B: Costs and benefits of implementing the balanced scorecard Annex B summarises some potential costs and benefits which are likely to arise from the implementation of the balanced scorecard. They are broken down between economic, environmental and social. The purpose of this document is to provide insight into the magnitude of the costs and benefits of each of the criteria and sub-criteria, with a view to inform the weightings for the balanced scorecard. We appreciate stakeholder feedback relating to the magnitude of each of these, and whether the costs and benefits listed here are broadly correct. Please let us know if you have any comments on this, and if there are additional costs and benefits not listed here which you think should be included. Moreover, if you are aware of any evidence or data which will help us verify (and if possible, quantify) these costs and benefits please let us know. Production Standards Economic Costs Benefits (Business, Supply chain management We would expect there to be a higher proportion of food that Government, There may be an extra cost to suppliers of actually meets UK standards of production as a result. This will Labour market, implementing a reporting system for supply mean a lower risk of farmers who meet those standards being consumers) chain management, but we expect this is not undercut by those who don’t meet them. We expect that this will significant considering existing rules on be of benefit to the UK food and farming sector which is largely traceability, UK production standards and subject to assurance schemes, and may stimulate some rural reputational issues for caterers. growth. There will also be a decreased risk of crises of provenance such Animal welfare/biodiversity/pollution/land as horsemeat fraud (and consequent repercussions). management By having higher levels of confidence in production standards There may be an extra cost to government of and supply chains, we would expect a level of increased complying, as food that meets these standards demand and therefore revenues in central government canteens can be more expensive. Provisional Defra and other customer-funded catering in the wider public sector. calculations indicate that there would be an increase in overall costs to taxpayers and private sector (consumers and caterers) of between undiscounted £69m and £125m over
B: Costs and benefits of implementing the balanced scorecard Annex B summarises some potential costs and benefits which are likely to arise from the implementation of the balanced scorecard. They are broken down between economic, environmental and social. The purpose of this document is to provide insight into the magnitude of the costs and benefits of each of the criteria and sub-criteria, with a view to inform the weightings for the balanced scorecard. We appreciate stakeholder feedback relating to the magnitude of each of these, and whether the costs and benefits listed here are broadly correct. Please let us know if you have any comments on this, and if there are additional costs and benefits not listed here which you think should be included. Moreover, if you are aware of any evidence or data which will help us verify (and if possible, quantify) these costs and benefits please let us know. Production Standards Economic (Business, Government, Labour market, consumers) Costs Supply chain management There may be an extra cost to suppliers of implementing a reporting system for supply chain management, but we expect this is not significant considering existing rules on traceability, UK production standards and reputational issues for caterers. Animal welfare/biodiversity/pollution/land management There may be an extra cost to government of complying, as food that meets these standards can be more expensive. Provisional Defra calculations indicate that there would be an increase in overall costs to taxpayers and private sector (consumers and caterers) of between undiscounted £69m and £125m over Benefits We would expect there to be a higher proportion of food that actually meets UK standards of production as a result. This will mean a lower risk of farmers who meet those standards being undercut by those who don’t meet them. We expect that this will be of benefit to the UK food and farming sector which is largely subject to assurance schemes, and may stimulate some rural growth. There will also be a decreased risk of crises of provenance such as horsemeat fraud (and consequent repercussions). By having higher levels of confidence in production standards and supply chains, we would expect a level of increased demand and therefore revenues in central government canteens and other customer-funded catering in the wider public sector.
DEFRA_consultation_doc_British_Food_Plan_(Feb%202014)-1.docx