The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The assessment of food safety culture
Abstract
PURPOSE – The concept of food safety organizational culture, whilst largely ignored in the past, is attracting increasing interest. The purpose of this paper is to examine a possible framework for assessing a business's food safety culture. \n \nDESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH – The literature on health and safety culture and organizational culture is examined and relevant components applicable to food safety are identified and discussed. \n \nFINDINGS – A total of six possible groupings including: food safety management systems and style; food safety leadership; food safety communication; food safety commitment; food safety environment and risk perception were identified as "culture" factors that could contribute to food safety performance. These can form the basis for assessing food safety culture and how this may be done practically along with the creation of a positive food safety culture are discussed. Management is traditionally talked about in food safety but a distinction is drawn between this and food safety leadership. \n \nORIGINALITY/VALUE – For the first time a method for, and the potential benefits from, assessing food safety culture is presented and this will be of value to auditors, environmental health practitioners and industry. Utilizing the suggestions in the paper could help improve compliance with third-party hygiene standards, and reduce the risk of food poisoning.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
(1997) · Naming the Mind: How Psychology Found its Language · doi:10.4135/9781446221815.n7 · Cited by 15,148
Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives
Locke, E. A. (1968) · Organizational Behavior and Human Performance · doi:10.1016/0030-5073(68)90004-4 · Cited by 2,409
DEVELOPMENT OF A LEADER-MEMBER EXCHANGE: A LONGITUDINAL TEST.
BAUER, T. N., & GREEN, S. G. (1996) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/257068 · Cited by 944
Food safety culture: the evolution of an emerging risk factor?
Griffith, C. J., Livesey, K. M., & Clayton, D. A. (2010) · British Food Journal · doi:10.1108/00070701011034439 · Cited by 164
Self-citation
Cited by
Knowledge, attitudes and practices of food handlers in food safety: An integrative review
Zanin, L. M., da Cunha, D. T., de Rosso, V. V., Capriles, V. D., & Stedefeldt, E. (2017) · Food Research International · doi:10.1016/j.foodres.2017.07.042 · Cited by 296
Enhancing food safety culture to reduce rates of foodborne illness
Powell, D. A., Jacob, C. J., & Chapman, B. J. (2011) · Food Control · doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2010.12.009 · Cited by 283
da Cunha, D. T., Stedefeldt, E., & de Rosso, V. V. (2014) · Food Control · doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2014.03.012 · Cited by 233
Rossi, M. D. S. C., Stedefeldt, E., da Cunha, D. T., & de Rosso, V. V. (2017) · Food Control · doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2016.09.016 · Cited by 142
Young, I., Greig, J., Wilhelm, B. J., & Waddell, L. A. (2019) · Journal of Food Protection · doi:10.4315/0362-028x.jfp-19-108 · Cited by 68
Metadata
- Authors
- Griffith, C. J., Livesey, K. M., & Clayton, D.
- Venue
- British Food Journal
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2010-04-20
- Volume
- 112
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 439-456
- ISSN
- 0007-070X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2014550253
- Cited by
- 209
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 6.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The assessment of food safety culture. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1108/00070701011034448
- The paper
- Griffith, C. J., Livesey, K. M., & Clayton, D. (2010). The assessment of food safety culture. British Food Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070701011034448
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
