SSRN Id4029541

Manager - The British Journal of Administrative Management
ISSN - 1746 1278

Volume 57 Issue 145 December 2021
VALUE ADDED AND NON-VALUE ADDED MARINE FISHERY SUPPLY CHAIN

MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Dr. V.V. Devi Prasad Kotni

Associate Professor, Department of Marketing,
GITAM Institute of Management,
GITAM Deemed-to-be University,
Visakhapatnam, India.
[Orcid-ID: 0000-0002-2951-2160]
devi_kvv@yahoo.com
ABSTRACT
This empirical study compares the supply chain management practices adopted by two different types of
fishermen community i.e. the fishermen doing value added activities and the fishermen not doing value added
activities. The primary objective is to identify the differences in supply chain management practices in marine
fisheries sector basing on certain supply chain attributes practiced by these two types of fishermen. Another
objective is to evaluate the performance of marine fishery supply chain by analyzing the six drivers of supply
chain. The primary data was collected from 484 fishermen i.e. 0.3% of fishermen households’ population (242
fishermen performing value chain & 242 fishermen not performing value chain) from 9 coastal districts of
Andhra Pradesh in India using purposive sampling. It was found that there were significant diffrences between
the supply chain practices of the two types of fishermen and also identified that the marine fishery supply chain
drivers, namely, ‘storage’ and ‘facilitites’ are perfomring somewhat good whereas the remaining supply chain
drivers, namely, ‘sourcing’, ‘trasportation’, ‘information’ and ‘pricing’ not at all performing according to the
perceptions of the fishermen.
Keywords: Supply chain – Fishery Supply chain – Value Added Operations – Supply Chain Drivers – Non
Value Added Operations
1. INTRODUCTION
The term Supply Chain Management was coined by Keith Oliver and defined Supply Chain Management as the
process of planning, implementing, and controlling the operations of the supply chain with the purpose to
satisfy customer requirements as efficiently as possible. Supply Chain Management (SCM) covers all movement
and storage of raw materials, work-in-process inventory, and finished goods from point of origin to point-of-
consumption. It is the integration of the flow of all activities throughout improved supply chain relationships to
achieve a sustainable competitive advantage. The supply chain includes: management of information systems,
sourcing and procurement, production scheduling, demand fulfilment, cash flow, inventory management,
warehousing, customer service, after market disposition of packaging and materials.
14
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4029541

ISSN - 1746 1278
Jones and Riley (1985) viewed supply chain as the total flow of materials from suppliers through end users
whereas Christopher (1992) opined supply chain as the network of organizations that are involved through
upstream and downstream linkages, in the different processes and activities that produce value in the form of
products and services delivered to the ultimate consumer. Cooper et al (1997) provided supply chain view
point as an integrative philosophy to manage the total flow of a distribution channel from supplier to the
ultimate user whereas Lambert et al (1998) had a different view point on supply chain that the alignment of
firms that brings products or services to market including the final customers as part of the supply chain. The
Supply Chain Council (1999) provided its official definition of supply chain as it consists of four basic
processes, Plan, Source, Make, and Deliver and covers managing supply and demand, sourcing raw materials
and parts, manufacturing and assembly, warehousing and inventory tracking, order entry and order
management, distribution across all channels, and delivery to the customer. Chopra and Meindl (2001) opined
that the SCM consists of all stages involved, directly or indirectly, in fulfilling a customer request.
Throwing light on some of the recent studies on Supply Chain Management (SCM), Harjeet et al. (2016)
opined that the SCM is the management of flows or transport of products or material, it helps in increasing the
net value of the firm. Desai et al. (2016) defined SCM as integration of various key business processes from
original suppliers to end consumers to provide information, services and products that add value to
stakeholders. Dias et al. (2017) perceived the supply chain management as the integration of different
organizational units to fulfill customer demand by coordinating financial flows, materials and information.
Wibowo et al. (2017) opined that the SCM is the management of key business processes from original
suppliers to end-customers that provides information, services and products to add value to stakeholders and
customers. Kain et al. (2018) has given meaning of supply chain as the system to move a service or product
from suppler to consumer that contains resources, people, information, activities and organisation. Oelze et al.
(2018) opined that the supply chain management became a source of competitive advantage for firms in various
industries. Ellram et al. (2019) perceived that SCM integrates demand and supply management across and
within the firms. Martins et al. (2019) opined that the SCM allows all transportation and storage of materials,
semi-finished goods and finished products from point-of-origin towards point-of-origin smoothly.
Iqbal and Shalij (2019) conducted supply chain research on ornamental fish and identified that the demographic
characteristics of supply chain stakeholders significantly influencing ornamental fish supply chain performance.
Ruth et al., (2019) developed a performance measurement tool namely, SLIN (System Logistic Icon National)
to measure the performance of cold fish supply chain and identified that the performance of cold fish supply
chain is variable basing on geographical areas and logistics. Jasim & Paramasivan (2017) conducted a study on
fish marketing societies in Tamilnadu, India with regard to green supply chain practices in marine fish and
concluded that the coastal areas are suffering from ecological problems which are impacting the supply chain of
fisheries in the study area. Robin (2012) suggested that the supply chain must be designed basing on the
product characteristics, technology, and predictability of demand. Pujawan (2004) executed a research study
and a case study about supply chain flexibility and concluded that there are four main parts of supply chain
which influences the supply chain i.e. product system, supply system, product delivery system and product
development system. Yety et al., (2019) proposed various strategies for the taking a local product to a global
market i.e. improving the supply chain, product standardisation and market networking which can be
applicable to the marine fishery sector also. Erin et al., (2007) had done research on global market for organic
beef with regard to international trade and concluded that harmonisation of technical standards, organic
standards, consumer tastes and preferences impact the global beef markets.
15

ISSN - 1746 1278
The technology is also playing a significant role in performance of the fishery supply chain. Technology based
supervision and monitoring of quality of fish product with symmetric information traceability is very vital in
fresh-food and fishery SCM. Food safety and traceability systems based on radio frequency identification
(RFID), blockchain, wireless sensor networks (WSN) and Internet of Things (IoT) provide reliability from
production to consumption: Rahman et.al (2021). Phuong et.al (2021) stressed the role of technology and
related industry associations in fishery supply chain along with the main actors like suppliers and distributors.
In order to have more effective fishery supply chain, it is necessary to connect industry associations and
relevant government agencies.
The fishery supply chain can be viewed from various points. It can be said that it starts from the fishermen and
ends with the consumer; thus, it includes fish catching, sorting, supplying, storing, marketing and even
consumer buying the product. Therefore all the activities and processes involved in the entire spectrum from
demand generation to demand satisfaction can also be called as supply chain management. Supply chain in
fishery refers to a sequence of people/processes, their facilities, functions and activities that are involved in
catching and delivering the fish product to final consumer. The purpose of this study is to find out marine
fishery supply chain management practices in costal Andhra Pradesh.
A supply chain in fisheries sector has a sequence of people/organizations/middlemen, their infrastructure and
facilities, functions, value added and non-value added activities that are involved in producing and delivering a
fish product. A fishery supply chain also consists of all stages involved, directly or indirectly, in fulfilling a
customer request. The fishery supply chain not only includes the fishermen and suppliers, but also boat
operators, transporters, middlemen, warehouses, retailers, and customers themselves. The significance of
fishery supply chain management includes reducing uncertainty, reducing risks in supply chain and thereby
increased profitability and customer satisfaction.
This research is like an evidence to the relation between supply chain and value chain in fisheries sector. The
value chain activities of fish taking part in fishery supply chain are explained in this research by filling the gap
what exactly happens at the field level in fishery supply chain from seashore to market. The activities
performed by the fishermen in this supply chain are addressed separately for deeper understanding in terms of
fishermen doing value chain activities and the fishermen not doing value chain activities. The value chain
activities in fishery supply chain are considered as variables and collected data separately from the fishermen
performing value chain activities and the fishermen not performing value chain activities. The primary data was
analyzed on the basis of each value chain activity and attempted to find the association between fishermen
performing the value-added activities and the fishermen not performing the value-added activities. The novelty
of this research is that the analysis and evaluation of value added and non- value added activities while
describing the marine fishery supply chain. The purpose of this study is to describe the marine fishery supply
chain along with value-added activities performed by the fishermen and also to determine the impact of
performance of marine fishery supply chain drivers on the overall satisfaction of fishermen.
Research gap
From the description of the marine fishery supply chain in India it can be observed that the sector is organised
in an unorganised way and that is leading to underperformance of marine fisheries sector. If the marine fishery
supply chain is thoroughly studied, then there can be opportunity to improve the performance of the marine
supply chain. If the supply chain performance evaluation is done along with value chain performance then
16

ISSN - 1746 1278
better insights can be observed. The comparison between value-added operations and non-value-added
operations gives deeper understanding of supply chain practices. This is to make point that there are few
studies available in marine fishery supply chain management and there are no studies available which compares
the supply chain with value chain and the supply chain without value chain.
State of art/Originality
The unique concept of this research is that the various supply chain attributes like distance travelled on the sea,
type of boats used, mode of transportation, place of selling the fish, information sources used etc are analysed
by comparing the responses from two different respondent groups i.e. the fishermen performing value chain
operations and the fishermen not performing value chain operations. The chi-square statistic is used to
compare the value added activities and non value added activities in order to describe supply chain variables
with new insights. The study also analysed the six drivers of supply chain i.e. Sourcing, Transportation,
Storage, Information, Facilities and Pricing. The ordered probit model is used to evaluate the performance of
marine fishery supply chain based on the primary data (responses) collected from the fishermen.
Research Questions
The primary motive of this research is to analyse the marine fishery supply chain along with value chain
activities. This study has the following research questions: What is the common structure of marine fishery
supply chain? What are the drivers of marine fishery supply chain? And how they are performing? What is
overall performance of marine fishery supply chain in the study area?
Objectives of the study
The aim of the study is to identify the differences in the supply chain management practices practiced by the
fishermen performing value added operations and fishermen not performing value added operations. The other
objective includes analyzing the drivers of marine fishery supply chain in coastal Andhra Pradesh.
2. METHODS
The study is a descriptive research and conducted basing on both primary and secondary data. The secondary
data have been collected from various issues of statistical abstracts of Government of Andhra Pradesh and
bureau of economics and statistics, Government of India and various seasons and crop reports. The primary
data is collected from various supply chain actors in the marine fishery supply chain in Andhra Pradesh. The
supply chain actors include fishermen, door- to-door sellers, retailers and exporters etc but this study is
confined to the role of fishermen only. The population of fishermen households and the fishermen families
sample size is derived from Marine Fisheries Census 2010 Andhra Pradesh published by CMFRI and population
of consumers are derived from census 2010.
The study is conducted according to the preferential sampling of the researcher. The selection of the study area
is on the basis of importance of the Marine Fish Landing Centers/Villages from all nine coastal districts of
Andhra Pradesh i.e. Srikakulam, Vizianagaram Visakhapatnam, East Godavari, West Godavari, Krishna,
Guntur, Prakasam and Nellore.
17

ISSN - 1746 1278
The sample households of fishermen have been selected by using multi-stage sampling method. In the first
stage nine coastal districts are selected using quota sampling method, in second stage the fishermen households
are selected using purposive sampling method (the questionnaire was served to the fishermen who perform
value chain or do not perform value chain). From the study area, 0.3% of fishermen households are selected as
sample respondents from the population of 1,63,427 fishermen households i.e. the sample size is 484
fishermen.
From each coastal district, two mandals (mandal means a division within a district) (9 Districts X 2 Mandals)
which are geographically located on coastal area have been selected randomly. From each coastal mandal one
fish landing village (1 Mandal X 1 Village) has been selected purposively (where most of the villagers are
dependent on marine fish catching profession for livelihood) accounting to 18 villages (9 Districts X 2 Mandals
x 1 Village = 18 Villages). From these villages, 484 fishermen households are purposively selected (242
households performing value chain + 242 households not performing value chain).
Chi-Square test: In this research, chi-square test is used to find the association between fishermen performing
the value chain and fishermen not performing the value chain as part of analysis of supply chain management
practices of the fishermen. Using the information provided in bi-variate tables (cross tables) Chi-square test is
used to identify association between the variables under consideration.
Chi-Square Test 2c =  (Observed Value – Expected Value)2 / Expected Value [1]
As the primary objective of the study is to identify the differences in supply chain practices between the two
types of fishermen categories i.e. fishermen doing value added activities and fishermen not doing value added
activities, the chi-square test statistic was identified to be best tool for this specific purpose. This tool not only
identifies the association between the two different supply chain practices but also it describes the practice in
form of a cross-table by considering observed values and expected values.
Cronbach’s Alpha: The value calculated for the questionnaire administrated in order to determine the
reliability of the data where the alpha value is greater than .70 is the recommended level: (Bernardi, 1994). In
this research, Cronbach’s Alpha value is calculated and found to be .778.
Ordered Probit Model: Sometimes response categories are ordered but do not forms an interval scale, such
responses are common in social sciences. Attitudinal questions on social and public opinion surveys often take
the form of Likert-type scales covering to a range from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’ of from ‘highly
dissatisfied’ to ‘highly satisfied’ are normally coded as 0,1,2,3 and so on 9or 0,1,2,3,4 or 1,2,3,4,5 etc. There
is a clear ranking among the categories, but the differences among adjacent categories cannot be treated as the
same: (Greene, 1993).
Responses like these with ordered categories cannot be easily modeled with classical regression. Ordered
linear regression is an inappropriate because of the non-interval nature of the dependent variable. The spacing
of the outcome choices cannot be assumed to be uniform. In such cases the ordered probit and logit models are
useful. Since the dependent variables of main interest, factors that determine problems of unorganised retailing
had an ordinal categorical response data. Considering the ordered probit model:
Y* = β1Xi + Єi [2]
18

ISSN - 1746 1278
Where
Y* is underlying latent variable that indexes the satisfaction levels of fishermen towards various drivers of
supply chain management.
Xi is a vector of parameters to be estimated and
Єi is the stochastic error term.
Where
Y* (1, 2, 3, 4 and 5) - is underlying latent variable that indexes the level of seriousness of the problem
statement being asked by the researcher to the fishermen.
= 1, Highly Dissatisfied
= 2, Dissatisfied
= 3, Slightly Satisfied
= 4, Satisfied
= 5, Highly Satisfied
In this study the probit model is applied to know the satisfaction levels of the fishermen towards performance of
various drivers of marine fishery supply chain management in the study area.
3. RESULTS
In order to study the marine fishery supply chain, this study is divided into the following sections so as to satisfy
the objectives of the study. The detailed analysis is presented thereafter the list of sections.
1. Distance travelled by the fishermen on the sea to catch fish

2. Types of boats used by the fishermen to catch fish
3. Mode of Transportation used by the fishermen to transport the fish catch
4. Types of Customers for fishermen to sell fish
5. Place of selling the fish by the fishermen
6. Method of Sale of fish by fishermen
7. Information sources used by the fishermen for decision making
8. Usage of Storage facility by the fishermen
9. Calculation of Time, Cost and Efforts in fishery supply chain
10. Evaluating the performance of Marine Fishery Supply Chain Management Drivers.
[1] Distance travelled by the fishermen on the sea to catch fish: As part of analysis on supply chain
operations from sea to landing center/sea shore, the fishermen are asked about the distance (in Nautical Miles
NM) travelled into the sea to catch the fish. Depending on the distance travelled, the fishermen are classified
into three, they are, fishermen travelling the distance between 1 Nautical Mile to 5 Nautical Miles, from 5
Nautical Miles to 10 Nautical Miles and beyond 10 Nautical Miles. The distribution of Fishermen according to
the distance travelled into the sea and whether they perform value chain or not, the data is presented in Table
1. The objective (hypothesis) of this analysis is to find out whether there is any association between the
fishermen performing value chain and the fishermen not performing value chain with respect to the distance
travelled into the sea to catch the fish.
19

ISSN - 1746 1278
H10: There is no significant association between the fishermen performing value chain and the fishermen not performing
value chain with respect to the distance travelled into the sea to catch the fish.
H11: There is a significant association between the fishermen performing value chain and the fishermen not performing value
chain with respect to the distance travelled into the sea to catch the fish.
Table 1: Distance travelled on sea for catching fish (in Nautical Miles)
Distance
Fishermen Total Chi-Square
1 NM – 5 NM – beyond Test
5 NM 10 NM 10 NM
Fishermen 25 150 67 242
Performing (10.33) (61.98) (27.69) (100.00) Calculated
Value chain 2 = 154.52
Fishermen NOT 124 70 48 242
Performing df=2
(51.24) (28.93) (19.83) (100.00)
Table Value
Value chain
2 = 9.21
149 220 115 484
Total (at 0.01 level)
(30.79) (45.45) (23.76) (100.00)
(Figures in the brackets are percentages to row totals)
It can be noticed from the Table 1 that 30.79 percent of the fishermen are travelling the distance from 1
Nautical Mile to 5 Nautical Miles, 45.45 percent of the fishermen are travelling the distance between 5
Nautical Miles to 10 Nautical Miles and 23.76 percent fishermen are travelling beyond 10 Nautical Miles of
distance. Among the fishermen performing the value chain, 61.98 percent fishermen are traveling 5 Nautical
Miles to 10 Nautical Miles distance into the sea to catch fish. About 27.69 percent fishermen performing value
chain are travelling beyond 10 Nautical Miles distance into the sea. About 10.33 percent fishermen are
travelling 1 Nautical Miles to 5 Nautical Miles distance into the sea to catch fish. Among the fishermen not
performing the value chain, 51.24 percent fishermen are traveling 1 Nautical Miles to 5 Nautical Miles
distance into the sea to catch fish. About 28.93 percent fishermen not performing value chain are travelling
beyond 5 Nautical Miles to 10 Nautical Miles distance into the sea. About 19.83 percent fishermen are
travelling beyond 10 Nautical Miles distance into the sea to catch fish.
Chi-square test is performed to find the association between the fishermen performing value chain and
fishermen not performing the value chain based on the distance travelled into the sea to catch the fish. The
calculated chi-square value (154.52) is found to be more than the Table value (9.21) at degrees of freedom=2
and 0.01 significant level. Therefore null hypothesis can be rejected and it can be concluded that there is a
significant association between the fishermen performing value chain and the fishermen not performing value
chain with respect to the distance travelled into the sea to catch the fish. It can further be observed from Table
1 that the most of fishermen performing value chain are travelling more distances into the sea than the
fishermen not performing value chain.
[2] Types of boats used by the fishermen to catch fish: As part of analysis on supply chain operations
from sea to landing village/sea shore, the fishermen are asked about the type of boat used to catch the fish. It is
identified that there are three types of boats used by the study respondents. They are Plank boat, Motorised
boat and Mechanised Boat. The distribution of Fishermen according to the distance travelled into the sea and
20

ISSN - 1746 1278
whether they perform value chain or not, the data is presented in Table 2. The objective (hypothesis) of this
analysis is to find out whether there is any association between the fishermen performing value chain and the
fishermen not performing value chain with respect to the type of boat used for catching the fish.
H20: There is no significant association between the fishermen performing value chain and the fishermen not performing the
value chain with respect to the type of boat used to catch the fish.
H21: There is a significant association between the fishermen performing value chain and the fishermen not performing the
value chain with respect to the type of boat used to catch the fish.
Table 2: Type of boat used for catching fish

Type of Boat
Fishermen Total Chi-Square
Plank boat Motorised Mechanised Test
boat Boat
Fishermen 35 160 47 242
Fishermen NOT 134 65 43 242
Performing df=2
(55.37) (26.86) (17.77) (100.00)
Value chain Table Value
2 = 9.21
Total 169 229 90 484
(at 0.01 level)
(34.92) (46.49) (18.60) (100.00)
It can be noticed from the Table 2 that 34.92 percent of the fishermen are plank boat, 46.49 percent of the
fishermen are using motorised boat and 18.60 percent fishermen are mechnised boat. Among the fishermen
performing the value chain, 14.46 percent are plank boat, 66.12 percent of the fishermen are using
motorised boat and 19.42 percent fishermen are mechnised boat. Among the fishermen not performing the
value chain, 55.37 percent are using plank boat, 26.86 percent of the fishermen are using motorised boat and
17.77 percent fishermen are mechnised boat.
fishermen not performing the value chain based on the type of boat used to catch the fish. The calculated chi-
square value (137.28) is found to be more than the Table value (9.21) at degrees of freedom=2 and 0.01
significant level. Therefore null hypothesis can be rejected and it can be concluded that there is a significant
association between the fishermen performing value chain and the fishermen not performing value chain with
respect to the type of boat used to catch the fish. It can further be observed from Table 2 that most of the
fishermen performing value chain are using either mechnised or motorised boats to catch fish and most of the
fishermen not performing value chain are using plank boats (non-mechnised) to catch fish.
[3] Mode of Transportation used by the fishermen to transport the fish catch: As part of analysis
on supply chain operations from fish landing center to village, the fishermen are asked about the mode of
transportation used to transport fish from fish landing centre to fishermen village. It is identified that there are
four different modes of transportation used to transport the fish. They are head loading, rickshaw, auto-
rickshaw and motor cycle. The distribution of Fishermen according to the mode of transportation used and
21

ISSN - 1746 1278
whether they perform value chain or not, the data is presented in Table 3. The objective (hypothesis) of this
analysis is to find out whether there is any association between the fishermen performing value chain and the
fishermen not performing value chain based on mode of transportation used to transport the fish.
value chain with respect to the mode of transportation used to transport the fish.
chain with respect to the mode of transportation used to transport the fish.
Table 3: Mode of Transportation used to transport the fish

Mode of Transportation
Fishermen Chi-Square
Head Rickshaw Auto- Motor-Cycle Total Test
loading Rickshaw
Fishermen 19 59 152 12 242 Calculated
Performing (7.85) (24.38) (62.81) (4.96) (100.00) 2 = 8.78
Value chain
Fishermen df=3
NOT 36 68 129 9 242 Table Value
Performing (14.88) (28.10) (53.31) (3.72) (100.00) 2 = 11.35
Value chain (at 0.01
55 127 281 21 484 level)
Total
(11.36) (26.24) (58.06) (4.34) (100.00)
It can be noticed from the Table 3 that 11.36 percent of the fishermen are transporting fish by head loading,
26.24 percent of the fishermen are transporting fish using Manual-Rickshaw, 58.06 percent fishermen are
using Auto-Rickshaw and 4.34 percent are using Motor-cycle to transport fish from fish landing centre to
village. Among the fishermen performing the value chain, 7.85 percent of the fishermen are transporting fish
by head loading, 24.38 percent of the fishermen are transporting fish using Manual-Rickshaw, 62.81 percent
fishermen are using Auto-Rickshaw and 4.96 percent are using Motor-cycle to transport fish from fish landing
centre to village. Among the fishermen not performing the value chain, 14.88 percent of the fishermen are
transporting fish by head loading, 28.10 percent of the fishermen are transporting fish using Manual-Rickshaw,
53.31 percent fishermen are using Auto-Rickshaw and 3.72 percent are using Motor-cycle to transport fish
from fish landing centre to village.
fishermen not performing the value chain based on the mode of transportation used to transport the fish. The
calculated chi-square value (8.78) is found to be less than the Table value (11.35) at degrees of freedom=3 and
0.01 significant level. Therefore alternative hypothesis can be rejected and it can be concluded that there is no
chain with respect to the mode of transportation used to transport the fish. It can further be observed from
Table 3 that most of the fishermen whether performing value chain or not performing value chain are using
Auto- Rickshaw to transport fish.
[4] Types of Customers for fishermen to sell fish: As part of analysis on supply chain operations of fish
22

ISSN - 1746 1278
catch, the fishermen are asked about their customers to whom they are selling fish. It is identified that there are
four different types of customers existing for fishermen in the study area. They are retailer, middlemen, agent
and fish Export Company. The distribution of Fishermen according to the type of customer and whether they
perform value chain or not, the data is presented in Table 4. The objective (hypothesis) of this analysis is to find
out whether there is any association between the fishermen performing value chain and the fishermen not
performing value chain with respect to type of customer preferred to sell the fish.
value chain with respect to the type of customer preferred to sell the fish.
chain with respect to the type of customer preferred to sell the fish.
Table 4: Types of Customers for fishermen to sell fish catch

Types of Customers Chi-
Fishermen Retailer Middlemen Agent Fish export Total Square
Company Test
Performing (60.74) (21.49) (14.05) (3.72) (100.00) 2 = 691.08
Value chain
Fishermen df=3
NOT 15 58 49 120 242 Table
Value
Performing (6.20) (23.97) (20.25) (49.59) (100.00)
162 110 83 129 484 (at 0.01
Total level)
(33.47) (22.73) (17.15) (26.65) (100.00)
It can be noticed from the Table 4 that 33.47 percent of the fishermen are selling fish to retailers, 22.73
percent of the fishermen are selling fish to middlemen, 17.15 percent fishermen are selling fish to agent and
26.65 percent are selling fish to fish company/exporter. Among the fishermen performing the value chain,
60.74 percent of the fishermen are selling fish retailers, 21.49 percent of the fishermen are selling fish to
middlemen, 14.05 percent fishermen are selling fish to agent and 3.72 percent are selling fish to fish
company/exporter. Among the fishermen not performing the value chain, 6.20 percent of the fishermen are
selling fish retailers, 23.97 percent of the fishermen are selling fish to middlemen, 20.25 percent fishermen are
selling fish to agent and 49.59 percent are selling fish to fish company/exporter.
fishermen not performing the value chain based on the type of customer to whom the fish is sold. The
calculated chi-square value (691.08) is found to be more than the Table value (11.35) at degrees of freedom=3
and 0.01 significant level. Therefore null hypothesis can be rejected and it can be concluded that there is a
chain with respect to the type of customer preferred to sell the fish. It can further be observed from Table 4
that most of the fishermen performing value chain are selling fish to retailers and most of the fishermen not
performing value chain are selling fish to fish company/exporter.
[5] Place of selling the fish by the fishermen: As part of analysis on supply chain operations of fish
catch, the fishermen are asked about types of market places in which they are selling fish. It is identified that
23

ISSN - 1746 1278
there are four different market places are existing for fishermen in the study area. They are in and around the
village, nearby town, district head quarters and out of the district. The distribution of Fishermen according to
the place of selling and whether they perform value chain or not, the data is presented in Table 5. The
objective (hypothesis) of this analysis is to find out whether there is any association between the fishermen
performing value chain and the fishermen not performing value chain with respect to the type of market place
preferred to sell the fish.
value chain with respect to the type of market place preferred to sell the fish.
chain with respect to the type of market place preferred to sell the fish.
Table 5: Place of selling the fish by the fishermen

Types of Market Places
Fishermen In & Near by District Out of the Total Chi-Square
Around Town Head district Test
Village quarters
Fishermen 159 58 16 9 242
Performing (65.70) (23.97) (6.61) (3.72) (100.00) Calculated
Fishermen
NOT 149 68 15 10 242 df=3
(61.57) (28.10) (6.20) (4.13) (100.00) Table Value
Performing
(at 0.01 level)
Total 308 126 31 19 484
(63.64) (26.03) (6.40) (3.93) (100.00)
It can be noticed from the Table 5 that 63.64 percent of the fishermen are selling in and around village, 26.03
percent of the fishermen are selling in nearby town, 6.40 percent fishermen are selling fish in district head
quarters and 3.93 percent are selling fish in out of district. Among the fishermen performing the value chain,
65.70 percent of the fishermen are selling in and around village, 23.97 percent of the fishermen are selling in
nearby town, 6.61 percent fishermen are selling fish in district head quarters and 3.72 percent are selling fish
in out of district. Among the fishermen not performing the value chain, 61.57 percent of the fishermen are
selling in and around village, 28.10 percent of the fishermen are selling in nearby town, 6.20 percent
fishermen are selling fish in district head quarters and 4.13 percent are selling fish in out of district.
fishermen not performing the value chain based on type of market place to sell the fish. The calculated chi-
square value (1.21) is found to be less than the Table value (11.35) at degrees of freedom=3 and 0.01
significant level. Therefore the alternative hypothesis can be rejected and it can be concluded that there is no
chain with respect to the type of market place preferred to sell the fish. It can further be observed from Table 5
that the most of fishermen whether performing the value chain or not performing the value chain are selling
24

ISSN - 1746 1278
the fish in and around the village because of the reason that the retailers or middlemen or the
processor/exporter are coming to the fishermen village for purchase.
[6] Mode of Sale of fish by fishermen: As part of analysis on supply chain operations of fish catch, the
fishermen are asked about mode of sale of fish. It is identified that there are four different modes of sale of fish
practiced by fishermen in the study area. They are sale of fish by heaps/baskets, by weighments, by negotiation
and by auction. The distribution of Fishermen according to the type of customer and whether they perform
value chain or not, the data is presented in Table 6. The objective (hypothesis) of this analysis is to find out
whether there is any association between the fishermen performing value chain and the fishermen not
performing value chain with respect to the mode of sale of fish
H60: There is no significant association between the fishermen performing value chain and the fishermen not performing value
chain with respect to the mode of sale of fish.
chain with respect to the mode of sale of fish.
Table 6: Mode of Sale of fish by fishermen

Mode of sale Chi- Square
Fishermen By heaps/ By By By Total Test
Baskets Weighments Negotiation Auction
Performing (10.74) (57.44) (28.10) (3.72) (100.00) 2 = 658.37
Value chain
Fishermen df=3 Table
NOT 16 28 56 142 242 Value
Performing (6.61) (11.57) (23.14) (58.68) (100.00) 2 = 11.35
42 167 124 151 484 level)
Total
(22.73) (57.85) (25.62) (31.20) (100.00)
It can be noticed from the Table 6 that 22.73 percent of the fishermen are selling fish by heaps/baskets
(volume basis), 57.85 percent of the fishermen are selling by weighments (quantity basis), 25.62 percent
fishermen are selling fish by negotiation and 31.20 percent are selling fish by auction. Among the fishermen
performing the value chain, 10.74 percent of the fishermen are selling fish by heaps/baskets (volume basis),
57.44 percent of the fishermen are selling by weighments (quantity basis), 28.10 percent fishermen are selling
fish by negotiation and 3.72 percent are selling fish by auction. Among the fishermen not performing the value
chain, 6.61 percent of the fishermen are selling fish by heaps/baskets (volume basis), 11.57 percent of the
fishermen are selling by weighments (quantity basis), 23.14 percent fishermen are selling fish by negotiation
and 58.68 percent are selling fish by auction.
fishermen not performing the value chain based on mode of sale of fish. The calculated chi- square value
25

ISSN - 1746 1278
(658.37) is found to be more than the Table value (11.35) at degrees of freedom=3 and 0.01 significant level.
Therefore the null hypothesis can be rejected and it can be concluded that there is a significant association
between the fishermen performing value chain and the fishermen not performing value chain with respect to
the mode of sale of fish. It can further be observed from Table 6 that the most of fishermen performing value
chain are selling fish by weighments and the most of fishermen not performing value chain are selling fish by
auction.
[7] Information Sources used by the fishermen for decision making by fishermen: One of the
important drivers of the supply chain is information. The more accurate information passing in the supply
chain, the more effective management of supply chain can be possible. The fishermen are depending on various
sources of information like trade members, news paper, radio and fellow fishermen in the study area. The
distribution of Fishermen according to the sources of information and whether they perform value chain or
not, the data is presented in Table 7. The objective (hypothesis) of this analysis is to find out whether there is
any association between the fishermen performing value chain and the fishermen not performing value chain
with respect to their sources of information for decision making.
value chain with respect to their sources of information used for decision making purpose.
chain with respect to their sources of information used for decision making purpose.
Table 7: Sources of Information for decision making

Sources of Information
Fishermen Radio Chi-Square
Trade News Fellow Total Test
Members Paper Fishermen
Performing (61.16) (7.44) (62.81) (4.96) (100.00) 2 = 37.43
Value chain
Fishermen 108 44 60 30 242 df=3
NOT (44.63) (18.18) (53.31) (3.72) (100.00) Table Value
Performing 2 = 11.35
256 62 88 78 484 level)
Total
(52.89) (12.81) (18.18) (16.12) (100.00)
It can be noticed from the Table 7 that 52.89 percent of the fishermen are depending on trade members for
information, 16.12 percent of the fishermen are depending on fellow fishermen for information seeking, 18.18
percent fishermen are using radio and 12.81 percent are using new papers for information related to the fishery
trade and decision making purpose. Among the fishermen performing the value chain, 61.16 percent of the
fishermen are depending on trade members as source of information, 7.44 percent of the fishermen are
depending on news papers for information seeking, 11.57 percent fishermen are using radio as a source of
information and 4.96 percent are depending on fellow fishermen as source of information related to the fishery
trade and decision making purpose. Among the fishermen not performing the value chain, 44.63 percent of the
fishermen are depending on trade members for information, 18.18 percent of the fishermen are depending on
26

ISSN - 1746 1278
news paper for information seeking, 24.79 percent fishermen are using radio and 12.40 percent are using
fellow fishermen for information related to the fishery trade and decision making purpose.
fishermen not performing the value chain based on the sources of information used for decision making
purpose. The calculated chi-square value (37.43) is found to be more than the Table value (11.35) at degrees
of freedom=3 and 0.01 significant level. Therefore null hypothesis can be rejected and it can be concluded that
there is a significant association between the fishermen performing value chain and the fishermen not
performing value chain with respect to their sources of information used for decision making purpose. It can
also be observed from the Table 7 that most of fishermen performing value chain are depending on trade
members for information seeking and most of the fishermen not performing value chain are depending on
radio, news paper and trade members for information seeking.
[8] Usage of Storage facility by the fishermen: As part of analysis on supply chain operations from
landing center/sea shore to fishermen village or market, the fishermen are asked about the usage of storage
facility for storing the fish catch. The usage of the storage facility, the fishermen are classified into three, they
are, frequent usage of storage facility, rare usage of storage facility and no usage of storage facility. The
distribution of Fishermen according to the usage of storage facility and whether they perform value chain or
not, the data is presented in Table 8. The objective (hypothesis) of this analysis is to find out whether there is
any association between the fishermen performing value chain and the fishermen not performing value chain
with respect to their usage of the storage facility.
value chain with respect to the usage of storage facility.
chain with respect to the usage of storage facility.
Table 8: Usage of Storage facility

Usage of Storage Facility
Fishermen Chi-Square
Frequent Rare No Total Test
Usage Usage Usage
Fishermen 230 10 2 242
Value chain  = 5673.89
2
Fishermen
NOT 17 25 200 242 df=2
Table Value
Performing (7.02) (10.33) (82.64) (100.00)
Total (at 0.01 level)
247 35 202 484
(51.03) (7.23) (41.74) (100.00)
It can be noticed from the Table 8 that 51.03 percent of the fishermen are using storage facility frequently,
7.23 percent of the fishermen are using storage facility rarely and 41.74 percent fishermen are not using
storage facility. Among the fishermen performing the value chain, 95.04 percent of the fishermen are using
27

ISSN - 1746 1278
storage facility frequently, 4.13 percent of the fishermen are using storage facility rarely and 0.83 percent
fishermen are not using storage facility (which means less number of value added operations performed on the
same day of fish catch and sell it in the market). Among the fishermen not performing the value chain, 7.02
percent of the fishermen are using storage facility frequently, 10.33 percent of the fishermen are using storage
facility rarely and 82.64 percent fishermen are not using storage facility (because the fishermen anyhow not
performing value chain, no need of storing the fish for longer period).
fishermen not performing the value chain based on the usage of storage facility. The calculated chi-square value
(5673.89) is found to be more than the Table value (9.21) at degrees of freedom=2 and 0.01 significant level.
Therefore null hypothesis can be rejected and it can be concluded that there is a significant association between
the fishermen performing value chain and the fishermen not performing value chain with respect to the
usage of storage facility. It can be observed from the Table 6.8 that most of the fishermen performing value
chain are using storage facility and most of the fishermen not performing value chain are not using storage
facility.
[9] Calculation of Time, Cost and Efforts in fishery supply chain: In this analysis, the time, money
and human efforts are calculated for supplying fish from landing centre to village, Village to market and landing
centre to directly market. This particular analysis is done for entire sample size 484 fishermen including both
242 fishermen and 242 fishermen. Further the researcher made the following calculations
-Average distance in kilometer.

-Average cost of HR (labour, porters etc) in Rupees per Kilogram.
-Average cost of Transportation in Rupees per Kilogram.
- Average Time taken for Transportation in minutes.
-Average number of people involved in number.
Table 9: Cost of Supply of fish
Landing Landing
Centre to Village to Centre to
Supply of Fish
Village Market Market
Avg. Distance in km 1.9 km 7.1 km 8.9 km
Avg. Cost of HR (Porters, labour etc) in Rs./ Kg Rs.2.1/- Rs. 14.8/- Rs.17.8 /-
Avg. Cost of Transportation in Rs. / Kg Rs.2.65/- Rs.21.00/- Rs.23.00/-
Avg. Time Taken for Transportation in minutes 20 min 80 min 100 min
Avg. no. of People involved 2.2 3.9 4.2
The supply chain operations from landing centre to village, Table 9 shows that the average distance between
landing centre to village is found to be 1.9 km, the average HR cost is found to be Rs.2.1 per kg, average cost
of transportation is found to be Rs.2.65 per kg, average time taken for transportation in minutes is found to be
20 min and average number of people involved is found to be 2.2. The supply chain operations from village to
market, Table 9 shows that the average distance between landing centre to village is found to be 7.1 km, the
average HR cost is found to be Rs.14.8 per kg, average cost of transportation is found to be Rs.21 per kg,
average time taken for transportation in minutes is found to be 80 min and average number of people involved
is found to be 3.9. The supply chain operations from village to market, Table 9 shows that the average distance
28

ISSN - 1746 1278
between landing centre to village is found to be 8.9 km, the average HR cost is found to be Rs.17.8 per kg,
average cost of transportation is found to be Rs.23 per kg, average time taken for transportation in minutes is
found to be 100 min and average number of people involved is found to be 4.2.
[10] Evaluating the performance of Marine Fishery Supply Chain Management Drivers:
In this section, the empirical estimates obtained from the econometric model i.e. Ordered Probit Model has
been presented, particularly attention has been paid to fishmen satisfaction towards six supply chain
management drivers i.e. ‘Sourcing’, ‘Transportation’, ‘Storage’, ‘Infomration’, ‘Facilities’ and ‘Pricing’. The
perfomrance of these six drivers are evaluated on the basis of satisfaction levels of fishermen towards these
drivers.
An attempt has been made to evaluate the performance of Supply Chain Management practices adopted by
fisherman in coastal Andhra Pradesh, India. To evaluate marine fisheries supply chain performance, all the
drivers of marine fisheries supply chain are evaluated.
 Sourcing
 Transportation
 Storage
 Information
 Facilities
 Pricing
Overall Satisfaction of Fishemen towards all supply chain managaement drivers is considered as dependent
variable and individual satisfaction levels towards the six value chain management drivers are considered as
independent variables to carry out the analysis.
The objective of this analysis is to estimate the probability of the level of fishermen satisfaction towards various
supply chain managmeent drivers in the above said aspects on maximum likelihood estimation obtained from
ordered probit model. The objective is also to assess the magnitude of impact of an explanatory variable; it has
been computed corresponding marginal effect. Using STATA 11.0-Statistical package results have been
estimated. Among nine independent variables, third driver (Storage) and fifth driver (Facilities) are statistically
found significant at good significance level in the study area of coastal andhra pradesh is presented in Table 10.
Iteration 0: log likelihood = -708.98608

Ordered probit regression Number of obs = 484
LR chi2(6) = 69.88
Prob > chi2 = 0.0000
Log likelihood = -674.0463 Pseudo R2 = 0.0493
Table 10: Results of Ordered Probit Model

DRIVERS Coef. Std. Err. Z P>|z| [95% Conf. Interval]
29

ISSN - 1746 1278
Sourcing 0.02349 0.0457 0.51 0.607 -.6615441 .1131444
Transportation -.57391 .05284 -1.09 0.277 -.1609572 .0461736
Storage* 0.21816 .04385 4.97 0.000 .1322152 .30411997
Information -.05877 0.4859 -1.21 0.222 -.154015 .0364732
Facilities* .236601 .04786 4.94 0.000 .1427941 .330409
Pricing .01741 .0509128 0.34 0.732 -.823682 .1172062
/cut1 | -.4881548 .2146924 -.9089443 -.0673654
/cut2 | .2228802 .2060682 -.181006 .6267665
/cut3 | 1.038693 .2085794 .6298849 1.447501
/cut4 | 1.818 .2158705 1.394901 2.241098
The variable/SCM driver ‘Storage’ is turned out to be statistically significant at five percent significant level
with expected positive sign. The coefficient of this variable indicates that one percent change in storage facility
leads to 21.8 percent increase in fishermen satisfaction. It can be noticed that better storage facilities leads to
better fishermen satisfaction looking at the marginal effect the magnitude of impact is more likely to increases
by 4.3 percentage points when compared to their counter parts and vice-versa. The variable/SCM driver
‘facilities’ is also turned out to be statistically significant at 5 percent significant level with expected positive
sign. The coefficient associated with this variable indicates that one percent increase in ‘facilities’ in retail
outlet leads to 23.6 percent increases the fishermen satisfaction. The marginal effect of this variable is more
likely hood of 4.7 percentage points increases when compared to their counterparts and vice-versa. Hence the
variable/SCM driver ‘facilities’ to perform value chain has played significant role to increase the fishermen
satisfaction in study area. The probabilities of belonging to these categories are defined in terms of the
probabilities of the values of an underlying latent variable crossing particular thresholds, where these
thresholds are established by the value of the cut-off points. In the ordered probit model, with respect to the
level of fishermen satisfaction towards supply chain management drivers, the probability of fishermen highly
dissatisfied is Pr( - 0.4881548  Zˆ  0.2228802) , slightly satisfied is Pr( 0.2228802  Zˆ  1..038693) ,
satisfied is Pr( 1.038693  Zˆ  1.818) and highly satisfied is Pr( Zˆ   i  1.818) .
Y *    0.234952 SR  0.0573918 T  0.2181675 ST  0.0587713 I

[3
 0.2366015 F  0.17419 P  u i ]
4. DISCUSSION
Form the evaluation on drivers of marine fishery supply chain, it can be concluded that the supply chian drivers
– ‘storage’ and ‘facilitites’ are perfomring somewhat good whereas the remaining drivers ‘sourcing’,
‘trasportation’, ‘information’ and ‘pricing’ not at all performing according to the perceptions of the fishermen.
From the analysis of supply chain management practices in marine fisheries of Andhra Pradesh, the following
conclusions are made after testing of hypothesis.
There is a significant association between the fishermen performing value chain and the fishermen not
performing value chain with respect to the distance travelled into the sea to catch the fish (H1 1 Accepted).
30

ISSN - 1746 1278
Further it is found that most of the fishermen (88%) performing value chain are travelling more distances into
the sea (5 Nautical Miles - 10 Nautical Miles and beyond 10 Nautical Miles) and the fishermen (51.24%) not
performing value chain are travelling less distance into the sea (1 Nautical Miles – 5 Nautical Miles). The
fishermen who are doing value-added operations are travelling longer distances to catch high value fish so that
they can add much more value to sell in the market at higher price.
There is a significant association between the fishermen performing value chain and fishermen not performing
the value chain based on the type of boat used to catch the fish (H21 Accepted). Thus, it can be observed that
about 86% of the fishermen among the value chain performing sector are using either mechanised or motorised
boats, the percentage of fishermen not performing value chain sector (45% approximately) are found to be
using similar boats. The fishermen who are doing value-added operations are using mechanised or motorised
boats more in number when compare to the fishermen who are doing value chain. There is no significant
association between the fishermen performing value chain and the fishermen not performing value chain with
respect to the mode of transportation used to transport the fish (H30 Accepted). It is observed that most of the
fishermen (58.06%) whether performing value chain or not performing value chain are using Auto-Rickshaw
to transport fish.
performing value chain with respect to the type of customer preferred to sell the fish (H41 Accepted). Further
it is identified that most of the fishermen performing value chain are selling fish to retailers (60%) and most of
the fishermen (49.59%) not performing value chain are selling fish to fish company/exporter. The fishermen
who are doing value-added operations are selling fish to fish retailer in order to get more price from the
retailer as the fishermen added value to fish. The fishermen who are not doing value-added operations are
selling fish to fish processing company or fish exporter as the fishermen didn’t add any value and sell the fish at
somewhat less price to the fish processing company or exporter, but the value addition may be done at the fish
processing center or exporter processing center.
There is no significant association between the fishermen performing value chain and the fishermen not
performing value chain with respect to type of market place preferred to sell the fish (H5 0 Accepted). Further
it is noticed that most of the fishermen (62.64%) whether performing value chain or not performing value
chain are selling the fish in and around the village because of the reason that the retailers or middlemen or the
processor/exporter are coming to the fishermen village for purchase. There is a significant association between
the fishermen performing value chain and the fishermen not performing value chain with respect to the mode
of sale of fish (H61 Accepted). It is seen that most of the fishermen (57.44%) performing value chain are selling
fish by weighments and most of the fishermen (58.68%) not performing value chain are selling fish by auction.
So if the value addition is done the mode of sale is by weighment of fish catch and if the value addition is not
done the mode of sale is by auctioning the fish catch mostly at the seashore or at the fish harbor.
performing value chain with respect to their sources of information used for decision making purpose (H71
Accepted). It is observed that as many as 61.16% of the fishermen performing value chain are depending on
trade members for information seeking and most of the fishermen not performing value chain are depending
on radio (53.31%), news paper (18.18%) and trade members (44.63%) for information seeking. The
fishermen who are performing value chain are depending on trade members like retailer, exporter etc to get
31

ISSN - 1746 1278
the required information regarding marketability of fish. The fishermen who are not doing value chain are
depending on the public media like radio and newspaper only to get the prices.
performing value chain with respect to the usage of storage facility (H81 Accepted). Further it is found that a
significant proportion of the fishermen (95%) performing value chain are using storage facility and most of the
fishermen (82%) not performing value chain are not using storage facility. The fishermen who are doing value
added operations are using storage facilities because to add value and for quality processing. But the fishermen
who are not doing value added operations, mostly they are selling fish at seashore or fish harbor, so they do not
require storage facility.
From the supply chain analysis of the fishermen community, it was found that the fishermen are facing
problems like Infrastructure Problems, Problems of Lack of Skills, Problem of Market forces, Promotion
Problems, Problem of Lack of Information and Problem of Prices. The government must act immediately and
promptly in order to solve the problems of the fishermen permanently. The government should support the
fishermen community in order to improve their skills by establishing skill development centers at fish landing
centers both in urban and rural areas.
As part of Make in India policy and Start-up culture, the government should encourage young entrepreneurs to
enter into marine fisheries sector to establish micro, small, medium and large scale enterprises thorough out
the coastal area for processing and exporting quality fish. Government of India should establish Fishermen Call
Centers in collaboration with State Government in the coastal areas to assist the fishermen 24 X 7 for
providing the information related to trade. The drivers of marine fishery supply chain in Andhra Pradesh are
not performing well. The government must have to take initiatives to improve all the supply chain drivers like
Sourcing facilities, Storage facilities, Transportation facilities, fair pricing policy, providing accurate
Information and processing facilities in the coastal Andhra Pradesh Area.
Transportation facilities and storage facilities must have to be improved by the Government. Good transport
from fish landing centers to villages/processing unit location, creation of extension services like storage units
at fishing villages/landing centers, at export points etc. Creating and updating the infrastructure facilities in
existing fish markets can result in increased customer delivered value. There is every need to establish National
Fisheries Development Bank exclusively for fishermen and other stake holders of fish trade to offer financial
support, disbursement of funds, offering micro and major loan amounts to the fishermen for continuous
support and motivation. The Central Government and the state government must have to take appropriate
measures such that the sea water should not be polluted. In urban areas, the drainage water from households
and the polluted water from industries are routed into the sea due to which the species in the sea are facing
survival problems. Both the governments along with Coastal Regulatory Zone and other associated bodies
should monitor the eco-friendly environment at the sea shore and also at deep sea waters.
Policy Implications: The fishermen selling fish in the market should have to perform the related value chain
activities (like grading, sorting, icing, packaging) in order to add value to the final fish product thereby
increasing selling price. The fishermen must rely on the sources of information which are reliable like
authorized press & media, government sources and institutions while taking decisions related to determining
selling price of fish, identifying and performing value added activities. The fishermen should adopt modern
supply chain management practices while doing sourcing, storing, transporting and selling in order to reduce
32

ISSN - 1746 1278
the cost of operations and increase the profit margin.
Theoretical Contributions: Supply chain management is practiced and implemented differently in unorganised
sector like marine fisheries where the activities are carried out more on basis of local (folks) culture rather than
operational cost. There are two types of supply chains existing in the marine fisheries i.e. exporter supply
chain and domestic supply chain. The exporter supply chain and the domestic supply chain are further
differentiated into two types basing on presence or absence of agent in the supply chain (as shown in the figures
1, 2, 3 and 4) who was identified to the influencer of selling price. In order to evaluate the performance of the
supply chain basing on the perceptions of stakeholders, this research proposed and tested a model (ordered
probit model) of evaluating the drivers of supply chain.
Conclusion: In this study, it was primarily observed that there are significant differences between the
fishermen performing value chain and the fishermen not performing value chain. The supply chain
management practices adopted by the fishermen performing value chain are significantly differentiable from
the supply chain management practices adopted by the fishermen not performing value chain. The differences
in supply chain can be observed in the practices like distance travelled by fishermen on the sea, type of boats
used to catch the fish, type of customer mode of sale of fish, sources of information used and type of storage
facility used. There are no significant differences observed between the fishermen performing value chain and
the fishermen not performing value chain in the supply chain management practices like mode of
transportation used and type of market. It can also be concluded that the marine fishery supply chain in costal
Andhra Pradesh is underperforming because of the reasons like lack of proper infrastructure facilities,
transportation facilities, storage facilities etc. The information dissemination among the members of the marine
fishery supply chain is very poor.
Limitations and future directions of the study: As the study is limited to only one species of the Seafood i.e.
fish, the same study can be applicable to other marine species like shrimp, crab etc. The study can further be
extended to inland fisheries or pond or cultivated fish. Since inland fish sector also contributes for the welfare
and livelihood of the people and nation, the same study can be proposed to inland fisheries sector also. The
Supply Chain Management research should also be done in agriculture sector. Some applications like rice
supply chain, sugarcane supply chain, wheat supply chain and cotton supply chain are extremely important for
better economic performance of the country. Some of the vegetables like potato, tomato, onion, carrot etc
truly deserve the supply chain analysis study.
REFERENCES
 Aditya Desai., Sunil Rai., Knowledge Management for Downstream Supply Chain Management of
Indian Public Sector Oil Companies, Procedia Computer Science, 2016, 79, 1021 – 1028.
 Bernardi R.A., Validating research results when Cronbach’s Alpha is below .70: A Methodological
procedure, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1994, 54(3), 766- 775.
 Christopher M., Logistics and Supply Chain Management, Pitman Publishing, London, 1992.
 Chopra S., Meindl P., Supply Chain Management: Strategy, Planning, and Operation. Prentice Hall,
New Delhi, 2001.
33

ISSN - 1746 1278
 Cooper M. C., Lambert D. M., Pagh J. D., Supply chain management: more than a new name for
logistics, The International Journal of Logistics Management, 1997, 8 (1), 1-14.
 C. L. Martins., M. V. Pato., Supply chain sustainability: A tertiary literature review, Journal of
Cleaner Production, 2019, 225, 995-1016.
 Erin N. Sawyer, Jill E. Hobbs, William A. Kerr, Is there a global market for organic beef?:
Harmonisation and consumer preferences in international trade, International Journal of Trade and
Global Markets, 2007, 1 (14), 89-106.
 Greene W. H., Econometric Analysis, 2nd ed., Macmillan, New York, 1993.
 Harjeet S. Jaggi., Sunny S. Kadam., Integration of Spark framework in Supply Chain Management,
Procedia Computer Science, 2016, 79, 1013 – 1020.
 Iqbal C Mohammad., Shalij P R., Supply Chain Performance measurement: a conceptual framework
for ornamental fish supply chain, International Journal of Supply Chain and Operations Resilience,
2019, 2 (4), 267-290.
 Jasim K. Mohamed., Paramasivan, T. Ecological, Green Marketing and Green Supply
Chain Problems - fish marketing societies in Tamilnadu coastal areas, International Journal of Business
Excellence, 2017, 13 (4), 546-562.
 Jones T., Riley D., Using Inventory for Competitive Advantage through Supply Chain Management,
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Materials Management, 1985, 15 (5), 16-26.
 Lambert D., Cooper M., Pagh J., Supply Chain Management: Implementation Issues and Research
Opportunities, The International Journal of Logistics Management, 1998, 9 (2), 1- 20.
 Lisia S Dias., Marianthi G Ierapetritou, From process control to Supply Chain Management: An
overview of integrated business strategies, Computers & Chemical Engineering, 2017, 106 (2), 826-
835.
 Lisa M Ellram., Monique L. Ueltschy Murfield., Supply chain management in industrial marketing–
Relationships matter, Industrial Marketing Management, 2019, 79, 36-45.
 Mochamad A. Wibowo., Elizar Moh N. Sholeh., Hadjar S. Adji., Supply Chain Management Strategy
for Recycled Materials to Support Sustainable Construction, Procedia Engineering, 2017, 171, 185 –
190.
 N Oelze., M Brandenburg., Ch Jansen., R Warasthe., Applying Sustainable Supply Chain
Management Frameworks to Two German Case Studies, IFAC-PapersOnLine, 2018, 51 (30), 293-
296.
 Phuong Tran Hoa., Dung Nguyen Anh., Ha Nguyen Thi Thu., Cooperation in the supply chain of
fisheries: A case study of the north central region, Vietnam, Uncertain Supply Chain Management,
2021, 9, 625-630.
 Pujawan I. Nyoman., Assessing supply chain flexibility: a conceptual framework and case study,
International Journal of Integrated Supply Management, 2004, 1 (1), 79-97.
 Rahman L.F., Alam L., Marufuzzaman M., Sumaila U.R., (2021), Traceability of Sustainability and
Safety in Fishery Supply Chain Management Systems Using Radio Frequency Identification
Technology, Foods, 2021, 10 (2265), 1-13.
 Robin von Haartman., Beyond Fisher’s product–supply chain matrix: illustrating the actual impact of
technological maturity on supply chain design, International Journal of Logistics Systems and
Management, 2012, 12 (3), 318-333.
34

ISSN - 1746 1278
 Ruth Nattassha., Yuanita Handayati., Gatot Yudoko., Togar M Simatupang., Akbar Adhiutama., Nur
Budi Mulyono., Performance measurement system for the cold fish supply chain: the case of
National Fish Logistics System in Indonesia, International Journal of Agricultural Resources,
Governance and Ecology, 2019, 15 (1), 57- 76.
 S. Krishnaraj, Rupa Gunaseelan, M. Arunmozhi, C.S.P. Sumandiran, Supply chain perspective and
logistics of spices in Indian retail industry, Materials Today: Proceedings, Volume 48, Part 2, 2022,
Pages 119-124, ISSN 2214-7853, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.02.681.
(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214785320314474)
 Yety Rochwulaningsih., Misri Gozan., Mahfud Effendy., Noor Naelil Masruroh., Waskito Widi
Wardoyo., Palung salt in Bali: strategies for the local product to penetrate global markets,
International Journal of Trade and Global Markets, 2019, 12 (2), 146-167.
35

SSRN Id4029541

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

SSRN Id4029541

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Manager - The British Journal of Administrative Management

ISSN - 1746 1278

VALUE ADDED AND NON-VALUE ADDED MARINE FISHERY SUPPLY CHAIN

Dr. V.V. Devi Prasad Kotni

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4029541

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4029541

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4029541

Objectives of the study

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4029541

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4029541

1. Distance travelled by the fishermen on the sea to catch fish

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4029541

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4029541

Table 2: Type of boat used for catching fish

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4029541

Table 3: Mode of Transportation used to transport the fish

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4029541

Table 4: Types of Customers for fishermen to sell fish catch

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4029541

Table 5: Place of selling the fish by the fishermen

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4029541

Table 6: Mode of Sale of fish by fishermen

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4029541

Table 7: Sources of Information for decision making

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4029541

Table 8: Usage of Storage facility

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4029541

-Average distance in kilometer.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4029541

Iteration 0: log likelihood = -708.98608

Table 10: Results of Ordered Probit Model

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4029541

Y *    0.234952 SR  0.0573918 T  0.2181675 ST  0.0587713 I

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4029541

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4029541

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4029541

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4029541

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4029541

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4029541

You might also like