how quality management metasystems are affecting the food industry

Review of Agricultural Economics--Volume 20, Number 2--Pages 547-557

How Quality Management Metasystems Are Affecting the Food Industry

Julie A. Caswell, Maury E. Bredahl, and Neal H. Hooker

The future competitiveness of the U.S. food industry depends on its ability to deliver high- quality products at competitive prices to domestic and intemational markets. Recent developments in the establishrnent and operation of quality management metasystems are having important effects on this competitiveness. Their use has the potential to enhance product quality, simplify contractual relationships, demonstrate compliance with regulations, and improve responsiveness to customers. Their use is also requiring novel intemal organization and market linkages between firms.

M 'any recent developments in the adoption of food quality management sys- .tems representa switch toward the application of metasystems and metas-

tandards. 1 This follows similar trends in other nonfood industries, with efforts focused on reducing product waste, complying with contractual requirements, re- sponding to consumer demands, managing risk, and demonstrating that technical product and process standards are being met. A common though not exclusive incentive for adoption of these systems in the food industry is the management of food safety attributes. Here we discuss how adoption of new quality management metasystems is affecting the operation of the food system and how these effects might be quantified. To do so, we focus on the characteristics and effects of three types of quality metasystems: those mandated by governments through regulatory

�9 Julie Caswelt is professor, Department of Resource Economics, University of Massachu- setts. �9 Mary Bredahl is professor, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Mis- souri. �9 Neal Hooker is a postdoctoral research associate, Center for Food Safety, Texas A&M University, and Department of Resource Economics, University of Massachusetts.

at Serials Departm

ent on Novem

ber 18, 2014http://aepp.oxfordjournals.org/

Dow

nloaded from

http://aepp.oxfordjournals.org/

548 Review of Agricultural Economics

Table 1. Qual i ty attribute space for food products

Quality Attribute Subsets

1. Food Safety Attributes Foodbome pathogens Heavy metals Pesticide residues Food additives Naturally occurring toxins Veterinary residues

2. Nutrition Attributes Fat content Calories Fiber Sodium Vitamins Minerals

3. Value Attributes Purity Compositional integrity Size Appearance Taste Convenience of preparation

4. Package Attributes Package materials Labeling Other information provided

5. Process Attributes Animal welfare Biotechnology use Environmental impact Pesticide use Worker safety

requirements, those adopted voluntarily by companies, and those representing a third type of system which we label quasi-voluntary. The latter systems are those that are required by such a large proportion of the market as to become de facto required standard operating procedure.

Food product quality indudes the range of attributes shown in table 1. Food quality metasystems are strategies that affect any of these quality attributes. These metasystems are usually general in nature and therefore apply widely across firms in the supply or value chain. They are implemented through more specific metastandards. Since the late 1980s, a number of such metasystems and metastandards have emerged in widely varying areas: product quality (ISO 9000 and QS 9000 standards), environmental management systems (ISO 14000 standards), worker empowerment (Total Quality Management, TQM), customer feedback (Efficient Consumer Response, ECR), supply chain management, inventory control (Just in

at Serials Departm

ent on Novem


Dow

nloaded from


How Quality Management Metasystems Ate Affecting the Food Industry 549

Time), and, more narrowly, in food safety (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points, HACCP, and Statistical Process Control) (Bredahl, Holleran, and Zaibet; Caswell and Hooker; Uzemeri).

Food quality metasystems differ in their effects on the attributes that make up product quality. They are rarely implemented in isolation, which requires a holistic approach to evaluating their independent and interactive effects. Metasystems and related metastandards ate often applicable in many different industries unlike sector- or product-specific standards, such as "good manufacturing/management practices." For example, the increasingly popular quality assurance and management systems grouped under ISO 9000 have been adopted in all manufacturing indust¡ in service industries such as advertising and hotels, and in education. Applications range from manufacturing automobiles (where in the United States it is adapted as QS 9000) to processing meat and growing salmon.

Metasystems are frequently adopted in response to regulatory; technical, or manage¡ innovations. In contrast to product specifications and technical requirements that are very detailed and specific to industries or firms, Uzemeri notes that, "Stan- dards writers can create lists of design rules to guide the creation of entire dasses of management systems" (p. 23). Metasystem is the term that system theory uses for lists of this type. Metasystems have several important characteristics:

�9 Certification audit. Recognition (certification) of adoption requires an audit by an unbiased third party.

�9 Documentation of practices. For example, ISO 9000 is often summarized as "write down what you do, and then do what you have w¡ down."

�9 Implementation and approval. All aspects of a metasystem must be implemented and approved. These standards are the equivalent of a pass/fail ac- ademic grading system.

Metasystems are implemented through metastandards, which most often define a process to be undertaken by a company to assure quality on an on-going basis. They require periodic verification by an unbiased third party that certifies the company is in compliance with the metasystem. For mandatory programs, the unbiased third party is an enforcement agency of government. For voluntary programs, the third party is a p¡ agent or company. Verification of quasi-voluntary metasystems is often controlled by an industry group ora particular customer.

Why Adopt a Metasystem? Food quality metasystems are being adopted by system participants for a variety

of reasons. The dynamics of metasystem adoption depend on the internal benefits and costs of adoption to companies, risk management goals, competitive advantage that may be gained or maintained in domestic and foreign markets, possible gains in system efficiency, and the interaction of mandator~ voluntar~ and quasi-voluntary metasystems in influencing product quality and price. The effect on a company of adopting particular quality control metasystems can be outlined in the form of a profit function that incorporates transaction costs:

at Serials Departm

ent on Novem


Dow

nloaded from



"rr; =p;(x~, q~) .x , - C~(x~ q, I qj, MS~, MSj, MSk)

- T,(x~, q~ I qj, MS;, MS i, MSk)

- R~(x~, qi I qj, MSi, MSj, MSk)

where p~ is the company's price, x; is the quantity produced, and q; is the quality of the product. The company maximizes its profit subject to three types of costs. The first, C(e), captures traditional (company-level) costs of production. It is dependent on qj (the quality of purchased inputs) and the metasystems adopted by the firm (MSi), its suppliers (MSj), and its customers (MSk). The second type of costs, T(e), are the company's transaction costs as influenced by the mandatory, voluntary, and quasi-voluntary rnetasystem(s) used internally and extemally in the value chain. The third type of costs, R(e), captures regulatory compliance costs associated with any mandatory metasystems required as the product passes through the value chain. This approach clearly outlines how profits are dependent on input and output quality, own and others' use of metasystems, and resultant costs. For the company, adoption of a metasystem may either increase or decrease profitability. We tum now to recent research and insights into how metasystem adoption affects profitability and competitiveness.

lnternal Benefits and Costs of Metasystems The first term of the profit equation captures the company's revenues from sale

of its product; the next three terms capture its production, transaction, and regulatory compliance costs given the quality control metasystems adopted by it, its suppliers, and its customers. Product quality affects the company's price as well as its market access. The metasystems used affect the production costs [C(e)] and product quality. Although the evidence to date is somewhat mixed, voluntary metasystems, such as ISO 9000, likely shift the cost curve downward. Quasi-voluntary metasystems required by a customer can shift the cost curve upward, while systems required of suppliers ate likely to have the opposite effect.

Studies to date of the adoption and perceived effects of voluntary and quasi- voluntary metasystems are very limited. A majority of these studies evaluate the costs and benefits of adopting a particular metasystem. Caution is needed in in- terpreting them because they tend to be carried out or financed by third-party auditing firms that have a vested interest in showing the metasystem has great value and little cost. One reason for the lack of studies is that voluntary and quasi- voluntary metasystems emerged in the late 1980s and only became important in the mid 1990s. Development has proceeded fastest in the European Union, especially the United Kingdom, with ISO 9000, developed in 1987, receiving the most attention to date.

Seddon et al., for example, surveyed 647 British firms that were ISO 9000 registered regarding their perceptions of its costs and benefits. ISO 9000 certification is a voluntary system that involves a third party (not the ISO), certifying that the plant-level quality control is in compliance with an appropriate metasystem model (e.g., ISO 9001, 9002, of 9003). Seddon et al. found that intemal factors, such as improved product reliability and improved efficiency, motivated ISO 9000 adoption

at Serials Departm

ent on Novem


Dow

nloaded from


How Quality Management Metasystems Are Affecting the Food Industry 551

more than extemal factors such as increased market share. But they concluded that "clearly the size of an organizafion makes a great deal of difference to (firm) perceptions and expectations" of benefits (Seddon et al., p. 38). Although 51% of large firms (annual sales of more than s million) expected to achieve cost reduction from ISO adoption, only 30% of small firms (sales of less the s million) expected cost reductions. However, 71% of small firms expected adoption to increase their market share, while only 48% of large firms had the same expectation.

Machimada examined the costs and benefits of ISO 9000 adoption, developing a methodology for analyzing investment in certification. He used a multiattribute cost-benefit evaluation of ISO 9000 certification to study four Missouri firms that had either adopted ISO 9000 or were pursuing certification. His results indicated that the benefits did exceed the costs, thereby justifying investment in ISO 9000. Meanwhile, Lang described the experience of Sandoz Nutrifion, the first U.S.-based food manufacturer in its industry segment to adopt ISO 9000. He reported the company recouped its ISO certification costs in justa few months based on the single area of materials held back. Furthermore, the required evaluations and audits enhanced the company's goal of satisfying consumers' demand for an ".. . increasingly higher quality in goods and services" (Lang, SR25).

Measuring the costs of voluntary systems such as ISO 9000 is difficult, often leading to a case study approach (Bray, Brooks, Zaibet). For example, using a tele- phone and mail survey, Bray devised statistical models for start-up costs, annual costs, and the time required for ISO 9000 registration in the construction industry. Survey results revealed that the most important factor in lowering certification costs for the models was management experience in writing procedures. Much analysis is currently underway to measure the costs of compliance with government-mandated metasystems, especially the adoption of HACCP (see below). Forecasting the effect of metasystem adoption on the food industry wiU clearly depend on a strong understanding of resulting changes in company-level costs.

Transaction Costs and System Efficiencies Transaction costs are the informafional search, negotiafion, and monitoring costs

of exchanges between a customer and a supplier of between a buyer and a seller. As captured in the third term of our profit funcfion, a company's transaction costs are influenced by the quality of its inputs, its own product quality, and the metasystems used in the supply chain of which it is a part. These costs are a recent focus of analysis by economists (Hennessy). As Hobbs (1996) notes, transaction costs encompass all aspects of the contractual relationship between customers and suppliers. Adoption of quality management metasystems has the potential of reducing transacfion costs for companies, their suppliers, and their buyers in several ways. For example, their use may reduce sampling of delivered products for defects or deviafions from contracted attributes, eliminate or reduce maintenance of separate quality control laborato¡ reduce the number of audits required, decrease the time necessary to develop new products, or decrease the number of products that fail in the marketplace.

Transacfion costs are generally considered difficult to calculate (Hobbs 1995), although several economists have made useful progress toward their measurement (Frank and Henderson; Gordon; Hobbs; Levy; Matsen, Meehan, and Snyder; Monte-

at Serials Departm

ent on Novem


Dow

nloaded from


552 Review of AgricuItural Economics

verde and Teece; Palay; Zaibet). For example, Frank and Henderson measured transaction costs in the food manufacturing industry, finding them to be a primary motivation for vertical coordination. Hobbs (1995) found that transaction costs were statistically significant in explaining producers' choices of vertical coordination methods (live-¡ auctions vs. direct deadweight sales to rneat packers) in United Kingdom cattle markets. In a similar fashion, Zaibet measured the transaction costs involved in searching for suppliers, contracting with them, and evaluating the quality of the product supplied.

Despite difficulties in measurernent, adoption of metasystems is likely to have significant effects on transaction costs in the food industry. These effects are inter- twined with changes in other system costs. This was explicitly recognized by U.S. retailers in 1992 when a commissioned study estimated that the retail food sector could save $24 billion in operating costs (processing, transportation, warehousing, and handling) and $6 billion in interest expenses by adopting more efficient management systems (Henkoff, Stroud). In 1993, the retail sector launched an initiative to adopt a management systern called Efficient Consumer Response (ECR). Phurn- piu and King described ECR as "an industry-wide, collaborative initiative to re- engineer the grocery supply chain" (p. 1). They concluded that "ECR is likely to have profound effects on the structure of the retail food industry, either through the strengthening of cooperation and coordination among independent firms or through increased vertical coordination" (p. 1). ECR's goal is an overall reduction in transaction costs and an increase in system efficiency to be achieved through a focus on "custorner satisfaction with product quality and freshness" (Kinsey and Senauer, p. 32). In contrast, many European and especially U.K. retail food chains are ernphasizing proprietary quality assurance schemes that amount to quasi-voluntary quality management metasystems. An essential element of these systems is the development of lists of approved suppliers. Motivating this difference in strat- egy is the emphasis of many European retailers on selling their own brands of products rather than nationally branded products, which are more prevalent in the United States (Cotterill, Hughes).

Developing a Competitive Advantage In addition to affecting operation of the value chain, food quality metasystems

are likely to confer significant marketing advantages on companies in selling to final consumers. These advantages come frorn selling a higher quality product and reliably being able to certify that quality to consumers who are willing to pay more. These advantages may enter the company's profit performance through a higher price or lower transaction costs (e.g., consumers have more confidence in products carrying third-party certifications).

Proponents of farm-level quality assurance schemes make no secret of their de- sire to protect the market position of domestic producers through such quality assurance. This may work through a quasi-voluntary domestic system to which it is difficult for foreign producers to conforto, thus increasing their production or transaction costs, or by successfully creating product differentiation among consumers that favors domestic products. Two anecdotal pieces of evidence for such "leveraging" of metasystems are the increasing use of "ISO 9000 Certified" clairns in company and product advertising and the growing awareness among food qual-

at Serials Departm

ent on Novem


Dow

nloaded from



ity assurance managers of the role of metasystems. 2 Initially fueled by concem over food safety attributes, these managers have found that more diverse quality benefits can be realized from these metasystems, including extended shelf life, reduced rework, and enhanced customer satisfaction.

Interactions Among Metasystems The most interesting aspect of the increasing adoption of metasystems is the

interaction between mandatory; voluntaD; and quasi-voluntary food quality metasystems. For example, plants adopting a mandatory HACCP-based regime may find this introduction to metasystems a logical first step toward voluntary ISO 9000 cerfification or rice versa. The documentation and review required for individual metastandards can complement each other. Effective use of plant-level metastandards can allow a firm to develop a competitive and even comparative advantage, promoting increased product and process innovation (Maurer and Drescher).

Metasystems interact to affect costs and competitive position along the supply chain in ways that have not been closely analyzed to date. For example, do mandatory and voluntary systems complement each other so that expenditures on quality assurance in one arena furthers compliance in another? Of do the systems clash, requiring duplicate expenditures of even making dual compliance impossible? Does the degree of complementarity vary by firm size, position in the value chain, or location of production, giving some companies a competitive advantage in domestic and intemational markets? How do quasi-voluntary systems affect costs and competifive advantage? What is the on-going pattem of adoption of metasystems across countries and specific food industries? These questions need to be answered before the full effect of metasystems in the food sector can be understood.

A Look at Key Metasystems Quality control metasystems are having important effects on a broad range of

food product attributes, company incentives, system-wide costs, and marketing relationships. Here, we focus on examples of important mandatoD; voluntar~ and quasi-voluntary metasystems that are already having these effects.

HACCP as a Mandatory Quali ty Control Metasystem The most important example of the application of a mandatory quality control

metasystem is the adoption of the HACCP approach to assuring food safety. Its use has increased rapidly in the 1990s with significant mandatory requirements in place in the U.S., Canada, Australia, and the European Union. HACCP is a metasystem, in that it is based on seven general principles. These principles focus on identifying human health hazards that may arise in food production, processing, or distribution; establishing critical control points (CCP) for each of these hazards; instituting preventative measures to be taken at each CCP to keep hazards within critical limits; establishing monitoring procedures and clear actions to be taken in the case of a violation of the critical limit at each CCP; keeping records of all activities that influence the safety of the product; and continually validating and updating the HACCP system (Mortimore and Wallace).

The key objective of any HACCP system is to manage risk by producing a safe

at Serials Departm

ent on Novem


Dow

nloaded from



product every time. These systems are built on the tenet that the safety, and in particular the microbial profile, of food products cannot be effectively evaluated and controlled with end product tests. Instead, a complete analysis of the systern and all potential hazard sources is needed. A cornpany using HACCP should be able to demonstrate that its process is safe. HACCP's focus on individual processing steps can also increase participation in quality control to the entire work force, as advocated by metasysterns such as TQM. HACCP principles can be extended to cover nonsafety quality attributes, such as economic adulteration, and are often a step toward broader metasystems such as ISO 9000.

Asa mandatory regulatory requirement, HACCP often becomes a series of process-oriented metastandards. Many recent HACCP-based regulations have focused on reducing hazards over individual segments of the food chain rather than tar- geting the risk to consurners arising from the consumption of a finished product (Hathaway and Cook). For example, in the United States, HACCP is now required for seafood by the Food and Drug Administration and for meat and poultry by the Food Safety and Inspection Service of USDA. When implemented asa segrnent- specific metastandard and not as a supply-chain-wide metasystem, the benefits of HACCP rnay not be fully realized as irnprovernents made at one level rnay not be communicated or capitalized on in upstream and downstream markets. However, HACCP is likely to be extended to further areas of food production, processing, and distribution over time. We are only beginning to measure the effect of HACCP adoption on the food industry, but it is clear its irnpact will be significant. Early cost-benefit analyses associated with adoption of the regulatory requirements are suggestive of the magnitude of these effects, while on-going research is atternpting carefully to measure the benefits and costs of HACCP adoption to companies, supply chains, and society as a whole.

The ISO 9000 Series as a Voluntary Qual i t y Control Metasys tem The ISO 9000 series is the most prominent current example of a voluntary meta-

system being adopted in the food industry. The series grew out of the British BS 5750 standards and is managed by the Intemational Organization for Standardi- zation. Its first edition was released in 1987 and arnended in 1994. As noted, ISO 9000 certification involves a third-party other than ISO to certify that plant-level quality control is in compliance with the appropriate metasystem model (e.g., ISO 9001, 9002, or 9003). The role of the ISO-approved registration/accreditation company is to advise the adopting company on the selection, implementation, and management of the metasystern. Certification is rnaintained through a cornbination of intemal and third-party audits.

Current analysis suggests that the greatest benefit for a cornpany in attaining ISO 9000 certification is in the increased understanding of the whole quality system that it offers. Clearly, though, this benefit comes at a cost. The certification process can be drawn out (six to eighteen rnonths) and can be somewhat disruptive, with certification fees ranging between $10,000 and $25,000 per year depending on the system chosen and the complexity of the plant. However, Zaibet and Bredahl found that direct certification costs were no t a factor in implementing ISO 9000 in the United Kingdorn rneat sector. They estimated a 7% reduction in management costs upon certification, along with a 20% reduction in controlled costs.

at Serials Departm

ent on Novem


Dow

nloaded from



ISO 9000 is a generic metasystem, applicable across industries, that concentrates on the consistency of the company's quality system. The system specifies no technical requirements for the productor process. These remain "separate and distinct from the applicable ISO 9000 family requirements or guidance" (ISO 9000-1, p. 3). The ISO 9000 series "focuses on system quality, not product quality" (Golomski, p. 58, emphasis in original). For example, although guarantees are contained within its framework that a company comply with all relevant food safety regulations, ISO 9000 does not contain a spedfic safety component. Mortimore and Wallace further comment that if part of the process is inherently unsafe, the ISO 9000 focus on consistency will ensure that the resulting product will always be unsafe. This has led many to critidze the current composition of the ISO 9000 series when applied to food plants, recommending its expansion to incorporate HACCP principles.

Quas i -Voluntary Metasystems: How Free a Choice? The effect of quasi-voluntary metasystems on the food industry is believed to

be growing in importance, although clear evidence of the trend is just beginning to emerge. This effect is being seen in business relationships where buyers require their suppliers to meet spedfic quality control standards asa prerequisite for doing business. These systems are quasi-voluntary in that a supplier can choose not to comply and simply not do business with the buyer. However, if they are widely used or are used by important buyers, suppliers may have little choice in whether to produce to the spedfications.

Development of quasi-voluntary metasystems is most advanced outside the U.S. and is particularly strong in the United Kingdom, where legal requirements that companies exerdse due diligence in assuring the safety of products they sell have been a spur to development of quality management systems (Henson, Hobbs and Kerr). The situation in the United Kingdom highlights the dynamic interrelation- ship between legal and regulatory requirements and the development of voluntary and quasi-voluntary quality management metasystems. As quality management becomes ever more stringent in the food industry, the role of quasi-voluntary sys- tetas will continue to grow more important and formerly voluntary systems may become de facto requirements.

How Can the Effects of Metasystems be Evaluated? The effects of quality control metasystems depend on how they affect produc-

tŸ processing, transaction, and compliance costs and broader measures of system efficiency, competitiveness, and consumer satisfaction. The first step is quantifying and comparing the cost effects of different types of metasystems. This requires information available only through surveys of plant- and company-level quality managers (Holleran and Bredahl, Zaibet and Bredahl). The results of survey work that measures the costs of HACCP adoption in the United States are now beginning to appear.

The key questions to be addressed are the cost and marketing advantages or disadvantages of food quality metasystems in different countries and industry segments. For example, why does the United States lag behind some European countries in adopting innovative voluntary and quasi-voluntary metasystems such as

at Serials Departm

ent on Novem


Dow

nloaded from



ISO 9000? How do the perceptions of these metasystems held by the management of U.S. and European companies differ? To what extent are various forms of certification viewed as a business necessity, and when do they transform from being voluntary to quasi-voluntary? What are the net effects on quality, costs, and competitiveness of simultaneous implementation of mandatory; voluntary~ and quasi- voluntary metasystems (e.g., HACCP and ISO 9000)? How have contractual relationships been affected by adoption of metasystems? Are the effects significantly different for companies in different sectors or of different sizes? Answers to each of these questions will supply important pieces of the puzzle to be solved in understanding the future competitiveness and performance of companies in the food industry.

E n d n o t e s 1 A standard definition of quality management is: "All activities of the overall management function

that determine the quality policy, objectives and responsibilities, and implement them by means such as quality planning, quality control, quality assurance and quality improvement within the quality system" (ISO 8402, p. 1).

20ne example is NSF International's HACCP-9000 ~ system that combines both metastandards and appropriate food hygiene practices into a single metasystem. The first certification to this system (a Tip Top Bakeries plant in Perth, Australia) is discussed in The Standard of Excellence, third quarter 1997, the registration company's newsletter.

R e f e r e n c e s Bra3~ H.G., Jr. "Domestic Construction Contractors and ISO 9000 Registration." PhD dissertation,

Northeast Louisiana State University, 1994. Bredahl, M.E., E. Holleran, and L. Zaibet. ISO Certification in the European Food Sector. Eur. Rep.

Indust., Qual. and Standards. 2, 10(October 1994):25-26. Brooks, S.L. 1994. "ISO 9000 and New York State's Hardwood Lumber Manufacturing Industry In-

cluding A Prototype Manual." Master's thesis, State University of New York, 1994. Caswell, J.A., and N.H. Hooker. HACCP as an Intemational Trade Standard. Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 78,

3(1996):775-79. Cotterill, R.W. The Food Distribution System of the Future: Convergence Towards the U.S. or U.K.

Model? Agribus. 13, 2(1997):123-35. Frank, S.D., and I~R. Henderson. Transaction Costs as Determinants of Vertical Coordination in the

U.S. Food Industries. Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 74(1992):941-50. Golomski, W.A. ISO 9000--The Global Perspective. Food Tech. 48, 12(1994):57-59�9 Gordon, D.R. "The Transaction Costs of Debt Conversions.'" Master's thesis, University of Missouri-

Columbia, 1995. Hathaway, S., and R.L. Cook. "A Regulatory Perspective on the Potential Uses of Microbial Risk

Assessment in Intemational Trade." Paper presented at the Second Intemational Conference on Predic- tire Microbiology, Power with Precision, Hobart, Australia, 18-22 February 1996.

Henkoff, R. Delivering the Goods. Fortune 130, 11(1994):64-78. Henness~�91 D.A. Information Asymmetry as a Reason for Food Industry Vertical Integration. Amer. J.

Agr. Econ. 78, 4(1996):1034-43. Henson, S.J. Costs and Benefits of Food Safety Regulations: Fresh Meat Hygiene Standards in the

European Union. Report to the Working Party on Agricultural Policies and Markets of the Committee of Agriculture, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 1997.

Hobbs, J.E. "A Transaction Cost Analysis of Finished Beef Marketing in the United Kingdom." PhD dissertation, University of Aberdeen, UK, 1995.

�9 Transaction Costs and Slaughter Cattle Procurement: Processors' Selection of Supply Channels. Agribus.: Int. J. 12(1996):509-23.

Hobbs, J.E., and W.A. Kerr. Costs of Monitoring Food Safety and Vertical Coordination in Agri- business.: What Can Be Learned for the British Food Safety Act 1990? Agribus. 8, 6(1992):575-84.

Holleran, E., and M.E. Bredahl. "Food Safety, Transaction Costs and Institution Innovation in the British Food Sector." G. Schiefer and R. Hilbig, eds. University of Bonn. Quality Management and Process Improvement for Competitive A&~ntage in Agriculture and Food. pp. 51--68. Bonn: University at Bonn Press, 1996.

at Serials Departm

ent on Novem


Dow

nloaded from



Hughes, A. The Changing Organization of New Product Development for Retailers' Private Labels: A UK-US Comparison. Agribus. 13, 2(1997):169-84.

[ISO] lnternational Organization for Standardization. ISO 8402, 9000-1, 9001, 9004. Genera, Swit- zefland: IOS, 1994.

Kinse3~ J., and B. Senauer. Food Marketing in an Electronic Age: Implications for Agriculture. Choices, Second Quarter 1997, pp. 32-35.

Lang, R. Making ISO 9001 the Foundation of Our Business System. Cereal Foods World 40(1995):SR23-25. Levy, D. The Transaction Cost Approach to Vertical Integration: An Empirical Examination. Rea. Econ.

Statist. 67(1985):201-46. Machimada, J.S. "Multiattribute Analysis of ISO 9000 Registration: Ah Analytical Hierarchy Process

Based Approach." Master's thesis, University of Missouri-Columbia, 1994. Matsen, S.E., J.W. Meehan, and E.A. Snyder. Vertical Integration in the US Auto Industry: A Note

on the Influence of Specific Assets. J. Econ. Behavior and Org. 12(1989):265-73. Maurer, C~ and K. Drescher. "Industrial Standards as Driving Forces of Corporate Innovation and

Intemationalization." Economics of Innovation: The Case of Food Industry. G. Galizzi and L. Venturini, eds., pp. 221-237. Heidelberg, Germany: Physica-Verlag, 1996.

Monteverde, K., and l~J. Teece. Supplier Switching Costs and Vertical Integration in the Automotive Industry. Bell J. Econ. 13(1982):206-13.

Mortimore, S., and C. Wallace HACCP: A Practical Approach. London: Chapman & Hall, 1994. Palas�91 T.M. Avoiding Regulatory Constraints: Contracting Safeguards and the Role of Informal Agree-

ments. J. Law, Econ. and Org. 1(1985):155-76. Phumpiu, P.E, and R.P. King. Efficient Consumer Response: A Survey of Minnesota Retailers. Un-

published, Food Retail Center, University of Minnesota, March 1997. Seddon, J., R. Davis, M. Loughran, and R. Murrell. "BS 5750 Implementation and Value Added: A

Survey of Registered Companies." City, UK: Vanguard Consulting Ltd., 1993. Stroud, J. 1994. Big Savings Seen in Food Handling. St Louis Post-Dispatch. Section E, p. 1, 11 Decem-

ber 1994. Uzemeri, M. ISO 9000 and Other Metastandards: Principles for Management Practice? Acad. Manage.

Executive 11, 1(1997):21-36. Zaibet, L. "Linking Transactions Costs and Trade: A Case Study of the Impacts of ISO 9000 Stan-

dards on the European Union Food Industry." PhD dissertation, University of Missouri-Columbia, 1995. Zaibet, L., and M.E. Bredahl. Gains from ISO Certification in the UK Mear Sector. Agribus. 13, 4(1997):

375-84.

at Serials Departm

ent on Novem


Dow

nloaded from


how quality management metasystems are affecting the food industry

Documents