Loots, Ilse

Messely, Lies

Rogge, Elke

Vandermoere, Frederic

Vanderplanken, Kirsten

English

Ghent University Academic Bibliography

ILVO An analysis of self-governance in territorial agri-food networks  AgUrb conference  K. Vanderplanken (ILVO, UA) E. Rogge (ILVO, Ugent) I. Loots (UA) L. Messely (ILVO) F. Vandermoere (UA) ILVO agenda 1. introduction 2. research questions 3. methodology 4. case Hartenboer Limburg - Voedselteams Marta ILVO food-related issues  new networks that establish new linkages  alternative food networks  multiple-member strategic alliances    1. introduction vilt ILVO 2. research question self-governance of strategic alliances in food provisioning?    a. main actors and institutions? b. governance structure and key roles? c. embeddedness?  ILVO 3. methodology self-governance of strategic alliances in food provisioning?    case study research social network analysis a. main actors and institutions? b. governance structure and key roles? c. embeddedness?  descriptive analysis systemic analysis ILVO 4. case Hartenboer Limburg - Voedselteams      ILVO self-governance of strategic alliances in food provisioning?    a. main actors and institutions? b. governance structure and key roles? c. embeddedness?  descriptive analysis ILVO case Hartenboer descriptive analysis organizational structure Hartenboer Limburg - Voedselteams ILVO • main actors? – producers – regional coordinator Voedselteams – AC De Wroeter  • main institutions? – trimestral assembly – internal rules – vision on short chains          ILVO self-governance of strategic alliances in food provisioning?    a. main actors and institutions? b. governance structure and key roles? c. embeddedness?  systemic analysis ILVO  governance structure of  an alliance is characterized by  • hierarchy • coordination • control  ILVO Hierarchy?   flat hierarchical structure  • ownership: producers   direct beneficiaries • decision making:  producers   every producer has one vote • decision gatekeeper: AC De Wroeter  they have to execute decisions, so have more to say about what is viable and what is not  societal embeddedness: collective understandings shape the goals, strategies and governance structure of the alliance  ILVO Coordination?   1. operationalization of the network (De Wroeter) 2. social movement (regional coordinator Voedselteams)   cognitive embeddedness: fit in knowledge and expertise        ILVO Coordination?   1. Operationalization of the network  • stock management:   producers  the timing, quantity, location, and technology  • stock monitoring:   producers  monitoring harvesting, production / resolving conflicts  • administrative stock monitoring:   AC De Wroeter  overview  • provide infrastructure:   AC De Wroeter  providing infrastructure for pick-order, distribution, labelling,   logistics,… / the timing and possibility of deliverance • knowledge management:   AC De Wroeter (as gatekeeper)  gathering and analyzing knowledge on consumer  demands and purchases / control over diffusion of this knowledge in the alliance      ILVO    stock flows ILVO Coordination?   2. social movement • brokering external alliances:   regional coordinator Voedselteams  facilitating and initiating cooperation, network  maintenance • participation management:   regional coordinator Voedselteams  facilitating consumer participation, setting  criteria for participation • vision management:   regional coordinator Voedselteams  engaging and sensitizing consumers, discussing  vision with producers and vision maintenance   producers  discussing vision with regional coordinator, working in line with the  vision ILVO    all relations ILVO territorial embeddedness ILVO Control?  access rights are controlled by the producers  no monitor appointed due to network embeddedness: multiplexity of networks  promotes trust, cooperation and shared behavioral expectations network will facilitate collective monitoring, sanctioning and produce incentives  possible issues: • less access to new information (importance gatekeepers) • less innovative capacity • limited openness • collective blindness ILVO all relations ILVO further research:  • potential role for citizen-consumers • other cases: alternative – conventional – bridging    ILVO kirsten.vanderplanken@ilvo.vlaanderen.be questions? ILVO R. Gall & B. Schroder (2006), Agricultural producer cooperatives as strategic alliances, International Food and Agribusiness Review,  Vol. 9: 4, pp. 26-44 C. Lamine (2015), Sustainability and resilience in agrifood systems: reconnecting agriculture, food and the environment, Sociologia Ruralis, Vol. 55: 1, pp. 41-61 E. Ostrom (2007), The governance challenge: matching institutions to the structure of social-ecological systems, in S. Levin (ed.) The Princeton Guide to Ecology, NJ: University Press, pp. 748-753 K. Provan & P. Kenis (2008), Modes of network governance: structure, management and effectiveness, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 18: 2, pp. 229-252 T. Rowley, D. Behrens & D. Krackhardt (2000), Redundant governance structures: an analysis of structural and relational embeddedness in the steel and semiconductor industries, Strategical Management Journal, Vol. 21, pp. 369-386 Spaargaren, G. (2003), Sustainable consumption: a theoretical and environmental policy perspective, Society and Natural Resources: 16, pp. 687-701 literature 

An analysis of governance processes in territorial agri-food networks

https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/7136885/file/7137346

An analysis of governance processes in territorial agri-food networks

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Ghent University Academic Bibliography