See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/283357169

Valuing integrity in credence quality food supply chain

Conference Paper · July 2014

CITATION READS

1 218

5 authors, including:

Mohd Helmi Ali Kim Hua Tan

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia University of Nottingham
53 PUBLICATIONS   192 CITATIONS    133 PUBLICATIONS   2,370 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Kulwant Pawar Zafir Mohd Makhbul

University of Nottingham Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
133 PUBLICATIONS   1,313 CITATIONS    110 PUBLICATIONS   301 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Cloud Manufacturing View project

Supply Chain Disturbances in Global High Value Manufacturing Firms View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Zafir Mohd Makhbul on 08 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Valuing integrity in credence quality food supply chain

Mohd Helmi Ali1, Kim Hua Tan2, Kulwant Pawar3, Zafir Mohd Makhbul3
1, 2, 3
Business School, University of Nottingham
Yang Fujia Building, Jubilee Campus, NG8 1BB, Nottingham, United Kingdom
1
mohdhelmiali@[Link], [Link]@[Link],
3
[Link]@[Link]
4
School of Management, Faculty of Economics & Management, Universiti Kebangsaan
Malaysia, 43600, UKM Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia
4
zafir@[Link]

ABSTRACT

The 2013 ‘Horsemeat Scandal’ and rapid progression of equivalent incidents have
exposed the real potential for dishonesty in food products. In this context, the food
integrity paradigm has increased significantly and become more important to food
industries. However, very little is known about ‘food integrity’ in the existing literature.
Thus, this paper aims to abridge the integrity risk and variables into a framework
capturing the ‘Farm to Fork’ (f2f) concept. The framework was developed through the Q-
sort analysis introduced by Stephenson (1965), which is largely used by psychologists,
and in-depth interviews with the representatives of halal food supply chains in Malaysia.
The f2f concept was adhered to in capturing the absolute guarantee of food integrity
within the supply chain. In this paper, we developed a measurement scale for a
framework called ‘food supply chain integrity’ in the attempt to safeguard the integrity of
credence quality food.

Keywords: food integrity, food supply chain, Q-sort, halal

INTRODUCTION
Food integrity is relatively a new concept and very little literatures are known has
addressed this particular issue. The concept can be interpreted and discussed in many
perspectives. Thus, the important elements of the concept may differ predominantly in
different views. Especially for complex supply chain issues as an example, perspectives
from other fields of study are sought to explain the phenomenon (Chen et al. 2009). As
well as the disadvantages arising from the scarcity of knowledge or literature, such a
combination may also clutter the actual definitions of the items. Furthermore, the
improvement can only be made to measureable concepts; it is therefore crucial that
certain of these concepts are measured to indicate their status/level. In this light, the
non-measureable concept remains vague in its definition and context. Therefore, we are
inspired to value the integrity of the halal supply chain. Food integrity is a relatively new
concept, which can be looked at from many different angles, i.e. performance, quality,
etc. Within this limits, we have framed the study in the supply chain context. This study
is an extension of one conducted earlier (Ali, Tan, Makhbul, & Pawar, 2014), which
discussed the halal integrity dimension framework. In this study, we value the
dimensions suggested using the Q-sort method (Stephenson, 1965). We then highlight
the items that define the halal supply chain integrity construct. Furthermore, we offer
the factors that are important for consideration in the Q-sort processes.

We start this paper with a literature review that contextualizes the halal supply chain
integrity and scale development. Secondly, we discuss the Q-sort processes in the
methodology section and then follow this with the results and discussion. We end this
paper with a conclusion and future research proposals.
CONTEXTUALIZING HALAL FOOD SUPPLY CHAIN INTEGRITY
Halal is a credence quality product, where the quality is impossible to ascertain even
after consumption (Bonne & Verbeke, 2008). Characteristics of halal products are
determined by the Quran, the divine book. In upholding halal characteristic, all stages in
supply chain need to be solidified accordance to the requirements which is extracted as
the following conditions (Amat, 2006):
 The food or the ingredients must not contain any parts or products of animals
that are non-halal to Muslims by Islamic law; or products of animals which are
not slaughtered in accordance with the Islamic law.
 The food must not contain any ingredients that are Najis (ritually unclean) as per
Islamic law.
 The food must be safe and not harmful; and clean.
 The food must not be prepared, processed or manufactured using equipment that
is contaminated with things that are Najis as per Islamic law.
 The food or its ingredients must not contain any human parts, or derivatives of
human parts, that are not permitted by Islamic law.
 During preparation, processing, packaging, storage or transportation, the food
must physically separated from any other foods that do not meet the definitions
stated in the items above; or from any other things decreed as Najis by Islamic
law.
Thus, as the product moves from one stage to another, similar halal specific
requirements must be adhered to. However, the criticality of the issues is dependent
upon the core process of each stage of the supply chain. With halal food products, it is
almost impossible to detect any glitches, and the possibility of the actors to take the
requirements for granted is high through cutting corners in order to fatten their profits
(Roth et al., 2008). Take the example of the horsemeat scandal in 2013, which has an
almost similar background concerning beliefs surrounding consumption of a ‘sacred’
animal (horse for the Irish); this created a chaotic impact upon the food industry.
Likewise, the determinant of halal food for Muslims was also swayed. Seen from these
two parameters, supply chain integrity is important to halal food production. However,
there is lack of evidence in literature for measuring the supply chain integrity of identical
food products; thus in this paper, we have set the context of the supply chain within the
perspective of the focal company (brand owner). There are compelling reasons for why
the focal company is selected: firstly, the focal company has total control of its supply
chain; secondly, it covers every stage of the supply chain; thirdly, it is the biggest
stakeholder of the product; and finally, it is the consumers’ reference point for the
product. In this essence and for the purpose of this study, we have adapted the f2f
concept by Tunçer (2001), starting from the suppliers to the consumers, from the
perspective of the focal companies.

HALAL SUPPLY CHAIN INTEGRITY MEASUREMENT SCALE DEVELOPMENT

Developed scales and scale testing are not often well detailed in existing studies
(Hensley, 1999). Halal food supply chain integrity constructs suffer from inconsistency,
lack of clarification (the discussions were either too vague or too technical), and the
scales do not accurately measure the constructs. These weaknesses are mainly due to
the novelty of the halal food integrity concept, complexity of the supply chain, and
different business and social contexts depending on the nature of food production.
Furthermore, operation management concepts are often multidimensional, thus daunting
the translation of practice into theory and vice versa (Forza, 2002). The Q-sort technique
was developed by William Stephenson and is rooted in Q-methodology (ten Klooster et
al., 2008). The technique comprises of iterative processes which assess the validity and
reliability of the constructs. Halal food supply chain integrity requires careful
interpretation as the issues are subjective in any situation (i.e. at each stage of the
supply chain). In the light of construct subjectivity, it is appropriate to use the Q-sort
technique (Cross, 2005; McKeown, 1984), as it combines the strength of qualitative and
quantitative research for complex issues (Brown, 1996; Valenta & Wigger, 1997). In
operation management research, the Q-sort technique as published in the Journal of
Operation Management was employed by many researchers, such as Menor & Roth
(2007), Wong & Boon-itt (2011), Kristal et al. (2010), Li et al. (2005) and Cao & Zhang
(2011). Therefore, the Q-sort technique is appropriate for the present research due to
the following: (i) the newness of the concept (Tractinsky, 1995); (ii) subjectivity of
issues in different natures of production (Cross, 2005; McKeown, 1984); (iii) it upholds
the richness of the subjectivity of respondents (McKeown, 1984); (iv) it is used as a
method to assess initial levels of construct reliability and content validity (Moore &
Benbasat, 1991); and (v) for pre-testing the scales for content, discriminants and
convergent validity enhancement (Li et al., 2005; Swafford, Ghosh, & Murthy, 2006).
Therefore, this research employs the Q-sort technique in three stages: item creation,
scale development and scale testing.

METHODOLOGY
In this section, we highlight the steps deployed in approaching the Q-sort analysis for
halal food supply chain integrity.

Item generation
The aim of item generations is to build valid constructs which are able to explain the
specific domain of interest (Churchill, 1979; Hensley, 1999). This research generates the
items through extensive literature review and a series of previously conducted case
studies of four halal food supply chains (i.e. fast-food, casual dining, kopitiam and
processed meat products – refer to Ali et al., 2014). The extensive literature reviews
(searching for existing scales) enable the present studies to substantiate the theoretical
grounds of conceptual domains and demonstrate the content validity of the constructs
(Rosenzweig & Roth, 2007). On the same note, the combination of both academic and
practical perspectives provides good preliminary scales to keep item revision to a
minimum (Forza, 2002; Hensley, 1999). In summary, the purpose of this stage is to
ensure the content validity by having at least two statements that acceptably describe
the constructs (Moore & Benbasat, 1991).

Interview structure and sorting procedures

In this step, academicians and practitioners evaluated the measurement items. A total of
20 participants – seven academicians and 13 practitioners (two general managers, three
production managers, three sales managers, three senior halal executives and two halal
enablers) – were involved in providing inputs. Participants were drawn from enterprises
of varied status: Malaysian-owned, joint venture and according to the nature of
production of the companies. The participants were put in a structured workshop and
interviewed to check the relevance and clarity of the definition of each construct.

Then, six participants were selected to further sort the cards, which made three rounds
pairwise (practitioners and academicians) of judges. The judges were informed in more
detail about the research topic, objective, scope and model and given a sheet of the
definitions of each construct. The judges were informed about the sorting procedure and
allowed to ask questions in order to make sure they understood the procedures. The
items were printed on A3 sized paper in shuffled conditions. The constructs (supplier,
production/manufacturing, restaurants/retailer and consumer/customer stages) were
predetermined on the paper; the judges were asked to place the items with the most
appropriate construct and they were allowed to write new item pools. For the items that
were not applicable, the judges are permitted to note ‘not applicable’ beside those items.

Q-sort analysis techniques and inter-rater reliabilities

The Q-sort techniques were analyzed by two indices used for measuring the level of
inter-judge agreement: Cohen’s Kappa and ‘Hit Ratio’. The Kappa coefficient is intended
to generalize the findings of a reliability study in a population of raters; the coefficient is
frequently assessed for statistical significance through a hypothesis test (Sim & Wright,
2005). The Cohen’s Kappa results were interpreted using the guidelines proposed by
Landis & Koch (1977). Similarly, Li et al. (2005) argued that a Kappa score greater than
0.65 is acceptable. Meanwhile, the ‘Hit Ratio’ was calculated by counting all the items
that were correctly sorted into the target category by each of the judges and dividing
them by twice the number of the total items. The aim is to obtain results from the level
of agreement between the judges derived from each of the indices; (i) Cohen’s Kappa
value is to assess the reliability and (ii) Hit Ratio is for the validity of the items (Moore &
Benbasat, 1991).

RESULTS
In this section, we present the results obtained from the Q-sort analysis and discuss the
result for each round conducted. Each round involves different respondents altogether, in
order to reduce the bias of the learning circle and increase reliability and validity. The
following table summarizes the results of the first, second and third rounds of sorting.

Inter-Judge Agreement
Agreement Measures Round 1 Round 2 Round 3
Raw Agreement 0.60 0.82 0.95
Cohen’s Kappa 0.66 0.82 0.95
Hit Ratio 0.58 0.82 0.91
Placement Summary
Raw Materials Integrity 0.56 0.80 1.00
Production Integrity 0.64 0.72 1.00
Service Integrity 0.59 0.85 0.93
Information Integrity 0.82 1.00 1.00
Table 1: Summary of Q-sort result

The results of Q-sort round 1

In the first round, there was a total of 30 items for the Q-sort input. The 30 items were
placed and completed by two judges. The inter-judge raw score agreement was 60%,
Cohen’s Kappa was 66% and the placement ratio was 58%. The Cohen’s Kappa value
was fair due to some items being located in the off-diagonal cells and in the N/A
category, which indicates that the item requires rewording or removal from the list. For
construct 1, raw materials integrity, two items were located in the diagonal cell and two
items located in N/A. The items were discussed with the judges and two items were
combined and reworded, and one item removed. One item was introduced by the judges
and set for the next round of sorting. For construct 2, production integrity, three items
were located in the diagonal cell. The items were discussed with the judges and both
items were reworded. Meanwhile, for construct 3 (service integrity), three items were
located in the diagonal cell and one item located in N/A. The judges suggested removing
the items in the N/A cell and rewording the three other items. Judge 2 suggested it was
important to include one item for the next round of sorting. Finally, for round one,
construct 4 (information integrity), one item was removed and one more item required
rewording.

The results of Q-sort round 2

For the second round of sorting, a total of 28 items were administered to the judges. The
result of the second round was: inter-judge score, 82%; Cohen’s Kappa, 82%; and the
placement ratio, 82%. All indicators were improved; however, the round quality was not
efficient, as some items were still placed in diagonal groups. For construct 1, raw
materials integrity, one item required rewording while one was removed. For construct 2
(production integrity), one item was located in the diagonal cell, and was suggested to
be reworded by the judges. Meanwhile, for construct 3, service integrity, two items were
not agreed upon and one was regarded as N/A. The two items seemed to carry same
discussion and the judges suggested that they be combined. For construct 4 (information
integrity), all items were agreed upon as per theoretical categories. In summary, up to
the second round of sorting, four items were removed, two new items were added and
two sets of two items were combined. This leads to a total of 26 items for input in the
third Q-sort round. Based on the Hit Ratio of Moore and Benbasat (1991) of the second
round, the raw materials integrity, production integrity, and service integrity constructs
require another round of Q-sorting to increase validity and reliability.

The results of Q-sort round 3

The scores from the third round indicate that each construct item does not correlate
contextually with one another. The sorting scores of a total of 26 items were: inter-judge
score, 95%; Cohen’s Kappa, 95%; and the placement ratio was 91%. All indicators have
been much improved, indicating reliability and validity of the constructs. Constructs 1, 2,
and 4 had a placement score of 100%, indicating high validity and reliability. Construct 3
had a placement score of 93%, also indicating an excellent result as well. Finally, a total
of 26 items remained for questionnaire input.

DISCUSSION
From the sorting procedure activities, we found that valuing the halal food supply chain
is a daunting process. Through iterative sorting processes in order to obtain the intended
agreements between the judges, we provide suggestions that are worth taking into
consideration in valuing integrity when evaluating the qualitative data. We then offer
concise halal supply chain integrity dimensional elements in measuring each construct.

Valuing the multidimensional matters

As Q-sort methodology is intended for: (i) reducing the weaknesses of the qualitative
and quantitative data; (ii) transforming the qualitative data into measureable items; and
(iii) creating a means of quantification, we found that the item generation and
regeneration stages are the most crucial in the process. The quality of the earliest item
generation stage has a significant impact towards the subsequent regeneration activities,
made after the inputs obtained from the judges. Thus, we suggest that during the item
generation stages, a researcher should predetermine the research context to ensure the
consistency of the discussion of the items. The context is important due to the supply
chain complexity; where a firm can be either a supplier or customer depending on the
settings. Secondly, the researcher should be selective within the limitations of the study;
terms like ‘supply chain’, ‘integrity’, ‘food safety’, etc. can easily be misinterpreted in
different contingencies. Thus, we found that items’ descriptive meanings are a handy
tool for the researcher during sorting processes to maintain control of the paradigm
required.

Halal supply chain integrity items

We adopted the f2f concept to gain an absolute meaning of halal food supply chain
integrity. From the concept, we predetermined the categories of halal supply chain
integrity as: raw materials integrity, production integrity, service integrity and
information integrity. However, we find it is difficult to explain the categories due to the
novelty of the integrity notion and when defining it to the practitioners. Thus, we
renamed the categories as per the main activities in the focal company as procurement,
production and sales.

From the sorting process, we discover that the pattern when valuing raw materials
integrity is highly associated with the supplier’s context. As argued by Tse & Tan (2011),
regarding quality, halal integrity is highly dependent on the supplier’s integrity. In this
context, raw materials integrity was valued from the supplier’s credibility, hygiene,
information sharing, quality and source of supply. Valuing integrity outside the factory
wall is a rebuttal when there are many possibilities that can be associated with halal
integrity. However, the supply chain integrity offers additional measures to the
conventional way of valuation, which is represented by the halal certification.

On the other hand, we found that there is a thin line separating production and service
in the food industries. Thus, it has been difficult to adopt a stance between these two
stages. We epitomized the production integrity by the operations that involve food
manufacturing, automation and have no direct contact with the end consumers. The
production integrity was then valued by the judges as the organizational efforts and
capabilities (in managing production flexibility, standardization, critical point, cost,
tracking and testability), which are highly associated with halal integrity during the
production stage. Meanwhile, we typified the service by operations that have direct
contact with consumers, in which delivery and quality are closely related to labour time
expended (Jones, 1990). Seen in this context, halal service integrity is highly related to
the human interface (i.e. competency, training, handling, distribution and staffing
regulations). The judges also highlighted that the production and service components
can be combined for the smaller sized company sample (e.g. Small and Medium
Enterprises). Moreover, the combinations can also apply to the halal food companies that
are driven by make to order, have a non-standardized menu and are non-chain types of
restaurant.

Finally, information integrity is valued from the facts shared by the company with the
consumers. There are many ways of information sharing as discussed during the sorting
processes and it is not feasible to list each as the items of the component. Thus, there
are two ways of sharing as highlighted by the judges: top-down (producer to consumers)
and bottom-up (consumers to producer). Top-down sharing is executed from labelling
and logo displays, while bottom-up is the feedback and the involvement of the consumer
representatives in ensuring that information is fairly shared in accordance to the
consumer’s right. Figure 1 below shows the summary of items that are important in
valuing the halal supply chain integrity.

Figure 1: Halal supply chain integrity items

CONCLUSION

Phenomena like food integrity and food supply chain are multidimensional in nature.
Interpretation and evaluation of these types of context can be different in many ways.
Combining both phenomena under a paradigm can be confusing and exhausting. Thus,
we offer the halal supply chain integrity items as our contribution to knowledge.
Furthermore, halal food – as a credence quality product – embraces more stringent
requirements in the supply chain, which can shed light on other food supply chains. The
applicability can be used in, for example, vegetarian and kosher food chains. Similarly, it
is important to highlight for governments, authorities and business organizations the
additional benchmarks in safeguarding food integrity. Our purpose is to propose a new
integrity framework which is little known in the relevant literature. Thus, it is yet to be
tested within the larger scale industries. We therefore recommend that future research
on the modelling of the framework concentrates on quantifying the importance of the
variables in the framework.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and the
Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia for funding the studies.

REFERENCES

Ali, M. H., Tan, K. H., Makhbul, Z. M., & Pawar, K. (2014). Influence of supply chain
integration on halal food integrity. In 18th International Working Seminar on
Production Economics.
Amat, S. (2006). Halal-New market opportunities. Proceedings of the 9th Efficient
Consumer Response (ECR), Kuala Lumpur Convention Center (KLCC), Malaysia 15
November 2006.
Bonne, K., & Verbeke, W. (2008). Religious values informing halal meat production and
the control and delivery of halal credence quality. Agriculture and Human Values,
25(1), 35–47.
Brown, S. (1996). Q methodology and qualitative research. Qualitative health research,
1996(4), 2–6.
Cao, M., & Zhang, Q. (2011). Supply chain collaboration: Impact on collaborative
advantage and firm performance. Journal of Operations Management, 29(3), 163–
180.
Chen, I. J., & Paulraj, a. (2004). Understanding supply chain management: critical
research and a theoretical framework. International Journal of Production Research,
42(1), 131–163.
Chen, Injazz J, & Paulraj, A. (2004). Towards a theory of supply chain management: the
constructs and measurements. Journal of Operations Management, 22(2), 119–150.
Churchill, G. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing
constructs. Journal of Marketing Research (JMR),
Cross, R. M. (2005). Exploring attitudes: the case for Q methodology. Health education
research, 20(2), 206–13. Dunn, S., Seaker, R., & Waller, M. (1994). Latent
variables in business logistics research: scale development and validation. Journal
of Business Logistics, 15(2).
Forza, C. (2002). Survey research in operations management: a process-based
perspective. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 22(2),
152–194.
Hensley, R. L. (1999). A review of operations management studies using scale
development techniques. Journal of Operations Management, 17(3), 343–358.
Jones, P. (1990). Managing foodservice productivity in the long term: strategy, structure
and performance. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 9(2), 143–154.
 Kristal, M. M., Huang, X., & Roth, A. V. (2010). The effect of an ambidextrous supply
chain strategy on combinative competitive capabilities and business performance.
Journal of Operations Management, 28(5), 415–429.
Landis, J., & Koch, G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical
data. biometrics, 33(1), 159–174.
Li, S., Rao, S., Ragunathan, T., & Ragunathan, B. (2005). Development and validation of
a measurement instrument for studying supply chain management practices.
Journal of Operations Management, 23(6), 618–641.
McKeown, B. (1984). Q methodology in political psychology: Theory and technique in
psychoanalytic applications. Political Psychology, 5(3), 415–436.
Menor, L. J., & Roth, A. V. (2007). New service development competence in retail
banking: Construct development and measurement validation. Journal of Operations
Management, 25(4), 825–846.
Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an Instrument to Measure the
Perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation. Information
Systems Research, 2(3), 192–222.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Rosenzweig, E., & Roth, a. (2007). B2B seller competence: Construct development and
measurement using a supply chain strategy lens. Journal of Operations
Management, 25(6), 1311–1331.
Roth, A. V, Tsay, A. A., Pullman, M. E., & Gray, J. V. (2008). Unraveling the food supply
chain : strategic insights from China and 2007 recalls. Journal of Supply Chain
Management, 44(1), 22–39.
Sim, J., & Wright, C. C. (2005). The kappa statistic in reliability studies: use,
interpretation, and sample size requirements. Physical therapy, 85(3), 257–68. 50
Swafford, P., Ghosh, S., & Murthy, N. (2006). The antecedents of supply chain agility of
a firm: Scale development and model testing. Journal of Operations Management,
24(2), 170–188.
Ten Klooster, P. M., Visser, M., & de Jong, M. D. T. (2008). Comparing two image
research instruments: The Q-sort method versus the Likert attitude questionnaire.
Food Quality and Preference, 19(5), 511–518.
Tractinsky, B. N. (1995). Information Systems Design Decisions in a Giobai Versus
Domestic Context ^, (December), 507–535.
Tse, Y. K., & Tan, K. H. (2011). Managing product quality risk in a multi-tier global
supply chain. International Journal of Production Research, 49(1), 139–158.
Tunçer, B. (2001). From farm to fork? Means of assuring food quality; an analysis of the
European food quality initiatives. IIIEE Reports, (September).
Valenta, A., & Wigger, U. (1997). Q-methodology: definition and application in health
care informatics. … of the American Medical Informatics …, 4(6).
Wong, C. W. Y. C. Y., & Boon-itt, S. (2011). The contingency effects of environmental
uncertainty on the relationship between supply chain integration and operational
performance. Journal of Operations Management, 29(6), 604–615.

View publication stats