Food Control 31 (2013) 607e616

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

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

Food quality management system: Reviewing assessment strategies

and a feasibility study for European food small and medium-sized
enterprises
Manoj Dora a, *, Maneesh Kumar b, Dirk Van Goubergen a, Adrienn Molnar a, Xavier Gellynck a
a
Ghent University, Belgium
b
Cardiff University, UK

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

Article history: Literature indicates a need for a user-friendly food quality management system (FQMS) customized to
Received 3 August 2011 the requirements of food small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) for improving product and process
Received in revised form quality and enhancing customer satisfaction. Application of quality management system within discreet
27 November 2012
and process industries is evident. However, there are limited studies that focused on the implementation
Accepted 5 December 2012
of a quality management system (QMS) among SMEs operating in the food sector. This study explains the
results of a feasibility study on FQMS among European Food SMEs. The objective of this study is to
Keywords:
diagnose the status of the FQMS, and to find out what motivates and hinders the successful imple-
Quality management system
Small and medium-sized enterprises
mentation of FQMS in SMEs. The findings show that none of the food SMEs involved in this study
Food sector implements FQMS in its true form. The size of the company is a significant factor with respect to quality
management implementation, as medium-sized companies were more mature in FQMS implementation
compared to their small and micro counterparts. The confectionery, chocolate and meat sectors are more
advanced than bakery, packaged fruits and vegetables sectors, with respect to the implementation of
quality management tools and techniques. The study revealed that the most important benefits of
a quality management system were reduction in cost of production and increased productivity. The key
barrier to implementation of FQMS was “lack of knowledge and training” among food SMEs.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The importance of quality has significantly grown in the food
sector over the last decades because of increasing consumers’
expectations, governmental regulations and expanding competi-
tion in the market. In response, food companies have increasingly
pursued quality management (QM) practices in recent years. ISO
8401 defined QM as “[all activities of the overall management
function that determine the quality policy, objectives and respon-
sibilities, and implement them by means such as quality planning,
quality control, quality assurance and quality improvement within
the quality system” (ISO 8402, p. 1)].
This study uses the definition provided by Luning, Marcelis, and
Jongen (2002) stating that quality management system comprises
“the activities and decisions performed in an organization to
* Corresponding author. Dep. Agricultural Economics, Ghent University, Coupure
Links 653, B-9000 Gent, Belgium. Tel.: þ32 (0) 487 943 765.
E-mail address: manojkumar.dora@ugent.be (M. Dora).
produce and maintain a product with the desired quality level
against minimal costs. Both the aforementioned definitions clearly
indicate that QM is the responsibility of everybody in the
organizationdnot just the quality department. Empirical studies
have illustrated that QM practices can have several favorable
impacts on operational variables such as productivity, quality,
delivery, and customer as well as employee satisfaction (Kumar &
Antony, 2008).
Literature indicates that the implementation of QM depends on
organizational factors such as the size of the organization, the type
of suppliers and customers, the degree of automation, the type of
products, quality assurance requirements and importantly the top
management’s commitment (Trienekens & Zuurbier, 2008). The
challenges in establishing an appropriate QM system are more
intense for the SMEs due to a lack of resources, competencies and
diseconomies of scale (Antony, Kumar, & Madu, 2005). In addition,
there are significant differences between SMEs and large manu-
facturers with respect to structure, policy making procedures,
resource utilizations, staff patterns, culture and patronage (Welsh &
White, 1981). The implications and sustainability of QM practices in

0956-7135/$ e see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2012.12.006
608 M. Dora et al. / Food Control 31 (2013) 607e616

an SME environment is still a debated topic in the field of opera- Table 2

tions management research (Thomas & Barton, 2006). Most of the Quality management in non-food and food sector.

studies focus on either large organizations or SMEs within the non- Author (year) Methodology Sector Focus/approach Country
food sectors (Hulebak & Schlosser, 2002). Further, there is limited (Sample size)
literature on the status, benefits and barriers of QM practices in Gotzamani and Survey (84) Non-food ISO, TQM Greece
SMEs operating in the food sector (Gellynck, Dora, Kumar, & Tsiotras (2001)
Pinho (2008) Survey (80) Non-food TQM Portugal
Molnar, 2010). The reason may be attributed to the complexity of
Psomas, Fotopoulos, Survey (93) Service ISO Greece
the food production chain and the resource constraints of SMEs. It and Kafetzopoulos
is evident that food and its production process have special char- (2010)
acteristics such as a short shelf-life, heterogeneous raw materials, Wilkes and Dale Case study Non-food EFQM UK
seasonality, and varied harvesting conditions. These factors hugely (1998) (7)
Hansson and Klefsjö Case study Non-food TQM Sweden
affect storage, conditioning, processing, packaging and quality (2003) (9)
control which make a QM initiative more complicated. Table 1 Mackau (2003) Case study (1) Non-food ISO Germany
illustrates the differences between the food sector and other Thomas and Webb Survey (500) Non-food ISO 9000, UK
manufacturing industries that are involved in batch and in mass (2003) EFQM
McAdam (2000) Case study (20) Non-food BS, BEM UK
productions (Cuevas, 2004; Hartmann & Wandel, 1999).
Gunasekaran, Forker, Case study Automotive JIT/Kanban UK
This study focuses on food SMEs in Europe due to two reasons. and Kobu (2000) (1)
First, the food industry is the largest manufacturing sector in the Khan, Bali, and Survey (150) Non-food BPI, TQM, UK
European Union, with a turnover of V965 billion which generated Wickramasinghe Interviews (20) Lean sigma
4.4 million direct employments and served over 500 million (2007)
Chileshe (2004) Survey (63) Non-food TQM UK
consumers in 2008. More than 90% of the food and beverage Ahmed, Hassan, and Survey (63) Non-food TPM/TQM Malaysia
companies in Europe are SMEs, accounting for 63% of the Taha (2004)
employment in that sector (CIAA, 2010). Second, according to Kumar and Antony Survey (64) Non-food TQM, Lean, UK
a European Commission communication, the European food sector (2008) and Six Sigma
food (7)
lacks competitiveness in comparison to North America and
Burlingame and Literature Food Food safety General
Australia. The uncompetitive and inefficient food sector has nega- Pineiro (2007)
tively impacted the EU economy in recent years (Commission, Manning and Baines Literature Food HACCP General
2008). Under these circumstances it is imperative for the food (2004)
SMEs and policy makers to examine the existing practices, as the Campbell-Platt Editorial Food Safety, HACCP General
(1994)
competitiveness of a company depends on the cost, quality, Caswell, Bredahl, and Meta-analysis Food HACCP, ISO General
delivery, and dependability of the company. Hence, this feasibility Hooker (1998)
study aims to provide a diagnosis of existing QM practices among Westgren (1999) Case study Food HACCP France
European food SMEs, which can help companies and policy makers Aggelogiannopoulos, Case study Food ISO Greece
Drosinos, and (1)
to improve the competitiveness. The objectives of this study can be
Athanasopoulos
summarized as follows: (2007)
Trienekens and Literature Food ISO, HACCP Europe
1. To analyze the managers’ perceptions of the status of the QM Zuurbier (2008)
practices among European food SMEs Holt and Henson Case study Food TQM, HACCP UK
(2000) (9)
2. To identify benefits from the implementation and practice of Scott, Wilcock, and Survey (46) Food Lean, Six Canada
QM principles Kanetkar (2009) sigma, TQM,
3. To identify barriers to the implementation of QM among food HACCP
SMEs in Europe Cox and Chicksand Case study Food Lean UK
(2005) (7)
Mensah and Julien Case study Food ISO, IFS, BRC UK
After a thorough literature review this study opted for the Food (2011) (3)
Quality Management (FQM) framework proposed by Luning et al. Karipidis, Literature Food HACCP, ISO General
(2002). There is no dearth of literature on “quality management Athanassiadis,
system”. However, there is only a limited corpus of literature on Aggelopoulos,
and Giompliakis
“quality management system specifically addressing the needs of (2009)
the food sector”. Table 2 shows the list of relevant studies focusing Mann, Adebanjo, Survey (50) Food EFQM UK
on quality management in SMEs. The table is comprised of two and Kehoe
sections e quality management in the non-food sector, and food (1999)
sector. It reveals an interesting pattern among the food and non-

food sector with respect to the focus/approach of quality

Table 1
Differences between manufacturing industries and the food sector.
management.
The summary of the table is as follows:
Manufacturing industry Food sector
Generally non-perishable products Highly perishable products 1. Almost all studies in the non-food SMEs category are focusing
Mostly semi/automatic production line Manual or very little automatic
on TQM, Lean, Six sigma. There are few studies in the non-food
operation
Standardized raw materials Variation in quality of raw materials category focusing on ISO, EFQM.
Large batches of products/components/ High variation of composition, recipes, 2. The majority of the studies in the food SMEs category are
fixtures made of materials of products and processing techniques focusing on quality assurance (HACCP, BRC, ISO). The primary
relatively uniform quality objective of these studies are food safety which is just one part
Relatively limited number of designs Lower volume of batches
of the broad quality management system. There is a limited
 M. Dora et al. / Food Control 31 (2013) 607e616 609

body of literature that integrated quality improvement (e.g.
lean, six sigma) in their quality management system.
3. There are confusing explanations of different quality manage-
ment concepts (quality assurance, quality improvement,
quality control, quality design and quality policy) and clearly
a structure and coherence is missing. Within the quality
management system, each quality concept has many different
methods, for example, quality improvement has lean, six
sigma. Further, each method is comprised of many tools and
techniques (e.g. Kanban, 5S, pareto etc.). This plethora of
jargons leads to a confusion among researchers as well as
practitioners particularly in the case of low-skilled managers in
a small food companies.
4. There are limited empirical studies on food quality manage-
ment system. Moreover, the sample size of these studies are
relatively small due to a low response rate.
We did not find any study which integrated all concepts of
quality (assurance, improvement, control, design and policy) which
suits the special characteristics of the food sector. Failing to develop
and implement a holistic quality management system may cause
more problems for the food SMEs with respect to food safety,
customer satisfaction and product availability. For example, an
improper temperature control of food products containing e.g.
cream or meat causes a growth of micro-organisms, which can
result in food safety problems and product failures. An inadequate
production and distribution planning causes overproduction, loss
of materials, products unavailability, which results in customer
dissatisfaction. Literature also emphasized the need for an appro-
priate food quality management system to avoid failures in food
production operations and inappropriate methods of design,
control, implementation and improvement (Van Der Spiegel,
Luning, De Boer, Ziggers, & Jongen, 2005). Noci and Toletti (2000)
pointed out that distinctive features of the organization, the
product process, the complexity of the product and human
resource management practices are responsible for the failure of
quality management programs.
Keeping the above cited factors in mind, our study adopted the
Luning et al. (2002) model of “food quality management”. This is
the first study which attempted to integrate all concepts of quality
in one framework and developed a holistic “food quality manage-
ment system” considering the specific characteristics of the agri-
food production. The framework comprises five managerial func-
tions derived from the management literature (refer to Fig. 1).
The first three functions, design, control and improvement, are
adapted from Juran’s trilogy (Juran, 2005). The forth function,
quality assurance, is included because of the special characteristics
of the food sector. The fifth function, quality policy and strategy, is
integrated into the framework as it facilitates organizations in
setting long-term quality goals and objectives (Hellsten & Klefsjö,
2000).
Each quality function incorporates a wide range of tools, tech-
niques and methods which have been developed and deployed
over the last several decades to manage quality across sectors. It is
important to make a clear distinction between different quality
functions, as they are often mixed up in the QM literature, creating
confusion for practitioners as well as researchers. Each quality
function has a specific role and objective which needs a dedicated
effort and investment by the user. For instance, Quality Improve-
ment (QI) (e.g. lean) helps companies to improve current business
processes whereas Quality Assurance (QA) (e.g. HACCP, ISO)
satisfies regulatory requirements and improves food quality safety.
However, these quality functions are often clustered together with
a one-size-fits-all approach. Additionally, each FQM function
consists of diverse methods, tools and techniques. It is also
important to further differentiate between methods, techniques
and tools because these concepts are often confusing. A method is
an established, logical, and prescribed practice or systematic
process of achieving certain ends with accuracy and efficiency,
usually in an ordered sequence of fixed steps. Techniques are
collections of tools which need more thought, skills and training
whereas tools have a specific task. For example, Lean and Six Sigma
are methods; Kanban and Statistical Process Control (SPC) are
techniques; and Pareto chart and process mapping are tools. This
study therefore provides a distinction between different quality
functions, methods, tools and techniques which will help the end
userdthe food companiesdto better understand the complicated
FQM. Table 2 illustrates the widely used methods of QM across
sectors. This table is constructed from the QM literature (Barendsz,
1998; Higgins, 2006; Karipidis et al., 2009; Van der Spiegel, Luning,
Ziggers, & Jongen, 2003).
Quality Assurance (QA) has a significant role in the food sector. It
provides a guarantee that all quality obligations such as food safety
and reliability are met through establishing a standard organiza-
tional structure, responsibilities, processes and procedures (Van
der Spiegel et al., 2003). Several QA systems have been developed
to fit the needs of the food sector such as HACCP (Hazard Analysis
Critical Control Points), ISO (International Organization for Stan-
dardization), IFS (International Food System), BRC (British Retail
Consortium), QS (Quality System), ACS (Approved Contractor
Scheme). The objective of the HACCP is to guarantee food safety by
following preventive measures through a systematic and cost-
effective approach. Similarly, the ISO promotes a standardization
of the production process which focuses on quality, health and
safety. ISO 9001:2000 series are popular among food companies.
BRC was initiated in 1998 to evaluate manufacturers of retailers
own brand food products for consistent food safety and quality.
Likewise, German and French food trade associations have initiated

Food Quality Management (FQM)

Quality policy and strategy (QP)

Quality Design (QD)

Quality
: Quality Assurance (QA)
Improvement (QI)
Quality Control (QC)

Fig. 1. Food quality management function.

610 M. Dora et al. / Food Control 31 (2013) 607e616
IFS or the International Food Standard to enhance transparency
along the food chain and a reduced number of customer audits. The
structure of IFS matches to ISO 9001, but with a focus on food safety,
HACCP, hygiene, the manufacturing process. In addition, to meet
the needs of the retail sector the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI)
was initiated to include supplier issues to assure quality at the chain
level (Fulponi, 2006). It is important to note that though Table 3
shows a different category of QM methods, they are not mutually
exclusive but interconnected for example ISO 9001 requires
elements of quality improvement (QI) and the adoption of a quality
policy and strategy (QP).
Quality Improvement (QI) is a systematic approach which
involves mapping, documenting, analyzing and redesigning
(Luning et al., 2002). There are numerous QI methods such as
dashboard matrices, Lean and Six Sigma. Lean manufacturing is
a system that utilizes fewer inputs while creating the same outputs
and contributing more value to the customers (Womack, Jones, &
Roos, 1990). Lean manufacturing comprises a wide variety of tools
and techniques to find root causes of problems, identify and elim-
inate wastes and thereby streamline the business processes. Simi-
larly, Six Sigma is “a business improvement strategy used to
improve business profitability, to drive out wastes, to reduce cost of
poor quality and to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of all
operations so as to meet or even exceed customers’ needs and
expectations” (Antony & Banuelas, 2002). The core principle of Six
Sigma is to minimize the defect rate down to 3.4 in one million
opportunities and control variations in every process. Lean Sigma is
a combination of two quality improvement initiatives: Lean and Six
Sigma. Lean is a horizontal approach for process improvement
whereas Six Sigma is a vertical approach to improve quality and
performance in the organization. As discussed earlier, Six Sigma is
a structured and very specific problem-solving methodology that
reduces variability within processes, whereas Lean manufacturing
focuses on identifying and eliminating wastes, thereby improving
the speed of business processes. The combination of Lean and Six
Sigma techniques addresses problems both horizontally and
vertically. Likewise, Dashboard metrics help companies to
communicate performance through a visual aid. It helps companies
to identify opportunities for a continuous quality improvement
(Evans & Lindsay).
Quality Design (QD) is a method to translate the voice of the
customer into the technical requirements of the products and
processes with the help of specific techniques so that the final
quality meets or exceeds customers’ expectations (Higgins, 2006).
Juran (1992) emphasized that high quality can only be achieved
through a robust quality design by targeting the source of the
production process. The QD methods such as Quality Function
Deployment (QFD), Failure Mode Effect Analysis (FMEA) and Design
of Experiment (DOE) for the product and process design are widely
used across sectors (Scipioni, Saccarola, Centazzo, & Arena, 2002).
The main objective of QFD is to replace informal, intuitive decision-
making processes by a structured methodology that brings
Table 3
Quality management methods.
Quality Quality Quality design
assurance improvement
 HACCP  Lean manufacturing  Quality function deployment
 ISO  Six sigma  Failure mode and
 BRC  Lean sigma effect analysis
 IFS  Dashboard metrics  Design of experiment
 QS
 ACS
HACCP (Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points), ISO (International Organization for Standardization), IFS (International Food System),
BRC (British Retail Consortium), QS (Quality System), ACS (Approved Contractor Scheme).
together important information about customer requirements for
the use in the product design and development process. DOE deals
with planning, conducting, and interpreting controlled tests to
evaluate the factors which determine the process requirements to
meet customers’ needs. FMEA is a step-by-step approach for
identifying all possible failures in a design or a manufacturing.
Quality control (QC) has a significant role in the food sector
because there is a huge variation in food products and biological
raw materials (MacCarthy & Wasusri, 2002). The basic objective of
QC is to control variation to within a tolerable level by taking
corrective actions. Statistical and non-statistical tools and tech-
niques have been developed and implemented to measure, analyze
and control variation in food products. Statistical process control,
acceptance sampling and visual inspection are extensively used in
food and non-food sectors (Hayes, Scallan, & Wong, 1997).
Quality Policy and Strategy (QP&S) ensure that QMS is included
within a company’s long-term business strategy and helps
a company to take appropriate actions and allocate resources to
achieve those goals (Porter, 1998). An increasingly competitive
market and mounting demand for high-quality products from
consumers compel food companies to assimilate quality values in
their strategic document (MacCarthy & Wasusri, 2002). Total
Quality Management (TQM), quality cost analysis and strategy
analysis are commonly used methods by companies across sectors.
Hellsten and Klefsjö (2000) described TQM as a management
system which includes core values of the organization, tools and
techniques. The objective of quality-cost analysis (QCA) is to
measure the effectiveness of the firm’s operation at all levels and
minimize the production costs. Similarly, companies use strategic
analysis (SA) as a process to establish the most appropriate
management system with the least resistance to achieve business
results (Rangone, 1999).
2. Research methodology
This is a feasibility study under the umbrella of an EU funded
project called “Innovative Management System for food SMEs
(IMSFood)” which started in 2010 involving Belgium, Germany,
Hungary. This study is a first attempt to test the Luning et al. (2002)
model to get the understanding of the status of food quality
management system among European food SMEs. The selected
sectors in this study are meat, chocolate, confectionery, bakery, and
packaged fruits and vegetables. This study conducted the survey
with the help of a structured questionnaire to assess the status of
the QM practices. The selection of a survey-based research strategy
seemed logical for conducting a confirmatory or explanatory study
that uses well-defined concepts and models (Handfield & Melnyk,
1998). To ensure validity of the survey instrument, we have adop-
ted the question from previous recognized research such as
(Achanga, Shehab, Roy, & Nelder, 2006; Antony & Banuelas, 2002;
Antony et al., 2005; Kumar & Antony, 2008). We further validated
the question by asking two operations managers, two consultants
Quality control Quality policy
and strategy
 Statistical process  Total quality management
control  Quality cost
 Acceptance sampling analysis
 Visual inspection  Strategy analysis
 M. Dora et al. / Food Control 31 (2013) 607e616 611

Table 4
Distribution of food SMEs by size. Cost 8.6

Strategy
Size No of employees No of companies Innovation 8.6
Micro 10 employees 4 Flexibility 14.3
Small 11e50 employees 22
Medium 51e250 employees 9 Quality 68.6

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0

and an academician to complete the questionnaire. Based on their Proportion of respondents (%)
reactions and feedback, the questionnaire was revised and used for
Fig. 3. Company’s key strategy.
the survey. There were three sections in the questionnaire. The first
section covered the company’s basic information such as company
name, number of employees, turnover, respondent’s position,
The study found that the surveyed companies believe that quality,
company’s business strategy, customer loyalty, and cost concerns.
a wide product range and product reliability are the three most
The second section was about the company’s acquaintances with
important criteria to win customer loyalty with the large majority
the FQM system. The third section was used to extract information
(82%) reporting that “Quality” is the most important criterion of the
on perceived benefits and barriers of implementing FQM. The
three.
participants were requested to select the appropriate answers from
The participants were then asked to choose the most important
a list of options. Three major food associations were contacted to
factors out of cost, innovation, flexibility and quality which defines
obtain the address of the food companies. Only SMEs according to
the company’s strategic objective. Factors like quality, price, reli-
the definition of the European Commission, who have less than 250
ability are not mutually exclusive but presented as a separate factor
employees, a maximum of 50 million euro annual turnover and,
in literature (Achanga et al., 2006; Antony & Banuelas, 2002; Kumar
a maximum of 43 million euro annual balance-sheet total
& Antony, 2008). Moreover, the relationship between quality and
(Commission, 2003) were considered for the study. The question-
cost is not understood well among researchers and practitioners in
naire was sent out to 230 SMEs operating in the aforementioned
industry, otherwise the ‘Quality is Free’ concept should be a well-
three countries to participate in the study. A total of 35 SME
accepted statement in industry e which is not always the case.
representatives, CEOs and operation managers responded with
Adhering to past literature and our own viewpoints, we kept these
a participation rate of 15.2%. This sample size is comparable to those
factors separate. Fig. 3 illustrates that “quality” is the most impor-
of previous surveys carried out in the quality management field, i.e.
tant factor and it is interesting to observe that “cost” is the last
(Little & McKinna, 2005) e 12%, (Kumar & Antony, 2008) e 12.8%
factor when it comes to business strategy.
(64 observations), (Scott et al., 2009) e 11% (48 observations),
In the following section, the respondents were asked to identify
(Fotopoulos, Kafetzopoulos, & Gotzamani, 2011) e 31 observations.
different FQM initiatives used in the past or currently being
Out of the 35 SMEs operating in the food sector, 17 are from
implemented by their companies. The first and foremost function
Belgium, 10 from Hungary and 8 from Germany as shown in Table 4.
of an FQM system is QA. It is obligatory for European food
There are 18 SMEs involved in meat, 10 in bread and confectionery,
companies to abide by HACCP quality assurance system. Figs. 4e6
3 in chocolate and 4 in other food productions. Besides content
demonstrate the QA practices by country, product and size of the
validation, the empirical validation of the data was carried out by
companies. From the analysis, it was found that eight firms are
using Cronbach’s alpha. The estimated values of Cronbach’s alpha
simultaneously deploying more than four types of QA systems. The
(0.70e0.80) show the overall consistency among individual
reason for the multiple QA certificates might be the companies’
responses in the reliability scale. Both descriptive and inferential
commitment to their customers’ requirements for specific certifi-
statistical analyses were used to analyze the data.
cations. The medium-sized firms with more than 200 employees
and a turnover of more than 30 million Euro have as many as five to
3. Results six QA certifications.
It was also found that 77% of the food SMEs that participated in
Customers being the core of any business, the respondents were this study have a HACCP certification. There is a significant differ-
asked to cite the most important criteria that helped their ence between countries with respect to the HACCP implementa-
companies to win customer loyalty. The rationale of this question tion. Out of 18 Belgian companies only 9 (50%) had HACCP
was to measure the pulse of companies and their commitment certification, whereas all companies in Germany and Hungary in
toward customers. Fig. 2 illustrates the six important criteria this sample were HACCP certified. The preferred QA certificates
that measure customer loyalty and the participants’ responses. among Belgian companies are BRC, IFS, QS and the Auto-control

Delivery lead-time 8.6 ACS 4 2

Quality Assurance

Kosher 1
Customer loyalty

Price 17.1
QS 6 4
On-time delivery 17.1 IFS 4 5 6
Belgium
Product reliability 28.6 BRC 6 4 2
Hungary
ISO 22000 7
Wide product range 34.3
ISO 9000 1 3 4 Germany
Quality 82.9 HACCP 9 10 8
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Proportion of respondents (%) Number of companies

Fig. 2. Customer loyalty. Companies could select more than one parameter. Fig. 4. QA in food SMEs by country. Companies could select more than one QA system.
612 M. Dora et al. / Food Control 31 (2013) 607e616

ACS 4 1 1

Quality Improvement
None 2 1
Kosher 1 Meat
Quality Assurance

QS 7 1 1 1 Dashboard 10 4 6
Chocolate
IFS 7 4 2 2
Lean Sigma 1 3 Belgium
BRC 7 3 2 Confectionery
Hungary
ISO 22000 5 2 Six sigma 2 2
Bakery Germany
ISO 9000 1 4 3
Lean 6 3 1
HACCP 11 2 5 5 4
Packaged Fruit,
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Vegetables 0 5 10 15 20 25
Number of companies Number of companies

Fig. 5. QA in food SMEs by product. Companies could select more than one QA system. Fig. 7. QI in food SMEs by country. Companies could select more than one method.

The respondents were asked to identify QC methods which were

system. It was found that most of the enterprises in the meat initiated in the past and currently in practice. Figs. 11e13 illustrate
processing sector have an ISO 22000 certification followed by QS, the QC methods in European food SMEs. This study found that 97%
and ACS certification. The reason might be that most of the Belgian of the participating food companies were using QC methods. This
meat companies in this sample follow ACS and IFS. With respect to result is understandable because quality control is a very important
the size of the company, all micro and medium-sized companies requirement for the food production. The most widely used QC
deploy HACCP and 63% of small companies have a HACCP certifi- method was visual inspection (71%) followed by AS (22%) and SPC
cation. Almost 90% of the medium-sized companies perform IFS. (15%). SPC was used by two meat companies, one chocolate
The respondents were asked to identify the QI methods such as company and one medium-sized confectionery company.
Lean, Dashboard Metrics, Six Sigma and Lean Sigma used in the past Each respondent was asked to indicate if the company had used
or currently implemented in their companies. Fig. 7 demonstrates any QP&S methods to set a long-term quality goal in their organi-
that a majority of the companies used dashboard metrics followed zation. Figs. 14e16 illustrate the QP&S methods in European
by Lean and Six Sigma. From the analysis, it was found that three food SMEs. A total of 75% of the respondents answered that the
out of 35 responding companies have not implemented any QI companies they worked with had used at least one of the meth-
methods. 10 out of the 17 Belgian companies used dashboard odologies. 65% of companies in the sample used SA. Only two
metrics, while four out of 10 Hungarian companies used dashboard. medium-sized companies (one in meat, and one in packaged fruits
Lean techniques have been implemented in six out of 18 meat and vegetable) initiated TQM.
companies (33%). Three out of eight chocolate and confectionery
companies were using Six Sigma techniques. None of the micro-
4. Benefits of and barriers to FQM practices
sized companies used Lean and Six Sigma techniques; however
three out of four micro-sized companies used dashboard metrics.
To extract the information about the benefits of the FQM
Three out of nine of the medium-sized companies used Lean or Six
implementation, the companies were asked to provide a score
Sigma techniques in this study (Figs. 8 and 9).
according to a Likert scale of 1e7 (1 ¼ strongly disagree to
The respondents were asked to identify QD techniques that
7 ¼ strongly agree). Table 6 summarizes the benefits of the FQM
were initiated in the past and currently used in their companies.
implementation to participating European food SMEs. The most
Table 5 and Fig. 10 illustrate the status of QD methods in European
important benefits listed were: reduced cost of production,
food SMEs. More than 80% of the responding companies never used
increased profitability, increased productivity and reduced
any QD methods. FMEA was used by 11% of the responding
customer complaints. The study also conducted inferential statis-
companies and 5% have taken initiatives with respect to DOE and
tical analysis (one-way ANOVA) to compare the difference in mean
QFD. DOE and QFD is used in medium-sized companies specifically
for benefits of FQM against size of firm and country. The study
in the chocolate and confectionery sector. Three meat companies
found that there was no significant difference between countries,
were using FMEA as a method for QD. The reason might be the
complicated nature of these methods, as they require specialized
skills, resources and time which is a typical characteristics of SMEs.
None 1 2
Quality Improvement

Dashboard 10 2 2 4 2
9
Quality Assurance

8
ISO 9000 Meat
7 Lean Sigma 2 1 1 1
ISO 22000 Chocolate
6
5 BRC Six sigma Confectionery
2 2
4 IFS Bakery
3
QS Lean 6 11 2 Packaged Fruit, Vegetables
2
Kosher
1
0 1 2 3 Auto-control system 0 5 10 15 20 25
1: Micro, 2:Small, 3: Medium sized company Number of companies

Fig. 6. QA in food SMEs by size. Companies could select more than one QA system. Fig. 8. QI in food SMEs by product. Companies could select more than one method.
 M. Dora et al. / Food Control 31 (2013) 607e616 613

13
None 15 1 4 5 3
Quality Improvement

11 Meat

Quality Design
9 Lean
DOE 1 1 Chocolate
Six sigma
7
Lean Sigma Confectionery
5 FMEA 3 1
Dashboard
3 None Bakery

1 QFD 1 1
Packaged Fruit,
0 1 2 3
Vegetables
1: Micro, 2:Small, 3: Medium sized company 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Number of companies
Fig. 9. QI in food SMEs by size. Companies could select more than one method.
Fig. 10. QD in food SME by product. Companies could select more than one method.

however, there is a significant difference among micro-, small- and

medium-sized companies. It is interesting to observe that micro-
sized companies received greater benefits from the FQM imple-
mentation in comparison to small- and medium-sized companies.
This study also identified the biggest challenge or barrier in the
implementation of FQM. The participating companies were asked
to indicate a minimum of three big obstacles in the path of FQM
implementation. Fig. 17 shows the important barriers and their
rank. The top three barriers reported by the respondents were
inadequate process control techniques, lack of training, and lack of
resources. This result is in accordance with the literature stating
that SMEs typically lack resources for QM implementation (Van
Goubergen, Dora, Kumar, Molnar, & Gellynck, 2011).
5. Limitations
There are three limitations of this study. First, the sample size is
small and biased toward small companies. Second, the analysis was
carried out in only five types of food-products manufacturing
companies in three European countries. Third, the majority of the
respondents were top managersdsuch as CEOs and general
managersdwhich might have resulted in biased responses to some
of the questions, such as whether a lack of the “commitment of the
top management” was a barrier to the FQM system. These limita-
tions may be taken into account in the interpretation of the find-
ings. The small sample size and the low response rate affects the
generalization of the results. Hence, a future study will be carried
out to extend this feasibility study to other European SMEs from
diverse food sectors.
6. Discussion
The core of the FQM system is bringing change to the organi-
zation which means rethinking the usual way of doing things. There
are numerous studies on the benefits of systematic QM initiatives
across sectors and geographical regions in the world. Nevertheless,
it is not always easy for firms to change their usual way of oper-
ating, and it is even more challenging for the SMEs (Hines, Holweg,
are struggling to establish an FQM system because of a lack of
resources, training and expertise (Trienekens & Zuurbier, 2008).
With respect to the challenges, it is quite striking that a “lack of top
management commitment” is not among the biggest barriersda
finding that contradicts the literature (Antony & Banuelas, 2002).
One of the reasons might be that the majority of the respondents in
this study were in a top management position.
This study reveals that the food companies which initiated QM
could reduce production costs and increase productivity as well as
profitability. It also finds that the QA and QC systems are widely
used in the food sector. The reason might be the governmental
regulations for quality assurance or pressure from the customers.
All companies in the study used one or more QA systems, HACCP
being the most used system in the food sector. Only 50% of the
Belgian companies used HACCP, whereas 100% of the German and
Hungarian companies had a HACCP system in place. In the EU, since
1998, HACCP is obligatory for all companies in the food chain,
except for the primary producer. However, literature suggests that
the implementation of HACCP varies strongly across countries, food
industry sectors, and types of firms (Bernauer & Caduff, 2004).
Previous literature on the implementation of HACCP in European
SMEs, such as (Van Der Spiegel et al., 2005) found that out of 48
food SMEs 17 are implanting HACCP and other SMEs use ISO, BRC,
hygiene code. The FSA survey (2001) suggests that only 48% of red
meat slaughterhouses and 59% of poultry meat slaughterhouses in
England, Wales and Scotland claimed to have full or partial HACCP
systems in place. Similar results can be found in Portugal and
Greece, there was still only a minority of companies that were
HACCP certified (Trienekens & Zuurbier, 2008). We further inquired
some Belgian food SMEs about the results in the frame of the EU
funded IMSFood project and found out that most of the companies
follow ACS, IFS which is based on the HACCP principle. QA is the
distinctive feature which makes the food sector different from
other sectors. Companies in the food processing sector are legally
None 1
Quality control

& Rich, 2004). This study reconfirms the argument that food SMEs
VI 13 8 4
Belgium
Table 5
AS 4 2 2 Hungary
QD in food SME by country.a
Germany
QD Belgium Hungary Germany Micro Small Medium SPC 1 4
QFD 1 0 1 0 1 1
FMEA 2 0 2 0 1 3 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
DOE 1 0 1 0 1 1
None 15 8 5 4 19 5
Number of companies
a
Companies could select more than one method. Fig. 11. QC in food SMEs by country. Companies could select more than one method.
614 M. Dora et al. / Food Control 31 (2013) 607e616

Quality policy and strategy

None 5 2 2
None 1

SA 12 6 5
Meat
Belgium
Quality control

VI 12 3 3 3 4 QCA 1 3 2 Hungary
Chocolate
Germany
TQM 1 1
Confectionery
AS 4 2 1 1
0 5 10 15 20 25
Bakery
Number of companies

Packaged Fruit, Fig. 14. QP&S in food SMEs by country. Companies could select more than one method.
SPC 2 1 1 1 Vegetables

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% techniques. A recent study on the continuous improvement of the
Number of companies Canadian food SMEs (Scott et al., 2009) revealed that 17% and 21% of
the respondents had initiated Six Sigma and Lean, respectively. A
Fig. 12. QC in food SMEs by product. Companies could select more than one method. similar study on the US food sector comprising both large and SMEs
found that 37% and 57% respondent companies used Six Sigma and
Lean, respectively (Higgins, 2006). In comparison to these results,
bound to perform one or more QA systems, which might not be the
the extent of the implementation of QM methods is less prevalent
case for other manufacturing sectors. This is an advantage for the
in European food SMEs.
food SMEs because at least one quality function is in place and that
This finding is consistent with the literature stating that SMEs
can be a good starting point to establish a QMS.
have difficulties in applying Six Sigma tools because of limited
Similarly, QC is also widely adopted in the food sector due to the
awareness and knowledge of specialized statistical applications
special characteristics of food products and diverse raw materials.
(Kumar, Antony, & Douglas, 2009). The study revealed that QD
All respondents are following one or more QC methods. Visual
methods were least used by the respondent food SMEs. There are
inspection is the most commonly used QC method, as it requires
very few medium-sized companies in the confectionery sector
less expertise and resources from SMEs. The literature also confirms
using methods like DOE and QFD. A few small companies in the
that SMEs are receptive to and implement visual tools like value
meat sector used FMEA. The two major reasons for the lack of usage
stream mapping and 5S practice to minimize waste from their
of QD methods in food SMEs might be the nature of food products
business processes (Kumar, Antony, & Tiwari, 2011). Though SPC is
(complex intrinsic and extrinsic values) and the lack of knowledge
a widely used QC method in the food sector, this study found that
about these methods in food SMEs (Costa, Dekker, & Jongen, 2000).
there are only four medium-sized companies in the meat, confec-
This study found that very few participating SMEs had deployed
tionery and chocolate sector using SPC. The reason for the low level
QP&S methods to integrate quality as a long-term goal in their
of SPC usage is the deficit of statistical skills among the staff in food
business strategy. The barriers cited by the respondents were lack
SMEs due to a lack of provision of resources or training on tech-
of direction, planning and knowledge of the methods which
niques (Grigg & Walls, 2007; Thomas, Barton, & Chuke-Okafor,
corresponds to the literature (Bhasin & Burcher, 2006). Similarly,
2008).
the study found that none of the companies that participated in the
Unlike QA, there is no explicit compulsion for companies to
study has records of costs of quality (COQ) which is aligned with the
make use of QI, QD and QP&S even though the usage of these
literature stating that SMEs do not have the awareness as well as
methods can bring the same benefits as in other industry sectors.
resources to measure COQ on a regular basis (Ali & Srivastava,
This study reveals that the dashboard metrics are a widely used QI
2006). There are only two companies that initiated TQM in their
method among European food SMEs, especially in micro and small
organization. Literature supports the fact that the success of the
companies. 33% of the Belgian meat companies used Lean tools. The
result revealed that there is a very limited knowledge and use of Six
Sigma tools and techniques among all respondents, similar to the
findings reported in literature (Antony et al., 2005; Kumar et al.,
2011). Only three medium-sized and one small-sized company in
the chocolate and confectionery sector used Six Sigma tools and None 5 1 1 2
Quality policy and strategy

Meat

18 SA 12 2 3 3 3
Chocolate
16
Quality control

14
12 Confectionery
10 SPC CQA 2 3 1
8 AS Bakery
6
VI
4 TQM 1 1 Packaged Fruit,
2 None Vegetables
0
0 1 2 3 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
1: Micro, 2:Small, 3: Medium sized company Number of companies

Fig. 13. QC in food SMEs by size. Companies could select more than one method. Fig. 15. QP&S in food SMEs by product. Companies could select more than one method.
 M. Dora et al. / Food Control 31 (2013) 607e616 615

16 7. Conclusion and future research

Quality policy and strategy

14
12 This feasibility study provided a picture of the current status of
10 the FQM in food SMEs in three European countries. The novelty of
TQM
8 this study is that it provides a clear distinction between different
QCA quality functions and methods to manage quality. This will help the
6
4 SA end userdthe food companiesdto better understand the compli-
2 None cated FQM, its benefits, and the barriers to implementation. The
0 major findings of this study are as follows:
0 1 2 3
1: Micro, 2:Small, 3: Medium sized company 1. Majority of the respondents (82%) revealed “quality” is the
most important factor to gain customer loyalty, however, this
Fig. 16. QP&S in food SMEs by size. Companies could select more than one method. study shows very few companies make serious efforts to
implement necessary QM methods.
2. None of the Food SMEs involved in this study implements FQM
Table 6
Benefits of QMS food SMEs by size. in its true form. The study found that many food SMEs limited
to quality assurance methods such as HACCP, IFS and ISO and
Rank Benefits Micro Small Medium Total
other quality management methods are less prevalent in EU
1 Cost reduction 7.00 5.86 5.67 6.17 food SMEs.
2 Profitability increase 7.00 4.86 5.67 5.84
3 Productivity increase 6.33 4.95 5.67 5.65
3. The size of the company is a significant factor with respect to
4 Customer complaints 5.00 5.14 5.86 5.33 quality management implementation, however, medium size
reduction companies were doing better than their small and micro
5 Cycle time reduction 6.50 4.29 4.83 5.21 counterparts.
6 Improved sales 5.00 4.76 5.00 4.92
4. The confectionery, chocolate and meat sectors are more
7 Delivery time reduction 5.00 4.38 4.67 4.68
8 Scrap rate reduction 4.00 4.76 5.17 4.64 advanced than bakery, and packaged fruits and vegetables
9 Employee Complaints 3.50 4.32 3.44 3.75 sectors, with respect to the implementation of quality
reduction
P P P management tools and techniques.
Total 49.33 43.32 45.97 5. The companies that partially implemented FQM were able to
reduce costs and customer complaints, and increased their
productivity and profitability.
6. There is a lack of knowledge of FQM methods among the
TQM depends on “genuine top management commitment,” “policy
majority of the micro-, small- and medium-sized food
and planning aimed at customer satisfaction,” “good communica-
companies in Europe.
tion within the organization,” and “employee involvement and
teamwork development” (Rahman & Tannock, 2005). The findings
This result can help researchers and practitioners to understand
show that none of the food SMEs involved in this study implements
the holistic and broad FQM system and diagnose the limitations of
FQM in its true form. The size of the company is a significant factor
their own production processes. To verify the results, future
with respect to QM implementation, as medium-sized companies
research will be extended to other European SMEs from diverse
were doing better than their small and micro counterparts. The
food sectors.
confectionery, chocolate and meat companies are more advanced
than bakery, packaged fruits and vegetables companies with
respect to the implementation of quality management tools and Acknowledgment
techniques. The study revealed that the biggest benefits realized by
implementation of quality management system were reduction in This study is a part of CORNET project “Innovative management
cost of production and increased productivity. It is interesting to system for food SMEs” and was financed by IWT, Belgium.
observe that 82% of the respondents revealed “quality” as the most
important factor to gain customer loyalty, however, this study References
shows that very few companies make serious efforts to implement
necessary QM methods. The reasons cited by the companies were Achanga, P., Shehab, E., Roy, R., & Nelder, G. (2006). Critical success factors for lean
implementation within SMEs. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management,
a lack of knowledge, training and resources, which is synonymous 17(4), 460e471.
to findings reported in the literature (Achanga et al., 2006; Antony, Aggelogiannopoulos, D., Drosinos, E. H., & Athanasopoulos, P. (2007). Implementa-
Kumar, & Labib, 2008). tion of a quality management system (QMS) according to the ISO 9000 family in
a Greek small-sized winery: a case study. Food Control, 18(9), 1077e1085.
Ahmed, S., Hassan, M. H., & Taha, Z. (2004). State of implementation of TPM in SMIs:
a survey study in Malaysia. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 10(2),
93e106.
Inadequate process control techniques 17 Ali, J., & Srivastava, S. K. (2006). Research publications.
Lack of training 15
Antony, J., & Banuelas, R. (2002). Key ingredients for the effective implementation of
Lack of knowledge 14
six sigma program. Measuring Business Excellence, 6(4), 20e27.
Availability of resources 14
Barriers

Antony, J., Kumar, M., & Labib, A. (2008). Gearing six sigma into UK manufacturing
Internal resistance 13
SMEs: results from a pilot study. Journal of the Operational Research Society,
Poor employee participation 13
59(4), 482e493.
Poor delegation of authority 10
Antony, J., Kumar, M., & Madu, C. (2005). Six sigma in small-and medium-sized UK
Lack of top management commitment 8
Poor supplier involvement
manufacturing enterprises. International Journal of Quality & Reliability
7
Poor project selection 7
Management, 22(8), 860e874.
Barendsz, A. W. (1998). Food safety and total quality management. Food Control,
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 9(2e3), 163e170.
Bernauer, T., & Caduff, L. (2004). European food safety: multilevel governance, re-
Fig. 17. Barriers of implementation of QM. Companies could select more than one nationalization, or centralization. Review of Policy Research, 23(1), 153e168,
method. 2006, CIS working paper No. 3.
616 M. Dora et al. / Food Control 31 (2013) 607e616
Bhasin, S., & Burcher, P. (2006). Lean viewed as a philosophy. Management, 17(1),
56e72.
Burlingame, B., & Pineiro, M. (2007). The essential balance: risks and benefits in
food safety and quality. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, 20(3e4),
139e146.
Campbell-Platt, G. (1994). Food controldthe future. Food Control, 5(1), 2.
Caswell, J. A., Bredahl, M. E., & Hooker, N. H. (1998). How quality management
metasystems are affecting the food industry. Review of Agricultural Economics,
20(2), 547e557.
Chileshe, N. (2004). The application of TQM within small and medium sized
construction related organisations.
CIAA. (2010). SMEs in the EU food and drink industry. Brussels: Confederation of the
Food and Drink Industries of the EU.
Commission, E. (2003). SME user guide. Official Journal of the European Union,
L124, 36.
Commission, E. (2008). Food prices in Europe. European Commission.
Costa, A., Dekker, M., & Jongen, W. (2000). Quality function deployment in the food
industry: a review. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 11(9e10), 306e314.
Cox, A., & Chicksand, D. (2005). The limits of lean management thinking: multiple
retailers and food and farming supply chains. European Management Journal,
23(6), 648e662.
Cuevas, R. (2004). Food engineering, quality and competitiveness in small food
industry systems with emphasis on Latin America and the Caribbean. FAO.
Evans, J. R., & Lindsay, W. M. Managing for quality and performance excellence. South-
Western Pub.
Fotopoulos, C., Kafetzopoulos, D., & Gotzamani, K. (2011). Critical factors for effec-
tive implementation of the HACCP system: a Pareto analysis. British Food
Journal, 113(5), 578e597.
Fulponi, L. (2006). Private voluntary standards in the food system: the perspective
of major food retailers in OECD countries. Food Policy, 31(1), 1e13.
FSA. (2001). Food Standards Agency Paper - Strategy for Wider Implementation of
Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP). UK: Food Standards Agency.
Gellynck, X., Dora, M., Kumar, M., & Molnar, A. (2010). Diagnosing quality
improvement initiatives among European food SMEs. In R. Konda (Ed.), ASQ SV
quality conference 2010. Santa Clara, USA: ASQ SV.
Gotzamani, K. D., & Tsiotras, G. D. (2001). An empirical study of the ISO 9000
standards’ contribution towards total quality management. International Journal
of Operations & Production Management, 21(10), 1326e1342.
Grigg, N., & Walls, L. (2007). Developing statistical thinking for performance
improvement in the food industry. International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management, 24(4), 347e369.
Gunasekaran, A., Forker, L., & Kobu, B. (2000). Improving operations performance in
a small company: a case study. International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, 20(3/4), 316e335.
Handfield, R. B., & Melnyk, S. A. (1998). The scientific theory-building process:
a primer using the case of TQM. Journal of Operations Management, 16(4),
321e339.
Hansson, J., & Klefsjö, B. (2003). A core value model for implementing total quality
management in small organisations. The TQM Magazine, 15(2), 71e81.
Hartmann, M., & Wandel, J. (1999). Food processing and distribution in transition
countries: Problems and perspectives. Wissenschaftsverlag Vauk.
Hayes, G. D., Scallan, A. J., & Wong, J. H. F. (1997). Applying statistical process control
to monitor and evaluate the hazard analysis critical control point hygiene data.
Food Control, 8(4), 173e176.
Hellsten, U., & Klefsjö, B. (2000). TQM as a management system consisting of values,
techniques and tools. The TQM Magazine, 12(4), 238e244.
Higgins, K. T. (2006). State of food manufacturing: the quest for continuous
improvement. Food Engineering, (Sep), 61e68.
Hines, P., Holweg, M., & Rich, N. (2004). Learning to evolve: a review of contem-
porary lean thinking. International Journal of Operations & Production Manage-
ment, 24(10), 994e1011.
Holt, G., & Henson, S. (2000). Quality assurance management in small meat
manufacturers. Food Control, 11(4), 319e326.
Hulebak, K., & Schlosser, W. (2002). Hazard analysis and critical control point
(HACCP) history and conceptual overview. Risk Analysis, 22(3), 547e552.
Juran, J. M. (1992). Juran on quality by design: The new steps for planning quality into
goods and services. Free Pr.
Juran, J. M. (2005). The quality trilogy. In J. M. Juran (Ed.). Critical evaluations in
business and management, Vol. 19 (pp. 54).
Karipidis, P., Athanassiadis, K., Aggelopoulos, S., & Giompliakis, E. (2009). Factors
affecting the adoption of quality assurance systems in small food enterprises.
Food Control, 20(2), 93e98.
Khan, Z., Bali, R. K., & Wickramasinghe, N. (2007). Developing a BPI framework and
PAM for SMEs. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 107(3), 345e360.
Kumar, M., & Antony, J. (2008). Comparing the quality management practices in UK
SMEs. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 108(9), 1153e1166.
Kumar, M., Antony, J., & Douglas, A. (2009). Does size matter for six sigma
implementation?: findings from the survey in UK SMEs. The TQM Journal,
21(6), 623e635.
Kumar, M., Antony, J., & Tiwari, M. K. (2011). Six sigma implementation framework
for SMEsea roadmap to manage and sustain the change. International Journal of
Production Research, 49(18), 5449e5467.
Little, D., & McKinna, A. (2005). A lean manufacturing assessment tool for use in SMEs.
University of Strathclyde, Scottish School of Further Education.
Luning, P., Marcelis, W., & Jongen, W. (2002). Food quality management: A techno-
managerial approach. CSIRO.
McAdam, R. (2000). Quality models in an SME context: a critical perspective using
a grounded approach. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management,
17(3), 305e323.
MacCarthy, B. L., & Wasusri, T. (2002). A review of non-standard applications of
statistical process control (SPC) charts. International Journal of Quality & Reli-
ability Management, 19(3), 295e320.
Mackau, D. (2003). SME integrated management system: a proposed experiences
model. The TQM Magazine, 15(1), 43e51.
Mann, R., Adebanjo, O., & Kehoe, D. (1999). An assessment of management systems
and business performance in the UK food and drinks industry. British Food
Journal, 101(1), 5e21.
Manning, L., & Baines, R. N. (2004). Effective management of food safety and quality.
British Food Journal, 106(8), 598e606.
Mensah, L. D., & Julien, D. (2011). Implementation of food safety management
systems in the UK. Food control, 22(8), 1216e1225.
Noci, G., & Toletti, G. (2000). Selecting quality-based programmes in small rms:
a comparison between the fuzzy linguistic approach and the analytic hierarchy
process. International Journal of Production Economics, 67(113), 133.
Pinho, J. C. (2008). TQM and performance in small medium enterprises: the
mediating effect of customer orientation and innovation. International Journal of
Quality & Reliability Management, 25(3), 256e275.
Porter, M. E. (1998). What is strategy? The Strategy Reader.
Psomas, E. L., Fotopoulos, C. V., & Kafetzopoulos, D. P. (2010). Critical factors for
effective implementation of ISO 9001 in SME service companies. Managing
Service Quality, 20(5), 440e457.
Rahman, M. N. A., & Tannock, J. D. T. (2005). TQM best practices: experiences of
Malaysian SMEs. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 16(4), 491e503.
Rangone, A. (1999). A resource-based approach to strategy analysis in small-
medium sized enterprises. Small Business Economics, 12(3), 233e248.
Scipioni, A., Saccarola, G., Centazzo, A., & Arena, F. (2002). FMEA methodology
design, implementation and integration with HACCP system in a food company.
Food Control, 13(8), 495e501.
Scott, B. S., Wilcock, A. E., & Kanetkar, V. (2009). A survey of structured
continuous improvement programs in the Canadian food sector. Food Control,
20(3), 209e217.
Thomas, A., & Barton, R. (2006). Developing an SME based six sigma strategy.
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 17(4), 417e434.
Thomas, A., Barton, R., & Chuke-Okafor, C. (2008). Applying lean six sigma in a small
engineering company-a model for change. Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management, 20(1), 113e129.
Thomas, A., & Webb, D. (2003). Quality systems implementation in Welsh small-to
medium-sized enterprises: a global comparison and a model for change.
Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engi-
neering Manufacture, 217(4), 573e579.
Trienekens, J., & Zuurbier, P. (2008). Quality and safety standards in the food
industry, developments and challenges. International Journal of Production
Economics, 113(1), 107e122.
Van Goubergen, D., Dora, M., Kumar, M., Molnar, A., & Gellynck, X. (2011). Lean
application among European food SMEs: findings from empirical research. In
2011 Industrial engineering research conference. Reno, USA: IIE.
Van Der Spiegel, M., Luning, P. A., De Boer, W. J., Ziggers, G. W., & Jongen, W. M. F.
(2005). How to improve food quality management in the bakery sector. NJAS e
Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 53(2), 131e150.
Van der Spiegel, M., Luning, P., Ziggers, G., & Jongen, W. (2003). Towards
a conceptual model to measure effectiveness of food quality systems. Trends in
Food Science & Technology, 14(10), 424e431.
Welsh, J., & White, J. (1981). A small business is not a little big business. Harvard
Business Review, (JulyeAugust), 18e32.
Westgren, R. E. (1999). Delivering food safety, food quality, and sustainable
production practices: the label rouge poultry system in France. American Journal
of Agricultural Economics, 81(5), 1107e1111.
Wilkes, N., & Dale, B. G. (1998). Attitudes to self-assessment and quality awards:
a study in small and medium-sized companies. Total Quality Management, 9(8),
731e739.
Womack, J., Jones, D., & Roos, D. (1990). The machine that changed the world. Rawson
Associates New York.