IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

Market orientation of the Swedish pork sector

Listed author(s):
  • Lind, Lena Westerlund
Registered author(s):

    In 2007, the largest slaughterhouse in Sweden, the farmer cooperative Swedish Meats, demutualized. That was the end of cooperative dominance in the Swedish meat industry. Paper VI claims that Swedish Meats demutualized because members no longer perceived the benefits from dealing with the cooperative to exceed the costs. This was possibly due to decreased market transaction costs (external transaction costs) and increased internal transaction costs, e.g. agency costs, caused by the problems of Vaguely Defined Property Rights (VDPR). This thesis explores why the demutualization came about following the hypothesis that lack of market orientation caused lower profitability and poorer member benefits. Market orientation is analyzed using one external and one internal perspective. The external perspective reflects that market orientation requires correct market intelligence regarding consumer needs and correct market signals to the upstream actors. This perspective is discussed using the results from Paper I, II and III in this thesis. Paper I shows that even though pork is an overall low involvement product, branded pork has more involved consumers enabling producers to apply a differentiating strategy. It is indicated that Swedish Meats was successful in communicating that consumers should buy Swedish meat. The potential of differentiating the supply of pork with the help of branding also enabled suppliers to overcome difficulties associated with situational factors, which influence consumer choice. Paper II provides a comparison between results regarding consumers' purchasing decisions studied at the Point-of-Purchase versus in other settings. As the supermarket category manager is the gate-keeper to the pork consumer, the supplier market orientation is dependent on the category manager's decision-making. This is discussed in Paper III. The market intelligence collected from the consumer and retailer has to be considered when the cooperative members make strategic decisions regarding product development and marketing. This internal perspective of market orientation is discussed using the results from paper IV, which indicates that the problems of VDPR aggravated the cooperative's ability to respond to the market conditions.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    Paper provided by Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Economics in its series Department of Economics publications with number 8119.

    in new window

    Date of creation: 2011
    Handle: RePEc:sua:ekonwp:8119
    Contact details of provider: Postal:
    Box 7013, 750 07 UPPSALA

    Phone: 018-67 1724
    Fax: 018-67 3502
    Web page:

    More information through EDIRC

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    in new window

    1. Williamson, Oliver E, 1979. "Transaction-Cost Economics: The Governance of Contractural Relations," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 22(2), pages 233-261, October.
    2. Bech-Larsen, Tino & Nielsen, Niels Asger, 1999. "A comparison of five elicitation techniques for elicitation of attributes of low involvement products," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 315-341, June.
    3. Swift, Cathy Owens, 1995. "Preferences for single sourcing and supplier selection criteria," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 105-111, February.
    4. Allen, Douglas W & Lueck, Dean, 1998. "The Nature of the Farm," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 41(2), pages 343-386, October.
    5. Hardesty, Shermain D., 2005. "Cooperatives as Marketers of Branded Products," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 36(01), March.
    6. Hansmann, Henry, 1988. "Ownership of the Firm," Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 4(2), pages 267-304, Fall.
    7. Fabio R. Chaddad & Michael L. Cook, 2004. "The Economics of Organization Structure Changes: a US perspective on demutualization," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 75(4), pages 575-594, December.
    8. Beverland, Michael, 2007. "Can cooperatives brand? Exploring the interplay between cooperative structure and sustained brand marketing success," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 480-495, August.
    9. Oliver E. Williamson, 2000. "The New Institutional Economics: Taking Stock, Looking Ahead," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 38(3), pages 595-613, September.
    10. Nilsson, Jerker, 2001. "Organisational principles for co-operative firms," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 329-356, September.
    11. Michael E. Sykuta & Michael L. Cook, 2001. "A New Institutional Economics Approach to Contracts and Cooperatives," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(5), pages 1273-1279.
    12. Roumasset, J., 1995. "The nature of the agricultural firm," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 161-177, March.
    13. Fulton, Murray E. & Hueth, Brent, 2009. "Cooperative Conversions, Failures and Restructurings: An Overview," Journal of Cooperatives, NCERA-210, vol. 23.
    14. Nilsson, Jerker & Ohlsson, Camilla, 2007. "The New Zealand Dairy Cooperatives’ Adaptation to Changing Market Conditions," Journal of Rural Cooperation, Hebrew University, Center for Agricultural Economic Research, vol. 35(1).
    15. Kyriakos Kyriakopoulos & Matthew Meulenberg & Jerker Nilsson, 2004. "The impact of cooperative structure and firm culture on market orientation and performance," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(4), pages 379-396.
    16. Park, John L., 2001. "Supermarket Product Selection Uncovered: Manufacturer Promotions And The Channel Intermediary," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association (IFAMA), vol. 4(02).
    17. Edwards, Mark R. & Shultz, Clifford J., II, 2005. "Reframing Agribusiness: Moving from Farm to Market Centric," Journal of Agribusiness, Agricultural Economics Association of Georgia, vol. 23(1).
    18. Jon H. Hanf & Rainer Kühl, 2005. "Branding and its consequences for German agribusiness," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(2), pages 177-189.
    19. Nilsson, Jerker & Kihlen, Anna & Norell, Lennart, 2009. "Are Traditional Cooperatives an Endangered species? About Shrinking Satisfaction, Involvement and Trust," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association (IFAMA), vol. 12(4).
    20. Geert Hofstede, 1983. "The Cultural Relativity of Organizational Practices and Theories," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 14(2), pages 75-89, June.
    21. Fabio R. Chaddad & Michael L. Cook, 2004. "Understanding New Cooperative Models: An Ownership–Control Rights Typology," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 26(3), pages 348-360.
    22. Slater, Stanley F. & Narver, John C., 1994. "Market orientation, customer value, and superior performance," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 22-28.
    23. Bond, Jennifer Keeling, 2009. "Cooperative Financial Performance and Board of Director Characteristics: A Quantitative Investigation," Journal of Cooperatives, NCERA-210, vol. 22.
    24. Hans Skytte & Karsten Bove, 2004. "The concept of retailer value: A means-end chain analysis," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(3), pages 323-345.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sua:ekonwp:8119. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Alejandro Engelmann)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.