Quantitative study of food safety climate in Belgian food processing companies in view of their organizational characteristics

The Evolution and Cultural Framing of Food Safety Management Systems—Where From and Where Next?

“…() distinguish four main context factors, which can affect control and assurance activities in an FSMS (Kirezieva et al., ; Luning & Marcelis, ; Luning et al., ; Manning & Luning, ): Product characteristics , that is, the “intrinsic” properties of initial materials and final products. Production characteristics , that is, the “extrinsic” conditions utilized during primary production, processing, or handling. Organisational characteristics specific to the organisation itself. These can be further subdivided into individual (people) characteristics, group characteristics (transformational characteristics associated with food safety culture and quality culture), organisational structures (transactional division of tasks, responsibilities, rules, procedures), and information systems , which affect peoples’ decision‐making behavior (see De Boeck, Jacxsens, Mortier, & Vlerick, ); and Chain characteristics , that is, the conditions during supply, and relationships within the supply chain. …”

“…r Organisational characteristics specific to the organisation itself. These can be further subdivided into individual (people) characteristics, group characteristics (transformational characteristics associated with food safety culture and quality culture), organisational structures (transactional division of tasks, responsibilities, rules, procedures), and information systems, which affect peoples' decision-making behavior (see De Boeck, Jacxsens, Mortier, & Vlerick, 2018); and r Chain characteristics, that is, the conditions during supply, and relationships within the supply chain.…”

Terminology and the understanding of culture, climate, and behavioural change – Impact of organisational and human factors on food safety management

“…Further, where there is a good Food Safety Management System (FSMS) with a positive compliance culture, it is possible to reduce the risks to the consumer (Griffith et al, 2010a). This may be due to a combination of leadership, communication and FSMS compliance, as illustrated in the study by De Boeck et al (2018), who found that one company with multiple food processing sites had a better food safety climate than a one-site operating company. The multiple site company was stronger in leadership, communication and commitment and this suggests that it could be due to a larger workforce requiring a structured approach (De Boeck et al, 2018).…”

“…This may be due to a combination of leadership, communication and FSMS compliance, as illustrated in the study by De Boeck et al (2018), who found that one company with multiple food processing sites had a better food safety climate than a one-site operating company. The multiple site company was stronger in leadership, communication and commitment and this suggests that it could be due to a larger workforce requiring a structured approach (De Boeck et al, 2018). In addition, Ball et al (2009) and Hinsz and Nickell (2015) showed predictive validity between culture and behaviours, and Denison (1996) showed the same through his organisational culture work.…”

Influence of food safety culture on food handler behaviour and food safety performance of food processing organisations

“…De Boeck et al, 2015;Griffith et al, 2017;Fatimah et al, 2014b;Nyarugwe et al, 2018). Recent studies have therefore stressed the importance of food safety culture (FS-culture) in food safety performance (De Boeck et al, 2018;De Boeck et al, 2019;Jespersen et al, 2017;Manning, 2018;Nayak & Taylor, 2018;Nyarugwe et al, 2016). Food companies nowadays attempt to create and sustain a culture of food safety, evidenced by efforts of e.g.…”