Modifying our purchasing habits will not be enough, in itself, to create a more sustainable food system: change also hinges on reinventing the supply chains. And yet, a study by three researchers – including NEOMA’s Philipp Sauer – shows how difficult a task this is: effective collaboration is hindered by distance among actors in the supply chains.

The researchers selected a an exemplary case to analyse how supply chains tackle the challenges of sustainable development: the Brazilian Roundtable on Sustainable Livestock (BRSL). Founded in 2009, the BRSL brings together stakeholders in the Brazilian beef industry, including breeders, slaughterhouses, processing companies, distributors and government representatives. The organisation was set up in response to growing pressure on the sector to become more “sustainable” after boycott movements were launched in several countries.

Honest intentions, disappointing results

The BRSL has worked on a number of projects to fight corruption, reduce deforestation, prevent meat degradation during transport, and provide decent working conditions for employees. Its members have published a how-to guide with quantified objectives since 2014. One non-governmental association describes the BRSL as the most credible Brazilian institution for transitioning to sustainable livestock farming.

So, the BRSL has honest intentions… and yet the researchers – who attended six working meetings and held 18 interviews with BRSL stakeholders – observed that not much has changed. While food sustainability practices are the focus of discussions and information-sharing, tangible, concrete developments are few and far between. In addition, the joint project marginalises many breeders despite their role in supplying the basic product: without them, it’s impossible to make the industry more virtuous.

Hamstrung by four distance factors

Why is there such a wide gap between the organisation’s goals and its results? What is the “sticking point” in this institution whose purpose is sustainability? The researchers’ answer can be summed up in a few words: there’s too much distance between the actors in the BRSL.

The study identifies four proximity-related aspects. First, there is the geography: Brazil covers 8.5 million km² (15 times the size of France), with a distance of 4,400 km between its northernmost and southernmost borders. BRSL members are scattered across this vast territory, which makes communication difficult, especially for the smaller members of the supply chain.

The second factor is the diverse nature of the organisations: a small-scale breeder from the north-east of Brazil has almost nothing in common with a multinational meat company that exports to the four corners of the world. This gives rise to the third disparity, and this time it is cultural. The actors in the supply chain are so diverse that they do not share the same values, the same culture and the same understanding of what is meant by food sustainability. What’s more, small breeders often live and work in rural areas and can not grasp some of the terms used in the how-to guide produced by the collective efforts due to different education level of the supply chain actors.

Lastly, the BRSL is not a homogeneous, close-knit entity. Some of the stakeholders have intense, regular contact, but others remain on the fringes or are entirely passive. They don’t play an active role in the management of the organisation or its decision-making, and even end up becoming invisible to the other stakeholders.

A lack of information, a lack of trust

These four difficulties combined generate three effects that undermine collective efforts to transform the sector.

The first effect is a lack of cohesion in the BRSL, including among members who otherwise work together on a daily basis. In spite of their supplier-customer relationship, breeders and slaughterhouses don’t know each other well. Small breeders do not attend BRSL meetings: instead, they are represented by large breeders – who are very different from them – or by their unions. One of the participants in the study even questioned the relevance of the word “chain” when discussing the “supply chain”.

The second effect, which stems from the first, is a lack of information, which circulates asymmetrically in the supply chain depending on the quality of the relationship between actors. Some participants do not receive any information at all. And yet, the transition towards food sustainability needs the active, widespread sharing of knowledge and good practices together with a deep understanding of the context and challenges. This is the prerequisite for on-the-ground change, but it is often lacking.

Last but not least, the authors observed a lack of trust among the different actors, especially between breeders and slaughterhouses. Their relationship revolves primarily around tough price negotiations. Many breeders think that the priority is to stand together against these “enemies”, and not to change the way they operate. This lack of trust can also interfere with communication between the most active players in the sector and others: even if they share their insights into food sustainability with everyone, there’s a good chance they won’t be believed.

Governments need to intervene in supply chains

The existence of well-organised, dedicated supply chains does not necessarily guarantee the emergence of a virtuous food system. The stakeholders need to carry out a detailed analysis to identify the symptoms of this disconnect, and then find a solution. In particular, tackling the distrust between the various actors calls for sustained efforts, backed up by government agencies and non-profits, where necessary.

The authors of the study conclude by urging governments to actively engage in the management of supply chains: simply demanding more sustainability through regulations will not work. In the BRSL, for instance, they could enforce and/or enable better representation of breeders and ensure that information reaches them. They could also set up mediation bodies to foster more constructive dialogue with slaughterhouses.

Find out more

Ana P. Ferreira Alves, Minelle E. Silva et Philipp C. Sauer, Uncovering effects of supply chain distance on sustainability adoption: empirical evidence from a multi-stakeholder partnership, Supply Chain Management, November 2024. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-12-2023-0637