Description
The survey suggests firms are projecting increased activity with organic products, but they are changing the way they are sourcing from their suppliers. Shippers and wholesalers are using more, larger suppliers to provide a greater proportion of their produce.
Supply Chain Management and the Changing Structure of
U.S. Organic Produce Markets
Fabien Tondel
Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Kentucky
Lexington, KY 40546
[email protected]
and
Timothy Woods
Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Kentucky
Lexington, KY 40546
[email protected]
Selected paper prepared for presentation at the American Agricultural Economics
Association Annual Meeting, Long Beach, California, July 23-26, 2006
Copyright 2006 by F. Tondel and T. Woods. All rights reserved. Readers may make
verbatim copies of this document for non-commercial purposes by any means, provided
that this copyright notice appears on all such copies.
1
Supply Chain Management and the Changing Structure of
U.S. Organic Produce Markets
Abstract
We present the results of a survey of the organic produce supply chain in the U.S.,
focusing on supply chain dynamics and firm behavior with a view to changing market
forces. The survey suggests firms are projecting increased activity with organic products,
but they are changing the way they are sourcing from their suppliers. Shippers and
wholesalers are using more, larger suppliers to provide a greater proportion of their
produce. There is an increasing prevalence of contracting for both organic and
conventional produce. The expanding presence of the mass merchandisers in organic
produce is expected to actually stimulate demand for product from growers, but it also
leads to an increased competition for suppliers. There is significant effort to coordinate a
variety of business functions between shippers and organic suppliers.
Keywords: supply chain, produce, organic, vertical coordination
2
1. Introduction
Agricultural economists and food industry analysts have devoted a substantial research
effort to document and understand the emergence of the organic sector in the U.S.
agriculture and food industry. Numerous studies have investigated the determinants of
consumer demand for organic products and the reasons for which consumers are willing
to pay a price premium over conventional products (Thompson, 1998). The existence of
organic price premiums, in turn, provides incentives for organic farmers to expand their
production scale, and for conventional producers to convert to organic production
systems (Oberholtzer, Dimitri, and Greene, 2005). The adoption of organic farming
practices by U.S. farmers propagated rapidly throughout the 1990’s (Greene and Kremen,
2003). In 2001, 2.34 million acres of cropland and pasture were certified organic,
representing 0.3 percent of U.S. cropland and pasture.
While organic food sales still account for a small proportion of total food sales, retail
sales of fresh organic produce and organic processed foods and beverages have been
rising dramatically since the early 1990’s (Dimitri and Greene, 2002). Preliminary results
from the Organic Trade Association’s (OTA) 2006 Manufacturer Survey indicate that
U.S. organic food retail sales amounted to about $14 billion in 2005, that is, 2.5 percent
of total food sales, up from 1,9 percent in 2003 (OTA, 2006). Sales of fresh organic fruits
and vegetables have contributed a lot to the surge in organic food sales. The food retail
sector has changed markedly in response to a growing consumer demand for organic
foods. Natural foods stores have entered the retail sector, and conventional retail outlets
have taken steps to expand their organic food offerings. Conventional supermarkets now
represent the largest retail outlet for organic foods before natural foods stores (Dimitri
and Greene, 2002). Moreover, new processed organic foods and beverages are being
introduced at a relatively high rate, which is an evidence of the dynamic of organic food
markets.
Meanwhile, the implementation of the National Organic Program in 2002 has helped to
resolve the asymmetric information problem associated with the credence characteristic
of organic products with different certification requirements in each state. The use of the
National Organic Standards has lowered transaction costs between farmers, handlers, and
the buyers of organic commodities, and has heightened the credibility of organic
3
certification to consumers. National standards may have also sparked a structural shift in
organic markets due to the adverse effects of certification costs on small firms in the
supply chain (Greene, 2000). The introduction of a national certification system has most
likely contributed to increase the supply and demand for organic products. The fact that
the value of organic produce rests on a credence attribute may have implication for the
management of the supply chain. The marketing process from farm-gate level to retail
must convey information not only about prices but must also ensure the transmission of
credible but unobservable production practice attributes to the consumer. As the distance
between the farmer and the consumer widens, as is often the case in marketing goods
within industrialized countries and across country borders, the level of credence becomes
more difficult to establish. Therefore, a number of interesting supply chain issues may
arise in connection with the distribution of organic foods. In addition, the supply chain
for organic produce may face constraints similar to the one in the produce industry where
significant consolidation has taken place.
This study examines the recent changes taking place in the organic produce supply chain.
Specifically, the objective of this study is to describe and analyze the behavior of firms
within the organic produce distribution system, the challenges they face, and the
adjustments they make. The dynamics of vertical business relationships are explored
under conditions of trading a highly specific asset that is perishable, requires special
identity preservation, and has a distinct market segment into which it is being marketed.
Many of the factors impacting the supply chain for organic produce are factors impacting
the trade of all produce. Retail trade is consolidating, but special markets are emerging
for natural foods products, as well. This study looks at trends in supplier relationships,
sourcing, contracting, marketing, and system coordination, paying special attention to the
middle handlers of fresh organic produce.
The growth of organic produce markets
Organic food trade and trade in organic produce in particular have been greatly affected
by the establishment of national quality and definition standards. Klonsky and Greene
(2005) summarize organic sales figures, noting the increase from $3.5 billion in 1997 to
4
$10.3 billion by 2003, with fruits and vegetables comprising over 40% of the most recent
sales data. In 2003, fresh produce made up over 90 % of organic produce sales.
The adoption of organic production systems has happened to a greater extent in the fruit,
vegetable, and other high-value crop sectors. In the 4
th
National Organic Farmers’ Survey
(hereafter referred to as NOFS) from the Organic Farming Research Foundation (OFRF)
(Walz, 2004), organic farmers growing vegetable crops and fruit and nut crops represent
70 % of the respondent population (43 % for vegetables and 27 % for fruits and nuts);
organic vegetable and fruit and nut sales account for the largest share of organic farm
sales (29 % and 20 %, respectively), amounting to 49 % of total sales. In 2001,
approximately 1.6 percent of the total U.S. vegetable acreage was certified organic, after
a 15 percent expansion since 2000. Lettuce, tomato and carrot crops occupied most of the
organic acreage. Approximately 1.3 percent of the total U.S. fruit and tree nut acreage
was certified organic in 2001. Certified organic fruit and tree nut cropland was up 28
percent from 2000. Certified organic acreage was allocated mostly to grape, apple, citrus,
and tree nut production (Greene and Kremen, 2003). Recent studies have explored trends
in the organic sector at the farm level (MacInnis, 2004; Walz, 2004) and at the retail
market level (Klonsky and Greene, 2005). None of these studies, however, explored the
changes taking place with respect to the handling of organic produce between the farm
and the retail market.
Changes in the U.S. fresh produce distribution system
Several studies have explored the recent dynamics of the produce industry (Kaufman et
al., 2000; Calvin and Cook, 2001; Perosio et al., 2001). These studies have explained the
impacts of changing consumer preferences, retail consolidation, growing sophistication
of communication within the supply chain, technical progress in post-harvest handling,
and new marketing and trade practices on the organization of the fresh produce
distribution system.
Many changes have occurred in the U.S. fresh produce industry. Fresh produce per capita
consumption has steadily increased over time and the quality of produce has improved.
Supply chain management efforts have contributed to reduce non-value-adding
transaction costs and have supported the use of contracting between retailers and their
5
suppliers. Changing consumer preferences (the demand for convenience and diversity for
example), and the quest for scale economies and minimum transaction costs have
fostered consolidation at all levels of, and influenced the modes of vertical coordination
within the distribution system. The structural change in the distribution system requires
agents involved to coordinate more closely and share more information with each other.
The fresh produce distribution system has also been evolving with the emergence of new
retail entities, especially because produce departments contribute a great share of total
store profits. Food sales from supercenters have grown at a high rate during the 1990’s.
Adoption of the integrated wholesale-retailer configuration with centralized buying
operations acting as distribution centers handling large volumes in a more efficient
manner has also affected the produce industry. This type of retailer organization has
eased cold chain management, and facilitated communication with suppliers. Terminal
markets are used occasionally and more often for specialty produce. The development of
mass merchandisers and consolidation of retail chains have given more buying power to
fewer large firms with consequences on produce procurement. In particular retail-price
fixity may be reduce grower/shippers welfare. Consolidation has resulted in more direct
buying from large shippers, with a rising use of automatic inventory replenishment
technology as a means to minimize inventories. Consolidation at the retail is also
prompting suppliers to consolidate or at least engage in strategic alliances in order to gain
bargaining power, facilitate year-round supply of produce, exploit scale and scope
economies, and minimize transaction costs.
Recent data like those from the PMA FreshTrack 2001 (Perosio et al., 2001) have shown
that retailers are looking to larger suppliers and compressing the supply chain. The share
of produce bought by retailers and directly shipped from growers to supermarket
distribution centers, possibly with the intervention of a broker, is on the rise. Direct
buying is a rising trend for most commodities and this method of procurement usually
accounts for the majority of produce procured for retailers, or even foodservice
distributors. The volume share of U.S. produce moving through terminal market
wholesalers has been decreasing. 21.5 percent is bought from a produce wholesaler, and
3.1 percent is procured from a general-line wholesaler. Functions of wholesalers and
intermediary handlers include repacking, segregation, sorting, preparation for marketing,
6
cleaning, ripening, packaging, storing, price discovery role of wholesale markets.
Wholesalers primarily deal with independent retailers and foodservice establishments.
Consolidation at the wholesale level has followed retail consolidation. Direct buying has
taken the place of traditional methods of procurement such as terminal markets and
produce sourced from brokers. Smaller firms still (in 2001) buy mostly from produce
wholesalers for their produce sourcing, but sourcing direct from grower/shippers is on the
rise also for them as they also diversify their supply sources.
Fresh produce markets are above all characterized by perishable products, seasonal
production, and a strong dependence of supply on climatic conditions. These
characteristics entail high degrees of uncertainty and risk about market prices and
quantities, which has traditionally deterred the use of forward contracts in produce trade
and favored spot market transactions. However, consolidation in the fresh produce
industry has stimulated the use of forward contracting (Calvin and Cook et al., 2001).
Large retailers have reduced the share of their produce purchases on spot markets. More
and more retailers, large and small, are using some type of contract for at least some
share of their produce purchases. Large firms use contracts to a greater extent than small
ones. This is a well documented trend in the produce industry: using spot transaction less,
and using contractual agreements more despite the significant volatility of fresh produce
prices posing difficulties to contract specification. Contracting allows the parties of a
transaction to reduce their price, quantity, and quality risks; it may reduce their
transaction costs associated with merchandising and advertising, planting, harvesting, and
packing decisions. In addition, retailers have introduced formal performance guidelines
applying to produce suppliers to measure their performance. Large firms use this type of
supply-chain management tool to a greater extent, although this practice is on the rise for
small retailers, too (Perosio et al., 2001).
Challenges for the management of the organic produce supply chain
While the studies cited above describe important developments in produce trade, they do
not specifically focus on organic produce. Organic produce has a number of distinctive
characteristics from conventional produce that make it a particularly interesting case
study in supply chain evolution. The economic factors driving the trends in the U.S.
7
produce industry impacts organic produce as well, especially the consolidation in the
organic marketplace. Small produce growers currently must try to coexist with larger
produce growers that have increasingly important scale economies. These two types of
producers tend to use different market channels to sell their output (Krissof, 1998).
Larger producers tend to sell their output to large food processors or retailers directly, or
to wholesalers, as they become more integrated in the supply chain, and as retailers
require the provision of more services like year-round supply, a specific timing of
delivery, specific packaging, participation in category management and merchandising.
Small-scale organic vegetable producers tend to use direct-to-consumer market channels,
direct-to-grocery retailers market channels and grower cooperatives more than larger-
scale growers. The latter sell their a greater share of their output to packer/shippers,
brokers, and food processors (Fernandez-Cornejo et al., 1998) The future of these
different channels will likely impact the viability of smaller scale producers.
Furthermore, some market and regulatory conditions have been identified as having
adverse impacts on the economic sustainability of organic farm operations. Under the
National Organic Program, organic farmers and handlers (shippers, packers, distributors,
and food processors) must be certified, at a substantial cost, by State agencies or private
organizations according to the national organic standards developed by the USDA. They
are exempted of this requirement if their annual sales of organic agricultural products are
less than $5,000. Organic produce handlers must prevent the contamination of produce by
substances prohibited under the USDA organic standards and ensure the segregation of
organic and non-organic produce. Also, grower/shippers and middle handlers may
encounter difficulties to obtain organic price premiums compensating the higher costs of
producing and handling organically grown produce. At this time, the organic produce
industry lacks marketing networks and sources of market information which make it
difficult to secure a consistent supply or have access to reliable sales outlets. Production
areas are spread out and remote from terminal markets and middle handlers. Market
conditions are often unstable due to events of overproduction, shortage, and lack of
information.
There are a number of interesting supply chain issues connected with the distribution of
organic foods. Some manufacturers and distributors are specialized in organic foods
8
while some others added organic products to the conventional product line they already
had. Natural-food retail stores are thriving but conventional food stores are rapidly
gaining market shares in organic food sales (The Food Institute, 2005). Product
differentiation in the organic segment presents its own set of challenges with complex
labeling laws and stocking fees. Retailer concentration has led to more integrated
distribution and asymmetric market information, especially on price. A major difficulty
for organic food retailers and processors consists of securing an adequate supply of
organic products that are uniform in size and quality. To overcome this difficulty,
manufacturers frequently cooperate with farmers through technical and financial
assistance in order to obtain appropriate inputs. Like in the conventional produce sector,
although price remains an important factor determining commodity trade between a
buyer and a seller, such factors as quality, variety, information, safety, taste, and
reliability play an equal or greater role than price. The problem specifically for organic
produce is that non-price factors are subject to asymmetric information during the
negotiation process.
This study examines some of the difficulties in sourcing organic produce. Our basic
hypothesis is that, although derived demand is expanding, intermediaries have a more
difficult time sourcing adequate supplies of quality product. Conventional produce has
moved more to year-around sourcing, drawing heavily from international production
regions. Relatively little organic produce, however, is sourced outside of the U.S.. Our
expectation is that this would lead to evidence of more contracting with growers,
intermediaries dealing with larger, presumably more reliable, suppliers, and generally
more active business-to-business sharing of information. Stronger vertical relationships
are expected to be present in relationships with organic produce to avoid hold-up
problems, reduce supply uncertainty, capture rents, and meet the anticipated expansion of
demand driven by the emergence of the natural foods stores and mass merchandisers –
the “mainstreaming” of organic products.
9
2. Sample data collection and description
The Red Book Credit Services database
A list of organic produce handlers was extracted from the Red Book Credit Services
online database. All organizations dealing with organic produce were selected from the
database regardless of their business focus. We obtained a list, containing mailing and e-
mail addresses and fax numbers, of 390 firms and trade associations active in the organic
produce sector. Trade associations listed in the RBCS database were excluded from the
final list. Firms in the list have diverse roles and positions within the distribution system:
they are growers, shippers, brokers, packers, wholesalers and other distributors of fresh
organic produce, retailers, or a combination of these functions.
Survey instrument and method
Data about organic produce handlers subscribing to the RBCS were collected using a
mail survey. The questionnaire was sent in early May 2006 to these firms on the list.
Follow-up mail, e-mail, and fax requests to fill out the survey were also addressed to the
firms in order to gather more observations. In the questionnaire, respondents were asked
to provide information about their firm and supply chain management practices. Several
questions asked for information about their situation in 2001 and their expectations five
years into the future through the year 2011 in addition to the current situation. We
collected 37 surveys usable to conduct our analysis.
Firms’ characteristics
Marketing channels for organic produce are similar to the ones for conventional produce.
The various organic fresh fruits and vegetables marketing channels are summarized as
follows:
(i) Farm shipper wholesaler and/or broker natural foods retailer or
conventional foods retailer or foodservice establishment
(ii) Farm shipper natural foods retailer or conventional foods retailer
(iii) Farm direct-to-consumer markets
10
In the reality, firms may be variously integrated among the functions of growing,
shipping, packing, wholesaling, brokering, and even retailing. It is challenging
identifying and evaluating distinct actors in the supply chain. In any case, many
intermediaries exist to provide these various functions, and this study seeks to examine
how these firms interact and how changing market dynamics are affecting their behavior.
Firms in our sample are heterogeneous as they intervene at various stages of a complex
produce distribution system. They perform at least one these activities: grower, shipper,
packer, re-packer, wholesaler, importer, or retailer. Most firms actually execute several of
these activities. Usually, growers also perform packing and shipping activities. Some
growers are active on a wholesale market. Large organic growers may also carry out the
marketing of their own production and the production of other growers, contract part of
the production with other growers (Greene and Kremen, 2003), take charge of
distribution through grower/shipper-owned distribution centers, arrange exports, etc.
Some wholesalers are also active in the retail sector. The proportions of firms involved in
various activities are reported in table 1.
Table 1. Sample proportions for activities
Grower 48.7%
Shipper 48.7%
Packer 43.2%
Broker 21.6%
Wholesaler 35.1%
Retailer 13.5%
Importer 2.7%
Exporter 2.7%
The proportions in table 1 indicate that firms are vertically integrated at different points
along the supply chain. Our sample contains a large number of firms positioned upstream
in the supply chain (growers, shippers, packers) and a significant proportion of
wholesalers. Over 40% of the respondents assumed 3 or more of these activities within
their firm. While both forward and backward integration can be observed, there is also
ample evidence of specialization in the organic produce sector. Not every grower can
11
readily provide both conventional and organic produce. Economies, if they are to be
captured, are generally pursued through increasing volumes of one product or expanding
the number of products, but within the organic or conventionally produced category – at
least at the grower level.
Data collected with the 4
th
National Organic Farmers’ Survey shed light on the
composition of our sample of organic produce middle handlers. For organic vegetables,
the estimated volume based on acres produced and sold through consumer-direct
channels (no middle handlers) was about 13 percent in 2001. The estimated volume sold
by producers through direct-to-retail channels was about 53 percent. Natural foods stores
accounted for 15.7 percent of the sales volume. Conventional retail stores represented
35.1 percent of the volume sold. The estimated volume sold through wholesale market
channels was 34 percent. In this category, buyers from natural foods store chains
accounted for 5 percent of the sales, buyers from conventional supermarket chains 4.7
percent, distributors or handlers 13.5 percent, and independent brokers 2.6 percent.
Processors, mills and packers accounted for 7.3 percent of the volume sold. For organic
fruits, the estimated volume based on acres produced and sold through consumer-direct
channels was about 11 percent in 2001. The estimated volume sold through direct-to-
retail channels based on acres produced was about 12 percent. Natural foods stores
accounted for 9.9 percent of the sales volume. Conventional stores represented 1.46
percent of the volume sold. The estimated volume sold through wholesale market
channels was 77 percent. Buyers from natural foods store chains account for 7.2 percent
of the sales, buyers from conventional supermarket chains 1 percent, distributors or
handlers 27.4 percent, and independent brokers 11 percent. Processors, mills and packers
accounted for 28.5 percent of the volume sold. Thus, all types of wholesalers and retailers
have a major role in the organic produce supply chain, and these firms are well
represented in our sample.
Firms in the sample are also characterized by their size and the number of commodities
they handle. Most of the firms (68 percent) had their annual sales in 2005 comprised
between $1 and $25 millions. 16 percent of the firms had sales less than $1 million and
16 percent had annual sales greater than $25 million. Table 2 contains the average
12
number of stock keeping units (SKU’s) for all produce types and for organic produce
only, five years ago, currently, and as expected five years into the future.
Table 2. Average produce SKU’s and share of organic produce sales of firms surveyed
2001 2006 2011
Total warehouse produce SKU’s 295.3 597.7 1075.3
Organic produce SKU’s 207.8 310.4 591.3
Organic produce percentage of total produce sales 64.4% 62.2% 60.9%
The average SKU’s reported in table 2 are reflective of the trends observed for fresh
produce in other studies (Perosio, et al, 2001). The SKU averages for all produce type
and for organic produce are informative. They have increased markedly over the past five
years, and among those in the industry they are expected to rise much further in the next
five years. Organic items require their own SKU. Wholesalers expanding to carry both
conventional and organic would expect to see an increase in the number of SKUs they
manage. The share of organic produce sales is expected to stay roughly around 60% for
the firms surveyed. If one considers the percentage of organic produce sales out of total
sales as an indicator of the degree of specialization in organic produce, this result can be
attributed to two factors. First, produce handlers already involved in the organic produce
supply chain do not become more specialized in organic produce; second, traditional
produce handlers are entering the organic produce sector with a relatively low volume of
organic sales. In any case, the logistics management challenge will be increasing for
those in the distribution channel as they expand the number of products they track in
inventory.
3. Organic produce procurement
Changes in the number of suppliers
Respondents were asked to provide information about their supply sources for
conventional and organic produce at different points in time. Average numbers of
produce suppliers and supply sources concentration are presented in table 3.
13
According to the data, both the number of conventional produce suppliers and the number
of organic produce suppliers have increased, in roughly the same proportions, in the
recent past, and are expected to increase substantially during the next five years. Produce
handlers were asked to report the percentage of their organic produce purchases procured
from their top three suppliers. The reliance of produce handlers on their three largest
organic suppliers has decreased over time. Currently, 73 percent of organic produce is
sourced from the three largest suppliers, down from 75.8 percent in 2001.
Table 3. Average number of produce suppliers
2001 2006 2011
Produce suppliers 33.2 57.2 81.6
Organic produce suppliers 23.7 39.7 64.6
Organic purchase share for top 3 suppliers 75.8% 72.7% 65.8%
Their dominance as suppliers is expected to decline slightly in the next five years, down
to 65.8 %. This decline in the concentration of supply sources contrasts with the changes
taking place at the retail level for general produce (Perosio et al., 2001). This trend in
organic produce procurement could be explained by various causes. First, handlers are
diversifying their sources of organic produce because they market a greater variety of
commodities and they seek to reduce their supply-side risk. Second, suppliers are
becoming more specialized as they exploit scale economies in production and marketing
of organic produce. Third, large conventional produce handlers are entering the organic
sector of the produce industry and they tend to have a larger than average number of
suppliers.
Changes in the modes of vertical coordination with suppliers
What is vertical coordination?
Agricultural markets have undergone a noticeable structural change. The degree of
agricultural commodity differentiation has increased. Agents in agricultural markets have
reduced their reliance on spot markets for raw commodities. Instead, vertical
coordination has become tighter between primary producers and downstream agents.
These trends and other changes have contributed to what is referred to as the
14
industrialization of agriculture (Barkema et al., 1991). According to one of the hypothesis
advanced by agricultural economists (see Streeter, Sonka, and Hudson [1991] for
instance), the activities undertaken by producers, processors, and distributors to
differentiate food products and convey information about product differentiation and
quality have increased transaction costs. Despite technical progress, these additional
transaction costs must be reduced through greater vertical coordination among agents in
the food system, which would contribute to the structural change observed in agricultural
and food markets.
The food system has traditionally relied on price signals to coordinate the activities in a
supply chain. However, the use of production and marketing contracts, and vertical
integration has expanded as coordination mechanisms. Mighell and J ones (1963) state
that vertical coordination “includes all the ways of harmonizing the successive vertical
stages of production and marketing. The market-price system, vertical integration,
contracting, cooperation singly or in combination are some of the alternative means of
coordination” (quoted from Hobbs [1996]). Thus, vertical coordination is ubiquitous in
economic activities and takes multiple forms. Vertical coordination is a more
comprehensive concept than vertical integration, capturing the following modes of
organization: spot markets, where coordination is based on price signals; contracts; full
vertical integration, where transactions/activities are conducted within firms and are
coordinated by managerial direction. Mighell and J ones discuss several administered
arrangements – contracts – for vertical coordination in the food sector. They identify
three general contract types
1
: market specification contracts; production management
contracts; resource providing contracts.
Transaction costs economics (TCE) hold that transaction costs affect the organization of
economic activities, in particular the vertical coordination of economic activities. The key
insight provided by TCE is that, ceteris paribus
2
, economic agents will carry out vertical
coordination between different stages of a production, processing, and distribution chain,
1
These contract types follow the progression of increasing dominance by one party, characteristic also of
Williamson’s classification (classical, neoclassical, and relational contracts).
2
Transaction costs are only one of a number of potential determinants of vertical coordination. The
decision for a firm whether to vertically integrate also depends on the presence scale economies, sunk costs
and capital requirements, risk considerations, tax liability, and other relevant factors that make the
integration more or less efficient.
15
through the use of both market and non-market arrangements, in the most transaction-
cost-efficient manner (Coase 1937, Williamson 2000). The TCE approach to the theory
of the firm has been criticized, however. In particular, it may be an overstatement to
claim that minimizing transaction costs is the central explanation for vertical coordination
in the food system or another sector of the economy. Cost minimization is central to the
choice of governance structure in Williamson’s transaction economics. Critics of the TCE
approach (e.g., Boon, 1999) advance that strategizing – the creation of economic rents
through strategic initiative – is essential to the choice of organizational structures.
Strategizing decisions are concerned with the creation of rents through strategic
initiatives; while economizing is concerned with increasing rents through reducing
transactional inefficiencies. Similar critics are formulated in the literature about the
capabilities approach to the firm (Richardson, 1972).
Challenges in coordinating procurement activities
While price remains an important parameter determining fresh produce trade between a
supplier and a buyer, such factors as quality parameters (appearance, taste, flavor,
ripeness, etc.), variety, origin, growing practices, and food safety play an equal or greater
role than price (Perosio et al., 2001). A major obstacle to carrying out transactions under
these conditions is that non-price factors are very often subject to asymmetric information
in the exchange process. As the seller-buyer relationship becomes more complex,
transaction costs incurred during the exchange increase and some specific arrangements
may be necessary to minimize these costs. In addition, organic vegetable and fruit
production requires idiosyncratic investments. Organic produce are even more specific
than conventional produce. Organic produce marketing may necessitate a more formal
type of supply chain management than spot markets, like contracts or technical
assistance. Transaction costs in sourcing organic produce may be significant and could be
reduced or eliminated through integration or the use of contract arrangements.
Important transaction costs to consider in organic produce trade are the followings:
(i) Costs associated with uncertainty and search to obtain information about prices,
quantity, quality, origin, and costs due to temporary shortages or surpluses, etc.
16
(ii) Costs associated with bargaining and agreeing on prices, monitoring production
practices, ensuring food safety, testing for quality, etc.
(iii) Costs associated with spoilage, loss and transportation, payments, etc.
Growth in organic sales might be very dependent on the ability of the industry to bring to
market a consistent supply of diverse food products marketed by large-scale
supermarkets. According to the CEO of Whole Foods, “fresh produce [is] one of the most
challenging product categories to operate due to the limited shelf life of the products and
the high cost of spoilage. Whole Foods invested heavily in developing expertise, building
its own national distribution network, and aligning with local suppliers, to ensure the best
quality.”(Wells and Haglock, 2005) Supply uncertainty may be significant in the organic
produce supply chain and may generate transaction costs. Quality (especially quality
consistency) is another important variable subject to uncertainty in the organic produce
supply chain. Table 4 reports respondents’ assessment of a set of items representing
potential sources of transaction costs in the procurement of organic produce.
Results indicate that, currently, finding adequate suppliers, obtaining competitive prices,
the seasonality of supply and quality consistency are seen as major sources of transaction
costs. As respondents look back at the past situation, seasonality is rated as the major
challenge in procuring organic produce five years ago.
Table 4. Average ratings of potential sources of transaction costs
a
2001 2006
Finding adequate suppliers 2.0 2.1
Obtaining competitive prices 2.1 2.0
Adequate assortment of SKU’s 2.0 1.8
Seasonality of supply 2.2 2.1
Quality consistency 2.1 2.0
Distribution efficiency 2.0 1.8
Spoilage loss 1.7 1.5
Packaging consistency 1.8 1.6
a
Rating is based on the following scale:
1 =no significant challenge 2 =some challenge 3 =substantial challenge
Handlers were asked to rate the following as “challenges you face in sourcing organic produce”.
17
The importance and persistence of seasonality as a challenge in procurement may be due
to insufficient production across regions with different climatic conditions and lack of
contra-seasonal imports. A previous study by Park and Lohr (1996) found that
seasonality has a negative impact on organic broccoli and carrots long-run equilibrium
wholesale market quantity. They suggest that smoothing out seasonal variations for some
organic commodities, through better coordination of planting and harvesting across
production regions, could favor market expansion. Carrying an adequate assortment of
produce, however, has become less challenging over the past five years. This
improvement in the organic produce supply chain is explained by the growth and
diversification in organic farming in the recent years. The distribution system for organic
produce has become more efficient according to the respondents, and this gain in
performance is accompanied by a better packaging and spoilage avoidance.
On the supply side, it is important to note that organic farmers have identified some
priority areas to improve the marketing of certified organic products (Walz, 2004): local
and regional organic market development, organic price reporting services, having
directories of organic product buyers, wholesale market information and development.
Geographical distance to suppliers
The location of suppliers is an important element of vertical coordination, especially in a
sector where commodities are perishable and transportation costs are high. Survey results
indicate that, on average, 38% of organic produce purchases are procured from suppliers
located less than 100 miles from handlers, in 2006. The proportion of local purchases has
slightly decreased since 2001, down from 41%. The share of purchases sourced from
remote suppliers (more than 100 miles and more than 500 miles away) has been stable
since 2001. However, the proportion of purchases from foreign markets has noticeably
increased from 17% in 2001 to 21% in 2006. These results can be compared to the data
from the NOFS. According to that survey, respondents predominantly sold vegetable
products locally, with 79 % of vegetable products sold within 100 miles of the farm.
Local sales of fruit, nut and tree products are also substantial with 43 % of the volume
sold based on acres produced. However, fruits tend to be shipped farther away from the
18
production area, with 19 % and 32 % of the volume sold to buyers located between 100
and 500 miles, and more than 500 miles from the production area, respectively.
Characteristics of organic produce suppliers
The choice of suppliers is a central decision of the procurement process. Thus, organic
produce handlers were asked to characterize how the profile of suppliers from which they
procure organic produce had changed from 2001 to 2006. Table 5 contains detailed
information about these organic produce suppliers.
Table 5. Characteristics of organic produce suppliers
Rating
a
Average size of organic suppliers 3.8
SKU’s per supplier 3.5
Purchasing from suppliers specializing in organic 3.6
Number of conventional suppliers newly offering an organic produce line 3.9
Use of e-commerce with suppliers 3.7
a
Rating is based on the following scale:
1 =large decline 2 =slight decline 3 =stable 4 =slight increase 5 =large increase
There is evidence of a moderate increase in the size of organic suppliers. This result is
interesting given that the proportion of small-scale farming operations is larger in the
organic sector than for all U.S. farms overall. A comparison with data from previous
OFRF surveys shows that producers with certified organic farmland under 50 acres have
become a smaller percentage of OFRF survey respondent population, dropping from 63
percent in 1993 to 61 percent in 1997 and to 54 percent in 2001. The percentage of
respondents’ certified organic acreage between 50 and 179 acres has risen from 19
percent in 1993 to 20 percent in 1997 and to 25 percent in 2001. The percentage of
respondents with certified organic acreage between 180 and 499 acres has risen from 10
percent in 1993 to 13 percent in 1997 and to 14 percent in 2001. Data from the 2002
Census of Agriculture depict a similar situation. The 2002 Census of Agriculture contains
19
a new item which is land used to grow certified organically produced crops.
3
The
percentage of farms between 1 and 49 acres producing some certified organic crops is
46.4 percent. The percentage of farms between 50 and 179 acres producing some
certified organic crops is 27.8 percent. The percentage of farms between 180 and 499
acres producing some certified organic crops is 15.2 percent. For comparison, the
percentage of farms between 1 and 49 acres with harvested cropland is 26.4 percent. The
percentage of farms between 50 and 179 acres with harvested cropland is 31.1 percent.
The percentage of farms between 180 and 499 acres with harvested cropland is 21.8
percent. According to the NOFS, in 1995, the percentage of respondents grossing
$30,000 or more was 31 %, rising to 35 % in 1997, and 43 % in 2001. Thus, the
proportion of organic farmers earning higher incomes has been rising over the past
decade. As the organic food sector is growing and becoming mainstream, organic
produce farming and handling operations are probably adjusting their scale of operation
upward to exploit scale economies and be more efficient. However, the increase in the
variety of products (SKU’s) carried by a typical supplier seems to be less significant.
This observation is consistent with the pursuit of scale economies through increasing the
volume of a limited set of products.
According our survey respondents, there are also more and more conventional produce
suppliers entering the organic produce sector. The importance of suppliers specialized in
organic produce has increased only slightly.
Vertical coordination is evolving toward a greater use of e-commerce but this trend is
moderate. The rise in the use of e-commerce underscores the concern about efficiency
gains in the coordination between sellers and buyers of organic produce.
Cooperation with suppliers
Respondents were asked whether they currently cooperate with suppliers by providing
them with different sorts of assistance in production and marketing. Numbers reported in
table 6 represent percentages of the respondent population for all possible answers for
each item.
3
The count of farms growing certified organic crops is obtained from the answers of respondents. Reports
are not verified with certifying organizations, thus this item may not match estimates from other sources.
20
Table 6. Cooperation with suppliers of organic produce
No Some Extensively
More than with
conventional growers
Yes No
Production planning 38% 31% 31% 67% 33%
Input purchases 53% 37% 10% 56% 44%
Technical field assistance 73% 10% 17% 44% 56%
Financial assistance 66% 21% 14% 55% 45%
Organic certification 59% 24% 17% N.A. N.A.
Production planning appears to be the most frequent and comprehensive mode of
cooperation with suppliers. Interestingly, the majority of respondents judge that
implementation of production planning is more important with organic growers than with
conventional growers. Organic produce handlers may undertake such cooperation to
reduce supply uncertainty and smooth out seasonal variations in production across
suppliers. Cooperation through input purchases seems less intense but relatively frequent.
The adoption of this type of cooperation as well as the importance of financial assistance
in the organic sector as stated by respondents may be attributed to the greater asset
specificity observed in organic production. Input purchases and financial assistance are
means to induce optimal investment in production in order to obtain organic produce with
specific attributes. Cooperation through technical field assistance and for certification is
not as widespread as other modes of cooperation.
Contracting
Respondents were asked whether they resort to contracts with suppliers to obtain some
kinds of guarantees on supply. The proportions of purchases carried out under contracting
at different points in time are reported in table 7.
Table 7. Percentage of produce purchases procured under some kind of contract
2001 2006 2011
Conventional produce 16.2% 18.2% 25.0%
Organic produce 33.0% 35.9% 50.1%
21
Contracting has been used more extensively with organic produce than conventional
produce among our sample of respondents. Currently, about one third of organic produce
purchases are done under some kind of contract. The use of contracts is also expected to
be greater for organic relative to conventional produce in the near future.
According to the NOFS in 2001, 86 % of vegetable products produced were priced at
delivery with no forward contract, while 14 % of products were sold under forward
contracts. The dominant form of arrangement for this product category is short-term
forward contract (season/year), entered at the beginning of the growing season or one
year ahead of delivery. 39 % of fruit, nut, and tree products were sold under forward
contracts. This proportion of contracting is consistent with our results. For this category,
contract forms mostly used are short-term forward contract (season/year) (14 %) and
long-term contract (more than one year or several years ahead) (16 %). The increasing
use of contracting may favor large suppliers who can guarantee to meet contract terms on
large volume with a consistent quantity and quality, year-round. To achieve these
objectives they may have to produce in different climatic regions and organize the
distribution efficiently.
4. Organic produce marketing
Expectations about demand for organic produce
Overall, organic produce handlers expect a strong increase in demand for USDA-certified
organic produce over the next five years. However, they expect the demand for certified-
sustainable and eco-labeled produce to remain stable in the near future.
Distribution of output among sales outlets
There exists a variety of sales outlets for organic produce supplied by middle handlers:
conventional grocery retail stores, natural foods supermarkets, foodservice
establishments, direct sales to consumers (farmers’ markets, Internet, etc.),
wholesaler/distributors, and food processors. Since retail stores and foodservice absorb
the great majority of general produce, table 8 reports the shares of organic produce sales
for these primary marketing outlets.
22
Table 8. Share of sales by sales outlet
Market Outlet Share of sales
Conventional grocery store 26.7%
Natural foods store 40.1%
Foodservice firm 11.0%
Other 20.7%
Organic and natural stores represent the largest sales outlet for organic produce handlers,
absorbing roughly 40% of sales. Conventional grocery retail accounts for more than one
fourth of the sales volume. Sales to foodservice firms are limited to about one tenth of the
sales volume. The rest of the organic produce is sold to other handlers (other wholesalers
for instance), food processors, and farmers’ markets.
Marketing constraints
Table 9 reports the average ratings given by organic produce handlers to various potential
sources of transaction costs in selling organic produce.
Table 9. Average rating of constraints in marketing organic produce
a
2001 2006
Merchandising support 1.8 1.8
Slotting/promotional fees 1.5 1.5
Trace-back demand 1.6 1.7
a
Rating is based on the following scale:
1 =no significant challenge 2 =some challenge 3 =substantial challenge
None of the three potential sources of transaction costs in table 9 received high ratings,
which indicates that they are not very challenging obstacles to marketing organic
produce. Merchandising support received the highest score for five years ago and the
current period. This result is consistent with the recent trend according to which retailers
are asking their suppliers to be more involved in category management, ad and promotion
planning, etc.
23
Consequences of the entry of mass merchandisers on supply chain structure
Respondents were asked to assess the impacts – potential and already observed – of the
entry of mass merchandisers on the organic produce supply chain and the environment in
which they operate. Table 10 reports the expressed opinions of respondents about several
potential consequences.
Respondents appraised the greater demand for organic produce and more intense
competition for access to suppliers as the most significant consequences of the entry of
mass merchandisers in the organic sector. The latter consequence is related to the
tendency of large retailers to use direct buying as the primary way to procure fresh
produce. Not surprisingly, organic produce handlers also anticipate sales to large retailers
to increase.
Significant prices premiums for organic produce have prevailed through the 1990’s and
early 2000’s (Oberholtzer, Dimitri, and Greene, 2005). Oberholtzer, Dimitri, and Greene
report that monthly market margins at the wholesale level were higher for organic
broccoli and carrots than for conventional equivalents over the period 2000-2004. For the
same period and the same commodities, organic price premiums were larger at the
wholesale level than at the farm level. For these commodities, price premiums have been
steady over the 2000-04 period.
Table 10. Impacts of mass merchandisers in the organic produce sector
Insignificant Some Significant
Lower margins for organic produce 42.4% 39.4% 18.2%
Greater demand for organic produce 9.4% 46.9% 43.8%
Increased competition for suppliers 25.0% 31.3% 43.8%
Increased selling to large retailers 12.9% 48.4% 38.7%
Respondents do not anticipate margins on organic produce to decrease significantly
following the entry of mass merchandisers in the organic segment. This expectation is
consistent with the fact that a significant part of the price premium for organic produce
comes from higher production and handling costs.
24
5. System-wide issues
Lastly, respondents assessed the relative importance of several supply-chain management
issues and their involvement in dealing with issues relevant to the organic produce supply
chain. These critical issues are some of the ones identified by retailers and
grower/shippers who participated in the FreshTrack 2001 study. For each issue,
respondents were asked to what extent they have invested resources to deal with that
issue. Values reported in table 11 are percentages of all answers for any item.
In the Freshtrack 2001 report, among the most critical issues identified by both
grower/shippers and retailers were food safety, quality specifications, vendor
partnerships, and produce traceability. According to our survey, critical issues for the
organic produce supply chain are HACCP standards, third-party certification, product
traceability, the management of the cold chain, and the specification of quality standards.
Almost half of the respondents agreed with the statement that quality specifications are
more important for organic produce than conventional ones.
Table 11. Supply chain issues
No Some Extensively
Is this issue more important
for organic produce?
No Same Yes
HACCP standards 31.0% 34.5% 34.5% 36.0% 48.0% 16.0%
Third-party certification 17.9% 42.9% 39.3% 12.0% 32.0% 56.0%
Product traceability 14.3% 42.9% 42.9% 28.0% 40.0% 32.0%
Cold chain maintenance 20.8% 45.8% 33.3% 25.0% 50.0% 25.0%
Quality specifications 14.3% 46.4% 39.3% 26.9% 26.9% 46.1%
Information sharing (EDI) 46.4% 35.7% 17.9% 42.3% 42.3% 15.4%
Demand forecasting 32.1% 46.4% 21.4% 36.0% 32.0% 32.0%
Category management 40.7% 48.2% 11.1% 38.5% 42.3% 19.2%
Returnable containers 53.6% 28.6% 17.9% 32.0% 48.0% 20.0%
Pallet bar coding 77.8% 22.2% 0.0% 47.8% 47.8% 4.4%
Cross-docking 33.3% 59.3% 7.4% 34.6% 46.2% 19.2%
25
Inventory turns 44.4% 51.9% 3.7% 40.0% 40.0% 20.0%
Vendor managed inventory 74.1% 22.2% 3.7% 56.0% 36.0% 8.0%
Automatic inventory
replenishment
85.2% 11.1% 3.7% 64.0% 32.0% 4.0%
It appears that there are other supply chain issues less important than the ones cited above
but for which some resources have been devoted to deal with them. These issues are
demand forecasting, category management, cross-docking, and inventory turns. These
issues reflect the current trends in the fresh produce industry where suppliers become
more involved in retail-store level category management and agents seek to reduce non-
adding-value costs in the supply chain.
6. Conclusion
The organic supply chain is dynamic. This study documents many of the recent changes
that have taken place within the system in terms of structure, conduct, and performance.
The actors within the supply chain have become more integrated and will likely continue
to do so. We expect to see more contracting, an increase in planning and distribution of
products, and a continued increase in the grower size and number of products distributors
are sourcing from them.
Many of the factors that are driving change in organic produce are connected with main
line produce. The movement toward wider distribution through mass markets, however,
will impact the organic supply chain specifically. Growers and distributors of organic
produce expect to see demand for organics increase even more, but distribution also to
become more challenging.
The organic supply chain is highly integrated with the conventional produce supply
chain, but it also exhibits certain distinguishing characteristics. The products are highly
specific, even more sensitive to quality, and involve the added dimension of identity
preservation through many handlers. The supply chain is going through rapid evolution
following the adoption of national quality and marketing standards, as well as the rising
concern for healthy products from consumers. It creates an important case study for
economists that are interested in better understanding integration, coordination, and
supply chain performance.
26
References
Barkema, A. and M. Drabenstott, 1995. “The Many Paths of Vertical Coordination:
Structural Implications for the U.S. Food System”, Agribusiness, 11, 483-492
Barkema, A., M. Drabenscott, and K. Welch, 1991. “The Quiet Revolution in the U.S.
Food Market.” Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, May/J une
1991, 25-37.
Boon, A., 1999. “Capabilities, Transaction Costs, and Vertical Coordination in the Food
System.” In: Vertical Relationships and Coordination in the Food System, G. Galizzi
and L. Venturini (eds.), Heilderberg: Physica-Verl.
Calvin, L., and R. Cook (coordinators), with M. Denbaly, C. Dimitri, L. Glaser, C.
Handy, M. J ekanovski, P. Kaufman, B. Krissof, G. Thompson, and S. Thornsbury,
2001. “U.S. Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Marketing: Emerging Trade Practices, Trends
and Issues.” U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Agriculture
Information Bulletin No. 795.
Coase, R.H., 1937. “The Nature of the Firm.” Economica, 4, 386-405.
Dimitri, C., and C. Greene, 2002. “Recent Growth Patterns in the U.S. Organic Foods
Market”, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Agriculture
Information Bulletin No. 777.
Fernandez-Cornejo, J ., C. Greene, R. Penn, and D. Newton, 1998. “Organic Vegetable
Production in the U.S.: Certified Growers and their Practices,” American J ournal of
Alternative Agriculture, 13(2), 69-78.
Greene, C., 2000. “Organic Labeling.” In: Economics of Food Labeling, by E. Golan, F.
Kuchler, and L. Mitchell with contributions from C. Greene and A. J essup, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Agricultural Economic
Report No. 793.
Greene, C., and A. Kremen, 2003. “U.S. Organic Farming in 2000-2001: Adoption of
Certified Systems”, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service,
Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 780.
Hobbs, J .E., 1996. “A Transaction Cost Approach to Supply Chain Management.”
Supply Chain Management, 1, 15-27.
Kaufman, P.R., C.R. Handy, E.W. McLaughlin, K. Park, and G.M. Green, 2000.
“Understanding the Dynamics of Produce Markets: Consumption and Consolidation
Grow.” U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Agriculture
Information Bulletin No. 758.
Klonsky, K., and C. Greene, 2005. “Widespread Adoption of Organic Agriculture in the
U.S.: Are Market-Driven Policies Enough?” Selected Paper for the American
Agricultural Economics Association Meeting 2005, Providence, Rhode Island.
Krissof, B., 1998. “Emergence of U.S. Organic Agriculture – Can We Compete?
Discussion.” American J ournal of Agricultural Economics, 80(5):1130-1133.
27
MacInnis, B., 2004. “Transaction Costs and Organic Marketing: Evidence from U.S.
Organic Produce Farmers.” Selected Paper for the American Agricultural Economics
Association Meeting 2004, Denver, Colorado.
Mighell, R.L., and L.A. J ones, 1963. Vertical Coordination in Agriculture, Washington,
D.C.: USDA-ERS-19.
Oberholtzer, L., C. Dimitri, and C. Greene, 2005. “Price Premiums Hold on as U.S.
Organic Produce Market Expands.” U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic
Research Service, Electronic Outlook Report VGS-308-01, May 2005.
Perosio, D.J ., E.W. McLaughlin, S. Cuellar, and K. Park, 2001. “Supply Chain
Management in the Produce Industry.” FreshTrack 2001, Cornell University, Ithaca,
New York, and Produce Marketing Association, Newark, Delaware.
Organic Trade Association, 2004. Manufacturer Survey.
Park, T.A., and L. Lohr, 1996. “Supply and Demand Factors for Organic Produce.”
American J ournal of Agricultural Economics, 78(3), 647-645.
Red Book Credit Service, 2006. “Marketing and Credit Services for Produce Industry
Suppliers”, March edition, Vance Publishing Company.
Richardson, G.B., 1972. “The Organization of Industry.” Economic J ournal, 82, 883-896.
Streeter, D.H., S.T. Sonka, and M.A. Hudson. 1991. “Information Technology,
Coordination, and Competitiveness in the Food and Agribusiness Sector.” American
J ournal of Agricultural Economics, 73(5):1465-1471.
The Food Institute, 2005. “Natural Products Shoppers Buy More, But Shop in Fewer
Places.” The Food Institute Report, August 8, 2005
Thompson, G.D., 1998. “Consumer Demand for Organic Foods: What We Know and
What We Need to Know.” American J ournal of Agricultural Economics, 80(5), 1113-
1118.
Walz, E., 2004. “Final Results of the Fourth National Organic Farmers’ Survey:
Sustaining Organic Farms in a Changing Organic Marketplace.” Organic Farming
Research Foundation, Santa Cruz, California. Available at, www.ofrf.org/publications/
survey/index.html/.
Wells, J .R., and T. Haglock, 2005. “Whole Foods Market, Inc.”, Harvard Business
School Case 9-705-476.
Williamson, O.E., 2000. “The New Institutional Economics: Taking Stock, Looking
Ahead.” J ournal of Economic Literature, 38(September 2000), 595-613.
U.S. Department of Agriculture 2002 Census of Agriculture, National Agricultural
Statistics Service, Volume 1, Chapter 1, U.S. National Level Data.
doc_706548091.pdf
The survey suggests firms are projecting increased activity with organic products, but they are changing the way they are sourcing from their suppliers. Shippers and wholesalers are using more, larger suppliers to provide a greater proportion of their produce.
Supply Chain Management and the Changing Structure of
U.S. Organic Produce Markets
Fabien Tondel
Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Kentucky
Lexington, KY 40546
[email protected]
and
Timothy Woods
Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Kentucky
Lexington, KY 40546
[email protected]
Selected paper prepared for presentation at the American Agricultural Economics
Association Annual Meeting, Long Beach, California, July 23-26, 2006
Copyright 2006 by F. Tondel and T. Woods. All rights reserved. Readers may make
verbatim copies of this document for non-commercial purposes by any means, provided
that this copyright notice appears on all such copies.
1
Supply Chain Management and the Changing Structure of
U.S. Organic Produce Markets
Abstract
We present the results of a survey of the organic produce supply chain in the U.S.,
focusing on supply chain dynamics and firm behavior with a view to changing market
forces. The survey suggests firms are projecting increased activity with organic products,
but they are changing the way they are sourcing from their suppliers. Shippers and
wholesalers are using more, larger suppliers to provide a greater proportion of their
produce. There is an increasing prevalence of contracting for both organic and
conventional produce. The expanding presence of the mass merchandisers in organic
produce is expected to actually stimulate demand for product from growers, but it also
leads to an increased competition for suppliers. There is significant effort to coordinate a
variety of business functions between shippers and organic suppliers.
Keywords: supply chain, produce, organic, vertical coordination
2
1. Introduction
Agricultural economists and food industry analysts have devoted a substantial research
effort to document and understand the emergence of the organic sector in the U.S.
agriculture and food industry. Numerous studies have investigated the determinants of
consumer demand for organic products and the reasons for which consumers are willing
to pay a price premium over conventional products (Thompson, 1998). The existence of
organic price premiums, in turn, provides incentives for organic farmers to expand their
production scale, and for conventional producers to convert to organic production
systems (Oberholtzer, Dimitri, and Greene, 2005). The adoption of organic farming
practices by U.S. farmers propagated rapidly throughout the 1990’s (Greene and Kremen,
2003). In 2001, 2.34 million acres of cropland and pasture were certified organic,
representing 0.3 percent of U.S. cropland and pasture.
While organic food sales still account for a small proportion of total food sales, retail
sales of fresh organic produce and organic processed foods and beverages have been
rising dramatically since the early 1990’s (Dimitri and Greene, 2002). Preliminary results
from the Organic Trade Association’s (OTA) 2006 Manufacturer Survey indicate that
U.S. organic food retail sales amounted to about $14 billion in 2005, that is, 2.5 percent
of total food sales, up from 1,9 percent in 2003 (OTA, 2006). Sales of fresh organic fruits
and vegetables have contributed a lot to the surge in organic food sales. The food retail
sector has changed markedly in response to a growing consumer demand for organic
foods. Natural foods stores have entered the retail sector, and conventional retail outlets
have taken steps to expand their organic food offerings. Conventional supermarkets now
represent the largest retail outlet for organic foods before natural foods stores (Dimitri
and Greene, 2002). Moreover, new processed organic foods and beverages are being
introduced at a relatively high rate, which is an evidence of the dynamic of organic food
markets.
Meanwhile, the implementation of the National Organic Program in 2002 has helped to
resolve the asymmetric information problem associated with the credence characteristic
of organic products with different certification requirements in each state. The use of the
National Organic Standards has lowered transaction costs between farmers, handlers, and
the buyers of organic commodities, and has heightened the credibility of organic
3
certification to consumers. National standards may have also sparked a structural shift in
organic markets due to the adverse effects of certification costs on small firms in the
supply chain (Greene, 2000). The introduction of a national certification system has most
likely contributed to increase the supply and demand for organic products. The fact that
the value of organic produce rests on a credence attribute may have implication for the
management of the supply chain. The marketing process from farm-gate level to retail
must convey information not only about prices but must also ensure the transmission of
credible but unobservable production practice attributes to the consumer. As the distance
between the farmer and the consumer widens, as is often the case in marketing goods
within industrialized countries and across country borders, the level of credence becomes
more difficult to establish. Therefore, a number of interesting supply chain issues may
arise in connection with the distribution of organic foods. In addition, the supply chain
for organic produce may face constraints similar to the one in the produce industry where
significant consolidation has taken place.
This study examines the recent changes taking place in the organic produce supply chain.
Specifically, the objective of this study is to describe and analyze the behavior of firms
within the organic produce distribution system, the challenges they face, and the
adjustments they make. The dynamics of vertical business relationships are explored
under conditions of trading a highly specific asset that is perishable, requires special
identity preservation, and has a distinct market segment into which it is being marketed.
Many of the factors impacting the supply chain for organic produce are factors impacting
the trade of all produce. Retail trade is consolidating, but special markets are emerging
for natural foods products, as well. This study looks at trends in supplier relationships,
sourcing, contracting, marketing, and system coordination, paying special attention to the
middle handlers of fresh organic produce.
The growth of organic produce markets
Organic food trade and trade in organic produce in particular have been greatly affected
by the establishment of national quality and definition standards. Klonsky and Greene
(2005) summarize organic sales figures, noting the increase from $3.5 billion in 1997 to
4
$10.3 billion by 2003, with fruits and vegetables comprising over 40% of the most recent
sales data. In 2003, fresh produce made up over 90 % of organic produce sales.
The adoption of organic production systems has happened to a greater extent in the fruit,
vegetable, and other high-value crop sectors. In the 4
th
National Organic Farmers’ Survey
(hereafter referred to as NOFS) from the Organic Farming Research Foundation (OFRF)
(Walz, 2004), organic farmers growing vegetable crops and fruit and nut crops represent
70 % of the respondent population (43 % for vegetables and 27 % for fruits and nuts);
organic vegetable and fruit and nut sales account for the largest share of organic farm
sales (29 % and 20 %, respectively), amounting to 49 % of total sales. In 2001,
approximately 1.6 percent of the total U.S. vegetable acreage was certified organic, after
a 15 percent expansion since 2000. Lettuce, tomato and carrot crops occupied most of the
organic acreage. Approximately 1.3 percent of the total U.S. fruit and tree nut acreage
was certified organic in 2001. Certified organic fruit and tree nut cropland was up 28
percent from 2000. Certified organic acreage was allocated mostly to grape, apple, citrus,
and tree nut production (Greene and Kremen, 2003). Recent studies have explored trends
in the organic sector at the farm level (MacInnis, 2004; Walz, 2004) and at the retail
market level (Klonsky and Greene, 2005). None of these studies, however, explored the
changes taking place with respect to the handling of organic produce between the farm
and the retail market.
Changes in the U.S. fresh produce distribution system
Several studies have explored the recent dynamics of the produce industry (Kaufman et
al., 2000; Calvin and Cook, 2001; Perosio et al., 2001). These studies have explained the
impacts of changing consumer preferences, retail consolidation, growing sophistication
of communication within the supply chain, technical progress in post-harvest handling,
and new marketing and trade practices on the organization of the fresh produce
distribution system.
Many changes have occurred in the U.S. fresh produce industry. Fresh produce per capita
consumption has steadily increased over time and the quality of produce has improved.
Supply chain management efforts have contributed to reduce non-value-adding
transaction costs and have supported the use of contracting between retailers and their
5
suppliers. Changing consumer preferences (the demand for convenience and diversity for
example), and the quest for scale economies and minimum transaction costs have
fostered consolidation at all levels of, and influenced the modes of vertical coordination
within the distribution system. The structural change in the distribution system requires
agents involved to coordinate more closely and share more information with each other.
The fresh produce distribution system has also been evolving with the emergence of new
retail entities, especially because produce departments contribute a great share of total
store profits. Food sales from supercenters have grown at a high rate during the 1990’s.
Adoption of the integrated wholesale-retailer configuration with centralized buying
operations acting as distribution centers handling large volumes in a more efficient
manner has also affected the produce industry. This type of retailer organization has
eased cold chain management, and facilitated communication with suppliers. Terminal
markets are used occasionally and more often for specialty produce. The development of
mass merchandisers and consolidation of retail chains have given more buying power to
fewer large firms with consequences on produce procurement. In particular retail-price
fixity may be reduce grower/shippers welfare. Consolidation has resulted in more direct
buying from large shippers, with a rising use of automatic inventory replenishment
technology as a means to minimize inventories. Consolidation at the retail is also
prompting suppliers to consolidate or at least engage in strategic alliances in order to gain
bargaining power, facilitate year-round supply of produce, exploit scale and scope
economies, and minimize transaction costs.
Recent data like those from the PMA FreshTrack 2001 (Perosio et al., 2001) have shown
that retailers are looking to larger suppliers and compressing the supply chain. The share
of produce bought by retailers and directly shipped from growers to supermarket
distribution centers, possibly with the intervention of a broker, is on the rise. Direct
buying is a rising trend for most commodities and this method of procurement usually
accounts for the majority of produce procured for retailers, or even foodservice
distributors. The volume share of U.S. produce moving through terminal market
wholesalers has been decreasing. 21.5 percent is bought from a produce wholesaler, and
3.1 percent is procured from a general-line wholesaler. Functions of wholesalers and
intermediary handlers include repacking, segregation, sorting, preparation for marketing,
6
cleaning, ripening, packaging, storing, price discovery role of wholesale markets.
Wholesalers primarily deal with independent retailers and foodservice establishments.
Consolidation at the wholesale level has followed retail consolidation. Direct buying has
taken the place of traditional methods of procurement such as terminal markets and
produce sourced from brokers. Smaller firms still (in 2001) buy mostly from produce
wholesalers for their produce sourcing, but sourcing direct from grower/shippers is on the
rise also for them as they also diversify their supply sources.
Fresh produce markets are above all characterized by perishable products, seasonal
production, and a strong dependence of supply on climatic conditions. These
characteristics entail high degrees of uncertainty and risk about market prices and
quantities, which has traditionally deterred the use of forward contracts in produce trade
and favored spot market transactions. However, consolidation in the fresh produce
industry has stimulated the use of forward contracting (Calvin and Cook et al., 2001).
Large retailers have reduced the share of their produce purchases on spot markets. More
and more retailers, large and small, are using some type of contract for at least some
share of their produce purchases. Large firms use contracts to a greater extent than small
ones. This is a well documented trend in the produce industry: using spot transaction less,
and using contractual agreements more despite the significant volatility of fresh produce
prices posing difficulties to contract specification. Contracting allows the parties of a
transaction to reduce their price, quantity, and quality risks; it may reduce their
transaction costs associated with merchandising and advertising, planting, harvesting, and
packing decisions. In addition, retailers have introduced formal performance guidelines
applying to produce suppliers to measure their performance. Large firms use this type of
supply-chain management tool to a greater extent, although this practice is on the rise for
small retailers, too (Perosio et al., 2001).
Challenges for the management of the organic produce supply chain
While the studies cited above describe important developments in produce trade, they do
not specifically focus on organic produce. Organic produce has a number of distinctive
characteristics from conventional produce that make it a particularly interesting case
study in supply chain evolution. The economic factors driving the trends in the U.S.
7
produce industry impacts organic produce as well, especially the consolidation in the
organic marketplace. Small produce growers currently must try to coexist with larger
produce growers that have increasingly important scale economies. These two types of
producers tend to use different market channels to sell their output (Krissof, 1998).
Larger producers tend to sell their output to large food processors or retailers directly, or
to wholesalers, as they become more integrated in the supply chain, and as retailers
require the provision of more services like year-round supply, a specific timing of
delivery, specific packaging, participation in category management and merchandising.
Small-scale organic vegetable producers tend to use direct-to-consumer market channels,
direct-to-grocery retailers market channels and grower cooperatives more than larger-
scale growers. The latter sell their a greater share of their output to packer/shippers,
brokers, and food processors (Fernandez-Cornejo et al., 1998) The future of these
different channels will likely impact the viability of smaller scale producers.
Furthermore, some market and regulatory conditions have been identified as having
adverse impacts on the economic sustainability of organic farm operations. Under the
National Organic Program, organic farmers and handlers (shippers, packers, distributors,
and food processors) must be certified, at a substantial cost, by State agencies or private
organizations according to the national organic standards developed by the USDA. They
are exempted of this requirement if their annual sales of organic agricultural products are
less than $5,000. Organic produce handlers must prevent the contamination of produce by
substances prohibited under the USDA organic standards and ensure the segregation of
organic and non-organic produce. Also, grower/shippers and middle handlers may
encounter difficulties to obtain organic price premiums compensating the higher costs of
producing and handling organically grown produce. At this time, the organic produce
industry lacks marketing networks and sources of market information which make it
difficult to secure a consistent supply or have access to reliable sales outlets. Production
areas are spread out and remote from terminal markets and middle handlers. Market
conditions are often unstable due to events of overproduction, shortage, and lack of
information.
There are a number of interesting supply chain issues connected with the distribution of
organic foods. Some manufacturers and distributors are specialized in organic foods
8
while some others added organic products to the conventional product line they already
had. Natural-food retail stores are thriving but conventional food stores are rapidly
gaining market shares in organic food sales (The Food Institute, 2005). Product
differentiation in the organic segment presents its own set of challenges with complex
labeling laws and stocking fees. Retailer concentration has led to more integrated
distribution and asymmetric market information, especially on price. A major difficulty
for organic food retailers and processors consists of securing an adequate supply of
organic products that are uniform in size and quality. To overcome this difficulty,
manufacturers frequently cooperate with farmers through technical and financial
assistance in order to obtain appropriate inputs. Like in the conventional produce sector,
although price remains an important factor determining commodity trade between a
buyer and a seller, such factors as quality, variety, information, safety, taste, and
reliability play an equal or greater role than price. The problem specifically for organic
produce is that non-price factors are subject to asymmetric information during the
negotiation process.
This study examines some of the difficulties in sourcing organic produce. Our basic
hypothesis is that, although derived demand is expanding, intermediaries have a more
difficult time sourcing adequate supplies of quality product. Conventional produce has
moved more to year-around sourcing, drawing heavily from international production
regions. Relatively little organic produce, however, is sourced outside of the U.S.. Our
expectation is that this would lead to evidence of more contracting with growers,
intermediaries dealing with larger, presumably more reliable, suppliers, and generally
more active business-to-business sharing of information. Stronger vertical relationships
are expected to be present in relationships with organic produce to avoid hold-up
problems, reduce supply uncertainty, capture rents, and meet the anticipated expansion of
demand driven by the emergence of the natural foods stores and mass merchandisers –
the “mainstreaming” of organic products.
9
2. Sample data collection and description
The Red Book Credit Services database
A list of organic produce handlers was extracted from the Red Book Credit Services
online database. All organizations dealing with organic produce were selected from the
database regardless of their business focus. We obtained a list, containing mailing and e-
mail addresses and fax numbers, of 390 firms and trade associations active in the organic
produce sector. Trade associations listed in the RBCS database were excluded from the
final list. Firms in the list have diverse roles and positions within the distribution system:
they are growers, shippers, brokers, packers, wholesalers and other distributors of fresh
organic produce, retailers, or a combination of these functions.
Survey instrument and method
Data about organic produce handlers subscribing to the RBCS were collected using a
mail survey. The questionnaire was sent in early May 2006 to these firms on the list.
Follow-up mail, e-mail, and fax requests to fill out the survey were also addressed to the
firms in order to gather more observations. In the questionnaire, respondents were asked
to provide information about their firm and supply chain management practices. Several
questions asked for information about their situation in 2001 and their expectations five
years into the future through the year 2011 in addition to the current situation. We
collected 37 surveys usable to conduct our analysis.
Firms’ characteristics
Marketing channels for organic produce are similar to the ones for conventional produce.
The various organic fresh fruits and vegetables marketing channels are summarized as
follows:
(i) Farm shipper wholesaler and/or broker natural foods retailer or
conventional foods retailer or foodservice establishment
(ii) Farm shipper natural foods retailer or conventional foods retailer
(iii) Farm direct-to-consumer markets
10
In the reality, firms may be variously integrated among the functions of growing,
shipping, packing, wholesaling, brokering, and even retailing. It is challenging
identifying and evaluating distinct actors in the supply chain. In any case, many
intermediaries exist to provide these various functions, and this study seeks to examine
how these firms interact and how changing market dynamics are affecting their behavior.
Firms in our sample are heterogeneous as they intervene at various stages of a complex
produce distribution system. They perform at least one these activities: grower, shipper,
packer, re-packer, wholesaler, importer, or retailer. Most firms actually execute several of
these activities. Usually, growers also perform packing and shipping activities. Some
growers are active on a wholesale market. Large organic growers may also carry out the
marketing of their own production and the production of other growers, contract part of
the production with other growers (Greene and Kremen, 2003), take charge of
distribution through grower/shipper-owned distribution centers, arrange exports, etc.
Some wholesalers are also active in the retail sector. The proportions of firms involved in
various activities are reported in table 1.
Table 1. Sample proportions for activities
Grower 48.7%
Shipper 48.7%
Packer 43.2%
Broker 21.6%
Wholesaler 35.1%
Retailer 13.5%
Importer 2.7%
Exporter 2.7%
The proportions in table 1 indicate that firms are vertically integrated at different points
along the supply chain. Our sample contains a large number of firms positioned upstream
in the supply chain (growers, shippers, packers) and a significant proportion of
wholesalers. Over 40% of the respondents assumed 3 or more of these activities within
their firm. While both forward and backward integration can be observed, there is also
ample evidence of specialization in the organic produce sector. Not every grower can
11
readily provide both conventional and organic produce. Economies, if they are to be
captured, are generally pursued through increasing volumes of one product or expanding
the number of products, but within the organic or conventionally produced category – at
least at the grower level.
Data collected with the 4
th
National Organic Farmers’ Survey shed light on the
composition of our sample of organic produce middle handlers. For organic vegetables,
the estimated volume based on acres produced and sold through consumer-direct
channels (no middle handlers) was about 13 percent in 2001. The estimated volume sold
by producers through direct-to-retail channels was about 53 percent. Natural foods stores
accounted for 15.7 percent of the sales volume. Conventional retail stores represented
35.1 percent of the volume sold. The estimated volume sold through wholesale market
channels was 34 percent. In this category, buyers from natural foods store chains
accounted for 5 percent of the sales, buyers from conventional supermarket chains 4.7
percent, distributors or handlers 13.5 percent, and independent brokers 2.6 percent.
Processors, mills and packers accounted for 7.3 percent of the volume sold. For organic
fruits, the estimated volume based on acres produced and sold through consumer-direct
channels was about 11 percent in 2001. The estimated volume sold through direct-to-
retail channels based on acres produced was about 12 percent. Natural foods stores
accounted for 9.9 percent of the sales volume. Conventional stores represented 1.46
percent of the volume sold. The estimated volume sold through wholesale market
channels was 77 percent. Buyers from natural foods store chains account for 7.2 percent
of the sales, buyers from conventional supermarket chains 1 percent, distributors or
handlers 27.4 percent, and independent brokers 11 percent. Processors, mills and packers
accounted for 28.5 percent of the volume sold. Thus, all types of wholesalers and retailers
have a major role in the organic produce supply chain, and these firms are well
represented in our sample.
Firms in the sample are also characterized by their size and the number of commodities
they handle. Most of the firms (68 percent) had their annual sales in 2005 comprised
between $1 and $25 millions. 16 percent of the firms had sales less than $1 million and
16 percent had annual sales greater than $25 million. Table 2 contains the average
12
number of stock keeping units (SKU’s) for all produce types and for organic produce
only, five years ago, currently, and as expected five years into the future.
Table 2. Average produce SKU’s and share of organic produce sales of firms surveyed
2001 2006 2011
Total warehouse produce SKU’s 295.3 597.7 1075.3
Organic produce SKU’s 207.8 310.4 591.3
Organic produce percentage of total produce sales 64.4% 62.2% 60.9%
The average SKU’s reported in table 2 are reflective of the trends observed for fresh
produce in other studies (Perosio, et al, 2001). The SKU averages for all produce type
and for organic produce are informative. They have increased markedly over the past five
years, and among those in the industry they are expected to rise much further in the next
five years. Organic items require their own SKU. Wholesalers expanding to carry both
conventional and organic would expect to see an increase in the number of SKUs they
manage. The share of organic produce sales is expected to stay roughly around 60% for
the firms surveyed. If one considers the percentage of organic produce sales out of total
sales as an indicator of the degree of specialization in organic produce, this result can be
attributed to two factors. First, produce handlers already involved in the organic produce
supply chain do not become more specialized in organic produce; second, traditional
produce handlers are entering the organic produce sector with a relatively low volume of
organic sales. In any case, the logistics management challenge will be increasing for
those in the distribution channel as they expand the number of products they track in
inventory.
3. Organic produce procurement
Changes in the number of suppliers
Respondents were asked to provide information about their supply sources for
conventional and organic produce at different points in time. Average numbers of
produce suppliers and supply sources concentration are presented in table 3.
13
According to the data, both the number of conventional produce suppliers and the number
of organic produce suppliers have increased, in roughly the same proportions, in the
recent past, and are expected to increase substantially during the next five years. Produce
handlers were asked to report the percentage of their organic produce purchases procured
from their top three suppliers. The reliance of produce handlers on their three largest
organic suppliers has decreased over time. Currently, 73 percent of organic produce is
sourced from the three largest suppliers, down from 75.8 percent in 2001.
Table 3. Average number of produce suppliers
2001 2006 2011
Produce suppliers 33.2 57.2 81.6
Organic produce suppliers 23.7 39.7 64.6
Organic purchase share for top 3 suppliers 75.8% 72.7% 65.8%
Their dominance as suppliers is expected to decline slightly in the next five years, down
to 65.8 %. This decline in the concentration of supply sources contrasts with the changes
taking place at the retail level for general produce (Perosio et al., 2001). This trend in
organic produce procurement could be explained by various causes. First, handlers are
diversifying their sources of organic produce because they market a greater variety of
commodities and they seek to reduce their supply-side risk. Second, suppliers are
becoming more specialized as they exploit scale economies in production and marketing
of organic produce. Third, large conventional produce handlers are entering the organic
sector of the produce industry and they tend to have a larger than average number of
suppliers.
Changes in the modes of vertical coordination with suppliers
What is vertical coordination?
Agricultural markets have undergone a noticeable structural change. The degree of
agricultural commodity differentiation has increased. Agents in agricultural markets have
reduced their reliance on spot markets for raw commodities. Instead, vertical
coordination has become tighter between primary producers and downstream agents.
These trends and other changes have contributed to what is referred to as the
14
industrialization of agriculture (Barkema et al., 1991). According to one of the hypothesis
advanced by agricultural economists (see Streeter, Sonka, and Hudson [1991] for
instance), the activities undertaken by producers, processors, and distributors to
differentiate food products and convey information about product differentiation and
quality have increased transaction costs. Despite technical progress, these additional
transaction costs must be reduced through greater vertical coordination among agents in
the food system, which would contribute to the structural change observed in agricultural
and food markets.
The food system has traditionally relied on price signals to coordinate the activities in a
supply chain. However, the use of production and marketing contracts, and vertical
integration has expanded as coordination mechanisms. Mighell and J ones (1963) state
that vertical coordination “includes all the ways of harmonizing the successive vertical
stages of production and marketing. The market-price system, vertical integration,
contracting, cooperation singly or in combination are some of the alternative means of
coordination” (quoted from Hobbs [1996]). Thus, vertical coordination is ubiquitous in
economic activities and takes multiple forms. Vertical coordination is a more
comprehensive concept than vertical integration, capturing the following modes of
organization: spot markets, where coordination is based on price signals; contracts; full
vertical integration, where transactions/activities are conducted within firms and are
coordinated by managerial direction. Mighell and J ones discuss several administered
arrangements – contracts – for vertical coordination in the food sector. They identify
three general contract types
1
: market specification contracts; production management
contracts; resource providing contracts.
Transaction costs economics (TCE) hold that transaction costs affect the organization of
economic activities, in particular the vertical coordination of economic activities. The key
insight provided by TCE is that, ceteris paribus
2
, economic agents will carry out vertical
coordination between different stages of a production, processing, and distribution chain,
1
These contract types follow the progression of increasing dominance by one party, characteristic also of
Williamson’s classification (classical, neoclassical, and relational contracts).
2
Transaction costs are only one of a number of potential determinants of vertical coordination. The
decision for a firm whether to vertically integrate also depends on the presence scale economies, sunk costs
and capital requirements, risk considerations, tax liability, and other relevant factors that make the
integration more or less efficient.
15
through the use of both market and non-market arrangements, in the most transaction-
cost-efficient manner (Coase 1937, Williamson 2000). The TCE approach to the theory
of the firm has been criticized, however. In particular, it may be an overstatement to
claim that minimizing transaction costs is the central explanation for vertical coordination
in the food system or another sector of the economy. Cost minimization is central to the
choice of governance structure in Williamson’s transaction economics. Critics of the TCE
approach (e.g., Boon, 1999) advance that strategizing – the creation of economic rents
through strategic initiative – is essential to the choice of organizational structures.
Strategizing decisions are concerned with the creation of rents through strategic
initiatives; while economizing is concerned with increasing rents through reducing
transactional inefficiencies. Similar critics are formulated in the literature about the
capabilities approach to the firm (Richardson, 1972).
Challenges in coordinating procurement activities
While price remains an important parameter determining fresh produce trade between a
supplier and a buyer, such factors as quality parameters (appearance, taste, flavor,
ripeness, etc.), variety, origin, growing practices, and food safety play an equal or greater
role than price (Perosio et al., 2001). A major obstacle to carrying out transactions under
these conditions is that non-price factors are very often subject to asymmetric information
in the exchange process. As the seller-buyer relationship becomes more complex,
transaction costs incurred during the exchange increase and some specific arrangements
may be necessary to minimize these costs. In addition, organic vegetable and fruit
production requires idiosyncratic investments. Organic produce are even more specific
than conventional produce. Organic produce marketing may necessitate a more formal
type of supply chain management than spot markets, like contracts or technical
assistance. Transaction costs in sourcing organic produce may be significant and could be
reduced or eliminated through integration or the use of contract arrangements.
Important transaction costs to consider in organic produce trade are the followings:
(i) Costs associated with uncertainty and search to obtain information about prices,
quantity, quality, origin, and costs due to temporary shortages or surpluses, etc.
16
(ii) Costs associated with bargaining and agreeing on prices, monitoring production
practices, ensuring food safety, testing for quality, etc.
(iii) Costs associated with spoilage, loss and transportation, payments, etc.
Growth in organic sales might be very dependent on the ability of the industry to bring to
market a consistent supply of diverse food products marketed by large-scale
supermarkets. According to the CEO of Whole Foods, “fresh produce [is] one of the most
challenging product categories to operate due to the limited shelf life of the products and
the high cost of spoilage. Whole Foods invested heavily in developing expertise, building
its own national distribution network, and aligning with local suppliers, to ensure the best
quality.”(Wells and Haglock, 2005) Supply uncertainty may be significant in the organic
produce supply chain and may generate transaction costs. Quality (especially quality
consistency) is another important variable subject to uncertainty in the organic produce
supply chain. Table 4 reports respondents’ assessment of a set of items representing
potential sources of transaction costs in the procurement of organic produce.
Results indicate that, currently, finding adequate suppliers, obtaining competitive prices,
the seasonality of supply and quality consistency are seen as major sources of transaction
costs. As respondents look back at the past situation, seasonality is rated as the major
challenge in procuring organic produce five years ago.
Table 4. Average ratings of potential sources of transaction costs
a
2001 2006
Finding adequate suppliers 2.0 2.1
Obtaining competitive prices 2.1 2.0
Adequate assortment of SKU’s 2.0 1.8
Seasonality of supply 2.2 2.1
Quality consistency 2.1 2.0
Distribution efficiency 2.0 1.8
Spoilage loss 1.7 1.5
Packaging consistency 1.8 1.6
a
Rating is based on the following scale:
1 =no significant challenge 2 =some challenge 3 =substantial challenge
Handlers were asked to rate the following as “challenges you face in sourcing organic produce”.
17
The importance and persistence of seasonality as a challenge in procurement may be due
to insufficient production across regions with different climatic conditions and lack of
contra-seasonal imports. A previous study by Park and Lohr (1996) found that
seasonality has a negative impact on organic broccoli and carrots long-run equilibrium
wholesale market quantity. They suggest that smoothing out seasonal variations for some
organic commodities, through better coordination of planting and harvesting across
production regions, could favor market expansion. Carrying an adequate assortment of
produce, however, has become less challenging over the past five years. This
improvement in the organic produce supply chain is explained by the growth and
diversification in organic farming in the recent years. The distribution system for organic
produce has become more efficient according to the respondents, and this gain in
performance is accompanied by a better packaging and spoilage avoidance.
On the supply side, it is important to note that organic farmers have identified some
priority areas to improve the marketing of certified organic products (Walz, 2004): local
and regional organic market development, organic price reporting services, having
directories of organic product buyers, wholesale market information and development.
Geographical distance to suppliers
The location of suppliers is an important element of vertical coordination, especially in a
sector where commodities are perishable and transportation costs are high. Survey results
indicate that, on average, 38% of organic produce purchases are procured from suppliers
located less than 100 miles from handlers, in 2006. The proportion of local purchases has
slightly decreased since 2001, down from 41%. The share of purchases sourced from
remote suppliers (more than 100 miles and more than 500 miles away) has been stable
since 2001. However, the proportion of purchases from foreign markets has noticeably
increased from 17% in 2001 to 21% in 2006. These results can be compared to the data
from the NOFS. According to that survey, respondents predominantly sold vegetable
products locally, with 79 % of vegetable products sold within 100 miles of the farm.
Local sales of fruit, nut and tree products are also substantial with 43 % of the volume
sold based on acres produced. However, fruits tend to be shipped farther away from the
18
production area, with 19 % and 32 % of the volume sold to buyers located between 100
and 500 miles, and more than 500 miles from the production area, respectively.
Characteristics of organic produce suppliers
The choice of suppliers is a central decision of the procurement process. Thus, organic
produce handlers were asked to characterize how the profile of suppliers from which they
procure organic produce had changed from 2001 to 2006. Table 5 contains detailed
information about these organic produce suppliers.
Table 5. Characteristics of organic produce suppliers
Rating
a
Average size of organic suppliers 3.8
SKU’s per supplier 3.5
Purchasing from suppliers specializing in organic 3.6
Number of conventional suppliers newly offering an organic produce line 3.9
Use of e-commerce with suppliers 3.7
a
Rating is based on the following scale:
1 =large decline 2 =slight decline 3 =stable 4 =slight increase 5 =large increase
There is evidence of a moderate increase in the size of organic suppliers. This result is
interesting given that the proportion of small-scale farming operations is larger in the
organic sector than for all U.S. farms overall. A comparison with data from previous
OFRF surveys shows that producers with certified organic farmland under 50 acres have
become a smaller percentage of OFRF survey respondent population, dropping from 63
percent in 1993 to 61 percent in 1997 and to 54 percent in 2001. The percentage of
respondents’ certified organic acreage between 50 and 179 acres has risen from 19
percent in 1993 to 20 percent in 1997 and to 25 percent in 2001. The percentage of
respondents with certified organic acreage between 180 and 499 acres has risen from 10
percent in 1993 to 13 percent in 1997 and to 14 percent in 2001. Data from the 2002
Census of Agriculture depict a similar situation. The 2002 Census of Agriculture contains
19
a new item which is land used to grow certified organically produced crops.
3
The
percentage of farms between 1 and 49 acres producing some certified organic crops is
46.4 percent. The percentage of farms between 50 and 179 acres producing some
certified organic crops is 27.8 percent. The percentage of farms between 180 and 499
acres producing some certified organic crops is 15.2 percent. For comparison, the
percentage of farms between 1 and 49 acres with harvested cropland is 26.4 percent. The
percentage of farms between 50 and 179 acres with harvested cropland is 31.1 percent.
The percentage of farms between 180 and 499 acres with harvested cropland is 21.8
percent. According to the NOFS, in 1995, the percentage of respondents grossing
$30,000 or more was 31 %, rising to 35 % in 1997, and 43 % in 2001. Thus, the
proportion of organic farmers earning higher incomes has been rising over the past
decade. As the organic food sector is growing and becoming mainstream, organic
produce farming and handling operations are probably adjusting their scale of operation
upward to exploit scale economies and be more efficient. However, the increase in the
variety of products (SKU’s) carried by a typical supplier seems to be less significant.
This observation is consistent with the pursuit of scale economies through increasing the
volume of a limited set of products.
According our survey respondents, there are also more and more conventional produce
suppliers entering the organic produce sector. The importance of suppliers specialized in
organic produce has increased only slightly.
Vertical coordination is evolving toward a greater use of e-commerce but this trend is
moderate. The rise in the use of e-commerce underscores the concern about efficiency
gains in the coordination between sellers and buyers of organic produce.
Cooperation with suppliers
Respondents were asked whether they currently cooperate with suppliers by providing
them with different sorts of assistance in production and marketing. Numbers reported in
table 6 represent percentages of the respondent population for all possible answers for
each item.
3
The count of farms growing certified organic crops is obtained from the answers of respondents. Reports
are not verified with certifying organizations, thus this item may not match estimates from other sources.
20
Table 6. Cooperation with suppliers of organic produce
No Some Extensively
More than with
conventional growers
Yes No
Production planning 38% 31% 31% 67% 33%
Input purchases 53% 37% 10% 56% 44%
Technical field assistance 73% 10% 17% 44% 56%
Financial assistance 66% 21% 14% 55% 45%
Organic certification 59% 24% 17% N.A. N.A.
Production planning appears to be the most frequent and comprehensive mode of
cooperation with suppliers. Interestingly, the majority of respondents judge that
implementation of production planning is more important with organic growers than with
conventional growers. Organic produce handlers may undertake such cooperation to
reduce supply uncertainty and smooth out seasonal variations in production across
suppliers. Cooperation through input purchases seems less intense but relatively frequent.
The adoption of this type of cooperation as well as the importance of financial assistance
in the organic sector as stated by respondents may be attributed to the greater asset
specificity observed in organic production. Input purchases and financial assistance are
means to induce optimal investment in production in order to obtain organic produce with
specific attributes. Cooperation through technical field assistance and for certification is
not as widespread as other modes of cooperation.
Contracting
Respondents were asked whether they resort to contracts with suppliers to obtain some
kinds of guarantees on supply. The proportions of purchases carried out under contracting
at different points in time are reported in table 7.
Table 7. Percentage of produce purchases procured under some kind of contract
2001 2006 2011
Conventional produce 16.2% 18.2% 25.0%
Organic produce 33.0% 35.9% 50.1%
21
Contracting has been used more extensively with organic produce than conventional
produce among our sample of respondents. Currently, about one third of organic produce
purchases are done under some kind of contract. The use of contracts is also expected to
be greater for organic relative to conventional produce in the near future.
According to the NOFS in 2001, 86 % of vegetable products produced were priced at
delivery with no forward contract, while 14 % of products were sold under forward
contracts. The dominant form of arrangement for this product category is short-term
forward contract (season/year), entered at the beginning of the growing season or one
year ahead of delivery. 39 % of fruit, nut, and tree products were sold under forward
contracts. This proportion of contracting is consistent with our results. For this category,
contract forms mostly used are short-term forward contract (season/year) (14 %) and
long-term contract (more than one year or several years ahead) (16 %). The increasing
use of contracting may favor large suppliers who can guarantee to meet contract terms on
large volume with a consistent quantity and quality, year-round. To achieve these
objectives they may have to produce in different climatic regions and organize the
distribution efficiently.
4. Organic produce marketing
Expectations about demand for organic produce
Overall, organic produce handlers expect a strong increase in demand for USDA-certified
organic produce over the next five years. However, they expect the demand for certified-
sustainable and eco-labeled produce to remain stable in the near future.
Distribution of output among sales outlets
There exists a variety of sales outlets for organic produce supplied by middle handlers:
conventional grocery retail stores, natural foods supermarkets, foodservice
establishments, direct sales to consumers (farmers’ markets, Internet, etc.),
wholesaler/distributors, and food processors. Since retail stores and foodservice absorb
the great majority of general produce, table 8 reports the shares of organic produce sales
for these primary marketing outlets.
22
Table 8. Share of sales by sales outlet
Market Outlet Share of sales
Conventional grocery store 26.7%
Natural foods store 40.1%
Foodservice firm 11.0%
Other 20.7%
Organic and natural stores represent the largest sales outlet for organic produce handlers,
absorbing roughly 40% of sales. Conventional grocery retail accounts for more than one
fourth of the sales volume. Sales to foodservice firms are limited to about one tenth of the
sales volume. The rest of the organic produce is sold to other handlers (other wholesalers
for instance), food processors, and farmers’ markets.
Marketing constraints
Table 9 reports the average ratings given by organic produce handlers to various potential
sources of transaction costs in selling organic produce.
Table 9. Average rating of constraints in marketing organic produce
a
2001 2006
Merchandising support 1.8 1.8
Slotting/promotional fees 1.5 1.5
Trace-back demand 1.6 1.7
a
Rating is based on the following scale:
1 =no significant challenge 2 =some challenge 3 =substantial challenge
None of the three potential sources of transaction costs in table 9 received high ratings,
which indicates that they are not very challenging obstacles to marketing organic
produce. Merchandising support received the highest score for five years ago and the
current period. This result is consistent with the recent trend according to which retailers
are asking their suppliers to be more involved in category management, ad and promotion
planning, etc.
23
Consequences of the entry of mass merchandisers on supply chain structure
Respondents were asked to assess the impacts – potential and already observed – of the
entry of mass merchandisers on the organic produce supply chain and the environment in
which they operate. Table 10 reports the expressed opinions of respondents about several
potential consequences.
Respondents appraised the greater demand for organic produce and more intense
competition for access to suppliers as the most significant consequences of the entry of
mass merchandisers in the organic sector. The latter consequence is related to the
tendency of large retailers to use direct buying as the primary way to procure fresh
produce. Not surprisingly, organic produce handlers also anticipate sales to large retailers
to increase.
Significant prices premiums for organic produce have prevailed through the 1990’s and
early 2000’s (Oberholtzer, Dimitri, and Greene, 2005). Oberholtzer, Dimitri, and Greene
report that monthly market margins at the wholesale level were higher for organic
broccoli and carrots than for conventional equivalents over the period 2000-2004. For the
same period and the same commodities, organic price premiums were larger at the
wholesale level than at the farm level. For these commodities, price premiums have been
steady over the 2000-04 period.
Table 10. Impacts of mass merchandisers in the organic produce sector
Insignificant Some Significant
Lower margins for organic produce 42.4% 39.4% 18.2%
Greater demand for organic produce 9.4% 46.9% 43.8%
Increased competition for suppliers 25.0% 31.3% 43.8%
Increased selling to large retailers 12.9% 48.4% 38.7%
Respondents do not anticipate margins on organic produce to decrease significantly
following the entry of mass merchandisers in the organic segment. This expectation is
consistent with the fact that a significant part of the price premium for organic produce
comes from higher production and handling costs.
24
5. System-wide issues
Lastly, respondents assessed the relative importance of several supply-chain management
issues and their involvement in dealing with issues relevant to the organic produce supply
chain. These critical issues are some of the ones identified by retailers and
grower/shippers who participated in the FreshTrack 2001 study. For each issue,
respondents were asked to what extent they have invested resources to deal with that
issue. Values reported in table 11 are percentages of all answers for any item.
In the Freshtrack 2001 report, among the most critical issues identified by both
grower/shippers and retailers were food safety, quality specifications, vendor
partnerships, and produce traceability. According to our survey, critical issues for the
organic produce supply chain are HACCP standards, third-party certification, product
traceability, the management of the cold chain, and the specification of quality standards.
Almost half of the respondents agreed with the statement that quality specifications are
more important for organic produce than conventional ones.
Table 11. Supply chain issues
No Some Extensively
Is this issue more important
for organic produce?
No Same Yes
HACCP standards 31.0% 34.5% 34.5% 36.0% 48.0% 16.0%
Third-party certification 17.9% 42.9% 39.3% 12.0% 32.0% 56.0%
Product traceability 14.3% 42.9% 42.9% 28.0% 40.0% 32.0%
Cold chain maintenance 20.8% 45.8% 33.3% 25.0% 50.0% 25.0%
Quality specifications 14.3% 46.4% 39.3% 26.9% 26.9% 46.1%
Information sharing (EDI) 46.4% 35.7% 17.9% 42.3% 42.3% 15.4%
Demand forecasting 32.1% 46.4% 21.4% 36.0% 32.0% 32.0%
Category management 40.7% 48.2% 11.1% 38.5% 42.3% 19.2%
Returnable containers 53.6% 28.6% 17.9% 32.0% 48.0% 20.0%
Pallet bar coding 77.8% 22.2% 0.0% 47.8% 47.8% 4.4%
Cross-docking 33.3% 59.3% 7.4% 34.6% 46.2% 19.2%
25
Inventory turns 44.4% 51.9% 3.7% 40.0% 40.0% 20.0%
Vendor managed inventory 74.1% 22.2% 3.7% 56.0% 36.0% 8.0%
Automatic inventory
replenishment
85.2% 11.1% 3.7% 64.0% 32.0% 4.0%
It appears that there are other supply chain issues less important than the ones cited above
but for which some resources have been devoted to deal with them. These issues are
demand forecasting, category management, cross-docking, and inventory turns. These
issues reflect the current trends in the fresh produce industry where suppliers become
more involved in retail-store level category management and agents seek to reduce non-
adding-value costs in the supply chain.
6. Conclusion
The organic supply chain is dynamic. This study documents many of the recent changes
that have taken place within the system in terms of structure, conduct, and performance.
The actors within the supply chain have become more integrated and will likely continue
to do so. We expect to see more contracting, an increase in planning and distribution of
products, and a continued increase in the grower size and number of products distributors
are sourcing from them.
Many of the factors that are driving change in organic produce are connected with main
line produce. The movement toward wider distribution through mass markets, however,
will impact the organic supply chain specifically. Growers and distributors of organic
produce expect to see demand for organics increase even more, but distribution also to
become more challenging.
The organic supply chain is highly integrated with the conventional produce supply
chain, but it also exhibits certain distinguishing characteristics. The products are highly
specific, even more sensitive to quality, and involve the added dimension of identity
preservation through many handlers. The supply chain is going through rapid evolution
following the adoption of national quality and marketing standards, as well as the rising
concern for healthy products from consumers. It creates an important case study for
economists that are interested in better understanding integration, coordination, and
supply chain performance.
26
References
Barkema, A. and M. Drabenstott, 1995. “The Many Paths of Vertical Coordination:
Structural Implications for the U.S. Food System”, Agribusiness, 11, 483-492
Barkema, A., M. Drabenscott, and K. Welch, 1991. “The Quiet Revolution in the U.S.
Food Market.” Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, May/J une
1991, 25-37.
Boon, A., 1999. “Capabilities, Transaction Costs, and Vertical Coordination in the Food
System.” In: Vertical Relationships and Coordination in the Food System, G. Galizzi
and L. Venturini (eds.), Heilderberg: Physica-Verl.
Calvin, L., and R. Cook (coordinators), with M. Denbaly, C. Dimitri, L. Glaser, C.
Handy, M. J ekanovski, P. Kaufman, B. Krissof, G. Thompson, and S. Thornsbury,
2001. “U.S. Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Marketing: Emerging Trade Practices, Trends
and Issues.” U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Agriculture
Information Bulletin No. 795.
Coase, R.H., 1937. “The Nature of the Firm.” Economica, 4, 386-405.
Dimitri, C., and C. Greene, 2002. “Recent Growth Patterns in the U.S. Organic Foods
Market”, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Agriculture
Information Bulletin No. 777.
Fernandez-Cornejo, J ., C. Greene, R. Penn, and D. Newton, 1998. “Organic Vegetable
Production in the U.S.: Certified Growers and their Practices,” American J ournal of
Alternative Agriculture, 13(2), 69-78.
Greene, C., 2000. “Organic Labeling.” In: Economics of Food Labeling, by E. Golan, F.
Kuchler, and L. Mitchell with contributions from C. Greene and A. J essup, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Agricultural Economic
Report No. 793.
Greene, C., and A. Kremen, 2003. “U.S. Organic Farming in 2000-2001: Adoption of
Certified Systems”, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service,
Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 780.
Hobbs, J .E., 1996. “A Transaction Cost Approach to Supply Chain Management.”
Supply Chain Management, 1, 15-27.
Kaufman, P.R., C.R. Handy, E.W. McLaughlin, K. Park, and G.M. Green, 2000.
“Understanding the Dynamics of Produce Markets: Consumption and Consolidation
Grow.” U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Agriculture
Information Bulletin No. 758.
Klonsky, K., and C. Greene, 2005. “Widespread Adoption of Organic Agriculture in the
U.S.: Are Market-Driven Policies Enough?” Selected Paper for the American
Agricultural Economics Association Meeting 2005, Providence, Rhode Island.
Krissof, B., 1998. “Emergence of U.S. Organic Agriculture – Can We Compete?
Discussion.” American J ournal of Agricultural Economics, 80(5):1130-1133.
27
MacInnis, B., 2004. “Transaction Costs and Organic Marketing: Evidence from U.S.
Organic Produce Farmers.” Selected Paper for the American Agricultural Economics
Association Meeting 2004, Denver, Colorado.
Mighell, R.L., and L.A. J ones, 1963. Vertical Coordination in Agriculture, Washington,
D.C.: USDA-ERS-19.
Oberholtzer, L., C. Dimitri, and C. Greene, 2005. “Price Premiums Hold on as U.S.
Organic Produce Market Expands.” U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic
Research Service, Electronic Outlook Report VGS-308-01, May 2005.
Perosio, D.J ., E.W. McLaughlin, S. Cuellar, and K. Park, 2001. “Supply Chain
Management in the Produce Industry.” FreshTrack 2001, Cornell University, Ithaca,
New York, and Produce Marketing Association, Newark, Delaware.
Organic Trade Association, 2004. Manufacturer Survey.
Park, T.A., and L. Lohr, 1996. “Supply and Demand Factors for Organic Produce.”
American J ournal of Agricultural Economics, 78(3), 647-645.
Red Book Credit Service, 2006. “Marketing and Credit Services for Produce Industry
Suppliers”, March edition, Vance Publishing Company.
Richardson, G.B., 1972. “The Organization of Industry.” Economic J ournal, 82, 883-896.
Streeter, D.H., S.T. Sonka, and M.A. Hudson. 1991. “Information Technology,
Coordination, and Competitiveness in the Food and Agribusiness Sector.” American
J ournal of Agricultural Economics, 73(5):1465-1471.
The Food Institute, 2005. “Natural Products Shoppers Buy More, But Shop in Fewer
Places.” The Food Institute Report, August 8, 2005
Thompson, G.D., 1998. “Consumer Demand for Organic Foods: What We Know and
What We Need to Know.” American J ournal of Agricultural Economics, 80(5), 1113-
1118.
Walz, E., 2004. “Final Results of the Fourth National Organic Farmers’ Survey:
Sustaining Organic Farms in a Changing Organic Marketplace.” Organic Farming
Research Foundation, Santa Cruz, California. Available at, www.ofrf.org/publications/
survey/index.html/.
Wells, J .R., and T. Haglock, 2005. “Whole Foods Market, Inc.”, Harvard Business
School Case 9-705-476.
Williamson, O.E., 2000. “The New Institutional Economics: Taking Stock, Looking
Ahead.” J ournal of Economic Literature, 38(September 2000), 595-613.
U.S. Department of Agriculture 2002 Census of Agriculture, National Agricultural
Statistics Service, Volume 1, Chapter 1, U.S. National Level Data.
doc_706548091.pdf