Food Supply Chains and Short Food Supply Chains: Coexistence conceptual framework

Highlights

• FSCs and SFSCc coexiste..

• Coexistence types are: i) unco-operative; ii) competitive; iii) co-operative; and iv) co-ordinative.

Abstract

Despite the different elements that regard Food Supply Chains (FSCs) and the Short Food Supply Chains (SFSCs) as possessing opposing models, substantial changes are happening in them, such as economic, social and environmental sustainability practices, allowing description of other forms of existence of the models, in addition to the initial opposition. Thus, this article aims to establish and describe the coexistence conceptual framework of the FSCs and SFSCs, at odds with the current polarisation of the literature on chain approaches. After conducting a systematic literature review covering 51 peer-reviewed articles, this paper draws on biology and market performativity notions establish and describe a framework of FSCs and SFSCs. Through content analysis and synthesis of the literature, a coexistence conceptual framework was developed, arranged around two main criteria: i) convergence of interests, and ii) need to add value. These chain models, although coexisting independently or competitively interact with each other, emphasising that they are not isolated models. The literature recognises this interaction through the sharing of inputs, processes, markets, practices, relations, knowledge, values and hybridisation of chains. Blurring their polarisation, this interrelation reveals the supply chain plasticity, emphasising sustainability as a significant shift in the business environment and as a driver of the coexistence framework. Through these results, four types of coexistence in the conceptual framework can be stressed: i) unco-operative; ii) competitive; iii) co-operative; and iv) co-ordinative. Contributing to demystification of their interaction, this article adds to the (short) food supply chains’ capability of making changes in order to accommodate significant shifts in the business environment, thereby expanding the field through a coexistence notion.

Introduction

From the 1980s, a new form of handling business has been evidenced (Lambert and Cooper, 2000), driving companies in the agrifood sector to further develop their relations (Kähkönen, 2012). Therefore, a paradigm shift is observed in management theory, in which firms no longer compete as independent individuals, but start to act as supply chains (Lambert and Cooper, 2000). As competition between networks increases, companies refer to their ability to integrate themselves into a chain as a mark of success, developing their collaboration (Stank et al., 2001). As a result, an extensive robust literature has been created (MacCarthy et al., 2016), forcing companies to look for more effective forms of co-ordinating flows, inside and outside the enterprise (Mentzer et al., 2001).

Considering agricultural and agro-industrial practices, new concerns have emerged in areas of the environment (Bals and Tate, 2018), food safety and health (Nath et al., 2019), such as animal welfare and ecology (Renting et al., 2003) and sustainability (Ilbery and Maye, 2005). Therefore, the development of Short Food Supply Chains (SFSCs) has gained prominence in recent years, especially for their local characteristics (Hendry et al., 2019) and ecological, environmental and social dimensions (Enjolras and Aubert, 2018).

The SFSCs have emerged as a response to public concerns about the origin and handling of food (Marsden et al., 2000) that have arisen from the modernisation and mechanisation of the food system. According to Ilbery and Maye (2005), this has been intensified by the monopoly power of large agrifood manufacturers that seek to control most parts of the Food Supply Chain (FSCs), causing a disconnection between farmers and final consumers, thus generating distant anonymous relations (Hinrichs, 2000).

While these two approaches study similar phenomena, FSCs and SFSCs are intertwined with different elements that regard both chain models as competing with each other. In SFSC studies, an attempt is found to characterise this model as an alternative food chain (Chiffoleau, 2009), or an alternative food network (Charatsari et al., 2018), or an alternative system (Watts et al., 2005), shortening the FSCs (Aubry and Kebir, 2013), and establishing these chains in parallel (Enjolras and Aubert, 2018). They are considered by many to be more economically, socially and environmentally sustainable (Giampietri et al., 2018), ‘more natural’ and ‘more local’ (Marsden et al., 2000), even ‘healthier’ (Nygard and Storstad, 1998).

Regarding the health and environmental concerns, changes are happening in the FSCs and SFSCs leading to a new concern, that of redesigning the FSC to improve environmental sustainability (Krishnan et al., 2020), shortening the FSC to deliver products with high quality and traceability (Sellitto et al., 2018), as well as scaling-up the SFSCs (Aggestam et al., 2017).

In this sense, the focus - though shy - does not concern the replacement of long chains by short chains, whereas the strategies should progressively strengthen the economic sectors and activities that allow the integration of increasing numbers of actors involved in both agrifood chains. As it is sustained that propelling factors of FSCs and SFSCs are present in the same space and time (Ilbery and Maye, 2005), it is shown that the two business models coexist.

Drawing on biology and market performativity, the purpose of this article is to establish a conceptual framework, describing the coexistence between FSCs and SFSCs, instead of the current polarisation of the literature on supply chain approaches. Moreover, the research objectives are: (i) from relevant literature, reveal how FSCs and SFSCs are characterised, and at which points they diverge and converge; (ii) highlight how these chains coexist, emphasising the food supply chain plasticity; and (iii) provide a framework that considers the combinations of adding value and the convergence of interests.

The research method is systematic literature review, which uses rigorous, explicit, well-defined criteria to identify, critically evaluate and synthesise the literature (Cronin et al., 2008). Through a qualitative content analysis to describe the phenomenon of the coexistence, the conceptual framework is discussed to enhance the understanding of the complex relations of SFSCs and FSCs. Meredith (1993) emphasised such a framework as a pre-theory, identifying and classifying relevant variables, describing their interactions, and allowing the mapping of items (such as the existing literature or research studies) on to the framework.

Besides the comparison between FSC and SFSC elements, there are contributions to the debate concerning the evolution of the (short) food supply chains, demystifying their interaction and expanding the field through a coexistence notion, with elements overlapping and complementing (sometimes) each other. This article contributes to the (short) food supply chains’ capability of rapidly making changes in order to accommodate significant shifts in the business environment (Zinn and Goldsby, 2019).

After this introduction, the article presents the literature review, highlighting the theoretical backgrounds and the convergences and divergences between the chain models. Section 3 details the research method and criteria for the literature review. Section 4 discusses the coexistence conceptual framework with empirical studies as grounding, detailing the unco-operative (Section 4.1), co-operative (Section 4.2), co-ordinative (Section 4.3), and competitive coexistence (Section 4.4). The final section reflects on the conclusions, theoretical implications, managerial implications, research agenda and limitations.¹