FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food
Business Survey
Prepared for Food Standards Agency
By IFF Research
2 August 2013
Contact details
Lorna Adams, Erica Garnett and Becky Duncan
IFF Research Ltd
Chart House
16 Chart Street
London N1 6DD
Tel +44(0)20 7250 3035
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
Contents
1
2
Executive Summary
5
Displaying ratings
Operation of scheme and safeguards
Impact on customers
Impact on Food Safety Practices
Maintaining/improving ratings and competition
Media coverage
Conclusions
5
5
6
6
7
7
7
Introduction
9
Background, aims and objectives
Methodology
Reporting Conventions
3
Displaying Ratings
Whether display rating
Main reason for displaying rating
Impact on displaying rating on customers
Main reason for not displaying rating
Whether customers ask about the Scheme
Publicity materials
4
Operation of scheme and safeguards
Satisfaction
Awareness and use of safeguards
Ease of each safeguard
Fairness of safeguard and result of revisit
5
Impact on customers
Perceptions of customers
Effect on volume of customers
6
Impact on Food Safety Practices
Improvements made
Effect of making changes
7
9
10
12
13
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
21
22
24
25
27
27
29
30
30
35
Maintaining/improving ratings and competition
37
Importance of maintaining/improving rating/inspection result
37
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
8
Media coverage
42
9
Conclusions
44
10
Appendices
45
Response Rate Calculations
Survey Questionnaire
Differences between ‘reported’ and ‘actual’ scores
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF
46
47
79
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
1 Executive Summary
1.1 The FSA has commissioned an evaluation of the FHRS (Food Hygiene Rating
Scheme) in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and the FHIS (Food Hygiene
Information Scheme) in Scotland. This report covers the findings from one strand of
the evaluation involving quantitative interviews with food businesses. The food
business survey looked to explore some of the impacts of the FHRS/FHIS in terms of
the way in which food businesses have reacted to the scheme and the way it has
affected how they approach food hygiene.
1.2 The study involved 800 interviews across 8 local authorities, two in each of the 4
countries of the UK. As such the survey is not representative of all food businesses
but provides a snapshot picture of the attitudes of food business operators in different
areas. Interviews were conducted in May-June 2013.
1.3 All findings within the report are based upon the response reported/claimed by
businesses within the interview and are not based upon FSA administrative or audit
data.
Displaying ratings
1.4 Half (52%) of all businesses claimed to display their sticker/certificate so it was visible
to customers from outside their premises. A quarter (24%) said they did not have
their sticker/certificate on display in their premises at all. The higher the FHRS rating
or where a ‘Pass’ inspection result was given the more likely businesses were to
have it on display.
1.5 The most common reason given by businesses for displaying their FHRS rating/
FHIS inspection result was so their customers can see it/see that they are hygienic’
(49% of those displaying). A minority stated that they displayed their rating/result
because they had understood it to be compulsory to do so (15%).
1.6 Two fifths of businesses that had displayed their rating/result (39%) reported a
positive impact from displaying it. Only 5% reported a negative impact. However,
almost half (45%) of businesses who displayed their rating/result so it was visible to
customers felt it had no impact on their business.
Operation of scheme and safeguards
1.7 The majority (82%) of businesses were satisfied with the rating/inspection result they
received, the higher the FHRS rating received or where a ‘Pass’ inspection result was
given, the more likely a business was to be satisfied.
1.8 Businesses were asked their awareness of the three business safeguards that have
been incorporated into the scheme. Awareness of the right to a revisit, the right to
appeal and the right to reply were all relatively high (around two thirds to three
quarters of businesses were aware of each safeguard). Of the three safeguards,
businesses were most likely to report they had exercised their right to request a
revisit’ (14%), with seven per cent each reportedly using their right of appeal and their
right to reply.
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
Error! Reference
source not found.
5
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
1.9 The majority of businesses that had used each of the safeguards said they found the
process easy and that it was fair.
Impact on customers
1.10 Two fifths of businesses (42%) when asked said that their customers had
acknowledged their rating or inspection result. A quarter of businesses stated that
they had experienced customers who said that they had used the rating/inspection
result to decide where to eat (28%) and/or that they had specifically chosen to visit
because of the information on the FSA website/other publicity’ (27%).
1.11 Businesses in Scotland under the FHIS scheme were less likely than businesses in
the FHRS scheme to respond that their customers acknowledged their rating, said
that the FHIS is a good scheme or that they use the inspection result to decide where
to eat.
1.12 The majority (72%) of businesses stated that they did not think their rating/inspection
result had affected the volume of customers to their business and that the number of
customers remained the same. However, a fifth (18%) had seen an increase in
customers (2% had seen a decrease and 8% were unsure of the impact).
Impact on Food Safety Practices
1.13 Four-fifths (81%) of businesses had introduced at least one improvement to their
business since the inspection. The most common changes, introduced by over half of
all businesses interviewed, were improvements to cleaning procedures (54%) and
changes to food handling practices and procedures (53%).
1.14 All those who had introduced changes to their business were asked the extent to
which each of the changes was introduced to help improve their rating/inspection
result. The majority of those that made these changes stated that they made them at
least in part to improve their rating/result. 40% of all businesses had improved
cleaning procedures for this reason while 38% of all businesses had made changes
to food handling practices and procedures in order to improve their FHRS rating/FHIS
inspection result.
1.15 A desire to improve their FHRS rating/FHIS inspection result had particular impact on
changes to how businesses record and document food safety procedures. Two fifths
(38%) of businesses had made changes to these measures that were driven at least
in part by seeking to improve their FHRS rating/FHIS inspection result.
1.16 Food businesses who reported a lower FHRS rating or ‘Improvement required’ FHIS
inspection result were more likely to have introduced at least one change to their
business following their FHRS rating/FHIS inspection result. Those in the FHRS
scheme with a lower rating of 0 to 2 or rating of 3 were more likely than average to
introduce changes to all three areas explored: Changes to Food Hygiene and safety
(80% and 77% respectively vs. 65% average), changes to management (62% and
62% vs. 54%) and changes to business structure (87% and 85% vs. 70%).
1.17 For those who introduced changes the most common intended outcomes of making
these changes were improved hygiene (16%), improved systems (12%) or greater
awareness of food hygiene requirements among staff (12%).
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
Error! Reference
source not found.
6
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
Maintaining/improving ratings and competition
1.18 Almost all food businesses (>99.5%) who were given the FHRS 5 rating/FHIS ‘Pass’
result thought that it was important to their business to maintain it, with the vast
majority saying that it was ‘very important’ (96%).
1.19 Food businesses who received a FHRS rating/FHIS inspection result that was not a 5
rating/’Pass’ result were asked how important it was to improve their rating/inspection
result. The vast majority of these businesses rated the achievement of a 5
rating/Pass result as important (86%), with three-fifths thinking it was ‘very important’
(63%). The main reason given by businesses that placed importance on improving
their rating for wanting to improve it was ‘pride’ (32%).
1.20 Very few businesses who reported receiving a 5 rating or a ‘Pass’ result envisaged
barriers to maintaining them (4%).
1.21 Three in ten (27%) food businesses that did not report being given a 5 rating or a
‘Pass’ inspection result envisaged barriers to achieving a higher rating/’Pass’. Of
those who saw barriers to achieving a higher rating/pass the most common barriers
given were problems with the structure of the building (50%) and the expense of
changes needed (27%).
1.22 Half of all businesses (51%) were aware of at least some of their competitors’ FHRS
ratings/FHIS inspection results, leaving almost half who were not aware of any of
them (46%). One in ten claimed to know the FHRS ratings/FHIS inspection results of
all of their competing local businesses (9%).
Media coverage
1.23 One third of all businesses (36%) reported seeing general publicity about the Food
Hygiene Rating/Information Scheme. Most commonly this was through the local
press (38%), followed by TV (24%) or online sources (16%).
1.24 Very few businesses (only 5% of all businesses) had ever had publicity in the press
about their own rating/result.
Conclusions
1.25 The key conclusions that can be drawn from this survey are that:
 Food businesses demonstrate a degree of engagement with the Schemes
 The majority have chosen to display their FHRS rating/FHIS Pass
 The majority want to obtain or maintain the highest rating (largely for reasons
of pride)
 Those not achieving the highest rating/’Pass’ result are motivated to improve
 The key obstacles to improving ratings for businesses who did not report receiving
a 5 or a ‘Pass’ relate to structural problems with the building and the expense of
the changes required.
 Food businesses are experiencing consumer interest in the Scheme, with
businesses in the FHRS scheme more likely than those in the FHIS Scheme to
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
Error! Reference
source not found.
7
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
have experienced this. This gives some indication that the FHIS Scheme has had
less impact on consumer behaviour than the FHRS Scheme.
 There is evidence to suggest that the schemes are effective in driving
improvements in food hygiene practices. Since their inspection, the majority of
food businesses requiring improvements have implemented changes (and in most
cases businesses making changes stated that they did so in order to improve their
rating/FHIS result). It is encouraging that those with lower ratings are more likely
to have made changes.
 A relatively high proportion of businesses were aware of the safeguards
available to them and those who have used them have generally found the
process fair.
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
Error! Reference
source not found.
8
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
2 Introduction
Background, aims and objectives
2.1 Food hygiene in catering and retail premises remains a key priority for public health
policy in the UK.
Local authorities are responsible for ensuring that all
establishments preparing and serving food comply with established regulations and
guidelines. Overall responsibility for food standards and compliance lies with the
Food Standards Agency (the Agency), set up in 2000, to protect the public's health
and consumer interests in relation to food. . A key strand of the Agency’s work is to
ensure that food in the UK is safe to eat, and consumers are provided with reliable
and timely advice/evidence on food safety.
2.2 In November 2010, after consideration of the range of scoring schemes already in
place, the Agency launched a national 6 tier rating scheme (the Food Hygiene Rating
Scheme or FHRS) for England, Wales and Northern Ireland and maintained the 2 tier
(‘Pass’ and ‘Improvement Required’) scheme (the Food Hygiene Information System
or FHIS) already in place in Scotland, and which had been running in pilot sites since
November 2006.
2.3 The schemes are local authority/FSA partnership initiatives which provide consumers
with information about hygiene standards in food premises at the time they are
inspected to check compliance with legal requirements – the FHRS rating/FHIS
inspection result given reflects the inspection findings. The schemes enable
consumers to make informed choices about where to eat out or shop for food and,
through the power of these choices, encourage businesses to improve hygiene
standards.
2.4 The schemes cover establishments that supply food directly to consumers e.g.
sandwich shops, cafes, restaurants, take away outlets, butchers, grocers,
supermarkets etc. Businesses are encouraged to display stickers/certificates showing
their FHRS rating at their premises so that it can be seen by customers but display is
was not mandatory in any of the countries at the time of the research. The ratings
are, however, publicly available via the FSA website, so consumers may check the
ratings for individual business premises if they wish.
2.5 The ratings are given when a food safety officer inspects a business to check its
compliance with food hygiene legislation. Under the FHRS, the hygiene standards
found at the time of inspection are rated on a scale. This ranges from ‘0’ at the
bottom which means urgent improvements are necessary to a top rating of ‘5’ which
means that the business was found to have ‘very good’ hygiene standards. Under the
FHIS, businesses are assessed either as having achieved an acceptable level of
compliance with food hygiene law, leading to a Pass result, or not having achieved an
acceptable level, leading to an ‘Improvement Required’ result.
2.6 The FHRS is now running in all areas of Wales and Northern Ireland. In England, it is
expected that the scheme will be running in 99% of local authority areas by the end of
2013. The FHIS is currently being rolled out in Scotland and all Scottish local
authorities have committed to adopt the scheme
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
Error! Reference
source not found.
9
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
2.7 The FSA has commissioned an evaluation of the national FHRS in England, Wales
and Northern Ireland and the FHIS in Scotland. This report covers the findings from
one strand of the evaluation involving quantitative interviews with food businesses.
The Food Business Survey looked to explore some of the impacts of the FHRS/FHIS
in terms of the way in which food businesses approach food hygiene.
2.8 The study covered issues such as:
 Whether FHRS ratings/FHIS inspection results have been displayed in the
establishment (and if so – where and what effect they feel that this has had on
their customers).
 Action taken since inspection;
 Extent to which improving ratings/achieving a ‘5’ or a ‘pass’ result is seen as a
business priority;
2.9 The full questionnaire can be found in the appendix.
Methodology
2.10 Eight local authorities were selected (six FHRS areas, two FHIS areas). These areas
were selected to provide a mix of urban and rural locations and to cover all nations of
the UK. In addition, the areas comprised relatively high proportions of 0-2
rated/Improvement required businesses.1 Within these areas, 800 telephone
interviews were conducted with food businesses that had been inspected by their
Local Authority since the scheme was introduced. The fieldwork took place between
21st May – 24th June 2013
2.11 Interview targets were set by case study area and by FHRS rating/FHIS inspection
result from an extract in April 2013 within each area. The targets were designed to
deliberately over-represent the lower FHRS ratings/FHIS or businesses receiving an
‘improvement required’ inspection result to maximise the potential for comparing
findings for those businesses with those achieving higher FHRS ratings or FHIS
‘Pass’ results.
2.12 Tables 2.1 and 2.2 display the achieved FHRS and FHIS interviews.
Table 2.1:
Achieved interviews FHRS
FHRS Rating
0
Area 1
Area 2
1
1
2
33
10
15
31
15
25
20
31
20
Total
100
104
Area 3
2
21
13
23
22
19
100
Area 4
0
5
10
25
30
30
100
Area 5
10
1
15
25
10
96
15
19
82
15
25
134
20
21
138
20
15
135
105
91
600
Area 6
Total
1
2
3
4
5
1
A focus of the research was to better understand the attitudes and motivations of higher risk and poorer
performing food businesses in regards to food hygiene standards. Higher concentrations would improve the
chances of reaching these businesses for fieldwork.
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
Error! Reference
source not found.
10
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
Table 2.2:
Achieved interviews FHIS
FHIS Inspection result
Improvemment
required
49
35
84
Area 7
Area 8
Total
Pass
Total
100
100
200
51
65
116
2.13 A response rate of 63% was achieved for the survey. The response rate calculation is
included within the appendix.
2.14 Data have been weighted by region and by FHRS rating/FHIS inspection result within
region to match the population of inspected food businesses. Figure 2.1 shows the
weighted profile of the 8 case study areas. As the figure demonstrates, the
proportions of businesses receiving ratings at each level varies considerably between
the areas
Figure 2.1:
Profile of ratings by case study area
14%
43%
36%
28%
34%
35%
31%
23%
31%
30%
43%
37%
30%
28%
12%
17%
15%
1%
2%
8%
8%
7%
8%
19%
1 (100)
2 (104)
3 (100)
4 (100)
1%
5
4
3
2
1
0
81%
90%
Improvement
required
12%
11%
10%
9%
7%
5 (105)
6 (91)
7 (100)
FHRS Ratings
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
Pass
19%
8 (100)
FHIS
Error! Reference
source not found.
11
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
2.15 There is some variation between the FHRS rating/FHIS inspection result that
businesses stated that they received in the interview and that shown on FSA
administrative data. In part, this may be explained by recent re-inspections that have
resulted in a change in FHRS rating/FHIS inspection result. It may also reflect a
degree of misunderstanding about inspection outcomes or deliberate mis-reporting. A
comparison of FHRS rating/FHIS inspection result given in interview and those held
by the FSA in July is included in the appendix to this report.
Reporting Conventions
2.16 Throughout the report whenever FHRS ratings/FHIS inspection results are referred to
these will be those reported by businesses within the interview (since these informed
the selection of questions on the questionnaire) rather than the FSA administrative
data.
2.17 All statistics within the report are based upon the response reported by businesses
during the interview. The ‘Business Display of Food Hygiene Ratings in England,
Wales & Northern Ireland’ (Gibbens and Spencer, 2013) included an audit to
establish the presence (or absence) of an FHRS rating sticker or certificate and,
where applicable, to record where on the premises this was displayed. Whereas, the
Food Business Survey is based on claimed behaviour and response.
2.18 Throughout the report ‘all businesses’ refers to all 800 businesses that were
interviewed: 600 FHRS and 200 FHIS. If referring to sub-group differences the
description of the sub-groups will be given within the narrative.
2.19 The findings presented in this report reflect a descriptive exploration of the data,
however it should be noted that in all cases where differences are commented on
they are statistically significant at the 95 per cent level.
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
Error! Reference
source not found.
12
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
3 Displaying Ratings
3.1 This section of the report examines the proportion of businesses claiming to be
displaying their FHRS rating/FHIS inspection results, their views towards displaying
the rating/inspection result and the impact on their business from having their rating/
inspection result on display.
3.2 All businesses were asked whether they currently display their FHRS rating/FHIS
inspection result sticker/certificate, how visible they are to their customers and the
main reasons for displaying/not displaying the sticker/certificate. Businesses who
display their rating were asked the positive and/or negative impacts of having it on
display and businesses who do not display their FHRS rating/FHIS inspection result
were asked whether any customers had asked about the scheme. Finally within this
section, all businesses were asked whether they had used the rating received in any
publicity materials.
Whether display rating
3.3 In order to take part in the survey businesses needed to have received their FHRS
rating/FHIS inspection result certificate or sticker. The majority (79%) of all
businesses surveyed had received both a sticker and certificate, 15% had only
received the certificate and six per cent only the sticker.
3.4 Three-quarters (76%) of all businesses claimed to display their sticker/certificate.
These businesses spilt into those that displayed their sticker/certificate so it is visible
to customers from outside of their premises (52% of businesses), those who said
their sticker/certificate was only visible to customers from inside their premises (20%)
and a small number (4%) who responded that it was not clearly visible to customers
at all. A quarter (24%) of businesses responded that their rating sticker/certificate was
not on display in their premises at all.
3.5 Businesses were more likely to display their sticker so it was visible to customers
from outside their premises than they were to display their certificate in this way (56%
compared with 24%).
3.6 Restaurants/cafes were more likely than any other business sector to display their
sticker/certificate so it was visible from outside (58%). Hotels/B&Bs were the
business sector most likely to report that their sticker/certificate were not on display at
all.
3.7 The FHRS rating/FHIS inspection result a business received clearly had a strong
bearing on how likely they were to display it. As shown in Figure 3.1, the higher the
FHRS rating/FHIS inspection result received the more likely a business was to
display it.
3.8 The majority (96%) of businesses that reported a FHRS rating of 5 displayed their
rating sticker/certificate, with four-fifths (82%) displaying it so that it was visible to
customers from outside of their premises. In comparison, two-fifths (42%) of business
that reported a FHRS rating of 0. 1 or 2 displayed their sticker/certificate, with only a
fifth (21%) displaying it so that it was visible to customers from outside their premises.
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
Error! Reference
source not found.
13
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
3.9 The same variation can be found with FHIS businesses based in Scotland.
Businesses that reported a ‘Pass’ result were more likely to have their
sticker/certificate on display in general (77%) and to display it so that it was visible to
customers from outside their premises (36%) than businesses who reported an
‘Improvement required’2 inspection result (29% and 9% respectively).
Figure 3.1:
Whether display sticker/certificate by rating/inspection result
Displaying sticker/ certificate
9%
21%
10%
45%
17%
Visible to
customers from
inside only
65%
4%
82%
18%
34%
3%
59%
35%
0-2
(111)
36%
10%
3
(139)
67%
15%
3%
7%
17%
13%
1%
4%
4
(173)
5
(157)
FHRS Ratings
Visible to
customers from
outside
On display but not
clearly visible to
customers
Not on display
22%
Improvement
required
(25)
Pass
(171)
FHIS Inspection result
Very
small
base
size
Base: Base sizes shown in brackets
3.10 Businesses who displayed their FHRS rating/FHIS inspection result were asked how
long they had been displaying their sticker/certificate for. A quarter (27%) had
displayed for 6 months or less, 27% for over 16 months up to a year, 23% for over 12
months up to 2 years and 18% for more than 2 years. Businesses in Northern Ireland
who displayed their FHRS rating were more likely to respond that they had displayed
their sticker/certificate for over 2 years (27%).
Main reason for displaying rating
3.11 Businesses who displayed their sticker/certificate in their premises were asked what
the main reason was for displaying their FHRS rating/FHIS inspection result. The
most commonly given reason was ‘So customers can see it/see that we are hygienic’
(49%). A significant minority of businesses stated (mistakenly) that they were under
the impression that it was compulsory to display (15%). The most common reasons
given are shown in figure 3.2.
2
The base for ‘Improvement required’ is very low at only 25 respondents so results should be treated as indicative only.
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
Error! Reference
source not found.
14
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
Figure 3.2:
Main reason for displaying result by rating/inspection result
49%
So customers can see it/see that
we are hygienic
54%
50%
47%
23%*
9%*
51%
15%
18%
It is compulsory
29%*
8%*
12%
Proud of the result
1%*
11%
37%*
25%*
4%
*
7%
To show we have been
inspected
Local authority inspector asked
us to display it
7%
3%*
6%
7%
8%
15%*
4%
2%
3%
5%
5%
8%*
All
5
4
3
0-2
Pass
Base: all those who display sticker/certificate (587), 5 (149), 4 (144), 3 (93), 0-2 (47), Pass (133)
3.12 The main reason given for displaying the sticker/certificate differed by the FHRS
rating/FHIS inspection result businesses received. Businesses that displayed their
FHRS rating and reported a rating of 5 were more likely to respond that they were
‘Proud of the result’ (25%). Businesses who displayed their FHRS rating and reported
a rating of 0. 1 or 2 were least likely to respond the main reason for displaying the
result was ‘So customers can see it/see that we are hygienic’ (23%) and most likely
to respond the main reason was ‘It is compulsory’ (37%).
3.13 Businesses in Scotland that reported a ‘Pass’ result were more likely to say the main
reason for displaying their inspection result was to show they had been inspected’
(15%) and that their inspector asked them to display it (8%).
3.14 Hence businesses with a higher FHRS rating/FHIS ‘Pass’ inspection result were
more likely to have decided to display their rating of their own volition, whereas
businesses with lower rating were more likely to have displayed their rating because
they felt an obligation to do so.
3.15 Figure 3.3 shows the main reasons for displaying FHRS rating/FHIS inspection result
by country. Businesses who display their sticker/certificate in England were most
likely to say the main reason was ‘So customers can see it/see that we are hygienic’
(60%) with businesses in Wales least likely to say this (40%). Businesses in Wales
who displayed their sticker/certificate were more likely to say the main Welsh
businesses were more likely to perceive display of their result to be compulsory may
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
Error! Reference
source not found.
15
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
reflect the fact that a move towards mandatory display is more imminent in Wales
than in the other nations and this may have been communicated to some businesses
by their inspector and/or businesses may have seen media coverage about this.
Figure 3.3:
Main reason for displaying result by country
49%
So customers can see it/see that
we are hygienic
It is compulsory
Proud of the result
To show we have been
inspected
Local authority inspector asked
us to display it
40% *
52%
49%
15%
13%
24%*
14%
8% *
12%
8%
21% *
12%
7%*
7%
6%
2%*
6%
15%*
60%*
All
England
Wales
Northern Ireland
Scotland
4%
3%
2%
3%
8% *
Base: all those who display sticker/certificate (587), England (144), Scotland (144), Northern Ireland
(161), Wales (138)
Impact on customers of displaying rating
3.16 All businesses who displayed their sticker/certificate so it was visible to customers
were asked whether displaying had had a positive and/or negative impact on their
business.
3.17 Two-fifths (39%) of businesses who displayed their FHRS rating/FHIS inspection
result so it was visible to customers reported a positive impact on their business as a
result. The higher the FHRS rating claimed the more likely a business was to report a
positive impact, with 46% of businesses with a 4 or 5 FHRS rating reporting a positive
impact compared with 25% of businesses with a rating of 3 and 26% of businesses
with a rating of 0, 1 or 2. Two-fifths (38%) of businesses who received a ‘Pass’ result
and displayed this so it was visible to customers reported a positive impact on their
business.
3.18 By contrast, only five per cent of businesses who displayed their FHRS rating/FHIS
inspection result so it was visible to customers reported a negative impact on their
business. Businesses with a FHRS rating of 0, 1 or 2 were more likely to report a
negative impact (33%) than businesses with a FHRS rating of 3 (six per cent) or 4 or
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
Error! Reference
source not found.
16
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
5 (three per cent). Only five per cent of FHIS businesses who received a ‘Pass’ result
and displayed their result so it was visible to customers reported a negative impact on
their business.
3.19 As well as those who reported positive or negative impacts, almost half (45%) of
businesses who displayed their result felt this had had neither positive or negative
impacts on their business. In addition, there were a small number of businesses who
were unsure whether there had been any impact.
3.20 The main positive impacts given by businesses who displayed their result so it was
visible to customers were a better reputation among customers (11%) and greater
customer confidence (11%). One in ten (9%) businesses who displayed their result
felt that it had led to a larger volume of customers.
3.21 The most commonly mentioned negative impact given by businesses who displayed
their result so it was visible to customers were a worse reputation amongst customers
(although this was still only mentioned by one per cent of businesses overall). A
variety of other negative impacts were mentioned by fewer than one per cent of
customers including ‘lower customer confidence’, ‘lower staff morale/decreased pride
in place of work’ and ‘fewer customers’.
Main reason for not displaying rating
3.22 Businesses who did not display their sticker/certificate at the time of the survey were
asked what the main reason was for this and what the main factors were that would
encourage them to do so.
3.23 Businesses gave a variety of reasons as to why they did not display their FHRS
rating/FHIS inspection result. The majority of reasons given related to; not feeling that
they needed to show this; did not see the scheme as relevant; and/or that they did
not like/agree with the rating/result. These responses are perhaps unsurprising given
that businesses with a lower rating/result were more likely to not display their
sticker/certificate. The main reasons most commonly given for not displaying the
FHRS/FHIS sticker/certificate are shown in Figure 3.4.
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
Error! Reference
source not found.
17
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
Figure 3.4:
Main reasons for not displaying the result
16%
It is not compulsory
Inspection result
was not favourable
13%
Do not agree with inspection
result
11%
Not got round to it
11%
The scheme is not
relevant to the
business
9%
Lost the sticker/certificate
6%
Sticker/certificate does not
match the décor
6%
Awaiting new
inspection/rating is under
review
3%
Base: all those who do not display sticker/certificate (206)
3.24 Three in ten (31%) businesses with an FHRS rating of 0, 1, 2 who did not display this
said the main reason was that this ‘was not favourable’ (compared with an average of
16%), whilst 13% responded that they were ‘Awaiting a new inspection/rating was
under review’ (compared with an average of 3%).
3.25 Businesses that had chosen to display their sticker/certificate but not in a place where
it was visible to customers were asked what would encourage them to display
somewhere where it was visible to customers. The main factors that businesses said
would encourage them to do this were: ‘If they had received a better score’ (23%), ‘If
it was compulsory’ (15%), ‘If it was issued in a different format’ (7%) and ‘if the
scheme was fairer’ (6%).
3.26 The factors that would encourage businesses to publicly display the FHRS
rating/FHIS inspection result directly relate to the reasons that they currently do not
display the result. If businesses received a higher score /agreed with the score and if
it was compulsory to display the rating they would be encouraged to display where
visible to customers.
Whether customers ask about the Scheme
3.27 As a measure of the extent of the public awareness of the schemes, businesses who
did not visibly display their sticker/certificate were asked whether any of their
customers had ever asked about the Food Hygiene Rating/Information Scheme.
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
Error! Reference
source not found.
18
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
3.28 The majority (94%) of businesses who did not visibly display their FHRS rating/FHIS
inspection result had not been asked about the scheme. Only six per cent of
businesses had been asked about the scheme by customers (three per cent had
been asked what the rating/inspection result was and two per cent had been asked
more general questions about how the scheme works).
3.29 The proportion of businesses who did not visibly display their sticker/certificate who
had been asked questions about the scheme was very slightly higher for businesses
in the FHRS scheme than in the FHIS scheme.
3.30 Further discussion and analysis surrounding the perceptions of, and impact on,
customers is given with Chapter 5 for all businesses interviewed.
Publicity materials
3.31 All businesses were asked whether they used their FHRS rating/FHIS inspection
result in publicity materials, such as on their website or leaflets, to promote their
business. Only 13% of all businesses reported that they publicised their FHRS
rating/FHIS inspection result in this way.
3.32 As would be expected the higher the FHRS rating/FHIS inspection result the more
likely a business was to publicise this. A fifth (19%) of businesses that reported a
rating of 5/‘Pass’ result used this in their publicity materials compared with seven per
cent of businesses who reported a FHRS rating of lower than 5 or a FHIS ‘Improved
Required’ result.
3.33 Businesses based in Northern Ireland were more likely to publicise their result (18%),
with businesses based in Scotland less likely to do so (eight per cent). Hotels/B&Bs
and Restaurants/Cafes were the business sectors more likely to use publicity
materials to promote the result (20% and 16% respectively).
3.34 As might be expected, businesses who clearly display their sticker/certificate so it is
visible to customers from outside their premises were more likely to use their result in
publicity materials than businesses who did not (20% compared with 5%).
3.35 Businesses that used the FHRS rating/FHIS inspection result in publicity materials
were asked how they used it. The most common approach was to use the result on
the business’s website. Figure 3.5 shows a full list of the approaches used.
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
Error! Reference
source not found.
19
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
Figure 3.5:
Which publicity materials rating/inspection used on
61%
Business website
26%
Leaflets
19%
Social Media
Menu
8%
Posters
8%
7%
Newspapers
Magazines
Publications
6%
4%
In restaurant
3%
Other
3%
Don't Know
9%
Base: all those who displayed result in publicity materials (89)
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
Error! Reference
source not found.
20
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
4 Operation of scheme and safeguards
4.1 This section explores food businesses overall satisfaction with the FHRS rating/FHIS
inspection result they received. This chapter also examines awareness and usage of
the three business safeguards that are incorporated with the FHRS/FHIS (the right to
request a revisit, the right to appeal and the right to reply) and perceived ease and
fairness of these processes.
4.2 Food businesses have the ‘right to request a revisit’ whereby they request that their
business is reassessed before the next inspection is due following any improvements
they have made. They have ‘the right to appeal’ where they do not agree with the
rating/inspection result given to them. They also have ‘the right to reply’, a food
business can post an explanation to potential customers of any actions they have
undertaken after their inspection or to explain any unusual circumstances at the time
of the inspection. This explanation is then displayed alongside their rating result.
Satisfaction
4.3 All businesses were asked how satisfied they felt with the FHRS rating/FHIS
inspection result received. The majority (82%) of businesses reported that they were
satisfied (very/fairly satisfied).
4.4 As shown in Figure 4.1, satisfaction with the FHRS rating/FHIS inspection result was
higher amongst FHIS businesses (Scotland) than for businesses in FHRS countries
(95% compared with 77%). Businesses in Wales were most likely to respond they
were not satisfied (22%) with the rating received.
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
Error! Reference
source not found.
21
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
Figure 4.1:
Overall satisfaction with rating/inspection result
Not
FHIS (Scotland) (200)
FHRS countries (600)
Northern Ireland (200)
England (200)
Wales (200)
3%*
17%*
12%
16%
22%*
Fairly satisfied
23%
30%
29%
34%
29%
Very satisfied
71%*
46%*
54%
40%*
44%*
Base: All businesses (800)
4.5 As would be expected the FHRS rating/FHIS inspection result had a bearing on level
of satisfaction with the rating/inspection result received, with businesses who
received a higher FHRS rating or FHIS ‘Pass’ inspection result more likely to be
satisfied. Focusing on FHIS businesses, almost all (97%) of businesses who reported
a ‘Pass’ result were satisfied with the result they received compared with 64% of
businesses who reported an ‘Improvement Required’ result. Within the FHRS
scheme, businesses who reported a rating of 4-5 were more likely to be satisfied with
the rating received (93%), than those who received a rating of 3 (55%) or a rating of
0-2 (24%).
4.6 It is this variation in satisfaction by inspection outcome that drives the variation in
satisfaction levels by country. With only two possible outcomes (pass or improvement
required) within the FHIS, the proportion of businesses that receive the highest
possible rating is higher (72% of FHIS businesses reported a Pass result) than under
the FHRS (60% of FHRS businesses reported a rating of 4 or 5) and this leads to
higher satisfaction levels overall.
Awareness and use of safeguards
4.7 All businesses were asked whether they were aware of the following business
safeguards; the right to reply, the right to appeal and the right to request a revisit.
They were read a definition of each business safeguard to ensure that they
understood the terms.
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
Error! Reference
source not found.
22
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
4.8 The majority of businesses were aware of the safeguards. Businesses were most
likely to be aware of the right to request a revisit (77%), followed by the right to
appeal (74%) and then the right to reply (69%). As shown in Figure 4.2, business
under the FHRS (businesses in England, Wales and Northern Ireland) were more
likely to be aware of each of the three business safeguards then businesses in
Scotland under the FHIS.
Figure 4.2:
Awareness of business safeguards
77%
The right to
request a revisit
81%*
67% *
74%
79%*
The right to appeal
64%*
All
FHRS
FHIS
69%
74%*
The right to reply
56%*
Base: All businesses (800), FHRS (600), FHIS (200)
4.9 Of businesses under the FHRS, those in Wales were most likely to be aware of the
business safeguards and businesses in England were least likely to be aware. Almost
nine in ten (86%) of businesses in Wales were aware of the right to request a revisit
(compared with 73% of businesses in England), 87% of businesses in Wales were
aware of the right to appeal (compared with 68% of businesses in England) and 79%
of businesses in Wales were aware of the right to reply (compared with 67% of
businesses in England).
4.10 Although they were less likely to have need of them, businesses who reported a
FHRS rating of 5 were most likely to be aware of the business safeguards, 89% were
aware of the right to request a revisit, 85% were aware of the right to appeal and 81%
aware of the right to reply.
4.11 Figure 4.3 displays the proportion of all business that claimed to have used each of
the business safeguards. Levels of use of the right to request a revisit were higher
than for the other safeguards but only a small minority of businesses claimed to have
use any.
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
Error! Reference
source not found.
23
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
Figure 4.3:
Use of business safeguards
14%
The right to
request a revisit
17%
7%*
7%
The right to appeal
All
FHRS
FHIS
8%
2% *
6%
The right to reply
8%
2% *
Base: All businesses (800), FHRS (600), FHIS (200)
4.12 As is shown in Figure 4.3, as well as being more likely to be aware of the safeguards,
businesses under the FHRS scheme were more likely to have used each of them
than businesses in Scotland under the FHIS. This is perhaps unsurprising as the
FHIS has only two inspection result tiers whilst the FHRS has six. Within the FHRS
scheme, the proportions of businesses that had used each of the business
safeguards were similar across England, Northern Ireland and Scotland.
4.13 As might be expected, businesses that reported a FHRS rating of 0-2 were more
likely to have requested a revisit (29%) than businesses that reported a rating of 3
(19%) or a rating of 4-5 (14%).
Ease of each safeguard
4.14 Businesses that had used the business safeguards were asked how easy they had
found the process for each safeguard they used. The majority of businesses that had
used each of the safeguards said they found the process easy.
4.15 As shown in Figure 4.4, businesses that had requested a revisit were most likely to
respond that they found the process easy (88% found the process very/fairly easy to
follow), followed by 83% who had used the right to appeal and 78% of businesses
who had used the right to reply.
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
Error! Reference
source not found.
24
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
4.16 Due to the low bases sizes of those who had used each of the business safeguards it
is not possible to conduct further sub-group analysis.
Figure 4.4:
Ease of using the business safeguard process
Difficult
The right to request a
revisit
6%
The right to appeal
10%
The right to reply
10%
Fairly Easy
Very Easy
36%
52%
44%
50%
(120)
39%
(53)
28%
(48)
Descending order of frequency of use
Base: All who used the process (shown in brackets)
Fairness of safeguard and result of revisit
4.17 Businesses that claimed they had used the business safeguards were also asked to
what extent they agreed that the process was fair, leaving aside their views on their
rating/inspection result. Responses are shown in Figure 4.5.
4.18 The majority of businesses that claimed they had used the business safeguards
agreed that the process was fair. Nine in ten (89%) businesses that claimed to have
requested a revisit agreed (agree strongly/tend to agree); 77% of business that
claimed they had appealed agreed the process was fair and 69% of businesses that
claimed to have used the right to reply did so.
4.19 Once again due to the low bases sizes of those who had used each of the business
safeguards it is not possible to conduct sub-group analysis around the fairness of the
business safeguard process.
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
Error! Reference
source not found.
25
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
Figure 4.5:
Fairness of business safeguard processes
Tend to
disagree
5%3%
The right to
request a
revisit (120)
The right to
appeal (53)
Disagree
strongly
10%
9%
8%
10%
Tend to
agree
Agree
strongly
26%
23%
30%
64%
54%
39%
The right to
reply (48)
Descending order of frequency of use
Base: All who used the process (shown in brackets)
4.20 Businesses who claimed to have requested a revisit were asked what the result of
this revisit was. Around half (55%) of businesses said that their inspection result had
improved, five per cent that their inspection result had stayed the same and seven
per cent were awaiting the outcome. A third (32%) of businesses that had requested
a revisit had not received the revisit yet.
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
Error! Reference
source not found.
26
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
5 Impact on customers
5.1 This section examines the awareness and impacts the FHRS/FHIS and in particular
the perceived impact the FHRS rating/FHIS inspection result has had on food
businesses’ customers. Food businesses were asked whether a number of
statements relating to the perceptions of their customers and what effect, if any, they
felt their rating or inspection result had on the volume of customers they received.
5.2 Chapter 3 provides detail specifically for businesses who did not visibly display their
sticker/certificate. They were asked whether customers asked about the scheme, and
if so, what they asked
Perceptions of customers
5.3
All businesses were asked how often if at all any of the four statements shown in
Figure 5.1 below applied to their customers.
Figure 5.1:
Perception of customers by FHRS/FHIS
Never
Customers
acknowledge
your rating/
inspection result
70%
FHRS
ALL
Customers say that the
FHRS/ FHIS is a good FHIS
scheme
FHRS
Customers say that
they use the scores to
decide where to eat
56%
ALL
FHIS
ALL
FHIS
FHRS
Customers visit due to ALL
your score on website/ FHIS
other publicity
FHRS
Sometimes
Often
30%
12%
8%
21%
50%
66%
72%
34%
13%
20%
17%
9%
9%
64%
21%
10%
63%
21%
7%
70%
60%
11% 7%
25%
63%
20%
61%
22%
63%
19%
7%
7%
9%
6%
Base: All businesses (800), FHRS (600), FHIS (200)
5.4 Although the majority of businesses said their customers had not mentioned or
acknowledged the FHRS or FHIS in the ways explored, in each case a reasonable
minority had experienced feedback.
5.5 Businesses were most likely to have experienced customers acknowledging their
FHRs rating/FHIS inspection result (42% sometimes/often). Around one in three
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
Error! Reference
source not found.
27
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
businesses said that their customers had either sometimes or often commented that
the FHRS/FHIS is a good scheme’ (29%) or that they use the scores to decide where
to eat (28%) and/or that their visit to the business was prompted by the score on
website or other publicity’ (27%).
5.6 Businesses in Scotland under the FHIS scheme were less likely than businesses in
the FHRS scheme to respond that their customers acknowledged their rating, said
that the FHIS is a good scheme or that they use the scores to decide where to eat.
5.7 The lower the FHRS rating or where an ‘Improvement required’ inspection result had
been given the more likely a business was to respond that their customers had not
mentioned the scheme in any of these ways. As shown in Tables 5.1 and 5.2 this was
the case for businesses in both the FHRS and FHIS scheme.
Table 5.1:
Perception of customers by rating
Base: All FHRS businesses (600)
Customers acknowledge
rating/inspection result
your
Customers
say
that
the
FHRS/FHIS is a good scheme
Customers say that they use the
scores to decide what to eat
Customers visit due to your score
on website/other publicity
Table 5.2:
Never
Sometimes
Often
Never
Sometimes
Often
Never
Sometimes
Often
Never
Sometimes
Often
0-2
3
4
5
(111)
(139)
(173)
(157)
%
%
%
%
72%*
20%*
7%
76%
11%
7%
72%*
19%
2%*
73%*
9%*
3%
61%
30%
7%
67%
19%
7%
69%
19%
6%
73%*
16%
5%
52%
32%
12%
69%
20%
6%
63%
23%
7%
70%*
16%
5%
34%*
43%*
19%*
51%*
27%*
16%*
47%*
33%*
12%*
48%*
28%*
9%
Perception of customers by inspection result
Base: All FHIS businesses (200)
Customers acknowledge
rating/inspection result
your
Customers
say
that
the
FHRS/FHIS is a good scheme
Customers say that they use the
scores to decide what to eat
Customers visit due to your score
on website/other publicity
Never
Sometimes
Often
Never
Sometimes
Often
Never
Sometimes
Often
Never
Sometimes
Often
Improvement Required
Pass result
(25)
(171)
%
%
78%*
9%*
7%
91%*
4%
5%
91%*
2%
68%*
23%*
8%
69%
19%
9%
68%
12%*
8%
57%
25%*
9%*
86%*
2%
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
Error! Reference
source not found.
28
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
5.8 Businesses in the FHRS scheme with a rating of 5 were most likely to say their
customers had acknowledged or spoken about the scheme or rating with three-fifths
(62%) saying their customers had acknowledged their rating.
Effect on volume of customers
5.9 All businesses were asked if they felt their FHRS rating/FHIS inspection result had
affected their volume of customers, and if so, whether the number of customers had
increased or decreased.
5.10 The majority (72%) of all businesses stated that they did not think their FHRS
rating/FHIS inspection result had affected the volume of customers to their business.
However, a fifth (18%) felt that their FHRS rating/FHIS inspection result had led to an
increase in customers. Only two per cent of businesses felt they had experienced a
decrease in customer numbers (and eight per cent were unsure about the impact on
customer volumes).
5.11 The FHRS rating/FHIS inspection result a business received influenced whether they
felt this had affected the businesses volume of customers. Businesses who reported
a FHRS rating of 3 or an inspection result of ‘Improvement Required’ were more likely
to state the number of customers had stayed the same (81% and 100% respectively),
businesses who received a FHRS rating of 5/ ‘Pass’ result were more likely to state
the number of customers had increased (25%) and businesses with a FHRS rating of
0-2 were more likely to say the number of customers had decreased (11%).
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
Error! Reference
source not found.
29
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
6 Impact on Food Safety Practices
6.1 This section of the report looks at the type of improvements that businesses had
introduced to their business since receiving their inspection result, and the extent to
which these improvements were introduced to help improve their FHRS rating/FHIS
inspection result in the future. For those who have introduced changes we explore
the effects that these changes have had on the business.
Improvements made
6.2 Four-fifths of all businesses had introduced at least one improvement to their
business since the inspection (81%). The most common changes, introduced by over
half of all businesses interviewed, were improvements to cleaning procedures (54%)
and changes to food handling practices and procedures (53%) as shown in Figure
6.1. This Figure shows the proportion of businesses making changes at all (the dark
green columns) and the proportion stating that at least part of the reason for doing so
was to improve their food hygiene rating/result.
6.3 The majority of businesses that had made changes stated that they made them at
least partly to improve their FHRS rating/FHIS inspection result. For example, 40% of
all businesses had improved cleaning procedures since their inspection and 38% of
all businesses had done so in order to improve their result.
6.4 Other common changes, introduced by just under half of all businesses, included
developing/improving documentation of their food safety management system (49%),
temperature control (48%) and staff personal hygiene practices (47%). A third of all
businesses made these improvements at least partly to improve their inspection
result (33%- 38%).
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
Error! Reference
source not found.
30
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
Figure 6.1:
Improvements introduced since the inspection
6.5 With the exception of improving the cleaning procedures of the business (54%),
improvements to the structure of the building were generally less common. Around
two-fifths (40%) had made changes to the condition of the building (including carrying
out repairs) while fewer businesses changed the layout of the premises (27%), the
lighting (24%), the ventilation and/or other facilities (22% each). A total of 70 per cent
of all businesses had made at least one change of this nature.
6.6 Businesses were asked, for each change introduced, whether improving their FHRS
rating/FHIS inspection result was a key reason for making the change, a main
reason, a minor reason or whether the improvement was not related to the scheme at
all. Figure 6.2 shows the impact of the FHRS/FHIS at this more detailed level.
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
Error! Reference
source not found.
31
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
Figure 6.2:
Improvements introduced as a result of the inspection
Key reason
Main reason
Minor reason
Improvements not related to scheme
23%
22%
25%
27%
20%
23%
23%
34%
24%
23%
24%
42%
36%
36%
17%
18%
24%
20%
22%
20%
19%
22%
Facilities
(175)
Ventilation
(169)
Other (16)
19%
29%
24%
23%
24%
26%
33%
23%
23%
22%
22%
Food Handling Temperature
Practice
control
and procedures in premises
(421)
(385)
21%
23%
19%
20%
22%
19%
18%
16%
Cleaning
procedures
(439)
Condition of
building
(314)
Layout of
premises
(215)
Lighting
(191)
17%
34%
Staff personal Documentation
hygiene
around
practices
food safety
(375)
(390)
Food Hygiene
and safety
changes
31%
Documentation
Structure
Other
6.7 Changes made to documentation around food safety were most likely to have been
introduced in order to improve FHRS ratings/FHIS inspection results. Only one in five
(20%) businesses who made these changes reported that they were not related to
the scheme at all. Improving the FHRS rating/FHIS inspection result was the key
reason for a third of changes made to documentation of food safety management
systems (34%).
6.8 Similarly, the majority of those who introduced changes to food hygiene and safety
reported that these changes were related to improving their FHRS rating/FHIS
inspection result: only 23% who introduced changes to food handling practices, 27%
who introduced temperature control and 25% who introduced staff personal hygiene
practices said that these improvements were not related to the scheme at all.
Responses were equally split as to whether improving their FHRS rating/FHIS
inspection result was a key reason, a main reason or a minor reason for making the
improvement.
6.9 Changes made to the structure of the building were less likely to have been
introduced to improve FHRS ratings/FHIS inspection results. However the majority of
those making changes still stated that improving their FHRS rating/FHIS inspection
result was at least part of the reason behind the change.
6.10 All countries in the FHRS and FHIS scheme had a similarly high proportion of
businesses that had introduced at least one change following the inspection (80%
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
Error! Reference
source not found.
32
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
and 84% respectively). In terms of introducing changes specifically to improve FHRS
ratings/FHIS inspection results, there were very few regional differences as shown in
Table 6.1. The only exception was that businesses in England were more likely to
have introduced improvements to facilities as a result of the scheme than in other
nations (20% vs. 13% average).
Table 6.1:
Improvements introduced to improve ratings by region
All
England
Wales
Northern
Ireland
Scotland
(800)
(191)
(209)
(200)
(200)
%
%
%
%
%
Changes to Food Hygiene and safety
51
50
44
52
56
Food Handling Practice and procedures
38
38
32
39
42
Temperature control in premises
32
33
28
33
35
Staff personal hygiene practices
32
37
27
30
37
Documentation around food safety
38
39
37
34
42
Changes to structure
53
57
48
48
58
Cleaning procedures
40
45
35
34
45
Condition of building
25
23
28
25
23
Layout of premises
16
18
14
19
16
Lighting
13
17
13
13
12
Facilities
13
20*
12
14
11
Ventilation
12
16
13
11
11
Other
2
4
3
1
1
ANY CHANGES
66
64
64
61
72
Base: all
Changes to management:
6.11 Businesses who reported a lower FHRS rating or FHIS ‘Improvement required’
inspection result were more likely to have introduced at least one change to their
business since their inspection with the intention of improving their rating/inspection
result. As shown in Table 6.2 below, businesses who reported a low rating of 0-2 or 3
in the FHRS scheme or ‘improvement required’ in the FHIS scheme were much more
likely to have introduced a change motivated – at least in part – by a desire to
improve their FHRS rating/FHIS inspection result (86%, 82% and 91% respectively)
while those who reported a 5 were less likely to have done so (43%).
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
Error! Reference
source not found.
33
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
Table 6.2:
Improvements introduced to improve ratings by rating
FHRS
FHIS
ALL
0-2
3
4
5
Improvement
required
Pass
800
111
139
173
157
25
171
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
51
71*
68*
47
33*
65
56
38
54*
53*
33
24*
57*
42
32
45*
40
33
21*
22
36
32
47*
40
31
20*
25
39
Documentation around food safety
38
58*
49*
35
24*
51
41
Changes to structure
53
72*
72*
52
29*
54
58
Cleaning procedures
40
60*
48
39
22*
46
46
Condition of building
25
38*
38*
25
16*
19
22
Layout of premises
16
24*
21
14
15
15
16
Lighting
13
13
21*
15
11
5
13
Facilities
13
18
23*
14
10
7
11
Ventilation
12
14
18*
14
9
22
10
Other
2
1
2
3
2
-
-
ANY CHANGES
66
86*
82*
66
43*
91*
70
Base: All
Changes to Food Hygiene and
safety
Food Handling Practice and
procedures
Temperature control
in premises
Staff personal hygiene
practices
Changes to management:
6.12 As far as the type of improvements that were introduced, those businesses with a
lower FHRS rating of 0-2 or 3 were more likely than average to introduce changes to
all three areas as a result of the inspection: Changes to Food Hygiene and safety
(71% and 68% respectively vs. 51% average), changes to management (58% and
49% vs. 38%) and changes to structure (72% and 72% vs. 53%). (The small base
size of those in the FHIS scheme who reported an ‘Improvement required’ result
makes it difficult to make similar comparisons between businesses receiving each of
the two ratings in this scheme).
6.13 In contrast to those reporting lower ratings, businesses who reported a rating of 5
were less likely to have introduced any changes to their business as a result of the
inspection (43% vs. 66% average) and were less likely to have introduced changes
across each of the three areas. Businesses who received a ‘Pass’ result (i.e. the
highest result) were just as likely as average to introduce any sort of change to their
business as a result of the scheme (70% vs. 66% average).
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
Error! Reference
source not found.
34
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
Effect of making changes
6.14 All those who had introduced changes were asked what effect making those changes
had had on the business. As shown in Figure 6.3, of those who had introduced
changes, one in seven reported improved hygiene (16%) whilst one in eight reported
improved systems (12%) or greater awareness of food hygiene requirements among
staff (12%). Less common effects, each reported by less than one in ten businesses
who made changes, included: improved appearance of premises (7%), taking food
hygiene standards more seriously (6%) and higher staff morale (6%). Around twofifths (39%) reported no effect at all. The length of tie that had elapsed since
inspection did not seem to impact on this figure reporting a lack of impact at much
(36% of those who had their last inspection less than 3 months ago said this was the
case and 40% of those who had their inspection over a year ago).
Figure 6.3:
Effect of making changes
16%
Improved hygiene
Improved systems
12%
Greater awareness of food hygiene
requirements among staff
12%
7%
Improved appearance of premises
Take food hygiene standards more
seriously
6%
Higher staff morale/ increased pride in
place of work
6%
Greater customer confidence
Other effects of making the changes
Greater chance of getting a higher
rating/result 3%
Better reputation among customers 3%
Greater staff motivation 3%
Increased customer profits 2%
4%
39%
No effect
Base: all who introduced changes (672)
6.15 Those FHRS businesses who reported receiving the highest rating of 5 were less
likely to cite any effect from the changes that they had introduced (48% of businesses
who reported a rating of 5 stated the changes they had made had had no effect vs.
32% of those with a rating of 3 and 38% of those with ratings 0-2). The types of
effects reported did not vary much by FHRS rating/FHIS inspection result although
those who reported a FHRS rating of 0-2 were more likely to have felt their hygiene
levels improved as a result of the changes (24% vs. 16% average).
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
Error! Reference
source not found.
35
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
6.16 In terms of differences between countries, businesses in Scotland were most likely to
report that changes had some effect (only 33% reported no effect) and, where they
did see an effect, more commonly reported greater awareness of food hygiene
requirements among staff (19% vs. 12% average) and higher staff morale (10% vs.
6%). Businesses in Wales were most likely to report no effect from changes
introduced (53%).
6.17 The effects reported differed a little by the sector of business with improved hygiene
being much more likely to be reported as an effect of changes for restaurants and
cafes (20% vs. 16% average) but much less likely to be an effect reported by Hotels/
B&Bs who had made changes (5%). Takeaways and sandwich shops and small
retailers were more likely to state that the appearance of their premises had improved
as a result of changes (12% each vs. 7% average) whilst pubs and bars were more
likely to feel that changes had led to a greater awareness of food hygiene
requirements amongst staff (12% vs. 7% average).
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
Error! Reference
source not found.
36
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
7 Maintaining/improving ratings and competition
7.1 This section examines the importance that businesses placed on achieving (or
maintaining, if they had already been awarded a 5 or a /’Pass’ result) the highest
rating/inspection result. It also explores barriers businesses felt that they faced in
achieving the top rating/inspection result in their next inspection.
Importance of maintaining/improving rating/inspection result
7.2 Businesses who received the top FHRS rating or a FHIS ‘Pass’ inspection result from
their inspector were asked how important it was to their business to maintain it.
Almost all businesses (>99.5%) thought that it was important, with the vast majority
saying that it was ‘very important’ (96%). The very few (<0.5%) who did not think it
was important to maintain the highest rating/inspection result said that this was
because achieving the 5/ ‘Pass’ result had not affected their business and that their
customers did not recognise/acknowledge the result.
7.3 Similarly, those who received a FHRS rating/FHIS inspection result that was not a 5/
‘Pass’ result were asked how important it was to improve their rating/inspection
result. Again the vast majority of these businesses felt it was important (86%), with
three-fifths thinking it was ‘very important’ (63%), as shown in Figure 7.1.
Figure 7.1:
Importance of maintaining a 5/pass or improving result
Not important
Quite Important
Very important
Maintaining a 5/pass
(Base: All businesses
that got a 5/pass 328)
<0.5%3%
Improving rating/
inspection result
13%
23%
96%
63%
(Base: All businesses
that did not get a
5/pass 472)
7.4 Businesses who reported achieving a FHRS rating of 0-2 were just as likely to place
importance on improving their rating as those with a FHRS rating of 3 or those with a
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
Error! Reference
source not found.
37
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
4 (89%, 83% and 88% respectively). Nearly all of those in the FHIS scheme with a
result of ‘Improvement required’ thought that it was important to achieve a ‘Pass’
result at their next inspection (94%).
7.5 The majority of businesses in the FHRS scheme who did not achieve a 5 said that
they would aim for a 5 in their next inspection (78%), although one in five (19%) were
aiming for a 4 (c. 1% were aiming for a 1, 2 or 3).
7.6 There were few differences between countries in the importance attached to
improving FHRS ratings/FHIS inspection results. Businesses less likely to find it
important to increase it were small businesses (83% of those with 1-10 employees)
and independent stores (84%). Those who were inspected the most recently (in the
three months prior to the interview) were also more likely to think it was important to
increase their rating/inspection result (92%).
Barriers to maintaining/achieving a top rating/inspection result
7.7 Very few businesses who had reported receiving a 5 or a ‘Pass’ result envisaged
barriers to maintaining that top FHRS rating or FHIS ‘Pass’ inspection result (4%). Of
the 13 people that foresaw barriers, the following barriers were mentioned:




Problems with structure of the building;
Difficulties with legislation/town planning;
Expense of changes needed; and
Not enough information from FSA on what they are assessing.
7.8 Businesses who did not report receiving a 5 or a ‘Pass’ result were also asked
whether they saw any barriers, to achieving a higher FHRS rating/a ‘Pass’ result. A
higher proportion of this group foresaw barriers (27%) which included the following (in
order of frequency of mention):
 Problems with structure of the building (50% of those who saw barriers to
improving their FHRS rating/FHIS inspection result);
 Expense of changes needed (27%);
 Time it would take to introduce improvements of changes (11%);
 Difficulties with inspector (8%);
7.9 A very small proportion of businesses said that they were part of a chain so they
could not make any changes to improve their FHRS rating/FHIS inspection result
(3%), or they foresaw too much paperwork (3%) or that it was unclear how they could
achieve a top rating/inspection result with the rules and regulations changing (2%).
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
Error! Reference
source not found.
38
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
Reasons for wanting to achieve a higher rating/inspection result
7.10 Businesses who did not receive the highest rating of 5 in the FHRS scheme or a
‘Pass’ result in the FHIS scheme and who placed importance in improving their FHRS
rating/FHIS inspection result were asked why. The main reason that was given, cited
by a third, was pride (32%). For fewer businesses, the main reason was to increase
customers (13%) or to have higher standards (11%). The other reasons given are
shown in Figure 7.2 below.
Figure 7.2:
Reasons for wanting to achieve a higher rating/inspection result
32%
Pride
13%
To increase customers
11%
To have higher standards
So can display rating/ result
without any negative effects
7%
To improve customer confidence/
satisfaction
6%
To ensure proper safety/ hygenic
practices
6%
Other reasons for wanting to
achieve a higher score
Best practice/ good working
practice
Other
5%
4%
No particular reason
2%
Don't know
2%
Profile/ press attention 4%
Competition 3%
Profits 2%
Fear of prosecution 1%
To assure staff they are doing
everything right 1%
Base: All Businesses that do place importance on improving their score (401)
7.11 Reasons for wanting to achieve a higher FHRS rating or ‘Pass’ FHIS inspection result
differed little by scheme although businesses in the FHIS scheme were more likely to
cite ‘best practice’ as a main reason compared to those in the FHRS scheme (16%
vs. 5%). Businesses in Wales were more likely than average to strive to achieve a
higher rating in order to have higher standards (12%) or so that they could display
their rating without negative effect (12%).
7.12 For FHRS businesses who reported ratings at the lower end of the scale, the second
most common main reason that emerged (after pride) was so that they could display
the rating without any negative effects (17% rating 0-2). For those who reported
having achieved a 4 however, were more likely to aim for a higher rating to increase
customers (17%) or to have higher standards (17%).
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
Error! Reference
source not found.
39
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
7.13 Chain businesses were much less likely than independent businesses to have cited
pride as their main reason for wanting to improve their FHRS rating/FHIS inspection
result (23% vs. 36% respectively) although still, pride was commonly cited by this
group as the main reason for wanting to improve their FHRS rating/FHIS inspection
result.
Competitor ratings/inspection results
7.14 Three in five businesses said that other food businesses similar to them in their area
displayed their FHRS rating/FHIS inspection result stickers (60%), although most of
these reported a mix of other businesses that did and did not display it. Only a few
businesses said that all their competitors displayed their FHRS rating/FHIS inspection
result (8%). The remaining 40% of businesses mainly consisted of those that did not
know (29%) rather than those who said that no other businesses displayed it (11%).
7.15 Businesses in Northern Ireland were more likely to report that their competitors
display their FHRS rating (78%) whilst those in Scotland were much less likely to
report other local businesses displaying their FHIS inspection result (43%). This is in
line with the finding reported earlier, that food businesses in Northern Ireland are
more likely than businesses found elsewhere to display their rating to customers from
the outside of their shop (68%) whilst those in Scotland are the least likely (33%).
7.16 Businesses were then asked whether they knew of their competitors’ FHRS
ratings/FHIS inspection results and how they came to know what they were. Half of
all businesses (51%) were aware of at least some of their competitors’ FHRS
ratings/FHIS inspection results, leaving almost half who were not aware of any of
them (46%). Only one in ten claimed to know the FHRS ratings/FHIS inspection
results of all of their competing local businesses (9%).
7.17 Awareness of the results of competitors was higher among businesses in the FHRS
scheme (59% vs. 33% of FHIS businesses), particularly in Northern Ireland (62%)
and Wales (62%). This may not be surprising as businesses in Scotland were less
likely to report competitors displaying their results (43% vs. 67% FHRS countries)
and were less likely to display their own result to customers from the outside of their
shop (33% vs. 60% FHRS countries).
7.18 Businesses who reported a FHRS rating of 4 or 5 were more likely to know the
ratings of their competitors (59% and 69% respectively) compared to those who
reported a FHRS rating of 0-2 (45% aware).
7.19 The sense of competition among local businesses was stronger among those who
said that it was ‘important’ to maintain a 5/ ‘Pass’ or improve their rating/result: 53%
of those for whom it was important were aware of their competitors FHRS
ratings/FHIS inspection results compared to 30% of those who said it was not
important.
7.20 The most common way that businesses had found out about the FHRS ratings/FHIS
inspection results of their competitors was by seeing the sticker displayed from the
outside of establishments (73%) Other sources of information are shown in Figure
7.3 below.
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
Error! Reference
source not found.
40
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
Figure 7.3:
Sources of knowledge about competitors ratings
Sticker can be clearly seen from
the outside of the shop
73%
23%
Websites
13%
Word of mouth
9%
FSA wesbite
Mobile Apps
Local Authority
4%
3%
Newspaper
2%
Other
2%
Base: All Businesses aware of at least some of their competitor ratings (395)
7.21 There was no difference in sources used to find out about competitor FHRS
ratings/FHIS inspection results between businesses in the two schemes, although
those in England were much more likely to rely on seeing their competitors
ratings/inspection results on display (85% vs. 73% average) and those in Wales were
more likely than others to use the FSA website (15% vs. 9%).
7.22 Although only half of all businesses were aware of the FHRS ratings/FHIS inspection
results of the competitors, the vast majority of all businesses thought that it was
important to have a rating/ inspection result that was higher than other businesses in
their area (86%), with three-fifths saying it was very important (60%). Businesses in
the FHIS scheme had a stronger sense of competition than those in the FHRS (90%
in FHIS believed it was important to have a better inspection result than their
competitors vs. 84% of FHRS businesses who thought it was better to have a better
rating).
7.23 Those who reported a rating of 5 (92%) or a ‘Pass’ result (91%) were more likely to
rate having a rating/inspection result the same or higher than their competitors’ as
important as those who reported a FHRS rating of 0-2 (78%).
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
Error! Reference
source not found.
41
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
8 Media coverage
8.1 This chapter looks briefly at businesses experience of reporting on the FHRS and
FHIS in the media.
General publicity
8.2 One third of all businesses (36%) reported seeing general publicity about the Food
Hygiene rating/information scheme. Most commonly this was in the local press
(38%), on TV (24%) or online (16%). Figure 8.1 shows a full list of the sources of
publicity mentioned.
Figure 8.1:
Sources of Food Hygiene Rating/ Information scheme general publicity
Local Press
38%
TV
24%
Online
16%
Posters/Advertising
10%
Leaflet
9%
Bus/ bus terminal
7%
Magazine
7%
Other local business
6%
Post
3%
Radio
3%
Other
Don't Know
4%
3%
Base: All businesses who have seen publicity (266)
8.3 Awareness of general publicity of the scheme was highest in Northern Ireland (51%
had seen general publicity) while businesses in England and Scotland were much
less likely to have seen publicity (25% and 23% respectively). Businesses in Northern
Ireland were more likely to cite TV (42%), posters/advertising (21%) and buses (12%)
as publicity channels they had seen used but less likely to cite online sources (7%) or
leaflets (4%). Businesses in England, on the other hand, were more likely to cite
online sources (40%) as well as other local businesses (16%) and less likely (as were
those in Wales) to have seen general publicity on posters (no businesses cited this
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
Error! Reference
source not found.
42
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
channel in England and only 4% in Wales). Businesses in Scotland were least likely
to have seen any publicity of the scheme on the TV (10%).
Publicity about own rating/inspection result
8.4 Very few businesses (only 5%) had ever had publicity in the press about their own
FHRS rating/FHIS inspection result. Businesses in the FHRS scheme were more
likely to have had publicity about their own rating than those in the FHIS scheme had
about their result (6% vs. 2% respectively), and among those in the FHRS scheme,
those with the highest rating of 5 were more likely to have had publicity (11%).
8.5 The publicity was most likely to be positive (73% of all those who had had publicity),
although this was not exclusive to those who had achieved the highest FHRS
ratings/FHIS inspection results.
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
Error! Reference
source not found.
43
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
9 Conclusions
9.1 This short chapter summarizes the key conclusions from this element of the
evaluation.
9.2 Firstly it appears that food businesses demonstrate a degree of engagement with
the FHRS and FHIS schemes. The majority of businesses (76%) have chosen to
display their sticker or certificate. In addition, the majority of businesses stated that
they wished to obtain or maintain the highest rating/inspection result possible (86% of
those who did not achieve a 5/pass result stated that it was important to them to
improve their rating/inspection result, with three-fifths saying it was very important).
This holds true regardless of the rating/inspection result businesses received; there is
no evidence to suggest that those achieving low ratings lose interest in the scheme.
Three in ten (27%) food businesses who did not report receiving a 5 or a pass
envisaged barriers to achieving a higher score/pass, the most common barriers given
related to problems with the structure of the building (50%) and the expense of
changes needed (27%).
9.3 Although by no means universal, the findings suggest that businesses are starting
to see evidence of consumer acknowledgement/interest in the schemes which
in turn is likely to reinforce business buy-in. Two fifths of those displaying their result
felt that there had been a positive impact on customers and two fifths have had
customers comment on their score.
9.4 The findings suggest that there is greater customer interest in the FHRS Scheme
than compared to the FHIS. Businesses covered by the FHIS were less likely to
have experienced customers acknowledging their rating, customers stating is a good
Scheme or commenting that they had used the Scheme to identify places to eat.
9.5 There is also evidence to suggest that the Schemes are effective in motivating
businesses to make changes to their policies and procedures. Four in five
businesses have made at least one change to their approach to food hygiene since
their inspection and in most cases these are attributed – at least in part – to a desire
to improve ratings/results. Changes attributed to a desire to improve ratings/results
were most likely to involve food handling (38 per cent of businesses), documented
food safety management procedures (38%) and cleaning procedures (40%). The vast
majority have implemented changes that should have a positive impact on hygiene
standards. It is encouraging that those with lower ratings are more likely to have
made changes.
9.6 Finally, the study did not uncover any obvious problems with the operation of
the scheme. The majority were satisfied with their result (albeit satisfaction was
significantly higher for businesses with a 4-5 FHRS rating or a Pass result). Across all
businesses a relatively high proportion were aware of the safeguards open to them if
they were unhappy with their rating/inspection result even though uptake of these
measures was quite low. Those who had used each of the safeguards had generally
found the process fair.
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
Error! Reference
source not found.
44
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
10 Appendices
 Response rate calculations
 Survey questionnaire
 Differences between scores recorded by local authorities and scores reporting
during interview
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
Error! Reference
source not found.
45
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
Response Rate Calculations
We received a total of 7674 food business records from the eight local authorities’
selected (six FHRS areas, two FHIS areas). Then, as discussed in the methodology,
interview targets were set by case study area and by score within each area.
From the 7674 records received, 1275 records were used to achieve 800 completed
interviews. A response rate of 63% was achieved for the survey.
Sample Outcome
Fresh Sample
Appointment (both ‘soft’ and ‘hard’)
Maximum number of tries
Stopped/terminated interview
Refused
Completes
TOTAL
Number
6399
85
5
8
377
800
7674
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
Error! Reference
source not found.
46
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
Survey Questionnaire
S1
ASK ALL
Good morning / afternoon, my name is NAME, calling from IFF Research, an independent
market research company. We are conducting a research project for the Food Standards
Agency (FSA) to consider current views and practices relating to the Food Hygiene [TEXT SUB
(IF SAMP1=3-8) Rating; (IF SAMP1=1-2) Information] Scheme.
Can I just check, are you the most senior person responsible for food safety at this site? The
interview is likely to take around 15 minutes. We could either conduct it now, or at a time more
convenient for you.
ADD IF NECESSARY: We are interested in speaking with businesses like yours who have been
inspected by a food safety officer as part of the Food Hygiene [TEXT SUB (IF SAMP1=3-8)
Rating; (IF SAMP1=1-2) Information] Scheme so that we can better understand businesses
views of the scheme.
ADD IF NECESSARY: The survey will be carried out according to the Market Research Society’s
Code of Conduct and the Data Protection Act which guarantees absolute confidentiality and
anonymity of responses. The Food Standards Agency will not be made aware of your
participation in the research and all responses made will remain confidential. The information
provided will be used for research purposes only.
ADD IF NECESSARY: We are approaching a randomly-selected sample of businesses in 8
different locations across the UK who our records show have had an inspection relatively
recently.
IF WANT TO TRANSFER TO HEAD OFFICE OR ANOTHER BRANCH / SITE: We need to speak to
someone based at this site, not at head office or another branch of your organisation. We are
interested in activities at this location. Could I speak to the person at this site who would have
the best overview of food safety issues?
Continue
1
CONTINUE
2
TRANSFER
INTRODUCE
Referred to someone else at establishment
NAME_____________________________
AND
RE-
JOB TITLE_________________________
Hard appointment
3
Soft appointment
4
Wants reassurances
5
Refusal
6
Refusal – company policy
7
Refusal – taken part in recent survey
8
Not available in deadline
9
MAKE APPOINTMENT
SHOW REASSURANCES
THANK AND CLOSE
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
Error! Reference
source not found.
47
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
REASSURANCES TO USE IF NECESSARY
The interview will take around 15 minutes to complete.
Please note that all data will be reported in aggregate form and your answers will not be reported to our
client in any way that would allow you to be identified.
If respondent wishes to confirm validity of survey or get more information about aims and objectives, they
can call:

MRS: Market Research Society on 0500396999

IFF: Becky Duncan: 0207 250 3035
S2
ASK ALL
Can I just check, is your business located in [SAMP1]?
Yes
1
No
2
THANK AND CLOSE
Don’t know
3
S4DUM Location of business DUMMY VARIABLE, DO NOT ASK
S3a
Scotland (IF (SAMP1=1-2 AND S3=1)
1
Rest of UK (IF (SAMP1=3-8 AND S3=1)
2
ASK ALL
Which of the following descriptions best matches the type of food business you work in?
READ OUT. CODE ONE ONLY
Restaurant/Cafe/Canteen
1
Takeaway/sandwich shop
2
Mobile caterer
3
Pub/bar/nightclub
4
Hotel/bed & breakfast/guest house
5
Small retailer
6
Other (SPECIFY )
7
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
CHECK S3B
Error! Reference
source not found.
48
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
ASK IF ‘OTHER’ TYPE OF ESTABLISHMENT (S3A=7)
S3b Can I check, do you have a cafe/restaurant on-site?
INTERVIEWER NOTE: CODE AS ‘NO’ IF SUPERMARKET OR INSTITUTION SUCH AS A
SCHOOL/UNIVERSITY/HOSPITAL
READ OUT. CODE ONE ONLY
S3
Yes
1
CONTINUE
No
2
THANK AND CLOSE
Don’t Know
3
THANK AND CLOSE
What is the nature of your business? Is it...
READ OUT. CODE ONE ONLY
Single site
1
One of multiple sites (e.g. a chain)
2
A mobile food outlet
3
Other (WRITE IN)
4
Don’t know
5
Refused
6
ASK ALL
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
Error! Reference
source not found.
49
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
S4
Have you received a [TEXT SUB (IF S4DUM=2) GREEN AND BLACK Food Hygiene Rating; (IF
S4DUM=1) BLUE AND WHITE OR RED AND WHITE Food Hygiene Information] Scheme sticker
and/or certificate showing your [TEXT SUB (IF S4DUM =2) rating; (IF S4DUM =1) inspection
result] for food hygiene standards?
IF NECESSARY: The Food Hygiene [TEXT SUB (IF S4DUM =2) Rating; (IF S4DUM =1)
Information] Scheme involves a food safety officer from the Local Authority visiting your
premises to check on standards of food hygiene and issuing your business with a certificate
and sticker that shows [TEXT SUB (IF S4DUM =2) a rating from zero to five, or ‘awaiting
inspection’. The sticker and certificate shows five green circles and one, larger black circle
with the rating for your premises; (IF S4DUM =1) an inspection result of ‘pass’ (depicted by a
blue banner on a white background) or ‘Improvement required’ (depicted by a red banner on a
white background).
SINGLE CODE
S6)
Yes, -BOTH the sticker and certificate
1
CONTINUE
Yes - Sticker but NOT the certificate
2
CONTINUE
Yes - Certificate but NOT the sticker
3
CONTINUE
No but we expect to receive the rating certificate soon
4
THANK AND CLOSE
No/ not aware of it
5
THANK AND CLOSE
Not sure
6
THANK AND CLOSE
ASK ALL
Before I start with the main interview, can I just check, are you ok to be interviewed in
English?
Yes
1
No – prefer Welsh
2
No
–
language
prefer
other
3
CONTINUE
CONTINUE IN WELSH VERSION OR SAY WILL BE
CALLED BACK SOON BY ONE OF OUR WELSH
SPEAKING INTERVIEWERS
COLLECT NAME OF LANGUAGE (SAY WE WILL NEED
TO SEE IF HAVE SPEAKER OF THAT LANGUAGE AND
IF SO WE WILL CALL YOU BACK)
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
Error! Reference
source not found.
50
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
A Ratings received
A1
ASK ALL
I’d like to ask you a number of questions about your Food Hygiene [TEXT SUB (IF S4DUM =2)
Rating Scheme score; (IF S4DUM =1) Information Inspection result].
IF REST OF UK (IF S4DUM =2)
Thinking about your GREEN AND BLACK Food Hygiene Rating, what rating have you been
given?
PROBE IF NECESSARY. SINGLE CODE
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5 (highest score)
5
0
6
Awaiting inspection
7
Don’t know
8
Refused
9
THANK AND CLOSE
IF SCOTLAND (IF S4DUM =1)
A1a Thinking about your Food Hygiene Information Scheme Inspection result, what result have you
been given?
A2
Pass
1
Improvement required
2
Don’t know
3
Refused
4
ASK ALL
When did you have your last inspection?
PROMPT WITH RANGES IF NECESSARY
Within the last 3 months
1
Over 3 months up to 6 months ago
2
Over 6 months up to 12 months ago
3
Over 12 months up to 2 years ago
4
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
Error! Reference
source not found.
51
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
A3
A4
More than 2 years ago
5
Don’t know/ Can’t remember
6
ASK ALL
In your premises, do you display your Food Hygiene [TEXT SUB (IF S4DUM =2) Rating; (IF
S4DUM =1) Inspection result]......?
Yes
No
DK
(IF HAVE RECEIVED STICKER S5/1 OR 2):Sticker
1
2
3
(IF HAVE RECEIVED CERTIFICATE S5/1 OR 3):Certificate
1
2
3
ASK IF STICKER ON DISPLAY (A3_1/1)
Thinking about your Food Hygiene [TEXT SUB (IF S4DUM =2) Rating; (IF S4DUM =1) Inspection
result] sticker, would you say that it is. . . .
READ OUT AND CODE ONE ONLY
Somewhere where it is CLEARLY visible to customers
1
Somewhere where it is NOT CLEARLY visible to customers (e.g. a kitchen
or office)
2
Don’t know
3
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
Error! Reference
source not found.
52
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
ASK IF STICKER IS SOMEWHERE THAT CAN CLEARLY BE SEEN BY CUSTOMERS (A4=1)
A4a So can I just check, can customers clearly see the sticker from OUTSIDE of your premises, in
other words, without having to enter the premises?
A5
Yes
1
No
2
Don’t know
3
ASK IF CERTIFICATE ON DISPLAY (A3_2/1)
Thinking about your Food Hygiene [TEXT SUB (IF S4DUM =2) Rating; (IF S4DUM =1) Inspection
result] certificate, would you say that it is. . . .
READ OUT AND CODE ONE ONLY
Somewhere where it is CLEARLY visible to customers
1
Somewhere where it is NOT CLEARLY visible to customers (e.g. a
kitchen or office)
2
Don’t know
3
ASK IF CERTIFICATE IS SOMEWHERE THAT CAN CLEARLY BE SEEN BY CUSTOMERS (A5=1)
A5a So can I just check, can customers clearly see the certificate from OUTSIDE of your premises,
in other words, without having to enter the premises?
A6
Yes
1
No
2
Don’t know
3
ASK IF STICKER OR CERTIFICATE ON DISPLAY (A3_1/1 OR A3_2/1)
[TEXT SUB (IF DISPLAY STICKER ONLY A3_1/1 AND A3_2/NOT 1] How long have you been
displaying your sticker?
[TEXT SUB (IF DISPLAY CERTIFICATE ONLY A3_1/NOT 1 AND A3_2/1] How long have you been
displaying your certificate?
[TEXT SUB (IF DISPLAY STICKER ONLY A3_1/1 AND A3_2/1] How long have you been
displaying your sticker and certificate?
PROBE FOR ESTIMATE, SINGLE CODE
Up to 3 months
1
Over 3 months up to 6 months
2
Over 6 months up to 12 months
3
Over 12 months up to 2 years
4
More than 2 years
5
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
Error! Reference
source not found.
53
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
Don’t know
A7
6
ASK IF STICKER OR CERTIFICATE ON DISPLAY (A3_1/1 OR A3_2/1)
Why do you display the Food Hygiene [TEXT SUB (IF S4DUM =2) Rating; (IF S4DUM =1)
Inspection result], in your premises?
DO NOT READ OUT. CODE ALL THAT APPLY. PROBE FULLY.
IF MENTION MORE THAN ONE REASON AT A7
A7a What would you say is the main reason for displaying the Food Hygiene [TEXT SUB (IF S4DUM
=2) Rating; (IF S4DUM =1) Inspection result], in your premises? Would you say it was...
READ OUT. CODE ONE ONLY.
D.P NOTE: ONLY SHOW FACTORS MENTIONED AT A7.
A7
A7a
We are proud of our result
1
1
So that customers can see it/ can see that we are hygienic
2
2
To attract more customers
3
3
The local authority inspector asked me to display it
4
4
To show we have been inspected
5
5
To show that we are improving/ trying to improve
6
6
It motivates our staff to be hygienic
7
7
It is compulsory/ mandatory
8
8
It is becoming compulsory/ mandatory
9
9
Head office/ our company asked us to
10
10
Other businesses in this area have displayed theirs
11
11
Other reason 1 (PLEASE SPECIFY)
12
12
Other reason 2 (PLEASE SPECIFY)
13
13
Other reason 3 (PLEASE SPECIFY)
14
14
Don’t know
15
15
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
Error! Reference
source not found.
54
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
A8
THOSE WHO DO NOT DISPLAY STICKER/CERTIFICATE (A3_1/NOT 1 AND A3_2/NOT 1)
Why is your [TEXT SUB (IF S4DUM =2) Rating; (IF S4DUM =1) Inspection result], not on display
in your premises?
DO NOT READ OUT. CODE ALL THAT APPLY.
IF MENTION MORE THAN ONE REASON AT A8
A8a What would you say is the main reason for not displaying your result? Would you say it was...
READ OUT. CODE ONE ONLY.
D.P NOTE: ONLY SHOW FACTORS MENTIONED AT A8.
A8
A8A
Not got round to it
1
1
Because it isn’t compulsory
2
2
Haven’t received it
3
3
Because my customers don’t care or know about it
4
4
Customers don’t ask to see the result
5
5
Our inspection result was not favourable
6
6
We don’t agree with the inspection result
7
7
Don’t understand the scheme
8
8
Similar businesses in the area are not displaying their results
9
9
The result/scheme is not relevant to the business
10
10
Lost the sticker/ certificate
11
11
Sticker/ certificate doesn’t match the decor
12
12
Company policy (not to display)
13
13
Other reason 1 (PLEASE SPECIFY)
14
14
Other reason 2 (PLEASE SPECIFY)
15
15
Other reason 3 (PLEASE SPECIFY)
16
16
Don’t know
17
17
THOSE WHO DO NOT DISPLAY STICKER/CERTIFICATE TO CUSTOMERS (A4=NOT1 AND
A5=NOT1)
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
Error! Reference
source not found.
55
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
A9
What would encourage you to publicly display your Food Hygiene [TEXT SUB (IF S4DUM =2)
Rating; (IF S4DUM =1) Inspection result] somewhere on display where it was visible to
customers.
DO NOT READ OUT. CODE ALL THAT APPLY. PROBE FULLY.
IF MENTION MORE THAN ONE REASON AT A9
A9a What would you say is the main factor that would encourage you to publicly display the Food
Hygiene [TEXT SUB (IF S4DUM =2) Rating; (IF S4DUM =1) Inspection result], in your premises?
Would you say it was...
READ OUT. CODE ONE ONLY.
D.P NOTE: ONLY SHOW FACTORS LISTED IN A9.
A9
A9a
If it was issued in a different format (e.g. different design, in a frame)
1
1
If it was compulsory
2
2
Fines for not displaying
3
3
If we had a better score/rating
4
4
A fairer scoring/rating scheme
5
5
If other businesses in the area were displaying theirs
6
6
If customers asked to see it
7
7
If I understood the scheme
8
8
If we could have our lost certificate/ sticker re-issued
9
9
If Head Office instructed me to do so
10
10
Another factor 1 (SPECIFY)
11
11
Another factor 2 (SPECIFY)
12
12
Another factor 3 (SPECIFY)
13
13
Nothing would encourage me (SINGLE CODE)
14
Don’t know
15
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
15
Error! Reference
source not found.
56
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
ASK ALL
A10 Do you use your [TEXT SUB (IF S4DUM =2) Rating; (IF S4DUM =1) Inspection result] in publicity
material, such as on your website or leaflets, to promote your business?
Yes
1
No
2
Don’t know
3
ASK ALL WHO USE RESULT IN PUBLICITY MATERIALS (A10/1)
A11 On which publicity materials do you use [TEXT SUB (IF S4DUM =2) Rating; (IF S4DUM =1)
Inspection result] to promote business?
Our business website
1
Posters
2
Leaflets
3
Newspapers
4
Magazines
5
Social media
6
Other (PLEASE SPECIFY)
7
Don’t know
8
ASK ALL
A12 Thinking about your Food Hygiene [TEXT SUB (IF S4DUM =2) Rating; (IF S4DUM =1) Inspection
result], did you receive the rating you expected?
Yes
1
No
2
Don’t know
3
A13 Do you understand why you received the result that you got?
Yes
1
No
2
Don’t know
3
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
Error! Reference
source not found.
57
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
A14 Overall, how satisfied would you say you feel with the [TEXT SUB (IF S4DUM =2) rating; (IF
S4DUM =1) inspection result] you received? Would you say you were...
READ OUT
Very satisfied
1
Fairly Satisfied
2
Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied
3
Fairly Dissatisfied
4
Very dissatisfied
5
Don’t Know
6
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
Error! Reference
source not found.
58
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
B Range of changes introduced and their impact
B1
THOSE WHO DISPLAY STICKER/CERTIFICATE VISIBLE TO CUSTOMERS (A4/1 OR A5/1)
What, if any, positive impact (or impacts) has displaying the Food Hygiene [TEXT SUB (IF
S4DUM=2) Rating; (IF S4DUM =1) Inspection result] had on your business?
DO NOT READ OUT. PROBE FULLY. CODE ALL THAT APPLY.
IF MORE THAN ONE POSITIVE IMPACT AT B1
B1a What was the main positive impact on your business?
READ OUT. CODE ONE ONLY.
D.P NOTE: ONLY SHOW FACTORS MENTIONED AT B1.
B1
B1a
We take food hygiene standards more seriously
1
1
More customers
2
2
Better reputation amongst customers
3
3
Greater customer confidence
4
4
Fewer customer complaints
5
5
Higher staff morale/ increased pride in place of work
6
6
Greater awareness of food hygiene requirements amongst staff
7
7
Greater staff motivation
8
8
Other positive reason 1 (SPECIFY)
9
9
Other positive reason 2 (SPECIFY)
10
10
Other positive reason 3 (SPECIFY)
11
11
No positive impact (SINGLE CODE)
12
Don’t know
13
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
13
Error! Reference
source not found.
59
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
B2
THOSE WHO DISPLAY STICKER/CERTIFICATE VISIBLE TO CUSTOMERS (A4/1 OR A5/1)
What, if any, negative impact (or impacts) has displaying the Food Hygiene [TEXT SUB (IF
S4DUM =2) Rating; (IF S4DUM =1) Inspection result] had on your business?
DO NOT READ OUT. PROBE FULLY. CODE ALL THAT APPLY.
IF MORE THAN ONE NEGATIVE REASON AT B2
B2a What was the main negative impact on your business?
READ OUT. CODE ONE ONLY.
D.P NOTE: ONLY SHOW FACTORS LISTED IN B2.
B2
B2a
Fewer customers
1
1
Worse reputation amongst customers
2
2
Lower customer confidence
3
3
More customer complaints
4
4
Lower staff morale/ decreased pride in place of work
5
5
Lower staff motivation
6
6
Other negative reason 1 (SPECIFY)
7
7
Other negative reason 2 (SPECIFY)
8
8
Other negative reason 2 (SPECIFY)
9
9
No negative impact
10
Don’t know
11
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
11
Error! Reference
source not found.
60
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
B3
ASK ALL
Have you introduced improvements to any of the following since you received your Food
Hygiene [TEXT SUB (IF S4DUM =2) Rating; (IF S4DUM =1) Inspection result]?
READ OUT.
Food hygiene
and safety
Structure
Management
Other
Yes
No
Don’t
Know
Food handling practices and procedures
1
2
3
Temperature control in your premises
1
2
3
Staff personal hygiene practices
1
2
3
Cleaning procedures
1
2
3
Layout of your premises
1
2
3
Condition of your building (e.g. carrying out repairs)
1
2
3
Lighting
1
2
3
Ventilation
1
2
3
Facilities
1
2
3
Your documentation around food safety
1
2
3
Any other aspect of your business 1 (SPECIFY)
1
2
3
Any other aspect of your business 1 (SPECIFY)
1
2
3
Any other aspect of your business 1 (SPECIFY)
1
2
3
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
Error! Reference
source not found.
61
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
B4
ASK ALL WHO INTRODUCED CHANGES (ANY OF B3/1)
To what extent were improvements in the following changes introduced to help improve your
Food Hygiene [TEXT SUB (IF S4DUM =2) Rating; (IF S4DUM =1) Inspection result]? Was a
desire to improve your result the......?
READ OUT. CODE ONE STATEMENT FOR EACH IMPROVEMENT.
D.P. NOTE: ONLY SHOW IMPROVEMENTS MENTIONED AT B3.
Key or
only
reason
Main reason
but there
were others
Minor
reason
Improvements
not related to
scheme at all
Don’t
Know
Food handling practices and procedures
1
2
3
4
5
Temperature control in your premises
1
2
3
4
5
Staff personal hygiene practices
1
2
3
4
5
Cleaning procedures
1
2
3
4
5
Layout of your premises
1
2
3
4
5
Condition of your building (e.g. carrying
out repairs)
1
2
3
4
5
Lighting
1
2
3
4
5
Ventilation
1
2
3
4
5
Facilities
1
2
3
4
5
Your documentation around food safety
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Any other aspect of your business 1
(SPECIFY)
Any other aspect of your business 1
(SPECIFY)
Any other aspect of your business 1
(SPECIFY)
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
Error! Reference
source not found.
62
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
B5
THOSE WHO HAVE INTRODUCED CHANGES (ANY B3=1)
What has been the effect of making these changes?
DO NOT READ OUT. CODE ALL THAT APPLY.
Improved hygiene
1
Improved appearance of premises
2
Increased customers/profits
3
Improved systems
4
We take food hygiene standards more seriously
5
More customers
6
Better reputation amongst customers
7
Greater customer confidence
8
Fewer customer complaints
9
Higher staff morale/ increased pride in place of work
10
Greater awareness
amongst staff
11
of
food hygiene
requirements
Greater staff motivation
12
Greater chance of getting a higher rating/result
13
Other improvement (SPECIFY)
14
NO EFFECT (SINGLE CODE)
15
Don’t know
16
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
Error! Reference
source not found.
63
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
C Business Safeguards
C1
ASK ALL
Thinking about the Food Hygiene [TEXT SUB (IF S4DUM =2) Rating; (IF S4DUM=1) Information]
Scheme, are you aware of any of the following:
YES
NO
DK
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
YES
NO
DK
_1 The right to reply
1
2
3
_2 The right to appeal
1
2
3
_3 The right to request a revisit
1
2
3
_1 The right to reply
So that if you are not happy with your result, you can explain to
potential customers any actions that you have taken after your
inspection or to explain any unusual circumstances at the time of
the inspection that might have affected your rating. This explanation
would then be displayed online alongside your rating result.
_2 The right to appeal
So that if you are unhappy with your result you can complete an
appeal form and send it to your local authority’s Head of Food.
_3 The right to request a revisit
Whereby you request that your business is reassessed before the
next inspection is due following any improvements that you have
made.
C2
C3
ASK ALL AWARE OF AT LEAST ONE OPTION AT C1 (ANY OF C1/1)
And have you used any of the following...?
READ OUT.
DP – SHOW ONLY THOSE AWARE OF AT C1
ASK ALL USED AT LEAST ONE SAFEGUARD (ANY OF C2/1)
Did you find this process....?
READ OUT.
DP – SHOW ONLY THOSE USED AT C2
Fairly
Very
easy to
easy to
follow
follow
Fairly
difficult
to
follow
Very
difficult
to
follow
DK
_1 The right to reply
1
2
3
4
5
_2 The right to appeal
1
2
3
4
5
_3 The right to request a revisit
1
2
3
4
5
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
Error! Reference
source not found.
64
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
C5
C6
ASK ALL USED AT LEAST ONE SAFEGUARD (ANY OF C2/1)
And leaving aside your views on your inspection result, to what extent to you agree that this
process was fair....?
READ OUT.
DP – SHOW ONLY THOSE USED AT C2
Agree
Tend to Tend to Disagree
DK
strongly
agree
disagree strongly
_1 The right to reply
1
2
3
4
5
_2 The right to appeal
1
2
3
4
5
_3 The right to request a revisit
1
2
3
4
5
ASK ALL WHO HAVE REQUESTED A REVISIT (C2_3/1)
What was the result of your revisit, did your inspection result...?
READ OUT AND CODE ONLY
Improve
1
Get worse
2
Stay the same
3
Not received the outcome yet
4
Not had the revisit yet
5
Don’t know
6
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
Error! Reference
source not found.
65
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
D Perception of customers
D1
D2
D3
D4
ASK ALL
Thinking about your customers, how often, if at all, do the following statements apply?
Never
Sometimes
Often
DK
_1 Customers acknowledge your [TEXT SUB (IF
S4DUM =2) Rating; (IF S4DUM =1) Inspection result]
1
2
3
4
_2 Customers say the [TEXT SUB (S4DUM =2) FHRS
(S4DUM=1) FHIS] is a good scheme
1
2
3
4
_3 Customers say they do use the scores to decide
where to eat
1
2
3
4
_4 Customers visit due to your score on website/ or
other publicity
1
2
3
4
Do you think your Food Hygiene [TEXT SUB (S4DUM=2) Rating; (IF S4DUM =1) Inspection
result] has affected your volume of customers?
Yes
1
No
2
Don’t know
3
IF NUMBER OF CUSTOMERS HAS BEEN AFFECTED (D2=1)
What has been the effect on your customer numbers?
They have increased
1
They have decreased
2
Don’t know
3
THOSE WHO DO NOT DISPLAY STICKER/CERTIFICATE VISIBLE TO CUSTOMERS (A4/NOT1
AND A5/NOT1)
Have any of your customers ever asked you about the Food Hygiene [TEXT SUB (IF S4DUM=2)
Rating; (IF S4DUM =1) Information] Scheme?
Yes
1
No
2
Don’t know
3
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
Error! Reference
source not found.
66
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
D5
THOSE WHOSE CUSTOMERS HAVE ASKED ABOUT THE SCHEME (D4=1)
What did they ask you about?
DO NOT PROMPT. CODE ALL THAT APPLY
Just a general question about how the scheme works
1
They wanted to know what our [TEXT SUB (IF S4DUM =2) Rating; (IF
S4DUM =1) Inspection result] was
2
They want to know why we are not displaying our result
3
Anything else (SPECIFY)
4
Don’t know/ Can’t remember
5
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
Error! Reference
source not found.
67
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
E Maintaining Ratings and Competition
E1
E2
E3
THOSE WHO RECEIVED A FOOD HYGIENE RATING OF 5 OR A PASS (A1=5 OR A1A=1)
How important is it to you to maintain a [TEXT SUB (IF S4DUM =2) rating of 5 (i.e. a rating of
‘very good’); (IF S4DUM =1) pass result]? Would you say that it is.....?
Very important
1
Quite important
2
Not very important
3
Not at all important
4
Don’t know
5
THOSE WHO DO NOT FEEL IT IS IMPORTANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY MAINTAIN A 5 OR A
PASS (E1=3 OR 4 OR 5)
Why is it not that important to maintain a [TEXT SUB (IF S4DUM =2) rating of 5 (i.e. a rating of
‘very good’); (IF S4DUM =1) pass]?
DO NOT READ OUT. PROBE FULLY. CODE ALL THAT APPLY
Achieving a ‘5’/’pass’ hasn’t affected our business/ customers do not recognise it
1
It is too much work to maintain the result
3
I don’t care about having [TEXT SUB (IF S4DUM =2) the highest rating; (IF S4DUM
=1) a ‘pass’ Inspection result]
4
Other (SPECIFY)
5
Don’t know
6
THOSE WHO RECEIVED A FOOD HYGIENE RATING OF 5 OR A PASS (A1=5 OR A1A=1)
Are there any barriers to you maintaining a [TEXT SUB (IF S4DUM =2) rating of 5 (i.e. a rating of
‘very good’); (IF S4DUM =1) pass]?
Yes
1
No
2
Don’t know
3
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
Error! Reference
source not found.
68
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
E4
THOSE WHO SEE BARRIERS (E3=1)
What are these barriers?
DO NOT READ OUT. MULTICODE.
Problems with structure of building
1
Expense of changes needed
2
Time it would take to introduce improvements of changes
3
Difficulties with
documentation
E5
E6
introducing
and/or
maintaining
the
required
4
Difficulties with recruiting/ maintaining/ training staff
5
Other (SPECIFY)
6
Don’t know
7
THOSE WHO RECEIVED A FOOD HYGIENE RATING OF 0-4 OR DK OR REFUSED (A1=1-4,6,8,9)
OR AN ‘IMPROVEMENT REQUIRED’ OR DK OR REFUSED (A1A=2,3,4)
How important would you say it is to improve your [TEXT SUB (IF S4DUM=2) rating; (IF
S4DUM=1) inspection result]? Would you say it is...
READ OUT. CODE ONE ONLY.
Very important
1
Fairly important
2
Not very important
3
Not at all important
4
Don’t Know
5
THOSE IN REST OF UK WHO RECEIVED A FOOD HYGIENE RATING OF 0-4 OR DK OR
REFUSED (A1=1-4,6,8,9)
What score are you aiming for next time?
NOTE: ONLY SHOW SCORES HIGHER THAN THE SCORE THEY RECEIVED (IN A1). IF SAID DK
OR REFUSED IN A1, SHOW ALL SCORES
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
Error! Reference
source not found.
69
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
5
E7
E8
E9
5
THOSE WHO RECEIVED A FOOD HYGIENE RATING OF 0-4, DK OR REFUSED (A1=1-4,6,8,9) OR
AN ‘IMPROVEMENT REQUIRED’ OR DK OR REFUSED (A1A=2,3,4)
Are there any barriers to you achieving a [TEXT SUB (IF S4DUM=2) higher score (IF S4DUM=1)
PASS]?
Yes
1
No
2
Don’t know
3
THOSE WHO SEE BARRIERS (E7=1)
What are these barriers?
MULTICODE
Problems with structure of building
1
Expense of changes needed
2
Time it would take to introduce improvements of changes
3
Lack of transparency of scoring/ don’t understand
scoring
4
Other (SPECIFY)
5
Don’t know
6
QUESTION DELETED
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
Error! Reference
source not found.
70
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
THOSE PLACING IMPORTANCE ON IMPROVING THEIR SCORE (E5=1 OR 2)
E10 What are your reasons for wanting to achieve a higher [TEXT SUB (IF S4DUM=2) rating; (IF
S4DUM=1) inspection result]?
DO NOT READ OUT. CODE ALL THAT APPLY.
IF GIVE MORE THAN ONE REASON AT E10
E10a What is your main reason for wanting to achieve a higher [TEXT SUB (IF S4DUM=2) rating; (IF
S4DUM=1) inspection result]? Would you say it was...
READ OUT. CODE ONE ONLY.
D.P NOTE: ONLY SHOW FACTORS LISTED IN E10.
E10
E10a
Profits
1
1
Pride
2
2
Fear of prosecution
3
3
Competition- to perform as well as my competitors
4
4
To increase customers
5
5
To win awards
6
6
Profile/ press attention
7
7
So can display rating/result without negative effect
8
8
Other reason 1 (SPECIFY)
9
9
Other reason 2 (SPECIFY)
10
10
Other reason 3 (SPECIFY)
11
11
No particular reason
12
Don’t know
13
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
13
Error! Reference
source not found.
71
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
ASK ALL
E11 Thinking about other food businesses similar to you in your neighbourhood or area, do they
display Food Hygiene [TEXT SUB (IF S4DUM =2) Rating; (IF S4DUM =1) Inspection result]
stickers?
All do
1
Most do
2
A mix - some do and some don’t
3
Most don’t
4
None do
5
Don’t know
6
E12 Are you aware of the [TEXT SUB (IF S4DUM =2) ratings; (IF S4DUM =1) inspection results] of
your competitors?
Yes – all of them
1
Yes – most of them
2
Some but not others
3
Mostly don’t know them but know a few
4
No – none of them
5
Don’t know
6
THOSE AWARE OF AT LEAST SOME OF THEIR COMPETITORS RESULTS (E12=1/4)
E13 How do you know about the results of your competitors?
PROMPT FULLY. MULTICODE
The sticker can be clearly seen from the outside of the
1
shop
Word of mouth
2
Websites
3
Business organisation meetings
4
Mobile Apps
5
FSA website
6
Local Authority
7
Other (SPECIFY)
8
Don’t Know
9
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
Error! Reference
source not found.
72
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
ASK ALL
E14 How important would you say it is to you to have [TEXT SUB (IF S4DUM =2) a rating; (IF S4DUM
=1) an inspection result] which is the same or higher than other food businesses similar to
yours in your neighbourhood? Would you say it is….?
Very important
1
Fairly important
2
Not very important
3
Not at all important
4
Don’t Know
5
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
Error! Reference
source not found.
73
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
F Media Coverage
F1
F2
F3
F4
ASK ALL
Have you seen any general publicity about the Food Hygiene [TEXT SUB (IF S4DUM =2) Rating;
(IF S4DUM =1) Information] Scheme?
Yes
1
No
2
Don’t know
3
THOSE WHO HAVE SEEN PUBLICITY (F1=1)
Where have you seen the Food Hygiene [TEXT SUB (IF S4DUM =2) Rating; (IF S4DUM =1)
Information] Scheme publicised?
DO NOT READ OUT.
Local Press
1
Leaflet
2
Online
3
TV
4
Radio
5
Other (SPECIFY)
6
Don’t Know/ Can’t remember
7
ASK ALL
Have you ever had any publicity in the press about your business’s Food Hygiene [TEXT SUB
(IF S4DUM =2) Rating; (IF S4DUM =1) Inspection result]?
Yes
1
No
2
Don’t know
3
THOSE WHO HAVE HAD PUBLICITY ABOUT THEIR RATING/ INSPECTION RESULT (F3=1)
Was that publicity positive or negative?
Positive
1
Negative
2
Neither
3
Don’t know
4
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
Error! Reference
source not found.
74
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
G Firmographics
G1
G3
G4
ASK ALL
Finally, I’d like to ask you a few quick classification questions about your business.
Is your business in an urban or rural area?
Urban
1
Rural
2
Don’t know
3
G2- QUESTION DELETED
ASK ALL
What is the nationality of the food sold in the restaurant or cafe that you work in?
NOTE TO INTERVIEWER: If they sell more than one ethnic style of food: ADD IF NECESSARY:
We are interested in the nationality of food which you sell most of
SINGLE CODE
British
1
American
2
Chinese
3
Indian
4
Thai
5
Mexican
6
Italian
7
Spanish
8
French
9
Turkish
10
Greek
11
‘Modern European’
12
Other (specify)
13
Multiple ethnic styles
14
Don’t know
15
ASK ALL
Can I just check, how many people work at this establishment? Please include all staff at the
site including yourself, all others on your payroll and any working proprietors or owners, but
exclude the self-employed and outside contractor or agency staff.
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
Error! Reference
source not found.
75
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
CODE ONE ONLY
PROMPT WITH RANGES IF NECESSARY
G5
1
1
2-4
2
5-10
3
11-24
4
25-50
5
51-99
6
100-199
7
200-249
8
250-499
9
500+
10
Don’t know
11
Refused
12
What is the first language of the owner/manager?
English
1
Bengali
2
Hindi
3
Sylheti
4
Urdu
5
Cantonese
6
Mandarin
7
Other (write in)
8
Don’t know
9
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
Error! Reference
source not found.
76
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
G6
G7
What is the first language of the majority of your staff?
CODE ALL THAT APPLY
English
1
Bengali
2
Hindi
3
Sylheti
4
Urdu
5
Cantonese
6
Mandarin
7
Other (write in)
8
Don’t know
9
How long has this business been operating (at these premises)?
IF NECESSARY: It doesn’t matter if you don’t know exactly, an estimate is fine.
Up to 6 months
1
6 months up to 1 year
2
Over 1 year up to 2 years
3
Over 2 years up to 3 years
4
Over 3 years up to 5 years
5
Over 5 years up to 10 years
6
More than 10 years
7
Don’t know
8
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
Error! Reference
source not found.
77
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
G8
ASK ALL
RECORD NAME AND JOB TITLE
NAME
JOB TITLE
G9
ASK ALL
It is possible that the Food Standards Agency may wish to do some follow-up research on the
back of this survey. Would it be possible for the FSA or any agency working on their behalf to
contact you if this was the case?
Yes
1
No
2
Don’t know
3
IF AGREE TO FOLLOW UP (G7/1)
G10
Can I check that we’ve got the best contact details for you.
CONFIRM ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE NUMBER ON SAMPLE ARE CORRECT
CHANGE ADDRESS (WRITE IN)
1
CHANGE TELEPHONE NUMBER (WRITE IN)
2
THANK RESPONDENT AND CLOSE INTERVIEW
Finally I would just like to confirm that this survey has been carried out under IFF instructions and
within the rules of the MRS Code of Conduct. Thank you very much for your help today.
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
Error! Reference
source not found.
78
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
Differences between ‘reported’ and ‘actual’ scores
In the interview, one in six businesses (18%) gave a rating in the questionnaire which differed from
that published on the FSA website. This could have been due to misunderstanding or deliberate misreporting. It is also possible that some businesses were re-inspected and had their scores changed
between the point when the sample was drawn and the end of fieldwork.14% of all businesses
reported a higher rating/status in the questionnaire while 3% reporting a lower rating/status.
The following tables show how, within each region, the inspection results reported by businesses in
interview differ from the rating/ status published on the FSA website.
Within each case study area there was some discrepancy between ratings reported in interview and
those published on the FSA website. The highest levels of discrepancy was highest in England 1 (29%
of ratings given did not match those on the website) and Scotland 1 (25%).
Inconsistencies are outlined in bold in the following tables.
As shown in Table A1, 25 businesses reported a different inspection result in Scotland 1 (25%).
Table A1: Status comparison for food businesses in Scotland 1
Interview rating
Base: All
businesses
Scotland
1
Website rating
Improvement requierd
Pass
All
Improvement
required
Pass
Don’t Know
100
9
87
4
32
68
7
2
23
64
2
2
19 businesses reported a different result in Scotland 2 (19%).
Table A2: Status comparison for food businesses in Scotland 2
Interview rating
Base: All
businesses
Scotland
Website rating
Improvement requierd
Pass
2
All
Improvement
required
Pass
100
16
84
35
65
16
0
19
65
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
Error! Reference
source not found.
79
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
13 businesses reported the wrong inspection result in Wales 1 (13%).
Table A3: Rating comparison for food businesses in Wales 1
Interview rating
All
Base: All Wales 1
businesses
104
1
2
3
4
5
Don’t
Know
18
11
17
28
26
4
17
1
-
2
7
1
1
-
1
1
15
-
2
1
1
24
-
1
1
24
3
1
-
Website rating
0
1
2
3
4
5
1
25
11
17
26
24
14 businesses reported a different result in Wales 2 (13%).
Table A4: Rating comparison for food businesses in Wales 2
Interview rating
All
Base: All Wales 2
businesses
105
0
1
2
3
4
5
Don’t
Know
1
19
16
15
25
26
3
1
-
17
2
14
1
1
1
1
9
3
1
23
2
1
1
24
1
1
1
-
Website rating
0
1
2
3
4
5
2
20
15
9
29
30
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
Error! Reference
source not found.
80
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
29 businesses reported a different inspection result in England 1 (29%).
Table A5: Rating comparison for food businesses in England 1
Interview rating
0
1
2
3
4
5
Don’t
Know
100
1
9
11
32
22
21
4
4
22
11
23
21
19
1
-
8
1
-
1
3
6
1
-
1
6
1
20
2
2
1
1
1
1
17
1
2
1
2
16
1
2
1
-
All
Base: All England
1 businesses
Website rating
0
1
2
3
4
5
17 businesses reported a different inspection result in England 2 (19%).
Table A6: Rating comparison for food businesses in England 2
Interview rating
Base: All England
2 businesses
All
1
2
3
4
5
Don’t
Know
91
5
12
26
29
14
5
11
15
26
23
16
4
1
-
1
9
2
-
4
3
19
-
1
1
4
23
-
14
1
1
1
2
Website rating
1
2
3
4
5
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
Error! Reference
source not found.
81
FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey
15 businesses reported a different inspection result in Northern Ireland 1 (15%).
Table A7: Rating comparison for food businesses in Northern Ireland 1
Interview rating
0
1
2
3
4
5
Don’t
Know
100
1
2
3
23
33
37
1
2
2
6
28
29
33
1
-
2
-
3
-
1
20
2
-
1
1
5
24
2
1
2
3
31
1
-
All
Base: All Northern
Ireland
1
businesses
Website rating
0
1
2
3
4
5
8 businesses reported a different inspection result in the other Northern Ireland 2 (8%).
Table A8: Rating comparison for food businesses in other Northern Ireland 2
Interview rating
Base:
All
other
Northern Ireland 2
businesses
All
2
3
4
5
Don’t
Know
Refused
100
2
26
36
33
2
1
1
Website rating
1
2
3
4
5
2
4
31
31
32
2
-
1
1
24
-
5
31
-
5079 FHRS/FHIS Evaluation - Food Business Survey Food Standards
Agency IFF 0
1
32
1
1
-
1
-
Error! Reference
source not found.
82