Traceability systems are recordkeeping systems designed to track the flow of product and/or product attributes through the production process and throughout the supply chain from producers to consumers. The aim of this study is to review the current status of traceability systems in food companies, compare different traceablity systems applied by food companies, and analyse the sources of variation in their efficiency. A traceability system is characterized by its breadth, depth, and precision. Differences in efficiency are attributed to the costs and benefits of traceability’s implementation to these three traceabiligy characteristics. Three case studies were conducted during the period April-May 2005. All cases were large food companies, with more than 250 employees, and operating for more than 20 years in Greece. All companies had a traceability system in operation. All companies had implemented a traceability system not because legislation required, but because they found it was a valuable business tool. In the operation level, the main problem was whether or not suppliers could provide traceability information in a useful format. All companies reported the same benefits from the traceability system: Better control of supply chain as well as better quality assurance –higher levels of food quality & safety

Vlachos, Ilias

English

Northumbria University Research Portal

Agrifood Logistics and Food Traceability   Dr. Ilias P. Vlachos     Agricultural University of Athens, Agricultural Economics Dept., Agribusiness     Laboratory, Iera Odos 75, Botanikos 118 55, Athens, Greece     Phone: +30 210 5294757 / Fax: +30 5294767    email: ivlachos@aua.gr /   ABSTRACT Traceability systems are recordkeeping systems designed to track the flow of product and/or product attributes through the production process and throughout the supply chain from producers to consumers. The aim of this study is to review the current status of traceability systems in food companies, compare different traceablity systems applied by food companies, and analyse the sources of variation in their efficiency. A traceability system is characterized by its breadth, depth, and precision. Differences in efficiency are attributed to the costs and benefits of traceability’s implementation to these three traceabiligy characteristics. Three case studies were conducted during the period April-May 2005. All cases were large food companies, with more than 250 employees, and operating for more than 20 years in Greece. All companies had a traceability system in operation. All companies had implemented a traceability system not because legislation required, but because they found it was a valuable business tool. In the operation level, the main problem was whether or not suppliers could provide traceability information in a useful format. All companies reported the same benefits from the traceability system: Better control of supply chain as well as better quality assurance –higher levels of food quality & safety.     Keywords: Agribusiness Logistics, Food Traceability, Food Quality & Safety, Honey, Greece 1. Introduction Traceability systems are recordkeeping systems designed to track the flow of product and/or product attributes through the production process and throughout the supply chain from producers to consumers. Traceability has become mandatory throughout the EU on January 1, 2005 as part of the general food law, so as to address the major issue of food quality and safety and avoid further food crises to emerge. For example, tracking animal feed helps to control the risk of mad cow disease and to improve meat safety.  Traceability also facilitates the targeted withdrawal of foods (reverse logistics) and enables consumers to be provided with information concerning the credence attributes of the implicated products (Vlachos, 2002). Regulation EC/178/2002 defines traceability as the ability to trace and follow food, feed, and ingredients through all stages of production, processing and distribution. A traceability system is characterized by its breadth, depth, and precision.  Breadth describes the amount of information the traceability system records.   The depth of a traceability system is how far back or forward the system tracks. Regulation EC/178/2002 has made mandatory the plus minus one rule: businesses are at least able to identify the immediate supplier of the product in question and the immediate subsequent recipient.   Precision reflects the degree of assurance with which the tracing system can pinpoint a particular food product’s movement or characteristics.  Traceability is related to the supply chain design. In order to preserve high-quality products a sufficient coordination is necessary (Mangina and Vlachos, 2004). For example, Zylbersztajn et al. (2003) studied the competitive structure of the meat system in Brazil and found that coordination was necessary in order to communicate information about consumers’ needs of beef products upstream to slaughterhouses and producers. King (2002) pinpointed that quality products require that specific supply chain design.  For example, global markets for products with a strong local identity such as Protected Denomination of Origin products from the EU are expanding rapidly,  For example, Kennett et al (1998) examined bread wheat quality and its effect on vertical co-ordination in the wheat supply chain and concluded that the wheat quality control is directly related to supply chain management. In particular, better bread quality requires millers and bakers to develop closer vertical linkages with wheat suppliers Starbird (2001) showed that rewards for better quality and penalties for poorer quality, conditioned by the type of inspection policy, are among the most common quality-related provisions of supply chain contracts. Furthermore, penalties and rewards can be substitutes for one another, thus there exists a unique reward/penalty combination at which the buyer's expected cost of quality is zero (Vlachos, 2004).  2. Methodology Three case studies were conducted during the period April-May 2005. All cases were large food companies, with more than 250 employees, and operating for more than 20 years in Greece. All companies had a traceability system in operation. Cases were named with letters: Alpha, Beta, and Gamma. Personal interviews were conducted with key experts on marketing, supply chain, and traceability. All interviewees were actively involved in the operation of the traceability system.  In each interview, we asked about the company’s traceability system, the motivation and consequences of its adoption. We asked about what kind of data are recorded, the use or not information technology, tracking technologies as well as RFID.We also asked about costs and benefits of the traceability system.  3. Analysis & Results As can be seen from the data in Table 1, which reports the cross-case analysis of traceability interviews, all companies had implemented a traceability system not because legislation required, but because they found it was a valuable business tool. In the operation level, the main problem was whether or not suppliers could provide traceability information in a useful format. For example, Gamma had to record trace data for their suppliers because they were small farms. Another problem was the integration of the traceability system with the other information systems such as accounting and production systems. All companies reported the same benefits from the traceability system: Better control of supply chain as well as better quality assurance –higher levels of food quality & safety     Table 1 Cross-case analysis  Alpha Beta Gamma System Aberon(WMS) SAP(WMS) LogicDis(ERP) Adoption Motives (by order sign.) 1. Complexity of business processes 2. Nature of products 3. Accounting 4. Legislation 1. Required by Quality Assurance system  2. Legislation 1. Important tool  2. Legislation Upstream All products have suppliers’ barcode.  Supplier should have traceability. Most products come from large companies that have already barcoding.  They do traceability for their suppliers because they are small farms Internal  Barcode EAN-13 and UCC/ EAN-128 in boxes and palettes.   Data: product code & description, number , expire date, pieces per box, weight    Barcode EAN-13 for piece,  EAN-14 for box and UCC/ EAN-128 for palettes.   Data: product code & description, number , expire date, serial of shift and factory, pieces per box, weight   Barcode EAN-13 ITF-14  Data: product code & description, number , expire date, serial of shift and factory, pieces per box, weight  Downstream  UCC/ EAN-128   UCC/ EAN-128   For now, only on invoice slip Problems  Integrate information from different departments   Errors, omission in warehouse due to poor training of personnel   Time Lag  There are suppliers without EAN barcodes, so there are delays are high risk for errors during material handling   Most problems in downstream area  They need time to study problems more thoroughly   Οφέλη  Better control of supply chain   Better quality assurance –higher levels of food quality & safety   RFID  In pilot phase    Already run a pilot project – still lot to learn.   They have made a feasibility study   System Performance  Industry average  Above average in terms of responsiveness and accurancy   They will evaluate it in the forthcoming months.  4. Conclusions This study aimed to understand better the motives and consequences for food companies of traceability adoption. From a qualitative inquire and in-depth interviews with three large food companies, we found that although it is a relative new concept, some private companies in Greece, have already developed a significant capacity to trace. Food companies differ in their evaluations about the costs and benefits to determine the efficient breadth, depth, and precision of their traceability systems. Therefore, although traceability is an objective concept, defined by European law, efficient traceability systems is a company-specific concept.  5. References       Geiger, C. M., (1998) Supply chain management: issues and practices for small and rural manufacturers, The Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute, North Dakota State University, Fargo, North Dakota, Final Report to MPC 97-71A. Kennett, J., Fulton, M., Molder P., and Brooks, H., (1998) Supply chain management: the case of a UK baker preserving the identity of Canadian milling wheat, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 3, No. 3,  pp. 157-166. King, R. P. (2002) supply chain design for high quality products: Economic concepts and examples from the United States, 13th International IFMA Congress of Farm Management.  Mangina, E., & Vlachos, I. P., (2004) Intelligent Optimisation Agents in Food Supply Chain Management, International Conference On Information Systems & Innovative Technologies In Agriculture, Food And Environment (HAICTA), Thessaloniki Greece, 18-20 March. Starbird S.A., (2001)  Penalties, rewards, and inspection: provisions for quality in supply chain contracts, Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 52, No. 1, pp. 109-115. Vlachos, I. P., (2002) Paradigms of the Factors that Impinge upon Business-to-Business e-Commerce Evolution, International Journal of Business and Economics, Fall, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 82-89. Vlachos, I. P., (2004) Adoption of Electronic Data Interchange by Agribusiness Organizations, Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing, Vol. 16, Issue 1, pp. 19-42. Zylbersztajn, D., Pinheiro, C. A., Filho, M., (2003) Competitiveness of meat agri-food chain in Brazil, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 155 – 165. 

Adoption of Electronic Data Interchange by Agribusiness Organizations,

Competitiveness of meat agri-food chain in Brazil,

Intelligent Optimisation Agents in Food Supply Chain

Paradigms of the Factors that Impinge upon Business-to-Business eCommerce Evolution,

Penalties, rewards, and inspection: provisions for quality in supply chain contracts,

supply chain design for high quality products: Economic concepts and examples from the United States,

Supply chain management: issues and practices for small and rural manufacturers,

Supply chain management: the case of a UK baker preserving the identity of Canadian milling wheat,

Agrifood logistics and food traceability

Northumbria Research Link

Northumbria Research Link
Citation: Vlachos, Ilias (2006) Agrifood logistics and food traceability. In: Logistics Research Network 
Annual Conference, 6-8 September 2006, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. 
URL: 
This version was downloaded from Northumbria Research Link: http://nrl.northumbria.ac.uk/13036/
Northumbria University has developed Northumbria Research Link (NRL) to enable users to access 
the University’s research output. Copyright © and moral rights for items on NRL are retained by the 
individual author(s) and/or other copyright owners.  Single copies of full items can be reproduced, 
displayed or performed, and given to third parties in any format or medium for personal research or 
study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge, provided the authors, 
title and full bibliographic details are given, as well as a hyperlink and/or URL to the original metadata 
page. The content must not be changed in any way. Full items must not be sold commercially in any  
format or medium without formal permission of the copyright holder.  The full policy is available online: 
http://nrl.northumbria.ac.uk/pol  i cies.html  
This  document  may differ  from the  final,  published version of  the research  and has been made 
available online in accordance with publisher policies. To read and/or cite from the published version 
of the research, please visit the publisher’s website (a subscription may be required.)
                        
Agrifood Logistics and Food Traceability 
 
 
Dr. Ilias P. Vlachos 
    Agricultural University of Athens, Agricultural Economics Dept., Agribusiness 
    Laboratory, Iera Odos 75, Botanikos 118 55, Athens, Greece 
    Phone: +30 210 5294757 / Fax: +30 5294767 
   email: ivlachos@aua.gr /  
 
ABSTRACT 
Traceability systems are recordkeeping systems designed to track the flow of product and/or 
product attributes through the production process and throughout the supply chain from 
producers to consumers. The aim of this study is to review the current status of traceability 
systems in food companies, compare different traceablity systems applied by food 
companies, and analyse the sources of variation in their efficiency. A traceability system is 
characterized by its breadth, depth, and precision. Differences in efficiency are attributed to 
the costs and benefits of traceability’s implementation to these three traceabiligy 
characteristics. Three case studies were conducted during the period April-May 2005. All 
cases were large food companies, with more than 250 employees, and operating for more 
than 20 years in Greece. All companies had a traceability system in operation. All companies 
had implemented a traceability system not because legislation required, but because they 
found it was a valuable business tool. In the operation level, the main problem was whether or 
not suppliers could provide traceability information in a useful format. All companies reported 
the same benefits from the traceability system: Better control of supply chain as well as better 
quality assurance –higher levels of food quality & safety. 
  
 
 
Keywords: Agribusiness Logistics, Food Traceability, Food Quality & Safety, Honey, Greece 
1. Introduction 
Traceability systems are recordkeeping systems designed to track the flow of product and/or 
product attributes through the production process and throughout the supply chain from 
producers to consumers. 
Traceability has become mandatory throughout the EU on January 1, 2005 as part of the 
general food law, so as to address the major issue of food quality and safety and avoid further 
food crises to emerge. For example, tracking animal feed helps to control the risk of mad cow 
disease and to improve meat safety.  
Traceability also facilitates the targeted withdrawal of foods (reverse logistics) and enables 
consumers to be provided with information concerning the credence attributes of the 
implicated products (Vlachos, 2002). 
Regulation EC/178/2002 defines traceability as the ability to trace and follow food, feed, and 
ingredients through all stages of production, processing and distribution. 
A traceability system is characterized by its breadth, depth, and precision. 
 Breadth describes the amount of information the traceability system records.  
 The depth of a traceability system is how far back or forward the system tracks. 
Regulation EC/178/2002 has made mandatory the plus minus one rule: businesses 
are at least able to identify the immediate supplier of the product in question and the 
immediate subsequent recipient.   
Precision reflects the degree of assurance with which the tracing system can pinpoint a 
particular food product’s movement or characteristics.  
Traceability is related to the supply chain design. In order to preserve high-quality products a 
sufficient coordination is necessary (Mangina and Vlachos, 2004). For example, Zylbersztajn 
et al. (2003) studied the competitive structure of the meat system in Brazil and found that 
coordination was necessary in order to communicate information about consumers’ needs of 
beef products upstream to slaughterhouses and producers. 
King (2002) pinpointed that quality products require that specific supply chain design.  For 
example, global markets for products with a strong local identity such as Protected 
Denomination of Origin products from the EU are expanding rapidly,  For example, Kennett et 
al (1998) examined bread wheat quality and its effect on vertical co-ordination in the wheat 
supply chain and concluded that the wheat quality control is directly related to supply chain 
management. In particular, better bread quality requires millers and bakers to develop closer 
vertical linkages with wheat suppliers Starbird (2001) showed that rewards for better quality 
and penalties for poorer quality, conditioned by the type of inspection policy, are among the 
most common quality-related provisions of supply chain contracts. Furthermore, penalties and 
rewards can be substitutes for one another, thus there exists a unique reward/penalty 
combination at which the buyer's expected cost of quality is zero (Vlachos, 2004). 
 
2. Methodology 
Three case studies were conducted during the period April-May 2005. All cases were large 
food companies, with more than 250 employees, and operating for more than 20 years in 
Greece. All companies had a traceability system in operation. Cases were named with letters: 
Alpha, Beta, and Gamma. Personal interviews were conducted with key experts on 
marketing, supply chain, and traceability. All interviewees were actively involved in the 
operation of the traceability system.  
In each interview, we asked about the company’s traceability system, the motivation and 
consequences of its adoption. We asked about what kind of data are recorded, the use or not 
information technology, tracking technologies as well as RFID.We also asked about costs and 
benefits of the traceability system.  
3. Analysis & Results 
As can be seen from the data in Table 1, which reports the cross-case analysis of traceability 
interviews, all companies had implemented a traceability system not because legislation 
required, but because they found it was a valuable business tool. In the operation level, the 
main problem was whether or not suppliers could provide traceability information in a useful 
format. For example, Gamma had to record trace data for their suppliers because they were 
small farms. Another problem was the integration of the traceability system with the other 
information systems such as accounting and production systems. All companies reported the 
same benefits from the traceability system: Better control of supply chain as well as better 
quality assurance –higher levels of food quality & safety 
  
 
 
Table 1 Cross-case analysis 
 Alpha Beta Gamma 
System Aberon(WMS) SAP(WMS) LogicDis(ERP) 
Adoption 
Motives (by 
order sign.) 
1. Complexity of 
business processes 
2. Nature of products 
3. Accounting 
4. Legislation 
1. Required by Quality 
Assurance system  
2. Legislation 
1. Important tool  
2. Legislation 
Upstream 
All products have 
suppliers’ barcode.  
Supplier should have 
traceability. Most 
products come from 
large companies that 
have already barcoding.  
They do traceability for 
their suppliers because 
they are small farms 
Internal 
 Barcode EAN-
13 and UCC/ EAN-128 
in boxes and palettes.  
 Data: product 
code & description, 
number , expire date, 
pieces per box, weight  
 
 Barcode EAN-
13 for piece,  EAN-14 
for box and UCC/ EAN-
128 for palettes.  
 Data: product 
code & description, 
number , expire date, 
serial of shift and 
factory, pieces per box, 
weight  
 Barcode EAN-
13 ITF-14 
 Data: product 
code & description, 
number , expire date, 
serial of shift and 
factory, pieces per box, 
weight  
Downstrea
m 
 UCC/ EAN-128 
 
 UCC/ EAN-128 
 
 For now, only 
on invoice slip 
Problems 
 Integrate 
information from 
different departments  
 Errors, omission 
in warehouse due to 
poor training of 
personnel  
 Time Lag 
 There are 
suppliers without EAN 
barcodes, so there are 
delays are high risk for 
errors during material 
handling  
 Most problems 
in downstream area 
 They need time 
to study problems more 
thoroughly   
Οφέλη 
 Better control of supply chain  
 Better quality assurance –higher levels of food quality & safety 
  
RFID 
 In pilot phase  
 
 Already run a 
pilot project – still lot to 
learn. 
 
 They have 
made a feasibility study  
 
System 
Performanc
e 
 Industry 
average 
 Above average 
in terms of 
responsiveness and 
accurancy  
 They will 
evaluate it in the 
forthcoming months. 
 
4. Conclusions 
This study aimed to understand better the motives and consequences for food companies of 
traceability adoption. From a qualitative inquire and in-depth interviews with three large food 
companies, we found that although it is a relative new concept, some private companies in 
Greece, have already developed a significant capacity to trace. Food companies differ in their 
evaluations about the costs and benefits to determine the efficient breadth, depth, and 
precision of their traceability systems. Therefore, although traceability is an objective concept, 
defined by European law, efficient traceability systems is a company-specific concept. 
 
5. References 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Geiger, C. M., (1998) Supply chain management: issues and practices for small and 
rural manufacturers, The Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute, North Dakota State 
University, Fargo, North Dakota, Final Report to MPC 97-71A. 
Kennett, J., Fulton, M., Molder P., and Brooks, H., (1998) Supply chain management: the 
case of a UK baker preserving the identity of Canadian milling wheat, Supply Chain 
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 3, No. 3,  pp. 157-166. 
King, R. P. (2002) supply chain design for high quality products: Economic concepts 
and examples from the United States, 13th International IFMA Congress of Farm 
Management.  
Mangina, E., & Vlachos, I. P., (2004) Intelligent Optimisation Agents in Food Supply 
Chain Management, International Conference On Information Systems & Innovative 
Technologies In Agriculture, Food And Environment (HAICTA), Thessaloniki Greece, 18-20 
March. 
Starbird S.A., (2001)  Penalties, rewards, and inspection: provisions for quality in supply chain 
contracts, Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 52, No. 1, pp. 109-115. 
Vlachos, I. P., (2002) Paradigms of the Factors that Impinge upon Business-to-Business e-
Commerce Evolution, International Journal of Business and Economics, Fall, Vol. 2, No. 
1, pp. 82-89. 
Vlachos, I. P., (2004) Adoption of Electronic Data Interchange by Agribusiness Organizations, 
Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing, Vol. 16, Issue 1, pp. 19-42. 
Zylbersztajn, D., Pinheiro, C. A., Filho, M., (2003) Competitiveness of meat agri-food chain in 
Brazil, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 155 – 165. 


http://nrl.northumbria.ac.uk/id/eprint/13036/1/sc_effects_on_food_traceability_LRN_2006_final_deposit.pdf

Agrifood logistics and food traceability

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Northumbria University Research Portal

Northumbria Research Link