6 pages

HACCP Effectiveness Between ISO 22000 Certified and Non Certi 2015 Food Cont

of 6
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
HACCP Effectiveness Between ISO 22000 Certified and Non Certi 2015 Food Cont
  HACCP effectiveness between ISO 22000 certi 󿬁 ed and non-certi 󿬁 eddairy companies Evangelos L. Psomas  1 , Dimitrios P. Kafetzopoulos * Department of Business Administration of Food and Agricultural Enterprises, University of Patras, 2 George Seferis str., GR-301 00, Agrinio, Greece a r t i c l e i n f o  Article history: Received 16 July 2014Received in revised form27 December 2014Accepted 3 January 2015Available online 29 January 2015 Keywords: HACCPFSS effectivenessISO 22000Dairy SMEs a b s t r a c t The purpose of the study is to determine the differences between the ISO 22000 certi 󿬁 ed and non-certi 󿬁 ed dairy companies with regard to the HACCP (Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points) FoodSafety System (FSS) effectiveness. The HACCP FSS effectiveness is de 󿬁 ned in the present study as thedegree of the achievement of the system objectives (identi 󿬁 cation, assessment and the control of foodborne safety hazards). A research study was carried out in 74 Greek dairy companies using a structuredquestionnaire. The differences between the ISO 22000 certi 󿬁 ed and non-certi 󿬁 ed dairy companies (bothimplementing HACCP principles) with regard to HACCP effectiveness are determined through nonparametric tests such as the Chi-square Test and the Mann e Whitney Test. The vast majority of theparticipating in the present study dairy companies are small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). TheISO 22000 certi 󿬁 ed dairy companies signi 󿬁 cantly outperform the non-certi 󿬁 ed with regard to the HACCPFSS effectiveness, in other words to the degree to which the objectives of HACCP are achieved. Thus,managers of dairy SMEs taking advantageof the structured organization and the documentedproceduresprovided by the ISO 22000 standard can increase the level of achieving the objectives of the HACCP FSS,in other words HACCP effectiveness. In doing so, dairy SMEs can set the foundations in order to optimizethe conditions under which safe food is provided, minimize the possibility of food non-conformities andscandals, increase market share and consequently withstand the current downturn. ©  2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction Nowadays, changes in consumer eating habits and in the globalfood market are often recorded (Bilalis, Stathis, Konstantas,  & Patsiali, 2009). Furthermore, consumers, due to the frequency of manyfoodscandals(Bilalisetal.,2009),arehighlyconcernedaboutfoodsafety(Gaaloul,Riabi, & Ghorbel,2011).Theemergingneedforhigher food safety has led to stricter speci 󿬁 cations and re-quirements regarding food safety and the management of foodsafetyhazards.Thesespeci 󿬁 cationsandrequirementsareseteitherby customers or legislation or the food company itself. These cir-cumstances have been taken into consideration by the food in-dustryand as a result food safety plays the most important role notonly in food production, but in any stage of the food supply chain(supply-processing-distribution) (Bilalis et al., 2009).In order that a food company is able to conform to food safetyspeci 󿬁 cations and requirements, food safety systems (FSS) havebeen created and launched worldwide (Botonaki, Polymeros,Tsakiridou,  &  Mattas, 2006). More speci 󿬁 cally, in the food in-dustry,FSSthatarebasedontheHACCPprinciples(HazardAnalysisof Critical Control Points) or on the more recently launched ISO22000 standard (Motarjemi  &  Mortimore, 2005; Nguyen, Wilcock, & Aung,2004);areappliedtoensurefoodsafety,topreventliabilityclaims and to build and maintain the trust of consumers(Kafetzopoulos, Gotzamani,  &  Fotopoulos, 2013a). The HACCPapproach is the basic element of the ISO 22000 standard (ISO22000, 2005). Arouma (2006) also states that HACCP re- quirementsareanintrinsicpartofISO22000.Itisworthnotingthata food company can either simply implement the principles of HACCP,withoutholdinganycerti 󿬁 cation,orimplement HACCPandsimultaneously be ISO 22000 certi 󿬁 ed.Arvanitoyannis and Mavropoulos (2000) point out that theimplementation of systems aiming to ensure safety (e.g. HACCP) inthefoodindustryand,inparticular,indairycompanieshasresultedin a remarkable improvement in terms of dairy product safety andquality. Eves and Dervisi (2005) state that HACCP per se does not *  Corresponding author. Tel.:  þ 30 26410 74123; fax:  þ 30 26410 74168. E-mail addresses: (E.L. Psomas), Kafetzopoulos). 1 Tel.:  þ 30 26410 74123; fax:  þ 30 26410 74168. Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Food Control journal homepage: ©  2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Food Control 53 (2015) 134 e 139  make safe food, but its correct and effective application can makethe difference. However, inpractice, the effectiveness of the HACCPFSS is often unsatisfactory due to unexpected outcomes in the foodproduction conditions and the behaviour of the people thatimplement it (Azanza  &  Zamora-Luna, 2005; van der Spiegel,Luningy, Ziggers,  &  Jongen, 2004). Moreover, certifying the FSS (forexample through ISO 22000) does not guarantee absolute foodsafety and quality of the end product, so a food industry shouldundertake additional activities, such as staff training, plansimprovement, cross tests, etc (Bilalis et al., 2009).Taylor and Taylor (2004) state that there has been little work onfully understanding the conditions under which HACCP effective-ness is fully achieved, which would help companies identifyintervention strategies with regard to their performanceimprovement. Bas, Yoksel, and  Н avuoo 󿬂 u (2007) suggest theeffective implementation of HACCP be further explored.Fotopoulos, Kafetzopoulos, and Psomas (2009) also recommendthat the impact of the critical factor namely the  “ system attributes ” (e.g.ISO22000)onHACCPeffectivenessshouldbefurtherexplored,not only in the whole food industry but in different food sub-sectors. Bilalis et al. (2009) state that due to ignorance on thepart of consumers and market conditions, the comparison of thetwo models (HACCP and ISO 22000) is essential, in order for abusiness to be certi 󿬁 ed with the ISO 22000 standard.Based on the above, it is apparent that there is a gap in theliterature with regard to the HACCP FSS effectiveness. The presentstudy contributes to the existing body of literature by examiningthedifferencesbetweenISO22000certi 󿬁 edandnon-certi 󿬁 eddairycompanies with regard tothe degree towhich HACCP effectivenessis achieved. Non parametric tests such as the Chi-square Test andthe Mann e Whitney Test are applied for this purpose.Therestofthepaperisstructuredasfollows:inthe 󿬁 rstpart,theeffectiveness of the HACCP FSS is de 󿬁 ned and the objectives of thesystem and their respective indicators are identi 󿬁 ed. Havingrevised the literature, the research hypothesis of the present studyis formulated. In the next part of the paper, the methodology of aresearch study carried out in Greek dairy companies is described.This is followed by the analysis and the respective results. In thenext part of the paper, the results are discussed and the  󿬁 nal con-clusions and the practical implications are presented. Finally, thelimitations of the study and future research recommendations arealso presented. 2. Theoretical background Dairy products traditionallyconstitute a prime source of humannutrition. Today, many dairy varieties are consistently consumedthroughout theworldeither directlyor as ingredients of other food(e.g. pastries, pies, etc.) (Chountalas, Tsarouchas,  &  Lagodimos,2009). Dairy products are biological and biochemical dynamicfood products and consequently, inherently unstable. Therefore,theadherencetoastrictqualitysystemisofparamountimportancefor ensuring the safe production of dairy products (Arvanitoyannis &  Mavropoulos, 2000). Consequently, the implementation of theHACCP FSS (or the ISO 22000 standard) by food companies is of great importance in order to produce microbiologically safe food(Khandke  &  Mayes, 1998; Nguyen et al., 2004).  2.1. De  󿬁 ning the effectiveness of the HACCP FSS  Dumond (1994) de 󿬁 nes  “ effectiveness ”  as the extent to which afunctionmeetsitsgoals,whileO'DonnellandDuffy(2002)describe “ effectiveness ”  as the degree to which results meet prescribedgoals. Similarly, Al Nakeeb, Williams, Hibberd, and Gronow (1998)state that if a company meets prescribed quality objectives thenit is deemed effective. In other words, effectiveness focuses on theextent to which the targets or goals of an organization or a system(e.g. HACCP) are achieved (Dumond,1994; Kafetzopoulos, Psomas, &  Kafetzopoulos, 2013b; Neely, Gregory,  &  Platts, 1995; Redshaw,2000). So, from the above it is apparent that in order to assessthe effectiveness of the HACCP FSS, the objectives of the system aswell as their indicators should be identi 󿬁 ed.  2.2. Identifying the HACCP FSS objectives and their indicators Authors such as van der Spiegel et al. (2004), Eves and Dervisi(2005), Burlingame and Pineiro (2007), Trienekens and Zuurbier(2008) and Domenech, Escriche, and Martorell (2008), claim that the identi 󿬁 cation, assessment and the control of food borne safetyhazards are the objectives of the HACCP FSS that affect its effec-tiveness. The indicators of the HACCP FSS objectives used in thepresent study are drawn from the guidance of the Food and Agri-culture Organization (Food and Agriculture Organization, 2007) aswell as the studies of the following authors: Sperber (1997),Mortimore (2000), Ababouch (2000), Wallace and Powell (2005)and Luning, Bango, Kussaga, Rovira, and Marcelis (2008), (Table 1).  Table 1 HACCP objectives and their indicators.Objectives Indicators a Identi 󿬁 cation of foodborne safety hazardsFlow charts of procedures are frequently revised byexperts.All stages of the procedures in which safetyproblems may occur are determined anddocumented.The HACCP team identi 󿬁 es all hazards pertaining tofood ingredients.The HACCP team uses brainstorming in order toidentify food safety problems and their causes.The HACCP team uses literature data bases toidentify food borne safety hazards.Experts note the product characteristics that createfood safety problems.Evidence is provided regarding the determinationof food safety problems.Assessment of foodborne safety hazardsEmployees fully recognize the signi 󿬁 cance andcriticality of any food safety problem.Documented procedures are implemented so thatsafety problems can be assessed.The HACCP team assesses and classi 󿬁 es each foodsafety problem according to occurrence probabilityand its criticality.The HACCP team collects data for assessing hazardcriticality.The HACCP team uses literature data bases to assessthe food borne safety hazards.The HACCP team has the knowledge and the know-how in order to assess the food borne safetyhazards.Control of food bornesafety hazardsA food company demonstrates the suitability of themethods and devices used for controlling foodsafety problems.Instructions are provided for monitoring processparameters at the control measures.The food company uses statistical methods forcontrolling food safety problems.Reliable and valid procedures are used formonitoring and controlling food safety problems.External audit results con 󿬁 rm the suitability of themethods used for monitoring and controlling foodsafety problems.The programs for monitoring and controlling foodsafety problems detect any excess of the limits inthe Critical Control Points (CCPs). a Drawn from (FAO, 2007), Luning et al. (2008), Wallace and Powell (2005), Mortimore (2000), Ababouch (2000) and Sperber (1997). E.L. Psomas, D.P. Kafetzopoulos / Food Control 53 (2015) 134 e 139  135  3. Research hypothesis formulation Taylor and Kane (2005) note that the establishment, develop-ment and maintenance of an effective HACCP FSS depend on acomplicated mixture of managerial and technical constraints (e.g.those that are being set by the ISO 22000 FSS). Motarjemi andKaferstein (1999) mention that predicting and managing foodborne hazards depends on different factors such as company in-frastructures and a company's ability to assure food hygiene con-ditions. Fotopoulos et al. (2009) state that the effectiveimplementation of the HACCP FSS, in other words meeting HACCPobjectives (identi 󿬁 cation, assessmentand thecontrol of food bornesafety hazards), is strongly in 󿬂 uenced by factors such as humanresources attributes and company attributes.FSS that are based on the requirements of the ISO 22000standard or the principles of HACCP are regarded worldwide aseffective means for assuring food safety in the course of foodhandling and processing and retail sales to consumers, while bothare applied throughout the whole food chain (Domenech et al.,2008). The effectiveness of the HACCP FSS in 󿬂 uences the imple-mentation of ISO 22000 (ISO 22000, 2005). The ISO 22000 stan-dard helps food companies establish a FSS that is well designed,effective and continuously revised as a part of the companymanagement system (Chountalas et al., 2009). According toGrif  󿬁 th, Livesey, and Clayton (2010), the basis of good food safetyperformance is a good food safety management system. However,they also mention that in isolation this is insuf  󿬁 cient and a highlevel of compliance is necessary for the production of safe food(Grif  󿬁 th et al., 2010).Implementing HACCP through the ISO 22000 FSS also meansthat a more integrated and effective management system isadopted than simply implementing HACCP principles(Chountalas et al., 2009). The most effective FSS is established,operated and updated within the framework of a structuredmanagement system and incorporated into the overall manage-ment activities of the organization (Khatri  &  Collins, 2007). TheISO 22000 standard offers an alternative to food enterprises thatdo not implement ISO 9001 and want to have an effective foodsafety management system (Aggelogiannopoulos, Drossinos,  & Athanasopoulos, 2007).Based on the above, the following research hypothesis isformulated:RH: The ISO 22000 certi 󿬁 ed dairy companies achieve signi 󿬁 -cantly higher levels of the HACCP FSS effectiveness than the non-ISO 22000 certi 󿬁 ed. 4. Materials and methods 4.1. Questionnaire development  The above formulated research hypothesis stimulated thedesign of a research study, where preliminary data would becollected from Greek dairy companies. The data collection methodwas that of the questionnaire. Based on the literature, the HACCPFSS effectiveness is described through the system objectives andthe respective indicators. The initial version of the questionnairewas reviewed by academics and pilot-tested by professionals. Inorder to improve the clarity and understanding of the questions, afew of them were re-phrased.The 󿬁 nalversionofthequestionnaireconsistsofthreeparts.The 󿬁 rst part includes questions on the demographic pro 󿬁 le of a com-pany. The second part contains statements with regard to theHACCPFSSeffectivenessandmorespeci 󿬁 callystatementsassessingthe degree to which a dairy company identi 󿬁 es, assesses and con-trols food borne safety hazards (the three HACCP objectives).Respondents were asked to indicate the degree of agreement ordisagreement with these statements, using a seven-point Likertscale, where 1 represented  “ strongly disagree ”  and 7 represented “ strongly agree ” . 4.2. Sample Thepresentstudyfocusesonfoodcompaniesthatproducedairyproducts. According to the Greek Organization for Certi 󿬁 cation andInspection of Agricultural Products called Agrocert, 519 dairycompanieswererecordedinitsdatabaseduringtheperiodthatthepresent study was carried out. All these dairy companies imple-ment a FSS based on HACCP principles, as theyare obliged to do bylaw (since 2006). However, some of them have been certi 󿬁 ed ac-cording to the ISO 22000 standard. Thus, the 519 dairy companiesconstitute the companies of interest to the present research study.Using a simple random sampling, a sample of 300 dairy companieswas selected in order to participate in the research study. It wasrequested the questionnaire be answered by the company repre-sentative responsible for the FSS. Both mail and face to face in-terviews were used in order to collect the preliminary data. Finally,74 completed questionnaires were received  e  a response rate of 24.6%.Based on whether the responding dairy companies have beencerti 󿬁 ed according to ISO 22000, two clusters of companies arecreated: those which implement the HACCP FSS without holdingany certi 󿬁 cation (non-ISO 22000 certi 󿬁 ed, 31.1% e 23 companies);andthosewhichimplement theHACCPFSS andhave beencerti 󿬁 edaccording to ISO 22000 (68.9% e  51 companies).Given that the responses were returned within an 8-weekperiod, the earlyand late responding companies were compared interms of the number of their employees and the questionnaireitems and no statistically signi 󿬁 cant differences were found.Furthermore, several non-responding dairy companies stated,when contacted, that the major reason for not participating in theresearchstudywaslackoftime.So,itisapparentthatnon-responsebias is not likely to be an issue in the  󿬁 nal sample. 4.3. Data analysis The non parametric Mann e Whitney Test is used in order tomake comparisons between the ISO 22000 certi 󿬁 ed and non-ISO22000 certi 󿬁 ed dairy companies, with respect to the achieve-mentof HACCP objectives. The Chi-squaretest is also used in orderto compare the sub-samples of the dairycompanies with regard totheir size. The small size of the overall sample and sub-samples of the responding dairy companies and the fact that the assumptionof multivariate normality seems to be violated are the criteria bywhich the non-parametric tests are chosen for comparing the sub-samples. The statistical package SPSS 20 is used for dataprocessing. 5. Results 5.1. The company pro  󿬁 les The vast majority of the responding dairy companies are small-medium sized (94.6%). Based on the Commission Recommendation2003/361/EC concerning the de 󿬁 nition of small and medium-sizedenterprises (SMEs), the responding dairy companies can be furthercategorized as follows: micro enterprises ( < 10 employees, 40.5%),small enterprises (11 e 50 employees, 31.1%), and medium enter-prises (51 e 250 employees, 23.0%). However, only 5.4% of theresponding companies are not SMEs, meaning that they have morethan 250 employees. E.L. Psomas, D.P. Kafetzopoulos / Food Control 53 (2015) 134 e 139 136  5.2. Comparing the ISO 22000 certi  󿬁 ed and non-ISO 22000 certi  󿬁 eddairy companies In this part of the paper comparisons are made between the ISO22000 certi 󿬁 ed dairy companies (51) and the non-ISO 22000certi 󿬁 ed (23). No statistically signi 󿬁 cant differences are observedwith regard to company size (based on the number of employees).More speci 󿬁 cally, in both clusters of the dairy companies there aremicro, small, medium and large-sized enterprises (Table 2).Comparingthetwoclustersof thedairycompaniesbasedonthemean values of the HACCP FSS objectives (Table 3), we observestatistically signi 󿬁 cant differences with respect to the  “ hazardidenti 󿬁 cation ” ,  “ hazard assessment ”  and the  “ hazard control ” objective of HACCP. More speci 󿬁 cally, the degree to which the ISO22000 certi 󿬁 ed dairy companies identify, assess and control foodsafety hazards within the framework of HACCP, compared to non-ISO 22000 certi 󿬁 ed, increases signi 󿬁 cantly. 6. Discussion 6.1. The company pro  󿬁 les The vast majority of the participating in the present study dairycompanies are SMEs. However, this is not unexpected, having inmind the research  󿬁 ndings of  Fotopoulos et al. (2009) andFotopoulos, Psomas, and Vouzas (2010), regarding the small-medium character of the Greek food companies they studied.Vlachos(2009)alsomentionsthatintheGreekfoodmanufacturingsector the majority of companies are SMEs, while, similarly,Panigyrakis,Kapareliotis,andVentoura(2009),statethatthesizeof the Greek manufacturing companies in general is quite small. It isworth noting that in Greece, many companies, irrespective of thesector towhichtheybelong,arefamily-ownedcompanies.So,theirsmall size, based on the number of employees, is partly justi 󿬁 ed(Psomas, Fotopoulos,  &  Kafetzopoulos, 2011). Psychogios andSzamosi (2007) also mention that the majority of Greek busi-nesses are not only small sized but family oriented. 6.2. HACCP FSS effectiveness and ISO 22000 certi  󿬁 cation The level to which the responding dairy SMEs, either ISO 22000certi 󿬁 ed or not, implement the proposed practices that re 󿬂 ect theHACCPFSS objectivesis deemedsatisfactory.The ampleexperienceof the implementation of HACCP justi 󿬁 es the high level of man-aging food safety hazards. However, the ISO 22000 certi 󿬁 ed dairycompanies achieve signi 󿬁 cantly higher levels of the HACCP FSSeffectiveness than the non-ISO 22000 certi 󿬁 ed.  Τ he implementa-tion and certi 󿬁 cation of ISO 22000 may be the reason why the ISO22000certi 󿬁 eddairySMEsoutperformthenon-ISO22000certi 󿬁 edin identifying, assessing and controlling food borne safety hazards.Thus, we accept the research hypothesis formulated in the presentstudy.Based on the empirical evidence from the present study, itseems that the ISO 22000 certi 󿬁 ed companies identify better thefood borne safety hazards through examining in depth all thestages of the critical processes, and authorizing the safety team todetermine the hazards' characteristics based on the literature andexperts on the  󿬁 eld. Finally, these dairy companies provideappropriate evidence for documenting all the food safety problemsoccurred. The ISO 22000 certi 󿬁 ed companies also assess better thefoodbornesafetyhazardsusingdocumentedprocedures.Theybasetheir assessment on the criticality and probability of occurrence of the hazards that is determined through historical or longitudinaldata of dairy companies, the knowledge and experience of theHACCP team and the literature. The ISO 22000 certi 󿬁 ed companieshaving successfully identi 󿬁 ed and assessed the food borne safetyhazards,  󿬁 nally control them better, and thus, detect successfullyany excess of the limits in the Critical Control Points. The control of the hazards is based on reliable and valid procedures using up todate devices, statistical methods, suf  󿬁 cient instructions for moni-toring process parametersatthecontrolmeasuresandinternal andexternal audits.It seems that the ISO 22000 standard with its structure andrequirements signi 󿬁 cantly helps dairy SMEs manage the foodsafety hazards. In other words, the guidance provided by the ISO22000 requirements to the diary SMEs seems to be more effectivein managing food safety hazards than simply implementing HACCPprinciples. According tothe ISO 22000 standard (ISO 22000, 2005),the identi 󿬁 cation, assessment and control of food borne safetyhazards should be intrinsic parts of a well documented FSS. Themain responsibility for establishing such a FSS belongs to topmanagement. Characteristic elements of a robust ISO 22000 FSSthat certainly helps a dairy company manage effectively the foodhazards and achieve the objectives of HACCP are the following: astrength top management commitment, a clear food safety policyand plan, authorization of the food safety team to manage the foodhazards, open communication channels throughout the food sup-ply chain and a prompt response to emergency situations.Providingthetopmanagementthenecessaryresourceswithregardtothehumanaspect,theinfrastructuresandtheworkenvironmentis fundamental for a dairy company to effectively manage the foodhazards. The above mentioned can be considered as prerequisitesfor effectively managing the food hazards. How to achieve this, isdescribed in the requirement of the ISO 22000 standard  “ Planningand realization of safe products and validation ” . More speci 󿬁 cally,the determination of the prerequisite programmes, the establish-ment of the HACCP plan, the development of a traceability systemand the control of the non-conformities, should be carefully takeninto consideration by a diary company for the effective manage-ment of the food hazards. The validation of the control measures,the control of the monitoring and measurement processes, theveri 󿬁 cation of the FSS (through internal audits) and  󿬁 nally theimprovement of the FSS, are also means that according to the ISO  Table 2 Company pro 󿬁 les.Variables Dairy company clustersNon-ISO 22000 certi 󿬁 ed ISO 22000 certi 󿬁 edn 1  ¼ 23 n 2  ¼ 51 Company Size (number of employees) a < 10 43.5 39.211 e 50 30.4 31.451 e 250 21.7 23.5 > 250 4.40 5.90 a No statistically signi 󿬁 cant differences (Chi-square test).  Table 3 HACCP objectives of the ISO 22000 certi 󿬁 ed and non-certi 󿬁 ed dairy companies.Variables Dairy company clustersNon-ISO 22000 certi 󿬁 ed ISO 22000 certi 󿬁 edSig. n 1  ¼ 23 n 2  ¼ 51 HACCP objectives Hazard identi 󿬁 cation * 4.491 a 5.611Hazard assessment * 4.768 5.817Hazard control * 4.739 5.696*: Statistically signi 󿬁 cant differences in p  <  0.00 (Mann Whitney Test). a 1 represents  “ strongly disagree ”  and 7 represents  “ strongly agree ” . E.L. Psomas, D.P. Kafetzopoulos / Food Control 53 (2015) 134 e 139  137
Related Documents
View more...
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks