Description
The objective of this paper is to assess food systems performance in Mediterranean countries to deliver safe food (fresh produce), and to demonstrate the capacity to the satisfaction of private customers and public regulators. To that end, an international benchmarking exercise was developed to assess the quality performance gap in food standards across countries and food systems.
Benchmarking International Food Safety Performance in the Fresh
Produce Sector
Marian Garcia, Nigel Poole, Julian Briz, Isabel de Felipe, Ismet Yalcin, Ali Koc,
and Driss Messaho
Centre for Food Chain Research, Department of Agricultural Sciences, Imperial College
London, Wye, Ashford Kent
Department of Agricultural Economics and Social Sciences, ETSI Agronomos,
Polytechnic University, Madrid, Spain
Agricultural Economics Research Institute (AERI), Ankara, Turkey
Department of Food Science and Technology, Institute Agronomique et Veterinaire
Hassan II, Rabat, Morocco
Paper prepared for presentation at the 84
th
EAAE Seminar
‘Food Safety in a Dynamic World’
Zeist, The Netherlands, February 8 - 11, 2004
Copyright 2004 by [Marian Garcia, Nigel Poole, Julian Briz, Isabel de Felipe, Ismet
Yalcin, Ali Koc, and Driss Messaho]. All rights reserved. Readers may make verbatim
copies of this document for non-commercial purposes by any means, provided that this
copyright notice appears on all such copies.
BENCHMARKING INTERNATIONAL FOOD SAFETY
PERFORMANCE IN THE FRESH PRODUCE SECTOR
Marian García1, Nigel Poole1, Julian Briz2, Isabel de Felipe2, Ismet Yalcin3, Ali Koc3, and Driss
Messaho4
1 Centre for Food Chain Research, Department of Agricultural Sciences, Imperial College London,
Wye, Ashford, Kent, TN25 5AH, UK.
2 Department of Agricultural Economics and Social Sciences, ETSI Agronomos, Polytechnic
University, Madrid, Spain
3 Agricultural Economics Research Institute (AERI), Ankara, Turkey
4 Department of Food Science and Technology, Institute Agronomique et Veterinaire Hassan II,
Rabat, Morocco.
Abstract
The objective of this paper is to assess food systems performance in Mediterranean countries
to deliver safe food (fresh produce), and to demonstrate the capacity to the satisfaction of private
customers and public regulators. To that end, an international benchmarking exercise was developed
to assess the quality performance gap in food standards across countries and food systems. The study
was carried out in three Mediterranean countries: Spain, Morocco and Turkey and involved an audit of
the citrus and tomatoes supply chains, and a comparison with existing ‘best practice’ in infrastructure
and management practices at both firm and industry level. The aim was to identify the gaps between
fresh produce exporters and a best practice company. To that end, the Spanish fresh produce supply
chain was used as the benchmark since in many areas it is more advanced than elsewhere.
Keywords: benchmarking, performance, quality and safety, fresh produce, Mediterranean countries.
1. Introduction
Market performance has many dimensions, and in industry studies is usually understood, inter
alia, to be profitability, equity, and efficiency. While these performance dimensions are not irrelevant
here, the principal market performance characteristic within this paper is quality: ‘products and
services that satisfy customers’ implicit and explicit needs’. Food safety is one aspect of quality.
Research into food safety and traceability is motivated by concerns about the level of performance of
the food system in delivering to consumers safe and healthy products which meet consumers’
demands. This paper concerns assessing performance in the sense of the capacity of the food industry
to deliver safe fresh fruits and vegetables (fresh produce) to consumers.
Firm and industry performance with respect to food safety and quality standards will be
strongly influenced by the structural characteristics of food chains, the strategies of individual firms,
and the level of coordination within the food system. Thus, the food chain does not just concern the
supply of products but is a series of interconnected flows of goods, services, incentives and
information between the different participants in the market chain (Poole et al., 2002). Within this
model it is the information feedback effects that tend to make the chain more responsive and efficient.
As feedback between firms and individuals occurs, individual decisions to produce, sell, and buy
become better coordinated. The focus of the methodology presented in this paper has much to do with
information exchange throughout the supply chain concerning quality standards and compliance. In
highly coordinated food markets, it is the creation of information and responsiveness to information
that results in the food system delivering to consumers the products that satisfy their preferences.
The capacity of a food system to deliver safe food – and to demonstrate the capacity to the
satisfaction of private customers and public regulators – will be strongly influenced by the
1
organisation of the supply chain: that is, the structure of the food chain and the strategies of individual
firms. The number, size and functions of firms within the food chain, access to market and the
competitiveness of the system are structural features. The way firms interrelate and their individual
strategies make up the conduct of the system. Policy effects are food safety and traceability laws,
national and international standards and regulation. Both the organisation of the market and the
effectiveness of the policy or regulatory framework are influenced by the level of economic
development, and levels of technology and management in the supply chain, the level of effective
consumer demand for quality, safety, and traceability.
Improved market coordination is most likely to be one of the tools to improve market
performance in respect of food safety and traceability. That is, the organisation and coordination of the
system depends on the way individual firms relate, the extent to which they share information, the
degree to which they attempt to coordinate supplies, and so on.
The increasing demands for food safety and quality in developed countries are resulting not
only in stringent policies at national and supranational (EU) level. More significantly, they are
eliciting a response at the private level with the development of an important number of third-party
certified quality assurance schemes (Garcia Martinez et al., 2002). Food chains must be transparent
and ‘traceable’ as consumers expect to be able to trace each food item back to its earliest production
stage. As a result, changes in market structure and firm strategy are occurring right down to the
production level in order that supply chains deliver safe food. However, concerns have risen regarding
its impact on developing countries, such as the ones covered by this paper, where supply chain
processes and procedures cannot be upgraded very quickly. Hence, there is the danger that rising food
safety standards will continue to be a major impediment to trade for developing countries in the
foreseeable future (Garcia Martinez and Poole, 2003).
This paper presents a benchmarking methodology for assessing the quality performance gap in
food standards across countries and food systems, and reports research undertaken to demonstrate the
level of performance to the satisfaction of private customers and public regulators. The study was
conducted in three Mediterranean countries: Spain, Morocco and Turkey. The research involved an
audit of the citrus and tomatoes supply chains, and a comparison with existing ‘best practice’ in
infrastructure and management practices at both firm and industry level. The aim was to identify the
gaps between fresh produce exporters and a best practice company. The Spanish fresh produce supply
chain was selected as the benchmark since in many areas it is more advanced than elsewhere. The
results of the study enabled identification of areas for further improvement regarding management
practices and control mechanisms for food safety and quality by learning from the best practices and
processes by which they are achieved.
2. Methodological Framework
Benchmarking is the process by which companies look at ‘best practice’ in the industry and
try to imitate such strategies and procedures. Benchmarking enables identification of the gap between
current and optimal, or ‘best practice’ performance levels. The benchmarking process is, therefore,
valuable to companies in opening up many different ideas about processes, approaches, and concerns
(Allan, 1997).
Benchmarking has an internal dimension whereby an organisation critically examines itself in
search of best practice, as well as an external dimension whereby the organisation analyses its industry
and other domains in an attempt to identify external and competitive practices, which may be
implemented in its operating environment (Yasin, 2002). Given its external focus, the methodology
will help fresh produce exporters to identify gaps in performance regarding food safety and quality
controls and production and handling systems, and to develop appropriate strategies for closing them.
2.1. Identification of Benchmark Measures
The study reported here focused on dimensions of performance, which aimed to represent a
firm’s capabilities to meet current demands for food safety and quality by international customers.
These were developed in three ways. In the first place, a priori knowledge of the food systems
suggested important dimensions. Secondly, researchers undertook a review of relevant literature and
2
electronic information such as EUREPGAP (EUREP, 2001) and Güngor and Güngor (2000). Thirdly,
discussions were held with industry experts to identify the key dimensions for performance as viewed
from within firms.
The critical dimensions were:
• Dimension 1: Supply chain management practices: degree of specialisation, degree of vertical
integration and co-ordination, information sharing, quality orientation, supplier and customer
base;
• Dimension 2: Operational infrastructure: processing and packing, storage and transport;
• Dimension 3: Safety and quality controls in the export process.
For dimensions 1 and 2, key performance measures (KPIs) were developed in terms of
practices, which describe internal and external business behaviour, and which tend to lead to the
creation of a performance gap. The areas of analysis and KPIs are shown in Table 1. Each KPI was
explored using questions, which made up a questionnaire for use as a discussion guide during firm
visits and interviews with fresh produce exporters.
Dimension 3 concerned the specific safety controls carried out by firms at each stage of the
export process. To explore this, a scheme of control points was developed, based on a HACCP control
system for the citrus and tomato supply chains. Each firm was asked to indicate in which areas of the
supply chain they were responsible for safety and quality controls, and which controls they carried out.
2.2. Scoring System
The complexity of benchmarking performance dimensions tends to raise difficulties in
assigning quantitative measures to the selected indicators. For Dimensions 1 and 2, a qualitative
approach was used to compute each KPI and as in other studies (e.g. Food and Drink National
Training Organisation, 2001) data were then recoded into three levels, as follows:
Level 1: Firm shows little or no capacity in achieving ‘best practice’;
Level 2: Firm shows some capacity in achieving ‘best practice’;
Level 3: Firm shows ‘best practice’ in this area (e.g. consistent performance, clear and
demonstrable systems in place, certification).
The different elements within the framework characterised each level, indicating the firm’s
policies and practices in this aspect, rather than specifying certain criteria. This method has the
advantage of permitting identification of areas in which firms have room for improvement (Gilmour,
1999). For Dimension 3, firms indicated in the questionnaire whether they carried out a particular
control measure and if they carried out additional control measures at each stage.
2.3. Data Collection
Fresh produce (citrus and tomato) exporters were identified and contacted in Morocco, Turkey and
Spain. Firms were approached on the basis of their supplying citrus or tomatoes to a range of
customers. A total of four firms were visited in Morocco (four citrus exporters); seven firms in Turkey
(five citrus exporters and two tomato exporters); and five firms in Spain (two citrus exporters and
three tomato exporters) between February and May 2002. Interviews with exporting firms used a
discussion guide in the form of a questionnaire, and discussions were recorded. The questionnaire
ensured a systematic structure to the discussions and that target areas were covered to the same depth
in each country and sector in a consistent way. Throughout these interviews, it was important to enable
and facilitate discussion of the issues rather than merely finding numerical performance data.
3
Table 1. Key Performance Indicators
Areas of Analysis KPIs for comparison in benchmarking framework
DIMENSION 1. Supply Chain Management Practices
1.1.1 Exporter-producer Information Sharing (Directness of the relationship in communication of requirements,
specifications and regulations)
1.1.2 Market orientation (Varieties supplied and ability of exporter to predict customer requirements)
1.1.3. Production flexibility (Abilities of the exporter to meet changing customer requirements)
1.1.4. Customer orientation (Visits from customers to advise and check on safety and quality practices through the
production and export system)
1.1.5.Vertical integration (Involvement of exporter in upstream or downstream processes in the supply chain)
1.1.6. Vertical coordination (Degree of co-ordination of between operations in the supply chain)
1.1.7. Traceability systems (Existence of documented traceability systems)
1.1.8. Segregation (Segregation of product from different suppliers within the packing house)
1.1. Coordination of the
Supply Chain
1.1.9. IT systems (Investment in IT systems and their use throughout the system for accountability and product tracing)
1.2.1 Quality certification (Level of certification obtained by the firm, e.g. ISO, HACCP)
1.2.2 Quality control staff (Number of staff, staff availability and training level)
1.2.3 Worker knowledge (Producer and exporter worker knowledge of Quality Control)
1.2.4 Training (Packhouse worker training level)
1.2.5 Social responsibility (Exporter policies for worker health, safety and welfare)
1.2.6 Environmental management (Exporter environmental management policies and practices)
1.2. Safety and Quality
Orientation of the supply
chain
1.4.7 Safety and quality requirements (Safety and quality specifications as part of exporter-customer contracts/agreements)
4
DIMENSION 2. Exporter Operational Infrastructure
2.1.1. P&P technology (technology used in P&P operations)
2.1.2 P&P quality (Quality of P&P materials and operations. Flexibility to meet customer requirements)
2.1.Processing and packaging
(P&P)
2.1.3 Labelling flexibility (Flexibility in meeting customer labelling requirements)
2.2.1 Storage capacity (Firm’s storage capacity)
2.2.2 Storage quality (Firm’s storage quality and timing)
2.2 Storage and Transport
2.2.3 Transport quality (Availability of transport of required quality and encountering of problems en route to customer)
5
3. Results of the Benchmarking Exercise
The results from the benchmarking exercise are presented below. As noted, the practices of
the Spanish exporters were taken as ‘current best practice’ with which to compare the practices of
Moroccan and Turkish fresh produce exporters. These are the practices which have often but not
always been assigned to a ‘level 3’ in the benchmarking analysis. It must be acknowledged that there
are areas in which further development and improvements are possible in Spanish ‘current best
practice’, as viewed by customers and in the context of best practice in other industries, and that the
comparisons made should be considered to be relative and not absolute.
Moreover, because the study involved only a small number of firms, the results and
conclusions should not be extrapolated to the industry as a whole. Results must also be interpreted in
the light of the current public regulatory system that exists in each country and the level of customer
demand for safety and quality properties, which prevails in destination countries.
3.1. Dimension 1: Supply Chain Management Practices
Coordination of the Supply Chain
Exporter-producer information sharing: Exporters in Turkey (score 1.43) are less likely to
have systems in place for providing producers with information (i.e., market intelligence, crop
protection regulation, quality standards, etc.) that those in Morocco (score 2.75). Generally the Turkish
firms have a much looser supplier-customer relationship due largely to high level of fragmentation of
production in Turkey and also problems caused by growers being long distances away from
packinghouses. In Morocco, some degree of vertical integration and contacts with Government
agencies facilitate communication greatly. In Spain (score 3.0), the functioning of the extensive
cooperative system of marketing depends on intense producer-exporter communication. Within such
organisations are to be found technicians whose responsibility it is to communicate particular
requirements and regulations according to specific systems.
Market orientation: Moroccan exporters (score 2.00) rely heavily on the EACCE
(Etablissment Autonome de Controle et de Coordination des Exportations) for services of export
inspection and control. EACCE also provide information from market research and advice on market
trends, customer demands, and new opportunities. All the Moroccan firms supply a mix of old and
new varieties. For the tomato exporter, seed companies play a role in choosing the varieties to be
grown, and this can change every year depending on market requirements. Market orientation was not
a priority for Turkish firms (score 2.14), and there was little incentive to investigate new varieties or
seek alternatives. Turkish exporters considered that they were assured of a market for their produce, if
not in the EU then in central and Eastern Europe, or ultimately in the domestic market. Knowledge of
new varieties is communicated between growers generally by word of mouth. Some producers
maintain old varieties, which are popular in the domestic market, and this can be a problem for
exporters (i.e., Washington, an old variety is widely grown). In tomatoes, local intermediaries who
supply credit to producers decide on seed varieties. The Spanish fresh produce export sector presents a
high degree of market orientation by monitoring closely demand trends in the European market (score
2.80). Firms are generally very well organised in terms of market research and customer requirements,
having their own marketing departments or accessing this information through marketing
cooperatives. Exporters also have good horizontal relationships with other firms and organisations that
enable them to work together. Clients also supply information about the domestic and export market
requirements.
Production flexibility: There is limited flexibility, in terms of changing varieties supplied, in
both Morocco (score 2.00) and Turkey (score 2.00). Spanish firms (score 2.60) tend to have more
proactive involvement in changing production to meet customer requirements due to better
communication infrastructure to monitor and forecast consumer trends. The importance of related and
supporting industries, particularly research institutes, in production areas facilitates the development
and introduction of new varieties in Spain.
6
Customer orientation: Visits to exporters by customers take place regularly every season, the
regularity and frequency depending on the customer. Customers have less direct involvement in
Turkey (score 2.33).
Vertical integration: In Spain (score 3.00), and to a lesser extent Morocco (2.00), there is a
high degree of vertical integration in terms of production, processing and export. All firms are
involved in these stages. No firms are involved directly in import or retail in destination countries. In
Turkey (score 1.29), firms show less direct involvement in production.
Vertical co-ordination: The structure of Moroccan (score 2.43) exporting and the tight
schedule fixed by EU for exportation require a high level of co-ordination. Harvesting, processing and
export transit are among the operations that are well co-ordinated. In Turkey (score 2.25), generally
there is some coordination of operations though not with a high level of control (i.e., no tracking of
product through system using IT systems or operations are controlled by one person). Spanish (score
3.00) operations are generally highly co-ordinated in large and modern packhouses, with full
knowledge of the timing involved, and time in storage and transport minimised (i.e., one large tomato
exporter has a high level of coordination in the warehouse, with sale and dispatch on the same day).
Traceability systems: There is full traceability in Morocco (score 3.00) and Spain (score
3.00). Any box sold in the northern European market carries codes and references that allow tracing of
the product to the farm of origin and identification of treatments used at the packhouse. In Turkey
(score 1.57), most of the exporters have no traceability guarantees, and customers do not require
traceability.
Segregation: The level of segregation is dependent on traceability (i.e., full traceability
requires full segregation). For Turkish firms (score 1.43) there may be partial traceability but without
segregation of produce at all stages of processing.
IT system: There is more limited investment in IT systems in Turkey (score 1.57) than the
other countries. IT is an expanding area for Moroccan exporters (score 2.25). IT use by the Spanish
exporters (score 2.67) is generally high; with at least production records being kept in database. Most
firms computerised systems for product tracking, traceability, producer information, pricing and
accountability.
Safety and Quality Orientation of the Supply Chain
Quality certification: Clearly varying levels of certification are seen in each country, with no
certification in the Turkish firms (score 1.00), although it was mentioned as being a future plan. Some
Spanish firms (score 2.20) have certification greater than ISO 9000.
QC staff: Specialist, well-trained quality control staff are the norm in Morocco (score 3.00)
and Spain (score 3.00) and less likely in Turkey (score 1.50) where this duty often falls to a general
manager. In Turkey, there were problems cited such as quality control staff "acting as they wish".
Worker knowledge: There are less formal systems in Turkey (score 2.17) and Morocco
(2.25) than in Spain (score 3.00) to ensure that workers are informed about safety and quality
requirements. Spanish producers and workers are regularly informed and the level of coordination of
quality and safety control throughout the supply system is high.
Training: Training is more informal in Turkey (score 2.00) and in Morocco (score 2.25) and
may rely more on demonstration and explanation (most of the workers are illiterate). Records of
training may not be kept for each worker. Some firms stated that workers change from season to
season and therefore training could be difficult and costly. A certain level of worker training is
specified as part of the ISO 9002 certification, so that Spanish (score 3.00) workers undergo regular
training and a manual of training is kept for each worker. Under Spanish AENOR regulations each
worker must have a food manipulation license and is then trained specifically for their type of work
(i.e., packing line selection, machinery operation).
Social responsibility: The level of social responsibility generally was said to be high, though
in Turkey (score 2.14) may not be to internationally recognised standards (i.e., in some firms, workers
can work very long hours without breaks at particular times of the season). In the Moroccan firms
interviewed, all the non-seasonal workers are insured and regulations adhered to, with access to
medical care and provision for the workers welfare (score 3.00). In Spain (score 3.00), again, as part of
ISO requirements, worker health, safety and welfare levels are consistent with international
7
regulations (e.g. in one citrus exporting firm, workers handling chemicals receive health checks every
four months).
Environmental management: Environmental standards were present only in those firms with
customer demands in this area (i.e., as a result of audits or specific certification: EUREPGAP,
AENOR). They were not a consideration for most firms in Turkey (score 1.14) or Morocco (score
1.50).
Safety and quality requirements: Turkish exporters (score 1.57) place more emphasis on
personal contacts and good relationships with customers than on contracts with formal specifications,
whereas written agreements are used by all Moroccan exporters (score 3.00). For Spanish exporters
(score 2.40), there can be different buying arrangements (i.e., auctions which do not use buying
contracts).
3.2. Dimension 2: Export Operational Infrastructure
Processing and Packing technology: All of the citrus exporters in Turkey (score 1.86) and
Morocco (score 2.25) have automatic sorting and grading lines, varying in the age of equipment and
levels of technology used. There is generally a high degree of manual input in the processing and
packing line, with a high emphasis placed on worker skill and judgement. For the Turkish tomato
exporters, grading and packing of the product is entirely manual. In Spain, there is a high level of
technology and automation in all processing and packing operations. All exporters have stages in the
selection process that are manual, the most reliable method of fruit selection especially in the later
stages of the process. For citrus exporters, there is a high level of harvested produce (15-20%) that
does not make the grade and is rejected through selection, grading and processing operations.
Processing and Packing quality Packing quality depends on the customer requirements and
their satisfaction with the current standard provided. No firms had any problems in meeting their
customer requirements (all countries scored 3.00).
Labelling flexibility: Labelling is carried out by hand in a few of the Turkish firms (score
2.33), so as long as the customers requirements can be met by this method there are no problems.
There also may be requirements in traceability labelling which not all Turkish firms are able to meet.
Spain and Morocco again had not problems meeting customer requirements in this respect (score
3.00).
Storage capacity: There is limited storage capacity owned by the Turkish firms (score 1.83) –
they are more reliant on storage hired at the ports than in Spain (score 3.00) and Morocco (score 3.00).
Where storage is used in Morocco and Spain (infrequently, due to the fast processing time) it is of
high capacity.
Storage quality: For the Turkish firms (score 2.17) for which storage capacity is inadequate
there can be problems in finding alternative storage with the required temperature or atmospheric
controls. In Spain (score 3.00) and Morocco (score 3.00) this is not a problem.
Transport quality: Some problems are experienced in finding transport of the required
quality in order to transport from Morocco (score 2.75) and Turkey (score 1.71) to the European
market. There can be disruption of transport routes and delays, which affect the quality of the produce.
Spanish transport facilities were optimum (score 3.00).
3.3. Dimension 3: Quality and Safety Controls carried out by exporters
Analysing Dimension 3 involved assessing the specific safety and controls carried out by
firms at each stage of the export process. As indicated earlier, to measure dimension 3 a scheme of
control of critical points was developed, based on a HACCP system for the citrus and tomato supply
chains. Each firm was asked to indicate in which areas of the supply chain they were responsible for
safety and quality controls, and which controls they carried out. This understanding of the use of
controls in each firm allowed comparisons between firms.
Spain: There is generally full crop protection knowledge by the exporters. For instance, for
one of the citrus exporters, every month the producers supply to exporters information about all the
agrochemical treatments undertaken, which is then entered into a central database. For one of the
tomato exporters, field technicians keep full records of each cropping unit, which are held on a
8
computer database. In the cooperative system, technical and regulatory advice is supplied by the
cooperative. Full hygiene risk assessments are carried out and hygiene protocols established.
Technicians advise on harvest techniques. Exporter packhouses use internal control systems to
monitor the hygiene of products, based on HACCP.
Morocco: Most producers working for exportation are well advised technically and are fully
aware of requirements. They are knowledgeable on production and pesticide treatment practices. The
producers themselves are responsible for managing the harvest and there is little concern over
practices during harvest. However, most workers are recruited on a seasonal basis and are not trained
sufficiently in hygiene requirements. This concern can be significant for the groups who choose to
become HACCP certified.
Turkey: The levels of quality and safety controls emplaced in Turkey were variable. In
general, there is limited use of agrochemical treatments for crop protection: production systems are
‘low input’, due to cost constraints. Three exporters have some knowledge of producer practices,
though do not maintain documented systems. Two exporters have no knowledge of producer practices
(‘You cannot know what he has used or done’). The largest citrus exporter is fully aware of producer
practices and reviews take place. For two exporters, it is left up to the producer to carry out the harvest
and there is no concern over particular practices during harvest. Other exporters demonstrated some
awareness of harvest hygiene requirements and for the largest exporter a hygiene risk assessment has
been carried out for harvest operations and a hygiene protocol established for harvest workers. One
firm (firm 3) specifically mentioned that a further stage in the packhouse procedure is drenching of the
inloaded fruit with disinfectant. They also said that the government determines the harvest time by the
product type and they obey the calendar given to them in terms of harvesting. Calibration of
thermometers is not carried out – they have three thermometers in the storage facilities, which must be
in agreement.
4. Conclusions and Recommendations
Evaluation of the differences in practices among firms and between countries highlighted
above may assist firms, particularly in Mediterranean countries, in adapting and responding to
increasing quality and safety requirements by international customers in the valuable northern
European market – and elsewhere. The situation of each firm within the country’s physical and
institutional infrastructure and the varying importance and reliance upon private and public controls
are important considerations. Practices to manage safety and quality may not be as feasible in one
country as in another as there could be large variations in resource availability and degree of
modernisation and market-orientation of agri-food systems.
Findings from such benchmarking analyses should enable development of an industry Action
Plan by identifying areas for improving safety and quality provision and suggesting the most effective
strategies at firm level in each country. The stakeholders in improving food safety and quality
assurance mechanisms are connected by, on the one hand, flows of goods and services, and on the
other by incentives created by commercial imperatives and the institutional infrastructure of policies,
law, regulation and information. Mapping the food chain stakeholders is an important exercise for
improving industry-wide standards, even if the scope for individual firms actions’ is restricted to the
product supply chain.
The kind of actions necessary to improve industry performance can be tabulated and
prioritised alongside the responsibilities of the different stakeholders in the fresh produce export
supply chain: public sector (central or/and regional) and private sector (firm level and/or industry-
wide). In conclusion, this final section presents a series of actionable strategies aimed to address some
of the weaknesses identified for each dimension in this benchmarking exercise.
4.1. Dimension 1: Supply Chain Management Practices
Coordination of the Supply Chain
In the future, it is expected that vertical co-ordination of supply chain relationships will
increase further, driven by demand for greater safety and quality assurance (Fearne and Hughes,
9
1999). Therefore, initiatives should be developed at firm level among competing exporters to increase
the level of coordination among actors in the supply chain.
To increase the level of coordination in the fresh produce supply in Mediterranean countries
there is a need to support and encourage horizontal cooperation among producers. Hence, initiatives at
government level should be developed to encourage and support horizontal cooperation among fruit
and vegetable producers. Initiatives on horizontal integration of small-scale producers into second-tier
co-operative businesses may require third party support in terms of provision of concessional finance
and management skills. The likely welfare impacts of supply chain rationalisation also suggest that the
public sector needs to be involved so that social objectives such as employment and income levels are
taken into account.
Key to demonstrable safety in the fresh produce supply chain is traceability. The
fragmentation of supply chains indicated above makes it very difficult for Mediterranean fresh
produce exporters to establish traceability systems or achieve partial segregation. Nevertheless,
increasing demands by international customers for ‘farm to table’ process controls to manage both
quality and safety require Mediterranean fresh produce exporters to adopt these management practices
and to coordinate safety and quality more closely with importers.
Safety and Quality Orientation of the Supply Chain
The implementation of effective and demonstrable quality control systems (i.e., HACCP-
based or alternative food safety risk management systems) is recommended as the most-effective
means of reducing food safety hazards.
Product quality control systems and product traceability both require investment in human
capital. Subsequently, investment is required in physical capital including QC infrastructure and
business information/ICT systems, both within the individual firm and with other firms in the supply
chain or network. Thereby, initiatives should be developed at government level aimed to support firm-
level investments, which are prerequisites to implement effective and demonstrable quality control
systems. Preferential financing arrangements or tax-credits for IT- and QC-related investment in
physical infrastructure could be one such mechanism. In a wider context, the possibility of developing
food safety and quality networks, local benchmarking activities, vocational training and trade fairs
involving SMEs would be an important mechanism for building human capital within the industry and
for achieving greater social (or small enterprise) inclusion in Mediterranean countries.
4.2. Dimension 2: Export Operational Infrastructure
Fresh produce undergoes many changes post-harvest, which lead to senescence and
deterioration. The quality of fresh produce is determined by pre-harvest factors (i.e., variety, maturity
stage and cultural practices) and post-harvest care during harvesting, handling, packing, transport,
storage and distribution. Each step must be controlled and verified in order to meet quality standards.
However, the technical and financial constraints in Mediterranean countries very often make the
required investments in export and marketing infrastructure impossible. Firms must make private
investments to stay in the market. Second, another feasible approach is to develop joint public/private
initiatives to improve export infrastructure. Once again, preferential financing arrangements or tax-
credits for firm-level infrastructure-related investment would be one such mechanism.
4.3. Dimension 3: Quality and Safety Controls
The number of HACCP-type controls carried out by exporters in each country reflects, to a
large extent, some of the same deficiencies highlighted above. The lack of vertical coordination in
Morocco and Turkey, particularly at producer-exporter level, results in looser controls of production
and pesticide treatment practices compared to the Spanish model.
Based on the evidence from this study, the long-term strategies for Mediterranean countries to
sustain and further develop an international demand for their products lies in building up the trust and
confidence between exporting firms and importers/retailers in the quality and safety of their produce.
Small-scale suppliers in these countries could enjoy a comparative advantage by supplying new and
innovative products.
10
11
References
Allan, S. (1997). Partners benchmarking. http:/www.benchmarking.co.uk/bmark.htm#partners.
EUREP (2001). Control Points and Compliance Criteria.http://www.eurep.org/sites/index_e.htm
Fearne, A. and Hughes, D. (1999). Success factors in the fresh produce supply chain: Insights from the
UK. International Journal of Supply Chain Management 3: 120-129.
Food and Drink National Training Organisation. (ed) (2001). Measuring Success: International
Benchmarking of the Food and Drink Manufacturing Industry. London: Food and Drink National
Training Organisation.
Garcia Martinez, M. and Poole, N. (2003). Developments in fresh produce quality and safety
management: implications for Mediterranean countries. Paper presented at the 82nd European
Seminar of the EAAE on Quality Assurance, Risk Management and Environmental Control in
Agriculture and Food Supply Networks. Bonn, Germany, May 14-16, 2003.
Garcia Martinez, M., Poole, N. and Mennesson, G. (2002). The Impact of European private and
quality standards on fresh produce exports from Mediterranean countries. Working Paper, EU INCO-
MED Research Project: The Impact of International Safety and Quality Standards on the
Competitiveness of Mediterranean Fresh Produce. Imperial College.
Gilmour, P. (1999). Benchmarking supply chain operations. International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management 29: 259-266.
Güngor, H. and Güngor, G. (2000). Managing the Quality Chain in Citrus Fruit Industry: A Case
Study in Çukurova Region of Turkey. Acta Horticulturae, 536(XIVth International Symposium on
Horticultural Economics).
Poole, N., Marshall, F. and Bhupal, D. S. (2002). Air pollution effects and initiatives to improve food
quality assurance in India. Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture 41: 363-386.
Yasin, M. M. (2002). The theory and practice of benchmarking: then and now. Benchmarking: An
International Journal 9: 217-243.
doc_149585715.pdf
The objective of this paper is to assess food systems performance in Mediterranean countries to deliver safe food (fresh produce), and to demonstrate the capacity to the satisfaction of private customers and public regulators. To that end, an international benchmarking exercise was developed to assess the quality performance gap in food standards across countries and food systems.
Benchmarking International Food Safety Performance in the Fresh
Produce Sector
Marian Garcia, Nigel Poole, Julian Briz, Isabel de Felipe, Ismet Yalcin, Ali Koc,
and Driss Messaho
Centre for Food Chain Research, Department of Agricultural Sciences, Imperial College
London, Wye, Ashford Kent
Department of Agricultural Economics and Social Sciences, ETSI Agronomos,
Polytechnic University, Madrid, Spain
Agricultural Economics Research Institute (AERI), Ankara, Turkey
Department of Food Science and Technology, Institute Agronomique et Veterinaire
Hassan II, Rabat, Morocco
Paper prepared for presentation at the 84
th
EAAE Seminar
‘Food Safety in a Dynamic World’
Zeist, The Netherlands, February 8 - 11, 2004
Copyright 2004 by [Marian Garcia, Nigel Poole, Julian Briz, Isabel de Felipe, Ismet
Yalcin, Ali Koc, and Driss Messaho]. All rights reserved. Readers may make verbatim
copies of this document for non-commercial purposes by any means, provided that this
copyright notice appears on all such copies.
BENCHMARKING INTERNATIONAL FOOD SAFETY
PERFORMANCE IN THE FRESH PRODUCE SECTOR
Marian García1, Nigel Poole1, Julian Briz2, Isabel de Felipe2, Ismet Yalcin3, Ali Koc3, and Driss
Messaho4
1 Centre for Food Chain Research, Department of Agricultural Sciences, Imperial College London,
Wye, Ashford, Kent, TN25 5AH, UK.
2 Department of Agricultural Economics and Social Sciences, ETSI Agronomos, Polytechnic
University, Madrid, Spain
3 Agricultural Economics Research Institute (AERI), Ankara, Turkey
4 Department of Food Science and Technology, Institute Agronomique et Veterinaire Hassan II,
Rabat, Morocco.
Abstract
The objective of this paper is to assess food systems performance in Mediterranean countries
to deliver safe food (fresh produce), and to demonstrate the capacity to the satisfaction of private
customers and public regulators. To that end, an international benchmarking exercise was developed
to assess the quality performance gap in food standards across countries and food systems. The study
was carried out in three Mediterranean countries: Spain, Morocco and Turkey and involved an audit of
the citrus and tomatoes supply chains, and a comparison with existing ‘best practice’ in infrastructure
and management practices at both firm and industry level. The aim was to identify the gaps between
fresh produce exporters and a best practice company. To that end, the Spanish fresh produce supply
chain was used as the benchmark since in many areas it is more advanced than elsewhere.
Keywords: benchmarking, performance, quality and safety, fresh produce, Mediterranean countries.
1. Introduction
Market performance has many dimensions, and in industry studies is usually understood, inter
alia, to be profitability, equity, and efficiency. While these performance dimensions are not irrelevant
here, the principal market performance characteristic within this paper is quality: ‘products and
services that satisfy customers’ implicit and explicit needs’. Food safety is one aspect of quality.
Research into food safety and traceability is motivated by concerns about the level of performance of
the food system in delivering to consumers safe and healthy products which meet consumers’
demands. This paper concerns assessing performance in the sense of the capacity of the food industry
to deliver safe fresh fruits and vegetables (fresh produce) to consumers.
Firm and industry performance with respect to food safety and quality standards will be
strongly influenced by the structural characteristics of food chains, the strategies of individual firms,
and the level of coordination within the food system. Thus, the food chain does not just concern the
supply of products but is a series of interconnected flows of goods, services, incentives and
information between the different participants in the market chain (Poole et al., 2002). Within this
model it is the information feedback effects that tend to make the chain more responsive and efficient.
As feedback between firms and individuals occurs, individual decisions to produce, sell, and buy
become better coordinated. The focus of the methodology presented in this paper has much to do with
information exchange throughout the supply chain concerning quality standards and compliance. In
highly coordinated food markets, it is the creation of information and responsiveness to information
that results in the food system delivering to consumers the products that satisfy their preferences.
The capacity of a food system to deliver safe food – and to demonstrate the capacity to the
satisfaction of private customers and public regulators – will be strongly influenced by the
1
organisation of the supply chain: that is, the structure of the food chain and the strategies of individual
firms. The number, size and functions of firms within the food chain, access to market and the
competitiveness of the system are structural features. The way firms interrelate and their individual
strategies make up the conduct of the system. Policy effects are food safety and traceability laws,
national and international standards and regulation. Both the organisation of the market and the
effectiveness of the policy or regulatory framework are influenced by the level of economic
development, and levels of technology and management in the supply chain, the level of effective
consumer demand for quality, safety, and traceability.
Improved market coordination is most likely to be one of the tools to improve market
performance in respect of food safety and traceability. That is, the organisation and coordination of the
system depends on the way individual firms relate, the extent to which they share information, the
degree to which they attempt to coordinate supplies, and so on.
The increasing demands for food safety and quality in developed countries are resulting not
only in stringent policies at national and supranational (EU) level. More significantly, they are
eliciting a response at the private level with the development of an important number of third-party
certified quality assurance schemes (Garcia Martinez et al., 2002). Food chains must be transparent
and ‘traceable’ as consumers expect to be able to trace each food item back to its earliest production
stage. As a result, changes in market structure and firm strategy are occurring right down to the
production level in order that supply chains deliver safe food. However, concerns have risen regarding
its impact on developing countries, such as the ones covered by this paper, where supply chain
processes and procedures cannot be upgraded very quickly. Hence, there is the danger that rising food
safety standards will continue to be a major impediment to trade for developing countries in the
foreseeable future (Garcia Martinez and Poole, 2003).
This paper presents a benchmarking methodology for assessing the quality performance gap in
food standards across countries and food systems, and reports research undertaken to demonstrate the
level of performance to the satisfaction of private customers and public regulators. The study was
conducted in three Mediterranean countries: Spain, Morocco and Turkey. The research involved an
audit of the citrus and tomatoes supply chains, and a comparison with existing ‘best practice’ in
infrastructure and management practices at both firm and industry level. The aim was to identify the
gaps between fresh produce exporters and a best practice company. The Spanish fresh produce supply
chain was selected as the benchmark since in many areas it is more advanced than elsewhere. The
results of the study enabled identification of areas for further improvement regarding management
practices and control mechanisms for food safety and quality by learning from the best practices and
processes by which they are achieved.
2. Methodological Framework
Benchmarking is the process by which companies look at ‘best practice’ in the industry and
try to imitate such strategies and procedures. Benchmarking enables identification of the gap between
current and optimal, or ‘best practice’ performance levels. The benchmarking process is, therefore,
valuable to companies in opening up many different ideas about processes, approaches, and concerns
(Allan, 1997).
Benchmarking has an internal dimension whereby an organisation critically examines itself in
search of best practice, as well as an external dimension whereby the organisation analyses its industry
and other domains in an attempt to identify external and competitive practices, which may be
implemented in its operating environment (Yasin, 2002). Given its external focus, the methodology
will help fresh produce exporters to identify gaps in performance regarding food safety and quality
controls and production and handling systems, and to develop appropriate strategies for closing them.
2.1. Identification of Benchmark Measures
The study reported here focused on dimensions of performance, which aimed to represent a
firm’s capabilities to meet current demands for food safety and quality by international customers.
These were developed in three ways. In the first place, a priori knowledge of the food systems
suggested important dimensions. Secondly, researchers undertook a review of relevant literature and
2
electronic information such as EUREPGAP (EUREP, 2001) and Güngor and Güngor (2000). Thirdly,
discussions were held with industry experts to identify the key dimensions for performance as viewed
from within firms.
The critical dimensions were:
• Dimension 1: Supply chain management practices: degree of specialisation, degree of vertical
integration and co-ordination, information sharing, quality orientation, supplier and customer
base;
• Dimension 2: Operational infrastructure: processing and packing, storage and transport;
• Dimension 3: Safety and quality controls in the export process.
For dimensions 1 and 2, key performance measures (KPIs) were developed in terms of
practices, which describe internal and external business behaviour, and which tend to lead to the
creation of a performance gap. The areas of analysis and KPIs are shown in Table 1. Each KPI was
explored using questions, which made up a questionnaire for use as a discussion guide during firm
visits and interviews with fresh produce exporters.
Dimension 3 concerned the specific safety controls carried out by firms at each stage of the
export process. To explore this, a scheme of control points was developed, based on a HACCP control
system for the citrus and tomato supply chains. Each firm was asked to indicate in which areas of the
supply chain they were responsible for safety and quality controls, and which controls they carried out.
2.2. Scoring System
The complexity of benchmarking performance dimensions tends to raise difficulties in
assigning quantitative measures to the selected indicators. For Dimensions 1 and 2, a qualitative
approach was used to compute each KPI and as in other studies (e.g. Food and Drink National
Training Organisation, 2001) data were then recoded into three levels, as follows:
Level 1: Firm shows little or no capacity in achieving ‘best practice’;
Level 2: Firm shows some capacity in achieving ‘best practice’;
Level 3: Firm shows ‘best practice’ in this area (e.g. consistent performance, clear and
demonstrable systems in place, certification).
The different elements within the framework characterised each level, indicating the firm’s
policies and practices in this aspect, rather than specifying certain criteria. This method has the
advantage of permitting identification of areas in which firms have room for improvement (Gilmour,
1999). For Dimension 3, firms indicated in the questionnaire whether they carried out a particular
control measure and if they carried out additional control measures at each stage.
2.3. Data Collection
Fresh produce (citrus and tomato) exporters were identified and contacted in Morocco, Turkey and
Spain. Firms were approached on the basis of their supplying citrus or tomatoes to a range of
customers. A total of four firms were visited in Morocco (four citrus exporters); seven firms in Turkey
(five citrus exporters and two tomato exporters); and five firms in Spain (two citrus exporters and
three tomato exporters) between February and May 2002. Interviews with exporting firms used a
discussion guide in the form of a questionnaire, and discussions were recorded. The questionnaire
ensured a systematic structure to the discussions and that target areas were covered to the same depth
in each country and sector in a consistent way. Throughout these interviews, it was important to enable
and facilitate discussion of the issues rather than merely finding numerical performance data.
3
Table 1. Key Performance Indicators
Areas of Analysis KPIs for comparison in benchmarking framework
DIMENSION 1. Supply Chain Management Practices
1.1.1 Exporter-producer Information Sharing (Directness of the relationship in communication of requirements,
specifications and regulations)
1.1.2 Market orientation (Varieties supplied and ability of exporter to predict customer requirements)
1.1.3. Production flexibility (Abilities of the exporter to meet changing customer requirements)
1.1.4. Customer orientation (Visits from customers to advise and check on safety and quality practices through the
production and export system)
1.1.5.Vertical integration (Involvement of exporter in upstream or downstream processes in the supply chain)
1.1.6. Vertical coordination (Degree of co-ordination of between operations in the supply chain)
1.1.7. Traceability systems (Existence of documented traceability systems)
1.1.8. Segregation (Segregation of product from different suppliers within the packing house)
1.1. Coordination of the
Supply Chain
1.1.9. IT systems (Investment in IT systems and their use throughout the system for accountability and product tracing)
1.2.1 Quality certification (Level of certification obtained by the firm, e.g. ISO, HACCP)
1.2.2 Quality control staff (Number of staff, staff availability and training level)
1.2.3 Worker knowledge (Producer and exporter worker knowledge of Quality Control)
1.2.4 Training (Packhouse worker training level)
1.2.5 Social responsibility (Exporter policies for worker health, safety and welfare)
1.2.6 Environmental management (Exporter environmental management policies and practices)
1.2. Safety and Quality
Orientation of the supply
chain
1.4.7 Safety and quality requirements (Safety and quality specifications as part of exporter-customer contracts/agreements)
4
DIMENSION 2. Exporter Operational Infrastructure
2.1.1. P&P technology (technology used in P&P operations)
2.1.2 P&P quality (Quality of P&P materials and operations. Flexibility to meet customer requirements)
2.1.Processing and packaging
(P&P)
2.1.3 Labelling flexibility (Flexibility in meeting customer labelling requirements)
2.2.1 Storage capacity (Firm’s storage capacity)
2.2.2 Storage quality (Firm’s storage quality and timing)
2.2 Storage and Transport
2.2.3 Transport quality (Availability of transport of required quality and encountering of problems en route to customer)
5
3. Results of the Benchmarking Exercise
The results from the benchmarking exercise are presented below. As noted, the practices of
the Spanish exporters were taken as ‘current best practice’ with which to compare the practices of
Moroccan and Turkish fresh produce exporters. These are the practices which have often but not
always been assigned to a ‘level 3’ in the benchmarking analysis. It must be acknowledged that there
are areas in which further development and improvements are possible in Spanish ‘current best
practice’, as viewed by customers and in the context of best practice in other industries, and that the
comparisons made should be considered to be relative and not absolute.
Moreover, because the study involved only a small number of firms, the results and
conclusions should not be extrapolated to the industry as a whole. Results must also be interpreted in
the light of the current public regulatory system that exists in each country and the level of customer
demand for safety and quality properties, which prevails in destination countries.
3.1. Dimension 1: Supply Chain Management Practices
Coordination of the Supply Chain
Exporter-producer information sharing: Exporters in Turkey (score 1.43) are less likely to
have systems in place for providing producers with information (i.e., market intelligence, crop
protection regulation, quality standards, etc.) that those in Morocco (score 2.75). Generally the Turkish
firms have a much looser supplier-customer relationship due largely to high level of fragmentation of
production in Turkey and also problems caused by growers being long distances away from
packinghouses. In Morocco, some degree of vertical integration and contacts with Government
agencies facilitate communication greatly. In Spain (score 3.0), the functioning of the extensive
cooperative system of marketing depends on intense producer-exporter communication. Within such
organisations are to be found technicians whose responsibility it is to communicate particular
requirements and regulations according to specific systems.
Market orientation: Moroccan exporters (score 2.00) rely heavily on the EACCE
(Etablissment Autonome de Controle et de Coordination des Exportations) for services of export
inspection and control. EACCE also provide information from market research and advice on market
trends, customer demands, and new opportunities. All the Moroccan firms supply a mix of old and
new varieties. For the tomato exporter, seed companies play a role in choosing the varieties to be
grown, and this can change every year depending on market requirements. Market orientation was not
a priority for Turkish firms (score 2.14), and there was little incentive to investigate new varieties or
seek alternatives. Turkish exporters considered that they were assured of a market for their produce, if
not in the EU then in central and Eastern Europe, or ultimately in the domestic market. Knowledge of
new varieties is communicated between growers generally by word of mouth. Some producers
maintain old varieties, which are popular in the domestic market, and this can be a problem for
exporters (i.e., Washington, an old variety is widely grown). In tomatoes, local intermediaries who
supply credit to producers decide on seed varieties. The Spanish fresh produce export sector presents a
high degree of market orientation by monitoring closely demand trends in the European market (score
2.80). Firms are generally very well organised in terms of market research and customer requirements,
having their own marketing departments or accessing this information through marketing
cooperatives. Exporters also have good horizontal relationships with other firms and organisations that
enable them to work together. Clients also supply information about the domestic and export market
requirements.
Production flexibility: There is limited flexibility, in terms of changing varieties supplied, in
both Morocco (score 2.00) and Turkey (score 2.00). Spanish firms (score 2.60) tend to have more
proactive involvement in changing production to meet customer requirements due to better
communication infrastructure to monitor and forecast consumer trends. The importance of related and
supporting industries, particularly research institutes, in production areas facilitates the development
and introduction of new varieties in Spain.
6
Customer orientation: Visits to exporters by customers take place regularly every season, the
regularity and frequency depending on the customer. Customers have less direct involvement in
Turkey (score 2.33).
Vertical integration: In Spain (score 3.00), and to a lesser extent Morocco (2.00), there is a
high degree of vertical integration in terms of production, processing and export. All firms are
involved in these stages. No firms are involved directly in import or retail in destination countries. In
Turkey (score 1.29), firms show less direct involvement in production.
Vertical co-ordination: The structure of Moroccan (score 2.43) exporting and the tight
schedule fixed by EU for exportation require a high level of co-ordination. Harvesting, processing and
export transit are among the operations that are well co-ordinated. In Turkey (score 2.25), generally
there is some coordination of operations though not with a high level of control (i.e., no tracking of
product through system using IT systems or operations are controlled by one person). Spanish (score
3.00) operations are generally highly co-ordinated in large and modern packhouses, with full
knowledge of the timing involved, and time in storage and transport minimised (i.e., one large tomato
exporter has a high level of coordination in the warehouse, with sale and dispatch on the same day).
Traceability systems: There is full traceability in Morocco (score 3.00) and Spain (score
3.00). Any box sold in the northern European market carries codes and references that allow tracing of
the product to the farm of origin and identification of treatments used at the packhouse. In Turkey
(score 1.57), most of the exporters have no traceability guarantees, and customers do not require
traceability.
Segregation: The level of segregation is dependent on traceability (i.e., full traceability
requires full segregation). For Turkish firms (score 1.43) there may be partial traceability but without
segregation of produce at all stages of processing.
IT system: There is more limited investment in IT systems in Turkey (score 1.57) than the
other countries. IT is an expanding area for Moroccan exporters (score 2.25). IT use by the Spanish
exporters (score 2.67) is generally high; with at least production records being kept in database. Most
firms computerised systems for product tracking, traceability, producer information, pricing and
accountability.
Safety and Quality Orientation of the Supply Chain
Quality certification: Clearly varying levels of certification are seen in each country, with no
certification in the Turkish firms (score 1.00), although it was mentioned as being a future plan. Some
Spanish firms (score 2.20) have certification greater than ISO 9000.
QC staff: Specialist, well-trained quality control staff are the norm in Morocco (score 3.00)
and Spain (score 3.00) and less likely in Turkey (score 1.50) where this duty often falls to a general
manager. In Turkey, there were problems cited such as quality control staff "acting as they wish".
Worker knowledge: There are less formal systems in Turkey (score 2.17) and Morocco
(2.25) than in Spain (score 3.00) to ensure that workers are informed about safety and quality
requirements. Spanish producers and workers are regularly informed and the level of coordination of
quality and safety control throughout the supply system is high.
Training: Training is more informal in Turkey (score 2.00) and in Morocco (score 2.25) and
may rely more on demonstration and explanation (most of the workers are illiterate). Records of
training may not be kept for each worker. Some firms stated that workers change from season to
season and therefore training could be difficult and costly. A certain level of worker training is
specified as part of the ISO 9002 certification, so that Spanish (score 3.00) workers undergo regular
training and a manual of training is kept for each worker. Under Spanish AENOR regulations each
worker must have a food manipulation license and is then trained specifically for their type of work
(i.e., packing line selection, machinery operation).
Social responsibility: The level of social responsibility generally was said to be high, though
in Turkey (score 2.14) may not be to internationally recognised standards (i.e., in some firms, workers
can work very long hours without breaks at particular times of the season). In the Moroccan firms
interviewed, all the non-seasonal workers are insured and regulations adhered to, with access to
medical care and provision for the workers welfare (score 3.00). In Spain (score 3.00), again, as part of
ISO requirements, worker health, safety and welfare levels are consistent with international
7
regulations (e.g. in one citrus exporting firm, workers handling chemicals receive health checks every
four months).
Environmental management: Environmental standards were present only in those firms with
customer demands in this area (i.e., as a result of audits or specific certification: EUREPGAP,
AENOR). They were not a consideration for most firms in Turkey (score 1.14) or Morocco (score
1.50).
Safety and quality requirements: Turkish exporters (score 1.57) place more emphasis on
personal contacts and good relationships with customers than on contracts with formal specifications,
whereas written agreements are used by all Moroccan exporters (score 3.00). For Spanish exporters
(score 2.40), there can be different buying arrangements (i.e., auctions which do not use buying
contracts).
3.2. Dimension 2: Export Operational Infrastructure
Processing and Packing technology: All of the citrus exporters in Turkey (score 1.86) and
Morocco (score 2.25) have automatic sorting and grading lines, varying in the age of equipment and
levels of technology used. There is generally a high degree of manual input in the processing and
packing line, with a high emphasis placed on worker skill and judgement. For the Turkish tomato
exporters, grading and packing of the product is entirely manual. In Spain, there is a high level of
technology and automation in all processing and packing operations. All exporters have stages in the
selection process that are manual, the most reliable method of fruit selection especially in the later
stages of the process. For citrus exporters, there is a high level of harvested produce (15-20%) that
does not make the grade and is rejected through selection, grading and processing operations.
Processing and Packing quality Packing quality depends on the customer requirements and
their satisfaction with the current standard provided. No firms had any problems in meeting their
customer requirements (all countries scored 3.00).
Labelling flexibility: Labelling is carried out by hand in a few of the Turkish firms (score
2.33), so as long as the customers requirements can be met by this method there are no problems.
There also may be requirements in traceability labelling which not all Turkish firms are able to meet.
Spain and Morocco again had not problems meeting customer requirements in this respect (score
3.00).
Storage capacity: There is limited storage capacity owned by the Turkish firms (score 1.83) –
they are more reliant on storage hired at the ports than in Spain (score 3.00) and Morocco (score 3.00).
Where storage is used in Morocco and Spain (infrequently, due to the fast processing time) it is of
high capacity.
Storage quality: For the Turkish firms (score 2.17) for which storage capacity is inadequate
there can be problems in finding alternative storage with the required temperature or atmospheric
controls. In Spain (score 3.00) and Morocco (score 3.00) this is not a problem.
Transport quality: Some problems are experienced in finding transport of the required
quality in order to transport from Morocco (score 2.75) and Turkey (score 1.71) to the European
market. There can be disruption of transport routes and delays, which affect the quality of the produce.
Spanish transport facilities were optimum (score 3.00).
3.3. Dimension 3: Quality and Safety Controls carried out by exporters
Analysing Dimension 3 involved assessing the specific safety and controls carried out by
firms at each stage of the export process. As indicated earlier, to measure dimension 3 a scheme of
control of critical points was developed, based on a HACCP system for the citrus and tomato supply
chains. Each firm was asked to indicate in which areas of the supply chain they were responsible for
safety and quality controls, and which controls they carried out. This understanding of the use of
controls in each firm allowed comparisons between firms.
Spain: There is generally full crop protection knowledge by the exporters. For instance, for
one of the citrus exporters, every month the producers supply to exporters information about all the
agrochemical treatments undertaken, which is then entered into a central database. For one of the
tomato exporters, field technicians keep full records of each cropping unit, which are held on a
8
computer database. In the cooperative system, technical and regulatory advice is supplied by the
cooperative. Full hygiene risk assessments are carried out and hygiene protocols established.
Technicians advise on harvest techniques. Exporter packhouses use internal control systems to
monitor the hygiene of products, based on HACCP.
Morocco: Most producers working for exportation are well advised technically and are fully
aware of requirements. They are knowledgeable on production and pesticide treatment practices. The
producers themselves are responsible for managing the harvest and there is little concern over
practices during harvest. However, most workers are recruited on a seasonal basis and are not trained
sufficiently in hygiene requirements. This concern can be significant for the groups who choose to
become HACCP certified.
Turkey: The levels of quality and safety controls emplaced in Turkey were variable. In
general, there is limited use of agrochemical treatments for crop protection: production systems are
‘low input’, due to cost constraints. Three exporters have some knowledge of producer practices,
though do not maintain documented systems. Two exporters have no knowledge of producer practices
(‘You cannot know what he has used or done’). The largest citrus exporter is fully aware of producer
practices and reviews take place. For two exporters, it is left up to the producer to carry out the harvest
and there is no concern over particular practices during harvest. Other exporters demonstrated some
awareness of harvest hygiene requirements and for the largest exporter a hygiene risk assessment has
been carried out for harvest operations and a hygiene protocol established for harvest workers. One
firm (firm 3) specifically mentioned that a further stage in the packhouse procedure is drenching of the
inloaded fruit with disinfectant. They also said that the government determines the harvest time by the
product type and they obey the calendar given to them in terms of harvesting. Calibration of
thermometers is not carried out – they have three thermometers in the storage facilities, which must be
in agreement.
4. Conclusions and Recommendations
Evaluation of the differences in practices among firms and between countries highlighted
above may assist firms, particularly in Mediterranean countries, in adapting and responding to
increasing quality and safety requirements by international customers in the valuable northern
European market – and elsewhere. The situation of each firm within the country’s physical and
institutional infrastructure and the varying importance and reliance upon private and public controls
are important considerations. Practices to manage safety and quality may not be as feasible in one
country as in another as there could be large variations in resource availability and degree of
modernisation and market-orientation of agri-food systems.
Findings from such benchmarking analyses should enable development of an industry Action
Plan by identifying areas for improving safety and quality provision and suggesting the most effective
strategies at firm level in each country. The stakeholders in improving food safety and quality
assurance mechanisms are connected by, on the one hand, flows of goods and services, and on the
other by incentives created by commercial imperatives and the institutional infrastructure of policies,
law, regulation and information. Mapping the food chain stakeholders is an important exercise for
improving industry-wide standards, even if the scope for individual firms actions’ is restricted to the
product supply chain.
The kind of actions necessary to improve industry performance can be tabulated and
prioritised alongside the responsibilities of the different stakeholders in the fresh produce export
supply chain: public sector (central or/and regional) and private sector (firm level and/or industry-
wide). In conclusion, this final section presents a series of actionable strategies aimed to address some
of the weaknesses identified for each dimension in this benchmarking exercise.
4.1. Dimension 1: Supply Chain Management Practices
Coordination of the Supply Chain
In the future, it is expected that vertical co-ordination of supply chain relationships will
increase further, driven by demand for greater safety and quality assurance (Fearne and Hughes,
9
1999). Therefore, initiatives should be developed at firm level among competing exporters to increase
the level of coordination among actors in the supply chain.
To increase the level of coordination in the fresh produce supply in Mediterranean countries
there is a need to support and encourage horizontal cooperation among producers. Hence, initiatives at
government level should be developed to encourage and support horizontal cooperation among fruit
and vegetable producers. Initiatives on horizontal integration of small-scale producers into second-tier
co-operative businesses may require third party support in terms of provision of concessional finance
and management skills. The likely welfare impacts of supply chain rationalisation also suggest that the
public sector needs to be involved so that social objectives such as employment and income levels are
taken into account.
Key to demonstrable safety in the fresh produce supply chain is traceability. The
fragmentation of supply chains indicated above makes it very difficult for Mediterranean fresh
produce exporters to establish traceability systems or achieve partial segregation. Nevertheless,
increasing demands by international customers for ‘farm to table’ process controls to manage both
quality and safety require Mediterranean fresh produce exporters to adopt these management practices
and to coordinate safety and quality more closely with importers.
Safety and Quality Orientation of the Supply Chain
The implementation of effective and demonstrable quality control systems (i.e., HACCP-
based or alternative food safety risk management systems) is recommended as the most-effective
means of reducing food safety hazards.
Product quality control systems and product traceability both require investment in human
capital. Subsequently, investment is required in physical capital including QC infrastructure and
business information/ICT systems, both within the individual firm and with other firms in the supply
chain or network. Thereby, initiatives should be developed at government level aimed to support firm-
level investments, which are prerequisites to implement effective and demonstrable quality control
systems. Preferential financing arrangements or tax-credits for IT- and QC-related investment in
physical infrastructure could be one such mechanism. In a wider context, the possibility of developing
food safety and quality networks, local benchmarking activities, vocational training and trade fairs
involving SMEs would be an important mechanism for building human capital within the industry and
for achieving greater social (or small enterprise) inclusion in Mediterranean countries.
4.2. Dimension 2: Export Operational Infrastructure
Fresh produce undergoes many changes post-harvest, which lead to senescence and
deterioration. The quality of fresh produce is determined by pre-harvest factors (i.e., variety, maturity
stage and cultural practices) and post-harvest care during harvesting, handling, packing, transport,
storage and distribution. Each step must be controlled and verified in order to meet quality standards.
However, the technical and financial constraints in Mediterranean countries very often make the
required investments in export and marketing infrastructure impossible. Firms must make private
investments to stay in the market. Second, another feasible approach is to develop joint public/private
initiatives to improve export infrastructure. Once again, preferential financing arrangements or tax-
credits for firm-level infrastructure-related investment would be one such mechanism.
4.3. Dimension 3: Quality and Safety Controls
The number of HACCP-type controls carried out by exporters in each country reflects, to a
large extent, some of the same deficiencies highlighted above. The lack of vertical coordination in
Morocco and Turkey, particularly at producer-exporter level, results in looser controls of production
and pesticide treatment practices compared to the Spanish model.
Based on the evidence from this study, the long-term strategies for Mediterranean countries to
sustain and further develop an international demand for their products lies in building up the trust and
confidence between exporting firms and importers/retailers in the quality and safety of their produce.
Small-scale suppliers in these countries could enjoy a comparative advantage by supplying new and
innovative products.
10
11
References
Allan, S. (1997). Partners benchmarking. http:/www.benchmarking.co.uk/bmark.htm#partners.
EUREP (2001). Control Points and Compliance Criteria.http://www.eurep.org/sites/index_e.htm
Fearne, A. and Hughes, D. (1999). Success factors in the fresh produce supply chain: Insights from the
UK. International Journal of Supply Chain Management 3: 120-129.
Food and Drink National Training Organisation. (ed) (2001). Measuring Success: International
Benchmarking of the Food and Drink Manufacturing Industry. London: Food and Drink National
Training Organisation.
Garcia Martinez, M. and Poole, N. (2003). Developments in fresh produce quality and safety
management: implications for Mediterranean countries. Paper presented at the 82nd European
Seminar of the EAAE on Quality Assurance, Risk Management and Environmental Control in
Agriculture and Food Supply Networks. Bonn, Germany, May 14-16, 2003.
Garcia Martinez, M., Poole, N. and Mennesson, G. (2002). The Impact of European private and
quality standards on fresh produce exports from Mediterranean countries. Working Paper, EU INCO-
MED Research Project: The Impact of International Safety and Quality Standards on the
Competitiveness of Mediterranean Fresh Produce. Imperial College.
Gilmour, P. (1999). Benchmarking supply chain operations. International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management 29: 259-266.
Güngor, H. and Güngor, G. (2000). Managing the Quality Chain in Citrus Fruit Industry: A Case
Study in Çukurova Region of Turkey. Acta Horticulturae, 536(XIVth International Symposium on
Horticultural Economics).
Poole, N., Marshall, F. and Bhupal, D. S. (2002). Air pollution effects and initiatives to improve food
quality assurance in India. Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture 41: 363-386.
Yasin, M. M. (2002). The theory and practice of benchmarking: then and now. Benchmarking: An
International Journal 9: 217-243.
doc_149585715.pdf