The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0007-070X.htm

School
Food safety culture assessment foodservice
scale development and validation
for use in school foodservice
Kahori Fujisaki 737
Graduate School of Humanities and Sciences,
Received 22 April 2019
Ochanomizu University, Tokyo, Japan, and Revised 15 August 2019
Rie Akamatsu Accepted 20 November 2019

Natural Science Division, Ochanomizu University, Tokyo, Japan

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to develop and validate a measurement scale to assess food safety
culture for use in school foodservice.
Design/methodology/approach – The scale was originally developed by the authors based on the previous
study and a paper-based survey was carried out. Based on responses from 1,408 Japanese school food handlers,
exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were used to extract a factor structure,
and the reliability (Cronbach’s α value), construct and criterion-related validity of the scale were assessed.
Findings – The scale was constructed as a 20-item food safety culture assessment with the following subscales:
underestimation of risk, surrounding support, communication, facilities and equipment, and commitment. The
total score on this scale moderately correlated with self-reported behaviors (rs ¼ 0.427, po0.01) and descriptive
norms (rs ¼ 0.472, po0.01), but only slightly with knowledge (rs ¼ 0.105, po0.01). Its reliability and validity
were confirmed.
Research limitations/implications – This research should be replicated in large supply centers (i.e. a
central kitchen). As this study relied on self-reports, further studies could examine whether the scale could be
related to objective indicators for triangulation (e.g. behavioral observation, interviews).
Practical implications – This study helps practitioners understand food safety culture dimensions in the
foodservice industry and improve food safety training and performance in school foodservice.
Originality/value – The focus on food safety culture in the Japanese foodservice industry identifies cultural
factors that are important for school foodservice. Additionally, the relationship between food safety culture
and normative factors was also clarified.
Keywords Foodservice, Food handlers, Assessment scale, Food safety culture, School lunch
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Foodborne diseases contribute to morbidity and mortality, especially among children, who
are at a higher risk due to their immature immune systems (World Health Organization,
2018). Thus, prevention of foodborne diseases in large-scale foodservice systems, such as
those in schools (where children are consumers), should be an area of focus in the field of
food safety. In the USA, between 2009 and 2012, more than 90 percent of norovirus
outbreaks occurred in foodservice environments, of which schools and childcare centers
accounted for 6.1 percent (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2018). In Japan, after
the outbreak of E. coli O157:H7 in school foodservice facilities in 1996 (Michino et al., 1999),
hygiene control systems were modified, resulting in the implementation of the Hazard
Analysis and Critical Control Point approach (MEXT, 2009). This system considerably
reduced the likelihood of future foodborne disease outbreaks (Sakurai, 2016); however, the
Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (2019) reported a total of 108 foodborne disease
outbreaks in school meal facilities between 2000 and 2018, affecting about 14,000 students British Food Journal
Vol. 122 No. 3, 2020
pp. 737-752
© Emerald Publishing Limited
Conflicts of interest: there are no conflicts of interest to declare. The authors thank the school food 0007-070X
handlers for their contributions to and participation in the study. DOI 10.1108/BFJ-04-2019-0280
BFJ who required clinical care; between 2016 and 2018 in particular, outbreaks of foodborne
122,3 diseases in schools once again increased. Furthermore, because of the industrial-sized
kitchens in these foodservice environments, there is always a potential risk that even one
outbreak could affect many children (Kawamoto, 2017).
Common causes of foodborne disease outbreaks include various human behaviors,
such as inappropriate food-storage temperatures, insufficient hand washing, and
738 cross-contamination (Food and Drug Administration, 2009); thus, food handlers’ behaviors
and standard procedures are critical factors in the prevention of foodborne diseases
(Griffith, 2013; Yiannas, 2009). Previous studies have reported that food handlers’ practices,
decision-making, attitudes, and perceived values are influenced by the food safety culture in an
organization on multiple levels (De Boeck et al., 2016; Griffith et al., 2010a; Taylor, 2011;
Yiannas, 2009). Food industries need to make an effort to reduce potential failures related to
food safety and embrace the concept of a food safety culture for their organization (Griffith
et al., 2017; Yiannas, 2009). Furthermore, objectively assessing food safety culture is required
to encourage and improve food safety behavior ( Jespersen and Wallace, 2017; Nayak and
Waterson, 2016; Powell et al., 2011). School foodservice industries are no exception in this effort
to cultivate a food safety culture; nevertheless, studies on assessment tools for food safety
culture in school foodservice industries are limited (Ungku Fatimah et al., 2014) and none have
investigated the issue from an Asian perspective. This study, therefore, develops and validates
a scale that can be used to assess food safety culture among school food handlers.

Literature review
The assessment of food safety culture
Food safety culture is the “aggregation of the prevailing, relatively constant, learned, shared
attitudes, values, and beliefs contributing to the hygiene behaviors used within a particular
food handling environment” (Griffith et al., 2010a) and can be expanded to include
“employees’ (shared) perception of leadership, communication, commitment, resources and
risk awareness concerning food safety and hygiene within their current work organization”
(De Boeck et al., 2015). A poor food safety culture can lead to failure of some food products
and increased risk of foodborne diseases (Powell et al., 2011), but the presence of a food
safety management system alone cannot cultivate a strong food safety culture (De Boeck
et al., 2016). In the food industry (including food manufacturing and foodservice), previous
studies have investigated food safety culture evaluations using various quantitative and
qualitative methods to assess individual knowledge, attitudes, risk perception, actual
practice, training, commitment to the work, communication, equipment, tools and
management systems (De Boeck et al., 2016; Jespersen et al., 2016; Jespersen and Wallace,
2017; Neal et al., 2012; Nyarugwe et al., 2018; Ungku Fatimah et al., 2014). The assessment of
food safety culture is useful in evaluating the food safety implementation strengths of an
organization, for example, through triangulations such as observation, self-assessment, and
interviews, which can be used to develop an in-depth evaluation method ( Jespersen and
Wallace, 2017; Nyarugwe et al., 2018). In the hospitality industry, such as hotels and catering
companies, evaluating food safety culture through a mixed method that includes
quantitative surveys and interviews has encouraged continuous improvement in long-term
case studies (Caccamo et al., 2018; Nouaimeh et al., 2018).
The national culture affects safety culture (Noort et al., 2016); however, the influence of
differences in risks across different cultures such as in industry, organization level and
regulation cannot be ignored in terms of evaluating food safety culture (Nyarugwe et al.,
2016). One previous study in Japan that explored cultural factors in foodservice through a
survey of the nutritional group in a Japanese hospital revealed that organizational structure
elements, such as employees’ consciousness and behavior, comprehension of job content,
personnel distribution and time allocation for food preparation all represent fundamental
causes of foodborne diseases (Kubota and Kawai, 2015). Furthermore, one qualitative study School
for school food handlers in Japan investigated factors related to food safety culture foodservice
(Fujisaki et al., 2019). In this previous study (Fujisaki et al., 2019), the social-ecological model
(Sallis et al., 2008) was adopted, which was transformed to suit the context of food safety
culture. This model is a framework for emphasizing multiple-level factors of a social system
and suggests that the presence of the interactions among these different levels such as
individual, interpersonal, organizational, community and public policy (Sallis et al., 2008), 739
and is used for understanding the factors that influence specific health behaviors as one of
the effective approaches to public health (Baral et al., 2013; Cramer and Kapusta, 2017; Sallis
et al., 2008). According to a previous study, the factors related to food safety culture in
Japanese school food handlers included social-ecological-level classifications such as
individual (e.g. commitment, work experience, risk perceptions), supervisor/co-workers
(e.g. communication, teamwork, leadership), environmental (e.g. facilities, management,
external) and policy-level factors (e.g. standards, documents) (Fujisaki et al., 2019). In this
study as well, the social-ecological model was applied to develop a preliminary food safety
culture assessment scale because the influence and the mechanisms of food handlers’
behavior should be considered in terms of food safety culture, which is multi-dimensional
(Nyarugwe et al., 2016).

Food safety knowledge, normative factors, and behaviors as factors related to food
safety culture
Food safety culture has a positive relationship with food safety practices (De Boeck et al.,
2017) and, at the same time, is a mediator of the relationship between food handlers’
knowledge and practices (De Boeck et al., 2017; Manning, 2018). While knowledge and
attitudes about food safety are important, they are not always connected with or applied to
food safety practices (Lee et al., 2017; Zanin et al., 2017). Normative factors (e.g. subjective
norms, descriptive norms) and food safety practices are positively associated (Clayton and
Griffith, 2008; Hinsz and Nickell, 2015), but the relationship between normative factors and
food safety culture is unclear. In other fields, group norms have been used to measure the
safety climate (Fogarty and Shaw, 2010), and co-workers’ descriptive norms and
supervisors’ injunctive norms mediates the relationship between the organizational safety
climate and safety behaviors (Fugas et al., 2012; Jiang et al., 2010). Thus, it was hypothesized
that the results of the present study will show a positive correlation between desirable
behaviors, normative factors and food safety culture, while there would be a weak
connection between food safety culture and knowledge.

Methods
Participants and data collection
For this study, a paper-based survey in Japanese was carried out from July through
December 2017. The survey was distributed to 1,945 foodservice employees, including
school dietitians and cooks in public schools in two cities (A city and B city) in Tokyo as well
as one company (C company), all three of which were provided approval for the conduction
of the survey. These areas and the company were asked to complete a survey because the
schools and the company included their various sizes and management types. A city is a
suburban city with about 20 public schools, and B city is a district close to the urban area,
with about 90 public schools. C company undertakes school lunch preparations at public
schools in Tokyo, Kanagawa, Chiba, and Saitama. In A city only, the questionnaires were
distributed to participants at a food safety training session and collected on the same day,
while school dietitians from B city and chief cooks from C company distributed the
questionnaires to their employees and returned the completed questionnaires by mail.
BFJ During the return process, school dietitians, chiefs, and supervisors could not see employees’
122,3 responses. Imperative for participation in the study was respondents’ engagement in daily
school lunch preparation, and this was not limited in terms of years of experience. Each
employee was informed of the purpose of the study and the voluntary nature of
participation with a cover letter, and the return of the questionnaire was considered formal
consent. The Research Ethics Board at Ochanomizu University approved the study.
740
Measures
Demographic characteristics. Participants were asked about their age, sex, years of experience,
years of working in their current position, education, licenses held, managerial posts,
accident/incident experience and training attendance during any one year. Information about
the facility (central or non-central kitchen), management style (self-operated or contract
management), number of staff members and number of meals was also collected.
Food safety culture assessment scale. The preliminary scale for assessing food safety
culture among school foodservice employees was developed based on a previous study in
which socio-ecological-level factors were classified (Fujisaki et al., 2019). This scale consisted
of 36 items divided into four categories: individual commitment (7 items), relationships with
supervisor/co-workers (13 items), environment (11 items), and management and
management system (5 items). These were derived from factors related to food safety
culture that were obtained from the prior qualitative study with a focus group consisting of
school foodservice employees (Fujisaki et al., 2019). First, individual commitment included
items about the priority or importance of safety, values and risk perceptions. Second,
relationships with supervisor/co-workers included items about leadership, communication,
teamwork and co-workers’ support. Third, environment included items about availability
and capacity of a facility, as well as equipment, linear workflow, usefulness of training and
relationship among managers (school principal, company or municipal education
committee). Fourth, management and management system included items regarding
staffing, time constraints and documents. Participants were asked to rate their level of
agreement with statements about their current workplace using a seven-point Likert scale
(1 ¼ strongly disagree; 7 ¼ strongly agree). Prior to the survey, four registered dietitians and
one nutrition education researcher reviewed the questionnaire for content validity, rating it
on a scale from one to five points for readability, understandability and measurability. Some
minor modifications such as in the word choice were made to improve the questionnaire
based on their scores and comments.
Food safety knowledge. Five questions concerning knowledge about microorganisms
(e.g. “Many foodborne poisonings by Salmonella spp. are caused by fish and shellfish”) and
proper food handling (proper glove use, storing raw food properly, keeping food at
proper temperatures) were used in the survey based on the food handler training manual
published by MEXT (2012). Participants were asked to choose from responses of TRUE or
FALSE and their answers were scored (1 ¼ correct, 0 ¼ incorrect). The total score
(0–5 points) was calculated.
Injunctive and descriptive norms. Injunctive norms are perceptions of behaviors and
attitudes measured as the level of their acceptance or non-acceptance within a group
(Cialdini et al., 1990), while descriptive norms are perceptions of the extent to which other
people in a group behave according to typical patterns (Borsari and Carey, 2001). As a
measure of injunctive norms, two items (e.g. “If you did not wash your hands after touching
raw food, your co-workers, including the chief, would not mind”) were used. Responses for
each item were scored (1 ¼ strongly disagree; 7 ¼ strongly agree) and the total score (2–14
points) was used for analysis. As a measure of descriptive norms, one item (“In your opinion,
how many of your co-workers, including the chief, do not do their job in line with manuals,
or do inappropriate work during food preparation?”) was used. Participants were asked to School
rate their current workplace on a seven-point scale (1 ¼ almost all; 7 ¼ none). This was used foodservice
for analysis as a score of descriptive norms (1-7 points).
Food safety behavior. These five items were constructed for self-reported food safety
behavior based on a previous study (Bas et al., 2006). This section included proper attire,
temperature checks, attire when going to the toilet, attendance in poor physical conditions,
and hand washing before putting on gloves (e.g. “Before putting on gloves, I wash my 741
hands”). Items were rated on a five-point scale (1 ¼ not at all; 5 ¼ always) and the total score
(5–25 points) was calculated.

Data analysis
Survey data from the food safety culture assessment scale were analyzed according to the
following procedure: item selection, explanatory factor analysis (EFA), confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA), examination of reliability and examination of criterion-referenced validity.
First, the frequency distribution of each item was calculated, and in cases where more
than 75 percent of participants agreed on an item, one corresponding item was excluded.
Among two items for which the correlation coefficient was 0.75 or more, one was excluded.
In addition, negative items were reverse-coded. To extract the valid items for food safety
culture, EFA was performed using maximum likelihood factor analysis with promax
rotation and the number of factors was selected based on the eigenvalue of 1.0. The scale
items with a factor loading of more than 0.4 and with no multiple loadings were selected.
Using the selected factors, CFA was performed to evaluate construct validity. The fitness of
the model was assessed using the following indicates: goodness of index (GFI), adjusted GFI
(AGFI), comparative fit index (CFI) and Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA).
GFI, AGFI and CFI values higher than 0.90 were defined as an acceptable fit, whereas values
higher than 0.95 were defined as a good fit. RMSEA values lower than 0.10 were defined as
an acceptable fit, and those lower than 0.05 as a good fit (Oshio, 2008). Based on this, an
optimal model was examined. In this analysis, missing values on each item of the food safety
assessment scale were analyzed and replaced with median values. The percentage of
missing values was less than 5 percent across all items. The subscales obtained from EFA
and CFA resulted in the names, based on item content.
Cronbach’s α was used to examine the reliability of the scale. To assess the
criterion-referenced validity of this instrument, correlations between scores on food safety
culture assessment scale and scores on food safety knowledge, social norms (injunctive and
descriptive) and self-reported food safety behaviors were examined. In this process, as food
safety culture assessment scale score, the total score of each item (1–7 points) was used.
Normality of distribution of each subscale score and total score was verified with a
Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. As normal distributions were not found ( p o0.01), Spearman’s
correlation coefficient (rs) was used. Analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS 24.0 for
Windows and Amos 25.0. Statistical significance was set at p o0.05. It was hypothesized
that the results would show a positive correlation between desirable behaviors and food
safety culture, while there would be a weak connection between total score and knowledge.
A positive correlation between results for injunctive norms and the total score, and between
results for descriptive norms and the scale score were also predicted.

Results
Participants
A total of 1,455 responses were collected, with a response rate of 74.8 percent. Of these,
1,408 responses were analyzed after excluding incomplete responses to the food safety culture
assessment scale. Additionally, participants who were not engaged in meal preparation
BFJ (e.g. a dietitian who only creates the menu) and those who worked in a special support school
122,3 (e.g. only assisting children with disabilities) were excluded. Thus, only the responses of
employees working in facilities that provide general menus were considered. Table I shows
participant characteristics; most were female (87.3 percent), and more were part-time workers
(59.7 percent) than full-time workers (36.9 percent). In addition, 36.9 percent of participants had
work experience from one to five years, almost all (91.3 percent) had received food safety
742 training within the last year, and 64.5 percent answered that they had a minor accident/
incident experience that did not impact the children. Regarding the operation characteristics,
93.6 percent of participants worked in contract management. The number of employees in
each workplace was between 6 and 10 for 63.1 percent of respondents, and about half of
participants who worked at the school served between 501 and 1,000 meals (51.9 percent).

Factor analysis
According to the above-mentioned item selection, two items were deleted, and EFA was
performed with the remaining 34 items. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin value was 0.93, which
was higher than the required value of 0.60. Additionally, Bartlett’s test of sphericity showed
significant ( p o0.001) results. The number of factors was set to five based on eigenvalues of
1.0 or more. The equivalent conclusions could be obtained from the scree plot, and 22 items
with factor loadings above 0.4 were extracted.
In the next phase, to confirm the construct validity of the model suggested by EFA, CFA
was performed. We obtained moderate fitness indicators from each examination
(GFI ¼ 0.929, AGFI ¼ 0.911, CFI ¼ 0.917, RMSEA ¼ 0.055). Finally, the model structure
comprised of 20 items, as shown in Table II, and the fitness of the model was improved by
deleting two items from factor 1 (GFI ¼ 0.949, AGFI ¼ 0.932, CFI ¼ 0.939, RMSEA ¼ 0.051).
Factor 1 was named “Underestimation of risk” because five items loading on this factor
were related to optimistic bias or risk-taking decisions in circumstances in which complying
with food safety rules depends on the situation. Factor 2 contained items related to
relationships with co-workers, on-site managers, or the principal of the school; thus, it was
termed “Surrounding support.” Factor 3 was referred to as “Communication” because it
included being able to give opinions or ensure food safety and hygiene. Factor 4 comprised
items that described appropriateness, accessibility and availability of facilities and
equipment for appropriate food preparing and was labeled “Facilities and equipment.”
Factor 5 was named “Commitment” because it included employees’ attitudes or positive
participation in safe food handling.

Examination of reliability
We calculated Cronbach’s α coefficient to examine the reliability of all 20 items and each
subscale (Table II). The α coefficients were found to have an acceptable value, ranging from
0.62 to 0.88, confirming reliability. The median score (25th–75th percentile) of all items
and each subscale had a total of 121 (110–131), broken down as follows: factor 1
“Underestimation of risk,” 30 (26–33); factor 2 “Surrounded support,” 38 (34–41); factor 3
“Communication,” 19 (17–21); factor 4 “Facilities and equipment,” 17 (14–19); and factor 5
“Commitment,” 19 (18–21).

Criterion-referenced validity
To confirm the criterion-referenced validity, we examined correlations between the scores
for food safety knowledge (0–5 points), injunctive norms (2–14 points), descriptive norms
(1–7 points), self-reported food safety behaviors (5–25 points) and the total score of the food
safety culture assessment scale. The median score (range) of each is as follows: food safety
knowledge, 4 (0–5); injunctive norms, 14 (2–14); descriptive norms, 7 (1–7); and food safety
 n %
School
foodservice
Sex
Female 1,225 87.3
Male 178 12.7
Age
20–29 227 16.1 743
30–39 297 21.1
40–49 575 40.8
50–59 229 16.3
Older than 60 61 4.3
Years of food service experience
Less than 1 year 136 11.5
1–5 years 437 36.9
6–10 years 308 26.0
11–15 years 135 11.4
16–20 years 93 7.8
More than 20 years 76 6.4
Time worked in current position
Less than 1 year 314 22.8
1–5 years 777 56.5
6–10 years 202 14.7
11–15 years 50 3.6
16–20 years 15 1.1
More than 20 years 17 1.2
Employment status
Full-time 516 36.9
Part-time 835 59.7
Other 47 3.4
Education
Postgraduate 2 0.1
University 206 14.8
Culinary school/college 691 49.7
High school 468 33.6
Junior high school 24 1.7
Received food safety training
Yes 1,286 92.7
No 101 7.3
Accident experience
Yes 908 67.2
No 443 32.8
Management system
Self-operated 90 6.4
Contract management 1,312 93.6
Number of employees
Fewer than 5 50 3.6
6–10 888 63.1
11–15 378 26.8
More than 15 92 6.5 Table I.
Demographic data
from survey
(continued ) respondents
BFJ n %
122,3
Total meals served
Fewer than 500 557 39.6
501–1,000 731 51.9
More than 1,000 120 8.5

744 Type of school

Elementary school 1,108 78.7
Junior high school 300 21.3
Type of supply
Not central 1,233 87.6
For two schools 175 12.4
Table I. Note: n ¼ 1,408

behaviors, 24 (13–25). Results revealed positive and significant correlations; for example,
scores on injunctive norms (rs ¼ 0.355, po 0.01), descriptive norms (rs ¼ 0.458, p o0.01) and
behaviors (rs ¼ 0.427, p o0.01) were moderately correlated, whereas those on knowledge
(rs ¼ 0.105, p o0.01) weakly correlated with the total score for the food safety culture
assessment scale.

Discussion
In this study, an assessment scale of food safety culture among school food handlers was
developed and its validity and reliability were confirmed. The scale consisted of 20 items
with five factors: underestimation of risk, surrounding support, communication, facilities
and equipment, and commitment. This indicates that even 20 items (whittled from a pilot list
of 36 items) can measure food safety culture through a practical and easy-to-use scale.
Previous studies have summarized some instruments of food safety culture assessment in
food industry, and Jespersen, Griffiths and Wallace (2017) and Jespersen, Maclaurin and
Vlerick (2017) proposed five general categories: values and mission, people systems,
consistency, adaptability, and risk awareness. Other studies have included various factors
affecting food safety culture related to the fields of psychology, management and food
processing (Griffith et al., 2010b; Nyarugwe et al., 2016; Taylor, 2011). Applying the present
study to the categories by Jespersen, Griffiths and Wallace (2017), it is considered that
Surrounding support is incorporated in people systems, in terms of education and support for
new employees; in risk awareness, which means employees alert each other about food safety
risks; and in values and mission, in terms of including the management level’s engagement
with food safety. Similarly, communication is considered to include elements of values and
mission, in terms of leaders motivating employees, as well as people systems, related to
communication about food safety between leaders and employees, and consistency, in terms of
leading appropriate procedures by support. Facilities and equipment can be classified as
consistency, which includes access to the proper tools, and Commitment can be considered as
values and mission, related to employee responsibility and commitment. In contrast,
Underestimation of risk was difficult to classify into the five categories. This factor would be
likely to be included in risk awareness; however, it focuses on risk assessment and control.
Thus, it can be considered as a newly extracted factor because it includes optimistic bias or
risk-taking decisions, which cause poor food safety practices despite perceived risk. Griffith
et al. (2010b) stated that behavioral problems caused by an attitude of ambivalence are likely to
occur in food service; for example, quick service might be prioritized over hand washing. This
idea supports that this subscale is appropriate.
 Explanatory factor
loadinga
Factor Items F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 Confirmatory factor loading

Factor 1: underestimation 26. Even if there are some risks to safety or hygiene while food preparing, I think 0.70 0.64
of risk that it will be okayb
32. When the days with a lot of work continue, consciousness to safety or hygiene 0.68 0.74
diminishes, and finishing preparing within the allotted time is given priorityb
14. When I’m pressed for time, I tend to be negligent in paying attention to food 0.65 0.59
safety and hygieneb
29. It requires time and effort to follow the procedure in the manual or the ruleb 0.64 0.65
19. Even if the equipment is damaged, if it is minor, I just have to report it laterb 0.55 0.49
Factor 2: surrounding 23. Skilled co-workers or on-site managers are providing support to new 0.71 0.71
support employees, such as teaching how to practice hygienic food preparation
21. If I make a mistake during the procedure on sanitation, co-workers and on-site 0.70 0.69
managers give me warnings at that time
20. The on-site manager makes me and my co-workers share various roles 0.70 0.74
24. We are developing cooperation with schools, administrators (local 0.64 0.67
governments, companies), and vendors for providing safe school lunch
22. The principal of the school as a facility director is interested in the safety and 0.56 0.59
hygiene of school lunch
28. During food preparation, we call out to and remind each other about food 0.44 0.72
safety and hygiene
Factor 3: communication 8. Employees can freely discuss something we notice that could influence food 0.88 0.68
safety or the hygiene of school lunch
17. When I cannot remember the appropriate procedures for hygienic food 0.62 0.60
preparation, I can easily ask co-workers or the on-site manager how to do
10. Administrators and on-site managers encourage and motivate us to provide a 0.55 0.62
safe and hygienic school lunch for students
Factor 4: facilities and 11. Facilities are adequate in following safe and hygienic food preparation in line 0.85 0.46
equipment with the manuals
18. Hand-washing sinks are readily available and accessible when needed 0.61 0.67

(continued )
foodservice
School

Table II.
Factor analysis results
745
 BFJ

746
122,3

Table II.
Explanatory factor
loadinga
Factor Items F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 Confirmatory factor loading

36. If a facility or equipment needs repair, we can ask to do immediately 0.40 0.68
Factor 5: commitment 5. While seeing what co-workers are doing, I carry out my work 0.58 0.79
6. The food hygiene training can be useful for me to provide food safety and 0.53 0.71
hygiene
1. Safe and hygienic food preparing in line with the manuals is a high priority for 0.43 0.76
me
Cronbach’s α 0.76 0.84 0.66 0.62 0.79
All items 0.88
Factor correlation F1 F2 F3 F4 F5
F1 − 0.55 0.48 0.39 0.38
F2 − 0.69 0.55 0.48
F3 − 0.51 0.47
F4 − 0.32
F5 −
Notes: n ¼ 1,408. aMaximum-likelihood factor method with promax rotation; bitem was reverse-coded
Compared with a food safety culture assessment tool for on-site foodservice School
(Ungku Fatimah et al., 2014), which was not included in this review, most factors of such foodservice
an assessment were in line with this study. Ungku Fatimah et al. (2014) developed six factors:
management and coworker support, communication, self-commitment, environmental
support, work pressure and risk judgment (Ungku Fatimah et al., 2014). This suggests that
reasonable factors were identified; however, some disparities with the current study were
found. For example, the item regarding staffing was omitted in the item selection. Food safety 747
culture assessment should take into account differences due to national and regional
characteristics as well as types of working operations (Nyarugwe et al., 2016). Given that this
assessment scale reflects these differences, it was suggested that Japanese school foodservice
could have slight differences from American on-site foodservice. This scale was first
developed in Asia and can be used effectively to improve school lunch preparation.
Criterion-referenced validity results support the hypothesis that the total score of the
food safety culture assessment scale was moderately correlated with norms on food safety and
food safety behavior, while knowledge was slightly correlated with such norms. Injunctive and
descriptive norms are social norms that can be applied to predict safe behaviors and practices
in various fields. A previous study on the transportation industry reported that safety culture
is positively associated with these norms (Fugas et al., 2012). This present study also shows a
positive relationship, consistent with previous reports; in addition, there was a positive
relationship between food safety culture and behaviors, which is consistent with a previous
report that found that the better the employees’ food safety climate, the better they perform
safe food handling (De Boeck et al., 2017). Conversely, although the correlation between food
safety knowledge and food safety culture was significant, it was found to be very weak in the
present study. Knowledge was found to be a partial mediator between food safety climate and
behavior (De Boeck et al., 2017), and social norms (injunctive and descriptive norms) have also
been reported as mediators of the relationship between safety culture and behavior (Fugas
et al., 2012). Further study is needed to expand the understanding of a model type that includes
food safety culture, knowledge, social norms and behavior.
The present study has several limitations that should be acknowledged. First, all responses
to this scale were self-reported; as such, there is a possibility of social desirability bias because
participants’ positions demand social correctness. A scale of social desirability for use in
combination with the food safety culture assessment has been developed in previous research
( Jespersen, Maclaurin and Vlerick, 2017); however, proper use of this scale for assessment of
food safety culture is not discussed; this issue could, therefore, be addressed in future studies
on this topic. Second, we could not compare every work position in the organization because
the majority of the participants were employees who worked on-site, although some previous
researchers reported that manager-level awareness affected safety culture. It is necessary to
further investigate whether manager-level food safety culture affects on-site food safety
culture and performance. Finally, participants were recruited only from schools and one
company, with no participants recruited from large supply centers (i.e. a central kitchen),
which are facilities that deliver school meals to several different schools.
Despite these limitations, we developed 20 items and a five-factor scale for assessing food
safety culture among school food handlers in an Asian area and confirmed its reliability and
validity. When using this scale for school food handlers in other countries and in food services
such as hospitals, it may be necessary to consider making changes based on the actual system
and organization, especially for the items related to principals and stakeholders. Further
research is needed to clarify whether this scale can predict the existence of proper food safety
behavior by assessing food safety culture simultaneously with actual safe food handling
practices. We expect that this scale will be helpful to manage safe food handling in school
lunch preparation, focusing on people (i.e. food handlers) and proposing a hygiene education
method, according to the characteristics of each organization.
BFJ References
122,3 Baral, S., Logie, C.H., Grosso, A., Wirtz, A.L. and Beyrer, C. (2013), “Modified social ecological model: a
tool to guide the assessment of the risks and risk contexts of HIV epidemics”, BMC Public
Health, Vol. 13 No. 483, doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-482.
Bas, M., Safak Ersun, A. and Kivanc, G. (2006), “The evaluation of food hygiene knowledge, attitudes,
and practices of food handlers’ in food businesses in Turkey”, Food Control, Vol. 17 No. 4,
748 pp. 317-322.
Borsari, B. and Carey, K.B. (2001), “Peer influences on college drinking: a review of the research”,
Journal of Substance Abuse, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 391-424.
Caccamo, A., Taylor, J.Z., Daniel, D. and Bulatovic-Schumer, R. (2018), “Measuring and improving food
safety culture in a five-star hotel: a case study”, Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes,
Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 345-357.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2018), “Common settings of norovirus outbreaks”,
available at: www.cdc.gov/norovirus/trends-outbreaks/outbreaks.html (accessed July 27, 2018).
Cialdini, R.B., Reno, R.R. and Kallgren, C.A. (1990), “A focus theory of normative conduct: recycling the
concept of norms to reduce littering in public places”, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 58 No. 6, pp. 1015-1026.
Clayton, D.A. and Griffith, C.J. (2008), “Efficacy of an extended theory of planned behaviour model for
predicting caterers’ hand hygiene practices”, International Journal of Environmental Health
Research, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 83-98.
Cramer, R.J. and Kapusta, N.D. (2017), “A social-ecological framework of theory, assessment, and
prevention of suicide”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 8 No. 1756, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01756.
De Boeck, E., Jacxsens, L., Bollaerts, M. and Vlerick, P. (2015), “Food safety climate in food processing
organizations: development and validation of a self-assessment tool”, Trends in Food Science &
Technology, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 242-251.
De Boeck, E., Jacxsens, L., Bollaerts, M., Uyttendaele, M. and Vlerick, P. (2016), “Interplay between food
safety climate, food safety management system and microbiological hygiene in farm butcheries
and affiliated butcher shops”, Food Control, Vol. 65, pp. 78-91.
De Boeck, E., Mortier, A.V., Jacxsens, L., Dequidt, L. and Vlerick, P. (2017), “Towards an extended food
safety culture model: studying the moderating role of burnout and jobstress, the mediating role
of food safety knowledge and motivation in the relation between food safety climate and food
safety behavior”, Trends in Food Science & Technology, Vol. 62, pp. 202-214, available at: www.
sciencedirect.com/journal/trends-in-food-science-and-technology/issues
Fogarty, G.J. and Shaw, A. (2010), “Safety climate and the theory of planned behavior: towards the
prediction of unsafe behavior”, Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 42 No. 5, pp. 1455-1459.
Food and Drug Administration (2009), “FDA report on the occurrence of foodborne illness
risk factors in selected institutional foodservice, restaurant, and retail food store facility types”,
available at: www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/GuidanceRegulation/RetailFoodProtection/
FoodborneIllnessRiskFactorReduction/UCM224682.pdf (accessed September 12, 2018).
Fugas, C.S., Silva, S.A. and Meliá, J.L. (2012), “Another look at safety climate and safety behavior:
deepening the cognitive and social mediator mechanisms”, Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 45,
pp. 468-477, available at: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/accident-analysis-and-prevention/
vol/45/suppl/C
Fujisaki, K., Shimpo, M. and Akamatsu, R. (2019), “Factors related to food safety culture among school
food handlers in Tokyo, Japan: a qualitative study”, Journal of Foodservice Business Research,
Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 66-80.
Griffith, C.J. (2013), “Advances in understanding the impact of personal hygiene and human behaviour
on food safety”, in Sofos, J.N. (Ed.), Advances in Microbial Food Safety, Woodhead Publishing
Ltd, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 401-416.
Griffith, C.J., Jackson, L.M. and Lues, R. (2017), “The food safety culture in a large South African food
service complex”, British Food Journal, Vol. 119 No. 4, pp. 729-743.
Griffith, C.J., Livesey, K.M. and Clayton, D.A. (2010a), “Food safety culture: the evolution of an School
emerging risk factor?”, British Food Journal, Vol. 112 No. 4, pp. 426-438. foodservice
Griffith, C.J., Livesey, K.M. and Clayton, D.A. (2010b), “The assessment of food safety culture”,
British Food Journal, Vol. 112 No. 4, pp. 439-456.
Hinsz, V.B. and Nickell, G.S. (2015), “The prediction of workers’ food safety intentions and behavior
with job attitudes and the reasoned action approach”, Revista de Psicología Del Trabajo y de Las
Organizaciones, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 91-100.
749
Jespersen, L. and Wallace, C.A. (2017), “Triangulation and the importance of establishing valid
methods for food safety culture evaluation”, Food Research International Journal, Vol. 100,
Part 1, pp. 244-253.
Jespersen, L., Griffiths, M. and Wallace, C.A. (2017), “Comparative analysis of existing food safety
culture evaluation systems”, Food Control, Vol. 79, pp. 371-379.
Jespersen, L., Maclaurin, T. and Vlerick, P. (2017), “Development and validation of a scale to capture
social desirability in food safety culture”, Food Control, Vol. 82, pp. 42-47.
Jespersen, L., Griffiths, M., Maclaurin, T., Chapman, B. and Wallace, C.A. (2016), “Measurement of food
safety culture using survey and maturity profiling tools”, Food Control, Vol. 66, pp. 174-182.
Jiang, L., Yu, G., Li, Y. and Li, F. (2010), “Perceived colleagues’ safety knowledge/behavior and safety
performance: safety climate as a moderator in a multilevel study”, Accident Analysis &
Prevention, Vol. 42 No. 5, pp. 1468-1476.
Kawamoto, S. (2017), “Current trends in food poisoning in Japan from 2006 to 2015”, Nippon Shokuhin
Kagaku Kogaku Kaishi, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 1-15.
Kubota, S. and Kawai, H. (2015), “Comprehensive study on the prevention of food poisoning through
the investigation of an affected hospital food service facility”, Japanese Journal of Hygiene,
Vol. 70 No. 1, pp. 69-80.
Lee, H.K., Halim, H.A., Thong, K.L. and Chai, L.C. (2017), “Assessment of food safety knowledge,
attitude, self-reported practices, and microbiological hand hygiene of food handlers”,
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 55-68.
Manning, L. (2018), “The value of food safety culture to the hospitality industry”, Worldwide Hospitality
and Tourism Themes, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 284-296.
Michino, H., Araki, K., Minami, S., Takaya, S., Sakai, N., Miyazaki, M., Akio, O., et al. (1999), “Massive
outbreak of escherichia coli O157:H7 infection in schoolchildren in Sakai City, Japan, associated
with consumption of white radish sprouts”, American Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 150 No. 8,
pp. 787-796.
MEXT (2009), “Gakkou kyushoku eisei kanri kijyun [Procedure and standards of a health maintenance
manual for school meal facilities]”, Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and
Technology, available at: www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/hakusho/nc/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2009/09/10/
1283821_1.pdf (accessed July 1, 2018).
MEXT (2012), “Gakkou kyushoku chori jyujisya kenshu manual [School lunch food handler training
manual]”, Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, available at:
www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/sports/syokuiku/1321861.htm (accessed July 1, 2018).
Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (2019), “Syokuchudoku toukei siryo [Food poisoning statistics
(data for foodborne disease outbreaks)]”, available at: www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/seisakunitsuite/
bunya/kenkou_iryou/shokuhin/syokuchu/04.html (accessed July 1, 2018).
Nayak, R. and Waterson, P. (2016), “The assessment of food safety culture: an investigation of current
challenges, barriers and future opportunities within the food industry”, Food Control, Vol. 73,
pp. 1114-1123.
Neal, J.A., Binkley, M. and Henroid, D. (2012), “Assessing factors contributing to food safety culture in
retail food establishments”, Food Protection Trends, Vol. 32 No. 8, pp. 468-476.
Noort, M.C., Reader, T.W., Shorrock, S. and Kirwan, B. (2016), “The relationship between national
culture and safety culture: implications for international safety culture assessments”, Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 3, pp. 515-538.
BFJ Nouaimeh, N., Pazhanthotta, R.T., Taylor, J.Z. and Bulatovic-Schumer, R. (2018), “Measuring and
122,3 improving food safety culture in a large catering company: a case study”, Worldwide Hospitality
and Tourism Themes, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 358-368.
Nyarugwe, S.P., Linnemann, A., Hofstede, G.J., Fogliano, V. and Luning, P.A. (2016), “Determinants for
conducting food safety culture research”, Trends in Food Science & Technology, Vol. 56,
pp. 77-87, available at: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/trends-in-food-science-and-technology/
vol/56/suppl/C
750
Nyarugwe, S.P., Linnemann, A., Nyanga, L.K., Fogliano, V. and Luning, P.A. (2018), “Food safety
culture assessment using a comprehensive mixed-methods approach: a comparative study in
dairy processing organisations in an emerging economy”, Food Control, Vol. 84, pp. 186-196.
Oshio, A. (2008), The First Covariance Analysis – Path Analysis by the Amos [in Japanese], Tokyo
Tosho, Tokyo.
Powell, D.A., Jacob, C.J. and Chapman, B.J. (2011), “Enhancing food safety culture to reduce rates of
foodborne illness”, Food Control, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 817-822.
Sakurai, H. (2016), “Trend of food poisoning caused by facilities for providing meals”, Journal of
Suzuka Junior College, Vol. 36, pp. 49-60, available at: https://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/110010027953/
Sallis, J.F., Owen, N. and Fisher, E.B. (2008), “Ecological models of health behavior”, in Glanz, K., Rimer, B.K.
and Viswanath, K. (Eds), Health Behaviour and Health Education, 4th ed., Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco, CA, pp. 465-482.
Taylor, J. (2011), “An exploration of food safety culture in a multi-cultural environment: next steps?”,
Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, Vol. 3 No. 5, pp. 455-466.
Ungku Fatimah, U.Z.A., Strohbehn, C.H. and Arendt, S.W. (2014), “An empirical investigation of food
safety culture in onsite foodservice operations”, Food Control, Vol. 46, pp. 255-263, available at:
www.sciencedirect.com/journal/food-control/vol/46/suppl/C
World Health Organization (2018), “WHO’s first ever global estimates of foodborne diseases find
children under 5 account for almost one third of deaths”, available at: www.who.int/news-room/
headlines/03-12-2015-who-s-first-ever-global-estimates-of-foodborne-diseases-find-children-
under-5-account-for-almost-one-third-of-deaths (accessed August 23, 2018).
Yiannas, F. (2009), Food Safety Culture: Creating a Behavior-Based Food Safety Management System,
Springer, New York, NY.
Zanin, L.M., Thimoteo, D., Cunha, D., Vera De Rosso, V., Dias Capriles, V. and Stedefeldt, E. (2017),
“Knowledge, attitudes and practices of food handlers in food safety: an integrative review”, Food
Research International, Vol. 100, Part 1, pp. 53-62.
Appendix School
foodservice

What is your level of agreement with the following descriptions of your current worksite (school lunch facility)?
More More
Strongly or less or less Strongly
disagree Disagree disagree Neutral agree Agree agree 751
1. Even if there are some risks to safety
or hygiene while food preparing, I
think that it will be okay 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. When the days with a lot of work
continue, consciousness to safety or
hygiene diminishes, and finishing
preparing within the allotted time is
given priority 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. When I am pressed for time, I tend to
be negligent in paying attention to
food safety and hygiene 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. It requires time and effort to follow the
procedure in the manual or the rule 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. Even if the equipment is damaged, if
it is minor, I just have to report it later 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6. Skilled co-workers or on-site managers
are providing support to new
employees, such as teaching how to
practice hygienic food preparation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7. If I make a mistake during the
procedure on sanitation, co-workers
and on-site managers give me
warnings at that time 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8. The on-site manager makes me and
my co-workers share various roles 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9. We are developing cooperation with
schools, administrators (local
governments, companies), and vendors
for providing safe school lunch 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10. The principal of the school as a
facility director is interested in the
safety and hygiene of school lunch 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
11. During food preparation, we call out
to and remind each other about food
safety and hygiene 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
12. Employees can freely discuss
something we notice that could
influence food safety or the hygiene
of school lunch 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
13. When I cannot remember the
appropriate procedures for hygienic
food preparation, I can easily ask co-
workers or the on-site manager how
to do 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
14. Administrators and on-site managers
encourage and motivate us to provide
a safe and hygienic school lunch for
students 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Table AI.
The assessment scale
for food safety culture
(continued ) in school foodservice
BFJ What is your level of agreement with the following descriptions of your current worksite (school lunch facility)?
122,3 More More
Strongly or less or less Strongly
disagree Disagree disagree Neutral agree Agree agree

15. Facilities are adequate in following

safe and hygienic food preparation in
752 line with the manuals 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
16. Hand-washing sinks are readily
available and accessible when needed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
17. If a facility or equipment needs repair,
we can ask to do immediately 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
18. While seeing what co-workers are
doing, I carry out my work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
19. The food hygiene training can be
useful for me to provide food safety
and hygiene 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
20. Safe and hygienic food preparing in
line with the manuals is a high
Table AI. priority for me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Corresponding author
Rie Akamatsu can be contacted at: akamatsu.rie@ocha.ac.jp

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com