Results of case study “Integration of sustainability aspects in a regional pig and pork production chain”
The main initiator of the innovation activity is an agricultural producer association in which farmers within a region have joined together. In the framework of the producer association pigs, cows, geese and lambs are produced and marketed. The case study observation focused on pork products. The aim of the pilot activities is to create innovations in the following areas:
- Integration of qualitative production criteria in existing production processes on the farm level, based on trust characteristics12 in the form of a sustainability approach (process innovation),
- Development of residue-free, cold-cut processed and packaged self-service pork products that meet food retailing requirements like long shelf life, appealing and appetising colour etc. (product innovation), and
- Extension of distribution channels as well as development of a marketing concept adjusted to the products, which are regionally produced quality pork products with a high-quality standard entering conventional food retailing labelled with a farmer-owned brand which stands for sustainable production (marketing innovation).
The interim result of the analysis of existing resources on the business level is that the producer association is reliant on the procurement of additional resources for the implementation of the described innovation activity:
- Information and knowledge regarding scientific based assessment criteria for sustainability need to be integrated as a basis for the development of a quality programme. The association has no forms of contact with the research community in this specific field,
- Experiences regarding the development of packaged self-service pork products on a large scale need to be integrated,
- Experiences with anonymous distribution channels like food retailing without direct consumer contact are missing. Furthermore in this context, no business relationship exists with food retailers.
After the aforementioned missing resources were identified, the company decided to integrate external resources for the implementation of the planned innovation activity. In doing so, two methods of procuring resources were adopted: Both a bilateral and multilateral cooperation was initiated. In regard to the food technological challenges for product development with corresponding specifications a bilateral cooperation with a well-known meat and sausage producer was entered into. Since in the case of bilateral cooperation there is no need for management support (based on the long-standing cooperation relationship) Figure 12 concentrates on the multilateral cooperation which is to be initiated.
As already made clear, the producer association is interested in the newest scientific knowledge in order to create, among other things, a quality programme for sustainable production. There is also interest in support for the challenge of introducing regional products onto the mass market using specific marketing expertise. The producer association has accounted for work groups in the Q-PorkChains project. The producer association received information on the content of the research project by way of information tools (newsletters, information events etc.) from a disseminator13 of the research project (ZDS) (MSSE D1: Facilitating the flow of information).
As a result the producer association turned directly to the research consortium. Within the framework of the project the research consortium had set up an Industry Liaison Office (this acts as an innovation broker14), which offered management support services specifically for economic actors. The Liaison Office took on a bridging function in the research consortium by mediating content between the work groups relevant to the producer association and the interested producer association15.
The following figure illustrates relevant actors of the specific inter-organisational innovation process including the indication of interactions to offer management support service elements (MSSE) for the resource procurement and resource combination process.
Figure 12: Relevant actors and offered management support services during resource procurement and resource combination
After the producer association turned to the Liaison Office with its concerns the first matchmaking began on this level. Hereby the Liaison Office scanned the project content in order to find solution methods to the problems described by the producer association (MSSE P2: Matchmaking between described problem and problem solution). Individual groups in the research consortium worked in the topic area relevant to this case study of “sustainability aspects in regional pork production chains”. In this area competences on different sustainability aspects were found. Aspects of sustainability are covered in pig and pork production by the following aspects: animal health, animal welfare, economical performance, environmental issues, genetics, human working conditions, carcass and meat quality, social conformity (Edwards, 2008). In addition marketing expertise and competence for designing sustainable pork chain management was identified.
In addition to a positive assessment of the expected solution methods regarding the described problem, at the time the formal possibility existed (in the form of a public competitive call) to take on new partners in the existing research consortium.
The first matchmaking helped the company in two ways: Firstly the company’s expectations of the multilateral cooperation became more tangible. Secondly the application for acceptance as a project partner could be formulated more precisely through more detailed explanations of project content.
The application phase as well as the formal integration16 of new partners was prepared, accompanied and coordinated by the Liaison Office. For this the contract signing of numerous forms and documents was prepared as integral parts of the contract17. Contract signings took place between the new partners and the EU Commission as well as between the new partners and the Q-PorkChains project consortium (represented by the project coordination team). The arrangement of the documents occurred in part directly through the Liaison Office in cooperation with the project coordination team. In part the new project partners had to supply information for this. They were hereby supported by the Liaison Office (MSSE P5: Support during the application for subsidies). Furthermore, the Liaison Office acted in the name of the new project partner as a representative negotiating partner with the subsidy provider (European Commission). Last but not least the Liaison Office represented the interests of the project consortium by introducing the new partner to the policies of the consortium (MSSE P6: Obtain consent of new partners regarding consortium agreement). The consortium agreement is comprised of agreements on internal cooperation (for example agreements regarding governing bodies, roles and responsibilities; intellectual property and access rights).
There was also a need for support during the implementation of the innovation activity within the cooperation consortium. This was in part due to the complex structure of the consortium. The consortium consisted of a large number of partners and work groups from ca. 20 different countries. Because of this it was especially difficult for new partners to get an overview (see Figure 12). The Liaison Office identified three work groups within the entire consortium that could offer problem-solving concepts in cooperation with the producer association. These work groups united competence in different sustainability aspects in the area of agricultural production, marketing expertise as well as expertise in the development of sustainable pork chain management. But not only did the company experience additional advantages from working together; the scientists were able to validate their research results through a user-oriented approach thereby developing it further. By pointing out potential synergistic effects, representatives were won from the individual work groups who were available for interdisciplinary cooperation with the company (MSSE P3: Matchmaking of competences resulting synergistic effects).
However it should be noted that the availability of individual competence is not enough to create a successful multilateral cooperation. In order to exhaust synergies, efficient communication and operating sequences need to be established. The combination of existing competence began with bringing together the individual actors. To accomplish this, the Liaison Office organised and moderated the first meetings between the actors (MSSE: N1: Organisation of direct contact possibilities; N2: Initiation and chairing of meetings). Within this frame it was initially of great importance to create a positive and constructive work atmosphere. An indicator for the first foundation of trust was the exchange of initial ideas for problem solving approaches between the actors (MSSE P1: Facilitating idea generation process). Thus the innovation process, which had already begun on the individual operation level, was continued. An implementation plan was compiled, based on the prioritised ideas, which explained the cooperation between the actors from the core work groups as well as those responsible in more detail (MSSE P4: Development of consistent project plan). The Liaison Office worked closely with the scientists hereby. The implementation plan presented a combination of the company’s innovation project strengthened by research estimates and results from the scientific work groups. Thus the competence extended by multilateral cooperation was noted.
During the transition between the evaluation phase and the actual project implementation the Liaison Office pulled out of the content work. Such a pulling out, when the interaction between the actors in the innovation process is running successfully, is also described by Caputo et al. (2002). The Liaison Office thus acts as an innovation broker as defined by Winch and Courtney (2007). The Liaison Office followed the aim of taking over transaction and coordination tasks to enable other actors to concentrate on the content of the innovation process. The scientists then took over chaperoning the content.
Since the innovation activities were partially funded by the public sector, project specific management and administration requirements (project controlling regarding budget, time and task compliance; project documentation) had to be followed. Here the Liaison Office in cooperation with the project coordination team of the entire consortium took over relevant transactions and coordination tasks. Hereby the project coordination team was responsible for aspects, which affected the entire consortium. The Liaison Office offered more intensive support especially for the economic partners of the consortium (for old and new economic partners). It informed the economic partners as necessary about the documentation and report requirements of the support programme. Depending on experience in relation to third party funded projects there were additional advisory needs beyond the need for basic information (MSSE R1: Controlling regarding budget, time and tasks compliance; R2: Coordination of project documentation18). Within this frame these two actors took on innovation broker functions by communicating the demands of the fund providers to the new partners in a way which was suitable to the target groups (MSSE R3: Translation of financier’s requirement).
In addition to support in project management it became clear in this case study there was a need for support for communication and network activities (both project internal as well as external). Because of existing structures in the project consortium, an international exchange of experiences between project internal economic actors (actors of regional production chains) was possible. Furthermore, the need to seek the exchange of ideas outside the consortium was formulated. Here the Liaison Office, being a neutral and supervisory institution, was able to create contacts to external actors and initiate workshops for exchanging experiences (e.g. the European saddle pig network meeting) (MSSE N1: Organisation of direct contact possibilities; N3: Supporting international relationships).