Memoria grupal

Perceived behavioral control comprised both an individual’s control over the adoption decision and their perceived control over the operation of the programme once adopted. Each farmer had control over the decision to adopt LWP because it is a totally voluntary programme. This reduced the effect perceived behavioral control had over the decision to adopt as it was a predetermined variable. Many of the farms participating in LWP were encouraged to do so as they didn’t feel under pressure to meet the requirements in a given timeframe and could work at implementation at a chosen rate. Of more significance was the perceived control over the programme’s operation and the extent to which they could adopt their own means of meeting programme requirements.

4.2.4.1 Complexity

The prescriptive nature of the programme means that there is not much opportunity for suppliers to control and make changes to the programme to make it less complex.

Standards Committee

As part of the requirement for the programme to be ISO certified, Synlait must hold a

minimum of one standards committee meeting which includes input from certified suppliers. Those interviewed who had the opportunity to attend a standards’ group meeting as a

78

farmer representative, liked the control it gave them to consider newly introduced or

proposed alterations to the programme’s standards. Similarly, those who attended favoured the farmers having an influence on the programme at the governing level, beyond

discussions with the Milk Supply team:

“The other thing I do like is the fact they are quite flexible about some of the stuff they’re implementing. They actually do consult you. Because we’ve pushed back pretty hard

and in a couple of areas we said, “No way is that going to happen,”and we’ve sat round

the table at the standards meeting and they’ve gone, ‘Well, shit okay, that’s not going to work and is that best practice, and is that where we want to head?’” (Supplier B).

“I’d be concerned if the programme doesn’t keep up with what’s actually going on, on

farm, which shouldn’t happen because they have farmers on that focus group or

whatever it is that catches up. Standards group I think it’s called. That’s good, it gives us a say at the top level and not something that can just be heard and not actioned”

(Supplier G).

4.2.4.2 Trialability

Trialability in the context of perceived behavioral control related to suppliers’ ability to have control over trialing LWP which was largely characterised by the influence of time factors associated with the programme.

Time Requirements

Suppliers felt they had control over the time it took them to become accredited which for some gave them the ability to feel they had the option to trial the programme and then exit, if they felt it was not for them. However, the prominent factor that was popular among suppliers was that they had full control over how long it took, meaning they did not feel pressured to complete the programme and compromise their day to day farming operations:

“There’s no pressure to do it. Synlait help push you along but if you want to take your

79

“You can take as long as you want really to get it into action. If you decide to start and

never finish, that’s fine too. You can have a taste of it, leave it, and come back to it

another day, it really up to each individual” (Supplier A).

Suppliers also noted the ability to complete the programme at their own will and fit this around their farming season and the associated fluctuations of work load that come with the seasonality of dairy farming:

“You wouldn’t want to do it at your busiest time of year with calving, so the

programme lets you do it when you want” (Supplier I).

4.2.4.3 Compatibility

Compatibility, in the context of influencing perceived behavioral control, looked at how the

supplier’s perception of their ability to adjust and influence the programme to better suit their farming operations influenced their decision to adopt. This particularly focused on the ability to alter the methods for applying LWP to each individual’s farm. This factor largely considered control beyond adoption, assessing compatibility in the context of integrating the programme into the farm operation.

Alter Programme Systems

Suppliers favoured the flexibility within the programme that allowed them to implement their own systems and procedures for meeting programme requirements. Whilst the programme has recommended means for meeting requirements, including templates and records books, it is at each supplier’s discretion as to how they implement these. For many suppliers they used a mixture of both Synlait’s methods and their own which they recognised as being effective, as it meant they could continue using existing systems or implement suggestions where there was not currently a system:

“We’ve actually had to blaze our own trail with a lot of the records and I’ve got stuff in

80

staff will understand. It ticks the box but it’s in a format that suits our farm.” (Supplier

B).

Voluntary Participation

Suppliers appreciated having the ability to choose whether they implemented LWP on their farm. The voluntary nature of the programme gave suppliers a sense of control, which for many made them have a more positive attitude as participation was entirely at their discretion:

“It’s a voluntary system. I mean if you want to do this, do it and get some more value.

If you don’t want to do it, don’t do it. That makes sense” (Supplier H).

“The fact it’s voluntary means a lot. I don’t have to do it, I’m making a choice and

there’s guys out there that don’t want to do it and that’sfine, they don’t have to. I can

pull out at any time too. It’s really up to each person” (Supplier J).