The Rejection Process for Non-adopters of the PhilGAP Certification Programme (Types 2 and

There are two groups of banana growers that were identified as non-adopters of the PhilGAP

certification programme. These were banana plantations that have implemented other forms of QMS certification, normally GlobalGAP (Type 2 respondents), and banana plantations that have not implemented other forms of QMS certification (Type 3 respondents). Participating plantations under Type 2 are GlobalGAP certified. The standards for GlobalGAP are compatible with PhilGAP, but they are normally more stringent. These plantations would be able to obtain PhilGAP certification if they applied for certification. ‘Plantation C’ and ‘Plantation D’ are Type 2 respondents. The former

Chapter 6: Case Results

91 had been participating in GlobalGAP since 2009, while the latter started in 2015. On the other hand, participating plantations under Type 3 are using in-house QMS that are not externally certified. The standards of these QMS systems are lower than PhilGAP or GlobalGAP. Thus, if these plantations wanted to obtain PhilGAP certification, they would need a considerable upgrade in their QMS. These

include ‘Plantation E’ and ‘Plantation F’. Their existing QMS were drawn from the production

practices of other companies. The following sections describe the events that led to the rejection process of PhilGAP certification programme under Type 2.

6

6.2.2.1 Type 2: Non-adopter of the PhilGAP Certification Programme Who Have Implemented Another Form of QMS Certification, Normally GlobalGAP

Knowledge Stage

The PhilGAP certification programme was not actively promoted to Cavendish banana plantations until the vice-president of ‘Plantation A’ was invited to a PhilGAP promotion caravan launched by the government through BAFS in 2015. Thus, the level of awareness of the PhilGAP certification programme within the banana industry was low until 2015. The promotion was open to all plantations, but the government tended to focus its effort on growers who were members of large associations or groups. The representatives of ‘Plantation C’ and ‘Plantation D’ attended one of the promotion seminars where the vice-president of ‘Plantation A’ presented their experiences with the programme. From this seminar, they learned about how to participate in the programme and the principles behind the PhilGAP certification programme. However, these plantations had been participating in the

GlobalGAP certification scheme and because it is the gold standard QMS for international markets, they did not consider it relevant to their business. Both representatives from ‘Plantation C’ and

‘Plantation D’ developed a selective perception that the PhilGAP certification programme was a

“redundancy” to their existing QMS certification scheme or a “waste of exercise” (Participants 2 and

3).

Persuasion Stage

Despite a preconceived notion that the PhilGAP certification programme was redundant because of

the existing QMS, ‘Participant 2’ reported the information he obtained about the PhilGAP

certification programme through the promotion seminar to the management team at ‘Plantation C’. When they compared GlobalGAP to the PhilGAP certification process, they found that 80% of their

GlobalGAP practices matched those used in PhilGAP. However, PhilGAP was not required by their export market, rather they wanted GlobalGAP-certified bananas. Although PhilGAP was 80% compatible with their existing QMS certification programme, ‘Plantation C’s management team believed that there was no relative advantage to be gained from their participation in the PhilGAP

certification programme. In addition, ‘Participant 2’ perceived that the implementation of the

PhilGAP certification as a government programme could be a problem for the company. This is because previous experience with government programmes had highlighted problems due to a lack of

Chapter 6: Case Results

92

“coordination” between the national and the regional offices of the Department of Agriculture. This

lack of coordination among government agencies is a barrier to the adoption of the certification programme.

In contrast, ‘Parcticipant 3’ did not investigate the PhilGAP certification programme further, nor did he report it to the management team at ‘Plantation D’. This was because the PhilGAP certification programme was not recognised by ‘Plantation D’s’ export markets and ‘Participant 3’ could see no benefit from adopting it. Because ‘Plantation D’ was already implementing the GlobalGAP

certification programme, the gold standard, he believed that the quality of its produce would exceed that obtained under the PhilGAP certification programme.

So [although] companies are practising it, PhilGAP also took the practices of GlobalGAP, it seems they are aligned. But the market requirement is more on the GlobalGAP, so not on

PhilGAP. So we can say that the practices of PhilGAP are being adopted by the companies. But during the certification, they don’t apply because they don’t need it (Participant 3).

In addition, ‘Participant 3’ perceived that a public GAP programme can be problematic because of a perception about the lack of independence in the government’s programmes. This is another barrier to the adoption of the programme. ‘Participant 3’ believed that a person of greater authority in the government could influence the result of the local inspections. As such, a company who initially failed the certification process could become certified through political influence.

Because of the inspectors in PhilGAP, it seems organized by the government agencies, so most likely, it appears political. The heads of agencies, whoever they want to become inspectors, they appoint as inspectors. So, it seems there is doubt on the integrity of the inspectors, because the inspectors are members or officers or employees of the agencies involved. So they can be influenced by the head of the agency. That is one difference with the inspector of

GlobalGAP. Because for GlobalGAP, really coming from the outside (Participant 3).

D

Decision Phase

At this stage of Rogers’ (2003) process, the management of ‘Plantation C’ and ‘Plantation D’ take part in activities that can lead to the adoption or rejection of the PhilGAP certification programme. Since the corporate-managed farms of ‘Plantation C’ were fully certified with GlobalGAP, they did not foresee any relative advantage from obtaining PhilGAP certification. They also intended to be fully GlobalGAP-certified for their contract growing areas by the end of 2018. However, they do not prohibit their contracted growers participating in the PhilGAP certification programme and they are willing to provide them with technical assistance if they want to do this. Nonetheless, the corporate- managed farms actively rejected participation in the PhilGAP certification programme after assessing its relative advantage against their current practice and also based on the perception that government programmes lack coordination.

Chapter 6: Case Results

93

Likewise, ‘Plantation D’ does not intend to apply for PhilGAP certification because it was not required by the international market and they had concerns about the lack of independence with the government certification process. They intend to continue to adopt the GlobalGAP certification with the aim of certifying a further 154 hectares of highland bananas in 2016. They had not conducted an assessment of the PhilGAP certification programme and the decision was made on the basis of their perception that GlobalGAP is a better standard than PhilGAP. Hence, the PhilGAP certification programme was passively rejected by ‘Plantation D’. The following paragraphs describe the events that led to the non-adoption of the PhilGAP certification programme under Type 3.

6

6.2.2.2 Type 3: Non-adopter of PhilGAP Certification Programme Who Have Not Implemented Other Forms of QMS Certification

Knowledge Stage

Participants from ‘Plantation E’ and ‘Plantation F’ were not aware of the PhilGAP certification programme because the promotional caravan did not reach to them. They had not received any information or been invited to a promotional seminar on PhilGAP. ‘Plantation E’ does not belong to a grower association while ‘Plantation F’ is a member of a small association of banana growers. As such, neither were targeted by the government’s promotional seminars.They have limited knowledge on what constitutes good agricultural practices such as the proper use of pesticides based on their existing QMS, but not about PhilGAP or its certification process. When asked if they were familiar with PhilGAP, ‘Participant 5’ responded “Not at all… I really don’t know”, while ‘Participant 6’ answered positively with a “Yes”. However, when ‘Participant 6’ was asked for further information

about the policies of PhilGAP he responded “Not so much”. He was aware that training on GAP in general is a requirement to become an accredited grower but he was not informed specifically about

PhilGAP and the certification process. He also asked for more information about PhilGAP and the certification process from the researcher. Both growers stated that if they were given enough information about PhilGAP and the certification process, they would be willing to adopt it. The growers from ‘Plantations E and F’ were not able to assess the merits of adopting the PhilGAP

certification programme because of a lack of awareness – a key barrier to the adoption of the programme.

The results from this study show that a plantation’s decision to participate in the GlobalGAP

certification programme can either drive the adoption of the PhilGAP certification programme, as in

the circumstance of ‘Plantation A’, or it can hinder the adoption of PhilGAP certification, as in the

case of ‘Plantation C’and ‘Plantation D’. Some authors in the literature also argued that public and private QMS certification programme can co-exist (Gunningham & Rees, 1997; Raymond & Bonnaud, 2014) while others argued that they compete with each other (Lockie et al., 2014). For these reasons, a comparison between the PhilGAP and GlobalGAP certification processes based on the

Chapter 6: Case Results

94