Rattling Fonterra’s governance is not enough

Late last year, Fonterra’s farmers rattled the cage by voting for a change in governance rules. However, the voting majority was insufficient to change the rules. Fonterra’s Board has now responded with its own proposals for new governance structures.

To me, the new proposals look like a continuing meander towards corporatisation, without recognition of the special features of a huge co-operative conglomerate like Fonterra.

The proposal last year, led by former Fonterra directors Greg Gent and Colin Armer, was to reduce the number of directors. But would a smaller number of directors really make a difference? And what would it do in terms of further disconnecting the Board from the grassroots?

Among the farmers that I talk to, those who voted for a change did so as a way of voicing their discontent. They remain committed to Fonterra – within limits that in some cases are being sorely tested – but they are not happy with Fonterra’s performance.

At that same time as the Gent-Armer proposals, there were three directors up for re-election. Chairman John Wilson was voted back for his fifth term on the Board, and Nicola Shadbolt was voted back for her third term. Blue Read was the unlucky director, replaced by Ashley Waugh. So farmers wanted to retain some experienced heads up on the bridge, but also saw in Ashley Waugh someone who had lots of experience in value-add dairy.

In this situation, the only other way to lash out and send the directors a message was to argue for a change in governance. But was it a considered move?

The latest proposal is to reduce Board numbers from 13 to 11, but so far Fonterra has not been explicit as to whether both of these will be farmer directors. There are currently nine farmer members. It is even possible, and being discussed, that three farmer director positions will go and the non-farmer directors will increase from four to five.

There are also proposal to change the voting system, from direct farmer voting under a single transferable vote (STV) to company-nominated directors being endorsed or rejected at Fonterra’s annual meeting.

The current Board structure has sufficient farmer members that if one or two are non-performers then the wheels do not immediately fall of. These farmer-voted directors are complemented by four non-farmer directors, appointed by the annual meeting on the recommendation of the Board, who are chosen to provide skill sets that are otherwise absent on the Board.

Governance at Fonterra involves huge responsibilities. Not only is Fonterra a company of some 19 billion assets (although with equity of less than 7 billion) but Fonterra’s performance feeds straight back to more than 10,000 farm businesses with assets of about 80 billion. Operating globally, it has a complexity unlike any other New Zealand business.

What Fonterra needs is farmer directors who are knowledgeable, passionate, and with the necessary time commitment to really understand Fonterra’s global business. It is not a job that can be done in just a few days each month.

Directors need to be well paid because so much depends on them making the right decisions. That means they have to be ‘out there’ in the international market place, and also listening to and communicating back to their farmer members.

If farmer directors are not continually monitoring what is happening all around the world, both within Fonterra and beyond, then they become captives to management. From where I sit, it seems that too many of Fonterra’s directors have too many other commitments to really stay on top of Fonterra’s business.

Every Fonterra director needs to be able to read a set of accounts. In Fonterra’s case, that is not easy because the accounts are indeed complex. And my suspicion is that many of the directors do not understand those accounts. As a consequence, they cannot keep asking the hard questions.

Fonterra also needs directors who can stand up and not be dominated by either management or the Chair. It is no place for shrinking violets. The Board is a place where there needs to be robust discussion, but where differences are not taken personally. That requires a very skilful Chair.

One of Fonterra’s big problems is culture, and it would seem this applies both at management and governance level. Fonterra needs diversity of thought both at the Board table and right through the organisation.

The role of external directors is different to the farmer directors. They cannot be expected to put in the same time commitment required of farmer directors. They are there for their specific areas of expertise and experience. Inevitably, they are going to be people who have multiple directorships. Their role is to provide specific expertise in board room discussions, but as a co-operative, the Board needs a clear majority of committed member directors.

With a skilful Chair, 13 directors is not too many for there to be a strong dynamic culture within the Board. Use of within-board committees is important, but every director has to be personally accountable for the big decisions.

The notion of shifting from the STV voting system to an endorsement system is likely to have unintended consequences. With the STV system, it is possible for a minority group of farmers to elect a Board member who shares their thinking. This creates diversity of thinking on the Board.

With the proposed voting system, it will create an environment where old-boy networks can dominate in the selection process. It will also further the distance of farmers from their Board.

Over the 15 years since Fonterra’s formation, I see six big errors of governance.
The first was the failure to retain sufficient profits in the first eight years. These chickens are now coming home to roost.

The second failure was the lack of expertise on the Board to recognise the A1 beta-casein issue which is now going to bedevil Fonterra going forward. There was no-one on the Board who could wrestle with the science and ask the right questions. Relying on ‘management advice’ and management-selected consultants is not good enough.

The third failure was the San Lu melamine debacle. That was an accident waiting to happen. With a director who really understood China, San Lu would never have been chosen as the investment partner.

The fourth was the failure to invest in UHT processing facilities back in about 2008. An expert in the China dairy situation would have seen those opportunities, as some of us involved in China saw with great confidence.

The fifth failure was not understanding the internal culture problems that created the botulism scare. No-one could have predicted the specifics of that situation, but the management and directors of that time have to take joint responsibility for the food safety and associated structures that allowed it to occur.

The sixth failure was the implementation of the so-called ‘Trading Among Farmers‘ (TAF), which in reality means external equity investors. The long term reckoning on this one is still to come. To some extent, TAF was driven by the failure to invest in the early years.

I cannot see how any of these problems would have been avoided by having a smaller Board. What I can see is that the Board lacked diversity, and relied far too much on the ‘management line’. Quite simply, the directors lacked the collective diversity that was needed, and the Board lacked an adequate questioning culture to prevent gross management failures.

The big issue that Fonterra now faces is to sort out seasonal payment systems to provide better rewards to farmers who produce milk outside the traditional seasons. These will be contentious and it will require strong leadership to get these ideas accepted. But without them, Fonterra is destined to remain a commodity company.

Presumably, Fonterra will now put some reworked governance proposals to members at a special meeting, well before the AGM at which directors are voted in. This year’s elections could be particularly interesting, with one current director, should he stand, up for re-election to a fifth term, one to a fourth term, and one to a second term.

Even if the constitutional changes are not voted in by farmers, this has the potential to create a tight field. Will all three seek re-election? Will some new qualified and committed candidates step up? To me, it is evident that more new blood is needed.

Regardless of electoral structure and outcomes, the bottom line is that Fonterra needs to encourage diversity of thought from farmer directors. These directors must have the time and intellectual commitment to monitor everything that is happening and to keep management up to the highest levels of performance. Directing Fonterra has to be their number one priority, not just one of many.

About Keith Woodford

Keith Woodford is an independent consultant, based in New Zealand, who works internationally on agri-food systems and rural development projects. He holds honorary positions as Professor of Agri-Food Systems at Lincoln University, New Zealand, and as Senior Research Fellow at the Contemporary China Research Centre at Victoria University, Wellington.
This entry was posted in Agribusiness, Dairy, Fonterra. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Rattling Fonterra’s governance is not enough

  1. Owen says:

    Useful comments. I believe the standard of governance required is virtually beyond any NZ farmer and I would be the first to admit there are some very capable people in the present team. There is also a complex question of where the farmer director’s loyalty, preoccupation, focus is really at. Without casting aspersions on any one of them the reality is that there will always be a natural tendency to lean toward protecting their own assets on their farm and, therefore matters like payout. I still believe in splitting the business and have the farmer directors involved in primary processing and a different corporate structure with an internationally drawn and qualified board. The current business has too many potentially conflicting goals.

  2. Clive Thorp says:

    How good it is to see an early comment, and as usual, in a constructive manner and tone. But Keith, I’m writing because I am amazed that your skilled, and what I see as well-informed and well-judged blogs on dairy farming issues, of which there have a number recently, draw so little comment, no more than one or two per blog. As a retired economist in the city, I find your blogs the best information I can find on so many agribusiness issues, and dairy especially.

    So, if there are 10,000 dairy farmers, where are they? This is no criticism of you, but by implication, perhaps of some of them. I believe your blog and the effort you make deserves much more engagement from dairy and other farmers (meat industry, for example) but they seem to be keeping their heads down. You are providing information and expertise, but I would have expected others to challenge some of what you say here, or supplement it. Given farmers’ widespread high levels of eduction in general, and their stake in farming especially, I would have expected some lively debate (or even thanks). This especially when one realises you write for printed media too, and I would have expected most farmers to be able to find your blog.

    Do you have an explanation for this relative silence? And thanks from me for your efforts with your blog.


    • Owen says:

      Keith is far better equipped to answer but a couple of points worth debating. Going back to the Dairy Board days and continued by Fonterra there has been a shrewd policy of “selling the story” to the farmers. By far the best PR man I ever knew was employed for decades by the industry to produce good news stories for internal consumption and hose down any negative issues.

      It is also an indirect admission of failure to criticise the industry – after all it is your own business. There has always been a “club” culture aimed at depressing fault finding.

      Today, most would simply say they were too busy surviving.

      • farmerbraun says:

        The NZ Dairy Board could afford the best when it came to spin doctors , and Neville Martin was very good at it.
        Few ever talk about the fact that , back then, there also existed an added-value dairy industry, under the auspices of the NZ Milk Board, and that this body had three different prices in the course of a year , the winter price being roughly double the “peak “price , and the autumn price being somewhere in between.
        Funnily enough , nobody thought that this was unfair, or “not in the cooperative spirit”.
        The only consistent complaint was that it was not fair that it was a closed shop, designed to preserve the sustainability of the participating farmers.
        And of course, it also ensured a consistent , market-determined supply , and a stable price for both consumer and producer.
        Naturally, the NZ Milk Board was the first to go in the “rationalisation ” of the industry./sarc.

    • Keith Woodford says:

      Many thanks Clive for your comments. I have been in Vietnam on a project for the last ten days, and am only now catching up on comments here.
      I think most farmers are thinking about these issues – with not all agreeing with me – but they hesitate to put their thoughts out there on the internet.

      On this site I typically get about 10,000 reads a week, with a lot of this relating to historical posts as well as recent posts. Readership is growing steadily. About half of this is from NZ.

      At http://www.interest.co.nz, they supply me with readership stats each month. Most of my posts there get anywhere between 1000 and 5000 reads, with each reader spending about 5 minutes on a post. In contrast to my own site, most ‘reads’ there are within a few days of a post being published.

      NZ Farmer publishes an article from me every fortnight. (These also get posted at http://www.interest.co.nz, sometimes with different titles, as editors retain that discretion.) That magazine goes to all farmers across NZ but I have no idea how many people read what I write. Most of these NZ Farmer articles also end up on ‘Stuff’ (Once again, sometimes with a different title, which is beyond my control).

      As well as that, I know that my writings get circulated by some groups in Government departments, and I think at least some are read by several Cabinet Ministers.

      This site is the only place where all of my non academic writings are published (and with my preferred title!).

      The main reason I write is that I enjoy writing. It does provide some modest cash flow, but it is also a hobby. In part I am motivated because I think a lot of the commentary we see in our media is biased with commercial agendas. Also, a lot of the commentary is shallow. For me, time is the enemy; there are never enough hours in the day! Given the opportunity cost of time, if I were more ‘hard nosed’ I would not bother. But I do like writing about and discussing issues which I think are important.

      Recently, I have been writing mainly about dairy issues, because that industry is clearly struggling both with short term and longer term issues. But at some time I want to get back to some of my other interests relating to broader social,economic, and international issues.


  3. Pingback: Rural round-up | Homepaddock

  4. Tom Walker says:

    So, if there are 10,000 dairy farmers, where are they?…in answer to your question Clive,I would read as much as any farmer but only became aware of Keith`s blog recently.His writing is fairly widely disseminated through the agricultural publications though and that is where a lot of farmers would read Keith`s knowledgeable and dispassionate writing.

  5. GregvP says:

    Picking up on Owen’s first comment, Keith, your suggestions are all very good but also almost completely generic. I have seen the same sorts of suggestions made over and over again about a range of NZ organisations, from marae committees and school boards to large public sector organisations.

    Fonterra’s governance weaknesses are in part due to the fact that we have a very shallow pool of talent in NZ. That in turn is in part because governance isn’t seen as a proper profession, rather a sideline, and as a result the people ending up in governance positions are there more or less at random, ill prepared, believing that it’s not a real job, and unwilling to commit time to learning to govern or to the work itself.

    One way forward is to introduce a licensing scheme for directors. Other professions all require potential members to be assessed on their professional practice (as well as having the academic qualifications that show they have the “hard” knowledge to do their jobs). The licence would be a signal that directing is a serious profession, not something that anyone can do in their spare time.

    There is a slow drift towards this from the Institute of Directors, but at the current rate of progress it’ll be the 2070s before we get something useful.

  6. Pingback: Fonterra’s governance and the Trojan horse | Posts from Keith Woodford

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s