Alternative certification system for supply chain sustainability: how stakeholder alignment affects institutionalization

Abstract

PurposeThis study expands the isomorphic logic on the participatory guarantee system (PGS) alternative certification method, which aims to level the supply chain sustainability field to determine how the alignment of disadvantaged agrifood stakeholders (e.g. small/applicant farmers, local organizations, consumers and volunteer auditors) might neutralize the negative effects of stakeholder heterogeneity (SH) on PGS recognition.Design/methodology/approachThe sample comprised 113 multilateral matching questionnaires collected from disadvantaged agrifood stakeholders participating in the PGS activities of the Green Conservation Label managed by Taiwan's Tse-Xin Organic Agriculture Foundation (TOAF). This study adopted hierarchical regression to test the hypotheses.FindingsStakeholder alignment, external community (EC) constructs, similar backgrounds (SBs) and value congruence (VC) diminish the negative effects of SH on PGS recognition.Social implicationsPGS is an agrifood supply chain social movement designed to allow underprivileged actors to enact solutions collectively to address social inequities and ecological problems through fair procedures, collective assignments and collaborative intentionality. PGS members who leverage VC, SB and EC will have a greater chance of successfully overcoming their institutional disadvantages.Originality/valueBased on the PGS activities initiated by disadvantaged agrifood stakeholders, this study transformed isomorphic logics, including coercive, mimetic and normative isomorphisms, into a mechanism with which individuals can build a governance structure that helps disadvantaged agrifood stakeholders develop alternative institutions by pooling their resources.

The German Supply Chain Due Diligence Act: impacts on sustainable supply chain management from a stakeholder perspective

“…Recommendations regarding some of the inferred challenges already exist in the literature, such as for the challenge of untrustworthy certifications (C9) (e.g. Liu, 2023) and insufficient sustainability performance (C3) (e.g. Yun et al, 2019).…”

“…Furthermore, there is a missing link between issues mentioned in practical GSCDDA discourses and theoretical SSCM developments, which inhibits establishing synergies between these streams. For instance, there is a missing link between theoretical SSCM developments regarding certifications (Liu, 2023) and the issue of untrustworthy certifications often mentioned in the GSCDDA discourse. To address these research gaps, we pose the following research questions (RQs): RQ1: Which SSCM stakeholder groups, challenges and opportunities exist in the GSCDDA discourse, and how do these components interrelate?…”

Guest editorial: The social sustainability of global supply chains – a critical perspective on current practices and its transformative potential

“…Therefore, a survey was carried out with marginalised stakeholders from the Green Conservation Label managed by Taiwan's Tse-Xin Organic Agriculture Foundation (TOAF) on social sustainability in the supply chain. Liu (2023) observed that disadvantaged stakeholders mobilised a pool of resources to establish alternative institutions. The study provides recommendations to managers and policy makers for decision-making related to agriculture.…”

The impact of ICT capabilities on supply chain fraud and sustainability – a dynamic capability perspective

“…The triple-bottom-line concept, which addresses business, social, and environmental aspects, serves as a framework for defining sustainability in supply chain management (Seuring and M€ uller, 2008;Yosef et al, 2023). Confirming and verifying that products, processes, and activities in the supply chain adhere to specific sustainability requirements and certifications is a crucial strategic and competitive concern for sustainability in supply chains (Grimm et al, 2016;Liu, 2023) Throughout history, fraud has taken place with severe repercussions. Fraud is a general phrase that refers to the purposeful and planned act of incorporating, removing, altering, or distorting of products or services offered for sale as well as the making of false or deceptive statements about a good or service to obtain financial advantage (Spink and Moyer, 2011;Zhang et al, 2022).…”

“…, 2023). Confirming and verifying that products, processes, and activities in the supply chain adhere to specific sustainability requirements and certifications is a crucial strategic and competitive concern for sustainability in supply chains (Grimm et al ., 2016; Liu, 2023)…”