smallholders have to work and producers may not understand the legitimate concerns of (segments of) consumers about their wishes with respect to food safety, foodquality and sustainable resource use. Foodquality and safety concerns may bother various classes of stakeholders, e.g. buyers, suppliers and food-related institutions. Sustainability may refer to land degradation, pollution of the environment, reduction of biodiversity and social responsibility issues (e.g. abuse of the labour force or child labour). These concerns can be addressed by the development of institutions or governance systems such as chain or corporate social responsibility (CSR) which is generally represented by the triple P (people, planet and profit). For example, Dolan and Humphrey (2000) discuss such an approach: “The need for governance is reinforced in certain markets by increased concerns about labour, environmental (sustainability) and/or product safety standards, either through legal regulations or stakeholder (e.g. consumer, government and NGO) pressures”.
this cost and time cutting on production and optimisation of human resources were other benefits as well. Further, Siddiqui and Rahman (2007) describe a study conducted in Indian companies to evaluate the role of TQM of IS in pragmatically realising organisational goals. As the Indian customer becomes more and more brand savy – largely owing to the globalisation and advertising boom, quality consciousness is doomed to increase. The study explains TQM philosophy on the basis of five principles (as mentioned in their earlier study). Methodology adopted was through a questionnaire-based survey of managers. Results were interpreted by multivariable analysis of qualitative responses. The study argues that TQM and IS can be quite fruitful in improving the quality of products and services offered to the end customer. Further, it supports the extent of top management support for TQM in IS. In order to ascertain the readiness of IS managers to support a TQM strategy, Pearson et al. (1995) investigated in their study the three IS managers’ attributes: Does the manager understand the concepts and tool upon which TQM is based? Does the manager believe TQM can have a positive impact on the IS functions and the organisation? And does the manager
The first perspective in this article explores how technology and system innovation takes place in the two cases. Theoretically, we lean on the Supply Chain
Management Approach aiming at ‘’Chain Reversal’’ (Folkerts-Koehorst 1997; Thorpe-Bennet, 2004) in which market demand becomes leading in structure and operations of the supply chain and which focuses on renewal and integration of business systems to improve supply chain planning and balance supply and demand across the supply chain (Bowersox and Closs, 1996; Cooper et al., 1997; Lambert and Cooper, 2000; Stern et al., 1996). This approach includes major attention to innovative information and communication technology that is the backbone of these integrated chains (Lancioni et al., 2000; Porter, 2001). Furthermore, it focuses on integrated qualitymanagement and tracing systems that are considered a pre- condition for modern supply chain management (Van der Spiegel, 2004; Humphreys et al., 2004). In this light an important field for study is the (in-)possibility of many developing country farmers to comply with quality standards of Western markets (Vellema and Boselie, 2003; Giovannucci & Reardon, 2001).
sources of competitive advantage implies a dyad/network instead of individual firms (Barney 1991) or the industry (Porter 1990) as the unit of analysis.
For deepening insight into this dyad buyer – supplier relation specifically in food supply chains and demarcated to the focus on the inclusion of smallholders, literature on contract farming is introduced here. In the BOP/development research the role of contract farming in developing economies has been a topic of interest over the past decades and studied extensively from different angles, such as a response to market imperfection (e.g., Key and Runsten 1999, Gulati et al. 2008), in the light of the industrialization of agriculture and the globalization of world markets (e.g., Kirsten and Sartorius 2002; Barret et al. 2011) and as development intervention for improving smallholder income (Key and Rusten 1999; Mwambi et al. 2016; Ton et al. 2016; Miyata et al. 2009). Contract farming is generally defined as agricultural production carried out according to an agreement between farmers and a buyer, which places conditions on the production and marketing of the commodity (e.g. Eaton and Shepherd 2001; da Silva 2005). Farmers are usually aggregated in groups or producer organizations, while buyers are large-scale traders including retailers, exporters and food processors. The aim of the buyers is to ensure a steady supply of high value-adding industrial crops and food products meeting certain production quality standards. In the literature, contract farming has been considered as a system that has considerable potential for linking small-scale farmers in developing economies into export and processing markets. The contract could specify the price, quantity, quality, the provisions of agribusiness inputs and credit facilities, the conditions of production and the delivery and grading requirements (Key and Runsten 1999). Because the contractual agreement often involves the provisioning of farm supports by the buyer, this type of vertical coordination of value chains differs from spot market transaction, with coordination of the sourcing activities by the price mechanism and the fully integrated value chain, with one firm controlling all stages of the value chain (cf. the five governance types based on Gereffi et al. 2005, see Table 2.1). From this perspective contract farming is an institutional solution to the problem of market failures in BOP markets (Kirsten and Sartorius 2002). Moreover, contract farming has also been approached as a rural economic development intervention to improve smallholder income by creating new market opportunities (e.g.; Eaton and Shepherd 2001; Shepherd 2013) as well as to create positive multiplier effects for employment, infrastructure, and market development in local/rural economies (e.g., Helmsing 2003; Key and Runsten 1999; Shepherd 2013).
With regard to the economic and social dimensions, a positive impact of long distances may be related to a reduction in the pressure on local resources and the generation of welfare in the regions being traded with. In the case of berries in Latvia and Serbia, for example, the supply of berries is much greater than domestic demand, so that export is an important source of employment and income. A short distance between producers and consumers is used as a differentiation strategy. A growing number of consumers have a preference for “0-miles products”, as in the case of apples in Belgium, bread in Italy, and tomatoes in Spain and France. This happens especially in contexts where global chains dominate the market, so that local products meet the need for novelty and authenticity. This preference is often associated with the development of networks where producers and consumers undergo relations of proximity. Short distances can be relevant for producers as these impacts can result in greater competitiveness and may have a transformative role when local products carry with them symbols and values that challenge the dominant discourse in relation to sustainability issues. Voluntary constraints on external sourcing—in other words, reducing distances between input production and their use—creates artificial scarcity that can be turned into a competitive advantage, as it helps producers to differentiate their product; the case of Tuscan bread is a case in point. On the other hand, it may cause the over-exploitation of local resources or too much demand for the product. In the Cinta Senese ham case, local stakeholders had to solve an emerging problem of the intensive use of forests where Cinta Senese pigs are normally reared [ 37 ].
supply chain model from regional, as witnessed few decades ago, to global in terms of both importing raw materials to reduce cost as well as exports of final products to increase revenue at all levels of the supply chain. Consolidation refers to the growing trend amongst entities within the food chain to combine as many food categories as well as levels of the supply chain in pursuit of higher margins. Lastly commoditisation refers to the distinction between food products as either value added or commodities. Studying the literature surrounding supply chain risks in the food sector (e.g. Peck, 2006a), the vulnerability towards risk in practical terms is centered around three fundamental conflicts. Firstly, the conflict of operational strategy where lean and agile supply chains are encouraging less stock and buffer but making the supply chains more vulnerable. Secondly, the conflict of control where the current trend of out-sourcing to suppliers at cheaper costs as well as introducing multiple players in the supply chain including 3PL suppliers which makes financial sense but reduces control over products as these suppliers may follow different regulations and span huge geographic distances and finally, the conflict of uncertainty where due to the changing socio-economic and climatic conditions it has become very difficult to judge or allocate a specific budget or resource allocation for risk management
Given the tension between these three drivers, there is a strong correlation between localness and size of operations within the chain. Local chains are in fact networks of small and medium enterprises that tap into local inputs and knowledge, while at the same time contributing to their maintenance and reproduction. Specificity of local resources allows local chains to differentiate. At the same time, localness puts a limit on growth, especially if the main inputs are to be sourced locally. On the contrary, actors operating in global chains tend to be large enough to meet global demand. For this purpose, they establish large-scale operations, especially at the processing and distribution stages. The combination of the three drivers allows a variety of pathways. For example, demand and scale economies can put pressure on successful local products to grow. Geographical boundaries limit the growth of local chains, but there are several examples of “locality” products around which specialised production districts have grown, involving hundreds or sometimes thousands of small producers. Parma ham, Le Gruyère and several French and Italian wines combine localness and large-scale operations. However, in order to maintain this scale of operation, they have to source a relevant quantity of inputs from outside, as in the case of animal feed or seasonal labour. In other cases, global actors can be tempted to “relocalise” in order to capture the opportunities of differentiation, as in the case of a number of intermediate chains studied in the GLAMUR project.
In the literature, several measures are discussed to improve supply chain performance. SCM is generally associated with reduction of all time delays in goods and information ¯ows and elimination of as many non-added-value operations as possible. Information ¯ows are emphati- cally included, because, as Braithway (1993) puts it, spending millions of dollars to reduce the manufacturing cycle time by one day, while leaving untouched the two to three-week ordering time which can dominate total turnaround time, is futile. Stalk and Hout (1990) found that work-in-process and stock levels move up and down with the length of the order cycle time, and the way forward is to attack lead times as a high priority, knowing that all other major per- formance indicators will follow. The idea is that if forecast horizons are shortened, forecast errors will also decrease. Hence, the control problem becomes more manageable. As a rule of thumb, Stalk and Hout (1990) found that reducing the lead time by 50% will reduce the forecast error by 50%. Furthermore, Towill (1996) concludes that supply chain processes can be greatly improved by simplifying decision making procedures. Other authors look at information avail- able to supply chain partners and the speed at which it is available, as it has the potential to radically reduce inventories and increase customer service (see, for example, Moinzadeh and Aggarwal, 1996; Cachon and Fisher, 1997; Bourland et al., 1996; and Kreuwels, 1994). Numerous authors of operations research literature deal with co-ordination of supply chains, but usually each model only takes a few variables into account. As Silver (1991) states: ``Most models only consider inventory and backholding costs, forgetting all about the cost of order processing, handling and transportation. Furthermore, these models forget interaction eects since they are not concerned with, for example, utilisation degrees of trucks, which in¯uence delivery quantities.'' In this article, we will try to integrate a range of improvement options by focusing on sources of uncertainty within supply chain decision making. Deduced from litera- ture and practical experience, we distinguish four main clusters of sources of uncertainty which restrict operational performance: order forecast horizon, input data, administrative and decision processes, and inherent uncertainties (van der Vorst et al., 1998).
85 (Figure 14a). For all but one scheme (Bonsucro), the score for management intervention (I1) was the highest, with most schemes awarded over 50% of their potential I1 score; lower scores are generally recorded for measurement (I2) or performance standards (I3). Bonsucro receives the lowest I1 score of all the schemes followed by GlobalG.A.P and Fairtrade, the two generally lower scoring schemes. The score for RA and RA-CM combined stands out with the highest I1 score, receiving 90% of its potential, 23% higher than the RA scheme alone. This is unsurprising as the climate module is designed to supplement the RA scheme through additional climate change adaptation and mitigation criteria. A general trend amongst most schemes becomes apparent from Figure 14a: schemes typically score most highly for “manage”, followed by their intervention score for “measurement”, with their lowest intervention score occurring for “performance standards” where nearly all schemes scored less than 30% (or even zero) of the potential total (Fairtrade and GlobalG.A.P). Bonsucro is highlighted as an exception here: it scores very highly for both “measure” and “performance standards” (I2 and I3) compared to the other schemes and also compared to its own I1 score for manage. This is more clearly seen in Figure 14b that presents a bubble chart of the three intervention scores. Here Bonsucro is positioned very differently from the other schemes as it is located much further along the x-axis for its I3 score for performance standards. This underlines the way Bonsucro positions itself as the first metric-based standard: it is heavily focused on measuring and setting performance targets and thresholds and requires a ‘verifier’ for evidence that a criterion or indicator has been met. In this way, it offers flexibility in the management approaches embarked upon, despite being highly prescriptive in the performance outcome required. Bonsucro is a relatively new scheme, developed in 2011, and appears to be taking a very different approach to several of the other more established schemes that tend to set a number of ‘management’ requirements that should lead to good performance, rather than setting performance targets and letting the farm decide how to achieve them. This may be the most appropriate approach for the types of farm that Bonsucro is designed to certify but whether the threshold approach is successful in driving continuous GHG reductions or inspires producers to go beyond the threshold required is yet to be seen. Second to Bonsucro for the I3 score was the UL SAC. Unilever designed this scheme to apply to their own supply-chain, to be specific to their informational needs, and therefore may be able to stipulate certain performance requirements as a condition of supply.
Many actors of both local and global chains comply with formal standards such as ISO, HACCP, Global GAP, organic certification, and private labels. For instance, Pan Bauletto by Barilla (Italian global bread) adopts the Environmental Product Declaration (EPD), which allows transparent communication on the product footprint based on LCA methodology. The pork chain in the Netherlands Hoeve BV first adopted the national Green Label, but after a while it abandoned the scheme to adopt a new management system (i.e., Sustainable Pork Production), focusing on energy, antibiotics and odour reduction to get more added value. When there is a large difference in size and numbers between farmers and processors or retailers, governance is often enforced through intermediary organizations, such as cooperatives, wholesalers and importers. Cooperatives play a key role in facilitating the access to market of small farmers. In some cases, cooperatives are the “gatekeepers” of big companies to small farmers. In Belgium, apples and asparagus are sold through a system of cooperative auctions. In Languedoc-Roussillon, France, farmers supply cooperatives that adapt the wine to global retailers’ standards. In the Dutch global pork chain, producers set their own standards or negotiate them with buyers. Locality chains, such as Cinta Senese, Swiss Le Gruyère and L’Etivaz, and Italian Tuscan bread, rely upon codes of practice agreed among stakeholders, enforced by European and/or national regulations and subject to third party controls.
A closer look at each variable of the chain relationship quality is revealing that trust levels seem not linear rising with level of innovation and collaboration. Trust level is highest for the Non‐collaborative Innovating Chains (see median estimates). A couple of interpretations can be considered for this result. First, trust might be an important factor for the intermediate step of becoming an Innovator chain, as it is an important factor which influences the character and extent of interactions between chain partners (Lazzarini et al., 2001, Roy et al., 2004). Once successful collaboration is established, trust levels are still high, but lower than in the situation where collaboration is not yet achieved, because the High collaborative innovating chain members do not need to rely fully on trust as they know what the chain partners are doing due to transparency in the chain relationship. Second, the variation of trust levels could also be related to cultural differences because mutual trust is best developed between partners with a comparable culture at country or enterprise level (Omta, 2002). Thus, as innovation expands beyond enterprise and/or country level it may do so at a cost of reducing trust levels. That is, a dynamic relationship may exist across trust and innovation capacity.
As Pittaway et al. (2004) state, each chain relationship needs to adopt the best fitting governance structure. The suppliers, food manufacturers and customers in traditional foodchains govern their relationships mainly through non-contractual relationships with partners that can provide a certain qualification or third party certification. Hence, traditional foodchains are not highly vertically integrated. Further, our results are in line with Roy et al. (2004), who stated that an enterprise needs to treat its suppliers differently from its customers as they differ in terms of volume, size, importance and other issues. Furthermore, suppliers contribute in a different way to the innovation process than customers (Pittaway et al., 2004). We explored the chain relationship quality from different perspectives of relationship directions (food manufacturer about supplier and customer, and vice versa). Not all relationship directions are found to be significant different among the three clusters, which leads to the conclusion that the positive (or negative) perception of a certain chain partner is more important for enhanced innovation capacity than other relationship directions. This might be explained by the different ways suppliers and customers approach their network (Lu et al., 2008). In contrast to customers, suppliers do not rely only on interpersonal trust, but also invest human and physical resources into the relationship. In our case it is mainly the perception of the supplier by its food manufacturer and vice versa. Thus, we can confirm the results of Weaver (2009) that firms benefit from participating in networks but depend on its partner’s choices and perceptions. Nevertheless, generalization of our results to the whole traditional food sector in Europe need to be done with care as we investigated only three European countries and a small share of traditional foodchains.
An effective strategic planning process is one that is appropriate for the organization and the situation in which the organization finds itself. When implemented correctly, with the right leadership, motivation, policy, and management, the strategic results are highly successful (Klag & Langley, 2014). Implementation is at least as important as building the strategic plan for the chain; in other words, success comes when the chain makes it happen rather than when it develops the plan. To implement a strategic plan, some authors such as Backer (2003), Rigby and Bilodeau (2015), David (2002), Grant (2010), Guerreiro and Souza (2015), Kaplan and Norton (1997, 2004, 2008), Mintzberg (1994), and Thompson and Strickland (2000) have proposed some actions. In addition to these actions and the previous applications of the methods, we suggest the following for strategic plan implementation:
1 1 I NTRODUCTION
Earnings manipulation as described by Healy and Wahlen (1999) became a criticized matter from the late 1990s to the early 21th century, inasmuch as it is a very important and acknowledged function in the corporate world and has a pivotal role in business survival and economic wealth. The demand of Auditing and Assurance is getting bigger and bigger, as the years come through and the corporate form of business changes and expands (Messier W. F. et al. 2008). As it is well-known, auditing offers integrity, transparency and assures that financial statements of a company are fairly and truly stated. Nowadays, many transactions and financial instruments have increased complexity and uncertainty, making their inclusion in the financial statements, at least problematic, Higson, A.W. (2009). Thus, effectiveness of Auditing procedure has become an issue of paramount importance and consequently the determinants of audit quality play a significant role in the Audit Assurance. M. Defond, J. Zhang (2014) mention that audit quality not only improves the financial reporting quality providing the credibility of the financial reports but also provides greater assurance. Accordingly, they emphasize that in order to determine the financial reporting quality; we use different characteristics, for example, the firm’s size, audit fees, independent and non- independent audit committees or the underlying economic condition of a country. In addition, another determinant of audit quality is the audit time. Leventis, S. & Caramanis, C. (2005) found that there is a positive relationship between audit hours spent and the company size, which is noticed to be higher for companies interested in equity finance and audited by big multinational audit firms. Based on that, we can define higher audit quality as greater assurance that the financial statements faithfully speculate the firm’s underlying economic conditions.
Ninety two per cent of the respondents supported that seaports need to create value added services for customers (this attribute has a mean score of 4.41 and a 0.69 of standard deviation). From the respondents’ point of view, currently many seaports are offering value added services to customers. For seaports in supply chains, these activities are more important because they differentiate a good seaport and supply chain from another. Seaport managers stated that keeping customers loyal may require seaports to include value added services to their daily activities. One given example is custom clearance. The manager of seaport 5 explained that terminal operators could take care of custom clearance on behalf of their customers. This means the goods can leave the terminal without being cleared by customs. This service will save time and costs for customers and also clear potential bottlenecks for seaports. The respondents pointed out that expanding the land areas and activities makes it easier for seaports to provide value added services to seaport users. Only a small percentage of seaports (2.3 per cent) considered this attribute as not important because their seaports are located in a limited land area, making expansion difficult. Despite this, these seaport managers also thought that in future they should offer extra services to attract more customers.
• Planning is the process of structuring and organizing the activities required to achieve a desired goal. The main purpose is to plan time, cost and resources adequately to estimate the work needed and to ef- fectively manage risk during project execution. Planning involves the creation and regular checking, and, if needed, updating of a plan. The planning will tend to reflect the particular values, convictions and vi- sions that are expressed in the particular business strategies. Planning also includes the forecasting of possible developments and the preparation of potential responses. In practice it often makes sense to distinguish short-term, medium-term and long-term planning (overlap task 6). The long-term perspective is based on ‘expected results’ or ‘potential economic success’ using the classical key economic figures such as returns, turnover, sales, and margins but instead of the review for the forecast and the related planning process. Planning often includes not only members of the management team but as well exter- nal experts such as board members, consultants for tax or investment issues, and partners for financing (banks, private investors). Planning processes are based on a variety of instruments (meet- ings/workshops, project planning guidelines, flow charts, Gantt chart, mind mapping etc.). A market analysis, often provided by an external agency, is an important starting point for planning processes re- lated to food product development, marketing channels, alternative food marketing concepts etc. • Governance relates to the way a particular business or initiative (or chain) is navigated. Internal com-
RGSC includes a thorough focus on sustainability and responsibilities in the entire organization, which includes investments in resources and exten- sive communication efforts both internally and externally. IKEA indeed uses a systematic, preventive, dynamic, and integrated risk-management approach, even though we have not studied to what extent this is imple- mented in practise, and which the practical results in terms of, for example, reduction of environmental impact are. 33 Andersen & Skjoett-Larsen (2009) also found that the CSR concept was well integrated within the entire or- ganization (see also Konzelmann et al. 2005 and their comparison of IKEA and Walmart). IKEA also has feedback mechanisms in its risk management, and preparedness to take into account new knowledge. The instruments that are used are constantly revised (including IWAY every few years) and after key revisions, the relevant staff and suppliers are educated about the revisions. This is not to say that IKEA never uses ad-hoc and reactive strate- gies, which a responsive organization also has to. And when it comes to external risk communication, we have seen that IKEA is careful and not proactive. The idea is that all products should be seen as safe and of good quality so there is no need to communicate broadly about it, or by way of product labelling single out some of the products that are safer or more sustainable than the average. The IKEA-brand itself should do the job to convince consumers about the soundness of the products. However, this could be a risky strategy. Some of the cases with public criticism illustrate the kinds of problems that might follow this restrictive view.
Recent incidents of major food safety breakdowns in both developed and developing nations that have impacted on livelihoods, business viability and food supply per. se., (Examples include the reported link between BSE in cattle and new variant CjD in humans, E.coli in salad leaves in the USA and meat globally, Sudan red dye in ready meals in the EU and dioxins in animal feed).
What else is working?
Localorb.it is an online platform like the Monroe Farm Market’s, with an additional focus on wholesale markets. ASD’s Appalachian Harvest is a groundbreaking processing, aggregation and distribution (PAD) business that connects rural producers with local and national wholesale clients, like grocery chains Ingles and Whole Foods. Rural Action’s Fresh Stops get local foods into rural and urban convenience stores and community centers. CAN partner Rural Resources sells local foods to urban communities of all income levels via a “Mobile Market” , a farmer’s market on wheels. Urban nonprofit d.c. central kitchen uses “seconds” from regional farmers as inputs for a nonprofit community kitchen, catering program and culinary school, and is also starting up a wholesale delivery service, bringing fresh produce and healthy snacks to urban corner stores and other small retailers.