Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T14:14:18.790Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Balancing profitability with social consciousness: Determinants of suppliers' intensity of participation in the EU school fruit scheme

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 June 2016

Jan-Paul von Germeten*
Affiliation:
Institute for Food and Resource Economics, University of Bonn, Nussallee 21, 53115 Bonn, Germany
Monika Hartmann
Affiliation:
Institute for Food and Resource Economics, University of Bonn, Nussallee 21, 53115 Bonn, Germany
*
*Corresponding author: [email protected]

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to identify the determinants of suppliers' intensity of participation in the European Union school fruit scheme (SFS) based on the example of the SFS in the German federal state North Rhine-Westphalia. In 2013/14, approximately 100 suppliers including many agricultural enterprises or farm shops took part in a telephone survey. The data were processed by a factor analysis. Multivariate regression and ordered logit analyses were used to examine the determinants of intensity of participation. The results indicate that economic as well as non-economic factors determine suppliers' intensity of participation in such programs, though the financial aspect was determined as the most influential single factor for participation. In addition, the feel-good factor from helping to improve children's dietary habits and supporting the local community has been identified as an important motive.

Type
Research Papers
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aibinu, A.A. and Al-Lawati, A.M. 2010. Using PLS-SEM technique to model construction organizations’ willingness to participate in e-bidding. Automation in Construction 19(6):714724.Google Scholar
Ajzen, I. 2002. Constructing a TpB Questionnaire: Conceptual and Methodological Considerations. Available at Web site: http://www.uni-bielefeld.de/ikg/zick/ajzen%20construction%20a%20tpb%20questionnaire.pdf (accessed 11 March 2016).Google Scholar
Allen, P. and Guthman, J. 2006. From “old school” to “farm-to-school”: Neoliberalization from the ground up. Agriculture and Human Values 23(4):401415.Google Scholar
Andrews, J.C., Durvasula, S., and Akhter, S.H. 1990. A framework for conceptualizing and measuring the involvement construct in advertising research. Journal of Advertising 19(4):2740.Google Scholar
Bagdonis, J.M., Hinrichs, C.C., and Schafft, K.A. 2009. The emergence and framing of farm-to-school initiatives: Civic engagement, health and local agriculture. Agriculture and Human Values 26(1–2):107119.Google Scholar
Bassi, I., Zaccarin, S., and de Stefano, D. 2014. Rural inter-firm networks as basis for multifunctional local system development. Evidence from an Italian alpine area. Land Use Policy 38:7079.Google Scholar
Bateman, J., Engel, T., and Meinen, A. 2014. Understanding Wisconsin producer and distributor perceptions to inform farm to school programs and policies. Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition 9(1):4863.Google Scholar
Berkenkamp, J. 2006. Making the Farm/School Connection: Opportunities and Barriers to Greater Use of Locally-grown Produce in Public Schools. St. Paul/Minneapolis. Available at Web site: https://www.leopold.iastate.edu/sites/default/files/pubs-and-papers/2006-01-making-farm-school-connection-opportunities-and-barriers-greater-use-locally-grown-produce-public-sc.pdf (accessed 11 March 2016).Google Scholar
Born, B. and Purcell, M. 2006. Avoiding the local trap: Scale and food systems in planning research. Journal of Planning Education and Research 26(2):195207.Google Scholar
Bridger, R. 2004. Local Food for Bradford Schools: Developing sustainable, localised supply systems for Education Contract Services. Available at Web site: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130123162956/http:/www.defra.gov.uk/farm/sustain/procurement/pdf/bradford-report.pdf (accessed 11 March 2016)Google Scholar
Buckley, J., Conner, D.S., Matts, C., and Hamm, M.W. 2013. Social relationships and farm-to-institution initiatives: Complexity and scale in local food systems. Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition 8(4):397412.Google Scholar
Churchill, G.A. 1979. A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research 16(1):64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, D. and Prusak, L. 2001. In Good Company: How Social Capital Makes Organizations Work. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.Google Scholar
Conner, D.S., King, B., Kolodinsky, J., Roche, E., Koliba, C., and Trubek, A. 2012. You can know your school and feed it too: Vermont farmers’ motivations and distribution practices in direct sales to school food services. Agriculture and Human Values 29(3):321332.Google Scholar
Cormican, K. and Cunningham, M. 2007. Supplier performance evaluation: Lessons from a large multinational organisation. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 18(4):352366.Google Scholar
Costello, A.B. and Osborne, J.W. 2005. Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation 10(7):19.Google Scholar
Dhanaraj, C., Lyles, M.A., Steensma, H.K., and Tihanyi, L. 2004. Managing tacit and explicit knowledge transfer in IJVs: The role of relational embeddedness and the impact on performance. Journal of International Business Studies 35(5):428442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dirksmeyer, W. 2009. Betriebsstrukturen im Produktionsgartenbau. In Dirksmeyer, W. (ed.). Status quo und Perspektiven des deutschen Produktionsgartenbaus. Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut, Braunschweig, p. 342. Available at Web site: http://literatur.ti.bund.de/digbib_extern/bitv/zi044113.pdf (accessed 11 March 2016).Google Scholar
Dyer, J.H. and Nobeoka, K. 2000. Creating and managing a high-performance knowledge-sharing network: The Toyota case. Strategic Management Journal 21(3):345367.Google Scholar
European Commission. 2013. Commission allocates € 88 million for 2013/2014 School Fruit Scheme. Available at Web site http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/newsroom/111_en.htm (accessed 29 August 2014).Google Scholar
European Commission and MKULNV. 2012. EU School Fruit Scheme—North Rhine-Westphalia. North Rhine-Westphalia—Regional Strategy for the EU School Fruit Scheme. Implementation period: 1 August 2012 to 31 July 2013. Available at Web site http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sfs/documents/de_national_strategy_-_nordhein-westfallen_-_2012-2013_en.pdf (accessed 12 January 2014).Google Scholar
George, D. and Mallery, P. 2003. SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference, 11.0 Update. 4th ed. Allyn and Bacon, Boston.Google Scholar
Gligor, D.M. and Autry, C.W. 2012. The role of personal relationships in facilitating supply chain communications. A qualitative study. Journal of Supply Chain Management 48(1):2443.Google Scholar
Goodman, D. 2003. The quality ‘turn’ and alternative food practices: Reflections and agenda. Journal of Rural Studies 19(1):17.Google Scholar
Goodman, D. 2004. Rural Europe redux? Reflections on alternative agro-food networks and paradigm change. Sociologia Ruralis 44(1):316.Google Scholar
Granovetter, M. 1985. Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology 91(3):481.Google Scholar
Haber, S. and Reichel, A. 2005. Identifying performance measures of small ventures-the case of the tourism industry. Journal of Small Business Management 43(3):257286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardin, R. and Nagel, J.H. 1989. Participation. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 8(2):351.Google Scholar
Hingley, M.K. 2005. Power imbalance in UK agri-food supply channels. Learning to live with the supermarkets? Journal of Marketing Management 21(1–2):6388.Google Scholar
Hinrichs, C. 2000. Embeddedness and local food systems: Notes on two types of direct agricultural market. Journal of Rural Studies 16(3):295303.Google Scholar
Hinson, R.A. 2005. Responses to industry concentration by small- and medium sized fruit and vegetable wholesalers. Journal of Food Distribution Research 36(1):243248.Google Scholar
Hoellmer, J.-P. and Hartmann, M. 2013. EU school fruit scheme: Strengthening local businesses. In Proceedings in Food System Dynamics; Proceedings in System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks 2013.Google Scholar
Izumi, B.T. 2008. Farm to school programs in public K-12 schools in the United States: Perspectives of farmers, food service professionals, and food distributors. Dissertation, Michigan State University, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 2008.Google Scholar
Izumi, B.T., Wright, D.W., and Hamm, M.W. 2010a. Farm to school programs: Exploring the role of regionally-based food distributors in alternative agrifood networks. Agriculture and Human Values 27(3):335350.Google Scholar
Izumi, B.T., Wright, D.W., and Hamm, M.W. 2010b. Market diversification and social benefits: Motivations of farmers participating in farm to school programs. Journal of Rural Studies 26(4):374382.Google Scholar
Joshi, A. and Beery, M. 2007. A growing movement: A decade of farm to school in California. Available at Web site http://scholar.oxy.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1381&context=uep_faculty (accessed 22 January 2015).Google Scholar
Kalb, M. 2008. National Farm to School Network Takes Root. Community Food Security News (Winter 2008), p. 12.Google Scholar
Kale, P., Singh, H., and Perlmutter, H. 2000. Learning and protection of proprietary assets in strategic alliances: Building relational capital. Strategic Management Journal 21(3):217237.Google Scholar
Kirwan, J. 2004. Alternative strategies in the UK agro-food system: Interrogating the alterity of farmers’ markets. Sociologia Ruralis 44(4):395415.Google Scholar
Lechler, T. 2001. Social interaction: A determinant of entrepreneurial team venture success. Small Business Economics 16(4):263278.Google Scholar
Li, C.-Y. 2012. Knowledge stickiness in the buyer–supplier knowledge transfer process: The moderating effects of learning capability and social embeddedness. Expert Systems with Applications 39(5):53965408.Google Scholar
Low, W.-S. and Cheng, S.M.O. 2006. A comparison study of manufacturing industry in Taiwan and China: manager's perceptions of environment, capability, strategy and performance. Asia Pacific Business Review 12(1):1938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lu, H., Feng, S., Trienekens, J.H., and Omta, S. 2008. Performance in vegetable supply chains. The role of Guanxi networks and buyer–seller relationships. Agribusiness 24(2):253274.Google Scholar
Magazine, S.L., Williams, L.J., and Williams, M.L. 1996. A confirmatory factor analysis examination of reverse coding effects in Meyer and Allen's affective and continuance commitment scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement 56(2):241250.Google Scholar
Marsden, T., Banks, J., and Bristow, G. 2000. Food supply chain approaches: Exploring their role in rural development. Sociologia Ruralis 40(4):424438.Google Scholar
Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. 1991. A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review 1(1):6189.Google Scholar
MKULNV. 2015. Website EU-Schulobstprogramm in NRW. Available at Web site http://www.schulobst.nrw.de (accessed 12 February 2015).Google Scholar
Morgan, K. and Sonnino, R. 2008. The School Food Revolution: Public Food and the Challenge of Sustainable Development. Earthscan, London, Sterling, VA.Google Scholar
Napier, T.L., Thraen, C.S., and Camboni, S.M. 1988. Willingness of land operators to participate in government-sponsored soil erosion control programs. Journal of Rural Studies 4(4):339347.Google Scholar
National Farm to School Network. 2014. Website of the National Farm to School Network. Available at Web site http://www.farmtoschool.org/ (accessed 5 August 2014).Google Scholar
Ohmart, J.L. 2002. Direct marketing to schools. a new opportunity for family farmers. Available at Web site http://www.sarep.ucdavis.edu/sfs/dm/cs/dm (accessed 22 January 2015).Google Scholar
Paige, R.C. and Littrell, M.A. 2002. Craft retailers’ criteria for success and associated business strategies. Journal of Small Business Management 40(4):314331.Google Scholar
Peterson, H.H., Selfa, T., and Janke, R. 2010. Barriers and opportunities for sustainable food systems in Northeastern Kansas. Sustainability 2(1):232251.Google Scholar
Polanyi, K. 2001. The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time. Beacon Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
Prahinski, C. and Benton, W. 2004. Supplier evaluations: Communication strategies to improve supplier performance. Journal of Operations Management 22(1):3962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reijonen, H. 2008. Understanding the small business owner: What they really aim at and how this relates to firm performance: A case study in North Karelia, Eastern Finland. Management Research News 31(8):616629.Google Scholar
Renting, H., Marsden, T.K., and Banks, J. 2003. Understanding alternative food networks: Exploring the role of short food supply chains in rural development. Environment and Planning A 35(3):393411.Google Scholar
Riedel, B., Bokelmann, W., and Canavari, M. 2009. Regional competitiveness of fresh vegetable production in Europe—a cluster and value chain perspective. Acta Horticulturae (831), XVI International Symposium on Horticultural Economics and Management:147152.Google Scholar
Rooks, G. and Matzat, U. 2010. Cross-national differences in effects of social embeddedness on trust: A comparative study of German and Dutch business transactions. The Social Science Journal 47(1):4568.Google Scholar
Rooks, G., Raub, W., Selten, R., and Tazelaar, F. 2000. How inter-firm co-operation depends on social embeddedness: A vignette study. Acta Sociologica 43(2):123137.Google Scholar
Salunke, S., Weerawardena, J., and McColl-Kennedy, J.R. 2013. Competing through service innovation: The role of bricolage and entrepreneurship in project-oriented firms. Journal of Business Research 66(8):10851097.Google Scholar
Schafft, K., Hinrichs, C.C., and Bloom, J.D. 2010. Pennsylvania farm-to-school programs and the articulation of local context. Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition 5(1):2340.Google Scholar
Scharnberg, C. 2010. Event—Jugend—Pastoral: Eine quantitativ-empirisch gestützte Theorie des religiösen Jugendevents am Beispiel des Weltjugendtages 2002, Empirische Theologie, Bd. 22. Lit, Berlin, Münster.Google Scholar
Schmid, M. 2008. Soziale Einbettung und ökonomisches Handeln Mark Granovetters Beitrag zu einer soziologischen Theorie des Unternehmens. In Maurer, A. and Schimank, U. (eds). Die Gesellschaft der Unternehmen, die Unternehmen der Gesellschaft: Gesellschaftstheoretische Zugänge zum Wirtschaftsgeschehen, Wirtschaft + Gesellschaft. 1st ed. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden, p. 78101.Google Scholar
Shin, H., Collier, D., and Wilson, D. 2000. Supply management orientation and supplier/buyer performance. Journal of Operations Management 18(3):317333.Google Scholar
Singer, M.A. 1995. Community participation in health care decision making: Is it feasible? Canadian Medical Association Journal 153(4):421424.Google Scholar
Skuras, D., Tsegenidi, K., and Tsekouras, K. 2008. Product innovation and the decision to invest in fixed capital assets: Evidence from an SME survey in six European Union member states. Research Policy 37(10):17781789.Google Scholar
Söderqvist, T. 2003. Are farmers prosocial? Determinants of the willingness to participate in a Swedish catchment-based wetland creation programme. Ecological Economics 47(1):105120.Google Scholar
Steinborn, P. and Bokelmann, W. 2007. Aktuelle Strukturen des Obstbaus in Deutschland. Erwerbs-Obstbau 49(4):115125.Google Scholar
Suh, T. and Houston, M.B. 2010. Distinguishing supplier reputation from trust in buyer–supplier relationships. Industrial Marketing Management 39(5):744751.Google Scholar
Thompson, O.M., Twomey, M.P., Hemphill, M.A., Keene, K., Seibert, N., Harrison, D.J., and Stewart, K.B. 2014. Farm to school program participation: An emerging market for small or limited-resource farmers? Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition 9(1):3347.Google Scholar
Thornburg, G.K. 2013. Embeddedness, marketness, and economic instrumentalism in the Oklahoma farm-to-school program. Journal of Rural and Community Development 8(3):321334.Google Scholar
Toledo-López, A., Díaz-Pichardo, R., Jiménez-Castañeda, J.C., and Sánchez-Medina, P.S. 2012. Defining success in subsistence businesses. Journal of Business Research 65(12):16581664.Google Scholar
Tregear, A. 2005. Lifestyle, growth, or community involvement? The balance of goals of UK artisan food producers. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 17(1):115.Google Scholar
Vallianatos, M., Gottlieb, R., and Haase, M.A. 2004. Farm-to-school: Strategies for urban health, combating sprawl, and establishing a community food systems approach. Journal of Planning Education and Research 23(4):414423.Google Scholar
Venkatraman, N. and Ramanujam, V. 1986. Measurement of business performance in strategy research: A comparison of approaches. Academy of Management Review 11(4):801814.Google Scholar
Vogt, R.A. and Kaiser, L.L. 2008. Still a time to act: A review of institutional marketing of regionally-grown food. Agriculture and Human Values 25(2):241255.Google Scholar
Wilson, D.T. 1995. An integrated model of buyer–seller relationships. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 23(4):335345.Google Scholar
Winter, M. 2003. Geographies of food: Agro-food geographies—making reconnections. Progress in Human Geography 27(4):505513.Google Scholar
Zanetell, B.A. and Knuth, B.A. 2004. Participation rhetoric or community-based management reality? Influences on willingness to participate in a Venezuelan freshwater fishery. World Development 32(5):793807.Google Scholar