How Scheduling Can Bias Quality Assessment: Evidence from Food Safety Inspections

Maria  Ibanez; Michael W. Toffel

Article | Management Science | June 2020

How Scheduling Can Bias Quality Assessment: Evidence from Food Safety Inspections

Abstract

Accuracy and consistency are critical for inspections to be an effective, fair, and useful tool for assessing risks, quality, and suppliers—and for making decisions based on those assessments. We examine how inspector schedules could introduce bias that erodes inspection quality by altering inspector stringency. Our analysis of thousands of food safety inspections reveals that inspectors are affected by the inspection outcomes at their prior inspected establishment (outcome effects), citing more violations after they inspect establishments that exhibited worse compliance levels or trends. Moreover, consistent with negativity bias, the effect is stronger after observing compliance deterioration than improvement. Inspection results are also affected by when the inspection occurs within an inspector’s day (daily schedule effects): inspectors cite fewer violations after spending more time conducting inspections throughout the day and when inspections risk prolonging their typical workday. Overall, our findings suggest that currently unreported violations would be cited if the outcome effects—which increase scrutiny—were triggered more often and if the daily schedule effects—which erode scrutiny—were reduced. For example, our estimates indicate that if outcome effects were doubled and daily schedule effects were fully mitigated, 11% more violations would be detected, enabling remedial actions that could substantially reduce foodborne illnesses and hospitalizations. Understanding and addressing these inspection biases can help managers and policymakers improve not only food safety but also process quality, environmental practices, occupational safety, working conditions, and infrastructure.

Keywords: Assessment; bias; inspection; scheduling; Econometric Analysis; Empirical Research; regulation; Health; Food; Safety; Quality; Performance Consistency; Governing Rules, Regulations, and Reforms;

Format: Print

SSRN Find at Harvard Read Now

Citation:

Ibanez, Maria, and Michael W. Toffel. "How Scheduling Can Bias Quality Assessment: Evidence from Food Safety Inspections." Management Science 66, no. 6 (June 2020): 2396–2416. (Revised February 2019. Featured in Harvard Business Review, Forbes, Food Safety Magazine, Food Safety News, and KelloggInsight.)

Article | ILR Review | August 2020

Improving Working Conditions in Global Supply Chains: The Role of Institutional Environments and Monitoring Program Design

Jodi L. Short, Michael W. Toffel and Andrea R. Hugill

Activism seeking to improve labor conditions in global supply chains has led many transnational corporations to adopt codes of conduct and monitor suppliers for compliance. Drawing on thousands of audits conducted by a major social auditor, we identify structural contingencies in the institutional environment and program design under which codes and monitoring are more likely to be associated with improvements in conditions. At the institutional level, suppliers improve more when they face greater risk that NGOs and the press will expose harmful working conditions and when their buyers have experienced negative publicity for supply chain labor abuses. At the program design level, suppliers improve more on average when audits are pre-announced, when auditors are highly trained, and especially when both are true. However, extended analysis reveals nuances to these findings, demonstrating that improvement varies across violation types. For instance, we find that pre-announced audits were followed by greater improvement in OSH practices but not child labor practices. These findings can inform strategies for improving supply chain working conditions.

Keywords: Monitoring; supplier relationship; sustainability; Sustainability Management; Sustainable Operations; sustainable supply chains; NGO; Operations; Supply Chain Management; Governance Compliance; Corporate Social Responsibility and Impact; Global Range; Working Conditions;

Citation:

Short, Jodi L., Michael W. Toffel, and Andrea R. Hugill. "Improving Working Conditions in Global Supply Chains: The Role of Institutional Environments and Monitoring Program Design." ILR Review 73, no. 4 (August 2020): 873–912. View Details

Cite View Details SSRN Find at Harvard Read Now

While many CEOs have spoken out to share their thoughts on race and police misconduct in America, they have yet to advocate for policy solutions for police reform, focusing instead on their own corporate and personal values. But lasting change must also involve political institutions. CEOs who are serious about rooting out racism and reforming the justice system need to make it a priority not just in their communications strategy, but in their political strategy as well. Absent such advocacy, CEOs risk being targets of activists, the most vocal of which will probably include their own employees.

Faculty & Research

How Scheduling Can Bias Quality Assessment: Evidence from Food Safety Inspections

Abstract

Citation:

About the Author

More from the Author

Faculty & Research

How Scheduling Can Bias Quality Assessment: Evidence from Food Safety Inspections

Abstract

Citation:

Related Work

About the Author

More from the Author