Sei sulla pagina 1di 24

Food Chain Management for Sustainable Food System Development

Abstract. Food Chain Management is a rather new research domain. As a consequence, the domain and the research challenges within the domain are not yet clearly defined. This corresponds with the variety in the definition of food chains and networks that might focus on either closely cooperating enterprises along the value chain with an executive coordination element or, alternatively, on a network of enterprises in dynamically evolving business relationships. Management challenges in closely cooperating enterprises are closely linked to challenges in enterprise management and can draw on research in this domain. However, management activities in and for networks involve additional challenges, that require focused research engagement. The dependency of all participants in the chain on consumers as the ultimate customers and the dependency of the quality of final products on the engagement of all participants in the production and distribution of products require new managerial activities and, in turn, support by research. This paper discusses the background of future research needs and formulates priority challenges for managerial improvements towards an increased sustainability of the food sector.

Key words: Supply Chain Management, research, agribusiness JEL: Q010, Q130, D290, L140

1. Introduction The food sector as a whole is faced with major challenges that arise from changes in the sectors economic and non-economic environments, from changes in lifestyles, from global increases in food consumption, from a diminishing production base due to, e.g. the loss of arable land or its divergence for non-food production alternatives (see, a.o., CIAA, 2007), and, not the least, by changing attitudes of society towards the consequences of the food systems activities for environmental, social and economic issues, captured in the term of sustainability.

The challenges cannot be met by any individual enterprise but require concerted actions and coordination of initiatives. 'Food Chain Management' (FCM) aims at providing support for the identification and realization of 'best' concepts for such actions and coordination needs. This support, in turn, provides enterprises with the means for improving their own and the sectors competitiveness, sustainability and responsibility towards the expectations of its customers and the society. The complexity is apparent in the variety of indicators that are discussed regarding the sustainability of the sector and its actors involving a broad spectrum of economic, environmental, and social indicators (Ondersteijn et al., 2006).

In meeting its challenges, the sector needs to innovate in organizational relationships that reach beyond innovations in process improvement by building on the innovation potential inherent in enterprise networks and their flexibility in responding to customers' and consumers' demands (Pittaway et al., 2004). There is an urgent need to adjust the trend towards increased process integration along the value chain to the organization of a flexible and responsive network approach by utilizing the potential of technological change, of information and communication systems, and of institutional change (Murdoch, 2000; Ritter & Gemuenden, 2003).

There have been extensive discussions in literature on food chain management opportunities (e.g., Bourlakis, 2001; Eastham et al., 2001; New & Westbrook, 2004). However, discussions have primarily focused on a) management in and for chains of closely cooperating enterprises but not on network environments with dynamically evolving trade relationships and on b) narrowly defined performance indicators but not on the broad array of indicators that are linked to todays understanding of long-term sustainability of the sector.

Furthermore, the dynamics in scenario developments (Ingram & Brklacich., 2006) and the continuous emergence of new managerial activity potentials as, e.g. in information and communication systems (e.g., Hill & Scudder, 2002) requires new efforts for focused research engagement (Omta et al., 2001) towards Food Chain Management concepts and their implementation for the delivery of chain support in dealing with the challenges ahead.

Food Chain Management support is towards the actors that represent the food value chain, suppliers, primary producers, processors, manufactures, and retailers which have consumers as the final customers. Its support can focus on operational improvements or on strategic development perspectives that involve major investments and long-term commitments. A specific strategic development perspective concerns the investment in sector-wide infrastructures like electronic networks for tracking and tracing in food safety control. Such infrastructures could serve and benefit the sector as a whole but are beyond the investment capability of any single group, especially if their benefit depends on participation of a majority of enterprises, including small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) which might take time to materialize. For the

infrastructures to become feasible and to deliver the envisaged benefits not just for enterprises and the industry but for society as a whole the investment in conceptual design, organizational agreements, and financial responsibilities requires complimentary engagement of groups from outside the value chain including research and policy, i.e., a Food Chain Management view that integrates policy and management initiatives alike.

Specific issues the food sector and its individual actors need to deal with for timely and appropriate response to the sector's challenges involve (CIAA, 2007)

1. To adapt rapidly to changing scenarios (markets, policy, resource availability etc.) and their requirements (ESF-COST, 2007) through changes in resource use, products, processes, services, and governance structures within a sector organization that is difficult to coordinate as its enterprises are rarely confined to well-structured chain relationships with established communication and coordination mechanisms but are usually part of an open enterprise network where enterprises may change their suppliers and customers at will.

2. To overcome the sectors structural problem with its large number of SMEs (McCorriston, 2002; OReilly et al., 2003). Their ability to innovate and interact successfully with the large and multinational enterprises, especially in agricultural supply industry and retail, depends on cooperation initiatives and the provision of external coordination support.

3. To focus on changing consumer needs. This depends on a continuous adaptation of new developments in technology, production, management, communication, organization or

cooperation and on the establishment of trust between all stakeholders along the food value chain including the consumer (Fritz et al., 2006; Kjaernes et al., 2007).

The challenge for Food Chain Management is to integrate and balance the interests of all stakeholders, including enterprises, consumers, and the society as a whole considering all of the relevant factors for successful integration including economic efficiency, environmental control, social responsibility, fitting process organization, food safety, marketing or transaction rules, etc.

Four interrelated strategic research initiatives have been identified (CIAA, 2007) as decisive for the sectors ability to meet its future challenges and to overcome its inherent development problems. They focus on serving the:

- Sector as a whole through better understanding of the dynamics in those critical success factors that will improve competitive performance and sustainability in times of globalization and change, - Consumers through innovations in production, logistics, and communication processes for advancements in the sustainable provision of quality and diversity in food, consumers can afford and trust, - Food chains and networks through better transparency, interaction and organization for advancements in governance, trust, efficiency, and innovation dynamics towards long-term sustainability, - Network dynamics through better integration of SMEs into the global and regional value chains for advancements in the utilization of SMEs innovation potential.

Because of the sector's complex enterprise infrastructure and the difficulties in reaching sector agreements, pilot and demonstration activities are required to facilitate acceptance and implementation.

2. Dynamics in critical success factors for performance and sustainability: the sector view In times of globalization and change, the understanding of the dynamics in critical success factors for competitive performance and sustainability (Bisp et al., 1998) is of crucial importance in strategic management decision activities. It is the basis for any further discussion of research needs and challenges .

In principle, successful competitiveness and long-term sustainability depend on benefits exceeding costs where, in this context, benefits and costs represent general terms representing advantegous and disadvantegous effects of activities or developments. The indicators for their determination can vary in times of change as can the critical success factors for performance and sustainability. This reduces the competitive advantage of the established production and distribution organization. A current example is the emergence of competitive bio-energy production.

Any improvements in food chain activities build on the perceived anticipation of improvements in the balance of benefits over costs. However, there are different perceptions and priorities for society (policy) and for enterprises (Fritz & Schiefer, 2008). From a societys point of view, benefits may involve monetary and non-monetary elements. From an enterprise view the monetary profitability must be evident. This has consequences for sector developments and enterprise activities. In principle, enterprises have to focus on those critical success factors that

improve their profitability. However, they cannot neglect the societys view on benefits and costs and the dynamics in societys performance indicators to remain sustainable in order to avoid regulations and other limitations on an enterprises decision flexibility. The consideration of societys views is, therefore, one of the critical success factors for the sectors sustainability in a competitive environment (Krieger et al., 2007). New developments in sustainability communication between the retail sector and consumers like food miles (Pretty et al., 2005), fair miles (MacGregor & Vorley, 2006) and similar indicators reflect some of these developments . They may have wide-reaching effects on the sectors development direction in trade relationships, organization, etc. Furthermore, potential changes in the future scenarios (SCAR, 2007) due to environmental effects (climate change, depletion of resources, etc.), demographics, changes in diets or lifestyles, etc. but also due to unexpected events may ask the sector to develop flexible solutions in production, organization, sourcing or distribution to be able to easily adapt to changes in scenarios and to remain sustainable in the long run.

In determining their long term development paths, enterprises and chains need to find a balance between improvements in their monetary benefit-cost balance to assure general competitiveness in their markets, and the society's consideration of the benefit-cost balance to assure acceptance and sustainability. It will be essential to understand the relevance and dynamic developments in those critical success factors and indicators that determine performance from the view point of enterprises, chains and the society (Aramyan et al., 2007; Gerbens-Leenes et al., 2003; Gunasekaran et al., 2001, 2004).

Comparative benchmarking studies within the food sector, as well as across sectors, are required to understand the complex interdependencies between chain organization alternatives and their

performance in economic and non-economic (e.g. quality, environmental consequences, etc.) aspects. Benchmarking research does focus on the basic functions chain organization alternatives build on and identify best practice reference models, the critical success factors for success in different dimensions of interest (quality, environment, etc.) and the related performance indicators for their evaluation (e.g., Hunkeler et al., 2003). Cross-sector benchmarking studies attempt to identify so-called best of class examples for organizational functions irrespective of the products under consideration (Bisp et al., 1998; Gilmour, 1999; Togar et al., 2004).

Approaches derived from Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and involving economic and social elements (e.g., SLCA, Social Life Cycle Analysis), from chain encompassing hot-spot-analysis or from Balanced Scorecard (BSC) concepts (e.g., BSSC, Balanced Sustainability Scorecard) and others are being discussed for the necessary multi-dimensional analysis needs (Guine, 1992; Hendrickson et al., 1998; Graedel, 1996; Heijungs, 1996; Hagelaar & Vorst, 2002; Schiefer, 2002; Mourad et al., 2007).

Results from benchmarking studies can be combined with modelling results and linked to performance indicators to produce performance maps, which support evaluation of alternatives and the decisions required for their realization.

3. The market focus: consumer needs for affordable food of quality and diversity The food sector faces three strategic developments regarding its production base that put pressure on its capacity to deliver the necessary food supply. They are: a) increasing demand for bioenergy, b) limits in the availability of water and c) diminishing production resources (e.g. land for agricultural use) (SCAR, 2007). Furthermore, food production will be affected by pressure from a

growing world population and the desire for an increased consumption of meat (Pingali, 2007). Possible changes in climate might aggravate the consequences. Without innovations, consumers' need for affordable food without compromises in quality, and which continues to retain their trust, cannot be served in the long run.

Consumers perception of food quality is a dynamic variable. It might focus on products, processes, process management or on management issues like fairness in trade, working conditions, environmental consciousness, or the origin of products. Its understanding depends on lifestyles, cultures, etc. (Lobb et. al., 2007; Grunert & Wills, 2007; Gronhoj & Thogersen, 2008; Hughner et al., 2007; Ozcaglar-Toulouse et al., 2006; Jaffry et al., 2004). New types of efficient and responsive coordinated production, distribution, and communication networks (logistics networks) must emerge that can support these changing demands, taking into account varying quality parameters, organizational conditions and different requirements of market segments (Bakker & Nijhof, 2002; Lindgreen, 2003; Taylor & Fearne, 2006; Webster et al., 2006). This may include, e.g. new organizational structures for flexible chain-encompassing distribution and logistics systems that utilize advanced technologies for communication, control, or tracking and tracing, developments in quality preservation, new packaging and processing technologies or organizational innovations like parallel chains that could provide opportunities to better serve the needs of consumers.

Diversity in food is a strength of todays food system. It is the basis for a further diversification in the production of tailor-made foods that specifically relate to peoples age, health status, activity, or any other criteria (Thiele & Weiss, 2003). New business-to-business relationships are required that are highly responsive to dynamic consumer and market demands and at the same time cost-

effective (Matopoulos et al., 2007; Zanquetto-Filho et al., 2003; Storer & Taylor, 2006; Vachona & Klassen, 2006). This poses challenges for innovations in chain encompassing production, distribution and communication networks that can efficiently compete with classical systems in commodity markets.

The continuous provision of affordable quality food from a decreasing production base can be supported through process improvements involving, e.g. reductions in losses which may amount to 25-50% of total production depending on source (Fehr et al., 2002; Hagelaar & Vorst, 2002; Vorst & Beulens, 2002), delivery on demand (just-in-time) to avoid over-supply, the efficient integration of new technological developments (in, e.g. production, analytical methods, logistics, or communication) and through an institutional environment that supports successful adoption of different principal technological developments. The analysis of best practice experiences can serve as a basis for suitable process reorganizations and institutional infrastructures on which innovations in technology, manufacturing, organization, and management can build.

Efficiency and flexibility are at the core of quality assurance in scenarios with changing consumer demands (Zokaei & Hines, 2007; Henningsson et al., 2004; Fritz & Hausen, 2008). Research on the identification of separable functions in production and trade and on the standardization of interactions could allow the identification of new flexible organizational alternatives (as, e.g., flexibility in sourcing through new technologies that allow to transfer different initial raw materials into unified raw material for standardized manufacturing processes (Vorst et al., 2001)) and the formulation of new organizational generic simulation and optimization models that support flexible adjustments of global production and logistics networks in case of changing customer and consumer demands or in case of disruptions in deliveries. The

focus is on new types of efficient, flexible, and responsive logistics networks that could reduce current inefficiencies, lower costs and increase the creation of value and product differentiation (Landeghem & Vanmaele, 2002). New flexible enterprise relationships are required that support the re-bundling of functions across enterprise borders for better serving changing consumer needs.

4. Transparency, interaction, and organization for advancements in governance, efficiency, innovation dynamics, and trust Strategic advancements in the competitive strength of food value chains and their adherence to societys values build on a number of critical success factors, of which 'appropriate' transparency i.e. transparency that fits the different needs of the various stakeholders stands out as decisive. Focused information and communication concepts that serve the different transparency needs are the key for the dissemination of knowledge, for innovation, for risk containment, for appropriate cooperation and coordination within the value chain, for appropriate integration of SMEs in chain activities, and for the establishment of trusted relationships between enterprises, consumers and the society (Lamming et al., 2001, 2004; Deimel et al., 2008; Beulens et al., 2005; Theuvsen, 2004).

Transparency follows the production and distribution paths along the value chain. As such, it builds (and depends) on information infrastructures that monitor process activities and allow the tracking and tracing of products and services throughout the value chain. Transparency has a backward and a forward perspective depending on the stage of the value chain from where the value chain is looked at (Schiefer, 2006). For the consumer, transparency is based on a backward perspective. However, for enterprises it might have both, a backward and a forward perspective.

In its risk containment strategies it might not only want to know the production history of its products (backward perspective) but the distributional activities of its enterprise customers (forward perspective) to understand its potential risk in recall situations (Huirne et al., 2006), especially if consumers are involved.

The ability for tracking and tracing is a pre-condition for the identification of many other food quality issues. Its implementation requires a consistent system approach that in order to be effective requires a broad acceptance by the food sector, including its SMEs. It involves sector agreements on many different issues, including content and format of communication, data ownership, management organization, system organization, technology, access, rules, decision authority, etc. While systems for tracking and tracing are the basis for any further development of quality-based communication networks, the dynamics of these innovations need to be supported by complementary quality communication that allows the efficient exchange of information on quality innovations within the food value chain and, eventually, with the consumer (Verbecke, 2005; Lobb & Mazzocchi, 2007; Grunert, 2005).

Transparency may be served through an institutional environment that finds its expression in business norms, technology standards, communication agreements, information networks, codes of practice, legislative frameworks and societal rules (Menard & Valceschini, 2005; Hendrikse, 2003; Fritz et al., 2008). To take food safety and quality as an example, its understanding has many dimensions and might differ between cultures, regions, or products or along the value chain. It might focus on products, processes, process management or on management issues like fairness in trade, working conditions, environmental consciousness, or the origin of products. This makes coordination of trade relationships and harmonisation of policies, quality systems,

standards, information networks and communication agreements a prerequisite for transparency and balanced development.

Transparency along the value chain of enterprise relationships and process activities needs to support the objectives of the different actors in a variety of ways. This support includes e.g. improvements in efficiency or flexibility, the ability to deliver guarantees of various kinds, including guarantees for food quality, for food safety or for continuing deliveries in case of failures in food safety or quality, in risk control, and for the sustainable generation of trust. This wide array of transparency needs shows the complexity and variability of transparency needs which need to be understood and integrated into transparency maps which could serve as a basis for the development of appropriate transparency schemes and systems.

Limitations in actual implementations of sector transparency together with dynamically changing needs require the design and delivery of reference models for the establishment of flexible transparency systems that match current transparency needs. They must be flexible to adapt to changing requirements and sector infrastructures.

5. Network diversity for innovation dynamics: Integrating SMEs into value chain relationships Network communication and network diversity are supportive elements of innovation dynamics (see, e.g., Castells, 2000; Ritter & Gemuenden, 2003). Innovation builds on knowledge, knowledge generation, and knowledge exchange. Innovation results from the combination of knowledge, the identification of suitable comprehensive utilization concepts (technology,

information, management, logistics, marketing, etc.) and their realization in the respective sector environment (Naim et al., 2004).

The challenge for research is the design of knowledge concepts that support the generation of innovation and builds on knowledge about discoveries, new product developments, patents, new managerial concepts, new technologies, new communication potentials, etc. with potential relevance for food production and distribution (Sporleder & Peterson, 2003). However, the utilization of knowledge builds on operational cooperation concepts that may involve many detailed issues such as the organization of internal information and communication systems, coordination procedures for resource utilization, integrated logistics designs for vertical relationships, collaborative planning approaches, risk management procedures, etc. (Lefebvre et al., 2003; Sivadasan et al., 2004).

These challenges are especially relevant for SMEs which, with their diversity and flexibility, may contribute substantially to the innovation potential of networks (Gellynck et al., 2006). For SMEs, the integration into horizontal cooperation schemes and networks is usually the base on which an efficient integration into the vertical trade relationships of food value chains can build. However, while horizontal cooperation could strengthen the ability of SMEs to become successful partners in vertical trade relationships that require mutual agreements, as, e.g. on quality improvement initiatives, the ability of SMEs to cope with the challenges of integration into value chain relationships may still differ. As a consequence, the food sector will need to develop different levels of integration, resulting in a segmentation of markets with different levels of excellence and regionalization, local, national, or global (Raynolds, 2004; JayasingheMudalige & Henson, 2006; Garcia & Poole, 2004). SMEs with lower levels of management

excellence might remain outside the emerging global food chain developments and remain restricted to local or regional markets with different needs and barriers related to horizontal cooperation or value chain integration but also different needs for support.

However, little is known about the cooperation and integration needs that relate to different scenarios, value chain organizations, regions, cultures, etc. Cooperation and integration could focus on many different functions such as planning, quality management, research, logistics, knowledge, sales, procurement, information management, marketing, packaging, production, etc.

It requires information on what are the cooperation and integration needs in various functions, their importance for different food chain scenarios, the possible levels of cooperation and integration, and the consequences for performance and innovation support. However, cooperation and integration needs usually have to face barriers, which prevented SME cooperation and integration initiatives in the past. There is a need to understand these barriers and how they might be overcome. This knowledge allowed the development of reference models for the utilization of cooperation and integration opportunities and the identification of development paths for their realization.

Food Chain Management support builds on the identification of cooperation and integration needs and barriers, and the initiation and management of initiatives and SME networks that allow SMEs to participate in the food sectors innovation dynamics, and become an integral part of future food value chain developments on a regional and global level. Research needs to identify and analyze economically feasible SME cooperation options, which could support the most

common integration needs. An evaluation of possible performance gains, and of the innovation potential of cooperation alternatives, should allow realistic proposals to be formulated.

6. Conclusion Food Chain Management is, as a scientific domain, still rather new and its focus of research is not yet clearly defined. This paper identifies the domain as a management domain that deals with the coordination and support of networks of enterprises in changing business relationships. Research challenges develop dynamically out of changes in future scenarios the food sector might have to deal with, changes in technical and organizational support opportunities, and changes in the sectors infrastructure. Based on the present knowledge, the paper has developed four focus areas for research challenges that need to be dealt with. They include the need for advancements in a) the understanding of dynamics in critical success factors that will improve competitive performance and sustainability in times of globalization and change, b) innovations in production, logistics, and communication processes for advancements in the provision of quality and diversity in food, consumers can afford and trust, c) chain transparency, interaction and organization for advancements in governance, trust, efficiency, and innovation dynamics, and d) the integration of SMEs into the global and regional value chains for advancements in the utilization of SMEs innovation potential.

These focus areas cover the interests of the different stakeholders in the food chain including consumers, enterprises, policy, and the sector as a virtual unit as well. Some of the focus areas (as, e.g., the need for transparency) might not immediately appear to ask for front end research. However, a system analysis of the individual research areas and the many interrelated issues

involving technological, political, organizational, managerial or behavioural aspects that have scarcely looked upon in a systems approach demonstrate the challenging needs for the engagement of research.

References Aramyan, L.H., Oude Lansink, A.G.J.M., Vorst, van der J.G.A.J., Kooten, van O. (2007). Performance measurement in agri-food supply chains: a case study. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 12, 304-315. Bakker, de F., Nijhof, A. (2002). Responsible chain management: a capability assessment framework. Business Strategy and the Environment 11, 63-75. Beulens, A.J.M., Broens, D.-F., Folstar, P., Hofstede, G.J. (2005). Food safety and transparency in food chains and networks: relationships and challenges. Food Control 16, 481-486. Bisp, S., Srensen, E., Grunert, K.G. (1998). Using the key success factor concept in competitor intelligence and benchmarking. Competitive Intelligence Review 9, 55-67. Bourlakis, M.A. (2001). Future issues in European supply chain management. In: J.F. Eastham, L. Sharples, S.D. Ball (Eds.). Food supply chain management (pp. 297-303). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Castells, M. (2000). The rise of the network society. Cambridge: Blackwell. CIAA (2007). European Technology Platform on Food for Life: Strategic Research Agenda 2007-2020. Brussels: CIAA. Deimel, M., Frentrup, M., Theuvsen, L. (2008). Transparency in food supply chains: empirical results from German pig and dairy production. Journal on Chain and Network Science 8, 2132.

ESF-COST (2007). European Science Foundation COST Forward Look: European Food Systems in a Changing World: Background Papers of the Final Workshop in Budapest, Hungary, November 4-6, 2007. Fehr, M., Calcado, M.D.R., Romao, D.C. (2002). The basis of a policy for minimizing and recycling food waste. Environmental Science & Policy 5, 247-253. Fritz, M., Hausen, T. (2008). Electronic supply network coordination in the agrifood network. Barriers, potentials and path dependencies. International Journal of Production Economics (in print). Fritz, M., Martino, G., Surci, G. (2008). Trust conditional on governance structure: theory and evidence from case studies. Journal on Chain and Network Science 8, 33-46. Fritz, M., Rickert, U., Schiefer, G. (Eds.) (2006). Trust and risk in business networks. Bonn: University of Bonn-ILB Press. Fritz, M., Schiefer, G. (2008). A multi-level cost benefit approach for regulatory decision support in food safety and quality assurance scenarios. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research (in print). Garcia, M., Poole, N. (2004). The development of private fresh produce safety standards: implications for developing Mediterranean exporting countries. Food Policy 29, 229-255. Gellynck, X., Vermeire, B., Viaene, J. (2006). Innovation in the food sector: Regional networks and internationalisation. Journal on Chain and Network Science 6, 21-30. Gerbens-Leenes, P. W., Moll, H. C., Schoot Uiterkamp, A. J. M. (2003). Design and development of a measuring method for environmental sustainability in food production systems. Ecological Economics 46, 231-248. Gilmour, P. (1999). Benchmarking supply chain operations. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 29, 259-266.

Graedel, T.E. (1996). On the concept of industrial ecology. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment 21, 69-98. Gronhoj, A., Thogersen, J. (2008). Like father, like son. Intergenerational transmission of values, attitudes and behaviours in the environmental domain. Journal of Environmental Psychology (in print). Grunert, K.G. (2005). Food quality and safety: Consumer perception and demand. European Review of Agricultural Economics 32, 369-392. Grunert, K.G., Wills, J.M. (2007). A review of European research on consumer response to nutrition information on food labels. Journal of Public Health 15, 385-399. Guine, J.B. (Ed.) (1992). Handbook on life cycle assessment. Boston: Kluwer. Gunasekaran, A., Ngai, E.W.T. (2004). Information systems in supply chain integration and management. European Journal of Operational Research 159, 269-295. Gunasekaran, A., Patel, C., Gaughey, R.E. (2004). A framework for supply chain performance measurement. International Journal of Production Economics 87, 333-347. Gunasekaran, A., Patel, C., Tirtiroglu, E. (2001). Performance measures and metrics in a supply chain environment. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 21, 71-87. Hagelaar, G.J.L.F., Vorst, van der J.G.A.J. (2002). Environmental supply chain management: using life cycle assessment in structure supply chains. International Food and Agribusiness Mangement Review 4, 399-412. Heijungs, R. (1996). Identification of key issues for further investigation in improving the reliability of life-cycle assessments. Journal of Cleaner Production 4, 159-166. Hendrickson, Ch., Horvarth, A., Joshi, S., Lave, L. (1998). Economic input-output models for environmental life-cycle assessment. Environmental Science & Technology 32, 184A-191A.

Hendrikse, G.W.J. (2003). Governance of chains and networks: A research agenda. Journal on Chain and Network Science 3, 1-5. Henningsson, S., Hyde, K., Smith, A., Campbell, M. (2004). The value of resource efficiency in the food industry: a waste minimisation project in East Anglia, UK. Journal of Cleaner Production 12, 505-512. Hill, C.A., Scudder, G.D. (2002). The use of electronic data interchange for supply chain coordination in the food industry. Journal of Operations Management 20, 375-387. Hughner, R.S., McDonagh, P., Prothero, A., Shultz, C.J., Stanton, J. (2007). Who are organic food consumers? A compilation and review of why people purchase organic food. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 6, 94. Huirne, R.B.M., Velthuis, A.G.J., Erve, van C., Meuwissen, M.P.M. (2006). Chain level dairy innovation and changes in expected recall costs. Workshop on New Food Safety Incentives and Regulatory, Technological, and Organizational Innovations, http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/handle/123456789/15411. Hunkeler, D., Rebitzer, G., Inaba, A. (2003). Environmental performance indicators and application of life cycle thinking to product development and corporate mangement. International Journal on Life Cycle Asessment 8, 55-58. Jaffry, S., Pickering, H., Ghulam, Y., Whitmarsh, D., Wattage, P. (2004). Consumer choices for quality and sustainability labelled seafood products in the UK. Food Policy 29, 215-228. Jayasinhe-Mudalige, U.K., Henson, S. (2006). Economic incentives for firms to implement enhanced food safety controls: case of the Canadian red meat and poultry processing sector. Review of Agricultural Economics 28, 494-514. Kjaernes, U., Harvey, M., Warde, A. (2007). Trust in food: A comparative and institutional analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Krieger, St., Schiefer, G., da Silva, C. (2007). Analysis of costs and benefits in adopting European and international food safety and quality standards: concepts and a multi-criteria evaluation approach. Technical Report, Rome: FAO. Lamming, R.C., Caldwell, N.D., Harrison, D.A., Phillips, W. (2001). Transparency in supply relationships: concept and practice. The Journal of Supply Chain Management 37, 410. Lamming, R.C., Caldwell, N., Phillips, W. (2004). Supply chain transparency. In: S. New and R. Westbrook (Eds.). Understanding supply chains (pp. 191-208). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Landeghem, van H., Vanmaele, H. (2002). Robust planning: a new paradigm for demand chain planning. Journal of Operations Management 20, 769-783. Lefebvre, E., Cassivi, L., Lefebvre, L.A., Leger, P.-M., Hadaya, P. (2003). Supply chain management, electronic collaboration tools and organizational innovativeness. Journal on Chain and Network Science 3, 95-108. Lindgreen, A. (2003). Trust as a valuable strategic variable in the food industry: Different types of trust and their implementation. British Food Journal 105, 310-327. Lobb, A., Mazzocchi, M., Traill, B. (2007). Modelling risk perception and trust in food safety information within the theory of planned behaviour. Food Quality and Preference 18, 384-395. Lobb, A.E., Mazzocchi, M. (2007). Domestically produced food: Consumer perceptions of origin, safety and the issue of trust. Food Economics 4, 3-12. Matopoulos, A., Vlachopoulou, M., Manthou, V., Manos, B. (2007). A conceptual framework for supply chain collaboration: empirical evidence from the agri-food industry. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 12, 177-186. McCorriston, S. (2002). Why should imperfect competition matter to agricultural economists? European Review of Agricultural Economics 29, 349-371.

Menard, C., Valceschini, E. (2005). Institutions for governing agriculture and rural areas. European Review of Agricultural Economics 32, 421-440. Mourad, A.L., Coltro, L., Oliveira, P., Kletecke, R., Baddini, J. (2007). A simple methodology for elaborating the life cycle inventory of agricultural products. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 12, 408-413. Murdoch, J. (2000). Networks - a new paradigm of rural development? Journal of Rural Studies 16, 407-419. Naim, M., Disney, S., Towill, D. (2004). Supply chain dynamics. In: S. New and R. Westbrook (Eds.). Understanding supply chains (pp. 109-132). Oxford: Oxford University Press. New, S., Westbrook, R. (Eds.) (2004). Understanding supply chains. Oxford: Oxford University Press. OReilly, S., Haines, M., Arfini, F. (2003). Food SME networks: Process and governance the case of Parma ham. Journal on Chain and Network Science 3, 21-32. Omta, S.W.F., Trienekens, J.A., Beers, G. (2001). Chain and network science: a research framework. Journal on Chain and Network Science 1. Ondersteijn, C.J.M., Wijnands, J.H.M., Huirne, R.B.M., van Kooten, O. (Eds.) (2006). Quantifying the agri-food supply chain, Wageningen UR Frontis Series 15, Wageningen:.WUR. Ozcaglar-Toulouse, N., Shiu, E., Shaw, D. (2006). In search of fair trade: ethical consumer decision making in France. International Journal of Consumer Studies 30, 502. Pingali, P. (2007). Westernization of Asian diets and the transformation of food systems: Implications for research and policy. Food Policy 32, 281-298.

Pittaway, L., Robertson, M., Munir, K., Denyer, D., Neely, A. (2004). Networking and innovation: a systematic review of the evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews 5-6, 137168. Raynolds, L.T. (2004). The globalization of organic agro-food networks. World Development 32, 725-743. Ritter, Th., Gemuenden, H.G. (2003). Network competence. Its impact on innovation success and its antecedents. Journal of Business Research 56, 745-755. SCAR (2007). Standing Committee on Agricultural Research. http://ec.europa.eu/research/agriculture/scar/index_en.cfm?p=3_overview. Schiefer, G. (2002). Environmental control for process improvement and process efficiency in supply chain management the case of the meat chain. International Journal of Production Economics 78, 197-206. Sivadasan, S., Efstathiou, J., Calinescu, A., Huatuco, L.H. (2004). Supply chain complexity. In: S. New and R. Westbrook (Eds.). Understanding supply chains (pp 133-164). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sporleder, T.L., Peterson, H.C. (2003). Intellectual capital, learning and knowledge management in agrifood supply chains. Journal on Chain and Network Science 3, 75-81. Storer, C., Taylor, D. (2006). Chain mapping tools for analysis and improvement of interorganizational information systems and relationships. Journal on Chain and Network Science 6, 119-132. Taylor, D.H., Fearne, A. (2006). Towards a framework for improvement in the management of demand in agri-food supply chains. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 11, 379-384.

Theuvsen, L. (2004). Transparency in netchains as an organizational phenomenon: Exploring the role of interdependencies. Journal on Chain and Network Science 4, 125-138. Thiele, S., Weiss, C. (2003). Consumer demand for food diversity: evidence for Germany. Food Policy 28, 99-115. Togar M., Simatupang, T.M., Sridharan, R. (2004). A benchmarking scheme for supply chain collaboration. Benchmarking: An International Journal 11. Vachona, S., Klassen, R.D. (2008). Environmental management and manufacturing performance: The role of collaboration in the supply chain. International Journal of Production Economics 111, 299-315. Verbeke, W. (2005). Agriculture and the food industry in the information age. European Review of Agricultural Economics 32, 347-368. Vorst, van der J.G.A.J., Beulens, A.J.M. (2002). Identifying sources of uncertainty to generate supply chain redesign strategies. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management 32, 409-430. Vorst, van der J.G.A.J., Dijk, van S.J., Beulens, A.J.M. (2001). Leagile supply chain design in food industry; an inflexible poultry supply chain with high demand uncertainty. The International Journal on Logistics Management 12, 73-85. Webster, M., Beach, R., Fouweather, I. (2006). E-business strategy development: an FMCG sector case study. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 11, 353-362. Zanquetto-Filho, H., Fearne, A., Pizzolato, N.D. (2003). The measurement of benefits from and enablers for supply chain partnerships in the UK fresh produce industry. Journal on Chain and Network Science 3, 59-66. Zokaei, K., Hines, P. (2007). Achieving consumer focus in supply chains. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management 37, 223-247.

Potrebbero piacerti anche