Measuring Fairness in Supply Chain Trading Relationships

8/11/2019 Measuring Fairness in Supply Chain Trading Relationships

1/32

Project:Measuring Fairness inSupply Chain TradingRelationships

Authors:A collaboration betweenKent Business School, IIED,Oxfam GB and Unilever

Paper:

Measuring Fairnessin Supply Chain

TradingRelationships:Methodology Guide


2/32

This paper is part of a publication seriesgenerated by the New Business Models forSustainable Trading Relationships project.The partners in the four-year project theSustainable Food Laboratory, RainforestAlliance, the International Institute forEnvironment and Development, theInternational Center for Tropical Agriculture,and Catholic Relief Services are workingtogether to develop, pilot, and learn from newbusiness models of trading relationshipsbetween small-scale producers and formalmarkets. By working in partnership withbusiness and looking across a diversity ofcrop types and market requirements freshhorticulture, processed vegetables, pulses,certified coffee and cocoa the collaborationaims to synthesize learning about how toincrease access, benefits, and stability forsmall-scale producers while generatingconsistent and reliable supplies for buyers.This paper is also the result of a collaborationbetween NBMSTR partners and a jointproject between Unilever and Oxfam onlearning how to do business with

smallholders.

For further information see:www.sustainablefoodlab.org/projects/ag-and-development and http://www.linkingworlds.org/

Please contact Justin Tait [email protected] or Abbi Buxton [email protected] if you have anyquestions or comments.

ISBN 978-1-84369-876-0

Available to download at www.iied.org/pubs

International Institute for Environment andDevelopment/Oxfam 2012

All rights reserved

This guide and tool kit was developed bythe Centre for Value Chain Analysis atKent Business School (University of Kent),the International Institute for Environmentand Development and a collaborationbetween Oxfam GB and Unilever plc.It is licensed under a Creative CommonsAttribution-NonCommercial 3.0 UnportedLicense

Cover image: Onion farmer Javid (surnameunknown) weighs onion sacks at his yellowonion field in Hanareb, Barda. There areapprox 500 sacks of onions in this field.Were weighing the onions to make sure eachsack weighs 36kg before its loaded onto thetruck. Then we can calculate how much wellget for the onions. Well get 4000 manat(5000 dollars) from these sacks. The price ofonions is fluctuating. For example, two daysago we could have sold these onions for4,500 manat. With Unilever we could decidethe price so it will not fluctuate and well knowexactly how much well get for our onions. Weare praying to god that the prices wont godown again today. Our aim of working withUnilever is to help enlarge our field. Webelieve that working with Unilever will helpincrease our income so we can pay theworkers better money.
http://www.linkingworlds.org/http://www.linkingworlds.org/http://www.linkingworlds.org/http://www.linkingworlds.org/


3/321

Chapter title 1

Measuring Fairness in SupplyChain Trading Relationships:

Methodology Guide

Table of contents

Glossary ___________________________________ 2

Preface ____________________________________ 3

Introduction _______________________________ 4

1. Conceptual framework __________________ 61.1 The five key principles of sustainable

supply chains _________________________ 6

2. Measuring fairness ______________________ 92.1 Survey design _________________________ 9

2.2 Choice of survey method ______________ 102.3 Questionnaire design __________________ 112.4 Sampling strategy _____________________112.5 Conducting the survey _________________13

3. Data analysis and interpretation ________ 153.1 Analysing buyersupplier relationships 153.2 Commitment ________________________ 193.3 Inclusivity ___________________________ 193.4 Equitable access to inputs _____________ 19

4. Using the findings ______________________ 204.1 Verification _________________________ 204.2 Communicating results_______________ 204.3 Acting on the findings _________________ 21

4.4 Embedding the process _______________ 235. Limitations ____________________________ 24

5.1 Data analysis ________________________ 245.2 A call for feedback ____________________ 25

References and further reading ____________ 26


4/32

2 Measuring Fairnes in Supply Chain Trading Relationships: methodology guide

2

Buyer the actor or actors in the supplychain who purchase raw orprocessed materials. Thesecould be end buyers, such asUnilever, or intermediary buyerssuch as traders or processingfactories

Downstream refers to the activities ofprocessing, distribution andretail in an agricultural supply

chainSmallholders typically farm less than 2

hectares (but this is cropspecific, can be 10 hectares ormore in tea or palm oil); runfamily farms where the familylargely relies on agriculture forits livelihood and most of thefamilys food is produced onthe farm

Supplier the actor or actors who grow,process and deliver within thesupply chain

Supply chain refers to the network ofrelationships, activities andmechanisms that exist to moveproduce from the point ofproduction to the point of sale

Surveyor the person/organizationcommissioning the survey and

responsible for running it

Upstream refers to the activities offarm-level production in anagricultural supply chain

Glossary


5/323

Preface

In July 2010 Oxfam and the internationalconsumer goods company Unilever began afive-year project to work in collaboration toexplore, develop and implement innovativesmallholder-based sourcing models for foodingredients.

In March 2012 IIED and its partners concluded afour-year, Gates Foundation-funded projectlooking at the implementation of sustainabletrading relationships for smallholders

participation in formal markets. As a part of theproject IIED began to develop a tool to measureand understand the sustainability of therelationships in smallholder-based supplychains.

As with the IIED work, Oxfam and Unilever wantto understand the sustainability of tradingrelationships that involve smallholder producersas set up under various initiatives.

IIED and Oxfam have long collaborated with

partners, such as the Sustainable Food Lab, tounderstand the guiding principles forestablishing fair and inclusive smallholder-basedsupply chains. A natural progression from thiswork was to develop a survey and analysis tooland methodology to capture and analyze datafrom these metrics.

Together with the Centre for Value ChainResearch at the University of Kent, IIED andOxfam developed such a tool, to provideevidence of the principles in action by looking atthe relationships between actors in the chain.The tool provides a health check on the state ofrelationships and gives an indication of wherefurther investigation may be required. Thefollowing Methodology Guide explains theconceptual foundation of the metrics, the surveydesign and implementation, and how to analyse

and apply the results. The Survey InstrumentsTool is available separately at http://pubs.iied.org/G03429.html?. Finally, a Survey AnalysisTool is available in the form of an Excelspreadsheet (see Part 3) and can be requestedfrom either Abbi Buxton or Justin Tait (detailsbelow).

The tool is aimed primarily at two audiences:i) procurement teams for organizations sourcingagricultural raw materials wholly or partly from

smallholder producers; and ii) developmentorganizations implementing value chain projects.

The survey tool and methodology are in earlystages of development. This beta version of themis being rolled out to selected partners to useand test and we look forward to engaging withyou on it.

Abbi Buxton, IIED & Justin Tait, Unilever/Oxfam

Abbi BuxtonResearcher, Sustainable Markets GroupInternational Institute for Environment andDevelopment (IIED)Tel: +44(0)2034637443Email: [email protected]

Justin TaitProject Sunrise Learning andCommunications ManagerUnilever/OxfamTel: +44(0) 7584607163Email: [email protected]


6/324

Introduction

A supply chain is a system of organizations,people, technology, activities, information andresources involved in moving a product orservice from supplier to customer. Supply chainactivities transform natural resources, rawmaterials and components into a finishedproduct that is delivered to the end customer.The increasing environmental costs of thesenetworks and growing consumer pressure foreco-friendly products mean that sustainability isbecoming the watchword of corporations theworld over. Sustainable supply chains are (1)lean they use resources efficiently; (2) agile they respond to market signals quickly; (3)

resilient they have the capacity to bounce backfrom external shocks; and (4) responsible theyare sensitive to social and environmentalpressures (Fearne, 2009). This growingemphasis on sustainability is resulting in asignificant re-positioning of supply chainmanagement from being a functional necessityto a potential sustainable competitive advantage.

The development of sustainable supply chainsrequires a shift in buyersupplier relationshipsfrom being opportunistic and arms length tostrategic and collaborative. Collaborative buyersupplier relationships involve trust, commitment,transparency and integrity and are one of thefundamental enablers for the efficient andeffective flow of information and allocation ofresources within and between organizations.

However, buyersupplier relationships dontbecome collaborative by themselves orovernight. They require an investment of time,effort and in certain circumstances financialresources, from buyers and suppliers. Mostimportantly, they require a change in theattitudes and perceptions of buyers and sellers the people at the interface of buyersupplierrelationships.

This Methodology Guide and accompanyingsurvey tool are designed to help businessesbetter understand the sustainability of theirtrading relationships. It does so by measuringhow actors along the supply chain perceive the

fairness of the relationships they are involved in.Understanding these perceptions is the first stepin improving the long-term viability of theserelationships and in developing mutuallybeneficial arrangements.

Many companies are limited to measuring thesustainability of their own business operationsand are unable to extend this evaluation to theirsuppliers. The survey tool is designed to be usedon all of the links in the supply chain: from the

primary producers right up to a specific channelcaptain (the manufacturer or retailer), whopossesses the market power to make changehappen. However, the tool does focuses inparticular on supply chains involving primaryproducers in developing countries, as they aremost vulnerable to opportunistic buyer behavior.


7/325

Introduction 5

The Methodology Guide and survey tool havebeen developed by researchers at KentBusiness School, who have expertise in theanalysis of supply chain relationships, inconjunction with practitioners from Unilever,Oxfam and the International Institute forEnvironment and Development (IIED), who areactively engaged in projects designed to developsustainable supply chains involving smallholdersin developing countries.

The Guide comprises five parts:

Part one describes the conceptual frameworkfor the development of sustainable supply

chains involving smallholders in developingcountries, of which the measurement ofbuyersupplier relationships is a part.

Part two explains the measurement process survey method and questionnaire design and provides practical guidance onsampling and the administration of the survey.

Part three covers the analysis of the surveydata and interpretation of the results.

Part four outlines dissemination and impact.

Part five reviews some of the data limitationsthat still need to be resolved.

Please also see accompanying SurveyInstruments Tool available at http://pubs.iied.org/G03429.html?, which contains thequestionnaires and interview guidelines usedduring surveys of all links in the supply chain.

Collaborative buyersupplierrelationships involve trust,commitment, transparency and

integrity and are one of thefundamental enablers for theefficient and effective flow ofinformation and allocation ofresources within and betweenorganizations.


8/326

1.1 The five key principles ofsustainable supply chains

Sustainable buyersupplier relationships in

supply chains involving developing countrysmallholders are based on five key principles:

1. Fair and transparent governance:anoverarching concept that refers to decision-making processes and the way in whichactors participate in the chain (the division offunctions, the allocation of responsibilitiesand the distribution of risks and rewards).

2. Chain-wide collaboration:in the allocationand use of resources and the resolution ofproblems.

3. Inclusive innovation:giving smallholders avoice in the adoption of new ideas and newtechnology.

4. Equitable access to inputs:enablingsmallholders in developing countries toaccess new markets and distributionchannels from which they are often excludeddue to poor availability of, or access to, key

inputs (e.g.credit, seed, fertilizer) andservices (e.g.agronomy advice).

5. Chain-wide measurement of outcomes:extending the line of sight from individualbusinesses or links in the chain to the chain asa whole, for the purpose of continuousimprovement. This is part of the monitoringand evaluation process, of which theassessment of the relationship strength is apart, providing feedback for the review of thestrategy, objectives and design of the supplychain.

These principles influence the supply chain atvarious levels and in different ways (Figure 1).

The starting point is the establishment of a

supply chain strategy by the food retailer ormanufacturer, referred to in this guide as thechain captain. The specific supply chainobjectives are derived from the market andproduct characteristics and inform the design ofthe supply chain, which constitutes the unit ofanalysis. It is at this stage that key decisions aretaken that affect the inclusivity of the chain.

The approach taken here to measuringsustainable supply chain relationships focusesprimarily on the over-arching principle of fair andtransparent governance (principle 1), which liesat the heart of the conceptual framework. This isfundamental to the overall process without it,none of the other principles is achievable.

The approach taken to measure fair andtransparent governance is based on the theoryof organizational justice (Hornibrook et al.,2009). This theory has its origins in theassessment (and improvement) of employeremployee relationships and has five

components:

1. Distributive justice (the perceived fairness ofthe distribution of benefits).

2. Procedural justice (the perceived fairness ofdecision-making processes).

3. Informational justice (the perceived fairnessof the exchange and use of information).

4. Inter-personal justice (the perceived fairnessof communication between individuals).

5. Commitment (the allocation ofresources time, effort, money tostrengthen relationships and improve supplychain performance).

Part 1Conceptual framework


9/327

Conceptual framework 7

If the first four components are perceived to bein place by all members of a supply chain, theoutcome will be commitment. Withoutcommitment, there cannot be a sustainablesupply chain. This is illustrated in Figure 2, which

also highlights how a survey measuring fairnessfits into the overall process of developingsustainable supply chains.

The diagram also shows that it is important torecognize that there are additionalmeasurements that are necessary in order forthe diagnosis of supply chain sustainability to becomplete (e.g.risk assessment, margin analysis

and environmental analysis). These will takeplace at different points in the chain withdifferent data and with different methods ofanalysis. This wider context is discussed furtherin Section 5.1.

Figure 1: A conceptual framework for the development of sustainablesupply chains involving smallholders in developing countries

Supply chain strategy

Supply chain objecves

Supply chain design (principles)

Inclusive innovaonSharing of risks and

rewards

Equitable access to

inputs

Chain-wide

collaboraon

Fair and

transparent

governance

Chain-wide measurement of outcomes


10/328


Figure 2: The importance of understanding fairness in sustainable supply chains

Sustainable supply

chain relaonships

Sustainable

supply chain

Inputs Outputs

S

upplychain

tradingrelaonship

survey

Margin

analysis

En

vironmental

analysis

Risk

assessment

Outcomes Impacts

Perceived fairness of:

distribuon of

benets, decision-

making processes,

exchange and use of

informaon;

communicaonbetween individuals

Commitment

Shared risk

Risk migaon/

shard risk and

a common

understanding

of risks

Shared rewards

Cost model of

acceptable

returns

Maintenance of

eco-system services

Adopon of

environmentally

sustainable

producon

pracces


11/329

This section explains the survey design, choiceof survey method, key components of thesampling strategy and the practical stepsrequired for the collection, analysis andinterpretation of the survey data.

2.1 Survey design

The survey is designed to measure the strengthof buyersupplier relationships along the supplychain, through an analysis of the perceptions offairness, with a particular emphasis on thestrength of relationships with the most vulnerable

stakeholders primary producers. Thus,measurements are taken at each of theinterfaces between the different links in the chainand, where appropriate, between links that arenot directly connected (e.g. Intermediary 1 andthe chain captain). Figure 3 illustrates this usingthe example of the links in a coffee supply chain,from smallholder coffee grower to distributor.

Because we are focusing particularly on thesustainability of relationships with the primaryproducer/smallholders in the chain, the survey issplit into two parts:

1. A survey specifically for primary producers, tomeasure their perceptions of fairness as ameans of understanding relationship strength,their satisfaction with outcomes andprocesses and access to inputs (see SurveyInstrument Tool).

2. A survey designed for all the otherstakeholders beyond the farm gate (see

Survey Instrument Tool).

The common element in both survey types is themeasurement of perceived fairness in theoutcomes and processes in the buyersupplierrelationship, from the perspective of both parties.In the case of the primary producers, themeasure is of their perceptions of relationshipstrength with the person or organization to whomthey sell directly Intermediary 1. In all the otherlinks downstream (i.e.beyond the farm gate),we explore relationships both up and down thesupply chain. So for people involved inpurchasing, we want to know how fair theyperceive their treatment of the suppliers is, aswell as their treatment of those who they sell to.

Taking the coffee supply chain illustrated inFigure 3 as an example, we can measure thesmallholder coffee co-operatives views of theirbuying relationships with smallholder coffeegrowers and of their selling relationship with thetrader, and so on.

Part 2Measuring fairness

The survey is designed to

measure the strength of buyersupplier relationships along thesupply chain, through ananalysis of the perceptions of

fairness, with a particularemphasis on the strength ofrelationships with the mostvulnerable stakeholders

primary producers.


12/3210


2.2 Choice of survey method

The choice of survey method is governed bythree factors: the type of information required,the nature and location of the recipients, and thebudget available.

The perceived fairness of buyersupplierrelationships cannot be measured directly, but it

will be reflected in the way people behave andhow people perceive the behavior of others, andthe outcomes of that behavior. The informationrequired to measure the strength of buyersupplier relationships is essentially attitudinal

measuring the perceptions of buyers andsuppliers regarding the behavior of the peoplewith whom they engage in the process of buyingand supplying goods and/or services.

This information can be captured using any ofthe survey methods available: in-person, mail,telephone or internet. Nevertheless, the specific

context of smallholders in developing countriesgenerally precludes the use of mail, telephone orinternet surveys upstream, whilst the internetsurvey is the most efficient way of collectinginformation downstream.

Example of a coffee supply chain:

Smallholdercoee

co-operave

TraderSmallholder

coee growerRoaster DistributorExporter

Figure 3: Application of the survey instrument along the supply chain

Primary

producers

Intermediary

1

Input/Service

providers

Target supply chain

Target supply chain

Intermediary

n

Chain captain

(Manufacturer/

retailer)

Intermediary

2

Relaonship

measurement

Relaonship

measurement


13/3211

Measuring fairness 11

The proposed survey method comprisesface-to-face interviews with primary producersand an online questionnaire for the remainingstakeholders (post farm gate). The assumption isthat engagement of the relevant primaryproducers in the measurement process can onlybe guaranteed through face-to-face delivery ofthe questionnaire. It is also assumed that allother stakeholders will be comfortable with andhave access to a reasonable internet connection.Where this is not the case then face-to-face or

telephone interviews may be more appropriate.

2.3 Questionnaire design

We have designed the questionnaires with threekey considerations in mind: robustness ofmeasurement (Box 1), ease of implementation,and generic application.

Box 1 What do we mean by robustmeasurement?

There are two key characteristics of robustmeasurement validity and reliability:

Valid measures are accurate (they measureprecisely what we want to measure) andresult from asking people lots of questions inas much detail as possible.

Reliable measures are consistent (theyalways measure what we want to measure,

regardless of the context). They requirerobust sampling of as large andrepresentative sample as possible. Questionsneed to be limited to avoid respondent

fatigue and as easy as possible to answer (toprevent respondents from guessing).

Thus, there is a trade-off between the need for alot of detail for validity and the need forsimplicity for reliability. All researchersacknowledge this challenge. The secret is to

combine a questionnaire that accuratelycaptures the most important elements of theconceptual framework with a sampling strategythat generates a dataset that is as representativeas possible of the target population.

In each of the questionnaires, respondents arerequired to indicate their level of agreement/disagreement with a series of statements. Thesestatements are then scored as follows:2=strongly disagree, 1=disagree, 0=neitheragree nor disagree, -1= agree, -2=stronglyagree (see Case Study 1 in Part 3). This permitsthe estimation and comparison of perceivedfairness in the buyersupplier relationship (andits distinct components) at different stages in thechain and for the chain as a whole. It also

highlights any misalignments between a buyersand a suppliers perception of the fairness of thebuyers behavior. All respondents are given anopportunity to identify key areas for improvementin an open question at the end of thequestionnaire; and if there is any disagreementabout what is regarded as fair in the variousresponses.

The producer questionnaire also containsquestions on equitable access to inputs and

services this is specific to production.Respondents are asked to comment explicitly ontheir satisfaction with the level of access theyhave to inputs using a four-point rating scale:1=not at all satisfied, 2= quite satisfied, 3= verysatisfied, 4= extremely satisfied. In addition, theproducer questionnaire contains a number ofprofiling questions about the personalcharacteristics (age, gender) and businesscharacteristics (size of farm, enterprise mix,quantity and quality of output, distribution

channels served) which are used to determinethe degree of inclusivity within the target supplychain and so the extent to which the target chainincludes/excludes certain categories ofproducer or enterprise.

2.4 Sampling strategy

There are three key questions in designing thesampling strategy: (1) who to sample (links in thechain), (2) how many to sample (the number ofsurvey respondents), and (3) how to sample (theprocess of selecting respondents).


14/3212


Who to sample?This depends on the structure of the supplychain being considered, as the number ofstakeholders will vary from product to product.But the starting point in the chain is the primaryproducer. In most developing countries there willbe at least two intermediaries between theprimary producer and the retailer oneresponsible for procurement, grading,classification and export, and one for importation

and forward distribution to either a manufactureror retailer (Figure 3). There could be moreintermediaries, but the important point is that thesurvey should be administered to all types ofstakeholders, from primary producers through tothe retailer or chain captain. The identification ofkey individuals within each organization and theirengagement in the measurement processshould be the responsibility of the personinstigating the survey. If it is not the chain captaininstigating the survey then they should be

brought on board as they will be the stakeholderwith the greatest influence in the chain and thusthe one most likely to generate support forcarrying out the survey amongst otherstakeholders.

How many to sample?

To answer this question you need to identify whois involved in each buyersupplier relationship

along the chain. In most cases this will be oneperson, but in some instances there will be twoor more people with different roles orresponsibilities, for example, the procurementand sales managers. The one exception to this isat the primary production stage, where there canbe hundreds if not thousands of producersinvolved.

In practice, the sample size will be determined bythe available budget. Given the need to

administer the producer questionnaire in person,it is likely that it will have to be administered to asample of primary producers. For example, if thebudget for data collection is $1,000 and the costof hiring a fieldworker is $30/day plus travellingexpenses, then depending on how far they have

to travel, the target sample size would be around30. This is the minimum number necessary tocarry out the valid statistical analysis. The largerthe sample size, the more reliable the survey datafrom producers. The fact that non-producerstakeholders are few in number means it is notpossible to conduct statistical tests to determinethe significance of any implied differences in theperceived fairness and/or transparency furtheralong the chain. This assessment will have to besubjective.

How to sample?

The answer to this question depends entirely onhow you plan to analyse the data. If the budget istight then the most reliable analysis would usethe entire sample without exploring anydifferences between categories of producer.However, an analysis of inclusivity would requireyou to differentiate between responses from

different types of producer, for exampleaccording to age, gender etc. Under tightbudget constraints the most appropriatesampling method would be a random selectionof producers, where the number selected (n) isdetermined by dividing the available budget bythe cost per interview (see Section 3.4 for tipson maximising the efficiency of data collection).

Ideally the survey results should be analysed fordifferent categories of respondent (women

versusmen, for example) and, where relevant, fordifferent growing regions. In this case, the mostappropriate sampling method would be astratified sample. This is achieved by allocatingquotas for different categories of producer,which the interviewers would then apply whenselecting respondents in the field. If the relevantdetails of producers are available on file then theselection process can be randomized in advanceof the fieldwork, which avoids any selection biasresulting from the interviewers personal

preferences or third party interference.Where sampling units vary in size, therecommended sampling method is probabilityproportional to size (PPS). PPS increases theprobability of selecting a sampling unit


15/3213

Measuring fairness 13

proportional to the size of its population. This isparticularly relevant for field work involvingagricultural production as agricultural holdingsvary in size both within and between distinctgeographical areas. PPS assures that thosefarms in larger communities have the sameprobability of getting into the sample as those insmaller communities, and vice versa, resulting ina representative random sample.

2.5 Conducting the survey

Having identified the target respondents for thesurvey, the next question is how to administer thesurvey along the chain. The choice of surveymethod has already been discussed (seeSection 2.1), so this section deals with thepractical issues associated with the physicalcollection of data.

For all stakeholders other than the primary

producers, the data can be collectedautomatically through the administration of anonline survey (described below). Collecting datafrom primary producers is more involved, morecostly and more time-consuming, as it requiresconducting the questionnaire in person.

Surveying intermediaries and retailers

Questionnaire templates for surveying

intermediaries and retailers can be found in theSurvey Instrument Tool.

You can create online versions of thesetemplates based tools such as Surveymonkey(www.surveymonkey.com an online scriptingtool). You can adminster these surveys online.

Using an online version of the questionnairetakes between 10 and 15 minutes to completeand the responses are downloadable in the formof a Comma Separated Value (CSV) Excel

(spreadsheet) file that in turn can be uploadeddirectly into the Excel (spreadsheet) analyticaltoolkit (see Part 3) for analysis.

Respondents should be invited to complete theonline questionnaire by email, including a

web-link to the questionnaire, along with adeadline for completion.

Surveying farmers

There are many more issues to consider whencollecting data from primary producers,including the appointment of field agents toadminister the survey, organizing translation anddata capture.

The producer survey may best be undertaken byan established (local) service provider, such as alocal market research agency or an NGO thatunderstands supply chains involvingsmallholders from developing countries. Wherepossible the survey should be undertaken by anindependent service provider to try to avoid anyconflict of interest.

Field agents

Field agents should be engaged as early aspossible in the measurement process, as theirexperience with primary producers and/or thetarget region(s) can provide valuable input toany adaptations to the questionnaire and theproposed sampling strategy. Local field agentsare also the logical first port of call for translatingthe producer questionnaire, which may need tobe administered in more than one language ordialect (see below). Field agents can be

appointed by the chosen local service provider.Experience of primary production andknowledge of the regions to be covered in thesampling strategy will be critical for ensuring thatthe data collected are as valid and reliable aspossible. As interviews are completed andreturned there needs to be regular datachecking, cleaning, and immediate feedback tofield agents to improve how the survey isadministered.

Translation

Given the specificity of the questionnaire and theunconventional topics and terminology used, it isstrongly recommended that the questionnaire is
http://www.xxxxx/http://www.xxxxx/


16/3214


back-translated by an independent third partyfrom the local language/dialect into English, toensure that none of the meaning is lost in thetranslation process. Where discrepancies arisethey should be the subject of discussion andclarification, as translation is a potential threat tothe validity and reliability of survey data.

Piloting and implementing the questionnaire

The final version of the questionnaire should besubjected to a pilot, however small, to ensurethat producers understand the questions (nomatter how perfectly they may be translated) andare willing and able to answer them honestly andcompletely without confusion or fatigue.

The questionnaire has been designed to make itas easy and quick to administer as possible.Thus, most of the questions are closed (multiplechoice) in format. For these questions, theinterviewer asks the questions and fills in the

form. However, a small number of openquestions have been included to allowrespondents to use their own words to describetheir relationship with the first stage buyer andpotential areas for improvement. Detailedguidance notes, question by question, areprovided for the administration of the producerquestionnaire (see the Survey Instruments Tool),which deal with FAQs and prompts for thegeneration of additional (qualitative) insights.

The easiest way to capture the answers to thesefew open questions is to use a Dictaphone. Thishelps to: 1) clarify issues prompted by anynegative responses; and 2) record what wassaid if there are any data queries during analysis.

In some circumstances it may be possible toadminister the questionnaire using a laptopcomputer or i-Pad. This avoids an extra step ofdata entry saving time and money. On the otherhand, if primary producers are unfamiliar with or

suspicious of the use of IT equipment there maybe some resistance to this approach. Local fieldagents should be able to offer advice; anypotential negative reaction from respondentsshould be revealed during the pilot process(Box 2).

If the producer survey is administered in personand by hand then the field agents will need tomake the data available for analysis in one of twoways. They can either enter the data manuallyinto an Excel spreadsheet using the codingscheme and spreadsheet template provided, orthey can use the online version of thequestionnaire. The results can then bedownloaded as a CSV file in the same way as forthe other respondents in the chain. Either way,the data will then be in a format that can beuploaded into the Excel (spreadsheet) SurveyAnalysis Tool, which has validity checks tocapture any inconsistencies in the datacollected.

Box 2: Anonymity and sensitivity: being aware

It is important to remember that getting people to talk about their relationships is never easy; withcommercial (trading) relationships there is the added complication of commercial sensitivity. Strongand mature relationships may be accurately measured by asking people to describe behavior. Butimmature and adversarial relationships may not, because respondents (especially those in a weakerbargaining position) may fear reprisals, such as being de-listed or a worsening of the terms of trade.This is reflected in the survey design and sampling strategy, which seeks to retain the anonymity of therespondents throughout the chain. Yet the preservation of anonymity is difficult when the number of

people involved is small. It is impossible when there is only one person responsible for purchasing andsales in buyersupplier relationships, which is often the case downstream from the farm gate. In thesecases, it is important that the person responsible for implementing and managing the survey resultsbehaves with discretion and professionalism in sharing the results and managing the follow-upactions.


17/3215

This section describes how the tool analyzes thedata collected, explains how the results shouldbe interpreted and gives some examples of howthey might be usefully reported. This part of theMethodology Guide should be used inconjunction with the Survey Analysis Tool, whichis available through either Justin or Abbi. Theperson or organization responsible for the surveywill need a basic understanding of statistics andhow to use Microsoft Excel (spreadsheets).

3.1 Analysing buyersupplierrelationships

The data generated by the Survey Analysis Toolshould enable you to answer the followingquestions:

Are buyersupplier relationships perceived tobe fair at different points in the chain and forthe chain as a whole? In particular, is thesupply chain inclusive and equitable for alltypes of smallholder producer?

Are perceptions consistent across all of the

dimensions of fairness (distribution ofbenefits, decision-making processes,exchange and use of information,communication between individuals,commitment)?

Are perceptions consistent between differenttypes of primary producer?

Is there evidence of commitment from buyersand suppliers to the development ofrelationships in this chain?

The Survey Analysis Tool produces a series ofsummary tables and graphs for each of these keytopics: the perceived fairness of the distributionof benefits, the perceived fairness of decision-making processes, the perceived fairness of the

exchange and use of information, the perceivedfairness of communication between individuals,and commitment to the buyersupplierrelationship. It generates reports for theindividual links in the chain and the chain overall.

For each topic the frequency of responses(levels of agreement with the differentstatements) are reported graphically andsummarized by presenting average scores foreach link in the chain, as well as for the chain asa whole. Agreement with behavior that isdeemed to be fair is scored positively (stronglyagree = +2, agree = +1) and color coded inshades of green, whilst disagreement with such

behavior is scored negatively (strongly disagree= 2, disagree = 1) and color coded in shadesof red (see Case Study 1). Ambivalence (neitheragree nor disagree) is scored as neutral (zero)and colored amber (this is a legitimate responsefor a survey designed to measure perceptions).What emerges is a set of graphs and summarytables that enable the surveyor to instantlyidentify problems or areas of weakness (seeCase Study 2).

If primary producers have identified a particularproblem, the questionnaire allows the interviewerto probe more deeply (see the interview guide part of the Survey Instruments Tool). Thesecomments are also stored within the analysistool. This allows the user to click on specificquestions that scored low (colored red and witha negative mean score) and download all thecomments made by primary producers to justifytheir disagreement and/or dissatisfaction.

Small sample sizes amongst the intermediaryrespondents mean that statistical analysis is notpossible. But, the existence of negative scores,regardless of the number of respondents orsample size, should prompt the survey instigatorto explore the situation further and identify

Part 3Data analysis and

interpretation


18/3216


Case Study 1: Smallholder flower producers in Kenya: analysis of commitment to the tradingrelationship

Wilmar Agro Limited, a Kenyan-based and runexport firm, contracts 2,500 small-scale flower

growers to supply the Dutch cut flower auctionmarkets. A trading relationship survey wasundertaken in January 2012 on the relationshipbetween growers and Wilmar supplying the

Dutch auction markets. The table below showsan excerpt from the survey analysis tool for thetopic of commitment as perceived by flower

growers. These statements assess the perceptionof loyalty and obligation to the tradingrelationships with Wilmar.

The negative scores on commitment to thetrading relationship are a result of statements(questions?) asking growers if they would bewilling to invest financially or otherwise in

developing the relationship. Although growersstrongly agree that they expect their relationshipwith Wilmar to continue for a long time andwould like to strengthen their relationship, theanalysis shows that the growers would have tomake more profit on their flowers to be able toreinvest in production:

If they change prices I am more than willing toinvest even more so as to make good profit.

If the grading is fair and the prices are good, Iwould be willing to invest more in my flower

farming business.

Positive responses on commitment are basedlargely on the consistency of purchase:

Wilmer is reliable customer, and they pay us notlike those brothers who denied us our money so Iwould not neglect Wilmar that easily.

Wilmar is reliable than brokers since theyalways stick to agreements we make likecollecting and paying. Apprreciate these arecolloquial but more, presumably, is missingbefore reliable

I dont think I can sell my flowers to othercustomers. Wilmar is the only reliable one.

... he is a good customer, he buys my flowersalways and even collects them from our shed. Heis very good the only negative thing is the poor

prices.


19/3217

Data analysis and interpretation 17

Classification

Strongly disagree (1 to 2)

Disagree (0 to 1)

Neither agree nor disagree (0.0)

Agree (0 to 1 )

Strongly agree (1 to 2 )

*Statements that have been reversed from a negative to a positive statement to allow forcolor-coded analysis.

StatementMean Score

(Item)

Commitmentto

thetradingrelaonship

1. I expect my relaonship with Wilmar will connue for a long me 1.21

2. I would like to strengthen my relaonship with Wilmar in the future 1.30

3.* I am willing to invest nancially to develop my business with Wilmar 0.78

4.* I am willing to devote me and eort to develop my business withWilmar

0.80

5. I share the same ethical values as Wilmar 0.57

6. The commercial goals of Wilmar are compable with mine 0.38

7. I would have no diculty replacing my business with Wilmarbecause there are a plenty of alternaves

0.25

8. I would not want to lose my business with Wilmar because I have

made a signicant nancial investment in order to supply them 0.05 9. I would not want to lose my business with Wilmar because I have

invested a signicant amount of me and eort in developing arelaonship with them

0.06

10. I would not want to lose my business with Wilmar because of thenancial investment I would have to make in order to replace them

0.14

11. I willingly do whatever it takes to sasfy the demands of Wilmar 1.35

12.* Wilmar occasionally makes exceponal demands of me with which Iam willing to comply

0.56


20/3218


changes that in the future could increase theperceived fairness and/or transparency alongthe chain.

For the primary producer data, the analysis toolcan test the hypotheses that the perceptions of

fairness are independent of the gender, age, andexperience of the producer and the location andsize of the enterprise. An appropriate statisticaltest (Chi-Square) is built into the Survey AnalysisTool to determine whether any differences

reported by different categories of respondentare statistically significant. If there are significantdifferences, action can be taken to 1) explore thereasons for the perceived lack of fairness and/ortransparency amongst certain categories ofproducer; and 2) identify changes in buyer

behavior (procedures or outcomes) that in thefuture might induce a greater sense of justiceamongst disaffected producers.

Case Study 2: Smallholder flower producers in Kenya: Access to inputs and services

Poor and small-scale producers often needsupport in accessing key services and inputs inorder to participate fully in inclusive andbeneficial trading relationships. The chartbelow is an output from the survey of flower

producers in Kenya.

The results show that growers are least

satisfied in access to market information. Alarge number of growers are also unsatisfiedwith their access to credit. Many growers

commented that they received no marketinformation, in particular on price.

Respondents requested that Wilmar provideloans to growers to support investment in

production. Access to extension services andproduction inputs were broadly consideredsatisfactory. Negative comments on

production inputs were related to the costs offertilizers being too high.

Access to producon Access to extension Access to credit Access to market

inputs services informaon

Extremely sased Quite sased Not very sased Not at all sased

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Numberofgrowers


21/3219

Data analysis and interpretation 19

3.2 CommitmentCommitment is assessed in the buyersuppliersurvey through 12 statements to whichrespondents are asked to indicate their level ofagreement. Analyzing this data involvescalculating the average score for all 12statements. A positive average score indicates agood level of commitment, conducive to thedevelopment of long-term relationships. On theother hand, a negative score indicates a lack of

commitment to relationship development andshould prompt action by those involved in thechain. Case study 1 above illustrates how thisworks in practice.

3.3 Inclusivity

Inclusivity is one of the principles of sustainablesupply chains. Only the questionnaire for primaryproducers includes questions on inclusivity (e.g.

demographic information). This is because it ismainly at the level of primary production wherewe are particularly concerned about theinclusion of marginal groups such as women,young people, geographically marginalizedproducers and those with less secure landtenure.

The survey of primary producers analyses howkey groups differ in their perceptions of thefairness of the trading relationship. The Survey

Analysis Tool allows the user to analyze theperceptions of fairness in the distribution ofbenefits, decision making, communicationbetween individuals, exchange and use ofinformation and commitment, for specific samplecharacteristics, for example female producers, orproducers with less than 1 hectare of land. It willbe important for analytical integrity that thisrelates back to the sampling strategy (seeSection 2.4) which requires that the samplecharacteristics proportionately reflect the

demographics and key characteristics of thepopulation of primary producers.

3.4 Equitable access to inputsEquitable access to inputs is another principle ofsustainable trading relationships that is ofparticular relevance to primary producers indeveloping countries. Thus the questionnaire forprimary producers asks respondents to indicatetheir satisfaction with their access to keyproduction inputs (seed, fertilizer and agro-chemicals) and services (credit, marketinformation, extension).

Satisfaction is measured using a simplefour-point scale extremely satisfied, quitesatisfied, not very satisfied, not at all satisfied.The analysis involves generating a frequencytable (Case study 2), and can also test whetherthe level of satisfaction varies by gender, age,experience of the producer, location and farmsize. When a respondent expressesdissatisfaction the interviewer is prompted toseek further information to illustrate or

substantiate the reasons for their dissatisfaction.This information is captured within the SurveyAnalysis Tool and downloadable for furtheranalysis, by clicking on the specific question forwhich a low mean score and/or high frequencyof dissatisfaction is reported.

A Chi-Square statistical test is built into theSurvey Analysis Tool to determine whether anydifferences in satisfaction reported by differentcategories of respondent are statisticallysignificant. If significant differences exist, actioncan be taken.


22/3220

Measuring perceptions is a critical part of thecontinuous improvement cycle of the supplychain, but how can users make the most of theinformation generated by the survey? The focushere is on four key steps:

1. Verifying results: If the measurements are notaccurate and do not reflect reality, the resultswill be ignored.

2. Communicating results: If the findings are noteffectively communicated then individuals willremain blind to the need for change.

3. Action planning: Who should youexpect to do what?

4. Embedding the process: How can youintegrate the measurement process withinexisting supply chain functions, when andhow should the measurement process berepeated, and how often?

4.1 Verification

Verifying and effectively communicating the

survey results are critical for the process ofcontinuous improvement.

The verification process can be described asgroundtruthing. This involves sharing thefindings for the individual links (buyersupplierrelationships) in the chain with the stakeholdersconcerned. This gives them an opportunity toprovide further information and/or clarification inlight of the insights gained from the surveyresults.

Groundtruthing involves feeding back the resultsof the survey to respondents (or a small sample ifthere are too many), ideally face to face. This willeither confirm that the findings are an accuratereflection of the situation, or else reveal the need

for further investigation to verify the findings priorto their wider dissemination. This is an importantpart of the communication process, becauserespondents may be unaware of an issue or indenial of its existence, or may have beenreluctant to be honest about their views for fearof reprisals (see Box 3) and having a negativeimpact on the trading relationship. Therefore,groundtruthing must be done with humility andsensitivity. The process may lead to modificationof how the results are interpreted, presentedand/or communicated. The primary goal is toensure that all stakeholders agree that theresults of the survey can be shared with others,

internally or externally. Without this agreement,the whole process can unravel as buyers losefaith and suppliers disengage from a process inwhich they have no confidence.

4.2 Communicating results

Once findings are confirmed as an accuratereflection of reality, and key stakeholders haveagreed that the findings can be shared, the

process of dissemination can begin. This caninvolve different activities according to thestakeholders and target audiences:

Face-to-face briefings work well with primaryproducers, providing them with anopportunity to comment on the findings andreach consensual views regarding solutionsto (common) problems. These can be carriedout by the local partner who implemented thesurvey.

Internal or external presentations where theinterests of downstream stakeholders mightbe best served. These can be an effectiveway to explore sectoral issues as well as topresent and invite examples of good practice.

Part 4Using the findings


23/3221

Using the findings 21

4.3 Acting on the findings

It is important that action to strengthen buyersupplier relationships is multi-stakeholder.

Improvements designed and implemented inisolation will rarely deliver optimal solutions forthe chain as a whole. Thus, the design andimplementation of improvement projects shouldbe a shared responsibility. This may requireestablishing new governance processes or, atthe very least, a supply chain project team or acontinuous improvement group. Whatever theforum, the guiding principle is that multiplestakeholders should be engaged in the processfrom the outset.

The single most important but difficult task isto gather all the stakeholders in the chaintogether to discuss the results and what theymean for the day-to-day management of theirbusinesses and the relationships between them.This is especially challenging in supply chainsthat are in difficulty if the diagnosis is one ofadversarial, opportunistic arms length tradingthen the stakeholders are unlikely to respondfavorably to an invitation to come together and

discuss the next steps. However, the surveysponsor must try to engage as widely aspossible. A good technique is to use video ortelephone conferencing. For example, this couldbring together the retailer at their head office inCalifornia, the importer based in Chicago, theexporter based in Accra and the growers (or agrower representative) dispersed all over Ghana.

The foundations of the assessment ofrelationship strength are the principles of

organizational justice distributive, procedural,informational and inter-personal (see Section1.1). Improvement actions are therefore likely tobe related to these. Actions will of coursedepend on the issues that emerge from the

survey but will invariably include reviews ofcontractual terms and conditions (distributive

justice), decision-making processes (proceduraljustice), the availability and use of information(informational justice) and the way in whichindividuals communicate (inter-personal justice;Box 4).

Box 4: Examples of the types of actionsstimulated by the survey

Some of the issues arising from the survey willrequire relatively simple or straightforwardaction, such as:

Improving communication of the way inwhich price is determined (see Case Study 3)including discussing in detail the way pricesare set at monthly producer meetings.

Other actions will require greater investment,for example:

Enabling access to regular marketinformation.

Offering training on understanding and

interpreting market information.

Monitoring grower profits and investmentsto ensure a positive contribution to householdincome.

Reviewing the way in which credit and loansare provided to growers.


24/3222


Case study 3: smallholder flower producers in Kenya: opportunities for action

The survey considers perceptions of tradingrelationships in terms of profit sharing and thedivision of reward between the flower producerand Wilmar, and vice versa. These questionsreveal some areas where action could be takento improve perceptions about the price levels

growers receive.

The data show that in general the trading

relationship between flower growers in Kenyaand Wilmar is broadly felt to be fair. The biggestissue is around price both in the way it isdetermined and the amount. Negative responsesto these questions were backed up by commentslike:

I have never been rewarded at any timewhether I produce good quality or not, its allthe same.

Sometimes Wilmar rejects some of my bestflowers even when I have done my best, only

because of the height being unsatisfactory bya few centimeters.

So far I have not seen anyone beingrewarded. All times are the same whether youmeet the requirements or not.

The data show that growers would like to seemore profit from their flowers given the timeand resources invested, which sometimesresults in a loss (particularly in the low season).The New Business Models project aimed toaddress issues of price inconsistency by giving

farmers a stable retail price and price levels byincreasing, on average, the amount received

from retail markets as compared to auctionmarkets (see further Buxton and Vorley 2012).Wilmar also needs to consider the way in whichit communicates price and pricing decisions to

growers as this may help address more negative

perceptions.

StatementMean Score

(Item)

Fairnessindistribuonofbene

ts

1. Wilmar does not take advantage of their bargaining posion tosecure a beer deal from me

0.48

2. Wilmar recognises that we both need to benet from doing businesswith each other

0.65

3. I am sased with the ming of payment oered by Wilmar 1.50

4. I am sased with the method of payment oered by Wilmar 1.53

5. I am fairly rewarded for meeng the requirements of Wilmar 0.04

6. I am sased with the prot I make from my business with Wilmar 0.16

7. The prot I make from my business with Wilmar is fair given the meand eort I spend meeng their requirements

0.38

8. The prot I make from my business with Wilmar is fair given thenancial costs I incur in meeng their requirements

0.39

9.* The price premium I receive from Wilmar for exceeding the minimum

quality standards reects the me and eort it takes to improve thequality of Flowers

0.99

10.* The price premium I receive from Wilmar for exceeding the minimumquality standards adequately compensate for the addional nancialcosts associated with improving the quality of Flowers

1.01


25/3223

Using the findings 23

4.4 Embedding the processEmbedding the process in normal operationsensures that it is not a one-off event. It meansroutinely monitoring relationship strength ideally annually as part of the retailers supplierrelationship management (SRM) process.

An important part of embedding the process isdeciding who should conduct the regularfollow-up surveys. Outsourcing surveyimplementation improves the likelihood ofeffective supplier engagement. This is becausesuppliers are more likely to participate andprovide honest answers to the questions.Outsourcing also gives the process integrity andexposes the stakeholders to objectiveassessment from experienced researchers.


26/3224

This approach to the measurement of buyersupplier relationships is built on solid theoretical,conceptual and methodological foundations; thepractical guidelines for implementing the surveyare based on real experience in the field, but it isrecognized that the measurement of buyersupplier relationships and the assessment oftheir sustainability is still very much a work inprogress. This final section reflects on thelimitations in this approach and the lessonslearnt. There are two key issues to focus on:

Data analysis how the information has beenanalyzed to determine the fairness of buyersupplier relationships.

Further research what further information isnecessary to look at, beyond the assessmentof buyersupplier relationships, to ensure thatthe supply chain as a whole becomes moresustainable?

5.1 Data analysis

The survey tool exploresperceptionsof fairness,

because fairness is perceived as an importantenabler for collaboration and an essentialbuilding block for fair and inclusive governancein supply chains involving smallholders fromdeveloping countries. Yet there are clearly otherfactors that affect the sustainability of tradingrelationships and supply chain operations (seeFigure 2).

The tool presented in this guide does not assessthe actualallocation of risks and rewards, or thefinancial flows (costs of production, margins andprofitability) along the chain. Although thoseassessments are similarly fraught with problemsof data access and reliability, the exclusivereliance on perceptions raises the problem of amismatch between individual perceptions andcommercial reality.

Perceptions of fairness in the buyersupplierrelationship may well be influenced by broadereconomic and socio-political factors outside thecontrol of the supply chain stakeholders. Bylooking at only one supply chain we are blind to

what is happening elsewhere in other regions,with people growing the same crop but fordifferent markets, and with people in the sameregion growing other crops (who may competewith the target producers for scarce resources).The measurement process would therefore bestrengthened by adding:

some environmental analysis that takesaccount of market dynamics for competingand complementary products; and

some analysis of parallel supply chains serving different customers or differentdistribution channels for the target product.

This will add both complexity and cost to theprocess of measurement and analysis but wouldundoubtedly result in a richer picture, reduce theprobability of spurious inferences being drawnfrom a single supply chain analysis and facilitatethe identification of broader (sector-wide,industry-wide, country-wide) issues and barriers

to change.

Part 5Limitations


27/3225

Limitations 25

5.2 A call for feedback

As stated at the beginning of this guide, themethodology is still being fine-tuned and will

benefit from being used and from usersfeedback on what can be improved. Themeasurement process can never be perfect there are always constructs, variables andrelationships that can be more completelydefined, scales that can be adapted to ensuremore consistent measurement and samplingstrategies that can be modified to ensure greaterrepresentation of the target population. Thisinvariably results in changes to both thequestions asked and the people talked to.

However, whilst we feel comfortable with ourunderstanding and measurement of the coreconstructs of organizational justice (distributive,procedural, informational, inter-personal),significant gaps remain in our understanding ofrelationship dynamics and how perceptions offairness affect and are affected by trust,commitment and inter-dependence. Currently,these relationships are assumed, but we havenot formally tested the hypotheses that these

constructs are related; nor have we establishedthe direction of causality.

We also have little empirical evidence thatimproving perceptions of fairness in buyersupplier relationships significantly improvescommercial outcomes fairer supply chains maybe more socially sustainable but are they moreprofitable? It may be that a more equitabledistribution of benefits results in competitivedisadvantage the size of the profit pie shrinks

so there is less cash to be shared, no matter howfairly it is distributed.

Finally, we have little empirical evidence of theimpact of intermediaries (government agencies,private consultants and NGOs) on thedevelopment and regeneration of individual(commercially focused) supply chains.Historically, these stakeholders have operatedprimarily at the macro (industry/country/region)or meso (sector) level or exclusively upstream atthe micro level, with limited involvement in thecut and thrust of shaping businesses, buildingsupply chains and brokering deals. This appearsto be changing; new business models foragrarian development are emerging based onmarket pull and self-help rather than large-scale

institutional investment, infrastructuraltransformation and a donor culture that doeslittle (or not enough) to empower individuals andcollaborative groups to have a greater say inwhat they want and greater control in achievingit.

This project the development of a tradingrelationship survey tool is an example of thedifferent kind of relationships that are emergingbetween academic researchers, NGOs andcommercial businesses for mutual benefit and,hopefully, the wider benefit of the mostvulnerable stakeholders in the food supply chain.Future research could examine how theseintermediaries and support agencies can workcollaboratively at different stages of the supplychain, on different projects and with differentpeople to improve the entire supply chain.


28/3226

Buxton, A . and Vorley, W. 2012. Smallholder Flowers fromKenya: the role of ethical agents. New Business Models forSustainable Trading Relationships Case Study Series, IIED,London. Available at http: //pubs.iied.org/16037IIED.html

Cadilhon J., Moustier P., Poole N., Giac Tam P. and Fearne A.2006. Traditional vs. Modern Food Systems? Insights fromvegetable supply chains to Ho Chi Minh City (Vietnam).Development Policy Review, 24(1): 3149.

Cadilhon, J.-J., Fearne, A.P., Giac Tam, P.T., Moustier, P. andPoole, N.D. 2009. Market Linkages: characterizing business-to-business relationships in Vietnamese vegetable supply chains.Acta Horticulturae809: 13546.

Duffty, R., Fearne, A. and Hornibrook, S. 2003. MeasuringDistributive and Procedural Justice: an exploratory investigationof the fairness of retailer-supplier relationships in the UK foodindustry. British Food Journal, 105(11).

Duffy, R. and Fearne, A. 2004. BuyerSupplier Relationships:an investigation of moderating factors on the development ofpartnership characteristics and performance. InternationalFood and Agribusiness Management Review, 27(6): 45672.

Fearne, A. 2009. Sustainable food and wine value chains. FinalReport Adelaide Thinkers in Residence, Department ofPremier and Cabinet, Government of South Australia, Adelaide.

Fearne, A., Duffy, R. and Hornibrook, S. 2005. Justice in UKSupermarket BuyerSupplier Relationships. InternationalJournal of Retail and Distribution Management, 33(8): 57082.

Gedeon, I., Fearne, A . and Poole, N. 2009. The Role ofInter-personal Relationships in the Dissolution of BusinessRelationships. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing,24(3/4): 21826.

Hornibrook, S., Fearne, A. and Lazzarin, M. 2009. Exploring theAssociation between Fairness and Organisational Outcomes inSupply Chain Relationships. International Journal of Retail andDistribution Management, 37(6): 790803.

Oxfam. 2010. Think Big, Go Small: Adapting business modelsto incorporate smallholders into supply chains. Briefings forBusiness (International Edition), No.6, Oxfam International,Oxford.

Soosay, C. and Fearne, A. 2010. Using Sustainable Value ChainAnalysis as a Catalyst for Co-Innovation in RegionalDevelopment: A case study of South Australian wine from theRiverland. International Journal of Innovation and RegionalDevelopment, 3(2).

Vorley, W., Ferris, S., Seville, D. and Lundy, M. 2010.Linkingworlds: new business models for sustainable trading relationsbetween smallholders and formalized markets, Working Paper,International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED),London.

References andfurther reading


29/32


30/32


31/32


32/32

Contact:Justin [email protected] Abbi [email protected]

Cover image: Kieran Doherty/Oxfam

Documents

Measuring Fairness in Supply Chain Trading Relationships