essay/report/assignments/paper/代写-case study

essay/report/assignments/paper/代写

Communicating imperceptible product

attributes through traceability: A case study

in an organic food supply chain

Helena Lindh* and Annika Olsson

Division of Packaging Logistics, Lund University, SE-221 00 Lund, Sweden. *Corresponding author: helena.lindh@plog.lth.se

Accepted 4 May 2010; First published online 14 June 2010 Research Paper

Abstract

Companies in the food industry are driven to improve their traceability for several reasons. The primary reasons are food safety and quality. Another is the response to the increased interest among consumers in imperceptible product attributes such as organic, fair trade, dolphin-safe and non genetically modified (non-GMO). Such attributes are hard to distinguish and thus require generally enhanced traceability in order to verify their existence. This has led to an emergent area in which actors engage in gaining and maintaining traceability and communicating it to the consumers. This paper describes the relations between the actors in a supply chain (SC) in the field of organic food systems. It examines the objectives each actor has for gaining and maintaining traceability throughout the SC. The focus on organic relates to the challenge for the companies to ensure this imperceptible product attribute throughout the entire food system. A single case study was conducted in an organic food system providing organic ice cream products. The data collection included semi-structured interviews, observations, a review of internal documents and a survey among the participating companies. The findings illustrate and elaborate on the objectives companies have for engaging in traceability. The objectives identified are divided into three categories: food safety and quality, managing the SC and internal resources and communication with consumers. The survey confirms the results from the interviews that all actors want to engage in traceability. They prioritize the objectives differently, however. The study highlights the value of close relations between the actors when addressing consumer concerns regarding product and process characteristics, such as the imperceptible organic attribute.

Key words:case study, consumer communication, food supply chain, food system, imperceptible product attributes, organic food, supply chain management, traceability

Introduction

Companies in the food industry are driven to improve their traceability for several reasons. Primary among these are food safety and legal aspects^1. Another is the increased interest among consumers in imperceptible product at- tributes such as organic, fair trade, dolphin-safe and non genetically modified (non-GMO). This has led to an emerg- ent area for actors to engage in gaining and maintaining traceability to ensure these qualities and to communicating them to consumers^1. Such attributes are, however, hard to distinguish since they cannot be judged either on their appearance or on past experience^2. Thus, they generally require more qualified traceability to verify their existence^3. One concrete example is the growing trend toward organic food and the importance of origin to consumers. This trend is driven in part by consumers increased concern for food

safety, animal welfare, as well as the environmental and
ecological impact of food processing and production^4.
A future challenge for companies is how to ensure and
communicate to consumers that their organic products are
organic in all aspects from farm to fork (i.e., the entire food
system).
Both products and activities are important entities to
trace5,6. For products to be traceable, unique identification
of them or of groups of products is required. This can be
achieved through labeling directly on the product or pack-
age and through record keeping. The activities have to be
traceable to describe the history of a product through the
different processes/activities it passes on its way through
the supply chain (SC)^6. The history of a food product can
include practical, physical as well as ethical aspects^1.
Chain traceability is dependent on the participation of
all the actors in the SC. Successful implementation calls

Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems: 25(4); 263271 doi:10.1017/S

#Cambridge University Press 2010

for co-operation among them all7,8. As in all chains, the weakest link determines its capacity. In the SC manage- ment literature, the importance of collaboration is also high- lighted as a general concern. Since todays competition is no longer between companies, but rather between SCs911, managing complex food SCs has proven to be challenging. It is imperative that all actors contribute to successfully maintain traceability throughout an SC. This challenge is shown, for instance, when companies assume that by optimizing their own interests they also maximize the SCs interests. To overcome sub-optimization in a food system or SC, it has been suggested that management focus on aligning the incentives^12. Contracts, sharing of information and trust are different ways to govern the relations and align the incentives12,13. A contract is the solution that Narayanan and Raman^12 most strongly suggest. Coming from a more sociological research tradition, Brom^14 focuses on the importance of building trust in the relations between actors in an SC. It is thus of great importance to understand these relations as well as the actors different objectives for engaging in traceability. This paper describes the relations between the actors in an SC in an organic food system. It examines the objectives the actors have for gaining and maintaining traceability throughout the chain. The focus on organic relates to the challenge for the companies to ensure this imperceptible product attribute throughout the entire food system. The core research question is: Why do actors in food SCs want to gain and maintain chain traceability? The paper starts with a theoretical elaboration of three categories of objectives for food system traceability derived from the research literature. This is followed by method and case descriptions. Results from the study are then analyzed. The paper concludes with practical aspects of traceability and their use in the food system, linking them to the theoretical aspects.

Objectives for Food Traceability

Actors in food SCs have different objectives for their efforts to gain and maintain traceability1,6,1518. According to Golan et al.^16 , different objectives help drive differences in the breadth, depth and precision of traceability systems. These objectives play an important role in chain trace- ability, since one actors objectives place demands or limitations on the traceability in the SC and thereby on other actors^6. The objectives found in the literature can be grouped into categories. Inspired by Golan et al.^16 , three categories of objectives were selected: food safety and quality, managing the SC and internal resources and communication with consumers.

Food safety and quality

Food safety is a consumer concern^14 and deals with whether or not food is fit for consumption^19. Although food

safety is considered an obligation to the consumer that has
to be assured by governments through legislation and
regulations^19 , several illnesses caused by food-borne
pathogens are still reported every year. The number of
unrecorded cases is estimated to be large according to the
Swedish National Food Administration^20. Legislation can
be regarded as a driving influence in this respect,
according to Furness and Osman^18.
Food quality of today is a complex concept with several
components^19. It does not only encompass the traditional
view of appearance (looks good), technical quality (tastes
good) and biological quality (does good or at least no
harm), but also includes aspects that express cultural,
environmental and ethical values^21.
Traceability is considered essential for food safety and
quality control since it helps companies isolate products
with deficiencies and find the cause^16. Hence, traceability
can contribute to resolving food safety and food quality
problems. An incentive for companies to invest in
traceability is the potential reduction of the production
and distribution of unsafe or poor-quality products. This
minimizes the risk for bad publicity, liability and recalls.
However, traceability as such does not provide safer food.
It only offers information as to whether or not control
points along the SC have been met^16.

Managing the supply chain and

internal resources

Managing the SC marks the difference between the
successful and failed firms^16. This is because the move-
ment, storage and control of products through the chain are
very costly and of competitive importance for companies.
This is particularly the case in the food industry where
margins are low. The traceability system can be an import-
ant tool in such competition as a crucial way of determining
the most efficient way to produce, assemble, warehouse and
distribute products. The more co-ordination is valued in the
SC, the greater will be the benefits from a traceability sys-
tem15,16. The interaction and relations between companies
in an SC affect the overall traceability from farm to fork,
and it is argued that the performance of an SC can be
improved by alignment of the actors incentives through
contracts, sharing of information and/or trust^12.
Ghosh and Fedorowicz^22 state that trust, power and
contracts are important elements in enabling relationship
governance between different actors in an SC. Their study
shows that trust works in conjunction with power and
contracts. However, they point out that when the power is
exercised it is likely to have a negative impact on trust.
Contracts can be used to increase the level of trust between
actors in cases of unequal power levels, emanating from,
for instance, differences in company size^22. Poppo and
Zenger^23 and Seshadri and Mishra^24 conclude that trust and
contracts are complementary and not substitutes for one
another as researchers in sociology and economics in
general claim13,23.

264 H. Lindh and A. Olsson

Co-ordination in the SC is needed to ensure not only a timely flow of materials and information. It also influences traceability, which is dependent on the flow of materials and the recorded information along the flow^22.

Communication with consumers

The shift in perception of food quality among consumers from the traditional view to more qualitative aspects reflects increased concern for the environment, animal welfare and culture, according to Beer^25. He states that these qualitative aspects carry associated costs, but also provide companies in the SC with an opportunity for differentiation and premium prices^25.

With the food we choose, we make a statement about our
identity and connect ourselves with other people who make the
same kind of food choices^1.

Beekman^26 states that consumer concerns can also regard: (i) public/personal health, (ii) genetic modification, (iii) animal welfare, (iv) natural environment (sustainability), (v) international justice (fair trade) and (vi) preservation of regional foods. He calls these^26 moral concerns as they all go beyond merely personal interests like availability, convenience, price and taste. Beekman^26 elaborates on the distinct difference between the first two and the others. With the first two, it is perfectly possible to test products to ensure the accuracy of information about food safety or genetically modified ingredients, whereas the last four qualities can only be verified with the help of recorded identifications of product (hi)stories through the food chain. There is also a relation between consumers preferences for organic food and their concerns for the above-mentioned parameters, such as animal welfare or the environment^4. Michalopoulos et al.^2 agree that consumers nowadays have concerns or preferences regarding imper- ceptible, intrinsic or unobservable food characteristics that cannot be judged either on their appearance or on past experience. The absence of appropriate information on imperceptible food characteristics limits the ability of concerned consumers to consider ethical issues in their food consumption and purchasing^2. Consumer concerns thus

present an opportunity for food companies or SCs to
communicate added values to consumers at the point of
purchase. Table 1 presents a framework of concerns derived
from the food sector and from consumer concerns. The
challenge for companies is to turn the traceability concerns
of the actors in the SC into value-added information that
attracts consumers.

Method

This paper presents an exploratory, single case study
including several actors in a food system providing organic
ice-cream products. It includes companies mainly, but not
exclusively, situated in Sweden. The case study was chosen
as a research strategy in accordance with Yin^27. This allows
for an in-depth understanding of the contemporary phenom-
ena being examined in the selected food system. It is a
preferred strategy when the study is exploratory in nature^27.
The study was conducted in the food industry since chain
traceability is a current topic in that sector. This is due not
only to recent food scares and tougher legislation in
Europe, but also to increased consumer concerns.
This research aims to gain knowledge of traceability
interactions between SC actors. A systems approach was
thus applied, since the sum of the traceability performances
within the companies does not necessarily equal the total
traceability performance of the entire SC. The issues
examined are described and elaborated from the character-
istics of the whole food system, since the knowledge is
dependent on the entire system.

Case descriptionthe food system studied

The focal company was chosen because it was a special
case, due to interesting characteristics. It produces entirely
organic food products and is about to engage in a change
process to make its entire SC more transparent. The goal of
this change is to better communicate the organic product
attribute and its origin to the consumers. Traceability is
high on the company agenda due to customer and consumer
demands, and the companys internal strategy of food
safety and quality control. Information from the company

Table 1.List of food industry and consumer concerns.

Deblonde et al.^19 Beekman^26 Coff et al.^1

Food sector concerns Consumer concerns Consumer concerns Food security Pubic and personal health Animal welfare Food safety Genetic modification Human health Food quality Animal welfare Methods of production Food sovereignty Natural environment (sustainability) Terms of trade Human welfare International justice (fair trade) Working conditions Animal welfare Preservation of regional foods Quality (intrinsic qualities: taste, composition, etc.) Ecological sustainability Origin and place Transparency Trust Traceability Voice Transparency

Communicating imperceptible product attributes through traceability 265

was easily accessible due to their genuine interest in organic food and traceability. This case study encompasses the four main suppliers of ingredients (milk/cream, sugar, eggs and flavor) of a specific ice-cream product in the focal companys product range. In addition to the four suppliers, the focal company (the brand owner), the producing company and one distributor are included (see Fig. 1). The focal company has a long and strong tradition of being careful with ingredients; trust and personal relations are of great importance when choosing suppliers. In 1993, the company was KRAV certified (KRAV develops organic standards and inspects food and food products to meet these standards in Sweden). All of the products of the focal

company are organic. In recent years, they have outsourced
their production to another company, which is family-
owned and also recognized for manufacturing quality
products (information provided by the production company
and their homepage). The vision of the focal company is to
communicate product attributes, such as origin and
production history to the consumer through their web page
and packaging. Key characteristics of the companies
involved are presented in Table 2.

Data collection

Data were collected through semi-structured interviews, a
review of internal documents and observations of the

Focal company and
producer

Members of the focal companys supply chain

5

4

3

2

1

6

n

2

1

1

Distributors

n

2

1

n

2

1
1

n

2

1

Tier 1
customers

Tier 2
customers

Tier 1
suppliers

Tier 2
suppliers

Tier 3
suppliers

Food system under study

1 1

n

2

1

n

2

Figure 1.The different actors (the amounts of actors are illustrated by the numbers) in the SC for the product studied, inspired by Lambert and Cooper^11 , and the selected focus of the study (i.e., the food system under study).

Table 2.Key characteristics of the companies involved.

Company Main function in the SC Founded Employees Turnover Organic versus conventional

Focal company Brand owner 1911 4 0.4 millione Organic Producer Food production 1937 361 3 millione Mixed Supplier 1 Food production 1964 600 270 millione Mixed Supplier 2 Food production 1982 100 50 millione Mixed Supplier 3 Food production 1873 1800 900 millione Mixed Supplier 4 Wholesaler 1976 5 2 millione Organic/fair trade Distributor Distribution and warehousing 1950 700 140 millione Mixed

(^1) Yearly average. 266 H. Lindh and A. Olsson

production and the storage sites. The observations followed the flow of products through the process and were conducted to achieve a clear picture of the process. This is in line with Yin^27 who argues that the data in a case study can come from many different sources. Respondents and interview procedures are presented in Table 3. The inter- views were complemented with a survey completed by the participating companies to encompass quantitative aspects of the actors traceability objectives. The survey consisted of 19 statements regarding traceability objectives. The re- spondents indicated on a five-point scale if they agreed, partly agreed, had no opinion, partly disagreed or dis- agreed. The collected data from the interviews were analyzed by coding the interview material into different thematic groups related to the actors traceability objectives and the interaction between the actors. The data from the survey were analyzed through graphical comparisons as shown in Figure 2. Observations were used to gain deeper insights and an overall understanding of the actual physical flow and the related flow of information.

Why Actors Engage in

TraceabilityEmpirical Results

The interviews all revealed that the focal company, as well
as its suppliers, considers traceability an important matter.
A contributing reason mentioned by most of the respon-
dents was a change in consumer needs to know more about
products, such as imperceptible attributes. In line with this,
they prioritize the objective of communicating with the
consumers.
The chief executive officer (CEO) of the focal company
used herself as an example of a consumer when explaining
why the focal company engages in traceability. As a con-
sumer she wants to know what she is buying, how it is
transported and where it is from. If the product is labeled
organic, she wants to be sure that it is entirely organic.
Based on the CEOs personal values, the bottom line of
the focal company is to provide more information to the
interested consumer through traceability. In addition, this
ambition to use traceability leads to increased food safety.
The company plans to inform consumers about the origin
and history of the product and its ingredients, either

Table 3.Interview respondents and procedure.

Company Function Procedure When Observation

Focal company CEO Taped, semi-structured Several occasions Producing company CEO Notes, semi-structured Several occasions Yes Quality manager Notes, semi-structured Several occasions Supplier 1 Production manager Taped, semi-structured 2009-03-13 Yes Consultantorganic food Taped, semi-structured 2009-03- Supplier 2 Market manager Taped, semi-structured 2009-03-13 Product manager Taped, semi-structured 2009-03- Supplier 3 Sales manager Notes, semi-structured 2009-03-23 Environmental and quality manager Notes, semi-structured 2009-03- Supplier 4 Purchaser Taped, semi-structured 2009-09-17 Yes Distributor Warehouse manager Taped, semi-structured 2009-10-30 Yes

Traceability objectives

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Managing the supply chain and
internal resources

Communication with consumers

Supplier 1
Supplier 2
Supplier 3
Supplier 4
Focal
Distributor
Producer

Food safety and quality

Figure 2.Aggregated survey answers in the three categories of traceability objectives indicated on a five-point scale (15) if they disagreed, partly disagreed, had no opinion, partly agreed or agreed.

Communicating imperceptible product attributes through traceability 267

through a web page or through supplier information on the package. The producer stated that legal compliance is an important reason as to why they engage in traceability. They also emphasize the importance of being able to quickly follow up on mistakes, such as where in the process a problem has occurred. Another reason is the ability to proudly sell their products and be confident that they measure up to the company policy of selling high-quality products. Supplier 1 stated that they have experienced an increased desire among consumers for more information about the products, such as origin. Hence, the supplier is now working to refine the traceability to meet this consumer- driven request. Supplier 1 was at the time of the interview soon to launch a traceability system (which is now up and running) where the consumer can see what geographical areas the product comes from and its history from farm to fork through the company website. This is a new approach for the company, where traceability is used to communicate product attributes to the consumers. Before, traceability was used only to ensure food safety and quality. The sup- plier hopes through this communication with the con- sumer to develop a closer relation with the consumer through traceability and to generate interest. The supplier also stated that at the end of the day, the goal of making more money has an impact on why they engage in im- proving their traceability. Supplier 2 mentioned that the primary objective for which they engage in traceability is not only legal re- quirements, but also monetary reasons. They want to avoid loss and facilitate follow-ups as organic products are more expensive than conventional ones. Traceability according to the focal companys aim is regarded by supplier 2 as an opportunity and means of gaining a competitive edge by describing their excellence. This is especially true when it comes to industrial products, since suppliers are not normally displayed on or in connection with the final product. Supplier 3 mentioned an increased demand from the consumers for fair trade and organic products: Consumers care about where it comes from and how it is handled. Supplier 4 did not usually think in terms of traceability, but when doing so it was primarily as a means to trace products downstream through the best-before-date in case of a recall. When it comes to traceability upstream, the objective is to visualize the origin of the product, and fore- most the producer, because that is one of the core values of the company. Supplier 4 also mentioned improved quality but rather as a beneficial outcome than an objective for engaging in traceability. The distributor, who also warehouses the finished products, states that legal requirements are an important objective, although the company had traceability long before it became a legal stipulation. He mentioned that it was very important for them to have control of product location. But it is also an economical issue, as many of the products are very expensive.

The results from the surveys of the different actors
objectives for engaging in traceability are summarized
under three main categories in Figure 2: food safety and
quality, managing the SC and internal resources and com-
munication with consumers. These categories are based on
the literature study, and the survey was structured ac-
cording to the same categories.
The survey confirms the results from the interviews that
all actors want to engage in traceability. However, they
have different priorities for different objectives, as shown
in Figure 2. The focal company graded all categories as
having the highest priority, while it is clear that the main
objectives vary among the actors.

Analysis and Discussion

The interviews and survey results in accordance with the
literature reveal that actors in food SCs have different
objectives for their engagement in gaining and maintaining
traceability1,6,1518.
In the literature search, monetary considerations or the
ability to charge premium prices due to market differen-
tiation were not explicitly mentioned as reasons for
engaging in traceability. However, the distributor, supplier
1 and supplier 2 mentioned monetary reasons in the
interviews. Supplier 2 and the distributor connected
monetary earnings gained through traceability with the
ability to avoid loss and facilitate follow-ups. Supplier 1
regarded it more in general terms to generate financial
benefits. The other objectives identified from the interviews
and the survey fall into the following three categories.

Food safety and quality

In the survey, all actors in the participating companies
agreed or partly agreed that improved food safety and
quality was an objective for which they engaged in gaining
or maintaining their traceability. Both the focal company
and supplier 4 stated in the interview that increased food
safety was a beneficial outcome.
According to the literature, legislation^18 can be regarded
as a driver for traceability. Legislation was not covered
specifically in the survey but was mentioned by three of the
actors as an objective. Supplier 2 added that it was their
primary objective. Both the producer and supplier 4 found
the ability to trace products downstream in case of a recall
as an important objective, one which was also found in the
literature^16. This objective certainly relates to food safety in
that suppliers do not want consumers to buy or consume
food products that are unsafe.
For the focal company, ensuring that the organic
products are in fact organic is based on co-operation with
KRAV. The ingredients are assumed to be organic as long
as the supplier has a valid certificate. This can be related to
the legislative aspects, even though it is not clearly
expressed as such. Furthermore, this view indicates a link
between food quality and safety and the ability to guarantee

268 H. Lindh and A. Olsson

the organic origin. As with the focal company, suppliers 1, 2 and 3 also rely on inspections from KRAV to ensure that the organic products supplied to them are organic. Furthermore, the primary producers are not allowed to have parallel production of organic and conventional pro- duction according to the KRAV regulations (i.e., the risk of getting conventional products from a primary producer with a valid certificate is considered very low). Supplier 4 also relies on the certification system to ensure that the products supplied meet the guaranteed/labeled attributes (i.e., fair trade and organic). In this respect, the organic certification and non-parallel production increase producer trust that they are being supplied with organic products and are delivering organic products to their consumers. The organic certification can therefore be seen as a quality attribute.

Managing the supply chain and

internal resources

Despite the theoretical claim that the traceability system is crucial in finding the most efficient way to produce, assemble, warehouse and distribute products15,16, the survey and interview results reveal that the participants (apart from the focal company) generally do not regard managing the SC and internal resources as an objective for traceability to the same extent as they regard food safety and quality. The CEO of the focal company, on the other hand, states in the interview that co-operation between the actors in the chain is important for traceability, although she finds that trust between the companies is even more important. Because the products are organic, you have to, above all, trust that the suppliers are doing what they say they are. Some of the relations in the SC studied are formalized in contracts, whereas others are not. In general, relations with the larger companies are more formalized, whereas those with smaller companies are more based on trust and close co-operation without formal agreements. The interviews indicated that a good customersupplier relation on which you can build co-operation is important. Agreements formalized in contracts are important although a good relation is even more important. Researchers such as Bowersox et al.^28 , Lambert and Cooper^11 and Mentzer et al.^29 state that the competition of today is no longer at the level of company versus company but in SC versus SC, which requires good relationships. Narayanan and Raman^12 state that companies tend to optimize themselves rather than the SC. This means that efforts are needed to get an entire SC to move in the same direction. These efforts can be in the form of contracts, sharing of information and/or trust^12. Even though all actors in the SC are responsible, it is primarily the focal companys responsibility, as the CEO states, for the overall traceability of their products, since they put the products together. Supplier 1 agrees but emphasizes the importance of all of them contributing. Supplier 4 closely co-operates with their sub-supplier of

ingredients to the focal company. The sub-supplier has no
production of its own but purchases the raw material from
the co-operatives and works with yet another company that
processes the raw material into the two ingredients supplied
to the focal company. Supplier 4 does not generally supply
producing companies with raw ingredients, but has a
special arrangement with the focal company in which the
products supplied are currently exclusively supplied to
them. This testifies to the importance of close relations
among the SC actors and that traceability matters in the
field of the organic products studied.
For all of the actors studied in general, the relations
among them have existed for a long or very long time.
Supplier 4 has closely co-operated with its large suppliers
and as the number of actors in Europe is limited, they meet
each other regularly at different arrangements such as
conferences. Most of their suppliers have worked with them
for 1520 years. The relations are not formalized in any
contract but rely instead on long trust building. One
exception is supplier 3 that has recently contracted a new
sub-supplier of the organic product supplied to the focal
company. This is different from the established relations in
that building on trust requires time and effort, while signing
agreements is rather quick.
The CEO notes that for them as a small company it has
been hard to establish good relations with retail organiz-
ations, which have such large purchasing organizations.
The ability to influence other companies in traceability
issues is dependent on company size, according the CEO.
Small companies are limited in their ability to influence
large companies but the CEO states that they do what they
can to plant the idea.

Communication with consumers

All the interviewed suppliers and the focal company rely on
the certification process to ensure that the products they
supply meet the desired organic product attribute (and also
fair trade for supplier 4). This relates to the objective and
importance of communicating imperceptible attributes to
consumers.
Beer^25 claims that the shift in perception of food quality
among consumers also includes qualitative aspects related
to cultural, environmental and ethical values. This shift is
sensed by supplier 1 as an increased desire among
consumers for more information about the products, such
as knowledge of origin. This is also sensed by supplier 3 as
an increased demand for fair trade and organic products.
The response to this shift for supplier 1 has been a re-
finement of their traceability to meet these requests for
more information and communicating it to consumers. This
is in line with the ambitions of the focal company that
wants to provide more information to the interested con-
sumer through traceability. Supplier 1 hopes for a closer
relation with the consumer through traceability and to
create an interest among consumers through the companys
communication of imperceptible attributes such as organic

Communicating imperceptible product attributes through traceability 269

and origin. In line with this, an important objective for supplier 4 is to communicate to the consumer where the product comes from, but primarily who the producer is since this is one of the core values of the company. Supplier 3 has the lowest average agreement among the suppliers when it comes to consumer communication as an objective for traceability. This is, however, caused by two sub-issues in the survey: they disagree on market differentiation and partly disagree on certification of authenticity. On the rest of the consumer communication sub-issues, however, they partly agree, which means that they consider consumer communication to be one of their objectives. Meeting consumer demands for more information on qualitative aspects such as cultural, environmental or ethical values carries associated costs, according to Beer^25 , but also provides the SC companies with the opportunity for differentiation and premium prices. As revealed in the interviews, this potential is realized by supplier 1, since they also see a monetary reason behind their investment in refining the traceability to communicate product attributes to the consumers. Consumer communication through trace- ability is regarded by supplier 2 as an opportunity and means of competition for them. This is especially the case when it comes to industrial products where suppliers are generally not displayed on or in connection with the final product. Communication with consumers is an important objective for the focal company as the brand owner and for the other actors that indirectly benefit from increased sales volume, or if the communication can contribute to making the product a high margin product. However, if the focal company succeeds in reaching its goal of visualizing the SC for consumers and displaying the company names of the suppliers, they would benefit from the communication both indirectly and directly.

Conclusions

Actors in food SCs have different objectives for their engagement in gaining and maintaining food system traceability1,6,1518. These objectives can be divided into three categories: food safety and quality, SC management and internal resources and communicating with consumers. The different objectives among actors were confirmed by the survey conducted with the companies participating in the study. The EC Food Safety Regulation 178/2002 can be regarded as a baseline that safeguards a certain level of food safety. However, as consumer awareness increases, driven by food scares and scandals, focus has been placed not only on using traceability to achieve food safety but to address consumer concerns regarding product and process characteristics, such as the imperceptible organic attribute. Thus, for an SC to succeed in communicating impercep- tible product and/or process characteristics to the consumer, enhanced traceability is required^3. This requires, in turn, co-operation among the actors in the SC regarding the

physical and informational flows in the chain. This SC
perspective was not regarded as the main objective for the
actors in this study, except in the focal company. In order to
move forward, relational aspects such as trust among actors
are equally important to information and physical flow. For
small actors trust is the key, as they rely on each other
without formal agreements and on the certification process
for ensuring the desired product attributes, which is organic
in this case.
A suggestion for further research is the ability to include
demands regarding traceability breadth (amount of infor-
mation), depth (how far back and forward in the SC) and
precision [resolution, size of the traceable resource unit
(TRU)] in the supplier evaluation and screening. This will
safeguard that the information recorded by the suppliers
enables the breadth, depth and precision of traceability
required by the focal company to ensure and to communi-
cate desired imperceptible product attributes.

Acknowledgements.We are grateful to the participating compa-
nies for their patience and contribution to the case study
reported in this paper. This research was financially supported
by Swedish VINNOVA through the Next Generation Innovative
Logistic Vinn Excellence Centre.

References

1. Coff, C., Barling, D., Korthals, M., and Nielsen, T. 2008. Ethical Traceability and Communicating Food. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
2. Michalopoulos, T., Korthals, M., and Hogeveen, H. 2008. Trading Ethical Preferences in the market: outline of a politically liberal framework for the ethical characterization of foods. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 21(1):327.
3. Zsidisin, G.A. and Ritchie, B. 2008. Supply Chain Risk: A Handbook of Assessment, Management, and Performance. Springer, New York.
4. Tavernier, E.M. 2004. An empirical analysis of producer perceptions of traceability in organic agriculture. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 19(2):110117.
5. FSA 2002. Traceability in the food chain: a preliminary study. Food Chain Strategy Division. Available at Web site http:// http://www.food.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/2002/apr/traceability.
6. Moe, T. 1998. Perspectives on traceability in food manufac- ture. Trends in Food Science and Technology 9(5):211214.
7. Kelepouris, T., Pramatari, K., and Doukidis, G. 2007. RFID- enabled traceability in the food supply chain. Industrial Management and Data Systems 107(2):183200.
8. Viaene, J. and Verbeke, W. 1998. Traceability as a key instrument towards supply chain and quality management in the Belgian poultry meat chain. Supply Chain Management 3(3):139.
9. Mentzer, J.T., DeWitt, W., Keebler, J.S., Min, S., Nix, N.W., Smith, C.D., and Zacharia, Z.G. 2001. Defining supply chain management. Journal of Business Logistics 22(2):125.
10. Bowersox, D.J., Closs, D.J., and Cooper, M.B. 2002. Supply Chain Logistics Management. International edition. McGraw- Hill, Boston, MA.

270 H. Lindh and A. Olsson

11. Lambert, D.M. and Cooper, M.C. 2000. Issues in supply chain management. Industrial Marketing Management 29(1):6583.
12. Narayanan, V.G. and Raman, A. 2004. Aligning incentives in supply chains. Harvard Business Review (November): 82(11): 94102.
13. Norrman, A. 2006. Supply chain risk sharing contracts from Buyes perspective: content and experiences. In G. Persson and M. Jahre (eds). Proceedings of the 18th Annual Nofoma Conference. Nofoma, Oslo. p. 121.
14. Brom, F.W.A. 2000. Food, consumer concerns, and trust: food ethics for a globalizing market. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 12(2):127139.
15. Golan, E., Krissoff, B., and Kuchler, F. 2004. Food trace- ability: one ingredient in a safe and efficient food supply. Amber Waves 2(2):1421.
16. Golan, E., Krissof, B., Kuchler, F., Calvin, L., Nelson, K., and Price, G. 2004. Traceability in the U.S. Food Supply: Economic Theory and Industry Studies; 830. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.
17. Pouliot, S. and Sumner, D.A. 2008. Traceability, liability, and incentives for food safety and quality. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 90(3):1527.
18. Furness, A. and Osman, K.A. 2003. Developing traceability systems across the supply chain. In M. Lees (ed.). Food Authenticity and Traceability. Woodhead Publishing Limited, Cambridge. p. 473495.
19. Deblonde, M., Graaff, R., and Brom, F. 2007. An ethical toolkit for food companies: reflections on its use. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 20(1):99118.
    20. Matfo rgiftningar. 2009. National Food Administration Livsmedelsverket. http://www.slv.se (accessed November 19, 2009).
    21. Beer, S. 2001. Food and society. In J.F. Eastham, L. Sharples, and S.D. Ball (eds). Food Supply Chain Management: Issues for the Hospitality and Retail Sectors. Elsevier Butterworth- Heinemann, Oxford. p. 2136.
    22. Ghosh, A. and Fedorowicz, J. 2008. The role of trust in supply chain governance. Business Process Management Journal 14(4):453470.
    23. Poppo, L. and Zenger, T. 2002. Do formal contracts and relational governance function as substitutes or complements? Strategic Management Journal 23(8):707725.
    24. Seshadri, S. and Mishra, R. 2004. Relationship marketing and contract theory. Industrial Marketing Management 33(6): 513526.
    25. Beer, S. 1998. Tokenism? An investigation into the nature of food quality assurance schemes with specific reference to the meat production sector. In J.S.A. Edwards (ed.). Proceedings of the Culinary Arts and Sciences Conference: Global and National Perspectives. Centre for Culinary Research, Bourne- mouth. p. 225236.
    26. Beekman, V. 2008. Consumer rights to informed choice on the food market. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 11(1):6173.
    27. Yin, R.K. 2003. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
    28. Bowersox, D.J., Closs, D.J., and Cooper, M.B. 2002. Supply Chain Logistics Management. McGraw-Hill/Irwin, New York.
    29. Mentzer, J.T., DeWitt, W., Keebler, J.S., Min, S., Nix, N.W., Smith, C.D., and Zacharia, Z.G. 2001. Defining supply chain management. Journal of Business Logistics 22(2):125.

Communicating imperceptible product attributes through traceability 271