Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
2015
The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework
Programme for research, technological development and demonstration under grant agreement n° 311778
Emilia Schmitt, Anaëlle Tanquerey-Cado, Virginia Cravero, Laurette Gratteau,
Ulysse Le Goff, Dominique Barjolle - Research Institute of Organic Agriculture
(FiBL)
Comparison of local and global cheese value chains in Switzerland (Task 3.5)
1 www.glamur.eu
To be quoted as: Emilia Schmitt, Anaëlle Tanquerey-Cado, Virginia Cravero, Laurette Gratteau, Ulysse Le Goff, Dominique Barjolle (2015). Comparison of local and global cheese value chains in Switzerland. GLAMUR project (task 3.5). FiBL, Frick, Switzerland.
2 www.glamur.eu
Comparison of local and global cheese
value chains in Switzerland (Task 3.5)
Emilia Schmitt, Anaëlle Tanquerey-Cado, Virginia
Cravero, Laurette Gratteau, Ulysse Le Goff, Dominique
Barjolle – FiBL
3 www.glamur.eu
Summary
The GLAMUR project aims to compare local and global food value chains (FVCs) across ten
countries and six sectors. The case study presented in this report analyses two cheese value
chains in Switzerland. The cheese sector is an important part of the agricultural sector’s
economy of the country, which counts more than 450 types of cheeses, among which are
famous PDO cheeses like Emmentaler, Gruyère or Sbrinz. The biggest production is reached by
the Gruyère AOC with around 29 000 tons a year, of which 41,6% are exported. This value
chain has thus been chosen to represent the global example in this comparison. The local
cheese is represented by L’Etivaz AOC, an alp cheese produced with a traditional process
reaching 420 tons a year. Both are hard cheeses made following a similar process, with the
Gruyère cheese being produced according to a standardized industrial process in more than 200
cheese factories and the Etivaz being produced on wood fire cauldrons by around 70 families in
farmhouses. Both chains are composed of the three core stages of milk production, cheese
making and maturing of the cheese. These stages are part of the Gruyère Interprofessional
organization (IPG) and Etivaz cooperative respectively. Other stages such as inputs production,
distribution, retail and consumption have been studied as well.
In order to compare the sustainability performance of both chains, semi-structured
interviews have been completed with around 90 stakeholders to collect primary data. This data
was used to assess 23 indicators developed from eight attributes of sustainability performance.
In addition, qualitative data from a consumer focus group was used to inform a ninth attribute
“consumer behaviour”, which remained qualitative and unscored. The rest of the indicators are
scored in comparison to benchmarks on a percentage scale of performance.
Results show that the local chain gets higher scores in around two thirds of indicators. It is
especially the case for the three animal welfare indicators (ethical dimension) as cows in the
local chain spend longer times on pasture, have more space and live longer. The local chain also
reaches higher scores in all four health indicators as the local cheese contains less salt, a little
less fat and saturated fat and more calcium. In the environmental indicators, the local chain
performs better in five out of eight indicators (soil, materials, processing management practices,
diversity of production and greenhouse gas mitigation from processing), but the global chain
performs better in waste reduction, landscape management and greenhouse gas mitigation at
the farm level. In the social dimension, the local chain has higher scores in the distribution of
the price and for the good communication along the chain, but the global chain performs better
in providing information to the consumer. In the economic dimension, the global chain provides
a more affordable price for consumers while contributing to a higher income for farmers and
cheesemakers. The local chain, however, has a higher contribution in terms of jobs provided in
relation to the quantity of cheese produced.
It has been identified that reflecting on more appropriate cows breed could improve the
performance in several indicators for both chains. More efforts could also be made concerning
renewable energies, efficient transportation or recycling and waste limitation. On the socio-
economic side, communication along the chains could be improved by including more
4 www.glamur.eu
stakeholders in the main communication channels, especially for the global chain. The economic
situation of primary producers is a main concern as they are highly dependent on public
subsidies and that is compromising the resilience of the chain. A fairer distribution of the price
could contribute to better work conditions as well, especially since consumers tend to recognize
that a higher price could be acceptable for a quality product that requires a lot of hard work.
The comparison will be extended to two British cheese value chains in the WP4 comparative
report of the GLAMUR project.
5 www.glamur.eu
Content
1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 9
1.1. Structure of the report .................................................................................................................................. 9
1.2. Introduction to the Swiss cheese sector ....................................................................................................... 9
2. Background: case studies ................................................................................................................................... 10
2.1. Distinction of a local and a global cheese chain .......................................................................................... 10
2.2. Scope of the value chains under study ........................................................................................................ 12
2.3. Presentation of the case study .................................................................................................................... 12
2.3.1. Global cheese chain: Le Gruyère ......................................................................................................... 12
2.3.2. Local cheese chain: L’Etivaz ................................................................................................................. 15
2.4. Critical issues ............................................................................................................................................... 18
3. Research Design : research questions and indicators ....................................................................................... 22
3.1. Research Objectives and Research Questions ............................................................................................ 22
3.2. Attributes and indicators selection ............................................................................................................. 23
4. Methods of Data collection and analysis ........................................................................................................... 24
4.1. Stakeholders identification and data collection .......................................................................................... 24
4.1.1. Semi-directive interviews .................................................................................................................... 24
4.1.2. Analysis of the cheese value chains at the consumption stage ........................................................... 27
4.2. Participatory methods................................................................................................................................. 27
4.3. Data quality check ....................................................................................................................................... 27
5. Results ................................................................................................................................................................ 29
5.1. Scores of Performance ................................................................................................................................ 29
5.2. Comparison of the local and the global chains ........................................................................................... 32
5.2.1. General trends .................................................................................................................................... 32
5.2.2. Attribute Affordability ......................................................................................................................... 33
5.2.3. Attribute Creation and Distribution of Added Value ........................................................................... 34
5.2.4. Attribute Information and Communication ........................................................................................ 35
5.2.5. Attribute Consumer Behaviour ........................................................................................................... 36
5.2.6. Attribute Resource Use ....................................................................................................................... 37
5.2.7. Attribute Biodiversity .......................................................................................................................... 39
5.2.8. Attribute Nutrition .............................................................................................................................. 39
5.2.9. Attribute Animal Welfare .................................................................................................................... 40
5.2.10. Attribute Pollution ............................................................................................................................. 41
6. Discussion ........................................................................................................................................................... 42
6.1. Discussion of the study ............................................................................................................................... 42
6 www.glamur.eu
6.1.1. RQ1: Value distribution along the chain .............................................................................................. 42
6.1.2. RQ2: Improving information and communication ............................................................................... 43
6.1.3. RQ3: Impacts on natural resources ..................................................................................................... 44
6.1.4. RQ4: Nutrition ..................................................................................................................................... 46
6.1.5. RQ5: Animal welfare ........................................................................................................................... 47
6.2. Discussion of the methodology ................................................................................................................... 48
6.2.1. Data Quality ........................................................................................................................................ 48
6.2.2. Weighting, aggregation and interactions ............................................................................................ 49
6.2.3. General comments on the methodology ............................................................................................ 52
7. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................................... 54
8. References .......................................................................................................................................................... 56
8.1. References in the text, tables and figures ................................................................................................... 56
8.2. Benchmarks and data sources .................................................................................................................... 59
9. Annexes .............................................................................................................................................................. 61
9.1. Justification of the attributes ...................................................................................................................... 61
9.2. Detailed set of attributes and indicators ..................................................................................................... 63
9.3. Data Quality Check ...................................................................................................................................... 68
9.4. Types of benchmarks .................................................................................................................................. 72
9.5. Structure of the price of milk and cheese in Le Gruyère chain: example .................................................... 74
9.6. Prices taken for the calculation of Gini ratios ............................................................................................. 74
List of Figures Figure 1: Chart of the cheese value chain’s scope of the study .................................................................................... 12
Figure 2: Chart of the global cheese chain “Le Gruyère” .............................................................................................. 13
Figure 3: Production area of Le Gruyère cheese (Mifroma 2014) ................................................................................ 13
Figure 4: the Gruyère value chain spreading between the local and global scale (adapted from WFSC 2014) ........... 14
Figure 5: Chart of the local cheese chain L'Etivaz ......................................................................................................... 16
Figure 6: Production area of L'Etivaz cheese (Mifroma, 2014) ..................................................................................... 16
Figure 7: L’Etivaz value chain spreading between the local and global scale (adapted from WFSC 2014) ................... 17
Figure 8: Location of the interviews for the global chain Le Gruyère ........................................................................... 26
Figure 9: Location of the interviews for the local chain L'Etivaz ................................................................................... 26
Figure 10: Graphical representation of the performance of the local and global cheese value chains ........................ 31
Figure 11: Comparison of the distribution of performances in the local and global chains ......................................... 32
Figure 12: Comparison of the number of indicators performing better in the local and the global chain ................... 33
Figure 13: Performance scores for attributes Affordability and Creation and Distribution of Added Value ................ 34
Figure 14: Performance scores for attribute Information and Communication ........................................................... 35
7 www.glamur.eu
Figure 15: Performance scores for the Environmental dimension: attributes Resource Use, Biodiversity and
Pollution. ...................................................................................................................................................................... 38
Figure 16: Performance scores for attribute Nutrition ................................................................................................. 40
Figure 17: Performance scores for attribute Animal Welfare ...................................................................................... 40
Figure 18: Interactions between attributes and descriptors ........................................................................................ 50
Figure 19: Classification of reference values (Van Cauwenbergh et al. 2007) .............................................................. 72
Figure 20: Reference values – target, threshold, regional average and trend (Van Cauwenbergh et al. 2007) ........... 73
List of Tables Table 1: Set of attributes and indicators ...................................................................................................................... 23
Table 2: Interviews achieved for the local and the global chains ................................................................................. 25
Table 3: Pedigree matrix used to evaluate the data quality (adapted from: Ciroth 2013; Lewandowska 2004) .......... 28
Table 4: Scores of performance for the local and global cheese value chains ............................................................. 29
Table 5: Examples of prices recorded (by default: in Switzerland) for Le Gruyère and L’Etivaz cheeses ..................... 43
Table 6 : Cow breeds found in Le Gruyere and L’Etivaz herds in proportion. In italics are breeds with high milk solids-
yields (Bland et al. 2014). ............................................................................................................................................. 46
Table 7: Full justification of the attributes ................................................................................................................... 61
Table 8: Detailed set of attributes and indicators for the case study ........................................................................... 63
Table 9: Data Quality Check ......................................................................................................................................... 68
Table 10: Example of price structure of the milk and cheese for one creamery for Le Gruyère cheese ...................... 74
Table 11: Prices taken into account for the calculations of Gini ratios......................................................................... 74
List of Abbreviations AOP Appellation d’Origine Protégée (French for Protected Designation of Origin)
CCRI Countryside and Community Research Institute (Bristol, United Kingdom)
CH Switzerland
CHF Swiss Francs
DQD Data Quality Distance
DQG Data Quality Goal
DQI Data Quality Indicator
EU European Union
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
FiBL Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (Switzerland)
FOAG Federal Office for Agriculture (Switzerland)
FOEV Federal Office for the Environment (Switzerland)
FR Canton of Fribourg (Switzerland)
FSC Food Supply Chain
8 www.glamur.eu
FTE Full Time Equivalent
FVC Food Value Chain
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GLAMUR Global and Local food Assessment: a Multidimensional performance-based approach
GMO Genetically Modified Organism
IPG Interprofessional organization of Gruyère
JU Canton of Jura (Switzerland)
JUBE Bernese Jura: French speaking part of the canton of Bern (Switzerland)
LCA Life-Cycle Analysis
NE Canton of Neuchâtel (Switzerland)
PDO Protected Designation of Origin
RO Research Objective
RQ Research Question
SAFA Sustainability Assessment of Food and Agriculture systems (FAO)
SFU Swiss Farmers Union
UFA Union of Agricultural Federations (agricultural inputs provider)
UK United Kingdom
USA United States of America
VD Canton of Vaud (Switzerland)
VSF Association of Swiss animal feed manufacturers
WFSC World Food System Center
WP Work Package
9 www.glamur.eu
1. Introduction
This report is part of the European project “Global and Local food Assessment: a
MUltidimensional peRformance-based approach” (GLAMUR), work package (WP) number 3. The
aim is to compare one local and one global cheese value chains in Switzerland using the
framework established during WP2 (Kirwan et al. 2014). The comparison of local and global food
value chains (FVCs) is conducted across ten countries and six sectors. The study on the cheese
sector is conducted in parallel with the English team from the Countryside and Community
Research Institute (CCRI). The goal is to identify a common list of attributes and indicators to
assess and compare the sustainability of local and global cheese value chains in both countries.
The definition of a sustainable food value chain is given in a report for the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (FAO) as “the full range of farms and firms and their
successive coordinated value-adding activities that produce particular raw agricultural materials
and transform them into particular food products that are sold to final consumers and disposed
of after use, in a manner that is profitable throughout, has broad-based benefits for society, and
does not permanently deplete natural resources.” (FAO 2014)
1.1. Structure of the report
After the introduction and context description in chapter 1, chapter 2 provides practical
information on the case study definition process, which contains the distinction between a local
and a global chain, the scope of the analysis, the description of the two chains chosen and the
critical issues in the sector studied. Chapter 3 will present the design of the research objectives,
research questions and the indicators used to analyse and answer these questions as well as
compare the two chains. Chapter 4 goes on by presenting the methods used to collect the data
and how data was treated. Our results are presented and analysed in chapter 5 and they are
discussed in chapter 6. We conclude this report in chapter 7 and more information is available in
the attached annexes.
1.2. Introduction to the Swiss cheese sector
Switzerland has 80% of agricultural lands not suitable for crop cultivation, mainly because of
steep slopes. Thus, grassland is the basis for milk and meat production (Binder et al. 2012). The
quantity of milk produced in Switzerland exceeds the needs of the Swiss population.
Consequently, a part of the milk production is destined for export. Switzerland produces 4.41
billion litres of milk per year, 41.6% of which were processed into cheese in 2012. Thus, the
Swiss dairy sector has a significant impact on the Swiss agriculture, yielding the 25% of total
Swiss agricultural income (Binder et al. 2012).
The making of Swiss cheese relies on secular traditions. The Swiss cheese sector aims at
valuing the quality of raw material such as milk while supporting the knowledge and know-how
linked with specific Swiss traditions. Moreover, quality controls and ecological requirements are
10 www.glamur.eu
taken seriously into account to offer quality products (Switzerland Cheese Marketing SA 2014).
Among more than 450 types of cheese, Emmentaler (Protected designation of origin (PDO)),
Gruyère (PDO), and Sbrinz (PDO) but also Appenzeller and Tête de Moine (PDO) represent the
most famous cheeses abroad (Switzerland Cheese Marketing SA 2014). The Swiss Council of
States and the national Council are also supporting the effort to communicate the high Swiss
products’ quality by creating a strategy and a charter for promoting the “Swiss Quality Food”,
which was endorsed and supported in 2012 by 119 private enterprises and professional
organizations (Switzerland Cheese Marketing SA 2012). Abroad, the communication strategy for
promoting “Swiss Quality Food” is based on TV, internet and magazine’s advertisements and in
promotional activities such as degustation. All these approaches highlight the concept of “Swiss
made cheeses” (Switzerland Cheese Marketing SA 2012).
In 2013, 182 705 tons of cheese were produced, including 68 260 tons (37.3%) of hard
cheese (FOAG 2014c). The biggest cheese production is represented by the Gruyère (PDO) with
29 350 tons, followed by the Emmentaler (PDO) with 23 150 tons, and Mozzarella with 21 650
tons (FOAG 2014c). In total, 51 200 tons of Swiss cheese are exported to the European Union
(EU), Germany and Italy being the main buyers (FOAG 2014c).
Nevertheless, since 1990, farmers are not paid enough due to constant decreases of the milk
price per litre, which makes their economic situation worse (Schweizer Landwirtschaft 2013). In
order to mitigate the cheese market liberation effects, 59 millions of Swiss francs (CHF) will be
used to promote the quality and sales (Switzerland Cheese Marketing SA 2012). Moreover,
farmers earn a subsidy of 0,15 CHF/kg of milk for milk transformed into cheese and a
supplement of 0,03 CHF/kg of milk for non-silage feed (Switzerland Cheese Marketing SA 2012).
2. Background: case studies This chapter will present first the criteria of distinction between local-global in the Swiss
cheese sector and then the two chains selected for the case study in details.
2.1. Distinction of a local and a global cheese chain
The local and global cheese value chains have been derived from the 4 main key-distinctions
that GLAMUR theoretical framework proposes to differentiate local from global food value
chains:
1. The physical / geographical distance between production and consumption
2. The type of governance and organization of the value chain (degree of control of “local
actors” and “global actors”)
3. The kind of resources, knowledge and technologies employed
4. The way value chain actors shape product identity with regard to the reference to the
territory of production for food plays a relevant role or not.
These four criteria have been revised with CCRI and adapted to the case. The first criterion
was the most differentiating criterion between chains, also when considering the size of the area
11 www.glamur.eu
of production. The second criterion helped to choose between Emmentaler cheese and Gruyère
cheese as a suitable global chain for the case study: indeed, Gruyère value chain has a working
organization and its governance made this cheese very successful on the market, while the
organization of Emmentaler value chain is not as successful. For this reason we considered that
the Emmentaler value chain is a very particular case, and that the Gruyère value chain is more
representative of global value chains in general and would present a higher potential for
successful data collection. The third criterion is also important in the differentiation of the
chains, as the main particularity of the local chain we selected is its traditional know-how for
producing milk and cheese (see paragraph 2.3.2), whereas the global chain selected uses
modern technologies. The fourth criterion was not so differentiating in our case, as both global
and local chains have PDO status, which is used in both cases as a very important tool of
communication and regulation on the quality of the product.
Also, during the Research Plan written in collaboration with the CCRI team, the desk-based
reviews completed for both Swiss and English contexts suggested that global VS local is best
described in terms of a continuum. Indeed, almost every Swiss cheese is protected, promoted
and guaranteed by a PDO scheme. The result is that every cheese has a specific delimited zone
of production, with a secular tradition, know-how and unique organoleptic characteristics and
presents a particular coalition between actors. Hence, in Switzerland, there is no cheese value
chain entirely standardized and without any kind of connection between the product and the
territory. This is partly due to the particular marketing strategy proposing traditional and high
quality products, thus keeping up the Swiss image abroad. Similarly, there is no cheese value
chain in Switzerland that is not concerned by exportations abroad, which are needed and part of
the strategy for the survival of the products and value chains. Thus, the desk-based reviews
from both English and Swiss contexts suggest the following characteristics can be used to
situate individual producers along this global-local continuum:
5. Volume of cheese produced
6. Proportion of cheese exported
7. Network of milk suppliers (number of and distance of suppliers from the place of cheese
production)
8. Number, range and distance of other input suppliers from the place of cheese production
9. Degree of mechanisation and industrialisation of production processes
10.Number of links in the value chain (from production to final consumer)
11.Nature of the information available to consumers about the cheeses sold
12.Number, range and geographical concentration of market outlets
Some producers will be easy to identify as ‘mostly global’ or ‘mostly local’ businesses. Others
may be locally embedded in terms of milk supply, for example, but predominantly oriented
towards national – or even international – marketing (wholesalers and supermarkets). Value
chains will therefore inevitably have a degree of hybridity. Overall it was found that considering
12 www.glamur.eu
a distinction of farmhouse versus creamery type of cheese production was the most relevant
criterion to distinguish between more local and more global cheese value chains in both
countries.
2.2. Scope of the value chains under study
The study has a goal of assessing FVCs in their whole in a holistic perspective. The scope is
thus spreading from agricultural inputs supplying to consumption. The main steps studied are in
accordance with the definition of core value chain from FAO (2014), which includes actors who
have the functions of “production, aggregation, processing and distribution”. Thus, the stages of
the value chains studied with the most emphasis are the agricultural production, the primary
processing (milk aggregation and cheese making) and secondary processing (cheese refining).
The inputs stage is difficult to take into account entirely due to the difficulty to get information
about the input production and transport and the large interaction with many other food value
chains. Still, our data collection includes this step as much as possible. Packaging, export, and
retailing was also taken into account as much as possible taking into account the limited access
to data and the very high interaction with other value chains. The consumption stage was also
studied through a consumer focus group. The chart below shows a simplified cheese chain in
Switzerland and the steps that were integrated in the study.
2.3. Presentation of the case study
2.3.1. Global cheese chain: Le Gruyère
The value chain of Le Gruyère cheese starts with the milk production, which is delivered
twice a day to the creamery that must be no further than 20 kilometres. Creameries process the
un-pasteurised milk once a day to transform it into cheese. The ripening phase can begin in the
cellars of the creamery for the four first months, then the cheeses are transferred in the cellars
of bigger companies such as Emmi or Migros. The cheeses are sold after at least 5 months of
aging. The book of specifications lists strict rules regarding cows feed, milk treatment, area of
production and the final product characteristics such as size, aspect, taste and nutritional
Inputs - incl fertilizers, feed, bedding, rennet,
starters, equipment
Dairy farmers
Cheese makers (creameries)
Cheese refiners (same as cheese
ripeners)
Distributors, Exporters, Retailers
Consumers
Switzerland Switzerland and Abroad Switzerland and Abroad
Figure 1: Chart of the cheese value chain’s scope of the study
13 www.glamur.eu
values. Figure 2 shows the structure of the Gruyère value chains with the number of actors at
the respective stages.
According to the four GLAMUR criteria of local-global distinction, the Gruyère value chain can
be characterized as follows:
1. Distances: The geographical area of production of the milk and cheese includes several
cantons of South-West French speaking Switzerland like the cantons of Fribourg, Vaud,
Neuchâtel and Jura as well as several townships in Berne (see Figure 3). Different sale
channels exist: Le Gruyère can be produced and consumed within a locality as directly
sold by the creamery, but more than 95% is sold to industries, such as Mifroma owned by
the retailer Migros, which can add value to the final product extending the ripening period
until 18 months using specialised cellars. Nine ripening enterprises, among which Emmi,
Mifroma and Fromage Gruyère SA, collect the un-matured cheese and sell the final
product to national distributors or international enterprises (Vallélian 2012). Le Gruyère
Local consumers
Exporters
World Consumers
Inputs suppliers
2300 dairy farmers
223 Village creameries
8 Refiners Retailers Swiss
Consumers
Figure 2: Chart of the global cheese chain “Le Gruyère”
Figure 3: Production area of Le Gruyère cheese (Mifroma 2014)
14 www.glamur.eu
cheese is exported in 55 countries in all the continents (IPG 2014b). The main importers
are the EU and the United States of America (USA). In 2013, Europe imported 7 757 tons
whereas the USA bought 3 051 tons (IPG 2014b).
Concerning the distances upstream of the chain, an important aspect is the feed provision
for dairy cows. The cattle is fed principally on pasture (minimum of 70% of feed from the
farm as required by the PDO) but concentrated feed are allowed to a certain extent.
Farmers can buy concentrated feedstuffs such as soy and cereals coming from Brazil,
Argentina and Europe, as well as they can buy equipment from other countries (FOAG
2014b). Other inputs concern the machineries (Swiss or French origin) and ingredients for
the cheese making, such as rennet (New Zealand) and salt (Swiss). The scale of each
stage spreading can be seen on Figure 4.
2. Governance: The whole chain is regulated by the Interprofessional organization of
Gruyère (IPG), created in 1997. Its aim is to manage agreement and communication
between producers, cheese makers and retailers, as well as the PDO files, quantity and
quality, commercialization and promotion (publicities, sponsors, website, etc…). It
encloses 13 representatives in the committee between milk producers, cheese makers
and cellar men (Dévaud 2010). There are also small milk and cheese associations linking
Spatial Scale Production inputs Agricultural Production Primary processing Secondary
processingDistribution Retailing
Consumptio
n
LocalLand
Water
Workers
Forage Local shops
Regional Concentrated feed (cereals)
Feed (hay or mais) Specialised shops
Supermarkets (Coop,
Migros)
Cows Restaurants
National
Equipment electricity
equipment
workers
Salt
Supermarkets (Coop,
Migros)
Cows Starters electricity Restaurantselectricity Salt
Continental Concentrated feed (cereals) EquipmentSupermarkets in EU
Restaurants in EU
Global Fuel Rennet Fuel
Machineries
workers packaging
Speclialised shops in
USA, China, Russia,
Japan
Concentrated feed (soya) fuel, packaging Restaurants
C
o
n
s
u
m
e
r
s
Agricultural Inputcompani
es
Supermarkets
0 Km
40 km
Industrial
Inputcompa
nies
Milk production
Cheese processing
Cheese ripening
exporter
3 km
4.6
95.4%
CH:
USA: 10.4%other: 4.8%
Figure 4: the Gruyère value chain spreading between the local and global scale (adapted from WFSC
2014)
15 www.glamur.eu
milk producers and their cheesemaker at a smaller scale, enabling communication
between actors of the same area.
3. Resource/Knowledge/technologies: Creameries are industries at the local scale where
each processing phase is done automatically and is controlled by both machines and
qualified staff. For this reason, Le Gruyère is considered as a traditional cheese made with
modern and automated technologies, mostly in order to deal with a high demand, hygiene
and labour efficiency.
4. Identity: Le Gruyère cheese, named after the Swiss region where it was originated more
than 800 years ago, has a strong link with its territory of production. It has a PDO status
at the national level since 2001 and at the European level since 2011 (IPG 2014a) and
the seat of the IPG is still situated in Gruyère town. Sold as a traditional high quality
product, this link to the territory is particularly used in the marketing strategy for Le
Gruyère. However, the area of production has spread well outside the original Gruyère
region over the centuries and the PDO was the last attempt to contain that spread
(Boisseaux and Barjolle 2004). Nonetheless, the PDO could not avoid that a Gruyère
cheese is also produced in France with its own PDO.
5. Volumes: Around 29 000 tons of Le Gruyère are produced a year, which is the highest
cheese production in Switzerland. Le Gruyère value chain is composed by 2500 small
scale enterprises: 2300 milk producers, 223 creameries and around 50 alpine creameries.
2.3.2. Local cheese chain: L’Etivaz
The local chain is represented by L’Etivaz, a Swiss ripened cheese. L’Etivaz value chain
(Figure 5) is composed of farmers producing milk and processing it themselves into cheese, of
the refiner and cooperative “La Maison de L’Etivaz”, of exporters and of retailers. Farmers move
their cows to high pastures in the Alps (between 1000-2000 meters high) from May to October
and process the milk into cheese every day directly in their alpine chalets by heating milk over a
wood fire inside copper cauldrons. The cheese is delivered several times per week to L’Etivaz
cooperative “La Maison de L’Etivaz” where it is ripened a minimum of 135 days until a maximum
of 24 months (FOAG 2004). L’Etivaz was the first Swiss product to obtain the PDO status, in
1999 (L’Etivaz AOP 2010).
16 www.glamur.eu
1. Distances: L’Etivaz is produced in the Canton of Vaud, in specific municipalities located
between 1000 and 2000 meters of altitude: Chateâu-d’Oex, Rougemont, Rossinière,
Ormont-Dessous, Ormont-Dessus, Leysin, Cobeyrier, Villeneuve and Ollon and Bex
(Figure 6). Most resources used are local. The ripening phase is located in the Pays
d’Enhaut region (FOAG 2004). Thus, production is limited to a small zone whereas retail
and consumption surpass the national borders. Producers can retail at their chalets 10%
of their own production. The 90% left are sold to “La Maison de L’Etivaz” and then to
exporters and retailers such as Migros, Emmi, Intercheese and Huguenin among others.
Around 70% of the total volume is sold in Switzerland, 40% in the French speaking part.
The 30% left is sold mostly in France, Belgium and Germany.
Upstream from the chain, the cattle are mostly fed on alpine meadows. However,
concentrated feedstuff such as cereals and soy coming from Europe, Argentina and Brazil
are authorized, to a maximum of 1 kilogram per cow per day.
Exporters
World Consumers
Inputs supplier 72 farmers-
cheesemakers 1 Refiner
(cooperative)
Retailers Swiss
Consumers
Local consumers and tourists Figure 5: Chart of the local cheese chain L'Etivaz
Figure 6: Production area of L'Etivaz cheese (Mifroma, 2014)
17 www.glamur.eu
2. Governance: The production and fist sale steps are regulated by the Etivaz cooperative
“La Maison de L’Etivaz”, owned by the producers. Seven members form the Committee
and are in charge of the cooperative’s administration, being assisted in the daily
management by Quality and Promotion employees. The aim of the cooperative is to
support and guide producers regarding decision making on quality control, traceability,
the book of specifications, but also marketing researches, promotions, sale management,
establishment of prices and negotiation with wholesalers. The sale management is thus
centralised to a single enterprise to avoid parallel markets by direct sales. Hence,
governance is managed by an effective structure characterized by a strong cohesion
between different actors (Barjolle and Chappuis 2000).
3. Resource/Knowledge/technologies: The knowledge and know-how employed in the
production process is part of an ancient tradition passed from generation to generation.
Indeed, farmers work with their families teaching to the next generation how to transform
the milk and guide the cattle. Technologies used are traditional: the un-pasteurised milk
is compulsorily heated in copper boilers on wood fire in accordance with local practices.
The copper boilers are more than one century years old. Moreover, the PDO specifications
forbid any kind of mechanical alteration of the milk such as centrifugation before
transformation or pasteurization.
Spatial Scale Production inputsAgricultural
ProductionPrimary processing
Secondary
processingDistribution Retailing Consumption
LocalLand Cooperative's shop
Water
Workers
Forage Alp chalets
Regional Concentrated feed (cereals)
Feed (hay or mais) Specialised shops
Supermarkets (Coop,
Migros)
Cows Restaurants
National
Equipment electricity
equipment
workers
Salt
Supermarkets (Coop,
Migros)
Cows Starters electricity Restaurantselectricity Salt
Continental Concentrated feed (cereals) EquipmentSupermarkets in EU
Restaurants in EU
Global Fuel Rennet Fuel
Machineries
workers packaging
Speclialised shops in
USA, China, Russia,
Japan
Concentrated feed (soya) fuel, packaging Restaurants
C
o
n
s
u
m
e
r
s
Agricultural
Inputcompa
nies Supermarkets )
14.7 Km
Industrial Inputcompan
ies
On-farmcheesemaking
Cheese ripening
(cooperative)
exporterB
y-p
rod
ucts
7%
CH: 60%
USA and other:7.5%
14.7 0 Km
Figure 7: L’Etivaz value chain spreading between the local and global scale (adapted from WFSC 2014)
18 www.glamur.eu
4. Identity: L’Etivaz was the first Swiss non viticulture product obtaining the Swiss PDO
status, in 1999 (L’Etivaz AOP 2010). It has a strong link to its territory of production,
which is a very small area (Figure 6). This link is also strengthened by the highly
traditional production processes and the book of specifications stipulating for example
that the typical wood of the region (spruce) has to be used for the ripening shelves. Sold
as a very traditional and high quality product, this link to the territory is particularly used
in the marketing strategy for L’Etivaz.
5. Volumes: The production is carried out by 72 families working in 130 traditional alpine
chalets. The annual production is around 420 tons, or 16 000 rounds of L’Etivaz (L'Etivaz
AOP 2010).
2.4. Critical issues
The study of the Swiss cheese sector identified several critical issues as described in the
following paragraphs. These critical issues constitute a starting point to develop the assessment
indicators as it will be the goal to identify if the local chain performs better in these issues than
the global chain or not.
i. Although Switzerland has a high level of self-sustenance for dairy products, its
production relies more and more on foreign feed and inputs. The Provenance and
nature of agricultural inputs is an issue especially concerning animal feed imports.
The shortage of domestically produced animal feed grains represents a major deficit of
the Swiss agriculture. In the last twenty years, the national production of animal feed
grain has decreased by 40% and the self-sufficiency level has dropped below 50%
(VSF 2014). Following the shortage of protein on the European markets, soy imports
mainly originate from South-America (in particular Brazil) where soy production leads
to considerable deforestation and is accompanied with drastic socio-economic and
environmental effects in the producing countries (Agrofutura 2011). This issue is thus
linked with issue number 5 “ecosystem services”. However, the use of genetically
modified organisms (GMOs) is not that much an issue because Switzerland has voted a
moratorium on GMOs and this implies that soy and other imports must not contain
GMOs (with some very limited exceptions). This means that soy can be imported only
from some places and premium for GMO free has to be paid, costing around 40 Million
CHF per year for animal feeding (VSF 2014). Both chains have specifications regarding
the use of feed and limit the use of concentrates. The local chain has a lower
dependency on feed as animals are mostly fed by alpine grazing (at least for the milk
aimed at producing L’Etivaz).
ii. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are a general issue as GHG emissions from
agricultural production are known to be the most important in food value chains, and
19 www.glamur.eu
are mostly due to cows’ digestion in the case of dairy products (FAO 2006a; FAO
2007a), but also to manure management, fodder production, and imported
concentrated feed (Schader et al. 2013). It is not easy to assume which chain is
performing better for this issue as many sources of emissions should be taken into
account. The main differences between the two chains probably lay in the scale of
operation where the individual traditional productions for L’Etivaz and smaller volumes
transported may be emitting more GHG per unit. However, at the farm level, little use
of machinery and high reliance on grazing could mitigate emissions. The preference of
renewable energies, efficiency in processing and resources used, the modes of
transport and recycling are also other points that could make a difference. Larger
factories like in the Gruyère chain are probably more likely to adopt such measures
due to their size, whereas in L’Etivaz, the access to efficient technologies or recycling
plants is remoter. To analyse exactly the emissions per unit of cheese produced, a life-
cycle analysis would be required, but this is not within the scope of this study.
iii. GHG emissions are also linked to the amount and type of energy used along the
chain: fuels for transporting the inputs to the farm, the milk to the creamery and then
the cheese to the cellars and to the selling places; for producing the agricultural
machines; and for processing the milk into cheese. Whether the energy used is
renewable is an important sustainability issue too. The local chain is probably using
more traditional, but also renewable, energy at the productions stages (use of grazing,
wood heating of milk for the cheese production); while the global chain may be
consuming less in the transports due to economies of scale. The global chain might
also have more potential to invest in modern renewable energies such as solar panels,
wind energy or biogas.
iv. The amount and type of waste produced, as well as waste management are other
commonly known sustainability issues. One of the main sources of waste in this sector
is the whey, which can be used in different ways (feed, ingredient …). The amounts
produced in creameries for the global chain may allow for a better waste
management, as substantial amounts are produced (around 10 litres per kilo cheese
produced) and other industries or farms in the vicinity might be interested to use it.
This is linked with the amount of primary resources used (milk, land, water, etc.),
and whether they are renewable. Indeed if waste is produced from scarce resources,
sustainability can be compromised. In our case, water use is not as much a critical
issue. Indeed in the context studied, drought is never a problem and there is more
than enough water all along the year in the mountainous and flat-land regions
concerned.
v. Ecosystem services are also a major concern in Switzerland. High ecological
requirements for all dairy farmers in Switzerland ensure a relatively good performance
20 www.glamur.eu
of both chains, compared to other dairy sectors in the world. These requirements
come from the agricultural policy that offers subsidies in exchange of ecological
deliveries. Traditional practices in the local chain with very little artificial balancing
through chemicals, ploughing and seeds are probably giving the local chain better
performances for the related attributes. This issue is in particular linked with
maintaining soil balance and quality, together with respecting wild and agro-
biodiversity. The main step concerned by this issue is the agricultural production
step.
vi. Swiss norms about animal welfare are particularly demanding, as animal welfare is
another main concern in Switzerland. For example, voluntary programs from the
Federal Office of Agriculture (FOAG) exist concerning the number of outings per
months, or the dimensions of cows’ stalls and up to 75% of dairy farmers participate
in some schemes (FOAG 2014c). Surveys have shown high consumer awareness for
animal welfare in Switzerland (Coop 2008) and breeding conditions is a major concern
when purchasing. The local chain has specifications of unlimited grazing during the
production period, which allows animals to freely graze in large pastures with high
floral diversity; therefore animal welfare for this chain could be considered better.
However, farmers in the global chain might have more means to invest in modern
loose housing stables.
vii. Transparency is a growing issue for FVCs. It enables consumers to know exactly the
consequences of their way of consuming, and it is also linked with food safety and
traceability. It is equally important for stakeholders of the upstream part of the chain
like farmers who often have a very low access to information such as where the final
product is sold, under which form and at what price. Thus transparency is important
following the chain both downstream and upstream. Technological tools such as bar
codes and governance tools such as PDO schemes are thought to increase the flow of
information, the traceability and thus the transparency related to a product. It is also
probably easier to insure transparency in short chains as fewer intermediaries is
probably facilitating the transfer of information. However, large chains might make
more use of modern tools (websites, social networks, etc.) to pass on information.
Information and communication within and outside the chains are of major
importance regarding this issue. Communication between stakeholders along the chain
may enable economic efficiencies to be made (that can in turn affect affordability),
and lower environmental impacts. Likewise, when information is made publically
available, this can impact on consumer behaviour by building trust in company
operations and the product. Public information is used as an important marketing tool
in the two chains.
21 www.glamur.eu
viii. Finally, the creation of added value is a highly important issue for FVCs in
developed countries, because it is an indicator of economic growth. Actually, the
creation of a margin is the very condition of existence for a value chain. All actors
interviewed in the WP2 research in Switzerland placed this issue as the most important
in the ranking deciding for relevant attributes (Schmitt et al. 2014).
Both chains have high costs of production and provide highly valued cheeses.
Therefore assessing the creation of added value requires in-depth investigation for
both chains. A major factor playing in the value creation is also the public subsidies
accorded to farmers that can constitute up to 50% of the price of milk and thus
contribute to incomes but are not directly a value based on the product sold.
ix. Nonetheless, the distribution of price along the chain also has its importance, as
farmers’ income is often low and dependant on direct payments and subsides paid by
the state, and farmers’ share of the final price is also often small. The fact that the
receive such high subsidies might also contribute to the fact that other stages receive
a higher share of the added value.
The high inclusiveness of all actors through the PDO schemes in both chains may allow
a fairer distribution along the chain. The shorter chain and cooperative organization in
the case of L’Etivaz could also be a cause for better distribution.
x. Health issues related to cheese consumption are an important sustainability factor
when considering the consumption end of the chain. Cheese de facto contains high
amounts of fat, and especially unhealthy saturated fat of animal origin that have been
linked to different types of cancers, excess cholesterol, inflammations, cardio-vascular
diseases and obesity (FAO 2010a). The salt content is also a trigger of high pressure
and all related diseases. However, as for all potentially unhealthy food, the effects
depend on the quantities consumed, the overall diets, the personal metabolism and
the environment and lifestyle. It is thus extremely hard to qualify a single food as
healthy or unhealthy and that is why the different daily recommended intakes depicted
by several nations or organizations differ and research is still ongoing. The consumer
behaviour thus plays an important role, both regarding quantities and the association
with other food in the total diet. Swiss people consume a substantial amount of cheese
(27.9 kg of hard cheese per capita in 2012 (SFU 2013)) as it is an important part of
the culture. Fondue and raclette are national dishes exclusively composed of melted
cheese. However, cheeses also contain positive health nutrients like calcium and some
vitamins. It has been shown that pasture systems can have a positive effect on the
fatty acids types found in the milk (Thomet et al. 2012) and thus the local chain might
produce cheese with healthier amounts of the different components.
22 www.glamur.eu
3. Research Design : research questions and indicators
3.1. Research Objectives and Research Questions
Here are the four research objectives (ROs) that were set for the cheese sector, in
collaboration with the CCRI team.
1. To examine value chain arrangements for producers across the global-local continuum
(which incorporates both ‘farmhouse’ and ‘creamery’ producers), including their
geography, market concentration and nature of upstream and downstream relations.
2. To analyse key food chain performance issues identified from a production perspective
(cheese making and dependant upstream value chain), with key indicators concerning
added value issues, resource use, biodiversity, nutritional challenges, and product
branding.
3. To identify consumer understandings of food chain performance in relation to cheese
buying, including affordability issues, the role of information and communication and
the importance of the provenance of the cheese they are buying.
4. To examine consumer behaviours and practices in relation to cheese buying and
consuming, including health and nutritional issues.
Moreover, from the previous identification of main issues for the comparison local-global (see
paragraph 2.4), the five research questions (RQs) identified are for the Swiss case study:
RQ1: What are the differences between the two chains concerning producers’ income and
value distribution along the chain? (Economics)
RQ2: How are information and communication organized in the chains? How can
information and communication be improved in both chains? (Social)
RQ3: What are the differences in the two chains concerning the impacts on natural
resources (impact to biodiversity, quality of air, etc.)? (Environment)
RQ4: The two chains having similar transformation processes, are there some nutritional
differences between the cheeses studied? (Health)
RQ5: What are the differences in the two chains concerning animal welfare? (Ethics)
23 www.glamur.eu
3.2. Attributes and indicators selection
In this paragraph, the selection of attributes and indicators is explained. The selection was
mostly based on the WP2 comparative report (Kirwan et al. 2014) and WP2 Swiss Report
(Schmitt et al. 2014).
The attributes and indicators selection process was achieved in close discussion with the
CCRI team, using the common list of attributes defined for GLAMUR in WP2 (Kirwan et al 2014).
The relevance of each attribute was assessed regarding the research questions, and thus the
Swiss and/or British critical issues. A number of common indicators were identified that would
enable comparisons to be made both between and within the two countries. The main source
used was the common list of indicators sent by the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture
(FiBL), although some indicators were added in regards to the context of the chains and the
research objectives. Those additional indicators have been adapted from existing tools such as
the Sustainability Assessment of Food and Agriculture systems (SAFA) Indicators (FAO 2013).
The set of attributes and indicators is presented in Table 1 below. The detailed set with unit,
stage relevance, benchmarks and benchmarks sources for each indicator can be found in Table
8 in annex. The data source for each indicator can be found in the detailed Data Quality Check
table in annex (Table 9). The complete justification of the attributes can be found in annex
(Table 7).
Table 1: Set of attributes and indicators
Attribute Indicators Research objectives and
Research questions
Dimension Related critical issues (numbers refer to
chapter 2,4)
Affordability Ability to provide food at acceptable prices
Price perception of consumers
RO 3 & 4 Economic (xiii) Creation of added value; Access to food
by all in the population
Creation
/ distribution
of added
value
Net business profit
Distribution of price across the chain
Contribution to the economy of the region
RO 1 & 2
RQ 1
Economic & Social
(viii) Creation of added value
(ix) Distribution of price
Information
&
communicati
on
Communication along the chain
Availability of Information
Product Labelling
RO 2 & 3
RQ 2
Social (vii) Transparency
Consumer
behaviour
Cooking practices
Taste preference
Convenience
Willingness to pay
RO 4
Social (x) Sustainable consumption practices
Resource
Use
Soil management practices
Material consumption practices
Waste reduction and disposal
Processing efficiency
RO 2
RQ 3
Environment (ii) Agricultural inputs (iii) Energy used
(iv) Waste (v) Ecosystem Services
24 www.glamur.eu
Biodiversity Land and Species management practices
Diversity of Production
RO 2
RQ 3
Environment (v) Ecosystem Services
Nutrition
Salt content
Fat content
Fat types
Calcium content
RO 4
RQ 4
Health (x) Health
Animal
Welfare
Animals density
Lifetime of dairy cows
Time spent on pasture
RO 2
RQ 5
Ethics (vi) Animal welfare
Pollution GHG mitigation at farm level
GHG mitigation from processing
GHG mitigation from transport
RO 2
RQ 3
Environment (i) Agricultural inputs (ii) GHG emissions
(v) Ecosystem Services
4. Methods of Data collection and analysis
4.1. Stakeholders identification and data collection
Data collection was done through face-to-face interviews with key knowledge brokers and
other actors within the value chain (IP Gruyère, retailers) and desk and web-based
reviews/analysis of available data and documents.
4.1.1. Semi-directive interviews
The strategy was to get a minimum sample of the square root of the actual number of actors
in the value chain, in order to have representative quantitative results. The total number of
interviews can be seen in Table 2. Interviews were based on semi-directive questionnaires with
both qualitative and quantitative questions, and were most of the time conducted face-to-face,
except for some stakeholders who answered the questionnaires via e-mail.
The Etivaz cooperative gave us the contact information of all their members and then we
contacted them until we could have a representative sample of nine of them, including an
organic producer (see Figure 9). The IP Gruyère also gave us the contact information of milk
producers and cheesemakers who are at the IP Gruyère committee or delegations. As they are
delegates for a region, this sample was equally spread out. In order to respect the geographical
representativity, more producers were found via other producers who recommended them
(snowball strategy) or via online research (see Figure 8).
Generally, it was not a problem to get access to interviewees as producers and farmers were
welcoming and interested to answer our questions. The representativity of the planned sample
is rather good although the canton of Vaud (VD) is a bit overrepresented, which is due to its
central location. However, if the quality of the data reveals to be poor in the data analysis
phase, this leaves the possibility to exclude some answers from the sample. Moreover,
25 www.glamur.eu
interviews with retailers in Switzerland could be conducted directly with only two local ones as
the big companies preferred to answer to written questionnaires via e-mail, which was
completed by three of them, including one in France and one exporter. One face-to-face
interview was conducted with the main agricultural inputs company in Switzerland.
Table 2: Interviews achieved for the local and the global chains
Cheese in the
value chain
sample
calculated (√)
sample
interviewed (1st of
November)
ETIV
AZ
Etivaz producers (milk and
cheese)
70 8.4 10
organic Etivaz 8% 1 2
Etivaz cooperative 1 1 1
GRU
YERE
All Gruyère Cheese factories 223 15 18
organic Gruyère 5% 1 4
Gruyère factories canton FR 52% 8 9
Gruyère factories canton VD 29% 5 7
Gruyère factories canton NE 7% 1 1
Gruyère factories canton JU 1% 1 1
Gruyère factories canton
JUBE
4% 1 0
Gruyère factories other regions
7% 1 0
All milk producers for
Gruyère
2300 48 53
organic milk producers 5% 3 4
milk producers canton FR 52% 25 23
milk producers canton VD 29% 14 26
milk producers canton NE 7% 3 1
milk producers canton JU 1% 1 1
milk producers canton JUBE 4% 2 2
milk producers other regions 7% 2 0
IP Gruyère 1 1 1
Gruyère Refiners 9 5 4
BO
TH
Input companies ? 1 1
Retailers ? 3 5
Export ? 1 1
Consumers infinite 1 focus
group
1 focus
group
TOTAL 2604 85.3 94
26 www.glamur.eu
LEGEND
Milk producers
Cheese makers (primary processing)
Cheese refiners (secondary processing)
IP Gruyère
Figure 8: Location of the interviews for the global chain Le Gruyère
LEGEND
Milk and cheese
producers
La Maison de
L’Etivaz: Refiner and
producer’s cooperative
Figure 9: Location of the interviews for the local chain L'Etivaz
27 www.glamur.eu
4.1.2. Analysis of the cheese value chains at the consumption stage
This phase of work examines consumer perspectives regarding cheese value chains. These
issues were explored through a consumer focus group in Switzerland and secondary data,
especially a consumer study conducted by the IPG itself (M.I.S TREND 2010).
The socio-economic profile, age and gender of the participants of the focus group are
important, and were balanced as far as possible. Before the focus group started, respondents
were asked to complete a basic one-page survey, anonymously, to confirm their socio-
demographic background and basic information about spending on cheese per week, use,
purchasing patterns, etc.
The focus group material was designed to examine the consumer-related attributes listed
above, including group discussion and materials to explore consumer issues. For example,
consumer choices in relation to available information was discussed, as well as knowledge and
behaviour relating to cheese buying and household use, price, nutritional knowledge about
cheese and how this influences purchasing, understandings of localness and globalness, and the
role these issues play in cheese consumption choices. We used different cheese packaging to
prompt discussion around nutrition, but also territoriality, authenticity of the message etc.
4.2. Participatory methods
During the preliminary interviews (two producers and the producer’s cooperative for the local
chain / two milk producers, two cheese makers, one cheese refiner and the interprofessional
organisation “IPG” for the global chain), stakeholders were invited to criticise the tested
questionnaire, and their opinion about the relevance of our indicators and questions was
enquired. Thus, the final list of indicators was slightly changed and confirmed in particular by
the local producer’s cooperative and the global interprofessional organisation “IPG”. Then,
during the following interviews for data collection, remarks of the respondents about the
questionnaire were listened to and taken into account as much as possible.
Participatory methods during the focus group with consumers were explicit and entirely part
of the process.
4.3. Data quality check
In order to check the quality of data used to calculate the indicators, we used the pedigree
matrix approach, shown in the Table 3 (Ciroth 2013; Lewandowska 2004). The data for each
indicator and for each chain (local and global) was rated according to the pedigree matrix. The
results of this data quality check are further discussed in the discussion chapter (see paragraph
6.2.1 and Table 9).
This method scores each data used, and this score is easy to interpret. For each data, five
quality criteria are checked: Reliability of the source, Completeness of the data, temporal
correlation, geographical correlation, and further Technological correlation. For each criterion
and each data, the proper cell in Table 3 is chosen (in Table 3, the right cells are outlined with a
black thick line for a fictive data as an example). This cell corresponds to a Data Quality
28 www.glamur.eu
Indicator (DQI), and the differences between Data Quality Goals (DQGs) and the selected DQIs
are calculated. In such a way, the values of parameter called Data Quality Distance (DQD) are
obtained for each criterion. Finally, the values are automatically summed vertically and assigned
to the appropriate quality class. Table 3 below shows the data value according to their range
(score). The higher the value of DQD (differences between the requirements and the 'real'
conditions), the lower the quality of data and quality class are (Lewandowska 2004).
Table 3: Pedigree matrix used to evaluate the data quality (adapted from: Ciroth 2013; Lewandowska 2004)
Criterion DQG 5 DQI 4 DQI 3 DQI 2 DQI 1
Score (DQI) 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 Example
Distance (DQD=1-DQI)
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 DQD= 1-DQI
Reliab
ilit
y o
f so
urce
Qu
an
tita
tive
data
Verified primary data based on measurements (or reported in a survey)
Verified secondary data based on measurement or primary data based on qualified estimates
Non-verified secondary data partly based on qualified estimates
Qualified estimates (e.g. by industrial expert)
Non-qualified estimates or non-verified secondary data
0.4
Qu
alita
tive
data
Primary data based on survey/interview with qualified representative
Verified secondary data based on qualified sample
Non-verified secondary data partly based on qualified estimates
Qualified estimates (e.g. by industrial expert)
Non-qualified estimates or non-verified secondary data
Co
mp
lete
ness
Representative data from all sites relevant for the value chain considered, over an adequate period
Representative data from > 50% of the sites relevant for the value chain considered, over an adequate period
Representative data from only some sites (<<50%) relevant for the value chain considered or >50% of sites but from short periods
Representative data from only one site relevant for the value chain considered or some sites but from short periods
Representativeness unknown or data from a small number of sites and from short periods
0.6
Tem
po
ral
co
rrela
tio
n
Less than 3 years of difference to the time period of the dataset
Less than 6 years of difference to the time period of the dataset
Less than 10 years of difference to the time period of the dataset
Less than 15 years of difference to the time period of the dataset
Age of data unknown or more than 15 years of difference to the time period of the dataset
0.2
Geo
grap
hic
al
co
rrela
tio
n
Data from area
under study
Average data
from larger area in which the area under study is included
Data from area
with similar production conditions
Data from area
with slightly similar production conditions
Data from
unknown or distinctly different area 0.2
29 www.glamur.eu
5. Results In the first section the scores of performance are presented for both chains. As we decided
with the CCRI team not to calculate scores for the indicators from Consumer Behaviour, this
attribute does not appear in the graphical representations or in the table of scores (Table 4), but
it is presented in section 5.2.5. The second section will present the comparison of the two chains
with detailed performance charts by attribute.
5.1. Scores of Performance
The scores of performance obtained in this case study appear in the following table (Table 4).
Table 4: Scores of performance for the local and global cheese value chains
Indicators Unit Benchmarks Data Performance (%)
Low High Local Global Local Global
Ability to provide food at acceptable
prices CHF/kg cheese 23.36 7.75 21.02 17.85 15.00 35.30
Price perception of consumers
Qualitative rating by consumers
0 4 3.00 3.00 75.00 75.00
Net business profit CHF/year 40000 100000 67437.50 76723.68 45.73 61.21
Distribution of price between actors
Ratio (GINI) 1 0 0.25 0.20 74.82 79.90
Contribution to the economy of the
region FTE/t cheese 1.47 18 11.36 5.80 59.86 26.18
Communication along the chain
Qualitative categories
0 3 or 4 2.71 3.06 90.28 76.39
Availability of Information
Qualitative categories
0 6 5.00 6.00 83.33 100.00
Fu
rth
er
tech
no
log
ical
co
rrela
tio
n
Data from enterprises, processes and materials under study
Data from processes and materials under study (i.e. identical technology) but from different enterprises
Data from processes and materials under study but from different technology
Data on related processes or materials
Data on related processes on laboratory scale or from different technology
0.8
Total 2.2
Quality Class C
30 www.glamur.eu
Product Labelling Qualitative categories
0 5 3.00 3.50 60.00 70.00
Soil management practices
Qualitative categories
0 5 3.15 1.45 63.10 29.07
Material consumption practices
Qualitative categories
0 2 1.08 0.68 53.89 34.12
Waste reduction and disposal
Qualitative categories
0 4 2.28 2.63 57.11 65.78
Processing efficiency kg cheese / 100
kg milk 8.4 10.3 9.22 8.49 43.11 4.91
Landscape management
practices
Qualitative categories
0 7 2.20 2.82 31.43 40.22
Diversity of Production
Qualitative categories
0 3 1.15 0.89 38.33 29.68
Salt content g/100 g 2.6 0.4 1.45 1.57 52.27 46.96
Fat content g/100 g 49.1 17.5 31.50 32.82 55.70 51.51
Fat types g/100 g 41.66 5 18.90 19.48 62.08 60.50
Calcium content mg/100g 675 1200 1027.00 827.23 67.05 29.00
Animals density cows/ha 3 0.5 0.52 1.84 99.27 46.33
lifetime of dairy cows years 3 10.5 7.75 6.83 63.33 51.09
Grazing time % of hours in a
year 0 4380 3165.28 2801.36 72.27 63.96
GHG mitigation at farm level
Qualitative categories
0 8 3.09 3.41 38.58 42.68
GHG mitigation from processing
Qualitative categories
0 7 5.06 3.94 72.22 56.23
Figure 10 shows the global and local performance for each indicator, from the highest local
performance to the lowest.
31 www.glamur.eu
Figure 10: Graphical representation of the performance of the local and global cheese value chains
32 www.glamur.eu
5.2. Comparison of the local and the global chains
This part presents the comparison between the global Le Gruyère cheese value chain and the
local L’Etivaz cheese value chain, in view of the results presented above.
5.2.1. General trends
Figure 11 shows the distribution of performance scores for each chain. For the local chain we
can see that most of the indicators perform above 50% (17 indicators out of 23). Among those,
3 indicators score more than 75% for the local chain. For the global chain, 12 indicators perform
above 50% and 3 of them are above 75%. Therefore, the proportion of indicators with good
results is higher in the local chain. As a consequence, the proportion of indicators with bad
results is higher in the global chain: 11 indicators score under 50% for the global chain, 1 of
them performing lower than 25%. As of the local chain, 6 indicators perform lower than 50%
and 1 of them is under 25%. This chart clearly shows that the local chain performs generally
better than the global chain.
Nonetheless, the global chain also presents some strong claims. Figure 12 shows the number
of indicators where each chain performs better, by dimension. In the light of this chart, in the
Health and Ethical dimensions all local performances are better than the global performances. In
the Environmental dimension, the majority of local performances are better than the global
performances (5 better performances for the local chain against 3 for the global chain). In the
Social dimension, the global chain performs better with 3 indicators out of 4. In the Economic
dimension, more global performances are better than the local performances (2 better
performances for the global chain against 1 for the local chain), and for 1 indicator the two
performances are equal. In general, 14 performances out of 23 are better for the local chain, 8
performances are better for the global chain and 1 indicator shows equal performances between
Figure 11: Comparison of the distribution of performances in the local and global chains
33 www.glamur.eu
the two chains. The local chain thus presents a higher performance in two thirds of the
indicators.
The local chain is thus generally performing better. Health and Ethics seem the most
differentiating dimensions between global and local chains, followed by the Environmental
dimension. In the Social dimension, the two chains seem equivalent, and in the Economic
dimension, the global chain has the advantage. The next paragraphs will detail these results
according to each attribute of performance.
5.2.2. Attribute Affordability
Both cheeses are part of the most expensive cheeses in Switzerland. L’Etivaz cheese is more
expensive than Le Gruyère cheese when taking into account the average price on the market
between different ripening-stage cheeses (20,95 CHF/kg in the end of 2014 for L’Etivaz and
17,85 CHF/kg for Le Gruyère (Coop 2015; Migros 2015; FOAG 2014a)), thus the global
performance is better for indicator Ability to Provide Food at Acceptable Prices.
Yet, from our consumer focus group, consumers perceive both prices of L’Etivaz and Le
Gruyère to be reasonable, neither expensive nor cheap. Thus both chains perform a medium
value for indicator Price Perception of Consumers.
The global chain performs better than the local chain for this attribute, even if consumers
perceive the two chains as reasonably affordable. Scores from both chains could however be
improved, as for example other cheeses’ prices are noticed to be lower in the market.
Figure 12: Comparison of the number of indicators performing better in the local and the global chain
34 www.glamur.eu
5.2.3. Attribute Creation and Distribution of Added Value
For the indicator Net Business Profit, the global chain performs well, and better than the local
chain. This indicator was calculated for both milk producers and cheesemakers. For the global
chain, in which those two steps are physically separated, we weighted the data for each steps
with the number of actors in the chain for each step: 223 cheesemakers and 2300 milk
producers.
For indicator Distribution of Price between Actors, we adapted the Gini ratio, usually used to
estimate wage inequalities within countries. The Gini ratio is a number between 0 and 1: 0 being
perfect equality. Here the prices per kilogram of cheese earned by each stage of the supply
chain (minus the stage before) are compared instead of the wages (see Table 11 in annex
presenting the prices taken for the calculations). Both chains perform very well for this
indicator, the local one slightly worse than the global one. The price is thus distributed rather
equally between the actors taken into account (milk producers, cheesemakers, refiners,
retailers). However, due to the different structures of the chains, the milk producer and
cheesemaker stages are accounted as one stage in l’Etivaz and this seems to influence the
results to their disadvantage. In food chains, a very small part of the final price often goes to
producers. Thus, it is interesting to note that the price of milk at production stage for Le
Gruyère cheese is the highest in Switzerland. As for L’Etivaz cheese, there is no direct price of
milk at production stage as the milk is processed on the farm.
For indicator Contribution to the Economy of the Region, the local chain performs well (11,36
Full Time Equivalent (FTE)/t of cheese) whereas the global chain performs rather badly (5,8
FTE/t of cheese). We calculated an average number of FTE per ton of cheese for this indicator,
at the farm and creamery levels (as the number of FTE per ton at the refiner level is very small
Figure 13: Performance scores for attributes Affordability and Creation and Distribution of Added Value
35 www.glamur.eu
and negligible, and it is impossible to estimate such a number at the retailer level). This result
can easily be explained by the higher degree of standardization and mechanization in the global
chain. Nevertheless, annual quantities being much higher for the global chain, the total number
of FTE concerned by the whole chain are far more important in the global chain than in the local
chain, as described in paragraph 2.3 “Presentation of the case study”.
The global chain performs generally better for attribute Creation and Distribution of Added
Value, but as the performances are quite close and both very good for indicator Distribution of
Price between Actors, we can say that each chain has its strength for this attribute: the strength
of the local chain is the contribution to the economy of the region, and the global strength is the
annual net business profit of farmers and cheesemakers.
5.2.4. Attribute Information and Communication
The local chain performs better for indicator Communication along the Chain: Indeed, actors
of each step are generally more satisfied with the communication within L’Etivaz chain.
Retailers, involved in both chains, are the ones making the difference for this indicator. For
L’Etivaz chain they are in direct contact with the cooperative and refiner “La Maison de L’Etivaz”,
and they have access to information about the producer who made the cheese they buy. On the
contrary, for Le Gruyère chain, some retailers have difficulties to get more information than the
basics (age of the cheese, place of maturation), and are not very satisfied with the
communication they have with actors from the chain (refiners, IPG). The PDO organisations
(IPG, La Maison de L’Etivaz) help create a basis for communication. However, not all steps are
included: only farmers, cheesemakers and refiners. Within Le Gruyère chain, even
Figure 14: Performance scores for attribute Information and Communication
36 www.glamur.eu
communication between farmers and refiners is almost inexistent. However, both chains still
perform very well for this indicator: milk producers, cheesemakers and refiners are mostly
satisfied with the communication within their chains.
Both chains perform also very well for indicator Availability of Information, but the global
chain is better here than the local chain. This indicator addresses information available by
different means to consumers. The global chain makes a difference by using social media to
communicate to consumers (Twitter, Facebook…). Other criteria used for this indicator are
equivalent in both chains: Website available; Personal contact with cheesemaker possible;
Tasting possible; Newsletter available; Information at point of sale available.
Once again, the global chain performs better for indicator Product Labelling. Indeed, in the
cases where the cheeses are labelled (in supermarkets mostly), the label for Le Gruyère cheese
contains more information about the product than the label for L’Etivaz cheese.
The global chain performs slightly better than the local chain for this attribute. Le Gruyère
chain is known for its internal organization and excellent management through the IPG. Overall,
though, both chains perform well for this attribute.
5.2.5. Attribute Consumer Behaviour
This attribute was only analysed in a qualitative way: no benchmarks were applied to its
indicators and no scores calculated. The analysis concerns cheese in general, hard cheese in
particular, but L’Etivaz and Le Gruyère are not always separated, and thus not always
compared. Le Gruyère was often given as an example by consumers when talking about cheese.
Indicator Consumers Use: Consumers have many different habits concerning hard cheese
such as Le Gruyère. Some use cheese always the same way and some use it in different ways.
Hard cheese can be eaten as a full dish: accompanied with bread, in fondue, as a cheesecake,
as a raclette dish… But it can also accompany the dish, grated or not: in a gratin, on pasta, in a
mixed salad, accompanying a soup, with bread and ham… Some also eat cheese after the main
dish for own indulgence, often with some bread, with or without wine. Some others eat it as a
snack, on a toast or in a sandwich. We even met a consumer who wakes up at night and eats
cheese in the middle of the night!
Indicator Taste Preference: All consumers agreed that taste is much more important than
price, within a reasonable limit. Several underlined that one can find some very good Gruyère in
small creameries for a normal price. The quantities purchased can depend on the recipe one
planned to cook, the mood. Sometimes the recipe depends on what was purchased.
Indicator Convenience: All consumers do not define a convenient cheese the same way. For
some, a convenient cheese can be preserved for a long time. For some others, we can hold it in
the hand (this refers to the shape and size of the portion). Some also highlight that the smell of
a convenient cheese should not be so strong and unpleasant. Some think that the cheese should
be easy to cut, that it should be compact (not runny). On the contrary, some pointed out that a
soft cheese is also convenient because it is easily spread. A convenient cheese can also be a
multi-purpose cheese (melted, cut, grated…), or an accessible easy to find cheese. One
37 www.glamur.eu
consumer thinks that for Le Gruyère’ and L’Etivaz’ convenience, packaging is not important: the
texture of the cheese is. Finally, one consumer declared that “All cheeses are convenient”.
Indicator Willingness to Pay: For many consumers, buying cheese is only a choice in their
budget. Many take advantage of promotions in supermarkets. For all consumers, Le Gruyère
price is seldom dissuasive. All consumers met are enthusiastically willing to pay for good cheese
such as Le Gruyère or L’Etivaz. Here is a list of the factors cited by consumers that influence the
purchase of cheese:
Aspect
Price
Size of the portion
Packaging, Presentation, Marketing,
Design
Reputation, Aura, Word-of-mouth
Known and appreciated taste
Unknown taste sought
Need for recipes
Mood, Curiosity, Discovery
Familiarity
Production method (no melted
cheese such as Kiri)
Tastes : Impulsion, Need of the
moment
o For pleasure
o Because of a promotion
5.2.6. Attribute Resource Use
The local chain performs well for indicator Soil management practices, whereas the global
chain performs rather badly. This indicator was made of several criteria and the local chain is
graded higher than the global chain for each of them. The criterion making a higher
difference between the chains is the pH regulation (by the amendment of lime for example),
considering that absence of pH regulation reveals an appropriate soil management that does
not need further adjustments. Both chains make their higher grade for the criterion “tillage
practices”, and both chains make their lower grade for the criterion “frequency of soil
sampling”, considering that a high frequency of sampling enables a better soil management.
Both chains perform well for indicator Material Consumption Practices, the local chain
performing a bit better. This indicator was based on three criteria. All actors in both chains
use recyclable material, but for the two other criteria, the local chain is graded better than
the global chain: The criterion of recycled material used is the one making a higher difference
between the chains, and the one for which the global chain makes its lower grade. The local
chain is graded higher for the criterion of concentrate feed: less concentrated per cow per
year is used in the local chain, because of the limitation set by the book of specifications. The
book of specifications for Le Gruyère cheese also set a limit for feed from outside the farm,
but it is higher than the limit for L’Etivaz cheese.
38 www.glamur.eu
The local chain performs well for indicator Waste Reduction and Disposal, and the global
chain performs very well. All actors from both chains have a management of waste. The local
chain has a higher grade for the criterion of material reused when possible. Indeed farmers of
L’Etivaz chain are quite isolated during summer and it is in their interest to reuse everything
that can be reused. The global chain has higher grades for the percentage of whey reused
and for the existence of a policy of waste reduction. The percentage of whey reused makes
the highest difference between the chains: in Le Gruyère chain all the whey is reused
whereas in L’Etivaz chain some whey can be thrown away in fields. Concerning the policy of
waste reduction, the influencing step is the farmers step: we can thus imagine that, as
farmers from L’Etivaz produce very little waste, they do not feel they need to reduce their
amount.
For indicator Processing Efficiency, both chains perform badly but the local chain performs
better than the global chain. Benchmarks were set by calculating the highest and the lowest
theoretical yields possible for Le Gruyère cheese. As the production process of L’Etivaz cheese
is the same as Le Gruyère one, those benchmark can apply for both chains. Maybe there is a
physical limit making the highest theoretical yield impossible to reach, which would explain
the low performance of both chains.
For this attribute, the local L’Etivaz chain performs generally better, with the exception of
indicator Waste Reduction and Disposal for which the global chain is better.
Figure 15: Performance scores for the Environmental dimension: attributes Resource Use, Biodiversity and Pollution.
39 www.glamur.eu
5.2.7. Attribute Biodiversity
This attribute is represented together with the other environmental attributes in Figure 15
page 38.
For indicator Landscape Management Practices, both chains perform quite badly but the
global chain is better than the local chain. This indicator was made of several criteria applying
on the farm level. The local chain gets a higher grade than the global chain for the criteria of
the percentage of ecological compensation areas on farm, the presence of ecological
structures on farm (such as wildflower strips, nesting aids, stone heaps, wood heaps,
hedgerows, nest boxes, beehives …), and an ecological management of pests and weeds. The
latter is the criterion making the highest difference between chains in favour of the local one.
The global chain gets a higher grade than the local chain for the criteria of the protection of
wildlife habitat connections, the existence of wildlife habitats on farm, the practice of delayed
or adapted mowing, and the existence of multi-species tree populations on farm. The latter is
the criterion making the highest difference between the two chains.
For indicator Diversity of Production, the local chain performs moderately well, better than
the global chain that performs rather badly. This indicator was made of several criteria
applying on the farm level. The global chain is graded slightly higher than the local chain for
the criteria of the number of different productions on farm, and whether the varieties or
breeds on farm are locally adapted. The local chain is graded higher than the global chain for
the criteria of the number of cow breeds in the cattle.
For this attribute, both chains have different strengths and it is difficult to rank one over
the other. Both chains could perform better for this attribute.
5.2.8. Attribute Nutrition
For indicators Salt Content, Fat Content and Fat Types, the two chains perform almost the
same and moderately well. However, the local chain is very slightly better than the global
chain for these three indicators. These moderate performances are quite expected: indeed,
cheese in general is known to be fat and salty, and not so good for health, due to the nature
itself the production process of this type of product. The very close performances of the
chains are also easily explained by the strong similarity between the production processes of
Le Gruyère and L’Etivaz.
40 www.glamur.eu
For indicator Calcium Content, the local chain performs well, better than the global chain
that performs rather badly. However, we have to be careful with this result because there
probably is a high variation of the quantity of calcium in Le Gruyère cheeses and L’Etivaz
cheeses.
Even if the scores of the two chains are close for this attribute, we can say that the local
chain performs a bit better than the global chain.
5.2.9. Attribute Animal Welfare
Figure 16: Performance scores for attribute Nutrition
Figure 17: Performance scores for attribute Animal Welfare
41 www.glamur.eu
For indicator Animal Density, the global chain performs moderately well while the local
chain performs very well (99%). For L’Etivaz chain, the summer pasture land was taken into
account, and for le Gruyère chain, permanent pasture land was taken into account. This
result is not surprising as L’Etivaz cheese is an alpine cheese based on cows’ summer grazing
in a mountainous area with vast spaces.
The local chain performs well, a bit better than the global chain for indicator Lifetime of
Dairy Cows: cows producing milk for L’Etivaz live in average 7 years and 9 months, whereas
cows producing milk for Le Gruyère live in average 6 years and 10 months.
Both chains perform well for indicator Time Spent on Pasture, and the local chain is
slightly better than the global chain. Again, this can be explained by the alpine nature of
L’Etivaz cheese, based on cows’ summer grazing.
The local chain clearly performs better for this attribute, though the global chain also
performs moderately well.
5.2.10. Attribute Pollution
This attribute is represented together with the other environmental attributes in Figure 15
page 38.
The global chain performs better than the local chain and moderately well for indicator
GHG Mitigation on Farm, while the local chain performs rather badly. This indicator was made
of several criteria applying on the farm level. The local chain is graded significantly higher for
the criterion regarding the application of lime and mineral fertilizer. The global chain is
graded significantly higher for the criteria of energy sources, the way organic fertilizer is
spread, share and optimization of machines and transport, and whether there are trees on
the farm. The latter is the criterion making the highest difference between the chains. This
could be explained by the fact that L’Etivaz farms are on a mountainous area where it may
not be easy to grow trees, whereas Le Gruyère farms are more on areas where trees can
grow more easily.
For indicator GHG mitigation from processing, the local chain performs well whereas the
global chain performs moderately well. This indicator was made of several criteria applying on
the processing levels. The global chain is graded higher for the criteria of the reduction of
useless expenses on the creamery (light, heat…), and of informing employees about how to
save energy on the creamery. The local chain is graded significantly higher for the criteria of
the optimization of machines and procedures during the cheese maturation, the type of
energy used on the creamery, and the type of energy used during the cheese maturation.
The latter is the criterion making the highest difference between the chains. For the types of
energy used in the creamery, this result is easily explained by the fact that L’Etivaz cheese
has to be heated over wood fire. The wood often comes from farmers’ own forests. For the
types of energy used in the cellars, this result is explained by the fact that “La Maison de
L’Etivaz” uses renewable energy for its cellars, unlike refiners from the global chain. For this
attribute, each chain has its own strengths. It would be difficult to rank one over the other.
42 www.glamur.eu
6. Discussion
6.1. Discussion of the study
6.1.1. RQ1: Value distribution along the chain
What are the differences between the two chains concerning producers’ income and value
distribution along the chain?
Both chains perform very well for both related indicators, as shown by Figure 13 page 34,
the local chain performing slightly better for the indicator “Net Income of Producers”.
However, because in L’Etivaz farmers and cheesemakers are the same persons, aggregation
was done to compile Gruyère cheesemakers’ and farmers’ net incomes in one result
(according to the relative number of actors for each step) in order to allow comparison.
Regarding the distribution of price, three steps have been considered in each case, as
detailed in Table 11 in annex, depending on the availability of information and the general
structure of the supply chain (refiners and retailers are considered as one step in the global
chain while dairy farmers and cheesemakers are one in the local chain due to farmhouse
cheese making). Thus, the results may be biased. Moreover, finding a general price for each
product required knowing all different products, their retail prices and proportions. The
computed prices are only based on the Swiss market and may not completely reflect the
average retail price of both products. In particular, prices abroad may vary considerably, as
intermediaries may enjoy high margins. One retailer in Paris revealed making as much as a
55% margin, and Gruyère was reportedly sold at 55€/kg in Sweden! Prices in Switzerland
also show high variability, as shown in Table 5, ranging for Le Gruyère from 16 CHF for mild
cheese in major supermarkets to 37 CHF at a local market for extra-mature cheese. Prices
may also vary according to the packaging. The supply chains become less and less
transparent as products flow downstream. Table 10 in annex includes a detail of the structure
of the price of milk and cheese recorded for one Le Gruyère creamery. Table 11 in annex
presents the prices used to compile the Gini ratio.
These results give an overall good performance for both chains, which would however
need to be further studied in the last steps of the supply chain. Moreover, the Gini coefficient
is calculated by considering the revenue as being the price sold minus the price given to the
actor before in the value chain, but this is only a rough estimation of real costs. Retailers may
have much less costs than refiners or farmhouse cheese producers, yet are expected to get
the same share of the final price (in the case of L’Etivaz). We should therefore not consider
that the share is fair, as it is only mathematically well-shared. High production costs for dairy
farmers cannot be fully covered by the actual prices of milk, thus important subsidies
reaching 18cts/kg of transformed milk are given to farmers in both chains. These subsidies
are not included in the Gini ratio, as they are not a cost for cheesemakers or refiners. These
43 www.glamur.eu
subsidies correspond to 21% and 17% of the prices gotten by respectively Gruyère and
Etivaz farmers for their milk1. Nonetheless, according to our focus group, Swiss consumers
perceive both prices of Le Gruyère and L’Etivaz to be justified regarding the quality of those
cheeses. The Gini coefficient is a very useful indicator, which had never been used on food
value chains as far as we know. It however needs to be detailed and criticised for its limits
and could be improved.
Table 5: Examples of prices recorded (by default: in Switzerland) for Le Gruyère and L’Etivaz cheeses (in CHF/kg if unspecified)
Cheese type Price
Gruyère
(global)
Mild (5-months) 16-25
Semi-mature (8 months) Organic: 22-23
Standard: 18-19
Mature (10 months) 18-19
Extra-mature (>12 months) 20-37
Unspecified in UK (Tesco) 15£ (22CHF)
Etivaz
(local)
Unspecified 24-28
Semi-mature organic 31
6.1.2. RQ2: Improving information and communication
How are information and communication organized in the chains? How can information
and communication be improved in both chains?
Regarding Figure 14 page 35, we can say that the information and communication are
very well organized in both chains. Indeed, performances are very high for both chains in all
indicators measured. As expected, communication in the local chain is easier, due to the low
number of actors (only 75 farmers and 1 refiner who is also the cooperative). The high
number of actors in the global chain makes the organisation of the IPG much more complex,
but it is nonetheless working very well. However, during data collection we took note of some
aspects that could be improved. The set of indicators was already decided and we could not
1 In the case of L’Etivaz producers, we had to use the price of cheese and the processing
efficiency to calculate the price perceived, as they do not sell directly the milk. Thus the added value from cheese making is included in this case and not the other.
44 www.glamur.eu
include those aspects into our measurements, but it is important to mention them and to
nuance our results.
A major difficulty was to find some information about the agricultural inputs such as the
composition of concentrate feed, the provenance of its ingredients, the transformation
processes, the route followed by the primary ingredients from their production to the farms,
etc. Farmers and cheesemakers from both chains could not answer precisely, either because
they do not have the information, or because they are not interested in it. One farmer
mentioned that he could ask the agricultural inputs provider Union of Agricultural Federations
(UFA) for more information by writing to them, but that nobody bothers to ask. Information
online or on labels and catalogues did neither cover our interrogations. Finally, we had a late
interview with the input provider that was very useful, but unfortunately it was too late to
build new indicators accounting for the information given.
Similarly, in both chains, information concerning steps downstream of the refining step is
not accessible. There is no communication or information transiting between milk and cheese
producers and retailers. Usually, refiners know only the wholesalers they are selling to, but
they have absolutely no information about the final clients, or the final destination of their
products. Consequently, producers neither have information about where their products end
up. However, neither refiners nor producers seem to be interested in such information.
We also noted a few remarks and dissatisfactions in the global chain. First, we noticed that
communication between milk producers and refiners does not exist. But, as above, neither
refiners nor milk producers seem to be concerned. Then, it is important to highlight that
some distributors expressed their discontent with the lack of information from Le Gruyère
production part of the chain: one explained in particular that he would not have any contact
or information from the IPG if he did not contact them himself. Distributors are more satisfied
with the communication with L’Etivaz chain as they are in direct contact with the refiner and
cooperative “La Maison de L’Etivaz”. We also met one refiner with a very small production,
who does not take part in the IPG and was not satisfied with the industrialization and
standardization of Le Gruyère cheese, which for him are conducted by the IPG and the big
refiners. Thus, he has very few contacts with the IPG and no contacts with the other refiners.
Finally, a few farmers from Le Gruyère chain expressed that they do not feel integrated in the
discussions within the IPG: decisions are discussed and taken within the farmers’ committee
of the IPG and then presented to the other farmers, but their opinion is not taken into
account or asked.
6.1.3. RQ3: Impacts on natural resources
What are the differences in the two chains concerning the impacts on natural resources
(impact to biodiversity, quality of air, etc.)?
As described in paragraphs 5.2.6, 5.2.7, and 5.2.10, the two chains perform differently in
environmental indicators and thus have different impacts on natural resources. All the
impacts described are negative impacts, because indicators are not built in a way that
45 www.glamur.eu
enables to approach the positive impacts. The local chain has greater impacts than the global
chain on waste, wild biodiversity and air quality through GHG emissions on farms. The global
chain has greater impacts than the local chain on air quality through GHG emissions during
processing, soil balance and quality, material consumption, quantity of primary resource
used, and agro-biodiversity. It is worth noticing that the local chain performs better (has less
impacts) in most indicators (five out of eight).
One critical point is the use of whey. All cheesemakers from the global chain reuse it,
while some farmers from the local chain throw a part of it in the fields, mostly because they
can’t find a use for the whole quantity of whey they produce. This impacts the quality of soils
and of water in the concerned ecosystem. When reused, the whey can be given to feed pigs
or calves, composted, centrifuged to extract cream (that can be used as such, transformed
again into serac for example or sold to dairy industries), or sold as such to industries that will
process it (dried for livestock feeding, used to produce biogas…). Even if a small part of the
whey is thrown away in L’Etivaz chain, this is still a weakness for the chain. Currently there is
an initiative being developed with “La Maison de L’Etivaz” for using whey to grow reeds.
Concerning agricultural inputs, farmers from the global chain use in average more
concentrated feed per cow per year (G:938kg ±366; L:755kg ±311). We can thus say that
the global chain has greater impacts than the local chain on biodiversity abroad, water use,
and climate through deforestation in the producing countries of concentrate feed. However
there is a high variability in both chains, and in each one we can find either farmers who give
very few concentrates to their cows or either farmers who give them a lot. Thus, the
conclusion that local famers will use less global inputs is not so robust.
About energy and GHG emissions, it was not possible for us to quantify impacts with
precision, as a full inventory was not the purpose of this study. Thus, our analysis on the
subject is only qualitative and focuses on which practices are followed in which chains. It
should be kept in mind that if one applies more GHG mitigation practices does not mean that
his emissions are lower in quantity than one who applies fewer mitigation practices. This
being said, we found out that more farmers from the local chain than cheesemakers from the
global chain optimize their machines and procedures. This is quite surprising because on the
contrary, the same farmers from the local chain optimize less their machines and transport
concerning milk production than farmers from the global chain, although their production
relies highly on grazing. Also, farmers from the local chain use more renewable energy, which
emit less GHG, than cheesemakers from the global chain. This is because L’Etivaz cheese has
to be heated over wood fire. Again, this contrasts with the fact that the same farmers have
less mitigation practices concerning milk production than milk producers from the global
chain. Also, the refiner “La Maison de L’Etivaz” from the local chain uses renewable energy in
the cellars (solar and biogas energy), whereas not all refiners from the global chain do.
Nonetheless, some refiners from the global chain use very little energy in the cellars because
they are in natural caves that offer the proper moisture and temperature conditions. The
absence of renewable energy use noted in Le Gruyère chain, especially at the cheesemaker
and refiner levels, is quite surprising, as we could have thought that larger factories would be
46 www.glamur.eu
more likely to invest in renewable energy to reduce their costs. Only in some Le Gruyère
factories supported by Fromarte (the association of Swiss cheesemakers), renewable energy
is used.
Concerning the processing efficiency, choosing the right cow breed and diet according to
the processing properties of the milk is a real challenge and more efforts could be invested in
this question. Nowadays, a lot of farmers still use high-producing breeds, such as Holstein
cows, which were selected mainly on the yield per year and not so much on other parameters
such as fat or protein content (Ruet 2004). A Jersey cow for example, will give less milk per
day but produces milk that is more suitable for cheese production. Montbéliarde and Brown
Swiss breeds are other high milk solids–yielding breeds that have been shown to have a
positive effect on cheese making (Bland et al. 2014). This means that this milk is more
resource efficient as it allows a higher cheese yield per litre of milk. This could as well benefit
farmers financially as some cheese factories give incentives on the milk price according to an
appropriate fat and protein content. What’s more, the total carbon footprint for cheese
produced from Jersey cows has also been shown to be lower in comparison with Holstein
cows (Capper and Cady 2012). However, the IPG or L’Etivaz cooperative have not addressed
this question yet and the currently used breeds vary a lot. Nevertheless, it can be seen in
Table 6 that farmers in L’Etivaz have a higher proportion of high milk solids-yielding cows
than in the global chain. This could explain the higher performance in “processing efficiency”
and “fat types” of the Etivaz cheesemakers, but other factors might play a role as well.
Table 6 : Cow breeds found in Le Gruyere and L’Etivaz herds in proportion. In italics are breeds
with high milk solids-yields (Bland et al. 2014).
Cow breeds Gruyère Etivaz
Red Holstein 37.2% 20.3%
Holstein 30.9% 11.0%
Montbéliardes 18.7% 15.0%
Red Holstein x Simmental (FT): 7.4% 21.7%
Simmental 3.0% 15.8%
Brown Swiss 1.6% 15.9%
Jersey 0.8% 0.2%
others (Normandes, Abondances, ..) 0.4% 0.0%
6.1.4. RQ4: Nutrition
The two chains having similar transformation processes, are there some nutritional
differences between the cheeses studied?
Regarding Figure 16 page 40, the two cheeses are very similar nutritionally, except for
calcium content where L’Etivaz cheese contains more calcium in average. But the variability
of the amount of calcium in Le Gruyère and L’Etivaz cheeses are probably high, especially in
L’Etivaz cheese.
47 www.glamur.eu
One point to discuss is that the performance is based on data from labels and from
secondary sources but not from direct representative sampling and measurements on the
cheese. The problem with these data is that for example, on 100% of labels for Gruyère
cheese in Swiss supermarkets, the salt level is indicated at 1,5 gram per 100 grams.
However, there should be variability between Gruyère of different ripening ages. A Gruyère
aged for 12 months cannot have the same salt content as a Gruyère of 5 months as they are
salted during the process and they lose moisture. A study from Agroscope (Goy et al. 2011)
has found levels as high as 1,92 grams in an extra-mature Gruyère. The results shown thus
do not take the variability between the different cheeses into account and this is due to a lack
in the data. The real performance in the salt indicator could thus actually be lower than the
one calculated here. The situation is similar for the fat and saturated fat contents as the
labels in supermarkets systematically indicate the same levels for Gruyère (32% of fat, 19%
of saturated fat). It is not possible to know on what samples the supermarkets base this
information but the natural seasonal variability of the fat content in the milk is for sure not
indicated on the labels.
The research on nutrition has thus revealed a new issue in the information and
communication attribute. The transparency and exactitude of the nutritional information on
the labels appear more complex than first thought. It is not sufficient that the information is
present; it should moreover allow differentiating between different cheeses and this is not the
case between the different types of Gruyère. However, as this aspect was discovered at a
later stage in research, it is not included in the “labelling” indicator evaluation.
The opinion of consumers revealed in the focus group showed that they are aware of the
potentially unhealthy levels of salt and fat in cheese, but they nevertheless consider the taste
of the cheese more important and would not stop consuming the cheese. Some consumers
but not all may however pay attention to not consume too much of it. They usually do not
pay too much attention to the nutritional labelling on cheese.
6.1.5. RQ5: Animal welfare
What are the differences in the two chains concerning animal welfare?
Figure 17 page 40 shows big differences for the indicators associated with animal welfare,
notably for the indicator Animal Density where the local chain performs much better.
The assumptions we had about a better animal welfare in the local chain are somehow
confirmed by these results: animals in the local chain live longer in average and have greater
access, in time and space, to pasture land. These differences in the results can easily be
explained by the general breeding conditions in L’Etivaz, where producers are constrained by
specifications on the product as well as by the non-arable steep alpine environment. The
length of time animals live can be due to strategies of farmers and/or health conditions of the
animals. Breeds used for L’Etivaz are often hardy, thus produce less milk but have better
health conditions (see the breeds used in each chain in Table 6). Some highly productive
breeds used for the Gruyère like Holstein may more likely show health problems at a rather
48 www.glamur.eu
young age (Ruet 2004). They are moreover less fit for pasture in colder climates (spring or
autumn), when they could suffer from cold and not find enough feed to maximize their
production.
Our indicators are based on the principle that animals show a better welfare when they
are close to natural conditions, thus pasture in the case of cows. Animal welfare is still a
science in progress with contradicting theories. Some breeds selected through generations of
breeders are now very far from their wild ancestors and unfit for complete wildlife. Spacy and
comfortable buildings may host animals with just as good a welfare. Moreover, during winter
time or hot summer days, it is better for the animals to be kept in buildings to protect them
from cold or heat respectively.
Other important elements for animal welfare we could have considered in the indicators
are the living conditions in the buildings (feed, individual and common space allowed, straw,
etc.), which can differ very much between L’Etivaz and Le Gruyère milk producers. Indeed,
our interviews showed overall better living conditions in buildings in the Gruyère dairy farms.
Around 60% of Le Gruyère dairy producers stated that their animals are living in free stalls
while only 20% in L’Etivaz have such practices, although buildings are mostly used only in
winter in the case of L’Etivaz. All the other breeders are using stanchion barn. The general
space per animal is around 3,5 square meters for both productions but important differences
exist between farmers for Le Gruyère (standard deviation=2,65). Straw is generally used for
both productions. Assessing welfare through feed is much more qualitative and subjective,
thus not developed here. In general, it seems that animal welfare for these chains is
seasonal: more grazing for L’Etivaz in the spring and summer time but better living conditions
in buildings for Le Gruyère in the winter time. The integration of the health and stress levels
of animals would also be relevant for the animal welfare attribute. However, this is quite
difficult to assess without direct observations. Farmers in both chains encounter problems
with mastitis and lung problems in their herds but are mostly unable to give indications on
the frequency or magnitude of the sicknesses.
6.2. Discussion of the methodology
6.2.1. Data Quality
Using the Pedigree Matrix (Table 3) for data quality check, all our data are Quality Class A
(best quality class). The detailed Data Quality Check is presented in annex (Table 9).
According to this method, the data collected is quite satisfactory. Indeed we used mostly
primary data, gathered for the need of this study via face-to-face interviews and mailed
questionnaires. For economics and health indicators, a few secondary data were also used,
but they are all reliable and meaningful (EU recommendations, Swiss market observation,
products’ labels…).
49 www.glamur.eu
Moreover, we avoided to use data with high standard deviations. Thus, standard
deviations for our indicators are low to quite low. This means our data give precise
information and are significant.
We also avoided ranges of data as much as possible; however we had no choice for
economic values such as net income. Still, we proposed quite small ranges to choose during
the interviews, in order to not compromise precision as much as possible.
6.2.2. Weighting, aggregation and interactions
The calculations do not take into account any weight of importance of indicators or
attributes. Indeed, determining different weights to indicators is a delicate process because
very subjective: two different researchers would probably not give the same weights to an
identical set of indicators or attributes because of each one’s expertise and values. This is
why a weighting process will be done thanks to participatory methods, during workshops with
stakeholders of the chains studied. One workshop will be conducted for each chain, in course
of GLAMUR WP5.
We did not include any aggregation method of the indicators either, as the timeframe did
not allow us to find an appropriate aggregation method. This is why no averages of
performance are given at the level of the attribute or the dimension. This could be done once
different weights are given to the indicators. The final performances’ calculations and
graphical representations given in this report thus do not either take into account interactions
between indicators. It would moreover necessitate finding and adapting methods for
integrating those interactions to the calculations, which would require much more complex
modelling. However, the following diagram (Figure 18) helps to visualise the mechanisms
between attributes and descriptors interactions.
While analysing the performance of the value chain, it was possible to identify some
influences between indicators; as for example a high performance in one indicator would not
be possible if another indicator has a low or a high performance. The influence of some
contextual factors or descriptors is also very important to explain performance.
On Figure 18, the attributes are represented with dots of the colours of their dimension
along with major descriptors in black. The influences between them are depicted by arrows.
When the performance of one attribute influences negatively (would decrease) the
performance of another attribute, the arrow is red and when the performances go hand in
hand, the arrow is green. It is worth noticing that the dots represent the performance, so for
example the dot “pollution”, represents a good performance in pollution, that is to say a low
impact on the environment, and not a lot of pollution.
50 www.glamur.eu
LEGEND: Descriptor Environmental attribute Social attribute Economic attribute Health attribute Ethical attribute Influences negatively the performance Influences positively the performance
Figure 18: Interactions between attributes and descriptors
51 www.glamur.eu
Descriptors
The descriptors exert an influence on the performance of attributes but attributes of this
food chain have no influence on the descriptors, as they are contextual factors of higher
importance. As such, the particular topography of Switzerland is a given condition that can by
no mean be changed. The production system has to adapt to topography and actually, the
cheese production in the alpine area is a long-living tradition that evolved in connexion with
the typical topography. The Alps are especially adapted for pasture but have a very low
potential to grow crops. This is why it is positive for animal welfare; cows are allowed to
spend all their time outside, as it would not be possible to harvest the grass with tractors on
the slopes. The rough terrain can however also be problematic for the access to infrastructure
like recycling plants, water treatment plants or renewable energies. This is why some
cheesemakers in L’Etivaz still spread whey on the field and use fuel generators to run some
machines as other sources of energy are hardly accessible, except for the wood (see
paragraph 6.1.2).
The agricultural policy is also a factor impacting the performance of attributes at the farm
stage especially. The conditions to earn subsidies given by FOAG are all linked to categories
such as the conservation surfaces for biodiversity, the animal husbandry conditions etc., thus
enhancing the performance in those attributes with financial incentives. As these incentives
constitute a significant part of the farmers’ revenues, it can be said that they contribute to
maintaining the price of the cheese low and thus influence positively the performance of the
attribute affordability. This is positive for consumers but farmers find themselves depending
on public support, and most of the margin is kept by other actors in the value chain. The
influence on the creation and distribution of added value is thus mixed and difficult to assess.
The governance of the value chain could have been an attribute on its own, as it is listed
in the 24 GLAMUR attributes. However, the performance in this attribute is extremely difficult
to benchmark and we chose to keep it as a descriptor and explain its influence on other
attributes. Both cheese value chains show similarities in their governance structure. The
Gruyère is organized around an Interprofessional Organization assembling milk producers,
cheese makers and refiners. The Cooperative in L’Etivaz regroups the same stages of the
value chain. Both types of organization have a positive influence on the exchange of
information as they offer a platform to do so, although the Gruyère chain seems to have
more difficulties in relation to its size. The governance as well influences a more equitable
distribution of the price, or at least tries to do so, as the prices are negotiated between the
different groups during annual assemblies. The books of requirements in link with the PDO of
the product also stipulates requirements concerning the fat, water and salt content of the
final product and thus impacts on the nutrition performance.
Attributes
Figure 18 shows very clearly that most influences between attributes remain within the
same dimensions. So all environmental attributes have links between themselves, and the
same happens between the two economic and two social attributes, respectively. The
attribute of Animal Welfare also influences the environment as animals are part of the agro-
52 www.glamur.eu
ecosystem and impact the biodiversity for example. They also influence the health dimension
as different husbandry systems influence the nutritional values found in milk. For example,
cows that are fed on a pasture-based diet (higher animal welfare performance) will have
healthier types of fat in the milk (Thomet et al. 2012). However, the composition of the milk
is also greatly influenced by the cow breed, the stage of lactation, the age of the cow, stress
factors, etc. (see paragraph 6.1.2). In summary, choosing the proper cow breeds and feed
diet could have a positive influence simultaneously on processing efficiency (resource use),
GHG emissions (pollution), fat types (nutrition) and net business profit of farmers (creation
and distribution of added value).
In the economic dimension, the two attributes influence each other negatively as the
cheapest the product is, the best it is for affordability for consumers and the worst it is for the
business profits in the production side. Here we see a strong conflict between the production
stages and the consumption stage of the value chain. It is also assumed that the better the
economic performance, the more opportunities producers will have to invest in efficient
technologies, renewable technologies and animal-friendly stables. Some farmers mentioned
that they evaluated the possibility to invest in solar panels or biogas installations but that the
high costs stopped them to do so.
In the social dimension, it is found that the behaviour of consumers is influenced by the
level of information available. The price (affordability) is also very important to them. The
nutritional aspects are sometimes taken into account but the most important for consumers
remains the taste of cheese, which could not be assessed objectively in an indicator.
Moreover, it is worth noticing that there is no influence of the environmental or animal
welfare attributes on the consumer behaviour. Indeed, consumers did not show any concern
for animal or environmental production conditions when purchasing cheese.
Another important remark concerning the stages of the value chain that can be related to
this figure is that generally, the environmental and ethical attributes at the top of the figure
relate almost exclusively to the production stage, when the other attributes at the bottom of
the figure (socio-economic and health) concern mainly the stages near consumption.
6.2.3. General comments on the methodology
The data collection and this report focus the most on the core stages of the value chain
(farm to refining) as they are the clearest to identify and approach and this is a limitation for
the holistic goal of the project. Other stages of the value chain are more intertwined with
other value chains and are more generally a part of the food sector, and that’s why their
actions could often not be included in a lot of indicators. Still, consumers’ integration via
focus groups is a good way to understand the point of view at the end of the value chain and
its influence. The retailers were extremely difficult to include, except for small-scale
specialized shops. Generally, the bigger the enterprise, the more difficult it is to interview.
The one interview with a big input company was rich in information but little data is directly
usable in indicators’ calculation, as many quantitative data are not shared. Thus, this study
does not integrate much the agricultural inputs, though the input stage is very important in
53 www.glamur.eu
most value chains. It was extremely hard to know where the inputs come from and how they
are produced and processed, and when we finally learned more there was not enough time to
integrate what we have to our indicators, the indicators list being set previously with the
CCRI team. The inputs level is the least transparent stage of the chains. The main
consequence of the absence of agricultural inputs in the study is probably a bias in the results
for the environmental dimension. Indeed, the use of imported inputs can pressure the natural
resources abroad: it can cause for example a loss of biodiversity, water pollution,
deforestation and soil erosion in developing countries producing soy (FAO 2007a). However,
the amount of concentrate feed was taken into account within indicator Landscape
Management Practices.
Besides, benchmarks are the most hard to define objectively, and it needs review of
precise sources adapted to a Swiss context to set them. Our benchmarks are mostly based on
regional or national statistics and official bodies’ recommendations, and are thus
representative.
Furthermore, as the performance score is calculated thanks to the benchmarks, the type
of benchmark chosen influences the results. The different types of benchmarks were provided
in paragraph 3.3 of the WP3 Guidelines and are given in annex (Figure 19 and Figure 20). For
example, for a given indicator, a target benchmark is not equal to a trend benchmark and the
calculations of performance will consequently differ depending on which benchmark is chosen.
However, it is very difficult to find the same type of benchmarks for the whole set of
indicators and we could not do it within the time limit.
The contextualized indicators are more precise and relevant than the SAFA default
indicators. Moreover, the range of 0 to 100 for the performance leaves more possibility of
precision for the results than the SAFA performances, as SAFA indicators are rated into two to
five categories of performance. The GLAMUR methods thus enable a multi-dimensional
sustainability assessment, although this study is not balanced between the five dimensions.
The Environment dimension indeed takes a bigger place in this study than the other
dimensions, probably because of the Swiss context: environmental issues are particularly
discussed and important in Switzerland (Schmitt et al. 2014). And this is also inherited from
previous methods, such as the SAFA indicators where environmental indicators are over-
represented. The Ethics dimension is slightly under-represented in our study. Moreover,
further detailed study should be lead concerning the mechanisms of value distribution within
the chains, in order to complete the present study.
54 www.glamur.eu
7. Conclusion This case study has shown that in the Swiss cheese case, the local chain performs
generally better than the global chain. In this aspect it can be relatively coherent to confirm
that local cheese is more sustainable. However, the global chain has also some strength
compared to the local chain and through many aspects, local and global are still equivalent.
Concerning the impact of the local-global on the performance, the local cheese production
is labour-intensive and due to the small-scale production and remote access it is still a family-
run business. It thus seems quite unlikely that the economic performance could increase
other than by increasing the price of sales at the cooperative door. The global chain can
afford more easily to have an economic strategy based on costs reduction, which was already
conducted with the large mechanization of the factories and their mergers. On the
environmental side, it is also quite harder for the producers in the local chain to invest in
renewable energy, but they have the change to rely on the nearby forest to provide wood,
which would be impossible in the Gruyère case. Some programme have been initiated for
cheese-makers to increase energy use efficiency but a lot more could be done at farm level
(share of machinery, solar panels, biogas plants, recycling, etc.) if farmers had more support
in this domain. Transport of the milk is still mostly done by individual vehicles and only the
biggest factories organize a common truck collector. In the downstream parts of the chain,
more transport by train or boat could be considered, instead of trucks travelling to Russia for
example.
On the opposite the efficiency of information exchange and communication seems less
efficient in the global chain. The much higher number of actors makes it much harder. Actors
supposed to play a role of bridge makers seem to fail and the consultation process seems to
miss some stakeholders. The extended steps of the value chains (distribution and retail
especially) are excluded of the exchanges and some seem to regret this situation.
So both chains could actually increase their performances to be more sustainable,
independently from their scale. From the analysis of the interaction between indicators and
descriptors in the chains, some recommendations for policy-makers and actors could be
identified:
1. Improve the sustainability of the input base from which the cheese is produced. This
concerns renewable energy, local animal feed, fertilizers and chemicals, as well as a well-paid
and legalized workforce. The goal could be to increase the resilience of the chain by
decreasing its reliability on fossil fuels and imports, in addition to mitigate the impacts on
resources and climate change.
2. Increase the efficiency of the processing and quality of the product by reflecting on the
appropriate cow breed. Optimizing the fat and protein content of the milk could help spare
land, water and feed while producing a cheese with a healthier fat content in addition to
decreasing GHG emissions.
3. The price could be increased as consumers seem to be ready to pay more. The fact is
that without the subsidies, the base of producers would not survive, and with increasing the
price and especially increasing the share that goes to milk producers, it would make the value
55 www.glamur.eu
chains less dependent on public support. In this situation, speaking of fair trade is also
relevant in a developed country.
The methodology of performance evaluation through indicators is generally relevant, but
for some indicators, benchmarking leads to subjective judgements. There are still a lot of on-
going research and questions in society about what is sustainable and this was especially
tricky for setting the benchmarks. The goal was to be holistic and multi-dimensional. To be
more multi-dimensional, we could have used even more indicators, which would be possible
with more time for preparation and data collection. More precise methods could have been
used, as for example LCA for the environmental indicators and it is done in some of the other
GLAMUR case studies, but these methods require more resources. To be more holistic, it
would have been good to include the peripherical stages of the chain more. However, due to
the difficulty to secure interviews with big companies, this report mostly focuses on the core
stages of the value chains (farms to refining). This is why the aspect of different animal feed
and their provenance could hardly be analysed in detail although it was identified as a critical
issue. As well, very little is known about fertilizers and pesticides at this point.
However, it can be assumed that the differences in the performance between the local and
the global chains can be grasped by the analysis of the core stages of the value chains (milk
production to refining) as the upstream and downstream parts of the chains are interacting
and common to a large extent. Indeed, farmers in both chains would buy inputs from the
same companies and at the other end, the two cheeses can be found in the same specialized
shops, although they occupy different market segments.
These strong similarities between the two chains comfort the fact that there is a
continuum between local and global types of cheese and not a strong binary distinction. On
that continuum, L’Etivaz cheese is more towards the local side than the Gruyère and it
reaches a higher sustainability score. Further research on other case studies at other
positions on the continuum would probably help to see if more global or more local cases
would perform worse or better than our two Swiss cases. It could thus be identified if the
“degree of localness” on the continuum is correlated with a higher performance. The further
comparison with the two British cases will thus start this broader comparison.
56 www.glamur.eu
8. References
8.1. References in the text, tables and figures
Agrofutura. (2011). Sojaimporte Schweiz : Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Reduktion / Vermeidung von
Sojaimporten in die Schweiz - Eine Untersuchung im Auftrag von Greenpeace. Frick. Retrieved from
www.greenpeace.org/switzerland/Global/switzerland/publications/Greenpeace/2011/Greenpeace_Sojab
ericht.pdf
Barjolle, D., & Chappuis, J.-M. (2000). L’Etivaz (Appellation d'Origine Contrôlée): Atouts et contraintes
pour l'exploitation agricole en montagne. In Quality and Valorization of Animal Products in Mountain.
Luz-Saint-Sauveur, France.
Bennedsgaard, T. ., Thamsborg, S. ., Vaarst, M., & Enevoldsen, C. (2003). Eleven years of organic dairy
production in Denmark: herd health and production related to time of conversion and compared to
conventional production. Livestock Production Science, 80(1-2), 121–131. doi:10.1016/S0301-
6226(02)00312-3
Binder, C. R., Schmid, A., & Steinberger, J. K. (2012). Sustainability solution space of the Swiss milk value
added chain. Ecological Economics, 83, 210–220. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.06.022
Bland, J. H., Grandison, a S., & Fagan, C. C. (2014). Effect of blending Jersey and Holstein-Friesian milk
on Cheddar cheese processing, composition, and quality. Journal of Dairy Science, 1–8.
doi:10.3168/jds.2014-8433
Boisseaux, S., & Barjolle, D. (2004). La bataille des A.O.C. en Suisse. Presses Polytechniques et
Universitaires Romandes (PPUR).
Capper, J. L., & Cady, R. a. (2012). A comparison of the environmental impact of Jersey compared with
Holstein milk for cheese production. Journal of Dairy Science, 95(1), 165–76. doi:10.3168/jds.2011-
4360
Ciroth, A. (2013). Refining the pedigree matrix approach in ecoinvent : Towards empirical uncertainty
factors. In LCA Discussion Forum. Zürich.
Coop. (2008). Les consommateurs suisses plébiscitent l’élevage adapté aux espèces. Retrieved February 24,
2015, from http://www.coop.ch/pb/site/medien/node/62997837/Lfr/index.html
Coop. (2015). le supermarché en ligne de Coop - coop@home. Retrieved February 17, 2015, from
http://www.coopathome.ch/home-page-d-accueil/C/fr
Dévaud, S. (2010). Le Gruyère AOC , un vrai de chez nous. Retrieved from http://www.heds-
ge.ch/diet/encyclopedie/gruyere_10.pdf
57 www.glamur.eu
Federal Office for Agriculture (FOAG). (2004). Cahier des charges L’Etivaz. Retrieved from
http://www.etivaz-aoc.ch/la-fabrication/le-cahier-des-charges-aoc
Federal Office for Agriculture (FOAG). (2014a). Bulletin du marché du lait, Novembre 2014 - Le prix à la
consommation reflète celui de la matière première.
Federal Office for Agriculture (FOAG). (2014b). Cahier des charges Gruyère. Retrieved from
http://www.gruyere.com/fr/cahier-des-charges/
Federal Office for Agriculture (FOAG). (2014c). Rapport Agricole 2014. Berne, Switzerland.
Federal Office for Agriculture (FOAG), & Federal Office for Environment (FOEV). (2012). Eléments
fertilisants et utilisation des engrais dans l’agriculture. Berne, Switzerland.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2006a). Livestock’s long shadow,
environmental issues and options. Rome.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2007a). Managing Livestock -
Environment Interactions. Twentieth Session. Item 4 of the Provisional Agenda. Rome.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2007b). The State of World’s Animal
Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Agriculture. Rome.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2010a). Fats and fatty acids in human
nutrition. Rome.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2010b). The Second Report on The State
of World’s Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Rome.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2013). SAFA Indicators. Rome.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2014). Developing sustainable food value
chains- Guiding principles. Rome.
Goy, D., Piccinali, P., Wechsler, D., & Jakob, E. (2011). Caractérisation du Gruyère AOC. ALP Science,
536.
Interprofession du Gruyère (IPG). (2014a). History - Le Gruyère AOP. Retrieved October 13, 2014, from
http://www.gruyere.com/en/history/
Interprofession du Gruyère (IPG). (2014b). Rapport Annuel 2013 de l’Interprofession du Gruyère. L’Oiseau.
Kirwan, J., Maye, D., Bundhoo, D., Keech, D., & Brunori, G. (2014). GLAMUR WP2 - Scoping / framing
general comparative report on food chain performance (deliverable 2.3). Countryside and Community
Research Institute, University of Gloucestershire, UK.
58 www.glamur.eu
L’Etivaz AOP. (2010). Accueil. Retrieved February 17, 2015, from http://www.etivaz-aoc.ch/
Lewandowska, A., Fohynowicz, Z., & Podlesny, A. (2004). Comparative LCA of Industrial Objects. Part 1:
LCA Data Quality Assurance - Sensitivity Analysis and Pedigree Matrix. The International Journal of
Life Cycle Assessment, 9(2), 86–89. doi:10.1065/lca2004.03.152.2
M.I.S TREND. (2010). Bilan de notoriété, de consommation & d’image - Réalisé pour l'Interprofession du
Gruyère. Pringy.
MIFROMA. (2014). Swiss cheese map. Retrieved June 30, 2014, from
http://www.mifroma.com/mifroma/swissCheeseMap
MIGROS. (2015). LeShop.ch - Le premier supermarché en ligne de Suisse. Retrieved February 17, 2015,
from https://www.leshop.ch/leshop/Main.do?currentMenu=SHOP_MAIN
Ruet, F. (2004). De la vache machine en élevage laitier. Quaderni, 56(Agriculture et technologies), 59–69.
doi:10.3406/quad.2004.1650
Schader, C., Jud, K., Meier, M. S., Kuhn, T., Oehen, B., & Gattinger, A. (2013). Quantification of the
effectiveness of greenhouse gas mitigation measures in Swiss organic milk production using a life cycle
assessment approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 73, 227–235. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.077
Schmitt, E., Graas, N., Bougouin, H., Cravero, V., & Barjolle, D. (2014). GLAMUR WP2 - National level
report. Frick.
Schweizer Landwirtschaft. (2013). Milch. Retrieved June 13, 2014, from
http://www.landwirtschaft.ch/de/wissen/tiere/rindviehhaltung/milch/
Swiss Farmers Union (SFU). (2013). Nahrungsmittelverbrauch pro Kopf - Consommation de denrées
alimentaires par habitant. Retrieved February 24, 2015, from http://www.sbv-
usp.ch/fileadmin/sbvuspch/06_Statistik/Ernaehrungsbilanz/se_2013_0605.pdf
Switzerland Cheese Marketing SA. (2012). Rapport annuel 2012. Berne, Switzerland.
Switzerland Cheese Marketing SA. (2014). Switzerland Cheese Marketing. Retrieved February 8, 2014,
from http://www.fromagesuisse.ch/suisse/la-suisse-le-pays-du-fromage.html
Thomet, P., W, C. E. B., Wuest, C., Elsaesser, M., Steinberger, S., & Steinwidder, A. (2012). Merits of full
grazing systems as a sustainable and efficient milk production strategy. Grassland Science in Europe,
16, 273–285.
Vallélian, P. (2012). Le succès du Gruyère reste fragile. L’Hebdo. Retrieved February 1, 2014, from
http://www.hebdo.ch/le_succes_du_gruyere_reste_fragile_162494_.html
59 www.glamur.eu
Van Cauwenbergh, N., Biala, K., Bielders, C., Brouckaert, V., Franchois, L., Garcia Cidad, V., … Peeters, a.
(2007). SAFE—A hierarchical framework for assessing the sustainability of agricultural systems.
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 120(2-4), 229–242. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2006.09.006
Vereinigung Schweizerischer Futtermittelfabrikanten (VSF). (2014). Besorgniserregende Kraftfutterbilanz.
Retrieved August 5, 2014, from http://www.vsf-mills.ch/de/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-114/
World Food System Center (WFSC). (2014). Homepage - World Food System Center | ETH Zurich.
Retrieved February 17, 2015, from http://www.worldfoodsystem.ethz.ch/
8.2. Benchmarks and data sources
AGRIDEA. (2013). Factsheet. PA 2014-2017. Contributions et paiements directs à partir du 1er janvier
2014. Lausanne.
Coop. (2015). le supermarché en ligne de Coop - coop@home. Retrieved February 17, 2015, from
http://www.coopathome.ch/home-page-d-accueil/C/fr
El-Gawad, M., & Ahmed, N. (2011). Cheese yield as affected by some parameters Review. Acta
Scientiarum Polonorum, Technologia Alimentaria, 10(2), 131–153.
FAO. (2010). Fats and fatty acids in human nutrition (Vol. 550).
Federal Office for Agriculture (FOAG). (2004). Cahier des charges L’Etivaz. Retrieved from
http://www.etivaz-aoc.ch/la-fabrication/le-cahier-des-charges-aoc
Federal Office for Agriculture (FOAG). (2014a). Bulletin du marché du lait, Novembre 2014 - Le prix à la
consommation reflète celui de la matière première.
Federal Office for Agriculture (FOAG). (2014b). Cahier des charges Gruyère. Retrieved from
http://www.gruyere.com/fr/cahier-des-charges/
Federal Office for Agriculture (FOAG). (2014d). Bulletin du marché du lait, Décembre 2014 - Commerce de
détail : lait de consommation plus cher en 2014.
Federal Office for Agriculture (FOAG). (2014e). Paiements directs dans l’agriculture. Berne, Switzerland.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2006b). EASYPol - Analyse d’inégalité,
L’indice de Gini.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2013). SAFA Indicators. Rome.
Goy, D., Piccinali, P., Wechsler, D., & Jakob, E. (2011). Caractérisation du Gruyère AOC. ALP Science,
536.
60 www.glamur.eu
Jakob, E., Schmid, A., Walther, B., Wechsler, D., & Wehrmüller, K. (2008). LE FROMAGE , UN ALIMENT
PRÉCIEUX - Groupes de discussion des fromagers. Liebefeld-Posieux.
Kim, D., Thoma, G., Nutter, D., Milani, F., Ulrich, R., & Norris, G. (2013). Life cycle assessment of cheese
and whey production in the USA. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18, 1019–1035.
doi:10.1007/s11367-013-0553-9
L’Etivaz AOP. (n.d.). Description du Produit «L’Etivaz» AOC - Fromage au lait cru à pâte dure produit de
manière artisanale.
MIGROS. (2015). LeShop.ch - Le premier supermarché en ligne de Suisse. Retrieved February 17, 2015,
from https://www.leshop.ch/leshop/Main.do?currentMenu=SHOP_MAIN
Schader, C., Jud, K., Meier, M. S., Kuhn, T., Oehen, B., & Gattinger, A. (2013). Quantification of the
effectiveness of greenhouse gas mitigation measures in Swiss organic milk production using a life cycle
assessment approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 73, 227–235. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.077
Schmid, A. (2010). Carbon Footprint von Schweizer Käse.
The Dairy Council. (2014). Cheese , salt and nutrition - Factsheet. Retrieved from
http://milk.co.uk/publications/default.aspx
UK Department of Health. (2013). Guide to Creating a Front of Pack (FoP) Nutrition Label for Pre-packed
Products Sold through Retail Outlets. Retrieved from
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/300886/2902158_FoP_
Nutrition_2014.pdf
Unilever. (2010). Biodiversity Management: Good practices. Retrieved February 18, 2015, from
http://www.growingforthefuture.com/unileverimpguid/content/5-3-3#an5-3-3-4a
United States Department of Agriculture. (2015). USA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference
(Release 27) from the The National Agricultural Library. Retrieved from
http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/9?fg=&man=&lfacet=&format=&count=&max=25&offset=&s
ort=&qlookup=
61 www.glamur.eu
9. Annexes
9.1. Justification of the attributes
Table 7: Full justification of the attributes
Attribute Brief attribute description (cf. Comparative Report: Kirwan
et al. 2014)
Justification of the attribute
Affordability “…essentially a consumer-oriented perspective, summarised in terms of “accessibility to food by middle and lower income consumers”.” (p.34)
Large scale production and distribution chains are supposed to be more able to cope with economic risks and shocks. Global food chains are thus perceived as more efficient and better at cutting down costs in order to provide affordable prices to consumers. The affordability argument often wins over the environmental one since cost of energy is relatively low compared to the profitability of the process. (Kirwan et al. 2014)
Creation / distribution of added value
“… concerned with looking at both how value is created, but also how it is distributed within the Food Supply Chain (FSC).” (p.39)
It is perceived to be easier to distribute costs and benefits in a fair way in local chains, because of a supposed direct relationship between producers and consumers, often based on a sense of trust and solidarity (Kirwan et al. 2014). Moreover, it is perceived that local chains are more able to create a higher value on the food product, either by reducing the number of intermediaries or by adding a promise to the consumers, who are ready to pay to support local economy, local recipes or local traditions. On the other hand the capacity of global chains to create value comes more from their efficiency and economies of scales, thus reducing production costs. (Schmitt et al. 2014)
Information & communication
“…within the Italian report refers to the amount and quality of information that is communicated to consumers together with the product being sold, so that they are able to make a more informed purchasing decision.” (p.76)
“Another strand… relates
to raising peoples' awareness and encouraging their activism around food.” (p.77)
Local Food Supply Chains (FSCs) are usually heralded as enabling communication processes through direct interaction between the producers and consumers involved, thereby helping to ensure transparency. Global FSCs, on the other hand, have become increasingly complex and opaque leading the final consumer to feel disconnected from the production process. (Kirwan et al. 2014) However, in this case both chains are in PDO schemes and discussions between different actors of the chains regularly take place. Communication could be easier and of better quality in the local chain due to the small number of actors and fewer intermediates. But the global chain is very well organised so communication within this chain may be very good as well.
Consumer behaviour
“… encompasses consumer behaviour in relation to their dietary practices or habits.” (p.87)
Global FSCs are seen as disassociating consumers with issues such as seasonality and resource use implications. Here the local chain is seasonal and more traditional that the global chain. However, both chains insist on the traditional aspect of the product and tend to link the consumer to the territory, with more emphasis in the global chain on the “Swiss Quality”, and in the local chain on the alp quality.
Resource Use “…an important overarching attribute since it concerns the use and management of the flows of
Here the global chain is much more mechanised and thus energy dependent than the local chain. Global food chains are described as more oriented towards technological solutions (e.g. better waste recycling) and arguably focus solely on singular issues (e.g. energy or
62 www.glamur.eu
available resources through global and local food chains. It has two main elements. The first element concerns resource consumption. In other words, the different resources/inputs (land, energy, other materials) used to make food. The second related element concerns the tools (techniques) used to measure the resource use performance of food chains.” (p.100)
waste efficiency). (Kirwan et al. 2014). In particular about Soil Quality and preservation: The agricultural
production system has the biggest influence on soil quality and preservation. Here the local chain relies on an extensive production system, which is less harmful to soil quality.
Biodiversity “… refers to the ability of food value chains to preserve the stock of natural resources.” (p.109)
According to the FAO World state reports of animal and plant genetic resources, market development and globalization are triggers (amongst others) of the unprecedented loss of agricultural biodiversity (FAO 2007b; FAO 2010b). Indeed, the evidence found in literature states that conventional farming systems represent a major threat to biodiversity (wildlife as well as agricultural biodiversity). (WP2 Swiss Report) Here the global chain indeed operates larger scale systems and favours intensification of farming systems while the local chain is more extensive, so probably less harmful to wild and agro biodiversity
Nutrition
“… principally concerned with the nutritional qualities associated with food in terms of its composition and ability to contribute towards physical health and well-being.” (p.112)
The main difference between the local and global chains is probably the way cheeses are ripened: humidity and temperature of the ripening cellars, length of ripening phases, frequency of salting…
Animal Welfare “…the physical and psychological conditions of well-being of the animals involved in food chains. The expression is usually referred to animals likely to be introduced into highly intensive productive processes… intensive vs extensive breeding, the amount of space that each animal can have during the day, the feeding conditions (adequacy and quality of what they eat), medical care when needed and animal welfare before abatement…” (p.88)
On one side we have the position for which the local chain, with its traditional farming and breeding style, is the context in which animal welfare can be achieved or maintained (extensive breeding being a key feature in this perspective), while on the other side sources emphasise the role that technological innovation in global chains can play to guarantee adequate care for the animals. However, as the global chain rather operates on the economy of scale, the size of farms tend to be bigger than farms supplying the local chain. It is likely that the well-being of animals in intensified production systems is at risk. For example, a bigger herd size hampers the run out possibilities or regular pasture access of the cattle. Overall, the high pressure of intensified production systems is often associated with an increased risk of diseases (and increased use of antibiotics) (Schmitt et al. 2014). Regarding dairy cows, it can generally be observed that the life-span of the cattle in intensive production systems is inferior to the one in alternative production systems (Bennedsgaard et al. 2003).
Pollution “the result of different activities that occur within a value chain, namely the production itself of pollutants and by their use and discharge
The discussion on pollution and global/local food chains relates to three main aspects: 1) policy; 2) the scale of production; and 3) production methods. In the global chain, Intensive large-scale production gives rise to dramatic pollution effects, while extensive small-scale production in the local chain tends to allow - even though
63 www.glamur.eu
in the environment without adequate treatments, with the consequence that harmful compounds are spread in the environment” (p.74)
not always deliberate - time for environmental resilience. (Kirwan et al. 2014)
9.2. Detailed set of attributes and indicators
Table 8: Detailed set of attributes and indicators for the case study
Attributes Indicators Stage
relevance Unit
Benchmarks Low-High
Benchmarks source
Affordability
Ability to provide food at acceptable
prices
Consumer Retailer
CHF/kg cheese 23.36 – 7.75 FOAG 2014d
Price perception of consumers
Consumer qualitative
0 – 4
Scale from 0 to 4. Price perceived to be: 0=very expensive;
1=expensive; 2=neither expensive nor good value; 3=good value.
4=very affordable
Consumers focus group
Creation and distribution
of added value
Net business profit Farm
Cheesemaker CHF/year 40 000 – 100 000
Min and max from own sample
Distribution of price between actors
all ratio 1 - 0 FAO 2006b
Contribution to the economy of the
region
Farm Cheesemaker
FTE/t cheese 1.47 - 18 Min and max
from own sample
Information and
Communication
Communication along the chain
Farm Cheesemaker
Refiner Retailer
qualitative
0 – 3 (Etivaz) or 4 (Gruyère)
Number of steps in which the actors are satisfied with the
communication along the chain.
created
Availability of Information
Retailer Consumer
Cheesemaker qualitative
0 - 6
6 Categories (each one scoring 1 if fulfilled):
•website available •personal contact with producers
possible •tasting possible
•newsletter
created
64 www.glamur.eu
•information at point of sale • Communication via social
media
Product Labelling Retailer
Consumer Cheesemaker
qualitative
0 - 5
5 Categories (each one scoring 1 if fulfilled): •nutrition
•ingredients •provenance •ethical info
•production practices
created
Consumer Behaviour
Consumers use Consumer qualitative
Taste preference Consumer qualitative
Convenience Consumer qualitative Willingness to pay Consumer qualitative
Resource Use
Soil management practices
Farm qualitative
0 - 5 5 Categories (each one scoring 1
if fulfilled) : • absence/presence of mineral
fertilization (no mineral fertilizer = 1)
• frequency of soil sampling (every 10 years=0; every year=1)
•absence/presence of pH regulation
• eco-friendly tillage practices (no till = 1; “alternative” till= 0.5;
conventional till = 0) • application of chemical
products such as pesticides ( no chemicals =1; plant by plant = 0.5; surface application = 0)
Adapted from: FOAG and FOEV
2012 FAO 2013 (SAFA E
3.1.1)
Material consumption
practices
Farm Cheesemaker
Refiner qualitative
0 - 2 2 Categories (each one scoring 1
if fulfilled): • Quantity of concentrate feed in
cows’ ration (0,5=avg 800kg/cow/year; 1=no
concentrate feed) • Recycled material used
(everybody = 1; two actors out of three = 2/3; one actor out of
three = 1/3; no one =0)
Adapted from FAO 2013 (SAFA E
5.1.1)
65 www.glamur.eu
Waste reduction and disposal
Farm Cheesemaker
Refiner qualitative
0 - 4 4 Categories (each one scoring 1
if fulfilled) : • Recyclable material used
(everybody = 1; two actors out of three = 2/3; one actor out of
three = 1/3; no one =0) • Presence of a policy of waste reduction (everybody = 1; two actors out of three = 2/3; one
actor out of three = 1/3; no one =0)
• Reusing material (everybody = 1; two actors out of three = 2/3; one actor out of three = 1/3; no
one =0) • Percentage of whey reused
(calf/pig feeding; cream/butter; etc. If everything is thrown in
fields = 0)
Adapted from FAO 2013 (SAFA E
5.3)
Processing efficiency Cheesemaker kg cheese/100
kg milk 8.4 – 10.3
El-Gawad et Ahmed 2011: 146
Biodiversity Landscape
management practices
Farm qualitative
0 - 7 7 Categories (each one scoring 1
if fulfilled) : • Ecological compensation areas (relevant in CH) (7% of total farm
area=0; 100% of total area=1) • protection of wild habitat
connections • maintaining of wildflower
strips, nesting aids or ecological structures such as stone heaps or dry masonry walls; wood heaps;
hedgerows; nest boxes; beehives; field trees
• maintaining multi species tree populations
• maintaining wildlife habitats or edge of a forest
• practice of delayed or adapted mowing
• ecological management of pests and weeds
Adapted from: Unilever 2010
FAO 2013 (SAFA E 4)
FOAG 2014e
66 www.glamur.eu
Diversity of Production
Farm qualitative
0 – 3 3 Categories (each one scoring 1
if fulfilled) : • Several productions (1
production=0; 5 productions =1). Other dairy products, and beef meat due to dairy farm do not
count. • several breeds in the cattle
(1breed=0; 3 breeds=1) • Crops, Breeds or trees locally adapted, rare or traditionnal.
Adapted from FAO 2013 (SAFA E
4)
Nutrition
Salt content Processor Consumer
g/100 g 2.6 – 0.4
UK Department of Health 2013
Jakob et al. 2008
Fat content Processor Consumer
g/100 g 49.1 – 17.5
The Dairy Council 2014
UK Department of Health 2013
Fat types Processor Consumer
g/100 g 41.66 - 5
The Dairy Council 2014
UK Department of Health 2013
Calcium content Processor Consumer
mg/100g 675 - 1200
United States Department of
Agriculture 2015
Animal Welfare
Animals density Farm
cows/ha 3 – 0.5
min from own sample
max from CCRI sample
lifetime of dairy cows Farm years 3 – 10.5 Min and max
from own sample
Grazing time Farm %of hours in a
year 0 – 50
Observation of actual practices in
EU
67 www.glamur.eu
Pollution
GHG mitigation at farm level
Farm qualitative
0 – 8 8 Categories (each one scoring 1
if fulfilled) : •Type of organic fertilizer
application : Spray, classic or spread deflector=0; alternative
practices=1; both alternative and classic=0,5
•Manure composting: Absence or presence
•Cows : 0,5 if dual purpose breeds: 0,5 if slaughter age>6
years •Energy : Presence or absence of
alternative sources of energy •Trees: 1=more than 4 trees •Machines: 0,33 if Machines
shared; 0,33 if machines optimisation; 0,33 if transport
optimisation •Mineral application: no lime and no mineral fertilizer=1; no lime or no mineral fertilizer=0,5; lime and
mineral fertilizer=0 •Diesel/essence consumption
Adapted from: Schader et al.
2013 Kim et al. 2013
AGRIDEA 2013 FAO 2013 (SAFA E
1.1)
GHG mitigation from processing
Processing qualitative
0 – 7 7 Categories (each one scoring 1
if fulfilled) : •Energy source for heating milk: wood or alternative source=1;
electricity=0,5; diesel=0. •Informing employees about
energy saving (creamery) •Improving thermal insulation
(creamery) •Reduce useless expenses
(creamery) •Energy source in ripening cellars: alternative energy
source=1 (biogas, solar energy...) •Thermal insulation of ripening
cellars : Natural site=1. Improving insulation=0,5
•Optimisation of machines and procedures in ripening cellars.
Schmid 2010
68 www.glamur.eu
9.3. Data Quality Check
Table 9: Data Quality Check
Attribute Indicator Data source DQD Reliabilit
y
DQD Completene
ss
DQD Tempora
l correlati
on
DQD Geographic
al Correlation
DQD Further
technological correlation
Total DQD
Quality Class
Affordability Ability to provide food at acceptable
prices
Local Coop 2015, Migros 2015, FOAG 2014a
0,4 0,2 0 0 0 0,6 A
Global FOAG 2014a 0,2 0,2 0 0 0 0,4 A
Price perception of consumers
Local consumer focus group
0 0,4 0 0 0 0,4 A
Global consumer focus group
0 0,4 0 0 0 0,4 A
Creation and distribution of added value
Net business profit Local interviews 0 0,4 0 0 0 0,4 A
Global interviews 0 0,4 0 0 0 0,4 A
Distribution of price between
actors
Local interviews, FOAG 2014a, Migros 2015, Coop 2015
0,4 0,2 0 0 0 0,6 A
Global interviews, FOAG 2014a
0,2 0,2 0 0 0 0,4 A
Contribution to the Local interviews 0 0,4 0 0 0 0,4 A
69 www.glamur.eu
economy of the region
Global interviews 0 0,4 0 0 0 0,4 A
Information and
Communication
Communication along the chain
Local interviews 0 0,4 0 0 0 0,4 A
Global interviews 0 0,4 0 0 0 0,4 A
Availability of Information
Local product observation
0 0,4 0 0 0 0,4 A
Global product observation
0 0,4 0 0 0 0,4 A
Product Labelling Local product observation
0 0,4 0 0 0 0,4 A
Global product observation
0 0,4 0 0 0 0,4 A
Consumer Behaviour
Consumers use Local and
Global
consumer focus group
0 0,4 0 0 0 0,4 A
Taste preference consumer focus group
0 0,4 0 0 0 0,4 A
Convenience consumer focus group
0 0,4 0 0 0 0,4 A
Willingness to pay consumer focus group
0 0,4 0 0 0 0,4 A
Resource Use Soil management practices
Local interviews 0 0,4 0 0 0 0,4 A
Global interviews 0 0,4 0 0 0 0,4 A
Material consumption
practices
Local interviews 0 0,4 0 0 0 0,4 A
Global interviews 0 0,4 0 0 0 0,4 A
70 www.glamur.eu
Waste reduction and disposal
Local interviews 0 0,4 0 0 0 0,4 A
Global interviews 0 0,4 0 0 0 0,4 A
Processing efficiency
Local interviews 0 0,4 0 0 0 0,4 A
Global interviews 0 0,4 0 0 0 0,4 A
Biodiversity Landscape management
practices
Local interviews 0 0,4 0 0 0 0,4 A
Global interviews 0 0,4 0 0 0 0,4 A
Diversity of Production
Local interviews 0 0,4 0 0 0 0,4 A
Global interviews 0 0,4 0 0 0 0,4 A
Nutrition Salt content Local FOAG 2004 0,2 0 0,6 0 0 0,8 A
Global FOAG 2014b 0,2 0 0 0 0 0,2 A
Fat content Local FOAG 2004 0,2 0 0,6 0 0 0,8 A
Global FOAG 2014b 0,2 0 0 0 0 0,2 A
Fat types Local L’Etivaz AOP (n.d) Description du produit
0,2 0 0,6 0 0 0,8 A
Global Coop 2015, Migros 2015, Survey CASH 2012
0,2 0,4 0 0 0 0,6 A
Calcium content Local L’Etivaz AOP (n.d)
0,2 0 0,6 0 0 0,8 A
Global Goy et al. 0,2 0,4 0,2 0 0 0,8 A
71 www.glamur.eu
2011
Animal Welfare Animals density Local interviews 0 0,4 0 0 0 0,4 A
Global interviews 0 0,4 0 0 0 0,4 A
lifetime of dairy cows
Local interviews 0 0,4 0 0 0 0,4 A
Global interviews 0 0,4 0 0 0 0,4 A
Grazing time Local interviews 0 0,4 0 0 0 0,4 A
Global interviews 0 0,4 0 0 0 0,4 A
Pollution GHG mitigation at farm level
Local interviews 0 0,4 0 0 0 0,4 A
Global interviews 0 0,4 0 0 0 0,4 A
GHG mitigation from processing
Local interviews 0 0,4 0 0 0 0,4 A
Global interviews 0 0,4 0 0 0 0,4 A
72 www.glamur.eu
9.4. Types of benchmarks
Figure 19: Classification of reference values (Van Cauwenbergh
et al. 2007)
73 www.glamur.eu
Figure 20: Reference values – target, threshold, regional average and trend (Van Cauwenbergh et al. 2007)
74 www.glamur.eu
9.5. Structure of the price of milk and cheese in Le Gruyère chain:
example
Table 10: Example of price structure of the milk and cheese for one creamery for Le Gruyère cheese
Example
Price of milk (cts/kg)
Basis price 55.56
Extra “Gruyère AOC” (compliance with the specifications) 10.00
Extra “quality of milk” 2.00
Extra “milk transformed into cheese” 15.00
Total 1 82.56
Extra “no silage” 3.00
Total 2 85.56
Contribution reusing the fat 0.00
Total price of milk (paid to milk producer) 85.56
Price of Le Gruyère AOC (CHF/kg)
Gross price of cheese 9.70
Contribution Interprofession (IPG) 0.90
Total price of cheese (paid to cheesemaker) 10.60
9.6. Prices taken for the calculation of Gini ratios
Table 11: Prices taken into account for the calculations of Gini ratios
Step Le Gruyère AOP L’Etivaz AOP
Price paid to milk producer (CHF/kg
cheese)
7,92
Price paid to cheesemaker (CHF/kg
cheese)
9,95 11,47
Price paid to refiners (CHF/kg cheese)
N.d. 15
Final price (CHF/kg
cheese)
17,85 20,95
