From Farm to Fork? Means of Assuring Food Quality

IIIEE Reports 2001:14 From Farm to Fork? Means of Assuring Food Quality An analysis of the European food quality initiatives Burcu Tunçer Superviso...
Author: Blaze Neal
0 downloads 2 Views 2MB Size
IIIEE Reports 2001:14

From Farm to Fork? Means of Assuring Food Quality An analysis of the European food quality initiatives

Burcu Tunçer

Supervisors Åke Thidell Helen Nilsson Don Huisingh

Thesis for the fulfilment of the Master of Science in Environmental Management and Policy Lund, Sweden, September 2001

The International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics Internationella miljöinstitutet  

© You may use the contents of the IIIEE publications for informational purposes only. You may not copy, lend, hire, transmit or redistribute these materials for commercial purposes or for compensation of any kind without written permission from IIIEE. When using IIIEE material you must include the following copyright notice: ‘Copyright © IIIEE, Lund University. All rights reserved’ in any copy that you make in a clearly visible position. You may not modify the materials without the permission of IIIEE. Published in 2001 by IIIEE, Lund University, P.O. Box 196, S-221 00 LUND, Sweden, Tel: +46 – 46 222 02 00, Fax: +46 – 46 222 02 10, e-mail: [email protected]. Printed by KFS AB, Lund. ISSN 1650-1675

Acknowledgements Attached is a synthesis of my one-year of experience at IIIEE. It has references to what I have learned academically and what I have shared with friends and researchers coming from all over the world. Working on “food quality”, which is a very hot issue in Europe, has been an exciting experience for me. I would like to stress the importance of Karl-Erik Grevendahl’s role in supporting me and providing me with a broad vision to work freely on the subject. I believe the supervision by Åke Thidell, Helen Nilsson and Don Huisingh, more than adding value to my study, has contributed significantly to my intellectual development. I would like to thank them all for the time, patience and energy they spent with me. I also like to thank the members of the “IIIEE Network” for their interest and help in my search for the food “quality”. Their contributions added real value to my study. Similarly, I am truly grateful to all the experts and academicians, who have allocated their time and effort to answer my never ending questions. My special thanks goes to Gunilla Andersson, Richard Baines, Olafur Dyrmundsson, Chris Dutihl, Ingemar Hjelm, Rasmus Kjeldahl, Eva Mattson, Gunnar Rundgren and Myles Standish. Moreover, my thanks are extended to all the friends with whom I have shared my “ideas”, the “study room” and the “summer” in Lund. Finally, all my gratefulness goes to my dear family for their great moral support and for always being by my side, not only during this study but also throughout my life.

iii

Analysis of European Food Supply Chain Initiatives

Abstract The realization of some of the negative human health, animal welfare and ecological impacts of intensive farming practices has resulted in recent declines in consumer confidence about food safety and food security. In order to regain consumer confidence, a wide array of quality assurance schemes has been developed. The diversity and conflicting claims of the different schemes have confused the consumer and further decreased her confidence in the European food safety assurance system. The main objective of this study was to bring understanding to the “quality” message delivered by the quality initiatives in Europe. Additionally, the organization of the schemes were analysed and the major strengths and weaknesses of them were listed. The schemes studied during this research were categorized into eight major groups, within which eleven major structural components were found. It was found that all categories address credence attributes, which are “believed-in” quality aspects. Among all, “environmental friendliness” was the most commonly identified one addressed through claims varying from compliance with the regulatory requirements to “sustainable” means of primary production or eco-efficiency measures. Finally, it was suggested that actors of the European food supply chains should pursue a more preventative socially responsible life cycle oriented strategy with better sharing of responsibilities among them.

v

An Analysis of the European Food Quality Initiatives

Executive Summary Today, the European consumers have shown a loss of confidence in the food production industry’s ability to supply safe and sustainable food The loss of confidence has been due to several reasons, which include intensive farming practices, major food scares such as the BSE disease, risks associated with GMOs and use of hormones, pesticide contamination, failures in traceability and transparency. In Europe, primary producers, the food industry, governments and NGOs have taken different measures to regain consumer confidence. One of these measures taken by several of the actors in the food supply chain has been to establish their own quality assurance schemes. However, among all the efforts for assuring food quality, it has become difficult for the consumers and other stakeholders to understand who is assuring what, and how they display or communicate their “quality” goals. This research was designed to address the following questions: •

Which aspects of quality are addressed by the food quality initiatives?



What kind of organizational structure do they have?



How do they ensure credibility and traceability?



What are the commonalities and differences in the organizational structure of these initiatives?

The objectives were realized by following four major stages of research methodology, which basically depended on “similarity categorization”, since it was found to be infeasible to analyse each initiative on its own. Firstly, an initial list of components from quality and organizational aspects was derived, and then food supply chain initiatives in Europe were collected through primary and secondary sources. Following categorization of them, the strengths and weaknesses of them were analysed and a full list of components were established. Current Situation The following categories were identified from the 107 collected schemes: 1. Organic Agriculture Certification Schemes; 2. Integrated Production Certification Schemes; 3. National or Sector Level Farm Quality Assurance Schemes; 4. Food Processor/Manufacturer Led Quality Initiatives; 5. Retailer Led Quality Assurance Schemes; 6. Retailer House Brands; 7. Traditional or Regional Quality Aspect Schemes; 8. Benchmarking Initiatives. The analysis of the categories revealed that all of them commonly associate their practices with environmental friendliness quality aspect among all credence attributes. However, the means leading to such claims vary among the categories. Organic Agriculture Certification Schemes and Integrated Production Certification Schemes claim environmental friendliness by referring to the practices of organic agricultural production or Integrated Crop Management, respectively. Retailer Led Quality Assurance Schemes also refer to integrated methods of primary production, while National or Sector Level Farm Quality Assurance Schemes claim to assure this aspect through compliance with national environmental legislation. On the other hand, Food Processor/Manufacturer Led Quality Initiatives and Retailer House Brands, in addition to addressing organic agricultural production, claim to practice eco-efficiency measures downstream in the chain. Finally, Traditional or Regional Quality Aspect Schemes claim to assure environmental friendliness mainly through less intensified production and vii

Burcu Tunçer, IIIEE, Lund University

processes, which follow strict criteria or traditional ways, together with an emphasis on decreased transportation distances. Sustainable agriculture certification schemes focus primarily only on the primary production phase. National or sector level farm quality assurance schemes put emphasis mostly on the primary producer level activities to accomplish safe food production with rare referral to the activities of processors and retailers. Food processor and retailer driven schemes emphasis “corporate citizenship” leading to a wider perspective in addressing quality aspects such as inclusion of ethical issues or social and human capital or more strict environmental criteria development and also use a variety of tools such as operational indicators or stakeholder dialogues. Use of product brands allows the schemes to deliver consumers a single coherent quality message and provides the opportunity to develop brand loyalty and in turn increase in consumer confidence. Regional and traditional quality aspect schemes address a whole different set of quality aspects whilst managing to build full credibility with shorter supply chain coverage. However, they still lack international referral and performance evaluation systems, which would assist in continuous improvement. While Benchmarking schemes can be seen as quality management tools, which possess the advantage of forming a pool of best practice applications and illustrations of supply chain collaboration. An analysis of the components of the schemes revealed that ownership structures were dominated by primary producers and retailers, while multi stakeholder ownership was rare. Quality assurance systems are usually based on so called sustainable forms of agricultural production and are often being challenged by third party organizations. They also form the core of the food quality initiatives. Audits are performed as self-verifications, state inspections or in the form of assessments by third parties. The major form of stakeholder involvement found was the development of the scheme standards. In terms of marketing efforts, almost all categories address environmentally conscious consumers while private companies usually address the society, at large, and the promotion channels differ accordingly. The role of supporting organizations i.e. marketing organizations were also found crucial. The traceability tools used turned in most cases a weak point. However, the most common identified form is documentation of the raw material input and the production processes. More sophisticated methods are applied in a few cases, mainly for meat production, such as passport systems, ear tags or ICT based systems. Credibility was found to be enhanced through the components so called ownership structure, which facilitates stakeholder involvement; quality assurance system, which covers the whole food supply chain; audit systems, which is based on third-party audits; stakeholder involvement and marketing efforts, which have having aggressive promotion. Recommendations It was concluded that food quality assurance was often recognized as achievement of sustainable primary production practices with more emphasis on the lower end of the supply chain through corrective measures. In that respect, European consumers deserve a more responsible approach from their food suppliers. With a broader vision of integrated preventative strategies, it is believed that the European food supply chains will be better able to assure “quality” of food. As well, distribution of responsibility along the entire food supply chain is essentially suggested.

viii

An Analysis of the European Food Quality Initiatives

Table of Contents List of Figures List of Tables List of Boxes 1.

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5

2.

LOSS OF CONSUMER CONFIDENCE ........................................................................................................................ 1 EFFORTS TO GAIN BACK THE CONSUMER CONFIDENCE.................................................................................. 4 RESEARCH OBJECTIVE AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS .......................................................................................... 6 SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS ......................................................................................................................................... 7 THE THESIS STRUCTURE ......................................................................................................................................... 12

THE “HOURGLASS” METHODOLOGY..................................................................................... 13 2.1

STAGES OF THE THESIS STUDY.............................................................................................................................. 13 2.1.1 First Stage – Formulation of Preliminary List of Components ........................................................................... 15 2.1.2 Second Stage – Collection of the European Food Supply Chain Quality Initiatives ............................................ 15 2.1.3 Third Stage – Categorization of the European Food Supply Chain Quality Initiatives ...................................... 16 2.1.4 Fourth Stage – Analysis of the Categories and Development of Recommendations .............................................. 17 2.2 LIMITATIONS OF THE HOURGLASS METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................ 18 3.

BACKGROUND TO “MEANS OF ASSURING FOOD QUALITY” ............................................ 19 3.1 3.2

4.

A REVIEW OF QUALITY ASPECTS .......................................................................................................................... 19 AN OVERVIEW OF THE INITIAL LIST OF INITIATIVE COMPONENTS ............................................................. 21

CATEGORIES OF FOOD SUPPLY CHAIN QUALITY INITIATIVES ......................................27 4.1

SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE CERTIFICATION SCHEMES ................................................................................. 27 4.1.1 Organic Agriculture Certification Schemes.......................................................................................................... 28 4.1.2 Integrated Production Certification Schemes ........................................................................................................ 35 4.2 NATIONAL OR SECTOR LEVEL FARM QAS ......................................................................................................... 39 4.3 FOOD PROCESSOR/MANUFACTURER LED QUALITY INITIATIVES................................................................. 44 4.4 FOOD RETAILER SCHEMES ..................................................................................................................................... 47 4.4.1 Retailer Led Quality Assurance Schemes ........................................................................................................... 48 4.4.2 Retailer House Brands .......................................................................................................................................52 4.5 REGIONAL OR TRADITIONAL QUALITY ASPECT SCHEMES.............................................................................. 54 4.6 BENCHMARKING INITIATIVES ...............................................................................................................................57 4.7 CONCLUDING REMARKS ......................................................................................................................................... 58 5. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE EUROPEAN FOOD QUALITY INITIATIVES .......................................................................................................................................... 61 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 6.

ORGANIC AGRICULTURE CERTIFICATION SCHEMES ........................................................................................ 61 INTEGRATED PRODUCTION CERTIFICATION SCHEMES ................................................................................... 64 NATIONAL OR SECTOR LEVEL FARM QAS ......................................................................................................... 65 FOOD PROCESSOR/MANUFACTURER LED QUALITY INITIATIVES................................................................. 68 RETAILER LED QUALITY ASSURANCE SCHEMES ............................................................................................... 70 RETAILER HOUSE BRANDS ..................................................................................................................................... 71 REGIONAL OR TRADITIONAL QUALITY ASPECT SCHEMES.............................................................................. 73 BENCHMARKING INITIATIVES ...............................................................................................................................74 CONCLUDING REMARKS ......................................................................................................................................... 75

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..........................................................................77 6.1 6.2 6.3

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS.......................................................................................................................................... 77 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................................................... 80 GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................................................ 81 I

Burcu Tunçer, IIIEE, Lund University

6.4

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDIES ................................................................................................... 82

BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................................... 85 PUBLISHED SOURCES .......................................................................................................................................................... 85 PUBLISHED ON-LINE SOURCES ........................................................................................................................................ 86 WORLD WIDE WEB SITES.................................................................................................................................................. 88 JOURNALS.............................................................................................................................................................................. 89 PERSONAL CONTACTS ........................................................................................................................................................ 90 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ...................................................................................................91 APPENDIX I - GLOSSARY OF THE TERMS USED IN THE THESIS STUDY. .............................. 93 APPENDIX II – SECONDARY SOURCES USED AT THE FIRST AND SECOND STAGE OF THE THESIS STUDY AND THE LIST OF KEYWORDS USED FOR LITERATURE SEARCH. ................................................................................................................................................. 96 APPENDIX III – LIST OF PERSONAL CONTACTS. ......................................................................... 99 APPENDIX IV – STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE FOOD QUALITY CATEGORIES........................................................................................................................................100 APPENDIX V – AN OVERVIEW OF THE INITIATIVES COLLECTED.........................................103

II

An Analysis of the European Food Quality Initiatives

List of Figures Figure 1–The micro outlook to the European food supply chain and the macro scale environment (task and the generic environment) surrounding it........................................................10 Figure 2 – Illustration of the five levels of the research methodology i.e. formulation of initial list of components, collection of European food supply chain initiatives, categorization of the initiatives, analysis of them and development of recommendations. ..........................................14 Figure 3- The application of the components of the system’s thinking concept (i.e. openness, purposefulness, counter intuitiveness, emergent property and multidimensionality) within the strengths and weaknesses analyses of the categories. .....................................................................18 Figure 4 – The relationship between the major quality tools used in the food industry...........................23 Figure 5– The structure of the sections of Chapter 4 discussing eight different categories of initiatives. ......................................................................................................................................................27 Figure 6– The three major tiers of organic production certification and related standards. ....................31 Figure 7 – Components of Integrated Crop Management.............................................................................36 Figure 8 – The possible types of relations among the actors along the food supply chain in direct marketing schemes...........................................................................................................................55 Figure 9– The list of options for the components (ownership structure, quality assurance system, audit system, marketing efforts, stakeholder participation and communication, traceability tools, performance evaluation tools, benchmarking systems) compiled from the categories of food quality initiatives. .................................................................................................60 Figure 10 – The supply chain coverage by the categories of the initiatives in terms of quality assurance systems/criteria..........................................................................................................................76 Figure 11 – The major factors identified for the establishment of credibility in the market. ..................76

III

Burcu Tunçer, IIIEE, Lund University

List of Tables Table 1 – The stakeholders as food supply chain actors in each main food sector in Europe.................. 8 Table 2 – Iterative process of “similarity categorization”. .............................................................................17 Table 3 – The quality aspects grouping under search, experience and credence attributes......................19 Table 4– The preliminary list of components of the initiatives. ...................................................................21 Table 5 – The drivers for certification schemes considering the primary producers and farmers..........29 Table 6 – The complete list of credence attributes addressed by eight different categories of European food quality initiatives..............................................................................................................78 Table 7– The main sources of information for the development of preliminary list of components..................................................................................................................................................96 Table 8 – The list of the secondary sources used for the collection of the European food supply chain quality initiatives................................................................................................................................96 Table 9 – The list of keywords used for the literature search........................................................................98

IV

An Analysis of the European Food Quality Initiatives

List of Boxes Box 1 – Examples of different ownership structures for organic certification schemes, Stats Kontrolleret Økologisk in Denmark, CRAE in Spain, KRAV in Sweden and ECOCERT).........30 Box 2 – Components of organic certification inspections and different types of them. ..........................33 Box 3 – National level unification of organic labels in Germany and regionalization of organic labels in Spain...............................................................................................................................................34 Box 4 – Examples on the ownership structures of IP certification schemes as state owned or multi-stakeholder ownership. ....................................................................................................................37 Box 5- An Overview of the Flexible Point System introduced by AMA Label. ........................................38 Box 6 – An Overview of the Assured Produce Scheme as a new trend in IP schemes............................39 Box 7 – The activities of the marketing department of CERAFEL – The Prince de Bretagne. .............42 Box 8 – Traceability systems established for meat products. ........................................................................44 Box 9 – An Overview of the Unilever Sustainable Agriculture Initiative...................................................47 Box 10 – An Overview of the Euro-Retailer Produce Working Group’s Good Agricultural Practices (EUREPGAP) Initiative. ..........................................................................................................50 Box 11- The Five Freedom’s Concept of The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) in the UK.....................................................................................................................51 Box 12 – KF’s vision in establishing the Änglamark brand...........................................................................53 Box 13 – An overview of “Ängavallens’ Picknick Park” concept.................................................................57 Box 14 - A short overview of “Food and Drinks Industry Benchmarking and Self-Assessment Initiative”. .....................................................................................................................................................58 Box 15 - A short overview of “Sanitel-P” traceability system applied by the Belgian poultry chain. .............................................................................................................................................................67

V

An Analysis of the European Food Quality Initiatives

1. Introduction Food is life! It is so basic to our well-being that it is almost taken for granted as the source of nutrition, pleasure and part of cultural traditions. Never before have Europeans experienced such a variety of food supplies. Today, assuring “quality” 1 concerns of the market has become a priority issue for all actors in food supply chains. The realization of impacts from intensive farming practices, use of biotechnology and increases in public health risks due to lack of transparency and fallacies in traceability, are supposedly the major drivers of recent breakdowns in consumer confidence. The food industry, governments and international bodies have taken initiatives to rebuild the loss of confidence. However, a new problem has appeared with the establishment of a wide array of quality assurance schemes, so that the consumer is confused and questioning the quality of all of these initiatives.

1.1 Loss of Consumer Confidence Every link of the food supply chain contributes to the final “quality” of the food. All major players in food production; plant and animal breeders, feed and fertilizer and pesticide suppliers, producers, processors and retailers, add or subtract value to the final product through their practices. This last decade has seen European consumers struggling to develop confidence in the ability of the food production industry to supply safe and sustainable food. The loss of confidence in the market is due to several reasons, which might be listed as intensive farming practices, which add in part to major scares such as the “Mad Cow” disease, risks associated with GMOs and use of hormones, pesticide contamination, failures in traceability and transparency. Drawbacks of Intensified Farming The foundation for food “quality” along the food supply chain is laid down in the primary production phase. With a shift towards more efficient and highly productive systems, producers achieved high levels of production and contributed significantly to the accomplishment of the availability of food resources. However, this approach has triggered consumer concerns due to its impacts on the living environment and potential health risks. From the middle of the 20th Century, alternative ways of improving primary food production were introduced. Pesticides substituted for biological, cultural and mechanical methods for controlling pests, weeds and diseases, while inorganic fertilizers largely replaced livestock manures, composts, nitrogen-fixing crops and fossil fuels substituted for locally generated energy resources. Applying these alternative methods, farmers across Europe have been hugely successful in increasing food production. They succeeded in intensifying the use of non- farm resources to produce much more from the same amount of land. “It [has become] possible to get three times the amount of wheat, barley and other grains, potatoes and sugar beets from the same area of land, while milk yields per cow have more than doubled”2. Intensified systems have also led to specialization i.e. moving away from mixed or integrated farms to more specialized systems. Between 1990 and 1995, the number of less specialized European farmers

1

Food quality concept refers to the characteristics related to the physical appearance (i.e. colour, shape, texture), sensory features (i.e. taste, aroma) of the food product and other values (healthfulness, safety, nutrition) acquired from the food product. The characteristics of food quality are discussed further in Section 3.1.

2

Pretty, J. (1998). The Living Land. London: EarthScan Publications Ltd. p. 47.

1

Burcu Tunçer, IIIEE, Lund University

decreased by 25 percent3. The crop and livestock production is also separated. By 1995, 45 percent of European farms were specialized in permanent crops4. Livestock is raised indoors on farms leaving only a small piece of land to absorb the livestock wastes. Also, the livestock production is removed from the centres of arable cropping, leading to more need for transportation. These achievements and specialization trends have brought environmental and social problems. Especially external inputs from the fertilizers and pesticides used have created impacts on the natural resources. According to the European Environmental Agency (EEA), even though nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizer use has decreased overall compared to 1980 levels, the trend has been reversed since 19925. Similarly, although, after the 1992 CAP reform and with the improvements in efficiency, the average pesticide use per hectare has decreased6, dependency on pesticides could not be eliminated7. As these inputs are never used totally, some 30 to 80 percent of nitrogen in fertilizers and small but significant quantities of pesticides are lost to the environment, contaminating the water, soil, feed, food and the atmosphere8. Nitrate in water, for example, can cause the blue-baby syndrome in infants. While pesticides in water harm wildlife and humans, contaminate land and ground water resources; nitrates and phosphates from fertilizers, livestock wastes and silage effluents cause eutrophication causing oxygen depletion, fish deaths and general nuisance in the aquatic ecosystems. On the other hand, high densities of animal population lead to excessive concentration of manure and to localised increases in risk of water and air pollution. According to the EEA, about 80 to 90 percent of the total European Union (EU) ammonia emissions and 45 percent of the total methane emissions come from animal husbandry. Risks attached to Biotech and Growth Hormones Additionally, new technologies such as genetic engineering have been introduced to the sector. Biotechnology allowed development of herbicide resistance crops, salt and drought resistant crops, delayed-ripening genes and genetically modified sheep and pigs producing human proteins in their milk. These improvements allowed fewer pesticide applications, longer shelf life and production of nutritive food. On the other side, the long-term effects of biotechnology products on human health is not very well understood and still debated intensely by many stakeholders in society. The greatest concerns are in the direction of genetic pollution, which is caused by genes crossing with the wild relatives, transferring the genes to the environment. Similarly, use of animal growth hormones possesses a general risk of cancer as meat derived from livestock, that has received these hormones for growth promotion purposes, might have residues of carcinogenic or genotoxic potential.

3

Eurostat. (1999). Agriculture in the European Union. Paris: Service Central des Énquêtes at Etudes Statistiques p. 54.

4

Ibid.

5

European Environment Agency. (2000). Agriculture – Environmental Signals 2000. http://reports.eea.eu.int/signals2000/en/page007.html [2001, July 23] p. 4.

6

European Environment Agency. (2000). Agriculture – Environmental Signals 2000. http://reports.eea.eu.int/signals2000/en/page007.html [2001, July 23] p. 5.

7

Ibid.

8

Pretty, J. (1998). The Living Land. London: EarthScan Publications Ltd. p. 49.

2

An Analysis of the European Food Quality Initiatives

The Latest Food Scares An announcement by the UK authorities on March 1996, that there could be a probable link between Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) and Creutzfeldt-Jacob Disease (CJD), which is an incurable and fatal neurological disease affecting humans, has definitely been one of the climax points in the crises of loss of confidence among European consumers with regard to beef meat and other bovine products. Having its routes in 1920s, the inquiry on BSE led by Lord Phillips found that it was caused by intensified farming practices, which involved feeding cow and sheep remains in the form of meat or bone meal to cattle. Due to its long incubation period, it spread like a “chain letter” and the first cases were identified in 1986 in the UK. The UK has had a total of almost 165,000 cases affecting almost 34,000 farms. While in other countries, a total of 450 cases were documented, with half of them in Switzerland.9 In addition to loss of consumer confidence, there are long-term estimated environmental, animal welfare and economic impacts from the proposed animal feed bans. Incineration of an estimated 16 millions tons of animal by-products will create unavoidable consequences. A sudden switch from animal to vegetable protein feed has already led to other animal health problems. On economic grounds, it is estimated that farmers will spend around 4 billion Euros for losing and replacing the animal by-products in their feed nations, importing replacements of protein crops including GMOs and for further disposing of the animal by-products.10 Another animal disease, which further decreased consumer confidence, though it does not pose a direct public health risk, was the foot and mouth disease in cattle and sheep. It was caused by illegal import of contaminated meat rather than due to intensive farming practices. However, factors such as the long distance animal transports bringing different herds together in a single place, failure of traceability systems of livestock movements and inadequate disinfection provisions have enhanced the spread of this disease. As this is a highly contagious disease, which can spread quite rapidly by wind without any direct contact, the impacts are hard to estimate. However, until now, many European countries such as the UK, Ireland, France and the Netherlands, have introduced protective measures, whilst the potential cost to the EU may be as high as 170 million Euros11. The UK beef industry has been faced with many other health and safety problems. For example, with an outbreak of E.coli poisoning in Scotland, which began in November 1999, 496 people were infected and 21 died. This contamination was believed to initiate at a butchers’ shop and resulted in the highest incidence of mortality in a single outbreak, worldwide12. Previous incidents of Salmonella in eggs and poultry, Listeria monocytogenes in soft cheese and phthalates in baby food have been other examples of food scares in the UK.

9

European Commission Directorate General XXIV Consumer Policy. (1996). Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Information for Consumer – Guide Second Edition. http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/bse/bse07_en.pdf [2001, April 12] p. 4.

10

European Commision Directorate General XXIV. (2001). Food Safety: From the Farm to the Fork. SANCO/1531/2001 rev.1. – Working document of the Commission Services. http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/bse/bse28_en.html. [2001, August 1] p. 8.

11

European Commision Directorate General XXIV. (2001). Food Safety: From the Farm to the Fork. SANCO/1531/2001 rev.1. – Working document of the Commission Services. http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/bse/bse28_en.html. [2001, August 1] p. 8.

12

Early, R. (1998). Farm assurance – benefit or burden. Journal of Agricultural Society of London. Vol. 159, 32-43.

3

Burcu Tunçer, IIIEE, Lund University

Additionally, many other EU states have faced similar problems with food safety. For example, in Belgium, dioxins and di-benzofurans were detected in dairy products, which passed along the “food chain” from grass to the cows and their milk, while the problem of keeping organic fodders free of GMOs is still an issue discussed in Denmark13. Failure of Traceability and Transparency These outbreaks of disease have revealed the failure to have full traceability of livestock, which is essential for the protection of consumers. The consumers have lost confidence even in labelling as the existing systems fail to control the original place of production or as failures in inspections and documentations along the supply chain have become common issues. There have been cases reported, for example, in Ireland, that the food was brought into the country, processed and then exported as Irish food14. While in other cases, credibility of inspectors might be questioned15. All in all, requirements on documentation or labelling are found to be essential but not sufficient for confidence and credibility building.

1.2 Efforts to Gain Back the Consumer Confidence In order to address the above listed food quality problems in the global arena, at the EU level, governmental level or industry level, many attempts were made to regain consumer confidence. At the international level, the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) established under the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) are some of the most important players concerned with food safety standards. The main objective of Codex is to protect the health of consumers whilst ensuring fair trade practices. The standards are based on two major requirements; firstly, provision of scientific evidence that the product is safe and, secondly, keeping up with consumer expectations and information, risk management, respect for cultural and religious beliefs, preservation of social and economic balances, health and welfare of animals and protection of the environment. The World Trade Organization (WTO), having evolved from GATT agreements, also refers to Codex Standards and considers them sufficient to ensure food safety and for the protection of human health. In addition, the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards (SPS) and the Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) agreements are included in its scope. The SPS agreement defines the base lines for the countries to develop measures on animal health and food safety of consequence to international trade. At the EU level, intensive action has been taken with the collaboration of the Health and Consumer Protection Directorate General and Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries Directorate General to rebuild confidence in the European food supply chain. The Health and Safety Protection Directorate has published a “White Paper on Food Safety”, which called for the establishment of a European Food Authority (EFA) and development of legislation “from farm to table”. It has set out 80 separate actions that are necessary to improve food safety 13

Økoweb – Danmark. (2001, September 5). New fully organic feedstuff plant in Denmark. http://www.ecoweb.dk/english/nyt.htm [2001, September 6]

14

The Irish Times. (2001, March 7). Consumer Group assails food traceability failure. http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/2001/0307/fm8.htm [Online]. Available [2001, August 1]

15

Guardian. (2001, June 15). Processed meat safety challenged. http://www.guardian.co.uk/food/Story/0,2763,507402,00.html [2001, August 1]

4

An Analysis of the European Food Quality Initiatives

standards over the next few years. Traceability, the precautionary principle, rapid action in cases of emergency and consumer dialogue are issues emphasized in the paper. 16 The structure of EFA has undergone intense discussions; together with how it will define food “quality” and which tools it will use to guarantee it17. Very recently, in June 2001, the European Parliament has published a report supporting the Health and Safety Commission’s proposal on setting up the European Food Authority. The Food Authority is thought of as an independent legal entity with its own budget, executive director and management board. In the area of GMOs, the European Commission has recently adopted a legislative package consisting of a proposal for traceability and labelling of GMOs and products produced from GMOs and a proposal on regulating GM feed and food. It was suggested by the EU commission, that this labelling regime would allow consumers to make a choice. The regulation requires the industry “to have systems in place that identify to whom and from whom GMOs are made available”18. However, consultants claim that there is no validated and standardized testing and sampling technology, currently in place, to be used in enforcement systems19. National governments also have taken action, even leading to major structural changes such as the creation of the Food Standards Agency (FSA) in April 2000 in the UK. This organization has acquired the full responsibility for protection of human health as an independent institution from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The FSA has reviewed BSE controls and informed the public about the risks associated with BSE. Industry Initiatives and Associated Problems Besides international and national level action, companies, cooperatives of industry or third party authorities have also introduced quality assurance schemes to help regain consumers’ confidence or to create differential advantage. Food labelling is one of the common routes to deliver the message about the quality of the food product. However, there are now so many labelling schemes that it is difficult to be sure what each guarantees. The criteria set up by the labels are found to be contradictory to each other. For example, some of them do not monitor the presence of pesticide residues but only the additives and preservatives, claiming to be environmentally friendly20. Even among organic products, the standards differ among labels. In some countries, such as Switzerland or Germany, the market is flooded with organic labels claiming to be high “quality”

16

European Commission. (2000). COM (1999) 719 final. White Paper on Food Safety. http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/health_consumer/library/pub/pub06_en.pdf [2001, June 13]

17

EU Chat Site. (2001). Chat with David Bryne and Franz Fischler. http://europa.eu.int/comm/chat/fischlerbyrne/fischler-byrne_en.pdf [2001, June 8]

18

European Commission. (2001, July 25). Food Safety: From the Farm to the Fork. Press Release. Commission improves rules on labelling and tracing GMOs in Europe to enable freedom of choice and ensure environmental safety. http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/health_consumer/library/press/press172_en.pdf p.2. [2001, August 1]

19

Food and Chemical News. (2001, July 2). “Traceability to be a huge issue” IFT told food processors. http://www.foodcompliance.com/News/Article?A=541. [2001, August 1]

20

Pretty, J. (1998). The Living Land. London: EarthScan Publications Ltd. p. 179.

5

Burcu Tunçer, IIIEE, Lund University

products. In the end, “different messages from different channels create confusion in the minds of the consumers”21, making it hard to decide about whom to trust. On the other side, there are new initiatives established by actors along the food supply chain. Primary producers, through cooperatives or their associations, introduce national criteria for “quality” food production, whilst retailers try to put requirements on their suppliers’ production by initiating “quality” programmes. Analogous actions, as such, naturally create power disputes among the actors along the food supply chain in terms of costs allocation and standards setting22. It is further believed that as these “[initiatives] are fragmented at present, with individual retailers operating their own schemes as well as the several other national schemes in existence, the situation is likely to confuse the consumer, dissipate marketing effort and slow down the acceptance of quality assurance by the consumer.”23 To sum up, among all the efforts for assuring food quality, it has become difficult to understand who is assuring what and how exactly they are trying to display or communicate these “quality” goals.

1.3 Research Objective and Research Questions The main objective of the thesis is to bring understanding to the “quality” message delivered by the quality initiatives in the European food supply chain and to evaluate the tools they are using to achieve their goals. As their organizational structure affects the way they assure food quality and convey it to the consumers, it is aimed to gather the available structural options in the European food quality assurance schemes aiming beyond the base level standards. Research Questions To conduct the main task of this thesis study, the major question to be raised is; What is the current state of the European food quality initiatives? This would follow an inquiry about the specifics of the components, especially, the organizational and quality aspects targeted by these initiatives i.e. •

Which aspects of quality are addressed by the food quality initiatives?



What kind of organizational structure do they have?



How do they ensure credibility and traceability?

Subsequently, a comparative review of the identified initiatives is of interest for the research, looking for an answer to the following questions: •

What are the commonalities and differences in the organizational structure of these initiatives?

21

OECD. Environment Directorate Programme on Sustainable Consumption. Experts Workshop on Information and Consumer Decision-making for Sustainable Consumption. 16-17 January 2001. OECD Headquarters. Paris. http://www.oecd.org/env/consumption/SCPbkgrnd2001.pdf [2001, March 19]

22

Fox, T. (2000). Retail Sector Supermarket Squeeze For European retailers, the environment is an anti-Wal-Mart strategybut upping supplier standards should be a two-way street. Tomorrow Magazine, No. 5, Vol. 10 pp.22-24. September – October 2000 [Online]. Available http://www.poptel.org.uk/iied/pdf/supermarket_sq.pdf [2001, May 28]s

23

Walley, K., et al. (1999). Quality Assurance and the Consumer – A Conjoint Study. British Food Journal. Vol. 101. No.2. 148-161.

6

An Analysis of the European Food Quality Initiatives

1.4 Scope and Limitations The thesis was prepared during the period of May to September 2001, as a part of the Masters’ Programme in Environmental Management and Policy at the International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics (IIIEE) at Lund University. The European food quality initiatives were defined as organizations or programs of actions involving collaboration or communication among the actors of the food supply chain established to assure a certain or a group of food quality aspect(s) beyond the legally stated quality systems at the EU level. In line with this definition, codes of conduct, indicator development, benchmarking initiatives operated or utilized by the food supply chain actors were studied, while the ones developed by third parties were not focused. The details of stakeholder, geographical and conceptual limitations are discussed below. Geographical Boundaries The geographical scope of the thesis was set to include only the countries of Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Ireland, Spain, Sweden, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom out of the fifteen member states of the European Union and, additionally, Switzerland. The other member states, namely Finland, Luxembourg and Portugal were excluded due to several reasons. Firstly, the scales of the food industry businesses in these countries are relatively small and the length of food supply chains is comparatively short in these countries24. Secondly, the indicators used to compare the status of sustainable practices such as the share of total agriculture area under organic farming or integrated crop management practices also show that these activities are practiced under the European Union average levels in these countries25. Furthermore, the main European retail alliances do not have any retailer members from these countries26. All in all, it was assumed that the chances of finding initiatives from these countries, aimed towards a sustainable direction, would not be high, which was confirmed during the initial literature review. Food Sector and Stakeholder Boundaries Having a micro scale outlook, the major actors in the European food industry can be identified as farm suppliers, primary producers, food and drink processors, retailers, distributors and private and institutional consumers. At the macro scale, many other players get into the picture, specifically; feedstock suppliers, agro-chemical manufacturers and suppliers, machinery and equipment manufacturers and suppliers, fuel manufacturers and suppliers or other means of energy suppliers, produce markets and sellers, suppliers of food additives, packaging suppliers, transport companies, governmental agencies, marketing organizations, insurance companies and waste processors (Figure 1). In this study, the focus was only on the supply and processing of four major product groups in Europe, namely fruits and vegetables, dairy products, cereal products and meat products. In this respect, the activities of farm suppliers, farmers, food processors and packagers, retailers, private consumers were included in the study, which are listed in Table 1. 24

Spain, Italy, Germany, the UK or France are the European countries with the highest level of activity in terms of primary production. Six farms out of every ten in the EU are situated in these countries (Eurostat, 1999, p 54).

25

OECD. (2000). Environmental Indicators for Agriculture Methods and Results – Executive Summary. http://www.oecd.org/agr/env/exsum_e.pdf. [2001, July 9]

26

The top 50 food manufacturers in Europe having their main market as Europe are mainly based in the UK, the Netherlands, France and Germany (Traill, B. and Pitts, E., 1998).

7

Burcu Tunçer, IIIEE, Lund University

The food processors such as breweries and distillers were not considered since the nature of the food supply chain is different in terms of its length and the actors involved. However, some initiatives of wine production located in southern European countries were still collected, since they addressed regional aspects, cultural values and artisanship, which might be considered as a valuable input to the final collection of components. Similarly, the initiatives related with fish and seafood production were not included due to their emphasis only on certain parts of the food supply chain, making them quite specific. Because these initiatives developed particular criteria for the production stage of the life cycle of the product i.e. harvesting27 but did not put much emphasis on the processing stages, similar type of schemes from other sectors were considered in the study reflecting this type of perspective. Table 1 – The stakeholders as food supply chain actors in each main food sector in Europe. Main Actors along the Food Supply Chain

Fruits and Vegetables

Dairy Products

Cereal Products

Meat Products

Farm Suppliers

Seed providers; fertilizer, pesticide and agro-chemical manufacturers.

Livestock feed providers; fertilizer, pesticide, veterinary and agro-chemical manufacturers.

Seed providers; fertilizer, pesticide and agro-chemical manufacturers.

Livestock feed providers; fertilizer, pesticide, veterinary and agro-chemical manufacturers.

Farmers

Horticultural production.

Livestock breeding.

Seed growers.

Animal husbandry.

Food Processors and Packagers

Canned, dehydrated and frozen vegetable based packaged convenience foods manufacturers, beverage producers.

Dairy product manufacture i.e. milk, yoghurt, icecream, powder milk, etc.

Grain millers, bakeries, pasta manufacturers, breakfast cereal manufacturers.

Abattoirs; butchers; canned, hydrated and frozen packaged meat based convenience food manufacturers.

Retailers

Supermarkets, fresh fruit and vegetable markets, green grocers, grocery shops.

Supermarkets, grocery shops, milkmen.

Supermarkets, grocery shops, bakeries.

Supermarkets, butcheries.

Consumers

Private consumers who can be segmented into many markets according to their age groups, lifestyles, cultural backgrounds, income levels, and ethical preferences.

Adapted from Brah, N. and Schelleman, F.28

At the level of the target market for the schemes, as indicated in Table 1, the focus of the thesis is on private consumers, namely households, excluding the businesses such as restaurants, hotels, leisure establishments, transportation companies. Inclusion of such institutional customers would have complicated the understanding of the system dynamics as their purchasing behaviour, in fact strategy,

27

WWF. (2000). Ausgezeichnet Einkaufen – Labels für Lebensmittel. (Excellent Shopping – Labels for Foodstuff) Zürich: WWF Schweiz.

28

Brah, N., Schelleman, F. (2000). Green Purchasing of Foodstuffs. Background Document for the Stockholm Hearing, 1718 February 2000, “Green Purchasing of Foodstuffs” by Swedish Environmental Protection Agency and the European Green Purchasing Network. Final Report. p. 6.

8

An Analysis of the European Food Quality Initiatives

is quite different than that of private consumers29. In this regard, no attempt was made to analyse any schemes arising from purchasing activities of the actors at the end of the food supply chain. Lastly, links to the companies involved in supporting industries such as sanitary material producers, technical machinery suppliers, were not studied in order to simplify the analysis. Another crucial issue was the consideration of the interaction of food supply chains with the stakeholders in the “task environment” (Figure 1). Other than the interactions among themselves, the actions of the actors along the chain, as stated in Table 1, were affected by the stakeholders in the “task environment”. It is known that each and every scheme has a different group of stakeholders and the nature of the relationship varies accordingly. Although, the importance of the relation of the initiatives to these parties was recognized, the stakeholder discussion was considered on a generic level30 to emphasize the major parties, with whom these schemes communicate. Similarly, in this research, neither the European background of social, economic and environmental conditions nor the cultural aspects related to the general environment are discussed (Figure 1). Although, the characteristics of the general environment would affect the structure of the components of the initiatives, understanding of these elements would have required in-depth studies. Instead, the study underlined the crucial links between the components of the initiatives and the quality aspects raised by the categories of initiatives.

29

Gíslason, S. (1998). Purchasing Organic Food – Obstacles on the Way towards a New Ethical Lifestyle. Thesis for the Fullfillment of the Master of Science in the Environmental Management and Policy. Lund: Sweden.

30

The communication channels through which the stakeholder affects the food supply chains were not considered in detail, as it changes regionally or from one state to another. For example, even though, the influence that government and regulatory requirements can exert in virtually every link of the food supply chain was accepted to be crucial, it would be impossible to review the regulatory framework of the countries in the scope of the study during the allocated time for the thesis.

9

Burcu Tunçer, IIIEE, Lund University

Env ironmental Conditions Other Industries

Insurance Companies

Consumer Associations

Public Authorities

Social

(petroleum industry, packaging industry, transportation industry, machinery and equipment industry)

(Farmers/Retailers /Processors)

Environmental NGOs

National Food Chain Imports

Conditions

Co-operative Enterprises

Farm Suppliers

Primary Producers

Food and Drink Manufacturers/ Processors

Nonresidential retailers

Exports

Trade Associations

International Organizations

Research Institutes / Universities

Conditions

Retailers

Marketing Organizations

(e.g. FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission)

Economic

Consumers

Whole salers

Standardization Organizations (Accreditation and Certification Bodies e.g. IFOAM, Svenska Demeter)

Cultural Aspects

Waste Processors EU Commission

Task Env ironment

General Env ironment

Channels Actors

Figure 1–The micro outlook to the European food supply chain and the macro scale environment (task and the generic environment) surrounding it.

Conceptual Boundaries Many measures are developed to steer activities of the food supply chain towards a sustainable direction. These measures can be grouped into two as the ones addressing a single actor and the ones focusing on several actors along the chain. The first group of measures, focusing on closed systems, are usually called as in-house cleaner production solutions, environmentally sound technology developments at the farm level or production level and environmental management systems31. The second group of measures called as supply chain measures emphasize the fact that organizations are a part of a wider system and depend on their external environment for resources. In this context, these measures usually refer to the integrated chain management concept, which aims to achieve a holistic understanding of the entire production chain, being the focus of this study.

31

These pollution prevention solutions were promoted by both international and national level organizations. For example, the “Sustainable Agriculture Technologies and Practices Workshop” organized by OECD aimed to develop production systems that are both economically efficient and environmentally sustainable (OECD, 1994). Similarly, the project implemented by the Nordic Council of Ministers on how improved eco-efficiency and Factor 4/10 can be implemented in the Nordic countries, analyzed the role of different players involved in the process (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, 1999).

10

An Analysis of the European Food Quality Initiatives

However, certain types of initiatives of codes of conduct emphasizing only one aspect of the triple bottom line such as social aspects and not giving any emphasis to the quality of the production processes and introducing only a general framework were not included in the research. Similarly, the general framework of guidelines or codes of conduct prepared by international organizations for multinational cooperations to perform socially responsible businesses were not included in the scope, since they fail to address the specifics of the food sector in Europe and target only the actors up in the food supply chain32. Whereas, other types of the codes of conduct, which address both social and environmental aspects of production in Europe, incorporating the general framework of the above mentioned principles, such as the retailer led codes of conduct initiatives, were included in the study. Fair trade initiatives, as one of these types of codes of conduct, were not studied due to two major reasons. The first reason was related with the fact that fair trade initiatives aim to keep a certain level of labour standards in countries with weak legislation, which is usually the case in third world countries. The second reason was that, these initiatives address only a single quality aspect, i.e. incorporation of social values, which would not add much value to the objective of the thesis33. In the same way, the focus of the thesis for the benchmarking initiatives was specified for the food industry and the general framework of these initiatives was left out of the scope of research34, while the ones with a more specific approach on the food sector were the focus of this study. Moreover, the initiatives for indicator development were not included specifically as a separate category in this study. As for this study, the function of the final outcome i.e. the indicators carries the utmost importance. In that respect, indicators were recognized only as tools but not initiatives35 for “condensing the information available in the [food] production systems to aid in decision-making and direct the actions of the actors”36. Finally, evaluation of the “success” of the initiatives is not considered, since such a study would require defining benchmarks of “success”37.

32

OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, which provide voluntary principles and standards for responsible business conduct consistent with applicable laws or UN Global Compact, which uses nine principles in the field of human rights, labour standards and the environment or Global Reporting Initiative’s Sustainability Reporting Guidelines, which include suggestions for key indicators of corporate sustainability performance, were not studied

33

The Ethical Trading Initiative (ETI), which is an alliance of companies, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and trade union organisations, committed to identify and promote good practice in the implementation of codes of labour practice, based on Core Conventions of the International Labour Organization, were not included in the research (ETI, 2001). Other similar type of marketing initiatives with various types of ownership structure such as the Christian Aid Supermarkets Campaign having members especially from UK based supermarket chains were also excluded from this study. In line with this limitation, the fair trade labels such as Claro, Gebana, Max Havelaar were also excluded.

34

The Business in the Environment Index of Corporate Environment Engagement, which publishes the Index of Corporate Environment Management or the Dow Jones sustainability Group Indexes or Criteria for Ethical and Green Investment Funds categorized as Broad Corporate Sustainability Benchmarking Initiatives were also excluded in this study.

35

Indicators measuring impacts from different actors along the food supply chain such as SAFE Alliance Food Indicators, European Indicators, MAFF Indicators of Sustainable Agriculture, Countryside Agency Indicators, OECD Sustainable Agriculture Indicators were not studied as these initiatives are used as inputs for the operational indicators used by the studied initaitives.

36

Bossel, H. (1999). Indicators for Sustainable Development: Theory, Method and Applications. A Report to the Balaton Group. Canada: International Institute for Sustainable Development. p. 9.

37

Some studies were identified designed to list elements of success of marketing schemes. For example, the “1998 Marketing Sustainable Agriculture Tour and Symposium” studied marketing initiatives from six European countries and performed a qualitative approach to assess sustainability or manageability of the initiatives for the long-term economic success of farmers, or the rate of adoption of sustainable practices (Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, 1998). This study instead aimed only to state the complete list of options available in the food market without a biased point of view.

11

Burcu Tunçer, IIIEE, Lund University

1.5 The Thesis Structure The thesis study is divided into seven major chapters. While the first two chapters provide introductory information to the study, the other chapters present the findings, analysis and recommendations. The structure of the chapters is as follows: Chapter 1

Introduction

Chapter 2

The Hourglass Methodology

Introduces the problem statement and objectives of the study. Gives a description of the four stages of the methodology followed throughout the study. Chapter 3

Background to “Means of Ensuring Food Quality” Introduces the quality cues and attributes and explains the relationships among between them. It also provides a theoretical background on the initial list of components.

Chapter 4

Categories of Food Quality Initiatives Explains the findings from the categorization of the schemes found, which are listed in Appendix V. Each category is discussed by considering its components and giving examples. The final section gives an overview of all the components found.

Chapter 5

Strengths and Limitations of the European Food Quality Initiatives Discusses the analyses performed for each category of food initiatives with the strengths and limitations found, which are given in Appendix IV. The final section gives an overview of these strengths and weaknesses, credibility factors and the supply chain coverage of each category.

Chapter 6

Conclusion and Recommendations for Further Studies Reviews all the findings, analysis and highlights of the study. Then general recommendations for the development of the existing structure of the food quality initiatives are discussed.

In addition to these listed six chapters and appendices, the reader can find a glossary in Appendix I, which is a compilation of definitions of the most frequently, used terms in the text in the context of this study. Furthermore, Chapters 4 and Chapter 5 contain “boxes”, which provide short descriptions of exemplary cases, to support the author’s point in explaining the categories.

12

An Analysis of the European Food Quality Initiatives

2. The “Hourglass” Methodology This chapter explains the methodology used to achieve the research objectives. The study consists of four major stages, namely development of an initial list of components, collection of the initiatives, categorization of them and, finally analysis of them.

2.1 Stages of the Thesis Study Managing the major task of the thesis work required a qualitative approach rather than a quantitative one. Joseph Maxwell mentioned that “qualitative studies could be used to understand the meaning [i.e. intentions and affects] and process [i.e. more than the outcomes] of the events and actions”38. In line with his argument, as the objective of the thesis required not only gathering the food quality initiatives in Europe but also understanding the dynamics of them, an inductive approach was applied by focusing on situations or institutions and emphasizing words rather than numbers. The research methodology might be recognized as an “hourglass”, passing a wide range of food quality initiatives through a filter and developing a diverse perspective of recommendations borrowed from each. As it is not feasible to analyse each and every initiative on its own, it was found appropriate to apply “similarity categorization” and then to analyse each category. As discussed in Section 2.1.3., similarity categorization is “based on making judgments on similarities and then [proceeding] to the attribute based approach”39. In that regard, finding common “attributes”, in other words components and quality aspects among the collected initiatives was the major approach followed to classify them into categories. The four stages of the thesis study are discussed in details below and an overview of these steps is given in Figure 2. The second stage required the completion of the first one, whilst the third one started before the second one was completed. On the other hand, the final stage was performed after completing the collection of initiatives.

38

Maxwell, J. (1996). Qualitative Research Design – An Interactive Approach: London: SAGE Publications. p. 17.

39

Frumkina, R. M., Mikhejev, A. V. (1996). Meaning and Categorization. New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc. p. 164.

13

Burcu Tunçer, IIIEE, Lund University

HOURGLASS METHODOLOGY Input - Sources of Information Studies on Initiatives (Appendix I)

Study Process Synthesis of Literature Studies and Decision on the Initial List of Components

Decision on Geographical and Conceptual Scope of the Thesis Study

Electronic Correspondence with IIIEE Network

Identification of Initiatives Background Development on Initiative Components and Quality Aspects

Electronic or Phone Correspondence with the "Managers" of the Initiatives

Primary and Secondary Data Collection on the Initiatives

Secondary Source Search on methodology

"Similarity Categorization" of the Collected Initiatives

Initial List of Components (From Stage 1) and Quality Aspects (From Stage 2)

1. Formulation of Initial List of Components

Contacts for Experts and Initiatives

Electronic Correspondence with Experts in the Field of "Food Quality"

Secondary Source Search (Appendix I)

Outcome Methodology Step

Review of Initial List of Components

Identification of Strengths and Weaknesses of the Components Secondary Literature Search Synthesis of the Complete List of Components and Development of Recommendations

2. Collection of European Food Supply Chain Initiatives

3. Categorization of European Food Supply Chain Initiatives

4. Analysis of the Categories and Development of Recommendations

Figure 2 – Illustration of the five levels of the research methodology i.e. formulation of initial list of components, collection of European food supply chain initiatives, categorization of the initiatives, analysis of them and development of recommendations.

14

An Analysis of the European Food Quality Initiatives

2.1.1 First Stage – Formulation of Preliminary List of Components The first stage of the research was designed to develop an initial list of components as “attributes” to be used in the “similarity categorization”. This initial step was found crucial, as this information was required to decide what kind of information to look for in the second stage of the study and to lay down the basis for categorization, which was done at the third stage. The search was initiated with a review of relevant literature given in Table 7 of Appendix II by using some of the keywords listed in Appendix II. The main sources selected were works of the experts40 as individuals or institutions working in the research area of food quality and policy. The studies of Gunnar Rundgren, the ex-president of International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) Accreditation Programme and current CEO of Grolink AB; Ralph Early, the chief editor of "International Journal of Food Science and Technology" and "Food Ethics Review", and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of New Zealand had referrals to “elements” or “components” of certification programmes or farm assurance schemes. After reading and reviewing this material, an initial list of components was formed.

2.1.2 Second Stage – Collection of the European Food Supply Chain Quality Initiatives The second stage i.e. the collection of the European food quality initiatives was started in the middle of May and ended in the middle of August. The collection of the schemes was predicted as a diminishing return process. This meant that the incidence of finding new initiatives from the below discussed sources would decrease in time. With this premise, a time limit was set and the search for new ones was terminated. This search for initiatives was initiated by posting electronic enquiries to some of the members of the IIIEE Network41, who were supposed to be working or used to work with the issues of “food quality” in Europe. The answers received from them were used for gathering further contacts with the experts in the area and titles or sources of the initiatives. In parallel to this process, major secondary literature resources were consulted. These resources included major World Wide Web database sites, which gave lists of initiatives, printed material and journals from the libraries of Lund University or from other libraries of Sweden and Denmark available on LIBRIS42 and additionally material provided by the researchers of International Institute of Industrial Environmental Economics (Appendix II – Table 8). These sources were browsed using the keywords provided in Table 9 in Appendix II. Detecting the title of particular initiatives, information related to the initial list of components of the initiative and if required further information was gathered through both primary and secondary resources. Secondary resources included printed information, as mentioned above or electronic documents available on the home World Wide Web site of the initiative. Primary resources were gathered basically from correspondence with the managers of the initiatives and the experts in the area. The contacts with the initiative coordinators were done in order to obtain either the missing data or confirm the already available information (Appendix III). Correspondence with the experts 40

The term “expert” was used in the context of the definition of Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, which is given as having, involving, or displaying special skill or knowledge derived from training or experience (Expert, EB Online, 2001).

41

The members of the IIIEE Network are managers, decision-makers, policy makers and regulators in the environmental field from more than 50 countries and a broad range of backgrounds. The key attribute that ties the network together is the member's master's degree completed at the International Institute of Industrial Environmental Economics.

42

Libris (Library catalogue of Swedish libraries) the national catalogue for all research libraries and some public libraries in Sweden.

15

Burcu Tunçer, IIIEE, Lund University

was performed to develop a better understanding and comparative overview among different initiatives or (later categories).

2.1.3 Third Stage – Categorization of the European Food Supply Chain Quality Initiatives In the third stage, as mentioned before, since it was not possible to analyse each scheme individually, “similarity categorization” was applied to classify them. The idea behind this attempt was that each category would reflect a distinctive organizational structure emphasizing a certain characteristic or component to be added to the final holistic structure. As Frumkina and Mikhejev mention in their study, an initial listing of attributes is necessary to make judgements on similarity. They also state that “the idea of using attributes in the process of comparison seems so obvious that [they] have not discovered in the literature any alternative approaches […]43. In that respect, this study, followed from the beginning, an “attribute-based approach”44. The initial list of components formed in the first stage was used as attributes for judgements on similarity. In addition to the initial list of components, quality aspects, to which the initiatives refer, were used as attributes to find similarities among them. Even though, there are no precise definitions or titles used to refer to each category formulated, designation of the categories was inspired from the literature referring to similar groupings. For example, “organic agriculture certification schemes” together with the ones owned by processors and retailers are known as organic labels, whilst integrated production applications, regardless of their ownership, are usually referred to as IP labels. On the other hand, “national or sector level farm quality assurance schemes” and most of “the retailer led quality assurance schemes” are in general called as farm assurance labels. In the end, the whole process of classification was performed on a trial and error basis, resembling the process of solving a jigsaw puzzle, with the objective of finding the similarities based on selected attributes. The attributes were the quality aspects addressed, ownership structure and quality assurance systems. The schemes gathered are filtered through these attributes and categorized according to the similarities among them. Table 2 shows the main similarities in their attributes for the categories formulated among the collected schemes.

43

Frumkina, R. M., Mikhejev, A. V. (1996). Meaning and Categorization. New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc. p. 164.

44

Ibid.

16

An Analysis of the European Food Quality Initiatives

Table 2 – Iterative process of “similarity categorization”. Attribute Filters for Similarity Categorization Quality Aspect

Ownership Structure

Quality assurance systems

Other Components

Environmental friendliness Organic farming

-

Organic farming production or Biodynamic agriculture

-

Organic Agriculture Certification Schemes

Environmental friendliness Integrated Production

-

Integrated Crop Management

Usually Stakeholder Communication via labels

Integrated Production Certification Schemes

Health and Safety Aspect

Primary producer, grower or farmer representative

Domination by Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point approach

-

National or Sector Level Farm Quality Assurance Schemes

Social responsibility

Processor

-

Brand Concept

Food Processor/Manufacturer Led Quality Initiatives

Social responsibility

Retailer

-

-

Retailer Led Quality Assurance Schemes

Environmental friendliness Organic farming

Retailer

-

Brand Concept

Retailer House Brands

Regional or traditional links

-

Specific own production criteria

-

Traditional or Regional Quality Aspect Schemes

-

-

Pooling of best practices

-

Benchmarking Initiatives

Final List of Categories

2.1.4 Fourth Stage – Analysis of the Categories and Development of Recommendations The final stage of the research was designed to gain understanding in the dynamics of each category and the major strengths and drawbacks, which would contribute to the recommendations that are presented in Chapter 7. The analysis was based on three major inputs i.e. system’s thinking, the components and the quality attributes. The components and quality attributes were utilized as a basis once more, to understand the differences among them while the systems thinking approach was used to grasp the interactions among the parts of each category. The principles of openness, counter-intuitiveness, emergent property, multi-dimensionality and purposefulness discussed by Gharajedaghi45 were also used a base to understand the strengths of the categories (Figure 3). Some questions were developed corresponding to each principle in the scope of the thesis study. All in all, the potencies of each category tried to be found out to be incorporated to the final framework.

45

Gharajedaghi, J. (1999). Systems Thinking: Managing Chaos and Complexity – A Platform for Designing Business Architecture. Boston: Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. p. 29, 33, 37, 45, 48.

17

Burcu Tunçer, IIIEE, Lund University

Following the analysis, recommendations were developed. The mainstream thinking was to emphasize the common potentials found among all the categories to complete the formation of the “hourglass”. Openness Multidimensionality Ability to see complementary relations in opposing tendencies and to create feasible ones from unfeasible ones. Are the interests of stakeholders incorporated into the scheme? What are the implications for credibility building?

Emergent Property The system properties are not stable, but rather involves spontaneous outcomes of ongoing processes. How does the scheme evolve in time? Are there any potential weaknesses and strengths?

The system can be understood only in the context of its environment. Are there any strenghts or weaknesses with respect to the macro environment involvement?

Purposefulness-

Application of the Principles of System's Thinking

State-maintaining system: Reacts to changes to maintain its constant state. Goal seeking system: Reacts until it achieves a particular goal. Purposefull system: Does both of the above. Learning system How does the scheme achieve continuous improvement?

Counter Intuitiveness Actions intended to produce a certain outcome may produce opposite results. Does the scheme give a lot of emphasis on a single quality aspect or component?

Figure 3- The application of the components of the system’s thinking concept (i.e. openness, purposefulness, counter intuitiveness, emergent property and multidimensionality) within the strengths and weaknesses analyses of the categories.

2.2 Limitations of the Hourglass Methodology The major limitation with the whole methodology is that it is designed to help achieve the goal of the thesis study through “similarity categorization” approach. However, the author has not found a better way of organizing a mixed array of materials to understand what is available in the food industry. Another limitation with the whole methodology development was building it on an initial list of components. This initial list was used at each stage of the study, even at the stage of the framework development, that the search for information and analysis throughout the study was biased with this mindset. The third limitation is related with the route followed to search for the schemes discussed in Section 2.1.2. An alternative method could have been to approach the major European companies or organizations representing each actor along the food supply chain for different product groups and ask for their quality assurance attempts. However, the author believes that such a route would not have resulted differently, as the experts in the area and major databases on Internet are stakeholders to these groups that they are supposed to possess information about their activities. Moreover, such a search would have required more resource allocation in terms of time and logistics.

18

An Analysis of the European Food Quality Initiatives

3. Background to “Means of Assuring Food Quality” Studying food “quality” requires a thorough understanding of the concept. As EU Commissioners David Bryne and Franz Fischler mentioned many times during their dialogues with the stakeholders, food quality is not a single concept but is rather multi-factorial46. This chapter explains the quality attributes and cues that the food product quality depends upon. Then, it further gives a description of the initial list of components used in the analysis.

3.1 A Review of Quality Aspects The quality of food products depends on a bundle of characteristics, which determine how well it performs. Overall, these characteristics that the consumers use to formulate their overall judgement of a food product can be named as quality aspects. Quality aspects can be categorized into three categories i.e. search, experience and credence dimensions. Search attributes are formed during decision-making at the time of purchase. Consumers determine a product’s quality before they buy by examining and researching the product. On the other hand, consumers become acquainted with the experience attributes during the time of consumption. While credence attributes can be acquired only through information or personal judgement of the product; they are believed-in attributes. An overview of the quality aspects related to these categories are given in the following table and are further discussed in subsequent paragraphs. Table 3 – The quality aspects grouping under search, experience and credence attributes. Quality Aspect At the point of purchase

Intrinsic cues

Quality expectations or Search attributes

(physical appearance of the product such as colour, shape, texture, smell, leanness, marbling, cut juiciness, indirectly packaging, etc.) Extrinsic cues (information or labels, brand, country of origin i.e. place of production, packaging, place of purchase, price, traceability, availability, cultural clues)

Upon consumption

Experience attributes

Quality experience

(sensory aspects such as aroma, taste, texture, tenderness, juiciness and functionality i.e. ease of preparation)

Believed-in Quality

Credence attributes (healthfulness, safety, nutritive value, environmental friendliness, animal welfare, ethical concerns, use of GMOs, biodiversity, social responsibility, enhancement of local economy, cultural value preservation)

Adapted from Trijp, J.C.M. and Steenkamp, J.E.B.M, 199847; Northen, J.R., 200048; Glitsch, 200049; Grunert, 200150; Becker, 200051.

46

EU Chat Site. (2001). Chat with David Bryne and Franz Fischler. http://europa.eu.int/comm/chat/fischlerbyrne/fischler-byrne_en.pdf [2001, June 8]. p. 19.

47

Trijp, J.C.M. and Steenkamp, J.E.B.M (1998). Consumer-oriented new product development: principles and practice. In Jongen, W.M.F., Meulenberg, M.T.G. (Eds.) Innovation of Food Production Systems: Product Quality and Consumer Acceptance. p. 48

19

Burcu Tunçer, IIIEE, Lund University

Search attributes or quality expectations at the point of purchase are based on perceptions of one or more quality cues. There are two major quality cues, which lead to the formation of the expected quality; namely intrinsic and extrinsic cues. “Intrinsic cues are part of the product. In this respect, they can not be changed without also changing the physical product itself” 52. Some examples that can be given are colour and texture for meat products and colour, presence of spots and softness for fruit and vegetables. On the other hand, extrinsic cues are attached to the product but they are not physically part of it. Well-known cues include price, brand name, country of origin and the store name. Extrinsic cues are usually communicated to the consumer through marketing efforts. Upon consumption, the quality expectations are judged and the product’s true quality performance is experienced. Quality experience judgement is based on the perception of quality attributes; namely experience and credence attributes. Experience attributes are the ones ascertained by the consumer on the basis of actual consumption experience with the product such as aroma, colour, taste, tenderness and ease of preparation of the meat products. On the other hand, credence attributes can neither be explicitly verified through personal experience even after normal use for a long time. Examples that can be given are the absence of additives, healthfulness and environmental friendliness. It should be noted that the two types of attribute beliefs might carry differential weight in the overall quality performance judgement53. In the context of this study, it is important to mention the relation between the quality aspects and the methods of food production along the food supply chain performed by different actors. The methods of production directly affect the intrinsic cues. In that regard, there is a direct relation between the physical appearance of the product and the type of agricultural production and further processes it undergoes. On the other hand, there might not be a direct relation between the production processes and extrinsic cues as “[they] can be manipulated without the need to modify the physical product” 54. It is also possible to establish a direct link between methods of production and experience and credence attributes. The methods of production directly affect the experience attributes, while actually production processes are embedded in the credence attributes. It should be interesting to note that credence attributes, most of the time, do not affect the physical conditions of the product i.e. intrinsic cues that “extrinsic cues must be used to communicate the output of these [credence attributes]”55.

48

Northen, J.R. (2000). Quality attributes and quality cues – Effective communication in the UK meat supply chain. British Food Journal. Vol. 102. No.3. 230-245. http://www.emerald-library.com/pdfs/0702uce2.pdf [2001, June 14]

49

Glitsch, K. (2000). Consumer perception of fresh meat quality: cross-national comparison. British Food Journal. Vol. 102. No.3. 177-194.

50

Grunert, K.G. (2001). Perception of food quality – Expectations, inferences and process characteristics. Food Chain 2001 Safe-Sustainable-Ethical Programme Conference, Uppsala, Sweden, 14-16 March 2001 p. 29

51

Becker, T. (2000). Consumer perception of fresh meat quality: a framework for analysis. British Food Journal. Vol. 102. No.3. 158-176.

52

Trijp, J.C.M. and Steenkamp, J.E.B.M (1998). Consumer-oriented new product development: principles and practice. In Jongen, W.M.F., Meulenberg, M.T.G. (Eds.) Innovation of Food Production Systems: Product Quality and Consumer Acceptance. p. 48.

53

Trijp, J.C.M. and Steenkamp, J.E.B.M (1998). Consumer-oriented new product development: principles and practice. In Jongen, W.M.F., Meulenberg, M.T.G. (Eds.) Innovation of Food Production Systems: Product Quality and Consumer Acceptance. p. 49.

54

Oude Ophius, P.A.M. and Van Tripp, H.C.M. (1995). Perceived quality: a market driven and consumer oriented approach. Food Quality and Preference. Vol. 6. 177-183.

55

Northen, J.R. (2000). Quality attributes and quality cues – Effective communication in the UK meat supply chain. British Food Journal. Vol. 102. No.3. 230-245. http://www.emerald-library.com/pdfs/0702uce2.pdf [2001, June 14]

20

An Analysis of the European Food Quality Initiatives

All in all, the consumers do not only “consume” the physical food product itself but rather “consume” all three different attributes, which, all together, form the perception about the product.

3.2 An Overview of the Initial List of Initiative Components As the formulation of the list of components has been discussed in Section 2.1.1., this section is designed to only explain what “component” means in the scope of this study and discuss each of them one-by-one. The term “component” was chosen as a representation of part of an initiative, which either conveys an organizational aspect (e.g. ownership structure, marketing efforts, stakeholder participation and communication) or tries to assure and communicate one of the quality aspects (e.g. quality assurance system, audit system, traceability tools, credibility tools) to the target market. Initially, eight major components (Table 4) were found and as the analysis of the initiatives performed, additional components were added to this list as discussed in the conclusions. Table 4– The preliminary list of components of the initiatives. Component

Based on

Ownership structure

Organizational Aspect

Scope (Product groups and Supply Chain Coverage)

Organizational Aspect

Quality assurance systems or standards

Quality Aspect

Audit systems

Quality Aspect

Marketing Efforts

Organizational Aspect

Stakeholder Participation and Communication

Organizational Aspect

Traceability tools

Quality Aspect

Credibility tools

Quality Aspect

Ownership Structure Ownership was defined as the authorities that manage the components or coordinates the work among them. The decision-making structure and the internal power were assumed to be closely related to this component. The structure is supposed to take various forms of organizations, might include cooperatives56 among one line or several lines of industry of food industry, vertical (between the firms functioning along a single food supply chain) integration or horizontal (between firms belonging to a particular food industry or group) integration partnerships57, alliances58, trust59 or private companies.

56

An enterprise or organization owned by and operated for the benefit of those using its services.

57

Two or more people involved in the ownership and control of a business. The relationship between partners and their individual rights and duties are governed by the agreement that they draw up. In the absence of agreement all partners are equal as regards to profits and losses.

58

An association to further the common interests of the members.

59

A combination of companies, which decides that the best interests of each will be served by a merging of interests. This usually takes the form of the creation of monopoly reducing competition.

21

Burcu Tunçer, IIIEE, Lund University

This component has also incorporated the financial support mechanism to maintain and operate the schemes. Scope (Product Groups and Supply Chain Coverage) The type of products managed by the initiatives is included under this category. This aspect is assumed to affect the orientation of the other components. This is due to the fact that the length and complexity of the supply chains differ under each product group. For example meat supply chains are a lot more complex than the dairy chains although the stakeholder involvement and the traceability tools are thought to be more detailed. In addition to that, the stages along the supply chain addressed by the initiative are addressed under this category. The structure of the initiatives is highly dependent on the choice of the scope. For example, positioning of external and internal stakeholders and communication schemes are very closely related. A clear and separate identification of the coverage i.e. scope helps the identification of the other components. Quality Assurance Systems or Standards Along the food supply chain, in order to assure the quality aspects of the products, quality systems are set up in reference to different parts of the chain, with emphasis on different issues such as food hygiene, use of raw materials, etc. In the context of this study, quality assurance systems are recognized as tools, frameworks, checklists, commonly accepted international and national agriculture production or processing standards or, alternatively, the systems which are built upon them that are to assure the practical application of the quality aspect to be communicated. At the primary production level, the sustainable methods of farming usually referred by the initiatives can be based on forms of sustainable agriculture in Europe listed by Pretty60 as low-intensive farming, organic farming and integrated farming systems. The requirements for each different type are discussed, in detail, in Chapter 4 under the categories emphasizing them. On the other hand, processors or manufacturers make use of many different quality management systems, which interact at different levels as shown in Figure 4. Usually principles of Total Quality Management (TQM)61 are referred as the framework for implementing quality systems. On the other hand, food safety management tools sit at the core of the tools providing a system for process controls, which is supplemented by documentation created and maintained according to the ISO protocols62.

60

Pretty, J. (1998). The Living Land. p.91.

61

The term “Total Quality Management” refers to a management approach centered on quality, based on participation of all its members and aiming at long-term success through customer satisfaction and benefits to all members of the organization and to society.

62

Jouve, J.L., Stringer, M.F. and Baird-Parker, A.C. (1998). Food Safety Management Tools. International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) Europe Report Series. Europe Risk Analysis in Microbiology Task Force. p. 5.

22

An Analysis of the European Food Quality Initiatives

Principles of Total Quality Management Systems of Quality Management (ISO 9000) Systems of Environmental Quality Management (ISO 14000) Food Safety Management GMP / GHP

HACCP Plan (product or process specific)

Figure 4 – The relationship between the major quality tools used in the food industry. Compliance with the good practices i.e. Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) or Good Hygienic Practice (GHP) is accepted as the minimum requirements in the food processing industry. GMP are the fundamental principles, procedures and means needed to design a suitable environment for the production of acceptable quality of food. While GHP describes the basic hygienic measures, which establishments should meet and form the prerequisites for the other approaches, specifically, Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) procedures63. These requirements can be developed into codes of practice either at the national level or international level, which would apply either horizontally (sectoral level) or vertically (company level). The codes developed by International Dairy Federation or the Codex Alimentarius Committee on Food Hygiene are examples for international level initiatives. National level codes are developed as being voluntary and implemented at one specific branch of the food industry. For example, the Dutch Code of Good Manufacturing Practices, requires the feed manufacturers to work with these codes and it is usually referred by various quality programmes and production codes for the production of meat, milk and eggs in The Netherlands64. GHP covers the following areas: •

The hygienic design and construction of food manufacturing premises



The hygienic design, construction and proper use of machinery



Cleaning and disinfection procedures (including pest control)

General hygienic and safety practices in food processing including; the microbial quality of raw foods, the hygienic operation of each process step, the hygiene of personnel and their training in food hygiene and safety. As GMP and GHP address the generic requirements for manufacturing safe food, “HACCP”65 has the benefit of addressing specific determinants unique to a particular product or process. HACCP is a

63

Hoogland, J.P., et al. (1998). Quality Assurance Systems. In Jongen, W.M.F., Meulenberg, M.T.G. (Eds.) Innovation of Food Production Systems: Product Quality and Consumer Acceptance. p. 143.

64

Hoogland, J.P., et al. (1998). Quality Assurance Systems. In Jongen, W.M.F., Meulenberg, M.T.G. (Eds.) Innovation of Food Production Systems: Product Quality and Consumer Acceptance. p. 145.

65

HACCP approach was adopted by Directive 93/43 at the European Union level that it has to be a part of national legislation in all member states (Hoogland, J.P., et al., 1998, p. 145).

23

Burcu Tunçer, IIIEE, Lund University

risk management approach to control specific hazards at certain parts of the food supply chain66. It, firstly, aims to identify potential hazards i.e. microbiological, chemical or physical in nature and, secondly, establishes measures to prevent or eliminate a food safety hazard or reduce it to an acceptable level at Critical Control Points (CCP) i.e. points or steps in the production process67. The businesses along the supply chain also apply a quality system, which addresses all aspects of quality control and assurance. Although there are many forms of such systems, the most widely utilized is based on the ISO 900068 series of standards. As these systems are utilized, usually HACCP is applied as an integral part of them69. Audit Systems Audit systems refer to the routines that are applied to verify compliance with the quality systems or standards conducted internally by the actors along the food supply chain or, alternatively, independently by national or international third parties. As in the case of quality systems, there are specifications for auditing at the international or national level. For example, United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) based upon the European Standard EN 45004 establishes general criteria for the operation of various types of bodies performing inspection to ensure their competence70. Furthermore, ISO/IEC Guide 17020 lays down the standard for the operation of inspection bodies71. Marketing Efforts Marketing efforts refer to the target markets that the initiatives address and the promotion efforts performed by their managers in order to increase the acceptance of the initiative by these markets. The managers of the initiatives supposedly have two target markets; private consumers and the potential participants in the scheme. Private consumers72 can be the European niche market segments having concerns for the environment or, alternatively, they can be the society at large. On the other

66

Hoogland, J.P., et al. (1998). Quality Assurance Systems. In Jongen, W.M.F., Meulenberg, M.T.G. (Eds.) Innovation of Food Production Systems: Product Quality and Consumer Acceptance. 154.

67

Orriss, G D. (1999). Parallel session 1: Equivalence - Equivalence of food quality assurance systems Food Control. Vol.10 Issue.4-5. 255-260. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6T6S-3X64J64-61&_udi=B6T6S-3X64J646&_cdi=5038&_orig=browse&_coverDate=08%2F10%2F1999&_sk=999899995&_acct=C000041498&_version=1&_ userid=745831&md5=1fdaba197f184c30c906b6b4b4a5feef&ie=f.pdf. [2001, June 14].

68

ISO 9000 family of standards and guidelines also provide general frameworks for quality guidance assurance and also guidelines for selection and use of quality assurance standards. The ISO 9000 series is an integrated global system for optimizing the quality effectiveness of a company or organization by creating a framework for continuous improvement (Rothery, B.,1995, p. 10). These standards are based on compilation of procedures, record keeping, application of these and performance of audits. There are two major choices that an actor along the chain can select i.e. internal quality assurance or external quality assurance. Internal quality assurance is used to improve efficiency, quality of products as well as the services within the organization. In that case, ISO9004 series is used as tools to apply TQM. On the other hand, external quality assurance is more suited to supply chains since the ISO 9001, 9002 or 9003 series is applied when customers ask for certification or suppliers demand it.

69

BSI. (1999). Guidance Notes on the Application of ISO 9001:1994 for Quality Management Systems in the Food and Drink Industry. http://www.fst.rdg.ac.uk/people/ajukesdj/qual-lks.htm. p.3.

70

Early, R. (1998). Farm assurance – benefit or burden. Journal of Agricultural Society of London. Vol. 159, 32-43.

71

UKAS. (2000). Getting Accredited – Accreditation Standards. http://www.ukas.com/new_docs/accredit-standards.htm. [2001, June 20]

72

They are named in many different ways by the initiatives such as the British National Farmers Union calling them as “shoppers”

24

An Analysis of the European Food Quality Initiatives

hand, the initiative, as a product, is promoted to the actors along the food supply chain for implementation. These promotion efforts, generally called as advertising, refer to formal means of communication (such as the media) or creation of publicity at the individual level (such as word-of-mouth). The crucial point is that labelling of the products is not considered as a promotion instrument, but rather a stakeholder communication tool. Stakeholder Participation and Communication Tools There have been various attempts to define stakeholders of an organization. Freeman73 has a classicdefinition for stakeholders i.e. a group or an individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization’s objectives. Clarkson also introduces the definition of primary stakeholder as groups typically comprised of shareholders, investors, employees, customers and suppliers, together with what is defined as the public stakeholder group such as the government74. Clarkson further mentions that without the continuing participation of primary stakeholders, an organization cannot survive in time75. Following this idea, as each initiative was assumed to have an ownership structure, there has to be groups or individuals, who are related to the actions, taken by the initiatives. In that respect, stakeholder communication refers to the means of communication with the institutions, organizations, groups or people involved within and with the initiative. It is further possible to divide stakeholders into two groups as internal and external. According to Jones76, external stakeholders are people who do not own the organization, are not employed by it, but do have some interest in it and internal stakeholders are people who are closest to an organization and have the strongest or most direct claim on organization resources such as shareholders, managers and workforce. It should be noted that the study did not aim to conduct a stakeholder analysis. As the stakeholders, that each initiative perceives, change from one case to another, it is quite hard to define a common group of stakeholders for each category. However, to understand the connections to these actors it is important to formulate the boundary of the categories and to analyse their contribution to strengths and weaknesses of the initiative and other components of the initiative. In that respect, the word “stakeholder” is used throughout the study to identify the activities of the initiative related to different groups of parties. Credibility Tools The least formal way to manage the relationships to the suppliers or customers of an organization is to develop a reputation i.e. […] “state in which an organization is held in high regard and trusted by other parties because of its fair and honest business practices”77. Credibility tools, in that regard, are needed to build a positive reputation on the quality assurance aspect of the initiative.

73

Freeman, R. (1984). Strategic Management : A Stakeholder Approach. p.46.

74

Clarkson, M.B.E. (1995). A Stakeholder framework for analysing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review. Vol. 20. 92-117.

75

Ibid.

76

Jones, G. R. (2000). Organizational Theory Text and Cases. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. p. 14-15.

77

Jones, G. R. (2000). Organizational Theory Text and Cases. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. p. 177.

25

Burcu Tunçer, IIIEE, Lund University

Traceability Tools Various definitions for traceability can be found in the literature. For example, Wilson and Clarke define it as “the information necessary to describe the production history of food crop and any subsequent transformations or processes that the crop might undergo on its journey from the grower to the consumers’ plate”78. While specifically for meat products, Timon and O’Reilly define traceability as “a system that offers the ability to identify an animal, trace its movements throughout its life and subsequently trace the meat products of the animal to the final consumer”79. Traceability systems80 can show different characteristics depending on the managers of the system, the level of technology and the product groups. The technology may cover Internet based applications or, more common methods, such as bar coding applications. The managers of the system might be one of the actors along the chain or third parties. The key elements of traceability systems for meat products include identification and registration of animals, herds, processors, exporters; capturing and communication of data and management and verification of it81. The management of traceability systems in the food industry compared to the other industries is not easy due to three major reasons; 1) high number of levels within the chain, 2) vast number of producers supplying the chain, and 3) low level of vertical integration in a certain livestock and meat chain82. The benefits of traceability can occur at the marketing and economic levels. At the marketing level; firstly, these systems provide consumer assurance; secondly, they identify the source of infected and substandard product; thirdly, they control and monitor for diseases and residues and, finally they provide verification for support measures and labelling requirements. At the economic level, savings in several areas can be achieved such as reduction in disease levels, reduction in compensation payments and reduction of staff requirements, in case of automatic systems83.

78

Wilson, T.P., Clarke, W.R. (1998). Food safety and traceability in the agricultural supply chain: using the Internet to deliver Traceability. Supply Chain Management. Vol. 3. No. 3. 127-133.

79

Timon, D., O’Reilly, S. (1998). An evaluation of Traceability systems along the Irish beef chain. In Viau, C. (Ed.) Long term prospects for the beef industry. INRA, Ivry-sur-Seine, p. 219-225.

80

The origins of the systems of traceability date back to 1950’s. These systems included identification and registration of animal herds to eliminate diseases such as bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis. Today, the minimum requirement for the traceability of meat products in terms of EU legislation is set by EC 820/97. It is a Council Regulation passed on April 1997 establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the labeling of beef and beef products.

81

Verbeke, W., Viaene, J. (2000). Demand-oriented Meat Chain Management: The Emerging Role of Traceability and Information Flows. In Trienekens, J.H., Zuurbier, P.J.P. (Ed.) Chain Management in Agribusiness and the Food Industry Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference. Management Studies Group Wageningen University, 25-26 May 2000. p. 392.

82

Ibid.

83

Ibid.

26

An Analysis of the European Food Quality Initiatives

4. Categories of Food Supply Chain Quality Initiatives This chapter is designed to provide a detailed description of each category to describe the components found for each one. Chapter 4 is structured as given in Figure 5. Each sub-section firstly, gives a description of the category and then mentions the quality aspects referred. Subsequently, each sub-component is described by giving examples from the collected list of initiatives given in Appendix V. Furthermore, exemplary cases are included in boxes to assist the reader to comprehend the main characteristics of the categories. In the section on Organic Agriculture Certification Schemes i.e. Section 4.1.1., particular emphasis is given on the accreditation and certification procedure, since certification procedure is referred in the quality assurance systems of other types of schemes such as Integrated Production Certification Schemes and National or Sector Level Farm Quality Assurance Schemes. Finally in Section 4.7., a summary of the findings is included with a presentation of the whole list of elements contained in each component.

4.1. Sustainable Agriculture Certification Schemes 4.1.1. Organic Agriculture Certification Schemes - Ownership Structure - Quality Assurance System - Audit System - Marketing Efforts - Stakeholder Participation and Communication Tools - Credibility Tools & Traceability Tools

4.1.2. Integrated Production Certification Schemes - Ownership Structure - Quality Assurance System - Audit System - Marketing Efforts - Stakeholder Participation and Communication Tools - Credibility Tools & Traceability Tools

4.4. Food Retailer Schemes 4.4.2. Retailer House Brand 4.4.1. Food Retailer Led Quality - Ownership Structure Assurance Schemes - Brand Concept - Ownership Structure - Marketing Efforts - Quality Assurance System - Stakeholder Participation - Audit System and Communication Tools - Marketing Efforts - Credibility Tools & - Stakeholder Participation and Traceability Tools Communication Tools - Credibility Tools & Traceability Tools

4.2. National or Sector Level Farm Quality Assurance Schemes - Ownership Structure - Quality Assurance System - Audit System - Marketing Efforts - Stakeholder Participation and Communication Tools - Credibility Tools & Traceability Tools

4.3. Food Processor/ Manufacturer Led Quality Initiatives - Ownership Structure - Quality Assurance System - Audit System - Marketing Efforts - Credibility Tools & Traceability Tools

4.5. Traditional or Regional Quality Aspect Schemes - Ownership Structure - Quality Criteria - Supply Chain Coverage - Stakeholder Participation and Communication Tools - Credibility Tools & Traceability Tools

4.6. Benchmarking Schemes - Management Structure - Benchmarking System 4.7. Concluding Remarks

Figure 5– The structure of the sections of Chapter 4 discussing eight different categories of initiatives.

4.1 Sustainable Agriculture Certification Schemes Sustainable Agriculture Certification schemes were categorized into two major categories; organic agriculture and integrated production certification. These schemes differ from other initiatives, first of all by their strong emphasis on environmental friendliness quality aspect and further by the differences in their quality assurance standards. Certification is a very common route preferred by producers to achieve a specific way of production and communication of this approval to their customers via a label. Generally, certification involves the procedure by which a third party gives written assurance that a product, process or service conforms to specified requirements in the form of norms or given standards.

27

Burcu Tunçer, IIIEE, Lund University

The need for certification develops when there is distance between producers and consumers. “The distance does not need to be geographic but may arise due to the ways of distribution, economic realities or even cultural conditions” 84.

4.1.1 Organic Agriculture Certification Schemes Certification of “organic agriculture”85, in general, refers to the assessment and approval of production methods of organic farming principles. Summing up different schools, organic agriculture, in the end is designed to create integrated, humane, environmental and economically sustainable agriculture systems86. Maximum reliance is put on self-regulating agro-ecosystems, locally or farm-derived renewable resources and the management of ecological and biological processes. The use of external inputs, whether organic or inorganic, is reduced as far as possible. Additionally, organic agriculture does not allow usage of synthetic fertilizers or pesticides, growth-promoting antibiotics or hormones or genetic engineering. The Organic Agriculture Certification Schemes refer to the credence attributes of environmental friendliness, animal welfare, health and taste as an experience attribute. Through avoiding use of artificial chemical fertilizers and pesticides on the land and relying instead on developing a healthy and fertile soil and growing a mixture of crops, environmental friendliness aspect is claimed to be ensured. Avoidance of routine use of drugs, antibiotics and other veterinary medicines, which usually form the foundation of the most intensive livestock farming, further guarantee quality in terms of animal welfare aspect. While, healthiness aspect is claimed to be ensured with the vitamin and nutrient content and high content of cancer fighting anti-toxicants of the organic food products, together with prevention of use of raw materials containing hormones or GMOs. Additionally, better taste of organic food is claimed by many organic production schemes87. Some of the certifications schemes might as well differentiate production in a given geographical area such as national level production as in the case of Bio-Zeichen in Austria or KRAV in Sweden. The main drivers and benefits of certification for organic agriculture are discussed by Rungren88, which can be categorized for the task environment and the actors along the supply chain as given in Table 5.

84

Rundgren, G. (1998). Building Trust in Organics - A guide to setting-up organic certification programmes. p.16.

85

The organic farming concept is the outcome of three different lines of thought developed in the early years of the 20th Century, mainly in the Northern Europe. These were “biodynamic agriculture”, which appeared in Switzerland with the inspiration of Rudolf Steiner; “organic farming”, which originated in England on the basis of the theories developed by Albert Howard in his Agricultural Testament (1940) and “biological agriculture”, which was developed in Switzerland by Hans-Peter Rusch and Hans Müller. Organic farming in Europe, has developed significantly in recent years. According to EEA’s report, the area under organic farming in EEA member countries increased ten fold between 1985 and 1997. Although, the growth trend is continuing, the total area in organic agriculture remains small at just under 2 % of the total agricultural land (European Environment Agency, 2000).

86

IFOAM. IFOAM Basic Standards. (2000). http://www.ifoam.org/standard/basics.html#10. [2001, July 27] p. 1.

87

Soil Association. Food you can trust – Organic food and where to find it. (2001). http://www.soilassociation.org/SA/SAweb.nsf/FLDocuments/Food/!OpenDocument [2001, September 3]

88

Rundgren, G. (1998). Building Trust in Organics - A guide to setting-up organic certification programmes. p.17.

28

An Analysis of the European Food Quality Initiatives

Table 5 – The drivers for certification schemes considering the primary producers and farmers. Along the food supply chain

Task Environment

Marketing

Production

-Build up of confidence when there is difficulty in communicating directly to the consumers.

-More efficient and profitable production since producers have documentation and planning.

-Facilitation of better development of the marketing strategy since data collection may assist market planning. -Creation of transparency since the certification programmes make public who is certified and what products are certified.

-Improvement of the image of organic agriculture in the society as a whole and increase in the credibility and visibility of the organic movement. -Facilitation of the introduction of special support schemes for organic agriculture since it defines a group of producers to support.

Adopted from Rundgren89.

Ownership Structure The ownership structure for organic agriculture certification refers to the organization, which manages the certification according to the organic standards. The ownership structure varies both internationally (at the European level) and nationally. The identified ones include: •

Farmer association (e.g. Naturland in Germany);



Multi-stakeholder ownership (e.g. KRAV in Sweden);



Non-profit organization (e.g. Soil Association in the UK);



Private company (e.g. Ecocert in France);



Regional organization (e.g. CRAE in Spain);



State ownership (e.g. Stats Kontrolleret Økologisk in Denmark);



Trust (e.g. SKAL in the Netherlands).

89

Ibid.

29

Burcu Tunçer, IIIEE, Lund University

Box 1 – Examples of different ownership structures for organic certification schemes, Stats Kontrolleret Økologisk in Denmark, CRAE in Spain, KRAV in Sweden and ECOCERT). State ownership is applied uniquely in Denmark. The Plant Directorate within the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries certifies all the primary producers90.

In Spain, each region has a competent authority that is responsible for the implementation of the decree. These authorities have assumed the basic pattern of the Consejo Regulador de la Agricultura Ecologica – CRAE (Regulation Committee on Organic Agriculture) structure. The producers and the processors have the majority in the steering committees, while trained officials implement certification and control91.

KRAV is one of the certification schemes, which involves almost all the stakeholders in the decision-making mechanism. It was started up with only 4 members and has reached to a membership of 26 with the participation of the stakeholders representing organic production, processing, perishable trade and marketing together with consumers, environmental and animal welfare interests. The Board of Directors and Standards Committee are divided into four major groups i.e. primary producer group (producers and framers), processors group, handlers and retailers group and consumer association, environmental organizations and animal welfare group. In this respect, all stakeholders try to reach a consensus in the decision-making process especially for the standards setting.92 Originated from the Association of Organic Agriculture Counsellors (ACAB), ECOCERT was established in 1991 in France after separation into two parts; control and counselling. ACAB has maintained an associative form and developed the counselling part whereas ECOCERT has taken in charge of the control and the certification as a private limited company. ECOCERT is present in six European countries; Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Portugal and Spain.

The certification schemes are supported by fees from the members of the schemes i.e. service fees and the donations. Application fees, inspection fees and certification fees93 are other major sources of income. Quality Assurance System Quality assurance systems for organic certification schemes are organic farming production standards developed by the organic certification organization or certifying agencies. These standards are based on guideline standards or regulations developed either by International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM)94 or Council Regulation (EC) No. 2092/9195 or Codex 90

Rasmus Kjeldahl, Sektor for økologi Sektorchef, Plantedirektoratet - Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, Telephone Interview (2001, July 23)

91

Picazos, J, Parra, A. Organic Agriculture in Europe. (2000). http://www.organiceurope.net/country_reports/spain/default.asp. p. 268.

92

Eva Mattson, Standards Manager KRAV, Telephone Interview (2001, August 1)

93

The certification, including inspection, normally costs between 0.3 – 3 % of the product price. As long as organic premiums are in the range of 10-30 %, such certification costs are acceptable. With increase in production, premium prices are expected to be reduced. It will be a challenge for the organic certification programmes to provide a good service and a reliable verification (Rundgren, G, 1998, p. 104-106).

94

IFOAM was established in 1972 and has played a leading role in developing a uniform standard of organic certification.

30

An Analysis of the European Food Quality Initiatives

Alimentarius96. These framework standards themselves do not enforce or certify the organic food products. Individual certifying agencies take into account the local conditions and develop more detailed standards and approve the organic production accordingly as shown in Figure 6. EN 45011 standards (1998) or ISO/IEC Guide 61 (1996)

Accreditation Body IFOAM Accreditation Programme or National Accreditation Organizations

IFOAM Standards or EN 45011 standards (1998) or Certification Scheme Organic Certification ISO/IEC Guide 65 (1996) Organization

Organic Production Standards or Criteria

Certified Body Primary Producer, Processor, Retailer

Figure 6– The three major tiers of organic production certification and related standards. All certification organizations bound for the EU must meet the requirements laid down by the Council Regulation (EC) No. 2092/91. As of January 1999, it is further required by the EU regulation that all organic certification agencies must be accredited according to the European Standard EN 45011 or ISO/IEC Guide 6597. However, IFOAM98 does not require accreditation according to the EN 45011 standards or ISO/IEC Guide 65. IFOAM Basic Standards add on to the European level framework. When the certifier agency is accredited by the IFOAM Accreditation Programme (IAP), which is the sole member of Organic Accreditation Services Inc., it has to fulfil the IFOAM Basic Standards and the IFOAM Accreditation Criteria. Every third year, a re-evaluation is done by IAP and extensive yearly reports99 are prepared by the certification organizations. The certification standards are continuously developed in close consultation with IFOAM and, finally, they are approved at the IFOAM General Assembly. It is required that good reasoning shall be provided, if the certification standards deviate from the IFOAM standards.

95

The basic framework for organic production, which all the European Union legislation should comply with, is found in the European Union regulation on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring to agricultural products and foodstuffs i.e. Council Regulation (EC) No. 2092/91 adopted in June 1991. Regulation has been extended, in the recent years, particularly, to cover organic livestock production. These rules both define a method of agricultural production for crops and livestock, and regulate labelling, processing, inspection and marketing of organic products within the Community. Additionally, a logo has been adopted by the European Commission according to the Council Regulation (EC) No. 331/2000 for the purpose of identifying organic farm products of both plant and animal origin.

96

Quality management systems can also be developed on the structure of ISO 9000 or ISO 14000. However these standards do not set any performance level but only refer to the managerial practices, which may be helpful in reaching the specific targets of organic production.

97

The guidelines for the certifying agencies according to the ISO/IEC Guide 65 (1996) or EN 45011 standards (1998) are set by the national accreditation organizations usually operated by governmental bodies such as the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) or private organizations. These guidelines are more documentation oriented and refer to the system of certification not to the production system. The cost for national accreditation varies considerably, as it may reach 20,000 USD to 50,000 USD for the initial accreditation (Rundgren, G., 1998, p.33).

98

IFOAM. (2000). IFOAM Basic Standards. http://www.ifoam.org/standard/basics.html#10. [2001, July 27] p.2.

99

Källander, I. (2000). Organic Agriculture in Sweden. htpp://www.organiceurope.net/country_reports/sweden/default.asp [2001, July 15]

31

Burcu Tunçer, IIIEE, Lund University

In the end, the standards developed by the certification bodies show a great variety altering from national level application of the standards to strict standards putting emphasis on a certain quality aspect such as animal welfare. For example, in Spain, a single national level certification system implements the EU regulation by royal decree No. 1852/1993100. However, when the national level standards do not incorporate the consumers’ requirements, then the food industry establishes alternative schemes. This has been one of the major reasons for the boom in alternative certification organizations in the Northern European countries. For example, in Switzerland, for a long time, the national standards only included the general management of the farm and did not refer to the animal welfare aspects, while the consumers were very interested in animal husbandry standards. That was the reason for the development of alternative labels such as Kagfreiland and Natura Beef101. At the level of certification organization, the standard’s committee or a technical committee usually establishes the standards for the certification schemes. However, in many cases, a Board of Directors or a General Assembly gives the final decision on the standards102. The standards are put into practice by the primary producers and are controlled by the inspectors as discussed in the following section. Audit Systems Audit Systems for the organic certification schemes are in the form of inspections, which involve observations, verification, risk assessments and giving advice to the farmers and processors as discussed in detail in Box 2. The general framework for the operation of inspectors is given in Council Regulation (EC) No. 2092/91. According to that, the audits are supposed to be performed by an appointed public authority or by an inspection body recognized in each Member State to ensure that standards are being met. They are designed to span the entire production process from farming to the labelling stage, including every aspect of processing and packaging. Additionally, the Independent Organic Inspectors Association (IOIA) sets comprehensive guidance for the inspectors in its Organic Inspection Manual. Marketing Efforts Organic certification schemes are established to aid niche markets, which have a concern about the environment to distinguish the organic food products from the conventionally produced ones. Along the food supply chain, suppliers, farmers, food processors, packagers, retailers are the target groups for the scheme owners. The certification service is promoted to these groups by using printed materials such as brochures or word-of-mouth advertising, whilst personal contacts can also be used.

100

Picazos, J, Parra, A. Organic Agriculture in Europe. (2000). http://www.organiceurope.net/country_reports/spain/default.asp. p. 268.

101

Zimmermann, Jennifer ([email protected]). (2001, July 23). Re: The questions for the interview E-mail to Burcu Tuncer ([email protected])

102

Rundgren, G. (1998). Building Trust in Organics - A guide to setting-up organic certification programmes. p.55.

32

An Analysis of the European Food Quality Initiatives

Box 2 – Components of organic certification inspections and different types of them103. The components of the inspection activity include observation and verification, risk assessment, evaluation, education and advice and reporting: -

Observation and verification stage includes confirmation that all the information provided about the production and input material with search for evidence of non-compliance.

-

Risk assessment aims to check the possible faults that may happen during operation. This stage involves the search for Organic Control Points104, where the integrity of the organic production is threatened.

-

At the verification stage, the inspector evaluates the effectiveness of the management strategies and their compliance with the organic production standards.

-

The inspectors can provide assistance to the producers to help them grasp the standards and to improve documentation system. Furthermore, inspectors prepare reports on their findings covering all levels of operation and areas of potential non-compliance and submit it to the certifier.

There are basically four kinds of inspections, namely initial inspection, routine inspections, random inspections and extra inspections. The initial inspection is used to take decisions about the certification approval and form the basis for further ones. Routine inspections are scheduled and focus upon all aspects of the operation. Random ones are conducted on an unscheduled i.e. spot-checked basis. These inspections can target specific points of production or can be done for a group of producers. Extra ones are conducted to handle the deviations form the usual route of inspections such as follow-ups or inclusion of new products or processes. The inspections can be performed either by the schemes’ own inspectors or by independent inspectors. For example, KRAV has nearly 30 full-time employed inspectors of its own.

On the other hand, the certifier does not get involved with the activities that are related to the sales, sourcing of the materials or business contacts. The producers use their internal resources and the labelling tools provided by the certification organization to promote the food product to the niche markets. The certification bodies can assist all the producers without discrimination in their promotion efforts. In countries, where there are many different labels designed to deliver a similar quality aspect i.e. organic farming, unification of the labels can be performed. While, on the other hand, regionalisation of a single scheme is also common (Box 3). Stakeholder Participation and Communication Among external stakeholders, usually governments, consumer associations, researchers or consultants are targeted. Generally, consumer groups, NGOs and governmental institutions are consulted in the development of the standards. National conferences or yearly meetings are held to conduct stakeholder communication. Specific committees can be established to help ensure a continuous dialogue. Usually, consensus building is included in the list of the action plans established during the establishment of the certification scheme.

103

Rundgren, G. (1998). Building Trust in Organics - A guide to setting-up organic certification programmes. p.74-78.

104

This application has its routes in HACCP approach, which looks for critical control points, as mentioned before.

33

Burcu Tunçer, IIIEE, Lund University

Box 3 – National level unification of organic labels in Germany and regionalisation of organic labels in Spain. Unification In Germany, AGÖL - ArbeitsGemeinschaft Ökologischer Landbau (Association for Organic Farming), incorporation with Gesellschaft der Deutschen Agrarwirtschaft (the Central Marketing Society of the German Agriculture) has developed the common seal, the Oeko-Pruefzeichen. This seal was presented to the public on January 29, 1999 in Berlin and administered by Oekopruefzeichen (ÖPZ) GmbH. This organization represents and performs activities of public relations, lobbying, develop production and processing standards, international cooperation, projects (marketing, catering organic, commentary to relevant "EU-Legislation" etc.), evaluation of organizations, clarification of for consumers in cases of deceptive labelling in Germany105. Apart from these, AGÖL performs activities in the international arena in cooperation with IFOAM. AGÖL and its members take part in the IFOAM World Board of Directors, IFOAM Standards Committee, the IFOAM Accreditation Committee, the IFOAM EU Group and IFOAM Regional Group of German Speaking countries. Regionalisation In Spain, in connection with the regional structure, every region has developed its own trademark on the basis of the CRAE logo. It is also interesting that in Spain, in addition to the logos of the competent authorities, some of the existing trademarks, which have existed for many years, have been used. One example is the most widely recognized trademark called Vida Sana. 106

For example, KRAV is an active member of IFOAM and takes an active role in developing the IFOAM standards and also works to influence the EU organic production legislation. KRAV works as well closely with “GroLink AB”107 and the Ekologiska Lantbrukarna (Ecological Farmers) to promote organic food products in the Swedish market. In addition to being a target market for certifiers, producers are perceived as external stakeholders. The certifiers use several routes to convey the values of the scheme. Among them, the most important is the certificate of registration as a proof of their registration in the certification programme. Moreover, operating manuals, control manuals or quality manuals, written agreements, which will be applied in cases of violations, labelling regulations, free-rider controls are documents used internally or for communication with the producers. Furthermore, external stakeholders are informed about the activities of the schemes such as development of new certification criteria through newsletters. Moreover, the ownership usually gives service to its registered participants and answer their complaints and inquiries from outside parties other than inspection and certification. Another major external stakeholder is the private consumer. The major tool used for communicating the quality aspect of the scheme is the organic label as a third party verified product label (ISO Type I108). However, the real promotion efforts for marketing the product are not done by the certification organization. In that regard, the ownership of the label passes to the processors when they attain the certificates.

105

AGÖL. (2001). Association of Organic Farming Organizations in Germany - Organic Farming With One Voicehttp://www.agoel.de/info_e.htm. [2001, August 1]

106

Picazos, J, Parra, A. Organic Agriculture in Europe. (2000). http://www.organiceurope.net/country_reports/spain/default.asp. p. 268.

107

GroLink AB is a private company specialized in consultancy work in developing countries such as establishing certification organizations

108

The guidelines are laid down by ISO 14024.

34

An Analysis of the European Food Quality Initiatives

Other than the stakeholders along the supply chain or the task environment, there are internal stakeholders such as inspectors, administrators at the certification body such as the certification staff, and the committees. Inspectors might be consulted especially during the development of the standards and for any other suggestions for improvements109. Credibility and Traceability Tools Regular inspections and certification according to the internationally accepted standards, basically, constitute the major tools for credibility building. Traceability is achieved usually through documentation. For example, KRAV asks its farmers to keep the invoices and certificates of the hay that they are buying for the reference of the inspectors.110 One disadvantage of this system usually mentioned is that starting with the primary producers; bookkeeping may become a tough task. Additionally, inspectors have to be very well trained to be able to check the records.111

4.1.2 Integrated Production Certification Schemes This category includes all the schemes having a strong emphasis on Integrated Production as a tool to emphasize environmental friendliness aspect. Although many retailer chains and some processing companies around Europe have established schemes in line with this concept, they are included in other categories as their ownership structure leads to significant differences in the structure of other components as discussed in Section 4.3. and Section 4.4.1. These schemes claim to achieve environmental friendliness by achieving reductions in the impacts from intensified farming practices. While safety is addressed with the arguments that crop protection reduces the level of natural toxins through use of fungi and bacteria in food crops and, thereby helps to reduce the number of food-related illnesses. Healthfulness, on the other hand, is said to be achieved through some crop protection methods, such as fungicide treatment, which increases the nutritional value of food, for example by improving the protein content of cereals. Integrated crop management (ICM), which is part of IP concept, is designed to apply to site-specific management systems for the whole farm. The main idea is that “with the adoption of management systems, the reduction of some inputs, without a sacrifice on the gross margins, is possible, which will, in the end, create less wastage and more benefit for the environment”112. As illustrated in Figure 7, it introduces much broader measures than crop protection (which are given in light grey in colour) incorporating more management practices and information on planning, setting targets and monitoring of progress (which are given in dark grey in colour). It further integrates practices of encouragement of usage of insects that prey on pests, the selection of crop varieties that are pest resistant and landscape and wildlife management. All in all, setting up a farming system that is environmentally responsible, socially acceptable, ecologically sensitive and economically viable is the objective of the ICM113.

109

Eva Mattson, Standards Manager KRAV, Telephone Interview (2001, August 1)

110

Eva Mattson, Standards Manager KRAV, Telephone Interview (2001, August 1)

111

Ibid.

112

Pretty, J. (1998). The Living Land. London: EarthScan Publications Ltd.

113

ECPA (European Crop Protection Association). Integrated Crop Management (ICM). http://www.ecpa.be/topics/management.html. [2001, June 21]

35

Burcu Tunçer, IIIEE, Lund University

CROP ROTATION

MONITORING & AUDITING

CROP NUTRITION

CROP PROTECTION

ENERGY EFFICIENCY

WILDLIFE & LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT

SOIL MANAGEMENT & SITE

WASTE & POLLUTION MANAGEMENT

Source: European Crop Management Association114

Figure 7 – Components of Integrated Crop Management. Ownership Structure These schemes, similar to the organic agriculture certification schemes, could be state owned or coordinated by farmers associations or growers associations or by multi-stakeholder ownerships. Generally, supporting organizations such as marketing or technical advisory groups might also be involved under the structure of these IP certification organizations. Several examples are provided in Box 4. An unusual structure for this category is the Assured Produce Scheme. It represents a horizontal industry wide cooperation. A board consisting of representatives of the major retailers, producer organizations and others in the food chain manages the scheme.

114

36

Ibid.

An Analysis of the European Food Quality Initiatives

Box 4 – Examples on the ownership structures of IP certification schemes as state owned or multi-stakeholder ownership. State Owned - The Dutch label Milieukeur (Environmental Selection) has been established with the backing of the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Fisheries. This is a system of gradually rising the standards without forcing the farmers to change overnight, but it does rely on consumers being willing and able to pay premiums for “better quality” food. It contains tough conditions for pesticide use, including a commitment to reduce it by 50% by year 2000 compared with the 1980’s levels.115 - The Austrian AMA (Agrar Markt Austria)116 quality mark – AMA-Gütesiegel is based on national basic guidelines, which are in the form of binding provisions and conditions on integrated production. This label is operated under ÖPUL (Österreichisches Programm Umweltschonender Landwirtschaft - Austrian Program for Environmental sound Agriculture), which is a governmental program providing financial support for the farmers working with environmentally friendly practices. 117 Austrian AMA includes a marketing institution, namely AMA Marketing. Multi-stakeholder - The IP system in Switzerland belongs to a national multi-stakeholder organization, namely the Swiss Fruit Association. This organization is made up of 14-17 members from regional IP organizations and producers. The Special Commission National IP Label, which administers the label, belongs to this association. On the other hand, a special working group is assigned to draw up guidelines and minimum standards for integrated production118.

Quality Assurance Systems Base level for quality assurance systems generally refers to ICM principles. Accordingly, the use of chemical plant production has to be kept at minimum level, while natural predators are allowed to avoid pests and diseases. Above these requirements, specifications agreed among the stakeholders can be introduced such as the ones related with precautions for hygienic requirements or disinfection of the materials used in production or regulation of the environmental conditions such as the humidity level in the greenhouses. On the other hand, some programmes may choose to emphasize regional aspects such as AMAGütesiegel, which guarantees 100 percent Austrian origin, whilst some schemes may differentiate their quality assurance systems according to the product groups. For example, while fruits are grown according to ICM practices, green vegetables are grown according to GAP under the Flandria scheme established in Belgium. Audit System Audits are usually performed by referring to the production records either by independent verification or self-verification or both. For example, in the Flandria scheme, the producers keep records of accounts of their production measures on the free inspection cards made available by the administration office. Additionally, independent verification is performed at two levels i.e. soil, plant and product samples testing at the laboratories and then testing of the compulsory records.119 On the 115

Pretty, J. (1998). The Living Land. London: EarthScan Publications Ltd. p. 178.

116

AMA is one of the four influential actors in Austrian agricultural policy. It is charged with two major functions. It implements the agricultural commodity support regimes and it organizes the marketing of agricultural products (Michelsen, et al., 2001).

117

EHI. (1998). Integrated Crop Management Fruit and Vegetables. Köln: DHI-Deutsches Handelsinstitut GmbH. p. 22.

118

EHI. (1998). Integrated Crop Management Fruit and Vegetables. Köln: DHI-Deutsches Handelsinstitut GmbH. P. 88.

119

EHI. (1998). Integrated Crop Management Fruit and Vegetables. Köln: DHI-Deutsches Handelsinstitut GmbH p. 35

37

Burcu Tunçer, IIIEE, Lund University

other hand, the Italian Apofruit Growers’ Association using the label Almaverde, carries inspections through its own quality audit organization called Greenlab. This company has the qualified staff and an equipped laboratory to check the production processes and distribution120. While, the Assured Produce scheme performs audits at two levels i.e. an initial self-verification followed by periodic independent verification. A different application introduced by the Austrian AMA Label is the “Flexible Point System”, which allows an objective assessment of the participating enterprises. This system assigns points to the practices at the farm in the range of “–1 to +1” and allows a comparison of the performance with the peers. The pointing system is also a tool for communication. A detailed description of this system is given in the following box. Box 5- An Overview of the Flexible Point System introduced by AMA Label.121 AMA Flexible Point System Using a required minimum level as starting point, a flexible point system has been developed by AMA. For soil husbandry and rotations there is, for instance, a three-point scale whereby –1 to +1 points can be awarded. In order to assign the points appropriately, an additional explanatory catalogue with photographs, in which individual grades are precisely defined is provided. For instance, a minus point in soil husbandry corresponds to bad timing of cultivations or to heavy compaction. A zero point is given for a finely crumbed, well cultivated seed-bed and for vigorous root growth. If tractors and harvest machinery are additionally equipped with protective tyres and successful structurally protective soil work is performed, a plus point is awarded. A minus point can result from a shorter crop rotation programme than that recommended in the crop-specific guideline or if the results of bad rotation practices are visible. On the basis of the flexible point system, nitrogen overfertilization up to a given limit can be compensated by a water-saving sprinkling system. A miss-timed field-spray check can be offset by the introduction of beneficial insects. Regarding fruit production, specific recordings, voluntary training, total abstention from herbicide use and biotechnological production methods can all be rewarded.

Marketing Efforts The IP schemes have two major target markets. Retailers as the trading partners are accepted as the key target markets for these schemes, while they are also promoted to the private consumers. Promotion efforts for both of these markets are usually performed by the marketing organizations supporting the schemes. For example, AMA mark is promoted by a daughter marketing company, namely AMA Marketing Seal GmbH, which has developed an origin and quality label known as the AMA-Gütesiegel. These organizations, at the same time, might also aim to promote the IP notion to the whole food chain. For example, Agrar-markt Austria Marketing GmbH is responsible in Austria for the promotion of IP concept among the farmers. Stakeholder Communication and Participation The external stakeholder consultation generally takes place during the development of the standards. As in the case of AMA quality mark, consumer organizations are consulted. Additionally, training courses for farmers are offered to provide them with detailed information on the practical application of the standards. Explanatory notes, brochures, leaflets are provided by all the schemes to help the producers. 120

EHI. (1998). Integrated Crop Management Fruit and Vegetables. Köln: DHI-Deutsches Handelsinstitut GmbH p. 54

121

EHI. (1998). Integrated Crop Management Fruit and Vegetables. Köln: DHI-Deutsches Handelsinstitut GmbH p. 24.

38

An Analysis of the European Food Quality Initiatives

The communication of “environmental friendliness” aspect to the private consumers is usually done through a label, though there could be exceptions such as the German IFP [Die Kontrollierte Integrierte Obstproducktion (Integrated Vegetables Production)] system, which does not relate itself at all to the private consumers. Box 6 – An Overview of the Assured Produce Scheme as a new trend in IP schemes.122 In 1991 the National Farmers Union of the UK (NFU), representing farmers and growers of primary fresh produce, joined with seven multiple retailers (ASDA, CWS, Sainsburys, Marks and Spencer, Safeway, Somerfield and Waitrose) in an initiative to reassure consumers that fresh produce is grown in an environmentally sensitive manner, in particular reducing the amount of pesticides used. Currently, it holds over 3,600 grower members. While it is believed that over 65% of vegetable, potato, salad and fruit crops grown in the UK are registered with Assured Produce Scheme by July 2000.123 This initiative grew into the “NFU-Retailer ICM Partnership” aimed to achieve this objective in three phases; firstly to establish for each crop a base line of current best horticultural practice, secondly independently verify that growers are reaching their standards and finally to measurably lift these standards. The first phase of the initiative was completed by drafting crop-specific protocols. This involved a sharing of input, leading to a greater understanding of the problems within the food chain and reaching a consensus on what is required for each crop. Several key areas are covered in the protocols, which are; -

Staff training and qualifications Integrated crop management Pesticide use Quality control

Credibility and Traceability Tools There is no specific credibility tool identified for these schemes while the most common traceability tool is documentation of production records.

4.2 National or Sector Level Farm QAS The National or Sector Level Farm Quality Assurance Schemes mainly include the control of the primary production phase at the farm level by setting standards and monitoring of the achievement of these standards. The schemes such as Farm Assured British Beef and Lamb (FABBL) and National Dairy Farm Assured Scheme (NDFAS) in the UK, Kvamilla in Denmark or Integrated Chain Management programme in the Netherlands are some of the well known schemes included in this category. Contrary to the previously discussed category, the standards of this scheme do not specifically refer to a sustainable agricultural production method, but rather aim to achieve healthy and safe production. Generally, the standards are based on compliance with regulatory requirements, whilst animal welfare and traceability aspects are often emphasized for meat and dairy product schemes. The reason for the core emphasis on health and safety and traceability is that the schemes in this category were usually set up very recently in response to the recent food scares. For example, abattoirs in Germany have initiated their own scheme as a consequence of a series of media articles regarding antibiotic contaminated veal being sold in Germany. The programme underlines traceability

122

EHI. (1998). Integrated Crop Management Fruit and Vegetables. Köln: DHI-Deutsches Handelsinstitut GmbH.

123

Tatum, A. (2000). Features Farm Assurance - Reassured - As the Assured Produce Scheme enters its third year, Adriam Tatum reviews its progress with Adrian Wallbridge. Grower – London. Vol.134 Issue.2.

39

Burcu Tunçer, IIIEE, Lund University

and residue-free programme that guarantees the animals are free from growth hormones, residues and microbiological contamination. 124 The Integrale Ketenbeheering – IKB (Integrated Chain Management) programme in the Netherlands was also initiated due to some residue problems and bad image of the industry in the media. The feed suppliers, farmers, other producers, transporters, and processors are included in the Dutch Product Board. With the IKB system, the product board developed an integrated chain management programme based on GMP, which in the first place requires correct use of additives and veterinary drugs and further requires control of the heavy metals, pesticides, alfatoxin and prevention of Salmonella reaching animals via animal feeds. Overall, this scheme corresponds closely to ISO 9002 system and the principles of HACCP.125 Ownership Structure Among the 26 schemes included in this category two main ownership structures were identified; •

cooperatives of farmers or growers at the national level or



sector-wide cooperations in the form of limited companies.126

The cooperative structure among growers has been observed in countries such as France, the UK and the Netherlands. A good example is the Rainbow Growers in the Netherlands. It is a 21-member cooperative, which handles supply orders, the quality programme and a centralized sorting unit. They promote the products through this cooperation and also maintain their own sales channels through two sales organizations. The scheme is based on self-developed insecticide free-methods in line with HACCP standards and the Good Agricultural Practice guidelines. Another example is CERAFEL in France, which has an organizational structure in line with its regional production emphasis. Its board consists of Growers’ Organizations and the Trade Unions, while a deputy from the ministry might give her opinion on the decisions taken and on the general functions of the scheme127. Establishment of industry wide cooperations for different product groups is the second most common structure. Most of the schemes found in the UK were in line with this structure. For example, the board of Farm Assured British Beef and Lamb (FABBL) initiative holds representatives from the directors of National Farmers Union (NFU), National Sheep Association, National Beef Association, Livestock Auctioneers Association and the British Meat Federation. This initiative was sponsored by the Meat and Livestock Commission, which established an industry owned company under the name Assured British Meat Ltd. Furthermore, the cereals industry in the UK refers to the Assured Combinable Crops Scheme (ACCS), which is an industry wide initiative having a board of twelve directors assembled from every sector of the industry together with four farmers, while the board is chaired by a farmer128. On the other hand,

124

MAF (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of New Zealand) 1998. The Role of On-Farm Quality Assurance and Environmental Management Systems (QA/EMS) in Achieving Sustainable Agriculture and Sustainable Land Management Outcomes - MAF Policy Technical Paper 98/2. http://www.maf.govt.nz/MAFnet/publications/qualsys/qualsys.pdf [2001, June 5] p. 27.

125

Van Klaveren, J.D., Van Donkersgoed, G., Noordam, M.Y., Van Dooren, M.M.H., Kloet, D.G. (1999). Residue monitoring in The Netherlands 1998 - Programme for the Quality of Agricultural Products http://www.agralin.nl/kap/kap98/index.html [2001, August 1].

126

This is a common type of company for large trading organizations. The principal characteristics of a company limited by shares are 1)that it is a separate “legal person” 2)that the liability of the members is limited to the nominal value of the shares they have taken up.

127

Cerafel. The Growers’ Organisation. http://www.cerafel.com/en/organisation.html [2001, August 1]

128

Assured Combinable Crops. About ACCS. http://www.assuredcrops.co.uk/ACCS/accs002.asp [2001, August 1]

40

An Analysis of the European Food Quality Initiatives

the National Dairy Farm Assured Scheme (NDFAS) established recently refers to the dairy products. The limited company is a trading company having a steering committee consisting of representatives from the NFU, Federation of Milk Groups, Dairy Industry Federation and British Cattle Veterinary Association129. Apart from the national sector level schemes, a new structure was established in the UK i.e. British Farm Standard. The independent company; Assured Food Standards recognizes all the national farm standards set up in the UK for product groups of cereals, fruit and vegetables, meat and dairy products to provide consumers with a single stamp of approval, known as Little Red Tractor, that they can trust. The financial support for this category is realized through registration fees, membership fees or certification fees collected from the participants. Figure 7 - The logo of the British Farm Standard; The Little Red Tractor. Quality Assurance System and Audit System The schemes in this category usually refer to ISO 9000 or ISO 9002 quality systems, whilst applying HACCP principles and basically aiming compliance with national level regulatory requirements. The standards are targeting the activities of primary producers, while rarely a horizontal coverage of the supply chain as in the case of Assured British Meat can be observed. In this case, still the emphasis is on the food safety aspect through HACCP application. Kvamilla, a pilot project in Denmark, for example, helps individual producers develop and implement ISO 9000 and 14000 systems on the farm. An umbrella ISO document, as well as an individual ISO plan specific to each farm was developed.130 A variety of methods exist for the verification of the compliance with the standards, namely selfverification, third party assessment or outsourcing to independent assessors. Assured Combinable Crops Scheme (ACCS) carries out self-assessment based on protocols and codes backed up by periodic inspection. However, Farm Assured British Beef and Lamb (FABBL) carries out third party verification performed by Farm Inspection Services, which is a joint venture of the Meat and Livestock Commission (MLC) and Signet Business Services. On the other hand, in Scotland, Scottish Quality Beef and Lamb Assurance (SQBAL) is verified by independent assessors working under the sponsorship of the Scottish Food Quality Certification Organization, which also gives a service to the Scottish Quality Cereals, Scottish Pig Industry Initiative and Guild of Scottish Meat Suppliers. While auditing activities are performed by a third party, namely TLC Ltd., which is a subsidiary of Checkmate International, providing certification services to the farming and land-based industry sector and to the primary processing sector of the food industry.

129

National Dairy Farm assured Scheme. Executive Summary. http://www.ndfas.org.uk/intro/executive.htm [2001, August 1]

130

Anders, V., Clause, R., Holz-Clause, M., Lawrence, J. , Strohbehn, D. (1999). Quality Assurance Programs in Beef Production:A Study Tour of Denmark, Holland and the United Kingdom http://www.ibc.iastate.edu/Publications/europe.pdf [2001, June 21]

41

Burcu Tunçer, IIIEE, Lund University

The competences of the auditors also vary accordingly. For example, in SQBAL, farmers are the verifiers, while veterinarians are employed in FABBL, FABPIGS and FAWL schemes. Third party verifiers might employ the verifiers depending on the needs of the enterprises that they inspect.131 On the other hand, audits can be part of a management system, such as HACCP or ISO as in the case of Rainbow Growers. Marketing Efforts The target groups addressed along the food supply chain are the food processors, packagers, the suppliers of the retailer chains i.e. the wholesalers and sometimes the retailers, themselves. Nestle UK, for example, is referring to the standards of National Dairy Farm Assured Scheme (NDFAS) for managing its raw materials instead of applying its own company level scheme132. On the other hand, promotion of the scheme to the private consumers is kept out of scope in these schemes except some such as CERAFEL in France and the Little Red Tractor label in the UK. For these schemes, the profile of the private consumers is not much different than the previously introduced schemes. For example, CERAFEL system refers to its target market as “consumers, who are well-educated and increasingly better informed and becoming more and more aware of the need for respect for the environment”.133 While the Little Red Tractor mark has announced that around 60 percent of the private consumers associated with affluence and education are more likely to buy food with their mark134. There has been a national advertising campaign with the involvement of the farmers and local producers for the Little Red Tractor. A special case with the efforts for reaching the private consumers is the marketing organization of CERAFEL, which is in charge of the promotion campaigns as explained in Box 7. Box 7 – The activities of the marketing department of CERAFEL – The Prince de Bretagne135. CERAFEL is the first Fruit and Vegetable Growers’ Organization having a marketing division. Although, it is not directly concerned with sales and marketing, CERAFEL is conducting a tenacious marketing policy, in France and abroad (Germany, UK, Belgium, Holland, Scandinavia, Czech Republic, Spain, Italy, Switzerland, USA, Austria) in close cooperation with the growers and the sales force. The organization has developed the brand “Prince de Bretagne” to communicate to the private consumers. The marketing department organizes promotional activities and publicity campaigns to support CERAFEL’s image of quality and strict growing method. Specifically, they organize meetings between the trade either on-site or at the customer’s premises and book stands at national (SIAL) and international (AGF, ANUGA, FRUIT LOGITICA, etc.) trade fairs. Additionally, the team also creates point of sale material (mobiles, recipe cards, etc.), mounting communication campaigns in the target media (TV, radio, press, posters, etc.) stimulating consumers to purchase fresh vegetables by promoting activities at various sales outlets.

131

Early, R. (1998). Farm assurance – benefit or burden. Journal of Agricultural Society of London. Vol. 159, 32-43

132

Mackereth, Will. ([email protected]). (2001, September 3). Re: Farm QAS E-mail to Burcu Tuncer ([email protected]).

133

EHI. (1998). Integrated Crop Management Fruit and Vegetables. Köln: DHI-Deutsches Handelsinstitut GmbH p. 38.

134

National Farmers Union (NFU). A Year in the Life of the Little Red Tractor. http://www.nfu.org.uk/info/tractorrep1.asp. [2001, July 20]

135

Cerafel. The Growers’ Organisation - Prince de Bretagne. http://www.cerafel.com/en/pro/marketing-detail.html [2001, August 1]

42

An Analysis of the European Food Quality Initiatives

Stakeholder Participation and Communication As the primary producers themselves or their representative organizations perform the management of the scheme, all the other parties are accepted as external stakeholders. The major stakeholders addressed by the schemes are the participants to the scheme and it is in the form of information provision on the standards or licensing procedure. Some schemes may internalise the stakeholders that others to refer as external. For example, IKB, with the understanding of including the whole sector, included the veterinary surgeons as a part of the scheme. Veterinarians get involved with the requirement of giving advice to the participating farmers on animal health issues, as well as providing some audit of breeders and fatteners136. They also got involved with the development of the quality assurance system, which is not the general practice. Credibility and Traceability Tools The schemes try to achieve credibility by referring to international standards137. These standards are also used as guidelines or benchmarks in the operations of their inspectors. Traceability tools developed for meat products are especially quite advanced in this category. The traceability in the meat supply chain is achieved usually with the use of ear tags and a “passport”, whilst Information and Communication Technology (ICT) based applications are also becoming common. In Box 8, some examples of these applications are described.

136

Van Klaveren, J.D., Van Donkersgoed, G., Noordam, M.Y., Van Dooren, M.M.H., Kloet, D.G. (1999). Residue monitoring in The Netherlands 1998 - Programme for the Quality of Agricultural Products http://www.agralin.nl/kap/kap98/index.html [2001, August 1].

137

For example, ISO Guide 65 or its equivalent EN 45011.

43

Burcu Tunçer, IIIEE, Lund University

Box 8 – Traceability systems established for meat products. Passport System The German Veal Quality Programme uses a passport system issued by the German authorities when the animal is born and all the changes of ownership are registered on the passport through the slaughter. Auditing is further performed in some of the farms for veterinary and pharmaceutical use and animal welfare issues in addition to the audits by German Authorities. The abattoirs also accepted the principle that they will purchase only from farms that are part of the environmental management and audit programme. 138 Use of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) The Alpuro Group in the Netherlands, works with the IKB Scheme. It has vertical integration of abattoirs, fattening farm and milk replacer factory. The group holds a complete traceability system, which targets the customers in Europe. The system allows the customer to reach the database of the company via internet using the product code or the production date and track the information on the farm, the veal came from, and the shipment of the product139. This system has a cost around 210,000 USD in addition to the costs of the information management system in place in the plants140.

4.3 Food Processor/Manufacturer Led Quality Initiatives Food Processor/Manufacturer Led Quality Initiatives refer to the schemes or brands managed by the processors, which can be international or multinational companies (MNCs) such as the baby food producer Hipp, Unilever or more like national level companies emphasizing a specific agriculture production method such as organic production. In that respect, ownership structure was the main filter attribute to group schemes falling into this category. The schemes in this category refer to a wider spectrum of quality aspects than the previous ones. First of all, the environmental friendliness aspect is displayed through compliance with organic farming practices or eco-efficiency improvements. Secondly, issues of animal welfare or ethical aspects are addressed, while MNCs specifically point out the social responsibility aspect. Processor led schemes are run with the drive of managing their supply chains and differentiating their products among their peers. In that sense, sources of differences compared to the other schemes are more in line with their corporate level strategy141. The components are in line with the initially formulated list, while “brand concept” and use of “performance evaluation tools” are added to the list from this category. Brand concept refers to the creation of companies’ own brand, which refers to the use of a label considered to be credible such as the ones covered in the “sustainable agriculture certification schemes” and additionally companies’ own criteria. On the other hand, performance evaluation tools or specifically indicators are used by the multinationals to better manage the activities of their suppliers.

138

MAF (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of New Zealand) 1998. The Role of On-Farm Quality Assurance and Environmental Management Systems (QA/EMS) in Achieving Sustainable Agriculture and Sustainable Land Management Outcomes - MAF Policy Technical Paper 98/2. http://www.maf.govt.nz/MAFnet/publications/qualsys/qualsys.pdf [2001, June 5] p. 28.

139

Peter’s Farm. http://www.petersfarm.com/menu.asp [2001, August 1]

140

MAF (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of New Zealand) 1998. The Role of On-Farm Quality Assurance and Environmental Management Systems (QA/EMS) in Achieving Sustainable Agriculture and Sustainable Land Management Outcomes - MAF Policy Technical Paper 98/2. http://www.maf.govt.nz/MAFnet/publications/qualsys/qualsys.pdf [2001, June 5] p. 28.

141

Corporate level strategy involves a search for new domains in which to exploit and defend an organization’s ability to create value from the use of its low cost or differentiation core competences (Porter, 1987).

44

An Analysis of the European Food Quality Initiatives

Ownership Structure The structure of the ownership of food processor/manufacturer led quality initiatives are usually in the form of vertical or horizontal cooperatives among processors or private companies or shareholder owned multinational companies. Arla Foods142 is an example of processor cooperatives. It is a large cooperative dairy processor and marketer, which has many organic product brands. An example of a horizontal cooperation among a number of European supplier and processor firms is the Good Food Foundation. It aims to encourage, initiate, subsidize and manage projects in the field of organic agriculture and, furthermore it organizes inspections by an independent institute. Quality Assurance Systems The quality systems can be quite diverse differing from following the usual sustainable agricultural production certification criteria by establishing their own criteria setting through stakeholder dialogues. Hipp, for example, is a private company, which produces baby food based on the principles introduced by the company owners i.e. the “Hipp” family. The primary production steps of all the ingredients such as milk, meat, vegetables that go into the product are controlled according to the organic production principles introduced by Dr. Hans Müller. Additionally, companies of processing steps are controlled according to its own criteria such as use of the filtered water from their special fountain for washing the carrots or prohibition of preservatives and colouring agent143. A similar example is Hanegal Organic Meats owned by a slaughterhouse, which has developed its own criteria for raw materials and production. It especially forbids any use of additives especially nitrite, which can be allowed by the state organic label, and, with respect to processing, cutting is done manually. On the top of the food production quality criteria, the companies might refer to ethical aspects such as working conditions and the level of wages or environmental friendliness aspects such as energy use, environmentally friendly material use in packaging. As an example, Urtekram emphasizes its own codes of practice and ISO14001 registration. The Good Food Foundation also refers to fair trade aspects other than the standards introduced by the international organization called Ecocert, which was introduced before in Section 4.1.1. The second group of initiatives in this category rather set up their own sustainable agriculture criteria through stakeholder dialogue. The criteria are usually based on integrated crop management and pest management principles and also include criteria on raw material use such as energy, water management. A good example of this category is the Unilever Sustainable Agriculture Initiative, which is explained in Box 9. Audit Systems In general, audits are done by state inspectors or independent organizations. For example, Arla Foods, Urtekram and Hanegal Organic Meats are inspected regularly for compliance with the state regulations. 142

It was established one year ago as a result of a merger between the Danish MD Foods and the Swedish Arla, which was the first merger between two co-operatives from two different countries. Arla Foods is now the Europe's largest dairy group and owned by approximately by 17,000 Danish and Swedish milk producers who supply milk to the group.

143

Hipp. (n.d.). Zubereitung – am Beispiel Karotte (Preparation – An example: Carrots). http://www.hipp.de/bio/wiekommt.htm. [2001, August 1]

45

Burcu Tunçer, IIIEE, Lund University

While, the Good Food Foundation works with Ecocert as an independent inspector. Although, MNCs perform no audits, they usually use indicators as performance assessment tools as explained in Box 9. Marketing Efforts The private consumers targeted by these schemes can be either environmentally conscious consumer segments or the whole European market usually referred as “citizens”144. The products referring to the environmentally friendliness aspect such as Hipp’s products or Hanegal’s organic meat products target the first group. On the other hand, the second group of the initiatives operating at the corporate level such as Unilever Sustainable Agriculture Initiative target the whole spectrum of the society. Usage of an organic label is the most common route to communicate with the environmentally conscious private consumers. For example, Arla Foods use the Soil Association label for its “Harmonie organic” brand, Urtekram uses Stats Kontrolleret Økologisk label and KRAV label for its organic product range. On the other hand, Nestlé uses its own seal “Alete Bio Anbau – Alles Gute für Ihr Kind (Alete Organic Cultivation – All the best for your child)” for its Alete baby food brand and Hipp has its own label called “Bio Erzeugung - Dafür bürge ich – Claus Hipp (Organic Production – I guarantee it)” to indicate their differentiated production criteria. Credibility and Traceability Tools Credibility is usually achieved by third party audits or by intense stakeholder dialogues in case of the multinational company initiatives. Traceability tools are applied in-line with the certification scheme audit systems or customized for corporate brands. An illustration for a self-developed system is Hipp’s traceability system, which allows the company to follow the origin of the raw material in each jar, by a filling number.

144

46

Chris Dutilh. Environmental Manager. Unilever. Telephone Interview (2001, July 18)

An Analysis of the European Food Quality Initiatives

Box 9 – An Overview of the Unilever Sustainable Agriculture Initiative. Myles Standish, the Unilever Sustainable Agriculture Coordinator, emphasizes that Unilever follows a holistic approach designed to fulfil the needs of the society more than a black and white approach such as supporting organic agriculture practices145. They believe, at Unilever, that “[they] should also seek to align economic, environmental and social objectives throughout [their] supply chain”.146 The initiative started with the commission of two main external studies, one concentrating on external stakeholder perspectives on sustainable agriculture and the other one searched the existing literature on sustainability indicators. The external stakeholders, which are believed to be representatives of the leading opinions in the field, namely “World Resource Institute, World Bank, US Department of Agriculture, World Watch Institute, Green Peace, IISD, FAO, OECD, Albert Heijn, European Commission, WHO, WTO”147, were involved in the dialogue. The result was a set of criteria for sustainable agriculture, which include; -

Output must be high enough to meet the demand; Negative environmental impacts on soil, air, water and biodiversity must be minimized; Quality and safety of the products must be guaranteed; Changing consumer demands must be met; Profitability must be competitive with other industry sectors; Agriculture must offer an attractive livelihood to workers.

Following these studies, Unilever ran a workshop in 1998 attended by the employees, NGOs and agriculture experts, to agree on the foundation of the initiative. A Sustainable Agriculture Mission Statement was drafted there and then formally adopted. The mission statement consists of four principles i.e. 1) production of crops with high yield while keeping resource inputs low 2) minimization of adverse effects on soil fertility, water and air quality and biodiversity from agriculture activities 3) optimisation of renewable resources 4) enabling local communities in their well-being and environment. Following that, ten agriculture indicators were selected addressing soil fertility/health, soil loss, nutrients, pest management, biodiversity, product value, energy, water, social/human capital and local economy. The prioritisation of the indicators was done according to ecological sustainability in agriculture. Parameters developed for each indicator has to be refined and tailored to address the characteristics of different crops and particularly local environment. Additionally, to focus their efforts, they have chosen five key crops i.e. tea, peas, spinach, palm oil and tomatoes based on their strategic importance to Unilever’s business and level of influence on agricultural operations. Currently, pilot projects are being run in Australia, Brazil, Germany, Kenya, Malaysia, India, UK, Spain and Italy in the light of these efforts. These projects aim to develop measurable indicator parameters, involvement of local stakeholders and develop crop practices.

4.4 Food Retailer Schemes Food Retailer Schemes can be recognized with their ownership structure i.e. the retailer chain administration or partnerships. Around Europe, individual ownership retailer led initiatives were found mostly in Germany, Switzerland, The Netherlands and the UK. Especially in the UK, the food retailers148 are very active in creating their own standards and imposing them on their suppliers. Strict animal welfare regulations in the EU149 and due-diligence 145

Myles Standish. Sustainable Agriculture Coordinator. Unilever. Telephone Interview. (2001, July 19)

146

Vis, J. K. and Standish, M. (n.d.). How to make Agri-Food Supply Chains Sustainable: Unilever’s Perspective. Sustainable Development International. http://www.sustdev.org/agriculture/articles/edition3/SDI3-21.pdf . [2001, July 5]

147

Myles Standish. Sustainable Agriculture Coordinator. Unilever. Telephone Interview. (2001, July 19)

148

The size of the retail chains in these countries are quite large, for example just five food retail chains control 50% of the market in the UK.

149

Anders, V., Clause, R., Holz-Clause, M., Lawrence, J. , Strohbehn, D. (1999). Quality Assurance Programs in Beef Production:A Study Tour of Denmark, Holland and the United Kingdom http://www.ibc.iastate.edu/Publications/europe.pdf [2001, June 21]

47

Burcu Tunçer, IIIEE, Lund University

requirements have played a major role in this structure. These schemes usually focus on the primary production activities without giving any emphasis to the activities of the retailers. Additionally, in northern Europe, it is possible to find many retailers creating their own brands to promote their sustainable practices, these efforts will be discussed under a new category called “retailer house brands” in the Section 4.4.2. Different from the category introduced in Section 4.1.1., they cover a wider range along the life-cycle referring to retailers’ own activities.

4.4.1 Retailer Led Quality Assurance Schemes It is a common excepted fact among the European retailers that the highest impacts along the food supply chain occur upstream in the supply chain away from the supermarket150. In that regard, impacts from agriculture have been considered as the priority issue to be addressed by many retail chains around Europe. Following this argument, major retail chains initiated schemes introducing requirements for the primary production part of their supply chain. The quality aspect addressed by the schemes might differ, whereas usually environmental friendliness, animal welfare aspects are emphasized. The cooperation for example between TESCO and the RSPCA in their Freedom Food Scheme in the UK puts more emphasis on the animal welfare aspect, while the EUREPGAP introduced by Euro-Retailer Group emphasizes sustainable agricultural production practices incorporating Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and ICM towards minimizing impacts on the environment. Ownership Structure These initiatives are usually managed by the retailers themselves or accomplished in the form of partnerships. Examples for the first structure can be the “Earth and Values” programme of Albert Heijn151, which aims to reduce risks from changing cultivation practices152. This initiative resembles the one performed by TESCO, namely TESCO Farming Initiative, which support farmers and encourage learning. Sainsbury’s partnership with the Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group (FWAG) and seven of the leading produce suppliers leading to the development of the Farm Biodiversity Action Plan is a good example of the second structure. This programme aims to help farmers to take practical steps to conserve a wide range of the UK’s threatened wildlife species and habitats153. Apart from that, recently established retailer led QAS, namely Euro-Retailer Produce Working Group (EUREP), indicates a new trend in the market towards developing a global integrity and harmonization programme. The objective of EUREP is to lead the system to EN 45011-based certification system (Box 10). Quality Assurance Systems The quality assurance systems are in the form of standards usually based on integrated crop management or pest management principles to be followed by the suppliers i.e. farmers or growers or alternatively good practices in the form of codes of conduct.

150

Rosenberg, D. (1998). Food retailing: Good environmental management is good business. Industry and Environment Quarterly - Including APELL Newsletter. Vol.21 Issue.3. p 20.

151

Albert Heijn is the largerst supermarket chain in the Netherlands with 650 outlets.

152

Rosenberg, D. (1998). Food retailing: Good environmental management is good business. Industry and Environment Quarterly - Including APELL Newsletter. Vol.21 Issue.3. p 21.

153

Sainsbury. (n.d.) Conserving wildlife. http://www.j-sainsbury.co.uk/environment/programmes.htm [2001, June 13]

48

An Analysis of the European Food Quality Initiatives

Among the standards, the basic difference compared to the other schemes is that they are more challenging than the previous schemes representing the perspective for market differentiation. These schemes refer not only to requirements designed to assure compliance with basic legal requirements, but also to other commitments such as animal welfare and high environmental performance154. One good example is the TESCO and the RSPCA in their Freedom Food Scheme, as mentioned above were developed in consultation with veterinarians, industry specialists, welfare scientists and producers. Additionally, the framework on which they are based changes with the corporate choices of the retailer chains. For example, Albert Heijn chose to base its standards on the Dutch national targets for the year 2000. A code of conduct is another common tool used by retailers to reassure their customers, investors and campaigners that their practices comply with acceptable standards in terms of social and/or environmental impacts. Despite a code of conduct may define the actions of the company signing up to it, such as the Sainsbury’s Working with the Suppliers’ Code of Practice, it is often the activities of suppliers to which the code usually relates. Another example is the Tesco Nature’s Choice Code of Practice, which relates solely to the conditions that suppliers must meet in order to sell their produce to Tesco. Audit System The audit system is usually set up by the retailer itself as in the case of Tesco Nature’s Choice Code of Practice, though independent auditors can also be used to review the records of each farmer and ensure that their products are cultivated according to the production standards such as the Earth and Values programme of Albert Heijn.

154

Fox, T. (2000). Retail Sector Supermarket Squeeze For European retailers, the environment is an anti-Wal-Mart strategybut upping supplier standards should be a two-way street. Tomorrow Magazine, No. 5, Vol. 10 pp.22-24. September – October 2000 http://www.poptel.org.uk/iied/pdf/supermarket_sq.pdf [2001, May 28]

49

Burcu Tunçer, IIIEE, Lund University

Box 10 – An Overview of the Euro-Retailer Produce Working Group’s Good Agricultural Practices (EUREPGAP) Initiative. The Euro-Retailer Produce Working Group was established in 1997 with the aim of achieving a generally accepted standard for the production of fresh fruit and vegetables. The group consists of 22 leading European food retailers. The group also has supplier members from around the world and also associate members from different stakeholders such as verification bodies, agrochemical companies, farmers’ organizations and scientific institutions. The independent daughter company called, FOODPLUS, founded by the EHI- EuroHandelsinstitut performs the secretariat activities and serves as a legal owner. EHI is a non-profit making, private education institute, which provides credibility for the administration. Very recently, in January 2001, all retailer and supplier members of EUREPGAP established a formalized decision-making structure and established a Council and a Technical Standard Committee on Fruits and Vegetables in order to continuously review the documents and procedures. The group has established a Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) framework on farms, which defines essential elements for the development of best-practice for the global production of horticultural products (e.g. fruits, vegetables, potatoes, salads, cut flowers and nursery stock). The framework refers to the following points: Incorporation of ICM and IPM practices; Support of the points of HACCP; Compliance with national or international law; Independent Verification; Commitment to maintaining consumer confidence in food quality and safety, minimizing detrimental impact on the environment, whilst conserving nature and wildlife, reducing the use of agrochemicals, improving the efficiency of natural resource use and ensuring workers’ health and safety155. Certificates of compliance are issued by FOODPLUS either for the growers themselves or for other schemes having similar criteria. In that context, there are three different choices for certification, namely individual grower certification, “produce marketing organization”(PMO) approval and benchmarking of an existing scheme. In the first case, the growers are audited externally by a certification body and a full EUREPGAP certificate is issued. In the second case, the organizations that sell horticultural products to the EUREP retailers are called PMO. PMOs compare their internal management systems with EUREPGAP General Regulation and a EUREGAP certification body approves the match. In the third case, EUREPGAP accept an existing scheme set up by a group of growers or PMOs for benchmarking i.e. full equivalence of that scheme. For example, Assured Produce and Agri Confiance are benchmarked by FOODPLUS. Finally, it can be noted that there is no label developed to communicate the performance of the scheme. -

On the other hand, some programmes do not have monitoring systems at all, such as Sainsbury’s Farm Biodiversity Action Plan initiative. This initiative includes a small number of farmers and affects only about 2 percent of fresh produce and livestock and it depends on the good-will of the farmer if they want to comply with the standards set by Sainsbury156.

155EUREPGAP.

(2001). EUREPGAP Protocol for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables http://www.eurep.org/index-efp.htm [2001, June 22].

156

50

Fox, T. (2000). Retail Sector Supermarket Squeeze For European retailers, the environment is an anti-Wal-Mart strategybut upping supplier standards should be a two-way street. Tomorrow Magazine, No. 5, Vol. 10 pp.22-24. September – October 2000 http://www.poptel.org.uk/iied/pdf/supermarket_sq.pdf [2001, May 28]

An Analysis of the European Food Quality Initiatives

Box 11- The Five Freedom’s Concept of The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) in the UK157. Freedom Food Ltd. is an independent, non-profit making organization set up by The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) to improve farm and animal welfare in the UK. The standards are based on the needs of animals and written around scientific research and practical farming experience and exist for the following species; sheep, chickens, turkeys, laying hens, ducks, beef, cattle and dairy cattle. Since 1994, 111 million animals were included in the scheme. The standards are based on five major issues: Freedom from fear and distress; understanding the basics of animal behaviour in order to avoid stress when they are being moved, loaded, unloaded and even avoiding mixing different social groups; - Freedom from pain, injury and disease; receiving swift veterinary attention whenever necessary, with the requirement of having an on-site “Veterinary Health Plan”; - Freedom from hunger and thirst; minimizing bullying and competition during feeding through specifying generous feeding and drinking space allowances; - Freedom from discomfort; allowing animals to have adequate room to lie down comfortably, groom themselves and get up and down easily; - Freedom to express normal behaviour; providing space, proper facilities and company of the animals’ own kind. The inspections of the primary producers, haulers or abattoir are performed by fully trained Freedom Food assessors. They refer to a detailed checklist that corresponds to the welfare standards. Further, they check along the chain whether traceability and separation measures are in place. -

Marketing Efforts In line with the reasoning of the establishment of these schemes, they ensure that the whole society and the promotion efforts of the retailers are in line with it and as such introducing the whole supply chain or each store of the retail chain as being environmentally friendly. Stakeholder Communication and Tools External stakeholders addressed by these schemes are producers, which are “suppliers” to the retailers and private consumers. Contrary to the previous schemes, they do not use labels to communicate to the private consumers. Instead, regularly published magazines or mass media is used to announce the activities of the retailers such as Albert Heijn publishing a monthly environmental performance magazine158. The communication with the farmers can be done thorough contacts with the Farmer Unions or through small representative organizations. For example, TESCO has set up a “Producers Club” to promote continuous dialogue with the farmers.

157

RSPCA. RSPCA Facts – Freedom Food. http://www.rspca.com/content/about_rspca/freedom.html#1 [2001, June 13].

158

IATP (Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy). (1998). Marketing Sustainable Agriculture – Case Studies and Analysis from Europe. Minneapolis: IATP. p. 34.

51

Burcu Tunçer, IIIEE, Lund University

Credibility and Traceability Tools Use of independent inspectors and the cooperation with international organizations, which have a well-known reputation are the common credibility tools used by the retail chains. The strength of the traceability systems was found to be in line with the producer led schemes. Collaborating with their suppliers, the source of the ingredients can be identified. For example, Marks and Spencer, with its Select Beef Scheme, is able to trace back the ingredients in their product, which could be passed to the consumers.

4.4.2 Retailer House Brands This category refers to the brands created by the retailer chains such as KF’s Änglamark in Sweden, Billa’s Ja Naturlich in Austria or Tengelmann’s Naturkind in Germany. These brands add on the criteria required by the organic certification schemes in relation to their own activities making the quality assurance criteria more challenging compared to the previously discussed schemes. The main driver for these initiatives was the risk of the confusion of the consumers with an exposure to a wide spectrum of labels159. In order to eliminate many different kinds of messages sent to the consumers, retailers have established their own brands, which is included as a new component in this category. Ownership Structure The ownership of the retailers in this category was found interesting to investigate. Most of the retailers with a retail house brand initiative are either consumer cooperatives (e.g. Tengelmann in Germany or KF [Kooperativa Förbundet] in Sweden or FDB in Denmark) or where consumers hold large shares in the company (e.g. Coop in Switzerland). Brand Concept The quality assurance system and audit system for the retailer house brands are basically in line with the organic agriculture standards that they are referring to. However, brand image of the product is further developed with additional environmental requirements. In that regard, usually, the products to be included under the brand name are required to be processed, packaged and transported according to eco-efficient measures, which can be perceived as a life cycle oriented approach. Such strategy is in-line with the processor-developed brands such as baby food brands discussed in Section 4.3. Although a generic trend was identified for the criteria development of the brands, the procedure is not specifically defined at the corporate level contrary to the previously discussed schemes. KF, as an example, requires its Änglamark brand to be both KRAV labelled and further to have recycled packaging (Box 12). Another brand, CoopNATURAPlan requires the use Bio Suisse label. However, neither refer to an established checklist or criteria in the selection of their suppliers.

159

52

IATP (Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy). (1998). Marketing Sustainable Agriculture – Case Studies and Analysis from Europe. Minneapolis: IATP. p.33.

An Analysis of the European Food Quality Initiatives

Box 12 – KF’s vision in establishing the Änglamark brand. KF is a consumer cooperative organization founded back in 1899. The driver was the economic scarcity and the opportunity for people to influence and improve their situation in concert. The business concept formulated by the co-operations states that “Consumer co-operation shall make it possible to contribute in their consumption to a society which is characterized by economic development, ecological sustainability, mutual reliance and co-operation”. To put these words into practice, Gröna Konsum retailer store chain was founded in 1991 with environmental and ecological emphasis as a part of KF’s business. In 1995, Gröna Konsum performed a study called “Sift the Camels”160 to quantify its environmental impact and to identify the priority areas. The priority areas or the “camels” and the action to be taken were identified. These can be listed as follows: -

-

-

-

Agriculture: Eight of every ten products that Gröna Konsum sells originate from agriculture; therefore by selling more organic food, it is possible for Gröna Konsum to reduce its negative impact on the environment; Energy: Producing foodstuffs, delivering products to over 400 shops (currently 430) and finally getting them home to Gröna Konsum’s customers is an energy intensive process. It takes 100 energy units to produce 10 energy units of food. Transportation alone accounts for 25 %; Therefore, by collaborating with local growers and animal farmers and putting a greater focus on organic produce Gröna Konsum reduces its energy consumtion; Packaging: Within Gröna Konsum, 60, 000 tonnes of packaging are used every year. Gröna Konsum therefore, places demands so that suppliers prioritise renewable or recyclable packaging materials; Organic Waste: Phosphorus and nitrogen are examples of nutrients that are wasted when the cycle is broken with farming and private household consumption. Therefore, Gröna Konsum will encourage composting of wastes; Organization: Undertaking environmental work in a major, geographically dispersed organization is, in many ways, a challenge in itself. Therefore, every store manager and employee has to know what role to play to achieve the above goals.

Änglamark, brand, managed by the KF, follows the above understanding and the criteria for product selection.

Marketing Efforts As the management of a brand requires serious marketing strategy development, a special marketing work group is allocated for the development and management of the brand in all retail organizations. These departments usually decide about the product range and give general guidelines on the promotion of the brand at individual store level. In line with that, the promotion efforts can be very diverse and depend on the concept creation for the brand and creativity of the marketing teams. An interesting example is the Ja Naturlich! brand of Billa in Austria, which runs cooperations with a national park (Hohe Tauern) and expands its product line to cover “vacations on organic farms” trying to create a life-style trend.

160

Ununger & Wrenfelt (1997). The Camels! – An Environmental Assessment of Green Konsum.

53

Burcu Tunçer, IIIEE, Lund University

Stakeholder Promotion and Communication The stakeholders addressed by the retailer groups along the food supply chain are usually farmer groups. For example Coop organizes campaigns to encourage farmers to shift to organic production. In the task environment, usually the communication to the certification organization gains importance. For example, KF is involved as a board member at KRAV, which translates into having a voice in standards setting. Credibility and Traceability Tools The credibility is found to be associated with the corporate image of the retailer. In the case of Tengelmann’s Naturkind, for example, as the corporate identity of the retailer was not strong in the market to move into the environmentally conscious niche market, it experienced low share of turnover in the market161.

4.5 Regional or Traditional Quality Aspect Schemes This category comprises all the initiatives named as direct marketing or community supported agriculture schemes, agri-tourism schemes and regional labels in the literature. These initiatives are firstly identified by their reference to regional or local production quality aspects, and, secondly, based upon their quality assurance system developed as specific production criteria. Ownership Structure The management structure can take many forms such as management by local authorities, farmers and/or consumer cooperations or partnerships, alliances with NGOs or private ownerships. A generic illustration of interaction of these actors along the food supply chain is given in Figure 8. Farmers’ markets are usually managed by local authorities and defined as ways in which local produce can be sold directly from farmers to consumers. They usually provide a market for food products that has undergone minimal processing (fruit and vegetables) or where processing can take place on the farm or where the primary processor can return the product to the farmer to sell. Farmers markets are expanding in the UK and now there are now between 50 and 60 operating on a regular basis162. The organizers try to develop selection criteria, firstly to identify local producers and processors and then realize a suitable location for the market and tools for promoting the markets.

161

IATP (Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy). (1998). Marketing Sustainable Agriculture – Case Studies and Analysis from Europe. Minneapolis: IATP. p.32.

162

MAFF (The Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food). (1999). Working together for the Food Chain – Views from the Food Chain Group. http://www.maff.gov.uk/foodrin/fdchain/fdchain.pdf [2001, April 12]

54

An Analysis of the European Food Quality Initiatives

Producer Cooperative

NGO

Farmers or Producers Processor

Local Authority

Direct Selling Distribution Channels Farmers' market Shops at the farm Deliveries to local houses Trade fairs On site restaurants On site hotels Picknick areas Agri-tourism activities

Local Consumers

Processors

Private Consumers

Non-local Retailers

Figure 8 – The possible types of relations among the actors along the food supply chain in direct marketing schemes. Another form of ownership that can be established for direct selling purposes is the form of partnerships among farmers or among farmers and consumers. For example, Bio-Direct in Switzerland, is set up among six organic milk producers from a certain region, who aim to sell their products via the internet. The Distelhof scheme in Germany is a partnership among approximately 20 farms and 400 individual or family subscribers. NGOs might also be involved in setting up schemes to emphasize regional aspects or biodiversity aspects. Rare Breed Survival Trust in the UK is an example of these, which administers many activities such as surveying the breed population, developing sound breeding policies, providing information and advice, promoting them through their magazines and above all forming partnerships with the butchers to sell the rare breed meat163. Tastes of Anglia from the UK is another NGO working with producers, processors, retailers and caterers aiming to market regional products164. Quality Criteria The quality criteria show a great amount of variation among the schemes. In that respect, the international or national production standards mentioned in the previous schemes are accepted as base level and the quality criteria usually refer to a certain type of production method, which is established by the managers of the schemes. These criteria are normally much stricter than organic farming principles with an emphasis on animal welfare, biodiversity, local economy enhancement or cultural value preservation. For example, Schwäbisch Hällisches Schwein Cooperative in Germany has developed very strict standards for the breeding of the traditional local breed. Besides, forbidding hormone usage and antibiotic usage, they also have stricter standards compared to the EU Organic Farming Regulation for example animal density is limited to 2 animal units per hectare165. Direct marketing schemes may refer to totally different aspects such as environmental attractions of a region. For example, ALLES Feuchtwangen scheme emphasizes the biodiversity of the region, whilst promoting the local production. Farmers from Somerset Levels and Moors have also developed a brand

163

IATP (Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy). (1998). Marketing Sustainable Agriculture – Case Studies and Analysis from Europe. Minneapolis: IATP. p. 20.

164

IATP (Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy). (1998). Marketing Sustainable Agriculture – Case Studies and Analysis from Europe. Minneapolis: IATP. p. 25.

165

IATP (Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy). (1998). Marketing Sustainable Agriculture – Case Studies and Analysis from Europe. Minneapolis: IATP. p. 15.

55

Burcu Tunçer, IIIEE, Lund University

for their beef and lamb linked with the environmental value of the area. Furthermore, they have considered applying for a “Protected Designation under the EU protected food names scheme”. They refer to a traditional system of low inputs for cattle and sheep grazing, while Environmental Sensitive Area (ESA) Scheme166 ensures the future of this traditional farming system. Schemes referring to the traditional aspects obviously set the criteria by referring to a certain type of traditional production method. For example, L’Etivaz strictly requires that the cheese is produced manually using a wood fire. The regulations even specify the height of the wheel and the temperature of the fire for production. Supply Chain Coverage Supply chain coverage is one of the most distinct components of this category compared to the other schemes. Usually, the whole food supply chain is addressed by these schemes that the distribution channels such as the retailer shops or farmer’s shops are included as a part of the initiative. For example, Tagwerk Bavaria in Germany has various channels such as a trailer at local markets, a small farm shop, schnapps and jam production and on-farm butchery. Bäuerlicher Rastmarkt Aurach owns its own market place with a hotel and restaurant featuring local specialities. A similar example is the Ängavallens’ Picnic Park, which offers pig meat products from its own farm directly to their customers through its shop and picnic area, which is explained in Box 13. Stakeholder Participation and Communication Tool To communicate the quality aspect to the private consumers, several communication tools can be used. These cover use of regional eco-labels, creation of a brand concept or information conveyance materials such as brochures, posters, etc. The use of labels is a very common tool for the schemes emphasizing a regional aspect. For example, Vellinge Municipality in Sweden has introduced a label, namely “Gåsamärkta” (Goose Label), to signify the local origin, i.e. the Söderslätt region, and freshness of food products and further to emphasize the potential support for local economy and identity and decrease environmental impacts through reduced transportation distances167. Credibility and Traceability Tools Credibility has been established through brand loyalty or loyalty to a regional label. An exemplary case is the Comté Cheese production in French Jura region. The product has received the national labelling designation, which is the Appellation D’Origine Controlée (AOC) since 1970’s. Well known by the consumers, this label introduces many requirements referring to the life cycle stages of the product such as “Jura” mountains as the place of production, “Montbeliarde” cattle as the only authorized breed, a certain variety of cattle feed, prohibition on colour and other additives and even a certain maturation time of the finished cheese. Among the schemes found under this category, no concrete traceability tool was identified. However, as all the production steps along the life-cycle of the product are included at the site as a closed loop, a requirement for a traceability tool was usually not foreseen by the participants.

166

Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) Scheme is one of the agri-environmental measures in application in the UK under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reforms of 1992. It is one of the main financial sources to encourage farmers to maintain and improve the agricultural landscape and its wildlife.

167

Chris Day. Vellinge Municipality. Environmental Manager. Personal Interview (2001, July 25)

56

An Analysis of the European Food Quality Initiatives

Box 13 – An overview of “Ängavallens’ Picknick Park” concept168. “Lasse, Tasse och Nasse” (A Boy, A Dog and A Pig) This expression was written by Rolf Axel Nordström, the founder of the “Ängavallens’ Picknick Park” concept, to his father to explain his vision of setting up a farm focused on animal welfare. Following from his main interest in animals, in 1983, he established a complete pig food supply chain with the concept of “from land to table” at Ängavallen and transferred his concept into agri-tourism with the establishment of a picnic park and a farm shop. All the steps of the food supply from the growth of the feed to the distribution of the processed and packaged pig meat product were performed at the Ängavallen farm in an area of 140 ha. In the field, lettuce, carrot and potato are grown and afterwards vitamins are added when the pigs get fed. Regional breed use is secured. The slaughter system is operated according to HACCP principles, while the whole system is audited by the local authorities. As the owner of the farm is opposed to the standards of the current organic labelling schemes (especially on animal welfare issues and long-distance transport allowance), special criteria have been developed by him. As an example, the animals are kept inside after birth and sent outdoors after 2 months, which is completely contrary to the KRAV standards. At the farm, environmental impacts from both the supply chain activities and also administrative level impacts are considered. Energy and water saving measures are established and use of eco-labelled raw materials is urged. The owner’s business orientation also reflected in his public relation efforts that consumers from Denmark and Germany solely come to shop and picnic at this place. The Ängavallens’ Picknick Park is promoted on local maps, local community newspaper, tourist brochures distributed in southwest Skåne. Rolf Axel Nordström believes that the communication of one quality aspect at a time is an important success factor in reaching the consumer and further emphasizes that by facilitating observation or experience of the whole production line, full trust in the product can be developed.

4.6 Benchmarking Initiatives Benchmarking schemes are in fact tools used by the actors of the food supply chain to evaluate how they are performing against their competitors and to identify best practices in the sector. This category is rather special in terms of its function that the initial list of components was found not much applicable to this category. In that regard, only ownership structure, benchmarking system, stakeholder dialogue and communication components are included. Especially, cooperation among the stakeholders, which might be weak in other categories, has been extensively emphasized in benchmarking initiatives, while audit systems, marketing efforts, traceability and credibility were not found to be relevant. Ownership Structure The benchmarking initiatives are usually managed by multi-stakeholder associations or led by governmental organizations. For example, the Food and Drink National Training Organisation in the UK represents different sectors in the food industry, which include fruit and vegetables, dairy products, meat products, cereals and manufactured derivatives of these. Efficient Consumer Response (ECR) is a common initiative of the Institute of Grocery Distribution and Article Number Association, while Agri-Chain Competence (ACC) programme in The Netherlands is led by the Dutch Ministries of Agriculture and Economic Affairs. Benchmarking System

168

Rolf Axel Nordström. Manager Ängavallens Gård. On-site Interview. (2001, July 26)

57

Burcu Tunçer, IIIEE, Lund University

Benchmarking systems usually involve four stages i.e. understanding the detail of the companies’ own processes, analysing the processes of the others, comparing the performance with that of the others and finally implementing the steps to close the performance gaps. For example, the Food and Drink National Training Organisation in the UK is based on a framework or framework of assessment of the management and production operations according to the best practices. This component might even function as an indicator as in the case of “Overall Effective Efficiency” measure used by the Food and Drink National Training Organization” (Box 14). On the other hand, Efficient Consumer Response (ECR) works with a process framework designed for the trading partners in the UK grocery market to work with an agreed industry best practices. The framework has four stages: preparation, joint approach, planning, and implementation phases. Firstly, the companies are expected to comply with the code of practice, which sets the standards for the operation of the initiative, and also with the industry standards, which might cover standardization of bar-coding, electronic communication, measures of product availability, etc. and undergo continuous development as ECR progresses. At the first stage, a scorecard is also filled in to decide on areas of focus and to identify joint areas of action for continuous improvement. At the second stage, joint discussions are run on the codes of practice and ECR scorecard to provoke discussions and prioritise areas for projects. The third stage or the planning phase is based on constructing an operation plan between the cooperating companies to realize their mutual goals. At the final stage, the project is implemented with the assigned project leader and the results are continuously reviewed by the sponsors to sign-off or re-direct the project. Box 14 - A short overview of “Food and Drinks Industry Benchmarking and Self-Assessment Initiative”. “Food and Drinks Industry Benchmarking and Self-Assessment Initiative” of the UK was launched in June 1996 by Leatherhead Food Research Association with the support of the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The initiative has provided different options of selfassessment and benchmarking activities to meet the needs of the companies at different levels of quality development. These included, “Business Excellence Through Benchmarking” conferences to spread awareness of benchmarking techniques, interactive benchmarking events to enable the delegates to benchmark their companies against those of the other leading ones, publications in leading trade journals, a self-assessment programme to provide an opportunity for food companies to assess their management systems against the European Business excellence model, self-assessment workshops and a Benchmarking Club for the Food and Drinks Industry to create a “flagship club” for the industry among the leading food companies. Additionally, benchmarking consultancy was provided by the Leatherhead Association.

4.7 Concluding Remarks Despite having started with a variety of drivers such as relieving the recent food scares, achieving corporate social responsibility promises or assuring a sustainable way of production, it has been found that all the categories of initiatives commonly associate their practices with environmental friendliness quality aspects among the credence attributes. The whole array of component options gathered from each category is given in Figure 10. While many different forms of ownership structures were found, primary producers and retailers generally manage the schemes. Multi stakeholder ownership is seldom found. Quality assurance systems are usually based on sustainable forms of agricultural production. The third party organizations specialized in a specific quality aspect introduces the most challenging standards in the market such as the organizations that are advocates of animal rights. Audits are performed as self-verifications, state inspections or in the form of assessments by third parties. External stakeholders addressed by the schemes, vary drastically from primary producers to international authorities and as well from one scheme to another, whereas the major tools of 58

An Analysis of the European Food Quality Initiatives

communication show similarities. The major form of stakeholder involvement found is the development of the scheme standards. In terms of marketing efforts, almost all categories address environmentally conscious consumers while private companies usually address the society at large and the promotion channels differ accordingly. On the other hand, the schemes are promoted to target markets of potential participants via information dissipation channels. Supporting organizations i.e. marketing organizations play active role in running these campaigns while they may also promote sustainable production concepts. The most common traceability tool identified was documentation of the raw material input and the production processes. However, more sophisticated methods are used for meat production such as passport systems, ear tags or ICT based systems. The remainder of the components i.e. credibility tools and supply chain coverage and product groups are discussed in Section 5.9, following the analysis of the categories.

59

Burcu Tunçer, IIIEE, Lund University

COMPILED LIST OF OPTIONS FOR THE CATEGORY COMPONENTS Quality Assurance System Ownership Structure - State ownership - Regional state system - Local authorities - Farmers association - National multi-stakeholder organization - Industry-wide cooperation - Sector-wide cooperation - Farmers or growers cooperative - Vertical or horizontal cooperatives among processors - Partnerships with third parties (horizontally)or along the food supply chain (vertically) - Multi-stakeholder organization - Environmental NGO - Private ownership (retailers or processors as shareholder owned multinational companies)

Marketing Efforts Target Market Health conscious or environmentally conscious consumers

Society at large

Target groups along the supply chain

Promotion Efforts - National advertising campaigns - Point of sale materials - Mounting communication campaigns - Promotion of a lifestyle - Environmental performance magazines - Scientific journals

- Printed material - Personal contacts - Word of mouth advertising with the industry partners - Trade fairs

- Additions to the National Legislation on organic farming -IFOAM Basic Standards for Organic Agriculture and Processing -ISO Guide 7 or Codex Alimentarius as the basic framework -Integrated Crop Management Principles as the basic framework -Good Agriculture Practices -ISO 9000, ISO 9002 -ISO 14001 -Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point method -Company or Industry Codes of Conduct -Criteria developed by an authority on a certain quality aspect

Benchmarking Systems

Audit System - Self-verification - State inspection - Third party assessment - Outsourcing to independent auditors.

Traceability Tools - Documentation follow-up - For meat products use of passport system, ICT based systems, ear tags)

Performance Evaluation Tools - Operational Indicators - Performance Scales

Stakeholder Participation and Communication External Stakeholders Internal Stakeholders - Governmental organizations and Participation Brand Concept ministries - Development of the a sustainable - Inspectors - Use of a label designating - Consumer associations quality standards - Participants agriculture production method - Researchers - Co-operative projectson to processor - Administrators - Additional requirements and - Consultants or experts promote sustainable - Committes retailer activities in line with corporate - Environmental NGOs agriculture practices - Audit organizations strategy - Standards setting organizations (e.g. - Trading organizations - Strong Communication promotion efforts IFOAM, UKAS) - National conferences or - Supporting marketing - European Commission yearly meetings organizations - International authorities (e.g. WHO, -Committee meetings - Supporting technical WTO, OECD, WB) - Stakeholder dialogues organizations - All the actors along the supply chain - Newsletters

Private Consumers

Communication - Labels (i.e. information on the primary or regional production, ) - Brand concept

Participation - Development of the quality standards Communication - Training of the inspectors - Training courses for the participants - Printed instructive material (e.g. operating manuals, control manuals, quality manuals, labelling regulations) - Legal documents (e.g. Certificates of approval/ registration, written aggrements, case of violations)

Figure 9– The list of options for the components (ownership structure, quality assurance system, audit system, marketing efforts, stakeholder participation and communication, traceability tools, performance evaluation tools, benchmarking systems) compiled from the categories of food quality initiatives. 60

An Analysis of the European Food Quality Initiatives

5. Strengths and Limitations of the European Food Quality Initiatives The following is a snapshot of the categories; this section is designed to give an in-depth understanding to the research question: “What are the commonalities and differences in the organizational structure of the European Food Quality Initiatives?”. To achieve this goal, the author addresses each category of initiatives one-by-one and explains the major strengths (using the symbol “▲”) and weaknesses (using the symbol “▼”) based on the structure of their components and their relationship to quality cues and attributes. A more comprehensive list of strengths and weaknesses is provided in Appendix IV. To prevent the repetition in the discussion, cross-references are made in the chapter to point out the similarities and differences among the categories. Lastly, the final section gives highlights of the main differences among the schemes especially in terms of supply chain coverage and lists the factors for credibility development in the market.

5.1 Organic Agriculture Certification Schemes Despite having strength in international collaboration and potential for stakeholder involvement in standards’ development, organic certification schemes are basically information based policy strategy tools, therefore they are not sufficient, on their own, since they fail to cover the whole supply chain and are weak in promotion efforts.

▲ Stakeholder Involvement Potential as a Social Movement The most important strength of this category is the “potential” for the involvement of many actors in the task environment either as internal or external stakeholders in the standards development. Links to different parts of the society are observed in all eighteen schemes evaluated during the study. This is due to the fact that organic farming is a social movement and “[…] [it is] developed through joint efforts of many different interests […] that are usually not involved in agriculture […] [such as] consumers, traders, scientists, ordinary citizens.”169 [As], “it is based on an open wish to change parts of agriculture on the basis of deep criticism of certain elements of mainstream […] conventional agriculture.”170 The schemes involve farmers’ associations, processors, retailers, consumer groups, other NGOs and research institutions in the standards development. However, the level of stakeholder involvement in the decision-making process varies considerably among the schemes as mentioned previously in Section 4.1.1. The major trend in the formulation of the ownership structure is towards creating a flexible and credible system, which allows everyone to raise her voice. An exemplary case is the very recent consideration by the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries to shift the ownership of the Stats Kontrolleret Økologisk label in Denmark from state to private ownership171. The authorities have stated

169

Michelsen, J., Lynggaard, K., Padel, S., Foster C. (2001). Organic Farming Development and Agricultural Institutions in Europe: A Study of Six Countries. Organic Farming in Europe. Economics and Policy Volume 9. Stuttgart-Hohenheim: University of Hohenheim. p. 6.

170

Ibid.

171

Økoweb – Danmark.. (2001, June 1). Danish Organic rules may shift to private hands. http://www.ecoweb.dk/english/nyt.htm [2001, June 20]

61

Burcu Tunçer, IIIEE, Lund University

several reasons for this thought - among them being the pressure from consumer interest groups172. Although farmers, feed processors and traders can participate in the Organic Council being able to influence the development of the label, the audit system and the standards, the consumer council, representing the largest consumer association representing 70 different consumer groups was not able to convey their message. Their criticism that the label does not address any health, energy use, third world criteria, etc. whilst the state has the objective of making clear that only the mode of production is guaranteed by the label173. Other than involving as many interest groups as possible in the ownership structure, various types of stakeholder cooperation adds value to this category in credibility building. For example, the cooperation between Svenska Demeterförbundet and KRAV, two of the major certification organizations in Sweden, exchange information on the primary producers, who had incidents of non-compliance, which allows them to avoid consideration of their applications.174

▲ International Collaboration Adding to the property of being a social movement, the organic standards are commonly based on internationally accepted criteria, which allows international collaboration. IFOAM is an important example of the provision of a platform for global information exchange and co-operation. It coordinates the network of organic movement around the world and functions to ensure that organic quality becomes a reality. The members of IFOAM definitely benefit in terms of credibility building in the market and consultancy acquirement in their operations.

▼ Limited Coverage of the Supply Chain in Quality Standards As the main function of the labels is to provide an incentive to the market for the stimulation of a certain type of agricultural production method, other quality aspects such as lessening the environmental impacts from energy use, water use, packaging etc. are either only recommended or not mentioned at all. In that respect, the organic agriculture standards seem to give priority to the activities of the producers. IFOAM standards, for example, cover pest and disease control, use of organic raw material, less intensive processing methods or the use of the label at the market site whilst the pollution prevention approaches for packaging and transportation are included as “recommendations” or referred to as “general principles” with no detailed guidance. This leads to the conclusion that organic agriculture standards challenge producers rather than processors and retailers. Besides, the producers or retailers are usually applying packaging in order to distinguish organic products from the conventional products. Although environmentally friendly packaging is being used, in some cases, by avoiding use of PVC and other chlorine-based plastics, excessive packaging may not be avoided to realize the objective of singling out the eco-labelled products. The inspections also give priority to the proper use of the labels before the decrease in the environmental impacts. Thus, the organic agriculture certification schemes are in a less strong position than the retailer house brands, which are stricter in such issues.

▼ Lack of “promotion efforts” to communicate to the private consumers

172

Rasmus Kjeldahl, Sektor for økologi Sektorchef, Plantedirektoratet - Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, Telephone Interview (2001, July 23)

173

Wageningen Agricultural University, Salzburg University, Aarhus University. (1998). Joint Environmental Policy-Making (JEP) New Interactive Approaches in the EU and Selected Member States Volume II C Case Study: Labelling of Organic Food Products. Netherlands: Wageningen University. p. 28.

174

Eva Mattson, Standards Manager KRAV , Telephone Interview (2001, August 1)

62

An Analysis of the European Food Quality Initiatives

Another major lacking factor is being able to communicate to the consumers only through extrinsic cues i.e. a label. It is previously acknowledged that “extrinsic cues i.e. labels or brands must be used to communicate the output of these schemes to [private] consumers, as the physical product is not [significantly] altered by scheme standards [so that] the attributes affected [are] credence in nature”175. That is why labelling is needed as a communication tool to provide information to the consumer in her point of purchase decision. However, the schemes exclude the necessity of communicating experience attributes such as taste, functionality or physical characteristics of the product, which are very much valued by the consumer to formulate an image of the food product. Instead, this function is left to the processors or retailers, who deliver different messages about the product itself through their promotion efforts. Use of an organic label is not sufficient to communicate the effect of the quality assurance system on the product but other tools to communicate the changes in the physical characteristics and experience attributes of the product will be required. Cooperation between the certification scheme and the participants is needed to lessen the confusion in the mind of the consumer. However, as mentioned in the beginning, cooperative promotion efforts are very rare or do not exist at all, leading to a weakness of the category. For example, most of the schemes mention that they aid producers in their marketing efforts by promoting organic production or participating in trade fairs or publishing the list of certified products. As they do not deliver a message about the food product itself but the image of the certification initiative, such activity will not help the promotion of the product but partly the credibility of the product. In that sense, this category lacks the “promotion” component, which has to be provided by the participants to the organic certification programme. An illustration of this is the case with AMA Marketing, which is a marketing organization of the AMA (Agrar Markt Austria). It even fails to mention BIO-Zeichen, which is the state label, in their promotion efforts but rather tries to build an image for the Austrian green food176. In that respect, the promotion efforts are performed by the individual companies, which may give different messages to the public. Lack of a single ownership under one umbrella introduces the risk of blurring the message and creating confusion in the minds of the consumer, if especially the market is rich with very similar kinds.

▼ Lacking performance evaluation tools Another weakness lies with the audit systems. As the inspectors perform the inspection only referring to the checklists derived from the organic production standards, they use their personal judgement to compare the performance of the producers or processors in regards to the others. In that way, only the ones having non-compliance with the criteria are further investigated, though the ones with high performance are mostly not valued, which leads to “sticks without carrots”. The counter argument can be that prohibition of the use of raw materials classified as non-organic such as synthetic pesticides or genetically engineered products or organisms is at the core of these standards and it is obviously not possible to have further improvements. However, the organic standards contain many recommendations, which might be realized at different intensity levels. For example in the IFOAM Basic Standards under Pest, Disease and Weed Management under Crop Production, it says;

175

Northen, J.R. (2000). Quality attributes and quality cues – Effective communication in the UK meat supply chain. British Food Journal. Vol. 102. No.3. 230-245. http://www.emerald-library.com/pdfs/0702uce2.pdf [2001, June 14]

176

Michelsen, J., Lynggaard, K., Padel, S., Foster C. (2001). Organic Farming Development and Agricultural Institutions in Europe: A Study of Six Countries. Organic Farming in Europe. Economics and Policy Volume 9. Stuttgart-Hohenheim: University of Hohenheim. p. 31.

63

Burcu Tunçer, IIIEE, Lund University

“All equipment from conventional farming systems shall be properly cleaned and free from residues before being used on organically managed areas”177 Requirements of this kind leave a lot of flexibility to the farmer in her practices. However, as there is no quantitative measure or indicator on “better” performance, it becomes impossible to appreciate and foster continuous improvement in the practices of the farmers. The correction of “lower” performance of the participant or better named as, incompliance with the standards is performed by the inspectors and pretty much depends on their competence level. Similarly, lack of performance evaluation tools and best practice options lists prevents the potency for continuous improvement.

5.2 Integrated Production Certification Schemes Similar to the organic farming certification schemes, the value created by integrated production certification schemes are based on the quality system. However, this property is shadowed with too much focus on the primary production level in the standards development.

▲ The ICM concept driven assets The ICM concept provides many advantages to this category by stimulating the development of each component. The advantages can be listed as the development of comprehensive standards and auditing programme for the production stage, partnerships with international structures, more dependence on research and development, use of indicators for performance evaluation and all in all continuous improvement aspect. The audit system developed by each programme is customized for each step of the primary production. This allows the programmes to develop more precise standards for their participants and monitor their performance with the indicator systems in a quantitative manner. Additionally, monitoring, as a part of ICM concept, enhances external stakeholder communication. The actors up in the chain, such as processors and retailers have the opportunity to recognize outstanding performances. Furthermore, it allows the owners to control underperformances more efficiently. These systems may also help to ensure objective judgement and credibility. ICM also involves research and development facilities, which are included among internal stakeholders as a part of the management while in other schemes they are usually referred to as consultants. Strong links to research organizations and governmental authorities enhance credibility and improvements in the standards. For example, the Assured Produce Scheme, obtains input from specific fresh produce associations, processors, agronomic consultants, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Pesticide Safety Directorate, Institute of Arable Crop Research, ADAS, Horticulture Research International, the Potato Marketing Board, the Fresh Produce Consortium (FPC) and the Horticultural Development Council. Similarly, partnership with international organizations promoting the IP concept allows this programme to raise funds to maintain it and to also improve its standards. The European Initiative for the Promotion of Integrated Crop Production (EIF)178 is an example of such cooperation. In 177

IFOAM. [Online]. Available IFOAM Basic Standards. (2000). http://www.ifoam.org/standard/basics.html#10. [2001, July 27] p. 19.

178

EIF acts a forum in which the respective national associations can exchange their experiences. Its success has depended largely on the creation of a network of farms where integrated production is put into practice, to serve as an example for this system of production throughout the EU.

64

An Analysis of the European Food Quality Initiatives

each country, there could be subsidies of this organization such as LEAF programme in the UK179 to promote integrated crop production.

▲ Sanctions to enforce the standards Similar to the organic certification schemes180, sanctions can be used effectively to enforce the standards. For example, in the case of the AMA Label, the sanctions are related with the use of financial support. Sanctions calculated according to the offence can be realized in cases of usage of forbidden plant protection products, the dumping of sewage compost, missing records with up to one-year suspension181.

▲ Self-managed promotion efforts Inclusion of marketing activities within the scheme is a distinctive property for this category. Contrary to the organic labels, the promotion efforts are performed by the owners of the programme. The marketing organizations, which are in charge of promoting the labels to private consumers, resemble the activities of retail house or processor brands. However, marketing organizations might also fail to communicate physical characteristics and experience attributes of the product. In that case, the same fallacy as the organic certification schemes would occur. The participants of the scheme will use their sources of promotion and blur the message to be given to the private consumers.

▼ Limited Coverage of the Supply Chain in Quality Standards Since the scheme refers to a certain type of production, only producers are covered by the scheme. For example, even in the case of Assured Produce Scheme, which is a partnership between retailers and producers, quality control refers to the activities of primary producers. The standards based on HACCP system, only target the farmers. In that regard, it can also be concluded that partnerships with retailers only enhances their involvement in developing stringent standards for production but not processing or retailing.

5.3 National or Sector Level Farm QAS Because the primary producers are usually the managers of the schemes, Farm QASs become efficient in addressing their needs. The main drawback is that they prefer to work at the business-tobusiness level, by controlling their own operations and, at the same time, often fail to communicate their performance to the private consumers.

▲ Direct involvement of producers in standards development As the managers of the schemes are usually the producers, internal stakeholder communication is enhanced and the procedure for the development of standards is more flexible with referral to their best production practices.

179

LEAF (Linking Environment and Farming) is a charity helping farmers improve their environment and business performance and create a better public understanding of farming through a nationwide network of demonstration farms.

180

Use of sanctions is common in organic label schemes having public authority ownerships. A representative case is the Stats Kontrolleret Økologisk organic label administered by the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries. They have 10-12 full-time academicians working solely on sanctions. The sanctions are usually performed stage-wise in cases of maldocumentation; firstly by sending a warning, and then by fining the farmers and finally by transferring the case to the police (Rasmus Kjeldahl, July 23, 2001).

181

EHI. (1998). Integrated Crop Management Fruit and Vegetables. Köln: DHI-Deutsches Handelsinstitut GmbH. p.23.

65

Burcu Tunçer, IIIEE, Lund University

In relation to that the possibility for local customisation of the standards for each individual member, may arise. For example, the Kvamilla scheme develops an individual plan for each farm, which enhances the external and internal stakeholder communication. Advisers may help the farmers to implement the general framework more effectively. The positive impact of farmers’ ownership on the stakeholder communication is illustrated also with the case of the Øko Maelk scheme in Denmark. The farmers have secured an exclusive contract with the Danish supermarket chains and also they themselves cooperate with the retailers to promote their own brand.

▲ Cooperation among the schemes Mutual recognition among the national schemes enhances source credibility. It is also useful for effective management of information flow along the supply chain i.e. traceability. This might well be illustrated with the case of FABBL (Farm Assured British Beef and Lamb), which works in cooperation with Farm Assured Welsh Lamb (FAWL) and Scottish Quality Beef and Lamb Assurance (SQBLA). For example, in the standards developed for the farmers, it is stated that the animals, breeding stock and lambs or calves must be bought from a farm registered under a recognized assurance scheme, which is Farm Assured Welsh Lamb (FAWL) and Scottish Quality Beef and Lamb Assurance (SQBLA). In that regard, the scheme assures that the raw material is bought from a credible source182.

▲ Numerous Traceability Systems This is especially valid for the meat product supply chains. However, the extent of cooperation differs among the schemes depending on the complexity of the establishment of the systems dealing with traceability. As for example some schemes use computerized systems like the Sanitel System used by the Belgian meat supply chains (Box 15), while others are more documentation oriented.

182

66

Assured British Meat. Scheme Standards and Inspection Protocols. http://www.abm.org.uk/farmers/main3.htm [2001, August 8]

An Analysis of the European Food Quality Initiatives

Box 15 - A short overview of “Sanitel-P” traceability system applied by the Belgian poultry chain183. Traceability in Belgian meat chains is realized through the establishment of the Sanitel system, which was successful in tracing outbreaks of BSE and classical swine fever incidents that occurred in the country. This system has its origins in the systems established to eliminate animal herd diseases in 1960s. The most recent type of this system is the application of the Sanitel-P system used by the poultry meat industry. The system has three main components: 1)

Livestock identification and registration;

2)

Health standard qualification at farm level;

3)

Controls at slaughterhouse level.

The objective of the first step is registration of a maximum amount of information about all entities, actors and movements in the poultry chain. The entities include the farms (reproduction, hatcheries, broiler farms), products (hatchery eggs, day-old chickens, broilers), transport facilities and slaughterhouses. Actors include farmers, veterinarians and transporters. At the second stage, strict health standards to both infrastructure and activities are applied. General rules for infrastructure pertain to hygiene measures inside the stables, while rules for activities deal with access to the stables, disinfection of stables and materials, protection against vermin and insects, control over the use of drinking water, animal feed and stable litter. At the final level, the intrinsic meat quality is controlled by the veterinary services of the Ministry of Public Health. An additional system called “supervised controls” was practiced by the slaughterhouses’ own personnel under the supervision of the official veterinary services. This system emphasizes hygienic standards and manufacturing practices through GHP, GMP and HACCP.

▼ Limited Coverage of the Supply Chain in Quality Standards The supply chain coverage is quite poor in this category, where usually only primary producers’ activities are addressed. Where there are referrals to other actors up in the food supply chain, such as retailers, the HACCP approach has formed the basis for the standards setting. Assured British Meat and Farm Assured British Beef and Lamb (FABBL) is an illustration for this case. They refer to the best management practices for integrated food safety assurance addressing almost all the actors along the meat supply chain namely, feed manufacturers, farmers, livestock haulers and livestock markets thorough to abattoirs, wholesalers, butchers, caterers and retailers. However, the standards refer only general principles of HACCP, which do not refer to the environmental impacts of their activities.

▼ Sole ownership by farmers limiting credibility A major weakness of this category lies with the ownership structure. Since usually farmers or grower’s associations own the schemes, they manage all the quality assurance standards, inspection system and the tools for stakeholder communication. However, credibility of the scheme can be challenged in the way that the farmers should not set the standards, comply with them and at the same time claim compliance with them. Simply, in that regard, the ownership and quality assurance management should not be done by the same party as in the grower-led schemes. In order to eliminate this weakness, sometimes schemes refer to the third parties, who are accepted as authorities in certain quality aspects. For example, the Scottish Pig Industry Initiative (SPII) welcomes

183

Verbeke, W., Viaene, J. (2000). Demand-oriented Meat Chain Management: The Emerging Role of Traceability and Information Flows. In Trienekens, J.H., Zuurbier, P.J.P. (Ed.) Chain Management in Agribusiness and the Food Industry Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference. Management Studies Group Wageningen University, 25-26 May 2000. p. 394-396.

67

Burcu Tunçer, IIIEE, Lund University

inspections form the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SSPCA) to enhance the credibility of its standards. The problem of having single ownership is also mentioned by Pretty184 and is related to the source of the financial support. The topics of legislation, quality assurance, hygiene and food safety management, animal welfare management, ICM and the maintenance of farm assurance schemes can be relatively complex and might require training. The farmers must invest in their own training and that of their staff, on factors such as animal health, agro-chemical, fertilizers and ICM courses.

▼ Lack of communication tools to the private consumer Another major drawback is that since the farmers are promoting the scheme directly to the processors and retailers, there is no link to the private consumers as in the other categories carrying out marketing activities for them. In that respect, it is usually retailers or processors, who have to communicate the quality aspect and explain the quality assurance system to the private consumers using their own marketing channels. On exemption and in a way a success story to the above criticism is the Little Red Tractor initiative. This initiative is a good illustration of how confusion in the minds of the consumers can be decreased and further source credibility is enhanced. With this initiative, delivery of a single message is aimed with huge marketing efforts. Despite the differences in the competences of single farm industry quality assurance schemes, British Farm Standards introduced a general framework to address the quality aspects of food health and safety, animal welfare and environmental regulations. “I don’t think you can just launch a logo and tell people to get on with it. […] You have to back it up with PR and education”185 This is a statement by Adrian Wallbridge, employer of Checkmate International having direct responsibility for the Assured Produce Scheme, commenting after the launch of the The Little Red Tractor Logo.

5.4 Food Processor/Manufacturer Led Quality Initiatives Accepting their responsibility to society and developing their strategy accordingly allows the processor led initiatives to be more flexible in their quality objectives. However, the scope of the schemes still fail to cover the whole food supply, usually focusing on primary production and at all times excluding retailers’ activities.

▲ A direction towards Corporate Social Responsibility The strategy developed by the ownership of the scheme i.e. the producers is the core driving force for shaping up the other components. The initiatives can be perceived as tools for the companies to realize their corporate goals in terms of being socially responsible or assuring the claimed “quality” of their products. Some good examples can be given referring to the statements by several food processors. Arla Foods has stated: “Arla Foods wishes to operate in harmony with the surrounding environment. Therefore, the Group's production, which requires substantial resources, is designed to benefit society in general via environment-friendly and sustainable processes”.186Or as Urtekram has stated:

184

Early, R. (1998). Farm assurance – benefit or burden. Journal of Agricultural Society of London. Vol. 159, 32-43

185

Tatum, A. (2000). Features Farm Assurance - Reassured - As the Assured Produce Scheme enters its third year, Adriam Tatum reviews its progress with Adrian Wallbridge. Grower – London. Vol.134 Issue.2.

186

Arla Foods. Society. (2001). http://www.mdfoods.com/appl/ic/ic022pub/ic022d01.nsf/alldocs/q6e13403a3ca2b4b2412568f800260f8b/$file/index _1.htm [2001, August 1]

68

An Analysis of the European Food Quality Initiatives

“All Urtekram products are manufactured in accordance with a policy of ethical and environmental sustainability”187. In that regard, the actions realized by the companies for achieving quality goes beyond the performances of the previously introduced schemes. They perform a more holistic company-wise approach instead of only referring to health and safety tools such as HACCP or a type of production such as ICM, they develop a more customized quality assurance system or concept considering the feedback from the private consumer target market and collaborating with external stakeholders. Following that, these schemes are designed to increase confidence in their brands or directly in the corporation. This is very well expressed by Unilever’s objective for setting up the Sustainable Agriculture Initiative. Since Unilever commits itself to building confidence for the “citizens” or the whole society it foresees “food quality” beyond addressing particular quality aspects and, following from that, establishes its objectives based on “sustainable food production concept”. As they are based on corporate environmental strategy, it is based on more generic targets of the corporation. On the other hand, in other schemes, credibility is much more linked to the quality assurance system, which refers to guarantee a certain quality aspect. Having a broader understanding of “food quality”, it becomes possible to address other credence attributes such as workers’ health and safety issues.

▲ Almost full control of promotion efforts As the ownership is closer to the private consumers along the food supply chain, they are able to convey the message on food quality aspect in a more coherent manner establishing their own brands. Compared to the previous schemes, the promotion activity is performed by the owner of the scheme. That allows the companies to meet the private consumer at more than conventional sites such as online markets. For example, products of Arla Foods are available on the “Simply Organic Food Company Ltd.” web site. Another opportunity is to address the environmental aspects related to distribution channels such as Nestlé’s farm quality assurance schemes for milk production. Getting to know the needs of their target groups through market research, they possess the power not only to go further in their commitments for quality achievement but also to enforce their suppliers to do so.

▲ Better performance evaluation Another important strength of these schemes is the use of indicators. Although they still address only the primary production phase, they manage to cover more areas than the integrated production certification schemes, which usually include only pesticide use or nutrient use.

▼ Limited coverage of the supply chain in quality standards and among stakeholders These schemes definitely do not address the retailers’ activities. This leads to the weaknesses in the traceability component. In that respect, building brand loyalty would not be sufficient, if the retailers do not handle the product in an appropriate manner. Although, there is awareness of the stakeholder relationships, they still tend to miss cooperation with some of the potential stakeholders such as the farmers’ unions. The reasons can be various, which is left out of scope in this study.

187

URTEKRAM Denmark. About the company. http://www.urtekram.dk/uk/Page100.htm. [2001, August 1]

69

Burcu Tunçer, IIIEE, Lund University

5.5 Retailer Led Quality Assurance Schemes Emphasizing CSR, enrichment of supplier relationships, community relations activities, partnerships with third party organizations and retailer house promotion campaigns have become the tools for credibility enrichment for retailer led QAS; although, they still fail to cover the whole food supply chain and are even criticized for patronizing their suppliers.

▲ Heading for Corporate Social Responsibility Similar to the food processor-led initiatives; these schemes express their business goal as meeting the needs and expectations of the society. For example, Sainsbury refers to all its corporate charities, benefits and schemes supporting the society, environmental practices and supplier initiatives as “corporate and social responsibility”. Whilst TESCO has the corporate objective stated as creating value for its customers and earning their lifetime loyalty. In that regard, most of them reflect the pillars of CSR in their initiatives. It can be argued that basing their components on CSR principles provide deliberate strength to each scheme. Especially, emphasizing supply chain responsibility and creating credibility through stakeholder communication are different and powerful approaches in comparison to the previously discussed schemes. Additionally in some cases, retailers may contribute to the social well-being of the society such as TESCO sponsoring a fellowship at the Bristol veterinary school.

▲ Third party partnership for credibility One of the most interesting tools is building partnerships with an independent multi-stakeholder in order to build confidence in the minds of the private consumers. For example, to verify the credibility of animal welfare emphasis, TESCO and the RSPCA in their Freedom Food Scheme are working with independent inspectors. As these independent organizations refer to a certain quality aspect, the message delivered through the extrinsic cue i.e. label becomes much more clear and trustable for the consumer.

▲ Successful stakeholder communication In the scope of supplier communication, these schemes are also successful in building up discussion forums to raise the suppliers’ views. In some cases, representative organizations for the stakeholders can be set up such as “TESCO Producer Clubs”. The beef and lamb producer clubs in Scotland for example achieve to manage about one thousand farmers across Scotland and they sell directly to all the Scottish stores and TESCO Finest range across the UK. A further step in stakeholder involvement is illustrated with the EUREPGAP establishment as discussed in Section 4.1.1. Initiated by leading European food retailers, the group has facilitated discussion among supplier members around the world and also associate members from different stakeholders such as verification bodies, agrochemical companies, farmers’ organizations and scientific institutions.

▲ Self-managed promotion to private consumers Additionally, the promotion campaigns can also be customized for the quality aspect that they want to emphasize and even in some cases they allow the retailers to convert the credence attributes into intrinsic clues. For example, TESCO has very recently launched a campaign to emphasize their strong relationships with the Scottish suppliers, which involved food and drink events, in-store cooking demonstrations allowing the private consumers to test the products and get an impression of the corporate activities.

70

An Analysis of the European Food Quality Initiatives

▼ Limited coverage of the supply chain in terms of quality assurance and stakeholders Despite accepting their responsibility for the quality aspect that they promise to assure, the retailers seem to concentrate only on the upstream end of the food supply chain. They only refer to the suppliers’ activities i.e. primary production, processing and in some cases feed providing or supplying. EUREGAP, for example, do not go further than setting quality assurance standards for primary producers based on ICM concept. In that respect, although they address potential environmental improvements in their policy statements, they are not included as a part of the schemes. The schemes are rather for suppliers’ management or for addressing social concerns. Furthermore, contrary to the previously discussed schemes, the retailers fail to consult inspectors or auditors in the development of the standards, who might have practical on-site experience with the producers. They might even fail to cooperate with the stakeholders in the task environment such as the farmers’ unions, who might as well have shared goals in ensuring food quality.

▼ Power disputes As mentioned before, despite the use of a variety of tools to ensure credibility; lack of an audit system or third party approval might lead to loss of confidence in the business world or in the minds of the consumer. Many parties have expressed their concern on this issue stating that “they tend to concentrate market power in the food [supply] chain and have the potential to harm terms of trade faced by farmers and intermediate suppliers to the supermarkets”188. This problem can be directly related with the use of the funds for the scheme or the ownership. When the ownership belongs solely to the retailer itself, the budget is managed by them. In the absence of a watchdog, the cost for quality assurance will be a burden for a single party. For example, the producer has to meet the direct cost of inspection fees and the indirect cost of less intensive production, while TESCO runs promotion campaigns for the private consumers announcing that there is no extra cost burden for the consumers.189

5.6 Retailer House Brands Branding provides many advantages to the schemes, by enhancing the message delivery and opportunities for inclusion of more challenging quality standards. However, retailers have not still developed their own broader quality systems but rather use organic labels and quality standards as tools to complete the brand concept.

▲ Strength of the “brand” The value added by this category above all the others, lies in the “brand concept”. Firstly, branding of the products allows the retailers to shift the credence attributes to extrinsic cues and even, in some cases, to intrinsic cues and experience attributes. Secondly, it allows the retailer as in the food

188

Fox, Tom. ([email protected]). (2001, July 12). Re: Food Quality Issues E-mail to Burcu Tuncer ([email protected])

189

Baines, R., Davies, W. P. (2000). Meeting Environmental and Animal Welfare Requirements through On-Farm Food Safety Assurance & the Implications for International Trade. In 10th Annual World Food and Agribusiness Congress, 2000, Chicago, Illinois. [Online]. Available http://agecon.tamu.edu/iama/2000Congress/Forum%20%20Final%20PAPERS/NEW%20Papers/Baines_Richard.PDF [2001, June 14]

71

Burcu Tunçer, IIIEE, Lund University

processor-led QASs to practice “relationships marketing [i.e.] building commitment and confidence with the consumer” 190. Using an organic label, the quality about the production method is communicated, which corresponds to extrinsic cues. Additionally, in-house promotion of the product, as in producer-led QASs allows the consumers to test the product. These links would allow credibility built-up in the brand. “Relationships marketing” is developed with the value created by the brand. As a quality cue, it allows consumers to make use of their previous experience with the product. When the quality experienced after the purchase was satisfactory, the brand allows the consumer to go back and repurchase the product. This relation is more powerful than organic labels as they do not convey enough cues about all the attributes of the product but only about the type of primary production.

▲ Better coverage of the supply chain Another strength of this category is the coverage of the supply chain, which is more effective than is the case in previously evaluated categories. More than referring to the production method, in line with the brand concept, packaging of the product is also included among quality criteria towards less impacts direction. Because packaging is also an extrinsic clue together with the use of labels for the consumer, they hold the advantage of enhancing the message delivered by the label. The brand concept includes the in-house efforts in lessening environmental impacts such as acquiring ISO 14001 certificates or use of other quality systems such as HACCP to address consumer concerns. While, the processors’ activities are usually covered by the requirements of the label. However, there is no integrated quality system building up links among all these sub-systems used in building the brand concept191. In that case, retailers are bound by the tools that they are using and do not add much to them.

▲ Rise of the consumer voice A common attribute among the brands in this category is that they are managed by the consumer cooperative or consumer-dominated organizations. This allows raising the consumer voice more efficiently compared to the other schemes.

▼ Too focused on organic farming The major weakness of retailer house brands is that they only emphasise organic production. This strategy puts a limitation on the functional and business level strategies. In that regard, the topmanagement is, in a way, bound by the tools offered by organic certification schemes such as traceability by documentation, and audits by the recommended parties. Similarly, they lose the opportunity to use the other tools such as performance indicator measures. Otherwise, in case they want to introduce their own systems, it might lead to repetitive work.

▼ Weaknesses in credibility tools Credibility is directly related with the credibility of the organic label used. Retail House Brands try to achieve credibility by using organic labels. However, support by an independent party is not fully

190

Solomon, M., Bamossy, G., Askegaard, S. (1999). Consumer Behaviour – A European Perspective. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

191

Ingemar Hjelm, Affarsomrade Gröna Konsum Miljosamordnare (Environmental Coordinator at Gröna Konsum). Personnel Interview Göteborg (2001, June 28)

72

An Analysis of the European Food Quality Initiatives

achieved under such conditions, as the credibility of the retail house brand becomes automatically dependent on the credibility of the organic label.

5.7 Regional or Traditional Quality Aspect Schemes Many of the schemes in this category manage to cover the whole food supply chain while addressing concerns on transportation and communicating the full list of product attributes, by almost achieving full credibility and traceability. Although one can argue that, this category holds the candidates for the “perfect” initiative, deviation from that is still possible with the missing international touch, rigid quality assurance systems and lack of performance evaluation systems.

▲ Strength of farmer’s ownership Another potency is related with the ownership structure by the producers or farmers cooperatives. If farmers own the scheme or at least manage it, they take an active part in the criteria development or optimise other components according to their local needs and conditions. This approach is more effective than a local authority dominated one, as they have to allocate time and financial resources for the stakeholder dialogue.

▲ Hand-in-hand with the consumer The major strength of this category is that it, in many cases, develops a structure, which enables conversion of credence attributes to intrinsic cues and experience attributes. The credence attributes such as regional source, traditional production and environmental friendliness can all be experienced by the consumer through observation, touching, tasting, etc. This is achieved with the inclusion of own distribution channels such as local markets, on-line markets or their own particular selling points as well as through innovative promotion channels. These characteristics allow links to building credibility and confidence in the target market. As the distance between the producer and the consumer is shortened, the requirement for the use of a communication tool, such as a label, decreases. Instead, through relationship marketing, brand loyalty can be established. In some cases, where establishment of a shorter supply chain is realized, ideal cases for achieving credibility building and traceability occurs. For example, as mentioned in Box 13 at Ängavallens Farm in Sweden, where feed material production, pig breeding and slaughtering together with processing is performed at one site and offered to the consumers at its own shop, credibility is verified with intrinsic cues such as being able to observe the farm animals or taste the products from the farm. Hence, there is no need for complex traceability tools, as all the production is consumed or sold at the site.

▲ New aspects of quality Having local distribution structures introduces other strengths such as decreased impacts from transportation, preservation or packaging. Although there is no supportive literature study done on such gains, it can easily be argued that as the distance between the processor and the consumer decreases such gains can occur. Another value added by regional or traditional initiatives is the enhancement of development of the local economy or preservation of cultural aspects, protection of biodiversity of a certain region, which is very rarely addressed by the previously discussed schemes. Such an approach introduces the social pillar to the quality aspects, which adds value to the final product.

73

Burcu Tunçer, IIIEE, Lund University

▼ Too focused on one type of production similar to the certification schemes Some of the regional or traditional certification schemes such as Comté Cheese scheme in France, put emphasis only on one special type of production. Hence, the coverage of the supply chain remains quite weak. Having quality systems covering only the production steps of the farmers or producers but not referring to the retailers’ treatment of the product, but leaving all the promotion efforts to the seller of the product and using a label as the only communication tool between the producer and the private consumers, they tend to resemble the certification schemes. In that respect, they show the same drawbacks as these schemes. Another weakness observed similar to the sustainable agriculture certification schemes is that they do not address the impacts from the activities of retailers in the scheme criteria, as they are not directly involved with the production phase. They are rather involved as participants in the scheme, which is similar to the drawbacks of organic farming certification schemes. A flaw similar to the certification schemes is the lack of common promotion efforts. For example, as Gåsamärkt, a regional labelling scheme in Sweden, does not have a core marketing organization, the promotion strategy followed by each retailer or sales point differs leading to inefficiencies in conveying the message to the private consumers or making it visible for them. This is due to the fact that the scheme fails to cooperate effectively with the participants in promoting the product and only relies on the label.

5.8 Benchmarking Initiatives Cooperation along the food supply chain and pooling best practices for continuous improvements are the key strengths of this category. On the other hand, these initiatives are rather perceived as tools to be included in other QAS, which is a correct diagnosis, as they lack many components.

▲ Strength of the Relationships along the Supply Chain The major value that can be gained from this category is the cooperation of the companies along the food supply chain to share their best practices for continuous improvement. Such an approach is not seen in any of the other initiatives, which can only be in the form of partnerships. Innovative instruments can be used to bring the industry members together and share their experiences. Although, similar approaches can be seen in the industry such as the EUREPGAP initiative, the basic difference arises with the absence of a leader from a certain part of the chain. In this respect, credibility is enhanced and it becomes easier to build confidence among the members of the initiative. An interesting example is the “Benchmarking Club” established within the Food and Drinks Industry Benchmarking and Self-Assessment Initiative in the UK. The member companies, such as producers and retailers, pool their best practices assessed against the “Business Excellence Model” and try to apply it in their own companies.

▲ Focus on the “Best Practices” The consultancy service offered by the organizations of benchmarking initiatives resembles the services offered by the inspectors of the organic certification schemes. Because they provide farmer’s assistance with the application of the standards, the consultants visiting the site provide advice for improvement. For example, the Food and Drink National Training Organization provides the opportunity to be visited by an expert team, who will examine each of the established benchmarking measures and then give feedback on where improvements might be made. Then the companies get a one-day visit, followed by a report, with all of their results, a copy of the International Benchmarking Report and assistance in developing an action plan. This service, however, can cover higher levels in the 74

An Analysis of the European Food Quality Initiatives

organization ending up giving advice to the senior management level, while inspectors of organic certification refer only to production.

▼ Incomplete Initiative Despite their strength on stakeholder communication, these initiatives can actually be embedded into the others as quality tools, because they fail to focus on a specific quality aspect but rather provide a framework for collaboration to achieve that.

▼ Short-term Focus Although “continuous improvement” is emphasized in all benchmarking initiatives, by its nature, they are designed as projects with short-term set goals. The cooperation among the stakeholders lasts as long as the lifetime of the project. For example, ECR is based on the idea of sharing the best practices among the industries and requires follow-up of four basic stages. This property, once more, leads to the fact that they have to be part of a long-term initiative.

5.9 Concluding Remarks An analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of all the categories revealed that almost full coverage of the supply chain in terms of the quality assurance system criteria is achieved by the retailer house brands. As illustrated in Figure 10, all the categories have stringent and well-defined quality criteria for agricultural production. On the other hand, referrals in the standards or criteria for the activities of actors other than primary producers dominantly aim to eliminate health and safety risks. However, they do not introduce stringent requirements on lessening of environmental impacts. Since the Sustainable Agriculture Certification schemes focus on organic farming or ICM methods, they do not introduce stringent requirements on the activities of the processors and retailers (e.g. Demeter). Some of them refer to them in the form of requirements (e.g. KRAV). National and Sector Level Farm Quality Assurance Schemes also put emphasis mostly on the primary producer level activities. However, some, such as Assured British Meat, set standards for the entire product chain with an emphasis on health and safety assurance systems disregarding other aspects. While Food Processor and Retailer Driven Schemes set food quality criteria with a wider perspective by addressing ethical and social issues and environmental impacts. Regional and traditional quality aspect schemes usually try to establish comparatively shorter supply chains that they manage to cover the entire supply chain, and even in some cases, since they own their own distribution, they achieve to establish very close interaction with the consumers. However, for the average, it can be said that primary production is the core importance.

75

Burcu Tunçer, IIIEE, Lund University

FEED/SEED PROVIDERS AND FARM SUPPLIERS

FARMERS AND GROWERS

FOOD PROCESSORS AND PACKAGERS

FOOD RETAILERS

PRIVATE CONSUMERS

ORGANIC AGRICULTURE CERTIFICATION SCHEMES

INTEGRATED PRODUCTION CERTIFICATION SCHEMES

NATIONAL OR SECTOR LEVEL FARM QAS

FOOD PROCESSOR/MANUFACTURER LED QUALITY INITIATIVES

FOOD RETAILER LED QAS

RETAILER HOUSE BRAND

TRADITIONAL OR REGIONAL QUALITY ASPECT SCHEMES

Figure 10 – The supply chain coverage by the categories of the initiatives in terms of quality assurance systems/criteria. Finally, credibility was found to depend on ownership structure, quality assurance system, audit system, stakeholder involvement and marketing efforts components. The schemes try to establish credibility in the market through: •

Third-party partnerships;



International collaboration;



Third-party audits;



Intense stakeholder involvements;



Aggressive promotion efforts;



Short supply chains.

Third Party Partnerhips

Shorter Food Supply Chain

Third Party Audits

Intense External Stakeholder Involvement

CREDIBILITY

Aggressive Promotion Efforts International Collaboration

Figure 11 – The major factors identified for the establishment of credibility in the market.

76

An Analysis of the European Food Quality Initiatives

6. Conclusions and Recommendations This chapter includes concluding remarks and recommendations regarding the results of this research. Firstly, the research questions asked in the beginning of the thesis study are reviewed and the findings are summarized. Secondly, the main conclusions of the study are listed. Finally, generic recommendations and recommendations for further research are presented.

6.1 Summary of Findings The thesis study was triggered with the objective of gaining an understanding of the structure of alternative ways of ensuring food quality and building confidence among European consumers. It was previously known that many different parties such as the actors along the food supply chain or the third parties in the business environment, either on their own or in the form of vertical or horizontal partnerships, have taken initiatives to develop credible systems to provide “quality” food. Recognizing the difficulty of investigating each and every structure from among the vast amount of schemes, groupings of them were formulated. These groupings, later called as categories, were done by passing each scheme through filters of quality aspects or organizational features such as their management structures or quality assurance systems and finding the similarities among them. The different food quality initiatives were divided into eight categories of initiatives (with the corresponding number of them given in parenthesis), namely: 1.

Organic Agriculture Certification Schemes (18);

2.

Integrated Production Certification Schemes (12);

3.

National or Sector Level Farm Quality Assurance Schemes (26);

4.

Food Processor/Manufacturer Led Quality Initiatives (8);

5.

Retailer Led Quality Assurance Schemes (11);

6.

Retailer House Brands (6);

7.

Traditional or Regional Quality Aspect Schemes (22);

8.

Benchmarking Initiatives (6).

Which aspects of quality are addressed by the food quality initiatives? Firstly, the author sought the aspects that are included in the quality assurance schemes and what is meant or implied by each of them. It was found that all initiatives address credence attributes, which are “believed-in” quality aspects. Schemes controlling the distribution channels to the private consumers might also address other quality aspects such as physical cues and experience attributes. Among the credence attributes, the environmental friendliness aspect has been the only aspect mentioned by all categories. In that manner, it can be said that “good quality food” is associated with “environmentally friendly food” in the European food supply chain. However, this aspect is claimed to be assured through a variety of channels such as practice of the so-called sustainable forms of primary production or traditional ways of production and processing, compliance with national legislation, application of eco-efficient measures or less transportation requirements. The different types of routes used by each category for addressing environmental friendliness and other aspects are given in Table 6.

77

Burcu Tunçer, IIIEE, Lund University

Table 6 – The complete list of credence attributes addressed by eight different categories of European food quality initiatives. Category

Quality Aspect Addressed

Organic Agriculture Certification Schemes

Environmental friendliness by avoiding use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides on land and growing a mixture of crops, animal welfare by avoiding routine use of drugs, antibiotics and other veterinary medicines, healthfulness and safety by enhancing vitamin and nutrient content and cancer fighting anti-toxicant content and prevention of the use of raw materials containing hormones or GMOs.

Integrated Production Certification Schemes

Environmental friendliness by reducing the impacts from intensive farming practices, healthfulness by increasing the nutritional value through some crop protection methods such as fungicide treatment and safety by reducing natural level of toxins produced by fungi and bacteria.

National or Sector Level Farm Quality Assurance Schemes

Safety by practicing risk management approaches for food safety such as HACCP, environmental friendliness by requiring compliance with the regulations and requesting placement of operations with less impact, animal welfare, traceability especially with meat products by putting the recent systems in place and covering the whole production chain.

Food Processor/Manufacturer Led Quality Initiatives

Environmental friendliness by requesting compliance with organic farming or ICM practices and in-house eco-efficiency improvements, animal welfare, ethical concerns, social responsibility.

Retailer Led Quality Assurance Schemes

Environmental friendliness by requesting compliance with organic farming or ICM practices, animal welfare by requesting the practice of the criteria of the advocates of animal rights, social responsibility.

Retailer House Brands

Environmental friendliness by complying with organic farming practices and in-house eco-efficiency improvements especially with less energy and material intensive processing and packaging, ethical issues, animal welfare and healthfulness.

Traditional or Regional Quality Aspect Schemes

Traditional aspects by practicing less intensive local way of production, animal welfare through strict animal rights criteria, enhancement of local economy by giving a priority to the employment of local workforce, cultural value preservation, environmental friendliness by decreased impacts from transportation, preservation and packaging and protection of biodiversity.

What kind of organizational structure do they have? The second main question to be answered was about the nature of the organizational structure of the schemes. Starting from an initial list of components, the structure of each category of initiatives was studied. Each category possesses different dynamics and combinations of the compiled list of components given below:

1. Ownership Structure; 2. Scope (Product Groups and Supply Chain Coverage); 3. Brand Concept; 4. Quality Assurance Systems or Standards; 5. Audit Systems; 6. Performance Evaluation Tools;

78

An Analysis of the European Food Quality Initiatives

7. Marketing Efforts; 8. Stakeholder Participation and Communication; 9. Traceability Tools; 10. Credibility Tools; 11. Benchmarking Systems. The main findings were that the most common ownership structure was primary producer or retailer led schemes. Quality assurance systems are regarded as the fundamental components for the schemes and they are usually based on sustainable forms of agricultural production or systems of HACCP. Usually, third party or internal inspections are performed to keep the quality assurance systems in place. It was found that performance evaluation tools in the form of operational indicators are used by only a couple of schemes, which have incorporated continuous improvement philosophy. The target markets addressed might change from the actors along the chain to niche consumer markets with environmental and health concerns or “citizens” as a part of the whole society. In general, schemes are designed to incorporate external stakeholders in standards or criteria setting process, but usually have the tendency to disregard consumer associations and farm suppliers. External stakeholder communication is usually achieved in one-direction via use of labels or brand concept or via certificates along the chain, while other two-way instruments such as stakeholder dialogues are conducted rarely. Ultimately, the main sources of funding are identified as membership fees to the schemes, inspection fees, state resources or companies’ own financial sources in cases of retailer and processor driven schemes. How do they ensure credibility and traceability? The study has also sought to evaluate the ways of assuring credibility and traceability, which were at the beginning considered among the most important tools to build confidence among the consumers. Although the schemes did not explicitly mention credibility tools, six key issues were identified as listed below: •

Third-party partnerships: Although initiated by retailers or processors, the management can be based on partnerships with an independent party, who is a supporter and well-known practitioner of a credence attribute such as animal welfare;



International collaboration: Collaboration with international organizations or authorities representing sustainable agricultural production practices or concepts is a common tool;



Third-party audits or inspections: Inspections of the participants’ quality assurance systems via independent organizations, which are usually accredited at the international or national level, is another widespread strategy;



Intense external stakeholder involvement: Involvement of the national leading players and opinion formers among consumers, researchers, government institutions and environmental NGO communities, obviously together with representatives along the supply chain participants in the board of management or usually in the quality criteria setting process is a common route;



Aggressive promotion efforts: Innovative channels of promotion to convey the message directly on the quality aspects of the product can be used. Especially performing “relationships marketing” let the consumer experience the product and develop brand loyalty.

79

Burcu Tunçer, IIIEE, Lund University



Shorter food supply chain: Shortening the food supply chain and including all the steps of production and distribution physically, at one place, such as the regional or traditional quality aspect schemes, builds confidence in the consumers by letting them experience the product and the process steps.

The most common traceability tool used by the schemes is documentation follow-up. Advanced levels of the system were observed in the meat product group quality control schemes. In those cases, even ICT based applications were found. Apart from these, previously existing systems of bar-coding, passport system and labelling were used for traceability. What are the major similarities and differences in the organizational structure of these initiatives? Finally, the study aimed to address the similarities and differences in the organizational structure of these initiatives. The major findings are: •

Despite having potential for stakeholder participation, certification schemes address upon commonly accepted production methods, i.e. organic farming and ICM are focused only on the primary production phase;



National and sector level farm quality assurance schemes put emphasis mostly on the primary producer level activities to accomplish safe food production with rare referral to the activities of processors and retailers;



Emphasis on “corporate citizenship” by the food processor and retailer driven schemes, provides a wider perspective in addressing quality aspects such as inclusion of ethical issues or social and human capital or more strict environmental criteria development and leads to the use of a variety of tools such as operational indicators or stakeholder dialogues;



Use of product brands allows the schemes to deliver consumers a single coherent quality message and provides the opportunity to develop brand loyalty and in turn development of confidence;



Regional and traditional quality aspect schemes address a whole different set of quality aspects whilst often managing to build full credibility with shorter supply chain coverage. However, they still lack international referral and performance evaluation systems, which would assist in continuous improvement;



Benchmarking schemes can be seen as quality management tools, which possess the advantage of forming a pool of best practice applications and illustrations of supply chain collaboration.

6.2 Conclusions Build-up of transparency is the key success factor along the whole process of developing a quality assurance system. Among the systems designed to assure “believed-in” or credence quality attributes, systems work closely with both internal and external stakeholders. The work comprises developing the quality criteria and practising third-party audits and further quantitatively assessing their performance and conveying their performance to their target markets effectively deserve consumers’ confidence. Another point is that in the scope of the analysed schemes, food quality assurance is rather recognized as achievement of sustainable primary production practices with more emphasis on the upstream end of the supply chain, while the requirements put on the activities of the actors on the downstream of the chain are usually low, based on the health and safety aspects or 80

An Analysis of the European Food Quality Initiatives

preserving the effects of the sustainable ways of production. In that sense, the share of responsibility was much more concentrated on the primary production. This effect might well be expected; because the foods scare problems were predominantly concentrated on the aspects of primary production. However, it is believed that there is a potential for the distribution of the responsibilities within the scope of these initiatives to assure sustainable food “supply”, rather than sustainable food “production”. Since, processors and retailers are already running quality systems or have tools available in the market, they might consider integrating these into the initiatives as experienced in retailer house brands. Additionally, the food industry is more focused on corrective measures focusing on control tools. Quality assurance systems lies in the core of the systems and they are in the form of standards for compliance but hardly reflect a preventative measure strategy but rather remedial approaches. Furthermore, considering the quality assurance criteria set up by the schemes, it has been found that improvements to the quality criteria or performance of participants are usually done using qualitative tools i.e. often through stakeholder dialogues. However, the use of quantitative measures of performance is very limited and is concentrated on the operational issues. In line with the previous argument, the potential for the use of the whole spectrum of performance evaluation tools, available in the market, is missed by all initiatives. Another conclusion is that some schemes still fail to have instruments to reach the private consumers. It is not sufficient to be able to develop criteria for the quality assurance and to work with it, but it has to be conveyed to the consumer to be fully effective. Expansion of marketing efforts or organizations was found to be essential to address this problem. Another conclusion follows that labelling, as a communication tool with the private consumers, has not been found to be sufficient to deliver the full quality assurance efforts of the schemes. Branding has been found to be the current way of gathering all the available instruments for sustainable food supply achievement and reaching the consumer through a single message delivery. However, such a strategy is found to be followed by only corporate entities but not by other types of ownerships, except the traditional schemes. All in all, it can be said that the European market still lacks a single instrument to help the consumers to make a judgement of all the efforts performed by the schemes. Currently, the market is flooded with many initiatives; a higher level of instrument that would convey all the efforts in achieving the credence attributes is needed.

6.3 General Recommendations As has been discussed throughout the thesis, actors along the food supply chain, either alone or cooperatively, strive to regain consumers’ confidence and to assure their business is trustworthy and responsible. Heading for sustainable agricultural production practices was found to be a common item among different schemes. However, management of the complex European food supply chains requires a broader vision. The strategies should be more preventative than reactive. The food industry has followed a corrective action following the latest food scares, while a more preventative direction should be followed. The vision should be to achieve sustainable food “supply” rather than only sustainable food “production”. That would involve a much wider and integrated coverage of the food supply chains and would require that there is a broader sharing of responsibilities among the actors along the food supply chain. 81

Burcu Tunçer, IIIEE, Lund University

The European food industry should take the initiative to utilize a wider spectrum of management options and to accept the responsibility of their impacts on the society, environment and economic realities. An initiative should be able to: •

Respond to the needs and concerns of the “citizens” and link them to the credence attributes to be addressed;



Specify the product groups and the requested quality aspects to be promoted;



Identify all the external and internal stakeholders of the food supply chain and establish dialogue and cooperation with them;



Distribute the responsibility of supply of “quality food” among all the actors along the chain;



Develop quality systems that are capable of addressing the whole food supply chain without putting too much emphasis on a sustainable agricultural production but by also stressing environmental and social impacts throughout the entire chain;



Seek to establish as short food supply chains as possible;



Make use of all the available tools for “credibility” building;



Develop a marketing strategy and convey the performance and efforts of the food supply chain;



Gather and apply best available techniques in the food sector;



Measure and monitor the performance of the actors along the chain;



Track the quality of the product along the food supply chain;



Report on progress being made and strive for continuous improvement.

The European food industry should not wait for a driver to urge them to take action. They should work now to shift from a reactive approach to a preventative approach for ensuring a sustainable food supply of safe foods. Failure to do so could mean accepting the risk of being out competed by the competitors or facing the background environmental health risks as illustrated by some of the recent food scares.

6.4 Recommendations for Further Studies From this research, the author recognizes the dilemma of establishing organizational establishments to ensure food quality and to build confidence among the consumers without really including consumers or citizens as a part of the initiatives. In that respect, the author urges that research find ways of incorporating the demands of consumers or building up channels to incorporate their needs should be done. The key question is: How can consumers or citizens be more actively involved to achieve sustainable food supply? The scope of this study was limited to the schemes addressing only private consumers. However, it is expected that food quality schemes might also be established to target institutional purchasers or public procurers. A similar type of study ought to be done to assess these similarities and differences of such schemes. The research might seek an answer to the following question: What are the strengths and weaknesses of food quality schemes targeted to institutional purchasers or public procurers? Another area of study could be taking the reverse approach from what this study followed and study the feasibility of merging categories of schemes or building cooperations among them. The objective in doing that could be to achieve a better coverage of the food supply chain in terms of the quality criteria, stakeholder communication, promotion efforts, etc. As one of the findings of this study, 82

An Analysis of the European Food Quality Initiatives

such a strategy could provide higher credibility and traceability. Such research might address the question: How can organizers of different food supply chain quality schemes cooperate to make overall improvements? Further studies could be designed to test or explore the feasibility of incorporating the tools suggested by the framework to the categories lacking them. For example, managers of organic certification schemes, might consider applying performance evaluation tools or sector level farm initiatives to enhance their supply chain coverage and promotion efforts.

83

An Analysis of the European Food Quality Initiatives

Bibliography Published Sources Arbnor, I. , Bjerke, B. (1997). Methodology for Creating Business Knowledge. London: SAGE Publications. Bossel, H. (1999). Indicators for Sustainable Development: Theory, Method and Applications. A Report to the Balaton Group. Canada: International Institute for Sustainable Development. Brah, N., Schelleman, F. (2000). Green Purchasing of Foodstuffs - Background Document for the Stockholm Hearing, 17-18 February 2000, “Green Purchasing of Foodstuffs” by Swedish Environmental Protection Agency and the European Green Purchasing Network. Final Report. EHI. (1998). Integrated Crop Management Fruit and Vegetables. Köln: DHI-Deutsches Handelsinstitut GmbH. Eurostat. (1999). Agriculture in the European Union. Paris: Service Central des Énquêtes at Etudes Statistiques Freeman, R. (1984). Strategic Management : A Stakeholder Approach. Frumkina, R. M., Mikhejev, A. V. (1996). Meaning and Categorization. New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc. Gharajedaghi, J. (1999). Systems Thinking: Managing Chaos and Complexity – A Platform for Designing Business Architecture. Boston : Oxford : Butterworth-Heinemann. Gíslason, S. (1998). Purchasing Organic Food – Obstacles on the Way towards a New Ethical Lifestyle. Thesis for the Fullfillment of the Master of Science in the Environmental Management and Policy. Lund: Sweden. Heidenmark, P. (1999). Going Organic? – A Comparative Study of Environmental Product Development Strategies Along Two Swedish Bread Supply Chains. Licentiate Dissertation. Lund: Sweden. Hess, P. & Siciliano, J. (1996). Management – Responsibility for Performance. New York: McGraw-Hill Hoogland, J.P., Jellema, A., Jongen, W.M.F. (1998). Quality Assurance Systems. In Jongen, W.M.F., Meulenberg, M.T.G. (Eds.) Innovation of Food Production Systems: Product Quality and Consumer Acceptance. Wageningen: Wageningen Press. IATP (Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy). (1998). Marketing Sustainable Agriculture – Case Studies and Analysis from Europe. Minneapolis: IATP. Johansson, J. (1999). Organic Farming – Possibilities to increase organic cereals production in Skåne – A Comparative Study of Sweden and Denmark. Thesis for the Fullfillment of the Master of Science in the Environmental Management and Policy. Lund: Sweden. Jones, G. R. (2000). Organizational Theory Text and Cases. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Jouve, J.L., Stringer, M.F. and Baird-Parker, A.C. (1998). Food Safety Management Tools. International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) Europe Report Series. Europe Risk Analysis in Microbiology Task Force. Maxwell, J. (1996). Qualitative Research Design – An Interactive Approach. London: SAGE Publications.. Michelsen, J., Lynggaard, K., Padel, S., Foster C. (2001). Organic Farming Development and Agricultural Institutions in Europe: A Study of Six Countries. Organic Farming in Europe. Economics and Policy Volume 9. StuttgartHohenheim: University of Hohenheim. OECD. (1994). Towards Sustainable Agriculture Production: Cleaner Technologies. Paris: Head of Publications Service, OECD. Pretty, J. (1998). The Living Land. London: EarthScan Publications Ltd. Rothery, B. (1995). ISO 14000 and ISO 9000. Hampshire: Gower House. Rundgren, G. (1998). Building Trust in Organics - A guide to setting-up organic certification programmes. IFOAM. Solomon, M., Bamossy, G., Askegaard, S. (1999). Consumer Behaviour – A European Perspective. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

85

Burcu Tunçer, IIIEE, Lund University

Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. (1999). A Sustainable Food Supply Chain – A Swedish Case Study. Stockholm: Elanders Gotab. Timon, D., O’Reilly, S. (1998). An evaluation of Traceability systems along the Irish beef chain. In Viau, C. (Ed.) Long term prospects for the beef industry. INRA, Ivry-sur-Seine, p. 219-225. Traill, B., Pitts, E. (1998). Competitiveness in the Food Industry. the UK: Blackie Academic and Professional. Ununger & Wrenfelt (1997). The Camels! – An Environmental Assessment of Green Konsum. Verbeke, W., Viaene, J. (2000). Demand-oriented Meat Chain Management: The Emerging Role of Traceability and Information Flows. In Trienekens, J.H., Zuurbier, P.J.P. (Ed.) Chain Management in Agribusiness and the Food Industry - Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference. Management Studies Group Wageningen University, 25-26 May 2000. Wageningen Agricultural University, Salzburg University, Aarhus University. (1998). Joint Environmental Policy-Making (JEP) New Interactive Approaches in the EU and Selected Member States Volume II C Case Study: Labelling of Organic Food Products. Netherlands: Wageningen University. WWF. (2000). Ausgezeichnet Einkaufen – Labels für Lebensmittel. (Excellent Shopping – Labels for Foodstuff) Zürich: WWF Schweiz. Yin, R. (1993). Application of Case Study Research. London: SAGE Publications.

Published On-line Sources Anders, V., Clause, R., Holz-Clause, M., Lawrence, J. , Strohbehn, D. (1999). Quality Assurance Programs in Beef Production: A Study Tour of Denmark, Holland and the United Kingdom [Online]. Available http://www.ibc.iastate.edu/Publications/europe.pdf [2001, June 21] Assured British Meat. Scheme Standards and Inspection Protocols. [Online]. Available http://www.abm.org.uk/farmers/main3.htm [2001, August 8] Baines, R. N., Davies, P. W., Ryan, P. (2000). Reducing Risks in the Agri-Food Supply Chain – Co-Recognition of Food Safety Systems or a Single Global Scheme. In 10th Annual World Food and Agribusiness Congress, 2000, Chicago, Illinois. [Online]. Available http://agecon.tamu.edu/iama/2000Congress/Forum%20%20Final%20PAPERS/Area%20IV/Baines_Richard.PDF [2001, June 10] Baines, R., Davies, W. P. (2000). Meeting Environmental and Animal Welfare Requirements through On-Farm Food Safety Assurance & the Implications for International Trade. In 10th Annual World Food and Agribusiness Congress, 2000, Chicago, Illinois. [Online]. Available http://agecon.tamu.edu/iama/2000Congress/Forum%20%20Final%20PAPERS/NEW%20Papers/Baines_Richard.PDF [2001, June 14] BSI. (1999). Guidance Notes on the Application of ISO 9001:1994 for Quality Management Systems in the Food and Drink Industry. [Online]. Available http://www.fst.rdg.ac.uk/people/ajukesdj/qual-lks.htm. [2001, June 13] Commission Proposal COM(99)719 White Paper on Food Safety. Adopted January 2000. [Online]. Available http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/health_consumer/library/pub/pub06_en.pdf [2001, April 12] Council Regulation 2092/91/EEC of 24 June 1991. [Online]. Available http://europa.eu.int/eurlex/en/consleg/pdf/1991/en_1991R2092_do_001.pdf [2001, August 1] ECPA (European Crop Protection Association). Integrated Crop Management (ICM). http://www.ecpa.be/topics/management.html. [Online]. Available [2001, June 21] Environmental Data Services. (1999, January 29). Green benefits of CAP reform stressed. ENDS Daily [Online] Available http://www.ends.co.uk/subscribers/envdaily/articles/99012904.htm [2001, March 17] EU Chat Site. (2001). Chat with David Bryne and Franz Fischler. [Online] Available http://europa.eu.int/comm/chat/fischler-byrne/fischler-byrne_en.pdf [2001, June 8]. EUREPGAP. (2001). EUREPGAP Protocol for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables [Online]. Available http://www.eurep.org/index-efp.htm [2001, June 22].

86

An Analysis of the European Food Quality Initiatives

European Commision Directorate General XXIV. (2001). Food Safety: From the Farm to the Fork. SANCO/1531/2001 rev.1. – Working document of the Commission Services. [Online] Available http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/bse/bse28_en.html. [2001, August 1] European Commission Directorate General XXIV Consumer Policy. (1996). Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Information for Consumer – Guide Second Edition. [Online] Available http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/bse/bse07_en.pdf [2001, April 12] European Commission. (2000). COM (1999) 719 Final. White Paper on Food Safety. [Online] Available http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/health_consumer/library/pub/pub06_en.pdf [2001, June 13] European Commission. (2001, July 25). Food Safety: From the Farm to the Fork. Press Release. Commission improves rules on labelling and tracing GMOs in Europe to enable freedom of choice and ensure environmental safety. [Online] Available http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/health_consumer/library/press/press172_en.pdf p.2. [2001, August 1] European Environment Agency. (2000). Agriculture – Environmental Signals 2000. [Online]. Available http://reports.eea.eu.int/signals-2000/en/page007.html [2001, July 23] European Union Health and Consumer Protection General Directorate. (2001) Press Release – Byrne welcomes adoption of European Parliament report on establishment of European Food Authority. [Online]. Available http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/health_consumer/library/press/press147_en.html [2001, June 10] Food and Chemical News. (2001, July 2). “Traceability to be a huge issue” IFT told food processors. [Online]. Available http://www.foodcompliance.com/News/Article?A=541. [2001, August 1] Fox, T. (2000). Retail Sector Supermarket Squeeze For European retailers, the environment is an anti-Wal-Mart strategy-but upping supplier standards should be a two-way street. Tomorrow Magazine, No. 5, Vol. 10 pp.2224. September –October 2000 [Online]. Available http://www.poptel.org.uk/iied/pdf/supermarket_sq.pdf [2001, May 28] Guardian. (2001, June 15). Processed meat safety challenged. http://www.guardian.co.uk/food/Story/0,2763,507402,00.html [Online]. Available [2001, August 1] Haccius, M., Lünzer, I. (2001). Organic Agriculture in Germany. http://www.organiceurope.net/country_reports/germany/default.asp. [Online]. Available [2001, July 15] IFOAM. IFOAM Basic Standards. (2000). [Online]. Available http://www.ifoam.org/standard/basics.html#10. [2001, July 27] Källander, I. (2000). Organic Agriculture in Sweden. htpp://www.organiceurope.net/country_reports/sweden/default.asp [Online]. Available [2001, July 15] MAF (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of New Zealand) 1998. The Role of On-Farm Quality Assurance and Environmental Management Systems (QA/EMS) in Achieving Sustainable Agriculture and Sustainable Land Management Outcomes - MAF Policy Technical Paper 98/2. [Online]. Available http://www.maf.govt.nz/MAFnet/publications/qualsys/qualsys.pdf [2001, June 5] MAFF (The Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food). (1999). Working together for the Food Chain – Views from the Food Chain Group. [Online]. Available http://www.maff.gov.uk/foodrin/fdchain/fdchain.pdf [2001, April 12] OECD. (2000). Environmental Indicators for Agriculture Methods and Results – Executive Summary. [Online] Available http://www.oecd.org/agr/env/exsum_e.pdf. [2001, July 9] OECD. Environment Directorate Programme on Sustainable Consumption. Experts Workshop on Information and Consumer Decision-making for Sustainable Consumption. 16-17 January 2001. OECD Headquarters. Paris. [Online].Available http://www.oecd.org/env/consumption/SCPbkgrnd2001.pdf [2001, March 19] Picazos, J, Parra, A. Organic Agriculture in Europe. (2000). http://www.organiceurope.net/country_reports/spain/default.asp. [Online]. Available [2001, July 15] Sustain: the alliance for better food and farming. (March, 2001). Media Release - Sustain welcomes PM call to rethink UK Farming PLC but he must address the whole food chain. [Online]. Available http://www.sustainweb.org/ukreth.htm [2001, March 17]

87

Burcu Tunçer, IIIEE, Lund University

The Irish Times. (2001, March 7). Consumer Group assails food traceability failure. http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/2001/0307/fm8.htm [Online]. Available [2001, August 1] UKAS. (2000). Getting Accredited – Accreditation Standards. [Online]. Available http://www.ukas.com/new_docs/accredit-standards.htm.[2001, June 20] Van Klaveren, J.D., Van Donkersgoed, G., Noordam, M.Y., Van Dooren, M.M.H., Kloet, D.G. (1999). Residue monitoring in The Netherlands 1998 - Programme for the Quality of Agricultural Products [Online]. Available http://www.agralin.nl/kap/kap98/index.html [2001, August 1].

World Wide Web Sites AGÖL. (2001). Association of Organic Farming Organizations in Germany - Organic Farming With One Voice. [Online]. Available http://www.agoel.de/info_e.htm. [2001, August 1] Arla Foods. Society. (2001). [Online]. Available http://www.mdfoods.com/appl/ic/ic022pub/ic022d01.nsf/alldocs/q6e13403a3ca2b4b2412568f800260f8b/$fi le/index_1.htm [2001, August 1] Assured Combinable Crops. About ACCS. [Online]. Available http://www.assuredcrops.co.uk/ACCS/accs002.asp [2001, August 1] Cerafel. The Growers’ Organisation - Prince de Bretagne. http://www.cerafel.com/en/pro/marketingdetail.html [Online]. Available [2001, August 1] Cerafel. The Growers’ Organisation. http://www.cerafel.com/en/organisation.html [Online]. Available [2001, August 1] Ethical Trading Initiative. (2001) Welcome to the Ethical Trading Initiative Website. [Online]. Available http://www.eti.org.uk/_html/welcome/home/framesets/f_shell.shtml [25 June, 2001] ETI (Ethical Trading Initiative). (2001) The Home Page. [Online]. Available http://www.eti.org.uk/ [2001, May 29] EUREP (Euro Retailer Group). (1999). Introduction-Why EUREP?. [Online]. Available http://www.eurep.org/ [2001, May 29] Expert. (2001). In Encyclopedia Britannica Online. [Online]. Available: http://www.eb.com:180/cgibin/dictionary?va=expert [2001, June 20] National Dairy Farm assured Scheme. Executive Summary. [Online]. Available: http://www.ndfas.org.uk/intro/executive.htm [2001, August 1] National Farmers Union (NFU). A Year in the Life of the Little Red Tractor. http://www.nfu.org.uk/info/tractorrep1.asp. [Online]. Available: [2001, July 20] Økoweb – Danmark. (2001, September 5). New fully organic feedstuff plant in Denmark. http://www.ecoweb.dk/english/nyt.htm [2001, September 6] Økoweb – Danmark.. (2001, June 1). Danish Organic rules may shift to private hands. http://www.ecoweb.dk/english/nyt.htm [2001, June 20] Peter’s Farm. (n.d.) http://www.petersfarm.com/menu.asp [Online]. Available: [2001, August 1] RSPCA. RSPCA Facts – Freedom Food. [Online]. Available http://www.tesco.com/talkingTescoHome/meatMatters.htm#1 [2001, June 13]. Sainsbury. (n.d.) Conserving wildlife. http://www.j-sainsbury.co.uk/environment/programmes.htm [Online]. Available [2001, June 13] Soil Association. Food you can trust – Organic food and where to find it. (2001). [Online]. Available http://www.soilassociation.org/SA/SAweb.nsf/FLDocuments/Food/!OpenDocument [2001, September 3] URTEKRAM Denmark. (2000). About the company. http://www.urtekram.dk/uk/Page100.htm. [Online]. Available [2001, August 1]

88

An Analysis of the European Food Quality Initiatives

Journals Becker, T. (2000). Consumer perception of fresh meat quality: a framework for analysis. British Food Journal. Vol. 102. No.3. 158-176. Clarkson, M.B.E. (1995). A Stakeholder framework for analysing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review. Vol. 20. 92-117. Early, R. (1998). Farm assurance – benefit or burden. Journal of Agricultural Society of London. Vol. 159, 32-43. Fearne, A. (1998). The Evolution of partnerships in the meat supply chain: insights from the British beef industry. Supply Chain Management. Vol. 3. No. 4., 214-231. Gilg, A. W., Battershill, M. (2000) To what extent can direct selling of farm produce offer a more environmentally friendly type of farming? Some evidence from France. Journal of Environmental Management. Vol. 60, 195–214. [Online]. Available http://www.idealibrary.com/links/artid/jema.2000.0383/production/pdf [2001, June 12] Glitsch, K. (2000). Consumer perception of fresh meat quality: cross-national comparison. British Food Journal. Vol. 102. No.3. 177-194. Grunert, K.G. (2001). Perception of food quality – Expectations, inferences and process characteristics. Food Chain 2001 Safe-Sustainable-Ethical Programme Conference, Uppsala, Sweden, 14-16 March 2001. Mann, R. (1998). Best practices in the food and drinks industry Benchmarking for Quality Management. Benchmarking: An International Journal Vol. 5, No. 3 184 – 199. [Online]. Available http://angelina.emeraldlibrary.com/vl=1890210/cl=18/nw=1/fm=docpdf/rpsv/cw/mcb/14635771/v5n3/s3/p184 [2001, August 9] Morris, C., Young, C. (2000) “Seed to shelf”, “teat to table”, “barley to beer” and “womb to tomb”: discourses of food quality and quality assurance schemes in the UK. Journal of Rural Studies. Vol.16. Issue.1, 103-116. [Online]. Available http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6VD9-3Y56N6J-91&_udi=B6VD9-3Y56N6J9&_cdi=5977&_orig=browse&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F2000&_sk=999839998&_acct=C000041498&_versi on=1&_userid=745831&md5=78e612b02e820917066a2ce84fdaa579&ie=f.pdf [2001, June 14] Northen, J.R. (2000). Quality attributes and quality cues – Effective communication in the UK meat supply chain. British Food Journal. Vol. 102. No.3. 230-245. [Online]. Available http://www.emeraldlibrary.com/pdfs/0702uce2.pdf [2001, June 14] Orriss, G D. (1999). Parallel session 1: Equivalence - Equivalence of food quality assurance systems Food Control. Vol.10 Issue.4-5., 255-260. [Online]. Available http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6T6S-3X64J64-6-1&_udi=B6T6S-3X64J646&_cdi=5038&_orig=browse&_coverDate=08%2F10%2F1999&_sk=999899995&_acct=C000041498&_versi on=1&_userid=745831&md5=1fdaba197f184c30c906b6b4b4a5feef&ie=f.pdf [2001, June 14] Oude Ophius, P.A.M. and Van Tripp, H.C.M. (1995). Perceived quality: a market driven and consumer oriented approach. Food Quality and Preference. Vol. 6. 177-183. Porter, M.E. (1987). From Competitive Advantage to Competitive Strategy. Harvard Business Review. Vol. MayJune. 43-59. Roberts, D.J., Lindsay, B. (2000). Milk quality and farm assurance issues. International Journal of Dairy Technology. Vol. 53, 132-134. Rosenberg, D. (1998). Food retailing: Good environmental management is good business. Industry and Environment Quarterly - Including APELL Newsletter. Vol.21 Issue.3. 19-22. Tatum, A. (2000). Features Farm Assurance - Reassured - As the Assured Produce Scheme enters its third year, Adriam Tatum reviews its progress with Adrian Wallbridge. Grower – London. Vol.134 Issue.2. Viaene, J., Verbeke, W. (1998) Treacability as a key instrument towards supply chain management in the Belgian poultry meat chain. Supply Chain Management. Vol. 3. No.3. p. 139-141. [Online]. Available http://www.emeraldlibrary.com/pdfs/17703cf2.pdf [2001, June 14]

89

Burcu Tunçer, IIIEE, Lund University

Wilson, N., Clarke, W. (1998). Food safety and traceability in the agricultural supply chain: Using the internet to deliver traceability. Supply Chain Management. Vol. 3. 127-133. Walley, K., Parsons, S., Bland. M. (1999). Quality Assurance and the Consumer – A Conjoint Study. British Food Journal. Vol. 101. No.2. 148-161.

Personal Contacts Chris Day. Vellinge Municipality. Environmental Manager. Personal Interview (2001, July 25) Chris Dutilh. Environmental Manager. Unilever. Telephone Interview (2001, July 18) Eva Mattson. Standards Manager KRAV . Telephone Interview (2001, August 1) Fox, Tom. ([email protected]). (2001, July 12). Re: Food Quality Issues E-mail to Burcu Tuncer ([email protected]) Gunilla Anderson. Ekologisktmarknadscentrum. Personnel Interview Lund (2001, June 5) Gunilla Anderson. Ekologisktmarknadscentrum. Telephone Interview (2001, May 30) Gunnar Rundgren. General Manager GroLink AB. Telephone Interview (2001, July 16) Hruschka, Thomas. ([email protected]). (2001, June 13). Re: Uber Ja Naturlich! E-mail to Burcu Tuncer ([email protected]) Ingemar Hjelm, Affarsomrade Gröna Konsum Miljosamordnare (Environmental Coordinator at Gröna Konsum). Personnel Interview Göteborg (2001, June 28) Mackereth, Will. ([email protected]). (2001, September 3). Re: Farm QAS E-mail to Burcu Tuncer ([email protected]). Myles Standish. Sustainable Agriculture Coordinator. Unilever. Telephone Interview. (2001, July 19) Rasmus Kjeldahl, Sektor for økologi Sektorchef, Plantedirektoratet - Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, Telephone Interview (2001, July 23) Rolf Axel Nordström. Ängavallens Gård Manager. On-site Interview. (2001, July 26) Sjösvärd, Lars ([email protected]). (2001, July 26). Re: Request for information on Svensk Sigill specifics. Email to Burcu Tuncer ([email protected]) Zimmermann, Jennifer ([email protected]). (2001, July 23). Re: The questions for the interview E-mail to Burcu Tuncer ([email protected])

90

An Analysis of the European Food Quality Initiatives

Abbreviations and Acronyms AGÖL

ArbeitsGemeinschaft Ökologischer Landbau (Association for Organic Farming)

ACCS

Assured Combinable Crops Scheme

AMA

Agrar Markt Austria

BSE

Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy

CAC

Codex Alimentarius Commission

CAP

Common Agricultural Policy

CCP

Critical Control Points

CEN

European Committee for Standardization

CRAE

Consejo Regulador de la Agricultura Ecologica (Regulation Committee on Organic Agriculture)

CJD

Creutzfeldt-Jacob Disease

CSR

Corporate Social Responsibility

EEA

European Environment Agency

EFA

European Food Authority

EIF

European Initiative for the Promotion of Integrated Crop Production

EPA

Environmental Protection Agency

ESA

Environmental Sensitive Areas Scheme

EU

European Union

EUREP

Euro Retailer Group

FABBL

Farm Assured British Beef and Lamb

FABPIGS

Farm Assured British Pigs

FAWL

Farm Assured Welsh Livestock

FAO

Food and Agriculture Organization

FSA

Food Standards Agency

GHP

Good Hygienic Practice

GMO

Genetically Modified Organism

GMP

Good Manufacturing Practice

HACCP

Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point

IAP

IFOAM Accreditation Programme

ICM

Integrated Crop Management

ICT

Information and Communication Technology

IFP

Die Kontrollierte Integrierte Obstproducktion (Integrated Vegetables Production)

IPM

Integrated Pest Management

IFOAM

International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements

IIIEE

International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics

IOIA

Independent Organic Inspectors Association

IP

Integrated Production

91

Burcu Tunçer, IIIEE, Lund University

IPM

Integrated Pest Management

ISO

International Standardization Organization

KF

Kooperativa Förbundet

MAFF

Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries in the UK

MLC

Meat and Livestock Commission

MNC

Multinational Company

NDFAS

National Dairy Farm Assured Scheme

NFU

National Farmers Union

UNEP

United Nations Environmental Program

ÖPUL

Österreichisches Programm Umweltschonender Landwirtschaft

QAS

Quality Assurance Schemes

RSPCA

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

SPII

Scottish Pig Industry Initiative

TBL

Triple Bottom Line

TQM

Total Quality Management

UKAS

United Kingdom Accreditation Service

WBCSD

World Business Council for Sustainable Development

WHO

World Health Organization

WTO

World Trade Organization

92

An Analysis of the European Food Quality Initiatives

Appendix I - Glossary of the terms used in the thesis study. Word

Definition in the context of the thesis study

Accreditation

Giving official authorization to or approval of an institution for complying and maintaining a certain level of standards.

Brand

Identity of a good or a service, which the marketer wants to create.

Brand Concept

The image of the brand that the marketer wants to create in the minds of the customer.

Brand Loyalty

A pattern of repeat product purchases accompanied by an underlying positive attitude towards the brand.

Business Environment

The business environment consists of three layers i.e. general environment, task environment and the food production chain.

Codex Alimentarius

The Codex Alimentarius Commission is an intergovernmental body in charge of the operation of the joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme. The purpose of this programme is to facilitate international trade in food products through the establishment of international standards192.

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)

CSR is defined by Business for Social Responsibility as operating a business in a manner that meets or exceeds the ethical, legal, commercial and public expectations that society has of business.

Credence Attributes

These are the attributes that can neither be recognized neither by looking at the product nor by experiencing the product such as eating or cooking but have to be believed-in.

Credibility

Capable of being believed, trustworthy or reliable.

Due Diligence

The care that a reasonable person or entity exercises under the circumstances to avoid harm to other persons or their property

Eco-efficiency

According to WBCSD, eco-efficiency is reached by the delivery of: competitively priced goods and services that satisfy human needs and bring quality of life while progressively reducing environmental impacts of goods and resource intensity throughout the entire lifecycle to a level at least in line with the Earth’s estimated carrying capacity.

European Food Supply Chain

Refers to the activities of the actors; farm suppliers, primary producers, food and drink processors, retailers, distributors private and institutional consumers.

Experience Attributes

These are the attributes that can only be realized or examined through experience with the product. These characteristics provide information in cases of frequent purchase decisions.

Farmer

Those who rear food animals or harvest products from food animals e.g. milk and eggs, and/or who grow crops for the food chain.193

Food Hygiene

All conditions and measures necessary to ensure the safety and suitability of food at all stages of the food supply chain194.

192

Rundgren, G. (1998). Building Trust in Organics - A guide to setting-up organic certification programmes. p.41.

193

Early, R. (1998). Farm assurance – benefit or burden. Journal of Agricultural Society of London. Vol. 159, 32-43.

194

Orriss, G D. (1999). Parallel session 1: Equivalence - Equivalence of food quality assurance systems Food Control. Vol.10 Issue.4-5., 255-260. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6T6S-3X64J64-61&_udi=B6T6S-3X64J646&_cdi=5038&_orig=browse&_coverDate=08%2F10%2F1999&_sk=999899995&_acct=C000041498&_version=1&_ userid=745831&md5=1fdaba197f184c30c906b6b4b4a5feef&ie=f.pdf [2001, June 14]

93

Burcu Tunçer, IIIEE, Lund University

Word

Definition in the context of the thesis study

Food Quality Attributes

These are intrinsic and extrinsic cues referring to point of purchase quality expectations or search attributes and experience and credence attributes referring to upon consumption phase.

Food Quality Initiatives or Scheme

The organizations or programs of actions involving collaboration or communication among the actors of the food supply chain established to assure a certain or a group of food quality aspects.

Food Safety

Assurance that food which will not cause harm when it is prepared or eaten according to its intended use195.

Food Suitability

Assurance that food is acceptable for human consumption according to its intended use196.

General Environment

Cultural aspects, economic conditions, social conditions and environmental conditions affecting the orientation of task environment and the food supply chain197.

Growers

Those whose enterprises are concerned solely with the production of fruit and/or salad crops destined for minimal processing or direct consumption.198

Horticulture

The collective name for the greenhouse and open-ground vegetables, cut flowers, fruit growing and mushroom growing.

Information and Communication Technology (ICT)

Any technology that enables storage, communication or manipulation of a variety of information for different purposes.

Inspection

A checking or testing of an individual against established standards.

Intensive Farming

Intensifying the use of non-farm resources to produce more from the same amount of land. It usually involves specialized farming and crop and livestock separation.

National Farmers Union

The National Farmers’ Union is the organization representing farmers and growers in England and Wales.

Organic Farming

Organic farming means a self-sufficient and sustainable agrienvironmental system in equilibrium. The system is as far as possible on local, renewable resources. Organic farming builds on an integrated ethos, which encompasses the environmental, economic and social perspective in agricultural production both from a local and global perspective199.

Pesticide

Insecticides, fungicides, herbicides and other plant protection products.

Pollution prevention

Any practice which reduces the amount of any hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant entering any waste stream or otherwise released into the environment prior to recycling, treatment and disposal; and reduces the hazards to public health and environment.

Primary producers

Farmers and/or growers.

Processors

Food manufacturers usually situated between the primary producers and the retailers along the food supply chain.

Producers

Primary producers i.e. farmers (or growers) and the food processors.

Relationship Marketing

The strategic perspective that stresses the long-term, human side of buyer/seller interactions.

195

Ibid.

196

Ibid.

197

Hess, P. & Siciliano, J. (1996). Management – Responsibility for Performance. New York: McGraw-Hill p.140- 146.

198

Early, R. (1998). Farm assurance – benefit or burden. Journal of Agricultural Society of London. Vol. 159, 32-43.

199

IFOAM. IFOAM Basic Standards. (2000). http://www.ifoam.org/standard/basics.html#10. [2001, July 27] p. 1.

94

An Analysis of the European Food Quality Initiatives

Word

Definition in the context of the thesis study

Retailers

The actors along the food supply chain selling the food product directly to the private consumers.

Search Attributes

These attributes refer to recognizable features of the product such as colour, texture or packaging.

Task Environment

The actors affecting the activities of the European food supply chain in the business environment i.e. other industries, co-operative enterprises, environmental NGOs, trade associations, waste processors, EU commission, standardization organizations, research institutes or universities, international organizations, marketing organizations, public authorities and insurance companies (Figure 2).

Traceability

The information necessary to describe the production history of a food crop and any subsequent transformations or processes that the crop might undergo on its journey from the grower to the consumer’s plate200.

200

Wilson, N., Clarke, W. (1998). Food safety and traceability in the agricultural supply chain: Using the internet to deliver traceability. Supply Chain Management. Vol. 3. 127-133.

95

Burcu Tunçer, IIIEE, Lund University

Appendix II – Secondary sources used at the first and second stage of the thesis study and the list of keywords used for literature search. Table 7– The main sources of information for the development of preliminary list of components. Context

Source

Use

This publication provides guidance on how to set up an effective certification programme, with respect to local conditions and conform to IFOAM criteria and international norms.

Building Trust in Organics - A guide to setting-up organic certification programmes by Gunnar Rundgren (1998).

The writer has divided his work in chapters named as structure of the certification programme, the standards, operators, inspection, certification, documentation, information and marketing activities, financing and getting recognition.

This publication reports on research that investigated the linkages between on-farm quality assurance/environmental management systems and the achievement of sustainable agriculture and sustainable land management.

The Role of On-Farm Quality Assurance and Environmental Management Systems (QA/EMS) in Achieving Sustainable Agriculture and Sustainable Land Management Outcomes - MAF Policy Technical Paper 98/2 by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of New Zealand (1998).

This work summarizes the information collected from New Zealand farm quality assurance schemes by listing the major elements, which are ownership, scope, initiation, funding, drivers, size, audit process, links to the regulations, links to the international studies.

This paper aims to find the drivers for farm assurance schemes in the UK.

Farm assurance – benefit or burden by Early, R. (1998).

The author gives the elements of the farm assurance schemes as perception of quality, traceability of farm produce, hygiene and food safety in production, animal welfare and crop management, the competence of the people involved in the production.

Table 8 – The list of the secondary sources used for the collection of the European food supply chain quality initiatives. Source

Description

Major Database on the World Wide Web http://iisd1.iisd.ca/measure/com pindex.asp

International Institute for Sustainable Development site on the Compendium of Sustainable Development Indicator Initiatives and Publications provides an overview of initiatives on sustainable development indicators being carried out at the international, national and provincial/territorial/state levels.

http://www.agrifoodforum.net/home.asp

The Sustainable Agri-Food Production and Consumption Website of UNEP This web site is designed to help users access information on key issues related to agri-food production and consumption, such as: agro biodiversity, water, energy, climate change, chemicals, desertification, consumption, trade, poverty, etc.

http://www.iatp.org/edrc/

The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy promotes resilient family farms, rural communities and ecosystems around the world through research and education, science and technology, and advocacy. It contains a food health and safety library and also conducts an Environment and Agriculture Program with many tiers, sustainable agriculture marketing being one of them.

http://www.iatp.org/enviroag/

http://www.iied.org/agri/links.ht 96

Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Live-hoods Website of International

An Analysis of the European Food Quality Initiatives

Source

Description

Major Database on the World Wide Web ml

Institute for Environment and Development provides information sources on newspapers, journals and publications.

http://www.linksorganic.com

This website is a directory of organic businesses around the World especially including actors along the food supply chain and supporting organizations such as marketing and governmental organizations.

http://www.organic-europe.net/

The Website of “Stiftung Ökologie and Landbau”, which is a project funded by the European Commission, Agriculture DirectorateGeneral, contains information on the orientation of organic agriculture in Europe. It contains country reports of 25 European countries, European organic farm statistics, organic farming address database and links to other resources.

http://www.sustainweb.org/home fra.htm

Sustain: The alliance for better food and farming (formerly the National Food Alliance and the Sustainable Agriculture, Food and Environment (SAFE) Alliance) advocates food and agriculture policies and practices that enhance the health and welfare of people and animals, improve the working and living environment, enrich society and culture and promote equity. The website has a list of the projects and a directory list for its national and international members.

Printed material Ausgezeichnet Einkaufen – Labels für Lebensmittel. (Excellent Shopping – Labels for Foodstuff) by WWF Switzerland, 2000 Building Trust in Organics by Rundgren, 1998 Green Purchasing of Foodstuffs - Background Document for the Stockholm Hearing, 17-18 February 2000, “Green Purchasing of Foodstuffs” by Swedish Environmental Protection Agency and the European Green Purchasing Network. Final Report. by Brah, N., Schelleman, F., 2000 IFOAM Directory of Organic Agriculture Worldwide of the members and associates, 2001 IIIEE Theses of Johansson, J., 2000, Leire, C., 2000, Heidenmark, P., 2000, Jönsson, K., 2000, Fanelis, G., 2000, Gislason, S., 1998. Marketing Sustainable Agriculture – Case Studies and Analysis from Europe Edited by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, 1998 The Role of On-Farm Quality Assurance and Environmental Management Systems (QA/EMS) in Achieving Sustainable Agriculture and Sustainable Land Management Outcomes - MAF Policy Technical Paper 98/2. by MAF (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of New Zealand), 1998 Working together for the Food Chain – Views from the Food Chain Group By MAFF (The Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food), 1999 Titles of Journals Benchmarking: An International Journal British Food Journal Food Control Review Food Quality and Preference Grower: London Industry and Environment Quarterly Journal of Agricultural Society of London Journal of Environmental Management Journal of Rural Studies Supply Chain Management

97

Burcu Tunçer, IIIEE, Lund University

Table 9 – The list of keywords used for the literature search. BENCHMARKING AND FOOD SUPPLY CHAIN DIRECT FARMING FOOD AND ECO-LABEL FARM ASSURANCE FARM QUALITY ASSURANCE FOOD AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT FOOD INDUSTRY FOOD LABELLING FOOD PRODUCTION CHAIN FOOD QUALITY FOOD SUPPLY CHAIN INTEGRATED SUPPLY CHAIN ORGANIC FOOD QUALITY ASSURANCE SCHEME QUALITY ATTRIBUTES RETAILER SCHEMES SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT

98

An Analysis of the European Food Quality Initiatives

Appendix III – List of Personal Contacts. Name, Title

Organization

Title

Date

Contact Address

Gunilla Andersson

Ecological Marketing Centre

-

5 June, 2001

E-mail: ekologisktmarknadscentrum@ swipnet.se

Ingemar Hjelm

Gröna Konsum

Miljosamordnare (Environmental Coordinator)

28 June, 2001

E-mail: [email protected] Tel: +46 31 505066 Fax: +46 705 275027

Rolf Axel Nordström

Ängavallens Gård

Manager

26 July, 2001

Tel: +46 40 423250

SLR (Svenska Lantmännen)

-

21 June, 2001

E-mail: [email protected] Tel: +46 70 2095451

Dr. Olafur R. Dyrmundsson

The Icelandic Farmer Association

National Advisor on Organic Farming and Land Use

26 June, 2001

E-mail: [email protected] Tel: +354 563 0300 Fax: +354 562 3058

Gunnar Rundgren

GroLink

General Manager

16 July, 2001

Chris Dutilh

Unilever

Environmental Manager, the Netherlands

18 July, 2001

Myles Standish

Unilever

Sustainable Agriculture Coordinator

19 July, 2001

Jennifer Zimmermann

WWF

Food Campaigner

23 July, 2001

E-mail: [email protected] Tel: +46 563 72345 Fax: +46 563 72066 E-mail: [email protected] Tel: +31 10 217 4334 Fax: +31 10 460 61 35 E-mail: [email protected] Tel: +31 10 217 4645 Fax: +31 10 217 4149 E-mail: [email protected]

Richard Baines

The Royal Agricultural College Cirencester, Gloucestershir e

Lecturer

25 July, 2001

E-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 1285 655214 (2255)

Rasmus Kjeldahl

Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries

Sektor for økologi Sektorchef, Plantedirektoratet

23 July, 2001

E-mail: [email protected] Tel: +45 45263853

Chris Day

Vellinge Municipality

Environmental Manager

25 July, 2001

Eva Mattson

KRAV

Standards Manager

7 August, 2001

E-mail: [email protected] Tel: + 46 40 425 163 E-mail: [email protected] Tel: +46 18 100290

On-site

Telephone Camilla Välimaa

99

Burcu Tunçer, IIIEE, Lund University

Appendix IV – Strengths and Limitations of the Food Quality Categories. Organic Agriculture Certification Schemes

Strengths

Weaknesses

- Being a social movement, the development of the standards involves or has to involve interests of comparatively many stakeholders.

-The schemes usually develop criteria or standards concerning only the type of farming practice.

-Internationally accepted standards allow a ground for information exchange.

-The standards addressing the activities of processors and retailers reflect on the organic farming concept, but do not usually stress potential improvements for lessening environmental impacts from their activities.

-Traceability is enhanced with the consideration of the food supply chain from the producer to the retailer. -As a part of inspections, sanctions can be used to maintain the credibility of the scheme.

-The indication of performance is limited by compliance and noncompliance criteria, which does not provide incentive for continuous improvement. - The category fails to communicate intrinsic cues and experience cues to the private consumers.

Certification of Integrated Production

-As monitoring and auditing are part of the IP concept, the inspection systems developed under each scheme are well developed.

-Along the food supply chain, only the activities of producers are addressed in the standards.

-The opportunity to take part in international partnership schemes in line with promoting the IP concept is realized by many schemes.

-Stakeholder involvement is limited with the standards development.

-Research and development as a part of the scheme allows continuous improvement. -Promotion efforts are performed by the owner of the scheme. - Indicator usage allows continuous improvement in the performance of the farmers and better external stakeholder communication.

100

-Consumer organization involvement is weak.

An Analysis of the European Food Quality Initiatives

National or Sector Level Farm QAS Initiatives

Food Processor/Manufacturer Led Quality Initiatives

Strengths

Weaknesses

- As the managers of the scheme are usually the producers themselves, internal stakeholder communication is enhanced and the development procedure for the standards is more flexible with referral to best production practices.

-Only the health and safety aspects are addressed in the standards based on HACCP approach.

- Cooperation among the schemes enhances credibility and traceability.

- The credibility of the scheme is challenged with having single party ownership i.e. only farmers association management.

- The traceability systems established for the meat products to guarantee safe products in this category come in many varieties and comparatively advanced levels.

- Usually the schemes do not use any tools to communicate to the private consumers.

-The processor companies usually perform a more holistic approach with their corporate strategy than addressing a certain hygienic measure or production method.

-It considers the food supply chain from the producer stage to the processor stage but usually disregards retailers’ activities.

- Indicator use by some of the schemes allows to monitor the performance of producers and allow continuous improvement.

- Usually, the coverage of the food supply chain is poor referring only to the producers’ actions.

-Third part verification might lack in some of the corporate initiatives, which might challenge credibility of the scheme. -The relationship to some of the stakeholders is missed.

-Having already existing marketing departments, they are able to communicate their quality message more effectively to the private consumers or citizens. Retailer Led QAS

- Having corporate objectives based on CSR, the retailers add value to the design of the components of their initiatives such as communication with the suppliers. -Partnerships with the third party are used as sources of credibility.

Retailer House Brands

-The coverage of the food supply chain is limited with the activities of the primary producers and occasionally farm suppliers and processors. -Being solely owned by the retailers, the fund managed can become unequal for the participants of the scheme.

- The promotion activities allow direct communication with the private consumer and let them experience the product enhancing credibility.

-Stakeholder involvement in the standards development is usually limited and dominated by the retailers.

-Branding of the products allows the retailers to shift the credence attributes to extrinsic cues and even some cases to intrinsic cues.

- Organic farming is placed in the centre of the brand concept, limiting other possibilities.

- Use of quality tools such as organic labels and quality standards allow establishment of shorter supply chains.

- Partnerships and referral to third parties are left to the previous category, which might hurt credibility.

- Consumers usually take part in the ownership structure.

101

Burcu Tunçer, IIIEE, Lund University

Traditional or Regional Quality Aspect Schemes

Strengths

Weaknesses

- They manage to communicate and promote all product attributes along with their distribution channels and promotion efforts.

- International collaboration is excluded and focused on regional partnerships.

- Many are established as closed supply chain systems, leading to high traceability and credibility.

- Apart from the closed system schemes, the regional or traditional production certification schemes reflect the same drawbacks as the organic certification schemes.

- A variety of quality aspects can be addressed as regional biodiversity preservation, enhancement of local economy, cultural value preservation, animal welfare and traditional production. Benchmarking Initiatives

- Partnerships and collaboration among the supply chain actors to gather the best practices allow continuous improvement. - Use of indicators or performance evaluation tools allow unbiased and quantitative judgement.

102

- Use of performance evaluation tools are excluded form all schemes. - They are usually established as short term projects. - The benchmarking initiatives found did not at all address the farmers or their associations. - These initiatives are not communicated to the private consumers and used as a quality tool.

An Analysis of the European Food Quality Initiatives

Appendix V – An overview of the initiatives collected. Quality Initiative

Component

Description

4.1.1. Organic Agriculture Certification Schemes (18 in total) AB (Agriculture Biologique)

ALMAVER DE BIO

Bioagricert

Bioland

BIO SUISSE

Country of Origin

France

Main quality aspect addressed

Organic production.

Ownership Structure

French state.

Quality Assurance System

95% organic contents is a requirement for the processed products. The production process should be certified by one of the inspection bodies accredited according to EN 45011.

Audit System

According to EN 45011.

Internet Site

http://www.agriculture.gouv.fr/alim/sign/agri/welcome.html

Country of Origin

Italy

Main quality aspect addressed

Organic Farming

Ownership Structure

Growers’ association

Quality Assurance System

The standards were developed by the members before Regulation (EEC) 2092/91 come into force.

Audit System

Inspections are carried out by the Consorzio per il Controllo dei Prodotti Biologici [Biological Product Control Syndicate] according to CCPB (Ministerial Decree D.M. MRAAF no. 9697169 of 18/12/96)

Internet Site

http://www.apofruit.it/eng/almabio/

Country of Origin

Italy

Main quality aspect addressed

Organic farming

Ownership Structure

Private limited company, La Bioagricoop

Quality Assurance System

IFOAM based standards.

Audit System

IFOAM based.

Internet Site

http://www.bioagricert.org/

Country of Origin

Germany

Main quality aspect addressed

Biological agriculture

Ownership Structure

The standards are based on the principles of biological agriculture in confirmation with Regulation (EEC) 2092/91.

Quality Assurance System

The standards are based on biological agriculture principles.

Audit System

Self-managed inspection organization.

Internet Site

http://www.bioland.de/index.htm

Country of Origin

Switzerland

Main quality aspect addressed

Organic farming

Ownership Structure

Umbrella of Swedish Organic Farmers

Quality Assurance System

Managed by c. The standards were developed before EU regulation has come into force based on organic farming and biological agriculture.

103

Burcu Tunçer, IIIEE, Lund University

Quality Initiative

BIOZeichen

CRAE – Consejo Regulador de la Agricultura Ecologica

Ø-merket

Demeter

ECOCERT

104

Component

Description

Audit System

Independent inspection services (e.g. the Bio Inspecta)

Internet Site

http://www.bio-suisse.ch/e_index.html

Country of Origin

Austria

Main quality aspect addressed

Environmental friendliness through application of organic farming

Ownership Structure

Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry

Quality Assurance System

Austrian organic farming legislation

Audit System

Unannounced inspection carried out once or twice a year by Austria Bio Garantie.

Internet Site

http://www.ama.at/AMA-Marketing/Aktivitaeten/bio.html

Country of Origin

Spain

Main quality aspect addressed

Environmental friendliness through application of organic farming

Ownership Structure

Regional authorities

Quality Assurance System

Royal Decree No. 1852/1993

Audit System

State inspection system applied by Royal Decree No. 1852/1993

Internet Site

http://www.organiceurope.net/country_reports/spain/default.asp

Country of Origin

Norway

Main quality aspect addressed

Organic agriculture

Ownership Structure

Private organization.

Quality Assurance System

Based on national organic production legislation

Audit System

Performed by The Norwegian Agricultural Inspection Service

Internet Site

http://www.debio.no/diverse/deb_eng.htm

Country of Origin

Having its origins in Germany, it is present in Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Spain, France, the UK, Italy, Finland, the Netherlands and Norway.

Main quality aspect addressed

Environmental friendliness through biodynamic agriculture

Ownership Structure

Demeter International e.V. (Demeter International Association)

Quality Assurance System

Biodynamic agriculture certification standards complying with EN 45011/ISO Guide 65.

Audit System

Performed by independent inspectors

Internet Site

http://www.demeter.net/, http://www.demeter.de/ http://www.forschungsring.de/

Country of Origin

Having its origins in France, it is present in six European countries; Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Portugal and Spain.

Main quality aspect addressed

Organic agriculture

Ownership Structure

Private limited company; ECOCERT

Quality Assurance System

Managed by ECOCERT

An Analysis of the European Food Quality Initiatives

Quality Initiative

EKO

Ernte für das Leben (Harvest for Life)

Kagfreiland

KRAV

Naturland

Component

Description

Audit System

Managed by authorized inspection bodies

Internet Site

http://www.ecocert.fr/dyn/?MIval=PageAccueil&lg=en

Country of Origin

The Netherlands

Main quality aspect addressed

Environmental friendliness through application of organic farming

Ownership Structure

Owned by Skal, which is a foundation ("Stichting" in Dutch, comparable to a foundation) with a Board that is assisted by an Advisory Council.

Quality Assurance System

In accordance with Regulation (EEC) 2092/91 and the Skal Standards.

Audit System

Managed by Skal

Internet Site

http://www.skal.com/english/_skal/frameset1.htm

Country of Origin

Austria

Main quality aspect addressed

Environmental friendliness through application of organic farming

Ownership Structure

The organisation has a decentralised structure consisting of eight offices with regional working teams in the relevant Austrian Provinces. The Federal Office is subordinate to the Federal Committee and supports it when resolutions are to be put into practice.

Quality Assurance System

Combination of Regulation (EEC) 2092/91, Austrian Food Codex, Chapter A8 and guidelines of the organisation “ERNTE für das Leben going beyond legal requirement.

Audit System

Carried out by a registered board of control at least once a year.

Internet Site

http://www.bio-ernte.at

Country of Origin

Switzerland

Main quality aspect addressed

Animal welfare and organic farming

Ownership Structure

Private organization

Quality Assurance System

Self-developed animal welfare standards

Audit System

-

Internet Site

http://www.kagfreiland.ch/

Country of Origin

Sweden

Main quality aspect addressed

Environmental friendliness through application of organic farming

Ownership Structure

Co-operative society with 21 member organizations

Quality Assurance System

IFOAM accredited standards.

Audit System

IFOAM accredited standards.

Internet Site

http://www.krav.se/

Country of Origin

Germany

Ownership Structure

Naturland - Association for Organic Agriculture is an organic farmers’ association, organized in a regional and federal basis.

Main quality aspect addressed

Organic farming

105

Burcu Tunçer, IIIEE, Lund University

Quality Initiative

Soge

Soil Association

Stats Kontrolleret Økologisk

Component

Description

Quality Assurance System

The standards were developed before EU regulation has come into force. They give emphasis on sustainable preventative measures.

Audit System

Independent inspections.

Internet Site

http://www.naturland.de/englisch/frame_defs/framedef.html

Country of Origin

Greece

Ownership Structure

Syllogos Oikologikis Georgias Elladas (Association for Organic Agriculture in Greece)

Main quality aspect addressed

Organic farming

Quality Assurance System

National organic production standards

Audit System

The inspections are performed by the association

Country of Origin

The UK

Ownership Structure

Membership Charity. It owns the subsidiary, Soil Association Certification Ltd (SA Cert Ltd), which is the largest organic certification body in the UK.

Main quality aspect addressed

Organic farming

Quality Assurance System

Based on Regulation (EEC) 2092/91

Audit System

SA Cert Ltd carries out annual inspections, "secondary inspections" on 15% of their licensees annually and also spot inspections.

Internet Site

http://www.soilassociation.org/

Country of Origin

Denmark

Ownership Structure

Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries

Main quality aspect addressed

Organic farming

Quality Assurance System

Administrative order on organic farming in Denmark

Audit System

State regulations and inspectors

Internet Site

http://www.foedevaredirektoratet.dk/java_enab/f_uk.html

4.1.2. Certification of Integrated Production (12 in total) AGROFUT URO

Almaverde of Apofruit

106

Country of Origin

Spain

Main quality aspect addressed

Environmental friendliness - Integrated Production

Ownership Structure

Founded by the Business Association for Plant Protection. The organizational structure consists of a general assembly (positioned by ex-minister of agriculture), an executive committee, a scientific committee, a technical committee and working groups.

Quality Assurance System

ICM principles

Audit System

Completion of “Field Book” at the first application

Internet Site

http://www.apofruit.it/eng/green/green.htm

Country of Origin

Italy

Main quality aspect addressed

Environmental friendliness - Integrated Production

Ownership Structure

Apofruit - Growers’ organization.

An Analysis of the European Food Quality Initiatives

Quality Initiative

AMA Gutesiegel

Assured Produce Scheme (AP)

Flandria

IFP (Die Kontrollierte Integrierte Obstproduc ktion)

LEAF (Linking Environmen t and Farming)

IP Suisse

Component

Description

Quality Assurance System

Integrated production confirming with ISO 9000

Audit System

Greenlab carries out quality audits

Internet Site

http://www.apofruit.it/eng/almabio/

Country of Origin

Austria

Main quality aspect addressed

Environmentally friendliness, origin from Austria

Ownership Structure

Public under ÖPUL (Österreichisches Programm Umweltschonender Landwirtschaft - Austrian Program for Environmental sound Agriculture)

Quality Assurance System

ICM

Audit System

Flexible point system

Internet Site

http://www.ama.at/

Country of Origin

UK

Main quality aspect addressed

Environmental friendliness - Integrated Production

Ownership Structure

Growers and retailers

Quality Assurance System

NFU – Integrated Crop Management Principles

Audit System

Annual self-assessment and periodic third part verification

Internet Site

http://www.littleredtractor.org.uk/assured_veg.asp

Country of Origin

Belgium

Main quality aspect addressed

Environmental friendliness - Integrated Production

Ownership Structure

Agricultural Marketing Board in Flanders

Quality Assurance System

ICM for tomatoes, cucumbers, pepper, aubergines, green beans, courgettes and GAP for leeks, covered lettuce, broccoli, cauliflower

Audit System

Independent verification.

Internet Site

http://www.vlam.be/sitemap/index_en.html

Country of Origin

Germany

Main quality aspect addressed

Environmental friendliness - Integrated Production

Ownership Structure

Fruit Production Research Institute

Quality Assurance System

Guidelines for Integrated Fruit Production (IFP) on the Lower Elbe

Audit System

Making draft enterprise plans available,

Country of Origin

UK

Ownership Structure

Charity

Main quality aspect addressed

Integrated Farm Management

Quality Assurance System

ICM

Audit System

-

Internet Site

http://www.leafuk.org/LEAF/

Country of Origin

Switzerland

Main quality aspect addressed

Environmental friendliness - Integrated Production

107

Burcu Tunçer, IIIEE, Lund University

Quality Initiative

Milieukeur

Odling i Balans

UBA (Environme ntally Conscious Production)

Vinatura

Component

Description

Ownership Structure

SAIO (Swiss Working Association for Integrated Fruit Production)

Quality Assurance System

SAIO guidelines based on IP.

Audit System

SOV (the Swiss Fruit Association) quality control service

Country of Origin

Netherlands

Main quality aspect addressed

Environmental friendliness - Integrated Production

Ownership Structure

Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries

Quality Assurance System

Multi-Year Crop Protection Plan, which is stricter than ICM.

Internet Site

http://www.milieukeur.nl/

Country of Origin

Sweden

Ownership Structure

Farmers’ entrepreneurship with financial support of the partners from different sectors of the food industry.

Main quality aspect addressed

Environmental friendliness.

Quality Assurance System

Criteria developed based on integrated production methods such as efficient plant nutrient utilization, energy use, etc. are applied at pilot farms.

Audit System

The documentation of the activities and a checklist of “Environmental and quality controlled cropping”. Additionally key environmental indicators are used.

Internet Site

http://www.odlingibalans.com/english/index.htm

Country of Origin

The Netherlands

Main quality aspect addressed

Environmentally friendliness.

Ownership Structure

Central Office for Fruit and Vegetable Markets (CBT)

Quality Assurance System

UBA guidelines based on pest management, use of natural pollination, recycling of used-products, etc.

Audit System

SGS AgroControl based in Switzerland carries out the independent verification

Country of Origin

Switzerland

Main quality aspect addressed

Environmentally friendliness.

Ownership Structure

The Swiss federation for ecological production of wine i.e. Vitiswiss

Quality Assurance System

Integrated production.

Audit System

Annual independent inspections.

Internet Site

http://www.gb-weine.ch/vinatura.htm

4.2. National or Sector Level Farm QAS (26 in total) Assured British Meat

108

Country of Origin

The UK

Ownership Structure

An independent firm receiving financial support from the MAFF

Main quality aspect addressed

Health and safety for the meat industry and meat products

An Analysis of the European Food Quality Initiatives

Quality Initiative

AgriConfiance

Assured Chicken Production (ACP)

Assured Combinable Crops Scheme (ACC)

Sanitel-P

Landoksen beef from the Countryside

Component

Description

Quality Assurance System

The food safety standards based on HACCP principles cover all products and processes from - feed manufacturers, farmers, livestock haulers and livestock markets through to abattoirs, wholesalers, butchers, caterers and retailer.

Audit System

Independent audits

Internet site

http://www.abm.org.uk/

Country of Origin

France

Ownership Structure

French Confederation of Agricultural Cooperatives

Main quality aspect addressed

Health and safety, traceability

Quality Assurance System

ISO 9002, ISO 14001

Audit System

ISO 9002, ISO 14001

Country of Origin

The UK

Ownership Structure

Industry wide cooperation

Main quality aspect addressed

Health and safety

Quality Assurance System

Codes of practice were developed for poultry production, hatcheries, catching, transport and slaughter, breeder layers and breeder replacements by the scheme owners.

Audit System

After ccompletion of a self-assessment questionnaire (SAQ) and a visit to production sites by an assessor from UKFQC Ltd (United Kingdom Food Quality Certification), a certificate issued. 25% of sites are assessed each year - one fifth of which are random assessments.

Internet Site

http://www.assuredchicken.org.uk/

Country of Origin

UK

Ownership Structure

Assured Combinable Crops Producing Trust

Main quality aspect addressed

Health and safety

Quality Assurance System

Codes of practice for growers, miller-men and processors for malting of cereals

Audit System

Self-assessment and periodic inspection.

Internet Site

http://www.assuredcrops.co.uk/ACCS/

Country of Origin

Belgium

Ownership Structure

Belgian poultry industry

Main quality aspect addressed

Traceability

Quality Assurance System

Sanitel-P (Box 15)

Audit System

The whole system is controlled by the governmental veterinary inspection teams at the national and regional level.

Country of Origin

Denmark

Ownership Structure

The Danish Livestock and Meat Board

Main quality aspect addressed

Animal welfare, traceability and taste

Quality Assurance System

Codes of conduct referring to selection of high quality breeds, ensuring animal welfare from transportation to slaughter. 109

Burcu Tunçer, IIIEE, Lund University

Quality Initiative British Farm Standard (The Little Red Tractor)

Component

Description

Audit System

-

Country of Origin

The UK

Ownership Structure

National Farmers Union (Assured Food Standards administers the label)

Main quality aspect addressed

Food health and safety, animal welfare and environmental regulations

Quality Assurance System

All products carrying the little red tractor stamp of approval are produced to the standards set out by the relevant assurance scheme. Membership of assurance schemes [Assured Combinable Crops (ACC), Assured Produce (AP), Farm Assured British Beef & Lamb (FABBL), Farm Assured Welsh Lamb (FAWL), Northern Ireland Farm Quality Assurance Scheme (NIFQAS), National Dairy Farm Assured Scheme (NDFAS), Assured Chicken Production (ACP), Assured British Pigs (ABP)]means that all farmers and growers are working to an agreed set of standards in their production processes.

Audit System

Independent audits

Internet site

http://www.littleredtractor.org.uk/ http://www.nfu.org.uk/info/tractorrep1.asp

CERAFEL

Country of Origin

France

Main quality aspect addressed

Environmentally friendliness, food safety.

Ownership Structure

Regional Economic Farm Committee for Fruit and Vegetables

Quality Assurance System

Environment quality programme based on sustainable agriculture and integrated pest control programmes.

Audit System

Auditing and periodic control

Internet Site

http://www.cerafel.com/ http://www.prince-de-bretagne.com/en/

Farm Assured British Beef and Lamb (FABBL)

Farm Assured British Pigs (FABPIG)

Farm A d 110

Country of Origin

The UK

Ownership Structure

Trade organisations representing farmers, the auctioneers, and the abattoirs

Main quality aspect addressed

Food health and safety, animal welfare, traceability and environmental issues

Quality Assurance System

Standards for feed manufacturers, farmers, livestock haulers and livestock markets thorough to abattoirs, wholesalers, butchers, caterers and retailers.

Audit System

Combined inspections with the Assured Combinable Crops (ACC) scheme

Country of Origin

The UK

Ownership Structure

Industry cooperation

Main quality aspect addressed

Health and safety, animal welfare.

Quality Assurance System

Superseded the MAFF Pig Assurance Scheme referring to the activities of farmers, transporters and abattoirs.

Audit System

Quarterly farm inspections by local vets.

Country of Origin

The UK

An Analysis of the European Food Quality Initiatives

Quality Initiative

Component

Description

Assured Welsh Livestock (FAWL)

Ownership Structure

Co-operative of Welsh farmers

Main quality aspect addressed

Health and safety and animal welfare.

Country of Origin

Germany

Ownership Structure

Slaughterhouse owners in cooperation with German authorities

Main quality aspect addressed

Traceability, health and safety

Quality Assurance System

Animal traceability programme and a quality assurance programme

German Veal Quality Programme

IKB (Dutch Chain Quality Assurance Program)

Kvamilla

Milieubewus te Voedingstui nbouw (MBT)

National Dairy Farm Assured Scheme (NDFAS)

Audit System

Performed by German authorities

Country of Origin

Netherlands

Ownership Structure

PVE – The Dutch Product Board (industry, farmers and unions and the Pork Council)

Main quality aspect addressed

Animal welfare, health and safety.

Quality Assurance System

GMP system in line with ISO 9002 and the principles of HACCP covering feed suppliers, breeders and fatteners

Audit System

Third part audits.

Country of Origin

Denmark

Ownership Structure

Danish Extension Service

Main quality aspect addressed

Environmentally friendliness

Quality Assurance System

Based on ISO 9000, ISO 14000 a joint manual for all farmers and an individual manual specific to each farm

Audit System

Third party certification based on ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 principles.

Country of Origin

The Netherlands

Ownership Structure

MBT foundation of fruits, vegetables and mushrooms producers

Main quality aspect addressed

Environmentally conscious cultivation with an emphasis on reduction of pesticide residues

Quality Assurance System

MBT has made the registration of the use of pesticides mandatory and determines the types of pesticides by the farmer, which are allowed to be used, and also the use of energy, the treatment of waste, etc. When products fulfil these criteria, they are entitled to use a butterfly logo on the packaging.

Audit System

The independent institution SGS-Agrocontrol monitors the agreements

Country of Origin

The UK

Ownership Structure

Representatives from the National Farmers Union, The Federation of Milk Groups, The Dairy Industry Federation and the British Cattle Veterinary Association form the board.

Main quality aspect addressed

Hygiene and safety

111

Burcu Tunçer, IIIEE, Lund University

Quality Initiative

Northern Ireland Quality Assurance Scheme for Beef and Lamb (NIFQAS)

Peter’s Farm

Rainbow Growers

Component

Description

Quality Assurance System

The standards cover all the stages of the farm production from silage camp and chemical storage to tanker collection pad addressing hygiene and food safety, housing facilities, plants and equipment, feedingstuffs and water, herd health, stockmanship and training and contingency procedures.

Audit System

Performed by independent certified assessors.

Internet Site

http://www.ndfas.org.uk/

Country of Origin

Ireland

Ownership Structure

NIFQAS is owned by the Livestock and Meat Commission of Northern Ireland (LMCNI) on behalf of producers and processors.

Main quality aspect addressed

Health and safety, traceability, animal health

Quality Assurance System

Codes of Practice addressing husbandry systems and commitment, stockmanship and welfare, animal health, animal nutrition, records, identification, traceability and sourcing, housing and handling, transport and environmental care.

Audit System

Inspections are carried out by the scheme inspectors.

Internet Site

http://www.lmcni.com/nifq.htm

Country of Origin

Netherlands

Ownership Structure

Alpuro Group, Vertically integrated veal producers

Main quality aspect addressed

Animal welfare, traceability

Quality Assurance System

PVE/IKB, ISO 9002 covering the purchase of young calves, the production of feeds, the raising of calves on the farm, the processing and sale

Audit System

PVE/IKB, ISO 9002

Traceability Tool

A database system, which can be accessed by the supply endconsumers via internet.

Internet Site

http://www.petersfarm.com/

Country of Origin

Netherlands

Ownership Structure

Cooperative of Growers

Main quality aspect addressed

Environmentally friendliness, health and safety.

Quality Assurance System

Insecticide-free growing method HACCP-standards, the Good Agricultural Practice guidelines (and very high standards) of ISO for tomatoes, peppers, capsicums covering growers, processing (cutting), packaging

Audit System

-

Internet Site

http://www.rainbow-growers.nl/

Scottish Borders in Traceability and Assurance Group (SBTAG)

Country of Origin

The UK

Scottish Q li B f 112

Ownership Structure

Farmer led full traceability and assurance initiative

Main quality aspect addressed

Traceability

Quality Assurance System

Electronic tagging

Audit System

-

Country of Origin

The UK

An Analysis of the European Food Quality Initiatives

Quality Initiative

Component

Description

Quality Beef and Lamb Assurance (SQBLA)

Ownership Structure

The association is established by Scottish farmers and from the Meat and Livestock Commission.

Main quality aspect addressed

Health and safety and animal welfare.

Quality Assurance System

The standards cover origin of the stock, stockmanship and welfare, feed composition and storage, housing and handling facilities, medicines and veterinary treatment, movement and record books and traceability.

Audit System

Annual independent audits.

Internet Site

http://www.sqbla.org.uk/frame.htm

Country of Origin

The UK (Scotland)

Ownership Structure

Scottish Food Quality Certification Limited is the independent organisation responsible for auditing and administering the Quality Assurance Scheme with an EN45011 status.

Main quality aspect addressed

Hygiene and animal welfare

Scottish Pig Industry Initiative (SPII)

SQF

Svensk Sigill

The Green Nature Group

Quality Assurance System

Standards developed by the scheme members

Audit System

Inspections are carried out by the Scottish Food Quality Certification Ltd is established by the sector organisations; Scottish Pig Industry Initiative, Scotch Quality Beef and Lamb Association, Scottish Quality Cereals and Scottish Quality Trout

Internet Site

http://www.scottishqualitypork.com/

Country of Origin

Switzerland (Australia)

Ownership Structure

SQF Institute (including SGS Certification Group)

Main quality aspect addressed

Health and safety.

Quality Assurance System

SQF Quality Assurance System for fruits and vegetables, dairy products, meat products and cereals covering suppliers, processing, retailing.

Audit System

Under SQF Quality system (Internal and External Audits)

Internet Site

http://www.sqf.wa.gov.au/

Country of Origin

Sweden

Main quality aspect addressed

Environmentally friendliness, bio-diversity

Ownership Structure

In process of change, currently by Svenska Lantmännen (The Swedish Farmers Cooperative)

Quality Assurance System

To be ISO 9001 and 14002 certified systems refers to use of pesticides, agrochemicals, biobed or equivalent, use of plant nutrients, nitrogen and phosphorus balances, buffer zones, waste disposal, fuel consumption, crop charts, moisture content and temperature control.

Audit System

Independent audit company called SEMKO-DEKRA Certifying AB Ltd. account the accounts ofat least 7 % of the selected farms.

Internet Site

http://www.svensk-sigill.com/eng/

Country of Origin

The Netherlands

Ownership Structure

Cooperation of five cultivators

113

Burcu Tunçer, IIIEE, Lund University

Quality Initiative

Component

Description

Group

Main quality aspect addressed

Environmental friendliness

Quality Assurance System

FOODCERT-NL, the Association of Ecological Food Horticulture M.B.T. and HACCP principles

Audit System

Performed by the Quality Control Agency (K.C.B.) on a weekly basis, while product residuals are monitored at least four times a year

Øko Maelk

Internet Site

http://www.green-nature-group.nl/

Country of Origin

Denmark

Ownership Structure

Publicly held company with 25 farmers holding shares

Main quality aspect addressed

Organic production

Quality Assurance System

Complying with the standards of Stats Kontrolleret Økologisk

Audit System

Performed by the state inspectors and the farmers perform controls at the retail stores

4.3. Food Processor/Manufacturer Initiated Quality Initiatives (8 in total) Baby Organix

Hanegal Organic Meats

Hipp

Harmonie Organic

114

Country of Origin

The UK

Ownership Structure

Private ownership by Lizzie Vann

Main quality aspect addressed

Healthiness, taste and nutrition

Quality Assurance System

Labelling of the raw materials according to the Quantitative Ingredient Declaration Standards (QUIDS) and also compliance with the Soil Association Organic Standards in the UK.

Audit System

In line with the Soil Association requirements.

Internet Site

http://www.babyorganix.co.uk/

Country of Origin

Denmark

Ownership Structure

Hanegal Slaughterhouse

Main quality aspect addressed

Animal welfare, healthiness, organic production.

Quality Assurance System

Self-developed criteria based on organic production principles with an emphasis on forbiddance of additives such as nitrites.

Audit System

-

Internet Site

http://www.hanegal.dk/

Country of Origin

Germany

Ownership Structure

Private ownership by the Hipp Family.

Main quality aspect addressed

Organic production, health and safety, traceability of raw materials

Quality Assurance System

Self-developed organic production criteria for the raw materials (vegetables, fruits, milk, chickens, hen and pigs) with an emphasis on “No pesticide” policy and a self-developed quality and safety system for production on site.

Audit System

-

Internet Site

http://www.hipp.de/

Country of Origin

Denmark-Sweden

Ownership Structure

Arla Foods (Cooperative dairy processor)

An Analysis of the European Food Quality Initiatives

Quality Initiative

Good Food Foundation

Nestlé Alete

Urtekram

Unilever, Sustainable Agriculture Initiative

Component

Description

Main quality aspect addressed

Organic food

Brand Concept

Soil Association approval for milk, cheese, butter

Quality Assurance System

In line with the Soil Association standards.

Audit System

In line with the Soil Association standards.

Internet Site

http://www.harmonie.co.uk/

Country of Origin

The Netherlands

Ownership Structure

Horizontal cooperation.

Main quality aspect addressed

Environmentally friendliness (organic production).

Quality Assurance System

Ecocert standards for raisins, figs, apricots, herbs, grains seeds covering producers, possessors.

Audit System

Inspection by Ecocert and further laboratory inspection for the use of chemical crop protection products.

Internet Site

http://www.goodfood.nl/

Country of Origin

Germany

Ownership Structure

Multinational Company, Nestle

Main quality aspect addressed

Organic production, health and safety.

Quality Assurance System

Self developed criteria for organic production.

Audit System

Performed by Alete Agrar- and Öko-Service and independent state control organization.

Internet Site

http://www.alete.de/

Country of Origin

Denmark

Ownership Structure

Private ownership.

Main quality aspect addressed

Organic production, environmental friendliness, ethical aspects and animal welfare.

Quality Assurance System

Above the requirements of the Stats Kontrolleret Økologisk and Krav label, the company has developed 10 major criteria on the issues of energy use, wastewater generation, verification of production, packaging, use of raw materials on animal welfare. Additionally, the company is working according to codes of practice.

Audit System

State inspection and independent audits.

Internet Site

http://www.urtekram.dk/

Country of Origin

The Netherlands

Ownership Structure

Multinational company, Unilever

Main quality aspect addressed

Environmentally friendliness.

Quality Assurance System

A set of criteria developed through workshops of stakeholder dialogues. Further standards are to be developed.

Audit System

-

Internet Site

http://www.unilever.com/en/si_ag.html

4.4.1. Food Retailer Led Quality Assurance Schemes (11 in total) Albert Heijn’s Earth and

Country of Origin

The Netherlands

Ownership Structure

Albert Heijn (Ahold Supermarket Chain)

115

Burcu Tunçer, IIIEE, Lund University

Quality Initiative

Component

Description

Earth and Values

Main quality aspect addressed

Environmentally friendliness, workers’ health and safety.

Quality Assurance System

ICM for fresh produce, meat products (beef, pork and chicken) covering farmers

Bell Natura

Migros 7 Punkte Garantie (Migros 7 Points Guarantee)

Prodotti con Amore

EUREP (Euro Retailer Produce Working Group)

116

Audit System

Independent auditors.

Internet Site

http://www.ahold.com/aholdinsociety/productsourcing.asp

Country of Origin

Switzerland

Ownership Structure

Bell Butcher Shops

Main quality aspect addressed

Environmentally friendliness and animal welfare.

Quality Assurance System

Based on the RAUS, the Swiss federal regulations, which for example allows livestock to run about in the open air on a regular basis.

Audit System

In accordance with the provisions of RAUS (The RAUS Decree can be found at http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/sr/c910_132_5.html)

Country of Origin

Switzerland

Main quality aspect addressed

Environmental friendliness, animal welfare.

Ownership Structure

Migros Retailer Chain

Quality Assurance System

The criteria are stricter than the average integrated production standards such as forbidding all types of antibiotics, meat meal, use of GMOs and origin from the animals born and raised in Switzerland. They are in compliance with the Swiss federal regulations of RAUS and BTS.

Audit System

Performed by the IP-Suisse

Internet Site

http://www.miosphere.ch/d/produkte/fleisch1.php3

Country of Origin

Italy

Ownership Structure

Retailer

Main quality aspect addressed

Environmentally friendliness.

Quality Assurance System

Integrated production for vegetables and fruits

Audit System

-

Country of Origin

The secretariat of the organization is the EHIEuroHandelsinstitut e.V. located in Cologne, Germany.

Ownership Structure

FoodPLUS GmbH is a limited liability company established to enter into legally binding contracts to enable the implementation of the EUREPGAP Certification system. It facilitates EUREPGAP activities, serves as legal owner of the EUREPGAP normative documents and host the EUREP Secretariat. The company has 22 European retail members, many supplier members and associate members.

Main quality aspect addressed

Safety.

Quality Assurance System

EUREPGAP document for Fruits and Vegetables.

Audit System

The certification bodies accredited against the EUREPGAP standards.

Internet Site

http://www.eurep.org/sites/index_n.html

An Analysis of the European Food Quality Initiatives

Quality Initiative

Component

Description

Sainsbury’s Farm Biodiversity Action Plan

Country of Origin

The UK

Ownership Structure

Sainsbury partnership with the Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group (FWAG) and the seven leading suppliers.

Main quality aspect addressed

Wildlife Conservation

Quality Assurance System

The objectives are based on the UK Governments Biodiversity Action Plan.

Audit System

-

Internet Site

http://www.sainsburys.co.uk/biodiversity/ http://www.fwag.org.uk/

Sainsbury’s Animal Welfare Scheme and Farm Assurance Scheme

Select Farm Scheme

TESCO Farming Initiative

TESCO’s Nature Choice

Country of Origin

The UK

Ownership Structure

Sainsbury

Main quality aspect addressed

Environmental friendliness through integrated crop management.

Quality Assurance System

Local applications of integrated quality management principles.

Audit System

-

Internet Site

http://www.j-sainsbury.co.uk/environment/programmes.htm

Country of Origin

The UK

Ownership Structure

Marks and Spencer

Main quality aspect addressed

Environmental friendliness, animal welfare.

Quality Assurance System

A special system that enables them to track the raw materials going into the beef product.

Audit System

-

Internet Site

http://www.marks-and-spencers.co.uk

Country of Origin

The UK

Ownership Structure

TESCO

Main quality aspect addressed

Environmental friendliness, safety and animal welfare.

Quality Assurance System

The criteria follows that of British Farm Assurance with an emphasis of British origin in supply.

Audit System

-

Internet Site

http://www.tesco.com/everyLittleHelps/dobFarmersDetail.ht m#top

Country of Origin

The UK

Ownership Structure

TESCO

Main quality aspect addressed

Preservation of biodiversity.

Quality Assurance System

The code of practice developed incorporation with the Agricultural Development Advisory Service encourages the use of beneficial insects rather than chemicals to control pests, encourages water and energy efficiency and ensures recycling. Growers are asked to draw up a farm conservation plan, which guides them in protecting important wildlife and landscapes.

Audit System

Self-managed.

117

Burcu Tunçer, IIIEE, Lund University

Quality Initiative

TESCO/RS PCA Freedom Food Scheme

Component

Description

Internet Site

http://www.tesco.com/everyLittleHelps/dobEnvironmentDet ail.htm#top

Country of Origin

The UK

Ownership Structure

TESCO

Main quality aspect addressed

Animal welfare.

Quality Assurance System

RSPCA Freedom Food Standards for fresh meat, poultry and eggs

Audit System

-

Internet Site

http://www.tesco.com/talkingTescoHome/meatMatters.htm# 1 http://www.tesco.com/everyLittleHelps/dobFarmersDetail.ht m#afagmf

Whiterose’s Farmhouse Pork scheme

Country of Origin

The UK

Ownership Structure

Whiterose retailer

Main quality aspect addressed

Healthiness, animal welfare.

Quality Assurance System

Self-developed standards, which prohibit the antibiotic digestive enhancers and promotes use of those additives that were strictly necessary.

Audit System

-

Internet Site

http://www.waitrose.com/ http://www.waitrose.com/winechat/searcharchives/32.asp

4.4.2. Retailer House Brands (6 in total) CoopNATU RAplan

Ja Naturlich

Migros BIO

118

Country of Origin

Switzerland

Ownership Structure

Retailer.

Main quality aspect addressed

Environmentally friendliness.

Quality assurance system

Use of BIO SUISSE label.

Internet Site

http://naturaplan.coop.ch

Country of Origin

Austria

Main quality aspect addressed

Organic farming.

Ownership Structure

Billa/Merkur/Bipa (BML Group)

Quality assurance system

AMA and also Ernte für das Leben

Internet Site

http://www.janatuerlich.at/janatuerlich/default.asp

Country of Origin

Switzerland

Ownership Structure

Migros having a structure of ten regional cooperatives, migros production companies and trading and service companies.

Main quality aspect addressed

Organic farming.

Quality assurance system

BIO label of Migros has strict criteria for organic production for both fruits and vegetables and meat products. In the case of the processed products such as yogurts or dishes, 95% of the ingredients must come from BIO agriculture.

An Analysis of the European Food Quality Initiatives

Quality Initiative

Tengelmann ’s Naturkind

FDB

Änglamark

Component

Description

Internet Site

http://www.miosphere.ch/d/produkte/labels.php3#AnchorMigros-Bio-Produktion-49575

Country of Origin

Germany

Ownership Structure

Tengelmann

Main quality aspect addressed

Organic farming.

Quality assurance system

The products should follow the organic production standards of Bioland, Demeter or Naturland. Additionally, in house ecoefficiency measures are set.

Internet Site

http://www.tengelmann.de/deutsch/umweltschutz/super.htm

Country of Origin

Denmark

Ownership Structure

Consumer cooperative.

Main quality aspect addressed

Organic farming.

Quality Assurance System

The organic production standards of the Stats Kontrolleret Økologisk.

Audit System

State control.

Internet Site

http://www.fdb.dk/

Country of Origin

Sweden

Ownership Structure

KF, consumer cooperative

Main quality aspect addressed

Organic production, ethical aspects

Quality Assurance System

Use of KRAV label and further and requirements on packaging. Additionally, in house eco-efficiency measures.

Audit System

Only by the KRAV inspectors.

Internet Site

http://www.anglamark.com/

4.5. Traditional or Regional Quality Aspect Schemes (22 in total) Ängavallens Picknick Park

Bäuerlicher Rastmarkt Aurach

Country of Origin

Sweden

Management Structure

Private ownership.

Main quality aspect addressed

Animal welfare, local breeding and decreased transportation distances.

Quality Criteria

Self-developed criteria covering the feed production, breeding, slaughter house, processing and logistic operations including packaging.

Audit System

State inspectors for hygienic measures.

Internet Site

http://www.angavallen.se/shopbox/angavallen/a_startsida.htm

Country of Origin

Germany

Management Structure

A society of farmers.

Main quality aspect addressed

Local taste, closed system.

Quality Criteria

Criteria for own brand and other organic labels such as “Demeter” or “Bioland” or local labels such as “Quality from Bavaria” for bread products, local meat and cheese, meat, juices, schnapps covering producers, processors, retailers

Audit System

-

Internet Site

http://www.rastmarkt.de/index.htm

119

Burcu Tunçer, IIIEE, Lund University

Quality Initiative

Component

Description

Artenreiches LandLebenswerte Stadt (ALLES) Feuchtwang en

Country of Origin

Germany

Management Structure

Alliance between primary producers and environmentalist groups

Main quality aspect addressed

Enhancement of local economy, preservation of biodiversity, local transportation distances.

Quality Criteria

Products from the Feuchtwangen region.

Audit System

-

Bio-Direct

Comté Cheese

Distelhof

Food From Britain

Farmers of Vercors Regional Park

120

Country of Origin

Switzerland

Management Structure

Primary producers of milk from the Jura region

Main quality aspect addressed

Organic and local milk production.

Quality Criteria

Certification of the products by the BIO SUISSE, organic certifier in Switzerland is required.

Audit System

In line with the BIO SUISSE requirements.

Country of Origin

France

Management Structure

Public and private partnerships.

Main quality aspect addressed

Cheese from the French Jura region and produced in a traditional way.

Quality Criteria

The criteria developed by the Comté Board refers to very strict production standards such as a limit of eight miles from milk primary production to the processing, plus regulations on silage, pasture plants, soil types and geographic boundaries. It also complies with the standards of the Appellation D’Origine Controlée (AOC), which requires the Jura mountains as the only place of production and Montbeliarda cattle as the only breed.

Audit System

-

Internet Site

http://www.comte.com/

Country of Origin

Germany

Management Structure

Partnerships among farmers and the subscribers.

Main quality aspect addressed

Supply from a region with a 50 to 60 km radius having its centre in the south-central Germany.

Quality Criteria

Certification by the organic certification organizations is required.

Audit System

In line with the organic certification scheme requirements.

Country of Origin

The UK

Management Structure Main quality aspect addressed

Local or national British food, safe food production.

Quality Criteria

Local sourcing of food products, use of HACCP .

Audit System

-

Internet Site

http://www.foodfrombritain.com/speciality_food.html

Country of Origin

France

Management Structure

Local association of beef producers.

Main quality aspect addressed

Environmentally friendliness, local production, enhancement of the local habitat.

An Analysis of the European Food Quality Initiatives

Quality Initiative

Frome Farmers’ Market

Gåsamärkt

Hofmarke

Hofpfisterei

Rhönhöfe

Schwäbisch Hällisches Schwein

Component

Description

Quality Criteria

The standards are developed by the members especially to preserve the landscape and habitat by especially specifying the cattle breeds adapted to the area, ensuting the survival of rich plants, etc.

Audit System

-

Country of Origin

The UK

Management Structure

Farmers.

Main quality aspect addressed

Freshness, local taste of Somerset and decrease in transportation distances.

Quality Criteria

Selection criteria to identify the local producers and processors are developed.

Audit System

-

Country of Origin

Sweden

Management Structure

Municipality.

Main quality aspect addressed

Fruits and vegetables the Söderslätt region, support for local economy and decreased transportation distances.

Quality Criteria

Local supply is the major criteria and further standards are planned to be developed.

Audit System

-

Internet Site

http://www.vellinge.se/turism/gasen.htm

Country of Origin

Austria

Ownership Structure

Farmers cooperative

Main quality aspect addressed

Organic farming, animal welfare and local food

Quality Assurance System

Self-developed criteria.

Audit System

Third party control.

Internet Site

http://www.hofmarke.at

Country of Origin

Germany

Management Structure

Food from Bavaria, organic farming.

Main quality aspect addressed

Private ownership.

Quality Criteria

Certification by the organic production certifier Naturland

Audit System

Performed by Naturland.

Internet Site

http://www.hofpfisterei.de/

Country of Origin

Germany

Management Structure

Primary producers cooperative.

Main quality aspect addressed

Products from Rhön, protection of biodiversity,

Quality Criteria

Products from Kaltensundheim farm company in Thuringen and seven small farms from Hesse, ISO 14000 certification.

Audit System

No third party other than the requirements of ISO certification.

Country of Origin

Germany

Management Structure

Schwäbisch Hällisches Schwein (Pork from Schwäbisch Hall Cooperative)

Main quality aspect addressed

Protection of traditional local breeds, the rights of small farmers. 121

Burcu Tunçer, IIIEE, Lund University

Quality Initiative

L’Etivaz

Hohenloher Höfe

Natürlich Aargau

Nautilus

Pays d’EnHaut

122

Component

Description

Quality Criteria

Self-developed production criteria such as forbiddance of the use of antibiotics and hormones, restrictions on animal density being two animal units or less per hectare. The slaughterhouses are subject to EU standards.

Audit System

Independent monitoring.

Internet Site

http://www. schweine-zucht.de/bes/index.htm

Country of Origin

Switzerland

Management Structure

Cooperative of farmers.

Main quality aspect addressed

Traditional product.

Quality Criteria

A strict code of production specifying every stage of production from the grazing of cows to the size of the final product. The production also refers to the PDO label requirements.

Audit System

State inspectors.

Country of Origin

Germany

Management Structure

Farmers’ cooperative.

Main quality aspect addressed

Environmental friendliness and local production.

Quality Criteria

Integrated production principles.

Audit System

-

Country of Origin

Switzerland

Management Structure

Private ownership.

Main quality aspect addressed

Regional food, environmental friendliness by sustaining the quality of agricultural land through integrated production or organic production.

Quality Criteria

Integrated production standards of the Swiss government are accepted as the core criteria and organic production standards are also considered to be valid.

Audit System

-

Internet Site

http://www.ruebli.ch/home.htm

Country of Origin

The Netherlands

Management Structure

Organic farmers cooperative

Main quality aspect addressed

Food from Flevoland region, environmental friendliness through organic production.

Quality Criteria

Organic production regulation.

Audit System

State control.

Internet Site

http://www.nautilusorganic.nl/

Country of Origin

Switzerland

Management Structure

Association.

Main quality aspect addressed

Product from the Pays d’En-Haut region i.e. the Swiss Alp mountains, traditional production, environmental friendliness, culture preservation and enhancement of the local economy.

Quality Criteria

The whole food production chain should be in the boundaries of the region. Also integrated production is required to be followed but not emphasized as much as region of production.

Audit System

The association performs the inspection.

An Analysis of the European Food Quality Initiatives

Quality Initiative

Component

Description

Somerset Levels and Moors

Country of Origin

The UK

Management Structure

Farmers association.

Main quality aspect addressed

Environmental friendliness, preservation of biodiversity, decrease in the transportation distances.

Tagwerk Bavaria

Tastes of Anglia

Waterland

Quality Criteria

Self-developed organic farming criteria.

Audit System

-

Internet Site

http://www.somersetorganics.co.uk/

Country of Origin

Germany

Management Structure

Eco-regional cooperative of farmers, consumers, bakers and butchers.

Main quality aspect addressed

Protection of ecology and landscape, decreased distance transportation.

Quality Criteria

Organic production.

Audit System

-

Country of Origin

The UK

Management Structure

NGO

Main quality aspect addressed

Local taste.

Quality Criteria

Production of food in the East Anglia region.

Audit System

-

Internet Site

http://www.tastesofanglia.com/

Country of Origin

The Netherlands

Management Structure

Farmers association.

Main quality aspect addressed

Food from Waterland, preservation of biodiversity.

Quality Criteria

Criteria for the conservation of the landscape and bird habitats were developed by the farmers themselves.

Audit System

-

Internet Site

http://www.waterland.net/

4.6. Benchmarking Initiatives (6 in total) Agri-Chain Competence (ACC) Programme

Food and Drinks Industry Benchmarki ng and SelfAssessment Initiative

Country of Origin

The Netherlands

Management Structure

Dutch Ministries of Agriculture and Economic Affairs in consultation with the food industries

Performance Assessment System

“Learning from other chains” project is aimed at a mutual understanding of the functioning of international food supply chains. The food supply chains in France, the UK, Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands are studied

Country of Origin

The UK

Management Structure

Leatherhead Food Research Association with the support of the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF)

Performance Assessment System

“Business Excellence Through Benchmarking” Model and interactive benchmarking events for fruit and vegetables, dairy products and cereal products covering farm suppliers, farmers, food processors and a retailer.

Audit System

Self-assessment programme and workshops

123

Burcu Tunçer, IIIEE, Lund University

Quality Initiative Food and Drink Training Organizatio n (FDNTO)

UK Benchmarki ng Index

IGD ECR Scorecard

LANTRA Skill Check

124

Component

Description

Internet Site

http:// www.lfra.co.uk/

Country of Origin

The UK

Management Structure

Association.

Performance Assessment System

The British companies are benchmarked against their competitors in France, Germany, Denmark, USA and Japan in the areas of production performance, training delivery and skills levels. This project was funded by the DTI and MAFF.

Audit System

-

Internet Site

http://www.foodanddrinknto.org.uk/

Country of Origin

The UK

Management Structure

Department of Trade and Industry

Performance Assessment System

Especially developed for SMESs, the company completes an assessment covering Financial, Management and Business Excellence measures, which is then compared against the UK Benchmarking Index central database. Company performance can be compared locally, nationally.

Audit System

-

Internet Site

http://www.dti.gov.uk/support/ukbi.htm

Country of Origin

The UK

Management Structure

Partnership among the actors of the food supply chains.

Performance Assessment System

The organization simply gathers the tools for best practice applications.

Audit System

Varies.

Internet Site

http://www.igd.com/homepage.asp

Country of Origin

The UK

Management Structure

Trust organization.

Performance Assessment System

Benchmarking the performance of farmers in the UK and training as required.

Audit System

-

Internet Site

http://www.lantra.co.uk/nto/nto/Action_Plan_for_Farming/a ction_plan_farming.htm

Suggest Documents