Governance in agrifood global value chain: the scientific field in the recent 15 yearsAbstract:
Sustainable agrifood global value chains depend on chain governance by the lead firm and transaction governance. However, the link between them is still unclear. We therefore investigated the scientific field on “governance in agrifood global value chain” over 15 years in the Scopus and Web of Science databases through two analyses: a descriptive bibliometric and a keywords co-occurrence analysis. Our descriptive results show that the research on the theme has increased over the years, with a concentration of the papers published in countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, with emphasis on Wageningen University. The network graph showed a multidisciplinary theoreticomplcal field and four axes: chain governance; transaction governance; horizontal relationships; political and structural elements. The chain and the transaction governance are indirectly linked by the concept of upgrading, compromising sustainability’s holistic view. Although the sustainability of the chain depends on both levels of governance, this bibliometric study showed that there is a gap to be filled in this topic. We propose a study in the light of both concepts, considering upgrading, vertical and horizontal relationships, as well as public policies.
Keywords: upgrading; food system; agribusiness; transition; institution
Resumo:
Cadeias globais de valor agroalimentares sustentáveis dependem da governança da cadeia pela empresa líder e governança da transação. No entanto, a ligação entre elas ainda não está clara. Investigou-se, portanto, o campo científico sobre “governança na cadeia global de valor agroalimentar” em um período de 15 anos, nas bases de dados Scopus e Web of Science, por meio de duas análises: uma bibliométrica descritiva e uma análise de co-ocorrência de palavras-chave. Os resultados descritivos mostram que a pesquisa sobre o tema tem aumentado ao longo dos anos, com uma concentração de publicação em países como os Estados Unidos, Reino Unido e Holanda, com destaque para a Universidade de Wageningen. O gráfico de rede mostrou um campo teórico multidisciplinar e quatro eixos: governança da cadeia; governança de transações; relações horizontais; elementos políticos e estruturais. Governança da cadeia e da transação estão indiretamente ligadas pelo conceito de upgrading, comprometendo uma visão holística sobre sustentabilidade. Embora a sustentabilidade da cadeia dependa dos dois níveis de governança, este estudo bibliométrico mostrou que há uma lacuna a ser preenchida nesse tema. Propomos um estudo integrando ambos os conceitos, considerando upgrading, relações verticais e horizontais, bem como políticas públicas.
Palavras-chave: upgrading; sistema alimentar; agronegócio; transição; instituição
1. Introduction
The insertion of small rural producers in global value chains (GVCs) is an alternative for their survival (Gereffi et al., 2005; Giuliani et al., 2005; Trienekens, 2011; Fernandez-Stark et al., 2014). In chains involving different global contexts, especially North and South, small producers tend to face difficulties such as lack of technological resources and infrastructure, access to knowledge, as well as incompatibility of institutional environments (e.g. norms, values) (Trienekens, 2011).
Agrifood production is often destined to international markets, which imposes multiple challenges when compared to domestic markets, especially when considering disparities in institutional environments (Gereffi et al., 2005; Giuliani et al., 2005; Trienekens, 2011). The sustainability of a global value chain depends on how resources are allocated, which directly depends on how the chain is organized in terms of governance (Gereffi et al., 2005; Gereffi, 2014; Food and Agriculture Organization, 2014; Samper et al., 2017; Esteves et al., 2020; Pereira et al., 2022).
From the perspective of chain governance, the coordination of activities is carried out by a leading company (Gereffi et al., 2005). Five governance types in this scenario are proposed by Gereffi et al. (2005): markets, modular value chains, relational value chains, captive value chains, and hierarchy. They may vary depending on how complex transactions are, the capability of data coding, and the suppliers' ability of meeting demands (Gereffi et al., 2005).
However, the characteristics of transactions in the different stages in a chain are different, especially when considering the differences in institutional environments (Giuliani et al., 2005; Guimarães et al., 2022). Thus, the governance of the global value chain alone is not enough for the sustainability of this chain, and the governance of each transaction that makes up the chain needs to be observed, which can be investigated from the perspective of the New Institutional Economics (Ménard & Shirley, 2014). From the New Institutional Economics, the governance of transactions become more complex once a chain implicates greater asset specificity, with more added value, dimensions that can be hard to measure, and problems regarding private information (Williamson, 1985; Barzel, 2005; Akerlof, 1970).
Despite the importance of considering both transaction and value chain governance to the sustainability of global value chains, this integration is not clear to the scientific community and has gaps to be filled. In that sense, a bibliometric analysis can turn into an efficient tool to support the to know the state of the art (Wenningkamp & Schmidt, 2016; Donthu et al., 2021; Malanski et al., 2021). For this reason, our aim is to investigate the scientific field on “governance in agrifood global value chain”, and research gaps in it through a survey on the production of knowledge between the years of 2005 to 2019. We aimed to answer the question: How research studies on “governance in agrifood global value chain” have been characterized for the past 15 years? Grounded on Malanski et al. (2019; 2021; 2022), the purpose of this analysis was to survey the scientific production indexed in the two most important international databases, Web of Science and Scopus. We particularly focused on the agrifood sector given that chains involving international contexts include, among others, transactions of products from this sector (Trienekens, 2011).
This article is organized into four sections. In addition to this introduction, the second part presents the methodological procedures. The third and fourth ones present the main results and discussions. Finally, the fifth one states the conclusions.
2. Methodological Procedures
This research aimed to understand the scientific production indexed in the two most important international databases, Web of Science and Scopus on “governance in agrifood global value chain”. Through bibliometric research, we developed a qualitative and descriptive analysis. The analysis was performed in three steps according to the PRISMA guideline (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses), which establishes main criteria for the preparation of systematic reviews and meta-analysis (Moher et al., 2009; 2015) (Figure 1). The first step intended to identify the articles on the subject “governance in agrifood global value chain” in the last 15 years (2005 to 2019) in Web of Science and Scopus databases to compose our database. The Agrovoc Thesaurus from United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (Agrovoc Multilingual Thesaurus, 2020) was used to identify the keywords though the scientific standardized vocabulary related to ‘governance’ and ‘global value chain’2, which were the two main terms of our study. The equation was applied in the “topic search field”, which includes the title, abstract, and keywords of articles:
TS=((“governance*” OR “coordination” OR “relationship*” OR “transaction*” OR “institution*” OR “mechanism*”) AND (“value chain*” OR “global value chain*” OR “agrifood chain*” OR “global production network*” OR “food system*” OR “short chain*” OR “commodity chain*” OR “value based supply chain*”)).
Starting from the 14,541 articles found, a first screening was performed selecting the language of the documents (English), characteristics (in process or already published), and the areas of interest related to governance (Social Sciences, Business, Management and Accounting, Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Economics, Econometrics and Finance, Arts and Humanities, Psychology). Duplicates were removed in the second screening. Next, a third screening was performed by reading the title, summary, and keywords of the studies related to the agrifood sector. Finally, 477 articles discussing “governance in agrifood global value chain” were select to build the database, which was composed by articles’ meta-data: authors, journal, country, times cited, keywords. Seminal works, even if conceptual or proposed in sectors other than agriculture, were kept, given that they are the foundation for the construction of research on the topic. Figure 1 synthesizes the methodological path.
In the third step, two analyses were performed based on the 477 articles identified: 1) descriptive analysis of the main meta-data of the articles based on the frequency of the following variables: authors, affiliation (university and country), year of publication, number of citations, and journal; 2) network analysis based on keywords used by the authors of the article, showing the main areas of scientific research in “governance in agrifood global value chain” for the past 15 years. The network analysis was based on the frequency of co-occurrence of keywords through the Louvain algorithm (Tancoigne et al., 2014), with support of the platform CorText Platform (IFRIS and INRA) (Cortext, 2020).
The results were composed of nodes, represented by keywords and their links. Triangles are associated with keyword absolute frequency: the bigger it is, the more frequent the word is. The strength of the co-occurrence between keywords is indicated by the thickness of the line connecting them: the thicker the line, the greater the frequency of the co-occurrence. A dense network of co-occurrence forms a cluster of keywords, represented by a colored circle. Finally, a discussion was made based on the network graph. The comparison between the main research domains allowed us to identify and discuss the trend topics on “governance in agrifood global value chain”.
3. Results
3.1. Research evolution and context: countries and institutions
Our descriptive results show that the research on the theme has increased over the years, with emphasis on the period between 2016 and 2018. An increase in the number of studies about the subject occurred in 2012, with an average of 31 articles per year between 2012 and 2016 (Figure 2). In 2017, the number of works increased significantly, with an average of 84 articles between 2017 and 2019, and 97 of the total were published in 2018. Even though 2019 had less published works concerning the subject, constant growth was identified, which indicates that studies are being developed to fulfill the gap.
– Evolution of articles related to “governance in agrifood global value chain” according to number of publications per year between 2004 and 2020.. Source: the authors
Research related to “governance in agrifood global value chain” was conducted in 56 countries in five continents. This shows that the interest on the subject is present worldwide, although a few countries have published more works than others. Slightly more than half (53%) of the scientific articles on the subject were published by a group of 10 countries, especially the United States of America, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands (Table 1). The Top 10 countries performing research on the subject are mainly developed economies, except Brazil and South Africa.
– Countries that published the most on “governance in agrifood global value chain” between 2005 and 2019.
We identified 287 institutions conducting research related to “governance in agrifood global value chain”. The ones that conducted the most research on the subject (Table 2) were mostly located in the top 10 countries. The main institution was the Wageningen University, which has published 5% of all the studies on the subject and over half (51%) of the studies conducted in the Netherlands.
– Institutions that published the most on “governance in agrifood global value chain” between 2005 and 2019.
While these scientific articles are located in a few countries, (e.g. Netherlands, Australia, United States of America, Denmark, and United Kingdom), we identified that in each country the studies were scattered through multiple universities. Four of the top 7 universities were in the United Kingdom and Denmark. Despite the representativeness of these universities in the development of those studies, they were responsible only for 4% of the published studies on the subject. This shows that works are scattered and, therefore, other universities from the United Kingdom and Denmark have published studies on the subject.
3.2 Main journals and areas of interest
Over two hundred (225) journals have published on “governance in agrifood global value chain”. Regarding journals with most publications, 29% of the total number of publications on the subject between 2005 and 2019 (139 out of 477) are condensed in 10 main journals (Table 3). This allowed us to identify that there is a scientific community interested in the area.
– Journals with most publications on “governance in agrifood global value chain” between 2005 and 2019.
Two main subjects were identified in these journals: 1) Food and Agribusiness Systems (Journal of Rural Studies, British Food Journal, International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, Agriculture and Human Values, and Journal of Agribusiness in Developing and Emerging Economies), and 2) Development Studies and Developing Economies (World Development and European Journal of Development Research). These journals concentrate 78% of all that was published on the top 10 periodicals, which demonstrates that studies in agrifood global value chain are focused on analyzing different agrifood subsystems in emerging economies.
Other subjects with less representativeness were also identified: political guidelines (Review of International Political Economy), geography (Human Geography), and ethics (Journal of Business Ethics). Among these subjects, geographical studies stand out given they are not related to “governance in agrifood global value chain”, the main subject. This could be connected to the fact that global chain involves two distinct geographical contexts.
3.3 Main authors and their affiliations
Around 1019 authors took part in different publications on “governance in agrifood global value chain”. Among them, 10 authors that most published on the subject (Table 4) were responsible for approximately 10% of the published works between 2005 and 2019.
– Most published authors on “governance in agrifood global value chain” between 2005 and 2019.
Half of the main authors have their origins in one of the countries that most published on the subject (United States of America, Australia, Denmark, Italy, and Netherlands). Gereffi, G. stands out as the most published author of the subject. Although he presents investigations not only in the agrifood sector, but he is also one of the pioneers of the global value chain concept (Gereffi et al., 2005; Gereffi, 2014; Barrientos et al. 2011; Gereffi & Lee, 2012, 2016; Lee et al., 2010; Lee & Gereffi, 2015). That is why most publications were theoretical, searching to discuss the concepts of this subject in several sectors, including the agrifood one. Lee, J. stands out in number of articles developed with Gereffi, G.
Authors such as Ponte, S., Pietrobelli, C., Rossi, A., and Trienekens, J. have developed studies related to governance in global chains, although they have not directly investigated the agrifood sector in every article. Other prominent authors in number of publications have investigated the governance of these chains in the agricultural context, mostly based on empirical studies (Neilson & Shonk, 2014; van Herck & Swinne, 2015; Watabaji et al., 2016; Neilson et al., 2018; Mancini et al., 2019).
3.4 Most cited articles
The most cited articles, in both databases, were in large part from authors who have most published in the area, such as Gereffi, G., Ponte, S., Pietrobelli, C., and Lee, J. It is also noteworthy that these articles were related to main journals, countries, and universities that published on the topic (Table 5). This shows that studies were largely theoretical, with concerns for scientific evolution when talking about global value chain. That is why part of them was frequently cited. They are derived from seminars and are not related to the agrifood context. In addition, although we could note an increase in the number of research studies since 2012, the most cited works are dated from 2005 to 2014. This could mean the consolidation on studies about this subject started in 2005, and then an evolution in explaining the phenomenon is being pursued, either by theoretical or empirical means.
3.5 Network graph: analysis
Approximately 1253 different keywords were observed in the 477 articles, which shows a great diversity in the works on “governance in agrifood global value chain. The network graph (Figure 3) showed that the field is developed by different and interdisciplinary perspectives and is organized into four main axes: 1) chain governance; 2) transaction governance; 3) horizontal relationships; 4) political and structural elements, involving different theories, such as Transaction Cost Economics and Economic Sociology. The articles comprise a great diversity of products and chains, from crops to livestock, from food to fiber and fuel. Chain models and structures also diverge, from global to short ones, embracing different governance modes – labels, certifications, or other coordination mechanisms.
The first axis, chain governance, concerns the analysis of governance from a systemic and global perspective, which considers the organization of the chain in international contexts. This governance encompasses both an economic perspective of global transactions (international trade, globalization, multinational enterprise, trade, and standard) (Ponte & Gibbon, 2005; Bacon, 2010; Henson & Humphrey, 2010; Henson, 2011; Tran et al., 2013; Dallas, 2015; Giovannetti & Marvasi, 2018; Fransen et al., 2019) and a perspective of chain development (network, social upgrading, and development) (Vurro et al., 2009; Barrientos et al., 2011; Glin et al., 2012; Rossi, 2013; Gereffi & Lee, 2016; Horner, 2017).
Considering the economic perspective, Ponte & Gibbon specifically discuss the Convention Theory to explain the governance of global value chains. According to convention theory, specifically in its cognitive and normative aspects, quality is an element that explains how leading firms act in global value chain governance (Ponte & Gibbon, 2005). Henson (2011) explores also the role of governance in the global value chains, but specifically the legimitacy of private governance in GVCs, and concludes that there is still much work to be done concerning the subject.
A set of authors investigates the role of differents standards as governance in GVCs. Henson & Humphrey (2010), for instance, investigates the impact of private standards on global value chains in developing countries and found that these private standards have a great impact on public standards, showing that they must work together. Fransen et al. (2019) present the set of corporate social responsbaility (CSR) as “new regulators” on the governance of GVC.
Complementarly, when studying the shrimp GVC in Vietnam, Tran et al. (2013) showed that the standards act as governance mechanisms in transactions around the lead firm, but that transactions are fragmented when considering transactions with producers. In the same direction, Giovannetti & Marvasi (2018) studied that buyer-supplier transactions in GVCs can take on different governance structures, considering the market-vertical integration continuum. Regarding the perspective of chain development, Vurro et al. (2009) propose a framework with four sustainable supply chain governance, exposing that the centrality shows how the firms influence their networks and play the role of coordination. Glin et al. (2012) were concerned also with sustainable elements to governance in organic cotton GVC, and showed that not only the lead firm can coordinate the chain, but also intermediate stakeholders and environnementaly NGOs can do it through a co-governing action.
Another outstanding issue is the discussion aboutsocial upgrading. Barrientos et al. (2011) and Rossi (2013) propose a discussion between economic upgrading from firms and social upgrading from workers, and concludes that one upgrading does not necessarily lead to the other. Gereffi & Lee (2016) discuss a “synergic governance” through private, social and public mechanisms.
In these context, some words stand out, such as: global value chain, governance, and upgrading, which indicates that studies investigate how upgrading occurs from the governance of global value chains. Analyses on upgrading in these chains can include elements such as innovation, institutions, the government, geographical indications, and discussion from the perspective of global commodity chains (innovation, institution, government, geographical indication, and global commodity chain) (Canada & Vázquez, 2005; Neilson, 2007; Swinnen & Maertens, 2007; Conneely & Mahon, 2015; Neilson et al., 2018; Pietrobelli & Staritz, 2018). The highlighted studies happen in specific contexts, such as in Chile, Indonesia, and Asia, especially regarding aquaculture, as the graph shows (Gwynne, 2006; Neilson, 2007; Ponte et al., 2014).
The second major axis, transaction governance, concerns the analysis of governance from an individual perspective and considers governance from the analysis of transactions within a chain. This axis shows theoretical interdisciplinarity since concepts of different theories (such as Transaction Cost Economics and Economic Sociology) were used to understand governance in these chains at an individual level. Transaction governance indicates that there are concerns about economic aspects in the chain, and it involves two large groups. The first group analyzes transactions at a microanalytical level involving the individual view of the agent from different perspectives, whether in gender, the social capital of Economic Sociology, or through the lens of Transaction Cost Economics (outsourcing, contracting, collective action, contract farming, coordination) (Goohue, 2011; Ali & Kumar, 2015; Bullock et al., 2018; Sengere et al., 2019). It is an axis that shows that studies have investigated dyadic relationships, transaction by transaction, with a focus on the producer (smallholder) (Abebe et al., 2016; Clay et al., 2018; Kano, 2018).
Goohue (2011) analyses different incentive contracts based on the evaluation of quality requirements, and concluded that contracts are different according to the possibility of measurement. Also analysing the different contractual arrangements, Ali & Kumar (2015) found nine different contractaul arrangements in mango transactions in India. Sengere et al. (2019) focused on the partnership and collective actions between coffee value chain actors in Papua New Guinea. Bullock et al. (2018) analysed from the New Institutional Economics, political economy and the value chain analysis framework, focusing on how the contractual arrangements promote gender inclusion on an organic spice chain in Tanzania.
The second group has the words value chain as a guideline, in which studies are concerned about how the relationship between the parts of a chain takes place. In this group, research studies broaden the view on the agents, going from the rural producer to the agents of different stages of a chain, which may involve local systems (local food system, power, food industry, trust, small enterprise, relationship, buyer-seller relationship, supply chain management) in developing countries, such as Brazil and Uganda (Giuliani et al., 2005; Vieira & Traill, 2008; Nousiainen et al., 2009; Mount, 2012; Ouma et al., 2017; Papaoikonomou & Ginieis, 2017; Tröger et al., 2018).
Giuliani et al. (2005) investigate the role of clusters to upgrading and concluded that the sectoral specificities influence the mode of upgrading in clusters. Complementarily, Vieira & Traill (2008) analyzed the role of trust to upgrading and found that the executive chain governance stimulates technical upgrading to local cattle suppliers in Brazil.
Medland (2016) analyzed the role of alternative food systems to reach more social sustainability to local communities and found that there is a positive relationship between the alternative food systems and social sustainability. Also considering alternative food systems, Mount (2012) proposes that local food systems allow more higher revenue to producers. Papaoikonomou & Ginieis (2017), studying cases in the United State and Spain, argue that the local food system connect producer to consumers and tried to understand the relationship between them.
The third major axis of the graph, horizontal relations, shows that there are studies focused on the governance of global value chains based on horizontal and collective relationships in the chain, focusing on the production segment. This axis addresses social issues, sustainability, and collectives organized into two groups. The first group shows studies related to social issues, such as labor and livelihood in contexts such as India and Sub-Saharan Africa (Neilson, 2007; Neilson & Shonk, 2014; Fakudze & Machethe, 2015; Langford, 2019).
As a way to add value to producers in the specialty coffee chain, Neilson (2007) proposes to consider geographical indications. Complementarily, Neilson & Shonk (2014) propose an analysis of how to allow a better livelihood of coffee producers in Indonesia through a value chain insertion and development interventions. However, they conclude that the interventions did not contribute significantly to improve to the rural welfare because it involves a high diversified livelihood. Langford (2019) analyzed how the multi-stakeholders govern the rights of workers and producers in the South of India, in a North-Southern chain, and concluded that they are driven of a complexity of factors that is a consequence of the international trade.
The second group concerns the governance of the value chain in particular places, such as Africa - specifically the coffee chain with an emphasis on Ethiopia. There are studies that seek to understand upgrading in global coffee value chains through collective forms and horizontal relationships. Governance in these chains may involve a search for standards when it comes to quality, sustainability, and fair trade, which can be made possible through horizontal and collective forms (quality, certification, collaborative governance, and cooperativeness) (Abate, 2018; Minten et al., 2018; Piao et al., 2019; Sengere et al., 2019).
Abate (2018) analyzed the factors that contribute to coffee farmers cooperatives and found that the formation of cooperatives is more linked to market power than to overcoming contractual failures. Minten et al. (2018) would like to understand how coffee producers access the value generated through certification of voluntary sustainability standards and concluded that this access by producers is limited. Complementarily, Piao et al. (2019) seek to understand the value chain upgrading of producers through certification of voluntary sustainability standards and concluded that this adaptation is an instrument that allow the coffee producers upgrading in Brazil. The fourth major axis of the graph shows that the governance of the chain involves different political and structural guidelines for achieving rural development. In this axis, studies focus on questions about food policies, food security, and food systems for rural development (food policy, food security, and food system, rural development) (Pinstrup-Andersen, 2007; von Braun, 2009; Lowitt et al., 2015; Marsden et al., 2018).
Pinstrup-Andersen (2007) analyzed the factors in which the food system impacts the health and nutrition, and proposes policies to enhance positive results on it. Complementarly, von Braun (2009) proposes to analyze policies to governing food, nutritionm agriculture and market fonctionning. Lowitt et al. (2015) focused on the structural elements of production, and, through cases studies from the Caribean, analyzed how the social relations allowed a better producer resilience.
4. Governance in agrifood global value chain: what is being done by scientific communities
Based on what has been exposed up until now, we seek to answer the question: How research studies on “governance in agrifood global value chain” have been characterized for the past 15 years? This subject has been discussed from different perspectives: structural, systemic politics, transaction economics, and vertical and horizontal relations. These persectives which are sometimes interdisciplinary, by mixing economics (e.g. theories such as Transaction Cost Economics) and Economic Sociology, these are a few examples.
From the discussions and findings emerging along the different axes, we can draw some important insights. First, it is clear the need to considere governance from both the microanalytical (transaction) and the wider (chain) perspectives.
Our graph also shows that studies on “governance in agrifood global value chain” involve both economic, environmental and social concerns, which shows that for the functioning of the chain, these concepts must be present in research analyses. In general, the four axes reveal the importance of chain governance towards sustainability, either through social or economic upgrading, or through sustainable certifications. Although the literature brings discussions on chain governance, it concentrates much more on upstream agents, specially producers, which seems to be connected to the idea of value chain upgrading and its framework. In that sense, we identify the need to broaden the perspective, and make efforts to englobe downstream agents in the studies on chain governance. The network graph reveals that theoretical interdisciplinarity is used to investigate governance in these chains, which shows that it is a complex subject that demands this complementarity for its understanding. This theoretical interdisciplinarity also shows that reseachers are attempts to understand the phenomenon and the need for further studies on the topic.
Another important point is the diversity of concepts linked to the value chain – food system, agribusiness, global value chain, value chain – and the different types of governance – governance, transnational governance, collaborative governance. The progress of studies on the subject depends on the clarification of these concepts.
Studies on “governance in the global agrifood value chain” involve chain governance and transaction governance. Although the two governance axes are not grouped on the graph, thus showing a possible misalignment between them, they can be connected through other terms, such as upgrading. The graph also shows that the governance for chain upgrading depends on the governance of the transaction. Chain governance is usually discussed in a global context and involves different lines of studies, with emphasis on chain upgrading. This shows that studies have been interested in analyzing upgrading in global value chains based on the governance of the chain as a whole (Gereffi et al., 2005; Lee et al., 2010; Barrientos et al., 2011; Trienekens, 2011).
However, the graph shows that studies on chain upgrading also involve discussions in value chains (not necessarily global) involving transaction governance. This shows that there are research analyses seeking to understand upgrading in global value chains based on the governance of transactions (Trienekens, 2011). Therefore, the analysis on upgrading a chain depends on both chain governance and transaction (Trienekens, 2011; Food and Agriculture Organization, 2014; Samper et al., 2017).
Despite this, research gaps linked to the two levels of governance (chain and transaction) have been identified: the relationship between these concepts, and especially how the governance of the transaction influences the governance of the chain, is not clear. Furthermore, the network graph does not show important words when related to the governance of global value chains, such as incentive, asymmetric information, efficiency. Thus, studies focused on these subjects can contribute to a better understanding of the impact of governance on the upgrading of these chains. Finally, studies that seek to fill the gaps presented, especially on how the governance mechanisms of the transaction influence the governance and the upgrading of a (global) value chain, can contribute to the efficiency of these chains.
5. Conclusions
The sustainability of global value chains depends on how they are organized in terms of governance. Studies involving chain governance and transaction governance exist separately and are consolidated. However, little is known about how transaction governance impacts chain governance. This study makes it possible to identify how studies have been addressing the topic, in addition to providing arguments and future paths to fill this scientific gap.
The study also shows that the interest in the topic has grown over the years worldwide, especially in some scientific communities. This study contributes to the science and efficiency of the North and South agrifood GVC as it reveals future perspectives and paths to be followed, such as studies on upgrading, vertical and horizontal relationships, governance of the global chain as well as concerns in terms of public policies.
The inherent complexity of the subject highlights the need for more interdisciplinary research. This is the case for studies on governance in global agrifood value chains, as they involve economic and social issues associated mainly with the upgrading of the chains. Future studies on how transaction governance influences chain governance can contribute to the efficiency of global value chains. Studies are recommended based on important concepts for the efficiency of global value chains that are not identified in the graph, such as incentives, efficiency, and information asymmetry. Finally, literature reviews can be carried out to clarify the differences between concepts around value chains, apparently related to each other, and the different types of governance.
As a way to fulfill the gaps identified through this reasearch, we propose a future research agenda:
Unit of analysis: the analysis of governance should therefore go beyond dyadic analyses, seeking to involve a set of transactions. By integrating the set of transactions of the chain, it is possible to analyze the dynamics in all segments, beyond the producer segment emphasized in the upgrading model. Furthermore, integrating the governance of the transaction and the governance of the chain together allows us to understand the dynamics of the functioning of the chain as a whole, which would not be possible in isolation, for example when it comes to the value distribution.
Governance and sustainability: the governance of the chain may have other objectives than just economic ones. It is proposed, therefore, that the analysis of governance considers not only the economic aspects, but that it integrates the different axes of sustainability, reinforcing the interdisciplinary aspect for the study of such a complex theme. The sustainability of the chains (social, environmental, and economic) goes through the discussion about development. For this reason, considering governance from these other perspectives is important, as it makes it possible to analyze elements beyond efficiency, such as the impacts on development.
Public and private governance mechanisms: including the public and private governance mechanisms of chain coordination can contribute to the identification and delimitation of public policies in the different high value chains. Public policies that emphasize social and environmental aspects for chain governance, including CSR, labor, etc.
Finally, as a way to overcome limitations faced by this work, we suggest searches in databases with indexed articles from Latin American sources. Although databases such as Web of Science and Scopus bring consolidated results, these databases include mostly international journals from developed countries in the northern hemisphere. Searches based on tools such as Scielo can enrich the results of this work in view of the more comprehensive coverage of research from other contexts, such as developing countries and the Southern hemisphere.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) through doctoral scholarship funding, as well as sandwich doctorate, the support of the Engineering School (École d’Ingénieurs de Purpan) in Toulouse, France, and also the University without Borders Program of the General Superintendence of Science, Technology and Higher Education (USF/ SETI) - Extension project TC 152/2018.
-
Errata
Due to technical problems during the editorial production the article “Governance in agrifood global value chain: the scientific field in the recent 15 years” (DOI https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9479.2022.260595), published in Revista de Economia e Sociologia Rural, 61(3), 2023, e260595, was published with an error.On page 10, where the Figure 3 is shown as:It should show:The publisher apologizes for the errors.
-
1
Financial aid recipient from CAPES - Brazil.
-
2
The inclusion of words related to “agrifood” could restrict search results, since this sector encompasses diverse types of production (e.g. crops, livestock, fisheries, among others), and the vocabulary used can vary between general agricultural production (e.g. agriculture) to very specific (e.g. horticulture).
-
How to cite: Guimarães, A. F., Malanski, P. D., Schiavi, S. M. A., & Bouroullec, M. D. M. (2023). Governance in agrifood global value chain: the scientific field in the recent 15 years. Revista de Economia e Sociologia Rural, 61(3), e260595. https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9479.2022.260595
-
JEL: Q13, Q18
References
-
Abate, G. T. (2018). Drivers of agricultural cooperative formation and farmers’ membership and patronage decisions in Ethiopia. Journal of Co-operative Organization and Management, 6(2), 53-63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcom.2018.06.002
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcom.2018.06.002 -
Abebe, G. K., Bijman, J., & Royer, A. (2016). Are middlemen facilitators or barriers to improve smallholders’ welfare in rural economies? Empirical evidence from Ethiopia. Journal of Rural Studies, 43, 203-213. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.12.004
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.12.004 -
Agrovoc Multilingual Thesaurus. (2020). Retrieved in 2022, February 1, from https://agrovoc.fao.org/browse/agrovoc/en/
» https://agrovoc.fao.org/browse/agrovoc/en/ -
Akerlof, G. (1970). The market for lemons: quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(3), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-214850-7.50022-X
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-214850-7.50022-X -
Ali, J., & Kumar, S. (2015). Understanding the contract structure for mango and empirical analysis of its determinants. British Food Journal, 117(8), 2161-2181. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-12-2014-0435
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-12-2014-0435 -
Bacon, C. M. (2010). Who decides what is fair in fair trade? The agri-environmental governance of standards, access, and price. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 37(1), 111-147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03066150903498796
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03066150903498796 -
Barrientos, S., Gereffi, G., & Rossi, A. (2011). Economic and social upgrading in global production networks: a new paradigm for a changing world. International Labour Review, 150(3-4), 319-340. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2011.00119.x
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2011.00119.x -
Barzel, Y. (2005). Organizational forms and measurement costs. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 161(3), 357-373. http://dx.doi.org/10.1628/093245605774259291
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1628/093245605774259291 -
Bullock, R., Gyau, A., Mithoefer, D., & Swisher, M. (2018). Contracting and gender equity in Tanzania: using a value chain approach to understand the role of gender in organic spice certification. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 33(1), 60-72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1742170517000151
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1742170517000151 -
Canada, J. S., & Vázquez, A. M. (2005). Quality certification, institutions and innovation in local agro-food systems: Protected designations of origin of olive oil in Spain. Journal of Rural Studies, 21(4), 475-486. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2005.10.001
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2005.10.001 -
Clay, D. C., Bro, A. S., Church, R. A., Ortega, D. L., & Bizoza, A. R. (2018). Farmer incentives and value chain governance: critical elements to sustainable growth in Rwanda’s coffee sector. Journal of Rural Studies, 63, 200-213. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2018.06.007
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2018.06.007 -
Conneely, R., & Mahon, M. (2015). Protected geographical indications: Institutional roles in food systems governance and rural development. Geoforum, 60, 14-21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.01.004
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.01.004 -
Cortext. (2020). Retrieved in 2022, February 1, from https://www.cortext.net/
» https://www.cortext.net/ -
Dallas, M. P. (2015). ‘Governed’ trade: global value chains, firms, and the heterogeneity of trade in an era of fragmented production. Review of International Political Economy, 22(5), 875-909. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2015.1018920
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2015.1018920 -
Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: an overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285-296. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070 -
Esteves, M. C. P., Oliveira, A. L. R., & Milanez, A. P. (2020). Exportações de produtos agrícolas e o ambiente portuário: a perspectiva dos custos de transação. Revista de Economia e Sociologia Rural, 58(1), http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1806-9479.2020.192957
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1806-9479.2020.192957 -
Fakudze, C. D., & Machethe, C. L. (2015). Improving smallholder livestock farmers’ incomes through value chain financing in South Africa. Development in Practice, 25, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2015.1047326
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2015.1047326 - Fernandez-Stark, K., Bamber, P., & Gereffi, G. (2014). Global value chains in Latin America: a development perspective for upgrading. In R. A.Hernández, J. M. Martínez, & N. Mulder (Eds.), Global value chains and world trade: prospects and challenges for Latin America Santiago, Chile: ECLAC Books.
-
Food and Agriculture Organization – FAO. (2014). Developing sustainable food value chains: guiding principles. Rome: FAO. Retrieved in 2022, February 1, from https://www.fao.org/3/I3953E/i3953e.pdf
» https://www.fao.org/3/I3953E/i3953e.pdf -
Fransen, L., Kolk, A., & Rivera-Santos, M. (2019). The multiplicity of international corporate social responsibility standards: implications for global value chain governance. Multinational Business Review, 27(4), 397-426. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MBR-08-2019-0083
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MBR-08-2019-0083 -
Gereffi, G. (2014). Global value chains in a Post-Washington Consensus World. Review of International Political Economy, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2012.756414
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2012.756414 -
Gereffi, G., & Lee, J. (2012). Why the world suddenly cares about global supply chains. The Journal of Supply Chain Management, 48(3), 24-32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-493X.2012.03271.x
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-493X.2012.03271.x -
Gereffi, G., & Lee, J. (2016). Economic and social upgrading in global value chains and industrial clusters: why governance matter. Journal of Business Ethics, 133, 25-38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2373-7
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2373-7 -
Gereffi, G., Humphrey, J., & Sturgeon, T. (2005). The governance of global value chains. Review of International Political Economy, 12, 78-104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09692290500049805
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09692290500049805 -
Giovannetti, G., & Marvasi, E. (2018). Governance, value chain positioning and firms’ heterogeneous performance: the case of Tuscany. Inter Economics, 154, 86-107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.inteco.2017.11.001
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.inteco.2017.11.001 -
Giuliani, E., Pietrobelli, C., & Rabellotti, R. (2005). Upgrading in global value chains: lessons from Latin American clusters. World Development, 33, 549-573. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.01.002
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.01.002 -
Glin, L. C., Mol, A. P., Oosterveer, P., & Vodouhê, S. D. (2012). Governing the transnational organic cotton network from Benin. Global Networks, 12(3), http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0374.2011.00340.x
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0374.2011.00340.x -
Goohue, R. E. (2011). Food quality: the design of incentive contracts. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 3, 119-140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-040709-135037
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-040709-135037 - Guimarães, A. F., Schiavi, S. M. A., Bouroullec, M. D. M., & Pereira, J. (2022). A criação e distribuição de valor na cadeia de cafés especiais: um estudo da relação entre agentes do Paraná, Brasil e da Europa. Organizações Rurais & Agroindustriais, 24, e1842.
-
Gwynne, R. N. (2006). Governance and the wine commodity chain: upstream and downstream strategies in New Zealand and chilean wine firms. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 47(3), 381-395. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8373.2006.00321.x
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8373.2006.00321.x -
Henson, S. (2011). Private agrifood governance: conclusions, observations and provocations. Agriculture and Human Values, 28, 443-451. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10460-011-9309-y
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10460-011-9309-y -
Henson, S., & Humphrey, J. (2010). Understanding the complexities of private standards in global agri-food chains as they impact developing countries. The Journal of Development Studies, 46(9), http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220381003706494
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220381003706494 -
Horner, R. (2017). Beyond facilitator? State roles in global value chains and global production networks. Geography Compass, 11(2), e12307. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12307
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12307 -
Kano, L. (2018). Global value chain governance: a relational perspective. Journal of International Business Studies, 49, 684-705. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/s41267-017-0086-8
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/s41267-017-0086-8 -
Langford, N. J. (2019). The governance of social standards in emerging markets: an exploration of actors and interests shaping Trustea as a Southern multi-stakeholder initiative. Geoforum, 104, 81-91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.06.009
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.06.009 -
Lee, J., & Gereffi, G. (2015). Global value chains, rising power firms and economic and social upgrading. Critical Perspectives on International Business, 11(3-4), 319-339. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/cpoib-03-2014-0018
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/cpoib-03-2014-0018 -
Lee, J., Gereffi, G., & Beauvais, J. (2010). Global value chains and agrifood standards: challenges and possibilities for smallholders in developing countries. PNAS Early Edition, 109(31), 12326-12331. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0913714108
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0913714108 -
Lowitt, K., Hickey, G. M., Ganpat, W., & Phillip, L. (2015). Linking communities of practice with value chain development in smallholder farming systems. World Development, 74, 363-373. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.05.014
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.05.014 -
Malanski, P. D., Schiavi, S. M. A., & Dedieu, B. (2019). Characteristics of “work in agriculture” scientific communities. A bibliometric review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 39, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13593-019-0582-2
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13593-019-0582-2 -
Malanski, P. D., Schiavi, S. M. A., & Dedieu, B. (2021). Mapping the research domains on work in agriculture. A bibliometric review from Scopus database. Journal of Rural Studies, 81, 305-314. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.10.050
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.10.050 - Malanski, P. D., Schiavi, S. M. A., Dedieu, B., & Damasceno, J. C. (2022). Labor in agrifood value chains: a scientometric review from Scopus. The International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 25(3), 449-468.
-
Mancini, M. C., Arfini, F., & Guareschi, M. (2019). Innovation and typicality in localized agri-food systems: the case of PDO Parmigiano Reggiano. British Food Journal, 121(12), http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-10-2018-0662
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-10-2018-0662 -
Marsden, T., Hebinck, P., & Mathijs, E. (2018). Re-building food systems: embedding assemblages, infrastructures, and reflexive governance for food systems transformations in Europe. Food Security, 10(6), 1301-1309. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12571-018-0870-8
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12571-018-0870-8 - Medland, L. (2016). Working for social sustainability: insights from a Spanish organic production enclave. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 40(10), 1133-1156.
-
Ménard, C., & Shirley, M. M. (2014). The future of new institutional economics: from early intuitions to new paradigm? Journal of Institutional Economics, 10(4), http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S174413741400006X
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S174413741400006X -
Minten, B., Dereje, M., Engida, E., & Tamru, S. (2018). Tracking the quality premium of certified coffee: evidence from Ethiopia. World Development, 101, 119-132. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.08.010
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.08.010 -
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. British Medical Journal, 339(7716), 332-336. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2535
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2535 -
Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Shekelle, P., & Stewart, L. A. (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic Reviews, 4(1), 1-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1 -
Mount, P. (2012). Growing local food: scale and local food systems governance. Agriculture and Human Values, 29, 107-121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10460-011-9331-0
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10460-011-9331-0 -
Neilson, J. (2007). Institutions, the governance of quality and on farm value retention for Indonesian specialty coffee. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 28(2), 188-204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9493.2007.00290.x
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9493.2007.00290.x -
Neilson, J., & Shonk, F. (2014). Chained to development? Livelihoods and global value chains in the coffee-producing Toraja region of Indonesia. The Australian Geographer, 45(3), 269-288. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00049182.2014.929998
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00049182.2014.929998 -
Neilson, J., Wright, J., & Aklimawati, L. (2018). Geographical indications and value capture in the Indonesian coffee sector. Journal of Rural Studies, 59, 35-48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2018.01.003
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2018.01.003 -
Nousiainen, M., Pylkkänen, P., Saunders, F., Seppänen, L., & Vesala, K. M. (2009). Are alternative food systems socially sustainable? A case study from Finland. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 33(5), 566-594. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10440040902997819
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10440040902997819 -
Ouma, E., Ochieng, J., Dione, M., & Pezo, D. (2017). Governance structures in smallholder pig value chains in Uganda: constraints and opportunities for upgrading. The International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 20(3), 307-319. http://dx.doi.org/10.22434/IFAMR2014.0176
» http://dx.doi.org/10.22434/IFAMR2014.0176 -
Papaoikonomou, E., & Ginieis, M. (2017). Putting the farmer’s face on food: governance and the producer–consumer relationship in local food systems. Agriculture and Human Values, 34(1), 53-67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10460-016-9695-2
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10460-016-9695-2 -
Pereira, J. A., Guimarães, A. F., Santos, R. H., Schiavi, S. M. A., & Souza, J. P. (2022). Governance structures in cooperative slaughterhouses: a study on the chain of differentiated beef in the state of Paraná. Revista de Economia e Sociologia Rural, 60(1), http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1806-9479.2021.233496
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1806-9479.2021.233496 -
Piao, R. S., Fonseca, L., Carvalho, E., Saes, M. S. M., & Almeida, F. L. (2019). The adoption of Voluntary Sustainability Standards (VSS) and value chain upgrading in the Brazilian coffee production context. Journal of Rural Studies, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2019.09.007
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2019.09.007 -
Pietrobelli, C., & Staritz, C. (2018). Upgrading, interactive learning, and innovation systems in value chain interventions. European Journal of Development Research, 30(3), 557-574. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/s41287-017-0112-5
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/s41287-017-0112-5 -
Pinstrup-Andersen, P. (2007). Agricultural research and policy for better health and nutrition in developing countries: a food systems approach. Agricultural Economics, 37, 187-198. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-0862.2007.00244.x
» https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-0862.2007.00244.x -
Ponte, S., & Gibbon, P. (2005). Quality standards, conventions and the governance of global value chains. Economy and Society, 34(1), 1-31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0308514042000329315
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0308514042000329315 -
Ponte, S., Kelling, I., Jespersen, K. S., & Kruijssen, F. (2014). The blue revolution in Asia: upgrading and governance in aquaculture value chains. World Development, 64, 52-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.05.022
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.05.022 -
Rossi, R. (2013). Does economic upgrading lead to social upgrading in global production networks? Evidence from Morocco. World Development, 46, 223-233. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.02.002
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.02.002 -
Samper, L. F., Giovannucci, D., & Vieira, L. M. (2017). The powerful role of intangibles in the coffee value chain (Vol. 39). Geneva, Switzerland: WIPO. http://dx.doi.org/10.34667/tind.29021
» http://dx.doi.org/10.34667/tind.29021 -
Sengere, R. W., Curry, G. N., & Koczberski, G. (2019). Forging alliances: coffee grower and chain leader partnerships to improve productivity and coffee quality in Papua New Guinea. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 60(2), 220-235. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/apv.12222
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/apv.12222 -
Swinnen, J. F., & Maertens, M. (2007). Globalization, privatization, and vertical coordination in food value chains in developing and transition countries. Agricultural Economics, 37, 89-102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-0862.2007.00237.x
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-0862.2007.00237.x -
Tancoigne, E., Barbier, M., Cointet, J. P., & Richard, G. (2014). The place of agricultural sciences in the literature on ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 10, 35-48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.07.004
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.07.004 -
Tran, N., Bailey, C., Wilson, N., & Phillips, M. (2013). Governance of global value chains in response to food safety and certification standards: the case of shrimp from Vietnam. World Development, 45, 325-336. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.01.025
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.01.025 -
Trienekens, J. H. (2011). Agricultural value chains in developing countries – a framework for analysis. The International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 14, 51-82. http://dx.doi.org/10.22004/AG.ECON.103987
» http://dx.doi.org/10.22004/AG.ECON.103987 -
Tröger, K., Lelea, M. A., & Kaufmann, B. (2018). The fine line between trusting and cheating: exploring relationships between actors in ugandan pineapple value Chains. European Journal of Development Research, 30, 823-841. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/s41287-018-0134-7
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/s41287-018-0134-7 -
van Herck, K., & Swinne, J. (2015). Small farmers, standards, value chains, and structural change: panel evidence from Bulgaria. British Food Journal, 117(10), 2435-2464. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-11-2014-0389
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-11-2014-0389 -
Vieira, L. M., & Traill, W. B. (2008). Trust and governance of global value chains: the case of a Brazilian beef processor. British Food Journal, 110(4-5), 460-473. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00070700810868960
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00070700810868960 -
von Braun, J. (2009). Addressing the food crisis: governance, market functioning, and investment in public goods. Food Security, 1(1), 9-15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12571-008-0001-z
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12571-008-0001-z -
Vurro, C., Russo, A., & Perrini, F. (2009). Shaping sustainable value chains: network determinants of supply chain governance models. Journal of Business Ethics, 90, 607-621. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0595-x
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0595-x -
Watabaji, M. D., Molnár, A., & Gellynck, X. (2016). Integrative role of value chain governance: evidence from the malt barley value chain in Ethiopia. Journal of the Institute of Brewing, 122(4), 670-681. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jib.378
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jib.378 -
Wenningkamp, K. R., & Schmidt, C. M. (2016). Ações coletivas no agronegócio: uma análise da produção científica no Brasil a partir de teses e dissertações (1998-2012). Revista de Economia e Sociologia Rural, 54(3), 413-436. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1234-56781806-94790540302
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1234-56781806-94790540302 - Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism New York: Free Press.
Publication Dates
-
Publication in this collection
25 July 2022 -
Date of issue
2023
History
-
Received
01 Feb 2022 -
Accepted
16 June 2022
