Imagine a restaurant chef shopping for a new food thermometer. As they browse the different models—digital, dial, oven safe, disposable—what are the pros and cons of each? Which model will best meet their needs? The one they select must be precise to make sure the food is safe. In a busy restaurant, the speed of the reading could also be important. Cost is a factor. All these considerations will help them decide the best tool for measuring food temperature in the restaurant’s kitchen.
A responsible chef would be sure to find the right thermometer—accurate and a good fit for their needs. In the same way, organizations must be thoughtful about measuring food safety culture and consider what tools will work best for their needs.
Before exploring the following Assessment tools, we encourage you to visit (or re-visit!) the Values and Vision page. Here you can determine where your company falls in the Food Safety Culture Maturity Model, which may help guide your considerations of which tools best suit your organization’s needs.
On this page, you won’t find a prescription for a one-size-fits-all assessment tool. However, you will find a variety of resources to guide your search, real-life testimonials from small and medium sized food companies and questions to consider as you explore what’s out there.
Your food safety culture journey should be as unique as your organization, and there are many excellent resources that may be a good fit based on your company’s size, structure and overall maturity. While the Alliance does not endorse one or more specific tools, we do caution against any person or entity that claims to offer a “quick fix”. Focus on taking small, measurable actions to improve, and take time to secure alignment from appropriate stakeholders to ensure you are addressing any privacy concerns.
So, whether you’re starting from scratch or honing an already mature culture of food safety, just remember: every journey starts with one foot in front of the other. We’re excited to support you every step of the way!
Assessment of culture can take many forms. Depending on an organization’s size, budget, and demographics, some tools may be a better fit than others.
Below are a few examples of tools and methods of assessing food safety culture. Each has benefits and drawbacks, and no one tool will satisfy all assessment needs. Consider combining methods to get a fuller picture of all the layers of food safety culture at your organization.
+ Surveys ask employees a series of questions designed to interpret perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors (13)
+ Internal surveys are often conducted by food safety, communications, and/or human resources teams within an organization.
+ External surveys are conducted, and often analyzed, by third parties.
+Allow for large-scale data collection and analysis (11)
+ Provide quantitative data easily summarized and compared
+ Internal survey teams have familiarity with organization
+ Internal survey teams have more flexibility and control over design, distribution, and analysis of survey
+ External survey teams have objectivity and independence (3)
+ External survey teams have more expertise and perceived credibility in conducting independent analysis
+ Allow anonymity (7)
+ Cover wide geographical area (11)
+ Format can be kept relatively simple and straightforward (7, 13)
+ Higher response rate (13)
+ Responses are subject to bias
+ Responses may reflect only a snapshot in time (recency bias) instead of the fluid, long-term culture
+ Standardized questions may not capture full complexity of food safety culture
+ Internal survey teams are limited in time, resources, and methods to ensure sufficient coverage
+ Internal survey teams may lack expertise and objectivity (13)
+ External survey teams can be costly depending on the size and scope of the survey
+ External survey teams may not have full understanding of the organization, so surveys and analysis may not align perfectly with organization needs
+ Challenging to generalize findings from small groups or individuals to the whole organization (13)
+ Low response rate (7)
Surveys can be conducted at a designated frequency (i.e., every year or two) to track changes over time, including the effectiveness of intervention actions. The full process of introducing a survey, distributing questions, collecting answers, data analysis, and presenting results can take several months depending on the size and scope of the organization and the survey. Internal surveys may be easier to conduct more frequently or informally than external surveys depending on the time and resources available.
+ Focus groups and interviews conducting small-group or individual interviews to discuss food safety culture in depth. Use of open-ended questions can explore experiences, perceptions, and opinions to give insights into why people feel and think the way they do. (13)
+ Thoughtful discussion can provide rich qualitative data into nuances of culture (8)
+ Explanation of more complex terms (11)
+ Pick-up on non-verbal cues (11)
+ Detailed exploration of underlying factors influencing attitudes and behaviors (8, 11)
+ Participants sharing experiences may also share suggestions or ideas for improvements (3)
+ Better insights into why certain opinions are held (13)
+ Require time, resources, and trained facilitators specializing in guiding discussion (1)
+ Challenging to generalize findings from small groups or individuals to the whole organization (13)
+ Analysis of qualitative data can be subjective and time consuming (11)
+ Internal consistency can be challenging to demonstrate (7)
+ Influence of the moderator (3, 8)
+ Opinions of the less vocal/introverts may not be captured (8)
+ The less confident tend to be agreeable with the more confident (8)
Focus groups and interviews are time-intensive for both those conducting them and the participants. These tools may be less frequent to complement results from other, more frequent methods. Compiling the results of these assessment methods can also take several months depending on the scope of analysis.
+ Observations involve direct monitoring of food safety practices and behaviors of employees.
+ Observations may be performed by food safety staff, trained auditors, of team leaders or supervisors of the observed employees (such as through Gemba walks).
+ Provide firsthand insights into actual daily practices (1, 13)
+ Allow for coaching opportunities, immediate correction of potential issues, and identification of focus areas to reduce risk
+ Can complement survey data to provide a more comprehensive picture of culture
+ Requires time, resources, and trained personnel to conduct effectively
+ Due to the time commitment, may be limited to only a few observation at a time, leading to potentially incomplete assessment
+ Observed individuals may modify their behavior if they are aware of the observation (1)
Observations can take place regularly, such as weekly or biweekly, to measure the ongoing pulse of food safety culture. Depending on how extensive the observations are, they can be relatively short in nature for more informal sessions (15-30 minutes) or longer as with Gemba walks (45-60 minutes).
+ FSMS are comprehensive frameworks for best practices in food safety and quality.
+ KPIs identify and track specific metrics (e.g., training completion rates, reported food safety incidents, or compliance with practices) which can provide indicators within FSMS.
+ Provide quantitative measurement for objective analysis and comparison
+ Can provide ongoing monitoring to track trends, find areas of concern, and take timely corrective action
+ Quantitative data creates clear benchmarks for goal setting and accountability
+ Can incorporate organization-wide metrics (e.g., leadership participation, communication)
+ When incorporated with other assessment methods (e.g., observations), can provide “visible” performance measurements for behaviors which are otherwise difficult to quantify
+ May not capture qualitative data about complexities of culture
+ Can miss underlying attitudes and behaviors contributing to food safety and culture
+ May focus more on compliance and regulatory standards rather than the comprehensive food safety culture
+ Can be resource-intensive to conduct regular data collection
Quantitative system measurements like KPIs within FSMS can provide ongoing data to track trends. Once systems are established, data can be collected and compared by different time scales (e.g., monthly, yearly) depending on the needs, goals, and resources of the organization.
+ Records are ongoing quantitative and qualitative data such as near-misses, cleaning and sanitation logs, or ongoing training and education. Additional metrics could include consumer claims or complaints and audits.
+ Can provide ongoing monitoring to track trends, find areas of concern, and take timely corrective action
+ Quantitative data creates clear benchmarks for goal setting and accountability, reflecting the company’s food safety culture
+ Often necessary for legal and regulatory compliance
+ Uncover meaning, provide rich descriptions and develop understanding (2)
+ Low cost (7)
+ May not capture qualitative data about complexities of culture (2)
+ Are reactive rather than proactive (2)
+ Can be incomplete or inaccurate, leading to missed opportunities or misguided decisions (2)
+ May focus more on compliance and regulatory standards rather than the comprehensive food safety culture
+ Relies on documentation preserved by others (7)
Record collection can provide ongoing data to track trends and provide context, historical insights and background information. (2)
The following case study examines the food safety culture assessment strategy of Citron. (Note: names have been changed to maintain confidentiality.)
Citron is led by its founder, Nadia, and has 12 other employees. As part of their food safety culture journey, Citron worked with an outside consulting firm doing research on food safety culture assessment.
The first step in the assessment research was to educate Nadia on food safety culture, the process and outcomes of assessments, and how Nadia could support her team throughout that process. Next, Nadia met with her team to explain the purpose of the assessments, her expectations about honest feedback, and what the team could expect as follow-up to their input. Sharing the reasons for assessment and making sure leadership and team members were all engaged established a solid foundation for the process.
The ongoing assessments at Citron include the following:
Weekly team meetings to discuss learnings from the assessments. Based on the feedback received, the team selects a 5-minute action item to implement the following week and identify who is responsible for completing the action.
Monthly meetings between the consulting and research firm, Nadia, and Citron’s Quality Assurance leader. Meetings are kept to 30 minutes and are supported by a dashboard of assessment data. Discussions include trends in participation in feedback and the effectiveness of the 5-minute actions in helping mature Citron’s food safety culture.
Yearly focus groups facilitated by the consulting and research firm. Focus group meetings are kept to 45 minutes to practically enable team members to attend. The focus group discussions shine a light on team member beliefs and values specific to the safety of Citron’s products. Questions are coded to highlight common views and specific areas for change or for positive recognition. Nadia and Citron’s Quality Assurance leader do not attend focus group meetings to ensure team member confidentiality.
Citron has shown vast improvement in food safety performance through this culture assessment approach. Nadia now has a data-driven narrative to share internally with her team and externally with customers, auditors, and regulators about their improved food safety, which enables business growth and more robust food safety risk management. Further, food safety has shifted from a “must do” to a “want to do” for all employees. Citron’s team members feel included and safe bringing forward suggestions for change. The use confidential discussions at focus groups, dashboards of ongoing feedback data, and specific follow-ups based on that feedback have created an ongoing rhythm of assessment and informed action to create a stronger, more positive, and more mature food safety culture.
How do you assess food safety culture at your organization? Have you used any of the methods listed here? Tell us about it! By sharing your experience, you can help other Toolkit users and inspire new resources.
Stop Foodborne Illness is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization. Donations are tax-deductible to the extent the law allows.
