The economics of accreditation

This paper is a report on a research project on the economics of accreditation in the UK. The main motivation and objective for the study is to have available a detailed analysis of how the accreditation system impinges on important aspects of economic life, such as innovation and business and economic performance. It aims to improve the general understanding of the benefits of using accredited conformity assessment and to help businesses make informed decisions when procuring conformity assessment and related services. It is also intended to be helpful to government by supporting evidence-based policy making in relation to accreditation and conformity assessmen

Mismanagement: Labor\u27s Rightful Cause

[Excerpt] Mismanagement is so widespread and its effects upon job security, wages and standards are so damaging to labor that unions must expand the traditional boundaries of their authority and begin to experiment with ways to challenge management prerogatives. While some people may argue that such a direction will lead to enterprise unionism, those arguments have many of the same weaknesses as those against worker ownership and power-sharing. The alternative in our current situation is to passively allow managers to continue to destroy jobs and communities. Those who hope to rebuild our economy based upon more humane principles will need a constituency which includes union members who have, at the local level, really dug in and challenged mismanagement, posing alternatives to save jobs. The discussion below covers the most common and damaging forms of mismanagement; the rest of this issue of Labor Research Review shows what unions can and have done to challenge bad management. It does nor cover subjects which many of us consider mismanagement of the overall economy, such as socially destructive deregulation, laissez-faire trade policies, or the massive diversion of precious financial and technical resources to the military. While not ignoring such national economic issues, the training for empowerment for more grass-roots control of the economy has to begin with local campaigns where local unions and their allies have immediate organizing handles

Strengthening Construction Management in the Rural Rehab Line of Business

The Five Key ObservationsObservation#1: Rural rehab success emanated from positive thinking and persistent implementationObservation #2: Almost every RHRO would benefit from a substantial increase in the per unit funding available, especially in light of the forthcoming HUD HOME requirement to establish written rehab standards in ten subcategories.Observation #3: A smartphone and tablet with 20 to 40 apps is the rehab specialist's Swiss Army knife. They are our, GPS, calculator, spec writer, office lifeline in case of danger, camera, clock, cost estimator calendar and a hundred other single-purpose but very important uses.Observation #4: NeighborWorks® Rural Initiative could provide a clearinghouse for success techniques targeted to rural rehab. Each month it might focus on a specific aspect of rehab management; inspection checklists in January, green specs in February, feasibility checklist in March, contractor qualification questionnaires in April and so on.Observation #5: Even with most components of in-house contractor success formula in place, per the Statistic Research Institute 53% of construction firms go out of business with in the first 4 years. It remains a very risky model that requires significant; funding, staff experience, administrative support and risk tolerance.Three Rehab Production Models And Their AlternativesThis middle section restates the introduction and methodology and offers a detailed review of the Traditional Rehab Specialist, Construction Management Of Subcontractor and the In-House General Contractor production models .for each model the article provides: definition and staffing pattern, design roles and tasks for each major player, benefits and challenges, alternative models and finally recommendations for successful implementationFocus TopicsDuring our interview process, three ideas surfaced that were best served with a mini discussion of the topic rather than being embedded in the already large middle section.The three topics are; software and technology, management of community relations – marketing and quality control, and budget solution

Stakeholders’ views on improving the organic certification system: Results from an EU level workshop

The FP7 CERTCOST project has the overall objective to give recommendations to the public authorities and private actors in the whole organic certification chain on how to improve the organic food certification systems in terms of efficiency, transparency and cost effectiveness. According to the project description (the Description of Work, or DoW) this will be done based on a scientific economic in depth analysis of the certification systems from the farmer to the consumer in 5 EU countries (the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom), plus Switzerland and the candidate country, Turkey. To safeguard that the CERTCOST objectives, work plan and methodology is in line with the expectations of key stakeholders from all levels of the certification chain the DoW foresaw a Stakeholder workshop to be organised in the beginning of the project. The current report documents the main points of the discussions and recommendation given by the stakeholders at this CERTCOST Stakeholder workshop, which took place on November, 13-15, 2008 in Izmir, Turkey, 2.5 months after the project had started. A total of 20 stakeholders were invited, of whom 16 could participate in the workshop. The participant profile included both users and providers of the certification system at different levels such as representatives of farmers’ organizations certification/control bodies, government authorities, EU Commission, processors/ traders, private experts/consultants. Together with the representatives of the partner institutions in the CERTCOST project, the total number of workshop participants was 35 representing 12 European countries. Given the diverse backgrounds of the workshop participants, a working group approach (World Café approach) was applied in order to give the participants the opportunity to reflect their experiences and ideas on the implementation of the project in a synergetic, comfortable and free environment. After a brief presentation of the project, outlining the tasks of the work packages and describing the proposed links between the project and the stakeholders by the project coordinator, the stakeholders were divided into four groups according to their level in the organic certification chain, as farmers, processors/traders, certification bodies and consumers. Two working group sessions were carried out around the questions provided to the stakeholders before the workshop through electronic mails. The questions had been compiled based on input from the managers of the four work packages which were relevant to the workshop discussion. After the first working group session, a plenary discussion session for clustering of the output given by the working groups, their validation and assessment was carried out. In the second session of the working groups, it was rather aimed to harmonize the understanding between the diversified opinions mentioned in Session 1. The working group approach concluded in a final plenary discussion. On the second day, the CERTCOST work package managers presented how the discussions, comments and inputs of the working group sessions could impact on their working plans. In the final session the stakeholders were addressed directly for providing further ideas both on the project and on future collaboration options. The workshop was strongly focused on the identification of key characteristics of cost factors along the supply chain in relation to their impact on the quality of the given service. However a broad range of related subjects were discussed. The Stakeholder workshop put forward that, the ‘cost’ was among the most important topics relating to the certification system performance. The focus of the project aiming at cost effectiveness and not cost minimization was confirmed by the stakeholders. All of the stakeholders present in the workshop demonstrated elevated levels of interest on several outputs of the project. The workshop revealed very positive expectations among the stakeholders towards the risk based approach to be followed in the CERTCOST project. The detailed picture of the organic certification sector obtained through the workshop will constitute an important input to the CERTCOST project and the workshop is considered to be a successful first step in the project-stakeholder interaction. The Stakeholder workshop provided important insight into the many discussion subjects of the organic certification systems in the EU and worldwide, among others the following should be mentioned. Farmers expect to have, clear rules, fair implementation, and high skilled guidance in the inspection and certification process, and underline the need for training of farmers and certifiers and for better communication between all parties in the certification chain. Processors point out the need for a good relationship with the inspectors and certifiers as well as the fact that there existed different schemes in different countries regarding the inspection process and the related cost structure. They also highlighted the difficulty of managing the relations with increasing number of different standards and different certification bodies. It is agreed that consumers expect something they can trust and they can easily recognize, a label, a logo, a certifier, a brand, a farmer or the word ‘organic’; at local, regional, national, or EU-level. It is also concluded that whether, why and how much some consumers might be willing to pay more for particular logos was unknown and was needed to be investigated. Authorities/certification bodies stress that the issue of knowledge and education is extremely important and that there are complex legislations, no common standards, and differences within and between countries. They underline that there are different catalogues in different countries to deal with irregularities which should be harmonized. They emphasize that a clear definition of certification should be made covering its objectives, principles and tools. While on some of the issues there has been a highlighted consensus among the groups, on some others contrasting ideas became evident. Among those subjects of absolute agreement were the importance of and the need for a more clear understanding of the certification system, its components and rules by all the parties involved. Education and elevated levels of necessary skills from farmer to inspector and to consumer; increased transparency and information exchange, well defined relationships between parties were considered to be an indispensable basis for a well functioning and more efficient certification system. The inspection concept came into prominence, with a discussion on policing vs. development approaches. While an efficient and comparable control system was judged to be crucial, promising private governmental formulations were agreed to be based on country conditions. Complexity of the legislation and lack of transparency were the remarkable barriers to a more efficient control system. The EU logo and the new EU Regulation for organic certification were also discussed among stakeholders. It was suggested that the EU logo might have the potential to boost demand in the ‘less developed’ organic markets, but more promotion then currently planned would be needed. It was agreed that most consumers do not look for logos of particular standards but for the word ‘organic’ and/or an organic logo they are familiar with. This might be different for ‘committed’ organic consumers in more mature markets. Overall, it was agreed that ‘trust’ is the most crucial aspect of organic certification regarding the consumer side. The issue of multiple certification and standards appeared to be a factor deserving more attention in the certification world. Harmonization in certification of the same characteristic of a product was deemed necessary. On the other hand, exchange of experiences and cooperation with markets like ‘Fair Trade’ was agreed to be potentially beneficial

RESEARCH UPDATES

Includes: Price and Distribution Variations for Value-Added Vegetable Products in California. Jim Ahern and Marianne Wolf, Professors, Agribusiness Department, Cal Poly State University SLO. Case Study of Heritage Ranch, "Wolf-Friendly Beef." Helen L. Aquino, Graduate Research Assistant, Agricultural Economics, New Mexico State University. Branding Locally Grown Fruit and Vegetables Via State Logos. John R. Brooker, David B. Eastwood, and Morgan D. Gray; Faculty Members; Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Findings of Strategies Followed by the 28 Past Winners of the Malcolm Baldridge National Quality Award, 1988-1996. Robert R. Cangemi and Raymond H. Lopez, Pace University, Lubin School of Business, White Plains, New York. Consumer Opinions Concerning Fresh Potatoes: Delaware, A Case Study. Khari A. Cook, Ulrich C. Toensmeyer, Carl L. German, and J. Richard Bacon; Graduate Student, Professor, Extension Marketing Specialist, and Associate Scientist, respectively; Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Delaware. Country-of-Origin Labeling of Foods from the Consumer's Perspective. Robert L. Degner and Susan D. Moss; Professor and Director, and Economic Analyst, respectively; Florida Agricultural Market Research Center, University of Florida. Attributes Important to Wine Sales in On-Premise Markets. Tim Dodd, Director, Texas Wine Marketing Research Institute, Texas Tech University. The Effectiveness of U.S. Promotion Programs on the Export Demand for U.S. Pecans. James E. Epperson, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Georgia. Evaluating Consumer Use of Food Advertisements: The Influence of Socioeconomic Characteristics. Ramu Govindasamy and John Italia; Assistant Professor and Marketing Specialist, and Program Associate, respectively; Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, Rutgers University, Cook College, New Brunswick, New Jersey. Predicting Willingness-to-Pay for Integrated Pest Management Produce: A Logistic Approach. Ramu Govindasamy, John Italia, and Adesoji Adelaja Govindasamy; Assistant Professor and Marketing Specialist, Program Associate, Associate Professor and Department Chair, respectively; Department of Agricultural, Food and Resource Economics, Rutgers University, Cook College, New Brunswick, New Jersey. Survey Update on Retail Marketing of Fruits and Vegetables Over the Internet. Morgan Gray, David Eastwood and John Brooker; Faculty Members, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Food Quality Management Systems: A Research Update. Neal H. Hooker, Postdoctoral Research Associate, Center for Food Safety, Texas A&M University, and Department of Resource Economics, University of Massachusetts; Maury E. Bredahl, Director, Center for International Trade Studies, and Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Missouri; Julie A. Caswell is Professor, Department of Resource Economics, University of Massachusetts. U.S. Export Demand for Poultry Meat Products: A Bayesian Approach for Almost Ideal Demand System (AIDS) Model Estimation. Man-ser Jan, Chung L. Huang, and James E. Epperson, University of Georgia. Trade and Foreign Direct Investment in the U.S. Food Processing Industry. Mary A. Marchant, R. Munirathinam, and Michael R. Reed, University of Kentucky. New Uses for WIC Data: The Case of Ethnic Food Preferences. James R. Matthews, WIC Information, Research, and Evaluation Unit, California Department of Health Services. A Food Industry Forecast. John L. Park and Edward W. McLaughlin, Food Industry Management Program, Cornell University. Consumer Selection for and Knowledge of the Nutrient Content of Fresh Meats. Alvin Schupp, Jeffrey Gillespie, and Jose Aguero, Louisiana State University. Produce The Safe Way. Cheryle Jones Syracuse, Christine Taylor, and Barbara James; Associate Professor, Extension Agent, and Professor, respectively; Ohio State University Extension. Impact of Chain Store Expansion on Mexican Produce Distribution Practices. Debra Tropp, Agricultural Economist, Marketing and Transportation Analysis Program, USDA/Agricultural Marketing Service, Washington, DC; Jaime Malaga, Research Fellow, Texas Agricultural Market Research Center, Department of Agricultural Economics, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX; David Skully, Economist, Market and Trade Economics Division, Asia/Western Hemisphere Branch, USDA/Economic Research Service, Washington, DC; John Link, Senior Economist, Market and Trade Economics Division, Asia/Western Hemisphere Branch, USDA/Economic Research Service, Washington, DC; Javier Calderon, Economist, Agricultural Planning Agency, Mexican Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock, and Rural Development, Mexico City, Mexico. Potential for Marketing Pacific Northwest Wheat Using Contract Specifications. Thomas Worley and Thomas Wahl, Department of Agricultural Economics, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington.Research and Development/Tech Change/Emerging Technologies,