scholarly journals ISO 22000 Certification: Diffusion in Europe

Resources ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. 100
Author(s):  
Nathalia Granja ◽  
Pedro Domingues ◽  
Mónica Cabecinhas ◽  
Dominik Zimon ◽  
Paulo Sampaio
Keyword(s):  
Safety Management ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Gompertz Model ◽  
Iso 14001 ◽  
Iso 9001 ◽  
Management Systems ◽  
Safety Management Systems ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
European Continent ◽  
Forecasting Models

The main aim of this paper is to answer the research question, “Is the Gompertz model suitable for studying the diffusion of the ISO 22000 standard in Europe?” Forecasting models adopting the Gompertz model were developed to estimate to which extent the Food Safety Management Systems (FSMS) based on the ISO 22000 standard are expected to be implemented and certified in the European continent. To provide a forecast for the next few years, data from the diffusion of renowned ISO standards, namely, ISO 9001 and ISO 14001, were extrapolated in order to overcome the shortcoming since data concerning ISO 22000 certification was only available for the period 2007 to 2018. The results provide a cross-sectional portrayal of the European diffusion of ISO 22000 certification and suggest an interval of the estimated number of certificates issued in Europe. This research paper presents the first attempt to empirically analyze the dynamic of diffusion of the European ISO 22000 certification. A more accurate fitting with real results may be expected with further information available in the forthcoming years.

scholarly journals Food service compliance with ISO 14001 and ISO 22000

2012 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 373-380 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Lyra Santos ◽  
Rita de Cássia Coelho de Almeida Akutsu ◽  
Raquel Braz Assunção Botelho ◽  
Renata Puppin Zandonadi
Keyword(s):  
Safety Management ◽  
Production Systems ◽  
Food Service ◽  
Federal District ◽  
Simple Random Sampling ◽  
Descriptive Study ◽  
Iso 14001 ◽  
Management Systems ◽  
Food Services ◽  
Safety Management Systems

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess food service environmental and food safety management systems according to two checklists based on ABNT ISO 22000 and 14001. METHODS: This exploratory and descriptive study investigated a-la-carte food services of the Federal District, Brazil. Two checklists were developed to investigate ISO 14001 and 22000 compliance. A total of 37 food services were selected from the list of the Brazilian Association of Bars and Restaurants by simple random sampling. Checklist results were analyzed according to ANVISA resolution nº 275/2002. RESULTS: Only five food services employed dietitians to supervise meal production. These establishments achieved the highest ISO compliance. However, no establishment had more than 50% ISO 14001 or 22000 compliance. Restaurants showed little concern for the environment and disobeyed waste disposal laws by not separating recyclables from non-recyclables. CONCLUSION: The study food services do not have safe meal production systems, evidenced by non-conformity with the reference standards. Additionally, they do not attempt to reduce the environmental impact of their wastes. Food services supervised by dietitians are better prepared to produce safe foods.

scholarly journals Integrated risk management model implementation's contextual dependence on company size

Tehnika ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 76 (3) ◽  
pp. 361-366
Author(s):  
Nuri Alherian ◽  
Vesna Spasojević-Brkić ◽  
Martina Perišić ◽  
Abdulghder Alsharif
Keyword(s):  
Risk Management ◽  
Safety Management ◽  
Structural Equations ◽  
Iso 14001 ◽  
Management Model ◽  
Management Systems ◽  
Safety Management Systems ◽  
Proposed Model ◽  
Integrated Risk ◽  
Integrated Risk Management

Novel integrated risk management model for standardized management systems, such as ISO 9001:2015 for quality management systems, ISO 14001:2015 for environmental management systems, ISO/IEC 27001:2013 for information security management systems, ISO 45001:2018 for occupational health and safety management systems, and ISO 22000:2018 for food safety management systems, has been proposed in order to enable that organizations can manage their processes and associated risks versus requirements of each internal and external stakeholder, due to the fact that those models rarely exist in literature. Proposed model consists of three levels - correspondence, coordination and integration and put in place a clear and structured approach to controlling organizational risks. Using sample of 30 Serbian companies the proposed model has been checked empirically to contextual independence of proposed model using Mann-Whitney U*test and it has been proved that model is context free and applicable to companies different in size since there were no differences between micro & small vs. medium & large companies. Limitation of this research for sure is the sample size, so its extension is recommended. Further recommendation for future research is also a more detailed analysis on collected data done by using more sophisticated statistical analysis tools, such as regression analysis, structural equations modeling and similar to see interrelations between variables in the proposed model.

scholarly journals Main requirements for food safety management systems under international standards: BRС, IFS, FSSC 22000, ISO 22000, Global GAP, SQF

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (93) ◽  
pp. 18-25
Author(s):  
M. Ya. Bomba ◽  
N. Ya. Susol
Keyword(s):  
Food Safety ◽  
Safety Management ◽  
Level Structure ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Iso 14001 ◽  
Management Systems ◽  
Safety Management Systems ◽  
Standard Requirement ◽  
Iso Standards ◽  
Functional Components

The research analyzed the international standards basic requirements structure: BRС, IFS, FSSC 22000, ISO 22000, Global GAP, SQF for food safety management systems that realize principles of the HACCP concept. A comparative analysis of the international standards basic requirements for food safety management systems has identified that the requirements structure is identified as an interconnected set of rules, system-structured processes for the purposeful prevention of hazard risks at certain stages or in the food business. The main differences between the standards are in the modification of approaches to the implementation of the HACCP principles, the interpretation of the basic concepts and definitions, the detailed requirements, the application of their own programs of the processes and procedures identification that allow to ensure that the results correspond to the set task. Other differences in standards are at the level of system-elemental, structural, and functional components. Standards have the same goals, so their requirements are similar and have a certain level of identity, much of the difference is at the audit level, which uses different levels, system points and categories. The requirements of all standards are structured and differentiated into mandatory and recommended blocks, which enables companies to gradually implement changes. IFS, FSSC, ISO standards have high level structure (HLS), which is common basis for ISO standards that greatly simplifies the integration of several systems simultaneously in monitoring, action adjustments, audit processes. The GlobalGAP standard requirement system, unlike other considered ones, has a narrow target, which has provided a detailed description, for tracking, a set of indicators for quality and safety including genetically modified organisms and allergens, however, it is compatible with others. Taking into account the globalization of markets conditions in analyzing the international standards requirements, their correlation with global safety-related criteria such as: implementation of the HACCP principles, recognition of the standard GFSI,  providing traceability principles and mechanisms and prerequisites for programs (PRP), validity of the certificate, coherence of processes in the creation of integrated systems with standards ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18000.

A generic model for integration of Quality, Environment and Safety Management Systems

2014 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 143-159 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manuel Ferreira Rebelo ◽  
Gilberto Santos ◽  
Rui Silva
Keyword(s):  
Occupational Health ◽  
Safety Management ◽  
Integrated Management ◽  
Health And Safety ◽  
Occupational Health And Safety ◽  
Iso 14001 ◽  
Management Systems ◽  
Generic Model ◽  
Safety Management Systems ◽  
Content Type

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to propose a generic model of Integrated Management System of Quality, Environment and Safety (IMS-QES) that can be adapted and progressively to assimilate various Management Systems, of which highlights: ISO 9001 for Quality; ISO 14001 for Environment; OHSAS 18001 for Occupational Health and Safety. Design/methodology/approach – The model was designed in the real environment of a Portuguese Organization and 160 employees were surveyed. The rate response was equal to 86 percent. The conceived model was implemented in a first phase for the integration of Quality, Environment and Safety Management Systems. Findings – Among the main findings of the survey the paper highlights: the elimination of conflicts between individual systems with resources optimization; creation of added value to the business by eliminating several types of wastes; the integrated management of sustainability components in a global market; the improvement of partnerships with suppliers of goods and services; reducing the number of internal and external audits. Originality/value – This case study is one of the first Portuguese empirical researches about IMS-QES and the paper believes that it can be useful in the creation of a Portuguese guideline for integration, namely the Quality Management Systems; Environmental Management Systems and Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems among others.

Integrating Safety-II into Safety Management

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Toni Wäfler ◽  
Rahel Gugerli ◽  
Giulio Nisoli
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factor ◽  
Safety Factor ◽  
Safety Management ◽  
Management Systems ◽  
Safety Management Systems ◽  
Safety Science ◽  
Human Failure ◽  
The Given ◽  
Freedom Of Action

We all aim for safe processes. However, providing safety is a complex endeavour. What is it that makes a process safe? And what is the contribution of humans? It is very common to consider humans a risk factor prone to errors. Therefore, we implement sophisticated safety management systems (SMS) in order to prevent potential "human failure". These SMS provide an impressive increase of safety. In safety science this approach is labelled "Safety-I", and it starts to be questioned because humans do not show failures only. On the contrary, they often actively contribute to safety, sometimes even by deviating from a procedure. This "Safety-II" perspective considers humans to be a "safety factor" as well because of their ability to adjust behaviour to the given situation. However, adaptability requires scope of action and this is where Safety-I and Safety-II contradict each other. While the former restricts freedom of action, the latter requires room for manoeuvring. Thus, the task of integrating the Safety-II perspective into SMS, which are traditionally Safety-I based, is difficult. This challenge was the main objective of our project. We discovered two methods that contribute to the quality of SMS by integrating Safety-II into SMS without jeopardizing the Safety-I approach.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document