Red tractor stakeholder survey on governance

[gone up the hill]

When they are happy with the wording maybe?

Problem is when they release the first report there will then be massive pressure for them to start the second review and its already fairly clear the second review is not going to get the responses they are looking for.

 

[ploughman1963]

over 2000 unsolicited responses! Thats an awesome response in the time window that we had to submit. There can be no doubt about what RT and the owners face if they ignore that message - imagine the response we will be able to muster with a reasonable time period in which to make sure more farmers are aware and have an opportunity to respond.

 

[spin cycle]

wait for Campbell tickly second review response....

'UMmmm....about those two thousand unsolicited responses ....turns out they were bang on....we can only conclude that the farmer part of this review is not representative of the...ERrrr wider farming community and must be disregarded?'

 

[slackjawedyokel]

over 2000 unsolicited responses! Thats an awesome response in the time window that we had to submit. There can be no doubt about what RT and the owners face if they ignore that message - imagine the response we will be able to muster with a reasonable time period in which to make sure more farmers are aware and have an opportunity to respond.

Well, yes…

But unfortunately, looking at the general tone of everything so far, I can’t help thinking that the 2nd review will find in the one hand that a big group of farmers are hugely negative/angry/bolshy about RT, while other people (supermarkets, processors, AIC, RT employees, DEFRA, AHDB, the NFUs etc etc) are largely positive about FA and think it’s essential. And RT is currently the only kid on the block … so crack on RT.

I suspect the only thing that will stir them up (because we KNOW that these reviews are being carefully stage managed by bodies that are pro-RT, don’t we?) is if a very large portion of farmer ‘stakeholders’ walk away from it. We should be planning for that eventuality.

 

[slackjawedyokel]

wait for Campbell tickly second review response....

'UMmmm....about those two thousand unsolicited responses ....turns out they were bang on....we can only conclude that the farmer part of this review is not representative of the...ERrrr wider farming community and must be disregarded?'

Farmer stakeholders aren’t important enough to have their opinions considered. Just look at AHDBs consultation of farmers before they decided stakeholders had agreed with an increase in their levy fees.

No; me neither.

 

[Dave645]

Edit, you beat me to it.

Quote
The unsolicited responses.

The large number of unsolicited responses received to the third survey, which was never in fact
issued, but circulated by others, were almost entirely negative, suggesting considerable anxiety
and frustration among some sections of the farming community about Red Tractor assurance.
We have not considered it correct to take account of the responses in our report, given that
respondents were self-selected from a particular group of the farming community, and that the
responses had no direct bearing on the governance of Red Tractor as defined for our review.
Clearly though, the views expressed are likely to have some relevance to the second wider review,
and we will liaise with NFU and RT as to whether and how best to feed them in at the

another quote from it.
Almost 90% agreed that Red Tractor is accountable to and open to influence from food suppliers and retailers (A8); however just under half agreed that the same is true for farmers and food producers (A7). Almost half (just over 40%) of respondents disagreed that Red Tractor listens and responds to their views and those of other stakeholders (A9).

there is the truth of it, until that changes RT should be disbanded.
anyone thinking the second part was true is delusional, the just under half thinking farmers have the same influence.

 

[Dave645]

Red Tractor reviews: latest update

Read the latest news on the Red Tractor review.

www.nfuonline.com

Predictable outcome.

it was, no big shock that despite it being universally hated by farmers they think they are doing ok.

 

[anzani]

Thanks I hadn't seen that.

How do you get to see the whole report?

https://www.nfuonline.com/media/odpfptnh/red-tractor-independent-governance-review.pdf

 

[Dave645]

another quote.

5.2 A wide national review of UK farm assurance is about to get under way, which may end up making recommendations fundamentally affecting Red Tractor’s future role and success. And although Red Tractor itself may have suspended development work on new standards while this governance review is under way, its operating environment is moving on: the pressures constantly rising, consumer expectations and competition from other food suppliers and exporters – these are growing, not abating.

I think that is a point worth exploring by the BFU, where is this pressure and competition coming from, who, why, etc.

as this will give us scope to see what is real and what is retails goals. I also think that we can argue that it's important to differentiate between who these apply to, directly or indirectly. so, we don't get needs that only very few farmers are affected by, being applied like a blanket on everyone.
especially when these needs/pressures are maybe covered by retails own schemes anyway.

 

[Bramble]

Someone needs to remind RT of the AFS Memorandum of Association that defines the objectives of RT. See para 3.2

‘to work to ensure that food assurance provides added value for producers’

THIS LINE SHOULD BE REVISITED EVERY TIME RT COMES UP WITH A NEW STANDARD/MODULE. At the moment I see very little evidence of any added value from being RT assured. The AFS board should be held answerable by producers as to how exactly is food assurance adding value

 

[NewlandFarm]

Email received from RT

​

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

Red Tractor​

 

[ploughman1963]

Farmer stakeholders aren’t important enough to have their opinions considered. Just look at AHDBs consultation of farmers before they decided stakeholders had agreed with an increase in their levy fees.

No; me neither.

Have you seen the ag minister’s reply to BFU regarding lack of consultation on AHDB levies elsewhere on here? Apparently we had loads of opportunity to respond to AHDB’s many attempts to get our feedback so, the levy increases will go through

 

[onesiedale]

over 2000 unsolicited responses! Thats an awesome response in the time window that we had to submit. There can be no doubt about what RT and the owners face if they ignore that message - imagine the response we will be able to muster with a reasonable time period in which to make sure more farmers are aware and have an opportunity to respond.

But, as ever, it is the quality of the questionnaire construction that will inevitably drive the quality of the analysis.
Personally, I think CT are out of their depth.

 

[Dave645]

Email received from RT

​

​ 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

Red Tractor​

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.

they miss a few.

distinguish between retail wish list items, and core assurance.
show farmer stakeholders where the pay back is. with simple demonstratable numbers, unless we can, we need to pack up and wind down RT.

 

[Cecil snear]

Email received from RT

​

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

Red Tractor​

From reading the above RT are going to crack on with GFC from 1st April as planned

 

[onesiedale]

Email received from RT

​

​ 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

Red Tractor​

Thoughts on that email ^^

“It also flags that ‘Red Tractor is perhaps significantly more transparent than other assurance schemes’ ...
But doesn't say what the other assurance schemes are

“We now have an essential opportunity to reflect and refresh the way Red Tractor delivers"...
Can someone define an essential opportunity please?

: “…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.”
This doesn't sound right, it sounds made up, I would even go so far as to say a lie. This needs to be transparent.
Who has actually seen, or been involved in any of this? That list of people above would amount to more than 1000. Statistically that in itself is so significant that it is nothing short of a miracle that nobody else has mentioned it.

" 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, "
It's strange that now, after the report, farmers suddenly become stakeholders. This is probably the single biggest admission of the contempt that farmers have been treated with.

 

[Hay Maker]

https://www.nfuonline.com/media/odpfptnh/red-tractor-independent-governance-review.pdf

Thank you Anzani for your link, have just downloaded this. I think the last paragraph in Appendix 4 sums up what we need to know 'Outputs, we discussed the draft report with NFU, the OB and the Chair of Red Tractor to ensure accuracy before finalising it (taking into account feedback) and supplying the final report' which translates into a whitewash!

 

[slackjawedyokel]

From reading the above RT are going to crack on with GFC from 1st April as planned

In that case, we should all crack on and head out the door.

 

[J 1177]

From reading the above RT are going to crack on with GFC from 1st April as planned

As we knew they would, corrupt

 

[George Mitchell]

In that case, we should all crack on and head out the door.

If only we could, its basically the license to produce milk in NI