365体育网站

Zero Hunger

Living Edition
| Editors: Walter Leal Filho, Anabela Marisa Azul, Luciana Brandli, Pinar Gökcin Özuyar, Tony Wall

Agricultural Value Chain for Food Security: Challenges and Opportunities from SDG2

  • Valeria BorsellinoEmail author
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69626-3_7-1
  • 50 Downloads

Definition

An agricultural value chain can be defined as the full range of linked activities and a set of participants which bring a basic agricultural product from its raw material stage in the field through the different phases of production to final consumption or the final disposal after use, where value has been added to the product at each stage (adapted from Kaplinsky and Morris 2000; KPMG International 2013). These different phases of production include the development and dissemination of plant and animal genetic material, input supply, farmer organization, farm production, post-harvest handling, processing, the provision of the technologies of production and handling, grading criteria and facilities, cooling and packing technologies, post-harvest local processing, industrial processing, storage, transport, finance, and feedback from markets.

Introduction

365体育网站The objective of this text is to provide non-economists with an analytical tool by which to understand various aspects of how contemporary agriculture and agribusiness systems function. It will begin by outlining Porter’s value chain paradigm and Porter’s value system. Thereafter, there will follow an overview of the meaning of agricultural value chain (AVC) and its main features.

Background

Although there are many definitions of AVCs, value chains essentially comprise firms in which different producers and marketing companies work to pursue one or more end markets. This concept reflects major changes which have occurred in market conditions from the demand side (as global markets have become increasingly demanding of variety and quality) and from the supply side (where firms have increasingly concentrated on their core competences) (Kaplinsky and Morris 2000).

Porter’s Value Chain

The term value chain was first used by Michael Porter (1985) to reflect the value-adding character of business processes within the confines of a company. Porter’s value chain scheme is considered by many to be a useful tool for identifying how the functional components of a company provide value and margins for a business, that is to say, how a company can achieve a competitive advantage by adding value from within its organization. Indeed, the value chain considers a company as a system of value-generating activities, the latter intended as the price which the consumer is willing to pay for a given product, which fully satisfies their needs.

The value chain can be represented by an interdependent system of value-generating activities, which are connected by links and a margin (Fig. 1). Through these various activities, the company adds value to products and services for its customers. Value added may be related to quality, costs, delivery times, delivery flexibility, innovativeness, etc. The size of the value added is determined by the end customer’s willingness to pay. The margin implies that the company is able to offer a product or service for which customers are willing to pay a greater amount of money than the sum of the costs related to all activities encompassed within the value chain. In short, the margin is the value created by the combination of activities, which is net of the costs necessary to achieve that margin. Opportunities for a company to add value depend on a number of factors, such as market characteristics (size and diversity of markets) and the technological capabilities of the participants.
Fig. 1

Porter’s generic value chain (Porter 1985)

Porter’s value chain model distinguishes between primary activities and support activities. The former involves the physical creation of the product and its sale and delivery to customers, including support services. They comprise:
  • 365体育网站Inbound logistics – activities related to receiving, storing, and the handling of the inputs internally (the management of materials, the storage, stock control, the scheduling of deliveries)

  • Operations – activities associated with the transformation of the inputs into finished products (production, assembly, packaging, maintenance, and plant control)

  • 365体育网站Outbound logistics – activities connected with the collection, storage, and distribution of the product to the buyers (the storage of finished products, the management of materials, the processing of orders)

  • Marketing and sales – activities related to the methods chosen to make goods available to buyers and those to motivate them to purchase (advertising, promotion, sales force management, selection and management of distribution channels, price determination)

  • Service – activities associated with providing a service to improve or maintain the value of the product after sale (installations, repairs, supply of spare parts)

Each of these primary activities is linked to support activities, which assist in improving the effectiveness or efficiency of primary activities. These support activities include:
  • Procurement – referring to the purchase function and not to the single purchased inputs. Input purchases affect each primary and support activity.

  • Technology development – activities identifiable as efforts to improve products and processes. Technology development365体育网站 is here understood in broader terms than the traditional definition of R&D: it ranges from basic research and product design to the design of industrial plants, and it affects the entire company.

  • Human resource management – including the selection, training, development, and remuneration of employees to support the individual primary and support activities and the entire value chain.

  • Firm infrastructure – a set of activities supporting the entire value chain (finance, accounting, planning systems, quality management, information systems).

The dashed line in Fig. 1365体育网站 indicates that the support activities may be associated with specific primary activities, as well as supporting the entire value chain.

The value chain cannot be said to be a simple collection of independent activities, but an interdependent system of activities. Its value does depend not only on the ability to perform a given activity but also on its ability to manage links between the activities. This is of particular importance when the method used to perform an activity influences the cost or the effectiveness of another activity. An example of this is the degree to which materials, purchased by a company and being easy to assemble with positive effects on production costs, conform to standards. Links can exist between primary and support activities, or between different primary activities. Each value chain is unique and contains a unique combination of links.

Porter’s Value System

It is quite unusual in many industries for a single company to perform all activities in-house, that is, from product design to component production and final assembly to delivery to the final user. The activities encompassed in a value chain can be contained within a single firm or, more often, divided among different firms; they can also be contained within a single geographical location or spread over wider areas. Organizations are typically elements of a value system (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2

Porter’s value system (Porter 1985)

The achievement and sustainability of competitive advantage depend not only on the efficient implementation of the value chain of a company but also on how the company fits into the overall value system. Value chains are invariably complex, involving numerous interlinked activities and industries with multiple types of firms operating in different regions of one country or in different countries around the globe.

In a context of increasing interdependence and interconnection in the global economy, activity management – and their links – by a company within the system can have a strong impact on the performance of other companies belonging to the same system. Ultimately, value chains are a means with which to understand interactions between people and firms with markets, the latter which transfer or exchange products, money, knowledge, and information. As products move successively through the various stages of the chain, transactions occur between multiple chain stakeholders, thereby progressively adding value and costs (Da Silva and De Suza Filho 2007).

Primary participants in value chains perform a selection of functions which typically include input supply, production, processing, storage, wholesale (including export), retail, and consumption. Secondary participants perform service roles supporting primary functions, such as transportation, brokerage, and service processing. Other entities have important roles in supporting the chain, and these include banks, governments, and agricultural research organizations. These entities are macroeconomic conditions, policies, laws, standards, regulations, and institutional support services from the enabling environment (the general setting in which companies are created and operate); they profoundly affect the competitiveness and the performance of any value chain. Figure 3 illustrates these relationships within a generic value chain.
Fig. 3

A generic value chain. (Source: UNIDO 2009)

A condition of an effective value chain is for people at different stages of the chain to actively support each other. When there is mutual support in the chain, the individuals involved can perform their job more efficiently to the benefit of the livelihoods of all those concerned. Ideally, all stakeholders along a specific value chain will cooperate and coordinate their activities, sharing the common goal of increasing their own profits by satisfying consumer demand. Thus, there results a system of firms, which are interacting with each other in order to positively impact each other’s performance (Bigliardi and Bottani 2010). Firms within each stage seek to offer maximum value to their customers and to improve company performance while obtaining a competitive advantage from their inclusion in the value chain (Bourlakis et al. 2012; Ketchen et al. 2008). All those involved in a value chain add value as the product moves from the beginning of the chain toward the consumer. In exchange for adding this value, all participants receive economic remuneration, which is the main benefit or incentive for participating in a value chain. Consequently, value creation does not occur in isolation but rather within a value chain system where companies can operate most efficiently as members of that chain. Within the whole value system, there is only one certain value of profit margin available. This is the difference between the final price paid by the customer and the sum of all costs incurred with the production and delivery of the product/service (e.g., raw material, energy, etc.). This profit margin depends on the structure of the value system and how this margin spreads across suppliers, producers, distributors, customers, and other elements in the value system. Each member of the system will use its market position and negotiating power to obtain a higher proportion of this margin. Nevertheless, members of a value system can cooperate to improve their efficiency and to reduce their costs in order to achieve a higher total margin, to the benefit of all.

Agricultural Value Chain Framework

Historically, the agriculture sector has been a commodity-oriented industry, and thus farms producing homogeneous products may not necessarily have needed to focus on creating value in the past. The evolution of consumer demand for safe, high-quality, and convenient products, as well as technological advances and increased competition worldwide, has necessitated the production of differentiated products. Therefore, the introduction of value-adding activities has permitted farms, and subsequently agribusiness firms, to meet consumers’ expectations by offering high-quality and differentiated products (Alexander and Goodhue 1999; Coltrain et al. 2000; Streeter et al. 1991). Value creation (or value adding) in agribusiness occurs when a firm changes a product’s current place, time, and form to more preferable characteristics in the marketplace (Anderson and Hanselka 2009; Coltrain et al. 2000). Coltrain et al. (2000) have provided a more specific definition by giving an example of value adding in agriculture: “to economically add value to an agricultural product (such as wheat) by processing it into a product (such as flour) desired by customers (such as bread bakers).”

AVCs encompass activities which take place on the farm as well as in rural settlements and urban areas (Da Silva and De Suza Filho 2007). A typical AVC is characterized with the producers at one end of the chain, i.e., the farmers who grow crops and raise animals, and the consumers, who consume (eat, drink, wear, and use) the final products, are located at the other end of the chain. In the middle, an AVC may well encompass many thousands of people and small and large businesses; each person and each business add value along the chain and make different contributions at different stages of the chain. The latter range the supply of input factors (such as seeds, irrigation equipment, pesticides, fertilizers, agricultural machinery, irrigation equipment and manufacturing facilities, land) to primary production; they continue with various downstream processes related to handling, storage, processing, packaging, trading, distribution, and sales activities (KPMG International 2013) (Fig. 4). Other elements, such as power generation, logistics, etc., which form the chain environment, are also important factors affecting the performance of value chains.
Fig. 4

A generic agricultural value chain. (Source: KPMG International 2013)

As Fig. 4 demonstrates, this generic sector above has enormously diverse stages, ranging from R&D-based input companies to generic manufacturers, subsistence farmers to high-tech agro-holdings, biotech boutiques, and small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to multinational corporations.

Dynamics Along the Agricultural Value Chain

An AVC can be highly complex, involving a whole constellation of activities moving food and fiber from the point of production to that of consumption. As such, it reflects the increasing complexity of modern consumer demand: as consumer income rises, so does the demand for higher-quality and premium products with accompanying features (Sexton 2013), leading to a greater potential to add value to raw commodities.

Urbanization, the emergence of modern consumption patterns, and new trends in international trade have modified consumer demand, impacting the different stages along the AVC to spill over to marketing and production systems (Höffler and Maingi 2005). Greater differentiation and value-adding over time have dramatically altered the price spread or marketing bill between the farm value of products and their retail value. Thus, a significantly greater percentage of the final price paid by consumers over the last 20 years has been garnered down-chain rather than up-chain (Cucagna and Goldsmith 2018).

In order to specify the various dynamics of a given AVC, it has been split into five main stages (inputs, production, trade, processing, and retail), and these can be easily identified along the AVC. Each stage will now be described, together with its features and different contributions to the value creation process.
  • Stage 1 Inputs. The input sector spans a wide variety of product segments, which boosts the genetic potential of crops and animals. It has several roles: it provides them with nutrition; it protects crops and animals against disease, pests, and weeds; it improves the efficiency of growing and harvesting; and it provides financial and insurance services to farmers. Firms in this sector (biotechnological, agro-chemical and fertilizer, animal health, animal breeding, and farm equipment companies) supply agricultural products and services to farmers, their primary customers. In general, this stage of the value chain has fared well over recent years, benefiting from the high price paid to crop and farmer incomes and taking advantage of the new opportunities offered by biotechnology (KPMG International 2013). Indeed, most of the value created by this sector is captured by agricultural producers (Demont et al. 2007). Effective intellectual property development in seed and equipment markets may allow input suppliers to establish internationally recognized brands, thereby reflecting highly differentiated products and, thus, gaining higher shares of added value.

  • Stage 2 Production. Firms in this stage, targeting mainly food processors and manufacturers, are involved in the production of raw materials. The sector is extremely diverse; it is typically characterized by low-profit margins, elevated price dependence on transactions, and a low level of product differentiation. An increasing number of structural changes have taken place within this stage in recent years, leading to a decline in the number of the farms albeit with an increase in their size (Boehlje et al. 2011). This has caused larger farms to benefit from economies of scale economies (Humphrey and Memedovic 2006; Lobao and Meyer 2001); to perform higher, value-added activities, which are capable of capturing a greater proportion of the consumer’s willingness to pay (Born and Bachmann 2006; Kampen 2011); and to deploy an increased degree of vertical coordination (contractual arrangements, or vertical integration) in order to improve farm efficiency and thus create more value for customers (Hendrikse and Bijman 2002; Sporleder 2006). This AVC stage constitutes the riskiest activity in the value chain, subject as it is to the vagaries of weather (amplified by global warming) and market volatility; however, in favorable years it is also potentially the most profitable. Having been conceived of something akin to a backwater business during the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, farming is now an attractive growth industry, which is being reinvigorated by new technology and concerns over food security.

  • Stage 3 Trade. Traders occupy a pivotal position in the AVC; their performance can be seen as indicative of the whole AVC. There are many shapes and forms of business portfolios, geographic presence, degree of vertical integration, and ownership; some also conduct significant food processing operations. Traders play a vital role in emerging markets where infrastructure investment is required to meet growing food production and demand. Traders could also play a vital role in facilitating changes in supply and demand, leading toward very different productive patterns from those current.

  • Stage 4 Processing. This stage comprises food processing and manufacturing companies, including beverage, breweries, wineries, and packaged food companies. Companies at this stage focus on transforming commodities into higher-quality products and manufacturing more branded and differentiated products; this is effected in order to achieve a competitive advantage, and thus economic value can be added to raw commodities (Omidvar et al. 2006). Much of the added value in the food chain occurs at this stage, and margins are commonly in the range of 10–20% (KPMG International 2013). Within the processing sector, there are companies whose size varies from large multinationals to SMEs. Modern food systems also involve long and complex supply chains, and processing and manufacturing firms must, therefore, meet the needs of buyers in terms of ingredient traceability, new product development, extending shelf life, health and wellness, and efficiently promoting their products. These processes may also significantly alter the appearance, storage life, nutritional value, and content of the raw materials (Gopinath et al. 1996). Various forces (such as increasing concern over costs, price volatility, security of supply, and traceability) are compelling companies toward creating ever-closer links with suppliers.

  • Stage 5 Retail. The final stage of the AVC serves the consumer by selling and marketing products to consumers through distribution and grocery retail and also providing Horeca services. Similar to the previous four stages of the agro-food value chain, retailers can vary extensively in characteristics, size, and format. They wield growing market power as a consequence of the increasing concentration and consolidation in the sector (Humphrey and Memedovic 2006; Viaene and Gellynck 1995). Retailer penetration varies markedly by region, with developed markets being almost saturated, with the top five retailers commonly accounting for around 80% of food sales; in the more developed, emerging markets penetration is well over 50%; and it is only just beginning to take off in the least developed markets, concomitant with GDP growth and urbanization. Depending on the product type, retailers may source products from any of Stages 2, 3, and 4 in the AVC (processing companies, traders, and farmers). For example, in order to capture more of the value created along the chain, retail firms have developed upstream integration through branded food manufacturing and private label production, thereby modifying the relationship between Stages 4 and 5 (Burch and Lawrence 2005365体育网站). As the primary interface with consumers, retailers can play a significant role in influencing them, especially in matters concerning healthy eating and sustainability, and this is in addition to responding to consumer preferences.

AVCs can vary widely, ranging from local businesses to global value chains. The degree of AVC formulization is also wide-ranging as are the contexts in which they are located and their terms of trade. For example, value chains may be less formulized, facilitated by local traders, partner relations/relationships of kin, and other social networks; they are often of greater importance for small-scale producers. The following structural factors tend to disadvantage smaller producers, as compared to their suppliers and buyers:
  • 365体育网站An asymmetry of access to information, know-how, finance, and commercial relationships

  • A disequilibria of power, deriving from a concentration of agricultural activity upstream or downstream

  • 365体育网站A differentiated capacity by actors in the value chain to influence public policies and to respond to fluctuations in the market

Moreover, the distribution of power in the value chain can vary markedly. Taking a broad sweep of possible configurations, it is possible to distinguish two types of models: those driven by the buyer and those driven by the producer. In the former, the downstream transformers and distributors mainly model the way in which the value chain functions, having considerable power to fix prices. In the latter, the farmers exercise far greater negotiating power and autonomy (Gereffi 1994). This framework is further complicated by the fact that nowadays AVCs are principally brokered by a series of intermediaries. The terms of trade of AVCs are, therefore, a function of the relations not only between producers and downstream buyers but also layers of traders and intermediaries (Vorley and Thorpe 2014).

Long-term analyses for low- to medium-income countries have indicated that the final buyers (e.g., large retailers) captured an increasing quantity of the value of various commodities for the period 1996–2015; however, the value captured by workers and producers diminished in the same period (Alliot et al. 2017). Concerns have also been raised regarding the biased acquisition of value relating to AVCs, as driven by supermarkets (GRAIN 2018; Oxfam International 2018). And, for some time now, the substantial acquisition of value by local traders and intermediaries working in the more informal AVCs has also been documented (IICA 2014; Quiroz Estrada 2017). These effects can be partially connected to the structural components of AVCs. Beyond the asymmetries of AVC actors to information, know-how, financial, and commercial connections, downstream and upstream oligopolistic and on occasion monopolistic conditions probably tend to reinforce the power of the market exercised by farmers’ suppliers and buyers (De Schutter 2010; UNCTAD 2016; Alliot et al. 2017365体育网站). This stands in opposition to the typical fragmentation of primary production, and it includes a concentration of production and commercialization of agricultural inputs (e.g., seeds and fertilizers) and the transformation and distribution of agricultural commodities.

However, juxtaposed to such “modern” AVCs, there exist important local and regional markets and “informal” AVCs in low-medium-income countries; this is a result of many small farmers selling their products local via traders and intermediaries (Vorley et al. 2012).

Challenges and Opportunities Along the Agricultural Value Chain

“Agriculture continues to be a fundamental instrument for sustainable development and poverty reduction” (World Bank 2008365体育网站). It is widely recognized that primary agriculture and its associated upstream and downstream industries represent the largest employment sector in the world. It thereby supports economic growth across emerging markets. In addition, the sector underpins both domestic and international food security by reducing post-harvest losses and by extending the shelf life of food and fiber, of interest to rapidly growing urban populations.

Since they link urban consumption with rural production, AVCs can be viewed as a means of further expanding the leading role played by agriculture in economic growth. By integrating natural sources of supply with the dynamics of food and fiber demand, AVC development can have a positive impact on employment in rural and urban areas (off-farm processing and income diversification) by offering market access to smallholders and creating business links to small and medium enterprises (SMEs).

365体育网站Furthermore, an efficient AVC can play a key role in reducing poverty in the developing world by linking producers, particularly smallholders and small and medium enterprises (SMEs), to markets.

However, in order to participate successfully in an AVC, producers in developing countries must cope with numerous challenges and constraints such as intense competition due to the globalization of economies and the liberalization of markets; the impact which the governance of international supermarkets, retailers, and buyers has on access to markets; the growing demand for high-quality, organic, minimally processed products; the emphasis on traceability and social responsibility; the increasing risk of marginalization faced by areas lacking institutional and infrastructural support; and the presence of small farms (UNIDO 2009). Specifically, small-scale producers in the AVC are often at a disadvantage because they are merely able to make low capital investments, they tend to use traditional techniques, they often depend on family labor, and they may lack contact with (international) market players and efficient and effective coordination in the AVC (De Janvry and Sadoulet 2005; Daviron and Gibbon 2002; Reardon et al. 2004). Promoting market linkages in developing countries is often referred to by the expression inclusive value chains365体育网站, that is, identifying possible ways by which small-scale farmers can be incorporated into existing or new AVCs or by which they can extract greater value. The latter may be possible either by increasing efficiency or by also performing activities further along the chain. There are different ways of linking producers into the AVCs: some AVCs are fully integrated to the exclusion of smallholders. For example, Unilever operates tea estates and tea processing facilities in Kenya, after which it blends and packs the tea in Europe prior to selling it under the Lipton or other global brands. However, the vast majority of AVCs involve sales to agri-food companies from independent farmers.

The definition of inclusion within the ambit of AVCs can be imprecise as it is often unclear whether the development aim is to obtain supply from all farmers (thereby maximizing farmers’ access to market opportunities) or only those most capable of taking advantage of the opportunities offered by such inclusion (Shepherd 2016). Recent developments in production and marketing systems do not automatically benefit small-scale farmers, and considerable effort is required to achieve positive results for this group. Notwithstanding this, not all farmers can be included in a given AVC for reasons such as farmers’ location, farm size and natural resources, capacity to meet increasingly strict product standards, and their aversion to risk.

Interventions for including small farmers into formal AVCs tend to aggregate those farmers with greater resources, information, and connections; those with a more entrepreneurial spirit and more market-oriented enjoy an enhanced degree of competitivity (Vorley et al. 2012). Integrating elite farmers into formal AVCs can have positive and negative effects on other local, subsistence strategies. Examples include the creating of employment opportunities on small farms or the polluting of water sources (Wiggins and Keats 2014). In such conditions, integrating into AVCs does not automatically produce the desired benefits for small-scale producers; they may be uniformly distributed and can entail a degree of risk. Indeed, integrating into modern AVCs can expose small-scale producers and their rural community to risks and a significant degree of exploitation.

In order to consolidate operational models, thereby encouraging the poorest farmers and to facilitate the participation of small-scale farmers in the market, it is necessary to sustainably increase their productivity and fairly integrate small-scale farmers into AVCs by means of the improved opportunities of commercialization. Of great importance is the limiting of losses incurred during and after the harvest, following the channels of production, distribution, and consumption. If food wastage in developed countries is mainly concentrated at the end of the chain of value creation (as, e.g., is the case with supermarkets, restaurants, national economics), such wastage would occur beforehand along the length of the chain. In addition to a lack of access to the market, the reasons for waste food are connected with methods of inefficient harvesting, processing, and storage (Gustavsson et al. 2011).

365体育网站In addition, globalization also brings other challenges, such as the need to improve food quality and standards. The latter are driven by lead buyers (i.e., supermarkets requiring food product traceability); other standards regard statutory hygiene standards in importing countries and, increasingly, fair trade and organic demands by final consumers. The challenge of standards lies in achieving them (to allow market access) without excluding the poorer farmers from the value chain.

Agriculture is also becoming increasingly multi-functional: it contributes to rural development and provides amenities and “ecosystem services.” Whereas the primary purpose of agriculture firstly, and agribusiness secondly, was to provide food, feed, and fiber, the AVC is now required to enhance economic growth sustainably and not be based on the overexploitation of natural resources. Stakeholders demand that suppliers, producers, processors, buyers, and consumers reduce their negative social, economic, and environmental impact by using less energy and water and decrease waste and CO2365体育网站 emissions. Contemporaneously, the aforementioned should also treat waste, promote fair trade business practices, and/or adopt appropriate quality, safety, and other standards of corporate social responsibility.

Conclusions

The challenges to modern agriculture are immense. The United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goal 2 (SDG2) calls for the world to reconsider how food is grown and shared, its contents, and end consumer. All individuals along the AVC (farmers, producers, traders, retailers, investors, and consumers) can play a role in addressing the scourge of hunger and in establishing sustainable agri-food systems to advance food security, protect the environment, and ensure economic opportunities.

Food security and sustainable agriculture are of direct relevance to the agri-food sector, the latter which accounts for a significant component of the global economy. Indeed, although poor countries tend to be more reliant on farming activities, food production and consumption are fundamental to every economy, and they permeate every economy. “In food – the way it is grown, produced, consumed, traded, transported, stored and marketed – lies the fundamental connection between people and the planet, and the path to inclusive and sustainable economic growth” (FAO 2015). Hunger and malnutrition endanger not only individuals’ health (more than 820 million people in the world go hungry in the twenty-first century, according to FAO 2019) but also fundamentally the development of entire countries. It is critical to act to ensure that everyone enjoys food security, which is sufficient in quantity and quality. Within this framework, it is of paramount importance to value the length of the AVC, departing from the production field of foodstuffs, storage, their processing, markets, sale, and transport, after which they arrive on the tables of consumers.

SDG2 calls for all businesses, be they large or small, along an AVC to transform current food and agriculture systems to render them sustainable, resilient, and inclusive. One reply of the agri-food sector could be to reconsider its approach to its value chain, shifting the focus from global value chains to local and regional markets. Thus, this sector would encourage diversified production and improve access to healthy food, thereby improving a country’s nutrition. SDG2 calls for all businesses to ponder how their strategies, innovation, and products can address hunger, nutrition, food security, and sustainable agriculture by delivering access to healthy and nutritious foodstuffs, assist in creating livelihoods for small-scale producers and processors, and help protect ecosystems and combat climate change. The aim of conducting of responsible agri-businesses is not only to promote biodiversity-friendly production and sustainable harvesting but also to improve resilience to environmental hazards and resource scarcity across business operations and supply chains. This would also include investing in environmental protection and risk management. Many believe that agri-food businesses should reformulate their products to increase the proportion of nutritious ingredients to the detriment of empty calories, increase the performance and diversity of their supply chains, improve packaging to reduce food waste, and consider how to drive consumer demand. Many also believe that no new inventions are required but new ways of thinking about acting in different but effective and collaborative ways.

365体育网站In conclusion, transforming the agri-food system is the key to satisfying the demands of the SDG2. Throughout the AVC, from inputs and production through to food processing, logistics, retail, and disposal, every actor is a critical partner in designing and delivering effective, scalable, and practical solutions for food security and sustainable agriculture. The key to satisfying the SDG2 is not to produce more food but to adopt a more responsible attitude regarding the production, sharing, and consumption of food on a global scale.

Cross-References

References

  1. Alexander CE, Goodhue RE (1999) Production systems competition and the pricing of innovations: an application to biotechnology and seed corn. Prepared for 1999 Annual meeting, August 8–11, Nashville, TN 21646, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association). Available at: 
  2. Alliot M, Cortin M, Ly S, Feige-Muller M, Segré H (2017) Distribution of value and power in food value chains. Oxfam, Oxford
  3. Anderson DP, Hanselka D (2009) Adding value to agricultural products. Texas FARMER collection. Retrieved at:
  4. Bigliardi B, Bottani E (2010) Performance measurement in the food supply chain: a balanced scorecard approach. Facilities 28(5/6):249–260.  
  5. Boehlje M, Roucan-Kane M, Bröring S (2011) Future agribusiness challenges: strategic uncertainty, innovation and structural change. Int Food Agribus Manag Rev 14(5):53–82
  6. Born H, Bachmann J (2006) Adding value to farm products: an overview. National Center For Appropriate Technology. Retrieved at:
  7. Bourlakis M, Maglaras G, Fotopoulos C (2012) Creating a “best value supply chain”? Empirical evidence from the Greek food chain. Int J Logist Manag 23(3):360–382
  8. Burch D, Lawrence G (2005) Supermarket own brands, supply chains and the transformation of the agri-food system. Int J Soc Agric Food 13(1):1–18
  9. Coltrain D, Barton D, Boland M (2000) Value added: opportunities and strategies. Arthur Capper Cooperative Center, Department of Agricultural Economics, Cooperative Extension Service, Kansas State University, Agricultural Economics, 305 Waters Hall, Manhattan KS 66506
  10. Cucagna ME, Goldsmith PD (2018) Value adding in the agri-food value chain. Int Food Agribus Manag Rev 21(3):293–316
  11. Da Silva CA, De Souza Filho HM (2007) Guidelines for rapid appraisals of agrifood chain performance in developing countries. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome
  12. Daviron B, Gibbon P (2002) Global commodity chains and African export agriculture. J Agrar Chang 2(2): 137–161
  13. De Janvry A, Sadoulet E (2005) Achieving success in rural development: toward implementation of an integral approach. Agric Econ 32(s1):75–89
  14. De Schutter O (2010) Addressing concentration in food supply chains. The role of competition law in tackling the abuse of buyer power. UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food. Briefing Note 3
  15. Demont M, Dillen K, Mathijs E, Tollens E (2007) GM crops in Europe: how much value and for whom? EuroChoices 6(3):46–53
  16. FAO (2015) FAO and the 17 sustainable development goals. Rome, FAO. Retrieved at:
  17. FAO (2019) The state of food security and nutrition in the world 2019. Safeguarding against economic slowdowns and downturns. FAO, Rome
  18. Gereffi G (1994) The Organization of Buyer-Driven Global Commodity Chains: How U.S. Retailers Shape Overseas Production Networks. In: Gereffi, G and Korzeniewicz, M (eds) Commodity Chains and Global Capitalism. Praeger, Westport
  19. Gopinath M, Roe TL, Shane MD (1996) Competitiveness of US food processing: benefits from primary agriculture. Am J Agric Econ 78(4):1044–1055
  20. GRAIN (2018) Supermarkets out of Africa! Food systems across the continent are doing just fine without them. GRAIN, Girona
  21. Gustavsson J, Cederberg C, Sonesson U, Van Otterdijk R, Meybeck A (2011) Global food losses and food waste. FAO, Rome, pp 1–38
  22. Hendrikse G, Bijman J (2002) Ownership structure in agrifood chains: the marketing cooperative. Am J Agric Econ 84(1):104–119
  23. Höffler H, Maingi G (2005) Promotion of private sector development in agriculture (PSDA). GTZ – German Technical Cooperation, Nairobi
  24. Humphrey J, Memedovic O (2006) Global value chains in the agrifood sector. Retrieved at:
  25. IICA (2014) Cadenas de Valor de Maíz Blanco y Frijol en Centroamérica. Actores, Problemas y Acciones para su Competitividad. Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture, San José
  26. Kampen K (2011) Financial analysis of three value-added dairy enterprises in Vermont, Wisconsin, and New York. PhD thesis. California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA, USA
  27. Kaplinsky R, Morris M (2000) A handbook for value chain research, vol 113. University of Sussex, Institute of Development Studies, Sussex
  28. Ketchen Jr, DJ, Rebarick W, Hult GTM, Meyer D (2008) Best value supply chains: a key competitive weapon for the 21st century. Business Horizons 51(3):235–243
  29. KPMG International (2013) The agricultural and food value chain: entering a new era of cooperation. London. Retrieved at:
  30. Lobao L, Meyer K (2001) The great agricultural transition: crisis, change, and social consequences of twentieth century US farming. Annu Rev Sociol 27:103–124
  31. Omidvar V, Brewin DG, Carlberg JG (2006) Meat processing in North America: successes, failures and opportunities. In: Southern agricultural economics association annual meeting. Orlando. Retrieved at:
  32. Oxfam International (2018) In: Willoughby R, Gore T (eds) Ripe for change: ending human suffering in supermarket supply chains. Oxfam International, Oxford
  33. Porter ME (1985) Competitive advantage. The Free Press, New York
  34. Quiroz Estrada V (2017) Productive development challenges in the rural areas of Central America and the Dominican Republic. In: Padilla Pérez R (ed) Rural industrial policy and strengthening value chains. Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), Santiago
  35. Reardon T, Timmer P, Berdegue J (2004) The rapid rise of supermarkets in developing countries: induced organizational, institutional and technological change. Agrifood Syst 1(2):168–183
  36. Sexton RJ (2013) Market power, misconceptions, and modern agricultural markets. Am J Agric Econ 95(2):209–219
  37. Shepherd A (2016) Including small-scale farmers in profitable value chains. Review of case studies on factors influencing successful inclusion of small farmers in modern value chains in ACP countries. Wageningen, Netherlands: CTA Publishing. ISBN: 978-92-9081-607-2
  38. Sporleder T (2006) Strategic alliances and networks in supply chains: knowledge management, learning and performance measurement. Quantifying Agri-Food Supply Chain 15:161–171
  39. Streeter DH, Sonka ST, Hudson MA (1991) Information technology, coordination, and competitiveness in the food and agribusiness sector. Am J Agric Econ 73(5):1465–1471
  40. UNCTAD (2016) Agricultural commodity value chains: the effects of market concentration on farmers and producing countries – the case of cocoa. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, Geneva
  41. UNIDO (United Nations Industrial Development Organization) (2009) Agro-value chain analysis and development. The UNIDO Approach, Vienna. Retrieved at:
  42. Viaene J, Gellynck X (1995) Structure, conduct and performance of the European food sector. Eur Rev Agric Econ 22(3):282–295
  43. Vorley B, Thorpe J (2014) Success factors for lead firms to shape inclusive procurement. International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), London. ISBN 978-1-78431-080-6
  44. Vorley B, del Pozo-Vergnes E, Barnett A (2012) Small producer agency in the globalised market: making choices in a changing world. IIED, London, p 75
  45. Wiggins S, Keats S (2014) Smallholder engagement with the private sector. EPS peaks topic guide. ODI, London
  46. World Bank (2008) World development report 2008: agriculture for development. The World Bank, Washington, DC. Retrieved at:

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Agricultural, Food and Forest SciencesUniversità degli Studi di PalermoPalermoItaly

Section editors and affiliations

  • Mohammad Sadegh Allahyari
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Agricultural ManagementRasht Branch, Islamic Azad UniversityRashtIran