Shamim A. Rayani,
Kaneez Soghra,
Yadunath Singh Pal,
- Corporate Head, HSE (Health, Safety, and Environment) and Fire, HL Agro Products Pvt. Ltd.,, Kanpur Dehat, Uttar Pradesh, India
- Director, Men Green India Pvt. Ltd, , India
- Head–Human Resources, HL Agro Products Pvt. Ltd, Kanpur Dehat, Uttar Pradesh, India
Abstract
Food-processing safety depends on more than machinery safeguards, statutory compliance and written procedures. It is also shaped by leadership priorities, worker participation, supervisory practice, reporting climate and everyday decisions at the point of work. Behaviors-Based Safety (BBS) offers a structured means of observing critical behaviors, providing feedback and generating operational learning, but it can become counterproductive when it individualizes blame or substitutes for engineering and process-safety controls. This conceptual review integrates safety-culture theory, BBS principles, occupational-health-and-safety management and food-processing risk into a sector-specific framework for maize-processing industries. A structured narrative review was undertaken using foundational peer-reviewed literature and authoritative guidance relating to safety culture, safety climate, behavioral safety, worker participation, combustible dust, grain handling and ISO 45001. The synthesis identifies distinctive maize-processing risk interfaces across grain receipt, cleaning, wet or dry milling, starch separation, drying, sweetener and sorbitol production, chemical handling, utilities, warehousing and maintenance. The proposed framework places a BBS observation–feedback–learning cycle within six system conditions: leadership and just culture; worker participation and competence; hazard and process knowledge; hierarchy of controls and critical barriers; integration with food-safety and quality behavior; and data-driven continual improvement. The framework argues that safe behavior is an outcome of system design as well as individual action. It therefore requires observations to capture contextual barriers, assign corrective actions to appropriate system owners and verify effectiveness. The paper proposes implementation stages, governance arrangements and balanced leading and lagging indicators suitable for maize-processing facilities. Empirical validation through longitudinal, multi-site and mixed-method research is recommended
Keywords: Safety culture, behavior-based Safety, food processing, maize processing, combustible dust, worker participation, ISO 45001, process safety, food-safety culture
[This article belongs to Research & Reviews : Journal of Food Science & Technology ]
References
1. International Labour Organization. A call for safer and healthier working environments. Geneva: International Labour Organization; 2023.
2. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Combustible dust in industry: preventing and mitigating the effects of fire and explosions. SHIB 07-31-2005. Washington (DC): U.S. Department of Labor; 2005.
3. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Combustible dust national emphasis program. CPL 03-00-008. Washington (DC): U.S. Department of Labor; 2023.
4. Guldenmund FW. The nature of safety culture: a review of theory and research. Safety Science. 2000;34(1–3):215–257. doi:10.1016/S0925-7535(00)00014-X.
5. Cooper MD. Towards a model of safety culture. Safety Science. 2000;36(2):111–136. doi:10.1016/S0925-7535(00)00035-7.
6. Zohar D. Thirty years of safety climate research: reflections and future directions. Accident Analysis & Prevention. 2010;42(5):1517–1522. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2009.12.019.
7. Christian MS, Bradley JC, Wallace JC, Burke MJ. Workplace safety: a meta-analysis of the roles of person and situation factors. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2009;94(5):1103–1127. doi:10.1037/a0016172.
8. Reason J. Managing the Risks of Organizational Accidents. Aldershot: Ashgate; 1997.
9. International Organization for Standardization. ISO 45001:2018 Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems—Requirements with Guidance for Use. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization; 2018.
10. DePasquale JP, Geller ES. Critical success factors for behavior-based safety: a study of twenty industry-wide applications. Professional Safety. 1999;44(7):24–32.
11. Nyarugwe SP, Linnemann A, Nyanga LK, Fogliano V, Luning PA. Food safety culture assessment using a comprehensive mixed-methods approach: a comparative study in dairy processing organisations in an emerging economy. Food Control. 2020;112:107093. doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.
2020.107093.
12. Zanin LM, Stedefeldt E, Luning PA. The evolvement of food safety culture assessment: a mixed-methods systematic review. Trends in Food Science & Technology. 2022;118:125–142. doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2021.10.013.
13. Hale A, Borys D. Working to rule, or working safely? Part 1: a state of the art review. Safety Science. 2013;55:207–221. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2012.05.011.
Research & Reviews : Journal of Food Science & Technology
| Volume | 15 | |
| Issue | 03 | |
| Received | 14/09/2026 | |
| Accepted | 19/09/2026 | |
| Published | 24/10/2026 | |
| Publication Time | 40 Days |