2013
DOI: 10.1016/j.tifs.2013.06.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Context factors affecting design and operation of food safety management systems in the fresh produce chain

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
69
0
1

Year Published

2015
2015
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
3
2
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 73 publications
(70 citation statements)
references
References 142 publications
0
69
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…For each context indicator, three levels have been defined, which represent low (score 1), moderate (score 2), or high (score 2) risk (Kirezieva, Nanyunja, et al, 2013;. The respondents were asked to choose the situation which best represented their company situation.…”
Section: Framework Of Fsms-dimentioning
confidence: 99%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…For each context indicator, three levels have been defined, which represent low (score 1), moderate (score 2), or high (score 2) risk (Kirezieva, Nanyunja, et al, 2013;. The respondents were asked to choose the situation which best represented their company situation.…”
Section: Framework Of Fsms-dimentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Examples of indicators from FSMS-DI (Kirezieva, Nanyunja, et al, 2013; the diagnostic tool provides an insight into the FSMS activities and system output in view of the context riskiness. The framework of the FSMS-DI as used in this research includes the indicators from the original instrument and the more recent instrument that was adapted for the global context (Kirezieva, Nanyunja, et al, 2013) as presented in Figure 1. Data were analysed with Microsoft Office Excel to make spider web diagrams to illustrate visually the scores for the separate indicators for FSMS activities, food safety output, and context factors.…”
Section: Framework Of Fsms-dimentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations