ARTICLE IN PRESS

Int. J. Production Economics 113 (2008) 107–122

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijpe

Quality and safety standards in the food industry,

developments and challenges
Jacques Trienekens, Peter ZuurbierI
Management Studies Group, Wageningen University, Hollandseweg 1, 6706 KN Wageningen, The Netherlands
Accepted 20 February 2007
Available online 13 November 2007

Abstract

Consumer concerns related to food safety scandals and globalization of food production have resulted in a global and
interconnected system for the production and distribution of food. In the last decade many public and private standards on
food safety and quality have been developed as a result of these developments. Currently, there is proliferation of
standards worldwide. One effect is that, in particular, companies from developing countries and emerging economies have
problems to comply with these standards. Another important effect is increasing marginal costs of certification and
accreditation, which also puts pressure on company profits in industrialized countries. The combined impacts of these
effects ask for strategies to revalue the cost/effectiveness of the certification and accreditation system.
r 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Quality and safety standards; Food system; Chain approach; Public–private; Implementation and impact

1. Introduction causes are salmonella, campylobacter and E. coli O

1.1. The need for food safety standards
Consumers in industrialized countries demand
food products of high and consistent quality in
broad assortments throughout the year and for
competitive prices. Today’s consumer has become
increasingly concerned about the quality and safety
of food and the negative effects of bio-industrial
production. It is estimated that millions of people in
OECD countries get ill every year from food
contamination (Rocourt et al., 2003). Important
Corresponding author. Tel.: +31 317 484160;
fax: +31 317 485454.
E-mail address: Jacques.Trienekens@wur.nl (J. Trienekens).
I
Peter.Zuurbier@wur.nl
157. Moreover, consumers can find recall announce-
ments almost weekly in any newspaper. Even
though food products seem to be safer than ever
before, from a technical point of view and due to
many quality control programs, the safety percep-
tion of consumers has decreased significantly.
At the same time, food sectors have rapidly
internationalized. Market demand is no longer
confined to local or regional supply. Retailers and
food industries now source their products from all
over the world, transforming the food industry
towards an interconnected system with a large
variety of complex relationships. Currently, even
fresh produce shipped from halfway around the
world can be offered at competitive prices. This has
spurred an enormous growth of product assortment
in the supermarkets (a large Western supermarket in

0925-5273/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2007.02.050
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
108 J. Trienekens, P. Zuurbier / Int. J. Production Economics 113 (2008) 107–122
the early 1990s carried an assortment of on average
10,000 articles, now it carries more than 30,000
articles).
These developments have changed the produc-
tion, trade and distribution of food products
beyond recognition. Governments, both national
and international, are responding to this by impos-
ing new legislation and regulations to ensure safe
and animal-friendly production, restricted pollution
and to economize on the use of resources. Examples
are the Codex Alimentarius standards (FAO/
WHO), The General Food Law (European Union
(EU) 2002/178) and the EU-BSE regulations.
For food businesses this implies placing more
emphasis on quality and safety control, on trace-
ability of food products and on environmental
issues and, at the same time, shifting from bulk
production towards production of specialities with
high added value. Furthermore, because of their
embeddedness in the global economy, collaboration
with other parties becomes important for all
businesses to achieve safe and high-quality food
products for the consumer. This means that busi-
ness strategies must now move their focus from
traditional economical and technological interests
to topical issues such as the safety and healthfulness
of food products, animal friendliness, the environ-
ment, etc. These processes are affecting the entire
food chain from producer through to retailer.
To deal with these challenges, companies around
the world are increasingly using standard quality
assurance systems to improve the quality and safety
of products and production processes. Quality
assurance systems enable the application and
verification of control measures intended to assure
the quality and safety of food. They are required
at each step in the food production chain to
ensure safe food and to show compliance with
regulatory and customer requirements. Govern-
ments have an important role in providing policy
guidance on the most appropriate quality assurance
systems and verifying/auditing their implementation
as a means of regulatory compliance (FAO, 2002).
Furthermore, there is a definite move from the old
end-of-line product inspection approach to a new
environment of a quality assurance approach where
the suppliers in the chain assume responsibility for
safety.
During the last decade there was a strong trend
towards quality certification by large Western
retailers (Jahn et al., 2004a, b). Private safety
control systems, standards and certification pro-
grams are used to respond to higher consumer
expectation, because quality is no longer related
to the product alone, but also to the characteristics
of the production and distribution processes
(Holleran et al., 1999; Jahn et al., 2004a, b).
Contrary to more general quality systems like
HACCP and ISO, systems of retailers often cover
more parties in the chain (Trienekens, 2004).
Examples of these certification systems are British
Retail Consortium, European Retail Good Agri-
cultural Practices (EUREP-GAP) and Safe Quality
Food.
Not all companies are able to follow demands
pushed by Western markets. This is especially
difficult for companies from developing countries.
Developing countries are becoming more and more
integrated in the global food market due to the
increase of consumer demand in Western countries
for year-round supply of exotic products and global
sourcing of Western retailers and food industries.
This means, however, that developing countries
must adapt to the stringent quality and safety
standards and regulations in these markets. They
must also gain better control over production, trade
and distribution of their agricultural products in
order to guarantee traceability of their products and
to operate in a cost-effective way so as to compete
on the global market.
1.2. Quality and safety characteristics of food
production
Food products and production processes have a
number of specific characteristics that influence
product quality and quality assurance in production
processes (Ziggers and Trienekens, 1999; Vorst van
der, 2000):
 Quality variation between different producers
and between different lots of produce, due to,
e.g., weather conditions, biological variation and
seasonality, but also as a possible result of
variations in production.
 Perishability of produce and fresh products. For
many materials shelf-life constraints apply.
 Production yields are often uncertain due to, for
example, weather conditions and quality varia-
tion within and between lots.
 There are special demands for storage and
transportation, such as cooling facilities and
hygienic measurements.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Trienekens, P. Zuurbier / Int. J. Production Economics 113 (2008) 107–122
In relation to these characteristics some specific
hazards exist in the production and distribution of
food:
 Because batches in many food industries are
mixed, cross-contamination of batches is a
general problem. Another reason for the occur-
rence of cross-contamination is the use of the
same resources for the production of different
(inter-mediate) products
 Most food industries have many sources of raw
materials. Because of internationalization of food
chains and networks, sourcing becomes more and
more international. This makes quality assurance
hard to achieve.
 Recycling of products or semi-finished products
is common in food-processing industries. In
many cases, end-products that do not meet
quality standards and waste or by-products can
be recycled.
 Most food chains incorporate many actors with
formal and informal relationships. In a food
chain transactions often take place through arm’s
length relationships. Solid administration of
transactions often lacks.
To effectively address quality and safety demands
facing businesses, a multi-disciplinary and chain
-Choice of seed variety
-Seed protection
-Harvesting method
-Hygienic conditions
picking
-Choice of clean fruits
-Protection of harvested
fruits from sun, insects
TRANSPORT
-Elimination of foreign
bodies (wood, ..)
-Packaging quality
PROCESSING
-In-store handling
-Cool chain conditions
(packaging, temperature)
–Storage on display
under fresh conditions
Fig. 1. Factors influencing quality in a fruit chain.
109
approach to food quality and safety is necessary,
addressing technological, logistical and economical
and organizational aspects in an integrated way. To
illustrate the manifold of influences on quality in
food chains, Fig. 1 depicts the variety of factors that
influence quality in a fruit chain. In this article, we
focus on the development, application and con-
sequences of food safety and quality standards from
an international food chain perspective. Section 2
describes public and private food safety and quality
standards. Section 3 will discuss the implementation
of standards in different regions in the world.
Section 4 goes into implementation processes and
costs and benefits of standards. Section 5 contains
conclusions and discussion.
2. Food quality standards
2.1. Global and international regulations on food
safety and quality
On a global level, in particular, the Food and
Agricultural Organisation (FAO), the World Health
Organisation (WHO), both UN organizations, and
the World Trade Organisation (WTO) deal with
food safety issues. In 1962, as a result of the Food
Standards Programme, the Codex Alimentarius was
established by the FAO and WHO to act as an
PLANTING
-Irrigation (drop by
drop)
GROWING
-Use of pesticides
-Protection from frost,
insects,...
HARVEST
-Loading/unloading
conditions
-Respect of the cool
chain conditions
SORTING
-Hygienic conditions
-Tests: physical,
chemical, micro-
biological and sensory
RETAIL
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
110 J. Trienekens, P. Zuurbier / Int. J. Production Economics 113 (2008) 107–122
umbrella organization for policy making regarding
food on a global level. The aim of the Codex is to
protect public health and to support balanced trade
relationships in food. For this purpose standards
are developed. Codex Alimentarius food standard
issues range from specific raw and processed
materials characteristics to food hygiene, pesticides
residues, contaminants and labelling, to analysis
and sampling methods (Luning et al., 2002).
Since the establishment of the WTO in 1995,
Codex-standards are used in trade disputes. The
Codex currently counts 171 member countries,
representing 98% of the world population.
The Codex Alimentarius has great relevance to
the international food trade. With respect to the
increasing global market, in particular, the advan-
tages of having universally uniform food standards
for the protection of consumers are self-evident. It is
not surprising, therefore, that the Agreement on the
Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Mea-
sures (SPS) and the Agreement on Technical
Barriers to Trade (TBT) both encourage the
international harmonization of food standards
(Boutrif, 2003). A product of the Uruguay Round
of multinational trade negotiations, the SPS
Agreement cites Codex standards, guidelines and
recommendations as the preferred international
measures for facilitating international trade in food.
As such, Codex standards have become the bench-
marks against which national food measures
and regulations are evaluated within the legal
parameters of the Uruguay Round Agreements
(www.fao.org).
According to the SPS agreement, WTO members
are obliged to apply only those measures for food
safety and quality that are based on scientific
principles and do not constitute a disguised restric-
tion on international trade. Article 2.2 of the SPS
Agreement states: ‘‘Members shall ensure that any
sanitary and phytosanitary measure is applied only
to the extent necessary to protect human, animal or
plant life or health, is based on scientific principles
and is not maintained without sufficient scientific
evidence y.’’ However, Henson and Loader (2001)
showed that many developing countries lack the
resources to effectively participate in international
trade because for these countries it is already
difficult to comply with the requirement of the
SPS agreement because of the lack of a legal
framework. Reasons for this lack are outdated
laws, lack of knowledge sharing as a result of
limited coordination between organizations hand-
ling food safety issues, under-funding of national
research institutes and the lack of awareness for
standards and quality (The Ssemwanga Group Ltd,
2003).
On national and international levels also much
legislation on quality and safety of food has been
established. For example, the EU has developed a
wide range of legislative demands with regard to
food safety. The EU Directive 93/43 on the Hygiene
of Foodstuffs states that food business operators
shall identify any step in their activities critically to
ensure food safety and to ensure that adequate
procedures are identified, implemented, maintained
and reviewed on the basis of HACCP. The General
Food Law of the EU, implemented in January 2005,
states the primary liability of food (and animal feed)
companies in the event of unsafe products. This
implies the implementation of monitoring systems
at company level. With information from these
systems it should be possible to determine the
source of safety or quality problems, and it must be
possible to find out where other items with the same
problem are located in the supply chain (Triene-
kens, 2004). With regard to traceability, as of
1 January 2005, companies are obliged to keep
registration of raw materials supplies and customer
deliveries on a transaction basis.
In the USA, quality assurance systems also exist
for many years. The systems, in particular, aim at
safe production methods and physical health of
animals on the farm and not on issues such as
traceability and animal welfare. Examples are the
Beef Quality Assurance program of the National
Cattlemen’s Beef Association aiming for the reduc-
tion of residues in veal and the National Pork
Producers Council Pork Quality Assurance pro-
gram aiming at ‘good management practices’.
Although in the previous years more attention has
been given to issues like animal welfare and the
environment, traceability has only recently reached
the top management agenda.
On a global scale countries and regions have their
own legislative measurements regarding food safety
and quality. Even within EU there are still many
differences regarding food safety legislation between
countries, making trade often complicated (Esbjerg
and Bruun, 2003).
2.2. Public and private standards
Giovannucci and Reardon (2001) define stan-
dards as ‘‘defined parameters that segregate similar
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Trienekens, P. Zuurbier / Int. J. Production Economics 113 (2008) 107–122
products into categories and describe them with
consistent terminology that can be commonly
understood by market participants’’. They thereby
improve the efficiency of markets. Standards con-
cern any of the processes in the food chain. In this
article, we focus on food standards, in a broad
sense, including social and environmental consid-
erations, and their application by various parties in
the food chain.
Since the 1990s there has been an enormous
increase in food standards. Companies around the
world are using quality assurance systems to
improve their product and production processes.
In this development there is a move from the former
end-of-line product inspection approach to a new
environment of a quality assurance approach where
the links in the food chain assume responsibility for
safety through control of their processes. This
means that quality assurance is required at each
step in the food production chain to ensure safe
food and to show compliance with regulatory and
customer requirements. Legislation at global (i.e.
Codex Alimentarius), international and national
levels provides the basic framework and policy
guidance for the most common quality assurance
systems.
2.2.1. Generic food quality and safety standards
The three most important generic quality assur-
ance systems in the food sector are Good Agricul-
tural Practices (GAPs), Hazard Analysis of Critical
Control Points (HACCPs) and International Orga-
nisation for Standardisation (ISO).
GAP systems include a set of guideline for
agricultural practices aiming at assuring minimum
standards for production and storage. Important
topics are pest management (optimal use of
pesticides), manure handling at animal farms,
maintenance of water quality, worker and field
sanitation, guidelines for post-harvest handling and
transportation, among others. In the previous years
increasing attention has been given to managerial
aspects like documentation, complaint and recall
procedures, labelling, etc.
HACCP is a systematic approach to the identi-
fication, evaluation and control of those steps in
food manufacturing that are critical to product
safety. Currently, HACCP principles are the basis
of most food quality and safety assurance systems
(Codex Alimentarius, EU and US food legislation,
most private standards).
111
HACCP identifies risks in the production pro-
cesses that can lead to unsafe products, and designs
measurements to reduce these risks to acceptable
levels. HACCP aims at prevention of hazards
instead of end-of-pipe inspection. It is basically
designed for application in all links of the food
chain, ranging from growing, harvesting, proces-
sing, distribution and retail to preparing food for
consumption. HACCP involves seven principles:
 analyze hazards (biological, chemical or physi-
cal);
 identify critical control points (These are points
in a food’s production at which the potential
hazard can be controlled or eliminated.);
 establish preventive measures with critical limits
for each control point;
 establish procedures to monitor the critical
control points;
 establish corrective actions to be taken when
monitoring shows that a critical limit has not
been met;
 establish procedures to verify that the system is
working properly;
 establish effective recordkeeping to document the
HACCP system.
There are some important pre-requisites for
HACCP implementation, such as sanitary design
principles (e.g. linear product flow); GMP and
safety programs should be present; written specifi-
cations for all ingredients, products and packaging
materials should be present; sanitary design princi-
ples and maintenance schedules should be present;
personal hygiene requirements, documented proce-
dures to assure segregation and proper use of non-
food chemicals should be in place, traceability and
recall procedures should be in place, etc.
ISO standards are international standards in
order to achieve uniformity and to prevent technical
barriers to trade throughout the world. The essence
of an ISO 9000-based quality system is that all
activities and handling must be established in
procedures, which must be followed by ensuring
clear assignment of responsibilities and authorities.
Whilst GAP and HACCP pay attention to both
technological and management issues, ISO focuses
on management. The most used of all ISO standards
is the ISO 9000 series for quality. These standards
are independent of any specific industry. In the 2000
version (ISO 9001:2000) the objectives are: achieve-
ment of customer satisfaction by meeting customer
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
112 J. Trienekens, P. Zuurbier / Int. J. Production Economics 113 (2008) 107–122
requirements, continuous improvement of the sys-
tem and prevention of non-conformity (Luning
et al., 2006). In 2005 the new ISO 22,000 standard,
specifically aiming at managing safety in the food
chain, has been published. It is a specific standard
for food processors setting out safety management
procedures. The standard applies to organizations
ranging from feed producers, primary producers
through food manufacturers, transport and storage
operators and subcontractors to retail and food
service outlets. The standard extends the ISO
9001:2000 quality management system standard,
which is widely implemented in all sectors but does
not specifically address food safety (www.ISO.org).
2.2.2. Private food safety and quality standards
Since the 1990s many private food quality and
safety standards have been developed. The major
aims of private food safety standards are (Vellema
and Boselie, 2003):
 to improve supplier standards and consistency,
and avoid product failure;
 to eliminate multiple audit of food suppliers–
manufacturers through certification of their
processes;
 to support consumer and retailer objectives by
transferring their demands to parties upstream
the chain;
 to be able to provide concise information about
production processes in case of food incidents.
Demands regarding private food safety and
quality standards are best represented by three
examples of, world-wide used, systems: Eurep-GAP,
the British Retail Consortium (BRC) and Safe
Quality Food (SQF).
Table 1 shows how these standards are related to
the generic standards described in the previous
section and to which sections of the supply chain
they apply.
2.2.2.1. Eurep-GAP. Eurep is an organization of
more than 20 large European retailers and purchase
organizations (e.g. AHOLD, TESCO). GAP stands
for Good Agricultural Practice. It is a package of
norms aiming to guarantee environment-friendly,
safe and high-quality products. Eurep-GAP pays
major attention to food safety, human resource
management and environmental measurements and
aims at primary producers. The Eurep-GAP certi-
ficate is developed to make business processes
Table 1
Examples of private quality and safety standards in food chains
Standard Key element Part of the chain
involved
Eurep- Good Agricultural Primary production
GAP Practices (GAPs)
BRC HACCP Processing firms
SQF HACCP, ISO 9000 Primary production,
processing firms, retail
transparent. The norms of the Eurep-GAP retailers
are more rigid than (EU) governmental demands.
Disadvantages of Eurep-GAP are that it takes the
legislation of the country where it is implemented as
a starting point and that there is still no uniform
certification scheme. This explains why Eurep-GAP
implementations can differ from country to coun-
try. Box 1 depicts typical Eurep-GAP requirements.
2.2.2.2. BRC (British Retail Consortium). In 1998,
the BRC, with participants such as TESCO and
Sainsbury, took the initiative to define common
criteria for the inspection of suppliers of food
products. The inspections are carried out by
certified inspection organizations. Before BRC was
introduced retailers carried out inspections sepa-
rately; joint inspections, however, reduce costs.
Retailers in other European countries now also
demand from their suppliers for inspections accord-
ing to BRC rules and for accompanying quality
reports. The norms of the BRC are converging with
HACCP norms, although more attention is paid to
a documented quality management system, factory
environment and facilities, product and process
control and personnel.
2.2.2.3. SQF (Safe Quality Food). SQF aims at
quality assurance from a total supply chain per-
spective. The SQF program is based on the
principles of HACCP, ISO-9000 series norms and
Quality Management Systems. SQF distinguishes
between two norms. SQF 1000 focuses on primary
producers, all other companies are certified accord-
ing to SQF 2000. An important difference between
both norms is that SQF 2000 companies must work
according to HACCP. SQF is developed in Aus-
tralia and is internationally well accepted. An
advantage is that SQF can be included in the
product label.
The three standards described above are only
three examples of the wide range of private
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Trienekens, P. Zuurbier / Int. J. Production Economics 113 (2008) 107–122 113

Box 1
Typical Eurep-GAP requirements for fruit and vegetables (www.eurep.org)

 Traceability of products up to the farm (a documented system is required)

 Record keeping of farm activities (to be stored for 2 years)
 Record keeping of varieties and rootstocks (e.g. quality certificates of seeds, nursery stock
health certificates)
 Record keeping of site history and site management (e.g. site characteristics, crop rotation)
 Soil and substrate management (e.g. soil mapping, soil erosion management)
 Record keeping of fertilizer usage, pesticides usage (e.g. type, quantities, applications)
 Record keeping of irrigation activities (quality and supply of water, rainfall documents)
 Record keeping of harvesting activities (documented hygiene protocol, records on
operations)
 Waste and pollution management (types, quantities, recycling plan)
 Attention to worker health, safety and welfare (e.g. first aid boxes, training records)
 Attention to environmental issues (e.g. dealing with wild life, biodiversity)
 Internal audit (one internal audit against the Eurep-GAP standard every year, Eurep-GAP
check list).

standards that exist throughout the world (see also
e.g. Tunc- er, 2001). Various types of standards can
be distinguished:
 Certification systems for sustainable agriculture.
These systems focus on environmental-friendly
production and the use of specific quality stan-
dards. Examples of such systems are ‘‘EKO’’ in
The Netherlands and ‘‘CRAE’’ in Spain. Farmers
must keep receipts and product documentation
for monitoring and control purposes.
 Sector-based (often on national level) quality
assurance systems. These systems aim at control
of primary production in certain agri-sectors.
They aim at safe and healthy food products.
Examples are the ‘‘Farm Assured British Beef
and Lamb’’ and ‘‘Integraal Keten Beheer’’ (IKB,
‘Integrated Quality Management-IQC’ in Eng-
lish) in The Netherlands.
 Quality assurance systems initiated by food in-
dustries. These are managed by national or
international food industries that aim for specific
and distinct processes (e.g. Sustainable Agriculture
Initiative). A traceability example is ‘‘Hipp’s
traceability system’’, which allows the producer of
baby-food to trace the origin of all raw materials in
every jar based on a production code.
 Retailer systems. These systems are controlled by
retailers. Most of these systems aim at sustain-
able and safe production. The most important
example is ‘‘Eurep-GAP’’ introduced by the
Euro-Retailer Group (a group with the major
European Retailers, www.eurep.org).
 Regional or traditional quality assurance sys-
tems. This category includes all initiatives that
refer to regional or local production and have
implemented their own standards. An example in
the Netherlands is ‘‘Nautilus’’, EKO products
from a region in The Netherlands.
This summary shows that various parties can take
the initiative to set up new standards. Box 2 gives
the example of the IQC standard implemented by the
Dutch umbrella organization for pork production.
The proliferation of quality standards described
above has led to increasing concerns of parties in the
food chain about costs of implementation (and
certification) and accessibility of markets governed
by the multitude of these systems. A large group of
internationally operating retailers has taken the
Global Food Safety Initiative that aims at harmo-
nization of existing standards so as to arrive at
uniform norms, instead of the current way where
countries and companies define their own standards
(www.ciesnet.com/global_food/main.html). The ex-
pectation is that private (retail) standards like
Eurep-GAP and BRC will be more and more
harmonized with other private standards reflecting
an extra layer of demands put on food companies
above legal obligations like Codex Alimentarius and
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
114 J. Trienekens, P. Zuurbier / Int. J. Production Economics 113 (2008) 107–122

Box 2
Integrated Quality Control in the Dutch Pork Chain
The Dutch pork sector is the fourth biggest exporter of pork meat in the world. Important
factors driving the change in the pork sector have been high costs of production and
governmental regulations, issues of food safety and animal welfare, environmental protection,
traceability and consumer preferences, e.g. nutritional value, sensorial aspects and ease of
preparation. To compete successfully on international level increased chain collaboration was
considered to be of strategic importance. In this regard the Dutch quality system ‘Integrated
Quality Control’ (in Dutch: Integral Keten Beheersing, IKB) can be considered as an instrument
for providing the necessary vertical collaboration between different parties in the supply chain.
Introduced in 1992 by the Product Board for Livestock, Meat and Eggs (PVE) in co-operation
with the livestock and meat sector, the IKB system sets out standards for feed quality, hygiene,
transport, information and use of veterinary products, among other things. The system covers
now more than 90 per cent of all slaughtered pigs in the Netherlands, and most Dutch retailers
and butchers sell pork meat products produced according to the IKB system.

the use of HACCP in industrialized countries.

However, above these private ‘‘compulsory’’ sys-
tems layer, another layer of standards with even Private
more specific demands has evolved. Well-known dedicated
systems:
examples are Tesco’s ‘‘Nature’s Choice’’, which puts
fair trade, EKO
a number of environmental demands on top of
Eurep-GAP demands, EKO labels and Fair-Trade
labels. In this perspective it is expected that Private
proliferation of standards will continue, only on a compulsory systems:
different level as was the case so far. Eurep-GAP, BRC, etc.
Fig. 2 depicts this three-layer model for quality
system standards.
Section 3 will discuss the implementation of
standards in different regions of the world. Public regulations: Codex
Alimentarius, HACCP, etc.

3. The global character of food safety and quality

standardization
Fig. 2. Different levels of food safety and quality standards.

In industrialized countries most companies in the

food chain comply with basic standards on food
safety and quality. For developing country and
emerging economy producers the situation is more
difficult. In the following, we will look in more detail
at the use of food quality and safety standards in
different regions. We will identify major bottlenecks
and opportunities related to food safety and quality in
different regions and investigate whether different
patterns or stages of development can be discovered.
The information in this section is based on
comparative research into the use of quality and
safety standards in three regions: EU (industrialized
countries), Mercosur (emerging economy countries)
and ACP (African Caribbean Pacific, least devel-
oped countries), which was performed in the EU
Commission-funded concerted action Safe and
High Quality Food Supply Chains and Networks
(Trienekens et al, 2005). In this program, which ran
from 2002 to 2005, 6 EU, 3 Latin American and 3
ACP countries collaborated to exchange informa-
tion in the field of quality and safety of food. In all
participating countries inventories on legislation,
private quality and safety standards, bottlenecks
regarding food quality and safety and market trends
were performed in the first half of 2003. Inventories
were based on expert interviews and interviews with
organizations such as government departments and
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Trienekens, P. Zuurbier / Int. J. Production Economics 113 (2008) 107–122
certification bodies, and secondary material such as
government and research reports. In the second half
of 2003, in each country a workshop was held in
which inventory outcomes were discussed. Partici-
pants in these workshops were experts from public
and private organizations working in the field of
food safety and quality standards. The number of
participants per workshop varied from 9 to more
than 30. In the second half of 2004, follow-up
workshops were organized in Brazil, Portugal and
Uganda, with representatives from the participating
countries in Latin America, Europe and Africa,
respectively. In these workshops the outcomes of
the country inventories were consolidated at a
regional level. In June 2005, a final discussion
between the three regions took place at a workshop
in Buenos Aires, Argentina, leading to the final
results of the project.
3.1. Comparison between three regions
In the description of the outcomes of the
program, a distinction is made between primary
production and processing and distribution.
3.1.1. Primary producers in EU
GAPs and Good Health Practices (GHP) are
generally used in primary production in EU
countries. In most of the EU-15 countries (the 10
countries that joined in 2004 excluded) extended
legislation has been defined to further assure safe
production, such as the Pesticides Law in The
Netherlands and specific laws on additives and
labelling of allergens in Denmark. Interesting in this
regard is the British Pesticides Safety Directorate
for its ‘‘name and shame’’ policy: if a company
violates these standards, it will be publicly
‘‘shamed’’. Besides generally applied standards and
legislation, there are many private (often retail)
standards aiming at the primary producer. Exam-
ples for fruit and vegetables are sustainability
standards such as Agro-Milieukeur in The Nether-
lands and Genesis QA in UK (with a focus on
physical and microbiological residues), EKO (or-
ganic EU food standard) and international retail
standards such as Eurep-GAP and Nature’s Choice
of Tesco (with extended demands on environmental
issues) (see also Section 2). For the production of
beef examples are, the chain-wide Integrated Qual-
ity Control (IKB) in the Netherlands and Farm
Assure British Beef and Lam in UK. Nevertheless,
large differences exist between EU countries. In
115
Portugal, for example, there is still a high level of
non-compliance to EU-regulations. On the other
hand, especially in Southern EU countries, we see
the emergence of standards related to region-related
products and organic food.
3.1.2. Primary producers in Mercosur/ACP
Export-oriented producers in Mercosur countries
often use GAP or GHP to comply with interna-
tional quality and safety demands. Many of these
producers are also ISO 9000-certified. A number of
large export-oriented vegetables and fruit producers
follow Eurep-GAP or Eurep-GAP-like standards.
Mercosur countries increasingly try to comply with
international standards. For example, in Argentina
beef labelling conforms to EU norm 820/97 and for
export-oriented companies beef traceability is com-
pulsory until the farm of origin. In ACP countries,
GAP/GHP is only applied by very few export-
oriented farms. However, an increase of the use of
GAP is reported in some of the least-developing
countries (e.g. in the Caribbean, Wickham et al.,
2003), supported by organizations like marketing
boards. Application of Eurep-GAP is even more
seldom; only a few large farms that deliver directly
to Western supermarkets produce according to
Eurep-GAP or Eurep-GAP-like standards.
3.1.3. Processing/distribution in EU
In EU, since 1998, HACCP is obligatory for all
companies in the food chain, except for the primary
producer. In many countries standards have been
developed which go even a step further. For
example, in Denmark, a HACCP norm is accepted
that includes specific attention to the provision of
management information. This system (DS 3027) is
on the forefront of quality system development and
has been one of the pillars for the new ISO standard
22,000 on food quality. Denmark is also in the front
of developing principles for self-monitoring. The
most important international retail standard that
has emerged in the last years is BRC (see Section 2).
BRC is now compulsory for suppliers of many of
the large retailers in Europa. Another development
in EU is the emerging chain approach in setting
standards (Box 3). Just as is the case of primary
production, there are large regional differences in
the application of standards in processing and
distribution in the EU. For example, in Portugal,
in March 2003, there was still only a minority of
companies that were HACCP certified, whilst in
Northern and Western countries in Europe most
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
116 J. Trienekens, P. Zuurbier / Int. J. Production Economics 113 (2008) 107–122

food processing companies were HACCP certified
at that date.
3.1.4. Processing/distribution in Mercosur/ACP
In Mercosur countries HACCP is mainly applied
in export (packing) firms. For example, since June
2003 all export-packers and processors in Argentina
should be HACCP certified. In ACP countries
HACCP systems are especially used in specific
export sectors, such as fish from Lake Victoria in
Uganda (see Box 4) and fruit exports from
Caribbean countries. However, these systems are
fragile, as is shown by the high refusal rate of these
products on Western markets due to frequent
discovery of pesticides residues, etc. In export
sectors, often more systems are used concurrently.
For example, processors and packers of fish for
export use GMP, ISO 90002 and HACCP. In
general, however, within these countries there are
hardly uniform standards for processors and
distributors.
3.2. Bottlenecks and opportunities for the application
of food quality and safety standards
An important barrier for the application of
standards by developing country producers is the
proliferation of standards in Western markets
(Section 2). Another barrier is the lack of an
enabling environment (institutional and infrastruc-
ture facilities). For example, many countries
lack skilled personnel and laboratory facilities,
which makes effective quality management difficult.
Table 2 depicts major bottlenecks and opportunities
related to food quality and safety in EU, Latin
American and ACP countries as considered
by experts in the participating countries (Trienekens
et al., 2005).
Table 2 shows that countries in the EU focus
especially on consumer-related topics. Companies
increasingly focus at, for example, traceability and
labelling systems. Currently, chains in this region
have to comply with many private and public
demands, which often result in multiple audits.
Moreover, companies are involved in developing
innovative products, such as organic products, and
packaging materials. Communication about food
safety and quality in the chain should also be
improved, e.g. dissemination of R&D knowledge.
Mercosur countries are focusing on developing
new markets, both national and international.
Mercosur countries have considerable home mar-
kets, but due to unequal income division require-
ments differ heavily in different market segments.
This results in separate food systems with different
quality and safety requirements (e.g. local, national

Box 3
Example of a chain approach in setting standards
Assured British Meat
ABM was established in 1998 by the Meat and Livestock Commission and takes a whole
chain approach. The ABM board is responsible for setting standards. It has six Technical
Advisory Bodies covering feed, farm, transport, auction markets, abattoir and secondary
wholesalers, and catering butchers. ABM has standards that are above legal requirements and
Codes of Practice. The guidelines allow medicines and veterinary treatments only when
necessary and only ‘‘for treatment or preventative purposes’’ (Duffy and Fearne, 2003).

Box 4
EU-regulation-based quality standard in Uganda and Kenya
The quality standard for fish in Uganda is based on EU directive 91/493/EEC and on Codex
Alimentarius. The standard covers the following fields: microbiology levels, pesticide residues,
heavy metals, effluents, Good Manufacturing Practices (processing stage) and HACCP
(processing stage) (Ssemwanga, 2003).
For its export of fruit and vegetables, Kenya complies as much as possible to the United
Kingdom’s Food Safety Act of 1990. The testing laboratories are accredited to ISO 17025; 2000
by United Kingdom Accreditation Services (UKAS) (Kari, 2003).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Trienekens, P. Zuurbier / Int. J. Production Economics 113 (2008) 107–122 117

Table 2 building of facilities to improve quality regulations

Bottlenecks and opportunities regarding application of food and the building of government structures to ensure
quality and safety standards in three regions quality and safety of products are key points of
Bottlenecks Opportunities attention. Investments in (cooled) transportation
and storage are necessary to effectively participate
K EU K EU in international trade. The governments must
J lacking consumer J provision of product
encourage financial institutions to avail credit to
knowledge information
J insufficient risk J monitoring safety and farmers and play a facilitating role by providing
communication quality of food market information, education and establishment of
J low dissemination J innovative products and standards. Furthermore, there is an opportunity for
R&D knowledge packagings and niche governments of ACP countries to work together in
markets
order to adopt a common stance and generate
K Mercosur K Mercosur consensus with regards to trade negotiations in the
J uneven income J design of coordinated WTO.
distribution subsystems From the above, we may conclude that Western/
J harmonization of J standards harmonization
EU countries with regard to food safety and quality
standards (PP) within and between
J lack of coordination
have well-established industry standards and are
Mercosur countries
(horizontal and J improvement of inspections now focusing on communication of quality and
vertical) and enforcements safety aspects to consumers. Mercosur (emerging
economy) countries are in the phase of implementa-
K ACP K ACP tion and harmonization of food quality and safety
J no or too few J investments in
standards, while ACP (developing) countries are
laboratories infrastructures
J low investments in J improvements in feed and still struggling with the establishment of the right
transportation and feeding system (infrastructural) conditions to enforce food quality
storage J PP development of and safety of their products.
J lack of legal standards The next section will discuss implementation
framework
processes, costs and benefits and market access
implications of modern quality assurance systems.
Trienekens et al. (2005).
4. Implementation and impact

and international market). In fact, this group of
countries are in the middle of a process of awareness
and adoption of quality and safety regulations both
for government as for the business. The design of
organizational and governmental structures for
ensuring food safety and quality has a priority in
Mercosur countries. In this regard, food safety
policies in Mercosur countries are greatly influenced
by the requirements of international trade. A major
bottleneck is that food control is not adequately
done; there are very few activities involving
preventive inspection; little attention is paid to
education of standards and the sanction system is
weakly developed.
ACP countries are lagging behind compared with
Mercosur countries. ACP countries are in a phase of
discovering quality and safety of food as important
conditions for international food trade and have to
start from scratch. Important issues often deal
about what, which and how quality regulations
and systems should be adapted. Moreover, the
4.1. The process of implementation
With regard to implementation of quality stan-
dards and certification schemes three major dimen-
sions are considered:
 the organizational dimension,
 the information dimension and
 the managerial dimension.
The organizational dimension is often translated
into organizational structures that ensure the
implementation. For that, ad-hoc implementation
teams are established for executing the planning of
implementation, the development of procedures for
monitoring the process, the distribution of tasks,
responsibilities and assignment of authority and the
reporting system.
Without adequate information not only the
implementation will be jeopardized but also the
management of the implementation. For these
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
118 J. Trienekens, P. Zuurbier / Int. J. Production Economics 113 (2008) 107–122

body provides the product or service with a

Box 5 statement of conformity. This statement is usually
Steps in a HACCP plan in the form of a certificate or a report. Accordingly,
an assessing body is known as a conformity-
assessment body. It is important for this body to
Step 1 Assemble HACCP team
be competent, since only then is the statement of
Step 2 Describe product
conformity of use and reliable.
Step 3 Identify intended use
Every certifying body must have their interests
Step 4 Construct flow diagram
represented. In the Netherlands, for example, this is
Step 5 On-site confirmation of flow
done through a Committee of Experts. The task of
diagram
such a committee is to guarantee the impartiality of
Step 6 List all potential hazards, conduct a
the body. Often such a committee will also draw up
hazard analysis, and consider
a certification scheme, either at the request of the
control measures
government or on the initiative of business. In the
Step 7 Determine critical control points
case of socially relevant subjects, use is often made
(CCPs)
of a harmonized certification scheme and/or a
Step 8 Establish critical limits for each CCP
normative document, which can be used by several
Step 9 Establish a monitoring system for
certifying bodies. Such a harmonized scheme or
each CCP
normative document is drawn up by a Centralized
Step Establish corrective actions
Committee of Experts. Certifying bodies are accre-
10
dited according to their fields of work, under the
Step Establish verification procedures
following standards. An accreditation body assesses
11
both the management system and the technical
Step Establish documentation and
competency of the conformity-certifying body. In
12 record-keeping (Steps 6–12 are the
addition, the accreditation body exercises super-
basic HACCP principles, see also
vision to guarantee the impartiality and expertise of
Section 2.2.1)
the conformity-certifying body. In many countries it
is the government that oversees accreditation.
However, in some countries like in the Netherlands,
reasons, information plays a vital role: information
the accreditation body is a private law organization.
for planning, execution and monitoring functions. The
The government acts here as client, supervisor and
managerial dimension covers the decision-making and
negotiating partner.
control processes. In some cases, quality managers are
seen as having key roles in these processes.
4.3. Costs and benefits of quality standards
To guarantee the implementation of quality
standards, a number of practical guidelines have
Quality standards have contributed to food safety
been designed. These guidelines provide stepwise
(Escriche et al., 2006). For example, HACCP
approaches like in the case of HACCP (Estriche, in
contributes to reducing levels of food-borne patho-
Luning et al., 2006) (Box 5).
gens in food production. Other benefits are related
to general human and animal health. By that,
4.2. Assurance of certification and accreditation consumers’ confidence increased. The quality assur-
ance system may also contribute to the firm’s
At both national and international level, purcha- competitiveness through the effects on production
sers require guarantees about the quality of goods efficiency, cost price and extrinsic advantage of the
and services supplied to them, since the variety on production practice and intrinsic advantage related
offer is nowadays huge. Accordingly, a supplier can to the product’s attributes. In the start-up stage of
have his product or service objectively assessed or an assurance system the innovators may capture this
tested by a laboratory, certification or inspection benefit. Once the industry has adopted the assur-
body. This can be done throughout any field of ance system, the comparative advantage will dis-
work imaginable, including construction, energy, appear and the system becomes de facto mandatory.
environment, drinking water, health and transport, In the food chain, transaction costs are reduced
to name a few. If the results are good, the assessing by quality assurance systems and the respective
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Trienekens, P. Zuurbier / Int. J. Production Economics 113 (2008) 107–122
standards. Also, traceability improves due to
documented evidence embedded in quality assur-
ance systems.
However, what are the costs for complying with
assurance systems and standards? To give an
indication of the costs of certification and auditing,
we refer to a studies of Gellynck et al. (2004a b).
Based on 17 Belgian companies in the food industry,
investments and costs related to food quality
management were calculated (Table 3):
Relative to the costs for implementing GMP/GHP
and HACCP, the costs for certification and auditing
are smaller. This is evident, considering the efforts to
analyze the company’s processes, to develop
alternatives and implement the changes. In the
Belgian case, two certification schemes were
taken into consideration. As mentioned earlier, more
and more certification schemes are offered to the
market. For companies these schemes contribute to
higher costs for certification and auditing, once they
want or have to comply with their customer
demands.
How do companies respond to these increasing
costs? To answer this question we elaborate on Jahn
et al. (2004a, b). Assuming that in the food industry
actors in the food chain are primarily driven
towards opportunistic behavior to safeguard their
rents, and assuming certification and auditing fees
being fixed by the certification organizations, one
may expect companies to reduce costs as much as
possible. Because of the character of the certifica-
tion process, whereby the customers in many cases
impose certification schemes on their suppliers, one
may expect companies to act rationally, i.e. not
seeking for the highest compliance level and
minimizing costs as well. They may achieve these
goals by assessing the certifier’s market, look for
lowest fees and consider risks involved for not being
taken seriously by the customer. The marginal costs
for the company are equal to their marginal costs
for implementing the certification schemes and
auditing process plus the marginal costs for loss of
reputation from the customer point of view. Hence,
Table 3
Food safety investments and costs, 2001 in euro per full-time equivalent (Gellynck, 2004a)
Range of costs per fte Cost for implementing Costs for implementing
GMP/GHP HACCP
Minimum 1.644 240
Maximum 9.452 2.408
119
total costs for not complying may get relatively
higher. This also is confirmed by some empirical
studies in the US (Capmany et al., 2000). In their
study on implementation of ISO 9000, they con-
cluded that certification process and maintenance
costs seem to be offset by the benefits.
4.4. Market access
As described in Section 3, it is difficult for small-
and medium-size enterprises from developing coun-
tries and also the newly emerging economies to
comply with standards as required in Western
markets (Dinham, 2003; Unnevehr, 2000). There
are various reasons for this:
 SPS and TBT often constitute barriers for export
from developing countries to industrialized
countries,
 producers at most times lack awareness and
adequate information about specific demands of
western standards,
 the multitude of standards in industrialized
countries differ from country to country and
from market to market,
 the lack of harmonization of national norms like
in the case of maximum residue-level require-
ments in the developed countries,
 the costs of certification.
Another important barrier for developing coun-
try producers to take part in international chains is
the lack of an enabling environment (institutional
and infrastructure facilities). For example, many
countries lack skilled people and laboratory facil-
ities, which make good-quality management diffi-
cult. If domestic customers increasingly insist on
technical requirements in schemes, and quality
inspectors of these schemes are accredited to
national or EU level, foreign suppliers may experi-
ence huge disadvantages (Bredahl et al., 2001).
Certificate and Food safety Total
auditing costs investments
37 0 1.555
1.248 14.527 26.165
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
120 J. Trienekens, P. Zuurbier / Int. J. Production Economics 113 (2008) 107–122
Dedicated
systems
BRC/Eurep-
GAP/…
HACCP/
GAP/…
Codex DC
Alimentarius medium
DC Small
No system
Market access
Fig. 3. Market access for producers using different food safety standards (DC ¼ developing country, SME ¼ small and medium
enterprises).
Fig. 3 pictures (stylized) how standards used by
different types of companies are related to (inter-
national) market access.
Companies, also in the food industry, increase
economies of scale and lower transaction costs by
reducing the number of suppliers. The specific effect
of standardization offers buyers a specific instru-
ment to distinguish their supplier in terms of
conformity to the standards. By standardization
companies increase their profit through superior
efficiency. Through superior efficiency companies
are lowering value chain costs and build up
economies of scale. With the relatively un-concen-
trated food industry the variation in the rate of
return as firm size increases is quite small. However,
as the industry moves towards a more concentrated
structure, the difference between the rate of return
made by small firms and the rate of return being
made by the larger firms is getting greater. This is
quite evident from a value chain point of view:
larger firms in the value chain will use their power to
exploit consumer by agreeing above cost and
eliminating competition between them. Doing so,
profitability increases and concentration reduces the
number of competitors. Also, the superior efficiency
of the larger firms drives down costs, causing both
an increase in concentration and an increase in
profitability (Demsetz, 1973).
The impact on smaller firms, not having capabil-
ities to comply with standards and not having asset
EU SME,
large/DC large
EU SME/
large
EU SME/
DC large
specificities, that generate value for buyers, is
becoming clear. Their sustainability will be jeopar-
dized. An interesting example of this phenomenon is
shown by Boselie and Buurma (Vellema and Boselie,
2003). In their study on grades and standards in
Thailand, they describe the transition from a
traditional supply chain system where personalized
relationships in which family relationships and
individual strategic motives prevailed above com-
pany profits to a preferred supplier system between
wholesalers and buyers. After introducing the new
system professional large-scale producers remained
in the supply chain. As they experiences: ‘‘Changes in
grades, standards and certification practices have
tended to exclude small firms and farms from
participating in market growth because of the
implied investments.’’(p. 149).
5. Conclusions and discussion
Quality assurance in the food industry has
become a reality. Based on requirements of the
public sector, private safety and quality standards
are emerging and implemented. In the process of
change, compulsory standards such as HACCP are
a prerequisite for companies’ behavior. The addi-
tional standards, such as Eurep-Gap, are dissemi-
nated through the industry as well. Within the food
industry, with numerous producers of raw materi-
als, fragmentation and low levels of concentration,
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Trienekens, P. Zuurbier / Int. J. Production Economics 113 (2008) 107–122
the pressure to standardize quality has become
important from a food safety point of view. Quality
assurance, however, has, as has been discussed,
impact on the market structure and creates addi-
tional costs as well.
What are the future outlooks for quality assur-
ance in the food industry?
First, on the level of food chains, we may expect
that quality assurance will dominate the process of
production and distribution. The primary processes
will be standardized to reduce risks, moving to zero-
defect solutions. Specifically, the larger retailing
companies will put pressure on their suppliers to
comply with all standards, public and private.
Third-party audits and certification will be the
mechanisms to achieve this strategy. Due to the
open nature of the food industry, all kinds of
existing and new stakeholders will try to develop,
specify and refine new norms to be included in the
certification schemes. This, as we have discussed,
will create more favorable conditions to increase
economies of scale and reduce the number of
suppliers.
Second, on the level of the market structure, what
are the chances for new entrants? It may be argued
that new entrants always appear in the market, once
rents can be captured based on asset specificities.
Opportunities will exist either for small or for larger
companies to define new opportunities that might
create customer value. Non-allergenic food items,
for example, have already created a niche market.
This market complies with the highest hygienic
standards, almost comparable to those in the
pharmaceutical industry.
Third, we may expect that the differentiation of
markets and, hence, the differentiation in quality
standards, certification schemes and labels will
encourage companies and value chains to build up
brands that are based on the quality assurances. In
other words, quality assurance may give benefits to
companies to create consumer and customer value.
Fourth, the additional costs for certification,
auditing and quality assurance in general may
evoke new responses by companies. First, compa-
nies in the value chain may reduce differentiation by
standardization of certification system, based on a
modular system that may capture all kinds of new
or refined standards and norms. Technological
innovation might also create higher efficiency and
reduce costs: for example, by defining protocols for
the quality data on industry level companies may
benefit from standardization. Also, companies in
121
food chains may reduce quality assurance costs by
economies of scale through concentration of certify-
ing bodies. Specifically, measures like internal audits
replacing, partly, third-party audits and web-based
documentary inspections can also add to higher
efficiency.
Concluding, the food industry has responded to
food scandals by installing new quality assurance
systems, on top of public regulations. Due to the
global nature of the food industry, the impacts on
the market are twofold: consumers receive benefits
in terms of more and better safe food globally, and
suppliers in the food industry have been entrenched
into a variety of assurance systems, adding up to
costs and doubts about the effectiveness of the
systems.
However, the dissemination of the assurance
systems, standards and certification schemes glob-
ally is relatively limited and may imply the reduc-
tion of market access of suppliers.
References
Boutrif, E., 2003. The new role of Codex Alimentarius in the
context of WTO/SPS agreement. Food Control 14 (2), 81–88.
Bredahl, M.E., James R. Northen, Andreas Boecker, Mary Anne
Normile, 2001. Consumer demand sparks the growth of
quality assurance schemes in the European Food sector.
Changing structure of global food consumption and trade/
WRS-01-1. Economic Research Service/USDA May,
pp. 90–102.
Capmany, C., Hooker, N.H., Ozuna, T., van Tilburg, A., 2000.
ISO 9000—a marketing tool for US agribusiness. Interna-
tional Food and Agribusiness Management Review 3, 41–53.
Demsetz, H., 1973. Industry structure, market rivalry and public
policy. Journal of Law and Economics 16 (1), 1–10.
Dinham, B., 2003. Growing vegetables in developing countries
for local urban populations and export markets: Problems
confronting small-scale producers. Pest Management Science
59, 575–582.
Duffy, R., Fearne, A., 2003. Food Safety and Quality: Legisla-
tion, Standards, Bottlenecks and Market Trends in the UK
Food Industry and Selected Products Sectors (Beef, Fruit and
Fish). Centre for Food Chain Research, Department of
Agricultural Science, Imperial College, London.
Esbjerg, L., Bruun, P., 2003. Legislation, Standardisation,
Bottlenecks and Market Trends in Relation to Safe and High
Quality Food Systems and Networks in Denmark, MAPP-
Centre for Research on Consumer Relations in the Food
Sector. Aarhus School of Business, Aarhus, Denmark.
Escriche, I., Domenech, E., Baert, K., 2006. Design and
implementation of an HACCP system. In: Luning, P.A.,
Devlieghere, F., Verhe, R. (Eds.), Safety in the Agri-Food
Chain. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen.
FAO, 2002 /www.fao.org/es/ESN/food/foodquality_en.stmS.
Gellynck, X., Verbeke, W., Viane, J., 2004a. Consumer value of
traceability: opportunities for market orientation in meat
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
122 J. Trienekens, P. Zuurbier / Int. J. Production Economics 113 (2008) 107–122
supply chains. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International
Conference on Chain and Network Management in Agribusi-
ness and the Food Industry. Wageningen Academic Publish-
ers, pp. 217–228.
Gellynck, X., Januszewska, R., Verbeke, W., Viaene, J., 2004b.
Firm’s Costs of Traceability Confronted with Consumer
Requirements. Department of Agricultural Economics, Ghent
University, Belgium.
Giovannucci, D., Reardon, T., 2001. Understanding grades and
standards and how to apply them. In: Giovannuci, D. (Ed.),
A Guide to Developing Agricultural Markets and Agro-
enterprises. The World Bank, Washington.
Henson, S., Loader, R., 2001. Barriers to agricultural
exports from developing countries. World Development 29,
85–102.
Holleran, E., Bredahl, M., Zaibet, L., 1999. Private incentives for
adopting food safety and quality assurance. Food Policy 24,
669–683.
Jahn, G., Schramm, M., Spiller, A., 2004a. The trade-off between
generality and effectiveness in certification systems: A
conceptual framework. In: Proceedings of the Sixth Interna-
tional Conference on Chain and Network Management in
Agribusiness and Food Industry. Wageningen Academic
Publishers, Ede, the Netherlands, pp. 335–343.
Jahn, G., Schramm, M., Spiller, A., 2004b. The quality of
certification and audit processes in the food sector. In:
Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on
Chain and Network Management in Agribusiness and
Food Industry. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Ede, the
Netherlands.
Kari, 2003. The Kenya component, Vegetables and fruit, fish
and beef products, Kenya Agricultural Research Institute.
Nayrobi, Kenya /www.globalfoodnetwork.org/reportsS.
Luning, P.A., Marcelis, W.J., Jongen, W.M.F., 2002. Food
Quality Management: A Techno-managerial Approach.
Wageningen Press, Wageningen.
Luning, P.A., Devlieghere, F., Verhe, R., 2006. Safety in the
Agri-food Chain. Wageningen Academic Publishers,
Wageningen.
Rocourt, J., Moy, G., Vierk, K., Schlundt, J., 2003. The Present
State of Foodborne Disease in OECD Countries. Food Safety
Department, WHO, Geneva.
The Ssemwanga Group Ltd., 2003. National report on knowl-
edge about important topics on food safety and quality in
Uganda. Ssemwanga Group, Kampala, Uganda /www.
globalfoodnetwork.com/reportsS.
Trienekens, J., van Plaggenhoef, W., Boschma, S., Willems, S.,
Esjberg, L., 2005. Research agenda on safe and high quality
international food chains. EU Concerted Action SafeACC,
ACC publication 2005 and /www.globalfoodnetwork.orgS,
26pp.
Trienekens, J.H., 2004. Quality and safety in food supply chains.
In: Camps, T., Diederen, P., Hofstede, G.J., Vos, B. (Eds.),
The Emerging World of Chains and Networks. Bridging
Theory and Practice. Reed Business Information, The Hague,
The Netherlands, pp. 253–267.
Tunc- er, B., 2001. From farm to fork? Means of assuring food
quality: An analysis of the European food quality initiatives.
Thesis, Lund, Sweden, IIIEE Reports 2001:14.
Unnevehr, L.J., 2000. Food safety issues and fresh food
product exports from LDCs. Agricultural Economics 23 (3),
231–240.
Vellema, S., Boselie, D., 2003. Cooperation and Competence in
Global Food Chains. Perspectives on Food Quality and
Safety. Shaker Publishing, Maastricht.
Vorst van der, J.G.A.J., 2000. Effective food supply chains:
Generating, modelling and evaluating supply chain scenarios.
Ph.D. Thesis, Wageningen University and Research Center,
Wageningen.
Wickham, L.D., Samsundar, J., Graham, O., Bridgebassie, V.,
2003. Overview of food quality systems and legislation for the
fruit, beef and fish chain in the Caribbean: Jamaica, Trinidad
and Tobago and St. Vincent and the Grenadines.
/www.globalfoodnetwork.org/reportS.
Ziggers, G.W., Trienekens, J.H., 1999. Quality assurance in food
and agribusiness supply chains: Developing successful part-
nerships. International Journal of Production Economics
60–61, 271–279.