Determining value in the food supply chain

Manning, Louise

doi:10.1108/bfj-02-2015-0049

Cited by 31 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…15 The gradual reformers are those who responded their current food-related activity "improves the existing food system", the alter-hegemonic are those who "build a different food system" and the counter-hegemonic are those who "struggle against the existing food system". markets have failed 16 or those using vacant lots in urban areas to cultivate edible plants 17 . Interstitial transformations (or "ignore the State strategy") build alternative institutions and deliberately foster new forms of social and emancipatory relations [36].…”

Section: The Transformersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Question 15 will not be considered for this analysis 21 . In those questions, the interviewee had to choose between two sentences, either normative (14,19) or descriptive (17,18), that present a clear contrast between the economic dimension of food (as a commodity) and other non-economic dimensions such as food as a human right, a natural resource or a commons.…”

Section: Contrasting Economic and Non-economic Food Dimensionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nowadays, however, the industrial food system continues treating food as a commodity and no as a sustainer of life [16] (p. 11), being its value no longer based on its many dimensions that bring us security and health, but on the tradable features that can be valued and priced in the market [17]. Value and price are thus mixed up, superseding non-economic dimensions such as its essential nature as fuel for human body, the role played as a relevant cultural foundation for individuals and societies, the human rights considerations of the right to food or the fact that food is often a natural resource produced by no one.…”

Section: -Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Like the City Slicker Farms in Oakland (California)[161]. They are a food justice-oriented initiative that provides free and low cost food to local residents in low-income neighbourhoods 17. Like the Incredible Edible movement (http://incredibleediblenetwork.org.uk/)[162].Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 16 January 2017 doi:10.20944/preprints201701.0073.v1Peer-reviewed version available at Sustainability 2017, 9, 442; doi:10.3390/su9030442…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Food as Commons or Commodity? Exploring the Links between Normative Valuations and Agency in Food Transition

Pol

2017

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The food system, the most important driver of planetary transformation, is in a deep crisis. Therefore, seeking a sustainable and socially-fair transition pathway becomes an issue of utmost priority for our own survival. The consideration of food as a commodity, a social construct that played a central role in driving this crisis, remains the uncontested narrative to lead the different transition pathways what seems rather contradictory. By exploring the normative values in the transition landscape, this paper seeks to understand how relevant is the hegemonic narrative of “food as commodity” and its alternative of “food as commons” to determine transition trajectories and food policy beliefs. Applying the Multi-level Perspective framework and developing the ill-studied “agency in transition”, this research enquired food-related professionals that belong to an online community of practice (N=95) on valuation of food dimensions and agency in food transitions to check whether the valuation of food is relevant to explain personal stances in transition. Results suggest the socially-constructed view of food as commodity is positively correlated to the gradual reforming attitude, whereas food as commons is positively correlated to the counter-hegemonic transformers regardless the self-defined position in the transition landscape (regime or niches). At personal level, there are multiple loci of resistance with counter-hegemonic attitudes in varied institutions of the regime and the innovative niches, many of them holding this discourse of food as commons. Conversely, alter-hegemonic attitudes are not positively correlated to this alternative discourse and they may inadvertently or purportedly reinforce the ‘‘neoliberal narrative’’. Food as commons, a different narrative whose rationale is explained in the paper, seems to be a relevant framework that could enrich the multiple transformative constituencies that challenge the industrial food system and therefore facilitate the convergence of movements that reject the commodification of food.

show abstract

Section: The Transformersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Contrasting Economic and Non-economic Food Dimensionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: -Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Food as Commons or Commodity? Exploring the Links between Normative Valuations and Agency in Food Transition

Pol

2017

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, food supply chain resilience can be described and organisational goals 78 can be developed either transactionally using financial, quantitative metrics or qualitatively in generally be considered to be elements of an organisation's corporate social responsibility 81 (CSR) strategy. However, organisations are increasingly expected to review their ethical 82 performance in relation to stakeholders' expectations, identify how improvements could be 83 made and then communicate these deliberations back to their stakeholders in order to deliver 84 continued value (Manning et al 2006;Manning, 2015). The whole process of value creation in food supply chains is realised through multi-organisational involvement and building 86 mutual benefit (Caiazza and Volpe, 2012).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Building strategic resilience in the food supply chain

Manning

Soon

2016

British Food Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The research included a literature review and the development of a resilience model 8 that can be adopted in the food supply chain at both a strategic and an operational level. 9 Findings: Conflict of interest exist for organisations that are seeking to strategically and 10 effectively manage the pluralistic nature of internal and external supply chain risks. The 11 model derived in this research can be used in the food supply chain to drive supply chain 12 agility, organisational stability and longevity, and as a result continuous improvement. 13 Originality/value-This research is of academic value and of value to policy makers and 14 practitioners in the food supply chain. 15 16 Keywords benchmarking, performance, indicators, stakeholders, value 17 18 include: natural disasters, technological accidents, infectious diseases, terrorism, and food 24 safety incidents (Leat and Revoredo-Giha, 2013), food fraud and wider food crime and 25 market and pricing strategies. Factors that affect supply chain resilience can be internal i.e. 26 within the supply chain network or external factors often outside the control of the 27 organisations involved. These factors can be categorised as: processes such as transport, 28 communication and infrastructure; controls including protocols, policies, procedures, systems 29 Page 1 of 24 British Food Journal and assumptions; and demand and supply related issues such as the fear of, or actual 30 disturbances to, the multi-directional flow of materials, product, finance and information 31 (Christopher and Peck, 2004). Driving a business strategy focused primarily on cost reduction 32 without sufficient regard for the risks that this strategy creates will make the food supply 33 chain more brittle (Viswanadham and Kameshwaran, 2013; Waters, 2007). Food supply chain brittleness is centred on factors such as low financial margins, low profitability and low 35 resource stocks i.e. a lean management approach that can combine in multiple ways with 36 social factors (e.g. consumer trust and brand loyalty) and factors such as weather vulnerability 37 that affects quality or yield, price volatility or natural variation. The degree of financial 38 brittleness in a particular food supply chain will depend on the level of profitability, liquidity, 39 the ability to meet loan repayments and continue to implement capital investment plans that 40 underpin business growth. Ultimately, lower operating margins reduce financial flexibility 41 and create a more brittle supply chain that is vulnerable to major risks such as animal disease, 42 volatility in commodity markets and an increasing cost of legal and/or social compliance. 43 Conversely, food supply chain agility is determined by the level of financial return, 44 efficiency, innovation, resource management and the ability to have alternative sourcing 45 mechanisms in place for key ingredients, organisational responsiveness and underpinning 46 product quality that consistently meets customer requirements. For resilience to be assured in 47

show abstract

References

2018

Food Safety for the 21st Century

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Determining value in the food supply chain

Cited by 31 publications

References 43 publications

Food as Commons or Commodity? Exploring the Links between Normative Valuations and Agency in Food Transition

Food as Commons or Commodity? Exploring the Links between Normative Valuations and Agency in Food Transition

Building strategic resilience in the food supply chain

References

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About