>>the black hole in government food policy - Clive Beddall, editor-at-large, william reed publishing
Even the industry’s most cynical players must surely share the hope that 2004 will bring significant new developments in the campaign to promote a strategy for a stronger food and farming base in the UK.
Yet in spite of significant progress along several links of the chain during the past year, the man charged by the prime minister with implementing the government’s sustainable food and farming policy has entered the new year with frustration etched across his brow.
Sir Don Curry, who chairs the group overseeing the delivery of the government’s food chain strategy, justifiably claims that his team has made good progress in all but one major policy area. And that black hole is the code of trading practice for the top four multiples and their suppliers.
Spawned with the best of intentions, in truth, it has been a failure, given that there has not been one complaint of buyer-bullying, despite anecdotal evidence to the contrary.
At the heart of Sir Don’s frustration is the Office of Fair Trading, which set out to deliver a review of the workings of the code last February and has still not delivered its conclusions. The OFT has blamed the long drawn out Safeway takeover, suggesting that there could be issues of principle if it pronounced before that deal was done. Yet, I believe that senior industry figures in the farming and manufacturing sectors are justified when they dismiss this as a weak response. And they are also right to be angry at the OFT’s failure to implement fully the recommendations by the Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food, which Sir Don chaired.
Sir Don makes a valid point when he deems it unacceptable for the OFT, for whatever reason, to decide only those retailers with 8% market share or more should have the code’s terms and conditions imposed upon them. The code, if it is ever to be effective, should be rolled out on a voluntary basis across the whole of the industry, including foodservice.
So, given that Sir Don, in recent interviews, echoes the comments of many when he talks about “mistrust and strained relationships” in parts of the food chain, it is easy to understand the importance of the code to those with a mission to build a sustainable food and farming base where all parts can exist in equal prosperity.
Meanwhile, many look hopefully towards the OFT review for sound strategies designed to build fairer and firmer trading relationships between all retailers and manufacturers. In other words, developing relationships that are based upon trust.
And although we are told the OFT’s findings are imminent, there is a growing fear in several corners of the trade that it will merely indulge in a fine-tuning exercise. And that would be disastrous for many small to medium suppliers.
Most importantly, it is to be hoped that the OFT will have looked hard at the content of the code, and also considered whether its current terms and conditions are the appropriate way of creating a trading platform built on trust and confidence.
In addition, given that suppliers are terrified of triggering the mechanism for fear of retail reprisals, surely the present code’s appeals process should also be reviewed?
And given that a reader’s panel in this magazine recently showed manufacturers favoured setting up an ombudsman to handle complaints, that too, should be high on the OFT’s agenda for consideration.
Yet, I don’t expect Sir Don to suffer frustration for much longer. He is planning to consult key industry players on taking the code forward on a voluntary basis. But for that to happen there needs to be a marked change of thinking in some significant parts of the retail sector, with vested interests put aside in the common cause of unity.
2004 is the most critical year yet on the rocky road towards food chain unity.
Even the industry’s most cynical players must surely share the hope that 2004 will bring significant new developments in the campaign to promote a strategy for a stronger food and farming base in the UK.
Yet in spite of significant progress along several links of the chain during the past year, the man charged by the prime minister with implementing the government’s sustainable food and farming policy has entered the new year with frustration etched across his brow.
Sir Don Curry, who chairs the group overseeing the delivery of the government’s food chain strategy, justifiably claims that his team has made good progress in all but one major policy area. And that black hole is the code of trading practice for the top four multiples and their suppliers.
Spawned with the best of intentions, in truth, it has been a failure, given that there has not been one complaint of buyer-bullying, despite anecdotal evidence to the contrary.
At the heart of Sir Don’s frustration is the Office of Fair Trading, which set out to deliver a review of the workings of the code last February and has still not delivered its conclusions. The OFT has blamed the long drawn out Safeway takeover, suggesting that there could be issues of principle if it pronounced before that deal was done. Yet, I believe that senior industry figures in the farming and manufacturing sectors are justified when they dismiss this as a weak response. And they are also right to be angry at the OFT’s failure to implement fully the recommendations by the Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food, which Sir Don chaired.
Sir Don makes a valid point when he deems it unacceptable for the OFT, for whatever reason, to decide only those retailers with 8% market share or more should have the code’s terms and conditions imposed upon them. The code, if it is ever to be effective, should be rolled out on a voluntary basis across the whole of the industry, including foodservice.
So, given that Sir Don, in recent interviews, echoes the comments of many when he talks about “mistrust and strained relationships” in parts of the food chain, it is easy to understand the importance of the code to those with a mission to build a sustainable food and farming base where all parts can exist in equal prosperity.
Meanwhile, many look hopefully towards the OFT review for sound strategies designed to build fairer and firmer trading relationships between all retailers and manufacturers. In other words, developing relationships that are based upon trust.
And although we are told the OFT’s findings are imminent, there is a growing fear in several corners of the trade that it will merely indulge in a fine-tuning exercise. And that would be disastrous for many small to medium suppliers.
Most importantly, it is to be hoped that the OFT will have looked hard at the content of the code, and also considered whether its current terms and conditions are the appropriate way of creating a trading platform built on trust and confidence.
In addition, given that suppliers are terrified of triggering the mechanism for fear of retail reprisals, surely the present code’s appeals process should also be reviewed?
And given that a reader’s panel in this magazine recently showed manufacturers favoured setting up an ombudsman to handle complaints, that too, should be high on the OFT’s agenda for consideration.
Yet, I don’t expect Sir Don to suffer frustration for much longer. He is planning to consult key industry players on taking the code forward on a voluntary basis. But for that to happen there needs to be a marked change of thinking in some significant parts of the retail sector, with vested interests put aside in the common cause of unity.
2004 is the most critical year yet on the rocky road towards food chain unity.
No comments yet