Key CSR Dimensions for the Food Supply Chain

Key CSR dimensions for the foodchain

Sari Forsman-HuggEconomic Research, MTT Agrifood Research Finland, Helsinki, Finland

Juha-Matti Katajajuuri and Inkeri RiipiBiotechnology and Food Research, MTT Agrifood Research Finland,

Helsinki, Finland, and

Johanna Makela, Katja Jarvela and Paivi TimonenNational Consumer Research Centre, Helsinki, Finland

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to identify and define the content of corporate social responsibility (CSR)for the food chain.

Design/methodology/approach A qualitative research approach was applied in the study, basedon participatory and case study research methodologies. The study drew on three different case foodproducts and their supply chains: rye bread, broiler chicken products and margarine. The content ofCSR was built through participatory workshops, the aim of which was to elicit the ideas of differentstakeholder groups.

Findings The study identified seven key dimensions of food chain CSR: environment, productsafety, corporate nutritional responsibility, occupational welfare, animal health and welfare, localmarket presence and economic responsibility.

Originality/value The results provide food and agribusiness companies with a betterunderstanding of core CSR issues and their relevance in complex chains and networks. This mayencourage the companies to promote their activities in a more responsible and sustainable directionand offer elements to build sustainable business cases. In addition, the results may indicate a changetowards broader understanding of what is meant by corporate social responsibility.

Keywords Corporate social responsibility, Food chain, Environmental responsibility,Social responsibility, Economic responsibility, Stakeholder dialogue, Stakeholders, Finland

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionIncreasing concern about environmental and social issues in food production andconsumption has been spreading rapidly in Europe. Food quality, health,environmentalism and animal welfare have become global concerns (Lindgreen et al.,2009b) and consumers are increasingly aware and demanding of responsibility in theseissues (Beer, 2009). Spreading multiculturalism has resulted in a growing demand fordifferentiated products and services (Lindgreen and Hingley, 2009). From the corporatesocial responsibility (CSR) perspective, food and agribusiness companies are

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0007-070X.htm

The article presents results from the project Enhancing corporate social responsibility in theFinnish food chain with a stakeholder dialogue. The authors would like to thank the FinnishMinistry of Agriculture and Forestry, the Finnish Ministry of Environment, the participatingfood chain companies and research institutes for funding the project. They would also like tothank the two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments during the referee process.

BFJ115,1

30

British Food JournalVol. 115 No. 1, 2013pp. 30-46q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0007-070XDOI 10.1108/00070701311289867

frequently subject to broad interests and there is an increasing need for them torespond to the challenges and obligations posed by sustainability. They need to showthat responsibility has moved from ideology to reality, i.e. that their actions areresponsible and appropriate. The pressures to perform responsibly are real and foodcompanies in Finland are willing to gauge their social and environmental performanceto maintain the standards of responsibility. However, consultative and participatoryprocesses with stakeholders are necessary to design these standards.

Despite the clear importance of the design of standards and the significance ofstakeholder dialogue, to the best of our knowledge, only partial efforts have addressedthe importance of these issues. There are different theories and approaches to CSR(e.g. Garriga and Mele, 2004; Halme, 2007; Husted and Allen, 2007; Ketola, 2008; Maonet al., 2009a), but empirical work on how to put the theories into company practiceremains limited (Lindgreen et al., 2009a). CSR is not about being seen to do good butcan only be meaningful when it is part of the DNA of an organisation (see Hingley,2010). The objective of this article was to identify and define the content of CSR in theFinnish food supply chain context. We choose to define CSR as a concept of collectivelystandardised business activities of a company to pressures from stakeholders. Thedefinition relies on stakeholders that constitute a link between the goals of a companyand the expectations of society. Companies are facing rapid changes in the food sectordue to the growing concern and rising awareness among consumers of traceability inthe food chain, the origin of raw materials and food safety, environmental impacts ofproducts and processes as well as societal issues such as animal welfare. Customers,governments, NGOs, the media and wider society are all asking companies to providean open and well-substantiated account of how they operate, what their impact onsociety is, and how they are minimising negative impacts and saving scarce naturalresources.

The specific research question is: Is it possible to identify a shared understanding offood chain CSR by relevant stakeholders? In order to assess, manage and develop theirCSR actions and to take account of industry-specific features and stakeholderexpectations, companies need a detailed operationalisation of CSR. The focus of thisarticle is description of the multi-step research process that produced the essentialdimensions of CSR. The content of CSR was built in three steps through:

(1) a thorough analysis of supply chain cases with a detailed description of currentCSR issues in partner companies;

(2) participatory workshops that aimed to elicit the ideas of different stakeholdergroups; and

(3) CSR content building. In this study CSR implies a wider perspective than theview that companies act in compliance with the legal norms.

The article draws on context-specificity, using the food supply chain and three caseproducts as an example. The case supply chains were exemplified by three specialproducts: rye bread, sliced, marinated and packed broiler chicken products andmargarine. The first two items were produced by a leading Finnish bakery and a meatprocessing company, and the last was a private label product of a large Finnish retailcompany.

The widely accepted approach to CSR is based on the Triple Bottom Line (TBL)with three dimensions: economic (profits), social (people) and environmental (planet)

Key CSRdimensions forthe food chain

31

responsibility (Elkington, 1997). Companies are increasingly interesting in 3P (TBL)evaluation,that is, doing business while avoiding harm to people and the planet (Croninet al., 2011). Beyond this categorisation there is no consensus about the definition andcontent of CSR (e.g. Greenfield, 2004; Dahlsrud, 2008; Wan-Jan, 2006; Jones et al., 2007).Thus, there is a need for more explicit and concrete (Wilenius, 2005; Lindgreen et al.,2009a) CSR content. Only by building meaning and content into CSR can theresponsibility for operations be measured and managed. However, as the TBLapproach is broadly accepted and is part of the managerial processes in companies, theresearch project used TBL dimensions as the basic theoretical tool to construct,understand and analyse the manifold nature of CSR in a specific context, that of theFinnish food chain.

Supply chain view of CSR: food chain as an exampleCompanies do not operate in isolation, but are closely linked to their competitiveenvironments and to the dynamic chains and networks of different types of actors.This highlights the importance of effective supply chain management, where effortsare made to bring suppliers and customers together in a business process (Omta et al.,2001; Tan, 2001). The production of a particular food item usually includes several rawmaterials or ingredient supply chains, where many sub-processes take place in severalcompanies. To date little is known about how to cover, organise and manage CSRissues in the product chains in a complex network of international suppliers andcustomers (Hamprecht et al., 2005; Maloni and Brown, 2006; Cramer, 2008). Researchhas, for example, ignored the potential development of a competitive advantage fromthe sustainable supply chain approach (Markley and Davis, 2007). This is a severeshortcoming despite the fact that competition today is becoming less firm vs firmand more supply chain vs supply chain (Hult et al., 2007). Fritz and Schiefer (2009) goeven further by stating that the food sector builds on dynamically evolving traderelationships that are more like networks than chains. As a consequence, the control,management and monitoring of responsibility becomes even more challenging. Maonet al. (2009b), suggested that sharing supply chain expertise can be the way forcorporations to demonstrate their good corporate citizenship.

The food chain is a good example of looking at the context-specificity of CSR. Thereare many aspects, such as those related to nutrition and human health, as well asanimal welfare, which are solely characteristic to the food sector. In order for a foodproduct or an ingredient to be produced in a responsible way, the entire supply chainmust take account of the impacts of its actions on society economic, social andenvironmental. For example, the most recent results show that eating represents 15 to40 percent of the environmental impacts caused by private consumption, depending onthe specific elements and environmental impacts that are included in the calculation(Seppala et al., 2011; see also Nissinen et al., 2007). In addition, studies by Katajajuuriet al. (2005), among others, have shown that a significant share of total environmentalimpacts in the food chain often results from agricultural production and not themanufacturing process of the final product. Furthermore, product safety cannot becompletely assured based solely on the analysis of the final product, but the entire foodsupply chain should be monitored. Moreover, there is information dependency from theearly stages of the food chain, as is the case, for example, with animal welfarerequirements (Fritz and Schiefer, 2009).

BFJ115,1

32

MethodologyThe research project applied the qualitative approach, proceeded iteratively, and builton several steps. Since the significance of stakeholder dialogue in defining CSR isstrongly stressed (Cramer et al., 2004, Wilenius, 2005, Ingenbleek et al., 2007), aparticipatory approach played a significant role throughout the research process. Inparticipatory research the participants have an active role in the research (Cornwalland Jewkes, 1995) and lay people are involved to generate knowledge about issues thataffect them in their daily lives (Park, 2006). Participatory methods are often describedas reflexive, flexible and iterative (Cornwall and Jewkes, 1995).

The participatory approach was implemented by organising and facilitatingparticipatory stakeholder workshops to generate knowledge and standpoints about thecontent of CSR. The role of the workshops was to provide an open, inspirational andinteractive forum Bringing relevant interest groups to the process of developing ameaningful and concrete concept of CSR exemplifies the importance of stakeholderdialogue, the importance of which is widely acknowledged in CSR literature (Maignanet al., 2005; Maon et al., 2009a; Habisch et al., 2010, Hingley, 2010, Lindgreen andSwaen, 2010, Cronin et al., 2011,).

The case study approach (e.g. Yin, 1994; Stake, 1995) was also applied in this study.This was found to provide the observational richness that is needed for understandingthe relative, contextual and undefined content of food chain CSR. Consequently, theproject drew on three real food products and their production chains in order tooperationalise the research questions. The case products and chains were selectedthrough interaction with the companies involved in the project. The products selectedwere rye bread, broiler chicken products and margarine. The research process wasmultiform and iterative and did not proceed in a straightforward manner, which ischaracteristic of a case study (Eriksson and Koistinen, 2005).

Research process and outputsThe three main phases of the study were:

(1) supply chain cases;

(2) participatory workshops; and

(3) CSR content building.

The first step in the research process, supply chain cases, includedsupply-chain-specific data collection on a wide range of CSR dimensions for each ofthe case products. The purpose of the chain data and respective CSR issues was to givea detailed description of the production chain and current company practices. Datawere gathered and generated by means of detailed inquiries and interviews ofcompany representatives along the production chain, interviews of experts,discussions with key persons from the companies and by using internal companydocuments, CSR reports, industry reports, statistics, and other data sources on CSRissues concerning the entire production chain of the case products. For each expertinterview, researchers drew up a questionnaire on the basis of the responsibilitydimension and the data needed from case companies. Altogether 35 persons wereinterviewed.

For each of the cases, the entire production chain (from production to retail) andprocesses were described in detail, including the origin of ingredients and products as


33

accurately as possible, as well as quality, human resource management and othermanagement systems in the companies throughout the chain (Table I). A uniform datacollection procedure was adapted, allowing room for case-specific features. Forexample, animal health and welfare issues were naturally accounted for in the case ofbroiler chicken products, while they were less relevant in the case of rye bread ormargarine. The data collected were categorised using the TBL dimensions (e.g. Niskalaand Tarna, 2003; Rohweder, 2004; SFS, 2006).

The supply-chain data for the case products CSR issues were collected in acomprehensive way, but some issues turned out to be especially challenging, such aselements related to economic responsibility. For example, according to companyrepresentatives, the determination of prices was considered confidential informationthat they did not want to share. In the case of social responsibility, in turn, detailedinformation on imported raw materials such as palm and cocoa was hard to find.Compared with economic and social responsibility, the information on environmentalresponsibility issues was easier to establish.

A detailed chain report was written for each of the cases. These reports providedaccounts of the state of affairs. Based on these reports, three informative booklets wereproduced to serve as stimuli in each of the three participatory workshops. The bookletswere written in popular language and their purpose was to give the workshopparticipants a concise description of the supply chain of each case product and an ideaof how the chain functions from the CSR viewpoint. The booklets were in A5 formatwith 30-50 pages.

The second phase of the study, the participatory stakeholder workshops for each ofthe cases, focused on the production chain perspective. The workshops took place in2007 in Helsinki, Finland. A variety of actors interested in CSR were invited to theworkshops. The participants were recruited from three main groups. One third (34) ofthe participants were business people from the partner companies (that is, a leadingFinnish meat company, a leading company of plant-based products, a leading feedcompany, a leading bakery company and a leading retail trade company in Finland)representing the supply chain, about one third (35 were members of the National

Economic responsibility Profitability of farming, industry profitability, coststructure and investments, price margins, producerand consumer prices, history and strategy of thebrand, consumer segments

Social responsibility Well-being of farmers and workers in the productionchain, wages, work safety, employee training,equality issues, animal welfare, employment effect ofthe supply chain, origin of raw materials/ingredients,product safety issues, research and developmentactivities of companies, customer satisfaction andfeedback

Environmental responsibility Description of main environmental impacts, relatedactions and risks, data on environmental audits,material- and eco-balances of companies,environmental impacts of the case companies, LCA-based environmental impact data on supply chain

Table I.Examples of CSR datacollected and generatedfrom the case supplychains

BFJ115,1

34

Consumer Research Centres Consumer Panel (Pulliainen, 2007), and the rest (21) wereexperts and representatives of important stakeholders (e.g. NGOs such as the FinnishFederation for Animal Welfare Associations, and interest groups such as The CentralUnion of Agricultural Producers and Forest Owners and the Finnish Food and DrinkIndustries Federation, authorities such as the Ministry of the Environment andConsumer Agency and researchers from universities and governmental researchinstitutes specific to each case). About 30 people participated in each workshop. Theparticipants were divided into three groups in order to allow enough debate and tomotivate group discussion. In each group the participants represented the three maingroups noted above. The total number of participants in all three workshops was 90.The participants received case-specific booklets based on the supply chain cases twoweeks before the workshop.

The workshops were organised on three evenings from 5.00 p.m. to 8.00 p.m. Theprogramme consisted of four blocks: opening, group sessions, presentation andreviewing of the outputs, and closing. In addition to the participants, the workshopincluded a general chair and each group had a facilitator, a secretary and an assistant.The role of these representatives of the research group was to ensure that theworkshop proceeded approximately according to the detailed script that was crafted.

A large share of the time (100 minutes) in the three-hour workshops was devoted togroup sessions focused on the three pre-selected themes specific to each case study.The themes were chosen on the basis of issues identified during the compilation of thesupply chain cases and in discussions with experts and representatives of case studycompanies. The specific discussion themes of each case supply chain are presented inTables II, III and IV. The group sessions had three phases: the production of CSR ideasin relation to the topic of the group, the organisation of these ideas under differentdimensions of CSR, and the evaluation of ideas.

Rye breadGroup theme 1 Group theme 2 Group theme 3

Raw materials of rye bread People in theproduction chain

Responsibility in the value chain ofrye bread

Ecology as respect of nature, sustainablecultivation and soil productivity (18)

Adequate margins(13)

Environmental responsibility issuesfrom the holistic perspective (12)

Cleanness and healthy (14) Safe products forconsumers (10)

Fair price distribution in the chain(9)

National and cultural identity (12) Taking care ofenvironmentalissues (9)

Healthy/health products (9)

Continuity of farming (9) Labour welfarea Flow of information (8)Livelihoods andwagesa

Safe products (7)

Notes: aParticipants of this sub-group wanted to collect these ideas on the summary chart as manyideas produced that were close to these themes even if individually they did not get enough votes;Number of votes given by the workshop participants in parentheses

Table II.Summary of the mostsupported ideas from

different group theme ona rye bread product


35

All the ideas were collected and organised under the TBL dimensions. The spatialtriangle was used as a representation of TBL. Both the topics and their place in thetriangle were discussed widely in the groups. The participants were asked to votewhich of the ideas they considered the most important when all topics had been placedin the triangle. All participants had nine votes to be shared among six ideas created inthe group sessions. The ideas that attracted the majority of the votes were collected ona summary blackboard. At the end of the workshop, the groups convened, presentedtheir findings and had a short general discussion during which the participants wereencouraged to present ideas or questions that they felt had not yet been raised.

In general, the execution of the workshops went well. The participants presentedtheir ideas and took part in discussions actively. In the concluding discussion someparticipants pointed out that the exercise had been demanding but interesting. Theworkshops were carefully documented, including:

. tape-recordings of all discussions;

. the ideas produced by the participants in the workshop, different assemblies ofthese (photographs), and summary charts of the most important ideas;

. notes taken by group facilitators;

. notes taken by group secretaries; and

. a memo compiled of the notes and other documentations.

Broiler chicken productsGroup theme 1 Group theme 2 Group theme 3

Environmental impacts of broiler production Animal welfareand product safety

Responsibility in the value chain ofpoultry chicken products

Efficiency of processes in the whole chain(11); and efficient use of production inputs(10)

Treatment ofanimals (15)

Environmental protection in thechain (13)

Animal conditions(13)

Cleanness of products (12)

Taking care of the sustainable future (10) Open informationflow (13)

Fair income distribution in thechain (10)

Domestic energy and food (10) Welfare of farmers(10)

Employment effect of the chainbased on Finnish broiler production(10)

Consumption concerns (10) Cleanness in theproduction chain(10)

Transparency and traceability ofthe chain (9)

Taking care of animal welfare (9) Food control (9) Hygiene issues, zoonosis control (7)

Using best techniques and competence (8) Responsibleconsumption (8)

Low environmental impacts (8)

Notes: Number of votes given by the workshop participants in parentheses

Table III.Summary of the mostsupported ideas fromdifferent group theme onbroiler chicken products

BFJ115,1

36

All memos were published in the project blog.In the three stakeholder workshops the participants generated about 450 CSR ideas

in total (130-170 ideas per case). Tables II, III and IV show the most important ideas onthe three case products and from different group sessions, which were collected on thesummary chart based on the votes awarded.

In the case of rye bread the following issues were more or less common to all groupsessions: environmental issues and ecology, product safety and clean environment andreasonable living or profitability for all actors in the chain. In particular the economicconditions of farmers were regarded as quite critical in spite of the relatively high shareof agricultural subsidies associated with grain growing. Nutritional and health issueswere also discussed extensively, and communication throughout the chain wasconsidered important from the transparency perspective. Although the environmentalimpacts of rye bread production, such as climate change and eutrophication, werereported and described in the background leaflet, quite many participants describedenvironmental issues as being linked more to uncontaminated soil, use of fertilisersand pesticides and toxicity issues.

In the case of the broiler chicken products there was more diversity in the CSR ideas.Among the most important ideas there was no single idea that was common to allgroup sessions. Environmental concern was, however, ranked the top CSR issue in twosub-groups. An interesting observation was that in the dialogue on environmentalissues, the business representatives and experts used economic terms such aseco-efficiency. Consumers, by contrast, used more environment or ecology related

Margarine productsGroup theme 1 Group theme 2 Group theme 3

Raw materials of margarine Manufacture of margarine Responsibility in the valuechain of margarine products

Environmental impacts (9) Safe product for consumer(13)

Satisfied consumer (12)

Socially fair production (9) Pay attention toenvironmental problems(10)

Long-term planning (11)

Health impacts (8) Labour welfare (9) Co-operation in the foodchain (9)

Economic efficiency for companies,shareholders and primary producers (7)

Detailed productinformation on the package(7)

Equality of employees indifferent countries (8)

Fair income distribution in the chain (7) Energy savings inproduction andconsumption (7)

Holistic understanding (7)

Traceability (7) Create welfare byproviding jobs (7)Competitive quality (7)

Notes: Number of votes given by the workshop participants in parentheses


37

terms such as pollution of water. Other important responsibility issues raised by theworkshop participants concerned animal welfare, product safety issues and consumerbehaviour.

In the case of the margarine products, there was much more diversity comparedwith the ideas for the other two cases. As with the broiler chicken products, no singleidea was shared by all sub-groups. Ideas related to environmental issues weregenerated and discussed on a general level, with no concrete focus. Perhaps somewhatsurprisingly, the consumer perspective was very strong, being the top CSR issue in twosub-groups. Traceability was also considered an important CSR issue. Themultidimensional nature of the margarine case might explain the diversity of thevotes compared to the rye bread and broiler chicken products cases.

The main conclusion resulted from the workshops was that the participants hadsignificantly a more sophisticated picture of CSR. This indicates that the classicdimensions of TBL needed to be expanded and deepened in order to grasp the manifoldnature of CSR. As noted above, the case-specific workshops reached a variety ofconclusions or suggestions. This was due to the fact that each workshop and its groupsessions focused on specific case supply chains and themes. It was obvious that theparticipants had a holistic view on CSR and none of the ideas were easy to link aparticular TBL dimension. The research group started to analyse the outputs of thethree workshops in parallel and in relation to TBL as well as GRI and other relevantCSR literature.

The analysis of the workshop outputs revealed some similarities in the CSR issuesbetween the three different products and their supply chains, although somecase-specific emphases were also found. The workshop participants shared theenvironmental concern, which was common to all of the cases and shared by all chainactors and stakeholders. Fair income distribution in the chain, nutritional and healthissues, cleanness, product safety, consumer responsibility, and, in the case of broilerchicken products, animal welfare, were strongly associated with the CSR of the foodchain. In addition, transparency and/or openness was considered to be a crucialelement in many CSR issues, that is, supply chain actors should provide transparentinformation related to CSR issues in the food chain.

The content building phase revealed a deeper understanding and more complexview, particularly regarding social responsibility. A rich description of socialresponsibility in the food chain context was elaborated (Figure 1). The workshopparticipants defined social responsibility largely as a well-being issue. On the onehand, well-being was seen in terms of human-related matters and, on the other hand, asanimal well-being issues. Based on the analysis, the human well-being included copingand health of employees as focal factors, as well as meaningfulness of actions(including occupational welfare, nutritional responsibility, product safety and culturalidentity, of which the latter was classified as a part of local market presencedimension). Animal well-being issues covered health and welfare of animals. Inconclusion, five dimensions determining social responsibility for the food chain weredrawn from the analysis of the workshop outputs, namely product safety, corporatenutritional responsibility, occupational welfare, animal welfare, and local well-being.When taking into account the extent of environmental and economic responsibility,seven key dimensions for the food chain CSR were identified.

BFJ115,1

38

Content of the seven food chain CSR dimensionsIn the following text, each of the seven food chain CSR dimensions is described.Environmental and ecological issues were a widely shared concern. From theperspective of the environment the most significant quantifiable problems concernclimate change and eutrophication of waters. It is important for the companies to knowthe environmental impacts of their own operations so that they can look for solutions tomitigate them. Environmental impacts of the product are created at all stages of thelifecycle where the impact of primary production is the greatest. This means that theproduction chain as a whole needs to be examined when assessing, developing andmeasuring responsible action. In defining criteria for the environmental dimension,two perspectives should be highlighted, namely a companys environmental impactsand environmental impacts of the product.

Product safety was considered a major strength of Finnish food production and acentral factor in maintaining consumer trust. In the stakeholder discussions productsafety was approached from several perspectives, such as product traceability,knowledge of origin, principles of product safety (e.g. HACCP), cleanness of theproducts, hygiene and disease control, clean and safe raw materials and ingredients aswell as safe use of food additives. Globalisation of the food markets is leading to evenmore complex networks of food supply chains, which, in turn, poses great challenges toproduct safety principles and especially to traceability requirements. From theperspective of responsibility, traceability of the products should be taken further thanis required by law. Many finished food products result from several raw materialchains, where the journey of a certain ingredient may have started from the other side

Figure 1.The content building

phase of CSR for the foodchain


39

of the globe. Besides transparency, more communication to the consumers would beneeded on the good practices developed and applied for better food safety. Productsafety criteria should encourage food and agribusiness companies to give more openand supply-chain wide accounts of their product traceability as well as productionmanners and practices in order to ensure safe products for consumers.

Nutritional responsibility is an increasingly important food chain CSR dimensionand should also be taken into account in the strategic planning of companies andconsumer information on the products. Health and product safety were often linked inthe stakeholder dialogue. Nutritional responsibility is operationalised, among others, interms of healthy products, health impacts, product information, labelling (e.g. GDA),additives, and environmental questions such as use of pesticides and fertilisers.Especially from the health aspect, it is important that companies voluntarily providenutritional product information beyond the legal requirements.

Occupational welfare of employees in the agriculture and food sector has receivedless attention but was identified as one of the key food chain CSR dimensions. In thestakeholder dialogue, occupational welfare was operationalised in terms of workingconditions, work safety, motivation, wages, equality and employment effects of theentire chain. In the domestic markets, stakeholders did not necessarily see crucialweaknesses in occupational welfare in the Finnish food chain. Issues such as childlabour and equality gain more importance in the case of imported food products.

Animal welfare is a very particular responsibility dimension in the food sector.Consumers are showing a growing interest in animal welfare and health issues such asanimal conditions, treatment of animals, zoonosis control, and the link between animalwelfare and producer welfare. Comprehensive indicators are needed for monitoringanimal welfare, which take better into account the health, care, treatment and livingconditions of the animals. Indicators recently developed by Welfare Qualityw mayprovide a helpful framework to establish supply-chain wide animal welfare criteria andmeasures.

One of the CSR dimensions was defined as local well-being which can be defined asthe interaction between a company and its specific markets. This requires that acompany first identifies its primary markets and the main stakeholders within themarkets. In terms of responsibility it would be important to examine the impacts of afarm or company on local well-being and how the interaction between the localoperating environment and the partners and stakeholders involved in it is constructed.A particular challenge for bigger companies operating in global markets is to takeaccount of and manage both global and local requirements and stakeholderexpectations.

Economic responsibility is fundamental to understanding the organisation and isthe cornerstone of all business activities. It sets the basis for all other CSR dimensions.A long-term financial performance enables companies to carry out more responsibleactions, including the management of unwanted impacts on stakeholders and society.There are plenty of financial indicators that companies use to report their financialstanding. From the food chain CSR point of view economic impacts on stakeholdersand society should be seen as more relevant than traditional financial performanceindicators that have been reported and are thus already available. The main issues arethe economic impacts of food production on the different parties and transparency ofprice formation in the food chain.

BFJ115,1

40

Conclusion and discussionMain resultsThe objective of this article was to identify and define the content of CSR in the foodsupply chain context. Based on an iterative research process and interactive andparticipatory stakeholder dialogue, seven key food chain CSR dimensions wereidentified: environment, product safety, nutrition, occupational welfare, animalwelfare, economic responsibility and local well-being. The dimensions drew on theanalysis of the CSR ideas generated in three case-specific stakeholder workshops. Inaddition, all these seven food chain CSR dimensions, and communicating them, shouldinclude transparency and openness as key elements for both the production chain andthe related information.

The article shows that defining the concrete content of CSR in the food chain ischallenging. First, the widely used TBL approach to CSR is quite generic, lacking, forexample, industry-specific features (Maloni and Brown, 2006; Fritz and Matopoulos,2008). This was also proven in the workshops as a substantial number of the ideasproduced ended up between the points of the TBL triangle. This indicates that the TBLdoes not encapsulate the multidimensionality of CSR identified by the stakeholders.Yet, a closer look revealed deeper insights, especially in relation to the content andcontext of the social dimension of TBL. It is intriguing to notice that the social elementsof CSR were widely discussed in the workshops. The participants produced ideas thatexplored, for example, the well-being and health of both humans and animals alike.This result may indicate a change towards a wider understanding of what is meant bysocial responsibility.

One aim was to promote stakeholder dialogue and thereby enhance societaldiscussion of CSR issues. The project offered the company partners an opportunity toreflect on their own company practices and gain an insight into both theoretical andpublic discussions around CSR. The participants in the workshops had a uniquechance to hear, discuss and hopefully understand, the various views of otherstakeholders. This was especially enlightening for the representatives of companies.The partner companies definitely used their experiences of the project, at least astriggers in their CSR strategies

ImplicationsThe results provide food and agribusiness companies, chains and networks, with abetter understanding of core CSR issues and their relevance in the complex world ofglobal business. This may encourage the companies to promote their activities inorder to develop their business operations in a more responsible and sustainabledirection and provide elements for building sustainable business cases, and inresponse to stakeholder pressures more collaborative business models based on CSRinnovations. The process itself is transferable to other food chain cases and otherindustries.

The project understood CSR to be voluntary actions that exceed the currentlegislation. This raises an interesting question regarding the benefits of beingresponsible in an agri-food business market that is already quite heavily regulated.However, in the present market situation, players seek for actions that can differentiatethem from competitors. Issues of CSR are closely related to matters of competitiveness.


41

LimitationsThe study was based on a very laborious and detailed process of data gatheringand stakeholder dialogue. Even though the focus on constructive interaction amongthe stakeholders was vital in creating and identifying the shared views of the maincontent of CSR for the Finnish food chain, the limitations of this type of approachshould be noted.

First, the research process was very time-consuming and expensive. Second,this type of process is possible only for such companies that already are able toprovide data suitable for CSR discussions and evaluations. Third, even if thestakeholder dialogue was in focus in the project, it should be recognised that eventhe most rigorous recruitment plans are subordinated to those who actuallyparticipated in the workshops and provided their ideas. In an ideal situation a largernumber of workshops would be organised. Fourth, the company partners involvedin the project were all relatively large operators in the Finnish food chain.Therefore, it is imperative to follow up how the ideas produced are rooted in thebusiness activities of the company partners and how other players in the food chainwill respond. It is also important to follow the public discussion about CSR. Theresults of this project will be re-evaluated and developed further both throughpublic discussion and implementation by the companies. Finally, it should be notedthat this article focuses on CSR issues in the Finnish food supply chain and is thusbased on Finnish norms, values and corporate cultures, and does not take accountof cultural differences. However, the discussion of CSR is international and theframework of the study is based on international literature. It is probable that thebasics of CSR are global but the operational implementations vary according tocircumstance. In addition, the emphases may be different in relation to various CSRdimensions.

Suggestions for future researchThe current results indicate some possibilities and challenges for actors in the foodand agriculture sector. The future will show how the results of this project wereimplemented in the managerial work of the companies. The companies facednumerous requests from stakeholders that need to be met. It is self-evidentthat more research is called for to back up the implementation, especially in relationto concrete measures of CSR. There is a particular need to finalise themeasurement of the seven dimensions of food chain CSR. Successfulimplementation also requires that the companies strategically position their tasksand operations within the CSR framework. Our exercise was based on case studyand participatory approaches.

An interesting follow-up study would include analysis of how the dimensions ofCSR are appropriated in company and in public discussion. In addition, it would beuseful to see CSR as an activity that calls for wider collaboration. For example,solving potential problems related to the environment or animal welfare wouldprobably benefit from cross-sector social partnerships (see Reast et al., 2010). Inaddition, further research work should address the role of different CSR dimensionsin a cross-cultural context.

BFJ115,1

42

References

Beer, S. (2009), What is ethnic? Reappraising ethnic food and multiculturalism among thewhite british, in Lindgreen, A. and Hingley, M.K. (Eds), The New Cultures of Food,Marketing Opportunities from Ethnic, Religious and Cultural Diversity, Gower Publishing,Farnham, pp. 3-20.

Cramer, J., Jonker, J. and van der Heijden, A. (2004), Making sense of corporate socialresponsibility, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 215-22.

Cramer, J.M. (2008), Organising corporate social responsibility in international product chains,Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 395-400.

Cronin, J.J., Smith, J.S., Gleim, M.R., Ramirez, E. and Martinez, J.D. (2011), Green marketingstrategies: an examination of stakeholders and the opportunities they present, Journal ofthe Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 158-74.

Cornwall, A. and Jewkes, R. (1995), What is participatory research?, Social Science andMedicine, Vol. 14 No. 12, pp. 1667-76.

Dahlsrud, A. (2008), How corporate social responsibility is defined: an analysis of 37definitions, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 15 No. 1,pp. 1-13.

Elkington, J. (1997), Cannibals with Forks. The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business,Capstone Publishing, Oxford.

Eriksson, P. and Koistinen, K. (2005), Monialainen tapaustutkimus (Diverse Case Study),publications 4:2005, National Finnish Research Centre, Helsinki (in Finnish).

Fritz, M. and Matopoulos, A. (2008), Sustainability in the agri-food industry: a literature reviewand overview of current trends, Proceedings (USB) of the 8th International Conference onChain & Network Management in Agribusiness & the Food Industry, 26-28 May, Ede, TheNetherlands.

Fritz, M. and Schiefer, G. (2009), Tracking, tracing, and business process interests in foodcommodities: a multi-level decision complexity, International Journal of ProductionEconomics, Vol. 117 No. 2, pp. 317-29.

Garriga, E. and Mele, D. (2004), Corporate social responsibility theories: mapping the territory,Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 53 Nos 1-2, pp. 51-71.

Greenfield, W.M. (2004), In the name of corporate social responsibility, Business Horizons,Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 19-28.

Habisch, A., Patelli, L., Pedrini, M. and Schwartz, C. (2010), Different talks with different folks:a comparative survey of stakeholder dialog in Germany, Italy, and the US, Journal ofBusiness Ethics, Vol. 100 No. 3, pp. 381-404.

Hamprecht, J., Corsten, D., Noll, M. and Meier, E. (2005), Controlling the sustainability of foodsupply chains, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 10 No. 1,pp. 7-10.

Halme, M. (2007), Something good for everyone? Investigation of three corporate responsibilityapproaches, working paper, Helsinki School of Economics, Helsinki.

Hingley, M. (2010), Networks in socially embedded local food supply: the case of retailerco-operatives, Journal of Business Market Management, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 111-28.

Hult, G.T.M., Ketchen, D.J. Jr and Arrfelt, M. (2007), Strategic supply chain management:improving performance through a culture of competitiveness and knowledgedevelopment, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 28 No. 10, pp. 1035-52.


43

Husted, B.V. and Allen, D.B. (2007), Strategic corporate social responsibility and value creationamong large firms: lessons from the Spanish experience, Long Range Planning, Vol. 40No. 6, pp. 560-94.

Ingenbleek, P., Binnekamp, M. and Goddijn, S. (2007), Setting standards for CSR: a comparativecase study on criteria-formulating organizations, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 60No. 5, pp. 539-48.

Jones, P., Comfort, D. and Hillier, D. (2007), Marketing and corporate social responsibility withinfood stories, British Food Journal, Vol. 109 No. 8, pp. 582-93.

Katajajuuri, J.-M., Tuhkanen, H.-R. and Voutilainen, P. (2005), Contribution of life cycle stages tothe global warming potential of food products, Innovation by Life Cycle Management,LCM 2005 International Conference Proceedings, Barcelona, Spain, September 5-7, Vol. 1,pp. 414-8.

Ketola, T. (2008), A holistic corporate responsibility model, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 80No. 3, pp. 419-35.

Lindgreen, A. and Hingley, M.K. (2009), Foreword and acknowledgements, in Lindgreen, A.and Hingley, M.K. (Eds), The New Cultures of Food: Opportunities from Ethnic, Religious,and Cultural Diversities, Gower Publishing, Aldershot, pp. xix-xxi.

Lindgreen, A. and Swaen, V. (2010), Corporate social responsibility, International Journal ofManagement Reviews, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 1-7.

Lindgreen, A., Swaen, V. and Johnston, J.W. (2009a), Corporate social responsibility: an empiricalinvestigation of US organizations, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 85 No. 2, pp. 303-23.

Lindgreen, A., Hingley, M.K. and Vanhamme, J. (Eds) (2009b), Foreword andacknowledgements, The Crisis of Food Brands: Sustaining Safe, Innovative, andCompetitive Food Supply, Gower Publishing, Aldershot, pp. xxv-xxx.

Maignan, I., Ferrell, O.C. and Ferrell, L. (2005), A stakeholder model for implementing socialresponsibility in marketing, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39 Nos 9/10, pp. 956-77.

Maloni, M.M. and Brown, M.E. (2006), Corporate social responsibility in the food supply chain:an application in the food industry, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 35-52.

Maon, F., Lingreen, A. and Swaen, V. (2009a), Designing and implementing corporate socialresponsibility: an integrative framework grounded in theory and practice, Journal ofBusiness Ethics, Vol. 87 No. 1, pp. 71-89.

Maon, F., Lindgreen, A. and Vanhamme, J. (2009b), Developing supply chains in disaster reliefoperations through cross-sector socially oriented collaboration: a theoretical model,Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 149-64.

Markley, M.J. and Davis, L. (2007), Exploring future competitive advantage through sustainablesupply chains, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management,Vol. 37 No. 9, pp. 763-74.

Niskala, M. and Tarna, K. (2003), Yhteiskuntavastuun raportointi (Reporting of Corporate SocialResponsibility), KHT-Media, Helsinki (in Finnish).

Nissinen, A., Gronroos, J., Heiskanen, E., Honkanen, A., Katajajuuri, J.-M., Kurppa, S., Makinen,T., Maenpaa, I., Seppala, J., Timonen, P., Paivi, P., Usva, K., Virtanen, Y. and Voutilainen,P. (2007), Developing benchmarks for consumer-oriented life cycle assessment-basedenvironmental information on products, services and consumption patterns, Journal ofCleaner Production, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 538-49.

Omta, S.W.F., Trienekens, J.H. and Beers, G. (2001), Chain and network science: a researchframework, Journal of Chain and Network Science, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 1-6.

BFJ115,1

44

Park, P. (2006), Knowledge and participatory research, in Reason, P. and Bradbury, H. (Eds),Handbook of Action Research, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, London, New Delhi,pp. 83-93.

Pulliainen, A. (2007), Kuluttajapaneeli (Consumer panel), National Consumer Research Centre,Helsinki (in Finnish).

Reast, J., Lindgreen, A., Vanhamme, J. and Maon, F. (2010), The Manchester super casino:experience and learning in a cross-sector social partnerships, Journal of Business Ethics,Vol. 94, S1, pp. 197-218.

Rohweder, L. (2004), Yritysvastuu kestavaa kehitysta organisaatiotasolla (CorporateResponsibility Sustainable Development in Organisational Level), WS Bookwell Oy,Porvoo (in Finnish).

Seppala, J., Maenpaa, I., Koskela, S., Mattila, T., Nissinen, A., Katajajuuri, J.-M., Harma, T.,Korhonen, M.-R., Saarinen, M. and Virtanen, Y. (2011), An assessment of greenhouse gasemissions and material flows caused by the Finnish economy using the ENVIMATmodel, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 1833-41.

SFS (2006), Yritysten yhteiskuntavastuu ohjeita (Corporate Social Responsibility of Enterprises Guidelines), Finnish Standards Association SFS (in Finnish).

Stake, R.E. (1995), The Art of Case Study Research, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA,London, New Delhi.

Tan, K.C. (2001), A framework of supply chain management literature, European Journal ofPurchasing & Supply Chain Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 39-48.

Wan-Jan, W.S. (2006), Defining corporate social responsibility, Journal of Public Affairs, Vol. 6Nos 3-4, pp. 176-84.

Wilenius, M. (2005), Towards the age of corporate responsibility? Emerging challenges for thebusiness world, Futures, Vol. 37 Nos 2-3, pp. 133-50.

Yin, R.K. (1994), Case Study Research Design and Methods, 2nd ed., Sage Publications,Thousand Oaks, CA.

About the authorsDr Sari Forsman-Hugg is a food economist specialised in strategic and chain management withinthe food chain. She has been particularly interested in competitive strategies of food companiesand social corporate responsibility in the food chain. Her recent research has focused on valueadded factors and social corporate responsibility dimensions and measures for the food chain aswell as the interaction between the food chain actors. She has used both quantitative andqualitative methods and data in her research. Today she is the Director of Economic Research inMTT Agrifood Research Finland. Sari Forsman-Hugg is the corresponding author and can becontacted at: [email protected]

Juha-Matti Katajajuuri (MSc) is a research manager in Responsible Food Chain BetterConsumer Well-being Research Area in MTT Agrifood Research Finland, and a senior researchscientist in the Biotechnology and Food Research in MTT. He is an author of a number ofscientific journals, on the fields of development and applying of life cycle assessment (LCA) andcarbon foot printing in many case studies, especially within food products, as well as in the fieldof sustainable production and consumption. He is currently leading many food waste and carbonfootprint projects.

Inkeri Riipi (MSc) is working as a research scientist in MTT Agrifood Research Finland. Riipihas done research concerning environmental issues and corporate responsibility of the foodchain. The themes of research have included, among others, implementation of life cycleassessment in rural small scale enterprises, eco-design of food and rural services, environmental


45

impacts of consumer choice as well as building corporate responsibility (CR) criteria in the foodchain.

Dr Johanna Makela is a sociologist specialised in food and consumption. She has beenparticularly interested in meal studies and styles and practices of eating. In her research she hasused both quantitative and qualitative methods and data. Today she is Professor of Food Cultureat the University of Helsinki. She is currently working in research projects that explore,e.g. future and sustainable food consumption, consumers food classifications and practices ineveryday life contexts, CSR in the food chain and participatory methods.

Katja Jarvela (MSc) is working as a researcher in National Consumer Research Centre at theresearch entity called Technologies and cultures of well-being. She is specialized in the study ofconsumers practices and ideas of food and eating with qualitative methods. Recently, she hasstudied food packages, responsibility in the food chain and interaction between consumers andfarmers in the food chain.

Paivi Timonen, PhD in consumer economics, is the Research Director of the NationalConsumer Research Centre, Finland. She has studied consumers everyday reasoning in dealingwith environmental information. Her research interests are in the area of markets and user valueand policy issues relating to consumption.

BFJ115,1

46

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Key CSR Dimensions for the Food Supply Chain

Documents

Transcript of Key CSR Dimensions for the Food Supply Chain