Implementing Food Safety Programs Using the Kurt Lewin Forces Theory - Research Paper Example

Implementing Food Safety Programs Using the Kurt Lewin Forces Theory Introduction There is necessity of integrating food safety needs into all activities associated with human resource. The issue on food safety is an important aspect within foodservice operations (Heleen et al., 2012). Implementation of food safety programs such as HACCP ensures food safety and quality in processing and development (Christos et al., 2011). However, successful implementation of food programs within food companies requires establishment of complete prerequisite programs. Organizations within food sector have used Kurt Lewin’s theory for the purposes of understanding human behavior as it relates to food habits and change (Young et al., 2013). Lewin utilized his field theory in his research on human habits towards food and surrounding changes. Food companies believe in the fact that food move through channels that are governed by forces that either resist or attract changes within the food supply chain. Such channels can be represented in numerous ways that include farms, stores and gardens while resistance and attraction involves aspects such as pricing, family and health amongst other domains (Chernauski-Breen and England, 2012). The Lewin’s Force Field Analysis focuses on identifying various factors responsible for various changes, those that oppose change often called restraining forces and the forces that promote commonly referred to as driving forces. In this case, successful implementation of any change depends on full understanding of behaviors that drive or oppose change (Alexander et al., 2011). There are several forces that drive the process of implementation of food safety program within food manufacturing facility. These driving forces operate either individually or corporately as described below. Driving forces on implementation of food safety programs Customer demands The first driving force involves customer demands which motivates and makes food companies to consider updating their food safety programs hence keeping them in shape. In most instances food companies are forced by customers to have full safety program in place for them to be assured of customer base (Sara and Baker, 2013). This calls for food companies to set up supplier food safety program for the purposes of meeting customer requirements and protecting their food products. Customers require such food safety programs not only in companies but also within company suppliers. At times, customers move a step further by getting involved in auditing suppliers of a food company vendor. For instance, it is compulsory for some produce growers to have GAP’s program before they can sell products to processors. Produce buyers insist that their suppliers should have multiple certifications and authentic paperwork for the purpose of being considered potential suppliers. Customers at times ensure that their supplier’s food safety programs are in place and proper working conditions through third party auditing companies. Competition and influence from Industry groups Competition and Industry group agreements also serves as one of the driving force. This is since other food companies’ stance on food safety program makes other companies to adhere to standards for the sake of competition. For instance, the industry trade groups have set their standard guidelines used as recommendations for food production for the purposes of producing safer foods (Sands and Diaz-Buxo, 2011). However, there are always difficulties within small companies in the struggle to implement food safety program. On the other hand, Industry trade groups play a key role in the development and implementation of food safety program. This is since the trade groups often takes active role as facilitators during development process hence offering technical and theoretical skills to affiliates. However, inclusion of such groups as industry group within the planning assists in creating a feeling of empowerment that is necessary in overcoming their resistance towards the change. This also facilitates their understanding on the importance of the project and associated benefits. Round table discussions help in identifying the driving and restraining forces and associated barriers that need to be avoided (Sands and Diaz-Buxo, 2011). Laws and Regulations Local, State, Federal and International Laws also acts as a driving force. This is since all food products introduced into market place should adhere to regulatory requirements. This call for all food companies to adapt to such regulatory environment where they desire to operate. However, some regulations are considered tougher hence mandates companies to adopt food safety programs (Nevin and Ece, 2012). The rapid changes within science and technology affect adequate safety evaluations within international arena. In most instances the process of safety evaluation lags behind technological advancements hence may aggravate implementation of new technological solutions. For instance application of nanotechnology was stopped since safety evaluations were inadequate including lack of appropriate risk assessment regulation methods (Spetz et al., 2012). Restraining forces on implementation of food safety programs Communication channels One of the restraining forces involves the act of appropriate communication to all stakeholders in this case consumers (Amit and Keith, 2013). It is important that all lines of communication remain open so as to create a sense of security and trust in those involved with the proposed change. The kind of channel used in communicating concepts of hazard and risk as well as results of analytical investigations can have negative impact on implementation process of food safety programs. Accurate interpretation and communication of food program is essential for the purposes of guarding against any form of misunderstanding (Sara et al., 2011). Appropriate communication on food safety and quality standards is crucial in ensuring that consumers are supplied with safe and quality food products. Food safety standards are categorized into product-oriented standards and processing-oriented standards. Food safety programs aim at assuring consumers on the status of food products such as meeting preconditions with regard to environment, water, temperature and soil amongst other preconditions (Amit and Keith, 2013). Components of food safety programs Components of food safety programs and their quality can act as restraining force since they negatively influence implementation process depending on stakeholders’ perceptions (Jooyeon and SooCheong, 2013). This includes issues on program standards and methods of compliance (Huanan et al., 2012). However, according to economic theory, components are mainly incorporated in processing standards. Product-oriented standards are often implemented without any major obstacles as compared to process standards. Consequently, processing-oriented standards aims at assuring consumers on specific practices followed during processing that are consistent with quality (Sara and Baker, 2013). This may involve ISO certification and involvement of Food Safety Programs such as GAP, HACCP and GMP on the processes. Various food safety programs serve the purposes of improving safety of food components as well as serving as mechanism for communicating information along supply chains. Conveying information between sellers and buyers reduces buyer’s uncertainty on product’s attributes since appropriate information is availed concerning seller’s production process (Susan et al., 2013). Organizational leadership and culture Organizational leadership and culture also presents some of the potential restraining forces. In such cases, implementation of food programs within food companies requires change champions for the purposes of overcoming existing culture within (Erkan, 2012). Leadership is critical in the point where sharing experiences as well as institutionalizing organizational culture is required (Virginia et al., 2013). Application of Lewin’s theory seems appropriate means of addressing issues on resistance enabling the leadership team to attain the desired goal. Other restraining forces include resistance on the use of modern devices, lack of knowledge and experience on the use of the programs, climate change and other environmental changes, lack of trust due to capacity on enhanced analytical skills. Climatic changes impacts on human behavior and evolution which ultimately have consequences on food safety programs. Conclusion The ultimate success of projects with such immense impact on the company requires efficient, reliable and complete plan of action. Application of Lewin’s theory in the implementation of food safety programs assists in promoting acceptance amongst industry groups since they are actively involved in planning and implementation process. Identification of driving and resisting forces through roundtable discussions is essential for eliminating any sense of misinterpretation or misunderstanding. This assists in addressing restraining forces hence promoting adoption and ensuring smooth implementation of food safety programs (Zhelyu, 2011). Such process ensures reduction in cases of food poisoning and other associated errors. Use of Lewin’s theory is appropriate in reducing stakeholder resistance and associated fear of change. This is done through development of a well thought plan as well as active participation within change process. Consequently, the exercise of implementing food safety programs incorporates all parties making them focus on accentuating all positive driving forces while reducing restraining forces. References Alexander, S., Frith, K., OKeefe, L., & Hennigan, M. (2011). Implementation of customized health information technology in diabetes self management programs. Clinical Nurse Specialist: The Journal For Advanced Nursing Practice, 25(2), 63-70.doi:10.1097/NUR.0b013e31820aefd6 Amit, K., & Keith, W. (2013). Understanding the Food Safety Modernization Act and the role of quality practitioners in the management of food safety and quality systems. The TQM Journal, 25(4), pp.347 – 370, doi: 10.1108/17542731311314854 Chernauski-Breen S. & England, E. (2012). Kurt Lewin: Life overview and social forces. University of Central Oklahoma, Journal of Scientific Psychology 2. doi: 10.1108/09596110410531131 Christos, F., Dimitrios, K., & Katerina, G. (2011). Critical factors for effective implementation of the HACCP system: a Pareto analysis. British Food Journal, 113 (5), pp.578 – 597, doi:10.1108/00070701111131700 Erkan, R. (2012). Food for thought: “four Ss with one F”: Security, safety, sovereignty, and shareability of food. British Food Journal, 114 (3), pp.353 – 371, doi: 10.1108/00070701211213465 Heleen, D., Ellen, K., Helen, O., & Lynn, F. (2012). Consumer preferences regarding food related risk-benefit messages. British Food Journal, 114 (3), pp.387 – 400, doi: 10.1108/00070701211213483 Huanan, L., William, A. K., & Jill, E. (2012). A review of Chinese food safety strategies implemented after several food safety incidents involving export of Chinese aquatic products. British Food Journal, 114 (3), pp.372 – 386, doi: 10.1108/00070701211213474 Jooyeon, H., & SooCheong, J. (2013). Attributes, consequences, and consumer values: A means end chain approach across restaurant segments. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 25 (3), pp.383 – 409, doi: 10.1108/09596111311311035 Nevin, S., & Ece, K. (2012).Food safety knowledge, attitude and food handling practices of students. British Food Journal, 114(4), pp.469 – 480, doi: 10.1108/00070701211219504 Sands, J. J., & Diaz-Buxo, J. A. (2011). Improving the Delivery of Coordinated and Individualized Care. Seminars In Dialysis, 24(5), 593-596. doi:10.1111/j.1525-139X.2011.00974.x Sara, G., & Baker, A. (2013). Food safety in the US catering industry: empirical findings. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 25 (3), pp.365 – 382 Doi:10.1108/09596111311311026 Sara, K., Peter, S., & Jesper, L. (2011). Dont wash my meat: public perceptions of decontamination in meat production. British Food Journal, 113 (5), pp.598 – 612, doi: 10.1108/00070701111131719 Spetz, J., Burgess, J. F., & Phibbs, C. S. (2012). What determines successful implementation of inpatient information technology systems? The American Journal of Managed Care, 18(3), 157-162. Susan, W., Paola, P.,& Catherine, S. (2013). Food safety practices and managers perceptions: a qualitative study in hospitality. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 25 (1), pp.124 – 139, doi:10.1108/09596111311290255 Virginia, Q., Carol, B., & Kirsten, W. C. (2013). Determinants of safe food handling behaviors among middle school youth. Nutrition & Food Science, 43 (6), pp.543 – 553, doi: 10.1108/NFS-08-2012-0086 Young, G., Junehee, K., & Wansoo, K. (2013). Effects of attitudes vs experience of workplace fun on employee behaviors: Focused on Generation Y in the hospitality industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 25 (3), pp.410 – 427, doi: 10.1108/09596111311044 Zhelyu, V. (2011). Implementation of food safety management system in Bulgaria. British Food Journal, 113 (1), pp.50 – 65 doi: 10.1108/0007070111097330 Read More