Garry R. Griffith

Food Value Chain Coordination in Practice: European and Australian Case Studies of the Creation of Chain Good Innovations

Food value chain businesses form alliances with horizontal and/or vertical partners to take collective action to either overcome or ameliorate chain failure, or to take advantage of new opportunities available due to innovations in products or processes. The desired outcomes from the collective action would not be possible to achieve if these businesses acted independently. While such alliances may take many forms, depending on degree of commitment and infrastructure linkages, they can often be considered to be clubs. Four such types of clubs can be identified (1) horizontal clubs comprising businesses that take collective action across a single cross-section or an aggregate of multiple cross-sections in the value chain; (2) vertical clubs, which consist of businesses that form a strategic alliance for collective action along a single value chain within a network of chains; (3) clubs that specialise in a single product or multiple products in the value chain; or (4) clubs focusing on a single input/activity or multiple inputs/activities. Thus the path to collective action chosen by clubs may vary according to existing capabilities and the scope for collaboration, particularly in relation to the potential for value-creating innovation. The result of the collective action is the provision of a chain good or service which usually leads to greater and more valuable chain coordination. By collectively identifying, funding and acting to capture positive externalities associated with innovation, businesses in many parts of a food value chain can widen opportunities to increase whole-of-chain surplus as well as increase private profits. In this paper four mini-case studies are presented which demonstrate the breadth of past collective actions that have been undertaken by a substantial proportion of businesses in food value chains, two in Europe and two in Australia. These are (1) the Euro Pool System, (2) Global Standards certification in Europe and globally, (3) Meat Standards Australia, and (4) the OBE Beef organic producer alliance in Australia. Each case study yields insights into the rationale of how businesses in different food value chains in different countries have acted as a club to use their joint resources to internalise positive innovation and coordination externalities that would not have been possible to achieve were these businesses to act independently.

Achieving better strategic fit and higher surplus for Australian beef value chains by recognising and countering chain failure

Strategic fit is the nature of the link between the customer priorities that a value chain hopes to satisfy, and the capabilities that are available in the value chain to implement that objective. Usually, there is a trade-off between value chains that focus on being responsive to customer needs and those that focus on supplying at the lowest possible cost. If demand uncertainty is low, a low-cost value chain is the best strategic fit; conversely if demand uncertainty is high, a responsive value chain is the best fit. A poor fit means lower chain surplus to be shared among the chain participants. We provide an outline of an analytical framework for determining the optimal level of responsiveness for a food value chain. We then present and discuss two case studies. Both feature initiatives aimed at internalising positive chain externalities and capturing chain goods within the Australian beef value chain. We use our framework to show how these initiatives are predicted to promote responsiveness and thus achieve a better strategic fit and higher surplus for the whole chain. Verifying that such a move would indeed contribute to higher chain surplus would require some new measurements of whole-of-chain outcomes so that the economic relationships making up the framework could be estimated and analysed.