Red tractor stakeholder survey on governance

[Barleymow]

There seems to be a fair bit of media interest in the NFU AGM in Birmingham, it would be great if one of our more eloquent members could get there an try to get out side across

Get some tractors in the carpark or people with appropriate banners at the door, bit to far from here

 

[Rnold]

stakeholders / ownership bodies have had their say in review 1

review 2 should be all about the victims. …….. uk farmers

Review 2 in two years time after they have pushed on and modified the scheme to obtain all their requirements.

 

[JP1]

rarely has an email made me so angry !

utterly disgusting, totally predictable

​

​ Red Tractor Member Mailing​

Dear Red Tractor Member Independent review finds Red Tractor Governance is sound and no breach of procedure

London, 19 February 2024: The NFU have today published Campbell Tickell’s independent review of Red Tractor Governance. Red Tractor Chair, Christine Tacon commented: “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.” The Review has found that Red Tractor governance is sound and comments that: “Red Tractor’s procedures were followed and there was no procedural breach in relation to the events which gave rise to the decision to commission this review.” [Paragraph 1.7] Regarding the Greener Farms Commitment, the Review confirms that the proposals are correctly part of Red Tractor’s remit: “Red Tractor’s standards are to cover food safety, animal welfare and the protection of the environment. 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.” [3.3] Campbell Tickell have investigated the work on the Greener Farms Commitment proposal and found that: “…a process was agreed which included customer surveys, piloting with 40 farming enterprises, a cost-benefit analysis, updates to all Sector Boards, and regular OB and Board updates. Some 300 + stakeholders were involved in this process, including the NFU, which was duly briefed at formal meetings during the process.” [2.6] The report comments on the challenging circumstances that surrounded this 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.” [2.14] Campbell Tickell also observe that Red Tractors’ governance is complex and makes responding to these operating circumstances more difficult: “The Articles of AFS are, in comparison with most companies limited by guarantee, somewhat complex, for reasons that we have acknowledged above. However, a successful 20-plus year track record suggests that they have, until recent events, proved fit for purpose.” [3.8] The review identifies that this complexity is increased by the need to respond to the differences between the devolved nations: “...the differences between the devolved nations have become more pronounced over recent years, and that ensuring that Red Tractor can respond to and engage with all the nations will be one of the critical success measures going forward.” [3.34] Campbell Tickell’s report comments that to respond to this challenging operating conditions, Red Tractor will need a united board of directors: “Whatever the number of Board members, it is important that all should be united around common purpose, and should fully understand their role and behave accordingly.” [3.11] The report also highlights the importance of communications: “We consider that this situation is partly a communication issue – there is of course a great deal of communication and consultation, but its recipients may not always fully understand exactly how a given item may fit into the wider processes under way. In this sense, Red Tractor is perhaps significantly more transparent than other assurance schemes, but given the considerable complexity of the structure, this does not currently always operate in its favour.” [3.39] The review reports that there are misunderstandings within Red Tractor’s governance structure: “…a significant minority people within its governance structure and to whom we have spoken in the course of our review have expressed themselves unclear as to their role and the precise role of their part of that structure, whether the Sector Boards or Technical Advisory Committees.” [3.35] Campbell Tickell have also identified what they describe as ‘widely contrasting perceptions’ of Red Tractor: “Many see Red Tractor as a well-managed, effective and professional organisation striving to make progress in difficult conditions and to exercise much-needed leadership in the food and farming industries. Others (although fewer of these on the Board of Red Tractor) see the organisation as having a closed, top-down and controlling culture and as having lost touch with the farming communities.” [3.50] And: “Thus we have found evidence to support both the contrasting sets of perceptions referred to above. There is widespread praise for the quality of Red Tractor Board Members and for the professionalism, commitment and effectiveness of the executive team. In the focus groups we encountered much respect for the wider staff workforce and a recognition of the very stressful conditions under which they were working.” [3.56] Campbell Tickell make a number of recommendations designed to inform the response to their Review. Red Tractor’s Ownership Body and the AFS Board will now consider these in full: Campbell Tickell's Recommendations: 1. Create and publish a Governance Handbook: To address issues around lack of clarity about roles and responsibilities. 2. Introduce a formal process of appraisal for Board and Committee members: To foster a culture of continuous improvement within the governance of the organisation and enable opportunities for ongoing simplification and streamlining. 3. Develop and adopt a Board Member Code of Conduct: To balance two considerations: That company law requires directors to act in the best interests of the company; and that those interests can sometimes conflict with the interests of the body the director represents. 4. Ensure that aspects of the Code of Conduct have application to the wider governance community. 5. Address stakeholder engagement and relations as a priority: We understand that Red Tractor intends to commit resource and time to engaging with farmers in coming months, explaining its work and purpose. We recommend that this be done as soon as practicable. This effort needs to be matched by the Ownership Bodies. 6. Review and revise the Red Tractor risk map: so that it can be fit for purpose in the new environment. Regards Red Tractor Team

What did you expect ?

Did she ever represent farmers in the Grocery Adjudicator’s office

Same small pilot boat as Minette Batters and Dr Capper

 

[JP1]

Get some tractors in the carpark or people with appropriate banners at the door, bit to far from here

I’ve advocated this for months

No tractors or fancy 4x4, just farmers and their banners



oh and the press and with a decent , detailed , objective press release listing the chronology of this debacle

@Grass And Grain

 

[Clive]

What did you expect ?

Did she ever represent farmers in the Grocery Adjudicator’s office

Same small pilot boat as Minette Batters and Dr Capper

it's what I expected from RT / NFU of course ........... but having now read the full report its seems there is rather a lot of spin in that email and its certainly not all glowing and rosy, it proves that NFU leadership were certainly less than honest, open and transparent about their involvement and knowlage of GFC and highlights a lot of internal issues acknowledges that conflicts of interest exist and the way appointment method of board members has issues. It highlight and recommends need for fundamental change / ground up type rethink and warns against failure / the end of RRT if that doesn't happen urgently. It also confirms to me that there has been a BIG fall out between stakeholders, boards and ownership bodies all busy clearly throwing each other under the bus right now


ie a lot of the stuff I an others have been pointing out for a long time now and RT / NFU have been denying or discrediting .......... is confirmed accurate by that report

have a read - its not ALL quite what that RT email would have you think

 

[Drillman]

I’ve come to the conclusion that Jim Mosley is stupid.

He states that red tractor is not there to deliver for farmers. well as farmers are paying into the scheme in a fairly major way I think its only reasonable to expect red tractor to deliver for us. And Its also pretty obvious that if it isn’t we should quite rightly kick up a stink about it.

What’s really baffling is the fact red tractor management seem to be a bit confused why we as paying members aren’t happy!

are they stupid, arrogant or both? You decide.

Those that want assurance should pay for it end of, And if red tractor are as good as they claim they shouldnt have an issue negotiating and delivering on that aim.

 

[Treacle Sponge]

Great whitewashing job on the tractor shed.

 

[SilliamWhale]

I’ve come to the conclusion that Jim Mosley is stupid.

He states that red tractor is not there to deliver for farmers. well as farmers are paying into the scheme in a fairly major way I think its only reasonable to expect red tractor to deliver for us. And Its also pretty obvious that if it isn’t we should quite rightly kick up a stink about it.

What’s really baffling is the fact red tractor management seem to be a bit confused why we as paying members aren’t happy!

are they stupid, arrogant or both? You decide.

Those that want assurance should pay for it end of, And if red tractor are as good as they claim they shouldnt have an issue negotiating and delivering on that aim.

Answer: Money and Control

 

[Sonoftheheir]

The assured combinable crops scheme was set up to differentiate UK farmers products to imports and for a price premium for the UK farmer.

It is now not fit for purpose, is there a legal route that could be taken to disband it?

 

[Breckland Boy]

I’ve come to the conclusion that Jim Mosley is stupid.

He states that red tractor is not there to deliver for farmers. well as farmers are paying into the scheme in a fairly major way I think its only reasonable to expect red tractor to deliver for us. And Its also pretty obvious that if it isn’t we should quite rightly kick up a stink about it.

What’s really baffling is the fact red tractor management seem to be a bit confused why we as paying members aren’t happy!

are they stupid, arrogant or both? You decide.

Those that want assurance should pay for it end of, And if red tractor are as good as they claim they shouldnt have an issue negotiating and delivering on that aim.

Agree its all arse about face.
RT is there for food processors and retailers, not UK agriculture. If they want it they should be paying rt and then we should get a payment if we accept their terms.
That would in effect then be the premium that we require and wouldn't impact on the base value of cereals, milk, beef or lamb etc.
The proposed gfc should also work this way around. The amount paid to farmers would find its market value through supply and demand.

 

[Humble Village Farmer]

From the report:

3.2 Thus, from paragraph 3 of the Memorandum it is clear that Red Tractor’s objects include the development of credible and proportionate food assurance standards. Red Tractor is to adopt or develop quality assurance standards covering every key food commodity sector and any necessary link in the food production chain. It is to develop, promote and defend the Red Tractor Logo and to work to ensure that food assurance provides added value for producers. In effect, this is Red Tractor’s mission, and needs to be delivered, and be seen to be delivered.

Red tractor has failed and is continuing to fail in this. This is a failure of governance, and a failure of red tractor staff, boards and management, all the way up Christine Tacon and Jim Moseley

 

[Chris F]

TFF indirectly gets a mention after we were asked to share the survey with other farmers by a farmer member of the site. 2,227 is a great response to a survey! That's 4.5% of total audience of Red Tractor Farmers.

 

[Renaultman]

TFF indirectly gets a mention after we were asked to share the survey with other farmers by a farmer member of the site. 2,227 is a great response to a survey! That's 4.5% of total audience of Red Tractor Farmers.

View attachment 1165494

The scary part is, that means, 95% didn't understand or care about the issues to do anything about it
I know Clive doesn't want to get any further involved than he already is, but we really need someone to take a lead, possibly raise some funds and first of all get our farming colleagues to understand and appreciate what's going on, and then, hopefully
The general public.

 

[Chris F]

The scary part is, that means, 95% didn't understand or care about the issues to do anything about it

Remember it was around Xmas with about 2 days notice. Also, not all farmers read TFF (scary thought).

There is going to be a second survey, which I'm sure AHDB and NFU will share widely as well. So would expect with a few weeks lead to get more than that.

 

[ploughman1963]

It’s easy for us to leave NFU & save on subs
We can’t leave RT because our milk buyer won’t allow it.
RT bully us into beef combined with our RT Dairy
We can’t leave RT because our cereals buyers price make the job uneconomical
We could leave RT beef & lamb but most of the work (& expense) is already done with RT dairy

If it was up to me I’d say f**k em and sell all livestock, rent sheds for storage & maximise on SFI

But my son wants to be a proper farmer & make it pay - modernise the farm & diversify too.

My Dad let me & my brother get on with it so I have to let my son make his own way.

If you only sell beef calves and culls you should insist on having ‘minor beef’ added to your dairy Rt free of charge. I have posted the email from RT on here previously confirming that you do not need full beef and sheep saving you a nice sum

 

[Humble Village Farmer]

TFF indirectly gets a mention after we were asked to share the survey with other farmers by a farmer member of the site. 2,227 is a great response to a survey! That's 4.5% of total audience of Red Tractor Farmers.

View attachment 1165494

Because farmers aren't key stakeholders are they?

 

[JP1]

TFF indirectly gets a mention after we were asked to share the survey with other farmers by a farmer member of the site. 2,227 is a great response to a survey! That's 4.5% of total audience of Red Tractor Farmers.

View attachment 1165494

And with what 72 hours notice before the deadline?

We must thank @AIMS all the way through this

Total respect for transparency and greatly appreciate the frankness and honesty - some folks have scruples

 

[Bruce Almighty]

If you only sell beef calves and culls you should insist on having ‘minor beef’ added to your dairy Rt free of charge. I have posted the email from RT on here previously confirming that you do not need full beef and sheep saving you a nice sum

Thanks yes I am aware of that.
We have started rearing calves and also do lamb (1000 ewes) so we’d be penalised if we didn’t do it.

 

[Charles.]

Answer: Money and Control

Precisely.

 

[JP1]

As Jim’s in the mood for consultants right now maybe RT should engage a brand consultant to go the other way from Red Tractor to Dead Tractor ?