 |
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
 |
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
January 2003 |
||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EDUCATION OR ENFORCEMENT? |  Back to contents | |
|
|
|||
|
|
Arguments as to whether education or prosecution is the best approach for improving conditions in businesses recur again and again within the profession. This argument is particularly focused in food premises where small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) - defined using the European Commission definition based on staff numbers (medium<250 employees, small<50 employees) and turnover - account for 99.8 per cent of businesses within the catering, hotel and retail sectors.1 King's College London is carrying out research for the Food Standards Agency (FSA) on evaluating enforcement approaches aimed at achieving compliance in SMEs. As part of this project a survey of existing literature was carried out. This article discusses some of the major findings of that review and examines:
What is the problem? The vast majority of food businesses are SMEs. In terms of numbers of enterprises micro-businesses (up to 10 employees) dominate the catering, hotel and retail sectors. For instance, 87 per cent of restaurants and 86 per cent of canteens are micro-businesses. The retail food sector has even more small and micro-businesses: over 99 per cent of all businesses are either micro (91.3 per cent) or small (8.2 per cent). Even in food manufacture, 99 per cent of all businesses are small. These figures relate to the number of businesses, not the number of consumers they serve, and so the risk posed by SME food businesses is as yet unquantifiable. In examining which enforcement approaches might be more effective in ensuring that change occurs within SMEs, it is necessary to consider how they operate and what skills and resources they have. SMEs are extremely diverse in character but are likely to have short track records, low cash flow, and a small asset base. Any action required by the SME management that requires internal operational experience, expertise or heavy finance will be difficult to implement. A significant proportion of SMEs fail at some stage to meet the requirements of the food hygiene legislation. The FSA has identified the extent of this non-compliance: 45 per cent of food premises inspected in 2000 were "found to have breached some food regulations in some way".2 Food safety legislation is changing in ways that may make this level of non-compliance even greater in SMEs. The requirements for hazard analysis (and Haccp in some instances) moves the emphasis from a highly prescriptive set of rules to a more self-regulatory system forcing businesses to take responsibility. Although this is the predominant regulatory approach to businesses, evidence shows that SMEs have major problems implementing the "enforced self-regulation" required of them. It is likely that food SMEs with their rule-based history will find this change very challenging. Barriers to SMEs complying with regulation From the review of literature across environmental protection, health and safety and food safety, it is clear that the attitudes of SMEs, the nature of SME operations, and barriers to improving conditions are similar.3,4,5,6,7 There are two main factors that make it difficult for SMEs to comply with regulation and improve environmental health conditions. These are interrelated and are:
These two factors are further explored in tables 1 and 2 *
Enforcement action: how to break down barriers to SME compliance The Cabinet Office has been active and influential in examining the effect of regulation on SMEs. It identifies the following problem areas:8,9,10
The FSA small firms task force found many of the same issues.6 However, it is important to note that when questioned on their experience of food safety and health and safety enforcers, most SMEs felt the requirements and the approach of enforcers was generally reasonable. In relation to information, two issues are clear. SMEs want targeted, clear, concise information that takes the minimum amount of time and effort to access, understand and use. Far from being a problem of not enough information, SMEs complain of far too much untargeted, general information that requires extensive filtering and application. A major difficulty is in providing information that will be helpful in self-assessment and self-regulation. SMEs want information targeted specifically at their business to explicitly and concisely tell them what they have to do to comply. They would prefer this information in the form of checklists and rules. Devising information that meets the objectives of assisting self-assessment and provides SMEs with checklists is near impossible. The best solution is the provision of written information in self-help guides, DIY guides, and practical case studies of best practice. Alternatively, information can be filtered and targeted by an expert and given on telephone help-lines, at an inspection by an enforcer, or through consultancy and training. The most appropriate dissemination mode for information for SME differs from large businesses. SMEs obtain a lot of information from the mass media, television and the national and local press as well as trade magazines and newsletters. SMEs are more likely to use an enforcement agency as a major information provider (although they may wait for an inspection before requesting the information). The internet is a major source of information for large businesses but SMEs do not generally have the skill or time to use it efficiently. Only 5-10 per cent of SMEs use the internet to gather information about regulation (compared to 39 per cent of large businesses).11,12 In terms of what type of contact technique best prompts an SME to take action, a Health and Safety Executive study has found that inspections or seminars by an enforcement agency are more efficient in motivating action than mail shots of information.13 Seminars prompted 47 per cent of companies and inspections prompted 43 per cent of companies to take action. Mail shots were comparatively ineffective in that only 9 per cent of companies took action after receiving the information. The study also found that the timing of the information is crucial. From the viewpoint of the SME they need information at the time when they are being expected to make improvements by an inspector. A mail shot cannot provide information at the optimum timing for all SMEs but inspections can. Intermediaries such as business links, training organisations and business start-up units are often recommended as a way of reaching SMEs. It is thought that they can reach SMEs that enforcers cannot, are likely to be trusted by SMEs and are seen as a way of spreading the enforcement burden (by enforcers). Many of the organisations that enforcement agencies would like to use as intermediaries are unwilling to act as information conduits because of a lack of knowledge and skill. A problem that exists even where specialised intermediaries have been developed is encouraging SMEs to use them. Motivating SMEs to want to comply The question comes around again to how we can motivate SMEs to want to comply. This brings us back to the education or prosecution debate. Previous studies are generally in agreement on a number of issues. Big business in the UK is motivated to comply with legislation because the implications for not complying are detrimental to trade. Bad publicity and public relations can lower profits.7 Some studies have also shown that big business feel that they have a moral obligation to comply with the law. None of the studies show these to be major motivators for small businesses.3 SMEs generally do not:
The first two factors are crucial. Unless SMEs understand the nature of the hazards they pose and the fact that they are able to cause real problems eg food poisoning, they will not be motivated to improve conditions. Will prosecution or education prove to be the best motivator? In environmental health, prosecution of individual premises is used as a threat in order to coerce the business to comply. Prosecution is the stick used in a game of persuasion. Once a premises has been inspected and problems identified the threat of prosecution is an effective tool. Whether prosecution of one business motivates other businesses to comply with the law (the deterrent effect) is far less clear. For prosecution to be a deterrent, businesses must believe that the conditions that lead to prosecution exist in their own premises. With a lack of understanding of hazards and difficulties interpreting law, SMEs are often unable to make this connection between another business being prosecuted and the conditions within their own premises. Education of SMEs is vital in improving the understanding of hazards and raising awareness and meaning of the law and identifying solutions. Unless businesses are educated (by the enforcer, an intermediary or consultant etc.) prosecution will have a limited long-term impact on conditions. In tables 1 and 2 the barriers to SMEs complying were identified. These barriers will not be reduced by prosecution - education will be required to assist SMEs in complying. It is clear that both education and prosecution have a place in achieving compliance in SMEs. The study currently being carried out by King's College on behalf of the FSA evaluates different approaches being used in local authorities in order to improve conditions in food SMEs. The study will report in early 2004 and its findings will contribute to the debate on the effectiveness of enforcement approaches in local authorities. To contact Dr Robyn Fairman, e-mail: robyn.fairman@kcl.ac.uk and to contact Charlotte Yapp, e-mail: charlotte.yapp@kcl.ac.uk References
|
||
