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

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to review the development of food safety management systems (FSMS) from their origins in the 1950s to the present. The food safety challenges in modern food supply systems are explored and it is argued that there is a need for a more holistic thinking approach to food safety management. The narrative review highlights that while the transactional elements of how FSMS are developed, validated, implemented, monitored, and verified remains largely unchanged, how organizational culture frames the operation and efficacy of FSMS is becoming more important. The evolution of a wider academic and industry understanding of both the influence of food safety culture (FS‐culture) and also how such culture frames and enables, or conversely restricts the efficacy of the FSMS is crucial for consumer well‐being. Potential research gaps worthy of further study are identified as well as recommendations given for the application of the research findings within the food industry.

Moving from a compliance‐based to an integrity‐based organizational climate in the food supply chain

“…Instead the effective functioning of the organization is promoted through five distinct cultural dimensions: altruism, courtesy, civic virtue, conscientiousness, and sportsmanship (Organ, 1988). The cultural framing described here drives an organization from exhibiting purely transactional, reactive, and tactical behavior to instead being transformational, proactive, and strategic in their activities (Manning, 2017b; Manning, Luning, & Wallace, 2019). Integrity‐based management systems focus on values and ethics.…”

“…This ECQ approach operates at three levels: the individual (microlevel); the local (mesolevel), and the wider environment in which the business operates (macrolevel). The use of this triple locus of analysis (macro–meso–micro) can be seen in a number of studies that focus on organizational culture in the food supply chain (Kirezieva et al., 2013; Kirezieva et al., 2015; Luning et al., 2011; Manning et al., 2019; Nayak & Waterson, 2016). This means that multiple climate characteristics can exist and can be exhibited within the same organization at the same time and at different loci of analysis.…”

“…Legislative and supply chain standards that are compliance based, prescriptive, and inflexible can drive the development of a least cost, transactional food safety management systems (see Table 10) rather than the development of bespoke outcomes based sociotechnical food safety systems with cultural maturity (see Manning et al., 2019). Extending the concept of cultural maturity to embrace wider food policy aspects allows consideration of how to transition from a compliance‐based to an integrity‐based organizational climate in the food supply chain.…”

“…Indeed, Lebaron and Lister (2015, p. 908) argue that supply chain verification activity, including auditing, “ultimately disguises a normative, market‐based policy agenda in seemingly objective tools and metrics.” They determine that even though compliance audits are seen as neutral and objective, there is an underlying politicization of audit design, audit scope, and the outsourcing of the verification process to third parties by corporate interests. As can be seen with the GFSI benchmarking equivalence process, this industry approach creates isomorphism promoting a common set of normative values and rules, and as a consequence leads to similar practices and organizational structures across supply chains (Manning et al., 2019; Othman, Ahmad, & Zailani, 2009). Isomorphism is the continuous and mutual adaption toward a normative common standard and can be driven by organizations mimicking others to create better success or to reinforce their level of legitimacy (Amran & Haniffa, 2011; Czinkota, Kaufmann, & Basile, 2014).…”

Current Status of Mycotoxin Contamination of Food and Feeds and Associated Public Health Risk in Serbia

“…The basic idea of HACCP system is to manage food safety based on risk management principles and cover a range of biological, chemical and physical hazards (Akkerman et al, 2010;Maldonado-Siman et al, 2014). Historical and current thinking limits the scope of FSMS to the control and management of the aforementioned hazards, but does not included the wider consideration of prevention of NCDs, although it can be argued that NCDs could involve "conditions of food with the potential to cause an adverse health effect" (Manning et al, 2019). It could be supposed that organizations need to consider how these developments will influence the categorization of food hazards and intoxication in the future (Manning, 2019) and the impact on management approaches to mycotoxin hazard control and management.…”