Organizing Supply Chain Processes for

Sustainable Innovation in the Agri Food

Industry 1st Edition Raffaella Cagliano
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/organizing-supply-chain-processes-for-sustainable-in
novation-in-the-agri-food-industry-1st-edition-raffaella-cagliano/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Food Supply Chain Management Building a Sustainable

Future 2nd Edition Madeleine Pullman

https://ebookmeta.com/product/food-supply-chain-management-
building-a-sustainable-future-2nd-edition-madeleine-pullman/

Supply Chain Processes Developing Competitive Advantage

through Supply Chain Process Excellence 1st Edition
Robertson

https://ebookmeta.com/product/supply-chain-processes-developing-
competitive-advantage-through-supply-chain-process-
excellence-1st-edition-robertson/

Sustainable Supply Chain Management 1st Edition Joëlle

Morana

https://ebookmeta.com/product/sustainable-supply-chain-
management-1st-edition-joelle-morana/

Innovation Strategies in the Food Industry : Tools for

Implementation, 2nd Edition Charis M. Galanakis

https://ebookmeta.com/product/innovation-strategies-in-the-food-
industry-tools-for-implementation-2nd-edition-charis-m-galanakis/
Agri food and Forestry Sectors for Sustainable
Development Innovations to Address the Ecosystems
Resources Climate Food Health Nexus 1st Edition
Francesco Meneguzzo
https://ebookmeta.com/product/agri-food-and-forestry-sectors-for-
sustainable-development-innovations-to-address-the-ecosystems-
resources-climate-food-health-nexus-1st-edition-francesco-
meneguzzo/

Sustainable Smart Manufacturing Processes in Industry 4

0 1st Edition Ramesh Kumar

https://ebookmeta.com/product/sustainable-smart-manufacturing-
processes-in-industry-4-0-1st-edition-ramesh-kumar/

Sustainable Logistics and Supply Chain Management:

Principles and Practices for Sustainable Operations and
Management 3rd Edition David B. Grant

https://ebookmeta.com/product/sustainable-logistics-and-supply-
chain-management-principles-and-practices-for-sustainable-
operations-and-management-3rd-edition-david-b-grant/

Political Risk Management for the Global Supply Chain

1st Edition Kliem

https://ebookmeta.com/product/political-risk-management-for-the-
global-supply-chain-1st-edition-kliem/

Supply Chain Security How to Support Safety and Reduce

Risk in Your Supply Chain Process 1st Edition Andrzej
Szymonik

https://ebookmeta.com/product/supply-chain-security-how-to-
support-safety-and-reduce-risk-in-your-supply-chain-process-1st-
edition-andrzej-szymonik/
 ORGANIZING SUPPLY CHAIN
PROCESSES FOR SUSTAINABLE
INNOVATION IN THE AGRI-FOOD
INDUSTRY
ORGANIZING FOR SUSTAINABLE
EFFECTIVENESS
Series Editors: Susan Albers Mohrman, Abraham B.
(Rami) Shani, and Christopher G.
Worley

Recent Volumes:
Volume Organizing for Sustainability – Edited by Susan Albers
1: Mohrman and Abraham B. (Rami) Shani
Volume Organizing for Sustainable Health Care – Edited by
2: Susan Albers Mohrman and Abraham B. (Rami) Shani
Volume Building Networks and Partnerships – Edited by
3: Christopher G. Worley and Philip H. Mirvis
Volume Reconfiguring the Ecosystem for Sustainable Healthcare
4: – Edited by Susan Albers Mohrman and Abraham B.
(Rami) Shani
ORGANIZING FOR SUSTAINABLE EFFECTIVENESS
VOLUME 5

ORGANIZING SUPPLY CHAIN

PROCESSES FOR
SUSTAINABLE INNOVATION
IN THE AGRI-FOOD INDUSTRY
EDITED BY
RAFFAELLA CAGLIANO
Department of
Management, Economics
and Industrial
Engineering, Politecnico di
Milano, Milan, Italy
FEDERICO F. A. CANIATO
Department of
Management, Economics
and Industrial
Engineering, Politecnico di
Milano, Milan, Italy
CHRISTOPHER G. WORLEY
Centre for Leadership and
Effective Organizations,
NEOMA Business School,
Reims, France

United Kingdom – North

America – Japan
India – Malaysia – China
Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Howard House, Wagon Lane, Bingley BD16 1WA, UK

First edition 2016

Copyright © 2016 Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Reprints and permissions service

Contact: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted in any
form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without
either the prior written permission of the publisher or a licence permitting restricted copying
issued in the UK by The Copyright Licensing Agency and in the USA by The Copyright
Clearance Center. Any opinions expressed in the chapters are those of the authors. Whilst
Emerald makes every effort to ensure the quality and accuracy of its content, Emerald
makes no representation implied or otherwise, as to the chapters’ suitability and application
and disclaims any warranties, express or implied, to their use.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN: 978-1-78635-488-4
ISSN: 2045-0605 (Series)
CONTENTS

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

ORGANIZING SUPPLY CHAIN PROCESSES FOR

SUSTAINABLE INNOVATION IN THE AGRI-FOOD
INDUSTRY: INTRODUCTION TO THE VOLUME

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

CHAPTER 1 THE CHALLENGE OF SUSTAINABLE

INNOVATION IN AGRI-FOOD SUPPLY CHAINS
Raffaella Cagliano, Christopher G. Worley and
Federico F. A. Caniato

CHAPTER 2 ALCASS: INNOVATION FOR

SUSTAINABLE SUPPLY CHAINS FOR TRADITIONAL
AND NEW PRODUCTS
Verónica León-Bravo, Federico F. A. Caniato,
Antonella Moretto and Raffaella Cagliano

CHAPTER 3 SUPPORTING SUSTAINABILITY

THROUGH DEVELOPING A LEARNING NETWORK
AMONG TRADITIONAL FOOD PRODUCERS:
APPLICATIONS OF ACTION LEARNING
Paul Coughlan, David Coghlan, Denise O’Leary,
Clare Rigg and Doireann Barrett

CHAPTER 4 BUILDING SOCIAL CAPITAL INTO THE

DISRUPTED GREEN COFFEE SUPPLY CHAIN: ILLY’S
JOURNEY TO QUALITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
Annachiara Longoni and Davide Luzzini

CHAPTER 5 THE EVOLUTION OF BARILLA’S DURUM

WHEAT SUPPLY CHAIN CONTRACTS FOR TRIPLE
BOTTOM LINE BENEFITS
Marco Formentini, ManMohan S. Sodhi and
Christopher S. Tang

CHAPTER 6 MINIMIZING FOOD WASTE AT

GOOGLE: CREATING PRODUCTION INNOVATION
AND PURCHASING PRACTICES
Madeleine Pullman and Kristen Rainey

CHAPTER 7 SURPLUS FOOD REDISTRIBUTION FOR

SOCIAL PURPOSES: THE CASE OF COOP
LOMBARDIA
Sedef Sert, Paola Garrone, Marco Melacini and
Alessandro Perego

CHAPTER 8 PACKAGING’S ROLE IN

SUSTAINABILITY: REUSABLE PLASTIC CONTAINERS
IN THE AGRICULTURAL-FOOD SUPPLY CHAINS
Jay Singh, Abraham B. (Rami) Shani, Hillary
Femal and Ahmed Deif

CHAPTER 9 ORIGIN GREEN: WHEN YOUR BRAND

IS YOUR SUPPLY CHAIN
Mary Shelman, Damien McLoughlin and Mark
Pagell

CHAPTER 10 THE EMERGENCE OF A LOCAL FOODS

NETWORK IN NORTHEAST OHIO
Susan Albers Mohrman, Sally Breyley Parker,
Lorelei Oriel Palacpac and Cameron Wilk

CHAPTER 11 INCLUSIVE INNOVATION AND THE

ROLE OF PARTNERSHIPS: THE CASE OF SEMI DI
LIBERTà
Francesca Mapelli, Marika Arena and Paolo
Strano

CHAPTER 12 A PATHWAY TOWARDS TRULY

SUSTAINABLE FOOD SUPPLY CHAINS: BALANCING
MOTIVATION, STRATEGY, AND IMPACT
Raffaella Cagliano, Federico F. A. Caniato and
Christopher G. Worley

ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTORS

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

Marika Arena Department of Management, Economics and

Industrial Engineering, Politecnico di Milano, Milan,
Italy
Doireann Barrett The Gluten Free Kitchen Company, Tralee, Ireland
Raffaella Department of Management, Economics and
Cagliano Industrial Engineering, Politecnico di Milano, Milan,
Italy
Federico F. A. Department of Management, Economics and
Caniato Industrial Engineering, Politecnico di Milano, Milan,
Italy
David Coghlan Trinity Business School, Trinity College Dublin,
Dublin, Ireland
Paul Coughlan Trinity Business School, Trinity College Dublin,
Dublin, Ireland
Ahmed Deif Orfalea College of Business, California Polytechnic
State University, San Luis Obispo, CA, USA
Hillary Femal IFCO Systems, Tampa, FL, USA
Marco School of Management, University of Bath, Bath,
Formentini UK
Paola Garrone Department of Management, Economics and
Industrial Engineering, Politecnico di Milano, Milan,
Italy
Verónica León- Department of Management, Economics and
Bravo Industrial Engineering, Politecnico di Milano, Milan,
Italy
Annachiara ESADE Business School, University Ramon Llull,
Longoni Barcelona, Spain
Davide Luzzini Audencia Business School, Nantes, France
Francesca Department of Management, Economics and
Mapelli Industrial Engineering, Politecnico di Milano, Milan,
Italy
Damien UCD Michael Smurfit Graduate Business School,
McLoughlin University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
Marco Melacini Department of Management, Economics and
Industrial Engineering, Politecnico di Milano, Milan,
Italy
Susan Albers Marshall School of Business, University of
Mohrman Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
Antonella Department of Management, Economics and
Moretto Industrial Engineering, Politecnico di Milano, Milan,
Italy
Denise O’Leary School of Nursing, Midwifery and Health Systems,
University College, Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
Mark Pagell UCD Michael Smurfit Graduate Business School,
University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
Lorelei Oriel Marshall School of Business, University of
Palacpac Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
Sally Breyley TimeZero Enterprises, LLC, Shaker Heights, OH,
Parker USA
Alessandro Department of Management, Economics and
Perego Industrial Engineering, Politecnico di Milano, Milan,
Italy
Madeleine School of Business Administration, Portland State
Pullman University, Portland, OR, USA
Kristen Rainey Google, Mountain View, CA, USA
Clare Rigg Management School, University of Liverpool,
Liverpool, UK
Sedef Sert Department of Management, Economics and
Industrial Engineering, Politecnico di Milano, Milan,
Italy
Abraham B. Orfalea College of Business, California Polytechnic
(Rami) Shani State University, San Luis Obispo, CA, USA
Mary Shelman Harvard Business School, Harvard University,
Boston, MA, USA
Jay Singh Orfalea College of Business, California Polytechnic
State University, San Luis Obispo, CA, USA
ManMohan S. Cass Business School, City University London,
Sodhi London, UK
Paolo Strano Semi di Libertà, Roma, Italy
Christopher S. UCLA Anderson School, University of California,
Tang Los Angeles, CA, USA
Cameron Wilk Health Action Council, Lakewood, OH, USA
Christopher G. Centre for Leadership and Effective Organizations,
Worley NEOMA Business School, Reims, France
ORGANIZING SUPPLY CHAIN
PROCESSES FOR SUSTAINABLE
INNOVATION IN THE AGRI-FOOD
INDUSTRY: INTRODUCTION TO THE
VOLUME

Welcome, Benvenuto, and Bienvenue to the fifth volume in the

series on Organizing for Sustainable Effectiveness: Organizing Supply
Chain Processes for Sustainable Innovation in the Agri-Food
Industry. This volume focuses on a series of cases that addressed
sustainability oriented innovation in the agri-food industry and
specifically the agricultural, processing, distribution, and
consumption activities associated with its supply chain. It is part of a
larger Emerald Press series that looks broadly and deeply at changes
in organizations, in how they relate to each other, and to their
broader contexts to assure sustainable effectiveness. The series is
timely because human societies around the world are facing serious
economic, societal, and environmental challenges. An overarching
framework for understanding these challenges is the need for
people, organizations, societies, and global entities to find effective
approaches to deal with unprecedented levels of complexity.
Through the application of social science theories, the series uses
rich and rigorous case examples to learn better how to organize for
sustainable effectiveness, and in so doing to extend these theories
and generate useful principles and guidelines for action. The intent
of this book series is to make new research and evolving practice
about how to organize for economic, environmental, and social
sustainability accessible to both researchers and practitioners. Our
aim is to examine cases that go beyond a simplistic description of
organizational initiatives; to present innovative approaches to
humankind’s most pressing problems that are grounded and
explained by concepts and frameworks that allow generalized
principles to emerge. Such an approach contains the seeds of
fundamentally different ways of organizing. The chapters in these
books describe the actions and achievements of organizations as
they fundamentally redesign themselves to achieve their
sustainability goals.
Volume 1, Organizing for Sustainability (Mohrman & Shani,
2011), examined organizations from diverse sectors and countries
that were making fundamental change to achieve the triple bottom
line challenge of simultaneously achieving viable financial
performance and fostering social and environmental health. The
chapters collectively highlighted the importance of well-designed
processes, organizing approaches, management systems, and
continuous learning approaches in complex systems. The second
volume, Organizing for Sustainable Healthcare (Mohrman & Shani,
2012), focused on a major challenge facing mankind around the
globe: the development of sustainable healthcare. It examined
healthcare systems on the forefront of changing the way they
operate to be able to play their lynchpin role in the sustainability of
human societies. It focused, in particular, on approaches being taken
to overcome the prevailing fragmentation and inefficiency of
healthcare to cope with increased and changing needs due to
demographic shifts, technological advances, shifting patterns of
disease, and resource constraints.
Case examples in both Volumes 1 and 2 made it clear that
organizations and individual healthcare systems cannot address the
problems and challenges they face alone. Volume 3, Building
Networks and Partnerships (Worley & Mirvis, 2013), presented a
framework for understanding inter-organizational and network forms
of organization and analyzed a set of complex transformations where
organizations were connecting with each other to collectively
address sustainability challenges. The volume yielded theoretical and
practical “lessons” about building both sustainability and
collaborative capabilities in and across partnering organizations and
about improving partnership structures, processes, and results.
Volume 4, Reconfiguring the Ecosystem for Sustainable
Healthcare (Mohrman & Shani, 2014), returned to the healthcare
sector and described several large-scale healthcare transformations
in response to and in concert with the changing ecosystem in which
they operate. Burgeoning developments in knowledge and
technology, changing expectations from stakeholders, changing laws,
regulations, and funding mechanisms, and above all, increasing
demands for better outcomes at a lower cost motivated these
transformations. Together, the cases supported the importance of
shared purpose and new definitions of leadership, the need to
involve an increased variety of stakeholders, the challenge of
innovating in alternative business models, and the importance of
building learning and change capabilities.
In this volume, the series moves to another industry setting
central to the development of a sustainable society. As described in
the different chapters, the agri-food industry accounts for a
significant proportion of economic activity both locally and globally
and is tightly connected to environmental and social issues. As
central as the agri-food industry and the agri-food supply chain are
to our collective well-being, they are a net drag on sustainability. In
too many places and in too many organizations, agri-food supply
chains destroy or negatively impact their communities, contribute to
global warming, and extract supra-normal profits through short-
sighted cost cutting. Only through the intentional efforts of forward-
looking individuals, companies, organizations, and governments can
this trend be reversed.
The cases in this volume describe 10 systems doing just that.
They are taking an inclusive, difficult, risky, and oftentimes primarily
economic look at the way a supply chain is operated to make
complex, sustainable, and proactive changes. But the overarching
strategy of most of the companies has a broader, values-driven
approach to innovation. The cases in this volume are international,
including contributions from the United States and several European
Union countries. They focus on different levels of analysis, different
phases of the supply chain, and different kinds of change. Each case
is analyzed through the lens of an appropriate theoretical framework
that the authors believed was particularly useful in understanding
the dynamics in the case, including theories of innovation, network
theory, principal-agent theory, dynamic capability frameworks,
complexity theory, stakeholder theory, human capital and social
capital development, and economic development. Without exception,
the systems at the center of these case analyses are making
progress by rethinking current stakeholder relationships or building
new connections across their complex ecosystem. Principles are
extrapolated from the case analyses that can be applied in other
situations and organizations.
The cases in this volume further develop topics and cases from a
2015 working conference, the Organizing supply chain processes for
sustainable innovation in the agri-food industry, held in Milan, Italy,
hosted by the Politecnico di Milano, and co-convened with the
University of Southern California and California Polytechnical
University. Future conferences and volumes will continue to gather
practitioners and academics to explore topics of sustainable
effectiveness. Our intent is to bring to this book series a variety of
themes, perspectives, industries, disciplines, cultures, and theoretical
frameworks to understand how organizations, leaders, and
institutions are positively addressing the biggest challenge of our
age. Our hope is that this knowledge will help accelerate the needed
transition to a sustainable way of being.
Susan Albers Mohrman
Los Angeles, CA
Abraham B. (Rami) Shani
San Luis Obispo, CA
Christopher G. Worley
Reims, France
 REFERENCES
Mohrman, S. A., & Shani, A. B. (Eds.). (2011). Organizing for sustainability (Vol. 1). Bingley,
UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Mohrman, S. A., & Shani, A. B. (Eds.). (2012). Organizing for sustainable health care (Vol.
2). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Mohrman, S. A., & Shani, A. B. (Eds.). (2014). Reconfiguring the eco-system for sustainable
healthcare (Vol. 4). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Worley, C. G., & Mirvis, P. (Eds.). (2013). Building networks and partnerships (Vol. 3).
Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We want to extend our appreciation to the chapter authors. They

have made important contributions and accepted the challenges we
posed during the review process with grace. With their help, our
understanding of the challenges involved in developing and
implementing sustainability-oriented innovation in agri-food supply
chains has grown. In addition, we would like also to thank the
companies behind each case. We are honored by their willingness to
open their doors and collaborate with researchers to highlight best
practices and learnings as well as share the struggles and challenges
they faced during their journeys. We hope these chapters fairly
reflect their hopes and accomplishments. Most of them have also
been enthusiastic participants in the preparation of the cases; their
insightful comments and discussions on the sustainable future of the
agri-food industry are acknowledged.
We want to thank Lorelei Oriel Palacpac, Nora O. Hilton, Vivian
Jimenez, Deborah Worley, and the staff at the Center for Effective
Organizations for their logistics and manuscript preparation support.
Coordinating permissions, getting figures to make sense in black and
white, revising and editing manuscripts, orchestrating
communications in many different time zones, and doing so with
grace under pressure made our task easier.
We also acknowledge the support from our own institutions: the
School of Management at the Politecnico di Milano, the NEOMA
Business School, and the Center for Effective Organizations at the
University of Southern California.
All of the cases in this volume were presented first during a
conference held at the School of Management of Politecnico di
Milano, Italy, in October 2015. The support of the Orfalea College of
Business, California Polytechnic, and the Center for Effective
Organizations, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern
California is greatly appreciated. The other companies and
researchers that participated in the Workshop – even if they were
not ready to write a chapter for the volume – inspired a number of
perspectives and comments in this volume. Special thanks to Sarah
Behnam, Veronica Leon Bravo, Antonella Moretto, and Lorelei
Palacpac for their invaluable support in organizing the Workshop.
Finally, we are very grateful to the series editors for their trust
and continuous encouragement to publish this volume. As well, we
are grateful to Emerald Group Publishing for providing the
opportunity to build a series that allows us to not only share
learning, but more importantly, to create knowledge that guides
practice and theoretical development.
Raffaella Cagliano
Milan, Italy
Federico F. A. Caniato
Milan, Italy
Christopher G. Worley
Reims, France
CHAPTER 1

THE CHALLENGE OF SUSTAINABLE

INNOVATION IN AGRI-FOOD SUPPLY
CHAINS

Raffaella Cagliano, Christopher G. Worley and

Federico F. A. Caniato

ABSTRACT
Purpose – This chapter introduces the volume’s theme by
describing the challenges of sustainability in the agri-food
industry and the critical role of agri-food supply chains.
Following a description of traditional and sustainable supply
chain management practices, we discuss the likely
characteristics of sustainability-oriented innovations and how
organizations pursuing higher levels of economic, social, and
environmental performance will need to adapt their
capabilities.

Methodology/approach – Drawing on the emerging concepts

and practices from sustainable supply chain management as
well as traditional and emerging concepts from innovation, we
 develop general propositions and expectations about how
organizations might address sustainable effectiveness in their
supply chains. The importance of the agri-food industry to all
three pillars of sustainable effectiveness and predictions about
the inability to feed future populations gives the discussion a
certain urgency.

Findings – Sustainability-oriented innovations in the agri-food

supply chain are different from traditional innovations. We
develop propositions regarding the driving motivations, their
nature and scope (i.e., more radical and systemic than
incremental and focused), and the importance of a multi-
stakeholder approach. The 10 cases presented in the volume
are summarized.

Keywords: Sustainability; agri-food industry; sustainable

supply chain management; sustainability-oriented innovation

INTRODUCTION
Organizations – and the economic system of which they are a part –
are finding new ways to match their economic logics and operations
with the protection of those resources that are essential to the
planet and its population to survive. The challenge of sustainable
development is particularly compelling in the agri-food industry
because of its relative impact on the environment, the amount of
natural resources it consumes, and its structural interrelatedness
with the health and well-being of humanity. Far too many studies
predict that the industry will not be able to provide enough food in
the future given current operating methods and expected dynamics
in the world population.
Within the food industry, the agri-food supply chain produces,
processes, distributes, and consumes products through a complex
network of interrelated actors. A major source of unsustainability in
the industry is the current structure and logic of these supply chains
(Marsden, Murdoch, & Morgan, 1999). Although each single actor in
the chain can contribute incrementally to the overall sustainability of
the final product, a much more systemic effort is required to achieve
significant improvements. Thus, actors in agri-food supply chains
must look for ways to become more sustainable but must also look
beyond their boundaries and include many different other actors in
their innovation process. Often, these actors are not the primary
stakeholders of the firm, but less traditional actors, such as NGOs,
governmental bodies, or research institutes.
Modern day supply chains – including modern day agri-food
supply chains – are no less a product of history than modern day
organizations. The history of management and organization has
been well documented (Piore & Sabel, 1984; Stout, 2012;
Williamson, 1995), and most organization design models identify
economic performance as the primary measure of effectiveness and
growth as the primary strategy. When the measure of performance
and effectiveness is economically or financially based, a strategy of
growth allows firms to access cost efficiency, value-add, and
productivity through scale and leverage. Scale and leverage are a by-
product of the overriding concern for efficiency, productivity, and
shareholder wealth (Albert, 1993). Sometimes efficiency and
productivity can serve the cause of providing safe, varied food to a
larger share of the world population. However, scale and leverage
are also the causes of many unsustainable models of production,
processing, delivery, and consumption. The never-ending search for
efficiency results in larger farms, massive feedlots, increasing
chemical usage and greenhouse gas emissions, longer supply chains,
centralized distribution centers, and more transportation. Thus, the
emergence of alternative indicators, such as environmental
sustainability and social/community engagement, suggests taking a
step back from the logic of scale and leverage to consider alternative
new business logics and their supply chains.
Research on these new logics is in general agreement (Pullman &
Wu, 2012). Innovation will be a key lever to change current systems,
allow companies to apply more sustainable models of production,
and foster more sustainable models of consumption. Innovation can
be developed at different levels and can be pushed by different
drivers. In particular, innovation can target products, processes, and
organizational models in one or many stages of a complex supply
chain. In addition, sustainability-oriented innovation (SOI) can
address one or more sustainability dimensions and produce more or
less radical departures from the traditional models.
This volume in the Organizing for Sustainable Effectiveness Series
is aimed at presenting and discussing a variety of supply chain SOIs
in the agri-food industry. They are all aimed – in a more or less
radical way – at improving the sustainability of the companies or the
systems involved. The 10 cases are very different in terms of the
scope of innovation, the dimension of sustainable performance
targeted, the levers used to change the supply chain model, and the
level of maturity and success achieved by those innovations. This
variety allows us to appreciate the alternative patterns that can be
followed to achieve sustainability in this industry and the challenges
and opportunities associated with them.
Despite this variety, there are two common threads.
First, a common feature of the cases presented here is the strong
strategic focus behind the solutions proposed. Most of the
innovations analyzed lay in the strategic arena rather than at the
level of tactical solutions. Although they may be aimed at
incremental improvements of a single sustainability performance
dimension, most of the innovations are pushed by a strong belief
that the company can create more value by finding ways to produce
the same or better products though more sustainable systems. The
main push to innovate does not always come from regulations or
market opportunities, but also arise from an enlightened awareness
of the role played by an organization in society.
Second, in keeping with the theme of this Series, all of the cases
address the organizational capabilities needed to develop and adopt
the proposed innovation. That is, successful innovation does not
solely rely on the quality and nature of the solution proposed, but
also on the ability to implement it effectively. Besides analyzing
solutions that address sustainability problems in the agri-food supply
chains, these chapters also discuss the organizational assets and
routines required to make them work. The appropriate organization
design, resources, and capabilities are essential.
To better frame the cases presented in the book, we describe the
challenges posed by the agri-food industry in terms of sustainable
development and the range of answers that have been proposed in
the literature. The structure of the agri-food supply chains and their
central role when looking for sustainable models in this industry is
discussed next. This section also categorizes state-of-the-art
sustainability practices and innovation in food supply chains. We
then discuss the concept of sustainability-oriented innovation (SOI)
and propose it as an overarching concept to make a company more
sustainable. The chapter closes with a summary of the questions
that arise from the literature and the practice of sustainable
innovation in the agri-food supply chains. We try to address those
questions when analyzing and comparing the cases in Chapter 12,
where we try to provide some answers and show some possible
ways forward. A short synopsis of the 10 cases is also presented.

THE CHALLENGE OF SUSTAINABILITY IN THE

AGRI-FOOD INDUSTRY
The food industry is undergoing unprecedented challenges and
pressures. No other industry like the agri-food industry represents, in
such a complete and dramatic way, the challenge of sustainability. It
is a central economic feature of many countries around the world
and accounts for a significant share of production, consumption, and
employment. In Europe, the food industry represents 14.5% of total
manufacturing revenues, 15.5% of the employment, and 12.5% of
value added in manufacturing. But it is also a fragmented industry.
On the one hand, European multinationals competing in the
international foods market are few in number but sell a wide variety
of products. On the other hand, 99% of the companies and 63% of
employment is accounted for by small and medium enterprises
(SMEs) (ECSIP Consortium, 2016; Fooddrink, Europe, 2015).
In the United States, agriculture and agriculture-related
industries accounted for 4.8% of the country’s gross domestic
product (GDP) in 2014. Farming output represents about 1% of GDP,
although that understates the overall contribution of agriculture
because other sectors, including food service, catering, and drinking
establishments, among others, depend on agricultural inputs for
their value-added contributions (USDA, 2016).
The above figures suggest that the food industry reflects the
characteristics of a highly competitive, commodity industry. Many
suppliers, especially farmers, are price takers and have little
bargaining power. Downstream producers and retailers have some
opportunity for differentiation, but they too are under intense and
effective pressures to lower prices that can take their toll on
sustainability (Lawrence, 2013). As pressures for sustainability
evolve, one source of differentiation is the food itself and farmers
may have a window to adapt innovative practices to create branded
products. For example, Driscoll’s, the California-based berry
producer, is aggressively and successfully working to create a unique
and worldwide brand in this category. Similarly, illy has been one of
the first coffee producers to transform a typical commodity – coffee
– into a strongly differentiated product associated with a highly
reputed brand. The centrality of food to the economy, to life, and to
human cultural identity, and the volatility brought on by consumer
concern for food security, safety, and sustainability, have created a
more dynamic industry, sometimes referred to as “the new oil”
(Bradsher, 2008).
In addition to its economic centrality, the industry is also and
obviously tightly connected to the natural environment. Farming, for
example, is one of our oldest technologies, delivers an original and
essential raw material for human life, and is completely dependent
on basic resources, such as land, air, and water. The industry is
among the largest users of surface water and energy. Despite its
deep connection with the earth and human existence, an increasing
body of evidence demonstrates that many of our current food
production systems are harming the planet and its inhabitants
(Gerbens-Leenes, Moll, & Uiterkamp, 2003; Godfray et al., 2010).
The excessive and thoughtless use of chemicals compromises the
natural rhythms of the Earth and its capability to produce food in the
coming years (EU Standing Committee on Agriculture Research
[SCAR], n.d.). Food systems as a whole contribute between 15%
and 28% of overall greenhouse gas emissions in developed countries
(Garnett, 2011). As important contributors to climate change and
global warming, these activities threaten the stability of the whole
food system, including negative impacts on food production, food
prices, food utilization, access to food, and supply chain
infrastructure (Schmidhuber & Tubiello, 2007; Wheeler & von Braun,
2013). The exploitation of natural resources and changing land use
patterns have led to biodiversity losses, especially in agriculture and
fisheries, and to the inability of nature to regenerate resources at
the same pace as their depletion.
Finally, the agri-food industry is a social issue. The world’s
population is expected to increase to 8 billion by 2030 and to exceed
9 billion by 2050 (UN, 2013). This forecast includes the projected
growth of a middle-class that will demand more varied and high-
quality food products requiring additional, differentiated, and more
costly resources. Such a population will require 60% more global
food supplies (Global Commission on the Economy and Climate,
2014) and utilize up to 45% of global energy and 30% of global
water demand exclusively for agricultural activities (Foresight, 2011).
However, in too many countries, more food is produced than can be
consumed. Research shows that one-third of the global food
production is wasted or lost annually (Gustavsson, Cederberg,
Sonesson, Van Otterdijk, & Meybeck, 2011). On the other hand,
there is wide agreement that without waste, through the responsible
use of available resources, and thanks to expected scientific
progress, the food system will be able to feed the world’s population
(Aiking & de Boer, 2004).
The increasing gap between the poorest and wealthiest parts of
the population (Piketty, 2014) suggests that an increasing
percentage of the global population may suffer from hunger. Today,
estimates suggest that there are more than 900 million people
worldwide suffering from hunger. Although undernourishment has
fallen from 18.7% to 11.3% globally, the problem is far from solved,
with Sub-Saharan Africa and Southern Asia still having severe
undernutrition problems. Many other factors, such as price volatility,
access restrictions, the interconnectedness of global commodity
markets, increasing vulnerability of food production systems to
climate change, and loss of agro-biodiversity, will further increase
the food insecurity and inaccessibility for poor people in the future.
At the same time, the average Western diet includes high intakes
of meat, fat, and sugar posing a significant risk to individual health
in this area of the word. Worldwide 1.9 billion people are overweight
and of these over 600 million are obese. Worse, the worldwide
prevalence of obesity more than doubled between 1980 and 2014.
But both hunger and obesity are critical social issues that affect up
to a quarter of the world’s population (Aiking & de Boer, 2004).
In sum, sustainable development in the food sector faces three
main and integrated challenges. The first challenge is that food
production significantly impacts and strongly depends on
environmental, human, and physical resources. Respecting,
protecting, and regenerating this interdependency are fundamental
to sustainable development. The second challenge involves the vital
role that food holds for humans. Consumers are increasingly aware
of and concerned with the negative impacts that unsustainable
production methods, food miles, and food origin can have on their
health. They are expecting and requiring more information and
transparency on production processes and food sources (Bourlakis,
Maglaras, Aktas, Gallear, & Fotopoulos, 2014). As a result, consumer
and regulatory requirements will become central to sustainable
development, but this will increase the complexity and challenges
faced by manufacturers, suppliers, and the entire chain.
The third challenge reflects the peculiar characteristics of the
food supply chain. The actors involved in the chain often belong to
different companies that are diverse in terms of size and approaches
toward sustainability and their participation in a process that is time
sensitive. The interdependence of the actors – with different
motivations and the threat of perishability/spoilage – increases the
possibility that conflicts will arise from the adoption and
implementation of sustainable practices by any one actor in the food
chain (Hartmann, 2011).

THE AGRI-FOOD INDUSTRY AND SUPPLY

CHAIN
Food tends to be produced in a complex system made up of mainly
industrialized and mass production processes, diverse actors, and
layers of complexity. The sustainability of the food industry is
intrinsically dependent on the sustainability of its many agri-food
supply chains – from the sustainability of the actors that grow or
produce the food through the complex actor interactions that make
the food available to the final consumer. In addition, many supply
chain stages have been internationally integrated to form global food
supply chains. Globalization, along with changing marketing
techniques, consumption trends, and modern technology, has raised
concerns regarding economic, social, and environmental
sustainability. These concerns are pushing organizations to develop
systems that ensure the control of the entire supply chain,
guarantee quality and food safety, and track/trace practices and
products (Gulati, Minot, Delgado, & Bora, 2007).
As food sector sustainability comes under increasing scrutiny, the
management of supply chains as a potential differentiating
competency has become a forefront issue for organizations all over
the world (Fritz & Schiefer, 2008; Validi, Bhattacharya, & Byrne,
2014). There is wide consensus that coping with the challenge of a
more sustainable food production and consumption system will
require a holistic solution that comprises the whole supply chain.
In fact, the food sector was among the first to explore
sustainability issues (Fritz & Schiefer, 2008) and is constantly looking
for innovative supply chain solutions to decrease the impact on the
natural environment and improve social and ethical dimensions. For
example, the European Sustainable Production and Consumption
policies are aimed at creating more sustainable food supply chains,
protecting the environment, increasing the competitiveness of the
European food sector, and contributing to economic and social
welfare (European Commission n.d.).

Agri-Food Supply Chain Characteristics

Food supply chains have specific and challenging inventory and

production characteristics compared to other types of supply chains
(Akkerman & van Donk, 2007; Zavanella & Zanoni, 2009), including:

Production processes characterized by frequent setup cycles that

are highly dependent on timing, season, and sequence;
Limited storage times due to expiration issues, but also because
specific products require dedicated techniques; and
Short processing times that require sophisticated tracing,
monitoring, and quality systems to assure final consumers about
quality, food safety, and authenticity.

Improper attention to these issues can affect human health if

various hygiene, temperature, or production standards have not
been respected. Regulations and regulatory enforcement can push
the development of new procedures and managerial systems for the
food chain (Zanoni & Zavanella, 2012).
Reflecting these characteristics, a food supply chain or food
system comprises a set of processes and the economic, institutional,
and political actors that determine how food reaches the final
consumer starting from its cultivation or breeding (Saccomandi,
1999). It is made up of different actors and organizations operating
in diverse markets and selling a variety of food products (Fig. 1)
(Bukeviciute, Dierx, Ilzkovitz, & Roty, 2009). According to the UK
Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs, a food supply
chain consists of agricultural production, food processing, food
wholesaling, food retailing, and food catering (DEFRA, 2006). When
we consider food sustainability, we need to add food consumption
and waste at the consumer stage.

Fig. 1. Components and Relationships in the Agri-Food Supply Chain.

These actors can be classified in three main sectors: agriculture,

food processing, and distribution. The agricultural sector engages in
mainly crop production and livestock breeding activities.
Organizations belonging to this sector sell their products to the food
processing sector, to their own sector in the form of feed for
animals, but also to distributors (exporters/wholesalers/retailers) and
in some cases even directly to food catering, final consumers, or
alternative markets (biofuels).
The food processing sector includes a highly diverse set of
organizations and activities, such as cutting or drying (related to fruit
and vegetables), slaughtering and disassembling (related to
livestock), or roasting (related to coffee). In most cases, the final
activity is packaging, after which products are delivered to
customers, including distributors, food services/catering, or final
consumers. This sector is also involved in marketing and new
product development activities.
The distribution sector (wholesale/retail) is the primary channel
through which food is sold to customers and consumers. A special
case of food distribution is hotels, restaurants, and catering
(Ho.Re.Ca), which buy either processed or non-processed food and
delivers it to consumers after final, on-site, and on-demand
processing. Since the distribution sector has direct contact with
consumers, another important activity that can be carried out is the
promotion of the food products (Bukeviciute et al., 2009).
These sectors can be configured in a variety of different ways.
Several supply chain classifications have been proposed and here we
adopt the classification proposed by Smith (2008). It provides an
effective framework for highlighting the different sustainability
implications of food supply chains:

Local Food Supply Chains: These are short-distance, small-scale

supply chains, generally involving medium/small companies and
traditional products. They are particularly suitable for fresh, highly
perishable products that require a very short time from the field to
the table.
Conserved Food Supply Chains: Through a variety of conservation
techniques (canning, pasteurization, freezing, chilling, controlled
atmosphere, etc.), food can be stored for longer times and
transported over long distances. They are generally operated on a
large-scale and involve large organizations. Today, “fresh” fruit and
vegetables and dairy produce can be traded as “conserved food.”
Manufactured Food Supply Chains: This involves processed food,
often through large-scale, industrialized processes, utilizing a
variety of ingredients derived from multiple sources, often
scattered around the globe and pre-processed. Supply networks
are typically complex and dynamic, often overlapped with those of
competitors.
Commodity Food Supply Chains: Simple conserved foods, including
coffee, wheat, and cocoa, are defined by standard specifications
 worldwide, often bulked for low costs, easy transportation, and
simple storage, traded on a global scale according to market
prices, and shipped using sea freight.

Sustainable Food Supply Chain Criteria

To be considered sustainable, the UK Sustainable Development

Commission (DEFRA, 2006) proposed a comprehensive set of supply
chain features and characteristics:

Produce safe, healthy products in response to market demands and ensure that all
consumers have access to nutritious food and to accurate information about food
products.
Support the viability and diversity of rural and urban economies and communities.
Enable viable livelihoods to be made from sustainable land management, both through
the market and through payments for public benefits.
Respect and operate within the biological limits of natural resources (especially soil,
water, and biodiversity).
Achieve consistently high standards of environmental performance by reducing energy
consumption, minimizing resource inputs and using renewable energy wherever possible.
Ensure a safe and hygienic working environment and high social welfare and training for
all employees involved in the food chain.
Achieve consistently high standards of animal health and welfare.
Sustain the resource available for growing food and supplying other public benefits over
time, except where alternative land uses are essential to meet other needs of society.
(Smith, 2008, p. 850)

This framework focuses mainly on production and processing

phases. With increased awareness that a food supply chain’s
footprint and sustainability derives from the consumption phase, at
least two other dimensions should be added to the framework.

Encourage consumers to adopt healthier and more sustainable

food behaviors through education on healthy diets, responsible
consumption, and awareness of food’s impact on sustainability;
Consciousness regarding food security by educating consumers to
adopt more sustainable lifestyles concerning food consumption,
 reduction and disposal of food waste, food preparation (cooking),
consumption, and recycling.

When these criteria are applied to Smith’s (2008) food supply

chain classification, the possibilities and challenges for sustainability
and sustainable-oriented innovation become apparent.

Local Food Supply Chains can be considered relatively sustainable.

They support “mixed” and organic farming and reduce emissions,
thanks to short-distance transport. Local food supply chains sustain
rural enterprises, regenerate rural communities, and break
agribusiness monopolies. On the downside, they can struggle in
achieving economic sustainability and can offer only a limited range
of products.
Conserved Food Supply Chains can be moderately sustainable
because, historically, they have been important for reducing losses
and degradation during transport from rural areas to urban
populations, and allowing people to enjoy a nutritious and varied
diet throughout the year. However, the economic benefits often
disrupt local food supply chains by bringing high quantities of low
cost food from far away, with additional negative impacts due to
long-distance transportation.
Manufactured Food Supply Chains are among the least sustainable.
Mixing and substituting ingredients along complicated dynamic
supply networks can limit traceability and the flow of information
and influence along the chain. The complex industrial processes
and the growing sophistication of products may hamper their
healthiness and drive unhealthy consumption behaviors. They are
economically attractive but environmentally and socially
problematic – an area ripe for innovation.
Commodities Food Supply Chains are extremely volatile. When
production exceeds demand, prices tend to be low, making
commodity-based foodstuffs widely available, but having
catastrophic impact on the lives of farmers. This in turn may lead
to lower investments and production in subsequent years, thus
 creating the opposite situation, with insufficient production and
high prices, thus impacting food availability, in particular for poor
people. This too is a system with innovation possibilities.

Sustainable Food Supply Chain Practices

The sustainable supply chain management literature highlights the

differences between practices aimed at “harm reduction” and those
oriented to “harm elimination” (Pagell & Shevchenko, 2014). In
particular, the literature underlines that most current practices and
studies focus on making unsustainable supply chain and business
models less unsustainable, rather than on creating “truly sustainable
supply chains.” Truly sustainable supply chains are economically
viable and do not harm (and may actually aid) the natural and the
social environment (Pagell & Wu, 2009). Studying what is different
and what is new about sustainable supply chain management, and
what completely new practices and business models are arising to
create truly sustainable supply chains underlines the importance of
studying different, new, unconventional cases alongside more
traditional ones. That is one of the aims of the research cases
presented in this volume.
To achieve the desired sustainability performance, a broad variety
of practices have been identified and adopted by various actors
involved in the food supply chain. Several authors have proposed
possible practice classifications to help synthesize this complex
domain (Maloni & Brown, 2006; Smith, 2008). However, such
classifications are often incomplete or contradictory, and we
therefore summarize and integrate a variety of proposals according
to the well-known pillars of environmental, social, and economic
sustainability.
Environmental sustainability practices attend to natural resources
conservation, green processing, packaging, and transportation, and
animal welfare. Natural resources conservation practices reduce the
consumption of land, water, and energy, reduce emissions into the
air, land, and water, and preserve the soil and biodiversity. Green
processing, packaging, and transportation practices reduce the
impact of industrial and logistic processes through reducing and
recycling waste, reducing energy consumption, and using renewable
energies; reducing packaging or using recycled, recyclable, or re-
usable packaging materials; and reducing fuel consumption and
emissions during transportation. Animal welfare practices deal with
the establishment of breeding conditions that eliminate cruelty,
handle and house animals safely, and slaughter and transport
animals humanely.
Social sustainability in a food supply chain is approached through
health and safety practices, health and human rights policies and
procedures, and community development practices. Health and
safety practices improve food product quality and safety for the
consumer. It considers the controlled handling, processing,
transportation, and traceability of food in the chain and the
promotion of healthy lifestyles, consumer education, and responsible
consumption. Work and Human Rights practices ensure safe and
respectful working conditions along the whole supply chain and lead
to higher levels of motivation and performance. Community
development practices are aimed at improving the relationship with
the community in which the supply chain operates. This can include
economic development activities, educational practices, childcare,
and employee volunteering as well as philanthropic investment and
aid.
Economic sustainability is supported by sustainable procurement
and fair trade practices. Downstream actors in the supply chain,
such as industrial processors and large distributors, should adopt
sustainable procurement practices in managing their supply base to
ensure ethical purchasing processes (fairness, transparency,
confidentiality, and no power abuse), and to foster supplier
development and collaboration. Fair Trade practices ensure a proper
distribution of profits along the supply chain, monitor the economic
sustainability of all the actors involved, and enable the pursuit of
other pillars of sustainability. Practices aimed at monitoring and
certifying the sustainability of the whole chain, as well as increasing
consumer awareness, should also be adopted to obtain a premium
price on the market.

SUSTAINABILITY-ORIENTED INNOVATION IN
AGRI-FOOD SUPPLY CHAIN
Despite the research and practice on how to build more sustainable
food supply chains, the previous sections also suggest that current
food supply chain configurations and practices are putting future
development at risk. Innovation – the introduction of new processes,
products, or organizational methods to an existing system (OECD,
2005; Tornatzky, Eveland, & Fleischer, 1990; Utterback, 1996) – is
required to enhance sustainable effectiveness (Hansen, Grosse-
Dunker, & Reichwald, 2009; Horn & Brem, 2013; Schaltegger &
Wagner, 2011). These innovations will range from developing new
technologies and processes, to establishing goods and services in
new ways, to discovering fundamentally new business models. Each
of these approaches is important because they attempt to overcome
the challenges of inherent trade-offs among sustainability
dimensions. That is, gaining traction in environmental issues often
threatens economic outcomes. Overall, the sustainability practices
discussed above represent significant innovations compared to
traditional supply chain management in the food sector.
In this section, we describe how sustainability-oriented
innovations (SOIs) differ from traditional innovation and how the
diverse determinants of SOIs will require novel organizational
approaches and capabilities.

Characteristics of SOIs

Sustainability-oriented innovation can be defined as the

establishment of new products, processes, and/or management
systems that have an overall positive net effect on the capital stock
of the company, by addressing environmental, social, and economic
goals (Hansen et al., 2009). Extant research suggests that
innovations aimed at sustainable development differ from
conventional innovation in four important ways (Hall & Vredenburg,
2003; Van Kleef & Roome, 2007).
First, SOIs are more likely to have multidimensional objectives
(De Marchi, 2012) because they address product or process
improvements along social, economic, and environmental dimensions
(and the specific multiple aspects within them). Packaging
innovations, for example, can save products from damage, lower
environmental footprints, and reduce costs.
Second, SOI’s involve a higher level of complexity and
uncertainty (Sarkis, Cordeiro, & Brust, 2010) because the outcomes
from integrating or trading-off the social, economic, and
environmental dimensions are unknown. Shortening the supply chain
can successfully increase social and environmental benefits but may
struggle to demonstrate economic sustainability. Similarly, when the
overall concept of sustainability is tackled, SOIs generally require
innovation not just in a specific product, but rather a product-service
system (Carrillo-Hermosilla, Del Río, & Könnölä, 2010). The product-
service system perspective stresses the relevance of the entire
supply chain during the production, processing, consumption, and
disposal of the product (Linton, Klassen, & Jayaraman, 2007), thus
leading to increased complexity.
Third, SOI’s are fundamentally riskier (Hall & Vredenburg, 2003)
because they require adjustments in the configuration of the supply
chain, its members, and the way practices and activities are
managed. The more radical the product/process innovation in one
part of the system, the more likely that interventions in the supply
chain will meet with resistance from other supply chain members.
Finally, and also as a consequence of the above distinctive
elements, SOIs generally require more collaborative and/or open
system approaches (Chesbrough, 2010). To date, most open
innovation research has addressed traditional types of innovation.
There is less knowledge on the specific challenges of this approach
when used for SOI. Because of its complexity, the diverse types of
knowledge needed, and its risk uncertainty, especially in terms of
market acceptance, SOIs require the involvement of a number of
different actors, especially non-conventional ones, including
customers, NGOs, and other stakeholders such as local communities
(Foster & Green, 2000; Hall & Vredenburg, 2003).

Drivers and Motivations for SOIs

Although SOIs are different from traditional innovations, their

sources, determinants, and motivations are both similar and
different. For example, the traditional innovation literature
recognizes two main drivers of innovation: technology push and
market pull (Martin, 1994; Horbach, Rammer, & Rennings, 2012).
Technology push innovation is driven by internal investments in R&D
that contribute to the evolution of a product or process through
learning and scaling (Sahal, 1981). Technology push innovation is
recognized as an important driver of eco-innovation by reducing the
environmental impact of production processes, their energy
consumption, or polluting emissions (Horbach, 2008). Technology
push innovation also includes organizational routines or specific
knowledge developed within the company that can be exploited by
producing more sustainable products (Horbach, 2008).
Market pull innovation starts from the recognition of more or less
explicit needs in the environment among customers or other
traditional players in the market. Those demands result in efforts to
develop new solutions, also at the level of technology. Customers
and consumers are increasingly concerned with the environmental
and social sustainability of the products they buy. For some product
categories where sustainability can be seen as an added value,
consumers might consider it as a product differentiation dimension
(Kammerer, 2009). As a consequence, market pull forces generate a
demand for products that are supplied, produced, and distributed in
more sustainable ways.
 The research and debate surrounding these two approaches is
well documented (see, e.g., Di Stefano, Gambardella, & Verona,
2012) and a full review is beyond the scope of this chapter. However,
a clear conclusion of this debate is that while most innovations have
a main driver, push or pull, the presence of both factors allows the
development of technically advanced product and process solutions
that address the explicit or tacit needs of the market. That is,
successful innovation requires both internal and external resources.
More recently, three additional approaches to innovation have
been proposed: design-driven innovation (Verganti, 2008, 2009),
regulatory push/pull innovation (Del Río González, 2009; Rennings,
2000), and values-driven innovation (Hart, 1997; Walker, 2014).
Design-driven innovation is the opportunity to propose and attach
new meanings to products, thus addressing latent needs descending
from socio-cultural changes. In this type of innovation, languages,
semantics, and rhetoric are the key components of innovation and
technology is an important enabler. Buying a product at Whole Foods
has a completely different meaning compared to buying food in an
unattractive, niche, organic store where only highly environmentally
conscious customers would shop (Verganti, 2009).
Regulatory push/pull innovation (Del Río González, 2009;
Rennings, 2000) is driven by the need to comply with existing
regulations, changing regulations, or by the willingness to anticipate
future regulations (Khanna, Deltas, & Harrington, 2009). Although
this might be viewed as a variation on market pull innovation, it is
different because it opens up the numbers and types of stakeholders
involved. It suggests, given that sustainability involves
understanding and meeting the needs and the demands of a number
of different stakeholders (Carroll & Buchholtz, 2014; Steurer, Langer,
Konrad, & Martinuzzi, 2005), that SOIs are driven by the more or
less stringent requirements from external actors, from governmental
bodies and local communities, from demanding customers or
suppliers, or from NGOs and other non-governmental bodies. The
company’s approach could be reactive to the stimuli coming from
stakeholders or proactive by anticipating or even pushing needs and
expectations.
 Finally, there is an additional driver that plays an important role
in many of the cases in this volume. Why would Italian pasta
producer Barilla develop a new kind of pasta that cooks with much
less water compared to the traditional one? Why would Unilever
develop a tea bag that results in exactly the same flavor of its
traditional product but without the need to boil water? Why would
an entrepreneur decide to use prisoners as a main workforce for its
production activities? There is no market need, no technological
advance, and no change in meaning that can explain where these
innovations sprung from. Nor are there any current regulatory or
stakeholder requirements behind these innovations. Although one
might argue that consumers are demanding more sustainable
products that use less water or energy, or that firms are always
looking for a cheaper source of labor, these would only be a partial
answer. The cases in this volume point to yet another force: the
conscience of a single individual or individuals (sometimes the
owners or top managers within the organization) or the whole
company about the role of the business in the society. This driver is
often been referred to as vision-pull (Day, 1998; Hart, 1997) or
values-based (Walker, 2014).
Another recurring aspect in SOI innovation is that companies
thinking about more sustainable ways of managing their food supply
chains are increasingly looking to the past for inspiration. Retro-
innovation designs new products, services, and processes by
combining approaches from the past and present (Loucanova,
Parobek, & Kalamarova, 2015; Stuiver, 2006). Walburn noted that
“… not all innovation needs to be about high tech to contribute to
economic growth, and much innovation can be achieved by drawing
on existing technologies, or re-visiting former ways of doing things”
(cited in Loucanova et al., 2015, p. 3). Retro-innovation is instead
based on valuing traditions, heritage, technologies, processes,
recipes, and ingredients that were developed and have endured over
time.
The way food products were sourced, produced, distributed, and
consumed in the past were more sustainable. Supply chains were, in
most cases, shorter and local. Produce was cultivated without the
use of chemical, animals were bred naturally and without unhealthy
living conditions, and farming systems did not deplete the soil.
Everyone in the community participated in sustaining the society.
Food consumption was more responsible and conscious, for one’s
own health and with a balanced distribution of resources. Although
production was likely less efficient, the countervailing social and
ecological benefits produced an overall higher level of sustainability.
Many of the innovations chronicled here harken back to these issues.
They favor local production, shorter supply chains, and local
community development.
This approach is considered appealing not only for its possible
solution of a number of sustainability problems, but also because
market acceptance is often higher than with breakthrough
innovations. The methods of production, processing, and distribution
are well-known, more transparent, more easily trusted, and require
less investment (Loucanova et al., 2015). These are the antithesis of
scale and leverage.
Retro-innovation does not simply borrow from the past while
innovating, it contains elements of design-driven innovation that
require finding ways to connect the past to the present in order to
develop solutions for the future (Castellano, Ivanova, Adnane,
Safraou, & Schiavone, 2013). It represents “yesterday’s tomorrows,
today” (Brown, 1999). Traditional food producers, for example, value
the historical origins of the products, their link with the local territory
and traditions, the purity of the food, and recipes as key values and
differentiators.

The Scale and Scope of SOIs

As a result of the characteristics described above, SOIs – to borrow

two traditional innovation dimensions – are likely be more radical
and systemic rather than incremental and focused in nature. SOIs
that are radical and systemic can require the complete rethinking of
the firm’s business model, and business model innovation is required
to obtain such radical shifts in sustainability performance. Business
model innovation, in the context of sustainability, refers to
completely rethinking the way a business is run, abandoning the
logics related to traditional economic models, such as scale and
leverage. Bocken, Short, Rana, and Evans (2014) provide an
overview of potential business models for sustainability. Some
examples – that are particularly relevant for the food industry –
include fair (or ethical) trade approaches, the creation of value from
waste, bottom of the pyramid solutions, scaling up solutions through
collaborative approaches or open innovation, as well as more general
models of leveraging renewable resources, natural processes, or
maximizing material and energy efficiency. Business model
innovation can be a powerful way to obtain significant improvement
in sustainability at both the firm level and the economic system level
as a whole. Schaltegger, Lüdeke-Freund, and Hansen (2012)
emphasize the importance of “creating economic success through
(and not just along with) a certain environmental or social activity”
(p. 98). They underline that proactive sustainability strategies often
require the complete redesign of the business model to continuously
create business cases for sustainability.
Such radical business model innovation can face relevant
barriers, including conflicts between new and existing business
models that create inertia to change; conflicts with the current asset
configuration of the company; and uncertainty about the “right”
business model, especially as a consequence of the multidimensional
nature of sustainability and the difficulty in assessing it (Chesbrough,
2010). As suggested by the innovation literature (Christensen, 2013;
Utterback, 1996) as well as the SOI research (Montabon, Pagell, &
Wu, 2015), introducing new business models with a sustainability
orientation may come more easily for new entrants in the market.
Incumbents face a high level of risk in changing their traditional way
of operating. However, new entrants often find it more difficult to
scale up their innovation due to lack of resources and assets to
diffuse innovation.
 The Capabilities Required to Implement SOIs

The development and implementation of SOIs, the ability to

incrementally or radically change an organization’s business model,
will place new demands on an organization’s competencies,
processes, and management (Carrillo-Hermosilla et al., 2010). In
particular, the nature of SOIs will require organizations to implement
many of the sustainable supply chain management practices
described above, innovate their traditional supply chain tools, and be
more able to engage in collaborative, multi-stakeholder problem-
solving and learning.
The ability to implement the new sustainable supply chain
management practices or to innovate on traditional tools to improve
sustainability will require organizations to acquire new skills and
knowledge, develop new architectures, designs, processes, and
systems, and learn to balance, integrate, or trade-off a variety of
outcomes. The new practices will require new competencies, such as
chain-level analysis knowledge, a global orientation, and an
awareness of the interactions among social, technical, and
environmental factors, in addition to traditional logistics and
operations management, contracting, and lean/continuous
improvement skills. These skills will interact with new tools and
frameworks to better understand how to replicate and reinforce
sustainable processes over time. Finally, implementing these new
sustainable supply chain practices will require practice. Many of the
practices defined above represent real innovations in an organization
and cannot be simply dropped into place. They require learning,
testing, and adjustment to make them fit an organization’s culture
and strategy.
Perhaps most importantly, and because of the nature and
characteristics of SOIs, a collaborative stakeholder integration
capability may be key to successfully develop and implement these
innovations (Sharma & Vredenburg, 1998; Van Kleef & Roome,
2007). However, although stakeholder diversity provides greater
potential for learning and for developing innovative solutions to
complex problems (Boons & Berends, 2001), there is also the risk
that actors do not share common perspectives and are unfamiliar
with one another. This can create more integration problems, and in
the context of sustainability-oriented innovations, implies the need
for and the importance of effective stakeholder integration
capabilities (Worley, Feyerherm, & Knudsen, 2010). A stakeholder
integration capability refers to the ability to establish trust-based,
collaborative relationships with actors both inside and outside of the
firm (Sharma & Vredenburg, 1998, p. 735). In the apparel design,
manufacturing, and retailing supply chain, Worley et al. (2010)
showed how a multi-stakeholder collaboration and problem-solving
capability helps Gap, Inc. develop important innovations in their
sustainability journey.
Involving multiple stakeholders offers important potential benefits
(Ayes, Rodriguez, Castro, & Arino, 2011; Sharma & Vredenburg,
1998). First, it facilitates the inclusion of missing knowledge or new
insights about issues ranging from technological to sustainability-
related inputs (Ayuso, Rodriguez, & Ricart, 2006; Hansen et al.,
2009; Laperche & Picard, 2013). To the extent that information
asymmetries or the lack of transparency exists in a supply chain,
bringing the system actors together allows them to see potential
unintended consequence more clearly. Second, stakeholder
involvement can enhance the strategic orientations and
consciousness of firms to sustainable development (Ayuso et al.,
2006; Sharma & Henriques, 2005; Van Kleef & Roome, 2007), and
better address stakeholder satisfaction, trust, or commitment (Grafé-
Buckens & Hinton, 1998; Strong, Ringer, & Taylor, 2001). Third, a
more systemic view can be a crucial instrument for directing
stakeholder behaviors toward sustainability, especially when
stakeholders are users (Jelsma, 2003; Lockton, Harrison, & Stanton,
2008) and/or suppliers (Carter & Rogers, 2008). For example, the
EUInnovate project studied the role of stakeholder involvement,
especially users, in developing SOIs oriented to more sustainable
lifestyles. The project showed that in many cases the involvement of
users was fundamental in promoting more sustainable behaviors
(http://www.euinnovate.com/en/ourprojects).
 KEY QUESTIONS AND CASE SUMMARIES
Improving the sustainability of current food supply chains or
designing completely new supply chains that are truly sustainable is
a complex challenge. There are different dimensions and different
drivers at play, economic viability and fair profit level must be
maintained, and different actors need to be coordinated. This
volume hopes to provide some answers to the relevant questions
about sustainability-oriented innovation in the food industry raised in
this chapter. Those questions include:

• What Types of Innovation are Needed to Create Truly Sustainable

Food Supply Chains?
What motivates firms to pursue SOIs?
In what ways do successful SOIs utilize radical versus
incremental approaches, narrow versus broad stakeholder
engagement, push/pull/design driven/regulatory push, or
values-based processes?
Are SOIs more likely to target multiple dimensions of
sustainability or narrow objectives?
• How and when do SOIs pay off?
What are the business case drivers for sustainability?
Can sustainability be “cheap” for the customer?
Does change in the business model always need to be
“radical?”
Are the economic benefits of SOIs equally distributed along
the supply chain?
• How can truly sustainable supply chains be scaled up or scaled
down?
What alternatives exist to the scale and leverage paradigm?
• What learning/development mechanisms are needed?
What capabilities need to be present?
What is the role of external stakeholders?
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
XII.

Viimein saatiin Tuomiokapituliin tehdystä valituksesta päätös. Mutta

suuri oli sen johdosta valittajain pettymys Kettuniemellä. He
odottivat, että Tuomiokapituli katsoen valittajain suureen
lukumäärään olisi määrännyt uuden kysymyspäivän tai vielä
suoremmin maisteri Krypqvistin heti neljänneksi vaalipapiksi. Mutta
sen siaan oli sen päätöksessä lyhyeen: »Kosk’ei valittajat ole voineet
valituksensa tueksi esittää mitään asiallista syytä, niin ei heidän
valituksensa anna Tuomiokapitulille aihetta mihinkään
toimenpiteesen. Tähän päätökseen tyytymättömillä on tilaisuus
alammaisilla valituksilla j.n.e.»

Tämä oli todella toista, kuin mitä oli toivottu ja hartaasti odotettu.
Näytti kuin koko maailma olisi yhtynyt vastustamaan »sitä hanketta,
jota valittajat olivat Kettuniemen hyväksi hankkineet», ja jonka
tähden niin paljon vaivaa ja puuhaa nähneet. Tämä oli sitä
masentavampaa, kun valittajain joukossa oli pitäjäin parhaita ja
valituskirjan oli kyhännyt oikein lainoppinut. Ja ei sittekään ollut
menestystä!

Tosin oli heillä vielä tilaisuus Tuomiokapitulin päätöksestä valittaa

K. Senaattiin, johonka vaaliasia muutenkin tuli menemään, että
Kettuniemi oli Keisarillinen pitäjä. Mutta sillä toivon varmuudella, jolla
he olivat kääntyneet edelliseen ei he voineet enään kääntyä
jälkimäiseen. Siksi oli heidän toivonsa saanut pahan kolauksen, että
se teki mielet hyvän määrän tasaisemmiksi. Vastaisuus, joka siihen
asti oli näyttänyt lupaavan valoisalta kumminkin niiden mielestä,
jotka luottivat valittajain suureen lukuun ja mahtimiehiin, oli nyt
vetääntynyt pilviin ja niin vastenmielistä, kuin sellainen olikin ajatella,
näytti se ennustavan sadetta.

Mitä ennen vaali- ja valitusinnon touhussa ei myös useimmat

olleet ymmärtäneet tai tahtoneet ottaa huomioon, rupesi vähän
selvenemään heillekin ja tuotti lisää huolta. Ruvettiin salaisesti
pelkäämään sitä, että niin ansiokas kuin maisteri oli Kettuniemellä,
niin saattoi hän yläilmoissa käydä vaan tavallisesta apulaispapista,
jonka ansiot, muutama virkavuosi ehkä punnituksessa huomattaisiin
kovin keveöiksi.

Tämä oli ikävä kohta, jota ei parhaimmallakaan tahdolla voinut

auttaa. Sillä tuskin saattoi odottaa, vaikka olikin »koko seurakunnan
hyvä» kysymyksessä, ettei maisterin pienet ansiot ja se ettei hän
ollut edes vaalissa, saattaisi häntä heikkoon valoon, jollei vallan
näkymättömäksi, kun häntä puolueitten yläpuolella verrattiin
vaalipappeihin, joista vanhemmalla oli lähemmäksi yhtä monta
virkavuotta kuin maisterilla oli ikävuotta ja nuorempi ehkä jo silloin oli
korkeimmalla arvolauseella suorittanut papintutkintonsa, kuin
maisteri alkoi koulunkäyntinsä.

Mutta yhteistä hyvää katsoen valittaa sitä sentään täytyi vaikka

heikommallakin toiveella sen menestymiseksi. Sillä löytyihän
sellaiseen hyvään tarkoitukseen rahaa käytettäväksi. Järvenpään
isäntä oli luvannut sentähden uhrata 1,000 markkaa, Heinäsuon
isäntä puolet siitä ja toiset pienempiä summia. Osoituksena heidän
suuresta uhraavaisuudestaan oli jo tuo suutarin markka, jonka he
toimitetussa keräyksessä olivat toisten mukaan kukkarostaan
kirvoittaneet.

Ettei siis rahaa puuttunut, niin valitusta jatkettiin K. Senaattiin.

Mutta asian paremmaksi menestymiseksi lähti isäntämiehet

Heinäsuo,
Järvenpää ja Seppälä kumarrusmatkalle Helsinkiin. Sillä olihan
Kettuniemellä sellaiseen totuttu.

Ei nimittäin ollut mitään harvinaista pistäytyä sieltä väliin toisesta

väliin toisesta syystä salavihkaa käymään Tuomiokapitulissa tai
muualla asianhaarain mukaan. — Valitusasiassa oli jo sitä keinoa
kaikissa alemmissa asteissa koetettu. Kivimäen vanhat piiat, muita
mainitsematta, olivat sen tähden ajaneet vaalintoimittajan ja läänin
rovastin luona sekä vielä uskollisen palveliansa persoonassa
käyneet Tuomiokapitulissa. Ei siis oltu työtä ja vaivaa säästetty, ei
mitään tunnettua keinoa jätetty käyttämättä, vaikka siihen asti oli
kaikki ollut turhaa.

Helsinki oli ainoa paikka, joka oli vielä käymättä ja sinne oltiin nyt
matkassa sekä valitus- että kumarrustietä koettaen.

Isäntämiesten Heinäsuon ja hänen kumppaninsa saapuessa

Helsinkiin, oli jo myöhäinen ilta. Ensimmäisenä huolena oli heillä
sentähden etsiä itselleen sopiva yömaja, joka jonkun vastuksen
perästä heille onnistui. Mutta aamulla vasta huolet alkoi ja niitä kesti
kaiken päivää. Olipa isäntäin päät vähällä mennä pyörälle, heidän
keskenään tuumiessaan, miten he asiansa parhaiten toimittaisivat.
Sillä ei siinä kyllin, että kuljettava kylä oli peloittavan suuri, vaan
myös käytävät paikat olivat heille outoja. Sentähden luki Seppälä
mielensä rohkaisemiseksi tavalliset aamurukouksensa kahteen
kertaan. Heinäsuo, joka oli enemmän maailmallismielinen, kävi
tillikkamyymälässä hakemassa sydämen vahvistusta ja Järvenpää
osti hattumaakarilta uuden silkkivuorisen hatun.

Näin hengellisesti ja maallisesti valmistettuaan päättivät he asiasta

keskenään tuumittuaan käydä senaattoreja tapaamassa heidän
kotonaan. Tähän neuvoi Seppälä, joka rakasti kahdenkeskisiä
keskusteluja, että niissä sai niin vapaasti puhua kaikesta, mitä sattui
kulloinkin sydämellä lepäämään. Tosin tuotti sellainen käyminen
heille enemmän vaivaa, kävelemistä ja kyselemistä, kun noita
korkeita herroja, joiden kaikkein luona heidän piti käydä
kumartamassa, oli niin monta. Mutta mitä ei sitä tehnyt ja vaivannut
itseänsä yhteisen hyvän tähden? Erittäin kun isännät olivat tunnetut
sellaisesta uhraavaisuudestaan yleisten asiain edistämiseksi!

Mutta kun onni tulee kieroksi, niin se tuleekin. Tämän saivat

isännätkin surukseen havaita. Missä ei ollut heidän etsimänsä
senaattori kotona, missä ei ollut senaattorilla aikaa heidän
vastaanottamiseensa; missä oli senaattorilla jotain muuta estettä.
Turhaan kävivät he, väliin juoksujalassa, keväisen päivän hiki
tukassa Helsingin pitkiä katuja, mielessään ehkä miettien: vaikea on
sentään opin tie. Ainoastaan viimeisessä heidän käymässä paikassa
saivat he asiastaan vähän aikaa puhella erään palvelian kanssa,
joka vähän kaksimielisesti siitä tuumasi, että se voi menestyä ja
jäädä menestymättä, riippuen siitä, kuinka se Senaatissa tutkitaan ja
päätetään.

Sellaisesta puheesta ei ollut suurta lohdutusta, ärähti, heidän pois

käydessään, toisille vähän happaman näköisenä Heinäsuo. Ja
kävellä on saanut itsensä väsyksiin kuin maksun edestä.

Ei ollut, se on totta, myönsi Seppälä, väsyneesti katsellen sopivaa

istuinpaikkaa itselleen. Ja niin monessa paikassa kuin me olemme
käyneet!

Niin, ei ollut, yhtyi siihen myös Järvenpää, kaivaen taskustaan

paperossin esiin, jota hän rupesi masentuneen mielensä
rohkaisemiseksi sytyttämään. Meidän vaivamme on tänään ollut ihan
turhaa.

Toisena päivänä päättivät he, välttääkseen enempää joutumasta

eiliseen opin kouluun, josta he mielestään olivat jo saaneet
tarpeekseen, Järvenpään neuvosta käydä suorastaan Senaatissa.
Täällä kohta eteisessä otti heidät vastaan kiiltonappinen ja kauniin
rihmanen herra, jopa alentui kohteliaasti kysymään heidän nimiänsä
ja asiaansa.

Heinäsuo, jolla oli toisia rohkeampi luonto ja notkeempi kieli,

rupesi kohta laveasti selittämään: he olivat isäntämiehiä kuuluisalta
Kettuniemeltä, jotka olivat tulleet alamaisimmasti pyytämään, että he
saisivat maisteri Krypqvistin, joka jo muutaman vuoden oli ollut heillä
pappina, kirkkoherrakseen, sillä se oli heidän seurakuntansa
yhteinen mieli.

Vähän hymyillen vastasi kiiltonappinen herra, että kaikki asiat,

jossa käännytään Senaattiin, ovat aina esitettävät kirjallisesti.

Niin oikein, armollinen herra, sanoi siihen nöyrästi kumartaen

Seppälä. Kettuniemeltä on kyllä kirjallisesti asiassa valitettu
Senaattiin, mutta me isäntämiehet olemme tulleet, että niinkuin — —
—.
 Hyvä hyvä, keskeytti siinä kiiltonappinen herra, jonka mielestä
isäntäin suuri puheliaisuus alkoi käydä rasittavaksi, voitte siis toivoa
siksi, kuin päätös teidän valittamassa, asiassa annetaan Senaatista.

Kiittäen nöyrimmästi saadusta lohdullisesta tiedosta, poistuivat

isännät hyvillä mielin isosta talosta, käydäkseen vielä eräässä
huomattavassa paikassa asiatansa ajamassa ja sitten lähteäkseen
tietoineen paluumatkalle.
XIII.

Hyviä tietoja oli isännät Heinäsuo ja hänen kumppaninsa Helsingistä

tuoneet Kettuniemelle. Tämä herätti toisissa valittajissa uutta toivoa
ja elähytti heidän sattuneesta vastoinkäymisestä lamaantunutta
mieltään. Erittäin oli se rohkaisevaa ja ikäänkuin parantavaa
palssamia haavoitetulle sydämelle, mitä Heinäsuo tiesi kertoa. Sillä
vastakohtana toisille, jotka olivat enemmän vakavia ja hidaspuheisia,
oli Heinäsuo vilkasluontoinen ja puhelias, ja ymmärsi sen lisäksi
koskea juuri sellaisia asioita, jotka hän tiesi kuulijoitaan miellyttävän.

Niinpä hän esimerkiksi heidän matkaltaan junalla muisti yhtä ja

toista huvittavaa, joka sai kuulijat hyvälle tuulelle. Kulku oli ollut
halpaa ja nopeaa. Tuskin kerkesi junaan päästyään siunaamaan
itseään, kun mennä huristettiin sitä kyytiä, että oikein sydäntä
kouristi. Se oli toista, kuin ajaa hölkytellä hevosella puolenpäivää
naapurikaupungin väliä ja tuntea siitä vielä toisena päivänä
väsymystä. — Kun he tulivat Helsinkiin, selitti hän, ei heidän
tarvinnut muuta kuin sanoa, että olivat isäntämiehiä Kettuniemeltä,
kyllä otettiin vastaan kuin herroja ja hyvät yömajat varattiin. Sillä
heidän seurakunta onkin hyvässä maineessa joka paikassa, ja
tunnettu ympäri Suomea. — Ja millainen suuri ja komea kaupunki
Helsinki oli, siitä voi hän puhella vaikka päivän umpeensa halullisille
kuulijoille, joita ei häneltä koskaan puuttunut, hänen
kumarrusmatkastansa kertoessaan.

Sen siaan meni hän aina siitä kertoessaan sievästi ohitse, mitä he
olivat saaneet turhaan juosta, hikoilla ja vaivaa nähdä Helsingissä,
heidän etseissään senaattoreja heidän kotoaan. Mitäpä sellaisesta
olisikaan ollut muille huviksi puhuttavaa, joka omaa mieltäkin tahtoi
vähän karmia, kun sitä muisteli!

Mutta kertoa heidän käynnistään Senaatissa, jossa kiiltonappinen

herra oli heidät niin kohteliaasti vastaan ottanut ja heidän asiastaan
keskustellut, se oli Heinäsuon mieliaine, johon ei hän koskaan
väsynyt. — Hän ei voinut kyllin kiittää pääsenaattoria, jonka kanssa,
vakuutti hän, he olivat saaneet puhella vaali-asioista lähes tunnin
aikaa. Kovin hyvä oli hän ollut puhutella ja oikein kättä heille
paiskannut, kun hän keskustelun lopuksi kehoitti heitä olemaan
hyvässä toivossa, sillä heidän asiansa tulee päättymään
seurakunnan hyväksi.

Ikäänkuin vähän salaisesti tiesi Heinäsuo myös kertoa heidän

käynnistään eräässä toisessakin paikassa, josta, vaikka kieli oli siellä
tahtonut tehdä heille haittaa, he olivat asiaansa nähden saaneet
hyviä lupauksia. Ja aina kertomuksensa lopuksi lisäsi hän: »nyt minä
tiedän, kuinka sitä on tehtävä, jos niin sattuisi, että tästä vielä
jouduttaisiin semmoisissa asioissa Helsinkiin matkustamaan».

Valitusasia oli siis saatu hyvälle kannalle. Toivo lopullisesta

voitosta näytti varmalta ja yhtä lepäävältä, kuin hyvin orastunut
toukopelto. Ja siitä tuli tietysti enin kiittää isäntämiehiä Heinäsuota ja
hänen matka-tovereitaan eli oikeimmin heidän Helsinkiin tekemää
kumarrusmatkaansa. Sillä sen johdosta vasta asiat olivat kääntyneet
oikealle uralle.
 Ei ollut ihme sentähden, jos suurin osa arvostelu-kykyä puuttuvista
valittajista oli hyvillä mielin ja odotti toivolla ratkaisevaa päätöstä,
kuin pimeässä vaeltaja kuun nousua.

Sitä suuremman hämmästyksen herätti sitten, kun ihan

odottamatta saatiin sanomalehdistä lukea, että K. Senaatti oli
nimittänyt Pohjakylän kappalaisen H. Pitkäsen Kettuniemen
kirkkoherraksi. Tuskin salama kirkkaalta päivältä olisi enemmän
järkähyttävästi vaikuttanut mieliin, kuin tämä uutinen. Sillä pitihän
sen olla maisteri Krypqvist eikä hän, jota nimitettäväksi odotettiin.

Tosin oli Pitkänen vaalissa saanut enimmät äänet, jotta häntä

siihen nähden saattoi toivoa kirkkoherraksi. Mutta maisterin puolella
oli paitsi valittajain suurta joukkoa Helsinkiin tehty kumarrusmatka,
jonka piti kaikki hyväksi saattaman. Ja kuitenkin oli asiat menneet
toisin. — Muuten arveltiin järkevämpäinkin keskuudessa yleensä,
että Pitkäsen nimitys tulisi viipymään vähintäin syksynpuoleen. Mutta
nyt olikin se tapahtunut niin pikaisesti, että hän saattoi tavalliseen
muuttoaikaan astua uuteen virkaansa.

Eikä siinä kyllin. Sanottua tietoa seurasi toinen yhtä odottamaton.

Ilmoitettiin nimittäin, että Tuomiokapituli oli määrännyt maisteri
Krypqvistin Pohjakylän v.t. kappalaiseksi ja että hänen oli kohta
siihen toimeen ryhtyminen. Ei maisteri ennättänyt edes
lähtösaarnaansa pitämään, kun niin odottamatta ja pikaisesti hänen
täytyi matkustaa uuteen virkapaikkaansa.

Näin päättyi Kettuniemen vaali.

Tuo juonistansa kuulu juttu,
Jok’ intomiehet yhteen haali,
Kuin eellisestä ompi tuttu.
 Turhaksi kävi työ ja vaiva,
Pomojen viisaus myös suuri;
Se monen sydäntä nyt kaivaa.
Kuin moisesta on tapa juuri.

Mutt’ opiksi voi olla vasta,

Kun tulee vaaliaika toinen,
Ett’ työtä seuraa juonikasta
Lopuksi heelmä karvaalloinen.
 *** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK KUINKA
KETTUNIEMELLÄ KIRKKOHERRAA VALITTIIN ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.

copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in
these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it
in the United States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of
this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept
and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and
may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the
terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of
the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as
creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research.
Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given
away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with
eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject
to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
 PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free

distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or
any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and

Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree
to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be
bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from
the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in
paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be

used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people
who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a
few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic
works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.
See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with
Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in
the United States and you are located in the United States, we do
not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing,
performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the
work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of
course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™
mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely
sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of
this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name
associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of
this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its
attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without
charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the
United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms
of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying,
performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this
work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes
no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in
any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other

immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must
appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™
work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or
with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is
accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
 This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United
States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away
or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License
included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the
laws of the country where you are located before using this
eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived

from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a
notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright
holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the
United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must
comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through
1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted

with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted
with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of
this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project

Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a
part of this work or any other work associated with Project
Gutenberg™.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this

electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form,
including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you
provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work
in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in
the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing

access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:

• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the
method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The
fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty
payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on
which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your
periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked
as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information
about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation.”

• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who

notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that
s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
 License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and
discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project
Gutenberg™ works.

• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of

any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in
the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90
days of receipt of the work.

• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™

electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend

considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe
and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating
the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may
be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to,
incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a
copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or
damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer
codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except

for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph
1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner
of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party
distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this
agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and
expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO
REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF
WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE
FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY
DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE
TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL,
PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE
NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you

discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it,
you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by
sending a written explanation to the person you received the work
from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must
return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity
that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a
replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work
electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to
give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in
lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may
demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the
problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in
paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied

warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted
by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any
provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the

Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the
Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any
volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability,
costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or
indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur:
(a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b)
alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project
Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of

Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.
It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and
donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the

assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a
secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help,
see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at
www.gutenberg.org.
 Section 3. Information about the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,

Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to

the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can
be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the
widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small
donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax
exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating

charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and
keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in
locations where we have not received written confirmation of