British Food JournalQuality assurance models in the food supply chainL. Manning R.N. Baines S.A. Chadd

Article information:To cite this document:L. Manning R.N. Baines S.A. Chadd, (2006),"Quality assurance models in the food supply chain", BritishFood Journal, Vol. 108 Iss 2 pp. 91 - 104Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00070700610644915

Downloaded on: 06 March 2016, At: 07:23 (PT)References: this document contains references to 27 other documents.To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.comThe fulltext of this document has been downloaded 4194 times since 2006*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:L. Manning, R.N. Baines, (2004),"Effective management of food safety and quality", British Food Journal,Vol. 106 Iss 8 pp. 598-606 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00070700410553594Jens Hamprecht, Daniel Corsten, Manfred Noll, Evelyn Meier, (2005),"Controlling the sustainability offood supply chains", Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 10 Iss 1 pp. 7-10 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13598540510578315L. Manning, R.N. Baines, S.A. Chadd, (2006),"Ethical modelling of the food supply chain", British FoodJournal, Vol. 108 Iss 5 pp. 358-370 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00070700610661330

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:609766 []

For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald forAuthors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelinesare available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The companymanages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well asproviding an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committeeon Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archivepreservation.

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

bu D

habi

Sch

ool o

f Man

agem

ent (

AD

SM) A

t 07:

23 0

6 M

arch

201

6 (P

T)

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

bu D

habi

Sch

ool o

f Man

agem

ent (

AD

SM) A

t 07:

23 0

6 M

arch

201

6 (P

T)

Quality assurance models in thefood supply chain

L. Manning, R.N. Baines and S.A. ChaddRoyal Agricultural College, Cirencester, UK

AbstractPurpose – Quality assurance (QA) standards are considered to be a proven mechanism for deliveringquality of product and service. This paper seeks to analyse critically how effectively this mechanismhas been implemented in the integrated food supply chain.

Design/methodology/approach – This paper focuses on the development of QA standards andorganisational business models. The research included a literature review and evaluation to determinethe mechanisms currently in place with particular emphasis on poultry meat.

Findings – Historically private quality assurance schemes have been developed to demonstratecompliance with a set of extrinsic quality standards or “pre-requisites”. These have often includedqualitative rather than quantitative measures of quality. In order to demonstrate to externalstakeholders and the consumer that QA schemes actually deliver tangible benefits, quantitativemeasurements should be included in QA models especially as these measures can improve intrinsicproduct quality, drive business performance and supply chain efficiency and compliance withlegislative requirements.

Originality/value – This paper analyses the current status of QA in the food supply chain and is ofrelevance to a cross-section of the industry.

Keywords Quality assurance, Food products, Supply chain management, Modelling, Benchmarking

Paper type Research paper

1. IntroductionBSI EN ISO 9001: 2000 defines the term “quality” as the “degree to which a set ofinherent characteristics (distinguishing features) fulfils requirements” (BSI, 2000)whereas Crosby (Oakland, 1993) described quality as “conformance to customerrequirements”. Early (1995) suggested that quality assurance (QA) was “a strategicmanagement function concerned with the establishment of policies, standards andsystems for the maintenance of quality”, while as a result of benchmarking studies,Baines and Ryan (2002) considered that QA can be a:

. tool to demonstrate regulatory compliance;

. business efficiency tool to ensure product quality and minimise hygienic risks;and

. communication tool to customers and consumers, wherever they are in the world.

QA has further been characterised as “the assurance of quality of a product by meansof a system which will manage quality and the product” (Fidler, 1990) or “theprevention of quality problems through planned and systematic activities” (Oakland,1993). The Institute of Food Science and Technology (IFST, 1998) defines QA thus:

[. . .] to design and plan, as relevant, raw material specifications, ingredients formulation,processing equipment and environment, processing methods and conditions, intermediatespecifications, appropriate packaging and labelling specifications, specifications for quantity

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0007-070X.htm

Qualityassurance

models

91

British Food JournalVol. 108 No. 2, 2006

pp. 91-104q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0007-070XDOI 10.1108/00070700610644915

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

bu D

habi

Sch

ool o

f Man

agem

ent (

AD

SM) A

t 07:

23 0

6 M

arch

201

6 (P

T)

per pack, specifications for management and control procedures, a specified distributionsystem and cycle, and appropriate storage, handling and preparations instructions, which,taken all together, are capable of resulting in products complying with the productspecification.

2. QA schemesQA schemes are becoming increasingly important in integrated food supply chains,from primary production to the consumer (Turner and Davies, 2002). Indeed, someresearchers have put forward the proposal that QA approaches are the future foragriculture especially as organisations “move away from commodity markets and intothe more profitable specialty products” (Sparling et al., 2001). Generally QA schemesare promoted by stakeholders, trade organisations, industry bodies, or are privatesystems. The schemes can then be, either regulated by the operator (1st party), auditedby the purchaser (2nd party), or they can be independently certified using agreedprotocols (3rd party). The Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC, 2001) deemed“quality assurance” as a “generic” term and farm assurance as “the application of thequality assurance principles to schemes at farm level and/or schemes which applyalong the food chain, at market, in transit and up to the point of slaughter.” Theyfurther identified animal welfare as just one key element of a QA standard and statedthat farm assurance schemes can either define baseline welfare standards, be a marketdriver to raise welfare standards, provide a means of differentiation for consumers thatwish to purchase meat raised to a higher welfare standard, or if they provide sufficienttransparency aid the consumer to make informed decisions when purchasing meatproducts. FAWC further described QA schemes as, “schemes that aim to satisfyconsumers that stipulated standards relating to characteristics of a product are metduring its production process”. QA can be taken to embrace legal and market-drivenstandards for food safety and quality (Baines, 2001), along with production standardsincluding animal welfare and environment (Baines and Davies, 1999). It is important todifferentiate between QA “production” standards that define:

. Standards relating to the production of livestock, (including productivity,environmental management, worker welfare, animal health and welfare).

. Standards that relate to management of food safety risk.

. Product standards that define the key attributes of a finished product.

Food safety criteria and also some elements of production standards are generallydriven by legislative compliance, while finished product standards are usually definedeither in a series of internationally agreed product standards and/or customerspecifications. Economic literature (Maze and Galan, 2000) introduces the concept ofthree types of standard depending on their functions:

(1) minimum quality standards i.e. product specifications;

(2) reference standards i.e. Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) or UnitedNations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) standards which areinternational recognised; and

(3) compatibility standards i.e. International Organisation for Standardisation(ISO) Standards or QA schemes.

BFJ108,2

92

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

bu D

habi

Sch

ool o

f Man

agem

ent (

AD

SM) A

t 07:

23 0

6 M

arch

201

6 (P

T)

Current QA production standards focus on extrinsic rather than intrinsic qualityattributes. Extrinsic factors include criteria such as production standards, animalwelfare standards, environmental protection, personnel health and safety and ethicalissues. Intrinsic quality attributes are those that relate directly to the product whichwould include, using poultry meat as an example, weight, colour, size, skin coverage(Table I). Extrinsic quality attributes are the main focus of QA schemes. However, it iseffective management of intrinsic quality attributes that ensures that customerrequirements are consistently met, and it is those criteria too that can be used to drivebusiness performance and supply chain efficiency. Becker (1999) suggests that whileconsumer behaviour and the marketing of food products favours “perceived” qualitywhich may be qualitative (extrinsic), food science places the emphasis on measurablequality i.e. the food characteristics that can be measured i.e. are quantitative (intrinsic).He argues that the market demand for quality is determined by the “supply ofcharacteristics and the demand of attributes”. This means that a food product can becharacterised with both its inherent characteristics but must meet the requirements ofthe consumer.

3. Organisational and supply chain QA modelsWhile there is a need to demonstrate that products and processes comply with QAschemes in order to comply with retail and consumer requirements, within everyorganisation there is also a need to meet key criteria consistently, not only between twodistinct organisations in the supply chain, but also within the same organisation. Thischain of supplier/customer-supplier/customer-supplier/customer is termed a qualitychain. In order to ensure suitable and consistent product, the quality chain must not be

Intrinsic quality characteristics Extrinsic quality attributes Food safety criteria

Bird weighta Supplier/grower code Day of killGrade, e.g. A or B Breed Meat temperatureSkin blemishes including breastblisters, hock burn, food paddermatitisa

Stocking density Broken bones/bone splintersa

but may be cause by mechanicaldamage during processing

Skin coverage and colour of meat Method of production: organic,conventional or QA standard

Foreign bodies

Size and shape of portion Feed regime Antibiotic residuesFeathering – total and hock Housed or free-range Cleaning chemical

contaminationFree from taint, off-taste Presence of pathogenic bacteriaExcessive fat Chemical contamination –

generalBone dislocationa

Bruising or haematomasa

Contamination from full cropsMechanical damageScaldingPoor quality eviscerationColour of meat

Note: a Also bird welfare indicators

Table I.Poultry meat quality

attributes, welfareindicators and food safety

criteria

Qualityassurance

models

93

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

bu D

habi

Sch

ool o

f Man

agem

ent (

AD

SM) A

t 07:

23 0

6 M

arch

201

6 (P

T)

broken i.e. by one product or material not meeting the requirements of the nextinternal/external customer. A supply chain therefore needs to define thesupplier/customer relationships, which occur from primary production through allstages to the consumer and the criteria that need to be met. Indeed compliance withthese criteria may also demonstrate compliance with external stakeholderrequirements. QA is therefore to assure quality by designing a quality managementsystem (QMS) which prevents quality problems from occurring. This requires thedevelopment of an effective management system (planned and systematic activities) toensure that the product and service complies with defined criteria at key stages can betraced to its ingredients or suppliers further back in the supply chain; and that there isconsistency from one batch to another. An organisation within the supply chain needsto develop its QMS to addresses both the key food safety hazards and their controlwhilst ensuring that key quality parameters are consistently met. Pre-requisiteprogrammes have been described as a “catch-all name for all the basic hygiene policiesand procedures that should be in place before HACCP is introduced” (FSA, 2002).Hazard analysis critical control point (HACCP) principles can be applied throughoutthe food chain from the primary producer to final consumer. The application of HACCPsystems can aid inspection by regulatory authorities and promote international tradeby increasing confidence in food safety (Codex, 1997). A food safety managementsystem would include the following pre-requisites programmes:

. product specifications;

. standard operation procedures (SOPs);

. personal hygiene programmes;

. premises hygiene programmes and waste control procedures;

. equipment control and site maintenance procedures;

. reputable suppliers and supplier approval and raw material inspectionprocedures;

. pest control programmes;

. water quality;

. calibration programmes; and

. training programmes.

Thus, QA models must address food safety, product quality and organisational criteriain order to deliver safe, consistent food in a financially viable food chain.

4. Current QA modelsFood supply chain models have been analysed in this study and the models describedin this paper have inherent mechanisms for driving business performance in terms offood safety, product quality, animal health and welfare, environmental performance,legislative compliance and financial sustainability.

4.1. Good manufacturing practice)/good agricultural practiceGood manufacturing practice (GMP) has been defined in the Commission Directive91/412/EEC of 23 July 1991 laying down the principles and guidelines of goodmanufacturing practice for veterinary medicinal products as “the part of quality

BFJ108,2

94

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

bu D

habi

Sch

ool o

f Man

agem

ent (

AD

SM) A

t 07:

23 0

6 M

arch

201

6 (P

T)

assurance which ensures that products are consistently produced and controlled to thequality standards appropriate to their intended use” (European Commission, 1991).The IFST (1998) describe GMP as: “that part of a food and drink control operation,which is aimed at ensuring that products are safe to the consumer and are consistentlymanufactured to a quality appropriate to their intended use. It is thus concerned withboth manufacturing and quality management procedures”. The pre-requisiteprogrammes previously described in this paper form an integral part of GMP.

Good agricultural practice (GAP) is the term given to describe the principles whichneed to be addressed by a QAmodel in primary production. Using livestock productionto illustrate the GAP model, QA relates both to effective management control andeffective livestock control (Figure 1) and the components of management and livestockcontrol must complement each other to produce a well-designed and effectiveintegrated management system (IMS) that effectively manages quality, food safety,welfare and environmental criteria. Effective livestock control requires:

. Development of strategic product specifications at each stage of the supplychain.

. Appropriately trained personnel who have an understanding of the needs of thelivestock and how they can be consistently met.

. Adequate livestock monitoring facilities (either manual, visual inspection orautomatic monitoring systems).

. Specified production process, and defined actions to be taken on a routine,abnormal and emergency basis.

. Breeding control – ensuring livestock is bred to key criteria including welfareand performance standards.

. Purpose-built buildings and equipment which are designed to ensure suitablewelfare, house environmental control, minimise emissions to the atmosphere andensure key performance criteria can be consistently met.

Effective management control requires:. Rapid communication of information and decision making.. Adequate resources – space, equipment, services, storage and transport during

the production cycle.

Figure 1.Good agricultural practice

in livestock production

Qualityassurance

models

95

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

bu D

habi

Sch

ool o

f Man

agem

ent (

AD

SM) A

t 07:

23 0

6 M

arch

201

6 (P

T)

. Suitable materials for producing livestock – purchasing procedure,specifications for materials and supplier quality assurance programme.

. Specified procedures to ensure consistency – task procedures, operatingprocedures.

. Adequate process monitoring resources (auditing programme either an internal,external or third-party process).

. Use of approved and reproducible product testing methods for ensuring keycriteria are met, e.g. temperature probes, weighing equipment and calibrationmethods.

. Traceability procedures which can ensure product identity is maintained andcan, at any point in the supply chain, trace back to source (provenance) andforward to subsequent points and ultimately the consumer.

. Procedures for holding, quarantining, releasing, rejecting or recalling finishedproduct in the event of non-compliance during primary production.

. Monitoring feed suitability and consistency and retaining reference samples.

. Analysis of finished product to ensure key criteria have been met.

. Review of internal and external customer complaints and implementation ofnecessary corrective actions at all stages in the process.

. Ongoing review of customer requirements and legislative changes.

. Defined responsibilities and levels of authority for management control.

. Records to demonstrate compliance with procedures and legislation (form part ofthe due diligence defence).

This type of model has been widely used in the development of the pre-requisites infarm assurance and food manufacturing QA standards.

4.2. The process modelAny activity that has a number of inputs and modifies them into one or more outputscan be termed a process. Within a supply chain one output becomes the input for thenext process or several processes. By defining the inputs and outputs and the actualprocess at a given stage, an organisation can determine what attributes they need tocontrol at each “point” in the process to minimise non-conformity. The “mass balanceprinciple” can be applied to production systems as follows:

Inputs ¼ Outputsþ Storageþ Losses:

This can be further modified to:

Inputs ¼ Desired OutputsþWaste By-productsþ Storageþ Losses:

Inputs or outputs can be either direct, i.e. they are the inputs and outputs of the process,or indirect. Indirect inputs or outputs are those criteria that impact on, or result from, aprocess due to the influence of legislative, customer or organisational drivers. The IMSprocess model (Figure 2) ensures that quantitative (measurable) rather than qualitativeinputs and outputs can be defined so that actual performance can be objectivelymeasured. This model is suited to developing quantifiable indicators of business

BFJ108,2

96

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

bu D

habi

Sch

ool o

f Man

agem

ent (

AD

SM) A

t 07:

23 0

6 M

arch

201

6 (P

T)

financial performance and will also drive internal business measurement that is arequirement of European Union (EU) legislation, such as Integrated PollutionPrevention Control (IPPC) and the proposed Broiler Welfare Directive.

4.3. Total quality management modelsA number of models have been developed to implement the total quality management(TQM) concept as previously described especially at the process or quality chain level.One example of a TQM model is the European Foundation of Quality Management(EFQM) Excellence Model (EFQM, 1999). As described by van der Spiegel and Ziggers(2000), the EFQM Excellence Model looks to approach the natural complexity of anorganisation and its business with a “logical and coherent approach” which helps tounderstand key business success factors and their relationships (Figure 3). The EFQMExcellence Model was further developed (Figure 4) by Folkerts et al. (1996). Supply

Figure 2.Process model for broiler

chicken production

Qualityassurance

models

97

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

bu D

habi

Sch

ool o

f Man

agem

ent (

AD

SM) A

t 07:

23 0

6 M

arch

201

6 (P

T)

chains are dynamic networks, the understanding of which is essential to developing acompetitive supply chain strategy.

The Supply Chain Quality Management Model (SCQM model) builds on these toinclude degrees of organisation, supply chain performance and the environment and

Figure 3.EFQM Excellence Model

Figure 4.ICM model

BFJ108,2

98

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

bu D

habi

Sch

ool o

f Man

agem

ent (

AD

SM) A

t 07:

23 0

6 M

arch

201

6 (P

T)

was proposed by van der Spiegel and Ziggers (2000). This model (Figure 5) introducesthe concept that the performance of individual organisations will affect the dynamicsof the whole supply chain and certain externalities (environment) will also force anorganisation to make decisions that are not driven solely by supply chain performance.

4.4. System dynamics modelMinegishi and Thiel (2000) investigated how system dynamics could contribute to thedevelopment of the structure of a generic model for the poultry supply chain. Thedevelopment of materials resource planning (MRP) and just-in-time (JIT) productionsystems are essential where organisations are seeking to reduce costs such as materialstorage and optimising stock holding. The factors which impact on the fresh meatproduction cycle include: short shelf-life of finished product; economic size ofproduction runs and the balance between production forecasting and actual orderquantities as well as the need for traceability to source. It was therefore argued byMinegishi and Thiel that this system is a “pulled production system” for the processorand a “pushed production system” for primary production where the product supplied(birds) could vary both qualitatively and quantitatively. This has the potential to createconstraints “bottlenecks” within the supply chain which is indicative of producing a“natural” product with the inherent degree of variation. The logistic supply chain forbroiler production can be divided into a number of phases as defined (Figure 6); thetimescales at each stage vary enormously.

Figure 5.The SCQM model

Qualityassurance

models

99

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

bu D

habi

Sch

ool o

f Man

agem

ent (

AD

SM) A

t 07:

23 0

6 M

arch

201

6 (P

T)

In order for the supply chain model to be effectively implemented, key performancecriteria need to be developed for each stage. These criteria must then be communicatedto individual organisations, at each stage, so that food safety, animal welfare andproduct quality standards can be consistently met.

5. Benchmarking within food supply chainsThe UK Policy Commission Report on the Future of Farming and Food (PC, 2002)highlighted benchmarking as a mechanism for identifying how a business is operatingcompared to others in the same sector. A key factor in ensuring organisationalcompetitiveness is continuing to maintain attractiveness for a range of stakeholders(Manning and Baines, 2004). Camp (1989) defined the benchmarking process asfollows: “Benchmarking is the continuous process of measuring products, services andpractices against the toughest competitors or the companies recognised as industryleaders”. Alternatively, Oakland (1993) defines benchmarking as, “a means by whichtargets, priorities and operations that will lead to competitive advantage can beestablished”. A number of reasons for benchmarking are outlined in Table II. Bendellet al. (1993) believe that identifying critical success factors is an importantmeasurement tool. Performance indicators can be internally driven; be commerciallydriven as an outcome of continually seeking to improve competitiveness or as a resultof the need of regulatory compliance. Stakeholders may have specific or evenconflicting interests, in these key performance criteria otherwise known asperformance indicators (Bredrup and Bredrup, 1995). Customer satisfaction isdetermined by “the difference between expectations and perceived performance”.Perceived performance is related to the interfaces between the organisation and itsstakeholders and their needs and should influence the performance indicationsdeveloped within a QA model (Figure 7). Bredrup and Bredrup (1995) define threedifferent kinds of interfaces:

(1) stakeholder and company are partners;

(2) stakeholder has a direct interest in the output or process; and

(3) stakeholder has an indirect interest in the output or process.

Andersen and Pettersen (1994) developed three categories of benchmarking internal,competitive and generic, (the later two both being external types). Bendell et al. (1993)define four types, which are outlined with their respective advantages anddisadvantages in Table III.

Figure 6.Supply chain model ofbroiler production

BFJ108,2

100

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

bu D

habi

Sch

ool o

f Man

agem

ent (

AD

SM) A

t 07:

23 0

6 M

arch

201

6 (P

T)

Objectives Without benchmarking With benchmarking

Becoming competitive Internally focusedEvolutionary change

Understand the competitionIdeas from proven practices

Industry best practice Few solutionsFrantic catch up activity

Many optionsSuperior performance

Defining customerrequirements

Based on gut feel or historyPerception

Objective evaluationMarket realityProviding customer solutions

Establishing effective goalsand objectives

Internal focusPerception (gut feel)

External market focusProactiveCredible, unarguable

Developing true measures ofproductivity

Pursuing pet projectsInternalised SWOT analysisCompromise – route of leastresistance

Solving real problems andidentifying real solutionsUnderstanding processes andmeasuring outputsBased on industry best practice

Identifying future influences onthe business

Internal reviewFocusing on technologicalchange

Independent reviewFocusing on the impact of global andnational institutions and addressingcurrent and projected performancegaps

Improving business resources Internally focusedLack of objectivity inreviewing resources

Identifying the need for andadapting to change and newdemands from customers investingin new skills and technology

Source: Adapted from Oakland (1993)

Table II.Reasons for

benchmarking

Figure 7.Model of definition of

performance

Qualityassurance

models

101

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

bu D

habi

Sch

ool o

f Man

agem

ent (

AD

SM) A

t 07:

23 0

6 M

arch

201

6 (P

T)

The Public Sector Benchmarking Service (PSBS, 2005) argue that effectivebenchmarking will deliver tangible benefits in business performance includingimproving product or service quality and productivity, identifying areas that requirechange or innovation and improving performance measurement and drivingcontinuous improvement.

6. SummaryCurrent private QA schemes verify through routine independent inspections thatorganisations are meeting certain prescribed standards. These standards are set by theQA scheme and vary between such schemes and generally address food safety,traceability, animal health and welfare and environmental protection. Thus poultrymeat can be marketed on the basis that the birds have been produced to thosestandards. These, however, are extrinsic rather than intrinsic quality standards andwill not in themselves form a business model that drives supply chain efficiency andbusiness improvement nor ensure that key consumer criteria such as productconsistency, price or availability are met.

The paper has discussed different approaches to QA and the development ofbusiness models. A QA model that drives both legislative and customer complianceand improving organisational performance needs to be based on two elements. It first,requires a pre-requisite programme that defines GMP/GAP, as appropriate to the stagein the supply chain, and second, a benchmarking protocol that measures performancequantitatively against key criteria. The implementation of such a model should assist

Type Description Advantages Disadvantages

Internal Process of comparing internaloperations within the sameorganisation

Easy to gain data Limited by organisationsstructure and does notnecessarily define industrybest practice

Competitive Most common form ofbenchmarking. Process ofcomparing between competitorsof a particular product orbusiness function and couldinclude product specification,distribution or sales service. Thisis very often in the form of a“league table” style approach

Potential mutualbenefit of sharingof information

Confidentiality constraintsmay limit the free-flow ofinformation and theoutcomes of the exercise

Functional Comparison of similar functionswithin the same broad industryor sector i.e. non-competitiveorganisations which carry out thesame functional activities, e.g.warehousing, administration orprocurement

Open comparisonand mutualsharing ofinformation sothere are no issueswithconfidentiality

Practices identified mayneed adapting to suit specificindustries

Generic Comparison of businessprocesses or functions that aresimilar regardless of the industry

Can developinnovative ideas

Practices identified may benovel and thus challengingto implement

Source: Adapted from Bendell et al. (1993)Table III.Types of benchmarking

BFJ108,2

102

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

bu D

habi

Sch

ool o

f Man

agem

ent (

AD

SM) A

t 07:

23 0

6 M

arch

201

6 (P

T)

an organisation to implement anongoingmanagement processwhichwill drive businessexcellence by measuring performance, implementing change to drive improvement andidentifyingways to bemore competitive in themarketplacewhilstmeeting customer andlegislative requirements.

References

Andersen, B. and Pettersen, P.G. (1994), “The basics of benchmarking: what, when, why andhow”, Proceedings from the 1994 Pacific Conference on Manufacturing, Djakarta,Indonesia.

Baines, R.N. (2001), “Food safety in meat – meeting international regulatory requirements”, paperpresented at the Congreso de Produccion y Comercializacion de Carne “Del Campo alPlato”, Montevideo.

Baines, R.N. and Davies, W.P. (1999), Environmental and Animal Safety Dimensions toDeveloping Food Safety and Quality Assurance Initiatives in the United Kingdom, Institutefor Food and Agricultural Standards, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.

Baines, R.N. and Ryan, P. (2002), “Global trends in quality assurance”, paper presented at theTrade Partners UK and Ministry of Agriculture “Modern Food Chain” Seminar, KualaLumpur.

Becker, T. (1999), “The economics of food quality standards”, Proceedings of the SecondInterdisciplinary Workshop on Standardization Research, University of the Federal ArmedForces Hamburg, 24-27 May.

Bendell, T., Boulter, L. and Kelly, J. (1993), Benchmarking for Competitive Advantage, PitmanPublishing, London.

Bredrup, H. and Bredrup, R. (1995), “Benchmarking as performance reference in a performancemanagement model”, in Rolstadas, A. (Ed.), Benchmarking – Theory and Practice,Chapman and Hall, London.

British Standards Institute (BSI) (2000), BSI – EN ISO 9001: 2000. Quality Management –System Requirements, BSI, London.

Camp, R.C. (1989), Benchmarking: The Search for Industry Best Practices that Lead to SuperiorPerformance, ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee, WI.

Codex (1997), Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) System and Guidelines for ItsApplication, Codex Alimentarius Commission Food Hygiene Basic Texts, Revision 3,Codex, Rome.

Early, R. (1995), A Guide to Quality Management Systems for the Food Industry, BlackieAcademic and Professional, London.

EFQM (1999), available at: www.efqm.org

European Commission (1991), Commission Directive 91/412/EEC of 23 July 1991 Laying downthe Principles and Guidelines of Good Manufacturing Practice for Veterinary MedicinalProducts, OJ No L 228 of 17.8.1991, European Commission, Brussels, p. 70.

Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) (2001), Interim Report on the Animal Welfare Inspectionsof Farm Assurance Schemes, FAWC, London.

Fidler, D.G. (1990), “Due diligence and quality assurance in the UK”, Food Control, April,pp. 117-21.

Folkerts, H., Kramer, F.B. and Timmermans, M.H.C. (1996), Ontwikkeling referentiemodel voorintegrale ketenzorg – Onderdeel 6 van het “TKZ project Tuinbouwveilingen” NEHEMConsulting Group, NEHEM Consulting Group, ’s Hertgenbosch.

Qualityassurance

models

103

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

bu D

habi

Sch

ool o

f Man

agem

ent (

AD

SM) A

t 07:

23 0

6 M

arch

201

6 (P

T)

FSA (2002), Meat Plant HACCP Newsletter, No. 1, October.

Institute of Food Science and Technology (IFST) (1998), Food and Drink Good ManufacturingPractice. A Guide to Its Responsible Management, 4th ed., IFST, London.

Manning, L. and Baines, R.N. (2004), “Effective management of food safety and quality”, BritishFood Journal, Vol. 106 No. 8, pp. 598-606.

Maze, A. and Galan, M.B. (2000), “The governance of quality and environmental managementsystems in agriculture: a transaction cost approach. chain management in agribusinessand the food industry”, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference, 25-26 May2000, Wageningen, p. 158.

Minegishi, S. and Thiel, D. (2000), “Generic model of the behaviour of the poultry industry supplychain. Chain management in agribusiness and the food industry”, Proceedings of the 4thInternational Conference, 25-26 May 2000,Wageningen.

Oakland, J.S. (1993), Total Quality Management: The Route to Improving Performance,Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.

Policy Commission (PC) ((2002)), Policy Commission Report on the Future of Farming and Food,PC, London.

PSBS (2005), “Public Sector Benchmarking Scheme UK”, available at: www.benchmarking.gov.uk/about_psbs/thepsbs.asp

Sparling, D., Lee, J. and Howard, W. (2001), “Murgo Farms Inc: HACCP; ISO 9000 and ISO14000”, International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 67-79.

Turner, J.C. and Davies, W.P. (2002), “The modern food chain: profiting from effectiveintegration”, Trade Partners UK and Ministry of Agriculture ‘Modern Food Chain’Seminar, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, March 26, pp. 1-37.

van der Spiegel, M. and Ziggers, G.W. (2000), “Development of a supply chain managementmodel. Chain management in agribusiness and the food industry”, Proceedings of the 4thInternational Conference, 25-26 May 2000, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2000.

Corresponding authorL. Manning can be contacted at: l.manning@btinternet.com

BFJ108,2

104

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

bu D

habi

Sch

ool o

f Man

agem

ent (

AD

SM) A

t 07:

23 0

6 M

arch

201

6 (P

T)

This article has been cited by:

1. Man Mohan Siddh, Gunjan Soni, Rakesh Jain. 2015. Perishable food supply chain quality (PFSCQ).Journal of Advances in Management Research 12:3, 292-313. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

2. Feng Tian, Alfred Taudes, Congcong Yang, Aimin DengEvaluation research on performance of Chineseagri-food cold-chain logistics company 1-6. [CrossRef]

3. Sylvain Charlebois, Brian Sterling, Sanaz Haratifar, Sandi Kyaw Naing. 2014. Comparison of GlobalFood Traceability Regulations and Requirements. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety13:10.1111/crf3.2014.13.issue-5, 1104-1123. [CrossRef]

4. Philip Beske, Anna Land, Stefan Seuring. 2014. Sustainable supply chain management practices anddynamic capabilities in the food industry: A critical analysis of the literature. International Journal ofProduction Economics 152, 131-143. [CrossRef]

5. Louise Manning, Jan Mei Soon. 2013. GAP framework for fresh produce supply. British Food Journal115:6, 796-820. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

6. Siew-Phaik Loke, Alan G. Downe, Murali Sambasivan, Khalizani Khalid. 2012. A structural approach tointegrating total quality management and knowledge management with supply chain learning. Journal ofBusiness Economics and Management 13, 776-800. [CrossRef]

7. Min Zhang, Peichong Li. 2012. RFID Application Strategy in Agri-Food Supply Chain Based on Safetyand Benefit Analysis. Physics Procedia 25, 636-642. [CrossRef]

8. Amir Shabani, Reza Farzipoor Saen, Seyed Mohammad Reza Torabipour. 2012. A new benchmarkingapproach in Cold Chain. Applied Mathematical Modelling 36, 212-224. [CrossRef]

9. C. Johan Lagerkvist, H. Hansson, S. Hess, R. Hoffman. 2011. Provision of Farm Animal Welfare:Integrating Productivity and Non-Use Values. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 33, 484-509.[CrossRef]

10. Amir Shabani, Seyed Mohammad Reza Torabipour, Reza Farzipoor Saen. 2011. Container selection in thepresence of partial dual‐role factors. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management41:10, 991-1008. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

11. Rohit Joshi, D.K. Banwet, Ravi Shankar. 2011. A Delphi-AHP-TOPSIS based benchmarking frameworkfor performance improvement of a cold chain. Expert Systems with Applications 38, 10170-10182.[CrossRef]

12. C. J. Lagerkvist, S. Hess. 2011. A meta-analysis of consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare.European Review of Agricultural Economics 38, 55-78. [CrossRef]

13. Ganjana Panurach, Yanyong Inmoung, Amorn Suwannimit. 2011. Proactive Development Causing aProductive Network of Raw Materials Safety for Hospitals in Thailand. The Social Sciences 6, 131-135.[CrossRef]

14. Ganjana Panurach, Yanyong Inmoung, Amorn Suwannimit. 2011. Hospitals’ Food Safety ManagementModel in Thailand. Research Journal of Applied Sciences 6, 61-65. [CrossRef]

15. R. BainesQuality and safety standards in food supply chains 303-323. [CrossRef]16. Rohit Joshi, Devinder Kumar Banwet, Ravi Shankar. 2009. Indian cold chain: modeling the inhibitors.

British Food Journal 111:11, 1260-1283. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]17. Gionata Carmignani. 2009. Supply chain and quality management. Business Process Management Journal

15:3, 395-407. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

bu D

habi

Sch

ool o

f Man

agem

ent (

AD

SM) A

t 07:

23 0

6 M

arch

201

6 (P

T)

18. Isabelle Veissier, Andrew Butterworth, Bettina Bock, Emma Roe. 2008. European approaches to ensuregood animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 113, 279-297. [CrossRef]

19. Kit Fai Pun, Patricia Bhairo‐Beekhoo. 2008. Factors Affecting HACCP Practices in the Food Sectors: AReview of Literature 1994‐2007. Asian Journal on Quality 9:1, 134-152. [Abstract] [PDF]

20. L. Manning, R. Baines, S. Chadd. 2008. Benchmarking the poultry meat supply chain. Benchmarking:An International Journal 15:2, 148-165. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

21. L. Manning, R.N. Baines, S.A. Chadd. 2007. Quality assurance: a study of the primary poultry producers'perspective. British Food Journal 109:4, 291-304. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

22. Anju BhartiSupply Chain Management and Strategy Implementation for Perishable Goods 152-169.[CrossRef]

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

bu D

habi

Sch

ool o

f Man

agem

ent (

AD

SM) A

t 07:

23 0

6 M

arch

201

6 (P

T)