Tae Yang Kim; Mi Young Lee; Young Eun Lee

doi:10.5720/kjcn.2025.00332

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Korean J Community Nutr > Volume 31(1); 2026 > Article

Research Article
Impact of a foodservice establishment manager’s willingness to perform duties on hygiene management levels and the mediating effects of extrinsic motivations: a cross-sectional study: Tae Yang Kim¹⁾, Mi Young Lee²⁾, Young Eun Lee^3),†; Korean Journal of Community Nutrition 2026;31(1):36-49.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5720/kjcn.2025.00332
Published online: February 28, 2026

¹⁾Teacher, Pyeonggok Elementary School, Eumseong, Korea

²⁾Education Advisor, CheongNamDae Presidential Retreat, Cheongju, Korea

³⁾Professor, Department of Food and Nutrition, College of Human Ecology, Chungbuk National University, Cheongju, Korea

†Corresponding author Young Eun Lee Department of Food and Nutrition, College of Human Ecology, Chungbuk National University, 1 Chungdae-ro, Seowon-gu, Cheongju 28644, Korea Tel: +82-43-261-2742 Fax: +82-43-267-2742 Email: ylee@chungbuk.ac.kr

• Received: November 5, 2025 • Revised: December 11, 2025 • Accepted: January 21, 2026

This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

40 Views
0 Download

prev next

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract
INTRODUCTION
METHODS
RESULTS
NOTES
REFERENCES

Abstract

Objectives
Consumer demand is growing for more rigorous hygiene management within foodservice establishments. The aim of this study was to provide customized data specific to each foodservice establishment, thereby informing policy formulation to improve hygiene management levels.
Methods
We surveyed 310 managers of directly managed foodservice establishments (excluding franchises) that were subject to hygiene inspections by the Chungbuk Provincial Office in Korea between September 1 and 27, 2023. Additionally, 30 investigators trained in methods for evaluating the hygiene management levels of foodservice establishments objectively assessed 310 establishments using evaluation sheets. All 310 managers provided consent and personally completed the questionnaires. questionnaires. Data from 277 managers were included in the analysis. General characteristics were analyzed with descriptive statistics in IBM SPSS Statistics 28 (IBM Corp.). Univariate normality verification, measurement model verification, structural model verification, and mediation effect significance analysis were conducted using R’s lavaan package (version 4.3.2.).
Results
Managers’ willingness to perform duties had a positive influence on hygiene management level (0.224), enthusiasm for hygiene (0.661), awareness of hygiene compliance (0.616), mandatory perception of the system (0.568), trust in local governments (0.406), and attention to consumers (0.558). In the relationship between managers’ willingness to perform duties and hygiene management level, mandatory perception of the system had a negative mediating effect (–0.223), while trust in local governments had a positive mediating effect (0.264).
Conclusion
Structural equation modeling was used to identify the complex pathways by which foodservice establishment managers’ willingness to perform duties, mediated by their human factors, influences their hygiene management level. Accordingly, policy implications were presented, suggesting that the hygiene management level of foodservice establishments could be enhanced by increasing managers’ willingness to perform their duties, and that a shift from mandatory regulations by local governments to support-oriented systems that foster trust in local governments is necessary.
Keywords: foodservice; willingness to perform duties; trust in local governments; hygiene management levels; mediating effects

INTRODUCTION

The daily dining-out rate among Korean adults (once or more per day), which reached its highest level at 33.5% in 2018, decreased to 23.8% in 2021 owing to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, before rising again to 24.8% in 2023. Consequently, the number of food poisoning incidents in restaurants increased from 119 cases in 2021 to 200 cases in 2023, leading to growing consumer demand for more rigorous hygiene management in these establishments [1-3].

Local governments, which are responsible for the hygiene management of restaurants within their jurisdiction, conduct hygiene inspections and provide hygiene education for restaurant managers in accordance with the Food Sanitation Act [4, 5]. Furthermore, since 2017, a hygiene grade certification system has been implemented to objectively evaluate the hygiene management levels of restaurants [6]. Although these local government policies have contributed to enhancing hygiene management in restaurants [7], food poisoning incidents have continued to rise alongside increasing dining-out rates. Therefore, a clear need has arisen for adaptable and customized policies that consider managers’ human factors to ensure effective on-site restaurant hygiene management [8].

Motivation, a human factor, can be intrinsic or extrinsic, and restaurant hygiene management levels are known to vary depending on how these motivations—individually or interactively—influence managers [9-15]. Intrinsic motivation refers to the willingness to perform duties, defined as a manager’s willingness to diligently carry out duties even in the absence of external rewards or punishments [9-12].

On the other hand, extrinsic motivation encompasses enthusiasm for hygiene, awareness of hygiene compliance, mandatory perception of the system, trust in local governments, and attention to consumers. Enthusiasm for hygiene signifies a manager’s belief that hygiene is an important factor that should be proactively managed [16]. Awareness of hygiene compliance refers to managers’ efforts to prevent food poisoning by adhering to hygiene-related laws and guidelines, such as the Food Sanitation Act [17, 18]. Mandatory perception of the system involves managers recognizing and striving to fulfill their responsibilities and obligations under hygiene-related guidelines [19]. Trust in local governments implies transparent and fair communication between authorities and managers, fostering positive acceptance of local government policies [20-22]. Attention to consumers refers to managers’ efforts to meet the hygiene standards expected by customers [23-29].

Previous research, rather than specifically considering these human factors of managers, mostly focused on control-oriented policies to elevate hygiene management levels, or involved analyzing the importance and performance of kitchen hygiene management, the knowledge and attitudes of food handlers, managers’ leadership, and employees’ job engagement as determinants of hygiene management levels [7, 15, 19, 29-31]. Consequently, there is a shortage of research on how managers’ human factors interact to determine the level of hygiene management in restaurants.

Furthermore, previous surveys of restaurants managers or employees often evaluated the hygiene management level of restaurants through self-reporting [30]. As it is difficult to ensure objectivity in a self-reported evaluation of hygiene management levels, overestimation or underestimation by managers or employees may occur. The shortcomings of self-reported data can be compensated for by using trained investigators to objectively assess the hygiene management level of restaurants on-site [31].

Verification of the complex multiple mediating effects involving managers’ human factors and hygiene management levels assessed by trained investigators can be effectively analyzed using structural equation modeling (SEM), thereby enhancing the reliability of research findings [32]. Accordingly, this study was conducted using SEM to examine how restaurant managers’ willingness to perform duties is linked with their enthusiasm for hygiene, awareness of hygiene compliance, mandatory perception of the system, trust in local governments, and attention to consumers, in order to determine hygiene management levels. Through this analysis, we aimed to clarify the multiple mediating effects and provide applicable data to each foodservice establishment, thereby informing policy formulation to improve hygiene management levels.

METHODS

Ethics statement

Written informed consent was obtained from each participant. The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Chungbuk National University (IRB No. CBNU-202307-HR-0169).

1. Study design

This cross-sectional study was conducted and reported in accordance with the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement, available at https://www.strobe-statement.org/.

2. Participants

Considering average total daily revenue and seating capacity, we surveyed 310 managers of directly managed foodservice establishments (excluding franchises) that were registered as general restaurants and were subject to hygiene inspections by the Chungbuk, Korea Provincial Office from September 1 to 27, 2023. The sample size for this study exceeded 200, meeting the minimum requirement for SEM [33]. Prior to the survey, the study’s purpose was explained to the foodservice establishment managers to obtain their consent. Among them, 310 managers provided consent and personally completed the questionnaires.

Additionally, 30 trained investigators, trained in methods for evaluating hygiene management in foodservice establishments, objectively assessed 310 foodservice establishments using evaluation sheets. Data from 277 managers (analysis rate: 89.35%) were included in the analysis, while 33 responses were excluded owing to inadequacy.

3. Variables and measurement

The questionnaires used in this study were supplemented and revised with reference to previous studies [34-36]. They were divided into (1) a questionnaire to be completed directly by a foodservice establishment manager and (2) a hygiene management level evaluation sheet to be completed by a trained investigator. The manager questionnaire comprised items on general characteristics (9 items), willingness to perform duties (8 items), enthusiasm for hygiene (5 items), awareness of hygiene compliance (4 items), mandatory perception of the system (6 items), trust in local governments (5 items), and attention to consumers (5 items). Responses in the latter six categories were measured using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Not at all, 2 = Not really, 3 = Average, 4 = Somewhat, 5 = Very much so). The hygiene management level evaluation sheet, completed by trained investigators, comprised 64 items: basic hygiene management (9 items), dining area hygiene management (7 items), kitchen hygiene management (45 items), and culinary employees hygiene management (3 items). These were assessed using a binary scale (0 = No, 1 = Yes).

Item parceling was conducted through factor analysis (Table 1). Willingness to perform duties, enthusiasm for hygiene, awareness of hygiene compliance, mandatory perception of the system, trust in local governments, and attention to consumers were configured as latent variables, while hygiene management level was treated as an observed variable. Item parceling followed the item-to-construct balance method [37], which equitably allocates observed variables across latent variables, such that each latent variable comprised three observed variables. Specifically, item parceling was performed by sequentially grouping observed variables with high and low factor loadings within each item, resulting in each latent variable being newly composed of three observed variables. Individual items measuring the same latent variable were grouped into three balanced observed variables through item parceling, based on their respective factor loadings [38, 39]. All factor loadings met the threshold of 0.3 or higher, thereby confirming that the latent variable was unidimensional and adequate [37, 40]. Through item parceling, model complexity was reduced and the stability of parameter estimates was secured.

For each latent variable, three observed variables were constructed: willingness to perform duties consisted of willingness to perform duties 1–3; enthusiasm for hygiene consisted of enthusiasm for hygiene 1–3; awareness of hygiene compliance consisted of awareness of hygiene compliance 1–3; mandatory perception of the system consisted of mandatory perception of the system 1–3; trust in local governments consisted of trust in local governments 1–3; and attention to consumers consisted of attention to consumers 1–3. In each case, observed variables classified as Group 1 consisted of the survey items.

An analysis was conducted to determine whether the three constructed observed variables effectively assessed each latent variable. The resulting Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for internal consistency reliability were 0.914 for willingness to perform duties, 0.816 for enthusiasm for hygiene, 0.920 for awareness of hygiene compliance, 0.914 for mandatory perception of the system, 0.917 for trust in local governments, and 0.910 for attention to consumers. All coefficients met the threshold of 0.7 or higher, thereby securing internal consistency.

4. Univariate normality verification

Because parameters were estimated using the maximum likelihood estimation method, the skewness and kurtosis of the variables measuring foodservice establishment managers’ human factors were examined to confirm the assumption of a normal distribution for the observed variables [41]. The three observed variables for willingness to perform duties (skewness –0.035, –0.246, –0.279; kurtosis –0.607, –0.658, –0.221), enthusiasm for hygiene (skewness –0.276, –0.587, –0.477; kurtosis –0.210, 0.516, 0.412), awareness of hygiene compliance (skewness –0.265, –0.193, –0.382; kurtosis –0.191, –0.256, 0.106), mandatory perception of the system (skewness –0.120, –0.274, –0.188; kurtosis –0.035, 0.426, –0.238), trust in local governments (skewness –0.430, –0.436, –0.566; kurtosis 0.312, 0.216, 0.578), and attention to consumers (skewness –0.148, 0.235, –0.075; kurtosis –0.483, –0.487, –0.227) were all measured on a 5-point Likert scale. The skewness and kurtosis of each observed variable fell within the standard ranges [33] of –3 < skewness < 3 and –10 < kurtosis < 10, indicating univariate normality.

5. Statistical analysis

Statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics 28 (IBM Corp.) and the lavaan package in R (version 4.3.2.). General characteristics were analyzed using descriptive statistics in SPSS. Univariate normality verification, measurement model verification, structural model verification, and mediation effect significance analysis were conducted using R’s lavaan package [38].

Maximum likelihood estimation was used for parameter estimation. Univariate normality was confirmed by calculating the skewness and kurtosis for each observed variable created through item parceling [42]. Subsequently, a two-step approach was applied, involving measurement model verification followed by structural model verification [43]. The fit of the measurement model and structural model was confirmed using the comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). The criteria for fit indices were set at CFI and TLI ≥ 0.9 and RMSEA ≤ 0.08 [44]. The significance of the mediating effects of mandatory perception of the system and trust in local governments was verified using a bootstrap analysis. The significance level for all analyses was set at P < 0.05.

RESULTS

1. General characteristics

As shown in Table 2, of the 277 participants, 102 (36.80%) were male and 175 (63.20%) were female. Regarding age distribution, respondents in their 50s accounted for the largest group (32.50%, n = 90), followed by those aged 60 years or older (28.20%, n = 78), those in their 40s (25.20%, n = 70), those in their 30s (11.20%, n = 31), and those in their 20s (2.90%, n = 8). The average number of employees was 2.25, the average number of customers per day was 41.02, and the average total daily revenue was 586,928 KRW.

2. Dependence of foodservice establishment manager’s human factor scores hygiene management levels

Table 3 presents a comparison of the results of comparing the scores of foodservice establishment managers’ human factor scores across two groups categorized by hygiene management level. Human factors can be divided into intrinsic, such as willingness to perform duties, and extrinsic motivation, such as enthusiasm for hygiene, awareness of hygiene compliance, mandatory perception of the system, trust in local governments, and attention to consumers. Hygiene management level assessment comprised 64 items: basic hygiene management (9 items), dining area hygiene management (7 items), kitchen hygiene management (45 items), and culinary employees hygiene management (3 items). The maximum score was 64 points and an average of 55.85 points. Group 1 consisted of establishments with hygiene management levels below the average, while Group 2 comprised establishments with levels above the average.

Group 1 scored significantly higher than Group 2 on the following observed variables: willingness to perform duties 1 (P < 0.001), enthusiasm for hygiene 1 (P < 0.001), awareness of hygiene compliance 1 (P = 0.004), mandatory perception of the system 1 (P < 0.001), trust in local governments 1 (P = 0.007), and attention to consumers 1 (P < 0.001). The group with higher hygiene management levels generally had higher scores for most of the foodservice establishment managers’ human factors.

3. Measurement model verification

Table 4 presents the factor loadings, average variance extracted (AVE), and composite reliability (CR) for each observed variable related to foodservice establishment managers’ human factors. Table 5 lists the square root of the AVE values and correlation coefficients for each latent variable. As a two-step approach involving verification of the measurement model before using the structural model, the fit of the measurement model was first confirmed. Subsequently, the factor loadings of each observed variable were examined to ascertain the degree to which they accurately measured their respective latent variables.

Additionally, AVE was evaluated to confirm whether the observed variables constituting each latent variable were significantly correlated [45]. CR was examined to confirm the reliability of the observed variables [46]. The square root of the AVE for each latent variable was confirmed to verify whether the latent variables were distinct from each other [47].

The fit of the measurement model was appropriate, with χ² = 309.166, df = 120, P < 0.001, CFI = 0.956, TLI = 0.944 (both CFI and TLI ≥ 0.9), and RMSEA = 0.075 (≤ 0.08). The factor loadings of the observed variables ranged from 0.737 to 0.951, all exceeding 0.7 and being statistically significant (P < 0.001), indicating that the observed variables adequately captured their respective latent variables [48].

The AVE values for the latent variables ranged from 0.669 to 0.794, all exceeding the 0.5 threshold and demonstrating convergent validity [48]. CR values ranged from 0.867 to 0.923, exceeding the 0.7 threshold and ensuring internal consistency [49]. The square root of the AVE for the latent variables (willingness to perform duties, enthusiasm for hygiene, awareness of hygiene compliance, mandatory perception of the system, trust in local governments, and attention to consumers) ranged from 0.818 to 0.891. These values exceeded the inter-construct correlation coefficients (0.369–0.668), indicating discriminant validity [49].

4. Structural model verification

Table 6 presents the structural coefficients and significance of the structural model, which examined the relationships among foodservice establishment managers’ willingness to perform their duties, enthusiasm for hygiene, awareness of hygiene compliance, mandatory perception of the system, trust in local governments, attention to consumers, and hygiene management level.

The structural model demonstrated a good fit, with χ² = 314.025, df = 132, P < 0.001, CFI = 0.958, TLI = 0.945 (both CFI and TLI ≥ 0.9), and RMSEA = 0.071 (≤ 0.08). An increase of 1 point in willingness to perform duties was associated with an increase of 0.244 points in hygiene management level, 0.661 points in enthusiasm for hygiene, 0.616 points in awareness of hygiene compliance, 0.568 points in mandatory perception of the system, 0.406 points in trust in local governments, and 0.558 points in attention to consumers. These results confirmed that higher willingness to perform duties led to higher hygiene management levels, enthusiasm for hygiene, awareness of hygiene compliance, mandatory perception of the system, trust in local governments, and attention to consumers.

When enthusiasm for hygiene, awareness of hygiene compliance, trust in local governments, and attention to consumers were controlled, a 1-point increase in mandatory perception of the system was associated with a 0.223-point decrease in hygiene management level. Thus, a higher mandatory perception of the system was associated with a lower hygiene management level.

When enthusiasm for hygiene, awareness of hygiene compliance, mandatory perception of the system, and attention to consumers were controlled, a 1-point increase in trust in local governments was associated with a 0.264-point increase in hygiene management level. Thus, a greater degree of trust in local governments led to a higher hygiene management level.

5. Significance of mediating effect of structural model

Table 7 presents the results of the mediation analysis between foodservice establishment managers’ human factors and hygiene management level. Fig. 1 illustrates the mediation model, allowing for an intuitive understanding of both the direction and strength of the mediating effects. To verify the mediating effects of mandatory perception of the system and trust in local governments in the relationship between foodservice establishment managers’ willingness to perform duties and hygiene management level, a bootstrap analysis with 1,000 resamples was conducted.

In this relationship, the mediating effect of mandatory perception of the system was statistically significant, as the 95% confidence interval did not include zero (B = 0.953, 95% CI = 1.696 to 0.148). Mandatory perception of the system had a negative () mediating effect in the relationship between willingness to perform duties and hygiene management level. For managers with high willingness to perform duties, a lower mandatory perception of the system can further enhance hygiene management levels.

Furthermore, the mediating effect of trust in local governments was statistically significant, as the 95% confidence interval excluded zero (B = 0.807, 95% CI = 0.372–1.435). Trust in local governments had a positive mediating effect in the relationship between willingness to perform duties and hygiene management level. For managers with high willingness to perform duties, enhancing their trust in local governments can further improve hygiene management levels.

DISCUSSION

In this study, SEM was used to identify the complex pathways by which foodservice establishment managers’ willingness to perform duties—mediated by their enthusiasm for hygiene, awareness of hygiene compliance, mandatory perception of the system, trust in local governments, and attention to consumers—translates into actual behavior in hygiene management levels. The study was conducted with the aim of providing customized data for individual foodservice establishments to inform policy development for improving hygiene management levels. To enhance research objectivity, assessment of hygiene management was carried out by trained investigators. The significance of this study lies in its approach to managers’ human factors through motivation theory, distinguishing between intrinsic and extrinsic motivations, and systematically verifying the multiple mediating effects of extrinsic motivations on the relationship between intrinsic motivation and hygiene management level using SEM.

The results indicated that managers’ willingness to perform duties had a positive influence on hygiene management level (0.224), enthusiasm for hygiene (0.661), awareness of hygiene compliance (0.616), mandatory perception of the system (0.568), trust in local governments (0.406), and attention to consumers (0.558). In the relationship between managers’ willingness to perform duties and hygiene management level, mandatory perception of the system had a negative mediating effect (–0.223), while trust in local governments had a positive (+) mediating effect (0.264). Although not statistically significant, enthusiasm for hygiene (0.042) and awareness of hygiene compliance (0.091) had positive effects.

The finding that managers’ willingness to perform duties directly and positively influences hygiene management levels is consistent with previous studies showing that managers’ willingness to perform their duties affects their performance [50, 51]. It also aligns with prior research indicating that managers’ human factors influence the operational methods or performance of foodservice establishments [13, 14]. Therefore, our study verified that managers’ willingness to perform duties plays a crucial role in enhancing hygiene management levels. Hygiene management levels can be improved by implementing educational programs designed to enhance willingness to perform duties.

The finding that mandatory perception of the system negatively mediates the relationship between managers’ willingness to perform duties and hygiene management level is similar to that of previous research, which suggested that policies that provide information on technology, rather than those that impose administrative regulations on businesses, are more beneficial for business development [52]. These results indicate that excessive legal regulations or administrative coercion by local governments on foodservice establishments may lower their hygiene management levels.

Conversely, the finding that trust in local governments positively mediates the relationship between managers’ willingness to perform duties and hygiene management level is consistent with that of previous studies, which indicated that transparent and fair communication from local governments encourages managers to positively accept local government policies [20-22]. Our findings are also similar to those of prior research that the quality of administrative services contributes to increasing managers’ trust in local governments [53]. Therefore, increasing trust in local governments may contribute to improved hygiene management levels in foodservice establishments.

The finding that managers’ enthusiasm for hygiene and awareness of hygiene compliance did not significantly influence hygiene management levels is consistent with that of prior research [50]. On the other hand, the result indicating that managers’ enthusiasm for hygiene and awareness of hygiene compliance had a positive effect on hygiene management levels was similar to those of previous studies [7, 17].

The present study showed that hygiene management compliance rates in foodservice establishments exceeded 80%, similar to a previous finding of 70% or higher [8]. This suggests that hygiene management levels in Korean foodservice establishments are relatively high. However, considering the increasing number of food poisoning incidents in restaurants [2], it is necessary to seek policy measures to genuinely improve hygiene management levels, rather than simply making absolute comparisons based solely on compliance rates.

Local governments should shift their policy direction from mandatory regulations and rules concerning hygiene in foodservice establishments to providing customized administrative services. These services can be centered on training specialized personnel for hygiene management, offering budget support, administrative guidance, and consulting [53-58].

Moreover, when hygiene-related issues arise in foodservice establishments, local governments should offer neutral and objective solutions to managers. Changes to hygiene-related laws and guidelines should be communicated promptly, as this increase managers’ trust in local governments and ultimately enhance hygiene management levels [57, 58]. Providing individualized, customized hygiene education that considers managers’ human factors, rather than implementing generalized and unilateral hygiene education, may be a more practical and effective approach to improving hygiene management levels of foodservice establishments [59].

Limitations

The limitations of this study are as follows. First, this study included individuals from Chungbuk, Korea; thus, an in-depth analysis that can be generalized nationwide may be more meaningful. Second, although various personal traits of foodservice establishment managers were analyzed, it would be more appropriate to include in future studies factors such as managers’ foodservice establishment operation experience or educational background.

Conclusion

This study was conducted using SEM to identify the complex pathways by which foodservice establishment managers’ willingness to perform duties—mediated by their enthusiasm for hygiene, awareness of hygiene compliance, mandatory perception of the system, trust in local governments, and attention to consumers—influences their hygiene management level. Accordingly, policy implications were presented, suggesting that the hygiene management level of foodservice establishments could be enhanced by increasing managers’ willingness to perform their duties, and that a shift from mandatory regulations by local governments to support-oriented systems that foster trust in local governments is necessary. Future research focused on developing administrative service models related to hygiene for foodservice establishment managers by local governments and evaluates the effectiveness of customized hygiene education would contribute more practically to improving the hygiene management level of foodservice establishments and promoting public health.

NOTES

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

There are no financial or other issues that might lead to conflicts of interest.

FUNDING

None.

DATA AVAILABILITY

Research data is available upon request to the corresponding author.

Fig. 1.

Mediating model of enthusiasm for hygiene, awareness of hygiene compliance, mandatory perception of the system, trust in local governments, attention to consumers in a relation to willingness to perform duties and hygiene management levels. ^**P < 0.01, ^***P < 0.001.

Table 1.

Factor analysis on the willingness to perform duties and extrinsic motivation variables

Item (item parceling)	Factor loading	Cronbach’s alpha
Willingness to perform duties		0.914
Willingness to perform duties 1
Foodservice establishments operation and management tasks energize me	0.86
I believe foodservice establishments operation and management tasks are challenging	0.65
Willingness to perform duties 2
When performing foodservice establishments operation and management tasks, I feel mentally strong	0.84
I am confident in foodservice establishments operation and management tasks	0.70
When performing foodservice establishments operation and management tasks, I have the ability to solve problems	0.77
Willingness to perform duties 3
When performing foodservice establishments operation and management tasks, I pour all my energy into it	0.80
When performing foodservice establishments operation and management tasks, time passes quickly for me	0.72
When performing foodservice establishments operation and management tasks, I forget everything except the work	0.74
Enthusiasm for hygiene		0.816
Enthusiasm for hygiene 1
I well understand the purpose and necessity of hygiene management	0.86
I am participating in or intend to participate in the hygiene grade certification system	0.38
Enthusiasm for hygiene 2
I strive to adhere to hygiene-related guidelines	0.85
I know the purpose and qualifications of the hygiene grade certification system	0.63
Enthusiasm for hygiene 3
I am confident in hygiene management	0.73
Awareness of hygiene compliance		0.920
Awareness of hygiene compliance 1
I strive to comply with recommended, not just mandatory, hygiene-related rules	0.90
I well understand the purpose and guidelines of food hygiene-related laws	0.79
Awareness of hygiene compliance 2
I comply with the relevant laws not only during inspection periods but also on a regular basis	0.88
Awareness of hygiene compliance 3
I comply with hygiene-related laws	0.87
Mandatory perception of the system		0.914
Mandatory perception of the system 1
I adhere better to hygiene-related guidelines due to the reward and punishment system (certification system or administrative disposition)	0.86
I adhere better to hygiene-related guidelines due to consumer evaluations via SNS	0.74
Mandatory perception of the system 2
I adhere better to hygiene-related guidelines due to complaint reports to local governments	0.84
I adhere better to hygiene-related guidelines due to local governments’ hygiene inspection system.	0.74
Mandatory perception of the system 3
I adhere better to hygiene-related guidelines due to the introduction of the hygiene grade certification system	0.83
I adhere better to hygiene-related guidelines due to hygiene education by the local government	0.77
Trust in local governments		0.917
Trust in local governments 1
I believe local governments’ hygiene-related policies are useful	0.90
When hygiene issues arise between consumers and establishments, local governments provide neutral and objective resolutions	0.77
Trust in local governments 2
Local governments propose appropriate solutions for hygiene-related problems	0.85
I believe hygiene-related support provided by local governments helps with foodservice establishments hygiene management	0.79
Trust in local governments 3
Local governments provide the necessary information (changes in hygiene-related laws, guidelines, etc.).	0.84
Attention to consumers		0.910
Attention to consumers 1
I believe consumers will provide positive and active feedback if food is hygienic	0.87
I believe consumers will feel assured about foodservice establishments hygiene due to participation of the foodservice establishments in the hygiene grade certification system	0.72
Attention to consumers 2
I believe consumer satisfaction will improve if food is hygienic	0.86
I believe loyal consumers will increase and sales will improve if food is hygienic	0.82
Attention to consumers 3
I believe consumers will revisit through immediate and satisfactory resolution of hygiene-related complaints	0.83

Table 2.

General characteristics of the respondents (n = 277)

Characteristics	Value
Sex
Male	102 (36.80)
Female	175 (63.20)
Age (year)
20–29	8 (2.90)
30–39	31 (11.20)
40–49	70 (25.20)
50–59	90 (32.50)
≥ 60	78 (28.20)
No. of employees	2.25 ± 1.34
No. of customers (daily)	41.02 ± 30.52
Total revenue per seat (KRW/day)
< 20	465,794 ± 270,726
20–49	566,496 ± 451,758
≥ 50	916,170 ± 614,794
Total revenue per seat (KRW/day)	586,928 ± 453,530

n (%) or Mean ± SD.

Table 3.

Dependence of foodservice establishment manager’s human factor scores hygiene management levels

Observed variables	Group 1 (n = 123)¹⁾	Group 2 (n = 154)²⁾	P-value
Willingness to perform duties 1	3.32 ± 0.70	3.83 ± 0.76	< 0.001
Willingness to perform duties 2	3.50 ± 0.82	3.95 ± 0.77	< 0.001
Willingness to perform duties 3	3.66 ± 0.81	3.99 ± 0.78	< 0.001
Enthusiasm for hygiene 1	3.64 ± 0.69	3.96 ± 0.70	< 0.001
Enthusiasm for hygiene 2	3.71 ± 0.79	3.97 ± 0.75	0.004
Enthusiasm for hygiene 3	3.72 ± 0.69	3.99 ± 0.79	0.004
Awareness of hygiene compliance 1	3.28 ± 0.79	3.50 ± 0.93	0.035
Awareness of hygiene compliance 2	3.41 ± 0.77	3.61 ± 0.85	0.053
Awareness of hygiene compliance 3	3.23 ± 0.83	3.61 ± 0.94	< 0.001
Mandatory perception of the system 1	3.27 ± 0.71	3.64 ± 0.82	< 0.001
Mandatory perception of the system 2	3.40 ± 0.72	3.75 ± 0.81	< 0.001
Mandatory perception of the system 3	3.33 ± 0.83	3.73 ± 0.83	< 0.001
Trust in local governments 1	3.65 ± 0.67	3.89 ± 0.81	0.007
Trust in local governments 2	3.74 ± 0.65	3.94 ± 0.81	0.020
Trust in local governments 3	3.74 ± 0.70	3.91 ± 0.86	0.078
Attention to consumers 1	3.26 ± 0.84	3.73 ± 0.82	< 0.001
Attention to consumers 2	3.50 ± 0.64	3.90 ± 0.70	< 0.001
Attention to consumers 3	3.56 ± 0.66	3.89 ± 0.73	< 0.001

Mean ± SD.

The 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all, 2 = not really, 3 = average, 4 = somewhat, 5 = very much so).

¹⁾Group 1, group with lower than average score of the hygiene management levels.

²⁾Group 2, group with upper than average score of the hygiene management levels.

Table 4.

Measurement model verification on the willingness to perform duties and extrinsic motivation variables

Latent variables	Observed variables	B	SE	β	AVE	CR
Willingness to perform duties	Willingness to perform duties 1	1.000		0.829	0.750	0.899
	Willingness to perform duties 2	0.923^***	0.048	0.934
	Willingness to perform duties 3	0.861^***	0.050	0.850
Enthusiasm for hygiene	Enthusiasm for hygiene 1	1.000		0.822	0.669	0.867
	Enthusiasm for hygiene 2	1.150^***	0.068	0.886
	Enthusiasm for hygiene 3	0.938^***	0.070	0.737
Awareness of hygiene compliance	Awareness of hygiene compliance 1	1.000		0.951	0.792	0.918
	Awareness of hygiene compliance 2	0.973^***	0.045	0.849
	Awareness of hygiene compliance 3	0.982^***	0.042	0.875
Mandatory perception of the system	Mandatory perception of the system 1	1.000		0.917	0.794	0.923
	Mandatory perception of the system 2	0.953^***	0.038	0.933
	Mandatory perception of the system 3	0.940^***	0.048	0.830
Trust in local governments	Trust in local governments 1	1.000		0.878	0.752	0.900
	Trust in local governments 2	1.005^***	0.052	0.888
	Trust in local governments 3	1.029^***	0.058	0.841
Attention to consumers	Attention to consumers 1	1.000		0.866	0.777	0.915
	Attention to consumers 2	1.078^***	0.049	0.951
	Attention to consumers 3	1.002^***	0.056	0.830
Conformance criteria analysis result		χ²/df = 309.166/120, P < 0.001, CFI = 0.956, TLI = 0.944, RMSEA = 0.075

B, unstandardized coefficient; SE, standard error; β, standardized coefficient; AVE, average variance extracted; CR, composite reliability; df, degrees of freedom; CFI, comparative fit index; TLI, Tucker-Lewis index; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation.

^***P < 0.001.

Table 5.

Results of discriminant validity on the extrinsic motivation variables

Latent variables	Latent variable correlations
Latent variables	Enthusiasm for hygiene	Awareness of hygiene compliance	Mandatory perception of the system	Trust in local governments	Attention to consumers
Enthusiasm for hygiene	0.818¹⁾
Awareness of hygiene compliance	0.668	0.89
Mandatory perception of the system	0.369	0.401	0.891
Trust in local governments	0.424	0.444	0.451	0.867
Attention to consumers	0.436	0.395	0.404	0.455	0.881

¹⁾The square root of the average variance extracted for each latent variable was confirmed to verify whether the latent variables were distinct from each other.

Table 6.

Structural coefficient and significance of structural model on the willingness to perform duties, extrinsic motivation variables, and hygiene management levels

Path	B	SE	β	t
Willingness to perform duties → Hygiene management levels	1.834	0.653	0.244	2.808^**
Willingness to perform duties → Enthusiasm for hygiene	0.591	0.058	0.661	10.145^***
Willingness to perform duties → Awareness of hygiene compliance	0.586	0.056	0.616	10.453^***
Willingness to perform duties → Mandatory perception of the system	0.642	0.069	0.568	9.324^***
Willingness to perform duties → Trust in local governments	0.397	0.063	0.406	6.307^***
Willingness to perform duties → Attention to consumers	0.516	0.058	0.558	8.910^***
Enthusiasm for hygiene → Hygiene management levels	1.674	1.087	0.199	1.540
Awareness of hygiene compliance → Hygiene management levels	0.332	0.901	0.042	0.369
Mandatory perception of the system → Hygiene management levels	–1.485	0.569	–0.223	–2.607^**
Trust in local governments → Hygiene management levels	2.031	0.632	0.264	3.212^**
Attention to consumers → Hygiene management levels	–0.743	0.702	–0.091	–1.058
Conformance criteria analysis result	χ²/df = 314.025/132, P < 0.001, CFI = 0.958, TLI = 0.945, RMSEA = 0.071

B, unstandardized coefficient; SE, standard error; β, standardized coefficient; t, t-statistic; df, degrees of freedom; CFI, comparative fit index; TLI, Tucker-Lewis index; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation.

^**P < 0.01,

^***P < 0.001.

Table 7.

Significance of the mediating effect of structural model on willingness to perform duties, extrinsic motivation variables, and hygiene management levels

Path	B	SE	95% Confidence interval (bias-corrected bootstrap)
Path	B	SE	Lower	Upper
Willingness to perform duties → Mandatory perception of the system → Hygiene management levels	–0.953	0.386	–1.696	–0.148
Willingness to perform duties → Trust in local governments → Hygiene management levels	0.807	0.269	0.372	1.435

B, unstandardized coefficient; SE, standard error.

REFERENCES

1. Korean Statistical Information Service. Trends in eating out more than once a day [Internet]. Ministry of Data and Statistics; 2025 [cited 2026 Jan 21]. Available from: https://kosis.kr/statHtml/statHtml.do?orgId=177&tblId=DT_11702_N043&conn_path=I2
2. Korean Statistical Information Service. Number of food poisoning cases and patient status by city and facility [Internet]. Ministry of Data and Statistics; 2025 [cited 2026 Jan 21]. Available from: https://kosis.kr/statHtml/statHtml.do?orgId=145&tblId=DT_145012_A010&conn_path=I2
3. Heo SJ, Bae HJ. A survey on customers’ perception of a hygiene grade certification system for restaurants. J Nutr Health 2020; 53(2): 203-214. Article Link
4. Korean Law Information Center. Food sanitation act [Internet]. Ministry of Food and Drug Safety; 1962 [cited 2024 Aug 19] Available from: https://www.law.go.kr/LSW/lsInfoP.do?lsiSeq=8297&ancYd=19620120&ancNo=01007&efYd=19620421&nwJoYnInfo=N&efGubun=Y&chrClsCd=010202&ancYnChk=0#0000
5. Korean Law Information Center. Food sanitation act [Internet]. Ministry of Food and Drug Safety; 1986 [cited 2024 Aug 19] Available from: https://www.law.go.kr/LSW/lsInfoP.do?lsiSeq=59175&ancYd=19860510&ancNo=03823&efYd=19861111&nwJoYnInfo=N&efGubun=Y&chrClsCd=010202&ancYnChk=0#0000
6. Korean Law Information Center. Food sanitation act [Internet]. Ministry of Food and Drug Safety; 2015 [cited 2024 Aug 19] Available from: https://www.law.go.kr/LSW/lsInfoP.do?lsiSeq=169531&ancYd=20150327&ancNo=13277&efYd=20150327&nwJoYnInfo=N&efGubun=Y&chrClsCd=010202&ancYnChk=0#0000
7. Lee JW, Baek DH. Disclosure of restaurant hygiene information and food poisoning: focused to restaurant hygiene grading in Seoul. Korean Soc Public Adm 2019; 30(1): 255-276. Article
8. Chung MJ, Choi JH, Ryu K, Kwak TK. Development of self-managed food sanitation check-list and on-site monitoring of food sanitation management practices in restaurants for control of foodborne illness risk factors. Korean J Food Cook Sci 2010; 26(5): 603-616. Link
9. Kim GS, Ahn KY, Jung MY. The effects of internal marketing on job satisfaction in food service industry. Asia Pac J Bus Ventur Entrep 2012; 7(3): 27-37. Article
10. White RW. Motivation reconsidered: the concept of competence. Psychol Rev 1959; 66(5): 297-333. Article PubMed
11. Campbell RF, Corbally JE, Nystrand RO. Introduction to education administration. 6th ed. Allyn and Bacan; 1983. Link
12. Ryan RM, Deci EL. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am Psychol 2000; 55(1): 68-78. Article PubMed
13. Park JK, Cho MH. Multiple comparison analyses on employee work engagement and organizational performance according to sustainability leadership for restaurant managers. Culin Sci Hosp Res 2024; 30(8): 54-67. Article
14. Song JW. The influence of management characteristics and management environment of small restaurant operators on the perceived management performance. FoodService Ind J 2020; 16(1): 157-174. Article Link
15. Ha JC, Lee JW, Chung HS. Effects of transformational leadership on job engagement : analyzing the mediating effect of market oriented culture and the moderating effect of CEO-trust. Korean J Hum Resour Dev 2019; 22(4): 231-258. Article
16. Shin SI. The relationship of intrinsic and extrinsic major selection motivation to career decision level among college students: the mediating role of emotional and personality career difficulties. J Learn Cent Curric Instr 2021; 21(14): 447-460. Article
17. Park NH, Shin HK. The impact of ESG management activities of hamburger restaurant companies on corporate image and customer loyalty. J Distrib Manag Res 2024; 27(3): 109-122. Link
18. Carroll AB. A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Acad Manag Rev 1979; 4(4): 497-505. Article
19. Chang HJ, Kwak TK, Ju SY, Shin JY, Kim SH, Heo EJ, et al. Analysis of current food code for the improvement of hygiene management practices in restaurants by comparing standards and guidelines of developed countries. J Foodservice Manag 2016; 19(3): 7-23. Link
20. Christensen T, Lægreid P. Trust in government: the relative importance of service satisfaction, political factors, and demography. Public Perform Manag Rev 2005; 28(4): 487-511.
21. Omari R, Ruivenkamp GTP, Tetteh EK. Consumers’ trust in government institutions and their perception and concern about safety and healthiness of fast food. J Trust Res 2017; 7(2): 170-186. Article
22. Kim SH, Lee JH. E-participation, transparency, and trust in local government. Public Admin Rev 2012; 72: 819-828. Article Link
23. Lim HS, Yoon HH. An influence of corporate social responsibility on brand image, brand trust, brand commitment and behavior. J Foodservice Manag 2021; 24(1): 55-83. Article
24. Sichtmann C. Buyer-seller relationships and the economics of information. J Bus Market Manage 2007; 1: 59-78. Article PDF
25. Chon ML, Yoo JM. Corporate social responsibility and financial performance - investigating the moderating effects of motive and commitment of CSR -. Korean Manag Rev 2013; 42(5): 1159-1185. Link
26. An HJ, Lee SI. A study on the effect of corporate social responsibility of food service companies on corporate reputation and customer loyalty. J Foodservice Manag 2024; 27(5): 165-183. Article
27. Jin GZ, Leslie P. Reputational incentives for restaurant hygiene. Am Econ J Microecon 2009; 1(1): 237-267. Article
28. Jin GZ, Leslie P. The effect of information on product quality: evidence from restaurant hygiene grade cards. Q J Econ 2003; 118(2): 409-451. Article
29. Wang KM, Hong WS. Importance-performance analysis on kitchen hygiene management of small-scale foodservice company employees. J Korean Soc Food Sci Nutr 2019; 48(11): 1291-1302. Article
30. Kim HK, Kang KS. Study on the food service Industry company hygiene techniques by applying AHP. J Tour Leis Res 2015; 27(6): 341-358. Link
31. Sembiring H, Perangin-angin Br S, Silitonga LM. The relationship between knowledge and attitudes of food handlers with the implementation of food hygiene sanitation at restaurants in Minas District in 2022. Contagion Sci Period J Public Health Coastal Health 2023; 5(2): 408-419. Article Link
32. Kim J. An analysis of the changes in the cause-and-effect relationships between socio-economic indicators and the road network of Seoul using structural equation model. J Korean Geogr Soc 2009; 44(6): 797-812.
33. Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling 3rd ed. Guilford Publications; 2010; Link
34. Yang WS, Seo JM, Shin DJ. The structural relationship between sense of calling and consequences of food hygiene : focused on food hygiene attitude, food hygiene engagement, food quality performance. J Hosp Tour Stud 2022; 24(3): 5-17. Article
35. Kim SJ, Han JS, Lee HM. A study on the influence of job engagement and customer orientation according to hotel employees’ sense of calling and psychological ownership. Int J Tour Hosp Res 2023; 37(2): 147-162. Article
36. Lee JY, Lee SM. The development and validation of Korean Academic Engagement Inventory (KAEI). Korean J Educ Methodol Stud 2012; 24(1): 131-147. Article Link
37. Little TD, Cunningham WA, Shahar G, Widaman KF. To parcel or not to parcel: exploring the question, weighing the merits. Struct Equ Modeling A Multidiscip J 2002; 9(2): 151-173. Article
38. Jeon HK. The effects of maternal psychological control on the adult attachment of students in university: the mediating effect of the need for approval. Stud Korean Youth 2015; 26(3): 165-193. Article
39. Matsunaga M. Item parceling in structural equation modeling: a primer. Commun Method Meas 2008; 2(4): 260-293. Article
40. Tavakol M, Wetzel A. Factor analysis: a means for theory and instrument development in support of construct validity. Int J Med Educ 2020; 11: 245-247. Article PubMed PMC
41. Bollen KA. Structural equations with latent variables. John Wiley & Sons; 1989. Article Link
42. Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. 2nd ed. Guilford Publications; 2005. Link
43. Anderson JC, Gerbing DW. Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol Bull 1988; 103(3): 411-423. Article
44. Hong SH. The criteria for selecting appropriate fit indices in structural equation modeling and their rationales. Korean J Clin Psychol 2000; 19(1): 161-177. Link
45. Kim YT, Lee SJ. Utilization of R Program for the partial least square model: comparison of SmartPLS and R. J Digit Converg 2015; 13(12): 117-124. Article
46. Heo DW, Sung WJ. A study on e-government’s quality, intention to use, and satisfaction on public value: focused on “Government 24” internal system. J Korean Assoc Reg Inf Soc 2020; 23(1): 25-50. Article Link
47. Yu CJ, Jeong YS. The effect of Korean wave image on consumption value: focusing on overseas restaurant franchises. Korea Trade Rev 2024; 49(5): 129-148. Article
48. Carmines EG, Zeller RA. Reliability and validity assessment SAGE Publications; 1979; Link
49. Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Market Res 1981; 18(1): 39-50. Article Link
50. Kim YJ, Lee HR. A study on the effects of small food business owner’s characteristics and success factors on business performance. J Foodservice Manag 2016; 19(1): 431-455. Link
51. Han HS, Kim MS, Kim SH. The effect of intrinsic job motivation on organizational commitment and innovative behavior by employees in foodservice industry. Korean J Hosp Tour 2015; 24(2): 175-198. Link
52. Lyu SW, Kim SY. Effect of policy tool choice on SME innovation: focusing on manufacturing firms. Korean Policy Sci Rev 2010; 14(2): 65-90. Link
53. Song NG. The effects of satisfaction and trust with quality according to the ways of local government civil administration service. J Korean Policy Stud 2012; 12(4): 247-270.
54. Jung HI, Lee SR. Effects of government-sponsored management consulting on business performance: focusing on the mediating effect of goverment-supported consulting program satisfaction and the moderating effect of consulting support type. Korean Manag Consult Rev 2023; 23(2): 61-72. Link
55. Park JH, Seo YW. An effect of consulting service quality and consultant capacity on business performance: focused on innovative willingness and consulting satisfaction of small and medium enterprises. Korean Manag Consult Rev 2020; 20(4): 69-80. Link
56. Lee SM. The concept and practice of administrative guidance. Admin Law J 2014; 38: 49-81. Link
57. Choi YN. An exploratory study on the impact of public service values on organizational performance from the public's perspective- focusing on the moderating effects of fairness and transparency in public administrative services. Korean J Local Gov Admin Stud 2023; 37(4): 125-157. Article Link
58. Lee SB. Analysis of administrative service satisfaction according to level of government-citizen contact: focusing on the difference between e-government and analogue government. Korean Soc Public Admin 2018; 29(1): 211-231. Link
59. Im YG, Kim KW. Outcome expectations, self-efficacy, eating environment, and eating behaviors by the stages of change in adequate sodium intake among university students: a cross-sectional study. Korean J Community Nutr 2024; 29(5): 382-395. Article PubMed PMC PDF

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Cite

CITE: export Copy Download Format; Close

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software

Include:

Citation for the content below
Citation and abstract for the content below

Impact of a foodservice establishment manager’s willingness to perform duties on hygiene management levels and the mediating effects of extrinsic motivations: a cross-sectional study

Korean J Community Nutr. 2026;31(1):36-49. Published online February 28, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5720/kjcn.2025.00332

XML Download

Figure

We recommend

Impact of a foodservice establishment manager’s willingness to perform duties on hygiene management levels and the mediating effects of extrinsic motivations: a cross-sectional study

Fig. 1. Mediating model of enthusiasm for hygiene, awareness of hygiene compliance, mandatory perception of the system, trust in local governments, attention to consumers in a relation to willingness to perform duties and hygiene management levels. **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.

Fig. 1.

Impact of a foodservice establishment manager’s willingness to perform duties on hygiene management levels and the mediating effects of extrinsic motivations: a cross-sectional study

Item (item parceling)	Factor loading	Cronbach’s alpha
Willingness to perform duties		0.914
Willingness to perform duties 1
Foodservice establishments operation and management tasks energize me	0.86
I believe foodservice establishments operation and management tasks are challenging	0.65
Willingness to perform duties 2
When performing foodservice establishments operation and management tasks, I feel mentally strong	0.84
I am confident in foodservice establishments operation and management tasks	0.70
When performing foodservice establishments operation and management tasks, I have the ability to solve problems	0.77
Willingness to perform duties 3
When performing foodservice establishments operation and management tasks, I pour all my energy into it	0.80
When performing foodservice establishments operation and management tasks, time passes quickly for me	0.72
When performing foodservice establishments operation and management tasks, I forget everything except the work	0.74
Enthusiasm for hygiene		0.816
Enthusiasm for hygiene 1
I well understand the purpose and necessity of hygiene management	0.86
I am participating in or intend to participate in the hygiene grade certification system	0.38
Enthusiasm for hygiene 2
I strive to adhere to hygiene-related guidelines	0.85
I know the purpose and qualifications of the hygiene grade certification system	0.63
Enthusiasm for hygiene 3
I am confident in hygiene management	0.73
Awareness of hygiene compliance		0.920
Awareness of hygiene compliance 1
I strive to comply with recommended, not just mandatory, hygiene-related rules	0.90
I well understand the purpose and guidelines of food hygiene-related laws	0.79
Awareness of hygiene compliance 2
I comply with the relevant laws not only during inspection periods but also on a regular basis	0.88
Awareness of hygiene compliance 3
I comply with hygiene-related laws	0.87
Mandatory perception of the system		0.914
Mandatory perception of the system 1
I adhere better to hygiene-related guidelines due to the reward and punishment system (certification system or administrative disposition)	0.86
I adhere better to hygiene-related guidelines due to consumer evaluations via SNS	0.74
Mandatory perception of the system 2
I adhere better to hygiene-related guidelines due to complaint reports to local governments	0.84
I adhere better to hygiene-related guidelines due to local governments’ hygiene inspection system.	0.74
Mandatory perception of the system 3
I adhere better to hygiene-related guidelines due to the introduction of the hygiene grade certification system	0.83
I adhere better to hygiene-related guidelines due to hygiene education by the local government	0.77
Trust in local governments		0.917
Trust in local governments 1
I believe local governments’ hygiene-related policies are useful	0.90
When hygiene issues arise between consumers and establishments, local governments provide neutral and objective resolutions	0.77
Trust in local governments 2
Local governments propose appropriate solutions for hygiene-related problems	0.85
I believe hygiene-related support provided by local governments helps with foodservice establishments hygiene management	0.79
Trust in local governments 3
Local governments provide the necessary information (changes in hygiene-related laws, guidelines, etc.).	0.84
Attention to consumers		0.910
Attention to consumers 1
I believe consumers will provide positive and active feedback if food is hygienic	0.87
I believe consumers will feel assured about foodservice establishments hygiene due to participation of the foodservice establishments in the hygiene grade certification system	0.72
Attention to consumers 2
I believe consumer satisfaction will improve if food is hygienic	0.86
I believe loyal consumers will increase and sales will improve if food is hygienic	0.82
Attention to consumers 3
I believe consumers will revisit through immediate and satisfactory resolution of hygiene-related complaints	0.83

Characteristics	Value
Sex
Male	102 (36.80)
Female	175 (63.20)
Age (year)
20–29	8 (2.90)
30–39	31 (11.20)
40–49	70 (25.20)
50–59	90 (32.50)
≥ 60	78 (28.20)
No. of employees	2.25 ± 1.34
No. of customers (daily)	41.02 ± 30.52
Total revenue per seat (KRW/day)
< 20	465,794 ± 270,726
20–49	566,496 ± 451,758
≥ 50	916,170 ± 614,794
Total revenue per seat (KRW/day)	586,928 ± 453,530

Observed variables	Group 1 (n = 123)¹⁾	Group 2 (n = 154)²⁾	P-value
Willingness to perform duties 1	3.32 ± 0.70	3.83 ± 0.76	< 0.001
Willingness to perform duties 2	3.50 ± 0.82	3.95 ± 0.77	< 0.001
Willingness to perform duties 3	3.66 ± 0.81	3.99 ± 0.78	< 0.001
Enthusiasm for hygiene 1	3.64 ± 0.69	3.96 ± 0.70	< 0.001
Enthusiasm for hygiene 2	3.71 ± 0.79	3.97 ± 0.75	0.004
Enthusiasm for hygiene 3	3.72 ± 0.69	3.99 ± 0.79	0.004
Awareness of hygiene compliance 1	3.28 ± 0.79	3.50 ± 0.93	0.035
Awareness of hygiene compliance 2	3.41 ± 0.77	3.61 ± 0.85	0.053
Awareness of hygiene compliance 3	3.23 ± 0.83	3.61 ± 0.94	< 0.001
Mandatory perception of the system 1	3.27 ± 0.71	3.64 ± 0.82	< 0.001
Mandatory perception of the system 2	3.40 ± 0.72	3.75 ± 0.81	< 0.001
Mandatory perception of the system 3	3.33 ± 0.83	3.73 ± 0.83	< 0.001
Trust in local governments 1	3.65 ± 0.67	3.89 ± 0.81	0.007
Trust in local governments 2	3.74 ± 0.65	3.94 ± 0.81	0.020
Trust in local governments 3	3.74 ± 0.70	3.91 ± 0.86	0.078
Attention to consumers 1	3.26 ± 0.84	3.73 ± 0.82	< 0.001
Attention to consumers 2	3.50 ± 0.64	3.90 ± 0.70	< 0.001
Attention to consumers 3	3.56 ± 0.66	3.89 ± 0.73	< 0.001

Latent variables	Observed variables	B	SE	β	AVE	CR
Willingness to perform duties	Willingness to perform duties 1	1.000		0.829	0.750	0.899
	Willingness to perform duties 2	0.923^***	0.048	0.934
	Willingness to perform duties 3	0.861^***	0.050	0.850
Enthusiasm for hygiene	Enthusiasm for hygiene 1	1.000		0.822	0.669	0.867
	Enthusiasm for hygiene 2	1.150^***	0.068	0.886
	Enthusiasm for hygiene 3	0.938^***	0.070	0.737
Awareness of hygiene compliance	Awareness of hygiene compliance 1	1.000		0.951	0.792	0.918
	Awareness of hygiene compliance 2	0.973^***	0.045	0.849
	Awareness of hygiene compliance 3	0.982^***	0.042	0.875
Mandatory perception of the system	Mandatory perception of the system 1	1.000		0.917	0.794	0.923
	Mandatory perception of the system 2	0.953^***	0.038	0.933
	Mandatory perception of the system 3	0.940^***	0.048	0.830
Trust in local governments	Trust in local governments 1	1.000		0.878	0.752	0.900
	Trust in local governments 2	1.005^***	0.052	0.888
	Trust in local governments 3	1.029^***	0.058	0.841
Attention to consumers	Attention to consumers 1	1.000		0.866	0.777	0.915
	Attention to consumers 2	1.078^***	0.049	0.951
	Attention to consumers 3	1.002^***	0.056	0.830
Conformance criteria analysis result		χ²/df = 309.166/120, P < 0.001, CFI = 0.956, TLI = 0.944, RMSEA = 0.075

Latent variables	Latent variable correlations
Latent variables	Enthusiasm for hygiene	Awareness of hygiene compliance	Mandatory perception of the system	Trust in local governments	Attention to consumers
Enthusiasm for hygiene	0.818¹⁾
Awareness of hygiene compliance	0.668	0.89
Mandatory perception of the system	0.369	0.401	0.891
Trust in local governments	0.424	0.444	0.451	0.867
Attention to consumers	0.436	0.395	0.404	0.455	0.881

Path	B	SE	β	t
Willingness to perform duties → Hygiene management levels	1.834	0.653	0.244	2.808^**
Willingness to perform duties → Enthusiasm for hygiene	0.591	0.058	0.661	10.145^***
Willingness to perform duties → Awareness of hygiene compliance	0.586	0.056	0.616	10.453^***
Willingness to perform duties → Mandatory perception of the system	0.642	0.069	0.568	9.324^***
Willingness to perform duties → Trust in local governments	0.397	0.063	0.406	6.307^***
Willingness to perform duties → Attention to consumers	0.516	0.058	0.558	8.910^***
Enthusiasm for hygiene → Hygiene management levels	1.674	1.087	0.199	1.540
Awareness of hygiene compliance → Hygiene management levels	0.332	0.901	0.042	0.369
Mandatory perception of the system → Hygiene management levels	–1.485	0.569	–0.223	–2.607^**
Trust in local governments → Hygiene management levels	2.031	0.632	0.264	3.212^**
Attention to consumers → Hygiene management levels	–0.743	0.702	–0.091	–1.058
Conformance criteria analysis result	χ²/df = 314.025/132, P < 0.001, CFI = 0.958, TLI = 0.945, RMSEA = 0.071

Path	B	SE	95% Confidence interval (bias-corrected bootstrap)
Path	B	SE	Lower	Upper
Willingness to perform duties → Mandatory perception of the system → Hygiene management levels	–0.953	0.386	–1.696	–0.148
Willingness to perform duties → Trust in local governments → Hygiene management levels	0.807	0.269	0.372	1.435

Table 1. Factor analysis on the willingness to perform duties and extrinsic motivation variables

Table 2. General characteristics of the respondents (n = 277)

n (%) or Mean ± SD.

Table 3. Dependence of foodservice establishment manager’s human factor scores hygiene management levels

Mean ± SD.

The 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all, 2 = not really, 3 = average, 4 = somewhat, 5 = very much so).

Group 1, group with lower than average score of the hygiene management levels.

Group 2, group with upper than average score of the hygiene management levels.

Table 4. Measurement model verification on the willingness to perform duties and extrinsic motivation variables

***

P < 0.001.

Table 5. Results of discriminant validity on the extrinsic motivation variables

The square root of the average variance extracted for each latent variable was confirmed to verify whether the latent variables were distinct from each other.

Table 6. Structural coefficient and significance of structural model on the willingness to perform duties, extrinsic motivation variables, and hygiene management levels

P < 0.01,

***

P < 0.001.

Table 7. Significance of the mediating effect of structural model on willingness to perform duties, extrinsic motivation variables, and hygiene management levels