Broiler growers heard first hand from Red Tractor chief executive Jim Moseley about the future of the controversial Greener Farms Commitment.
Last autumn a furore erupted over Red Tractor’s Greener Farms Commitment (GFC). Farmers complained the planned new optional module would mire them in red tape and benefit others in the supply chain – namely retailers – who were keen to shout about their environmental credentials.
So, when Red Tractor’s chief executive Jim Moseley spoke at the Northern Broiler Conference on 12 February in Harrogate, naturally producers wanted to hear from the horse’s mouth whether their fears were justified.
A bombastic Moseley came out fighting. Criticism of the GFC was based on “mistruths” he said. The rationale behind developing it was to reduce demands on farms from the inevitable environmental schemes that would be developed in the coming years were Red Tractor not to offer one.
Increased demands
In the months since the scheme was paused back in November, this was already happening, he said. “We have seen some bespoke programmes starting in different sectors. The Co-op are doing their own thing, Sainsbury’s is developing their own sustainable beef, and that is going to put increased demands on the supply chain.”
“The whole rationale for the Greener Farms Commitment makes absolute sense,” he added. “As a consequence of the furore that surrounded it, that has been put on hold. But if you look at a lot of the concerns that have been expressed by the agricultural community, they are based slightly on mistruths. They are like: ‘These are new standards!’ They are not. ‘They are giving away the data!’ We don’t want any data, we simply want to know you’ve done the plan. ‘The assessor is going to be coming down on me.’ No, it’s going to be managed in house.
“So, I think when we really look at the rationale for it, I personally believe the rationale holds water.”
Moseley did concede that for some sectors, such as indoor poultry, “one size doesn’t necessarily fit all” and the criteria may have to be changed. “It may be different things such as a focus on litter or feed or different things.”
“The technical scrutiny is still to be done, but by the end of 2024 we can look at it and say is this still meeting the purpose? I hope we can come back to the facts and make a judgement call on whether this is a sensible thing to do or not.”
Sack the board
Moseley flat out rejected suggestions he should stand down from Red Tractor, arguing that if he was forced out the entire board of 18 directors should also be sacked.
During a Q&A session with delegates, Moseley said the development of the GFC was a board level decision and all board members bore equal responsibility.
“A lot of people have said, ‘Jim, you should resign, because you are the CEO of Red Tractor’. But perhaps what people don’t realise is I am one of 18 directors. The other 17 all agreed and said ‘Jim, that needs to be done, you carry it out.’ So, I am taking a little bit of flak for the whole Red Tractor board. I’ll be honest with you, if the principle is [the GFC] is the wrong thing, then the board should be sacked and all the board directors should be sacked, because it was a board decision and I and the Red Tractor team are trying to deliver. Plus, the fact is I am a way off retirement age.”
Mixed response
One poultry producer asked Moseley who Red Tractor was for. “Given the majority of your members are farmers and it is a voluntary scheme, who is Red Tractor there to deliver for?” he asked.
Without hesitation, Moseley answered that it was for consumers, which led to some intakes of breath around the room.
“It is there to deliver for consumers. It was established in 2000 to restore consumer confidence and it still exists for consumers. That said it could not operate without input from the entire chain, but I think when you look at that entire chain, they are well represented on the RT board, on the sector boards, and suchlike.”
Moseley argued that were the focus shift to farmers’ needs, the scheme would lose relevance. “When we are developing our standards, it requires input from every one of our stakeholders, but if we start to sway it and say it is for farmers, you can be sure that over time it will lose relevance and retailers will go somewhere else.”
Moseley gave an example from the world of fresh produce. Leaf Marque has become the dominant scheme in that area, he said, “because Leaf Marque delivers all the environmental requirements of the major retailers.
Worth nothing
“Red Tractor could have been there, had it delivered its module a few years ago, but it didn’t, and Leaf Marque has taken over. And for me that is a good example of the way the market will move. And if we don’t move with the market, and we lose relevance with the market, and our scheme is worth nothing. And that is what concerns me. I can see a situation where the market will move without Red Tractor. And we will lose that relevance and significance.”
Producers in the room had a mixed response. Speaking to Poultry Business after the session finished, one poultry producer described Moseley as coming across “as arrogant.”
“He says there is consultation but the reality is we are not asked about anything for years. It’s only since this blew up we have been asked for our views,” added another.
Others were more positive. One poultry producer in his 20s said he welcomed Moseley’s forthright approach. “It was good to hear from Jim about why RT was set up in the first place. Being younger I didn’t actually know the background and that there was lack of confidence in British farming at the time.
“I thought he explained himself well and was happy to take criticism head on and I thought he made a good case,” he added.
Another concluded that for all Red Tractor’s problems, it was beneficial to the industry overall. “It’s like Brexit. For everything that’s wrong with it, it’s better we’re in than out.”
DIVIDED OPINION
An independent review into the governance of Red Tractor has underlined the extent of divided opinion on the assurance scheme, but highlighted a path towards better relations.
The NFU commissioned consultants Campbell Tickell to review Red Tractor governance in the wake of criticism of the launch of the Greener Farms Commitment, which the union argued happened without sufficient input from farmers.
Campbell Tickell concluded that Red Tractor’s representative model is not fundamentally flawed, but has been unable to deliver consensus across all areas of food production and processing, and may not be capable of dealing effectively with the intense challenges it faces in its current form.
The review found widely contrasting perceptions of the behaviour and culture of Red Tractor. It noted that the scheme’s supporters see Red Tractor as an effective, forceful and well-run leader in the food and farming space, while its detractors – some of whom sit within the governance structure itself – see it as “closed, over-controlling, dominated by certain interests and secretive”.
It has also been accused of being “in the pockets of retailers” and being too English-centric.
Key recommendations
Campbell Tickell made six key recommendations for Red Tractor to implement. The consultants suggested bosses create and publish a Governance Handbook to address issues around lack of clarity about roles and responsibilities, and introduce a formal process of appraisal for board and committee members, to foster a culture of continuous improvement.
They advised the development and adoption of a Board Member Code of Conduct, and to ensure that aspects of the code have application to the wider governance community.
They also said stakeholder engagement and relations must be addressed as a priority, and finally, that the Red Tractor risk map be reviewed and revised so that it can be fit for purpose in the new environment.
Red Tractor reacts
Reacting to the publication of the report, Red Tractor chair Christine Tacon said: “The review reports that ‘Red Tractor governance is sound’ and Campbell Tickell have found ‘no procedural breach’.
“It also flags that ‘Red Tractor is perhaps significantly more transparent than other assurance schemes’ and acknowledges that this, together with its representative structure, leads to governance complexity. Red Tractor needs to respond to this, particularly given the current pressure of a challenging operating environment.
“The review sends a clear message about the level of frustration farmers feel and we need to listen carefully to their views. We will also continue to increase our efforts and investment in communicating Red Tractor’s purpose and benefits to farmer members.
“We now have an essential opportunity to reflect and refresh the way Red Tractor delivers its role for all stakeholders across the entire food chain. Over the coming weeks, Red Tractor’s AFS Board will consider the review in full before agreeing next steps and how these will be implemented.”
Following publication of the review, Red Tractor released a lengthy statement highlighting where the report acknowledges its efforts in the face of challenging conditions.
Among those areas, regarding the Greener Farms Commitment Red Tractor pointed out that the review confirms that the proposals are correctly part of its remit: “Red Tractor’s standards are to cover food safety, animal welfare and the protection of the environment,” the review states. “Red Tractor’s activities, in producing its assurance standards, promoting the Red Tractor Brand and developing the environmental module, the Greener Farms Commitment, fall full-square within its corporate objects.”
It also notes the challenging circumstances surrounding the process. “Although throughout its 23-year existence Red Tractor has always needed to balance pressures and forces – the needs of consumers, retailers, processors, farmers, governments and others – that are often in direct conflict with one another, there has probably not been as difficult a set of operating circumstances as at present.”