Original Research

Assessing the food safety culture at a South African wet condiment manufacturer: Integrating natural and social disciplines

Monique Visser, Ryk Lues, Nelene Koen

Received: 24 Aug. 2025; Accepted: 24 Nov. 2025; Published: 14 Mar. 2026

Copyright: © 2026. The Authors. Licensee: AOSIS.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Abstract

Regulatory frameworks and industry standards increasingly recognise food safety culture (FSC); however, researchers have paid limited attention to its application in condiment manufacturing. This study investigated the existing FSC within a wet condiment manufacturing organisation based in South Africa through a secondary analysis of quantitative data from a consultative project. The quantitative assessment, which involved a mono-methodology, explored five key FSC constructs: vision (shared understanding of food safety goals and leadership commitment), inspiration (employee motivation and engagement), empowerment (training and resources supporting food safety goals), performance (management of food safety systems and compliance), and change appetite (organisational adaptability and openness to improvement). By assessing these constructs, the study addresses sector-specific challenges in an underexplored segment of the food industry. Essentially, the purpose of the study is to contribute to the body of knowledge on FSC within the particular context of condiment manufacturing. The findings add a regional perspective to global FSC discourse, providing transdisciplinary insights that influence food systems, public health, and organisational culture in high-risk manufacturing environments.

Transdisciplinary contribution: This study supports a practical framework for identifying FSC shortcomings and shaping targeted, transdisciplinary interventions within wet condiment manufacturing. It advances the understanding of FSC within the distinctive context of the condiment industry, demonstrating how transdisciplinary collaboration strengthens organisational performance and safeguards public health. Strengthening leadership commitment, communication, and inclusive organisational culture are central to fostering a resilient FSC and promoting food system improvement within developing regions.

Keywords: food safety culture; transdisciplinary; wet condiments; quantitative methodology; leadership; communication; South Africa; organisational behaviour.

Introduction

Food safety remains a significant global health concern, highlighted by the recurring outbreaks of foodborne illness. According to the World Health Organization, an estimated 600 million cases occur annually, resulting in approximately 420 000 fatalities.¹ Although research often focuses on primary food products, condiments, which combine diverse ingredients and undergo complex processing, face distinct food safety challenges that demand closer investigation.² These risks arise across production and storage stages and include microbiological contamination from spices and raw ingredients, particularly when hygiene, temperature, and moisture controls are inadequate.^3,4,5 Chemical hazards, including pesticide residues, heavy metals, and aflatoxins, have also been detected in condiments and spices, posing long-term health risks.^6,7,8 In developing contexts, inconsistent regulation and fragmented supply chains further heighten risk. These vulnerabilities emphasise the need to evaluate food safety culture (FSC) within condiment manufacturing to strengthen preventive practices and regulatory compliance.

Food safety culture extends beyond regulatory conformity, encompassing the values, beliefs, and behaviours that shape an organisation’s collective commitment to food safety.⁹ This holistic approach demonstrates how cultural, managerial, and technical factors interact within complex food systems to influence compliance and public health outcomes. While traditional food safety management has centred on meeting standards and regulations, FSC emphasises that sustainable food safety depends equally on behavioural norms and organisational attitudes.^10,11,12 Despite its growing recognition in global standards, literature on FSC within the condiment industry, especially in developing contexts, remains limited. Condiments, defined as flavour-enhancing products added post-cooking,^13,14 represent a globally traded, high-risk category that calls for focused academic attention.

Food safety culture as a transdisciplinary concept

In this study, the term ‘transdisciplinary’ describes the integration of knowledge and methods across disciplines – such as social, behavioural, managerial, and technical – to develop holistic, practice-oriented solutions to food safety challenges. This framing guides both the analytical approach and interpretation by integrating transdisciplinary insights to address complex, real-world food safety challenges.¹⁵ Historically, food safety has been grounded in microbiology and public health, both in empirical analysis and in regulatory frameworks.¹⁶ With the expansion of international food distribution, including condiments, the integration of disciplines such as food hygiene, microbiology, nutrition, and environmental health has become increasingly important in shaping food safety assurance. Collectively, these key areas influence food safety, establishing a foundation for national and international standards designed for implementation, management and compliance.¹⁰ The concept of FSC is integrated in broader organisational culture. It encompasses key constructs such as communication, leadership, accountability, inspiration and trust – aspects that are critical to shaping the mindsets of individuals within an organisation. These factors influence food safety performance by shaping employees’ engagement with safety practices.^16,17

Food safety assurance involves complex, interrelated factors, including microbial, behavioural and managerial factors, best addressed through transdisciplinary approaches.¹⁸ Traditionally, the social sciences and humanities received limited attention, but industry, academia, and regulatory bodies have increasingly recognised that social factors are integral to food processing and safety.¹⁸ The farm-to-fork continuum encompasses several entities, including agriculture, primary and secondary processing, packaging, distribution, retail, and hospitality, where human activity at various levels proves profound. As a result, the human behavioural aspects impacting food safety have received increasing attention, particularly the FSC’s role in mitigating food safety risks.¹⁹ Apart from its fundamental role in mitigating food safety risks, the transdisciplinary narrative fostered by FSC has significantly united experts from diverse fields, such as microbiologists, food technologists, supply chain managers, sociologists, policymakers and consumers. While this multifaceted collaboration has enabled improved management of food safety risks, it also transcends academic and sectoral boundaries, enabling solutions that integrate technology, human behaviour and policy in novel ways.¹⁹

This study draws on five key constructs – vision, inspiration, empowerment, performance, and change appetite – that describe the behavioural and organisational foundations of FSC. The assessment tool used in this study was developed from established FSC frameworks documented in the literature, with each construct grounded in empirical and theoretical studies that define the behavioural and organisational components of FSC.^9,10,11 Vision highlights the importance of a shared understanding of food safety goals and of leadership’s role in prioritising them across all levels of the organisation.^20,21 Inspiration reflects employee engagement and confidence, highlighting how a supportive environment fosters loyalty, responsibility, and a sense of ownership towards food safety practices.^21,22 Moreover, empowerment relates to access to adequate training, resources, and infrastructure that enable employees to carry out food safety responsibilities effectively.^23,24 The performance construct concerns the management and maintenance of food safety systems, including compliance documentation, risk assessment procedures, and continuous improvement measures that ensure accountability.^20,22 Lastly, change appetite captures the organisation’s responsiveness to cultural and technological change, openness to new ideas, and adaptability to evolving demands that influence food safety performance.^21,24 Collectively, these constructs provide a useful foundation for understanding how individuals, systems, and leadership interact to support a strong FSC and serve as the framework for the assessment tool used during the organisation’s primary investigation.^20,23

Over the past two decades, FSC has developed steadily as a scientific niche, with various authors and scholars contributing to the body of knowledge, finally culminating in prominent national and international food safety standards such as Food Safety System Certification (FSSC) 22000 (v6) and Brand Reputation Compliance Global Standard (BRCGS).^25,26 Consultancy services relating to FSC metrics and interventions have also expanded.⁹ Accordingly, FSC can be viewed as a food safety intervention with broader organisational culture benefits rather than a social science exercise applied to food contexts.

Theoretical basis

The integration of natural and social sciences is required for a comprehensive assessment of FSC, as it enables examination of both the technical and human aspects of food safety practices.²⁰ Natural sciences provide empirical understanding of microbiological risks, contamination pathways, and control measures that determine objective safety. In contrast, social sciences offer insight into the cognitive, cultural, and organisational factors that shape human behaviour and decision-making.²⁷ In this study, the FSC constructs included vision, inspiration, empowerment, performance, and change appetite. Combining these perspectives allows FSC and its incorporation into standards such as FSSC 22000 (v6),²⁵ BRCGS,²⁶ and the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI)⁹ to move beyond compliance-based assessments by exploring how values, attitudes, and social dynamics influence adherence to standards. Drawing on theories of organisational culture,^28,29,30 this transdisciplinary approach supports the development of more resilient and adaptive FSCs throughout the supply chain.

Applications in the developing context

Developing environments experience complex, interconnected challenges such as poverty, disease, environmental degradation, and social inequality. In such settings, transdisciplinary approaches are important to address interlinked social and technical challenges.³¹ Transdisciplinary research is particularly applicable in developing countries because it incorporates the real-world experiences and knowledge of local communities and stakeholders.¹⁵ Food safety interventions co-developed by scientists, regulators, non-government organisations (NGOs), and communities are therefore more likely to succeed in long term. Moreover, developing countries often deal with resource constraints and rapidly changing social and environmental conditions. Transdisciplinary research supports adaptive management by linking knowledge generation directly to practice and policy. It can bridge the gap between scientific knowledge and community needs, thereby enhancing empowerment and capacity-building.³² In South Africa, food safety governance is supported by rigorous regulatory frameworks, yet studies show that enforcement and behavioural compliance remain uneven, highlighting the need for stronger FSC integration.^33,34 Similar trends across Africa reflect the importance of combining regulation with cultural and educational interventions to strengthen food safety performance.³⁵

Together, these factors establish the contextual basis for this research. Although global standards have incorporated FSC, organisations still face challenges in implementing it, particularly in underrepresented sectors such as wet condiment manufacturing.^9,19,36 By analysing FSC within this high-risk, underexplored sector, this study addresses notable research and organisational gaps. It presents a secondary analysis of quantitative data and proposes a refined mono-methodology for evaluating organisational behaviour in developing contexts. Through this approach, the study assessed the organisation’s FSC maturity across the five key FSC constructs, identifying strengths, barriers, and opportunities for improvement. The findings offer new insights into systematically assessing and strengthening food safety practices while refining the practical application of FSC principles in real-world manufacturing environments.

Ultimately, this study contributes to an improved understanding of FSC as it applies within the unique context of condiment manufacturing and offers both theoretical and practical value in enhancing food safety practices, organisational effectiveness, and public health outcomes. Guided by a transdisciplinary framework, the study links the five FSC constructs to behavioural, managerial, and technical elements that define organisational food safety maturity. Given the industry’s expanding global trade and its role in foodborne outbreaks, understanding and improving FSC in this sector is both timely and important.

Research methods and design

Data sources

This study encompasses an analysis of secondary quantitative data from a consultative project conducted at a wet condiment manufacturing organisation in South Africa. The study population comprised the full complement of employees of the manufacturer, including direct positions (e.g. supervisors, quality, food safety team) in production and indirect positions (e.g. human resources [HR], maintenance, finance) in administration. The aggregated dataset, which excluded demographic identifiers, served as the basis for a quantitative secondary data analysis. As elaborated by Tripathy,³⁷ in related studies, the original data are collected by a contracted, independent service provider to fulfil a specific client need, with the secondary data analysis accessing and interpreting information such as internal organisational records, interview transcripts, surveys, or project reports, with the aim of pursuing wider research and scientific objectives.

Study design

The research applied a new interpretive framework to generate context-specific insights for the South African condiment manufacturing sector. Secondary data analysis involves examining data originally collected by external parties, following established empirical procedures comparable to those used in primary research.^38,39 In quantitative research, this approach enables both the exploration of new questions and the validation of prior findings.⁴⁰ This study employed a mono-methodological quantitative design, analysing survey questionnaire data to assess FSC maturity. Although a mono-methodological approach was used, the interpretation and discussion draw on transdisciplinary perspectives that integrate socio-technical aspects of FSC.¹⁵

Facility description and segmentation

The study facility is a prominent wet condiment manufacturer in the Western Cape province of South Africa. The company evolved from a family-run farming business. It later transitioned to manufacturing and distributing a diverse range of wet condiments under private label agreements with major national retailers. At the time of the assessment, the organisation engaged 190 individuals, mainly from the surrounding community. Census data recorded the region’s population at 97 724, with Afrikaans as the dominant language and varied educational backgrounds.⁴¹ While many employees have completed secondary schooling, low learner retention rates suggest ongoing socio-economic challenges. This demographic and educational profile provides contextual grounding for this study and informs the interpretation of organisational behaviour and cultural patterns.

Data collection

The data collection process upheld key principles of applied research methodology, ensuring clarity, accessibility, and adherence to ethical standards. A full-population survey approach was implemented, inviting all employees across operational and support departments to participate in the assessment. The self-administered survey questionnaire was distributed in both hardcopy and online formats to accommodate varied literacy and internet access levels, and the assessment tool adapted to the local cultural and linguistic environment. The organisation’s HR department ensured ethical compliance, ensuring adherence to South Africa’s Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA), and supported informed consent procedures through written and verbal communication. Designated time slots across shifts supported maximum participation.

The dataset analysed in this study was obtained from the primary research project that employed a validated survey instrument based on established methodologies documented in the literature.^10,11,42,43 The assessment tool had been refined through adaptation in consultative projects for a leading South African organisation specialising in FSC. The five constructs and associated survey questions were informed by recognised frameworks and empirical work on FSC,^10,11,42,43 and aligned with international certification standards such as the GFSI⁹ and FSSC 22000 (v6).²⁵ Experts and research groups at Michigan State University, Department of Food Toxicology and the Central University of Technology, Free State’s Centre for Food Sustainability and Biotechnology established content validity during the primary assessment through expert review and reflective consultations. Repetitive feedback sessions among these groups further supported test–retest reliability.

The survey questionnaire assessed five FSC constructs: vision, inspiration, empowerment, performance, and change appetite as described in the literature section. These constructs informed the design of the questionnaire and were adapted to align with the organisation’s demographic and operational context. Responses were collected using a five-point Likert scale (0 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree), incorporating intermediate options to capture neutrality and varying levels of agreement or disagreement. Relevant literature and globally recognised standards guided the questionnaire content.^25,26 Particular care was taken to avoid the use of copyrighted or commercially restricted assessment tools.

Because the dataset was collected using a pre-validated proprietary assessment protocol aligned with GFSI,⁹ the secondary researcher reviewed the quality of the data source and acknowledged limitations associated with re-analysing pre-existing data.^37,38 The provided consultancy documentation confirmed the Cronbach’s alpha validation at 0.81, which aligns with data reported in the literature.^44,45,46 Moreover, Nyarugwe et al. reported 0.50–0.83 and 0.67–0.92 across FSC dimensions,⁴⁴ as well as Jespersen et al. found 0.76–0.86 for their validated scale.⁴⁷ The authors neither participated in the data collection nor performed additional validation, but relied on the psychometric properties established by the instrument’s original developers and subsequent validation which included pilot testing, reliability analysis, and factor validation.

Transdisciplinary consultation and interpretation

Considering the transdisciplinary demands of FSC interventions, it is pertinent to articulate such demands not only in the relevant methodologies but also in the approaches to data analysis and interpretation. An advisory team comprising food microbiologists, food scientists, health inspectors, social scientists, leadership experts and industrial psychologists was consulted to provide qualitative insights.³²

The collected data were examined and reported in Microsoft Excel⁴⁸ to provide a comprehensive overview of the existing FSC based on the maturity model. Internal consistency of the survey questionnaire was determined using Cronbach’s alpha, with acceptable reliability thresholds applied.⁴⁹ Factor analysis was applied to assess structural integrity and verify the dimensional validity of FSC constructs.⁵⁰ This analysis was initially performed during the primary assessment to confirm the structural validity of the five-construct framework. According to the consultancy documentation, the expected factor structure was verified, supporting the dimensional integrity of the instrument. However, as informed by copyrighting stipulations, the detailed factor loading matrix was not disclosed, nor reported under the secondary analysis. Descriptive statistics, including frequencies, percentages, mean values and standard deviations, were used to summarise the dataset.⁵¹ Spiral plots visually represented the collective responses derived from the quantitative data. These methods provided an overview of the dataset’s characteristics and patterns, facilitating the interpretation of the findings.⁵²

Likert scale responses across all categories yielded maturity scores for each FSC construct, expressed as a percentage of the maximum possible score. Mean percentage scores were calculated by converting the raw mean values from the five-point Likert scale (0–4) into percentages of the maximum possible score. For example, a mean of four corresponds to the maximum score on the 0–4 scale (100%), while a mean of three corresponds to 75%. A benchmark of 80% was interpreted as the threshold for compliance, aligning with industry norms in organisational culture assessment metrics, as well as drawing on the BRCGS standard.⁵³ Although the FSSC system generally measures success in terms of number of non-conformances,²⁵ the BRCGS considers an audit score of 80% acceptable, as it typically results in a Grade B certification for announced audits, or a Grade B+ for unannounced audits.⁵³ The 80% mark, when applied to a specific module or internal scoring system, generally aligns with a strong passing grade, while accommodating opportunity for continuous improvement. Allocating a numerical value to the maturity score also enabled tangible comparisons between portfolios, rather than only considering categorical nomenclature and categories. Applying this principle therefore provides a balanced, realistic, and evidence-based measure of cultural maturity, which is consistent with broader organisational evaluation practices.

The study did not employ inferential statistics, as descriptive analysis was sufficient to address the research aims. This approach aligns with the FSSC 22000 (v6) standard, which emphasises descriptive evaluation of FSC maturity.²⁵ Future research may incorporate inferential methods to explore underlying trends and influencing factors in greater depth. The analysis also reflects the study’s transdisciplinary positioning by combining quantitative assessment with interpretive perspectives from organisational psychology, leadership theory, and food safety science, demonstrating how behavioural data can inform practical interventions and industry standards.

Ethical considerations

Ethical clearance to conduct this study was obtained from the University of Free State and General Human Research Ethics Committee (Ref. No. [REC-112922-058]). The study was conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Results and discussion

Employee responses offered a foundational snapshot of how individuals perceive the organisation’s food safety direction, leadership engagement, and cultural priorities. The survey questionnaire achieved an 83% response rate, with 100% departmental representation, ensuring data reliability and inclusiveness. While the 17% non-participation remains a limitation, as full participation would be ideal, factors such as concern about repercussions, distrust in leadership or scepticism about the study’s impact may have played a role; the most likely reason relates to logistical constraints, including shift work or absence during data collection.

The findings revealed ‘vision’ as the highest-scoring construct, indicating a strong understanding of the organisation’s overarching food safety goals among employees. The analysis assessed each construct by calculating its maturity score as the average percentage across all related survey questions. These scores provided a quantitative measure of employee alignment with specific FSC elements, generating insight into the relative strengths of each construct within the organisational context. By contrast, ‘inspiration’ received the lowest maturity score, followed by comparatively lower scores in ‘empowerment’, ‘performance’, and ‘change appetite’. This pattern indicated a disconnect between the organisation’s strategic food safety messaging and its operational implementation, reflecting variations in motivation, access to resources, and engagement across the constructs.

Figure 1 presents spiral plots showing average employee responses across the five FSC constructs. The solid outer line represents the maximum possible score, while the dashed line indicates the mean response. The closer the dashed line lies to the perimeter, the greater the maturity and alignment with organisational goals. Constructs such as vision display higher maturity, while inward or irregular patterns for inspiration and change appetite suggest lower consistency and highlight areas for improvement.

FIGURE 1: Spiral plots illustrating collective responses for the five food safety culture constructs (n = 190).

Figure 2 supports this interpretation by presenting a box plot that illustrates both the central tendency and dispersion for each construct. Each box represents the interquartile range (IQR), with the horizontal line indicating the median and the whiskers showing the minimum and maximum values. Individual points indicate outliers, while the cross (x) marks the overall maturity percentage score for each construct. Constructs with narrower boxes and shorter whiskers (e.g. empowerment) reflect higher consistency and shared perceptions among employees. In contrast, wider boxes and longer whiskers (e.g. inspiration, change appetite) suggest more diverse views and less uniform engagement. Together, these figures provide both an overall maturity ranking and a nuanced perspective on variability across constructs, facilitating comparison of cultural strengths and weaknesses.

FIGURE 2: Box plot illustrating the distribution of scores per construct (n = 190).

The combined analysis offers actionable insight into how the interaction between organisational priorities and employee engagement influences FSC. While the organisation demonstrates a clearly communicated food safety vision, lower scores in constructs such as inspiration and empowerment suggest challenges in translating strategic goals into day-to-day practice. This misalignment between commitment and implementation constrains proactive food safety behaviours, particularly in resource-limited contexts, and highlights the need for improved communication, empowerment, and leadership visibility.

Vision

The ‘vision’ construct provided insights into the extent to which employees understand and connect with the organisation’s food safety goals and future direction. Vision was the only construct to exceed the 80% maturity benchmark, with a mean percentage score of 81% (Table 1). As shown in Table 2, the lowest-scoring questions highlight recurring weaknesses in leadership visibility and communication effectiveness. Scores ranged from 63% to 95%, with 50% ranging between 72% and 90% (Figure 2).

Despite the left skewness, the distribution remained relatively central. The lowest-scoring questions were 2 and 10 (Table 2), which were in the bottom quartile (25%), highlighting areas for further clarification or emphasis. The lowest score of 63% was for the question ‘Our company has effective leadership’, suggesting concerns related to top management and leadership. In comparison, food safety communication gaps were highlighted by the second-lowest score (69%) for the question ‘We are made aware of food safety through, for example, discussions, notices, signage, pamphlets, seminars, announcements, and the like’. This highlights the importance of leaders demonstrating food safety values not only through policies but also through visible behaviours that build trust and provide clarity for employees.^20,36,54

A cross-analysis of the highest and lowest scores confirmed that employees strongly value food safety as a core organisational principle but seek greater engagement from management. The highest-scoring question, ‘Food safety is very important to our company’ (95%), supports this commitment. Similarly, 91% of respondents acknowledge their role in food safety, and 90% agreed that management at all levels should prioritise it. These findings indicate alignment between individual accountability and organisational goals, yet signal the need for continued reinforcement through leadership practice. Research consistently highlights the importance of visible leadership commitment and transparent communication in reinforcing organisational food safety priorities.^16,54 According to Bandura’s Social Learning Theory,³¹ when leaders model desired behaviours, employees emulate them, strengthening shared norms and accountability across teams.^54,55

Overall, the organisation’s vision for food safety is clearly articulated, understood, and valued by employees. However, the lower leadership and communication scores suggest the need to strengthen direct engagement, visibility, and communication to translate policy into daily practice. By fostering consistent top-down and bottom-up communication, the organisation can integrate food safety principles in greater depth into its culture, advancing from conceptual awareness to sustained behavioural alignment.

Inspiration

The ‘inspiration’ construct assessed employees’ commitment, involvement, and active participation in upholding and advancing food safety. While the term inspiration can be subjective, it relates to core elements of employee engagement, motivation, and feeling a sense of purpose.²² This construct captures how valued and motivated employees feel in relation to their contribution to food safety outcomes. Findings revealed strong individual dedication to customer care and food safety responsibilities; however, the lower scores indicated opportunities to strengthen inclusion, recognition, and shared decision-making.

As illustrated in Figure 1, the dashed line for ‘inspiration’ lies furthest within the outer benchmark boundary, visually indicating its lower maturity relative to other constructs. Among the five constructs, inspiration showed the greatest variability in responses (range 47% – 92%, IQR 55% – 84%), identifying it as the most polarising construct of the organisation’s FSC profile – a pattern also reflected in the wide box and extended whiskers in Figure 2.

The overall maturity score for ‘inspiration’ was 67%, the lowest of all constructs. While 85% of respondents indicated a willingness to report food safety risks, this was offset by lower perceptions of involvement in decision-making (47%), suggesting that employees feel responsible but not empowered to influence change.²⁹ Concerns regarding leadership, communication, and employee involvement were evident. Two of the lowest-scoring questions, ‘My opinion is valued and respected’ (55%) and ‘My company cares about its people and makes them a priority’ (55%), highlight limited recognition and perceived inequality in engagement opportunities. These findings, combined with the wider dispersion shown in Figure 2, indicate inconsistent experiences of inclusion across departments.

This contrast between strong personal commitment (‘I care for our customers’ – 92%) and low organisational recognition (‘My opinion is valued’ – 55%) reflects a motivated workforce constrained by limited inclusion in decision-making. Strengthening recognition and feedback systems can translate motivation into participatory engagement, consistent with prior research linking employee involvement to compliance and morale.^16,22,42 The findings align with Kahn’s engagement theory,⁵⁶ which emphasises that employees who experience psychological safety and appreciation are more likely to display proactive behaviours. Within this framework, inspiration represents not only motivation but also a measure of how organisational culture enables voice, trust, and recognition.

The inspiration construct, visibly the narrowest on the spiral plot in Figure 1 and the widest box in Figure 2, reveals a workforce with strong intrinsic motivation and customer focus, but limited perceived influence over decisions affecting food safety practices. Leadership can improve this construct by fostering open communication, shared problem-solving, and visible acknowledgement of employee contributions – key behavioural drivers for strengthening overall FSC maturity.⁵⁴

Empowerment

The ‘empowerment’ construct examines employees’ perceptions of access to adequate resources and relevant training, as well as their ability to contribute effectively to food safety within their roles. It highlights how access to training, equipment, and support affects individual confidence and organisational effectiveness in food safety performance. The findings revealed that while employees demonstrate confidence and skills in food safety, there are notable differences in training and resource availability across departments.

As reflected in Figure 1, the dashed line for empowerment lies relatively close to the outer benchmark boundary, suggesting broad confidence and role clarity, although declines in specific questions indicate gaps in resource consistency. As shown by the narrow IQR in Figure 2 (scores 61% – 91%), empowerment exhibited limited variation across constructs, suggesting broad agreement regarding confidence and role clarity despite pockets of inconsistency in access to resources.

Training-related questions recorded the lowest scores (61%, 66%, 73%), highlighting limitations in both the delivery and the effectiveness of training programmes. High-performing questions, including ‘I am eager to practise and obtain new knowledge and skills’ (91%) and ‘I know the implications and dangers associated with food safety’ (88%), indicate strong intrinsic motivation. This contrast between motivation and inconsistent access to structured training highlights a gap between employee willingness and organisational support.²⁰ While self-assessed competence remains high (scores 83% – 91%), uneven access to formal training and infrastructure persists, likely influenced by departmental differences and operational planning. This imbalance between motivation and recognised support reflects patterns observed in previous FSC studies^19,21 and highlights the operational importance of consistent investment in employee development and maintenance systems.

Overall, the empowerment construct reflects a motivated, capable workforce constrained by uneven training and infrastructure management. Strengthening training quality, ensuring equitable resource access, and maintaining equipment reliability would boost empowerment and reinforce organisational resilience.

Performance

Performance refers to ‘maintenance of effective and responsive documented food safety management systems and tools, which includes relevant compliance and risk assessment instruments, monitoring, metrics, evaluations, outcomes, achievements and improvement measures’. Producers and distributors must use their own judgement and discretion to ensure product safety, even beyond established limits and standards. It is therefore important for food manufacturers to demonstrate a commitment beyond compliance to standards and regulations, minimising food safety-related risks through proactive performance management.^20,54

The results revealed that most of the employees have a favourable view of the organisation’s food safety performance. As shown in Figure 1, the dashed line for performance lies close to the outer benchmark boundary, reflecting a strong culture of compliance and well-established adherence to the system. The construct identified opportunities for improvement in recognition and transparency, with findings highlighting a strong correlation between trust and openness. High scores demonstrated respect for regulatory processes: ‘Auditors and inspectors are treated with respect and appreciation when visiting our facilities’ (93%), and ‘Our company regards regulatory and compliance inspections and audits as important and beneficial’ (89%). Employees also showed strong adherence to protocols, with ‘Regulatory protocols and policies are respected and understood’ (82%), reinforcing a culture of compliance. However, communication of audit outcomes (66%) and recognition of exemplary performance (53%) were noticeably weaker areas. The wider whiskers for performance in Figure 2 illustrate this variability, suggesting that while most employees express trust in the system, perceptions vary regarding feedback and recognition practices.

Improving this construct depends on transparent feedback loops and recognition systems that translate procedural compliance into open engagement – an approach supported by prior research showing that acknowledgement and two-way communication strengthen cultural maturity.^11,17,42 Overall, the performance construct reflects solid structural compliance reinforced by trust in regulatory systems, but requires stronger communication and recognition practices to sustain motivation and continuous improvement.

Change appetite

Change appetite refers to:

[T]he agility of a food company to respond to change in terms of food safety advancement, its identity related to collegial and cultural tolerance, adaptability to novel food safety challenges and demands, response to critique and appetite for renewal. (p. 25–26)

This construct assessed the organisation’s capacity to adapt to changes in food safety, its receptiveness to criticism, its focus on cultural adaptability, and its responsiveness to change. An adaptive culture perceives change as an opportunity for growth, whereas change appetite reflects an organisation’s openness to and willingness to improve continuously.⁹

As shown in Figure 1, the dashed line for change appetite appears more irregular and lies closer to the centre than those for vision and performance, visually indicating lower maturity and inconsistent alignment across responses. In Figure 2, this pattern is reflected in the broader box and longer whiskers, demonstrating greater variability in perceptions of openness and fairness. The mean percentage score (71%) and median (72.5%) point to a moderate level of maturity, accompanied by considerable variability, which is consistent with the distribution shown in Figure 2.

Overall results show that employees are generally optimistic about change, but perceive inconsistencies in communication and fairness during change processes. The question ‘All employees enjoy the same opportunities and recognition’ scored lowest (47%), suggesting unequal access to opportunities and recognition. In comparison, ‘I am informed about change plans and processes’ scored 54%, reinforcing concerns about communication, leadership, and transparency. Building trust and engagement during change requires clear communication and equitable decision structures that value diverse perspectives and hierarchical levels.^16,24

A lack of two-way communication can fuel feelings of exclusion and uncertainty.²⁴ Promoting transparent communication and fair recognition systems improves trust and accountability, consistent with Blau’s social exchange theory.³⁰ Although 90% of respondents expressed willingness to participate in change, isolated low ratings suggest department-specific concerns that should be addressed through inclusive representation. Moderate scores on cultural differences and adaptability further demonstrate the complexities of food safety management across diverse workforces. Establishing leadership transparency and trustworthiness is critical for creating a supportive environment that encourages growth and shared responsibility.^11,56

Collectively, the change appetite construct reveals a workforce that embraces improvement in principle but perceives gaps in fairness and communication practices. Addressing these concerns through transparent leadership, inclusive decision-making, and equitable recognition will improve adaptive capacity and enhance the organisation’s FSC.

Comparative and intra-construct scores

The comparative scores (Figure 2) previously illustrated highlight the relative strengths and weaknesses across the five FSC constructs. The organisation’s vision achieved the highest maturity (81%), while inspiration scored lowest (67%), followed by change appetite (71%), empowerment (78%), and performance (79%). This pattern indicates that strategic direction and leadership commitment are strong, whereas employee engagement and adaptability require targeted improvement. This comparative lens illustrates the need for initiatives that boost participation, communication, and recognition to support weaker constructs and achieve balanced cultural maturity across the organisation. Research suggests that in operationally stable environments, lower change appetite scores may reflect stability rather than resistance.⁵⁷ Accordingly, the organisation may be functioning effectively but should reframe change as a mechanism for renewal and continuous improvement.

Cross-construct analysis revealed three recurring themes – communication, fairness, and role clarity – that influence all maturity components. The low score for ‘My opinion is valued’ (inspiration) and ‘All employees enjoy equal recognition’ (change appetite) highlights persistent transparency and equity challenges. These issues reflect similar patterns observed in vision and performance, suggesting that communication gaps and uneven feedback occur across departments and hierarchical levels. Support departments such as HR, quality assurance, product development, and maintenance play critical enabling roles. When these functions act as FSC champions, they strengthen alignment between technical systems and behavioural expectations, fostering both compliance and organisational cohesion. These themes align with earlier research identifying leadership, communication, and employee engagement as ongoing determinants of FSC.^17,22 Similar trends have been observed internationally, with organisations showing strong procedural commitment but varying levels of empowerment and inclusivity.^19,21 These findings suggest that while global FSC frameworks remain consistent, contextual factors – including resource availability, workforce diversity, and communication style – influence how FSC is expressed in practice, particularly within manufacturing settings in developing regions.

Collectively, comparative and intra-construct analysis show that vision and performance are well established. In contrast, empowerment, change appetite, and especially inspiration depend on improved two-way communication and recognition. Addressing these cross-cutting issues will help the organisation progress towards a more balanced and resilient FSC.

Transdisciplinary integration

The five FSC constructs collectively illustrate how behavioural, managerial, and technical systems interact to determine organisational maturity. Leadership visibility (vision), employee inclusion (inspiration), and equitable empowerment (empowerment) shape how technical systems (performance) and adaptability (change appetite) translate into daily practice. Together, these social science perspectives explain why strong structural compliance alone does not guarantee high cultural maturity: behavioural engagement and communication systems act as vital mediators between policy and practice.

The findings highlight how leadership behaviour, communication quality, and employee recognition connect the natural and social elements of food safety performance, thereby bridging technical assurance and human factors. This integrative lens reinforces the idea that FSC cannot be viewed purely as a regulatory or managerial construct, but rather as a transdisciplinary domain encompassing psychology, communication, and systems management. From a practical perspective, the results inform the development of context-specific interventions that simultaneously address behavioural and technical gaps.

Limitations

This study focuses on a single wet condiment manufacturer; therefore, the findings should be interpreted within this specific context rather than generalised across the broader food industry. Because the dataset was self-reported, responses may reflect social desirability bias – a limitation common in organisational culture research.^24,36 This secondary data analysis provides valuable insight into organisational behaviour within manufacturing contexts in developing regions, offering a basis for broader comparative research. Future research should incorporate multiple facilities, longitudinal studies, and qualitative components to explore relationships between leadership behaviour, empowerment, and cultural maturity.

Conclusion

This study assessed the existing FSC within a prominent wet condiment manufacturer in South Africa. Key challenges were identified in leadership, communication, decision-making, respect, and empowerment. Issues such as recognition, transparency, and equality pointed to broader concerns around organisational trust. The study established a diagnostic framework for FSC assessment, offering insight into behavioural and structural trends that require attention. Using pre-existing data collected by an independent consulting organisation, the study provided original contextual analysis contributing new academic insight into FSC within the South African condiment manufacturing sector.

Strengthening leadership engagement, fostering open communication, integrating food safety into daily routines, and ensuring ongoing training across all organisational levels are important steps towards building a resilient FSC.^19,51,54 Addressing these gaps can strengthen organisational culture, align operations with food safety standards, and strengthen both compliance and public trust. The findings are particularly relevant to the under-researched condiment sector and provide practical insights for both industry and academia. Although the study followed a mono-methodological quantitative design, interpretation drew on behavioural, managerial, and technical perspectives consistent with the study’s transdisciplinary orientation. The results emphasise that effective food safety management requires alignment between leadership behaviour, employee empowerment, and system performance. Food safety culture functions as a bridge between natural and social disciplines; linking technical compliance with human behaviour and must therefore be addressed through integrated strategies rather than isolated interventions. In this study, data interpretation was informed by behavioural and organisational perspectives on leadership and motivation alongside technical performance assessments, reflecting the transdisciplinary nature of FSC as recognised by Yiannas¹⁰ as well as the widely acknowledged GFSI position paper.⁹

Although this study provides a detailed contextual understanding of FSC within a developing manufacturing environment, broader generalisations should be made with caution. Future research should extend this work through multisite and longitudinal studies to evaluate how targeted interventions influence FSC maturity over time. The study’s approach provides a foundation for responsive interventions recognising that behavioural and technical enablers – such as education, language, and infrastructure – jointly influence FSC outcomes. Integrating transdisciplinary research that unites leadership, communication, behavioural science, and food technology expertise offers a sustainable pathway for continuous improvement in food systems in developing regions. Consequently, the food industry must now comply with standards that go beyond traditional food safety constructs, requiring organisations to engage in multiple consultative processes and manage associated costs at every stage of the production value chain. Traditionally, such integration was achieved through interdisciplinary collaboration, in which companies engaged diverse stakeholders and synthesised their insights into unified solutions, typically implemented by in-house departments. However, this model has become increasingly impractical amid rising time constraints, financial pressures, and the growing complexity of issues that require rapid, effective intervention.

The ultimate endeavour of this article, therefore, is to advocate for transdisciplinary research as a viable and forward-looking solution to the food industry. It aims to raise awareness of turnkey approaches developed by academics and consultants who, rather than delegating work within isolated specialist fields, are capable of rigorous transdisciplinary reasoning. This approach is particularly vital in developing contexts, where progress depends on cooperation between formal and informal sectors and across diverse fields of expertise. A solid grasp of the transdisciplinary dynamics that contribute to food safety incidents, as well as guide the development of effective, targeted interventions, is not only beneficial but also aimed at addressing the urgency in industry to solve its most complex challenges, mitigate risk and ensure customer wellbeing.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the facility line management and external data collection company to conduct the secondary data analysis. The Central University of Technology, Free State is also acknowledged for appropriating in-kind resources.

This article is based on research originally conducted as part of Monique Visser’s doctoral thesis titled ‘Food Safety Culture and Leadership: A Mixed-Method Exploration of a Prominent Wet Condiment Manufacturer in The Western Cape’, submitted to the Centre for Applied Food Sustainability and Biotechnology, Central University of Technology, Bloemfontein in 2023. The thesis was supervised by Ryk Lues and Nelene Koen. The thesis was reworked, revised, and adapted into a journal article for publication. The original thesis is currently unpublished and was not publicly available online at the time of publishing this article.

The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.

Monique Visser: Conceptualisation, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Visualisation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Ryk Lues: Methodology, Resources, Visualisation, Writing – review & editing. Nelene Koen: Supervision, Writing – review & editing. All authors reviewed the article, contributed to the discussion of results, approved the final version for submission and publication, and take responsibility for the integrity of its findings.

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, Monique Visser, upon reasonable request.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and are the product of professional research. They do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated.

References