Search results

The purpose of this paper is to identify the purpose of food safety auditing, effectiveness in maintaining and improving standards of food safety and ways to improve the process.

Using a grounded approach semi-structured interviews were held with actors with experience of food safety auditing. The aims and objectives being to obtain their viewpoints drawn from their experience.

The purpose of food safety audits should be regarded as one of continuous improvement rather than a single snapshot or policing exercise. Audits in terms of cost can be excessive because of the often high number and frequency of them. Costs can be reduced and food safety standards maintained if the number and frequency of audits is determined by the level of hazard and risk that a product or a process presents. Effectiveness of audits can also be improved if they are unannounced to make businesses “audit ready” at all times. It is also contended that unannounced audits are not applicable in all circumstances as they can increase costs by the need to maintain a group of personnel that are always available for audits.

The research is limited by the scope and number of topics that were addressed in relation to the main subject.

The research value points to a need to review and better manage the audit process by risk assessing the number, frequency and type of audit a food business is subject to without lowering standards.

This case study follows the history of the personal and experiences, viewpoints, and attitudes of the key actors from both parties over the period of setting up and implementing a primary authority partnership. It is one of a series research papers and case studies that study approaches to improve compliance with public and private regulations through cooperative and collaborative approaches. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

It is a grounded qualitative study of what a number of individuals said in the course of a number of interviews. The aim and objectives being to obtain, from the key actors, their personal viewpoints, attitudes to and experiences of the partnership. Unlike some grounded approaches the research was based on the priori themes of cooperation and collaboration using semi structured interviews. At one stage, because of difficulty of access to the key actors caused by major re-development of the company, questionnaires replaced interviews.

The authors found that barriers to achieving a successful partnership included an initial reluctance, by all parties concerned, to cede some of their management autonomy to others and experiences of uncooperative behaviour between the public and private sectors in the past. They were largely overcome as the implementation of the project progressed resulting in improved food safety compliance management based on mutual trust. Other benefits for Preston City Council were immediate cost savings for Preston City Council in their use of human resources. For E.H. Booths, Ltd no initial cost saving was made, but there is potential longer term savings to be made through better risk based targeting of resources. These benefits only being made possible by the collaborative effort and support from all parties and individuals involved.

On its own this case study research is limited by its size and scope but the emerging topics and findings highlight the difficulties and barriers faced in setting up partnerships between public regulators and businesses. Therefore, the results can be of value to similar studies and other areas where cooperation, collaboration, partnership, and co-regulation are significant contributory factors to successful compliance strategies.