A Pathway Towards Truly Sustainable Food Supply Chains Balancing Motivation, Strategy, and Impact

Organizing Supply Chain Processes for Sustainable
Innovation in the Agri-Food Industry

A Pathway towards Truly Sustainable Food Supply Chains: Balancing Motivation,
Strategy, and Impact
Raffaella Cagliano Federico F. A. Caniato Christopher G. Worley
Article information:
To cite this document: Raffaella Cagliano Federico F. A. Caniato Christopher G.
Worley . "A Pathway towards Truly Sustainable Food Supply Chains: Balancing
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 06:43 13 September 2016 (PT)
Motivation, Strategy, and Impact" In Organizing Supply Chain Processes for

Sustainable Innovation in the Agri-Food Industry. Published online: 22 Aug 2016;
287-318.
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S2045-060520160000005020
Downloaded on: 13 September 2016, At: 06:43 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 5 times since NaN*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2016),"The Challenge of Sustainable Innovation in Agri-Food Supply Chains",
Organizing for Sustainable Effectiveness, Vol. 5 pp. 1-30 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
S2045-060520160000005009
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by

emerald-srm:333301 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please
use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which
publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society.
The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books
and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products
and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner
of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the
LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

CHAPTER 12
A PATHWAY TOWARDS TRULY

SUSTAINABLE FOOD SUPPLY
CHAINS: BALANCING
MOTIVATION, STRATEGY, AND

IMPACT
Raffaella Cagliano, Federico F. A. Caniato and

Christopher G. Worley
ABSTRACT
Purpose This chapter compares and discusses the 10 sustainability-

oriented food supply chain innovations described in the previous chapters.
Our purpose is to address and reflect on the questions and challenges
introduced in the first chapter.
Methodology/approach The cases are first analyzed in terms of the
extent to which the innovations were motivated and impacted the social,
environmental, and economic dimensions of sustainability. The various
sustainable food supply chain practices adopted are compared. The third
section explores the innovation strategies used in the cases, including the
type of strategy, the breadth and level of innovativeness of the strategy,
Organizing Supply Chain Processes for Sustainable Innovation in the Agri-Food Industry
Organizing for Sustainable Effectiveness, Volume 5, 287 318
Copyright r 2016 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISSN: 2045-0605/doi:10.1108/S2045-060520160000005020
287
288 RAFFAELLA CAGLIANO ET AL.
the governance approach, and the extent of capability development

required. The final section presents our conclusions.
Findings The results suggest that to become truly sustainable, compa-
nies need to adopt a broad set of practices that address all three
dimensions of sustainability, and develop strategies to make the sustain-
ability-oriented innovation economically viable. The more radical and sys-
temic the innovation, the more difficult it is to generate these outcomes.
Keywords: Food supply chain sustainability; sustainability-oriented
innovation; case studies
INTRODUCTION
This volume opened with a number of urgent challenges faced by the agri-
food industry and the need to find sustainable ways to develop its supply
chains. The 10 cases presented here described a number of possible ways to
face these challenges. In this final chapter, we summarize, discuss, and
highlight the cases’ contributions to research and practice, and we provide
tentative answers to the questions posed in Chapter 1. We will leverage
many of the theories and concepts presented in Chapter 1 to classify, com-
pare, and elaborate various themes from the cases and extend the learnings
to provide general conclusions.
As suggested in Chapter 1, the cases presented in this volume are
diverse. Drawing on a variety of theoretical and conceptual frameworks,
they describe an equally diverse set of sustainability-oriented innovations
(SOI) in the agri-food business. The cases were classified and presented
according to the innovation’s main focus. Two cases addressed innovation
at the product level (Alcass and TRADEIT), two cases explored upstream
supply chain (suppliers) innovation (illy and Barilla), three cases examined
downstream supply chain (distribution and catering) innovation (Google,
Coop, and RPCs), two cases described innovation at the system level
(Origin Green and Northeast Ohio), and one case focused on social system
innovation (Semi di Libertà). Many cases spanned all phases of the agri-
food supply chain (Origin Green, Northeast Ohio, and RPC) while others
focused on mostly one phase. For example, the Alcass, TRADEIT, and
Semi di Libertà cases were concerned with the processing phase while the
illy and Barilla cases addressed the agricultural phase.
A Pathway towards Truly Sustainable Food Supply Chains 289
Based on existing knowledge, research, and practice, Chapter 1 raised a

number of challenges and questions regarding sustainable innovations in
agri-food supply chains. The questions asked what kind of innovations
were needed to create truly sustainable food supply chains, how and when
do SOIs pay off, how can truly sustainable supply chains be scaled up or
down, and what kind of learning and capability development mechanisms
are needed? This following section analyzes the 10 cases according to differ-
ent lenses.
In the first section, we explore how the different SOIs were influenced by
and affected various dimensions of sustainable effectiveness. We then

describe the sustainable supply chain management practices associated with
the cases. It is the most relevant and practical outcome from the research.
In the third section, we discuss the innovation strategies adopted in each
case, underlying the importance of new perspective to interpret SOIs. The
cases are compared by the level and degree of innovativeness was well as
their scope, in terms of the number phases addressed and the types of sta-
keholders involved. Strategies are then described in terms of the type of
governance used to guide the innovations, and finally by the types of cap-
ability development and learning processes required. In the conclusion sec-
tion, we summarize the main lessons learned, and the theoretical and
practical contributions of the cases.
THE DRIVERS AND OUTCOMES OF

SUSTAINABILITY-ORIENTED INNOVATIONS
IN AGRI-FOOD SUPPLY CHAINS
Table 1 presents the sustainability dimensions that motivated or drove the
innovations and the dimensions affected in the 10 cases. The main driver of
the innovation what motivated the innovation among the three pillars
of sustainability is listed in the first row. The table uses the dimensions of
food supply chain sustainability introduced in Chapter 1 (DEFRA, 2006)
to describe the impact.
A sustainability-oriented innovation (SOI) is, by nature, multi-dimensional
and complex. Economic, social, and environmental objectives are interdepen-
dent and make it difficult to consider one dimension separately from another.
Pursuing sustainability often requires trade-off management or shifting, since
addressing one dimension can negatively or positively affect another one.
Despite this difficulty, we tried to summarize the primary motivation that
Table 1. Main Drivers and Sustainability Performance Dimensions Addressed by Innovations.
Alcass TRADEIT Illy Barilla Google Coop RPCs Origin Green Northeast Semi
Ohio di Libertà
Main driver Economic (through Economic Social/economic Economic/ Social (and Social Economic Economic Social/ Social
of innovation product innovation) environmental environmental) economic/
environmental
Food quality, Element of Through Element of Element of Increased Increased Element of Increased Element of
healthiness, and differentiation traditional differentiation differentiation food quality food safety differentiation food quality differentiation
safety (S) foods and safety through
on shelves brand
management
Education on Promotes non- Promotes Promotes Promotes
and promotion meat products consumption of sustainable consumption of
of sustainable usually discarded products local food
food choices food and
(S, E) proper quantities
Reduction of Surplus food Surplus food Waste reduction
food waste (S, E) reduction and reduction and
re-use re-use
Safe and hygienic Suppliers’ Improved working Future element Inclusion
working working conditions in of certification
conditions (S) conditions distribution
Social goals, Sustain coffee Sustain local Redistribution Prisoners
social growers wheat growers of food surplus as workforce
inclusion (S) communities to the ones
in need
Viability and Economic Sustain coffee Local durum wheat Promote Encourage local
diversity of local sustainability growers crops, national agri- entrepreneurship
communities and of local TFPs communities traditional varieties food sector
economies (S/$)
Respect of Sustainable Crop rotation Through Through Element of Shorter Sustainable
biological limits supplier sourcing waste reduction waste certification supply chains sourcing
of natural in service of reduction
resources (E) differentiation
Environmental Reduction of meat Reduction of Through Through More Element of Promote Sustainable
performance (E) consumption food miles waste reduction waste “environmentally” certification natural sourcing
reduction sustainable methods
packaging
Economic New products allow Supports Growers receive Growers receive a Through Through Increased supply Increased Revitalize Not
performance ($) company to efficiency a premium price premium price, the waste reduction waste chain efficiency competitiveness regional yet achieved
differentiate and grow of TFPs and product is producer reduces risk redution and at national and economy
sold at premium and better company level
transportation costs planning
emerged from the analysis of the cases. Table 1 presents this main focus and
highlights (in bold) the way this motivation was manifest. It also reports
other complementary impacts.
Economic sustainability was the overriding concern and driver of inno-
vation, although other dimensions of sustainability were clearly at work. In
a couple of cases, a variety of related goals often disguised this economic
focus. For example, in the Alcass case, sustainable effectiveness was the
result of a clear differentiation strategy to achieve better economic results.
For other cases, the economic argument was the only possible way to make
social and environmental sustainability goals viable.

This result does not come as a surprise. Most companies still utilize an
economic imperative when evaluating projects in the sustainability domain
(Pagell & Shevchenko, 2014; Schaltegger, Lüdeke-Freund, & Hansen,
2012). Social and environmental sustainability dimensions are used either
as a differentiation factor, providing competitive advantage for the com-
pany, or as a way to reduce costs. In all cases, companies wanted to see the
business case for sustainability (Schaltegger et al., 2012), and only a few
cases were driven purely by improving social or environmental perfor-
mance. Among our cases, just Semi di Libertà, a company born out of a
social purpose, as well as Google and Coop, two initiatives driven by the
willingness to reduce food waste, had something other than primarily eco-
nomic goals.
In terms of impacts, food quality, healthiness, and safety were common
outcomes and sometimes highlighted as the focus of innovation. However,
for the Alcass, TRADEIT, and Origin Green cases, this mostly social
objective was often adopted as part of an effort to differentiate a product
or brand and serve as a source of competitive advantage and economic suc-
cess. In these cases, the innovation was supported by activities aimed at
developing and promoting a quality and healthy brand or product (or its
sustainability in general).
In other cases, food quality and sustainability were the starting points and
pushed the company to develop innovations that reinforced product viability.
An existing brand required innovation to keep its promise to the customer.
This is the case with illy and Barilla, as well as TRADEIT. The first two
companies built their brands and success on the high quality and sustainabil-
ity of their products. They continued to develop innovations to improve
these performance dimensions while addressing economic sustainability. For
TRADEIT, the traditional food “label”, with its genuineness, healthiness, loc-
alism, and retro image (Cerutti, Bruun, Donno, Beccaro, & Bounous, 2013;
Ilbery & Maye, 2005) drove the innovation. The innovation aimed to increase
the economic sustainability for the associated companies.
Although food quality was not the focus of other SOIs, it was an impor-
tant element that supported or complemented the innovation. For example,
viability and diversity of local communities and economies, especially if
coupled with goals of social inclusion, often played an important role. Six
out of the 10 cases included this as an innovation goal. Their aim was to
promote the social and economic viability of specific local communities,
including Ireland (Origin Green), Northeast Ohio, Brazilian coffee growers
(illy), and Emilia Romagna (a region in Northern Italy for Barilla), or

specific interest groups, such as traditional food producers (TRADEIT)
and prison inmate in Rome, Italy (Semi di Libertà). This dimension com-
plemented economic goals since in most cases the long-run viability and
sustainability of the community required economic soundness for the initia-
tives developed. For illy, Barilla, and Origin Green, this was possible by
associating the food produced through the local community to a successful,
sustainable, high quality brand, which in turn generated higher incomes,
thanks to a premium price paid by the market.
Other cases coupled social goals with the search for economic benefit.
Semi di Libertà was trying to make its social innovation economically sus-
tainable through differentiation and scaling, both in terms of backward
integration into raw materials and through market expansion. However, its
economic success is still to be determined as they are in a start-up phase.
In the Coop case, the costs of establishing new inventory methods and
surplus food distribution were probably offset by the reduction of surplus
foods costs, better planning of inventories, and shelves replenishment.
Similar arguments can be put forward for Google.
Environmental performance was an important outcome in the illy and
Barilla cases, but it was always coupled with other goals social, eco-
nomic, or both. In other cases, environmental sustainability was discussed,
but mostly in an instrumental or supportive way. Origin Green described
how the reduction of environmental impact and supply chain risk was
strongly coupled with brand-building efforts and long-run sustainability
objectives. Similarly, sourcing from suppliers who worked in an environmen-
tally sound way or respected the land and its natural rhythm were important
sustainability goals in most cases. Cases that focused on waste and surplus
food reduction had environmental goals as well (reducing the consumption
of natural resources for products that are then wasted).
The relatively limited number of cases focused on environmental (or
eco) innovation may have been partly due to the research guidelines that
searched for triple bottom line oriented and more systemic, complex cases.
However, this result also suggests a potential SOI trend in the agri-food
industry: pure eco-innovation may be less attractive for supply chain
improvements than systemic, multi-dimensional efforts. Such changes are
more complex, more difficult to implement, and have longer payback per-
iod, but they also have bigger potential benefit.
We suggest that although the economic driver cannot be denied as a
force to motivate or sustain efforts to build more sustainable supply chains,
the most promising innovations in the agri-food industry pursued a more
complex and diverse set of goals with their initiatives. They looked for
synergies and complementarities. More sustainable supply chains are then
marketed to consumers under the umbrella of a better, healthier, and more
secure food, and used as a source of differentiation and advantage that sup-
ports a premium price. Brand building is an important instrument to lever-
age this kind of policy and, as shown in the Origin Green case, brand value
and sustainable supply chain improvements support one another. Finally,
for most cases in this volume, more sustainable food implied that the con-
sumer would bear part of the cost of increased sustainability (and quality)
by paying higher prices for the products.
SUSTAINABILITY PRACTICES IN THE FOOD

SUPPLY CHAIN
As shown in Table 2, the 10 cases addressed all 3 types of supply chains
(manufactured food, local fresh food, and commodity food) and utilized a
variety of sustainable supply chain management practices.
Adopting the classification proposed by Smith (2008) and illustrated in
Chapter 1, seven of the cases concerned manufactured food, including simple,
small-scale, traditional food (TRADEIT), artisanal (Semi di Libertà) pro-
ducts, various industrial food products (Coop; Origin Green; Alcass), and
cooked food prepared on-site (Google). In addition, Alcass products
revealed the complexity and sustainability challenges of conserved (frozen)
food. These cases support Smith’s assertion regarding the potentially large
opportunities to make industrial scale, manufactured food more sustainable.
Other cases focused on local fresh food, but from different perspectives.
The RPC case described a packaging innovation used in large-scale opera-
tions for fresh produce while the Northeast Ohio and TRADEIT cases
focused on small-scale, local food (fresh and manufactured) production,
Table 2. Main Supply Chain Sustainability Practices Adopted by Category.
Ohio di Libertà
Type of FSC Manufactured/ Local/ Commodity Commodity Manufactured Fresh/ Local/ Fresh/ Local Manufactured
conserved manufactured manufactured fresh manufactured/
conserved
Natural Organic meat and Traditional RSCP Sustainable Reduce and Reduce food Reduce Reduce Sustainable Use of
resources reduce meat ingredients certification growth of re-use waste and food waste resource growing organic
conservation consumption and recipes traditional food waste re-use consumption, techniques raw materials
durum support
wheat biodiversity
Green Renewable energy Local Local Local surplus Re-usable Reduce carbon Local
processing, supply chain sourcing to food plastic footprint, supply
packaging, reduce redistribution containers, reduce chain
and food miles recycle packaging
transportation materials and waste
Animal Assessing Guarantee
welfare animal welfare animal welfare
Health Vegetarian and Produce and Strict Strict Promote Guarantee Protect Provide Promote Control on
and safety Vegan products, promote control on control on healthy diet food safety fresh healthy food, healthy the
strict control of healthy food the the throughout the products allow food and supply chain
production process, supply chain supply donation traceability educate
product traceability, chain process, consumers
no preservatives promote
healthy diet
Work and TFP knowledge RSCP Promote Worker Worker
human rights and skill certification worker knowledge education
development well-being and skill and training
development
Table 2. (Continued )
Ohio di Libertà
Community Support local Support Support Support local Support local Support Social
employment and local local disadvantaged communities local inclusion of
entrepreneurship communities community people community prisoners
in in Italy through and disabled
sourcing charities
countries
Sustainable Integrated Support to Purchase of Support to Use of raw
procurement green coffee growers imperfect small materials
supply chain through produce producers produced by
contracts disadvantaged
and workers
knowledge
Fair trade Premium Premium Community Use of fair
price price supported trade
agriculture, raw materials
farmer
markets
and distribution. Coop and Origin Green concerned fresh food along with
manufactured food. This type of food and supply chain is generally consid-
ered intrinsically more sustainable (Smith, 2008), although economic chal-
lenges arise when the scale is small (TRADEIT and Northeast Ohio),
conservation/waste reduction concerns arise in general, and in particular
when the distribution of fresh food is not local (RPC, Origin Green, and
Coop). The illy and Barilla cases concerned commodity food supply
chains green coffee and durum wheat with clear attempts to “de-
commoditize” such products. They overcame the sustainability issues high-
lighted by Smith (2008) by shortening the supply chain in the Barilla case
and increasing community and environmental outcomes in the illy case.
Chapter 1 classified sustainable supply chain management practices
according to the three pillars of sustainability. Environmental practices were
classified into natural resources conservation; green processing, packaging,
and transportation; and animal welfare, although animal welfare was rele-
vant only in the Origin Green and Alcass cases. All cases addressed natural
resources conservation practices in different ways. Google, Coop, and RPC
focused on reducing food waste, therefore relieving the stress on natural
resources productivity. Barilla, illy, Origin Green, and Northeast Ohio
focused on different sustainable growing techniques, reduced the consump-
tion of water, energy, and soil, and protected biodiversity in different geo-
graphical areas for different products. TRADEIT, Semi di Libertà, and
Alcass sourced traditional and organic ingredients, thus favoring more sus-
tainable growing and breeding practices. In addition, Alcass, with its meat-
substitute product, fostered the shift to less resource-consuming food in
that soy-based protein has a lower environmental impact than meat.
A few cases focused on green processing, packaging, and transportation
practices. RPC explored the economic advantages of the containers and
their ability to reduce food damage/waste. It also suggested that the reusa-
bility of the container and its potential for recycling had long-term environ-
mental benefits over cardboard containers. Barilla, Northeast Ohio, Coop,
and TRADEIT were committed to local supply chains with a clear positive
impact on carbon emissions by reducing food miles. Origin Green included
carbon footprint, packaging, and waste reduction among the standards of
its certification for farms and the target goals for improvement of manufac-
tured food. Finally, Alcass committed to self-produced renewable energy.
Social Practices were classified into health and safety, work and human
rights, and community. Food health and safety was one of the most com-
mon sets of actions adopted by all cases. Several cases, including Alcass,
illy, Barilla, Origin Green, Coop, RPC, and Semi di Libertà, concentrated
on strictly controlling the supply chain and production processes to ensure

the highest possible level of food safety. Other cases, such as TRADEIT,
Google, Northeast Ohio, focused more on promoting healthy food
consumption.
Work and human rights practices were addressed by a few cases,
although all cases were committed to compliance with standards and regu-
lations. Illy paid specific attention to the working conditions of coffee
growers, and Origin Green included a focus on worker well-being. The
Northeast Ohio and TRADEIT cases improved the knowledge and skills of
small farmers and traditional food producers, while Semi di Libertà was
devoted to the education, training, and social promotion of both prisoners
and disabled workers.
Community development was addressed in the TRADEIT, Barilla,
Northeast Ohio, and Semi di Libertà cases, where a local focus supported
employment and knowledge sharing. The Coop case supported local disad-
vantaged people through charities, and illy provided support to commu-
nities in coffee growing countries (Brazil in particular).
Economic practices were classified into sustainable procurement and fair
trade. The upstream supply chain cases addressed sustainable procurement
practices. Illy’s focus on the integrated green coffee supply chain initiative
and Barilla’s focus on the use of innovative contracts and supplier knowl-
edge development initiatives are good examples. In the Northeast Ohio
case, the focus was on systemic innovations, and Semi di Libertà adopted
procurement practices aimed at sustaining the supply base. Fair trade prac-
tices were limited to the illy, Barilla, and Northeast Ohio cases where there
was special attention to ensure profit sharing through premium prices, as
well as to reduce risk and volatility through long-term relationships.
In summary, the 10 cases utilized a variety of supply chain sustainability
practices with differences and specificities related to each organization’s
particular characteristics, food products, geographical scope, and SOI
objectives. A comprehensive approach to sustainability that addresses
environmental, social, and economic sustainability, and a set of practices
that allow organizations to exploit synergies or mitigate trade-offs among
them were supported. The bold text in Table 2 identifies an SOI’s focus
and, in general, is closely aligned with the main goals highlighted in
Table 1. No organization completely neglected any of the three pillars, con-
firming that sustainability-oriented organizations are aware of the need to
adopt a triple bottom line perspective.
However, none of the cases or organizations in this volume can be con-
sidered “truly sustainable.” On the contrary, all of them clearly described
their own evolutionary and continuously improving path toward sustain-

ability, with clear goals for further development.
SUSTAINABILITY-ORIENTED
INNOVATION STRATEGIES
SOIs took many different forms and were approached in a variety of ways.
Recognizing the type of innovation is important to understand the implied

challenges, discover the required resources, and develop the necessary cap-
abilities needed to implement it. These are key choices regarding innovation
strategy. In this section, we look at the types of SOIs pursued, the breadth
and radicalness of the strategy, how the SOI was governed, and the cap-
abilities required.
Types of SOIs
The traditional categories of technology push, market pull, design-driven,

and regulatory push/pull describe quite well the source of the innovations
and their main orientation. In many cases, the innovations aligned with the
push from a new technology, including organizational or management
arrangements, such as an action-learning network (TRADEIT) or a sup-
plier development program (illy). Other cases responded to demand from
the market for better, more sustainable food products.
Regulatory push/pull was an important source of change in most of the
innovations analyzed. This force is not strictly related to the presence of
current or future regulations (similar to demand pull), but rather from the
often-proactive alignment with stakeholder expectations and needs. For
example, the regulatory-push TRADEIT case emerged from the need of
traditional food producers to be more effective and profitable. The emer-
gence of the Northeast Ohio local food system derived from the needs and
expectations of a broad set of stakeholders, ranging from the local commu-
nity to the local government.
A few cases adopted a design-driven innovation approach since the pro-
posed innovations put forward new meanings. The Alcass case proposed “a
traditional recipe with tasty flavor for non-meat food products,” the Origin
Green case tagged Irish products as “we are natural and we can prove it,”
and the Northeast Ohio case branded several initiatives as part of the “Green
City on a Blue Lake.” Each case attempted to redefine the meaning of a
product. Even the Semi di Libertà case had an element of this as it had to
address the market’s perception of beer produced and served by prisoners.
What intrigued us most, however, was the prevalence of values-driven
strategies. In all cases, a set of sustainable values, including economic ones,
were in play. Although the illy and Barilla initiatives can be interpreted as
technology push innovations developed to improve the availability and
quality of their raw materials, it could also be interpreted as market
pull the request by the customer for sustainable and high quality food.
However, these initiatives were also values-based and in alignment with the
core sustainability-oriented values expressed more broadly by these two

companies. Similarly, Semi di Libertà was created to address severe over-
crowding in prison, recidivism, and employment issues, so their business
model was designed around a set of core values promoted by the entrepre-
neurs. In the Coop case, the Buon Fine initiative was facilitated by the ethi-
cal and social sustainability values of the retailer and the cooperative form
of organization that was the basis of its business. Similar motivations were
found in the Google and the Northeast Ohio initiatives.
Finally, a clear majority of the cases adopted a retro-innovation type of
strategy. Apart from the Google and the RPC cases, all others reverted to tra-
ditional approaches or ways of doing things in an effort to create value
through product differentiation. One set of cases applied the retro-innovation
idea by returning to traditional or artisanal production methods as a product
differentiator. They included TRADEIT, which by definition involved tradi-
tional food producers, and Semi di Libertà, where traditional, craft brewing
processes were part of the value proposition offered to the market. A second
set of cases brought back traditional products and processes to improve sus-
tainability. For Barilla, the revival of a traditional durum wheat species, the
support to growers, and the use of sustainable growing practices were the
basis for the production of high quality pasta. The sustainability objective
included reducing food mileage/environmental impact and supporting the
economy of local communities. For Origin Green, national production was
still based on local traditions and processes and was considered fundamental
in achieving the sustainability objectives promoted by the brand. Valuing the
traditions were attached to the idea of sustainability of the national agri-food
industry, but was also used as a competitive differentiator, thanks to the
brand development initiatives put forward.
The illy and Northeast Ohio cases used both approaches. Traditional
processes, such as handpicking the coffee beans or using sustainable farm-
ing methods, were valued because of their higher sustainability compared
to the more modern/scale-based ones. As well, these were used as
differentiators to attract customers, add to the brand’s value, or command

a premium price.
The retro-innovation strategy typically challenged the traditional scale
and leverage logic. Illy addressed and developed local communities even
though the supply chain remained long. Barilla, Alcass, and Northeast
Ohio deliberately shortened their supply chains and worked with smaller
suppliers. TRADEIT encouraged small and local supply chains. Overall,
the cases support the idea of valuing traditions, local heritages, and artisa-
nal practices in food growing and production, as an important lever for
sustainable innovation in the agri-food industry. Stakeholder expectations

and values proved to be distinguishing elements in most of the innovations
analyzed. When companies broadened the criteria of effectiveness from
economic and financial performance to triple bottom line objectives, they
also broadened the motivations and drivers of change.
There are two side effects from these broadened criteria. First, the firm’s
sustainability orientation is per se a source of innovation, a perspective that
can lead companies to be (or become) more innovative. This is recognized
in the literature (Porter & Kramer, 2002; Pujari, 2006; Schaltegger &
Wagner, 2011) and is further reinforced by the evidence coming from the
cases in this volume. Second, innovation becomes more complex and multi-
dimensional, involving different drivers together with different objectives.
In both cases, results point out the importance of developing specific cap-
abilities to deal with SOI.
Breadth and Degree of Innovativeness in SOI Strategies
Fig. 1 classifies the innovation strategies pursued by the organizations and

systems in the food supply chains according to two common dimensions.
We considered an innovation radical if it represented a marked or substan-
tial change in the way the supply chain was configured, organized, or man-
aged logistically, or how processes or products were carried out. This
change could be “new to the company” or “new to the market.”
The horizontal axis classifies cases according to whether they are narrow
or broad in scope. Narrowly focused cases addressed a relatively few
dimensions of sustainability or elements of the supply chain while broadly
focused cases explore all three dimensions or multiple elements of the
supply chain. This dimension also includes the number and type of stake-
holders involved. Broad, systemic innovation generally involved lots of
different kinds of stakeholders, while narrowly focused innovation tends to
involve traditional supply chain actors.
Radical
NEO
Alcass (meat sub) Origin Green
illy
Semi di Liberta
Barilla
Narrow/ Wide/
Focused Coop Systemic
Google
TRADEIT RPC
Alcass
(organic meat)
Incremental
Fig. 1. Breadth and Radicalness of Sustainability-Oriented

Supply Chain Innovations.
In fact, we anticipated that SOI at the supply chain level would be char-
acterized by the involvement of a number of different stakeholders, includ-
ing primary stakeholders, or those typical actors along the supply chain,
and secondary stakeholders, such as NGOs, non-governmental bodies, citi-
zens or local associations, and others (Freeman, 1984; Hall & Vredenburg,
2012). Secondary stakeholders bring in unique perspectives and needs or
make specialized competencies available. This dimension might also be
viewed in terms of whether the innovation process is close versus open.
While it is possible to see any case as possessing radical or systemic char-
acteristics, some cases were clearly narrower or broader in focus or involve-
ment, more or less radical in their approach. These ideas were used to
describe the breadth and aggressiveness of the innovation strategy.
Narrow and Incremental

Some organizations adopted a relatively conservative strategy, focusing on
relatively narrow and incremental improvements in their products or pro-
cesses, and usually making small adjustments in their business model to
(further) include sustainability dimensions. This was true for the organic
products at Alcass, where the traditional product (meat-based) and its sup-
ply chain were innovated to improve environmental sustainability. Few,
mainly traditional stakeholders, such as suppliers, were involved in the pro-
ject. The innovations introduced were based on technologies or manage-
ment practices already existing in the market and focused on sourcing
choices. That is, organic meat is sourced from breeders who follow certified
standard procedures. Overall, the business model was not radically chan-
ged, although it was adjusted to include a more decisive approach to sus-
tainability dimensions.
The Google and the Coop cases focused on a single, rather narrow pro-
cess, internal catering and waste recovery, respectively. The measurement
and reduction of food waste at Google, and the planning and control of
expiry dates and the donation system at Coop, were incremental. Neither
case involved large changes in their business model. In the Google case, the
purchase and use of imperfect produce that would be otherwise wasted and
the collaboration with the supplier to create new products using food waste
represents an incremental attempt to adopt a “creating value from waste”
business model (Bocken, Short, Rana, & Evans, 2014). Coop’s donation of
surplus food to charities was also a “creating value from waste” business
model where value was mostly created in terms of downstream social value.
In these cases, relatively few actors were involved and were mostly primary
stakeholders.
Finally, the TRADEIT case’s scope was narrow in terms of competence
development and learning processes activated by the EU project. But it was
quite broad in the sense that more than 600 companies, 44 associations,
and 19 consortium members participated, and those partners were not used
to collaborating with peers or competitors. The innovation was incremental
since the improvements driven at the company level were in most cases
small improvements in processing, marketing, or distribution. This
approach can be traced back to a new business model based on a “colla-
borative approach to scale up solutions” (Bocken et al., 2014).
Systemic and Incremental

Only one firm adopted an incremental and conservative but broader strat-
egy. The RPC case explored the single element of packaging with an incre-
mental approach that substitutes disposable containers with re-usable ones.
Its impacts were broad, even if mostly primary stakeholders were involved,
since multiple stages and actors of the supply chains, such as producers,
distributors, and retailers, were involved and it needed a coordination
system to manage the reverse logistics.
Narrow and Radical

Two cases pursued a more radical and aggressive but focused strategy.
Semi di Libertà implemented a rather radical process (labor) innovation
focused on the production stage of the value chain. It replicated a tradi-
tional business model in terms of revenue streams, infrastructure, customer
and supplier relationships, and so on, but all under a dominant logic of
social inclusion and social impact, instead of a profit logic. So the “social
enterprise” model (Bocken et al., 2014) was embraced. Although mainly
secondary stakeholders were involved, their number was limited.
The non-meat product line in Alcass was a more radical innovation

compared to the organic meat product, both for the company and for the
market, since this type of product did not exist before. In addition, the
supply chain required reconfiguration in terms of different suppliers (e.g.,
soy-based raw materials instead of meat) and on the distribution side,
the company faced the challenge of marketing and launching a radically
new product in traditional retail channels. However, the business model
behind the product was not radically different from the previous one, with
the exception of using more sustainable raw materials. This innovation
cannot be considered systemic since it did not reach outside the supply
chain in terms of stakeholders and focused on such few aspects of the
sustainability process.
Systemic and Radical

The Northeast Ohio case was a radical, broad, and systemic effort to
improve the sustainability of a regional economy. The design and realiza-
tion of a local food production and consumption system required a radical
redesign of the supply chains, of value propositions, of stakeholder rela-
tionships, and the overall infrastructure of the system. All of the elements
departed significantly from traditional logics of scale and leverage and, for
a number of actors, the traditional logics of business and profit were dis-
carded. The dominant logics became social inclusion, cooperation, local
culture, and heritage. In this case, the “collaborative approach to scale up
solutions” (Bocken et al., 2014) was applied, but to a much broader number
of actors mainly secondary stakeholders and on a larger number of
aspects and processes compared to the TRADEIT case. The initiative
reflected the “localization” business model (Bocken et al., 2014) although
the business model innovation concerned a whole local system rather than
a single company.
The Origin Green case was similar in terms of breadth and innovative-
ness. Origin Green was the first, largest nation-wide certification initiative,
with no comparable examples worldwide. The wide number of actors

involved implied the need to include a variety of processes and sustainabil-
ity elements in the certification system. Thus, this case referred to a new
systemic business model based on a “collaborative approach to scale up solu-
tions” (Bocken et al., 2014). However, the improvements driven by the cer-
tification at the company level were in most cases incremental, and their
business model did not change but rather adapted to take sustainability
dimensions into greater account.
Barilla and illy also adopted broad and radical strategies if not to the
same extent as Northeast Ohio and Origin Green. Illy’s radical

innovation compared to the industry standard was in its sourcing pro-
cess and approach to supplier management. Both the supplier development
and the certification scheme have been the source of inspiration for other
companies. The company embraced the “stewardship role” business model
through ethical/fair trade, transparency about environmental and social
impact, and biodiversity conservation as well as the “collaborative approach
with suppliers” (Bocken et al., 2014). However, the business model of the
company was not changed substantially, since the quality of the product
and sustainability of the supply chain were always embedded in the com-
pany’s identity. The effort was systemic since the initiative undertook many
different aspects of sustainability and different processes for suppliers,
reaching beyond the supply base of the company, and making an impact
on the whole industry.
Finally, Barilla was quite similar to illy with its initiative to recreate and
develop a local supply base of traditional durum wheat, although on a
smaller scale and at an earlier stage of development. This was also a radical
and systemic retro-innovation. It was radical for the company and for
the industry because the sourcing logic completely abandoned the tradi-
tional scale and leverage approach associated with a global, purely com-
modity, and price-driven configuration with no direct control over quality
and no sustainability concern. The company logic moved to local sourcing
of high quality and sustainable traditional durum wheat through collabora-
tive relationships. The SOI was also systemic because it involved a number
of stakeholders, both primary and secondary, including growers, coopera-
tives, the local government, and research centers.
A first general comment coming from these analyses concerns stake-
holder involvement in SOI. Not surprisingly, the cases involved a number
of different actors along the supply chain and contributed to a systemic
approach. However, other cases involving fewer and more traditional types
of actors or a narrow focus on sustainability dimensions showed that SOIs
at the supply chain level can impact a number of actors in the supply chain.
For example, the Alcass case tells us that when you have to innovate your
product according to sustainability principles many actors of the supply
chain are involved to support and make your innovation possible. Clearly,
when the product is radically new such as the Amica Natura Veggie pro-
duct line this impact is even stronger. In the Google and Semi di Libertà
cases, although the innovation was relatively focused, it implied quite a
number of changes along the supply chain, thus involving different actors.
The cross-case analysis supports the literature: SOIs entail a higher
involvement of a significant number of secondary stakeholders compared

to traditional innovations. In fact, in 6 out of the 10 cases, secondary stake-
holders were the main actors or at least important actors in the develop-
ment of the innovation. In most of the cases, these secondary stakeholders
were government or non-governmental bodies (e.g., Bord Bia for Origin
Green; the Emilia Romagna Region for Barilla; Sesto San Giovanni
Municipality for Coop; the prison institution and other public bodies in
Semi di Libertà), other companies/competitors (e.g., DNV-GL, the certifi-
cation company for illy), consortia or interest groups (e.g., TRADEIT).
NGOs (e.g., the food banks and charities in the Coop case) or research cen-
ters (e.g., partially in the Barilla case) were rarely involved.
Overall, we can conclude that SOI tends to involve quite a number of
different actors, both primary and secondary stakeholders, thus requiring
profound competencies in terms of partner selection, collaboration, knowl-
edge sharing, and integration. Although many of the cases described here
only involved stakeholders in the implementation phase of the innovation,
they could still be classified as “open” (Chesbrough, 2010). In such cases,
these capabilities are even more critical since the level of collaboration
is higher.
A second comment is that the relationship among radicalness, breadth,
and economic outcomes is rather loose. Not all economically successful
SOIs in the agri-food supply chains were radical, systemic, business
model redesigns. There was plenty of space and opportunity for relatively
incremental innovations to improve sustainability (or to reduce unsustain-
ability) in substantive ways. Although the literature argues that these
efforts cannot be a final solution to the problem of sustainable develop-
ment (Pagell & Shevchenko, 2014) and to the challenge faced by the agri-
food industry, we think that this is an important step. Incremental
improvements applied on a large-scale by multinational companies or
national systems can lead to significant improvement in the sustainability
of the industry as a whole.
At the same time, there were a number of radical innovations, sometimes

more focused, sometimes quite broad in scope and reach that struggled.
The Northeast Ohio and Semi di Libertà cases were radical examples of
sustainability-oriented innovation and business model redesign with limited
economic sustainability. They confirm what is often discussed in the litera-
ture: radical innovations and business models are more easily introduced
by small, new entrants rather than large incumbents especially when
huge financial resources are not needed for innovation. The challenge then
is how to scale up “truly sustainable supply chains” without embracing the
one-sided economic scale and leverage logic.

One option would be the adoption of a sustainability-oriented scale and
leverage approach. Unfortunately, such a business model has yet to be
defined and demonstrated. Alternatively, the diffusion of successful models
though collaborative solutions and learning networks might represent a
viable way to generate more stories of radical business model redesign as in
the case of Origin Green. A third alternative might be learning processes
that could help single initiatives to be more economically sustainable as in
the case of TRADEIT. Unfortunately, such processes may limit the possi-
bility to differentiate a company’s product, brand, and image through sus-
tainability, reduce the economic benefit, and weaken the willingness of
companies to adopt the innovations. It may also be true that the space for
sustainability-oriented innovation is so big that there will always be the
possibility to be “better” and more sustainable, thus keeping differentiation
and premium price. This will require more longitudinal research.
A final twist on the relationship among economic sustainability and a
more radical and aggressive strategy to sustainability innovation derives
from the unwillingness or impossibility to generally shift the cost of sustain-
ability to other actors especially downstream in the supply chain. To
date, it has proven rather difficult to get consumers to pay premium prices
for sustainably sourced or prepared food and government subsidies (espe-
cially in the United States) still favor traditional, manufactured food supply
chains. The Origin Green case is a real bright light in this regard and shows
how a governmental body may intervene through public funding in a sus-
tainable way.
Governance Strategies in SOIs
In addition to the type, breadth, and radicalness of the innovation strategy,

the cases also varied in terms of their governance approach. This was
manifest in terms of whether the strategy was controlled via a top-down and
directive approach or a bottom-up and emergent approach. The literature is
unclear whether SOI strategies will benefit from a process led and controlled
by a focal company or key role/individual or if it should be a bottom-up,
emergent, and spontaneous process with no or little guidance by some coor-
dinating body (Smith, Fressoli, & Thomas, 2014). On the one hand, volun-
tary contributions from different actors and stakeholders can generate
commitment and enthusiasm for the project and more valuable and innova-
tive ideas (see, e.g., Pisano & Verganti, 2008). On the other hand, a top-
down and directive approach may get traction and results more quickly.
The top-down SOIs, including Barilla, illy, Alcass, and Semi di Libertà,
were governed by a focal company. Similarly, Board Bia led the Origin
Green process and the TRADEIT team coordinated the traditional food
producers. Finally, a specialized provider (e.g., IFCO) was the primary dri-
ver of the RPC case. In contrast, the Northeast Ohio case was the most
bottoms-up example, although the Coop and Google cases were also con-
sidered emergent processes. Although the city of Cleveland often played a
convening role, the non-centrally controlled nature and grassroots move-
ment was dominant in Northeast Ohio. This resulted in a few coordination
problems, including the intermittent loss of a sense of direction and slower
progress toward economic viability, but also large amounts of internal
commitment and bursts of progress and innovation. The Coop case was
initiated and encouraged by local governments and Google’s food innova-
tions were clearly not the result of a top-down initiative. Given the broad
scope and difficulty in getting economic traction in the Northeast Ohio
case, the relatively success in other cases suggest that a large-scale, broad,
and aggressive innovation strategy may benefit from a guiding body.
When the type of governance process is combined with the role of sec-
ondary stakeholders, a more emergent approach was preferable. Actor par-
ticipation in the innovation process could be encouraged in more natural
and proactive ways. This is the case in Google, Coop, and Northeast Ohio,
but also in Semi di Libertà and TRADEIT, where the focal company
played a coordination and guidance role rather than a directive one. In the
Google case, both employees and suppliers were involved in finding ways
to encourage food conservation but also to co-develop products to re-use
food waste. Coop developed the Buon fine initiative in close collaboration
with the municipality, food banks, and charities to optimize the logistics
and operations of the solution. Similarly, government-organized summits,
entrepreneurial incubators, philanthropic funding, and institutional agree-
ments recruited and involved stakeholders in the Northeast Ohio case.
Stakeholder involvement in the top-down cases focused on the implemen-

tation rather than the design or development phases. However, the supply
chain innovation often evolved significantly because of feedback obtained
during implementation. For example, the supplier certification process at illy
started as a consequence, rather than as an enabler, of their development. In
the Barilla case, the roles of the regional government and the local grower
cooperatives were essential in designing appropriate contracts. These stake-
holders were open to the possibility of expanding the contracts to include
other food producers such that alternative crops could be rotated with the
durum wheat as part of the sustainable innovation itself.

Thus, inclusive stakeholder processes tended to be associated with more
radical innovations and business model changes. This is consistent with
suggestions in the literature that open and collaborative processes tend to
be more innovative than closed innovation, especially if it is not technology
driven (Chesbrough, 2010). The multidimensionality and complexity of
SOIs often require trying different paths and experimenting with different
solutions coming from different points of view and bringing in different
types of knowledge. Thus, more participative approaches should support a
better understanding of the problem at stake and of the possible solutions.
However, the same initiatives that were more participative or emergent
were also the ones having more difficulties in finding ways to be economic-
ally viable. We can thus draw a tentative conclusion that radical and sys-
temic redesigns of supply chains toward sustainability benefit from emergent
and participative approaches, but will struggle to achieve economic viability
quickly. Such a scenario can threaten the innovation’s ability to become
embedded in the system as a solution. From this perspective, the TRADEIT
and Origin Green cases, although different, provide an interesting contrast.
In both cases, there is an intermediary actor a project consortium or gov-
ernment body that facilitated and guided the strategy and the network of
actors. In the TRADEIT case, however, the key challenge was the future
financing of the coordination body, and thus the economic sustainability of
the model itself. The Northeast Ohio case drives us further along this line,
since it suggests that the government appeared unwilling to absorb the coor-
dination costs and efforts toward sustainability that the EU and Irish gov-
ernments absorbed in TRADEIT and Origin Green.
Capabilities and SOIs
Any innovation strategy relies to some extent on the application or devel-

opment of capabilities. In this volume, nearly every supply chain
innovation case depended, often explicitly, on the extension of an existing

capability or the development of a new capability. The first question is
whether the firm or firms in the case had the skills, knowledge, systems,
processes, and experience to implement the innovation or did they require
significant learning? In five cases, the firm(s) had what they needed. This is
good news, and suggests that sustainability may be more within reach than
we realize. However, it was also a bit surprising. We expected, based on
prior cases in this series (Mohrman & Shani, 2011, 2012, 2014; Worley &
Mirvis, 2013), that many new capabilities were going to have to be devel-
oped given the complexity of the food supply chain innovations under
investigation.
Designing and implementing incremental innovations mostly require
extensions of existing capability rather than complete new capability acqui-
sition (Anderson & Tushman, 1990). For example, the capabilities that
allowed Alcass to develop and implement its meat-substitute product also
helped it implement its meatless product. However, additional dynamic
capabilities were required to reconfigure the supply chain and develop part-
nerships with new stakeholders. Alcass also possessed these dynamics cap-
abilities and explained its successful implementation of both incremental
and radical innovations.
In the Barilla, Google, Coop, and RPC cases, existing routines and cap-
abilities were extended into new areas where they were valuable and useful.
Barilla and the growers extended existing knowledge about contracts,
durum wheat cultivation techniques, and long-term relationships to get bet-
ter environmental, social, and economic results. Google applied existing
innovation routines to lower waste and create new products, and Coop
modified existing inventory processes and extended and modified their dis-
posal routines. Organizations in the fresh food supply chain had to substi-
tute one type of packaging for another in the RPC case. All the attendant
behavior and process changes in these cases notwithstanding, they are rela-
tively incremental shifts in capabilities.
In the four cases, where existing capabilities were insufficient, organiza-
tions had to understand and acquire new competencies, implement new sys-
tems and processes, and engage in a significant amount of learning. In
these cases, the SOI strategy required a significant shift in the knowledge
and capabilities of the actors involved, and depended on the support of
dynamic capabilities, such as supply chain reconfiguration, process rede-
sign, or organization change. Those capabilities helped the organization
acquire, dispose of, and repurpose resources and processes (Barreto, 2010).
The Origin Green, Northeast Ohio, TRADEIT, and illy supply chain
changes required new and different types of knowledge and skills, compe-
tencies that were new to the system and very “foreign” in the sense of the
organization’s traditional knowledge base. For example, actors in the
Origin Green case had to acquire skills related to network coordination to
build the brand. Illy had to learn how to directly manage the upstream sup-
ply chain while the Brazilian coffee growers had to learn how to improve
the quality of their product and the environmental sustainability of their
growing methods.
Similarly, each innovation required new systems, architectures, pro-

cesses, policies, procedures, and structures so that the new knowledge and
skill could be applied in a repeatable, reliable way. The success of the local
foods initiative in Northeast Ohio required growers, restaurants, philan-
thropists, local institutions, and others to form channels of communication,
decide on what information needed to be shared and when, and how to
negotiate fair prices to achieve economic sustainability. TRADEIT part-
ners had to set up forums for member exchanges, arrange for experts or
cases to present relevant information, and get network members to do
more than just attend events.
By far the most difficult process, though, was arranging the learning sys-
tems that allowed firms, organizations, and networks to transform the com-
petencies and processes into reliable benefit-generating activities. For
example, illy’s attempts to build social capital among the growers took
trials and time. It required patience, persistence, and more than a little per-
sistence and insistence that the growers maintain the right supply of the
right coffee beans.
Among the different activities organized within the Origin Green,
TRADEIT, and Northeast Ohio cases, knowledge and best practices had
to be shared through programs, online platforms, or informal exchanges.
These exchanges, especially the emergent and informal ones, had to be
encouraged, monitored, and controlled. Each actor in the network had to
apply its core capabilities but also to learn new capabilities related to the nat-
ure of the interdependency created by the innovation. For example, several
existing and new businesses in the Northeast Ohio network farmers,
consortia, incubators had to develop their own revenue or benefit-
generating capabilities, but also the capabilities to relate and coordinate
with other members of the network. Similarly, coordinating the relation-
ships between the members and Board Bia had to be tried out and
improved over time.
The creation of standards often facilitated these formal and informal

knowledge sharing and diffusion activities. In many of the cases, stan-
dards and certifications formed the basis of actor alignment. As the illy
case showed, certifications can be a final step of a long-term journey
toward sustainability, after a transformation process has been put in
place. In other cases, like Semi di Liberta, Coop, and Alcass, standards
and certification allowed the firms to plan or move quickly in building
new relationships.
However, standards and certifications are widely debated in the litera-
ture on food sustainability (Aiking & De Boer, 2004; Higgins, Dibden, &
Cocklin, 2008; Raynolds, Murray, & Heller, 2007) for several reasons.
Different actors, such as international institutions, NGOs, business associa-
tions, or certification providers, generally promote them and sometimes
multiple standards and certification processes compete with each other.
They can be directive and rigid, expensive to acquire, and questionable in
terms of their cost/benefit ratio or ability to increase sustainability.
Unfortunately, in many situations today standards and certifications are
required and imposed, as a way to delegate the effort and responsibility for
sustainability to others, who often are smaller and weaker players. On the
positive side, standards and certifications can effectively align actors when
their number is high, their competence is limited, and a specific level of per-
formance needs to be guaranteed.
These three issues acquiring knowledge, developing and implementing
systems and processes, and learning showed up in different ways in the
different cases. Almost all of them required developing relationships with
new and often secondary stakeholders. Illy’s supplier development initia-
tives, for example, increased the competencies of the suppliers, promoted a
more or less formalized horizontal learning network among peers and even
competitors, and resulted in new internal understandings, processes, and
abilities in their supply chain management capability. TRADEIT was born
with the specific purpose of establishing and fostering a learning network
among traditional food producers. The extent of learning and capability
development, however, depended on the involvement and commitment of
each firm. The case describes several examples of firms that “learned” a lot
but that did not guarantee that the organization developed new
capabilities.
In cases where new capabilities had to be developed, those capabilities
included the ability to identify and qualify potential network or relation-
ship partners, the ability to reach out and network with them, the ability
to develop those relationships, the ability to share and manage relevant
knowledge, and to change existing, internal processes in support of those

relationships. These capabilities are recognized by the literature as stake-
holder integration capabilities (Huizingh, 2011; Kazadi, Lievens, & Mahr,
2016) and they are fundamental to successful and on-going SOIs
(Behnam, Cagliano, & Grijalvo, 2015; Sharma & Vredenburg, 1998; Van
Kleef & Roome, 2007). Networking capabilities maintain linkages with
relevant stakeholders that might be needed in the future. Mapping com-
petencies allow the firm to identify the right stakeholder for a specific
project and relational competencies ensure that people from other organi-
zations can be brought on to help. Good knowledge management systems

share/diffuse knowledge among actors to ensure transparency during the
project and internal capabilities involve the right people within the orga-
nization at the right times.
SOI Strategy Summary
The implications of a chosen innovation strategy are substantial. As

economies and societies adopt more sustainable attitudes and demands,
organizations will be expected to introduce products and services requir-
ing significant supply chain reconfiguration (Alcass), new relationships
with agricultural suppliers (illy and Barilla), new processing methods
(Origin Green and Google), new packaging (RPC), and new distribution/
retailing processes (Coop). Whether such changes will also entail signifi-
cant business model innovation is an open question. If it does, developing
new capabilities quickly is a very complex organization transformation,
something that is very difficult even for the most sophisticated firm.
Organizations must be aware of how its choices are made, its decisions
regarding the breadth and aggressiveness of its strategy, how it will
govern the change, and whether it will require new capabilities. The cases
in this volume provided a number of successful combinations and serve
as potential options for organizations seeking greater levels of sustainabil-
ity in the food supply chains.
CONCLUSIONS
Chapter 1 of this volume concluded with a number of questions concerning
sustainable innovation in the agri-food supply chain. The questions
addressed the kinds of innovation needed to create truly sustainable food

supply chains, how and when SOIs pay off, how can truly sustainable
supply chains be scaled up or down, and what kind of learning and capabil-
ity development mechanisms are needed? The analysis of the 10 cases
described in this volume allowed us to provide some tentative answers to
most of these questions, although a long journey is still needed to solve
such a complex and evolving challenge.
SOIs in this volume targeted different types of goals, were driven by dif-
ferent motivations, and used different strategies, levers, and practices. They
support the conclusion that truly sustainable food supply chains require
tackling the relative centrality of the economic dimension in service of the
triple bottom line and adopting as many of the sustainable practices as pos-
sible. Can organizations pursuing SOI afford to address all three dimen-
sions of sustainability simultaneously and equally or should maintaining
and sustaining economic outcomes be the primary driver of social and
environmental outcomes (Worley & Mohrman, 2015)? This questions cuts
to the core of how to make sustainability initiatives “pay off.”
The most common path used here was to build, reinforce, or reinvent
the product/system brand around sustainability values. In 7 out of 10 cases,
letting economics drive sustainability was a core or support principle in
developing the innovation. The exemplar case of Origin Green tells us that
associating products with a brand strongly built around sustainability can
be a winning strategy. However, the same case tells us that brand building
cannot be pursued in isolation, it must be integrated with the development
of a product supply chain according to sustainability principles. In other
words, mitigating supply chain risks through sustainability practices is of
foremost importance for the credibility and long-term viability of sustain-
ability-related brands.
The Google case suggests a potential secondary benefit of this integra-
tion. The innovation was especially visible inside the company, and not
only reinforced Google’s brand in the market, but as an employer brand
for attracting and retaining talented resources. Brands were used as differ-
entiators to get premium prices, gain share in the marketplace, or build
reputation, and seems to be one key instrument in building a sustainability
business case.
Building brands however is rarely easy, especially when you want to
brand products coming from a complex network of actors. Comparing the
Origin Green and the Northeast Ohio cases is revealing. The Northeast
Ohio initiative was much more bottom-up and emergent compared to
Origin Green. This led to large amounts of internal commitment and great
strides in social and environmental sustainability but greater difficulty in

building a coherent, strategically purposed, and effective brand for the
Cleveland local food system. Origin Green’s top-down and coordinated
approach faced similar problems in terms of gaining commitment of differ-
ent members and stakeholders but achieved more comprehensive results.
This leads also to a more complex and problematic question about the
cost both figurative and literal of sustainability. The sustainable food
supply chain operates in parallel with more traditional food supply chains.
The cases in this volume described how those traditional supply chains
might be transformed or adjusted, and often, this entailed increased eco-

nomic costs. The innovations at Barilla, illy, Coop, Google, Northeast
Ohio, and Origin Green all incurred economic costs that had to be recov-
ered in some way. Who will pay for those costs? Coop appeared willing to
accept a smaller margin. Barilla and illy are poised to either increase price
to maintain its margin or use the increased sustainability as a differentiator
to increase its margin. Will the Northeast Ohio customer be willing to pay
for sustainable food when faced with the choice of a lower priced, but
unsustainable option?
The most participative, emergent, inclusive, and socially/environmen-
tally beneficial projects described here were also the ones struggling the
most from an economic perspective. Although clearly beyond the scope of
this volume’s objectives, we have to ask the question whether reduced
economic expectations are one of the “costs” of becoming a sustainable
society. Is a relevant win-win, synergistic perspective (Orlitzky, Schmidt, &
Rynes, 2003) likely to emerge in the near future? If sustainability becomes
an imperative especially in an industry so sensitive to these aspects
and the cost of being unsustainable become much higher compared to the
cost of sustainability, more companies can build the business case for sus-
tainability around cost reduction instead of price increase (Christmann,
2000; Schaltegger & Wagner, 2011).
If we want to pursue the promised quality of life for future generations
implied by the UN’s definition of sustainable development, such reductions
in our expectations for growth (and the universal and unquestioned accep-
tance of growth as an objective) may be necessary. Thus, the conclusion
proposed above still stands. Organizations that pursued sustainability with
an economic motive had more traction along all three dimensions than
cases that tried to do all three equally.
While expecting often radical departures from the standard way of
managing the supply chain, we also came across quite a number of
more incremental or focused innovations. On the one hand, this is
explained by the well documented difficulty of incumbents to move

toward radically new business models (Christensen, 2013). On the other
hand, scalability problems and difficulties make radically new business
models difficult for new firms. But this shows the still high potential of
incremental innovation to contribute to sustainable development in the
agri-food business.
The cases in the volume did not shy away from systemic, multi-
stakeholder approaches to sustainable innovation in the food supply
chain. Given the complexity and visibility of food in society, we could
have expected a larger number of cases where few, traditional, primary

stakeholders were involved. The multi-stakeholder approach brings for-
ward two challenges. The first one refers to the governance of the system.
In line with the business case conclusion above, the 10 cases support a
top-down, directive approach, especially when the sustainability-oriented
supply chain innovation is broader, more complex, and involves a more
diverse set of stakeholders. The importance of an emergent and participative
approach is not diminished by this conclusion especially when considering
that the most radical innovations were often coupled to this emergent,
grassroots approach.
The second challenge is related to capability building and learning. The
more radical and broad the SOI, the more likely it was that new capabil-
ities needed to be built and the more likely it was that success depended
on the presence of learning mechanisms that supported the development
of those capabilities. Knowledge diffusion and best practice sharing are
key to capability development acquiring new knowledge or designing
systems and processes is not sufficient. Collaborative approaches to learn-
ing and knowledge sharing and more formalized approaches based on
standards, certifications, and contracts were shown to be helpful. In a
multi-stakeholder environment, learning and knowledge exchange
processes must receive a high priority in the management agenda. These
include the ability to build and maintain relationships, develop transpar-
ent knowledge management systems, and keep internal processes up
to date.
The cases in this volume provide us with a diverse set of ideas and chal-
lenges; they also provide a number of successful choices. Describing and
understanding successful innovation in demanding environments and
industries is inspiring. Seeing these successes diffuse provides hope. Our
hope is that these cases and our integrative summary and conclusions will
provide others with the courage to risk change in their own organizations
and systems.
REFERENCES
Aiking, H., & de Boer, J. (2004). Food sustainability: Diverging interpretations. British Food
Journal, 106(5), 359 365.
Anderson, P., & Tushman, M. L. (1990). Technological discontinuities and dominant designs:
A cyclical model of technological change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(4), 604 633.
Barreto, I. (2010). Dynamic capabilities: A review of past research and an agenda for the
future. Journal of Management, 36(1), 256 280.
Behnam, S., Cagliano, R., & Grijalvo, M. (2015). Secondary stakeholder integration in the
context of new sustainable product/service development: Empirical findings of
European cases. Proceedings of the 22nd EurOMA Conference, 26 June 1 July 2015,
Neuchatel, Switzerland.
Bocken, N. M. P., Short, S. W., Rana, P., & Evans, S. (2014). A literature and practice review
to develop sustainable business model archetypes. Journal of Cleaner Production,
65, 42 56.
Cerutti, A. K., Bruun, S., Donno, D., Beccaro, G. L., & Bounous, G. (2013). Environmental
sustainability of traditional foods: The case of ancient apple cultivars in Northern Italy
assessed by multifunctional LCA. Journal of Cleaner Production, 52, 245 252.
Chesbrough, H. (2010). Business model innovation: Opportunities and barriers. Long Range
Planning, 43(2/3), 354 363.
Christensen, C. (2013). The innovator’s dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to
fail. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
Christmann, P. (2000). Effects of “best practices” of environmental management on cost
advantage: The role of complementary assets. Academy of Management Journal,
43(4), 663 680.
DEFRA (2006). Food security and the UK: An evidence and analysis paper. London: Food
Chain Analysis Group, DEFRA.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA:
Pitman Publishing.
Hall, J., & Vredenburg, H. (2012). The challenges of innovating for sustainable development.
MIT Sloan Management Review, 45(1), 61 68.
Higgins, V., Dibden, J., & Cocklin, C. (2008). Building alternative agri-food networks:
Certification, embeddedness and agri-environmental governance. Journal of Rural
Studies, 24(1), 15 27.
Huizingh, E. K. (2011). Open innovation: State of the art and future perspectives.
Technovation, 31(1), 2 9.
Ilbery, B., & Maye, D. (2005). Food supply chains and sustainability: Evidence from specialist
food producers in the Scottish/English borders. Land Use Policy, 22(4), 331 344.
Kazadi, K., Lievens, A., & Mahr, D. (2016). Stakeholder co-creation during the innovation
process: Identifying capabilities for knowledge creation among multiple stakeholders.
Journal of Business Research, 69(2), 525 540.
Mohrman, S. A., & Shani, A. B. (Eds.). (2011). Organizing for sustainable effectiveness.
Organizing for Sustainable Effectiveness (Vol. 1). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group
Publishing Limited.
Mohrman, S. A., & Shani, A. B. (Eds.). (2012). Organizing for sustainable healthcare.
Organizing for Sustainable Effectiveness (Vol. 2). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group
Publishing Limited.
Mohrman, S. A., & Shani, A. B. (2014). Reconfiguring the ecosystem for sustainable healthcare
(Vol. 4). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial perfor-
mance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3), 403 441.
Pagell, M., & Shevchenko, A. (2014). Why research in sustainable supply chain management
should have no future. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 50(1), 44 55.
Pisano, G. P., & Verganti, R. (2008). Which kind of collaboration is right for you? Harvard
Business Review, 86(12), 78 86.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2002). The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy.
Harvard Business Review, 80(12), 56 68.
Pujari, D. (2006). Eco-innovation and new product development understanding the influences
on market performance. Technovation, 26(1), 76 85.
Raynolds, L. T., Murray, D., & Heller, A. (2007). Regulating sustainability in the coffee sec-
tor: A comparative analysis of third-party environmental and social certification initia-
tives. Agriculture and Human Values, 24(2), 147 163.
Schaltegger, S., Lüdeke-Freund, F., & Hansen, E. G. (2012). Business cases for sustainability:
The role of business model innovation for corporate sustainability. International
Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, 6(2), 95 119.
Schaltegger, S., & Wagner, M. (Eds.). (2011). Managing the business case of sustainability.
Sheffield: Greenleaf.
Sharma, S., & Vredenburg, H. (1998). Proactive corporate environmental strategy and the
development of competitively valuable organizational capabilities. Strategic
Management Journal, 19(8), 729 753.
Smith, A., Fressoli, M., & Thomas, H. (2014). Grassroots innovation movements: Challenges
and contributions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 63, 114 124.
Smith, B. G. (2008). Developing sustainable food supply chains. Philosophical Transactions of
the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 363(1492), 849 861.
Van Kleef, J. A. G., & Roome, N. J. (2007). Developing capabilities and competence for sus-
tainable business management as innovation: A research agenda. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 15(1), 38 51.
Worley, C., & Mirvis, P. (2013). Building networks and partnerships. Organizing for
Sustainable Effectiveness (Vol. 3). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Worley, C., & Mohrman, S. (2015). Designing for sustainable effectiveness. In S. A.
Mohrman, J. O’Toole, & E. E. Lawler III (Eds.), Corporate stewardship: Achieving sus-
tainable effectiveness (pp. 112 133). Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing.

A Pathway Towards Truly Sustainable Food Supply Chains Balancing Motivation, Strategy, and Impact

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Pathway Towards Truly Sustainable Food Supply Chains Balancing Motivation, Strategy, and Impact

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Organizing Supply Chain Processes for Sustainable

Innovation in the Agri-Food Industry

Motivation, Strategy, and Impact" In Organizing Supply Chain Processes for

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

A PATHWAY TOWARDS TRULY

MOTIVATION, STRATEGY, AND

Raffaella Cagliano, Federico F. A. Caniato and

Purpose This chapter compares and discusses the 10 sustainability-

the governance approach, and the extent of capability development

innovation; case studies

Based on existing knowledge, research, and practice, Chapter 1 raised a

and affected various dimensions of sustainable effectiveness. We then

THE DRIVERS AND OUTCOMES OF

social and environmental sustainability goals viable.

(illy), and Emilia Romagna (a region in Northern Italy for Barilla), or

SUSTAINABILITY PRACTICES IN THE FOOD

on strictly controlling the supply chain and production processes to ensure

their own evolutionary and continuously improving path toward sustain-

Recognizing the type of innovation is important to understand the implied

The traditional categories of technology push, market pull, design-driven,

core sustainability-oriented values expressed more broadly by these two

differentiators to attract customers, add to the brand’s value, or command

sustainable innovation in the agri-food industry. Stakeholder expectations

Breadth and Degree of Innovativeness in SOI Strategies

Fig. 1 classifies the innovation strategies pursued by the organizations and

Fig. 1. Breadth and Radicalness of Sustainability-Oriented

Narrow and Incremental

Systemic and Incremental

Narrow and Radical

The non-meat product line in Alcass was a more radical innovation

Systemic and Radical

with no comparable examples worldwide. The wide number of actors

same extent as Northeast Ohio and Origin Green. Illy’s radical

involvement of a significant number of secondary stakeholders compared

At the same time, there were a number of radical innovations, sometimes

one-sided economic scale and leverage logic.

Governance Strategies in SOIs

In addition to the type, breadth, and radicalness of the innovation strategy,

Stakeholder involvement in the top-down cases focused on the implemen-

durum wheat as part of the sustainable innovation itself.

Capabilities and SOIs

Any innovation strategy relies to some extent on the application or devel-

innovation case depended, often explicitly, on the extension of an existing

Similarly, each innovation required new systems, architectures, pro-

The creation of standards often facilitated these formal and informal

knowledge, and to change existing, internal processes in support of those

zations can be brought on to help. Good knowledge management systems

SOI Strategy Summary

The implications of a chosen innovation strategy are substantial. As

addressed the kinds of innovation needed to create truly sustainable food

strides in social and environmental sustainability but greater difficulty in

might be transformed or adjusted, and often, this entailed increased eco-

explained by the well documented difficulty of incumbents to move

have expected a larger number of cases where few, traditional, primary

You might also like