IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v8y2016i6p532-d71566.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Comparative Analysis of the Social Performance of Global and Local Berry Supply Chains

Author

Listed:
  • Mikelis Grivins

    (Baltic Studies Centre, Kokneses prospekts 26-2, Riga LV1014, Latvia)

  • Talis Tisenkopfs

    (Baltic Studies Centre, Kokneses prospekts 26-2, Riga LV1014, Latvia)

  • Zaklina Stojanovic

    (Faculty of Economics, University of Belgrade, Beograd 11000, Serbia)

  • Bojan Ristic

    (Faculty of Economics, University of Belgrade, Beograd 11000, Serbia)

Abstract

The goal of this paper is twofold: to comparatively analyze the social performance of global and local berry supply chains and to explore the ways in which the social dimension is embedded in the overall performance of food supply chains. To achieve this goal, the social performance of five global and local food supply chains in two countries are analyzed: wild blueberry supply chains in Latvia and cultivated raspberry supply chains in Serbia. The study addresses two research questions: (1) What is the social performance of the local and global supply chains? (2) How can references to context help improve understanding of the social dimension and social performance of food supply chains? To answer these questions, two interlinked thematic sets of indicators (attributes) are used—one describing labor relations and the other describing power relations. These lists are then contextualized by examining the micro-stories of the actors involved in these supply chains. An analysis of the chosen attributes reveals that global chains perform better than local chains. However, a context-sensitive analysis from the perspective of embedded markets and communities suggests that the social performance of food chains is highly context-dependent, relational, and affected by actors’ abilities to negotiate values, norms, and the rules embedded within these chains, both global and local. The results illustrate that the empowerment of the chains’ weakest actors can lead to a redefining of the meanings that performance assessments rely on.

Suggested Citation

  • Mikelis Grivins & Talis Tisenkopfs & Zaklina Stojanovic & Bojan Ristic, 2016. "A Comparative Analysis of the Social Performance of Global and Local Berry Supply Chains," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-20, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:8:y:2016:i:6:p:532-:d:71566
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/8/6/532/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/8/6/532/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Liam Magee & Andy Scerri & Paul James & James Thom & Lin Padgham & Sarah Hickmott & Hepu Deng & Felicity Cahill, 2013. "Reframing social sustainability reporting: towards an engaged approach," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 225-243, February.
    2. Ness, Barry & Urbel-Piirsalu, Evelin & Anderberg, Stefan & Olsson, Lennart, 2007. "Categorising tools for sustainability assessment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 498-508, January.
    3. Fleurbaey, Marc, 2015. "On sustainability and social welfare," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 34-53.
    4. Assefa, G. & Frostell, B., 2007. "Social sustainability and social acceptance in technology assessment: A case study of energy technologies," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 63-78.
    5. World Commission on Environment and Development,, 1987. "Our Common Future," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780192820808.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hamunen, Katri & Kurttila, Mikko & Miina, Jari & Peltola, Rainer & Tikkanen, Jukka, 2019. "Sustainability of Nordic non-timber forest product-related businesses – A case study on bilberry," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    2. Gianluca Brunori & Francesca Galli, 2016. "Sustainability of Local and Global Food Chains: Introduction to the Special Issue," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-7, August.
    3. Vincenzo Girgenti & Stefano Massaglia & Angela Mosso & Cristiana Peano & Filippo Brun, 2016. "Exploring Perceptions of Raspberries and Blueberries by Italian Consumers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-16, October.
    4. Goszczyński Wojciech, 2019. "In Search of the Vocabulary for Eastern European Food Studies. Conceptual Remarks After the Workshop: Alternative Food Supply Networks in Central and Eastern Europe," Eastern European Countryside, Sciendo, vol. 25(1), pages 273-279, December.
    5. Thiago Vargas Maldonado & Francesca Allievi & Luiz Panhoca, 2021. "Sustainability of the Amazon Nut in Mato Grosso: An Application of the MuSIASEM Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-20, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Schilling, Markus & Chiang, Lichun, 2011. "The effect of natural resources on a sustainable development policy: The approach of non-sustainable externalities," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 990-998, February.
    2. Carlo Carraro & Lorenza Campagnolo & Fabio Eboli & Elisa Lanzi & Ramiro Parrado & Elisa Portale, 2012. "Quantifying Sustainability: A New Approach and World Ranking," Working Papers 2012.94, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    3. Thomassen, M.A. & Dolman, M.A. & van Calker, K.J. & de Boer, I.J.M., 2009. "Relating life cycle assessment indicators to gross value added for Dutch dairy farms," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(8-9), pages 2278-2284, June.
    4. Eirini Triantafyllidou & Anastasia Zabaniotou, 2022. "From Theory to Praxis: ‘Go Sustainable Living’ Survey for Exploring Individuals Consciousness Level of Decision-Making and Action-Taking in Daily Life Towards a Green Citizenship," Circular Economy and Sustainability,, Springer.
    5. Lhermie, Guillaume & Wernli, Didier & Jørgensen, Peter Søgaard & Kenkel, Donald & Lin Lawell, C.-Y. Cynthia & Tauer, Loren William & Gröhn, Yrjo Tapio, 2019. "Tradeoffs between resistance to antimicrobials in public health and their use in agriculture: Moving towards sustainability assessment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 1-1.
    6. Bruno Gagnon & Roland Leduc & Luc Savard, 2010. "From a conventional to a sustainable engineering design process: different shades of sustainability," Cahiers de recherche 10-09, Departement d'économique de l'École de gestion à l'Université de Sherbrooke.
    7. Saba Alnusairat & Jenan Abu Qadourah & Rawan Khattab, 2023. "Assessing the Future City Post COVID-19: Linking the SDGs, Health, Resilience, and Psychological Impact," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-24, January.
    8. Tan Yigitcanlar & Md. Kamruzzaman, 2015. "Planning, Development and Management of Sustainable Cities: A Commentary from the Guest Editors," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(11), pages 1-12, November.
    9. Aronsson, Thomas & Johansson-Stenman, Olof, 2014. "Genuine Saving and Conspicuous Consumption," Working Papers in Economics 605, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    10. Ferng, Jiun-Jiun, 2014. "Nested open systems: An important concept for applying ecological footprint analysis to sustainable development assessment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 105-111.
    11. Cartelle Barros, Juan José & Lara Coira, Manuel & de la Cruz López, María Pilar & del Caño Gochi, Alfredo, 2015. "Assessing the global sustainability of different electricity generation systems," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 473-489.
    12. Chye Ing Lim & Wahidul Biswas, 2015. "An Evaluation of Holistic Sustainability Assessment Framework for Palm Oil Production in Malaysia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(12), pages 1-27, December.
    13. Mateusz Piwowarski & Danuta Miłaszewicz & Małgorzata Łatuszyńska & Mariusz Borawski & Kesra Nermend, 2018. "Application of the Vector Measure Construction Method and Technique for Order Preference by Similarity Ideal Solution for the Analysis of the Dynamics of Changes in the Poverty Levels in the European ," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-24, August.
    14. Judith Janker & Stefan Mann, 2020. "Understanding the social dimension of sustainability in agriculture: a critical review of sustainability assessment tools," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 1671-1691, March.
    15. Lindner, Marcus & Suominen, Tommi & Palosuo, Taru & Garcia-Gonzalo, Jordi & Verweij, Peter & Zudin, Sergey & Päivinen, Risto, 2010. "ToSIA—A tool for sustainability impact assessment of forest-wood-chains," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 221(18), pages 2197-2205.
    16. Kim P. Bryceson & Anne Ross, 2020. "Agrifood Chains as Complex Systems and the Role of Informality in Their Sustainability in Small Scale Societies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-20, August.
    17. Troullaki, Katerina & Rozakis, Stelios & Kostakis, Vasilis, 2021. "Bridging barriers in sustainability research: Α review from sustainability science to life cycle sustainability assessment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    18. Etheldreder Trecia Koppa & Innocent Musonda & Sambo Lyson Zulu, 2023. "A Systematic Literature Review on Local Sustainability Assessment Processes for Infrastructure Development Projects in Africa," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-37, January.
    19. Chris R. Colocousis & Cesar J. Rebellon & Nick Smith & Stefan Sobolowski, 2017. "How long can we keep doing this? Sustainability as a strictly temporal concept," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 7(2), pages 274-287, June.
    20. Artiom Volkov & Tomas Balezentis & Mangirdas Morkunas & Dalia Streimikiene, 2019. "Who Benefits from CAP? The Way the Direct Payments System Impacts Socioeconomic Sustainability of Small Farms," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-17, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:8:y:2016:i:6:p:532-:d:71566. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.