Ask any grower or marketer in the fresh produce sector about their biggest concerns for the industry, and high up the list will be succession planning.
With fewer young people wanting to take over family farming businesses and students showing little preference for the fruit and veg trade, the identity of the next generation is clouded.
Step forward MDS, which has spent 25 years producing high calibre talent such as Greens of Soham MD Julius Joel and QV Foods chairman Duncan Worth.
The not-for-profit recruitment and training organisation has developed an innovative industry-funded course that gives trainees practical placements at leading companies, allowing them to try out a range of different roles before settling on their chosen career path.
This year’s seven graduates were a particularly “eclectic group”, according to MDS general manager Dani Shaw, with a wide variety of backgrounds and experiences. All have already secured jobs at top UK firms, reflecting both the high standard of trainees and the desire for new talent from the fresh produce sector.
Name: Giovanni Effori
Age: 26
Job: Technical manager
Company: Produce Global Solutions
Hobbies: Movies, gym, travelling
“I have a degree in economics from my homeland of Brazil but I always wanted to work in the food industry. MDS gave me the experience to find work. I came to England in 2006 with the intention of taking a gap year before deciding what to do with my career, but I found there were good opportunities here.
“I like the dynamism of the fresh produce industry. No two days are the same and there are always new challenges. My job with PGS involves managing customer requirements and standards between PGS and The Greenery in the Netherlands, as well as building relationships with growers, audits and so on.
“One day I would like to start my own business linking Brazil and the UK. I’d like to identify something that works for both countries.”
Name: Ria Dalglish
Age: 26
Job: Technical co-ordinator
Company: Greenvale AP
Hobbies: Horse riding, dancing
“I always wanted to work in fresh produce and MDS allows you to try out different areas - marketing, sales, technical, etc. Not every role is for you but you learn about them yourself. Even though it’s an academic course, it’s quite practical.
“I have a Masters in marketing but I find the technical side more challenging - it makes you think outside the box. In my job at Greenvale, I get to look after the end product and specifications, as well as deal with customers.
“Potatoes are a challenging crop to market because of the competition with other carbs, but different varieties have the power to do this. We need to educate consumers about usage and how to cook, to get back to basics.
“The fresh produce industry is interesting, fast moving and has different seasons. I would like to be a technical manager and learn about the procurement side of the business.”
Name: Shuhel Miah
Age: 26
Job: Pineapple demand planner
Company: Dole Fresh UK
Hobbies: Basketball - used to train with the Birmingham Bullets
“I graduated with a business economics degree but I realised I wasn’t really keen on that. MDS puts you in four different placements and I thought that was the perfect opportunity to find what I wanted to do. Trade is about supply and demand, and this is something that allows me to bring my economics into play.
“I’m kind of a middle man at Dole Fresh between the commercial and procurement sides. I’m in constant contact with the customer, forecasting and planning for their needs. There’s a heavy emphasis on forecasting when you’re importing from the tropics and Africa.
“My impression is the pineapple sector is really taking off but supermarkets are trying to make it into an everyday product based on price. I think demand will continue to grow.
“I’d like to stay in the fresh produce industry, which is very dynamic and fast paced, but I see my future in procurement rather than customer-facing.”
Name: Dan Jolly
Age: 25
Job: Supplier development technologist
Company: G’s Marketing
Hobbies: Sports, especially hockey and cricket
“I’ve always been interested in fresh produce. My family has a mixed farm growing potatoes, asparagus and barley in Norfolk. I thought about doing agriculture at university but did plant biology instead, though it wasn’t desperately applied.
“At G’s, I’m looking at supplier approval and development processes. My role is very varied and takes me to other sites. I haven’t got a long term career plan yet but I want to stay in fresh produce.
“The industry is going through a tough time like everyone else, but those strong companies are picking up business and people will always need food.
“I wrote my synoptic paper on the supermarket ombudsman [see next page]. I didn’t know a huge amount about it but I wanted to learn more and see if it would make a difference.
“You hear good and bad things on the grapevine and an ombudsman will help police the bad things.”
Name: George Beedell
Age: 24
Job: Top fruit demand planner
Company: Dole Fresh UK
Hobbies: Rugby and golf
“I come from a farming background, with my parents owning a mixed arable and livestock farm in France. I studied agribusiness management at university.
“I like the dynamic environments of fresh produce, where every day is different. It’s so fast moving and challenging. I like the interaction with other levels of managers, and representing the company abroad. It’s good to have the chance to be the face of the company.
“At Dole Fresh, I’m number two to the category procurement manager for top fruit. We are the first port of call for selling the fruit. Career-wise I’ll just take it step by step, but I want to go as far as I can. It’s a very challenging industry and constantly changing, but I like that everyone knows everyone else within the sector.”
Name: Fraser Calder
Age: 26
Job: Assistant production manager
Company: Flamingo UK
Hobbies: Football, golf, playing guitar, travelling and music festivals
“One of the reasons I got involved in this industry is my brother doing MDS five years ago and suggesting it to me. I felt it would be a good opportunity to find a career I enjoyed as I had always been unsure what career path to follow.
“I have been back at Flamingo for two weeks now as assistant production manager and I am enjoying it so far. My duties include looking after the packhouse and warehouse areas in the building, and making sure orders are completed on time and efficiently. I have been given 16 objectives over the next six months to improve efficiency in the packhouse and company in general.
“I enjoy the day to day challenges this industry brings and the high pace in terms of deadlines at which things run, as well as dealing with many different people. My long term objective is to progress as far as I can in the production side of the industry.”
CAN AN OMBUDSMAN REALLY WORK?
The GSCOP and the debate over the supermarket ombudsman is one of the hottest topics in the fresh produce industry. Here, FPJ publishes Dan Jolly’s winning synoptic paper from this year’s MDS graduate programme.
The new Grocery Suppliers Code of Practice (GSCOP) came into force on 4 February 2010, and we await a decision from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) on how the code’s ombudsman will be structured and the powers it will hold. But can the strengthened code and its enforcing ombudsman actually change anything in the industry, and if so, who is set to benefit from these changes?
NFU, Defra, and many suppliers all agree that an ombudsman is needed to enforce the code and to help strike the right balance between suppliers getting a fair deal, and the supermarkets being able to offer consumers the food they want. But critics, including the British Retail Consortium (BRC) and many of the 10 “designated supermarkets” due to be covered by the ombudsman, argue that there has been no clear evidence of mal-practice or foul play from the retailers and that both the old and new, strengthened code are already overseen by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT). But if this supervision was adequate, surely an ombudsman would not have been recommended to enforce the code? The consensus across the industry is that an ombudsman is needed safeguard the 7,000 suppliers who, out of economic dependency, have little choice but to deal with supermarkets that control 70 per cent of the £95bn grocery industry.
The strengthened code addresses the main complaint of its predecessor, namely allowing anonymous complaints by suppliers. This should go some way to reducing the prevailing “climate of fear” that previously prevented suppliers complaining, for fear of retribution. However, anonymity is not normally possible where complaints are brought to an ombudsman, and surely justice cannot prevail without both parties being able to justify their case? According to the OFT, when dealing with ombudsman, it is standard practice for the accused to be informed of the complaint brought against them, but first for the complaining party to have exhausted its own complaints procedure before an ombudsman will even consider the case. Therefore, although the introduction of anonymity to the code has pleased supporters, it is unlikely that the “name and shame” approach will work and have any positive effect in managing the supplier-retailer relationship. What would be more appropriate is the implementation of a proactive regulator that actively seeks out malpractice within the industry. Without this, the ombudsman would simply be a mediator between retailers and suppliers too fearful to complain.
An agreed essential outcome of the current consultation is that the ombudsman, whether it be a standalone arbitrator, or one based within the OFT as the Tories suggest, has sufficient teeth. Without the necessary clout to investigate fully and levy fines to the “designated retailers”, the new, strengthened code will be worthless. Compounding this is the fact that according to Defra, ombudsmen generally only accept about 1 in 10 of cases referred, and only find in favour of the complaining body in a third of these cases. A toothless ombudsman would only allow the supermarkets to claim regulation, when this would not be the case.
What is concerning is that the creation of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition Government is set to delay the implementation of any regulation. Prior to the election the Lib Dems had said they would look to replicate the OFCOM model of a hands-on regulator rather than an ombudsman, but the Coalition government’s policy document has said that it would follow the Tory suggestion of an ombudsman within the OFT. However, according to the Farmers Guardian, the Coalition plans to have further consultation after introducing a draft Bill this autumn. This consultation, which is on top of the Labour-led consultation that was due to have come to a decision by the end of April 2010, would then lead to implementation of a full Bill at an as yet unspecified time in the future. One must question whether further consultation will actually discover anything new? There is cross party agreement for the need of a governing body, and there have been extensive sessions of consultation already, so why do we need more, and can the government not just decide on an approach and implement it?
But who is set to gain from the new code and its enforcing body? The ombudsman is seen by the NFU as a “light at the end of the tunnel” for farmers who are being continuously squeezed by the supermarkets. But the BRC states that very few supermarkets deal directly with farmers, and argues that the ombudsman would merely hand extra power to the multinational food suppliers. Many argue that upsetting the balance between retailers and very large suppliers will affect competition and this will lead to an increase in cost to consumers. An option is to exclude from enforcement efforts suppliers large enough to fight for themselves, or those with sufficient brand power. But the BIS rightly notes that as all suppliers are covered by the code it would be difficult to justify an enforcement body that did not consider all cases. Equally, over-prescriptive regulation would deter collaborative dealings between suppliers and retailers for perceived mutual benefit. This in turn would lead to less competition and potentially higher consumer prices. But is it not time for consumers to realise the true cost of food, or should the focus be on retailers slimming their alleged fatty margins?
It is estimated that the ombudsman will cost the supermarkets £5 million per year, but with the code relying on whistle blowing, albeit anonymously, and the potential for implementation of an enforcing body with too small teeth, one must question whether we will see any difference between the new and old codes regardless of the ombudsman, where it will be based, and how much it will cost.
References:
Black, C, 27th February 2010. The case against the ombudsman. The Grocer, page 23
Driver, A, 1st October 2009. Ombudsman would be bad for consumers, retailers claim. Farmers Guardian, online (access 24th February)
Driver, A, 5th February 2010. Supermarket ombudsman to hear complaints anonymously. Farmers Guardian, online (accessed 26th February)
Driver, A, 9th July 2010. More delays for Ombudsman plans. Farmers Guardian, online (accessed 18th July)
Herbert, R, 9th January 2010. Tory ombudsman model ‘does not go far enough’. The Grocer, page 8
Lloyd, T., 6th March 2010. An ombudsman will work - if it has teeth. The Grocer, page 22
Stocks, C, 15th January 2010. Government reveals its proposals for a supermarket ombudsman. Farmers Weekly, page 6
Surman, W, 9th March 2010. MPs back supermarket ombudsman Bill. Farmer Guardian, online (accessed 24th February)
Supermarkets: The code of practice and other competition issues. The Office of Fair Trading, paper released August 2005
Tasker, J, 27th January 2010. Supermarket plan to slash prices. Farmers Weekly, page 10
www.lexology.com (accessed 3rd March)
References in detail:
Paragraph 2:
âóäNFU, Defra, and many suppliers all agree that an ombudsman is needed to enforce the Code and to help strike the right balance between suppliers getting a fair deal, and the supermarkets being able to offer consumers the food they want. (Farmers Weekly 15th January 2010)
âóäBut critics, including the British Retail Consortium (BRC) and many of the 10 “designated supermarkets” (www.lexology.com) due to be covered by the Ombudsman, argue that there has been no clear evidence of mal-practice or foul play from the retailers. (The Grocer 27th February 2010)
âóäBoth the old and new, strengthened Code are already overseen by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) (Farmers Weekly 15th January 2010)
âóäThe consensus across the industry is that an ombudsman is needed safeguard the 7000 suppliers who, out of economic dependency, have little choice but to deal with supermarkets that control 70% of the £95bn grocery industry. (The Grocer 6th March 2010)
Paragraph 3:
âóäThis should go some way to reducing the prevailing “climate of fear” that previously prevented suppliers complaining, for fear of retribution. (Farmers Guardian 5th February 2010)
âóäHowever, anonymity is not normally possible where complaints are brought to an ombudsman, and surely justice cannot prevail without both parties being able to justify their case? According to the OFT, when dealing with ombudsman, it is standard practice for the accused to be informed of the complaint brought against them, but first for the complaining party to have exhausted its own complaints procedure before an ombudsman will even consider the case. (Office of Fair Trading paper, August 2005)
Paragraph 4:
âóäCompounding this is the fact that according to Defra, ombudsmen generally only accept about 1 in 10 of cases referred, and only find in favour of the complaining body in a third of these cases. (Farmers Weekly 26th February 2010)
Paragraph 5:
âóäLib Dems had said they would look to replicate the OFCOM model of a hands-on regulator rather than an ombudsman (Farmers Guardian 24th February 2010)
âóäaccording to the Farmers Guardian, the Coalition Government plans to have further consultation after introducing a draft Bill this autumn. (Farmers Guardian 9th July 2010)
âóäwould then lead to implementation of a full Bill at an as yet unspecified time in the future (Farmers Guardian 9th July 2010)
Paragraph 6:
âóäSmall overseas suppliers, over which the OFT has no jurisdiction, will not benefit (they are covered by the Department for International Development). Office of Fair Trading paper, August 2005)
âóäThe Ombudsman is seen by the NFU as a “light at the end of the tunnel” for farmers who are being continuously squeezed by the supermarkets. (Farmers Weekly 15th January 2010)
âóäBut the BRC state that very few supermarkets deal directly with farmers, and argue that the Ombudsman would merely hand extra power to the multi-national food suppliers. (Farmers Weekly 29th January 2010)
âóäMany argue that upsetting the balance between retailers and very large suppliers will affect competition and this will lead to an increase in cost to consumers. (Farmers Guardian 1st October 2009)
âóäAn option is to exclude from enforcement efforts suppliers large enough to fight for themselves, or those with sufficient brand power. But the BIS rightly notes that as all suppliers are covered by the Code it would be difficult to justify enforcement body that did not consider all cases. (www.lexology.com)
âóäSimilarly, over-prescriptive regulation would deter collaborative dealings between suppliers and retailers for perceived mutual benefit. This in turn would lead to less competition and potentially higher consumer prices. (Office of Fair Trading paper, August 2005)
No comments yet