teams knowledge,
skills or ability in food safety as
needs arise (COMPETENCE)
I always have to manage
negative consequences when a
food safety problem occur
(MOVTIVATION)
I check if my teams have the
needed food safety knowledge,
skills or ability on an ad-hoc
basis (COMPETENCE)
I direct leaders to always ask
I make sure somebody is
managing negative
consequences every time a food
safety problem occur
(MOTIVATION)
I seldom get involved in
discussions regarding food
safety knowledge, skills or
ability needs (COMPETENCE)
I hold leaders accountable for
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
117
problem (OPPORTUNITY) I always direct my team(s) not
to take action to solve a food
safety problems without asking
others (OPPERTUNITY)
somebody before solving a food
safety problem
(OPPERTUNITY)
consulting wiht FSQ experts
before taking action on food
safety (OPPERTUNITY)
Perceived
Value
I take action on food safety only
when regulatory or customer
compliance is at risk
(DIRECTION)
I collect minimum weekly food
safety data for filing purpose only
I only take action on food safety
if regulatory or customer
compliance is at risk
(DIRECTION)
I do not review food safety data
outside the monthly action
meeting
I only engage in food safety
issues if regulatory or customer
compliance is at risk
(DIRECTION)
I more often base my food safety
decisions on discussions than
plant data
I do not engage in food safety
issues unless regulatory or
customer compliance is at risk
(DIRECTION)
I more often base my food safety
decisions on discussion than
data
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
118
Process
Thinking
I rarely have time to identify root
cause of problems and mostly find
myself fire fighting
I often have to solve many food
safety problems at the same
time
I support my team and others in
identifying root causes for food
safety problems very rarely due
to figherfighting
I minimum weekly ask for new
issues to be solved by a plant
team
I circle back after corrective
actions have been implemented
to learn about the root-cause(s)
when I can find the time
I circle back with responsible
leaders to ensure specific
corrective actions have been
implemented effectively when I
have time
Technology
Enablement
(Technology =
IS tools)
I always design my own tools e.g.
spreadsheets and forms to gather
food safety data
I rarely discuss or set direction
for the tools used by my team to
gather food safety data
I always look to IS to set
direction for tools used to gather
food safety data
I do not get involved in what
systems are used to gather food
safety data
Tools and
Infrastructure
I often have to improvise because
I or my team do not have the right
tools to perform a food safety task
I always reward improvisation
for solving a task if the right
tools are not available
I personally review every plants
food safety spend minimum
monthly
I encourage and reward direct
reports on-going for minimizing
food safety spend
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
119
Table D-2: Pinpointed behaviours by function (food safety and quality), role and competency areas in the maturity stages of internalized
Capability
Area
Supervisor (Execute) Leader (Tactic) Functional Leader
(Strategy)
Executive (Vision)
People System I take action daily to let
anybody know when they
go over and beyond for
food safety
(MOVTIVATION)
I only act as coach
whenever the plant teams
solve food safety issues
(COMPETENCE)
I take action daily to
provide positive feedback
when others take action to
remove perceive food
safety risks
(MOTIVATION)
I take daily action to
congratulate plant teams
when they solve food
I take action daily to
complement my peers in
other functions of their
demonstrated food safety
ownership
(MOTIVATION)
I minimum weekly openly
congratulates a plant
manager on his/her good
I minimum monthly check
in with functional - and
business leaders to ensure
food safety is built into
their business plans
(MOTIVATION)
I systemically and openly
celebrate individual leaders
for their food safety
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
120
Capability
Area
Supervisor (Execute) Leader (Tactic) Functional Leader
(Strategy)
Executive (Vision)
I always correct food
safety behaviours
immediately when I see an
opportunity
(OPPERTUNITY)
safety problems with
minimal involvement
from FSQ
(COMPETENCE)
I minimum weekly check
in with my supervisor(s)
or others to ensure they
have the necessary
authority to make business
decisions for food safety
business decision(s) made
for food safety
(COMPETENCE)
I check in with teams or
peers minimum weekly to
ensure they have the
authority to make business
decision for food safety
(OPPERTUNITY)
competency and leadership
(COMPETENCE)
I systemically, once a
quarter, review summary of
behaviours requiring
celebration or correction
(OPPERTUNITY)
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
121
Capability
Area
Supervisor (Execute) Leader (Tactic) Functional Leader
(Strategy)
Executive (Vision)
(OPPERTUNITY)
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
122
Capability
Area
Supervisor (Execute) Leader (Tactic) Functional Leader
(Strategy)
Executive (Vision)
Perceived
Value
I work daily to improve
food safety processes e.g.
take out unnecessary steps,
reduce lead-time, reduce
resource needs
(DIRECTION)
I only participate in food
safety problem solving
and follow up when asked
by manufacturing
I minimum weekly direct
plant teams to improve
food safety processes
(DIRECTION)
I answer ad-hoc questions
from manufacturing
regarding food safety and
only get involved when
they ask
I take action weekly to
reward food safety
continuous improvement
results at plants, BU or HO
(DIRECTION)
I discuss and action longer
term preventive action
planning with
manufacturing leaders
weekly
I systemically take action
to review and comment on
continuous improvement
results across the plant
network (DIRECTION)
I take action to ensuring
effectivness of preventive
plans through a pre-set
meeting rhythm with
functional -and business
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
123
Capability
Area
Supervisor (Execute) Leader (Tactic) Functional Leader
(Strategy)
Executive (Vision)
leaders
Process
Thinking
6. I collect, analyze
and report food safety data
daily to plant staff to bring
transparency on lurking
challenges
6. I analyze data
for food safety trends
weekly and provide
summary to plant -and BU
leaders
6. I analyze data for
food safety trends monthly
and provide summary for
senior leaders
7. I review the plants
6. I review the
plants preventive plans for
effectiveness and act on
recommendation from
leaders once a quarter
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
124
Capability
Area
Supervisor (Execute) Leader (Tactic) Functional Leader
(Strategy)
Executive (Vision)
7. I review plants
preventive plans for
effectiveness weekly
preventive plans for
effectiveness monthly
7. I provide direction,
minimum quarterly, on the
criticallity of data integrity
to business performance
Technology
Enablement
(Technology =
IS tools)
I enter and report food
safety performance daily
in one place only
I review food safety data
in the company-wide IS
system (e.g. SAP) weekly
I take action monthly to
ensure everybody on my
team understands the
importance of data usage -
and integrity in the
company-wide IS system
I enforce in regular
communication the
importance of using the
company-wide IS system
for food safety data
collection -and reporting
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
125
Capability
Area
Supervisor (Execute) Leader (Tactic) Functional Leader
(Strategy)
Executive (Vision)
Tools and
Infrastructure
I use tools and technology
daily to identify and
reinforce the right food
safety behaviours in others
I soliciting barriers to use
of tool and technology and
bring these to my
functional leader monthly
I build plan with plants for
their longer term tools and
technology needs and bring
these to approval with
executives once a quarter
I encourage leaders to
gather tools and technology
needs on-going to enable
development and execution
of a standardized, longer-
term roadmap
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
126
Table D-4: Pinpointed behaviours by function (manufacturing), role and competency areas in the maturity stages of doubt
Capability
Area
Supervisor (Execute) Leader (Tactic) Functional Leader
(Strategy)
Executive (Vision)
People System I immediately remove food
safety issues by myself to
avoid negative
consequences for myself
and my team.
(MOTIVATION)
I always have to learn how
to solve food safety
problems as they happen
I provide my direct reports
with direction to remove
food safety problems
immediately to avoid
negative consequences
(MOTIVATION)
I always have to take time
figuring out how to handle
a food safety problem after
I always have to manage
negative consequences
when a food safety
problem occur
(MOVTIVATION)
I check if my teams have
the needed food safety
knowledge, skills or ability
on an ad-hoc basis
I make sure somebody is
managing negative
consequences every time a
food safety problem occur
(MOTIVATION)
I seldom get involved in
discussions regarding food
safety knowledge, skills or
ability needs
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
127
Capability
Area
Supervisor (Execute) Leader (Tactic) Functional Leader
(Strategy)
Executive (Vision)
(COMPETENCE)
I always ask others before
taking action to solve a
food safety problem
(OPPORTUNITY)
it has happened
(COMPETENCE)
I always direct my team(s)
not to take action to solve
a food safety problems
without asking others
(OPPORTUNITY)
(COMPETENCE)
I direct my direct reports
and others to always ask
myself or others before
solving a food safety
problem
(OPPORTUNITY)
(COMPETENCE)
I hold leaders accountable
for consulting wiht FSQ
experts before taking
action on food safety
(OPPORTUNITY)
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
128
Capability
Area
Supervisor (Execute) Leader (Tactic) Functional Leader
(Strategy)
Executive (Vision)
Perceived
Value
I take action on food safety
only when regulatory or
customer compliance is at
risk (DIRECTION)
I collect food safety data
minimum weekly for others
to action
I only take action on food
safety if regulatory or
customer compliance is at
risk (DIRECTION)
5. I do not analyze food
safety data outside the
monthly action meeting
I only engage in food
safety issues if regulatory
or customer compliance is
at risk (DIRECTION)
I more often base my food
safety decisions on
discussions than plant data
I do not engage in food
safety issues unless
regulatory or customer
compliance is at risk
(DIRECTION)
I more often base my food
safety decisions on
discussion than data
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
129
Capability
Area
Supervisor (Execute) Leader (Tactic) Functional Leader
(Strategy)
Executive (Vision)
Process
Thinking
I mostly figherfight when
solving food safety
problems since there is so
much to do
I often have to solve many
food safety problems at
the same time
I support my team and
others in identifying root
causes for food safety
problems very rarely due
to figherfighting
I minimum weekly ask for
new food safety issue(s) to
be solved by a plant team
I circle back after
corrective actions have
been implemented to learn
about the root-cause(s)
when I have time
I circle back with
responsible leaders to
ensure specific corrective
actions have been
implemented effectively
when I have time
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
130
Capability
Area
Supervisor (Execute) Leader (Tactic) Functional Leader
(Strategy)
Executive (Vision)
Technology
Enablement
(Technology =
IS tools)
I do not analyze food safety
data FSQ takes care of that
I encourage my team(s)
and others to get food
safety data analyzed by
FSQ
I do not get involved in
how food safety data is
collected and leave that to
my peers in FSQ
I do not get involved in
what systems are used to
gather food safety data
Tools and
Infrastructure
I often have to improvise
because I or my team do not
have the right tools to
perform a food safety task
I always reward
improvising when solving
a food safety task to keep
production running
I take action daily to
minimize food safety spend
I encourage and reward
direct reports on-going for
minimizing food safety
spend
Table D-2: Pinpointed behaviours by function (manufacturing), role and competency areas in the maturity stages of internalized
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
131
Capability
Area
Supervisor (Execute) Leader (Tactic) Functional Leader
(Strategy)
Executive (Vision)
People System I take action daily to let
anybody know when they
go over and beyond for
food safety
(MOVTIVATION)
2. I always solve for food
safety problems with my
team and only involve
FSQ in a coaching
capacity
I take action daily to
provide positive feedback
when others take action to
remove perceive food
safety risks
(MOTIVATION)
I take action daily to
congratulate plant teams
when they solve food
safety problems with
I take action weekly to
complement my peers in
other functions for their
food safety actions
(MOTIVATION)
I minimum weekly
congratulate a plant
manager for his/her good
business decision(s) in
support of food safety
I minimum monthly check
in with functional - and
business leaders to ensure
food safety is built into
their business plans
(MOTIVATION)
I systemically and openly
celebrate individual leaders
for their food safety
competency and leadership
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
132
Capability
Area
Supervisor (Execute) Leader (Tactic) Functional Leader
(Strategy)
Executive (Vision)
(COMPETENCE)
I correct food safety
behaviours on the spot
every single time I see an
opportunity
(OPPORTUNITY)
minimal involvement
from FSQ
(COMPETENCE)
I minimum weekly check
in with my supervisor(s)
or others to ensure they
have the neccessary
authority to make business
decisions for food safety
(OPPORTUNITY)
(COMPETENCE)
I check in with my team
and others, minimum
weekly, to ensure they
have the authority to make
business decision for food
safety (OPPORTUNITY)
(COMPETENCE)
I systemically, once a
quarter, review summary of
behaviours requiring
celebration or correction
(OPPORTUNITY)
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
133
Capability
Area
Supervisor (Execute) Leader (Tactic) Functional Leader
(Strategy)
Executive (Vision)
Perceived
Value
I work daily to improve
food safety processes e.g.
take out unnecessary
steps, reduce resource
needs, increase
consistency between runs
(DIRECTION)
I rarely involve FSQ in
food safety problems
unless I need coaching
I minimum weekly direct
plant teams or others to
improve food safety
processes (DIRECTION)
I mostly solve food safety
problems within my team
and bring in FSQ for
coaching if needed
I take action weekly to
openly reward food safety
continuous improvement
results at plants
(DIRECTION)
I discuss and execute
longer term preventive
actions with FSQ weekly
I systemically take action
to review and comment on
continuous improvement
results across the plant
network (DIRECTION)
I take action to ensuring
effectiveness of preventive
plans through a pre-set
meeting rhythm with
functional -and business
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
134
Capability
Area
Supervisor (Execute) Leader (Tactic) Functional Leader
(Strategy)
Executive (Vision)
leaders
Process
Thinking
I solve for lurking food
safety challenges
immediately based on data
collected during prodution
I receive weekly summary
of food safety trends from
FSQ and take action
immediately within my
team
I discuss food safety
trends, derived from
aggregated plant data,
monthly with my FSQ
peers
I review the plants
preventive plans for
effectiveness and act on
recommendation from
leaders once a quarter
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
135
Capability
Area
Supervisor (Execute) Leader (Tactic) Functional Leader
(Strategy)
Executive (Vision)
I review food safety
preventive plans for my
area weekly to make sure
they work and look for
improvement
opportunities
I review food safety
preventive plans for
effectiveness monthly
I provide direction,
minimum quarterly, on the
criticality of data integrity
to business performance
Technology
Enablement
(Technology =
IS tools)
I enter and report food
safety performance daily
through the company-wide
IS system only and
nowhere else
I discuss food safety
information, pulled only
from the company-wide IS
system, weekly with plant
teams
I take action monthly to
ensure everybody on my
team understands the
importance of data usage -
and integrity in the
I enforce in regular
communication the
importance of using the
company-wide IS system
for food safety data
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
136
Capability
Area
Supervisor (Execute) Leader (Tactic) Functional Leader
(Strategy)
Executive (Vision)
company-wide IS system collection -and reporting
Tools and
Infrastructure
I use tools and technology
daily to identify and
reinforce the right food
safety behaviours in others
I reinforce use of food
safety tools and
technology, solicit barriers
to their use and bring
these to my functional
leader weekly
I gather longer term tools
and technology needs from
plants and bring these to
approval with executives
once a quarter
I encourage leaders to
gather tools and technology
needs on-going to enable
development and execution
of a standardized, longer-
term roadmap
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
137
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
138
Appendix E: Behaviour-based Maturity Scale
Scale questions.
Table E-1: Scale questions and rating
Question/Statement Rating
My behaviour to only participate in food safety problem solving and follow up when asked by manufacturing is …
1 Extremely beneficial 2 Slightly beneficial 3 Neither 4 Slightly harmful 5 Extremely harmful
People whose opinion I value, at work and outside of it, approve of me always correcting food safety behaviours immediately when I see an opportunity
1 Strongly Agree 2 Agree 3 Undecided 4 Disagree 5 Strongly Disagree
In the past three months I always corrected food safety behaviours immediately when I saw an opportunity
1. Always 2 Usually 3 About Half the Time 4 Seldom 5 Never
I am certain that for the next three months I will always correct food safety behaviours immediately when I see an opportunity
1 Very likely 2 Likely 3 Certain 4 Unlikely 5 Very unlikely
I am certain that for the next three months I will collect, analyze and report food safety data daily to plant staff to bring transparency on emerging issues
1 Very likely 2 Likely 3 Certain 4 Unlikely 5 Very unlikely
My behaviour to collect, analyze and report food safety data daily to plant staff to bring transparency on emerging issues is …
1 Extremely beneficial 2 Slightly beneficial 3 Neither 4 Slightly harmful 5 Extremely harmful
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
139
Question/Statement Rating
People whose opinion I value, at work and outside of it, approve of me taking action on food safety only when regulatory or customer compliance is at risk
1 Strongly Agree 2 Agree 3 Undecided 4 Disagree 5 Strongly Disagree
When it comes to matters of food safety how much do you want to be like your manager?
1 Very Important 2 Important 3 Neither Important or Unimportant 4 Unimportant 5 Very Unimportant
My behaviour to always having to learn how to solve food safety issues as they happen is …
1 Extremely beneficial 2 Slightly beneficial 3 Neither 4 Slightly harmful 5 Extremely harmful
People whose opinion I value, at work and outside of it, approve of me rarely having time to identify root cause of problems and mostly find myself fire fighting
1 Strongly Agree 2 Agree 3 Undecided 4 Disagree 5 Strongly Disagree
I intend to often have to improvise because I or my team do not have the right tools to perform a food safety task
1 Strongly Agree 2 Agree 3 Undecided 4 Disagree 5 Strongly Disagree
I intend to immediately remove food safety issues to avoid negative consequences for myself and my team
1 Strongly Agree 2 Agree 3 Undecided 4 Disagree 5 Strongly Disagree
People whose opinion I value, at work and outside of it, approve of me using tools and technology daily to identify and reinforce the right food safety behaviours
1 Strongly Agree 2 Agree 3 Undecided 4 Disagree 5 Strongly Disagree
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
140
Question/Statement Rating
I intend to take action daily to let anybody know when they go above and beyond for food safety
1 Strongly Agree 2 Agree 3 Undecided 4 Disagree 5 Strongly Disagree
In the past three months I always had to learn how to solve food safety issues as they happened
1. Always 2 Usually 3 About Half the Time 4 Seldom 5 Never
I intend to rarely have time to identify root cause of problems and mostly find myself fire fighting
1 Strongly Agree 2 Agree 3 Undecided 4 Disagree 5 Strongly Disagree
In the past three months I always designed my own tools e.g. spreadsheets and forms, to gather food safety data
1. Always 2 Usually 3 About Half the Time 4 Seldom 5 Never
In the past three months I collected minimum weekly food safety data for filing purpose only
1. Always 2 Usually 3 About Half the Time 4 Seldom 5 Never
I intend to always ask others before taking action to solve a food safety problem
1 Strongly Agree 2 Agree 3 Undecided 4 Disagree 5 Strongly Disagree
I intend to always have to learn how to solve food safety issues as they happen
1 Strongly Agree 2 Agree 3 Undecided 4 Disagree 5 Strongly Disagree
I am certain that for the next three months I will often have to improvise because I or my team do not have the right tools to perform a food safety task
1 Very likely 2 Likely 3 Certain 4 Unlikely 5 Very unlikely
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
141
Question/Statement Rating
In the past three months I took action daily to let anybody know when they went above and beyond for food safety
1. Always 2 Usually 3 About Half the Time 4 Seldom 5 Never
People whose opinion I value, at work and outside of it, approve of me only participating in food safety problem solving and follow up when asked by manufacturing
1 Strongly Agree 2 Agree 3 Undecided 4 Disagree 5 Strongly Disagree
People whose opinion I value, at work and outside of it, approve of me entering and reporting food safety performance daily in one place only
1 Strongly Agree 2 Agree 3 Undecided 4 Disagree 5 Strongly Disagree
In the past three months I only acted as coach whenever the plant teams solved food safety issues
1. Always 2 Usually 3 About Half the Time 4 Seldom 5 Never
I intend to use tools and technology daily to identify and reinforce the right food safety behaviours
1 Strongly Agree 2 Agree 3 Undecided 4 Disagree 5 Strongly Disagree
I am certain that for the next three months I will take action daily to let anybody know when they go above and beyond for food safety
1 Very likely 2 Likely 3 Certain 4 Unlikely 5 Very unlikely
People whose opinion I value, at work and outside of it, approve of me always having to learn how to solve food safety issues as they happen
1 Strongly Agree 2 Agree 3 Undecided 4 Disagree 5 Strongly Disagree
I am certain that for the next three months I will take action on food safety only when regulatory or customer compliance is at risk
1 Very likely 2 Likely 3 Certain 4 Unlikely 5 Very unlikely
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
142
Question/Statement Rating
What type of feedback is typically provided to teams around food safety behaviours?
When it comes to food safety I am most influenced by what my manager thinks I should do
1 Very Important 2 Important 3 Neither Important or Unimportant 4 Unimportant 5 Very Unimportant
I intend to only participate in food safety problem solving and follow up when asked by manufacturing
1 Strongly Agree 2 Agree 3 Undecided 4 Disagree 5 Strongly Disagree
I am certain that for the next three months I will always design my own tools e.g. spreadsheets and forms, to gather food safety data
1 Very likely 2 Likely 3 Certain 4 Unlikely 5 Very unlikely
I intend to collect minimum weekly food safety data for filing purpose only
1 Strongly Agree 2 Agree 3 Undecided 4 Disagree 5 Strongly Disagree
In the past three months I only participated in food safety problem solving and follow up when asked by manufacturing
1. Always 2 Usually 3 About Half the Time 4 Seldom 5 Never
I am certain that for the next three months I will only act as coach whenever the plant teams solve food safety issues
1 Very likely 2 Likely 3 Certain 4 Unlikely 5 Very unlikely
I intend to always correct food safety behaviours immediately when I see an opportunity
1 Strongly Agree 2 Agree 3 Undecided 4 Disagree 5 Strongly Disagree
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
143
Question/Statement Rating
My behaviour to rarely having time to identify root cause of problems and mostly find myself firefighting is …
1 Extremely beneficial 2 Slightly beneficial 3 Neither 4 Slightly harmful 5 Extremely harmful
My behaviour to immediately remove food safety issues to avoid negative consequences for myself and my team is …
1 Extremely beneficial 2 Slightly beneficial 3 Neither 4 Slightly harmful 5 Extremely harmful
My behaviour to use tools and technology daily to identify and reinforce the right food safety behaviours is …
1 Extremely beneficial 2 Slightly beneficial 3 Neither 4 Slightly harmful 5 Extremely harmful
People whose opinion I value, at work and outside of it, approve of me collecting minimum weekly food safety data for filing purpose only
1 Strongly Agree 2 Agree 3 Undecided 4 Disagree 5 Strongly Disagree
When it comes to food safety I am most influenced by what I have learn through food safety training
1 Very Important 2 Important 3 Neither Important or Unimportant 4 Unimportant 5 Very Unimportant
People whose opinion I value, at work and outside of it, approve of me taking action daily to let anybody know when they go above and beyond for food safety
1 Strongly Agree 2 Agree 3 Undecided 4 Disagree 5 Strongly Disagree
I intend to always design my own tools e.g. spreadsheets and forms, to gather food safety data
1 Strongly Agree 2 Agree 3 Undecided 4 Disagree 5 Strongly Disagree
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
144
Question/Statement Rating
I am certain that for the next three months I will always ask others before taking action to solve a food safety problem
1 Very likely 2 Likely 3 Certain 4 Unlikely 5 Very unlikely
In the past three months I collected, analyzed and reported food safety data daily to plant staff to bring transparency on emerging issues
1. Always 2 Usually 3 About Half the Time 4 Seldom 5 Never
I am certain that for the next three months I will always have to learn how to solve food safety issues as they happen
1 Very likely 2 Likely 3 Certain 4 Unlikely 5 Very unlikely
When it comes to food safety I am most influenced by what my working peers think I should do
1 Very Important 2 Important 3 Neither Important or Unimportant 4 Unimportant 5 Very Unimportant
In the past three months I always asked others before taking action to solve a food safety problem
1. Always 2 Usually 3 About Half the Time 4 Seldom 5 Never
In the past three months I worked daily to improve food safety processes e.g. took out unnecessary steps, reduced lead-time, reduced resource needs
1. Always 2 Usually 3 About Half the Time 4 Seldom 5 Never
I am certain that for the next three months I will use tools and technology daily to identify and reinforce the right food safety behaviours
1 Very likely 2 Likely 3 Certain 4 Unlikely 5 Very unlikely
In the past three months I entered and reported food safety performance daily in one place only
1. Always 2 Usually 3 About Half the Time 4 Seldom 5 Never
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
145
Question/Statement Rating
People whose opinion I value, at work and outside of it, approve of me always designing my own tools e.g. spreadsheets and forms, to gather food safety data
1 Strongly Agree 2 Agree 3 Undecided 4 Disagree 5 Strongly Disagree
I am certain that for the next three months I will enter and report food safety performance daily in one place only
1 Very likely 2 Likely 3 Certain 4 Unlikely 5 Very unlikely
I am certain that for the next three months I will collect minimum weekly food safety data for filing purpose only
1 Very likely 2 Likely 3 Certain 4 Unlikely 5 Very unlikely
People whose opinion I value, at work and outside of it, approve of me always asking others before taking action to solve a food safety problem
1 Strongly Agree 2 Agree 3 Undecided 4 Disagree 5 Strongly Disagree
In the past three months I took action on food safety only when regulatory or customer compliance was at risk
1. Always 2 Usually 3 About Half the Time 4 Seldom 5 Never
My behaviour to enter and report food safety performance daily in one place only is …
1 Extremely beneficial 2 Slightly beneficial 3 Neither 4 Slightly harmful 5 Extremely harmful
In the past three months I used tools and technology daily to identify and reinforce the right food safety behaviours
1. Always 2 Usually 3 About Half the Time 4 Seldom 5 Never
I intend to only act as coach whenever the plant teams solve food safety issues
1 Strongly Agree 2 Agree 3 Undecided 4 Disagree 5 Strongly Disagree
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
146
Question/Statement Rating
I intend to enter and report food safety performance daily in one place only
1 Strongly Agree 2 Agree 3 Undecided 4 Disagree 5 Strongly Disagree
In the past three months I often had to improvise because I or my team did not have the right tools to perform a food safety task
1. Always 2 Usually 3 About Half the Time 4 Seldom 5 Never
My behaviour too often having to improvise because I or my team do not have the right tools to perform a food safety task is …
1 Extremely beneficial 2 Slightly beneficial 3 Neither 4 Slightly harmful 5 Extremely harmful
My behaviour to only act as coach whenever the plant teams solve food safety issues is …
1 Extremely beneficial 2 Slightly beneficial 3 Neither 4 Slightly harmful 5 Extremely harmful
In the past three months I immediately removed food safety issues to avoid negative consequences for myself and my team
1. Always 2 Usually 3 About Half the Time 4 Seldom 5 Never
People whose opinion I value, at work and outside of it, approve of me immediately removing food safety issues to avoid negative consequences for myself and my team
1 Strongly Agree 2 Agree 3 Undecided 4 Disagree 5 Strongly Disagree
I intend to collect, analyze and report food safety data daily to plant staff to bring transparency on emerging issues
1 Strongly Agree 2 Agree 3 Undecided 4 Disagree 5 Strongly Disagree
I am certain that for the next three months I will work daily to improve food safety processes e.g. take out unnecessary steps, reduce lead-time, reduce resource needs
1 Very likely 2 Likely 3 Certain 4 Unlikely 5 Very unlikely
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
147
Question/Statement Rating
I am certain that for the next three months I will rarely have time to identify root cause of problems and mostly find myself fire fighting
1 Very likely 2 Likely 3 Certain 4 Unlikely 5 Very unlikely
When it comes to matters of food safety how much do you want to be like your working peers?
1 Very Important 2 Important 3 Neither Important or Unimportant 4 Unimportant 5 Very Unimportant
People whose opinion I value, at work and outside of it, approve of me only acting as coach whenever the plant teams solve food safety issues
1 Strongly Agree 2 Agree 3 Undecided 4 Disagree 5 Strongly Disagree
My behaviour to take action daily to let anybody know when they go above and beyond for food safety is …
1 Extremely beneficial 2 Slightly beneficial 3 Neither 4 Slightly harmful 5 Extremely harmful
My behaviour to always correct food safety behaviours immediately when I see an opportunity is …
1 Extremely beneficial 2 Slightly beneficial 3 Neither 4 Slightly harmful 5 Extremely harmful
I am certain that for the next three months I will only participate in food safety problem solving and follow up when asked by manufacturing
1 Very likely 2 Likely 3 Certain 4 Unlikely 5 Very unlikely
My behaviour to collect minimum weekly food safety data for filing purpose only is …
1 Extremely beneficial 2 Slightly beneficial 3 Neither 4 Slightly harmful 5 Extremely harmful
My behaviour to take action on food safety only when regulatory or customer compliance is at risk is …
1 Extremely beneficial 2 Slightly beneficial 3 Neither 4 Slightly harmful 5 Extremely harmful
People whose opinion I value, at work and outside of it, approve of me collecting, analyzing and reporting food safety data daily to plant staff to bring transparency on emerging issues
1 Strongly Agree 2 Agree 3 Undecided
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
148
Question/Statement Rating
4 Disagree 5 Strongly Disagree
In the past three months I rarely had time to identify root cause of problems and mostly found myself fire fighting
1. Always 2 Usually 3 About Half the Time 4 Seldom 5 Never
I intend to take action on food safety only when regulatory or customer compliance is at risk
1 Strongly Agree 2 Agree 3 Undecided 4 Disagree 5 Strongly Disagree
My behaviour to always ask others before taking action to solve a food safety problem is …
1 Extremely beneficial 2 Slightly beneficial 3 Neither 4 Slightly harmful 5 Extremely harmful
People whose opinion I value, at work and outside of it, approve of me working daily to improve food safety processes e.g. taking out unnecessary steps, reducing lead-time, reducing resource needs
1 Strongly Agree 2 Agree 3 Undecided 4 Disagree 5 Strongly Disagree
When it comes to food safety I am most influenced by what my family/friends outside work think I should do
1 Very Important 2 Important 3 Neither Important or Unimportant 4 Unimportant 5 Very Unimportant
My behaviour to work daily to improve food safety processes e.g. take out unnecessary steps, reduce lead-time, reduce resource needs is …
1 Extremely beneficial 2 Slightly beneficial 3 Neither 4 Slightly harmful 5 Extremely harmful
People whose opinion I value, at work and outside of it, approve of me often having to improvise because I or my team do not having the right tools to perform a food safety task
1 Strongly Agree 2 Agree 3 Undecided 4 Disagree 5 Strongly Disagree
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
149
Question/Statement Rating
I intend to work daily to improve food safety processes e.g. take out unnecessary steps, reduce lead-time, reduce resource needs
1 Strongly Agree 2 Agree 3 Undecided 4 Disagree 5 Strongly Disagree
I am certain that for the next three months I will immediately remove food safety issues to avoid negative consequences for myself and my team
1 Very likely 2 Likely 3 Certain 4 Unlikely 5 Very unlikely
My behaviour to always design my own tools e.g. spreadsheets and forms, to gather food safety data is …
1 Extremely beneficial 2 Slightly beneficial 3 Neither 4 Slightly harmful 5 Extremely harmful
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
150
Appendix F: Plant Maturity Models
Table F-1: Mean maturity score by plant by capability area
Capability
area
Doubt Plant 1 Plant 2 Plant 3 Plant 4 Plant 5 Plant 6 Plant 7 Plant 8
Perceived
value
Doubt 3.00 3.20 2.30 3.20 2.80 3.00 3.70 2.30
Perceived
value
Internalized 2.80 2.60 2.90 2.80 3.00 3.50 2.80 3.40
People
systems
Doubt 2.80 2.00 2.50 2.00 1.70 2.60 2.60 2.60
People
systems
Internalized 3.20 2.70 2.70 3.10 2.50 2.80 2.70 3.00
Process
thinking
Doubt 2.50 2.70 2.60 2.40 2.90 3.20 3.30 3.00
Process
thinking
Internalized 3.10 2.50 3.20 2.40 2.10 2.70 2.70 2.60
Technology Doubt 3.00 2.90 2.30 3.50 2.60 2.40 3.50 2.50
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
151
Capability
area
Doubt Plant 1 Plant 2 Plant 3 Plant 4 Plant 5 Plant 6 Plant 7 Plant 8
enabler
Technology
enabler
Internalized 2.30 1.80 2.20 1.70 1.00 2.50 2.30 2.30
Tools &
Infrastructure
Doubt 2.90 3.80 2.80 3.40 2.40 3.00 3.40 2.60
Tools &
Infrastructure
Internalized 3.30 2.80 3.10 2.60 3.00 3.40 2.90 2.40
Average 2.89 2.70 2.66 2.71 2.40 2.91 2.99 2.67
Max 3.30 3.80 3.20 3.50 3.00 3.50 3.70 3.40
Min 2.30 1.80 2.20 1.70 1.00 2.40 2.30 2.30
Plant 1.
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
152
Capability Area
(Identifier)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
Perceived Value l l
People System l l
Process Thinking l l
Technology
Enabler l l
Tools &
Infrastructure l l
Plant 1
Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5
The food safety maturity at plant 1 was calculated by competency areas (n=290). The
range of the mean scores was calculated based on scores in the maturity stage doubt and maturity
stage internalized. The black dots (l) indicate mean maturity score for each maturity level. The
results are centered on maturity stage 2 react to and maturity stage 3 know of. The highest
maturity score is found in the tools and infrastructure capability area closely followed by people
systems and perceived value. The largest range between the mean scores are seen in the
capability areas process thinking and technology enabler (Table F-2).
Table F-1: Plant 1 Food Safety Model
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
153
Capability Area
(Identifier)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
Perceived Value l l
People System l l
Process Thinking l l
Technology
Enabler l l
Tools &
Infrastructure l l
Stage 5Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4
Plant 2
Plant 2.
The food safety maturity at plant 2 was calculated by competency areas (n=482). The
range of the mean scores was calculated based on scores in the maturity stage doubt and maturity
stage internalized. The black dots (l) indicate mean maturity score for each maturity level. The
results are centered on maturity stage 2 react to and maturity stage 3 know of. The highest
maturity score is found in tools and infrastructure capability area followed by perceived value.
People systems, process thinking, and technology enabler tie for the lowest scores. The largest
range between the mean scores is seen in the capability areas technology enabler and tools and
infrastructure (Table F-3).
Table F-3: Plant 2 Food Safety Model
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
154
Plant 3.
The food safety maturity at plant 3 was calculated by competency areas (n=186). The
range of the mean scores was calculated based on scores in the maturity stage doubt and maturity
stage internalized. The black dots (l) indicate mean maturity score for each maturity level. The
results are centered on maturity stage 2 react to and maturity stage 3 know of. The highest
maturity score is found in the process thinking capability area closely followed by tools and
infrastructure. Perceived value and people systems follow and the lowest score is found in the
capability area technology enabled. The largest range between the mean scores is seen in the
capability areas perceived value and process thinking (Table F-4).
Table F-4: Plant 3 Food Safety Maturity Model
Capability Area
(Identifier)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
Perceived Value l l
People System l l
Process Thinking l l
Technology
Enabler l l
Tools &
Infrastructure l l
Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5
Plant 3
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
155
Plant 4.
The food safety maturity at plant 4 was calculated by competency areas (n=331). The
range of the mean scores was calculated based on scores in the maturity stage doubt and maturity
stage internalized. The black dots (l) indicate mean maturity score for each maturity level. The
results are centered on maturity stage 2 react to and maturity stage 3 know of. The highest
maturity score is found in the technology enabler area closely followed by tools and
infrastructure. Perceived value and people systems follow and the lowest score is associated with
the capability area process thinking. The largest range between the mean scores was seen in the
capability areas people systems and technology enabler (Table F-5).
Capability Area
(Identifier)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
Perceived Value l l
People System l l
Process Thinking l
Technology
Enabler l l
Tools &
Infrastructure l l
Plant 4
Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5
Table F-5: Plant 4 Food Safety Maturity Model
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
156
Plant 5.
The food safety maturity at plant 5 was calculated by competency areas (n=121). The
range of the mean scores was calculated based on scores in the maturity stage doubt and maturity
stage internalized. The black dots (l) indicate mean maturity score for each maturity level. The
results are centered on maturity stage 1 doubt, maturity stage 2 react to and maturity stage 3
know of. The highest maturity score is found in the perceived value and tools and infrastructure
areas closely followed by process thinking. Technology enabler and process thinking follow with
the lowest scores. The largest range between the mean scores was seen in the capability area
technology enabler (Table F-6).
Capability Area
(Identifier)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
Perceived Value l l
People System l l
Process Thinking l l
Technology
Enabler l l
Tools &
Infrastructure l l
Plant 5
Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5
Table F-6: Plant 5 Food Safety Maturity Model
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
157
Capability Area
(Identifier)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
Perceived Value l l
People System l l
Process Thinking l l
Technology
Enabler l l
Tools &
Infrastructure l l
Plant 6
Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5
Plant 6.
The food safety maturity at plant 6 was calculated by competency areas (n=186). The
range of the mean scores was calculated based on scores in the maturity stage doubt and maturity
stage internalized. The black dots (l) indicate mean maturity score for each maturity level. The
results are centered on maturity stage 2 react to and maturity stage 3 know of. The highest
maturity score is found in the perceived value capability area closely followed by tools and
infrastructure. Process thinking is next followed by people systems and lastly technology
enabled. The largest range between the mean scores was seen in the capability areas perceived
value and process thinking (Table F-7).
Table F-7: Plant 6 Food Safety Maturity Model
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
158
Plant 7.
The food safety maturity at plant 7 was calculated by competency areas (n=290). The
range of the mean scores was calculated based on scores in the maturity stage doubt and maturity
stage internalized. The black dots (l) indicate mean maturity score for each maturity level. The
results are centered on maturity stage 2 react to and maturity stage 3 know of. The highest
maturity score is found in the perceived value area closely followed by technology enabler.
Tools and infrastructure and process thinking follow and the lowest score was associated with
the capability area people systems. The largest range between the mean scores was seen in the
capability areas perceived value and technology enabler (Table F-8).
Capability Area
(Identifier)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
Perceived Value l l
People System l
Process Thinking l l
Technology
Enabler l l
Tools &
Infrastructure l l
Plant 7
Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5
Table F-8: Plant 7 Food Safety Maturity Model
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
159
Plant 8.
The food safety maturity at plant 4 was calculated by competency areas (n=620). The
range of the mean scores was calculated based on scores in the maturity stage doubt and maturity
stage internalized. The black dots (l) indicate mean maturity score for each maturity level. The
results are centered on maturity stage 2 react to and maturity stage 3 know of. The highest
maturity score is found in the perceived value area closely followed by people systems and
process thinking. Technology enabler and tools and infrastructure follow with the lowest scores.
The largest range between the mean scores was seen in the capability area perceived value
(Table F-9).
Capability Area
(Identifier)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
Perceived Value l l
People System l l
Process Thinking l l
Technology
Enabler l l
Tools &
Infrastructure l l
Plant 8
Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5
Table F-9: Plant 8 Food Safety Maturity Model
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
160
Appendix G: Glossary
Sector = food service, food manufacturing, retail.
Table 1C: Stages with descriptors
Stage Description
Stage 1: Doubt Who messed up?”, “Food safety – QA does that?”
Stage 2: React to “How much time will it take? I am very busy. We are good at
and reward good fighter fighting”
Stage 3: Know of “I know it is important but I can only fix one problem at a time”
Stage 4: Predict “Here we plan and execute with knowledge, data and patience”
Stage 5: Internalize “Food safety is integrated into sustaining and growing our
business”
Table 2C: Capability areas with descriptors
Capability Area Description
Perceived Value Regulatory must do vs. critical to business performance
People System Task based, lack of responsibility vs. behaviour based working
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
161
group accountability
Process Thinking Independent task vs. iterative process build on critical thinking
and data
Technology Enabler Turning data into information; manual and independent vs.
automatically and as part of BPM
Tools & Infrastructure Having to walk far to get to a sink vs. conveniently located
sinks
Table 3A: Technical Performance Metrics
Input
(Units)
Definition Calculations
HACCP deviation Codex Alimentarius Definition
“Deviation: Failure to meet a critical limit.”
Where monitoring detects loss of control of a
CCP then corrective actions should be taken.
In other words, a HACCP deviation in its
strictest sense can only originate from a CCP.
Count of HACCP
deviations
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
162
Input
(Units)
Definition Calculations
Food Safety Enhancement Program
(FSEP) Definition
"Deviation - A failure to meet required
critical limits for a critical control point, or a
failure to meet a standard identified in a
prerequisite program or a process control.”
(FSEP Manual, July 2010 version)
A HACCP deviation cannot result
from a customer complaint, CFIA actions, or
third party auditing. A HACCP deviation can
only result from internal findings.
Sanitation Performance
Table 3C: Sanitation performance definitions
Input (Units) Definition Calculations
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
163
Total Number and
Number of
Unacceptable
Visual Pre-Op
Inspections
Verification inspection is done after sanitation
clean down has taken place in order to
approve the area or equipment sanitized as
suitable for hand back to production. This
visual inspection and approval was recorded
on a check sheet to confirm that it had been
done. This is a measure of the acceptability
of those inspections.
((Total –
Unacceptable)/Total) x
100 = Per-cent
Acceptable Visual Pre-
Op Inspections
Total Number and
Number of
Unacceptable Pre-
Op Micro Tests
Includes only total plate count (TPC) tests
performed at plant level after sanitation and
before operations to verify that the equipment
or area has been cleaned to an acceptable
standard.
((Total –
Unacceptable)/Total) x
100 = Per-cent
Acceptable Pre-Op Micro
Tests
Total Number and
Number of
Unacceptable ATP
Tests
This measure is applicable only to plants that
currently use ATP (Adenosine Triphosphate)
swabs. It is performed at plant level after
sanitation and before operations to verify the
equipment has been cleaned to an acceptable
standard.
((Total –
Unacceptable)/Total) x
100 = Per-cent
Acceptable ATP Tests
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
164
Audit Performance
Table 3C: Audit definitions and calculations
Input (Units) Definition Calculations
Third Party Audit
Non-
Conformances
(NCs)
Audit conducted by a third-party auditor to
the British Retail Consortium (BRC)
standard.
Count of NCs
Internal Audit
NCs
A systematic, independent* and documented
process conducted by, or on behalf of, the
organization itself for management review
and other internal purposes for obtaining audit
evidence and evaluating it objectively to
determine the extent to which the audit
criteria are fulfilled. Only NCs arising from
this type of audit should be logged as internal
audit NCs.
*Note: “Independent” means someone
within their own area of accountability
Count of NCs
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
165
cannot complete the audit or own work.
Training Performance
Table 5A: Training performance definition
Input (Units) Definition Calculations
Training events Each SISTEM module delivered to an hourly
employee counts as a “training event”. The
standard is one training event per hourly
employee per period, tracked as a 12-month
rolling average.
(Number of training
events/number of
SISTEM licenses*) x 100
= per-cent SISTEM
utilization.
MEASURING FOOD SAFETY CULTURE IN FOOD MANUFACTURING.
166