Allocation of responsibility among pork supply chain players
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to investigate the responsibility that should be taken by different pork supply chain participants to ensure pork quality and safety, with the aim of providing some guidance for strengthening the supervision of pork quality and safety.
Design/methodology/approach
The pig farmer survey and the pork consumer survey were conducted in Funing County, Jiangsu Province, using the best-worst scaling (BWS) and a mixed logit model.
Findings
The results showed that the designation of responsibility for ensuring pork quality and safety was of, in descending order, feed producers and suppliers, backyard farmers and farms of designated size, pork processing workshops and companies of and above designated size, slaughterhouses, supermarkets, farmer’s markets, pig transporters, and consumers. Both pig farmers and pork consumers believed that those involved in the initial pork supply chain should take greater responsibility for pork quality and safety.
Originality/value
Allocation of responsibilities across the entire pork industry chain was investigated from the perspective of pig farmers and pork consumers using the BWS and a mixed logit model. The results of this study might explain the unique problems that occur in pork supply chain management in large developing countries like China.
Keywords
Acknowledgements
This research work was supported by the Study of Multiple Simulation Experiment on Traceable Food Consumption Policy based on Consumer Preferences: the Case of Pork, a project of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Project Approval No. 71273117), and “Study of identification and early warning of food safety risks of production and supply processes” as a key project of the National Natural Science Foundations of China (Project Approval No. 71633002).
Citation
Wu, L., Qiu, G., Lu, J., Zhang, M. and Wen, X. (2017), "Allocation of responsibility among pork supply chain players", British Food Journal, Vol. 119 No. 12, pp. 2822-2836. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-01-2017-0045
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2017, Emerald Publishing Limited