Accepted Manuscript

HACCP Effectiveness Between ISO 22000 Certified and non-Certified Dairy

Companies

Evangelos L. Psomas, Dimitrios P. Kafetzopoulos

PII: S0956-7135(15)00040-7
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2015.01.023
Reference: JFCO 4258

To appear in: Food Control

Received Date: 16 July 2014

Revised Date: 27 December 2014
Accepted Date: 3 January 2015

Please cite this article as: Psomas E.L. & Kafetzopoulos D.P., HACCP Effectiveness Between
ISO 22000 Certified and non-Certified Dairy Companies, Food Control (2015), doi: 10.1016/
j.foodcont.2015.01.023.

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all
legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

HACCP Effectiveness Between ISO 22000 Certified and non-

Certified Dairy Companies

Evangelos L. Psomas (1)

PT
Dimitrios P. Kafetzopoulos (2) *

RI
SC
1: Department of Business Administration of Food and Agricultural
Enterprises, University of Patras

U
2 George Seferis str., GR-301 00, Agrinio, Greece
AN
tel: 0030.26410.74123 / fax: 0030.26410.74168
email: epsomas@cc.uoi.gr
M
D

2: Department of Business Administration of Food and Agricultural

TE

Enterprises, University of Patras

EP

2 George Seferis str., GR-301 00, Agrinio, Greece

tel: 0030.26410.74123 / fax: 0030.26410.74168

C

*Corresponding author dimkafe@yahoo.gr

AC

1
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 HACCP Effectiveness Between ISO 22000 Certified and non-Certified

2 Dairy Companies

3 Dimitrios Kafetzopoulos (*)

4 *Corresponding author: dimkafe@yahoo.gr
5

PT
6 Abstract

7 The purpose of the study is to determine the differences between the ISO 22000

RI
8 certified and non-certified dairy companies with regard to the HACCP (Hazard Analysis

SC
9 Critical Control Points) Food Safety System (FSS) effectiveness. The HACCP FSS

10 effectiveness is defined in the present study as the degree of the achievement of the system

U
11 objectives (identification, assessment and the control of food borne safety hazards). A
AN
12 research study was carried out in 74 Greek dairy companies using a structured questionnaire.

13 The differences between the ISO 22000 certified and non-certified dairy companies (both
M

14 implementing HACCP principles) with regard to HACCP effectiveness are determined

D

15 through non parametric tests such as the Chi-square Test and the Mann-Whitney Test. The
TE

16 vast majority of the participating in the present study dairy companies are small and medium-

17 sized enterprises (SMEs). The ISO 22000 certified dairy companies significantly outperform
EP

18 the non-certified with regard to the HACCP FSS effectiveness, in other words to the degree to

19 which the objectives of HACCP are achieved. Thus, managers of dairy SMEs taking
C

20 advantage of the structured organization and the documented procedures provided by the ISO
AC

21 22000 standard can increase the level of achieving the objectives of the HACCP FSS, in other

22 words HACCP effectiveness. In doing so, dairy SMEs can set the foundations in order to

23 optimize the conditions under which safe food is provided, minimize the possibility of food

24 non-conformities and scandals, increase market share and consequently withstand the current

25 downturn.

26 Keywords: HACCP, FSS effectiveness, ISO 22000, dairy SMEs.

1
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
27 Introduction

28 Nowadays, changes in consumer eating habits and in the global food market are often

29 recorded (Bilalis, Stathis, Konstantas, & Patsiali, 2009). Furthermore, consumers, due to the

30 frequency of many food scandals (Bilalis, Stathis, Konstantas, & Patsiali, 2009), are highly

31 concerned about food safety (Gaaloul, Riabi, & Ghorbel, 2011). The emerging need for

PT
32 higher food safety has led to stricter specifications and requirements regarding food safety

33

RI
and the management of food safety hazards. These specifications and requirements are set

34 either by customers or legislation or the food company itself. These circumstances have been

SC
35 taken into consideration by the food industry and as a result food safety plays the most

36 important role not only in food production, but in any stage of the food supply chain (supply-

37
U
processing-distribution) (Bilalis, Stathis, Konstantas, & Patsiali, 2009).
AN
38 In order that a food company is able to conform to food safety specifications and

39
M

requirements, food safety systems (FSS) have been created and launched worldwide

40 (Botonaki, Polymeros, Tsakiridou, & Mattas, 2006). More specifically, in the food industry,
D

41 FSS that are based on the HACCP principles (Hazard Analysis of Critical Control Points) or
TE

42 on the more recently launched ISO 22000 standard (Nguyen, Wilcock, & Aung, 2004;

43 Motarjemi & Mortimore, 2005); are applied to ensure food safety, to prevent liability claims
EP

44 and to build and maintain the trust of consumers (Kafetzopoulos, Gotzamani, & Fotopoulos,

45 2013). The HACCP approach is the basic element of the ISO 22000 standard (ISO 22000,
C

46
AC

2005). Aruoma (2006) also states that HACCP requirements are an intrinsic part of ISO

47 22000. It is worth noting that a food company can either simply implement the principles of

48 HACCP, without holding any certification, or implement HACCP and simultaneously be ISO

49 22000 certified.

50 Arvanitoyannis & Mavropoulos (2000) point out that the implementation of systems

51 aiming to ensure safety (e.g. HACCP) in the food industry and, in particular, in dairy

2
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
52 companies has resulted in a remarkable improvement in terms of dairy product safety and

53 quality. Eves & Dervisi (2005) state that HACCP per se does not make safe food, but its

54 correct and effective application can make the difference. However, in practice, the

55 effectiveness of the HACCP FSS is often unsatisfactory due to unexpected outcomes in the

56 food production conditions and the behaviour of the people that implement it (van der

PT
57 Spiegel, Luningy, Ziggers, & Jongen, 2004; Azanza & Zamora-Luna, 2005). Moreover,

58

RI
certifying the FSS (for example through ISO 22000) does not guarantee absolute food safety

59 and quality of the end product, so a food industry should undertake additional activities, such

SC
60 as staff training, plans improvement, cross tests, etc. (Bilalis, Stathis, Konstantas, & Patsiali,

61 2009).

62
U
Taylor & Taylor (2004) state that there has been little work on fully understanding the
AN
63 conditions under which HACCP effectiveness is fully achieved, which would help companies

64
M

identify intervention strategies with regard to their performance improvement. Bas, Yoksel, &

65 avuooflu (2007) suggest the effective implementation of HACCP be further explored.

D

66 Fotopoulos, Kafetzopoulos, & Psomas (2009) also recommend that the impact of the critical
TE

67 factor namely the system attributes (e.g. ISO 22000) on HACCP effectiveness should be

68 further explored, not only in the whole food industry but in different food sub-sectors. Bilalis,
EP

69 Stathis, Konstantas, & Patsiali (2009) state that due to ignorance on the part of consumers and

70 market conditions, the comparison of the two models (HACCP and ISO 22000) is essential, in
C

71
AC

order for a business to be certified with the ISO 22000 standard.

72 Based on the above, it is apparent that there is a gap in the literature with regard to the

73 HACCP FSS effectiveness. The present study contributes to the existing body of literature by

74 examining the differences between ISO 22000 certified and non-certified dairy companies

75 with regard to the degree to which HACCP effectiveness is achieved. Non parametric tests

76 such as the Chi-square Test and the Mann-Whitney Test are applied for this purpose.

3
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
77 The rest of the paper is structured as follows: in the first part, the effectiveness of the

78 HACCP FSS is defined and the objectives of the system and their respective indicators are

79 identified. Having revised the literature, the research hypothesis of the present study is

80 formulated. In the next part of the paper, the methodology of a research study carried out in

81 Greek dairy companies is described. This is followed by the analysis and the respective

PT
82 results. In the next part of the paper, the results are discussed and the final conclusions and the

83

RI
practical implications are presented. Finally, the limitations of the study and future research

84 recommendations are also presented.

SC
85 Theoretical Background

86 Dairy products traditionally constitute a prime source of human nutrition. Today,

87
U
many dairy varieties are consistently consumed throughout the world either directly or as
AN
88 ingredients of other food (e.g. pastries, pies, etc.) (Chountalas, Tsarouchas, & Lagodimos,

89
M

2009). Dairy products are biological and biochemical dynamic food products and

90 consequently, inherently unstable. Therefore, the adherence to a strict quality system is of

D

91 paramount importance for ensuring the safe production of dairy products (Arvanitoyannis &
TE

92 Mavropoulos, 2000). Consequently, the implementation of the HACCP FSS (or the ISO

93 22000 standard) by food companies is of great importance in order to produce

EP

94 microbiologically safe food (Khandke & Mayes, 1998; Nguyen, Wilcock, & Aung, 2004).

95 Defining the effectiveness of the HACCP FSS

C

96
AC

Dumond (1994) defines effectiveness as the extent to which a function meets its

97 goals, while ODonnell and Duffy (2002) describe effectiveness as the degree to which

98 results meet prescribed goals. Similarly, Al Nakeeb, Williams, Hibberd, and Gronow (1998)

99 state that if a company meets prescribed quality objectives then it is deemed effective. In

100 other words, effectiveness focuses on the extent to which the targets or goals of an

101 organization or a system (e.g. HACCP) are achieved (Dumond, 1994; Neely, Gregory, &

4
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
102 Platts, 1995; Redshaw, 2000; Kafetzopoulos, Psomas, & Kafetzopoulos, 2013). So, from the

103 above it is apparent that in order to assess the effectiveness of the HACCP FSS, the objectives

104 of the system as well as their indicators should be identified.

105 Identifying the HACCP FSS objectives and their indicators

106 Authors such as van der Spiegel, Luning, Ziggers, & Jongen (2004), Eves & Dervisi

PT
107 (2005), Burlingame & Pineiro (2007), Trienekens & Zuurbier (2008) and Domenech,

108

RI
Escriche, & Martorell (2008), claim that the identification, assessment and the control of food

109 borne safety hazards are the objectives of the HACCP FSS that affect its effectiveness. The

SC
110 indicators of the HACCP FSS objectives used in the present study are drawn from the

111 guidance of the Food and Agriculture Organization (Food and Agriculture Organization,

112
U
2007) as well as the studies of the following authors: Sperber (1997), Mortimore (2000),
AN
113 Ababouch (2000), Wallace & Powell (2005) and Luning, Bango, Kussaga, Rovira, &

114
M

Marcelis (2008), (Table I).

115 Insert Table 1 about here

D

116 Research hypothesis formulation

TE

117 Taylor & Kane (2005) note that the establishment, development and maintenance of

118 an effective HACCP FSS depend on a complicated mixture of managerial and technical
EP

119 constraints (e.g. those that are being set by the ISO 22000 FSS). Motarjemi & Kaferstein

120 (1999) mention that predicting and managing food borne hazards depends on different factors
C

121
AC

such as company infrastructures and a companys ability to assure food hygiene conditions.

122 Fotopoulos, Kafetzopoulos, and Psomas (2009) state that the effective implementation of the

123 HACCP FSS, in other words meeting HACCP objectives (identification, assessment and the

124 control of food borne safety hazards), is strongly influenced by factors such as human

125 resources attributes and company attributes.

5
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
126 FSS that are based on the requirements of the ISO 22000 standard or the principles of

127 HACCP are regarded worldwide as effective means for assuring food safety in the course of

128 food handling and processing and retail sales to consumers, while both are applied throughout

129 the whole food chain (Domenech, Escriche, & Martorell, 2008). The effectiveness of the

130 HACCP FSS influences the implementation of ISO 22000 (ISO 22000, 2005). The ISO 22000

PT
131 standard helps food companies establish a FSS that is well designed, effective and

132

RI
continuously revised as a part of the company management system (Chountalas, Tsarouchas,

133 & Lagodimos, 2009). According to Griffith, Livesey, & Clayton (2010), the basis of good

SC
134 food safety performance is a good food safety management system. However, they also

135 mention that in isolation this is insufficient and a high level of compliance is necessary for the

136
U
production of safe food (Griffith, Livesey, & Clayton, 2010).
AN
137 Implementing HACCP through the ISO 22000 FSS also means that a more integrated

138
M

and effective management system is adopted than simply implementing HACCP principles

139 (Chountalas, Tsarouchas, & Lagodimos, 2009). The most effective FSS is established,
D

140 operated and updated within the framework of a structured management system and
TE

141 incorporated into the overall management activities of the organization (Khatri & Collins,

142 2007). The ISO 22000 standard offers an alternative to food enterprises that do not implement
EP

143 ISO 9001 and want to have an effective food safety management system

144 (Aggelogiannopoulos, Drossinos, & Athanasopoulos, 2007).

C

145
AC

Based on the above, the following research hypothesis is formulated:

146 RH: The ISO 22000 certified dairy companies achieve significantly higher levels of

147 the HACCP FSS effectiveness than the non-ISO 22000 certified.

148

6
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
149 Materials and methods

150 Questionnaire development

151 The above formulated research hypothesis stimulated the design of a research study,

152 where preliminary data would be collected from Greek dairy companies. The data collection

153 method was that of the questionnaire. Based on the literature, the HACCP FSS effectiveness

PT
154 is described through the system objectives and the respective indicators. The initial version of

155

RI
the questionnaire was reviewed by academics and pilot-tested by professionals. In order to

156 improve the clarity and understanding of the questions, a few of them were re-phrased.

SC
157 The final version of the questionnaire consists of three parts. The first part includes

158 questions on the demographic profile of a company. The second part contains statements with

159
U
regard to the HACCP FSS effectiveness and more specifically statements assessing the degree
AN
160 to which a dairy company identifies, assesses and controls food borne safety hazards (the

161
M

three HACCP objectives). Respondents were asked to indicate the degree of agreement or

162 disagreement with these statements, using a seven-point Likert scale, where 1 represented
D

163 strongly disagree and 7 represented strongly agree.

TE

164 Sample

165 The present study focuses on food companies that produce dairy products. According
EP

166 to the Greek Organization for Certification and Inspection of Agricultural Products called

167 Agrocert, 519 dairy companies were recorded in its database during the period that the present
C

168
AC

study was carried out (http://www.agrocert.gr). All these dairy companies implement a FSS

169 based on HACCP principles, as they are obliged to do by law (since 2006). However, some of

170 them have been certified according to the ISO 22000 standard. Thus, the 519 dairy companies

171 constitute the companies of interest to the present research study. Using a simple random

172 sampling, a sample of 300 dairy companies was selected in order to participate in the research

173 study. It was requested the questionnaire be answered by the company representative

7
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
174 responsible for the FSS. Both mail and face to face interviews were used in order to collect

175 the preliminary data. Finally, 74 completed questionnaires were received a response rate of

176 24.6%.

177 Based on whether the responding dairy companies have been certified according to

178 ISO 22000, two clusters of companies are created: those which implement the HACCP FSS

PT
179 without holding any certification (non-ISO 22000 certified, 31.1% - 23 companies); and those

180

RI
which implement the HACCP FSS and have been certified according to ISO 22000 (68.9% -

181 51 companies).

SC
182 Given that the responses were returned within an 8-week period, the early and late

183 responding companies were compared in terms of the number of their employees and the

184
U
questionnaire items and no statistically significant differences were found. Furthermore,
AN
185 several non-responding dairy companies stated, when contacted, that the major reason for not

186
M

participating in the research study was lack of time. So, it is apparent that non-response bias is

187 not likely to be an issue in the final sample.

D

188 Data Analysis

TE

189 The non parametric Mann-Whitney Test is used in order to make comparisons

190 between the ISO 22000 certified and non-ISO 22000 certified dairy companies, with respect
EP

191 to the achievement of HACCP objectives. The Chi-square test is also used in order to

192 compare the sub-samples of the dairy companies with regard to their size. The small size of
C

193
AC

the overall sample and sub-samples of the responding dairy companies and the fact that the

194 assumption of multivariate normality seems to be violated are the criteria by which the non-

195 parametric tests are chosen for comparing the sub-samples. The statistical package SPSS 20 is

196 used for data processing.

197
198

8
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
199 Results

200 The company profiles

201 The vast majority of the responding dairy companies are small-medium sized (94.6%).

202 Based on the Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC concerning the definition of small

203 and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), the responding dairy companies can be further

PT
204 categorized as follows: micro enterprises (< 10 employees, 40.5%), small enterprises (11-50

205

RI
employees, 31.1%), and medium enterprises (51-250 employees, 23.0%). However, only

206 5.4% of the responding companies are not SMEs, meaning that they have more than 250

SC
207 employees.

208 Comparing the ISO 22000 certified and non-ISO 22000 certified dairy companies

209
U
In this part of the paper comparisons are made between the ISO 22000 certified dairy
AN
210 companies (51) and the non-ISO 22000 certified (23). No statistically significant differences

211
M

are observed with regard to company size (based on the number of employees). More

212 specifically, in both clusters of the dairy companies there are micro, small, medium and large-
D

213 sized enterprises (Table II).

TE

214 Insert Table II about here

215 Comparing the two clusters of the dairy companies based on the mean values of the
EP

216 HACCP FSS objectives (Table III), we observe statistically significant differences with

217 respect to the hazard identification, hazard assessment and the hazard control objective
C

218
AC

of HACCP. More specifically, the degree to which the ISO 22000 certified dairy companies

219 identify, assess and control food safety hazards within the framework of HACCP, compared

220 to non-ISO 22000 certified, increases significantly.

221 Insert Table III about here

222
223

9
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
224 Discussion

225 The company profiles

226 The vast majority of the participating in the present study dairy companies are SMEs.

227 However, this is not unexpected, having in mind the research findings of Fotopoulos,

228 Kafetzopoulos, & Psomas (2009) and Fotopoulos, Psomas, & Vouzas (2010), regarding the

PT
229 small-medium character of the Greek food companies they studied. Vlachos (2009) also

230

RI
mentions that in the Greek food manufacturing sector the majority of companies are SMEs,

231 while, similarly, Panigyrakis, Kapareliotis, & Ventoura (2009), state that the size of the Greek

SC
232 manufacturing companies in general is quite small. It is worth noting that in Greece, many

233 companies, irrespective of the sector to which they belong, are family-owned companies. So,

234
U
their small size, based on the number of employees, is partly justified (Psomas, Fotopoulos, &
AN
235 Kafetzopoulos, 2011). Psychogios & Szamosi (2007) also mention that the majority of Greek

236
M

businesses are not only small sized but family oriented.

237 HACCP FSS effectiveness and ISO 22000 certification

D

238 The level to which the responding dairy SMEs, either ISO 22000 certified or not,
TE

239 implement the proposed practices that reflect the HACCP FSS objectives is deemed

240 satisfactory. The ample experience of the implementation of HACCP justifies the high level
EP

241 of managing food safety hazards. However, the ISO 22000 certified dairy companies achieve

242 significantly higher levels of the HACCP FSS effectiveness than the non-ISO 22000 certified.
C

243
AC

he implementation and certification of ISO 22000 may be the reason why the ISO 22000

244 certified dairy SMEs outperform the non-ISO 22000 certified in identifying, assessing and

245 controlling food borne safety hazards. Thus, we accept the research hypothesis formulated in

246 the present study.

247 Based on the empirical evidence from the present study, it seems that the ISO 22000

248 certified companies identify better the food borne safety hazards through examining in depth

10
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
249 all the stages of the critical processes, and authorizing the safety team to determine the

250 hazards' characteristics based on the literature and experts on the field. Finally, these dairy

251 companies provide appropriate evidence for documenting all the food safety problems

252 occurred. The ISO 22000 certified companies also assess better the food borne safety hazards

253 using documented procedures. They base their assessment on the criticality and probability of

PT
254 occurrence of the hazards that is determined through historical or longitudinal data of dairy

255

RI
companies, the knowledge and experience of the HACCP team and the literature. The ISO

256 22000 certified companies having successfully identified and assessed the food borne safety

SC
257 hazards, finally control them better, and thus, detect successfully any excess of the limits in

258 the Critical Control Points. The control of the hazards is based on reliable and valid

259
U
procedures using up to date devices, statistical methods, sufficient instructions for monitoring
AN
260 process parameters at the control measures and internal and external audits.

261
M

It seems that the ISO 22000 standard with its structure and requirements significantly

262 helps dairy SMEs manage the food safety hazards. In other words, the guidance provided by
D

263 the ISO 22000 requirements to the diary SMEs seems to be more effective in managing food
TE

264 safety hazards than simply implementing HACCP principles. According to the ISO 22000

265 standard (ISO 22000, 2005), the identification, assessment and control of food borne safety
EP

266 hazards should be intrinsic parts of a well documented FSS. The main responsibility for

267 establishing such a FSS belongs to top management. Characteristic elements of a robust ISO
C

268
AC

22000 FSS that certainly helps a dairy company manage effectively the food hazards and

269 achieve the objectives of HACCP are the following: a strength top management commitment,

270 a clear food safety policy and plan, authorization of the food safety team to manage the food

271 hazards, open communication channels throughout the food supply chain and a prompt

272 response to emergency situations. Providing the top management the necessary resources with

273 regard to the human aspect, the infrastructures and the work environment is fundamental for a

11
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
274 dairy company to effectively manage the food hazards. The above mentioned can be

275 considered as prerequisites for effectively managing the food hazards. How to achieve this, is

276 described in the requirement of the ISO 22000 standard "Planning and realization of safe

277 products and validation". More specifically, the determination of the prerequisite

278 programmes, the establishment of the HACCP plan, the development of a traceability system

PT
279 and the control of the non-conformities, should be carefully taken into consideration by a

280

RI
diary company for the effective management of the food hazards. The validation of the

281 control measures, the control of the monitoring and measurement processes, the verification

SC
282 of the FSS (through internal audits) and finally the improvement of the FSS, are also means

283 that according to the ISO 22000 standard, a dairy company can use in order to increase

284 HACCP effectiveness.

U
AN
285 The effective management (identification, assessment and control) of the food borne

286
M

safety hazards, in other words, the achievement of the HACCP objectives, can be ensured

287 through a FSS that combines, according to the ISO 22000 standard, the following key
D

288 elements to the whole food supply chain, up to the point of final consumption: interactive
TE

289 communication, system management, prerequisite programmes, and HACCP principles (ISO

290 22000, 2005). Taking into consideration the parameters of the food supply chain in the
EP

291 design, development and maintenance of the FSS, is a dynamic characteristic element that

292 only the ISO 22000 standard promotes. Chountalas, Tsarouchas, & Lagodimos (2009) also
C

293
AC

state that the system and process approach that the ISO 22000 standard adopts may help food

294 SMEs more in their effort to achieve HACCP objectives and implement an effective FSS.

295 The findings of the study of Fotopoulos, Kafetzopoulos, & Psomas (2009) are similar,

296 in part, to the present studys findings, both revealing a high level of identifying, assessing

297 and controlling food safety hazards in ISO 22000 certified food companies. However, in that

298 study, the FSS attributes (e.g. the cost and time of implementation and the paperwork

12
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
299 required) do not have any significant impact on HACCP effectiveness, while in the present

300 study there is a variation in terms of HACCP effectiveness based on the ISO 22000

301 certification. In other words, based on the present research findings, it seems that there is an

302 influence of the ISO 22000 implementation and certification on HACCP effectiveness.

303 The purpose of the studies of Varzakas & Arvanitoyannis (2008) and Arvanitoyannis

PT
304 & Varzakas (2009), is in line with the general purpose of the present study. More specifically,

305

RI
control measures for food safety, based on HACCP and ISO 22000, are reviewed, in order to

306 provide a preventative, advantageous strategy for minimising food safety hazards. These

SC
307 studies are focused, similar to the present study, on a particular food sub-sector, such as the

308 processing of ready to eat vegetables and the industrial processing of the common octopus

309
U
respectively. Critical control points, critical limits, process control, corrective actions and
AN
310 verification have been identified and implemented in the HACCP plan, as in the present

311
M

study. However, in the studies of Varzakas & Arvanitoyannis (2008) and Arvanitoyannis &

312 Varzakas (2009), the adoption of prerequisite programmes (PrPs) is the main difference
D

313 detected between the two systems (HACCP and ISO 22000), making ISO 22000 more
TE

314 flexible. So, these studies refer to the flexibility of a certified FSS (such as ISO 22000)

315 achieved through the PrPs, while the present study refers to the increased HACCP
EP

316 effectiveness in the ISO 22000 certified companies.

317 Similar to the present study, Bilalis, Stathis, Konstantas, & Patsiali (2009) evaluate the
C

318
AC

differences between two FSS, HACCP and ISO 22000. They focus on the Greek organic food

319 sector, while the present study focuses on the dairy sector; however, the results are similar.

320 More specifically, the results of Bilalis, Stathis, Konstantas, & Patsiali (2009) show that the

321 ISO 22000 standard can respond better throughout the food chain with respect to risk

322 management, a message that also arises from the present study.

323

13
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
324 Conclusion

325 The superiority of the ISO 22000 certified dairy SMEs versus the non-ISO 22000

326 certified with regard to HACCP effectiveness, in other words to the degree of the

327 achievement of HACCP objectives (identification, assessment and control of food safety

328 hazards), is a significant finding of the present study. Furthermore, the present study confirms

PT
329 the small-medium character of the Greek dairy companies.

330

RI
The findings of the present study give managers a meaningful message. Managers of

331 dairy SMEs taking advantage of the structured organization, the documented procedures and

SC
332 the principles of the ISO 22000 standard, will experience an improvement in the management

333 (identification, assessment and control) of food safety hazards. They should realize that by

334
U
implementing the HACCP FSS and by being ISO 22000 certified, the level of the
AN
335 achievement of the HACCP objectives is improved significantly. Consequently, dairy SMEs

336
M

can minimize unidentified and uncontrolled food safety hazards which result in food

337 contamination, non-conformance to legal and customer requirements and customer

D

338 dissatisfaction. Unquestionably, this could lead to maintaining and increasing market share.
TE

339 The current financial crisis which is reflected not only in the Greek business environment but

340 unfortunately all over Europe, or at least in many other countries, gives to this managerial
EP

341 message a more practical significance and value for a dairy SME.

342 The study presented in this paper suffers from some limitations that give rise to
C

343
AC

suggestions for future research. The study is limited to the dairy sector, which is a particular

344 food sector. The overall sample of the participating dairy companies is small and

345 consequently the size of the clusters created based on the ISO 22000 certification is also

346 small. Although differences are observed between the small sized clusters of the dairy

347 companies, using non parametric tests, further validating these differences, using large sized

348 clusters of ISO 22000 certified and non-certified dairy companies and food companies in

14
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
349 general, is strongly recommended. This would give the opportunity, through testing the

350 assumptions of multivariate data normality in large samples, to base the statistical analyses on

351 parametric tests. Furthermore, given that the sample companies are limited to SMEs, it is

352 strongly recommended that the above mentioned comparisons be made incorporating large

353 dairy companies as well. In doing so, the degree can be determined to which the differences

PT
354 observed above (between ISO 22000 certified and non-certified dairy companies), change due

355

RI
to the company size. Furthermore, the determination of the structural relationships between

356 the HACCP FSS effectiveness, certification status and company size is also suggested for

SC
357 future research studies.

358 The data used in this study does not constitute objective but subjective business

359
U
evidence obtained from representatives of the companies, which involves the risk of receiving
AN
360 biased responses. So, future research is recommended using objective data that can be drawn

361
M

from the documents of the FSS.

362
D

363
TE

364
365
EP

366
367
C

368
AC

369
370
371
372
373

15
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
374 References

375 Ababouch, L. (2000). The role of government agencies in assessing HACCP. Food Control,

376 11(2), 137-142.

377 Aggelogiannopoulos, D., Drossinos, H., & Athanasopoulos, P. (2007). Implementation of a

378 quality management system according to the ISO 9000 family in a Greek small-sized winery:

PT
379 A case study. Food Control, 18(9), 1077-1085.

380

RI
Agrocert, Organization for Certification and Inspection of Agricultural Products

381 (http://www.agrocert.gr/pages/category), (accessed on 22 April 2011).

SC
382 Al Nakeeb, ., Williams, ., Hibberd, P., & Gronow, S. (1998). Measuring the effectiveness

383 of quality assurance systems in the construction industry. Property Management, 16(4), 222-

384 228.
U
AN
385 Arouma, I. (2006). The impact of food regulation on the food supply chain. Food Toxicology,

386
M

221(1), 119-27.

387 Arvanitoyannis, I., & Mavropoulos, A. (2000). Implementation of the hazard analysis critical
D

388 control point (HACCP) system to Kasseri/Kefalotiri and Anevato cheese production lines.
TE

389 Food Control, 11(1), 31-40.

390 Arvanitoyannis, I. S., & Varzakas, T. H. (2009). Application of ISO 22000 and comparison
EP

391 with HACCP on industrial processing of common octopus (Octopus vulgaris) Part I.

392 International Journal of Food Science and Technology, 44, 58-78.

C

393
AC

Azanza, P., & Zamora-Luna, M. (2005). Barriers of HACCP team members to guideline

394 adherence. Food Control, 16(1) 15-22.

395 Bas, M., Yoksel, M., & avuooflu, T. (2007). Difficulties and barriers for the implementing

396 of HACCP and food safety systems in food businesses in Turkey. Food Control, 18(2), 124-

397 130.

16
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
398 Bilalis, D., Stathis I, Konstantas, A., & Patsiali, S. (2009). Comparison between HACCP and

399 ISO 22000 in Greek organic food sector. Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment, 7(2),

400 237-242.

401 Botonaki, A., Polymeros, K., Tsakiridou, E., & Mattas, K. (2006). The role of food quality

402 certification on consumers food choices. British Food Journal, 108(2), 77-90.

PT
403 Burlingame, B., & Pineiro, M. (2007). The essential balance: Risks and benefits in food safety

404

RI
and quality. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, 20(2), 139-146.

405 Chountalas, P., Tsarouchas, D., & Lagodimos, A. (2009). Standardized Food Safety

SC
406 Management: The Case of Industrial Yoghurt. British Food Journal, 111(9), 897-914.

407 Domenech, E., Escriche, I., & Martorell, S. (2008). Assessing the effectiveness of critical

408
U
control points to guarantee food safety. Food Control, 19(6), 557-565.
AN
409 Dumond, E. J. (1994). Making best use of performance measures and information.

410
M

International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 14(1), 16-31.

411 Eves, A., & Dervisi, P. (2005). Experiences of the implementation and operation of hazard
D

412 analysis critical control points in the food service sector. International Journal of Hospitality
TE

413 Management, 24(1), 3-19.

414 Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), FAO/WHO (2007). Guidance to governments on
EP

415 the application of HACCP in small and/or less-developed food businesses. Geneva.

416 Fotopoulos, C., Kafetzopoulos, D., & Psomas E. (2009). Assessing the critical factors and
C

417
AC

their impact on the effective implementation of a food safety management system.

418 International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 26(9), 894-910.

419 Fotopoulos, C., Psomas, E., & Vouzas, F. (2010). ISO 9001:2000 Implementation in the

420 Greek Food Sector. The TQM Journal, 22(2), 129-142.

421 Gaaloul, I., Riabi, S., & Ghorbel, R. E. (2011). Implementation of ISO 22000 in cereal food

422 industry SMID in Tunisia. Food Control, 22, 59-66.

17
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
423 Griffith, C. J., Livesey, K. M., & Clayton, D. (2010). The assessment of food safety culture.

424 British Food Journal, 112(4), 439-456.

425 ISO 22000:2005 (2005). Food safety management systems - requirements for any

426 organization in the food chain. Hellenic Body for Standardisation (ELOT), Athens.

427 Kafetzopoulos, D. Gotzamani, K., & Fotopoulos, C. (2013). Quality Systems and competitive

PT
428 performance of food companies. Benchmarking: An international Journal, 20 (4), 463-483.

429

RI
Kafetzopoulos, D., Psomas, E. & Kafetzopoulos, P. (2013). Measuring the effectiveness of

430 the HACCP Food Safety Management System. Food control, 33 (2), 505-513.

SC
431 Khandke, S., & Mayes, T. (1998). HACCP implementation: a practical guide to the

432 implementation of the HACCP plan. Food Control, 9(2-3), 103-109.

433
U
Khatri, Y., & Collins, R. (2007). Impact and status of HACCP in the Australian meat
AN
434 industry. British Food Journal, 109(5), 343-354.

435
M

Luning, P., Bango, L., Kussaga, J., Rovira, J., & Marcelis, W. (2008). Comprehensive

436 analysis and differentiated assessment of food safety control systems: a diagnostic instrument.
D

437 Trends in Food Science & Technology, 19(10), 522-534.

TE

438 Mortimore, S. (2000). An example of some procedures used to assess HACCP systems within

439 the food manufacturing industry. Food Control, 11(5), 403-413.

EP

440 Motarjemi, Y., & Kaferstein, F. (1999). Food safety, hazard analysis and critical control point

441 and the increase in food borne disease: A paradox? Food Control, 10(4/5), 325-333.
C

442
AC

Motarjemi, Y., & Mortimore, S. (2005). Industrys need and expectations to meet food

443 safety, 5th International meeting: Noordwijk food safety and HACCP forum 9-10 December

444 2002. Food Control, 16(6), 523-529.

445 Neely, A., Gregory, M., & Platts, K. (1995). Performance measurement system design, a

446 literature review and research agenda. International Journal of Operations and Production

447 Management, 15(4), 80-116.

18
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
448 Nguyen, T., Wilcock, A., & Aung, M. (2004). Food safety and quality systems in Canada.

449 International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 21(6), 655-671.

450 ODonnell, F. J., & Duffy, A. H. B. (2002). Modelling design development performance.

451 International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 22(11), 1198-1221.

452 Panigyrakis, G., Kapareliotis, I., & Ventoura, Z. (2009). Marketing and corporate

PT
453 profitability: the case of Greek firms. Managerial Finance, 35(11), 909-917.

454

RI
Psomas E., Fotopoulos, C., & Kafetzopoulos, D. (2011). Core process management practices,

455 quality tools and quality improvement in ISO 9001 certified manufacturing companies.

SC
456 Business Process Management Journal, 17(3), 437-460.

457 Psychogios, A. G., & Szamosi, L. T. (2007). Exploring the Greek national business system.

458
U
Towards a modernization agenda. EuroMed Journal of Business. 2(1), 7-22.
AN
459 Redshaw, B. (2000). Evaluating organisational effectiveness. Industrial and Commercial

460
M

Training, 32(7), 245-248.

461 Report from the Commission on the Implementation of the Commission Recommendation
D

462 (2003/361/EC), of 6 May 2003 concerning the Definition of Micro, Small and Medium-sized
TE

463 Enterprises, Brussels, 21.12.2006, C(2006)7074, available at:

464 http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/facts-figures-analysis/sme definition/indexen.htm

EP

465 (accessed 28 February 2010).

466 Sperber, W. (1997). Auditing and verification of food safety and HACCP. Food Control, 9(2-
C

467
AC

3), 157-162.

468 Taylor, E., & Kane, K. (2005). Reducing the burden of HACCP in SMEs. Food Control,

469 16(10), 833-839.

470 Taylor, E., & Taylor, J. (2004). Using qualitative psychology to investigate HACCP

471 implementation barriers. International Journal of Environmental Health Research, 14(1), 53-

472 63.

19
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
473 Trienekens, J., & Zuurbier, P. (2008). Quality and safety standards in the food industry,

474 developments and challenges. International Journal of Production Economics, 113(1), 107-

475 122.

476 van der Spiegel, ., Luningy, P., Ziggers, G., & Jongen, W. (2004). Evaluation of

477 Performance Measurement Instruments on Their Use for Food Quality Systems. Critical

PT
478 Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 44(6), 501-512.

479

RI
Varzakas, T. H., & Arvanitoyannis, I. S. (2008). Application of ISO 22000 and comparison to

480 HACCP for processing of ready to eat vegetables: Part I. International Journal of Food

SC
481 Science and Technology, 43, 1729-1741.

482 Vlachos, I. P. (2009). High-performance workplace practices for Greek companies. EuroMed

483 Journal of Business, 4(1), 21-39.

U
AN
484 Wallace, C., & Powell, S. (2005). Development of methods for standardised HACCP

485
M

assessment. British Food Journal, 107(10), 723-742.

D
TE
C EP
AC

20
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table I: HACCP objectives and their indicators

Objectives Indicators*
Flow charts of procedures are frequently revised by experts.
All stages of the procedures in which safety problems may occur are
determined and documented.
The HACCP team identifies all hazards pertaining to food ingredients.
The HACCP team uses brainstorming in order to identify food safety

PT
Identification of
problems and their causes.
Food Borne
The HACCP team uses literature data bases to identify food borne
Safety Hazards
safety hazards.

RI
Experts note the product characteristics that create food safety
problems.

SC
Evidence is provided regarding the determination of food safety
problems.
Employees fully recognize the significance and criticality of any food

U
safety problem.
Documented procedures are implemented so that safety problems can
AN
be assessed.
Assessment of The HACCP team assesses and classifies each food safety problem
Food Borne according to occurrence probability and its criticality.
M

Safety Hazards The HACCP team collects data for assessing hazard criticality.
The HACCP team uses literature data bases to assess the food borne
safety hazards.
D

The HACCP team has the knowledge and the know-how in order to
assess the food borne safety hazards.
TE

A food company demonstrates the suitability of the methods and

devices used for controlling food safety problems.
Instructions are provided for monitoring process parameters at the
EP

control measures.
The food company uses statistical methods for controlling food safety
Control of Food
C

problems.
Borne Safety
Reliable and valid procedures are used for monitoring and controlling
Hazards
AC

food safety problems.

External audit results confirm the suitability of the methods used for
monitoring and controlling food safety problems.
The programs for monitoring and controlling food safety problems
detect any excess of the limits in the Critical Control Points (CCPs).
* Drawn from (FAO, 2007), Luning et al. (2008), Wallace and Powell (2005), Mortimore (2000),
Ababouch (2000) and Sperber (1997).

1
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table II: Company profiles

Dairy company clusters

Non-ISO 22000 ISO 22000
Variables
Certified Certified
n1 = 23 n2 = 51
Company Size (number of employees)*
<10 43.5 39.2

PT
11-50 30.4 31.4
51-250 21.7 23.5
>250 4.40 5.90

RI
*: No statistically significant differences (Chi-square test).

U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC

2
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table III: HACCP objectives of the ISO 22000 certified and non-certified dairy companies

Dairy Company Clusters

Non-ISO 22000 ISO 22000
Variables
Certified Certified
Sig. n1 = 23 n2 = 51
HACCP Objectives
Hazard Identification * 4.4911 5.611

PT
Hazard Assessment * 4.768 5.817
Hazard Control * 4.739 5.696
*: Statistically significant differences in p < 0.00 (Mann Whitney Test), 1: 1 represents strongly

RI
disagree and 7 represents strongly agree.

U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC

3
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Research highlights

Determine differences between the ISO 22000 certified and non-certified dairy
firms.

Defines the effectiveness of the HACCP system.

PT
Reveals the superiority of the ISO 22000 certified dairy SMEs

RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC