PurposeContracts and trust are mechanisms to coordinate processes in supply chains. However, contracts are incomplete and trust takes time to develop. The aim of this paper is to show how Social Accountability 8000 (SA8000) can help to manage supply chains (in particular small and medium‐sized companies as its partners) by solving the problem of incomplete contracts as well as replacing trust in new partnerships, especially with respect to intangible performance indicators.Design/methodology/approachSupply chain management (with an emphasis on coordination) and corporate social responsibility (with an emphasis on codes, especially SA8000) are briefly described, based on a literature review. These descriptions led to three research propositions. In the second part, four cases describe the practice of SA8000. The richness of the cases provides both literal and theoretical replication. Finally, the theoretical and empirical results are compared, with specific regard to the research propositions.FindingsCodes facilitate coordination between immediate partners in a supply chain, especially when the most powerful one enforces the code. However, indirect coordination with second‐ or third‐tier partners is hardly influenced. Chain directors can impose SA8000 certification in the supply chain and the latter can benefit from reduced information asymmetry. Transaction costs are reduced without a loss in flexibility.Research limitations/implicationsThe three propositions introduced are supported. Further research could further strengthen the validity of the propositions or show the need for refinements in them. The results show managers that certification can facilitate coordination of intangible aspects of performance to reduce information asymmetry with at least no negative results.Practical implicationsFirms that use SA8000 should take more advantage of it because it reduces information asymmetry and transaction costs, not only between direct partners but also further up‐ and downstream in the chain. Chain directors can use codes to complement incomplete contracts. Third‐party monitoring should be strengthened, especially with respect to second‐ and third‐tier partners.Originality/valueThe originality of the paper is in the analysis of the position of the second‐ and third‐tier participants in the chain, questioning whether codes like SA8000 are a sufficient instrument to make them real partners in the chain. SA8000 increases traceability of proper processes by customers and partners in the chain, which facilitates the coordination and the management of the chain.

No abstract

Cold atmospheric plasma has recently emerged as a simple, low-cost and efficient physical method for inducing significant biological responses in seeds and plants without the use of traditional, potentially environmentally-hazardous chemicals, fungicides or hormones. While the beneficial effects of plasma treatment on seed germination, disease resistance and agricultural output have been reported, the mechanisms that underpin the observed biological responses are yet to be fully described. This study employs Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy and emission spectroscopy to capture chemical interactions between plasmas and seed surfaces with the aim to provide a more comprehensive account of plasma−seed interactions. FTIR spectroscopy of the seed surface confirms plasma-induced chemical etching of the surface. The etching facilitates permeation of water into the seed, which is confirmed by water uptake measurements. FTIR of exhaust and emission spectra of discharges show oxygen-containing species known for their ability to stimulate biochemical processes and deactivate pathogenic microorganisms. In addition, water gas, CO2, CO and molecules containing −C(CH3)3− moieties observed in FTIR spectra of the exhaust gas during plasma treatment may be partly responsible for the plasma chemical etching of seed surface through oxidizing the organic components of the seed coat.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Innovation is increasingly recognised as an alternative for poverty alleviation in developing countries. However, cases of innovation in small producers' clusters in Vietnam imply negative externalities that conflict with today's notions of sustainable and inclusive development. This article analyses how small producers innovate while taking environmental and social considerations into account through an interactive societal process towards a community network, conceptualised as responsible innovation. Existing multifaceted theoretical insights do not provide sufficient basis to construct and test explanations. We apply a grounded theory involving Actor-Network Theory (ANT) to seek explanations as to why some small producers behave opportunistically while others acknowledge responsibility for the negative externalities. ANT enables us to see the critical details of the network creation process, including the agenda of the key actors, push and pull factors, the type of innovation, and the informal institutional context. L'innovation est de plus en plus reconnue comme une alternative pour le soulagement de la pauvreté dans les pays en développement. Cependant, des cas d'innovation chez des petits groupes de producteurs au Vietnam ont eu des externalités négatives qui sont en conflit avec les notions contemporaines de développement inclusif et durable. Cet article analyse comment des petits producteurs ont réussi à innover tout en tenant en compte facteurs sociales et environnementales, à travers un procès sociale interactif qui les a amené à construire un réseau communautaire -ce qu'on conceptualise comme de la innovation responsable. Les aperçus multidisciplinaires courants n'offrent assez de bases pour construire et tester des explications. Nous avons donc applique Actor-Network Theory (La Théorie de l'Acteur -Réseau; ANT) pour expliquer pourquoi des petits producteurs agissent de forme opportuniste, pendant que d'autres prennent responsabilité pour les externalités négatives. L'ANT nous permet de voir les détails critiques de la création du réseau, y inclus l'agenda des acteurs principales, les facteurs qui font avancer et ceux qui trainent, le type d'innovation, et le contexte institutionnel informel.