Search results1 – 10 of 167
The purpose of this paper is to explore the relationship between organizational culture and brand identity in the retail food and beverage industry and also to explore how…
The purpose of this paper is to explore the relationship between organizational culture and brand identity in the retail food and beverage industry and also to explore how independent retail coffee shops and cafes build their brands. The evolution of coffee drinking in many new markets is following a pattern similar to the one witnessed in New Zealand.
A qualitative approach using semi-structured interviews, field notes, photographs and empirical material was carried out with 15 independent coffee shops and nine franchise coffee shops in Christchurch, New Zealand. In total five different approaches were adopted to provide diverse observations to compliment every angle of the research setting by using triangulation.
The findings from this research reveal that an appropriate brand name helps to ease the process of brand identity creation. The personality of the market leader strongly influences organizational culture, and a constant flow of updated business intelligence plays an important role in creating a distinctive brand identity. Internal marketing and personal values are key to constructing internal culture while the acculturation process plays an important role in developing internal culture and building brand identity.
Difficulty in getting participants was a major limitation because many employees/owners declined to take part in the research due to the nature of their work which required full attention to serve customers when the outlet is operating.
In previous years, research has focused on interaction between the organization and their customers (Hoeffler, 2003). This study extends previous research by investigating the internal culture of the organization and its relation to brand identity building within the organization.
Few will complain that 1974 has not been an eventful year; in a number of significant respects, it has made history. Local Government and National Health Services reorganizations are such events. This is indeed the day of the extra‐large authority, massive monoliths for central administration, metropolitan conurbations for regional control, district councils corresponding to the large authorities of other days; and in a sense, it is not local government any more. As in other fields, the “big batallions” acquire greater collective power than the total sum of the smaller units, can wield it more effectively, even ruthlessly, but rarely appearing to take into account the masses of little people, the quiet people, who cannot make themselves heard. As expected, new names of authorities are replacing the old; new titles for departments and officers, ambitious and high‐sounding; a little grandiose for the tongues of ordinary folk. Another history‐making event of 1974, in the nature of a departmental transfer but highly significant for the course of future events as far as work in the field is concerned, was handing over of the personal health services—health of expectant mothers, babies, children, domiciliary midwifery, the school health services and their mainly medical and nursing personnel—from local health authorities to the newly created area health authorities. The public health departments over fifty years and more had created them, built them up into the highly efficient services they are. If anything can be learned from the past, new authorities are always more expensive than those they replace; they spend freely and are lavish with their accommodation and furnishings. In their first few months of existence, the new bodies have proved they are no exception. News of their meetings and activities in many areas is now scanty; even local newspapers which usually thrive on Council news—or quarrels—seem to have been caught on the wrong foot, especially in the small towns now merged into larger units. The public are relatively uninformed, but this doubtless will soon be rectified.
The long controversy that has waxed furiously around the implementation of the EEC Directives on the inspection of poultry meat and hygiene standards to be observed in poultry slaughterhouses, cutting‐up premises, &c, appears to be resolved at last. (The Prayer lodged against the Regulations when they were formally laid before Parliament just before the summer recess, which meant they would have to be debated when the House reassembled, could have resulted in some delay to the early operative dates, but little chance of the main proposals being changed.) The controversy began as soon as the EEC draft directive was published and has continued from the Directive of 1971 with 1975 amendments. There has been long and painstaking study of problems by the Ministry with all interested parties; enforcement was not the least of these. The expansion and growth of the poultry meat industry in the past decade has been tremendous and the constitution of what is virtually a new service, within the framework of general food inspection, was inevitable. None will question the need for efficient inspection or improved and higher standards of hygiene, but the extent of the
What proof have the public, independent of the assertions of the makers, that all the firms whose products are sold indifferently by the shopkeepers use only the best materials; or, indeed, that a large number of the articles sold are not mixtures more or less objectionable or fraudulent ? This, in effect, is the question put by a writer in a West of England newspaper, and it might be used as a text upon which to write a lengthy homily on the adulteration question and on the astonishing gullibility of the public. As a matter of fact the only evidence of the character and quality of food and other products, in regard to which there is no independent guarantee, is that which is afforded by the standing of the makers, and to some extent of the firms which offer them for sale. And this evidence cannot, under any circumstances, be looked upon as constituting proof. The startling allegations so commonly put forward by advertisers with respect to their wares, while they may be ineffective in so far as thinking people are concerned, must nevertheless be found pecuniarily advantageous since the expense involved in placing them under the eyes of the public would otherwise hardly be incurred. Many of these advertised allegations are, of course, entirely unjustifiable, or are incapable of proof. It may be hoped that the lavish manner in which they are set out, and their very extravagance, may, in time, result in producing a general effect not contemplated by the advertisers. In the meantime it cannot be too often pointed out that proof, such as that which is required for the satisfaction of the retailer and for the protection of the public, can only be obtained by the exercise of an independent control, and, in certain cases, by the maintenance of efficient independent inspection in addition, so that a guarantee of a character entirely different to that which may be offered, even by a firm of the highest eminence, may be supplied.
1. The Committee have received a request from the Tea and Coffee Division for advice as to appropriate standards for liquid “coffee essences” including coffee and chicory essences, with a view to the issue of an Order prescribing standards for these products under the Defence (Sale of Food) Regulations, 1943. 2. From the information given to the Committee by members of the trade and by the Division, the following conclusions were drawn :—(i) Purchasers of coffee and chicory essences appreciate the characteristic bitterness of chicory and would not regard with favour a product made with coffee only. (ii) If supplies of chicory in any season fell short of the quantity necessary for the maintenance of the desired output of coffee and chicory essences, there would be a tendency to include some alternative flavouring such an mangolds, malt, artichokes or parsnips. (iii) These materials are in no way deleterious to health, and their use is not objectionable provided the public is not misled as to the nature of the product. 3. Standards for coffee essences and coffee and chicory essences have been established in certain of the Dominions. The former are usually required to contain not less than 0·5 per cent. weight in weight of caffeine, the latter not less than 0·25 per cent. weight in weight. In this country a minimum standard of 4 per cent. weight in weight of dry coffee extractives has been proposed for coffee and chicory essences. Assuming that coffee contains 1·225 per cent. of caffeine, that it yelds 25 per cent. of dry extractives, and that these standards relate to essences that have a specific gravity of 1·2, 0·5 per cent. of caffeine corresponds to about 4¾lb. of coffee per gallon, and 4 per cent. of extractives corresponds to slightly under 2lb. per gallon. 4. If the standards are expressed as a percentage weight in weight manufacturers of products having a lower gravity would be able to use less coffee per unit volume of product than would have to be used by manufacturers of products of higher gravity. This is obviously undesirable and for this and other reasons the Committee consider it preferable to express the standard as a percentage weight in volume so that the proportion of coffee to be used for the manufacture of a given volume of essence will be independent of variations in the proportions of other ingredients. 5. Having regard to the above standards and to the proportions of coffee used both pre‐war and at present in most of the coffee and chicory essences on the market, the Committee are of the opinion that a product should not be sold as coffee essence unless prepared with at least 4lb. of roasted coffee per gallon, and that no compounded coffee product for producing a beverage should be sold as derived from coffee unless it contains at least 2lb. of roasted coffee per gallon. 6. There is, however, no direct method of determining the proportion of coffee used in these products, and for analytical purposes it is necessary to rely on determinations of the caffeine content and, when no other vegetable ingredient is present, of the dry extractives. Part of the value of the essences must be ascribed to the stimulating effect of the caffeine content which is derived solely from the coffee. The use of an adequate proportion of coffee in the manufacture of essences and the presence of a reasonable proportion of caffeine can therefore be conveniently ensured by expressing the standard in terms of a minimum percentage of caffeine. The Committee consider that a fair average figure for the caffeine content of roasted coffee is 1·25 per cent. A coffee essence prepared with the minimum proportion of coffee suggested above, namely, 41b. of coffee per gallon, would, if the coffee is of average caffeine content, contain 0·5 per cent. w/v of caffeine and coffee and chicory essences not less than 0·25 per cent. w/v of caffeine. 7. While an essence prepared with the minimum proportion of coffee would comply with the above standard if the coffee were of average caffeine content, the latter may fall to 1 per cent. or, on rare occasions, even‐lower. Thus a manufacturer who did not regularly submit his essence to analysis might market an essence which although prepared with the minimum proportion of coffee that is considered desirable did not comply with the caffeine standard. The Committee therefore recommend that it should be a defence in any prosecution in respect of an alleged infringement of the standard to prove that the essence had been made with not less than 41b. of roasted coffee per gallon in the case of a coffee essence or with not less than 21b. of roasted coffee per gallon in the case of a coffee and chicory essence. 8. Consideration has been given to the bearing of the foregoing recommendations on the use of alternatives to chicory in products regarded as falling within the broad definition of “Coffee Essence” adopted for the particular purposes of the Coffee Essence (Control) Order, 1942. The Committee are of the opinion that the sale of these preparations under the description “coffee essence” or “coffee and chicory essence” without qualification would, in general, be misleading. In addition, a requirement that they should contain not less than 21b. of coffee per gallon might prove embarrassing to the manufacturers. It is accordingly suggested that products sold under these descriptions should not be permitted to contain vegetable extractives other than extractives of coffee or coffee and chicory respectively. If standards including a requirement to this effect be prescribed for these two types of essence by an Order under the Defence (Sale of Food) Regulations, 1943, then under the Food Standards Order, 1944, it will be obligatory to describe products containing alternatives to chicory in such a way as not to lead an intending purchaser to believe that he is purchasing either coffee essence or coffee and chicory essence. Traders and the public will then be able clearly to distinguish products containing only coffee and chicory from those which contain alternatives either in addition to, or in place of, chicory. 9. The further question arises whether a standard chicory content should be prescribed for coffee and chicory essences. Although it is usually possible to ascertain the chicory content of such essences with fair accuracy from the figures for the ash and extractive matter derived from the amount of coffee calculated to be present by reference to the caffeine content, so far as the Committee are aware there is no method of sufficient accuracy for use in enforcing a statutory standard. Apart from this it appears to be unnecessary to fetter the discretion of manufacturers to the extent of fixing the relative proportions of coffee and chicory provided the combined weights of coffee and chicory are satisfactory. The standard proposed above for coffee and chicory essences will ensure a content of not less than 21b. of roasted coffee per gallon, and having regard to the weights of coffee and chicory used both pre‐war and at present in eighteen brands the Committee consider that it should be made a condition of the grant of a licence under the Coffee Essence (Control) Order, 1942, that these products should be prepared with not less than 41b. of roasted coffee and chicory per gallon. 10. The Committee accordingly recommend that : (1) Liquid coffee should be required to contain not less than 0·5 per cent. weight in volume of caffeine derived from coffee. (2) Liquid coffee essences should not be permitted to contain vegetable extractives other than extractives derived from coffee. (3) Liquid coffee and chicory essences should be required to contain not less than 0·25 per cent. weight in volume of caffeine derived from coffee. (4) Liquid coffee and chicory essences should not be permitted to contain vegetable extractives other than extractives derived from coffee or chicory. (5) In any proceedings in respect of an alleged infringement of the standard for coffee essences or for coffee and chicory essences, it should be a defence for the defendant to prove that the essence was prepared with not less than 41b. of roasted coffee per gallon in the case of coffee essences or 21b. per gallon in the case of coffee and chicory essences. (6) It should be made a condition of the grant of a licence under the Coffee Essence (Control) Order, 1942, for the manufacture of a coffee and chicory essence that the product should be prepared with not less than 41b. of roasted coffee and chicory per gallon. In a précis of the Committee's report which has been issued by the Ministry, it is stated that in certain Dominions coffee essences are required to contain not less than 0·5 per cent. weight in weight of caffeine, and coffee and chicory essences not less than 0·25 per cent. weight in weight. In this country a minimum standard of 4 per cent. weight in weight of dry coffee extractives has been proposed for coffee and chicory essences. Assuming that coffee contains 1·25 per cent. of caffeine, that it yields 25 per cent. of dry extractives, and that these standards relate to essences that have a specific gravity of 1·2, 0·5 per cent. of caffeine corresponds to about 4¾lb. of coffee per gallon, and 4 per cent. of extractives corresponds to slightly under 21b. per gallon. If the standards are expressed as a percentage weight in weight, manufacturers of products having a lower gravity would be able to use less coffee per unit volume of product than manufacturers of products of higher gravity. For this and other reasons the Committee consider it preferable to express the standard as a percentage weight in volume. In view of the above standards and the proportions of coffee used both pre‐war and at present in most of the coffee and chicory essences on the market, the Committee consider that a product should not be sold as coffee essence unless prepared with at least 41b. of roasted coffee per gallon, and that no compounded coffee product for producing a beverage should be sold as derived from coffee unless it contains at least 21b. of roasted coffee per gallon. In the absence of a direct method of determining the proportion of coffee used, and since part of the value of the essences must be ascribed to the stimulating effect of the caffeine content, the Committee recommend that the standard be expressed as a minimum percentage of caffeine. A coffee essence prepared with 41b. of coffee per gallon would, if the coffee contained 1·25 per cent. of caffeine, which is regarded as a fair average, contain 0·5 per cent. w/v of caffeine, and coffee and chicory essences not less than 0·25 per cent. w/v of caffeine. The defence suggested in recommendation 5 above is to provide for the possibility that the caffeine content of the coffee used may be below the average. Reference is made in the recommendations to preparations containing alternatives to chicory, which may be regarded as falling within the broad definition of “Coffee Essence,” adopted for the particular purposes of the Coffee Essence (Control) Order, 1942. The Committee consider that the sale of these preparations under the description “coffee essence” or “coffee and chicory essence” without qualification would, in general, be misleading. In addition, a requirement that they should contain not less than 21b. of coffee per gallon might prove embarrassing to the manufacturers. It is therefore suggested that products sold under these descriptions should not be permitted to contain vegetable extractives, other than extractives of coffee or coffee and chicory respectively. Under the Food Standards Order, 1944, it will then be obligatory to describe products containing alternatives to chicory in such a way as not to lead an intending purchaser to believe that he is purchasing either coffee essence or coffee and chicory essence. Traders and the public will thus be able clearly to distinguish products containing only coffee and chicory from those which contain alternatives either in addition to, or in place of, chicory. The Committee suggest that it is unnecessary to fetter the discretion of manufacturers to the extent of fixing the relative proportions of coffee and chicory provided the combined weights of coffee and chicory are satisfactory as suggested in recommendation 6.
In a Northern city, which claims to have more than 12,000 Commonwealth immigrants, mostly of Asian origin—Pakistanis and Indians, an increasing number of whom have been joined by their wives and families, there was instituted in 1965 a routine examination of their children before school entry, later extended to children of immigrant origin already in the schools. This examination extended to haemoglobin estimation, tuberculin‐testing and, equally important, examination of the stools for pathogens and parasitic ova. 419 entrants were examined in the first half of 1965 and 898 pupils. Parental co‐operation must have been excellent, as parents all agreed, without exception, to the special examination, although to some extent, there might have been considered legal authority in the current School Health Service (Medical Inspection) Regulations made under the Education Act, 1944. We are not aware of any report of intestinal pathogens, but helminth infestations were reported (Archer D. M., Bamford F. N., and Lees E., Helminth Infestations in Immigrant Children, 1965, Brit. Med. J., 2, 1517), from which it appears 18·6% carried five types of worm, of which the commonest was hookworm. It would be fair to assume that helminth infestation, indicating as it does, exposure to food infections, water‐borne disease and environment generally, is an index of gastro‐intestinal infection and the presence of pathogens, including the carrier state.
The long interval between the last abortive attempt to negotiate entry to the European Economic Community and the present time, when, if we read the signs aright, the atmosphere is more favourable, seems to have been a period of reflection for great numbers of people. Nothing has changed politically; “getting into Europe” is the official policy of both Government and Opposition, but many of the so‐called Marketeers are now ready to admit to there being problems. What has emerged, however, in the last year or two is that to the British people, the Common Market is not a political question; there are probably as many against it in both camps; big business remains for it, but the spate of letters in the correspondence columns of newspapers from people who, having had time to think, expressing misgivings, cannot have escaped observation by the policy‐makers. A few politicians confess to having second thoughts, mainly from concern at the price the British public may be called upon to pay.
In a recent reference to changes brought about by the local government reorganisation of 1974, we criticised some of the names given to the new areas. Some of these name changes have made difficulties for those who follow from afar the doings of local authorities, as well as raising the ire of local people. Local names, however, are not the only casualty. The creation of new and larger governmental organisations rarely, if ever, results in economy and as anticipated, it was not long before the new local authorities were being directed to embrace financial stringency and all that it incurs. One such other casualty has been the loss of so many of the annual reports of local authority departments, very few now arriving at BFJ offices. In every case, the reason has been the same—severe restrictions on spending. Not that this was not necessary in many fields, but in respect of annual reports, we are convinced it was false economy. For so many of the reports, it was our pleasure to review them in the pages of BFJ. A prominent Labour politician was once heard to refer to them as “hard and dry reports for hard and dry officials”. It all depends probably on what you are looking for in them. Statistics there must be but most enforcement officers and public analysts, endeavour to keep these to the minimum, the general impression being that these are “dry”. If you are looking for trends, for comparison of the year under review with preceding years and then for comparing the results reported in one part of the country with another, where the population, eating habits, consumer reactions may be different, the tables of statistics are highly important.
The case, briefly reported in the last issue of BFJ, an appeal to a Milk and Dairies Tribunal arising out of a local authority's refusal to grant a licence to a milk distributor because he failed to comply with a requirement that he should provide protective curtains to his milk floats, was a rare and in many ways, an interesting event. The Tribunal in this case was set up under reg. 16(2) (f), Milk (Special Designation) Regulations, 1963, constituted in accordance with Part I, clause 2 (2), Schedule 4 of the Regulations. Part II outlines procedure for such tribunals. The Tribunal is similar to that authorized by S.30, Food and Drugs Act, 1955, which deals with the registration of dairymen, dairy farms and farmers, and the Milk and Dairies (General) Regulations, 1959. Part II, Schedule 2 of the Act provided for reference to a tribunal of appeals against refusal or cancellation of registration by the Ministry, but of producers only. A local authority's power to refuse to register or cancellation contained in Part I, Schedule 2 provided for no such reference and related to instances where “public health is or is likely to be endangered by any act or default” of such a person, who was given the right of appeal against refusal to register, etc., to a magistrates' court. No such limitation exists in respect of the revoking, suspending, refusal to renew a licence under the Milk (Special Designation) Regulations, 1963; an appeal against same lies to the Minister, who must refer the matter to a tribunal, if the person so requests. This occurred in the case under discussion.