Food Control 40 (2014) 50e57

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Review

Reasons and constraints to implementing an ISO 22000 food safety

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

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

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

Contents

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

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

0956-7135/$ e see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2013.11.032
 C. Escanciano, M.L. Santos-Vijande / Food Control 40 (2014) 50e57
During the last decades the food industry in developed coun-
tries has experienced an increasing concentration of retailers
whose private labels have also gradually gained market share
(Fabin, 2009). Retailers, as the rest of the members of the food
chain, have the obligation to act with the due diligence imposed
by the Governmental legislation to guarantee FS; moreover, these
rms have paid a growing attention to corporate social re-
sponsibility as a means of differentiation and obtaining an
improved market reputation, which has also reinforced their
commitment to FS (Verano & Ponce, 2008). In this context, retailers
have faced an imperious need to avoid any risk of faulty products
that may damage their private labels or their corporative image. To
achieve this objective, they have imposed their own quality stan-
dards on suppliers requiring third-party certication of compliance
with those standards (Fulponi, 2006; Lopez, Montes, & Vzquez,
2008). In this way, private standards in global agri-food value
chains, such as for example the BRC (British Retail Consortium
Global Food Standard) and IFS (International Food Standard), have
steadily increased in importance (Henson & Humphrey, 2009)
becoming often more complex and stringent than government
standards (Fulponi, 2006; Hamoudi, Hoffmann, & Surry, 2009).
The confusion resulting from the proliferation of standards led
the ISO to design a food safety management system (FSMS) stan-
dard aimed at harmonizing those already existing (Seagrave, 2007)
designing the ISO 22000:2005 Food Safety Management Systems-
Requirements for any Organization in the Food Chain. ISO 22000
species the requirements for a FSMS when an organization in the
food channel needs to demonstrate its ability to control hazards
related to food safety, in order to ensure that the food is safe at the
time of human consumption. Since these dangers may be found at
any point of the entire food chain, from farm to table, safety control
is a joint responsibility involving all of the participants. This is why
the scope of this standard encompasses all the operators involved
in the production, processing, marketing, and sale of food products
(whether for human consumption or for animal feed), together
with their related subcontractors. The external recognition repre-
sented by ISO 22000 certication increases the appeal of this
standard by providing its holders with a means to demonstrate
their commitment to FS at an international level, helping in this
way to strengthen FS worldwide.
The present study seeks to obtain, in the rst place, an in-depth
understanding of the reasons why rms may opt for ISO 22000
when implementing and obtaining certication of an FSMS. The
contribution of the research in this respect is twofold. First, the
literature provides a wide list of potential reasons to adopt a FSMS,
this study undertakes a thorough analysis of the extant research to
develop a comprehensive list of key reasons in order to investigate
their relevance referred to ISO 22000. Second, this is the rst study
that focuses on ISO 22000 FSMS in Spain, and one of the few
multisectoral FSMS studies that, as Bilalis, Stathis, Konstantas, and
Patsiali (2009) and Fotopoulos, Kafetzopoulos, and Psomas
(2009), analyzes a sample which includes organizations corre-
sponding to every link of the food chain. The empirical evidence
referred to Spain contributes to a better understanding of the
process of ISO 22000 implementation worldwide since Spain has
being one of the top ten countries in number of ISO 22000 certif-
icates according to the 2011 ISO Survey of Certications report (ISO,
2011).
A second objective of this research is to analyze the factors that
prevent the adoption of ISO 22000 by food industry rms. To
determine why the ISO 22000 is not a referent for more organi-
zations is useful to establish the constraints that may limit its future
as an internationally recognized standard. In this respect, there are
some articles that, focussing specically on ISO 22000, determine
the obstacles for its implementation from the adopters viewpoint
51
(Bilalis et al., 2009; Mensah & Julien, 2011; Teixeira & Sampaio,
2011); however, our understanding of the reasons why rms may
avoid the implementation of this standard is scarcer. Identifying
these constraints is relevant to help ISO, food sector business as-
sociations and even the certication bodies to facilitate the spread
of ISO 22000 in the food industry; the adopters viewpoint is
deemed to provide valuable information since these rms have
faced the implementation decision considering the pros and cons of
ISO 22000 (Bilalis et al., 2009).
In Section 2, we review the literature on the reasons why rms
implement an FSMS as well as the potential constraints that may
prevent this process. Section 3 describes the research methods and
the main characteristics of the sample, and Section 4 the analysis of
the data and the main results. Section 5 provides a discussion of the
results, and the conclusions are presented in Section 6.
2. Literature review
The implementation of international standards in the market
represents a necessary element in the process of improving a
companys competitiveness. Customer care, healthy and safe food,
and environmental standards represent only some of the condi-
tions that modern business requires from producers of food prod-
ucts (Djordjevic, Cockalo, & Bogetic, 2011). It has therefore become
imperative for foodstuff rms to implement and certify manage-
ment systems focused on the safety, legality, and quality of their
products (Verano & Ponce, 2008) as a mechanism to ensure the
protection of the consumer and to strengthen condence.
Firms implement an FSMS for quite different reasons (Herath &
Henson, 2010), as reected in the numerous studies analyzing the
experience of rms in different sectors of activity. The vast majority
of these studies have focused on Hazard Analysis and Critical
Control Points (HACCP), with only a few referring wholly or
partially to ISO 22000 (Bilalis et al., 2009; Fotopoulos et al., 2009;
Kk, 2009; Vladimirov, 2011). Since HACCP is an essential part of
an FSMS, and is one of the key elements of the standard, we
considered that many of the motives that lead to the application of
HACCP would also be attributable to the implementation of ISO
22000. The reasons that to a greater or lesser extent explain a rms
decision to establish an HACCP system are, among others, the desire
to improve the quality and safety of its products, external pressures,
improved image, and access to new markets. Indeed, some of these
reasons are also present when the system chosen is ISO 22000.
In their work on HACCP in the UK dairy sector, Henson and Holt
(2000) nd that the two most important reasons to implement this
system are compliance with legislation and to respond to the de-
mands of major customers. Numerous studies have found compli-
ance with legislation to be a decisive reason for having an FSMS,
whether HACCP (Khatri & Collins, 2007; Wilcock, Ball, & Fajumo,
2011), ISO 22000, or some other (Mensah & Julien, 2011). Jin,
Zhou, and Ye (2008), in this case in China, nd the most compel-
ling reason to be to reduce the risk of compromising food safety.
Similarly, in their work on ISO 22000 in the catering industry in
Greece, Mamalis, Kafetzopoulos, and Aggelopoulos (2009) nd that
the systems main attraction lies in its capacity to improve the
hygiene and safety of the products. This is conrmed in the analysis
Mensah and Julien (2011) made of the experience of 120 British
food rms, most of which had an FSMS certicate (BRC, IFS, or ISO
22000). In Greece, Fotopoulos et al. (2009) refer to ensuring food
safety and protecting consumers, and in Turkey, Bas, Yuksel, and
Cavosuglou (2007) refer to gaining and maintaining customers
trust in their study of the challenges and constraints to the
implementation of HACCP. In the same vein, Herath and Henson
(2010) and Maldonado-Simn, Martinez-Hernandez, Garcia-
Muiz, and Cadena-Meneses (2009) for Canadian and Mexican
52 C. Escanciano, M.L. Santos-Vijande / Food Control 40 (2014) 50e57
rms, respectively, consider that another factor inuencing rms
decisions is the desire to reduce customer audits thanks to the
possession of an FSMS certicate.
Another argument often referred to in the literature is the need
to respond to customer demands. Violaris, Bridges, and Bridges
(2007) report that this is the main reason why Cypriot rms
choose HACCP certication, and Henson and Holt (2000), Herath
and Henson (2006), and Mensah and Julien (2011) report it to be
the second most important reason. Fotopoulos, Kafetzopoulos, and
Gotzamani (2011) consider that the need to satisfy stakeholders/
customer pressure is a critical factor for the implementation of this
system, and that it is related to the pressure the market exerts on
the rm.
Apart from these external pressures that lead rms to implement
an FSMS, several studies have shown that there are also internal
reasons associated with improved efciency and process control
(Henson & Holt, 2000; Maldonado-Simn et al., 2009; Mamalis
et al., 2009; Weyandt, Reis Da Costa, Nunes, & Gaspar, 2011).
Fostering exports by facilitating access to foreign markets is a
further justication for implementing and certifying an FSMS in the
opinion of Australian (Khatri & Collins, 2007) and Mexican
(Maldonado-Simn et al., 2009) meat rms. Jin et al. (2008) also see
the adoption of HACCP as a means for Chinese food rms to
enhance their presence in foreign markets. Enhancing a rms
reputation and using the certication as a promotional or mar-
keting tool are other determinant reasons according to the work of
Mensah and Julien (2011) and Mamalis et al. (2009). In particular,
Mensah and Julien (2011) note that 59% of enterprises analyzed in
their study were driven by expected marketing advantages asso-
ciated to the implementation of the standard, while others saw the
potential for improved corporate image. In their study to identify
factors motivating HACCP implementation in food sector SMEs in
Ontario, Wilcock et al. (2011) note that, in the opinion of the owners
and senior managers interviewed, the market value of the certi-
cation was one of the most important factors in their decision to
implement HACCP. In Portugal, Weyandt et al. (2011) conducted a
case study of sh processing plants, and found that one of the most
important reasons for implementing ISO 22000 was the competi-
tive advantage gained from it.
In this context, the present work aims at identifying the main
reasons underlying the decision of rms located in Spain to imple-
ment and certify an ISO 22000 FSMS. The list of motives considered in
the research seeks to offer a comprehensive view of the key de-
terminants identied in the literature and previously described. A
second objective is to determine why this international standard is
not a referent for more organizations involved in the food chain, i.e.,
to investigate the constraints that may prevent the implementation
of the standard in the industry. In this respect, the research developed
by Escanciano, Fernndez, and Vzquez (2001) and Bilalis et al.
(2009) has been used as a reference to identify the more critical
factors to refuse the adoption of ISO 22000. Most of the constraints
are inspired broadly in the key obstacles identied in the literature to
food safety standards implementation. This is the case of the high
establishment cost (Aggelogiannopulos, Drosinos, & opinion, facilitated their subsequent introduction of the ISO 22000
Athanasopoulos, 2007; Bilalis et al., 2009; Grunert, 2005; Herath &
Henson, 2006, 2010; Khatri & Collins, 2007; Masakure, Craneld, &
Henson, 2009; Mensah & Julien, 2011; Teixeira & Sampaio, 2011;
Tunalioglu, Cobanoglu, & Karaman, 2012), current food safety con-
trols considered sufcient (Herath & Henson, 2010), insufcient
nancial support (Herath & Henson, 2010; Tunalioglu et al., 2012);
uncertain about the potential benets and/or advantages of the
system (Bas et al., 2007; Herath & Henson, 2010; Khatri & Collins,
2007); lack of consumer demands and awareness (Khatri & Collins,
2007; Tunalioglu et al., 2012); lack of international market compe-
tition and expectations (Tunalioglu et al., 2012); not enough support
from the authorities (Bas et al., 2007); lack of information, knowledge
and understanding of the system (Bas et al., 2007; Fotopoulos et al,
2009; Taylor & Kane, 2005; Yapp & Fairman, 2006) and others
linked to personnel such as lack of training (Bas et al., 2007; Herath &
Henson, 2010; Khatri & Collins, 2007; Mamalis et al., 2009; Mensah &
Julien, 2011; Semos & Kontogeorgos, 2007; Yapp & Fairman, 2006)
and need to contact external advisers (Vela & Fernandez,
2003).Therefore, respondents indicate the extent to which other
rms in the industry may have interiorized as critical barriers to
adopt ISO 22000 the difculties experienced in practice by adopters.
3. Methods
The population considered for the study consisted of Spanish
rms with ISO 22000 certication. The necessary information on
these rms was provided by the National Centre for Quality Infor-
mation, allowing identifying 304 ISO 22000 certied rms. Each of
these rms was contacted by telephone in order to verify their
willingness to participate in academic studies, and the accuracy of
the data referring to the key informant selected: the manager
responsible for FS. This led to 304 surveys being sent out by e-mail.
The questionnaire was designed with reference to the principal
international studies on FS management systems.
The nal sample studied comprised the 189 rms who provided
a valid set of responses to the questionnaires. This corresponded to
a response rate close to 62%. Once appropriately coded, the survey
responses were analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social
Sciences computer software (SPSS 19.0).
The distribution of the sample by rms size, in terms of number
of employees, is the following: 56.08% micro or small enterprises
(<50 employees), 30.69% medium-sized rms (between 50 and 249
employees), and 13.22% large rms (more than 250 employees).
By activity, 78% were dedicated to foodstuff production and
processing, 12.2% to distribution, and 9.8% to other activities
(catering services, transport, packaging, etc.). This is evidence that
ISO 22000 has achieved the goal of being used by rms at all levels
of the food chain, from the eld to the table, since these are either
operators directly involved in the production, processing, market-
ing, and nal sale of food products, or related subcontractors.
For the largest group, that of foodstuff production and pro-
cessing, the principal sectors were: drinks (20%), meat (16%),
fruit and vegetables (13%), with other foodstuffs (31%) being
used to include sundry products (sugar, coffee, spices, food addi-
tives, etc.). Results also indicate that 61.3% of the sample rms had
more than a 10-year presence in foreign markets, reecting a clear
export orientation of Spains ISO 22000 certied rms. Also, 42.5%
of the rms had had a quality department or area for more than 10
years, showing the importance of this variable in a sector in which
quality and safety are closely related. Indeed, FS management came
under the rms quality department in 82.5% of the cases.
In relation to the rst management system implemented in the
rm, over 82% of the respondents indicated that their rm had
started with an ISO 9001 based quality system which, in their
FS system. Nevertheless, ISO 22000 coexisted with other FS certi-
cations, outstanding of which were BRC and IFS. Although their
presence is less widespread in Spanish rms than in other coun-
tries, the requirement of possession of these last two standards in
order to access certain foreign distribution chains led to 19.6% of
the respondents having adopted IFS, and 13.2% BRC.
4. Results
As Caswell, Bredhal, Maury, and Hooker (1998) note, food
quality metasystems are strategies that affect food product quality
 C. Escanciano, M.L. Santos-Vijande / Food Control 40 (2014) 50e57 53

Table 1 Spain were internal and external improvements, and increasing

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

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

Reasons Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4

Quality & efciency Anticipation & image Market pressure Reinforcement

Improve efciency 0.872

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

enable access to certain distribution chains, increase market most commonly made by certied rms, regardless of which
share, and access to foreign markets. This set of motives seems to management system and/or certication they have. Other reasons
demonstrate the existence of external conditions driving ISO 22000 are: not legally required and being unaware of the advantages of
implementation and certication. This factor conrms that ISO its use.
22000 can be used as a sign of quality in the market that decreases This set of 10 attributes conforming the potential constraints to
buyers uncertainty and, consequently, reduces transaction costs ISO 22000 implementation were as well subjected to an explor-
facilitating access to new customers and markets (Gawron & atory factor analysis. A varimax-rotated factor analysis using the
Theuvsen, 2009; Luning et al., 2009). ISO 22000, in sum, can also eigenvalue-greater-than-unity criterion gave three distinct factors
be considered as a marketing tool capable of allowing the rm to that accounted for 56.63% of the variance (Table 4). The obstacle
enjoy a greater projection in the market as it is ultimately valued by scale was tested for normality and outliers using the Bartlett test.
its customers. The KaisereMeyereOlkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy
The fourth factor (Cronbachs alpha 0.700) we term rein- was 0.886 and the Bartlett test result was 350.959 with a signi-
forcement. It comprises the four variables provide evidence of cance level of p < 0.0001.
due diligence, complement other management systems, reduce Factor 1 (Cronbachs alpha 0.710) we term lack of knowl-
the need for customer audits, and complement HACCP. ISO 22000 edge. It comprises the constraints: unaware of the advantages of
establishes a link connecting HACCP with the ISO 9001 quality ISO 22000 certication, lack of information, and Only inter-
management systems, whose structure it shares. As a FS system, ISO esting for exporters. This factor reects that ISO 22000, created in
22000 completes, complements and reinforces the effectiveness of 2005, is still poorly understood by food businesses that are un-
HACCP (Faegermand, 2008) by adding emphasis to traceability, aware of its potential, and limit its usefulness to the context of
interactive communication, and emergency preparedness and exports.
response for situations that might affect FS. Similarly, ISO 22000 Factor 2 (Cronbachs alpha 0.786) we term no perceived
reinforces the rms efforts in any other management systems such need. It comprises four constraints reecting that having an ISO
as quality management or environmental management providing 22000 FSMS certicate is not currently seen as a prerequisite for
evidence trough certication. Therefore, this factor reects a belief doing business and that it may not allow obtaining the expected
that an ISO 22000 FSMS will complement and complete the HACCP results: not a prerequisite for doing business, not required by the
and provide evidence of due diligence, thereby giving an image of Government or Public Agencies, unfamiliar to consumers and
solidity and facilitating the integration of food safety with other customers, and it does not guarantee the total safety of the nal
management systems and reducing the need for customer audits. product.
Finally, Factor 3 (Cronbachs alpha 0.782) we term economic
4.2. Constraints to the implementation and spread of ISO 22000 reasons. It comprises three constraints: high cost, need to hire
FSMS specialized personnel, and insufcient nancial aid. This factor
again is a reection that nancial constraints in many cases prevent
Many studies have dealt with the potential constraints that may the implementation of management initiatives that would ulti-
difcult the implementation of an FSMS. There has not been, mately work towards beneting the satisfaction of the clients
however, any in-depth attempt to identify the reasons why rms in interests.
the food chain do not implement or are not attracted by any of the
many certiable FSMS standards. In order to ll this gap, we
5. Discussion
requested the respondents to evaluate the potential reasons why a
standard such as ISO 22000, which is international, certiable, and
Spains food sector consists mainly of SMEs, and it is precisely
applicable to all the types of organization involved in the food
these rms which have taken the lead in the introduction of ISO
chain, is not used by other rms as a referent for the imple-
22000, as evidenced by the fact that they accounted for 87.7% of the
mentation and certication of an FSMS (Bilalis et al., 2009;
sample. This shows that in Spain the size of the rm is not a factor
Escanciano et al., 2001). To this end, we elaborated a list of 10
that determines the implementation of an appropriate and
possible constraints to the ISO 22000 implementation which were
scored using a seven-point Likert scale ranging from not important
Table 4
at all (1) to very important (7). Factor analysis of the constraints to implementation and certication of ISO 22000.
Table 3 shows that the main constraints to the dissemination
and use of ISO 22000 are: not a prerequisite for doing business, Constraints Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3
Lack of No perceived Economic
unfamiliar, and its high cost. It is this last, the high cost of knowledge need reasons
implementation and certication, which is one of the criticisms
Unaware of the advantages of 0.762
ISO 22000 certication
Table 3 Lack of information 0.727
Constraints to the implementation and certication of ISO 22000. Only interesting for exporters 0.579
Not a prerequisite for doing business 0.759
Constraints Meana Standard
Not required by the Governmental 0.702
deviation
Public Agencies
Not a prerequisite for doing business 5.15 1.40 Unfamiliar to consumers and 0.657
Unfamiliar to consumers and customers 5.07 1.48 customers
High cost 5.05 1.44 It does not guarantee the total 0.509
Not required by the Government or Public Agencies 5.02 1.82 safety of the nal product
Unaware of the advantages of ISO 22000 certication 4.97 1.45 High cost 0.837
Need to hire specialized personnel 4.86 1.49 Need to hire specialized personnel 0.690
Lack of information 4.85 1.45 Insufcient nancial aid 0.651
Insufcient nancial aid 4.80 1.61 Eigenvalue 1.997 1.884 1.781
Only interesting for exporters 4.03 1.73 Proportion of the variance explained 19.973 18.842 17.813
It does not guarantee the total safety of the nal product 3.96 1.73 Cumulative proportion of the 19.973 38.815 56.628
a variance explained
Note: 1 not important at all; 7 very important.
 C. Escanciano, M.L. Santos-Vijande / Food Control 40 (2014) 50e57
effective system of food safety and quality, contrary to what some
other studies have suggested. For instance, Panisello, Quantick, and
Knowles (1999) and Violaris et al. (2007) note that smaller rms are
less likely to have a food safety quality system in place due to
nancial and other pressures.
While the sample includes representatives of practically all the
activity sectors involved in the food chain, the majority are food
manufacturers (78% of the sample). This is coherent with the case of
Serbia reported by Djordjevic et al. (2011), for which having a
certied FSMS is a basic condition for these businesses to improve
their competitiveness.
Hudson and Orviska (2012) note that the adoption of interna-
tional standards may be required for entry into certain markets
especially in the European Union countries (Djordjevic et al., 2011;
Masakure et al., 2009). In the present sample, exporting rms ac-
count for 61.3% of the total. While all this seems to conrm that
there exists a relationship between certication and exports, this is
not the main reason why Spanish rms choose ISO 22000.
The factor analysis of the reasons why rms have implemented
and certied an ISO 22000 FSMS identied four main underlying
motivations. The rst one is clearly internal in nature e efciency
and quality; this factor is related to the rms pursuit of procient
process and procedures, safety and productivity. The factors
described as anticipation and image and market pressure
reect the existence of external requirements for certication such
as the strengthening of rms competitive advantage or the satis-
faction of demands from customers and retailers. The fourth factor,
reinforcement, can be considered of mixed nature, internal and
external, since rms seek to meet external requirements, such as
providing evidence of due diligence or reducing consumers au-
dits, together with the internal completion of other managements
systems.
In view of each factors loading and percentage of variance
explained, one can state that certication decisions in Spain are
dominated by rms desire to be more efcient. Clearly, however,
such improvement in efciency would not be possible without
improvement in the denition and monitoring of internal processes
and procedures; and indeed, according to Mamalis et al. (2009) this
is a key objective of rms implementing ISO 22000. The ultimate
goal of this search for greater efciency through an FSMS is to
provide clients with safer products (Bilalis et al., 2009; Henson &
Holt, 2000; Jin et al., 2008).
Internal reasons are not incompatible with attempting to
respond to external forces. In fact, Spanish rms acknowledge the
inuence of external factors in the adoption of the ISO 22000
standard such as anticipation and image and market pressure.
In this sense, Maldonado-Simn et al. (2009) nd that two of the
reasons for rms adopting HACCP are external factors such as to
maintain customers and to satisfy customers demands. Similarly,
in the case of Canadian food rms, Herath and Henson (2010) also
identify a set of external motivations which they group together
into a factor they term direct external requirement.
Thus, a major argument underlying adoption of ISO 22000 is the
rms desire to strengthen their competitive position by antici-
pating to market trends, improving their image, and responding
properly to market requirements. The more global the supply
chains become, the more there is a demand for rms to stand out in
quality and reliability. One way to anticipate the foreseeable
generalized requirement for certication is to implement and
certify an ISO 22000 FSMS already. Anticipating its customers and
the markets demands will allow the rm to benet from the
competitive advantages of being the rst to move (Talbot, 2007).
The desire for what Herath and Henson (2006) call marketing
gains is present in ISO 22000 certied rms. In particular, Spanish
rms choose this certication guided not only by their desire to
55
improve their image and access to foreign markets, but also
because they see its potential as a marketing tool. The application of
ISO 22000 has been widely promoted as a tool to aid exports (Kk,
2009) and as a tool of marketing (Mamalis et al., 2009). By selecting
an ISO 22000 certication, rms in the food industry are adopting
an internationally recognized system that allows sharing a com-
mon language with customers, suppliers, and competent health
services.
Finally, we must not forget that ISO 22000 is a management
system that establishes a link between the HACCP system and ISO
9001 quality management systems, whose structure it shares. As
noted by Mayes (1993): management systems offer the food industry
a structured framework around which companies can dene and
implement measures to enable the consistent manufacture of products
of the required safety and quality standards. Accordingly, ISO 22000
not only provides evidence of due diligence but also allows
achieving the reinforcement of other management systems
which ultimately reduces the need of customer audits. In this study,
82% of respondents stated that the rst management system
implemented in their rm was ISO 9001, a management system
whose success has in turn facilitated the diffusion of other man-
agement system standards with common principles and a similar
structure, although they may be used in different areas such as the
environment (32.3% of the rms in the sample possessed an
ISO14001 certied environmental management system). As Talbot
(2007) observes, companies sometimes commit to an ISO 22000
approach in order to complete their ISO 9001, ISO14001, HACCP
plans through the implementation of an integrated system. All this
was conrmed for the present case of Spain, with 94.5% of re-
spondents stating that their management systems are integrated
either totally (73.2%) or partially (21.2%).
Regardless of the reasons why Spanish rms chose ISO 22000, it
is important to underline that most rms declared to be satised
with this particular FSMS. In particular, over 70% of the respondents
indicated that the certication has met their expectations, and
satisfaction was total or near total in almost 41% of the cases (Fig. 1).
Evidence of this is the fact that the number of ISO 22000
certied rms continues to grow year by year. This steady consol-
idation is taking place at a time marked not only by the economic
crisis, but also by the need to coexist and compete with other food
certications, such as BRC and IFS in Europe, which are driven,
supported, and demanded by major international distributor
chains.
However, in the opinion of Spanish rms, there are certain as-
pects related to its image and external perception which are
holding the diffusion of ISO 22000 back. Thus, despite its having
32,4%
31,4%
17,6%
8,5%
5,0%
2,1%
1,1%
Very
dissatisfied
Dissatisfied Somewhat
dissatisfied
Indifferent Somewhat
satisfied
Satisfied Very
satisfied
Fig. 1. Respondents satisfaction with the ISO 22000 FSMS.
56 C. Escanciano, M.L. Santos-Vijande / Food Control 40 (2014) 50e57
existed as a referent since 2005, the respondents describe the lack
of knowledge about it as being a major obstacle to its diffusion. In
order to promote its use, it would therefore be interesting for ISO,
food sector business associations, and even the certication bodies
to prepare and distribute explanatory materials and disseminate
examples of successful implementations of this standard, high-
lighting the benets obtained from it. Another major obstacle is
related to the fact that having ISO 22000 certication, unlike the
case with ISO 9001 in the eld of quality in some sectors and
markets, is not a prerequisite to be able to compete in the market.
Many rms therefore do not consider it necessary. Instead they
prefer to go with more geographically limited referents which are
already rmly rooted in Europe (such as BRC and IFS), and are
indeed needed to access certain distributor chains. In this context, it
needs to be borne in mind that ISO 22000 offers its users the
possibility of ensuring access to all markets. Indeed, 65% of the
respondents believe that ISO 22000 certication will in time
become an export standard, and therefore indispensable in order to
have a presence in international markets. Also, in recent years some
certication bodies have found it increasingly common for rms to
demand the conjoint certication of ISO 9001, ISO 22000, BRC, and
IFS. In the present study, 12.7% of the rms have all four of these
certications. In sum, insisting on the common points, but also on
the advantages of ISO 22000 over other management standards,
may help promote its expansion. As noted by Talbot (2007, p. 42):
through the international consensus that led to its development, the
ISO 22000 certication is destined to become the reference in inter-
national food safety.
Finally, according to the Spanish rms in the sample, economic
constraints are another aspect holding back the spread of ISO
22000, perceiving its implementation as complex and costly in
terms of material and human investment. Unfortunately, in the
current economic climate, this type of obstacle may seem insur-
mountable, especially for SMEs. A joint effort is therefore required
from Government Agencies and the rms themselves. For Gov-
ernment Agencies, this would involve facilitating access to grants
or tax benets for FSMS initiatives and setting up programmes of
recognition of organizations obtaining good results with their
FSMS. For the rms, it would involve sharing their experience and
information. We would note that 72% of the respondent rms in
this research considered that the benets compensated or out-
weighed their costs in implementing and certifying their FSMS.
6. Conclusions
This paper has attempted to shed some light on the complex
world of FSMS. The focus has been on the ISO 22000 standard.
While this is one of many certiable FS management standards, it is
the only one that is international in character and applicable to all
links in the food chain, from eld to table. The results of the
empirical study showed that internal and external reasons, related
to more efcient FS management and the desire to strengthen the
rms competitive advantage, are the principal determinants for
the choice of this standard when implementing an FSMS. Addi-
tionally, we know that the nancial effort the rms put into
implementing the system and its subsequent certication is
compensated and outweighed by the benets they obtain from it,
and that their expectations have been met.
There are three constraints to the adoption of ISO 22000 which
may condition its future. First, the respondents nd the standard to
be little known and poorly understood by food sector enterprises.
These often are unaware of its real potential, seeing its usefulness as
limited to the export eld. Second, given the standards coexistence
with other standards that, in the EU, are better established and
often demanded by major distributor chains, many rms do not see
it for the moment as being a licence required to compete in that
market. And third, the current economic constraints affecting many
rms are the cause of the diffusion of ISO 22000 not being wider.
References
Aggelogiannopulos, D., Drosinos, E. H., & Athanasopoulos, P. (2007). Implementa-
tion of a quality management system according to the ISO 9000 family in a
Greek small-sized winery: a case study. Food Control, 18(7), 1077e1085.
Alsaleh, N. A. (2007). Application of quality tools by the Saudi food industry. The
TQM Magazine, 19(2), 150e161.
Bas, M., Yuksel, M., & Cavosuglou, T. (2007). Difculties and barriers for the
implementing of HACPP and food safety systems in food business in Turkey.
Food Control, 18(2), 124e130.
Bilalis, D., Stathis, I., Konstantas, A., & Patsiali, S. (2009). Comparison between
HACCPP and ISO 22000 in Greek organic food sector. Journal of Food, Agriculture
and Environment, 7(2), 237e242.
Caswell, J. A., Bredhal, J., Maury, E., & Hooker, N. H. (1998). How quality manage-
ment metasystems are affecting the food industry? Review of Agricultural Eco-
nomics, 20(2), 547e557.
Djordjevic, D., Cockalo, D., & Bogetic, S. (2011). An analysis of the HACCP system
implementation. The factor of improving competitiveness in Serbian com-
panies. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 6(3), 515e520.
Escanciano, C., Fernndez, E., & Vzquez, C. (2001). ISO 9000 certication and
quality management in Spain: results of an empirical survey. The TQM Maga-
zine, 13(3), 192e200.
Fabin, F. (2009). Repercusiones de las normas privadas en el comercio agro-
alimentario. Revista del CEI, 14, 93e116.
Faegermand, J. (2008). The ISO 22000 series global standards for safe food supply
chains. ISO Management Systems, 8(3), 4e7.
Fotopoulos, C. V., Kafetzopoulos, D. P., & Gotzamani, K. (2011). Critical factors for
effective implementation of the HACCP system: a Pareto analysis. British Food
Journal, 113(5), 578e597.
Fotopoulos, C. V., Kafetzopoulos, D. P., & Psomas, E. L. (2009). Assessing the critical
factors and their impact on the effective implementation of a food safety
management system. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management,
26(9), 894e910.
Fulponi, L. (2006). Private voluntary standards in the food system: the perspective
of major food retailers in OECD countries. Food Policy, 31, 1e13.
Gawron, J. C., & Theuvsen, L. (2009). Certication schemes in the European agri-
food sector. Overview and opportunities for Central and Eastern Europe.
Outlook on Agriculture, 38(1), 9e14.
Grunert, K. G. (2005). Food quality and safety. European Review of Agricultural
Economics, 32(3), 369e391.
Hamoudi, A., Hoffmann, R., & Surry, Y. (2009). Food safety standards and agri-food
supply chains: an introductory overview. European Review of Agricultural Eco-
nomics, 36(4), 469e478.
Henson, S., & Holt, G. (2000). Exploring incentives of food safety controls: HACCP
implementation in the UK dairy sector. Review of Agricultural Economics, 22(2),
407e420.
Henson, S., & Humphrey, J. (2009). The impacts of private food safety standards on
the food chain can do in public standard-setting processes. Codex Alimentarius
Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/food/international/organisations/sps/docs/
private_standards_codex_en.pdf.
Herath, D., & Henson, S. (2006). Does Canada need mandatory HACCP? Evidence
from the Ontario food processing sector. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Eco-
nomics, 54(4), 443e459.
Herath, D., & Henson, S. (2010). Barriers to HACCP implementation: evidence form
the food processing sector in Ontario, Canada. Agribusiness, 26(2), 265e279.
Hudson, J., & Orviska, M. (2012). Firms adoption of international standards: one
size ts all? Journal of Policy Modelling, 35(2), 289e306.
ISO. (2011). The ISO survey 2010. ISO. http://www.iso.org.
Jin, S., Zhou, J., & Ye, J. (2008). Adoption of HACCP system in the Chinese food in-
dustry. Food Control, 19, 823e828.
Khatri, Y., & Collins, R. (2007). Impact and status of HACPP in the Australian meat
industry. British Food Journal, 109(5), 343e354.
Kk, M. S. (2009). Application of food safety management systems (ISO 22000/
HACCP) in the Turkish poultry industry: a comparison based on enterprise size.
Journal of Food Protection, 72(10), 2221e2225.
Leat, P., Marr, P., & Ritchie, C. (1998). Quality assurance and traceability: the Scottish
agri-food industrys quest for competitive advantage. Supply Chain Manage-
ment, 3(3), 115e117.
Lopez, N., Montes, J. M., & Vzquez, C. (2008). Innovation, ISO certication and
quality normalization in the food industry. In R. Rama (Ed.), Handbook of
innovation in the food and drink industry (pp. 171e209). New York: Haworth
Press, Taylor & Francis Group.
Luning, P. A., Marcelis, W. J., Rovira, J., Van Der Spiegel, M., Uyttendaele, M., &
Jacxsens, L. (2009). Systematic assessment activities in a company specic food
safety management system. Food Science & Technology, 20(6e7), 300e312.
Maldonado-Simn, E., Martinez-Hernandez, P. A., Garcia-Muiz, J. G., & Cadena-
Meneses, J. C. (2009). Factors associated with the adoption of food safety con-
trols by the Mexican meat industry. Computer & Computing Technologies in
Agriculture II, 3, 1739e1746.
 C. Escanciano, M.L. Santos-Vijande / Food Control 40 (2014) 50e57
Mamalis, S., Kafetzopoulos, P., & Aggelopoulos, S. (2009). The new food safety
standard ISO 22000. Assessment, comparison and correlation with HACCP and
ISO 9000:2000. The practical implementation in victual business. In Proceedings
of 113th EAEE seminar. Greece, September.
Masakure, O., Craneld, J., & Henson, S. (2009). Factors affecting the incidence and
intensity of standards certication evidence from exporting rms in Pakistan.
Applied Economics, iFirst, 1e15.
Mayes, T. (1993). The application of management systems to food safety and quality.
Trends in Food Science & Technology, 4(7), 216e219.
Mensah, L. D., & Julien, D. (2011). Implementation of food safety management
systems in the UK. Food Control, 28(8), 1216e1225.
Panisello, P. J., Quantick, P. C., & Knowles, M. J. (1999). Towards the implementation
of HACCP: results of a UK regional survey. Food Control, 10(2), 87e98.
Prieto, M., Mouwen, J. M., Lopez, S., & Cerdeo, A. (2008). Concepto de calidad en la
industria agroalimentaria. Interciencia, 33(4), 258e264.
Seagrave, P. (2007). ISO 22000: food safety management systems and their
related requirements. In D. James, L. Ababouch, & S. Washington (Eds.), Sixth
world congress on seafood safety, quality and trade (pp. 153e157). FAO.
Australia.
Semos, A., & Kontogeorgos, A. (2007). HACCP implementation in northern Greece.
British Food Journal, 109(1), 5e19.
Talbot, V. (2007). ISO 22000 standard: a food safety management system. SPC
Fisheries Newsletter, 120, 40e42.
Taylor, E., & Kane, K. (2005). Reducing the burden of HACCP in SMEs. Food Control,
16(10), 833e839.
57
Teixeira, T., & Sampaio, P. (2011). Food safety management system implementation
and certication: survey results. In T. Doolen, & E. Van Aken (Eds.), Proceedings
of the 2011 industries engineering research conference.
Tunalioglu, R., Cobanoglu, F., & Karaman, A. D. (2012). Dening economic obstacles
to the adoption of food safety systems in table olive processing rms. British
Food Journal, 114(10), 1486e1500.
Vela, R., & Fernandez, M. (2003). Barriers for the developing and implementation
of HACCP plans: results from a Spanish regional survey. Food Control, 14(5),
333e337.
Verano, D., & Ponce, C. (2008). ISO22000: seguridad en la cadena alimentaria. UNE,
236, 41e43.
Violaris, Y., Bridges, O., & Bridges, J. (2007). Small business-big risks: current status
and future direction of APPCC in Cyprus. Food Control, 19(5), 439e448.
Vladimirov, Z. (2011). Implementation of food safety management system in
Bulgaria. British Food Journal, 113(1), 50e65.
Weyandt, A. J., Reis Da Costa, S. R., Nunes, M. L., & Gaspar, A. (2011). Environmental
and food safety management systems, according to ISO 14001 and ISO 22000 in
sh processing plants: experiences, critical factors and possible future strate-
gies. Procedia Food Science, 1, 1901e1906.
Wilcock, A., Ball, B., & Fajumo, A. (2011). Effective implementation of food safety
initiatives: managers, food safety coordinators and production workers per-
spectives. Food Control, 22(1), 27e32.
Yapp, C., & Fairman, R. (2006). Factors affecting food safety compliance with small
and medium-sized enterprises: implications for regulatory and enforcement
strategies. Food Control, 17(1), 42e51.