Exploring the motives and economic viability in short food
supply chain initiatives
Master thesis, Supply Chain Management
University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
By: Sim Kersten s2677563
Supervisor: Dr. ir. P. Buijs Second assessor: Dr. ir. S. Boscari
Word count: 7.813 Date: 21-02-2020
Content
Abstract ... 2
1. Introduction ... 3
2. Theoretical background ... 6
2.1.Short food supply chains ... 6
2.2.Triple Bottom Line ... 7
2.2.1 Economic ... 7
2.2.2 Environment ... 8
2.2.3 Social ... 9
2.3. Toward an economically viable scale ... 10
3. Methodology ... 12 3.1. Research design ... 12 3.2. Case selection ... 12 3.3. Data collection... 13 3.4. Data analysis ... 14 4. Results ... 16 4.1. Motives to participate in SFSCs ... 16 4.1.1 Economic motives ... 16 4.1.2 Environmental motives ... 17 4.1.3 Social motives ... 18
4.2. Economic viable scale ... 19
4.2.1 Hybrid food supply chain ... 19
4.2.2 Assortment attractiveness and supply chain transparency ... 19
5. Conclusions and discussion ... 22
5.1. Theoretical implications... 22
5.2. Managerial implications... 26
5.3. Limitations and future research ... 27
6. References ... 29
7. Appendices ... 39
Appendix A, Case study protocol and questionnaire ... 39
Appendix B, Coding tree ... 43
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this thesis is to explore economic, environmental and social motives to participate in SFSCs and to discern SFSCs reach a scale at which they become economically viable. It is interesting to research what motivates actors, in this case farmers and middleman, to participate in SFSCs. This knowledge could improve mutual understanding and collaboration along SFSCs. To make a true impact on the sustainability of food systems, it is key to not only understand why SCFCs are initiated, but also how they reach an economic viable scale.
Methodology: This thesis uses a multiple case study approach. Eight semi-structured, and in-depth interviews are performed with farmers and middleman in SFSCs.
Findings: Both economic, environmental and social motivations are present in participation. Furthermore, interviews showed that hybrid food supply chains can enhance the economic viability of SFSCs. Also, assortment attractiveness and supply chain transparency are important to consider. In addition, interviews showed that logistical issues are often present in SFSCs.
Practical Implications: This thesis provides insights for practitioners in SFSCs. First, participating in SFSCs based solely on social motives could be insufficient to survive in SFSCs. Furthermore, in order to increase the chance of an economic viable SFSC actors could participate in hybrid food supply chains. Also, participants should be aware of their assortment and transparency. Last, participants should evaluate their logistics.
1. Introduction
In recent years the interest in short food supply chains (SFSCs) is growing due to their potential to contribute to more sustainable food systems (Galli & Brunori, 2013). As a result, we have seen the establishment of SFSCs in parallel to conventional food chains, that embody alternatives to the conventional way of food production and distribution (Kneafsey et al., 2013). A SFSC is a type of alternative food network that operates as a local food system (Canfora, 2016). Furthermore, these short chains only have a few or zero intermediate actors between actors like producer and consumer. The conventional long food chain, long considered to be the most efficient way to provide food, at least in economic terms, has been increasingly criticised for its adverse environmental and social impact (Kneafsey et al., 2013; Mastronardi, Marino, Aurora & Gianelli, 2015; Sini, 2014). Due to the globalized world, long food supply chains are growing, and cross-border linkages become necessary (Folkerts & Koehorst, 1998), but larger quantities of food production are required to feed the population. This mass production has the consequence of damaging the environment more and more (Nellemann et al., 2009). What is more, it may even have an adverse economic impact as it has led to an increased marginalization, inequality and vulnerability of producers (e.g. farmers) (Davidova & Thomson, 2014; Renting, Marsden & Banks, 2003).
participate in SFSCs? Are those motivations (mostly) related to expected economic gains, or more environmentally or socially oriented? Most literature makes very generic claims about SFSCs being more sustainable in general (Galli & Brunori, 2013; Kneafsey et al., 2013), while it is interesting to explore the varying sustainable motives that farmers and middleman in SFSCs have. This knowledge can make it easier for actors to understand on which basis other actors in their short supply are participating in SFSCs. This could improve the mutual understanding and collaboration along SFSCs.
To make a true impact on the sustainability of food systems, SCFCs not only need to be initiated, but also economically viable. Otherwise, SCFS initiatives will either be stopped, or it will not reach a scale sufficient to make an actual impact. SFSCs have the potential to break out the conventional long food chain in which a decreasing proportion of total value is captured by the farmers (Marsden, Banks and Bristow, 2000). So, the importance of economic viability mainly holds for farmers, as they want to avoid decreasing margins (Renting et al., 2003). Relative profitability of SFSCs in comparison to the conventional chain is also important (Sage, 2003). Moreover, many small-scale, alternative operators cannot rely solely upon SFSCs and instead mix short chains and conventional, long chains (IIbery & Maye, 2005). However, current literature on this is limited and it not clear how to reach a scale that it can become viable.
of the food supply chain. From a practical perspective, it is interesting because SFSCs are an upcoming and promising reaction to the negative consequences of conventional long food supply chains.
2. Theoretical background 2.1. Short food supply chains
A supply chain consists of two or more separated organizations, being linked by material, information and/or financial flows. These organizations can be companies producing parts, components or end products, logistic service providers and consumers (Mentzer et al., 2001). This definition can also be adapted into the food sector as different organizations like agricultural producers, intermediary (trade) companies, processing, production and service organizations, are linked through flow streams of agri-food products, information and financial resources.
2.2. Triple bottom line
TBL provides a framework for measuring the performance and success of organizations using three pillars: economic, environmental and social (Goel, 2010). It also has been referred as the practical framework of sustainability (Rogers & Hudson, 2011). The TBL has a balanced focus on economic (i.e. profit), environmental (i.e. planet) and social (i.e. people) value provided by organizations. TBL places a balanced importance on each of the three pillars because it brings more coherence into the construct (Elkington & Rowlands, 1999; Epstein, 2008; Savitz & Weber, 2006).
2.2.1 Economic
Economically, SFSCs can ensure a fairer distribution of profit margins along the supply chain and they would make farmers less sensitive to market risks (Sing, 2013). By reducing the number of actors (e.g. intermediaries) between producers and consumers, a greater portion of the money spent by local consumers on local products is retained by the farmer, an obvious motivation for selling more directly to consumers (Canfora, 2016). As there are fewer actors in SFSCs, many of them, especially direct ones, provide farmers with relatively high degrees of independence in production, processing, and marketing decisions (Ruiz et al., 2010; Wittman, Beckie & Hergesheimer, 2012).
(Peters, 2012; Wittman et al., 2012), the use of land that otherwise would not be used (Hand & Martinez, 2010) and the revitalization of rural areas (Renting et al., 2003).
2.2.2 Environment
Reducing food miles is an often-heard motive to participate in SFSCs. Moreover, SFSCs could reduce the amount of food miles (Pimentel et al., 2008; Pirog, van Pelt, Enshayan & Cook, 2001), although statistical data on the actual greenhouse gas emission reductions associated with SFSCs is lacking. However, SFSCs are not by definition more environmentally friendly than conventional, longer supply chains. In that regard, the impact of production methods, processing, packaging, distribution, cooling, transport and waste in each chain should be considered (Kneafsey et al., 2013). For example, individual supplies of small quantities are a characteristic of many SFSCs and therefore often lead to a resource consumption per product that is often increased compared with longer conventional chains (King et al., 2010). Moreover, the concept of food miles, as typically used, is of little value and that it is the carbon emission per unit of produce over the transport chain that make the difference (Coley, Howard & Winter, 2009). This can be managed in a good wat by using environmental friendly transport solutions like electricity instead of fossil fuel, a smart and minimalistic way of packaging and the use of pesticides free production (Todorovic et al., 2018).
et al., 2008). Another important aspect is that SFSCs protect the environment by animal welfare (Renting et al., 2003).
2.2.3 Social
One of the most widely acknowledged motives of SFSCs in the literature are socially oriented, particularly, improved quality of food for consumers and food security (Giampietri, Verneau, Giudice, Carfora & Finco, 2018; O’kane & Wijajya, 2015; Sage, 2003). Furthermore, multiple scholars illustrate that SFSCs foster a new kind of relationships between producers and consumers. First, it could be easier to establish fairness in direct relationships between farmers and consumers by means of more individual interaction than is the case in the larger conventional chains (Giampietri, Finco & Del Giudice, 2016). In addition, a motive to be present in SFSCs could be the feeling of more empowered and equitable within a supply chain (O’Kane & Wijaya, 2015).
2.3. Toward an economically viable scale
In the development phase of SFSCs it is important to use a strategy that ensures a slow development over a long period of time by small degrees (Galli & Brunori, 2013). For example, the selling activities should begin with markets that are easy to reach with limited economic means and continue growing and expanding to other bigger markets afterwards. This can increase the possibility to overcome the obstacles during the start-up phase and growing process of SFSCs. A gradual approach gives time for the products sold in the chain to fit and adapt to the consumer expectations and for the production area to get over its early troubles of meeting volumes (Galli & Brunori, 2013).
Furthermore, it is also of importance to assess the relative profitability of SFSCs and of comparing their profit with long food systems. Not only to assess the success of these chains, but also because they suspected that for many of the more successful SFSCs, it was the involvement in long food supply chains that at least partly enabled them to engage in different kind of short chains (Sage, 2003). Moreover, a study in the Scottish-English borders found out that both conventional and alternative supply chains (e.g. SFSCs) are important for creating a market for local foods. They stated that many small-scale, alternative operators cannot rely solely upon SFSCs and instead mix short chains and conventional, long chains (Ilbery & Maye, 2005).
characteristics of the product is a real challenge (Kneafsey et al., 2013). This lack of engagement can be a problem with respect to the number of sales (Lockie et al., 2014).
3. Methodology 3.1. Research design
To empirically research why actors participate in SFSCs and how SFSC initiatives may reach a scale at which they become economically viable an inductive multiple case study design is adopted in which qualitative data will be collected. Case studies prove to be suitable as it is a method in which ‘what’, ‘how’, and ‘why’ questions can be answered extensively (Voss, Tsikriktsis & Frohnlich, 2002). Furthermore, a case study approach is suited to explore a real-life and complex phenomenon in-depth (Yin, 2009). Last, a case study approach is particularly suited when knowledge about relationships is limited, which holds for the motives of participation and the economic viable scale of SFSCs (Karlsson, 2016). A multiple case study design is used because it allows a wider exploration of the research questions and theoretical evolution (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007).
3.2. Case selection
wholesaler, local market). The consumer is purposely not considered in this research given the focus on the supply side of the supply chain in this research.
3.3. Data collection
This study is based on qualitative data. Data had been collected by interviewing actors (i.e. producers and middleman) regarding their motivations for participating in SFSCs and economically viable scales. An overview of the interviewees can be found in Table 3.1. In total eight interviews were conducted and had a duration between 30 and 90 minutes. Interviews were conducted in Dutch and the data collection period took place from November till December 2019 in the Netherlands.
Grounded in the initial literature review, an interview protocol had been developed, that can be found in Appendix A, allowing for comparability of answers and improving the reliability of the study (Yin, 2009). Due to the inductive nature of this study, an important aspect in interviewing the actors was to no lead them in a certain direction. The semi-structured and
in-Farmers
Middleman
Code name Type of chain Code name Type of middleman
Producer 1 Direct and
intermediate chain
Middleman 1 Local shop
Producer 2 Intermediate chain Middleman 2 Wholesaler Producer 3 Direct and
intermediate chain
Middleman 3 Local market (B*)
Producer 4 Intermediate chain Producer 5 Intermediate chain
depth interviews followed a standard structure under defined topics, with open-ended questions and probes to encourage detailed responses. All interviews started with some general questions about the background and position of the interviewee. Thereafter, the interviewees were asked to characterize their sustainability motivations. After that, the interviewees were asked to address scale factors in their supply chain, with an emphasis on the economic viability. All interviews ended with an open question about the perceived success of their participation in SFSCs.
3.4. Data analysis
After the semi-structured, in-depth interviews, the recorded interviews were transcribed. The transcriptions are collected and analysed in a single database of Atlas.ti. The data were then analysed according the following three procedures: data reduction, data display and data conclusion/verification (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Firstly, the mass of qualitative data gathered had been reduced to quotes, sentences and paragraphs that will be relevant for answering the research questions. Data reduction took place through the process of coding (i.e. open coding, axial coding, selective coding). Coding is defined as the analytic process through which data is fractured, conceptualised and integrated to form a theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1998).
4. Results
This study analyses the motivations of actors (i.e. farmers and middleman) through the theoretical lens of the TBL and it also explores how SFSC reach an economic viability scale. The interviews conducted for this study suggest that SFSC initiatives are driven by all three pillars of the TBL.
4.1. Motives to participate in SFSC 4.1.1. Economic motives
According to the interviews, economic motives are based on three different topics. They are either based on creating more profit, an opportunity to enter a promising market or to have more control. An increase in profitability is an often-heard motive why actors like farmers and middleman participate in SFSCs. For instance, farmer 3 stated: “In principle it has always appealed to me that you do not have that much intermediate parties in the supply chain since they get a pretty big margin. So, above all, increase in the value of your own product is the reason why I started in the shorter chains”. Furthermore, middleman 1 stated: “Short food chains are interesting to me because I can increase the margins of my products”. This is based on the fact that there are less intermediate parties in comparison to the conventional, longer chain. Middleman 1 also stated: “If you want to participate in short chains it is important to be economically motivated since it is really though in the beginning. Only idealistic motives will cause problems like failure and bankruptcy”.
especially niche markets. In addition, I saw that the consumer was looking for a product from the neighbourhood. That makes a market with two sides of demand and that is interesting by itself”. In addition, farmer 4 stated: “I saw a market opportunity to increase my sales via the short food supply chain”.
It was also interesting to hear that the dependence and lack of control in the conventional, longer, food supply chains caused farmers to look for other markets. For instance, farmer 2 stated: “We did enter short chains because we were just a number in the big chain and had nothing to say about for example the price. Now, we are in control in the short chain and can set our own price. Of course, we are still dependent on all those different partners. But basically, we are in control and that is nice”. Farmer 5 lost faith in the conventional, longer, chain because you are dependent on the big parties. “You also see it if you reason back to the purchasing parties and supermarkets in the Netherland. That is a handful in the end and as a farmer you are with thousands. I do not want to be dependent on the world market since I do not have any control in the world market on for example price and volume”.
4.1.2. Environmental motives
once during all interviews. However, as can be read in the results section on economic viability, transport in general seemed to have a big impact on the economic viability of SFSCs.
4.1.3. Social motives
The interviews showed that besides economic and environmental, social motives also drove actors to participate in SFSCs. The results showed that appreciation is both for farmers and middleman a motive to participate in SFSCs. For instance, middleman 1 stated: “Appreciation is very important in the sense of recognition of doing good business, nice to sell locally”. Moreover, the results showed that a lack of appreciation can be a reason to change from a long to a short(er) supply chain. For instance, farmer 2 stated: “I did not feel appreciation from other actors in long chains while this is important to me. This made me decide to do more in the shorter chains”. In addition, interviews showed that appreciation is also important during the time that actors are working in SFSCs. The appreciation is possible because the direct contact with other actors in short chains. For instance, farmer 3 stated: “To get more appreciation for my work through direct contact with the customer and other actors in the chain”.
addition, middleman 3 stated: “One of the reasons that we started in short chains is the fact that we stimulate a local food consumption in which the added value is fairly distributed among the actors involved”.
4.2. Economic viable scale
The interviews showed that a hybrid food supply chain can enhance the economic viability of actors in SFSCs. Next, assortment attractiveness and supply chain transparency seemed to be important to the economic viability of SFSCs. Last, almost every interviewee indicated that logistics is a difficult issue that can cause problems with respect to the economic viability of SFSCs.
4.2.1. Hybrid food supply chain
Both the interviewed farmers and middleman stated that solely focussing on SFSCs is often not economically viable and a majority of interviewees therefore participate in both long and SFSCs. Hence, a hybrid food supply chain seems to be an option to make SFSCs initiatives economically more viable. For instance, farmer 2 stated: “We believe in a mixed company when it comes to both production and activities performed”. In addition, farmer 4 stated: “We participate in large chains from the start, otherwise you absolutely cannot do business”. In addition, middleman 1 stated: “I dare to say that without the Chiquita bananas, I could only sell a quarter of my local apples”.
4.2.2. Assortment attractiveness and supply chain transparency
quality (2) diversity (3) uniqueness. For instance, farmer 5 stated: “You really have to own a unique story and product in which you can diversify yourself from other parties”. Of these three, quality appears to be the most important because SFSCs can be distinctive on quality in comparison to the conventional, longer food supply chains. For instance, farmer 4 stated: “It is mainly the case with short chains, when you talk to suppliers who have succeeded somewhat, that you have to make it clear to the customer that there is a difference in quality in comparison to the bigger chains”. Second, according to the interviewees an honest story in which it is possible for the customer to trace the origin of the product is a characteristic of a transparent supply chain. For instance, farmer 3 stated: “It is an economical success because you communicate honestly where the product comes from and what the alternatives are”.
4.2.3. Logistics
5. Conclusions and discussion 5.1. Theoretical implications
The purpose of this thesis was to investigate the motives of actors (i.e. farmers and middleman) to participate in SFSCs and how to reach an economic viable scale in SFSCs. The cases analysed in this research reveal both results that are in line with the main findings in the existing body of literature and it provides new insights that can be used in future research on SFSCs. Findings showed that all three pillars of the TBL are reasons why actors participate in SFSC, which is in line with current literature (Elkington, 1998). While the current literature most widely acknowledged social motives which in this case are also present (Kumar, Akkaranggoon, Garza-Reyes, Neutzling & Tupa, 2019), this research suggests that both social and economic motives are at least as widely acknowledged. Furthermore, environmental motives seem to be the least acknowledged in this research.
is supported by the fact that a middleman is located further down the supply chain and therefore have more power and control in a food supply chain (Hingley, 2005).
It is interesting to notice that current literature defines stimulation of the regional economy and creation of job opportunities as economic motives to participate in SFSCs (Peters, 2012; Rosset, 1999; Wittman et al., 2012;). However, this research found evidence that both the stimulation of the regional economy and the creation of job opportunities are defined as social motives. Evidence suggested that both the stimulation of the regional economy and the creation of job opportunities are related to an increase in social interaction in the often-rural environment, where the actors are located with their business. Moreover, evidence suggested that it improves the community where the actors involved are living and doing business.
In alignment with the current discussion in literature, results showed that biodiversity and animal welfare are environmental motives for farmers to participate in SFSCs (Renting et al., 2003; Schmutz, Kneafsey, Kay, Doernberg & Zasada, 2018). However, this research suggest that middleman do not have these motives. The expectation is that this is due to the fact that the middleman involved do not own any land and animals. Therefore, they do not have a direct relation to animal welfare and biodiversity. In addition, this research did not find any evidence that a reduction of food miles is a motive to participate in SFSCs, while this is often mentioned in literature. Food miles seemed not an important motivation to participate in a SFSC. However, as will be discussed later, when looking at the economic viability of SFSCs, transport in general seems to be a challenging subject for farmers in SFSCs.
just a number in the conventional, longer, supply chains and do not get any specific feedback and/or attention from other actors in the chain (Abate-Kassa & Peterson, 2011). Furthermore, it could be easier to establish fairness in food supply chains by means of more individual interaction in SFSCs than in the case of larger conventional chains (Giampietri, Finco & Del Giudice, 2016). With respect to the fairness in food supply chains, results suggest that a fairer distribution of added value could be a motive for both farmers and middleman to participate in SFSCs. This is in line with the current literature and is related to the previous found economic motive of profitability. In addition, current literature expected that food quality and transparency are social motives to participate in SFSCs. However, this research did not find these sorts of motives to be present. However, as will be discussed later, this research found evidence that both the quality of the food and transparency are factors that might have an influence on the economic viability of SFSCs.
Current literature on hybrid food supply chains is limited. Hybrid forms correspond to farms that sell part of their production via short channels but whose turnover does not depend primarily on this activity (Aubert & Enjolras, 2016). In addition, a hybrid form in which actors are present in both short and long food chains is expected to be more likely to be economical viable than only participating in SFSCs (IIbery & Maye 2005; Sage 2003). Both farmers and middleman involved in this research support these findings. Moreover, this research shows that it is impossible to solely rely on SFSCs to be economical viable because it is a struggle to sell high enough volumes. This research suggest that the conventional longer food chain is needed to sell higher volumes.
Furthermore, all farmers and middleman involved this research suggested that assortment attractiveness and supply chain transparency have an influence on the economic viability of SFSCs. Evidence showed that product characteristics like quality, diversity and uniqueness are crucial to the attraction and retainment of customers (Cherney, 2012). In line with the current literature, this research suggest that food origin traceability of the products and an honest story are characteristics that enhance the economic viability of SFSCs (Wognum et al., 2011).
very sensitive regarding the strategies for the realization of logistics and distribution activities (Maslaric, Nikolicic, Mircetic & Velickovic, 2016). However, according to the present literature selecting the appropriate logistics providers could be very challenging for farmers, due to both feasibility and economic viability of such logistics services being capable of satisfying low-volume supply chain needs and uncertain business potential for SFSC businesses (Niemi & Pekkanen 2016). Moreover, short food producers like farmers have many barriers to apply more sophisticated delivery solutions (Soinio, Tanskanen & Finne, 2012).
This research suggest that time and the reduction of margins are the biggest barriers in logistics. On the one hand, executing logistics internally saves money but it is time consuming. This is in contrast with the current literature, who state that it is expensive to do logistics internally (Martikainen et al., 2014). An explanation for this could be the fact that time also costs money and that the actors involved in this research often did their logistics in an informal and basic way. On the other hand, executing logistics externally is more convenient, and makes it possible to sell more. However, it is expensive and therefore reduces margins on products sold. This research shows that every farmer considered to collaborate with a logistics provider, but often do not have the economic resources to do so.
5.2. Managerial implications
that is present is appreciation. This research suggest that actors participate in SFSCs because they felt a lack of appreciation in longer chains. It is important to keep that in mind when participating in a SFSC. Therefore, I would suggest that actors do not hesitate to show appreciation to other actors in SFSCs.
Next, both farmers and middleman should consider to not solely focus on SFSCs since it is a real struggle to sell high enough volumes. In order to increase the chance of an economic viable SFSC actors should participate in a hybrid food supply chain. In addition, it is important to be aware of the assortment attractiveness and the supply chain transparency. Since actors in SFSCs have to compete with conventional larger chains (e.g. supermarkets) it is important to diversify on these characteristics to attract and retain consumers and become economic more viable. Last, it is not important to actors in SFSCs to specifically consider food miles. This research suggest that it is more important to consider logistics in general since this is often very costly, time consuming and leads to problems of which farmers are unaware when they begin in SFSCs. An approach to deal with this matter could be to form an association, a cooperative or a network that helps for example farmers to pool their resources to distribute their products together.
5.3. Limitations and further research
6. References
Abate-Kassa, G., & Peterson, H. C. (2011). Market access for local food through the conventional food supply chain. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 14(1030-2016-82895), 63-82.
Alonso, A. D. (2011). Farmers' involvement in value‐added produce: the case of Alabama growers. British food journal.
Aubert, M., & Enjolras, G. (2016). Do short food supply chains go hand in hand with environment-friendly practices? International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology, 12(2), 189-213.
Aubry, C., & Chiffoleau, Y. (2009). The development of short circuits and peri-urban agriculture: history, current evolution and current questions. Journal of Agronomic innovations, 5, 53-67.
Canfora, I. (2016). Is the short food supply chain an efficient solution for sustainability in food market? Agriculture and agricultural science procedia, 8, 402-407.
Chernev, A. (2012). Product assortment and consumer choice: An interdisciplinary review. Foundations and Trends® in Marketing, 6(1), 1-61.
Clancy, K., & Ruhf, K. (2010). Is local enough? Some arguments for regional food systems. Choices, 25(1), 123-135.
Coley, D., Howard, M., & Winter, M. (2009). Local food, food miles and carbon emissions: A comparison of farm shop and mass distribution approaches. Food policy, 34(2), 150-155.
Davidova, S., & Thomson, K. (2014). Family Farming in Europe: Challenges and Prospects. In-Depth Analysis. Agriculture and Rural Development.
Edwards-Jones, G., Canals, L. M., Hounsome, N., Truninger, M., Koerber, G., Hounsome, B., & Harris, I. M. (2008). Testing the assertion that ‘local food is best’: the challenges of an evidence-based approach. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 19(5), 265-274.
Eisenhardt, K.M., & Graebner, M.E. (2007). “Theory building from cases: opportunities and challenges”. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25-32.
Elkington, J. (1998). Partnerships from cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st‐ century business. Environmental quality management, 8(1), 37-51.
Elkington, J., & Rowlands, I. H. (1999). Cannibals with forks: the triple bottom line of 21st century business. Alternatives Journal, 25(4), 42.
Folkerts, H., & Koehorst, H. (1998). Challenges in international food supply chains: vertical co-ordination in the European agribusiness and food industries. British Food Journal, 100(8), 385-388.
Forsman, S., & Paananen, J. (2002). Local food supply chain: A case of rural food processing firms and catering business in Finland. Urban areas-rural areas and recycling-the organic way forward? 71-80.
Galli, F., & Brunori, G. (2013). Short food supply chains as drivers of sustainable development. Evidence document.
Giampietri, E., Finco, A., & Del Giudice, T. (2016). Exploring consumers’ behaviour towards short food supply chains. British Food Journal, 118(3), 618-631.
Giampietri, E., Verneau, F., Giudice, T., Carfora, V. & Finco, A. (2018). “A theory of planned behaviour perspective for investigating the role of trust in consumer purchasing decision related to short food supply chains”, Food Quality and Preference, 64, 160-166.
Goel, P. (2010). Triple Bottom Line Reporting: An Analytical Approach for Corporate Sustainability. Journal of Finance, Accounting & Management, 1(1).
Hardesty, S. D., & Leff, P. (2010). Determining marketing costs and returns in alternative marketing channels. Renewable agriculture and food systems, 25(1), 24-34.
Hingley, M. K. (2005). Power imbalance in UK agri-food supply channels: Learning to live with the supermarkets? Journal of Marketing Management, 21(1-2), 63-88.
Ilbery, B., & Maye, D. (2005). Alternative (shorter) food supply chains and specialist livestock products in the Scottish–English borders. Environment and planning A, 37(5), 823-844.
Jarosz, L. (2008). The city in the country: Growing alternative food networks in Metropolitan areas. Journal of rural studies, 24(3), 231-244.
Karlsson, C. (2016). Research Methods for Operations Management. New York, NY: Routledge.
King, R. P., Hand, M. S., Digiacomo, G., Clancy, K., Gomez, M. I., Hardesty, S. D., Lev, L. & Mclughlin, E. W. (2010). Comparing the structure, size, and performance of local and mainstream food supply chains. Economic, Research Report, 99
Kneafsey, M., Venn, L., Schmutz, U., Balázs, B., Trenchard, L., Eyden-Wood, T., & Blackett, M. (2013). Short food supply chains and local food systems in the EU. A state of play of their socio-economic characteristics. JRC scientific and policy reports, 123.
Lawson, R., Guthrie, J., Cameron, A., & Fischer, W. C. (2008). Creating value through cooperation: An investigation of farmers' markets in New Zealand. British Food Journal, 110(1), 11-25.
Lehtinen, U. (2012). Sustainability and local food procurement: a case study of Finnish public catering. British Food Journal, 114(8), 1053-1071.
Lockie, R. G., Callaghan, S. J., Berry, S. P., Cooke, E. R., Jordan, C. A., Luczo, T. M., & Jeffriess, M. D. (2014). Relationship between unilateral jumping ability and asymmetry on multidirectional speed in team-sport athletes. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 28(12), 3557-3566.
Marino, D., Mastronardi, L., Franco, S., De Gregorio, D., Cicatiello, C. & Pancino, B. (2013). “Farmers’ markets, producer and consumer behaviour: Analysis of interactions with the metrics of sustainability”. Proceedings in System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
Marsden, T., Banks, J., & Bristow, G. (2000). Food supply chain approaches: exploring their role in rural development. Sociologia ruralis, 40(4), 424-438.
Maslaric, M., Nikolicic, S., Mircetic, D., & Velickovic, M. (2016). A roadmap towards improving portfolio of logistics service providers with the aim of creating sustainable short food supply chains. Strategic management, 196–204
Mastronardi, L., Marino, D., Cavallo, A., & Giannelli, A. (2015). Exploring the role of farmers in short food supply chains: The case of Italy. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 18, 109-130.
Mentzer, J. T., De Witt, W., Keebler, J. S., Min, S., Nix, N. W., Smith, C. D., & Zacharia, Z. G. (2001). Defining supply chain management. Journal of Business logistics, 22(2), 1-25.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M., (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage publications.
Nellemann, C., Macdevetta, M., Manders, T., Eickhout, B., Svihus, B., Prins, A.G., & Kalterrnborn, B.P. (2009). The Environmental Food Crises: The Environment’s Role in Averting Future Food Crises. UNEP/Earthprint.
Niemi, P., & Pekkanen, P. (2016). Estimating the business potential for operators in a local food supply chain. British Food Journal, 118, 2815–2827.
O'Kane, G. & Wijaya, S. Y. (2015). “Contribution of farmers’ markets to more socially sustainable food systems: A pilot study of a farmers’ market in the australian capital territory (ACT), Australia”. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 39(10), 1124-1153.
Parker, G. (2005). Sustainable food? Teikei, Co-operatives and food citizenship in Japan and the UK.
Pearson, D., Henryks, J., & Jones, H. (2011). Organic food: What we know (and do not know) about consumers. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 26(2), 171-177.
Peters, R. (Ed.) Local Food and Short Supply Chains; EU Rural Review; European Network for Rural Development, 18.
Pimentel, D., Williamson, S., Alexander, C. E., Gonzalez-Pagan, O., Kontak, C., & Mulkey, S. E. (2008). Reducing energy inputs in the US food system. Human Ecology, 36(4), 459-471.
Pirog, R. S., Van Pelt, T., Enshayan, K., & Cook, E. (2001). Food, fuel, and freeways: An Iowa perspective on how far food travels, fuel usage, and greenhouse gas emissions.
Renting, H., Marsden, T. K., & Banks, J. (2003). Understanding alternative food networks: exploring the role of short food supply chains in rural development. Environment and planning A, 35(3), 393-411.
Rosset, P. (2000). The multiple functions and benefits of small farm agriculture in the context of global trade negotiations. Development, 43(2), 77-82.
Ruiz, R., Díez-Unquera, B., Beltrán de Heredia, I., Arranz, J., Mandaluniz, N., & Ugarte, E. (2010). Is cheese making and marketing by farmers determining sustainability in dairy sheep. 197-206.
Sage, C. (2003). “Social embeddedness and relations of regard: alternative ‘good food’ networks in south-west Ireland”. Journal of Rural Studies, 19(1), 47-60.
Savitz, A., & Weber, K. (2006). The triple bottom line: How today's best-run organizations are achieving economic, social and environmental success - and how you can too.
Schmitt, E., Galli, F., Menozzi, D., Maye, D., Touzard, J. M., Marescotti, A., & Brunori, G. (2017). Comparing the sustainability of local and global food products in Europe. Journal of Cleaner Production, 165, 346-359.
Schmutz, U., Kneafsey, M., Kay, C. S., Doernberg, A., & Zasada, I. (2018). Sustainability impact assessments of different urban short food supply chains: examples from London, UK. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 33(6), 518-529.
Sini, M. P. (2014). Long and short supply chain coexistence in the agricultural food market on different scales: Oligopolies, local economies and the degree of liberalisation of the global market. European Scientific Journal, 10(4).
Soinio J., Tanskanen K., Finne M. (2012) How logistics-service providers can develop value-addes services for SMEs: a dyadic perspective. International Journal of Logistics Management, 23(1), 31-49.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications.
Todorovic, V., Maslaric, M., Bojic, S., Jokic, M., Mircetic, D., & Nikolicic, S. (2018). Solutions for more sustainable distribution in the short food supply chains. Sustainability, 10(10), 3481.
Tregear, A. (2011). Progressing knowledge in alternative and local food networks: Critical reflections and a research agenda. Journal of Rural Studies, 27, 419-430.
Uematsu, H., & Mishra, A. K. (2011). Use of direct marketing strategies by farmers and their impact on farm business income. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 40(1), 1-19.
Wittman H, Beckie M, Hergesheimer C (2012). Linking local food systems and the social economy? Future roles for farmers' markets in Alberta and British Columbia. Rural Sociology, 77(1), 36-61
Wognum, P. N., Bremmers, H., Trienekens, J. H., van der Vorst, J. G., & Bloemhof, J. M. (2011). Systems for sustainability and transparency of food supply chains–Current status and challenges. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 25(1), 65-76.
Yin, R.K. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage Publication.
7. Appendices
Appendix A – Case study protocol and questionnaire
The following section will explain the case study process. A multiple case study was performed by semi-structured and in-depth interviews for data collection. For farmers and middleman, the same questionnaire was used where the questions were adapted to the respondents and during the interview based on the answers respondents gave. The questions were asked in an open manner in order to avoid leading questions (Noor, 2008). The interviews were divided into four sections. They started with some general questions about the background and position of the interviewee. Thereafter, the interviewees were asked to characterize their sustainability motivations. After that, the interviewees were asked to address scale factors in their supply chain, with an emphasis on the economic viability. All interviews ended with an open question about the perceived success of their participation in SFSCs. All eight interviews were conducted in Dutch. During the analysis, I tried to stay as close as possible to the collected data. Therefore, interviews were not translated, but the coding procedure in Atlas.Ti was performed in English. By doing so, faults in translations could be reduced to a minimum level.
Interview protocol
- Farmers and middleman were identified based on developed selection criteria. - The potential respondents were contacted via e-mail and phone to seek approval. - An appointment was made for the interview afterwards via phone and e-mail.
- The semi-structured and in-depth questionnaire were prepared before the interview took place.
- The interview protocol was prepared to ensure that every interview was conducted in the same way.
- The interviews were done by one interviewer.
- Most interviews were conducted by phone and others face-to-face. - The interviews had a duration between 30 and 90 minutes.
- The aim of the study was explained to the interviewees at the beginning of the interview. Also, approval was asked to record the interview and use the data collected.
- The interviews were conducted according to the questionnaire. If it was necessary, the questions were changed a bit give then answers of the interviewees. Also, probing was used to gather as rich information as possible.
- The interviews were transcribed as soon as possible after the interviews were conducted.
Questionnaire Pre-introduction
- Is it okay if I record this interview?
- Is it okay if I use this data for my research? The data from this interview will be anonymous.
Introduction
- Could you tell me something about your company?
- Could you give a broad overview of the activities performed by your company? - Could you tell me how your supply chain looks like?
- In which way is your supply chain connected to short food supply chains? - What are your experiences with respect to short food supply chains? - Do you also have experiences with longer food supply chains?
Sustainability motives
- Did you have a specific motivation to sell your products via short food supply chains? o If yes, can you elaborate on that?
- Why do you sell your products via short food supply chains?
o Do you think of the impact on the environment or other social matters? - Why do you think that other companies are participating in short food supply chains?
Supply chain
- With what kind of organizations do you collaborate along the supply chain? o Are these organizations big or small?
o What are the volumes and how are they related to yours?
o Are these organizations of the same size in terms of employees, volumes? - What are/is the biggest challeng(es) you faced in short food supply chains?
o How did you react on this? What kind of effect did this have on you?
Scale and economic viability
- What is the size of your production?
o How much do you produce in one week/month?
o How much do you produce for the short food supply chain market? - Are there differences between supply and demand?
o If yes, can you elaborate on that?
- How do you transport your products to your customers?
o With a weekly van or in collaboration with another party?
- To what extent can you deliver the products that are requested by the buyer?
o If yes, do you collaborate with other organizations to deal with that?
- Are there specific things, subjects that are important to the economic viability of your business?
Final questions
- Could you explain how the relationship with supply chain partners has evolved/developed over time?
- Why is the collaboration in short food supply chains successful/failure? o What are aspects that make it a success?
o What are aspects that make it a failure?
43 Appendix B – Coding tree
- Increase margins of product - Local opportunities - Increase value of product - Profitability - More control Motives to participate in SFSCs - Appreciation from customers - Creating job opportunities - Fair distribution of added value - Satisfaction - Stimulate regional economy Economic viable scale - Diverse products - Unique products - Quality products - Quality over quantity
Assortment attractiveness Hybrid food supply chain
Social motives
- Animal welfare - Good for biodiversity - Food miles Economic motives Environmental motives Supply chain transparency - Traceability of products
- Origin of the product - Honest story - Challenge - Time consuming - Informal way of transportation - High costs - Unburdens - Increases sales Logistics
First order codes Second order
concepts Aggregate dimensions - Diversification of production - Diversification of activities
Appendix C - Overview of supportive quotes
Motives to participate in SFSCs
Economic motives - profitability
Respondent Quotation
Farmer 1 “I saw an opportunity to increase my
margins”.
Farmer 5 “You have more control in the supply chain
and therefore you can have a bigger piece of the pie”.
Middleman 2 “We also have to pay our private things, so yes, it is profitable”.
Middleman 3 “We get a commission that make it
economic viable”.
Economic motives - market opportunity and control
Respondent Quotation
Farmer 2 “We have a unique product. So, if you
simply press it to the bulk, you will not earn anything. You must be able to see the opportunity of this unique product”.
Farmer 3 “You are more of a number there and you
just have to do it the way they want you to do it”
Farmer 4 “In the end, you have to get it from the big
boys and they unfortunately have a lot of power”.
Farmer 4 “I saw an opportunity at hospitals since they
need more local food”.
Farmer 5 “If more people will do this, I have to search for another market opportunity to become successful”.
Farmer 5 “I do not want to be dependent on the world
market, because I cannot control it”.
Middleman 2 “Often (potential) suppliers come to us with a specific product and I always want to test it with my buyers”.
Middleman 3 “We started this with the idea of using a more local market with quality products, we saw there an opportunity”.
Environmental motives – animal welfare and biodiversity
Respondent Quotation
Farmer 1 “Personally, I am really an animal lover. So,
Farmer 1 “Also, to make it a bit better for the animals,
for the world and for the environment”.
Farmer 2 “That sometimes it is also a search for us
and that we want to do it very carefully and in the best interest of the animals and that it is still a profitable business for us”.
Farmer 2 “Biodiversity is a pleasure, preserving a rare
beef breed”.
Social motives
Respondent Quotation
Farmer 5 “Bringing craft back to places and creating
added value in the places where it comes from”.
Farmer 5 “If everyone is going to do it you need
different models. I think that it is a success for us, but if for example 150 other
companies are going to do it in the same wat, I have to think of something else”. Middleman 2 “When we started, it was because of the fact
that I wanted to create a human and environmentally friendly business”.
Middleman 2 “We work with very short-life products and therefore the food bank comes by every Thursday. This is a win-win situation because otherwise the products will end in a container and that would be a pity”.
Social motives - appreciation
Respondent Quotation
Farmer 2 “I find appreciation very important because
we get a lot of resistance considering how we farm differently. Then, it is also nice to get appreciation from consumers”.
Farmer 4 “I think that selling locally is also
sympathetic”.
Farmer 4 “We added the short chains because we find
that sympathetic. For example, to help a local restaurant”.
Middleman 2 “It started with idealism and getting something back from actors involved”.
Middleman 3 “We encourage local food consumption
Economic viable scale
Hybrid food supply chain
Respondent Quotation
Farmer 2 “You simply cannot only be present in the
short chain because you do not sell enough”.
Farmer 2 “I think that we can increase our size by
duplicating. That we simply have multiple concepts as we do here right now in the Netherlands. In that way we can increase our sales and keep it locally”.
Farmer 3 “I'm processing about 10 percent via the
short chain, the majority still goes to the factory”.
Farmer 4 “How much of our sales is going to the
small chain is hard to say. But most of it goes to the longer chain”.
Middleman 1 “The combination is very strong, it is not so much about the Chiquita bananas. But the fact that they can do all the shopping in one time”.
Middleman 2 “We have a few supplying companies that are further south. We tell them to deliver us bulk”.
Assortment attractiveness and supply chain transparency
Respondent Quotation
Farmer 1 “I think that it is very important to start with transparency. We have been trying to do that from the start. That people are always welcome to ask their questions”.
Farmer 2 “In the end, quality is the most important”.
Farmer 3 “If you just make sure that you have a really
good product, then you no longer have to produce a lot. Then you distinguish yourself by making a good quality product”.
Farmer 4 “One of our core values is transparency. For
example, transparency towards the
customer. When you buy a local lettuce, that is really is a local lettuce and not a lettuce from Belgium”.
Middleman 1 “Just good products. A short chain is very well suited for this, for the quality of the product”.
interesting because it I local and they know where the product is coming from”.
Middleman 2 “There is no infinite supply in this shorter chain. So, we regularly have capacity
problems with our suppliers. We accept that, and the customer is aware of that”.
Middleman 3 “What we should try is to ensure that we make a difference in quality”.
Middleman 3 “Ultimately it is about being able to offer a good assortment and that you can
occasionally vary a bit in that assortment”. Logistics - internal logistics
Respondent Quotation
Farmer 1 “Transport in particular is a challenge. For example, if you have to transport pigs you must always clean the trailer completely at the place of destination”.
Farmer 2 “In the past, we had customers all over the
country. But in the end, it took a lot of time and therefore a lot of money to transport it everywhere. It often was a few orders and therefore totally unsustainable. It just took money and a lot of time”.
Farmer 3 “This is always done in consultation with the
customer. Like I said often via email or WhatsApp.”
Middleman 1 “Practically, it means that I have to spend two hours in the local region to pick up my products every morning”.
Middleman 1 “We do the ordering via WhatsApp and in
an informal way.” Logistics - external logistics
Respondent Quotation
Farmer 1 “Transport via an external party can be nice,
but it is real expensive”.
Farmer 3 “I thought about outsourcing transport”.
Farmer 4 “That resulted in a fiasco, which completely
got stuck on transport since it is such an expensive element”.
Farmer 5 “And the difficult part is always
distribution. Distribution is still a challenge”.
