The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0007-070X.htm
BFJ
119,4
710
Received 12 July 2016
Revised 4 November 2016
Accepted 4 November 2016
British Food Journal
Vol. 119 No. 4, 2017
pp. 710-728
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0007-070X
DOI 10.1108/BFJ-07-2016-0313
Implementation and functioning
of HACCP principles in certified
and non-certified food businesses
A preliminary study
Joanna Trafialek
Department of Food Gastronomy and Food Hygiene,
Warsaw University of Life Sciences SGGW, Warsaw, Poland, and
Wojciech Kolanowski
Department of Dietetics and Assessment of Food,
Siedlce University of Natural Sciences and Humanities, Siedlce, Poland
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the effectiveness of the functioning of HACCP principles
in certified and non-certified food businesses.
Design/methodology/approach – The data were collected by audits made in 40 food businesses of
various food industry sectors. All food businesses were located in Poland where the HACCP system is
obligatory. Half of the evaluated businesses implemented one or more private voluntary certified
standards. The audit form contained 134 detailed questions covering 12 steps and seven principles of
HACCP implementation and functioning. The obtained results were analyzed using a t-test, Spearman’s
test, and cluster analysis.
Findings – The overall assessment of the HACCP principles in certified food businesses was higher than in
non-certified ones. However, the functioning of HACCP principles in practice was assessed much lower than
the system implementation in all business groups, despite certification and the type of food industry. In each
of the food industry sectors both implementation and functioning of HACCP principles were evaluated higher
in certified than in non-certified food businesses. Further research is needed to explain why, despite
certification, the functioning of the mandatory HACCP principles is often incomplete and what factors affect
the correct operation, as well as if these are sufficient to ensure food safety.
Research limitations/implications – The main limitation of this research is a small sample of only
40 food businesses of various food industry sectors located in Poland. Due to the small sample, the research
should be considered as the preliminary or scoping study. Although the method applied in the study allowed
rapid evaluation of implementation and functioning of HACCP principles in food businesses, more work and
analyses should be done for its reliability and validity.
Practical implications – The obtained results gave a lot of practical information, e.g.: first, the overall
assessment of the HACCP principles in the certified food businesses is higher than that in the non-certified
ones; second, the functioning of the HACCP principles in practice is weaker than the system
implementation despite certification; third, in some cases the passing certification schemes do not result in a
company having excellent food safety practices; and fourth, the applied method allows rapid evaluation of
implementation and functioning of HACCP principles. However, more work and analyses should be done
for its reliability and validity.
Social implications – It is believed that certification strengthens HACCP functioning in food businesses.
However, the study has shown that functioning of HACCP principles in practice was assessed much lower
than the system implementation in all business groups, despite certification and the type of food industry.
This indicate that even in certified food businesses HACCP functioning is often incomplete, which may have
an impact on food safety.
Originality/value – The paper presents additional and detailed data on the functioning of HACCP
principles in certified and non-certified food business. Despite certification and the type of food industry
sector, the functioning of HACCP principles in practice was assessed much lower than the system
implementation in all business groups. The method applied in this study allowed rapid evaluation of
implementation and functioning of HACCP principles in food businesses. However, more work and analyses
should be done for its reliability and validity.
Keywords Food safety, Certification, HACCP
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction HACCP
The HACCP system is recognized as a cost-effective procedure for ensuring food safety. It is principles
commonly accepted as a food safety tool and must be applied during the entire food production
process (Commission Regulation EC, 2004; Bertolini et al., 2007). The World Health Organization
(1997) indicates the importance of the HACCP principles for the prevention of food-borne
diseases. HACCP principles are examples of the mandatory standards in the food industry.
Simultaneously, there are many private voluntary food safety management standards and 711
certification is believed to strengthen HACCP functioning in food business. Examples of
internationally recognized private voluntary standards are: International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) 9001, ISO 22000, British Retail Consortium (BRC), Global Standard for
Food Safety Initiative Certification, Good Agricultural Practice (Global GAP), or International
Food Standard (IFS). Most of them include HACCP as one of their components. These standards
are not mandatory; producers and suppliers are not required by law to meet them (Orriss and
Whitehead, 2000). However, private voluntary standards in addition to public regulations are
increasingly recognized as having a potential trade impact. Henson (2008) reported that through
market transactions such additional standards might become necessary in practice.
As Hobbs (2010) suggested private voluntary standards emerged from a variety of
sources and include proprietary standards established by food businesses, third-party
standards established by independent standard-setting bodies and other non-governmental
organizations, and voluntary consensus standards established by industry bodies or
coalitions of food businesses. However, the distinction between public and private voluntary
standards is not always clear cut and they often interact (Humphrey, 2006). Public food
safety standards are enacted to protect consumers’ health by assuring a safe supply of
commodities and to eliminate fraudulent practices (Aruoma, 2006). Food safety standards,
public and private voluntary, are fundamentally about establishing control, conformance,
and compliance in the production, processing, and distribution of food.
It is believed that by the implementation of private voluntary standards food businesses can
obtain very real benefits like managerial and marketing benefits, an increase in competitive
power, the reduction of defective products, the improvement of internal communication, the
increase of customer satisfaction, the increase of market share, the opportunities for infiltration
in new markets, and global deployment of products (Boiral, 2011; Wall et al., 2001; Larsen and
Häversjö, 2001; Hatanaka et al., 2005; Urbonavicius, 2005; Turk, 2006; Aggelogiannopoulos
et al., 2007). Successful implementation of private voluntary standards in food business is
proved during the certification process performed by an external third-party audit (Qijun and
Batt, 2016). If the audit is successful, the company receives a registrations certificate. The
certification ensures that the food business complies with the appropriate standards (Sparling
et al., 2001; Hatanaka et al., 2005). In this paper, food business holding certificate of any of the
private voluntary food safety management standards is called certified food business.
Market pressure often makes the certification process less voluntary than it would
appear. When major clients or other stakeholders demand certification, food business
managers generally adopt voluntary certification, whether they support the food safety
system or not (Boiral, 2011; Soon and Baines, 2013). Nevertheless, it is commonly believed
that the voluntary certification strengths the HACCP system. Therefore, the aim of this
study was to examine the effectiveness of HACCP principles functioning in certified and
non-certified food businesses.

2. Material and methods

2.1 Food businesses
Audits were made in 40 different food businesses. All food businesses implemented HACCP
principles. Half of them implemented exclusively HACCP system and another half
additionally implemented one or more voluntary certified standards. Voluntary standards in
BFJ certified businesses were: ISO 9001 (nine cases), ISO 22000 (six cases), ISO 14000 (two cases),
119,4 BRC (eight cases), IFS (five cases), Global GAP, and ISO 18001 (by one case each). Evaluated
food businesses represented four sectors: catering (C), meat and meat products (M), fruits
and vegetables (F), and beverages (B). In each sector, there were five certified (C1-5, M1-5,
F1-5, B1-5) and five non-certified (nC1-5, nM1-5, nF1-5, nB1-5) businesses.
The evaluated businesses were located in Poland where the HACCP system is mandatory
712 like in other EU countries. The largest group of food business was small-size enterprises
employing 11-50 workers (47.5 percent) and medium-sized ones employing 51-250 workers
(37.5 percent). Much fewer were micro-businesses employing up to ten workers (7.5 percent) and
large-scale businesses with more than 250 employees (7.5 percent). That was the typical food-
businesses ratio in Poland. The study was conducted in the years 2014-2015. Due to the
relatively small sample size the research should be considered as a preliminary or scoping study.

2.2 Audits
The evaluation was made using the audit method. The detailed audit form contained 134
detailed questions (Trafialek and Kolanowski, 2014). The audit form questions were related
to food safety requirements and consisted of two parts. The first part of the audit form
corresponded to the implementation of the HACCP system and consisted of 12 steps (S),
according to the Codex Alimentarius (2009) (Table I). The second part corresponded to the
functioning of the HACCP principles in practice and consisted of questions covering the
principles of the HACCP system functioning in practice and was connected to employees
and management (Table II).
For the evaluation of the audit criteria, a rating scale containing four scores: 2, 3, 4, 5 was
used. The adopted scale did not contain a clearly defined center, which forced the auditor
to carefully consider the assessment. Score 5 corresponded to 100 percent conformity,
i.e. requirements for all evaluated criteria were fulfilled in every detail – food safety ensured
completely. Score 4 corresponded to ca. 80 percent conformity – it was a slight deviation in
fulfillment of the requirements but shown that non-compliances were not significant for food
safety at the time of audit. Score 3 corresponded to ca. 60 percent conformity – in such a case the
requirements were fulfilled in inadequate extent, i.e. food safety not assured. Score 2 reflected
less than 40 percent conformity with audit criteria – none of the requirements were fulfilled as a
whole and food safety was not assured. It was assumed that an acceptable assessment of
implementation steps and functioning of HACCP principles in practice corresponded to at least
a 4.0 score. The list of audit questions was prepared in the Excel file, and a mathematical
formula calculating the evaluation data of each criterion according to the adopted scale was
used. All criteria were evaluated and then the mean scores were calculated.
During interpretation of the results some abbreviations were used. Steps of the HACCP
system implementation (I), i.e. part 1 of the audit form was marked as: I:S.1 – step 1, i.e. assemble
the HACCP team; I:S.2 – step 2, i.e. describe the product; I:S.3 – step 3, i.e. identify intended use;
I:S.4 – step 4, i.e. construct a flow diagram; I:S.5 – step 5, i.e. on-site confirmation of a flow
diagram; I:S.6 – step 6, principle 1 (P.1), i.e. identify and analyze hazards; I:S.7 – step 7, principle 2
(P.2), i.e. determine the critical control points (CCPs); I:S.8 – step 8, principle 3 (P.3), i.e. establish
critical limits for each CCPs; I:S.9 – step 9, principle 4 (P.4), i.e. monitoring of CCPs; I:S.10 – step
10, principle 5 (P.5), i.e. establish corrective action; I:S.11 – step 11, principle 6 (P.6), i.e.
verification procedures; I:S.12 – step 12, principle 7 (P.7), i.e. recordkeeping and documentation.
HACCP principles concerning the functioning of the system in practice (F), i.e. part 2 of
the audit form, were marked as: F:P.2 – principle 2, i.e. determine CCPs; F:P.3 – principle 3,
i.e. establish critical limits for each CCP; F:P.4 – principle 4, i.e. monitoring of CCPs;
F:P.5 – principle 5, i.e. establish corrective action; F:P.6 – principle 6, i.e. verification
procedures; F:P.7 – principle 7, i.e. recordkeeping and documentation. Principle 1 solely
belongs to the implementation section.
 HACCP
principles

713

Table I.
The first part of the
audit form concerning
implementation (I) of
HACCP system,
consisting of six
blocks of questions,
auditor was expected
to select relevant score
(continued ) (2-5) for each question
BFJ
119,4

714

Table I. (continued )
 HACCP
principles

715

Table I.

2.3 Auditor
All audits were conducted by the same auditor (the first author of this paper). The auditor
worked for many years in food industry quality management and had many years of
experience as an active auditor of the HACCP system. Additionally, the auditor had many
BFJ
119,4

716

Table II.
The second part of the
audit form concerning
functioning (F) of
HACCP system in
practice consisting of
six blocks of
questions, auditor
selected relevant
scores for
each question (continued )
 HACCP
principles

717

Table II.

years of experience in the implementation of the HACCP system in practice as well as

experience in food technology and research work in the area of food hygiene. The auditor
developed, maintained, and improved her competence through continual professional
development, training, and regular participation in audits. The auditor was also periodically
evaluated against the criteria set out in ISO 19011 (2011).

2.4 Statistics
For statistical interpretation of the results two types of calculations were made. Percentage
indicators of the score for fulfilling audit criteria in the analyzed certified and non-certified
food businesses were calculated using MS Excel.
To verify the relationship between the results of audits, t-tests and Spearman’s test were
applied. The Spearman’s test was used to determine the correlation among the different
parameters such as the food industry sector, steps of implementation, and functioning of HACCP
principles and certification. t-Test was used to compare the average results of certified and
non-certified food businesses evaluation. Statistical significance was considered when po0.05.
Cluster analysis was used to identify which elements of HACCP principles were
implemented and the functioning of the HACCP principles in practice were evaluated higher
and lower during audits in certified and non-certified food businesses. It was also used to
examine whether certification of the voluntary system and the type of food businesses
affected the assessment of the functioning of HACCP principles in practice. Cluster analysis
was chosen to group food businesses according to similar audits’ results, which cannot be
done by other methods.
Cluster analysis shows a number of clusters where the observations within each cluster
are as similar as possible while the differences between the clusters are as large as possible
BFJ ( Jain et al., 1999). Cluster analysis determines the number of classes as well as the
119,4 memberships of the observations to the groups. To determine the group membership most
clustering methods use a measure of similarity between the observations. Distances
between the observations in the data space are generally used to express the similarity
(Templ et al., 2008). Many different distance measures exist. For clustering the observations,
the Euclidean distance is the preferred choice. In this stud5y, Euclidean distances computed
718 from the raw data defined the distances between samples. The method chosen for this
analysis was Ward’s method, which uses analysis of variance, and was used to determine
the similarities of two clusters to be linked together (Murtagh, 2014). All tests were made
using Statistica 12 software.

3. Results
3.1 Overall assessment
The results of the assessment of particular steps of HACCP implementation and functioning
of HACCP principles in practice were shown in Figure 1. The mean score of fulfilling audit
criteria was 4.48 for certified and 3.8 for non-certified businesses. In both groups,
the functioning of HACCP principles in practice was lower assessed than the
implementation of the system. In certified businesses, the mean HACCP principles
functioning assessment score was 4.2 and the HACCP implementation score was 4.6.
However, in non-certified the scores were 3.4 and 4.0, respectively.
Lower scores of HACCP principles functioning might be associated with the fact that the
implementation of the system is often assisted by consultancy companies. These companies
usually make the assessments, the initial training of the employees, prepared training
manuals, etc. However, after the phase of implementation the business is usually left alone
with the system that often cannot be effectively monitored and maintained (Ehiri et al., 1995;
Khandke and Mayes, 1998; Panisello and Quantick, 2001; Eves and Dervisi, 2005).
Among the non-certified businesses, the lowest results were shown for HACCP
functioning assessment of principle 6 (F:P.6), i.e. verification procedures (score 3.06), and the

5
Non-certified Certified
4.5

4
Score of fulfilling audit criteria

3.5

2.5

1.5

0.5

0
Figure 1.
Mean results of
HACCP system audits
among certified and Notes: I – means the first part of audit concerning implementation (I) of HACCP principles
non-certified food
businesses consisted of 12 steps (S 1-12), according to the Codex Alimentarius (2009); F – means the second
part of audit concerning functioning (F) of HACCP principles (P 2-7) in practice
highest one for HACCP implementation assessment step 8, principle 3 (I:S.8, P.3), HACCP
i.e. establish critical limits for each CCP (4.52). Audit evidence showed that verification was principles
carried out at a different frequency than the frequency set in procedures or was not carried
out at all. Similar results were obtained in our previous works (Czarniecka-Skubina and
Trafialek, 2011; Trafialek and Kolanowski, 2014), where the non-conformities related to the
verification of the system were shown. An audit can be a method of verification, but among
the non-certified businesses this is not the obligatory method, in contrast to certified ones 719
where an internal audit is mandatory, e.g. assessing compliance with ISO 9001, ISO 22000,
BRC, or IFS (Mortimore and Wallace, 2013).
Among the certified businesses, the lowest results were shown for the HACCP functioning
assessment of principle 2 (F:P.2), i.e. determine CCPs (score 4.17). The highest result was found
for the HACCP implementation assessment of step 9, principle 4 (I:S.9, P.4), i.e. monitoring of
CCPs (score 4.76) and step 8, principle 3 (I:S.8, P.3), i.e. establish critical limits for each CCP
(score 4.75). This was probably due to the requirements of the standards that had to be met in
order to obtain a certificate, e.g. monitoring and measurement of product in ISO 9001 (2015) and
control of monitoring and measuring in ISO 22000 (2005). The lowest scores for F:P.2 probably
resulted from lack of knowledge of all CCPs by supervisors or managers in particular
businesses. It is agreed that effectiveness of the HACCP system relies on the knowledge and
skills of both management and staff and many researchers reported similar statements
(Vela and Fernández, 2003; Bas et al., 2007; Fletcher et al., 2009; Karaman et al., 2012).
It is generally believed that proper implementation and functioning of the food safety
management system requires commitment from all participants (Khandke and Mayes, 1998;
Panisello and Quantick, 2001; Eves and Dervisi, 2005).
Tolerable assessment of the implementation steps and functioning of the HACCP in practice
was assumed to be at least a 4.0 score. However, among non-certified businesses most mean
scores were below this level. In contrast, among certified businesses even the lowest mean score
was above the tolerable level. The HACCP system assessment in certified businesses were in
any case better than in non-certified ones and this applied to both the implementation of the
HACCP system (I), as well as its functioning in practice (F) parts.

3.2 Detailed assessment

Audit results were also analyzed separately for certified and non-certified food business
sectors (Figure 2). In the case of non-certified businesses (Figure 2(a, c, e, g)) most of the
HACCP principle implementation results were between 3.5 and 4.5 and only in some cases
some steps reached 5.0. Assessment of functioning of the HACCP in practice showed much
lower scores between 2.5 and 4.0 and in some cases even below 2.5.
This was in contrast to other cases, in the case of non-certified fruit and vegetable
businesses (marked as nF5), HACCP principles functioning were assessed to be much higher
(scores ca. 4.5) than the implementation of them (scores even 2.0 depending on the step).
This resulted in the lack of step 5 (I:S.5) implementation, i.e. on-site confirmation of the flow
diagram and only partial implementation of step 6, principle 1 (I:S.6, P.1), i.e. identify and
analyze hazards. Similar problems in understanding the importance of hazard analysis were
reported by Panisello et al. (1999) and Eves and Dervisi (2005).
In the case of non-certified businesses both assessment of implementation and functioning
of the HACCP principles in practice were below tolerable 4.0 score. Much better results were
shown for certified businesses (Figure 2(b, d, f, h)). Most scores in these businesses concerning
both the implementation and functioning of the HACCP principles were between 4.0 and 5.0.
Moreover, the scores differentiation was lower than in non-certified businesses. In the case of
two certified businesses of catering and fruit and vegetables sectors marked as C1 and F3, the
scores were significantly lower than in others, both in the implementation and functioning of
HACCP principles. It is unclear how these businesses passed a certification audit. It is worth
BFJ (a) (b)
5
119,4 4.5 5

Score of fulfilling audit criteria

Score of fulfilling audit criteria

4.5
4
4
3.5 3.5
3 3
2.5 2.5
2 2
1.5 1.5
1 1
nC1 nC2 nC3 nC4 C1 C2 C3 C4
0.5 0.5
720 0
nC5 Mean
0
C5 Mean

Implementation and functioning of HACCP principles in Implementation and functioning of HACCP principles
non-certified catering businesses in certified catering businesses

(c) (d)
5 5
4.5
Score of fulfilling audit criteria

Score of fulfilling audit criteria

4.5
4 4
3.5 3.5
3 3
2.5 2.5
2 2
1.5 1.5
1 1
nM1 nM2 nM3 nM4 M1 M2 M3 M4
0.5 0.5
nM5 Mean M5 Mean
0 0

Implementation and functioning of HACCP principles Implementation and functioning of HACCP principles
in non-certified meat businesses in certified meat businesses

(e) (f )
5
5
Score of fulfilling audit criteria

4.5
Score of fulfilling audit criteria

4.5
4
4
3.5
3.5
3
3
2.5 2.5
2 2
1.5 1.5
1 1
nF1 nF2 nF3 nF4 F1 F2 F3 F4
0.5 0.5
nF5 Mean F5 Mean
0 0

Implementation and functioning of HACCP principles in Implementatation and functioning of HACCP principles in certified
non-certified fruit and vegetables businesses fruit and vegetables businesses

(g) (h)
5 5
Score of fulfilling audit criteria
Score of fulfilling audit criteria

4.5 4.5
4 4
3.5 3.5
3 3
2.5 2.5
2 2
1.5 1.5
1 1
nB1 nB2 nB3 nB4 B1 B2 B3 B4
0.5 0.5
nB5 Mean B5 Mean
0 0

Figure 2.
Detailed results of Implementation and functioning of HACCP principles in Implementation and functioning of HACCP principles
HACCP system audits non-certifiedbeverage businesses in certified beverage businesses

among certified and Notes: I – means the first part of audit concerning implementation (I) of HACCP principles
non-certified food
businesses consisted of 12 steps (S 1-12), according to the Codex Alimentarius (2009); F – means the second
part of audit concerning functioning (F) of HACCP principles (P 2-7) in practice

noting the results of the catering business C5 assessment. In this case, the implementation of
HACCP steps and principles were assessed much higher than its functioning in practice.
Most likely during the certification audit, the functioning of the HACCP principles was correct,
but after receiving the certificate the management did not continue the functioning and
maintenance of HACCP principles.
 The t-test in the case of catering, fruit, and vegetable businesses showed no significant HACCP
differences between certified and non-certified businesses (catering 4.03 and 3.89, p¼0.782, principles
fruit and vegetables 4.41 and 4.14, p¼0.344 scores, respectively). However, in the meat as
well as beverage businesses differences in mean scores between certified and non-certified
¼ beverage 4.86
plants were statistically significant (meat 4.63 and 3.45, p 0.000068,
and 3.74, p ¼ 0.000073, respectively).
Spearman’s test showed the relationships among the different parameters such food 721
industry sectors, steps of implementation, and functioning of HACCP principles in practice
and certification. There were significant correlations between scores and steps of
implementation and functioning of HACCP principles (rS¼−0.346) as well as between
scores and certification (rS¼0.469). The analysis indicated that together with successive
steps of HACCP implementation and functioning the scores were often worse (Figure 2(a, b)).
For example, if CCPs were designated properly, with assigned appropriate critical limits,
appropriate monitoring system and defined properly corrective actions, in practice, these
rules are not implemented correctly. The results of Spearman’s test indicated that the type of
food industry sector did not influence the audits’ scores (rS¼0.035). It means that in one
sector the assessment of individual businesses were differentiated; however, the reasons of
such results were not identified.

3.3 Cluster analysis

Cluster analysis complemented the characteristics of the audit’s detailed results. It was
conducted separately for non-certified and certified businesses. This allowed for the
determination of concentrations (clusters) that significantly differed from each other in the
results of the assessment. Two concentrations of certified businesses and three of non-certified
ones were determined (Figures 3 and 4). This indicated that more significant differentiation in
the level of implementation and functioning of HACCP principles occurred in non-certified
businesses. The effectiveness of the HACCP system in reducing food safety risks depends on
Dendrogram Ward’s Method Euclidean

I: S.1
I: S.2
I: S.4
I: S.6 P.1
I: S.11 P.6
Cluster 2 I: S.12 P.7
I: S.5
I: S.10 P.5
I: S.7 P.2
I: S.8 P.3
I: S.9 P.4
I: S.3
F: P.2
F: P.3
Cluster 1 F: P.4
F: P.5 Figure 3.
F: P.6 Diagram of cluster
F: P.7 analysis made on the
basis of similar results
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
of HACCP principles
Distance implementation and
Notes: I – means the first part of the question form concerning implementation (I) of HACCP functioning evaluation
principles consisted of 12 steps, according to the Codex Alimentarius (2009); F – means the in certified food
businesses (Ward’s
second part of the question form concerning functioning (F) of HACCP principles in practice method, Euclidean)
consisted of six blocks of questions
BFJ Dendrogram Ward’s Method Euclidean

119,4 I: S.1
I: S.7 P.2
I: S.10 P.5
Cluster 3 I: S.4
I: S.12 P.7
I: S.6 P.1

722 I: S.5
I: S.2
I: S.3
Cluster 2
I: S.8 P.3
I: S.9 P.4
I: S.11 P.6
F: P.2
F: P.5
Cluster 1 F: P.3
Figure 4. F: P.4
Diagram of cluster F: P.6
analysis made on the F: P.7
basis of similar results
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
of HACCP principles
implementation and Distance
functioning evaluation Notes: I – means the first part of the question form concerning implementation (I) of HACCP
in non-certified food principles consisted of 12 steps, according to the Codex Alimentarius (2009); F – means the
businesses (Ward’s
method, Euclidean) second part of the question form concerning functioning (F) of HACCP principles in practice
consisted of six blocks of questions

its correct implementation and functioning. This was shown in cluster analysis interpretation
of audits’ results of HACCP principles functioning in evaluated food businesses (Figure 5).
Among the certified businesses, concentration of the lower assessments (cluster 1) consisted
of elements concerning the functioning of HACCP principles in practice (F:P.2-7) and step 3 of
the system implementation (I:S.3), i.e. identify the intended use. Audit evidence showed non-
compliance in step 3. Cluster 2 consisted of the rest of the steps and principles. Non-
compliance in the step 3 were related to incorrectly defined target groups of consumers, and
the most common, non-implementation of this stage at all. Noncompliance in the functioning
of HACCP principles was evidenced by some cases of a lack of knowledge where CCPs were
determined or what were the critical limits for CCPs among employees or managers, as well as
incorrect monitoring of CCPs and a lack of corrective actions.
Among non-certified businesses, cluster 1 concentrated on the lower assessed
HACCP elements during the audits. It contained all principles concerning the functioning
of HACCP principles and the implementation of step 11, i.e. verification procedures. Cluster
2 grouped the highly assessed system elements, i.e. implementation steps 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10,
and 12. Cluster 3 consisted of steps 2, 3, 8, and 9 assessed in between. It also indicated that
non-compliance in the functioning of HACCP principles were the same as mentioned above.
The auditor also noted that, in some cases, verification procedures were not implemented at
all and that methods of verification were inadequate or planned with low frequency.
The study also examined whether any certified system implemented in food business
and the sector of food industry affected the assessment score of the functioning of the
HACCP principles in practice. The analysis determined three concentrations depending on
the results of HACCP principles functioning in practice assessment.
Cluster 1 consisted of 17 businesses of the highest assessment scores. There were 16
certified businesses (80 percent) and one non-certified of fruit and vegetable sector (nF5).
This indicated that in most cases voluntary certification of food businesses positively
influenced better assessment of HACCP functioning in practice. Cluster 2 consisted of
 Dendrogram Ward’s Method Euclidean HACCP
C1
nM1
principles
nF1
nM2
nM3
C5
F3
nC1
Claster 3 nC5
nC2 723
nC3
nM4
nB1
nB2
nM5
C2
nB4
nF4
nC4
Claster 2 nB5
nF2
nF3
nB3
C3
C4
M5
nF5
M4
M2
F2
F4
Claster 1 B4
B5
Figure 5.
M1 Diagram of cluster
F1 analysis made on the
F5 basis of similar results
M3
B1 of HACCP principles
B3 implementation and
B2 functioning evaluation
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 depending on
Distance certification and
Notes: n – non-certified food bussiens; foof bussines sectors: C – catering; M – meat and meat sector on food
businesses (Ward’s
products; F – fruits and vegetables; B – beverages (B). In each sector there were five certified method, Euclidean)
(C1-5, M1-5, F1-5, B1-5) and five non-certified (nC1-5, nM1-5, nF1-5, nB1-5) businesses

businesses of lower scores than in cluster 1. This concentration was the lowest and covered
eight businesses – seven non-certified (nB3-5, nC4, nF2, nF3, nF4) and one certified
catering business (C2). Cluster 3 consisted of 15 businesses of the lowest assessment scores.
There were 12 non-certified (nM1-5, nB1-2, nC1-3 and 5, nF1) and three certified businesses
(C1, C5, F3). In each cluster, there were businesses from various food industry sectors.
Cluster analysis did not determine concentration of the same sector. This indicated that the
type of food industry sector did not affect better functioning of HACCP principles in
practice, which was also shown in the Spearman’s test results.

4. Discussion
The audits found that some food businesses were, despite having certification,
not practicing the HACCP principles entirely correctly. Also, among the non-certified
businesses there were some making all efforts in the proper functioning and maintenance of
the HACCP principles. Voluntary certification did not ensure 100 percent conformity in
audited businesses, although voluntary standards are frequently categorized as going
beyond the requirements of public standards (Henson and Northen, 1998).
The certification based on HACCP principles (e.g. ISO 22000, BRC, IFS) could probably
gave higher assessment scores of HACCP principles functioning in practice than in
businesses where the certification were not related to the HACCP (e.g. ISO 14000, ISO 9001,
BFJ ISO 18001). However, among the certified businesses the largest group was ISO 9001
119,4 certification (45 percent). There are some papers that are dealing with the implementation of
private voluntary standards in various sectors of food industry (Aggelogiannopoulos et al.,
2007; Sparling et al., 2001; Gaaloul et al., 2011). Beneficial effect of certification on food safety
was shown in many food industry sectors (Kafetzopoulos and Gotzamani, 2014; Pérez-
Ramírez et al., 2016; Parkes et al., 2016). Nevertheless, some studies showed no impact of
724 certification on other parameters such as the labor productivity or export values
(Albulescu et al., 2016; Schuster and Maertens, 2015).
Boiral (2011) suggested that certification should not be considered as a goal in itself, but
rather as a learning process with its own pitfalls, benefits, and surprises. Many food
companies can start toward the highest class quality by building a solid structure by
combining GMP, HACCP, and the ISO 9000 family systems (Surak and Simpson, 1994). There
are also many companies that meet the requirements of mandatory and private voluntary
standards, but they are not certified. Such an example in this study was nF5 business,
identified by cluster analysis. The reasons for no certification is unknown but some authors
indicated that the certification process might discourage certification or in other cases the low
scale of the food company or the unenforceability of criteria make the certification time
consuming and not cost effective (Marschke and Wilkings, 2014; Veldstra et al., 2014).
There is a strong positive relationship between quality and safety of food products
(Akkerman et al., 2010). Although the functioning of HACCP principles can cause a variety
of problems in maintaining the system, it is necessary for food safety. HACCP principles
were designed to prevent food safety risks and an efficient HACCP maintenance program is
an important element in making sure that all significant hazards are controlled on an
ongoing basis (Mortimore and Wallace, 2013). Only effective implementation, functioning,
and maintenance of HACCP principles can guarantee food safety. The scores of HACCP
principles functioning, in practice, that are lower than the scores of the system
implementation limit assurance of food safety. This might be a result of a lack of the
necessary competencies of personnel whose activities had an impact on food safety, which is
indicated by ISO 22000 (2005). The audit’s results probably could be better if in analyzed
businesses the multistage process of training were conducted. Such trainings should
concern the overall understanding of the standard’s vocabulary, the role of the documents
and records, individual responsibilities, and the benefits that will be derived from the
implementation and proper functioning of the system and understanding the actual day-to-
day process of upgrading and improving the processes and procedures
(Aggelogiannopoulos et al., 2007).
Available studies indicate that the effectiveness of the HACCP principles in ISO 22000
certified food business is significantly better than without ISO 22000 (Psomas and
Kafetzopoulos, 2015). This indicates that the standards associated with HACCP beneficially
affect the food safety (Tomašević et al., 2013; Escanciano and Santos-Vijande, 2014). It may
also cause some economic benefits for the business (Giacomarra et al., 2016).
The implementation of private voluntary standards and certification is often a great
effort and expense for the company (Aggelogiannopoulos et al., 2007; Boiral, 2011). However,
the benefits usually compensated or outweighed the costs of implementation (Escanciano
and Santos-Vijande, 2014).
There are many well-known factors influencing the implementation of HACCP principles
such as knowledge, awareness, position and age of employees or the size of the business
(Bas et al., 2007; Trafialek and Kolozyn-Krajewska, 2011; Karaman et al., 2012). However,
there is a need for further research revealing the factors affecting the correct functioning
of the implemented HACCP principles. If the results of the study exclude the sector
of food industry, it can be assumed that there are other significant factors probably customers’
requirements (Fulponi, 2006), integrity and culture of food safety (Powell et al., 2011),
the frequency of official controls (Eves and Dervisi, 2005), or other factors not analyzed yet. HACCP
The results of this study can be compared to other EU countries as the Polish food safety principles
system is the same like in other EU members.

5. Conclusions
The overall assessment of the HACCP system in certified food businesses was higher than
in non-certified ones. In each of the food industry sectors both implementation and 725
functioning of HACCP principles were evaluated higher in certified than in non-certified
food businesses. However, only in the meat and beverages sector average audits’ results in
certified businesses were significantly higher than in non-certified ones. The food industry
sector types did not influence the audits’ results. Generally, functioning of HACCP principles
in practice was assessed much lower than the system implementation in all food business
groups, despite certification and the type of food industry sector. This indicated that even in
certified food businesses HACCP functioning was often incomplete, which might have an
impact on food safety. The results indicated that in some cases the passing certification
schemes do not result in a company having excellent food safety practices.
The method applied in this study allowed rapid evaluation of implementation and
functioning of HACCP principles in food businesses. However, more work and analyses
should be done for its reliability and validity. Further research is needed to explain why,
despite certification, functioning of the mandatory HACCP principles in food businesses is
often incomplete and what factors affect the correct operation, as well as if these are
sufficient to ensure food safety.

References
Aggelogiannopoulos, D., Drosinos, E.H. and Athanasopoulos, P. (2007), “Implementation of a quality
management system (QMS) according to the ISO 9000 family in a Greek small-sized winery:
a case study”, Food Control, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 1077-1085.
Akkerman, R., Farahani, P. and Grunow, M. (2010), “Quality, safety and sustainability in food
distribution: a review of quantitative operations management approaches and challenges”,
OR Spectrum, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 863-904.
Albulescu, C.T., Drăghicia, A., Fistişa, G.M. and Truşculesc, A. (2016), “Does ISO 9001 quality
certification influence labor productivity in EU-27?”, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences,
Vol. 221 No. 6, pp. 278-286.
Aruoma, O. (2006), “The impact of food regulation on the food supply chain”, Toxicology, Vol. 221 No. 3,
pp. 119-127.
Bas, M., Yuksel, M. and Cavusoglu, T. (2007), “Difficulties and barriers for the implementing of HACCP
and food safety systems in food businesses in Turkey”, Food Control, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 124-130.
Bertolini, M., Rizzi, A. and Bevilacqua, M. (2007), “An alternative approach to HACCP system
implementation”, Journal of Food Engineering, Vol. 79 No. 4, pp. 1322-1328.
Boiral, O. (2011), “Managing with ISO systems: lessons from practice”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 44
No. 3, pp. 197-220.
Codex Alimentarius (2009), Food Hygiene Basic Texts, 4th ed., WHO/FAO, Rome, available at: www.
fao.org/docrep/012/a1552e/a1552e00.pdf (accessed November 10, 2015).
Commission Regulation EC (2004), “Commission Regulation (EC) No. 852 of 29 April 2004 on the
hygiene of foodstuffs”, Official Journal of the European Union, Vol. 47 No. L 139, pp. 3-21.
Czarniecka-Skubina, E. and Trafialek, J. (2011), “Comparison of variances identified during the audit of
implementation and operating of HACCP system in selected plants”, in Borkowski, S. and
Rosak-Szyrocka, J. (Eds), Quality Improvement, Triptsoft Publisher, Trnava, pp. 69-78.
Ehiri, J.E., Morris, G.P. and McEwen, J. (1995), “Implementation of HACCP in food businesses: a way
ahead”, Food Control, Vol. 6 No. 6, pp. 341-345.
BFJ Escanciano, C. and Santos-Vijande, M.L. (2014), “Reasons and constraints to implementing an ISO
119,4 22000 food safety management system: evidence from Spain”, Food Control, Vol. 40 No. 6,
pp. 50-57.
Eves, A. and Dervisi, P. (2005), “Experiences of the implementation and operation of hazard analysis
critical control points in the food service sector”, International Journal of Hospitality
Management, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 3-19.
726 Fletcher, S.M., Maharaj, S.R. and James, K. (2009), “Description of the food safety system in hotels and
how it compares with HACCP standards”, Journal of Travel Medicine, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 35-41.
Fulponi, L. (2006), “Private voluntary standards in the food system: the perspective of major food
retailers in OECD countries”, Food Policy, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 1-13.
Gaaloul, I., Riabi, S. and Ghorbel, R.E. (2011), “Implementation of ISO 22000 in cereal food industry
‘SMID’ in Tunisia”, Food Control, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 59-66.
Giacomarra, M., Galati, A., Crescimanno, M. and Tinervia, S. (2016), “The integration of quality and
safety concerns in the wine industry: the role of third-party voluntary certifications”, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 112 No. 1, pp. 267-274.
Hatanaka, M., Bain, C. and Busch, L. (2005), “Third-party certification in the global agrifood system”,
Food Policy, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 354-369.
Henson, S. (2008), “The role of public and private standards in regulation international food markets”,
Journal of International Agriculture Trade Development, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 63-81.
Henson, S. and Northen, J. (1998), “Economic determinants of food safety controls in supply of retailer
own-branded products in United Kingdom”, Agribusiness, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 113-126.
Hobbs, J.E. (2010), “Public and private standards for food safety and quality: international trade
implications”, Estey Center Journal of International Law Trade Policy, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 136-152.
Humphrey, J. (2006), “Policy implications of trends in agribusiness value chains”, European Journal of
Development Research, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 572-592.
ISO 22000 (2005), “Food safety management systems – requirements for any organization in the food
chain”, International Standard Organization, Geneva.
ISO 9001 (2015), “Quality management systems – requirements”, International Standard Organization,
Geneva.
Jain, A.K., Murty, M.N. and Flynn, P.J. (1999), “Data clustering: a review”, ACM Communication Survey,
Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 264-323.
Kafetzopoulos, D.P. and Gotzamani, K.D. (2014), “Critical factors, food quality management and
organizational performance”, Food Control, Vol. 40 No. 6, pp. 1-11.
Karaman, A.D., Cobanoglu, F., Tunalioglu, R. and Ova, G. (2012), “Barriers and benefits of the
implementation of food safety management systems among the Turkish dairy industry: a case
study”, Food Control, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 732-739.
Khandke, S.S. and Mayes, T. (1998), “HACCP implementation: a practical guide to the implementation
of the HACCP plan”, Food Control, Vol. 9 Nos 2-3, pp. 103-109.
Larsen, B. and Häversjö, T. (2001), “Management by standards – real benefits from fashion”,
Scandinavian Journal of Management, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 457-480.
Marschke, M. and Wilkings, A. (2014), “Is certification a viable option for small producer fish farmers in
the global south? Insights from Vietnam”, Marine Policy, Vol. 50 No. 12, pp. 197-206.
Mortimore, S. and Wallace, C. (2013), HACCP A Practical Approach, Springer, New York, NY,
Heidelberg, Dordrecht and London, pp. 274-284.
Murtagh, F. (2014), “Ward’s hierarchical agglomerative clustering method: which algorithms
implement Ward’s criterion?”, Journal of Classification, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 274-295.
Orriss, G.D. and Whitehead, A.J. (2000), “Hazard analysis and critical control point (HACCP) as a part of
an overall quality assurance system in international food trade”, Food Control, Vol. 11 No. 5,
pp. 345-351.
Panisello, P.J. and Quantick, P.C. (2001), “Technical barriers to HACCP”, Food Control, Vol. 2 No. 3, HACCP
pp. 165-173. principles
Panisello, P.J., Quantick, P.C. and Knowles, M.J. (1999), “Towards the implementation of HACCP:
results of a UK regional survey”, Food Control, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 87-98.
Parkes, G., Swasey, J.H., Underwood, F.M., Fitzgerald, T.P., Strauss, K. and Agnew, D.J. (2016), “The effects
of catch share management on MSC certification scores”, Fisheries Research, Vol. 182 No. 10,
pp. 18-27. 727
Pérez-Ramírez, M., Castrejón, M., Gutiérrez, N.L. and Defeo, O. (2016), “The Marine Stewardship
Council certification in Latin America and the Caribbean: a review of experiences, potentials and
pitfalls”, Fisheries Research, Vol. 182 No. 10, pp. 50-58.
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.
Psomas, E.L. and Kafetzopoulos, D.P. (2015), “HACCP effectiveness between ISO 22000 certified and
non-certified dairy companies”, Food Control, Vol. 53 No. 7, pp. 134-139.
Qijun, J. and Batt, P.J. (2016), “Barriers and benefits to the adoption of a third party certified food safety
management system in the food processing sector in Shanghai, China”, Food Control, Vol. 62
No. 4, pp. 89-96.
Schuster, M. and Maertens, M. (2015), “The impact of private food standards on developing countries’
export performance: an analysis of asparagus firms in Peru”, World Development, Vol. 66 No. 2,
pp. 208-221.
Soon, J.M. and Baines, R.N. (2013), “Public and private food safety standards: facilitating or frustrating
fresh produce growers?”, Law, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 1-19.
Sparling, D., Lee, J. and Howard, W. (2001), “Murgo Farms Inc.: HACCP, ISO 9000, and ISO 14000”,
International Food Agribusiness Management Review, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 67-79.
Surak, J.G. and Simpson, K.E. (1994), “Using ISO 9000 standards as a quality framework”,
Food Technology, Vol. 48 No. 12, pp. 63-65.
Templ, M., Filzmoser, P. and Reimann, C. (2008), “Cluster analysis applied to regional geochemical data:
problems and possibilities”, Applied Geochemistry, Vol. 23 No. 8, pp. 2198-2213.
Tomašević, I., Šmigić, N., Dekić, I., Zarić, V., Tomić, N. and Rajković, A. (2013), “Serbian meat industry:
a survey on food safety management systems implementation”, Food Control, Vol. 32 No. 1,
pp. 25-30.
Trafialek, J. and Kolanowski, W. (2014), “Application of failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) for
audit of HACCP system”, Food Control, Vol. 44 No. 10, pp. 35-44.
Trafialek, J. and Kolozyn-Krajewska, D. (2011), “Implementation of safety assurance system in food
production in Poland”, Polish Journal of Food Nutrition Sciences, Vol. 61 No. 2, pp. 115-124.
Turk, A.M. (2006), “ISO 9000 in construction: an examination of its application in Turkey”, Building
and Environment, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 501-511.
Urbonavicius, S. (2005), “ISO system implementation in small and medium companies from new EU
member countries: a tool of managerial and marketing benefits development”, Research in
International Business and Finance, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 412-426.
Vela, A.R. and Fernández, J.M. (2003), “Barriers for the developing and implementation of HACCP
plans: results from a Spanish regional survey”, Food Control, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 333-337.
Veldstra, M.D., Alexander, C.E. and Marshall, M.I. (2014), “To certify or not to certify? Separating the
organic production and certification decisions”, Food Policy, Vol. 49 No. 12, pp. 429-436.
Wall, E., Weersink, A. and Swanton, C. (2001), “Agriculture and ISO 14000”, Food Policy, Vol. 26 No. 1,
pp. 35-48.
World Health Organization (1997), “HACCP: introducing the hazard analysis and critical control point
system WHO/FSF/FOS/97.2”, World Health Organization, Geneva, available at: http://apps.who.
int/iris/handle/10665/63610/ (accessed February 20, 2016).
BFJ Further reading
119,4 Arvanitoyannis, I.S. and Varzakas, T.H. (2008), “Application of ISO 22000 and failure mode and effect
analysis (FMEA) for industrial processing of salmon: a case study”, Critical Review in Food
Science and Nutrition, Vol. 48 No. 5, pp. 411-429.
Farina, E. and Reardon, T. (2000), “Agrifood grades and standards in the extended Mercosur: their role
in the changing agrifood system”, American Journal of Agricultural Economy, Vol. 82 No. 5,
pp. 1170-1176.
728

Corresponding author
Wojciech Kolanowski can be contacted at: wojciech.kolanowski@uph.edu.pl

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
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.