VARIABLES PREDICTORAS DE EVENTOS NEUROLÓGICOS INMEDIATOS

The barriers to, and drivers of, the adoption of the PhilGAP certification programme identified by Banzon et al. (2013a) in 2011 for the Cavendish banana plantations still exist and new barriers and drivers have also emerged five years after the initial study. The barriers to the adoption of the

PhilGAP certification programme by Cavendish banana plantations identified by Banzon et al. (2013a) that still exist include constraints in relation to: (1) knowledge, (2) cost, (3) processes, (4) rewards or incentives, (5) scale of farm operations, and (6) trade issues within the banana industry, particularly the practice of pole-vaulting. The emerging barriers identified by this research include sub-types of these barriers, namely: (1) the processes involved in the audit, particularly the disagreements on the concept of quality, the lack of coordination and the lack of independence in the

Chapter 8: Conclusion

120 audit process; and (2) the trade issues in the industry, specifically the presence of splinter groups or non-accredited groups of banana growers, packing facilities, traders and exporters. A new category of barrier has also emerged which is the presence of the GlobalGAP certification programme, a competing technology and the gold standard QMS.

On the other hand, the drivers of the adoption of the PhilGAP certification programme identified by Banzon et al. (2013a) that still exist include: (1) the requirements of the international market; and (2) the presence of a quality-focused corporate culture. Emerging drivers identified by the study included: (1) serves as a repository that satisfies other types of government policies; and (2) the government subsidy that includes the provision of both a free certification service, and a free chemical residue analysis.

The identified barriers have limited the non-adopters in various ways. The ‘Type 3’ (non-adopter) plantations either had little or no awareness of the PhilGAP certification programme, or if they were aware of it they had misconceptions about it. For growers who were unaware of the PhilGAP

certification programme, the other barriers were not relevant to their adoption decision. In contrast,

‘Type 3’ growers who were aware of it, but held misconceptions about the programme, perceived that cost constraints (compliance and certification costs) were the main barriers. But these perceptions

were based on faulty knowledge. On the other hand, the ‘Type 2’ (non-adopters) plantations were not constrained by knowledge and perceived cost barriers. These plantations are members of a large industry association and, as such, they have access to workshops and seminars that provided information about the PhilGAP certification programme. These extension activities also provided the growers with both the explicit knowledge about the principles behind the programme, and the tacit knowledge about how to manage the process in practice. In addition, cost constraints were not considered a barrier to the adoption of the PhilGAP certification programme by ‘Type 2’ plantations

because firstly, the certification and chemical residue costs of the PhilGAP certification programme are met by the government. Secondly, because these growers had already adopted GlobalGAP, the gold standard QMS, they would incur no additional compliance costs because these had already been met in order to obtain GlobalGAP certification. Other barriers, process and reward or incentive constraints, were much more important to ‘Type 2’ plantations in limiting their participation in the

PhilGAP certification programme. These plantations had a negative perception of the government processes around the PhilGAP certification scheme. They believe that it was poorly coordinated and lacks independence. They also perceived that there is no premium price for PhilGAP-certified bananas because the programme is not recognised by international markets. Failure by the

government to control “pole-vaulting” and splinter groups further diminished the value of the

programme in the eyes of the ‘Type 2’ growers and this acted as a further barrier to its adoption. It provided a disincentive for ‘Type 2’ plantations to provide support to contract growers in terms of infrastructure and training relevant to the PhilGAP certification programme because these growers

Chapter 8: Conclusion

121

might decide to supply their bananas to other exporters. For ‘Type 2’ plantations, the most important

barrier to the adoption of PhilGAP certification programme is their perception that it is inferior to the QMS scheme they are currently running which is GlobalGAP. As such, they see no advantage in adopting the PhilGAP certification programme.

Although only two Cavendish banana plantations were identified as having adopted the PhilGAP

certification programme, the study did identify the drivers behind their decision to adopt. At the start of the Banzon et al. (2013a) study in 2011, there were no PhilGAP-certified Cavendish banana plantations. However, their study identified that the requirements of the international market and the presence of a quality-focused corporate culture could drive the adoption of the certification programme. This research revealed that PhilGAP was used as a springboard to participate in the

GlobalGAP certification programme. Nonetheless, the company maintained both the PhilGAP and

GlobalGAP certificates in line with the corporate culture of being forward-looking and open to change as regards to improving quality. In addition, two further emerging drivers were identified that have also led to their continued participation in the programme. These were that 1) PhilGAP served as a repository that satisfies other government regulatory requirements and 2) the provision of a government subsidy that provides free certification services, and chemical residue analysis.

The ‘Type 1’ (adopter) continues to participate in the PhilGAP certification programme because they have been able to overcome the barriers that have constrained its adoption by other growers. The knowledge barrier was overcome by working closely with the government and involvement in association seminars and workshops. The cost barriers were overcome because firstly, the certification and chemical residue costs of the PhilGAP certification programme are met by the government. Secondly, the company did not view cost as a barrier, rather it was something they needed to invest in to meet quality standards. Thus, they funded the compliance costs to ensure that they met export requirements and maintained their corporate culture around quality. The process constraints were overcome by proactive engagements in government activities such as training, and adjusting the application of the PhilGAP certificate renewal to an earlier date. Although the economic rewards or incentives in terms of premium prices were not paid for PhilGAP-certified bananas, the adopters did highlight other advantages such as improvement in the workers’ performance and safety awareness.

The ‘Type 1’ plantations were also not affected by the ‘pole-vaulting’ operation which is considered as an industry-wide problem because they do not have contract growers. Lastly, the ‘Type 1’ plantations did not view PhilGAP and GlobalGAP as competing technologies. They believed that the

PhilGAP and GlobalGAP certification schemes could be used together to enhance the quality management of their plantations.

In conclusion, this research has found that the adoption rate of the PhilGAP certification programme for the Cavendish banana plantations remains low because many of the barriers to adoption have not

Chapter 8: Conclusion

122 been properly addressed by the government and the benefits from adoption have not been properly communicated to the intended adopters.