Sie sind auf Seite 1von 8

Food Control 40 (2014) 50e57

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Food Control
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foodcont

Review

Reasons and constraints to implementing an ISO 22000 food safety


management system: Evidence from Spain
Carmen Escanciano*, Mara Leticia Santos-Vijande
Faculty of Economy and Business, Business Administration Department, University of Oviedo, Avenida del Cristo, s/n, 33071 Oviedo, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study attempts to ll a gap in the literature on food safety management systems (FSMS) by
Received 12 February 2013 providing quantitative empirical evidence about the reasons for implementing a FSMS based on ISO
Received in revised form 22000, as well as by analyzing the main constraints that may prevent the adoption of the standard in the
13 November 2013
food industry. The survey is based on a sample of 189 Spanish rms with ISO 22000 certication
Accepted 19 November 2013
distributed at all levels of the food chain. The future of this standard is then discussed in the light of the
views expressed by its users. The results constitute information of interest for consultants and for the ISO
Keywords:
itself now that the time to review this family of standards is approaching.
Food safety
ISO 22000
The prole of the ISO 22000 certied company in Spain is an SME food producer with a presence in
Spain foreign markets, and with two or more management systems implemented. While there exist external
HACCP pressures that lead companies to adopt a FSMS based on ISO 22000, the reasons that are most deter-
Reasons minant in this decision are internal in nature, specically the desire to improve efciency, productivity
Constraints and quality. Results also identify three major constraints limiting the dissemination and use of ISO
22000: it is not a well-known standard, many food companies are unaware of its potential and they also
perceive high costs associated to the adoption.
2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
2. Literature review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51
3. Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
4. Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
4.1. Reasons for implementing an ISO 22000 FSM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
4.2. Constraints to the implementation and spread of ISO 22000 FSMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
5. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
6. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

1. Introduction the presence on the market of products whose ingestion may cause
harm, have raised a growing interest in todays well-informed so-
Severe food crises of the past such as mad cow disease or the ciety in everything that has to do with food safety (FS). FS refers to
contamination of baby milk powder with melamine in China, any problem related to hygiene and harmlessness of the food that
together with the frequent news reports that warn consumers of reaches consumers; foodstuff is expected to be safe and therefore
free of contaminants that might pose a health threat. In this sense,
FS is an aspect of food quality (Luning et al., 2009; Prieto, Mouwen,
Lopez, & Cerdeo, 2008) whose attainment and preservation has
become a critical issue of concern for politicians, consumers and all
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 34 985102814.
E-mail addresses: cescan@uniovi.es (C. Escanciano), lsantos@uniovi.es (M.L. Santos- rms in the food industry (Alsaleh, 2007; Leat, Marr, & Ritchie,
Vijande). 1998).

0956-7135/$ e see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2013.11.032
C. Escanciano, M.L. Santos-Vijande / Food Control 40 (2014) 50e57 51

During the last decades the food industry in developed coun- (Bilalis et al., 2009; Mensah & Julien, 2011; Teixeira & Sampaio,
tries has experienced an increasing concentration of retailers 2011); however, our understanding of the reasons why rms may
whose private labels have also gradually gained market share avoid the implementation of this standard is scarcer. Identifying
(Fabin, 2009). Retailers, as the rest of the members of the food these constraints is relevant to help ISO, food sector business as-
chain, have the obligation to act with the due diligence imposed sociations and even the certication bodies to facilitate the spread
by the Governmental legislation to guarantee FS; moreover, these of ISO 22000 in the food industry; the adopters viewpoint is
rms have paid a growing attention to corporate social re- deemed to provide valuable information since these rms have
sponsibility as a means of differentiation and obtaining an faced the implementation decision considering the pros and cons of
improved market reputation, which has also reinforced their ISO 22000 (Bilalis et al., 2009).
commitment to FS (Verano & Ponce, 2008). In this context, retailers In Section 2, we review the literature on the reasons why rms
have faced an imperious need to avoid any risk of faulty products implement an FSMS as well as the potential constraints that may
that may damage their private labels or their corporative image. To prevent this process. Section 3 describes the research methods and
achieve this objective, they have imposed their own quality stan- the main characteristics of the sample, and Section 4 the analysis of
dards on suppliers requiring third-party certication of compliance the data and the main results. Section 5 provides a discussion of the
with those standards (Fulponi, 2006; Lopez, Montes, & Vzquez, results, and the conclusions are presented in Section 6.
2008). In this way, private standards in global agri-food value
chains, such as for example the BRC (British Retail Consortium 2. Literature review
Global Food Standard) and IFS (International Food Standard), have
steadily increased in importance (Henson & Humphrey, 2009) The implementation of international standards in the market
becoming often more complex and stringent than government represents a necessary element in the process of improving a
standards (Fulponi, 2006; Hamoudi, Hoffmann, & Surry, 2009). companys competitiveness. Customer care, healthy and safe food,
The confusion resulting from the proliferation of standards led and environmental standards represent only some of the condi-
the ISO to design a food safety management system (FSMS) stan- tions that modern business requires from producers of food prod-
dard aimed at harmonizing those already existing (Seagrave, 2007) ucts (Djordjevic, Cockalo, & Bogetic, 2011). It has therefore become
designing the ISO 22000:2005 Food Safety Management Systems- imperative for foodstuff rms to implement and certify manage-
Requirements for any Organization in the Food Chain. ISO 22000 ment systems focused on the safety, legality, and quality of their
species the requirements for a FSMS when an organization in the products (Verano & Ponce, 2008) as a mechanism to ensure the
food channel needs to demonstrate its ability to control hazards protection of the consumer and to strengthen condence.
related to food safety, in order to ensure that the food is safe at the Firms implement an FSMS for quite different reasons (Herath &
time of human consumption. Since these dangers may be found at Henson, 2010), as reected in the numerous studies analyzing the
any point of the entire food chain, from farm to table, safety control experience of rms in different sectors of activity. The vast majority
is a joint responsibility involving all of the participants. This is why of these studies have focused on Hazard Analysis and Critical
the scope of this standard encompasses all the operators involved Control Points (HACCP), with only a few referring wholly or
in the production, processing, marketing, and sale of food products partially to ISO 22000 (Bilalis et al., 2009; Fotopoulos et al., 2009;
(whether for human consumption or for animal feed), together Kk, 2009; Vladimirov, 2011). Since HACCP is an essential part of
with their related subcontractors. The external recognition repre- an FSMS, and is one of the key elements of the standard, we
sented by ISO 22000 certication increases the appeal of this considered that many of the motives that lead to the application of
standard by providing its holders with a means to demonstrate HACCP would also be attributable to the implementation of ISO
their commitment to FS at an international level, helping in this 22000. The reasons that to a greater or lesser extent explain a rms
way to strengthen FS worldwide. decision to establish an HACCP system are, among others, the desire
The present study seeks to obtain, in the rst place, an in-depth to improve the quality and safety of its products, external pressures,
understanding of the reasons why rms may opt for ISO 22000 improved image, and access to new markets. Indeed, some of these
when implementing and obtaining certication of an FSMS. The reasons are also present when the system chosen is ISO 22000.
contribution of the research in this respect is twofold. First, the In their work on HACCP in the UK dairy sector, Henson and Holt
literature provides a wide list of potential reasons to adopt a FSMS, (2000) nd that the two most important reasons to implement this
this study undertakes a thorough analysis of the extant research to system are compliance with legislation and to respond to the de-
develop a comprehensive list of key reasons in order to investigate mands of major customers. Numerous studies have found compli-
their relevance referred to ISO 22000. Second, this is the rst study ance with legislation to be a decisive reason for having an FSMS,
that focuses on ISO 22000 FSMS in Spain, and one of the few whether HACCP (Khatri & Collins, 2007; Wilcock, Ball, & Fajumo,
multisectoral FSMS studies that, as Bilalis, Stathis, Konstantas, and 2011), ISO 22000, or some other (Mensah & Julien, 2011). Jin,
Patsiali (2009) and Fotopoulos, Kafetzopoulos, and Psomas Zhou, and Ye (2008), in this case in China, nd the most compel-
(2009), analyzes a sample which includes organizations corre- ling reason to be to reduce the risk of compromising food safety.
sponding to every link of the food chain. The empirical evidence Similarly, in their work on ISO 22000 in the catering industry in
referred to Spain contributes to a better understanding of the Greece, Mamalis, Kafetzopoulos, and Aggelopoulos (2009) nd that
process of ISO 22000 implementation worldwide since Spain has the systems main attraction lies in its capacity to improve the
being one of the top ten countries in number of ISO 22000 certif- hygiene and safety of the products. This is conrmed in the analysis
icates according to the 2011 ISO Survey of Certications report (ISO, Mensah and Julien (2011) made of the experience of 120 British
2011). food rms, most of which had an FSMS certicate (BRC, IFS, or ISO
A second objective of this research is to analyze the factors that 22000). In Greece, Fotopoulos et al. (2009) refer to ensuring food
prevent the adoption of ISO 22000 by food industry rms. To safety and protecting consumers, and in Turkey, Bas, Yuksel, and
determine why the ISO 22000 is not a referent for more organi- Cavosuglou (2007) refer to gaining and maintaining customers
zations is useful to establish the constraints that may limit its future trust in their study of the challenges and constraints to the
as an internationally recognized standard. In this respect, there are implementation of HACCP. In the same vein, Herath and Henson
some articles that, focussing specically on ISO 22000, determine (2010) and Maldonado-Simn, Martinez-Hernandez, Garcia-
the obstacles for its implementation from the adopters viewpoint Muiz, and Cadena-Meneses (2009) for Canadian and Mexican
52 C. Escanciano, M.L. Santos-Vijande / Food Control 40 (2014) 50e57

rms, respectively, consider that another factor inuencing rms from the authorities (Bas et al., 2007); lack of information, knowledge
decisions is the desire to reduce customer audits thanks to the and understanding of the system (Bas et al., 2007; Fotopoulos et al,
possession of an FSMS certicate. 2009; Taylor & Kane, 2005; Yapp & Fairman, 2006) and others
Another argument often referred to in the literature is the need linked to personnel such as lack of training (Bas et al., 2007; Herath &
to respond to customer demands. Violaris, Bridges, and Bridges Henson, 2010; Khatri & Collins, 2007; Mamalis et al., 2009; Mensah &
(2007) report that this is the main reason why Cypriot rms Julien, 2011; Semos & Kontogeorgos, 2007; Yapp & Fairman, 2006)
choose HACCP certication, and Henson and Holt (2000), Herath and need to contact external advisers (Vela & Fernandez,
and Henson (2006), and Mensah and Julien (2011) report it to be 2003).Therefore, respondents indicate the extent to which other
the second most important reason. Fotopoulos, Kafetzopoulos, and rms in the industry may have interiorized as critical barriers to
Gotzamani (2011) consider that the need to satisfy stakeholders/ adopt ISO 22000 the difculties experienced in practice by adopters.
customer pressure is a critical factor for the implementation of this
system, and that it is related to the pressure the market exerts on 3. Methods
the rm.
Apart from these external pressures that lead rms to implement The population considered for the study consisted of Spanish
an FSMS, several studies have shown that there are also internal rms with ISO 22000 certication. The necessary information on
reasons associated with improved efciency and process control these rms was provided by the National Centre for Quality Infor-
(Henson & Holt, 2000; Maldonado-Simn et al., 2009; Mamalis mation, allowing identifying 304 ISO 22000 certied rms. Each of
et al., 2009; Weyandt, Reis Da Costa, Nunes, & Gaspar, 2011). these rms was contacted by telephone in order to verify their
Fostering exports by facilitating access to foreign markets is a willingness to participate in academic studies, and the accuracy of
further justication for implementing and certifying an FSMS in the the data referring to the key informant selected: the manager
opinion of Australian (Khatri & Collins, 2007) and Mexican responsible for FS. This led to 304 surveys being sent out by e-mail.
(Maldonado-Simn et al., 2009) meat rms. Jin et al. (2008) also see The questionnaire was designed with reference to the principal
the adoption of HACCP as a means for Chinese food rms to international studies on FS management systems.
enhance their presence in foreign markets. Enhancing a rms The nal sample studied comprised the 189 rms who provided
reputation and using the certication as a promotional or mar- a valid set of responses to the questionnaires. This corresponded to
keting tool are other determinant reasons according to the work of a response rate close to 62%. Once appropriately coded, the survey
Mensah and Julien (2011) and Mamalis et al. (2009). In particular, responses were analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social
Mensah and Julien (2011) note that 59% of enterprises analyzed in Sciences computer software (SPSS 19.0).
their study were driven by expected marketing advantages asso- The distribution of the sample by rms size, in terms of number
ciated to the implementation of the standard, while others saw the of employees, is the following: 56.08% micro or small enterprises
potential for improved corporate image. In their study to identify (<50 employees), 30.69% medium-sized rms (between 50 and 249
factors motivating HACCP implementation in food sector SMEs in employees), and 13.22% large rms (more than 250 employees).
Ontario, Wilcock et al. (2011) note that, in the opinion of the owners By activity, 78% were dedicated to foodstuff production and
and senior managers interviewed, the market value of the certi- processing, 12.2% to distribution, and 9.8% to other activities
cation was one of the most important factors in their decision to (catering services, transport, packaging, etc.). This is evidence that
implement HACCP. In Portugal, Weyandt et al. (2011) conducted a ISO 22000 has achieved the goal of being used by rms at all levels
case study of sh processing plants, and found that one of the most of the food chain, from the eld to the table, since these are either
important reasons for implementing ISO 22000 was the competi- operators directly involved in the production, processing, market-
tive advantage gained from it. ing, and nal sale of food products, or related subcontractors.
In this context, the present work aims at identifying the main For the largest group, that of foodstuff production and pro-
reasons underlying the decision of rms located in Spain to imple- cessing, the principal sectors were: drinks (20%), meat (16%),
ment and certify an ISO 22000 FSMS. The list of motives considered in fruit and vegetables (13%), with other foodstuffs (31%) being
the research seeks to offer a comprehensive view of the key de- used to include sundry products (sugar, coffee, spices, food addi-
terminants identied in the literature and previously described. A tives, etc.). Results also indicate that 61.3% of the sample rms had
second objective is to determine why this international standard is more than a 10-year presence in foreign markets, reecting a clear
not a referent for more organizations involved in the food chain, i.e., export orientation of Spains ISO 22000 certied rms. Also, 42.5%
to investigate the constraints that may prevent the implementation of the rms had had a quality department or area for more than 10
of the standard in the industry. In this respect, the research developed years, showing the importance of this variable in a sector in which
by Escanciano, Fernndez, and Vzquez (2001) and Bilalis et al. quality and safety are closely related. Indeed, FS management came
(2009) has been used as a reference to identify the more critical under the rms quality department in 82.5% of the cases.
factors to refuse the adoption of ISO 22000. Most of the constraints In relation to the rst management system implemented in the
are inspired broadly in the key obstacles identied in the literature to rm, over 82% of the respondents indicated that their rm had
food safety standards implementation. This is the case of the high started with an ISO 9001 based quality system which, in their
establishment cost (Aggelogiannopulos, Drosinos, & opinion, facilitated their subsequent introduction of the ISO 22000
Athanasopoulos, 2007; Bilalis et al., 2009; Grunert, 2005; Herath & FS system. Nevertheless, ISO 22000 coexisted with other FS certi-
Henson, 2006, 2010; Khatri & Collins, 2007; Masakure, Craneld, & cations, outstanding of which were BRC and IFS. Although their
Henson, 2009; Mensah & Julien, 2011; Teixeira & Sampaio, 2011; presence is less widespread in Spanish rms than in other coun-
Tunalioglu, Cobanoglu, & Karaman, 2012), current food safety con- tries, the requirement of possession of these last two standards in
trols considered sufcient (Herath & Henson, 2010), insufcient order to access certain foreign distribution chains led to 19.6% of
nancial support (Herath & Henson, 2010; Tunalioglu et al., 2012); the respondents having adopted IFS, and 13.2% BRC.
uncertain about the potential benets and/or advantages of the
system (Bas et al., 2007; Herath & Henson, 2010; Khatri & Collins, 4. Results
2007); lack of consumer demands and awareness (Khatri & Collins,
2007; Tunalioglu et al., 2012); lack of international market compe- As Caswell, Bredhal, Maury, and Hooker (1998) note, food
tition and expectations (Tunalioglu et al., 2012); not enough support quality metasystems are strategies that affect food product quality
C. Escanciano, M.L. Santos-Vijande / Food Control 40 (2014) 50e57 53

Table 1 Spain were internal and external improvements, and increasing


Reasons for implementing and certifying ISO 22000. customer condence.
Reasons Meana Standard Thus, the most highly valued reasons were improved image in
deviation the market together with the supply and/or manufacture
Improve the rms image in the market 5.90 1.14 (depending on the rms activity) of safer and higher quality
Improve product quality and safety 5.82 1.33 products resulting from clearly dened and monitored processes
Achieve customer condence 5.76 1.38 and procedures as is required by ISO 22000. In this way, through
Strengthen the rms future competitive advantage 5.60 1.27
their certication, the rms in the sample aim to give their cus-
Improve internal processes and procedures and 5.59 1.41
their monitoring tomers condence and enhance their competitive advantage by
Anticipate future market trends 5.55 1.36 anticipating the future to which the markets are tending.
Complement HACCP 5.48 1.51 In order to further analyze the reasons for the implementation
Improve efciency 5.41 1.47
and certication of ISO 22000, we subjected the data to an
Comply with food safety legislation 5.40 2.24
Anticipate customer demand 5.24 1.46
exploratory principal component analysis. A varimax-rotated factor
Improve performance relative to competitors 5.20 1.49 analysis using the eigenvalue-greater-than-unity criterion revealed
Use certication as a promotional or sales tool 5.16 1.64 four distinct factors that accounted for 62.62% of the variance of the
Enable access to certain distribution chains 4.71 1.87 original variables (Table 2). The reasons scale was tested for
Improve productivity 4.70 1.80
normality and outliers using the Bartlett test. The KaisereMeyere
Increase market share 4.70 1.65
Customer demands and pressure 4.53 1.93 Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy was 0.810 and the
Access to foreign markets 4.43 2.08 Bartlett test result was 1275.412 with a signicance level of
Complement other management systems 4.39 2.06 p < 0.0001. These values suggested that the data can reliably be
(ISO 9001, 14001, .) tested using factor analysis.
Provide evidence of due diligence 4.32 1.74
Reduce the need for customer audits 4.28 1.77
The interpretation and designation of each factor was straight-
a
forward. The rst factor (Cronbachs alpha 0.892) we term
Note: 1 not important at all; 7 very important.
quality and efciency. It comprises the motives improve ef-
ciency, improve internal processes and procedures, improve
productivity, and improve product quality and safety. It is
attributes. These metasystems are usually general in nature and
therefore a factor which includes variables suggesting a desire for
therefore apply widely across rms in the supply or value chain.
overall improvement of the internal operations of the rm in a
They are implemented through more specic metastandards, as is
search for greater efciency. This efciency should be materialized
the case for ISO 220000.
in the offer of safer, and therefore higher quality, products resulting
from clearly dened and monitored processes and procedures, as
4.1. Reasons for implementing an ISO 22000 FSM required by ISO 22000.
Factor 2 (Cronbachs alpha 0.712) we term anticipation and
Firms that implement an FSMS generally do so for a wide variety image. It comprises four variables linked to the organizations
of reasons (Herath & Henson, 2010). From the review of the liter- desire to develop proactive behaviour that seeks to improve
ature, we elaborated a list of 20 potential reasons to adopt the ISO simultaneously its image and its competitiveness by beneting
22000 standard. Respondents indicated how important each of from the certications potential as a differentiating tool before its
these items had been in their decision to implement ISO 220000, possession becomes an imperative. These variables are: anticipate
using a seven-point Likert scale ranging from very unimportant future market trends, strengthen the rms competitive advan-
(1) to very important (7). tage, improve the rms image in the market, and use it as a
Table 1 shows all the reasons suggested received a mean score promotional or sales tool.
above the middle point of the scale. The reasons most clearly Factor 3 (Cronbachs alpha 0.762) we term market pressure.
determining the choice to implement and certify this system in It comprises the motives customer demands and pressure,

Table 2
Factor analysis of the reasons for implementing and certifying ISO 22000.

Reasons Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4


Quality & efciency Anticipation & image Market pressure Reinforcement

Improve efciency 0.872


Improve internal processes and procedures 0.847
Improve productivity 0.814
Improve product quality and safety 0.789
Anticipate future market trends 0.804
Strengthen the rms competitive advantage 0.737
Improve the rms image in the market 0.561
Use it as a promotional or sales tool 0.530
Customer demands and pressure 0.769
Enable access to certain distribution chains 0.724
Increase market share 0.602
Access to foreign markets 0.501
Provide evidence of due diligence 0.714
Complement other management systems 0.710
Reduce the need for customer audits 0.625
Complement HACCP 0.593
Eigenvalue 3.415 2.306 2.271 2.027
Proportion of the variance explained 21.346 14.414 14.196 12.667
Cumulative proportion of the variance explained 21.346 35.760 49.956 62.623
54 C. Escanciano, M.L. Santos-Vijande / Food Control 40 (2014) 50e57

enable access to certain distribution chains, increase market most commonly made by certied rms, regardless of which
share, and access to foreign markets. This set of motives seems to management system and/or certication they have. Other reasons
demonstrate the existence of external conditions driving ISO 22000 are: not legally required and being unaware of the advantages of
implementation and certication. This factor conrms that ISO its use.
22000 can be used as a sign of quality in the market that decreases This set of 10 attributes conforming the potential constraints to
buyers uncertainty and, consequently, reduces transaction costs ISO 22000 implementation were as well subjected to an explor-
facilitating access to new customers and markets (Gawron & atory factor analysis. A varimax-rotated factor analysis using the
Theuvsen, 2009; Luning et al., 2009). ISO 22000, in sum, can also eigenvalue-greater-than-unity criterion gave three distinct factors
be considered as a marketing tool capable of allowing the rm to that accounted for 56.63% of the variance (Table 4). The obstacle
enjoy a greater projection in the market as it is ultimately valued by scale was tested for normality and outliers using the Bartlett test.
its customers. The KaisereMeyereOlkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy
The fourth factor (Cronbachs alpha 0.700) we term rein- was 0.886 and the Bartlett test result was 350.959 with a signi-
forcement. It comprises the four variables provide evidence of cance level of p < 0.0001.
due diligence, complement other management systems, reduce Factor 1 (Cronbachs alpha 0.710) we term lack of knowl-
the need for customer audits, and complement HACCP. ISO 22000 edge. It comprises the constraints: unaware of the advantages of
establishes a link connecting HACCP with the ISO 9001 quality ISO 22000 certication, lack of information, and Only inter-
management systems, whose structure it shares. As a FS system, ISO esting for exporters. This factor reects that ISO 22000, created in
22000 completes, complements and reinforces the effectiveness of 2005, is still poorly understood by food businesses that are un-
HACCP (Faegermand, 2008) by adding emphasis to traceability, aware of its potential, and limit its usefulness to the context of
interactive communication, and emergency preparedness and exports.
response for situations that might affect FS. Similarly, ISO 22000 Factor 2 (Cronbachs alpha 0.786) we term no perceived
reinforces the rms efforts in any other management systems such need. It comprises four constraints reecting that having an ISO
as quality management or environmental management providing 22000 FSMS certicate is not currently seen as a prerequisite for
evidence trough certication. Therefore, this factor reects a belief doing business and that it may not allow obtaining the expected
that an ISO 22000 FSMS will complement and complete the HACCP results: not a prerequisite for doing business, not required by the
and provide evidence of due diligence, thereby giving an image of Government or Public Agencies, unfamiliar to consumers and
solidity and facilitating the integration of food safety with other customers, and it does not guarantee the total safety of the nal
management systems and reducing the need for customer audits. product.
Finally, Factor 3 (Cronbachs alpha 0.782) we term economic
4.2. Constraints to the implementation and spread of ISO 22000 reasons. It comprises three constraints: high cost, need to hire
FSMS specialized personnel, and insufcient nancial aid. This factor
again is a reection that nancial constraints in many cases prevent
Many studies have dealt with the potential constraints that may the implementation of management initiatives that would ulti-
difcult the implementation of an FSMS. There has not been, mately work towards beneting the satisfaction of the clients
however, any in-depth attempt to identify the reasons why rms in interests.
the food chain do not implement or are not attracted by any of the
many certiable FSMS standards. In order to ll this gap, we
5. Discussion
requested the respondents to evaluate the potential reasons why a
standard such as ISO 22000, which is international, certiable, and
Spains food sector consists mainly of SMEs, and it is precisely
applicable to all the types of organization involved in the food
these rms which have taken the lead in the introduction of ISO
chain, is not used by other rms as a referent for the imple-
22000, as evidenced by the fact that they accounted for 87.7% of the
mentation and certication of an FSMS (Bilalis et al., 2009;
sample. This shows that in Spain the size of the rm is not a factor
Escanciano et al., 2001). To this end, we elaborated a list of 10
that determines the implementation of an appropriate and
possible constraints to the ISO 22000 implementation which were
scored using a seven-point Likert scale ranging from not important
Table 4
at all (1) to very important (7). Factor analysis of the constraints to implementation and certication of ISO 22000.
Table 3 shows that the main constraints to the dissemination
and use of ISO 22000 are: not a prerequisite for doing business, Constraints Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3
Lack of No perceived Economic
unfamiliar, and its high cost. It is this last, the high cost of knowledge need reasons
implementation and certication, which is one of the criticisms
Unaware of the advantages of 0.762
ISO 22000 certication
Table 3 Lack of information 0.727
Constraints to the implementation and certication of ISO 22000. Only interesting for exporters 0.579
Not a prerequisite for doing business 0.759
Constraints Meana Standard
Not required by the Governmental 0.702
deviation
Public Agencies
Not a prerequisite for doing business 5.15 1.40 Unfamiliar to consumers and 0.657
Unfamiliar to consumers and customers 5.07 1.48 customers
High cost 5.05 1.44 It does not guarantee the total 0.509
Not required by the Government or Public Agencies 5.02 1.82 safety of the nal product
Unaware of the advantages of ISO 22000 certication 4.97 1.45 High cost 0.837
Need to hire specialized personnel 4.86 1.49 Need to hire specialized personnel 0.690
Lack of information 4.85 1.45 Insufcient nancial aid 0.651
Insufcient nancial aid 4.80 1.61 Eigenvalue 1.997 1.884 1.781
Only interesting for exporters 4.03 1.73 Proportion of the variance explained 19.973 18.842 17.813
It does not guarantee the total safety of the nal product 3.96 1.73 Cumulative proportion of the 19.973 38.815 56.628
a variance explained
Note: 1 not important at all; 7 very important.
C. Escanciano, M.L. Santos-Vijande / Food Control 40 (2014) 50e57 55

effective system of food safety and quality, contrary to what some improve their image and access to foreign markets, but also
other studies have suggested. For instance, Panisello, Quantick, and because they see its potential as a marketing tool. The application of
Knowles (1999) and Violaris et al. (2007) note that smaller rms are ISO 22000 has been widely promoted as a tool to aid exports (Kk,
less likely to have a food safety quality system in place due to 2009) and as a tool of marketing (Mamalis et al., 2009). By selecting
nancial and other pressures. an ISO 22000 certication, rms in the food industry are adopting
While the sample includes representatives of practically all the an internationally recognized system that allows sharing a com-
activity sectors involved in the food chain, the majority are food mon language with customers, suppliers, and competent health
manufacturers (78% of the sample). This is coherent with the case of services.
Serbia reported by Djordjevic et al. (2011), for which having a Finally, we must not forget that ISO 22000 is a management
certied FSMS is a basic condition for these businesses to improve system that establishes a link between the HACCP system and ISO
their competitiveness. 9001 quality management systems, whose structure it shares. As
Hudson and Orviska (2012) note that the adoption of interna- noted by Mayes (1993): management systems offer the food industry
tional standards may be required for entry into certain markets a structured framework around which companies can dene and
especially in the European Union countries (Djordjevic et al., 2011; implement measures to enable the consistent manufacture of products
Masakure et al., 2009). In the present sample, exporting rms ac- of the required safety and quality standards. Accordingly, ISO 22000
count for 61.3% of the total. While all this seems to conrm that not only provides evidence of due diligence but also allows
there exists a relationship between certication and exports, this is achieving the reinforcement of other management systems
not the main reason why Spanish rms choose ISO 22000. which ultimately reduces the need of customer audits. In this study,
The factor analysis of the reasons why rms have implemented 82% of respondents stated that the rst management system
and certied an ISO 22000 FSMS identied four main underlying implemented in their rm was ISO 9001, a management system
motivations. The rst one is clearly internal in nature e efciency whose success has in turn facilitated the diffusion of other man-
and quality; this factor is related to the rms pursuit of procient agement system standards with common principles and a similar
process and procedures, safety and productivity. The factors structure, although they may be used in different areas such as the
described as anticipation and image and market pressure environment (32.3% of the rms in the sample possessed an
reect the existence of external requirements for certication such ISO14001 certied environmental management system). As Talbot
as the strengthening of rms competitive advantage or the satis- (2007) observes, companies sometimes commit to an ISO 22000
faction of demands from customers and retailers. The fourth factor, approach in order to complete their ISO 9001, ISO14001, HACCP
reinforcement, can be considered of mixed nature, internal and plans through the implementation of an integrated system. All this
external, since rms seek to meet external requirements, such as was conrmed for the present case of Spain, with 94.5% of re-
providing evidence of due diligence or reducing consumers au- spondents stating that their management systems are integrated
dits, together with the internal completion of other managements either totally (73.2%) or partially (21.2%).
systems. Regardless of the reasons why Spanish rms chose ISO 22000, it
In view of each factors loading and percentage of variance is important to underline that most rms declared to be satised
explained, one can state that certication decisions in Spain are with this particular FSMS. In particular, over 70% of the respondents
dominated by rms desire to be more efcient. Clearly, however, indicated that the certication has met their expectations, and
such improvement in efciency would not be possible without satisfaction was total or near total in almost 41% of the cases (Fig. 1).
improvement in the denition and monitoring of internal processes Evidence of this is the fact that the number of ISO 22000
and procedures; and indeed, according to Mamalis et al. (2009) this certied rms continues to grow year by year. This steady consol-
is a key objective of rms implementing ISO 22000. The ultimate idation is taking place at a time marked not only by the economic
goal of this search for greater efciency through an FSMS is to crisis, but also by the need to coexist and compete with other food
provide clients with safer products (Bilalis et al., 2009; Henson & certications, such as BRC and IFS in Europe, which are driven,
Holt, 2000; Jin et al., 2008). supported, and demanded by major international distributor
Internal reasons are not incompatible with attempting to chains.
respond to external forces. In fact, Spanish rms acknowledge the However, in the opinion of Spanish rms, there are certain as-
inuence of external factors in the adoption of the ISO 22000 pects related to its image and external perception which are
standard such as anticipation and image and market pressure. holding the diffusion of ISO 22000 back. Thus, despite its having
In this sense, Maldonado-Simn et al. (2009) nd that two of the
reasons for rms adopting HACCP are external factors such as to
maintain customers and to satisfy customers demands. Similarly, 32,4%
31,4%
in the case of Canadian food rms, Herath and Henson (2010) also
identify a set of external motivations which they group together
into a factor they term direct external requirement.
Thus, a major argument underlying adoption of ISO 22000 is the
rms desire to strengthen their competitive position by antici-
17,6%
pating to market trends, improving their image, and responding
properly to market requirements. The more global the supply
chains become, the more there is a demand for rms to stand out in
quality and reliability. One way to anticipate the foreseeable 8,5%
generalized requirement for certication is to implement and
5,0%
certify an ISO 22000 FSMS already. Anticipating its customers and
2,1%
the markets demands will allow the rm to benet from the 1,1%

competitive advantages of being the rst to move (Talbot, 2007).


The desire for what Herath and Henson (2006) call marketing Very
dissatisfied
Dissatisfied Somewhat
dissatisfied
Indifferent Somewhat
satisfied
Satisfied Very
satisfied
gains is present in ISO 22000 certied rms. In particular, Spanish
rms choose this certication guided not only by their desire to Fig. 1. Respondents satisfaction with the ISO 22000 FSMS.
56 C. Escanciano, M.L. Santos-Vijande / Food Control 40 (2014) 50e57

existed as a referent since 2005, the respondents describe the lack it for the moment as being a licence required to compete in that
of knowledge about it as being a major obstacle to its diffusion. In market. And third, the current economic constraints affecting many
order to promote its use, it would therefore be interesting for ISO, rms are the cause of the diffusion of ISO 22000 not being wider.
food sector business associations, and even the certication bodies
to prepare and distribute explanatory materials and disseminate References
examples of successful implementations of this standard, high-
lighting the benets obtained from it. Another major obstacle is Aggelogiannopulos, D., Drosinos, E. H., & Athanasopoulos, P. (2007). Implementa-
related to the fact that having ISO 22000 certication, unlike the tion of a quality management system according to the ISO 9000 family in a
Greek small-sized winery: a case study. Food Control, 18(7), 1077e1085.
case with ISO 9001 in the eld of quality in some sectors and Alsaleh, N. A. (2007). Application of quality tools by the Saudi food industry. The
markets, is not a prerequisite to be able to compete in the market. TQM Magazine, 19(2), 150e161.
Many rms therefore do not consider it necessary. Instead they Bas, M., Yuksel, M., & Cavosuglou, T. (2007). Difculties and barriers for the
implementing of HACPP and food safety systems in food business in Turkey.
prefer to go with more geographically limited referents which are
Food Control, 18(2), 124e130.
already rmly rooted in Europe (such as BRC and IFS), and are Bilalis, D., Stathis, I., Konstantas, A., & Patsiali, S. (2009). Comparison between
indeed needed to access certain distributor chains. In this context, it HACCPP and ISO 22000 in Greek organic food sector. Journal of Food, Agriculture
needs to be borne in mind that ISO 22000 offers its users the and Environment, 7(2), 237e242.
Caswell, J. A., Bredhal, J., Maury, E., & Hooker, N. H. (1998). How quality manage-
possibility of ensuring access to all markets. Indeed, 65% of the ment metasystems are affecting the food industry? Review of Agricultural Eco-
respondents believe that ISO 22000 certication will in time nomics, 20(2), 547e557.
become an export standard, and therefore indispensable in order to Djordjevic, D., Cockalo, D., & Bogetic, S. (2011). An analysis of the HACCP system
implementation. The factor of improving competitiveness in Serbian com-
have a presence in international markets. Also, in recent years some panies. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 6(3), 515e520.
certication bodies have found it increasingly common for rms to Escanciano, C., Fernndez, E., & Vzquez, C. (2001). ISO 9000 certication and
demand the conjoint certication of ISO 9001, ISO 22000, BRC, and quality management in Spain: results of an empirical survey. The TQM Maga-
zine, 13(3), 192e200.
IFS. In the present study, 12.7% of the rms have all four of these Fabin, F. (2009). Repercusiones de las normas privadas en el comercio agro-
certications. In sum, insisting on the common points, but also on alimentario. Revista del CEI, 14, 93e116.
the advantages of ISO 22000 over other management standards, Faegermand, J. (2008). The ISO 22000 series global standards for safe food supply
chains. ISO Management Systems, 8(3), 4e7.
may help promote its expansion. As noted by Talbot (2007, p. 42): Fotopoulos, C. V., Kafetzopoulos, D. P., & Gotzamani, K. (2011). Critical factors for
through the international consensus that led to its development, the effective implementation of the HACCP system: a Pareto analysis. British Food
ISO 22000 certication is destined to become the reference in inter- Journal, 113(5), 578e597.
Fotopoulos, C. V., Kafetzopoulos, D. P., & Psomas, E. L. (2009). Assessing the critical
national food safety.
factors and their impact on the effective implementation of a food safety
Finally, according to the Spanish rms in the sample, economic management system. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management,
constraints are another aspect holding back the spread of ISO 26(9), 894e910.
22000, perceiving its implementation as complex and costly in Fulponi, L. (2006). Private voluntary standards in the food system: the perspective
of major food retailers in OECD countries. Food Policy, 31, 1e13.
terms of material and human investment. Unfortunately, in the Gawron, J. C., & Theuvsen, L. (2009). Certication schemes in the European agri-
current economic climate, this type of obstacle may seem insur- food sector. Overview and opportunities for Central and Eastern Europe.
mountable, especially for SMEs. A joint effort is therefore required Outlook on Agriculture, 38(1), 9e14.
Grunert, K. G. (2005). Food quality and safety. European Review of Agricultural
from Government Agencies and the rms themselves. For Gov- Economics, 32(3), 369e391.
ernment Agencies, this would involve facilitating access to grants Hamoudi, A., Hoffmann, R., & Surry, Y. (2009). Food safety standards and agri-food
or tax benets for FSMS initiatives and setting up programmes of supply chains: an introductory overview. European Review of Agricultural Eco-
nomics, 36(4), 469e478.
recognition of organizations obtaining good results with their Henson, S., & Holt, G. (2000). Exploring incentives of food safety controls: HACCP
FSMS. For the rms, it would involve sharing their experience and implementation in the UK dairy sector. Review of Agricultural Economics, 22(2),
information. We would note that 72% of the respondent rms in 407e420.
Henson, S., & Humphrey, J. (2009). The impacts of private food safety standards on
this research considered that the benets compensated or out-
the food chain can do in public standard-setting processes. Codex Alimentarius
weighed their costs in implementing and certifying their FSMS. Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/food/international/organisations/sps/docs/
private_standards_codex_en.pdf.
Herath, D., & Henson, S. (2006). Does Canada need mandatory HACCP? Evidence
6. Conclusions
from the Ontario food processing sector. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Eco-
nomics, 54(4), 443e459.
This paper has attempted to shed some light on the complex Herath, D., & Henson, S. (2010). Barriers to HACCP implementation: evidence form
world of FSMS. The focus has been on the ISO 22000 standard. the food processing sector in Ontario, Canada. Agribusiness, 26(2), 265e279.
Hudson, J., & Orviska, M. (2012). Firms adoption of international standards: one
While this is one of many certiable FS management standards, it is size ts all? Journal of Policy Modelling, 35(2), 289e306.
the only one that is international in character and applicable to all ISO. (2011). The ISO survey 2010. ISO. http://www.iso.org.
links in the food chain, from eld to table. The results of the Jin, S., Zhou, J., & Ye, J. (2008). Adoption of HACCP system in the Chinese food in-
dustry. Food Control, 19, 823e828.
empirical study showed that internal and external reasons, related Khatri, Y., & Collins, R. (2007). Impact and status of HACPP in the Australian meat
to more efcient FS management and the desire to strengthen the industry. British Food Journal, 109(5), 343e354.
rms competitive advantage, are the principal determinants for Kk, M. S. (2009). Application of food safety management systems (ISO 22000/
HACCP) in the Turkish poultry industry: a comparison based on enterprise size.
the choice of this standard when implementing an FSMS. Addi- Journal of Food Protection, 72(10), 2221e2225.
tionally, we know that the nancial effort the rms put into Leat, P., Marr, P., & Ritchie, C. (1998). Quality assurance and traceability: the Scottish
implementing the system and its subsequent certication is agri-food industrys quest for competitive advantage. Supply Chain Manage-
ment, 3(3), 115e117.
compensated and outweighed by the benets they obtain from it, Lopez, N., Montes, J. M., & Vzquez, C. (2008). Innovation, ISO certication and
and that their expectations have been met. quality normalization in the food industry. In R. Rama (Ed.), Handbook of
There are three constraints to the adoption of ISO 22000 which innovation in the food and drink industry (pp. 171e209). New York: Haworth
Press, Taylor & Francis Group.
may condition its future. First, the respondents nd the standard to
Luning, P. A., Marcelis, W. J., Rovira, J., Van Der Spiegel, M., Uyttendaele, M., &
be little known and poorly understood by food sector enterprises. Jacxsens, L. (2009). Systematic assessment activities in a company specic food
These often are unaware of its real potential, seeing its usefulness as safety management system. Food Science & Technology, 20(6e7), 300e312.
limited to the export eld. Second, given the standards coexistence Maldonado-Simn, E., Martinez-Hernandez, P. A., Garcia-Muiz, J. G., & Cadena-
Meneses, J. C. (2009). Factors associated with the adoption of food safety con-
with other standards that, in the EU, are better established and trols by the Mexican meat industry. Computer & Computing Technologies in
often demanded by major distributor chains, many rms do not see Agriculture II, 3, 1739e1746.
C. Escanciano, M.L. Santos-Vijande / Food Control 40 (2014) 50e57 57

Mamalis, S., Kafetzopoulos, P., & Aggelopoulos, S. (2009). The new food safety Teixeira, T., & Sampaio, P. (2011). Food safety management system implementation
standard ISO 22000. Assessment, comparison and correlation with HACCP and and certication: survey results. In T. Doolen, & E. Van Aken (Eds.), Proceedings
ISO 9000:2000. The practical implementation in victual business. In Proceedings of the 2011 industries engineering research conference.
of 113th EAEE seminar. Greece, September. Tunalioglu, R., Cobanoglu, F., & Karaman, A. D. (2012). Dening economic obstacles
Masakure, O., Craneld, J., & Henson, S. (2009). Factors affecting the incidence and to the adoption of food safety systems in table olive processing rms. British
intensity of standards certication evidence from exporting rms in Pakistan. Food Journal, 114(10), 1486e1500.
Applied Economics, iFirst, 1e15. Vela, R., & Fernandez, M. (2003). Barriers for the developing and implementation
Mayes, T. (1993). The application of management systems to food safety and quality. of HACCP plans: results from a Spanish regional survey. Food Control, 14(5),
Trends in Food Science & Technology, 4(7), 216e219. 333e337.
Mensah, L. D., & Julien, D. (2011). Implementation of food safety management Verano, D., & Ponce, C. (2008). ISO22000: seguridad en la cadena alimentaria. UNE,
systems in the UK. Food Control, 28(8), 1216e1225. 236, 41e43.
Panisello, P. J., Quantick, P. C., & Knowles, M. J. (1999). Towards the implementation Violaris, Y., Bridges, O., & Bridges, J. (2007). Small business-big risks: current status
of HACCP: results of a UK regional survey. Food Control, 10(2), 87e98. and future direction of APPCC in Cyprus. Food Control, 19(5), 439e448.
Prieto, M., Mouwen, J. M., Lopez, S., & Cerdeo, A. (2008). Concepto de calidad en la Vladimirov, Z. (2011). Implementation of food safety management system in
industria agroalimentaria. Interciencia, 33(4), 258e264. Bulgaria. British Food Journal, 113(1), 50e65.
Seagrave, P. (2007). ISO 22000: food safety management systems and their Weyandt, A. J., Reis Da Costa, S. R., Nunes, M. L., & Gaspar, A. (2011). Environmental
related requirements. In D. James, L. Ababouch, & S. Washington (Eds.), Sixth and food safety management systems, according to ISO 14001 and ISO 22000 in
world congress on seafood safety, quality and trade (pp. 153e157). FAO. sh processing plants: experiences, critical factors and possible future strate-
Australia. gies. Procedia Food Science, 1, 1901e1906.
Semos, A., & Kontogeorgos, A. (2007). HACCP implementation in northern Greece. Wilcock, A., Ball, B., & Fajumo, A. (2011). Effective implementation of food safety
British Food Journal, 109(1), 5e19. initiatives: managers, food safety coordinators and production workers per-
Talbot, V. (2007). ISO 22000 standard: a food safety management system. SPC spectives. Food Control, 22(1), 27e32.
Fisheries Newsletter, 120, 40e42. Yapp, C., & Fairman, R. (2006). Factors affecting food safety compliance with small
Taylor, E., & Kane, K. (2005). Reducing the burden of HACCP in SMEs. Food Control, and medium-sized enterprises: implications for regulatory and enforcement
16(10), 833e839. strategies. Food Control, 17(1), 42e51.