Adoption of Food Safety and Quality Controls: Do Firm Characteristics Matter? Evidence from the Canadian Food Processing Sector
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explores the association between the adoption of food safety and quality assurance practices in the Canadian food processing sector and firm characteristics. A conceptual model is developed recognizing that the relative importance of a firm's incentives to adopt enhanced food safety and quality assurance practices is influenced by the firm's characteristics and activities. Binomial logit models are estimated to explore the association between adoption of various combinations of food safety and quality assurance practices including hazard analysis and critical control point (HACCP). The findings show that the adoption of food safety and quality practices varies widely between individual firms according to, among others, firm size, country of ownership and control, level of innovativeness, level of export orientation, forms of food safety inspection, and the subsector in which the firm operates. Incentives of being able to access foreign markets play an important role in influencing HACCP adoption. La présente étude analyse le lien entre l'adoption de pratiques visant la salubrité et l'assurance de la qualité des aliments au sein de l'industrie canadienne de la transformation et les caractéristiques des entreprises. Nous avons élaboré un modèle conceptuel reconnaissant que l'importance relative des incitatifs qui motivent une entreprise à adopter des pratiques améliorées en matière de salubrité et d'assurance de la qualité des aliments est influencée par les caractéristiques et les activités de l'entreprise. Nous avons estimé des modèles logit binomiaux pour examiner le lien entre l'adoption de diverses combinaisons de pratiques visant la salubrité et l'assurance de la qualité des aliments, y compris les systèmes HACCP (analyse des risques et maîtrise des points critiques). Les résultats ont montré que l'adoption de ces pratiques variait considérablement d'une entreprise à l'autre en fonction, entre autres, de la taille de l'entreprise, du pays de propriété et de contrôle, du degré d'innovation, du degré de vocation exportatrice, des programmes d'inspection de la salubrité des aliments et du sous‐secteur dans lequel une entreprise évolue. La perspective de pénétrer les marchés étrangers joue un rôle important dans l'adoption de systèmes HACCP.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".