Redefining Quality in Food Supply Chains via the Natural Resource Based View and Convention Theory

Abstract

This study develops and tests a novel product quality framework for food supply chains (FSCs) that addresses sustainability. Issues including climate change, population growth, and the resources required by industrialized agriculture, as well as changing consumer preferences contribute to concerns about the social, ecological, and economic sustainability of FSCs. FSCs, therefore, need to be adapted to address changing supply and demand characteristics. We integrate the natural resource-based view (NRBV) with convention theory (CT) to develop a new set of quality dimensions. Placing social and ecological considerations within the domain of quality management advances theory in two ways. First, while social and ecological considerations are typically peripheral to business models, this framework allows social responsibility and the natural environment to occupy a central place within FSC operations. Second, the framework reflects the fundamentally socially embedded nature of FSCs, including the geographic, historical, and cultural associations of food quality. We then construct a typology of quality conventions and FSCs. We empirically test the typology using a case study methodology with cases from the United States of America (USA). The analysis explores how firms bundle quality conventions across FSCs for competitive advantage. We also find a set of paths through which FSCs transition via exploitation, exploration and organizational ambidexterity to generate competitive advantage, highlighting tradeoffs that may arise as FSCs evolve. These tradeoffs, which relate to maintaining or adapting quality conventions, are practically important because, if not managed appropriately, may result in lower performance and less sustainable FSCs.

1. Introduction

We seek to redefine the dimensions of product quality by proposing a novel theoretical framework in the context of food supply chains (FSCs). We are motivated by the need to incorporate sustainability more directly into operations and supply chain management (OM/SCM) theory [1,2,3,4]. In addition, climate change, population growth, and the resources required by industrialized agriculture, as well as changing consumer preferences, contributing to concerns about the social, ecological, and economic sustainability of FSCs [5,6,7,8,9,10,11]. This research, therefore, contributes to the literature by developing and empirically validating a theoretical framework with social and ecological sustainability incorporated as dimensions of food product quality. The notion that quality addresses sustainability (i.e., social and environmental) issues has origins in practice as well as the OM/SCM literature [12,13,14,15,16,17]). Two rationales suggest sustainability may be embedded within quality. First, many quality management principles (e.g., defect and waste reduction) and tools (e.g., statistical process control and root cause analysis) can be extended to environmental management. Second, quality management emphasizes understanding customer requirements; by broadening the view of customers to include stakeholders, we can extend the definition of quality to encompass a variety of social issues (e.g., worker safety, working conditions, and community relations) as well as the natural environment [12].

We follow best practices for middle-range theory development, relying on a top-down approach to integrating extant theories within the context of FSCs [18,19]. Our theorization combines the lens of the natural resource-based view (NRBV), which prescribes the development of strategic capabilities related to social and ecological issues for long-term competitive advantage, with convention theory (CT) to reflect the broad and socially embedded nature of food quality attributes [20,21]. Integrating these theories into a novel product quality management framework places social and ecological issues in a central position within the OM/SCM function, which may enhance managers’ ability to balance tradeoffs between performance attributes. We suggest that this could further advance the evaluation of quality performance from an input, rather than an output perspective, which is critical due to the limitations of testing and inspection, particularly in food [22]. Furthermore, this framework could reduce the need for post hoc monitoring because of the incorporation of sustainability in process and supply chain design. This is particularly relevant with respect to FSCs because of the acknowledged difficulty associated with measuring the outcomes of sustainability practices in this context [23].

Furthermore, while prior OM/SCM literature suggests quality dimensions (cf. [24]) including performance, features, conformance, etc., such frameworks do not address the socially embedded nature of economic markets and quality [1,25]. Consistent with the economic sociology literature and CT, our use of social embeddedness reflects aspects of product quality and economic decision-making which are grounded in social contexts and institutions including geographic, historical, and cultural associations. Incorporating social embeddedness into the definition of quality is particularly relevant for food products for several reasons. First, food is essential for human survival. The essential nature of food, therefore, dictates that the long-term sustainability of FSCs is of critical importance and that any holistic conceptualization of food quality needs to reflect the importance of ecological attributes. Second, food and consumer perceptions of food quality have strong associations with place, historical tradition, and culture [26]. Third, the for-profit food industry is intensely competitive, and, at the same, time, food products are typically low-margin items [7,27]. Fourth, firms compete, in part, with differentiated production and by marketing products with a wide array of quality attributes and claims [7]. Finally, FSCs involve a breadth of entities such as for-profit and non-profit operations, governmental organizations, and consumers. Each of these considerations suggests that quality frameworks need to address the socially embedded and complex nature of FSCs. From a practical perspective, food industry managers need to understand quality in order to interpret the voice of the customer into product attributes and to match supply with demand. We combine CT with the NRBV to develop the logic for how supply and demand characteristics influence the specification and bundling of quality conventions for competitive positioning [28].

Taken together, there are theoretical and practical motivations to reconsider definitions of quality for food products and within FSCs to incorporate sustainability [17]. Our study seeks to contribute by developing and testing a theoretical framework of food product quality that can simultaneously reflect the complexity and diversity of FSCs, as well as stakeholder perspectives, and which integrates dimensions of social, ecologic, and economic sustainability.

We organize the remainder of this manuscript as follows. First, we develop our theoretical framework by integrating the NRBV and CT to generate a food product/process typology with product exemplars [18]. Second, we explain our case methodology, including case selection strategy and analysis methods before moving on to an explanation of our case analysis and typology validation [29]. Finally, we conclude with a discussion of theoretical and managerial implications and directions for future research.

2. Literature Review and Theoretical Development

2.1. Natural Resource Based View

The NRBV extends resource-based theories of the firm by explicitly identifying the natural environment as a resource constraint, proposing that, in order to pursue competitive advantage, firms must develop strategic capabilities in the areas of pollution prevention, product stewardship, and sustainable development [20]. Pollution prevention includes the substitution of processes and materials in order to reduce the environmental impact of products through continuous improvement. Product stewardship emphasizes the consideration of environmental impacts and costs of products throughout the entire product life cycle. NRBV’s conceptualization of sustainable development originally included building markets in developing economies while simultaneously addressing the environmental impacts that result from serving these markets [30]. Since then, the NRBV has evolved with the sustainable development capability further subdivided into two dimensions: clean technology and serving the bottom of the pyramid (BoP) [20]. Following the original premise of sustainable development, clean technology consists of more radical innovations than pollution prevention or product stewardship. However, despite significant work in the areas of pollution prevention and, to a lesser extent, product stewardship capabilities, little work has focused on clean technology and even less on the intersection of clean technologies with serving the world’s poorest populations [20]. Within the OM/SCM literature, research has largely examined how to make business processes less unsustainable rather than truly sustainable [2].

By integrating the NRBV into the development of food quality dimensions, we incorporate the relationship with the natural environment and societal impacts of FSCs directly into the operations function via product quality systems. Because quality is a critical dimension of OM/SCM performance, this integrated framework places social and ecological dimensions, traditionally considered ancillary performance dimensions, into a more central role. We argue that this framework has several benefits. First, by placing these issues within the realm of quality, managers have the opportunity to consider sustainability at the same time as other dimensions of quality, rather than post hoc. Sustainability may still be subordinate to other quality dimensions; however, including it in within the context of quality enables societal and ecological issues to be evaluated for potential order-winning characteristics. Second, as firms seek legitimacy in the eyes of their various stakeholders, embedding sustainability within the quality function combats the perception of symbolic rather than meaningful sustainability initiatives [31,32,33].

We conceptualize the NRBV as motivating our movement of social and environmental issues into the quality function within operations management. This is justified, in part, by the close relationship between the physical operations of a firm and its impact on society and the environment. Furthermore, reflecting sustainability within the operations function as a part of quality management makes sense because operations strategy and its implementation are critical for firm performance and because the NRBV dictates that sustainability capabilities can lead to long-term competitive advantage [20]. In addition, this conceptualization addresses calls from prior OM/SCM work to make sustainability issues central to OM/SCM research frameworks [2].

2.2. Convention Theory

To move from the high level of abstraction present within the NRBV in order to develop our quality framework, we propose to incorporate an additional theoretical perspective. We draw from CT, a theory that originates in “French pragmatic sociology” [34] (p. 12). CT attempts to reconcile how territorial, market, and production aspects of economic exchange can be coordinated when uncertainty exists, including the notion of embeddedness [35]. Within CT, embeddedness accounts for aspects of economic exchange that cannot be explained via purely rational economic decision-making [21]. CT incorporates the concept of embeddedness to describe how different sets of conventions are bundled within a specific product and its supply chain. In describing quality conventions as bundled, CT allows for the possibility of choosing to emphasize one particular convention over others, as well as the ability to reconfigure conventions when strategically necessary [36].

CT has been used extensively in the disciplines of economic geography, regional studies, and political economy, with specific applications in the agri-food context. These studies apply CT to contrast quality conventions and justification of those conventions in different types of restaurants, and how wine makers specify different sets of conventions depending on the target market [37,38,39].

Storper and Salais [39] suggest that producers develop their offerings by positioning the selection and bundling of sets of quality conventions along the dimensions of supply and demand characteristics. Supply characteristics related to the level of specialization of the technology, methods, knowledge and skills used in production. Alternatively, demand characteristics relate to the extent to which the product is generic versus differentiated in terms of consumer requirements. These dimensions, when combined, yield what has been termed in the political economics literature as worlds of production [39]. Later work has applied CT in this way to demonstrate how firms move into different worlds or may occupy more than one world at a time depending on firm objectives [40]. From this literature, we adopt the terminology of standardized versus specialized for supply (i.e., process) characteristics, and generic versus differentiated when describing demand (i.e., product) characteristics. Accordingly, the worlds of production can be depicted as shown in Figure 1. In summary, the worlds of production combine “technologies and markets, product qualities, and practices of resource use,” [34] (p. 15) to form a typology that can “formulate forms of organization, coordination and exchange specific to the nature of the product that is exchanged, and the means of justifying its quality claims,” [34] (p. 15). The two dimensions yield the generic typology shown in Figure 1, with four quadrants corresponding to the pairing of the extreme endpoints of supply and demand characteristics.

2.2.1. Quality Conventions

CT proposes that a set of conventions define product quality; conventions are present (or absent) to varying degrees within specific products and their associated processes (Figure 1). By agreeing on the meaning of specific conventions, producers can regulate quality within their supply chain and customers can evaluate quality relative to a specific transaction. The product quality conventions include: (1) Market; (2) Industrial; (3) Ecological; (4) Domestic (5) Innovation; (6) Civic; and (7) Public [34,39] The market convention is characterized by attributes such as price or underlying economic value of the product. In the complete absence of uncertainty about product quality, the market convention is theorized as sufficient for assessing quality. The industrial convention is associated with traditional attributes such as efficiency and reliability of production, including the ability to produce at scale and to extend product scope or variety.

The ecological convention relates to the environmental sustainability of products and processes. The domestic convention relates to product attributes tied to specific locations or traditional production methods. The innovation convention reflects the novelty, creativity, or new knowledge associated with products and processes. The civic convention relates to societal benefit. The political economy literature sometimes subsumes the ecological convention into the civic convention because ecological sustainability is of benefit to society [34,41]. We have chosen to maintain ecological sustainability as a separate convention because we wish to emphasize the distinctive role of the natural environment in determining food quality, as well as the intensity of how FSCs are embedded in the environment.

The public convention has been represented in terms of consumer opinions; this type of convention is typically marked by public-facing attributes such as brand, trademarks, and advertised product claims. In this context, the public convention is also indicative of the extent to which consumers are accepting of the product as well as associated production characteristics and find those attributes desirable, or order-winning; this convention therefore would also be associated with any practice that supports one of those order-winning characteristics.

CT does not dictate how individual conventions are prioritized or valued and does not prescribe how conventions are bundled for competitive advantage. Our study contributes by empirically examining how organizations bundle and prioritize conventions for competitive advantage in FSCs. We begin by reviewing the CT and OM/SCM literature in the agri-food context to elaborate on a set of attributes associated with each quality convention (

Table 1. FSC quality conventions, convention attributes and examples.

Quality Convention	Convention Attributes	Examples
Market [42,46,48]	Price	Competitive price for volume
	Value-for-price	Competitive price for specific attribute (e.g., organic)
Industrial [34,39]	Economies of scale	High volume production
		Scaled processes
	Economies of scope	Product variety
	Emphasis on improving productivity & efficiency	Traditional productivity measures
	High reliability, low variation production	Uniform size and appearance
Ecological [46]	Resource conservation	Reduce use of water, refrigerants; land, energy, inputs
		Reducing plastic/changing packaging materials
		Eliminate use of sub-clinical antibiotics
	Waste reduction	Inventory management to reduce discards of perishables
	Total life cycle management	Life cycle analysis
	Recycling	Recycling packaging
	Recovery	Pick up of close to sale date food for distribution
	Reclamation	Waste converted to soil amendment or energy
Domestic [26,34,42,43,44,45]	Ties to traditional production methods or practices	Seasonal local produce
		Wild-caught seafood
		“Small batch” production
		Heirloom varieties of produce or grains
		Feeding or foraging methods (e.g., jamón Ibérico)
	Ties to specific geographic region or location	Italian wine regions (e.g., DOCG)
		Washington apples
		Gulf shrimp
		Jamón Ibérico (Spain) or Texas Ibérico (Texas)
	Relationship between producer and customer	Direct-to-consumer retailing
		Events that bring producer and customer together
		Materials that share history, producer characteristics
Innovation [34,39]	Development of new categories of products and process technologies	New categories using plant-based protein
		Lab-grown protein
		Clean production technology [20]
Public [39]	Differentiated attribute that is either well-accepted by the public, or an order winner in the target market	Nutritional characteristics (protein, fiber, fat, etc.)
		Taste characteristics
		Convenience packaging
		Certified Human®
		Methods/conditions that promote natural behaviors
		More humane slaughter methods
Civic [46,47]	Societal/community benefits	Products developed for bottom of pyramid markets
		Charitable donations
		Community projects
	Working conditions/Supply chain practices	Workplace safety
		Worker’s rights
		Living wage, competitive pay
		Fair treatment of suppliers
		Supplier codes of conduct

), as well as how quality conventions may be assigned and prioritized within the worlds of production framework. Each quality convention is associated with multiple attributes; a set of example practices within each attribute has been provided based on the literature review and examples observed in practice. Market, industrial, domestic, innovation, and public conventions were derived from the broader theoretical development of CT [39] and from agri-food applications of CT [42,43,44,45]. For aspects of ecological and civic conventions, we adapted existing sustainability frameworks [9,46] in addition to agri-food applications of CT [34,47].

2.2.2. Worlds of Production and Quality Conventions in the FSC Context

To simplify our development of the FSC typology at the product/process level, we turn to common categorizations of foods developed by governmental agencies for the purpose of promoting public health. Such agencies typically define nutritious foods in the following general categories: (1) Grains; (2) Protein sources including meat, poultry, and eggs; (3) Dairy products; and (4) Fruits and vegetables [49]. We considered each of these categories, in combination with our search of the literature, to identify versions of similar categories of products that logically belong in different quadrants of the typology. By evaluating these categories against the convention attributes identified in Table 1, we were able to develop a list of quality conventions associated with each quadrant; our categorization is consistent with the limited literature that has assessed consumer perceptions of labeling that reflects sustainability across health and environmental dimensions [50]. We use the convention definitions and attributes identified in Table 1 to develop examples representative of food products and processes exhibiting the supply and demand characteristics that form the worlds of production (Figure 1). Based on the convention configurations, we tentatively labeled the four quadrants as: (1) Mainstream; (2) Future Emergent; (3) Growth; and (4) Niche (see Figure 2).

3. Research Design and Methodology

We empirically investigate the typology using case study methods. These methods are appropriate because they allow us to collect rich data via semi-structured interviews as well as other primary sources for a breadth of cases that represent the diversity present in the food industry [29,51]. Because this work aims to elaborate and integrate extant theory to propose a new theoretical framework, it is, of necessity, somewhat exploratory in nature [18,29,52]. Case methods are particularly valuable in meeting our research objectives, which rely on the richness of data collected via interviews and triangulated with other sources. We have several objectives in conducting this study. First, we aim to uncover patterns of how quality conventions are bundled and prioritized for various food products and processes based on supply and demand characteristics. Second, we explore how organizations participate in multiple quadrants of the typology to offer portfolios of products and to pursue competitive advantage. Finally, we identify patterns and drivers of transitions between quadrants of the typology [50].

3.1. Case Selection

We confined our case selection to organizations that distribute, or plan to distribute, products in the US and sought to identify organizations of different sizes, those that operate across multiple supply chain stages, as well as those firms that concentrate within a particular level of the supply chain. To elaborate on and evaluate the typology shown in Figure 2 in context, we are interested in a diversity of supply and demand structures across FSCs [18,29,51]. To ensure that the sample includes firms across the typology quadrants, we specifically included cases that are pursuing technological innovations within the food industry, as well as firms that promote their operations as existing within the framework of alternative methods of agricultural production to reflect the diversity of supply characteristics [34]. We also included organizations that offer products that are more generic as well as those that offer a breadth of product variety that encompasses generic as well as more differentiated items to reflect variation in demand characteristics. For example, by including retailers of various sizes, we capture retail and distribution networks, as well as firms that offer products under their own brand (i.e., private label), and in some cases, own and operate manufacturing facilities. In order to explore the complexity of FSCs, we also included a number of cases that play a role in non-profit distribution of food, including food banks that act as aggregators and provide warehousing, and food pantries that distribute food directly to clients.

Table 2. Case study descriptions.

Case	Product Categories	Organization Type	FSC Stage	Downstream Supply Chain Reach	Sales ($)	Number of Employees
A	Various	For-profit	Retailer Processor	Multiple regions	>100 B	>200,000
B	Various	For-profit	Retailer Processor	Regional	>2 B	>50,000
C	Various	For-profit	Retailer	Local	~80 MM	~800
D	Produce Meat Poultry Eggs	For-profit	Producer Processor Distributor Retailer	Local (~200 miles)	~2 MM	~10
E	Eggs Dairy	For-profit	Producer Processor	Nationwide	~140 MM	~100
F	Eggs	For-profit	Producer Processor	Multiple regions	~2 MM	<20
G	Dairy	For-profit	Producer Processor Distributor Retailer	Local (~60 miles)	<1 MM	<20
H	Produce Meat Poultry Eggs	For-profit	Producer Processor Distributor	Local (~200 miles)	<1 MM	<10
I	Produce	For-profit	Retailer Grower	Local	<2 MM	<10
J	Various	Non-profit	Distributor	Regional	Not applicable	<50
K	Produce	For-profit	Producer Processor	Regional	<10 MM	<500
L	Various	Non-profit	Distributor	Local	Not applicable	Not applicable
M	Various	For-profit	Retailer	Regional	~500 MM	~3000
N	Various	For-profit	Retailer	Local	<50 MM	~300
O	Produce Dairy	For-profit	Producer Processor	Nationwide	>2 B	>5000
P	Various	Non-profit	Food bank	Regional	Not applicable	~40
Q	Various	Non-profit	Food bank	Regional	Not applicable	~20
R	Various	Non-profit	Food pantry	Local	Not applicable	~30
S	Various	Non-profit	Food pantry	Local	Not applicable	<20
T	Various	Non-profit	Food pantry	Local	Not applicable	<5
U	Eggs	For-profit	Producer Processor	Nationwide	~200 MM	~200
V	Plant-based protein	For-profit	Producer Processor	Nationwide	~300 MM	~500
W	Lab-grown meat	For-profit	Producer Processor	Not applicable	Not applicable	<100

Sales & number of employees are approximate to protect the identity of the case firms.

describes the sample, including the product categories, the stage or stages of the FSC in which the firm operates, and the extent of downstream supply chain reach of the organization, as well as information about the firm size. FSC stages are categorized as producers, processors, distributors, retailers [53], food banks, and food pantries. We define producers as agricultural operations that farm crops or raise animals for use as food. Processors include organizations that transform agricultural products into saleable items; such operations include washing, cleaning, and packaging, as well as a variety of processes that combine and transform ingredients. Distributors engage in the movement of products between production and points of sale. Retailers sell directly to consumers. Food banks include the approximately 200 organizations that operate within the Feeding America network of non-profit food distribution; their primary role is to aggregate and warehouse food for distribution through food pantries [54]. Food pantries include those organizations that operate to distribute groceries to clients, as well as feeding operations that provide meals to clients [54].

3.2. Data Collection and Analysis

Data were collected using semi-structured interviews with a series of open-ended questions at 23 separate case organizations. Interview protocols were prepared prior to initial interviews and modified for follow-up as dictated by new information [18,29,51]. Retrospective questions were asked about the following broad areas: (1) Business model; (2) Product portfolio; (3) Production methods and technologies; (4) Product development; (4) Quality management practices; (5) Marketing practices and claims; (6) Sustainability practices and initiatives; (7) Community involvement; (8) Charitable donations; and (9) Workplace and supply chain policies. To address validity and reliability, we triangulated data when possible using other data sources, including the organization’s website, news articles, and governmental reports [29,50,51,52,55]. These open-ended areas of inquiry serve to elicit responses regarding supply and demand characteristics identify practices in support of and emphasizing particular quality conventions and understand competitive strategy. To ensure a complete record for each case, we collected and organized data by case; the data presented in this study are available in Table 2 and

Table 3. Case study analysis: Typology validation.

Case	Product Categories	Organization Type	FSC Stage	Typology Quadrant 1	Convention Practices
A	Various	For-profit	Retailer Processor	Mainstream Growth	(MKT/IND/PUB) Produces, distributes and retails food products created via industrialized processes at highly competitive prices. (MKT/IND/PUB/ECO) Produces, distributes and retails differentiated products created via industrialized processes at competitive prices (e.g., certified organic, Fair Trade). (ECO) Benchmarks, annual and long-term improvement targets for food waste recycling, recycling other types of waste and reducing packaging and making packaging more recyclable. Similar targets and planning for energy use reduction, water use reduction. (ECO) Benchmarks, annual and long-term improvement targets for responsible sourcing of seafood. (PUB/ECO) Animal welfare (e.g., transition to 100% cage-free eggs, elimination of gestation crates in pork production). (CIV) Sets targets for food and funds donated for hunger relief. (CIV) Donates close to sale date products (food recovery).
B	Various	For-profit	Retailer Processor	Mainstream Growth	(MKT/IND/PUB) Produces, distributes and retails food products created via industrialized processes at highly competitive prices. (MKT/IND/PUB/ECO) Produces, distributes and retails differentiated products created via industrialized processes at competitive prices (e.g., certified organic, Rainforest Alliance Certified®). (ECO) Benchmarks, annual and long-term improvement targets for food waste recycling, recycling other types of waste and reducing packaging and making packaging more recyclable. Similar targets and planning for energy use reduction (Energy Star Partner), water use reduction. (PUB/ECO) Animal welfare (e.g., transition to 100% cage-free eggs). (CIV) Donates close to sale date products (food recovery).
C	Various	For-profit	Retailer	Mainstream Growth Niche	(MKT/IND/PUB) Produces, distributes and retails food products created via industrialized processes at highly competitive prices. (MKT/IND/PUB/ECO) Produces, distributes and retails differentiated products created via industrialized processes at competitive prices (e.g., certified organic, Fair Trade). (MKT/DOM/PUB) Partners with specific local producers for seasonal items, conducts events with these producers, creates personalized advertising materials that tell the story of the producers. Direct-to-source relationships with suppliers for specific items and expedited shipping to increase freshness (e.g., seafood, which is air-freighted to stores). (DOM/PUB) Emphasis on trust developed with suppliers, customers. Marketing materials emphasize basis for trust, including supplier relationships and sourcing methods. (DOM/PUB) Holds cooking demonstrations for local/seasonal food and heavily promotes sale of limited stock of in-season items (e.g., Hatch chiles). (DOM/PUB) Emphasizes continuous family ownership, history, tradition, local (CIV) Donates close to sale date products (food recovery). (CIV) Charitable contributions to local organizations; includes customer participation.
D	Produce Meat Poultry Eggs	For-profit	Producer Processor Distributor Retailer	Niche	(DOM/MKT/PUB/ECO) Produces pastured meat, poultry, eggs. Regenerative agriculture. (ECO/DOM/MKT/PUB) Longstanding practice of organic production (uncertified). (DOM) Direct to consumer model connects producer with customer personally. (DOM) On farm store, events, visiting policy. (DOM) Widespread communication of production methods. (DOM/ECO) Limits distribution area, seasonal retailing (e.g., limits sales to growing season). (DOM/ECO) Promotes sale of whole chickens, older chickens. (PUB/ECO) Practices that promote natural animal behavior. (PUB) Humane slaughter methods. (CIV) Donates surplus products to food banks.
E	Eggs Dairy	For-profit	Producer Processor	Growth Niche	(DOM/MKT/PUB/ECO) Produces pastured eggs and dairy. (PUB/ECO) Humane Certified® production. (MKT/ECO/PUB) Certified organic production, certified non-GMO. (IND) Production at scale. (IND) Expansion of scope of products offered, expansion of processing methods. (IND) Process improvements to reduce labor requirements and maximize productivity. (DOM) Transparency regarding production methods, including culling of male chicks, euthanization of hens, and COVID-19 at its facilities. (DOM/CIV/MKT) Partners with small farm owners. (CIV) Donates products to food banks. (CIV) Pledges reasonable income to farm partners.
F	Eggs	For-profit	Producer Processor	Growth Niche	(DOM/MKT/PUB/ECO) Produces pastured eggs. (MKT/ECO/PUB) Certified organic production, certified non-GMO. (IND) Increasing scale of production. (CIV) Donates products to food banks.
G	Dairy	For-profit	Producer Processor Distributor	Niche	(DOM/MKT/PUB/ECO) Cow-to-consumer production of dairy products for local markets. (DOM) Home delivery. (DOM) On farm store, events, visiting policy. (CIV) Donates surplus products.
H	Produce Meat Poultry Eggs	For-profit	Producer Processor Distributor	Niche	(DOM/MKT/PUB/ECO) Coordinates production, processing, and distribution for consortium of local poultry, meat, eggs, produce. Alternative methods of agriculture. (MKT/PUB/CIV) Partners with local retailer to distribute local products from small producers. (ECO/MKT/PUB/CIV) Partnered with regulatory agency and small producers to pursue streamlined form of organic certification. Certification allows producers to earn a premium. (DOM/MKT/PUB) Partners with local producers to sell through local retailers. (CIV) Partners to provide seasonal produce to urban food deserts and schools. (CIV) Donates surplus products.
I	Produce	For-profit	Producer Retailer	Niche	(DOM) Sells personally via two farmers’ markets. (MKT/ECO/PUB) Longstanding use of organic methods to grow seasonal produce (uncertified). (CIV) Donates surplus products.
J	Various	Non-profit 2	Distributor	Niche	(DOM/MKT/PUB/ECO) Distributes food from local sustainable producers. Provides processing capabilities to small producers. (DOM/MKT/ECO/PUB) Sets standards for sustainable production (certification not required). (DOM/CIV) Transparency regarding production methods. Emphasizes building community and trust, improving food security, access to fresh food, community health. (DOM/MKT/PUB/ECO) Connects small local producers to wholesalers and retailers. (CIV) Connects small local producers to institutions to improve access to nutritious food in vulnerable communities. (CIV) Discounts for qualifying non-profits.
K	Produce	For-profit	Producer Processor	Growth	(MKT/IND/PUB/ECO) Produces differentiated products created via industrialized processes at competitive prices (e.g., certified organic). (IND) Traceability—barcoding to greenhouse & date of harvest. (IND/ECO) Closed loop water system with sterilization. (IND/ECO/PUB) Optimized climate control in greenhouse. (IND/ECO/PUB) Biomass hot water boilers used for heating greenhouses. (ECO/PUB) Greenhouse production with insulation to reduce heat loss. (ECO/PUB) Vertical growing. (ECO/PUB) Sustainable growth medium. (PUB/ECO) Non-GMO seeds. (ECO/PUB) Integrated pest management. (ECO/PUB) Limited use of plastic. (CIV) Donates surplus products.
L	Various	Non-profit 2	Distributor	Mainstream Growth	(CIV) Provides technology to enable food recovery. (CIV) Connects food donors with volunteers and food pantry operations.
M	Various	For-profit	Distributor Retailer	Mainstream Growth Niche	(MKT/IND/PUB) Produces, distributes and retails food products created via industrialized processes at highly competitive prices. (MKT/IND/PUB/ECO) Produces, distributes and retails differentiated products created via industrialized processes at competitive prices (e.g., certified organic). (DOM) Partnership with local aggregator for local seasonal products. (DOM) Holds farmers market within/outside stores. (DOM) Holds events within store to meet local producers. (CIV) Donates close to sale date items (food recovery).
N	Various	For-profit	Retailer	Niche	(DOM/MKT/PUB/ECO) Emphasizes local production, small businesses, seasonal produce, freshness, and sustainable production methods including regenerative agriculture, renewable energy, and biodiversity. (MKT/PUB/ECO) Retails differentiated products created via smaller scale processes at premium prices (e.g., certified organic, fair trade). (MKT/PUB) Inventory systems allow customers to order products that are still at farms. (DOM/ECO/PUB) Sources the majority of produce within ~150 miles of service area. (DOM/PUB) Commits to transparency to customers regarding production methods and sources. (CIV/PUB) Supplier standards for working conditions and wages. (CIV) Donates close to sale date items.
O	Produce Dairy	For-profit	Producer Processor Distributor	Mainstream Growth	(MKT/IND/PUB) Produces, processes and distributes food products created via industrialized processes at highly competitive prices. (MKT/IND/PUB/ECO) Produces differentiated products created via industrialized processes at competitive prices (e.g., certified organic). (CIV) Donates products to food banks.
P	Various	Non-profit 2	Food bank	Mainstream Growth	(CIV/ECO) Coordinates food recovery among participating donors and food pantries. (CIV) Warehouses and distributes food from USDA, corporate donors, and private donors to food pantries.
Q	Various	Non-profit 2	Food bank	Mainstream Growth	(CIV/ECO) Coordinates food recovery among participating donors and food pantries (CIV) Warehouses and distributes food from USDA, corporate donors, and private donors to food pantries.
R	Various	Non-profit 2	Food pantry	Mainstream Growth	(CIV/ECO) Conducts food recovery from local grocery stores to increase fresh content for pantry clients. (CIV) Stores and distributes food to pantry clients.
S	Various	Non-profit 2	Food pantry	Mainstream Growth	(CIV/ECO) Conducts food recovery from local grocery stores to increase fresh content for pantry clients. (CIV) Stores and distributes food to pantry clients.
T	Various	Non-profit 2	Food pantry	Mainstream Growth	(CIV/ECO) Conducts food recovery from local grocery stores to increase fresh content for pantry clients. (CIV) Stores and distributes food to pantry clients.
U	Eggs	For-profit	Producer Processor	Growth Niche	(DOM/MKT/PUB/ECO) Produces free-range eggs. (PUB/ECO) Humane Certified® production. (MKT/PUB/ECO) Certified organic production, certified non-GMO. (IND) Production at scale. (DOM) Transparent communication regarding production methods, including culling of male chicks, euthanization of hens. (PUB/ECO) Humane Certified® production. (CIV) Donates products to food banks.
V	Plant-based meat substitutes	For-profit	Producer Processor	Growth	(MKT/IND/PUB) Produces, distributes and retails food products created via industrialized processes at competitive prices. (MKT/ECO/PUB) Plant-based protein source (animal welfare, climate change, human health, natural resources). (MKT/CIV) Minimizes potential for safety issues as compared to animal-based proteins. (CIV) Donates products to food banks.
W	Lab grown beef and poultry	For-profit	Producer Processor	Future Emergent	(INN/MKT) Novel technology being developed to grow meat cells and to form those cells into products that look, feel, and taste like animal-based meat. (IND/INN) Actively pursuing manufacturing at scale; development of new process technology. (IND/INN) Expanding product scope. (ECO) Use of animal cells to create meat; (animal welfare, climate change, human health, natural resources). (MKT/CIV) Lab grown meat will have a favorable nutritional profile and minimizes food safety issues because the environment is controlled.

¹ Primary quadrant is listed first in bold. ² Non-profit organizations are not producers; the quadrant is indicative of the type of food that they distribute.

.

Nineteen broad categories of attributes were identified from the literature as corresponding to the seven quality conventions (Table 1). We define FSC practices as actions that occur within the FSC that enable or support the attributes of quality conventions. We coded FSC practices associated with quality conventions using the categories of attributes identified in Table 1. In our analysis, we identified each of the literature-based attribute categories as present in at least one case; no additional unique attribute categories were identified. Specific practices associated with each attribute category and the relevant quality convention (e.g., Market, Industrial, Ecological, etc.) are shown in Table 3. In total, 73 unique convention-supporting practices were identified across cases.

In addition to the primary convention related to a specific practice, we also provide additional codes for conventions supported by that practice. For example, the primary convention associated with Case D’s production of pastured meat is domestic (DOM) based on the highly specialized process and limited geographic distribution. However, market conventions are also supported by this practice, because the economic value per unit is a basis for competition in terms of the price premium earned. Case D’s production methods also support order-winning qualities for the consumer, which are indicative of the public convention (PUB), as well as the ecological convention (ECO). The typology quadrant(s), dominant quadrant and practices identified by quality convention(s) are summarized for each case in Table 3. We present the results of our final analysis regarding the prioritization of quality conventions within each quadrant in Figure 3.

Consistent with the prescribed practice for case study methods, we assigned cases and developed the typology through iterative examination of the data [18,29,50,51,52]. We first tentatively assigned cases to one or more quadrants within the typology (i.e., Mainstream, Future Emergent, Growth, or Niche) based on the configuration of conventions that emerged from the data (Figure 4). Of the 23 organizational cases, nine occupied a single quadrant with their food products and FSCs. In contrast, 14 cases offered products and operate FSCs in more than one quadrant. We then finalized the assignments of cases with the second iteration of analysis. We analyzed practices within each quadrant of the typology to assess consistency between cases, consistency of the dominant convention within each quadrant, patterns of practices, as well as any inconsistencies or notable findings within a particular bundle of quality conventions. We then compared practices a third time, across quadrants of the typology, assessing similarities and differences, as well as characteristics of conventions that could enable movement between quadrants. Two researchers independently coded data and follow-up discussions were used to resolve any discrepancies.

4. Findings

4.1. Bundling of Quality Conventions and Competitive Advantage

We first examined generic products with standardized supply (Mainstream). Mainstream emphasizes providing economic value. Market conventions are closely followed by the industrial convention (IND), which supports the ability to produce conforming items at high volumes and relatively low prices [48]. In contrast, Growth products must exhibit some level of differentiation, which, in turn, makes them fit for use or desired by customers (i.e., satisfying demand characteristics). Certified organic processes operating with scale and scope are one example of Growth, applying standardized supply processes. This would suggest the prioritization of public conventions to achieve order-winning characteristics such as organic certification, followed by industrial conventions, which enable high volume at a relatively lower cost than more specialized supply (i.e., Niche). Using similar logic, we found innovation in distinguishing Future Emergent, and the domestic convention for Niche.

4.1.1. Mainstream

The Mainstream type of food supply chain applies widely available production techniques to create relatively undifferentiated food products (some differentiation may occur as Mainstream ingredients are further processed, combined, and comingled to take on various quality attributes. However, compared to Growth and Niche products, Mainstream products have little differentiation). The skills and information required for farming, animal husbandry, harvesting, slaughter, processing, and packaging of these products are widely available and well understood; Mainstream FSCs therefore engage in exploitation as defined by March [56]. Because these products involve mature technologies, processes are conducted with an emphasis on increasing efficiency at the process level (we refer to efficiency at the process level, not reflecting total inputs of energy, fertilizers, and the resources associated with those inputs). The differentiation of products is relatively low, although branding may be used to convey quality and value to the consumer. Price competition is intense. Accordingly, market conventions are a priority for competitive advantage, supported by industrial conventions that enable efficiency and scale, followed by widespread public acceptance of this type of food product, and by inference, acceptance of this type of FSC.

4.1.2. Future Emergent

The Future Emergent quadrant of the typology is characterized primarily by innovation beyond incremental processes or technological improvements (i.e., exploration [56]). While it may not be a stated goal of firms within this space, the successful commercialization of these products and processes has the potential to disrupt the industry. Future Emergent products are substitutes for existing, relatively standardized products. Laboratory-grown meat, for example, strives to be a replacement for meat produced through Mainstream, Growth, or Niche methods. In contrast with Growth’s plant-based protein substitutes (e.g., soy-based nuggets or plant-based ground beef substitutes), these processes aim to create products that, at a cellular level, are identical to animal cells, and which replicate the texture and appearance of meat. We deduce that industrial conventions are aspirational for Future Emergent products; in order to commercialize their relatively generic products, Future Emergent production needs to be at an industrial scale to compete successfully with comparable Mainstream products. As long as products in this space remain undifferentiated, it is unlikely that they will compete directly with Niche or Growth products. Ecological sustainability is also a part of the value proposition for Future Emergent; however, the technologies within this quadrant are still maturing and their relative ecologic sustainability compared to other quadrants are uncertain. Similarly, these products and processes have not yet fulfilled the market convention in terms of being commercially viable.

4.1.3. Growth

Growth FSCs apply widely available skills, technology and information to create differentiated products, in addition to leveraging economies of scale and scope. Consumers pay a premium for differentiated products, but there is price-based competition in this category. Product differentiation is achieved through following procedures required to establish one or more product/process attributions, such as certified organic, non-GMO, fair trade, etc. Firms that occupy this quadrant exploit existing industrial technologies and skills to produce differentiated products efficiently [56]. In some respects, products in this space may be labeled with attributes that also appear to differentiate the Niche quadrant (e.g., local, pasture-raised). What distinguishes Growth from Niche in this respect is the ability to achieve industrial scale and efficiency. What is striking, in comparing the bundle of quality conventions present in Mainstream with those in Growth, is that each quadrant applies the same set of conventions; the distinguishing feature is the prioritization of conventions. As conveyed by its name, the Growth quadrant competes by offering one or more product claims or attributes that are highly desirable by consumers and therefore fulfill the public convention. Such differentiation, however, must occur at industrial scale in order to be competitive. The essential tradeoff associated with the Growth quadrant is between the level of product differentiation and industrial scale in widely available and well-understood processes. In other words, there may be an upper limit to the firm’s ability to create differentiated attributes without moving into specialized processes, which require the firm to explore rather than exploit.

4.1.4. Niche

Niche FSCs differentiate their products via processes and methods that are highly specialized. Growing and production methods may (or may not) be externally certified or recognized by an institution or body of experts. The practice of organic growing methods, for example, may pre-date development of governmental organic standards. Niche producers engage in some level of exploitation as well as exploration. While the balance of exploitation and exploration varies between cases, this organizational ambidexterity is necessary for Niche producers to exploit and incrementally improve existing production methods while exploring demand characteristics [57,58]. For example, depending on the exact type of forage available, pastured eggs may have a more favorable nutritional profile than eggs from Mainstream FSCs [59]. This nutritional advantage is less widely recognized than other attributes of pasturing, but represents a potential additional competitive advantage for firms than can maintain this convention.

Conventions of place or tradition may be codified by external bodies, or may be less formal (e.g., Washington State apples versus Denominazione di Origine Controllata e Garantita [DOCG] for Italian wine). Domestic conventions can be rooted in traditional methods and location (e.g., Spanish jamón Ibérico), however firms may seek to transfer the methods to different locations (e.g., ham produced in Texas using the same cerdo Ibérico species, and the same feeding, slaughter, and curing methods as in Spain). Attachment to place can be very specific to terroir in that the underlying characteristics of that location are considered non-substitutable (e.g., DOCG Italian wine). Alternatively, attachment to place can be associated with a claim of local production and distribution.

Specific elements of Niche methods may limit the ability to scale production, keeping prices relatively high. Pasturing of hens to produce pastured eggs, for example, is not formally defined by any regulatory agency, but Certified Humane (among others) sets a standard and conducts facility certification [60]. Because this standard requires at least 108 square feet of pasture availability versus the two square foot certification standard applied to free range eggs, pasture raised eggs under this standard require greater resource inputs and sell at higher prices.

4.2. Cases Competing Based on a Single Quadrant

Our analysis indicates that some firms occupy and compete based on a single quadrant of the typology. This is more readily observable for Future Emergent and Niche. Future Emergent production, as characterized from practice anecdotally and our single Future Emergent case (see Figure 4), is conducted by start-up organizations, some of which claim to be on the verge of commercialization. The phenomenon of competing within a single quadrant is also observed in Niche production when firms prioritize some form or combination of domestic conventions as a basis of competition. Seven of our 23 cases occupy a single quadrant.

Case D, for example is a producer that operates all levels of the supply chain, encompassing production through retail. Cultivation and animal husbandry techniques are more labor intensive than industrial farming and meat production methods, but are beneficial in terms of minimizing off-farm inputs such as pesticide and fertilizer as well as promoting carbon sequestration, soil quality, and animal welfare. In addition, the producer conducts their own slaughter, packaging, and distribution of products in a direct-to-consumer model, limiting distribution to a several hour drive from the farm. Our analysis of this case suggests two particularly interesting findings. First, products are characterized and marketed as local food. Second, this producer strongly asserts that scaling operations would destroy core capabilities and quality conventions.

When asked to define local food, the consensus of Case D responses indicated that in this context the term denotes more than geographical proximity between producer and consumer. Two main themes emerged related to their conceptualization of local food. First, local food offers the opportunity to develop a connection between the producer and the customer. Second, the term indicates a type of proximity that allows transparency regarding production methods and quality attributes [61]. In addition to limiting how far products travel, their distribution and retailing model maximizes direct contact between the producer and the customer. In addition to their production methods, this connection was reported to be an important, order-winning attribute for their products. Customers are encouraged to visit the farm and facilities, the producer regularly holds open on-site events, operates an on-site store, and maintains an extensive website explaining their values, production methods, and quality attributes. The producer charges a substantial premium as compared to similar products available in specialty grocery stores or farmers’ markets. Domestic and ecological quality conventions are intrinsic in product marketing, and justify the price premium (e.g., public and market). Because of relatively high prices and the method of distribution, these products are largely unavailable to socio-economically disadvantaged consumers. As a result, there is a tradeoff for this producer with respect to achieving market, ecological and public conventions versus the civic convention.

Conventional business logic suggests that where a premium can be earned, expansion and greater production scale are desirable. However, our interviews at Case D reflected strong resistance to the idea of scaling production up to higher volumes. Interviewees expressed serious doubt regarding the potential for achieving economies of scale with these practices. The producer firmly rejected the idea that a large firm could successfully undertake similar agricultural practices. The rationale behind this assertion was twofold: (1) Loss of the relational aspect of small volume production with direct-to-consumer sales would erode consumer trust in quality attributes; and (2) Perception that larger firms, because they rely heavily on external investment, would be unable to balance potential tradeoffs between sustainable practices and seeking higher efficiency.

Cases concentrating on Niche tend to be smaller firms with highly specific target markets. Cases D, G, H, I, and N serve relatively small geographic areas, reinforcing their branding as local food. The domestic convention as evidenced by these firms does not necessarily rely on external validation by certifying bodies or other institutions. Instead, Niche producers may develop and rely on their own definitions of practices that fulfill the domestic conventions. In this sense, this type of producer is particularly vulnerable to encroachment by Growth products, which may have more obvious and externally validated quality attributes and are more competitively priced than their Niche counterparts. To defend their competitive advantage, producers concentrating solely on Niche must therefore consistently deliver products that are perceived by customers as fulfilling domestic conventions with attributes that justify price premiums (public, market). We observed multiple instances of Niche producers implementing practices to defend their domestic convention, including direction connection to consumers (Cases D, G, and H) and high levels of transparency regarding production methods (Cases D, E, G, N, and U). In each case, demonstrating authenticity to customers appears to be central to domestic convention, conveying producer trustworthiness and maintaining socially embedded attributes of transactions [45,61,62,63].

Firms that compete in one quadrant face potential tradeoffs. Niche firms, for example exploit existing capabilities and accept lower productivity to earn a price premium. By forgoing entry into Growth, for example, such firms are trading off access to volume demand with avoiding investment in industrial conventions. For some Niche producers, this choice is philosophical (Case D, G, I), however, multiple producers indicated that they were more interested in, and believed their skills and resources were more suited for, incremental growth, including expansion of scope, within Niche. Firms may not have the resources to compete in multiple quadrants, or may decide that focusing on single set of quality conventions is more efficient. Finally, as explained by multiple respondents at Case D, there may be a perceived quality risk associated with expanding to different supply or demand characteristics.

4.3. Cases Competing Based on Multiple Quadrants

Thirteen cases occupy two quadrants and a single case occupies three quadrants of the typology. Our analysis indicates that there are several motivations for competing in this manner. First, with respect to demand characteristics, consumer preferences are changing. Increasingly, US consumers express interest in food safety, nutrition, as well as social and environmental issues around how food is produced [64]. Recent surveys of US consumers suggest that food purchase decisions have shifted from traditional drivers of price, convenience, and taste towards evolving drivers such as health and wellness, safety, social impact, personal engagement, and transparency [27]. However, at the same time a majority of global consumers express doubts about the validity of food label claims [64] and for several decades, US consumers have expressed distrust in the food industry, and more specifically, large food corporations [65].

Our analysis finds that the majority of firms occupying multiple quadrants appear to do so in order to address consumer preferences and to ensure long-term firm survival. Cases A, B, C, M, and O each compete within the Mainstream quadrant as well as Growth. This combination reflects what appears to be a nearly complete intertwining of Mainstream and Growth FSCs via exploitation of industrial conventions. While this offers potential competitive advantage for firms and choice for consumers, it also presents challenges for managers attempting to manage FSCs with different sets of quality conventions. Furthermore, the pressure to achieve efficiency and scale could strain the ability of Growth FSCs, operating in combination with Mainstream FSCs, to maintain differentiating characteristics. One example of these challenges has arisen in the dairy industry, where a series of allegations have been made that large organic milk producers do not fulfill the pasturing requirements of certified organic dairy production [66]. Even if such allegations remain unsubstantiated, such issues could erode consumer trust and compromise the ability of Growth dairy to earn a premium. Organic certification currently relies on achieving and maintaining standards of practice with up-front certification and infrequent auditing rather than testing, however, evolution of testing capabilities may eventually enable routine discrimination between compliant and non-compliant organic dairy [67].

Changing supply characteristics provide a second driver for competing in multiple quadrants. Mainstream producers may be interested in hedging against future supply uncertainty for a variety of reasons. Natural resource depletion associated with Mainstream agriculture, as well as climate change may render inputs to existing processes more costly and outputs less productive [68]. In the long term, current global production capacity is insufficient to support projected population growth [6].

If successful, Future Emergent technologies have the potential to minimize resources required to satisfy future demand, as well as to reduce risk associated with contamination [69]. Despite advances in production, monitoring, and testing methods, food safety continues to be a problem, even in developed economies with mature regulatory systems such as the US [70]. The interconnectedness, global reach, as well as a relative lack of transparency and traceability in FSCs contribute to food safety risk [22,71]; in addition, aspects of industrialized agriculture may contribute to the incidence of such failures [72,73].

Finally, firms may expand to multiple quadrants in order to explore and exploit simultaneously, implementing a strategy of operational ambidexterity [56,74,75]. Food industry firms face both high levels of competition as well as high levels of dynamism [74]; as a result, a combination of exploration and exploitation may be advantageous if the firm can balance both activities [69,75,76].

4.4. Movement between Quadrants

Due to external threats such as climate change, which may affect supply, Mainstream firms may be motivated to look outside this quadrant. Transition to Growth most closely resembles exploitation, as articulated by March [56] because the firm is applying well-known practices to extend itself into a different set of demand characteristics. Alternatively, Mainstream firms may pursue exploration via transition to Future Emergent. While we did not directly observe this in our sample, we have observed anecdotal examples of firms investing in Future Emergent startups as a hedge against future supply and demand shifts. A number of firms that engage in industrialized meat production, for example, have invested in one or more lab-grown meat startups, which could be considered a form of exploration [56]. These firms arguably are engaging in the exploration of both supply (e.g., production technology development) and demand (e.g., consumer perceptions, public conventions) characteristics. We have also observed firms in these situations exploiting existing capabilities and differentiated demand by offering different varieties of plant-based proteins [77]. By engaging in transitions toward both Growth and Future Emergent FSCs, a firm is exhibiting a form of organizational ambidexterity [56,74]. This orientation is the potentially effective use of resources and a hedge against an uncertain future, however, this approach requires the firm to balance exploitation and exploration; imbalance or misfit with the external environment can threaten firm survival [57,58].

Mainstream FSCs are likely to pursue exploitation by adding Growth to their portfolio as a source of differentiation. Five cases (A, B, C, M, and O) operate in both Mainstream and Growth quadrants, maintaining a dominant orientation toward Mainstream products. These firms exploit existing industrial capabilities to produce differentiated products at high volumes and relatively low prices. To defend their differentiation, Growth FSCs need to align with and maintain appropriate quality conventions, which may be challenging when pursuing a competitive advantage in two different quadrants.

Niche FSCs appear to either be entrenched (Cases D, G, H, I, J, and N), or poised to attempt to transition to Growth, which will require a level of ambidexterity. We identified three cases (E, F, and U) that exist in both the Niche and the Growth quadrants. Each of these cases concerned egg products. As indicated in Figure 4, E, F, and U each compete as alternative FSCs within the Niche quadrant; these producers’ methods are associated with aspects of the domestic, and ecological conventions, both of which are order winners and therefore suggest the public convention. We have also indicated that these firms occupy Growth for these cases and have shown Growth as the predominant positioning. This is based on our observation that these producers increasingly apply quality conventions that are more consistent with the Growth quadrant including increasing scale, scope, and process improvements for efficiency.

As shown in Figure 4, the typology predicts that firms transitioning from Niche to Growth FSCs must take on the associated industrial convention. In reviewing the practices that these cases employ to support the domestic convention, we note that the authenticity and transparency differentiating these FSCs as they occupy the Niche quadrant will necessarily be difficult, if not impossible, to maintain as their operations expand. Each of these egg producers relies on a network of smaller producers and the resource requirements (e.g., labor and land). As production volumes increase, the number of suppliers qualified, contracted, and managed, and therefore the level of resources and supply chain maturity required to successfully maintain consistency of quality conventions will grow as complexity increases [78,79]. Furthermore, increases in scale are likely to require substantial capital investments; as these producers take on debt, they will be under intense pressure to service debt, further increasing the potential for efficiency to drive prioritization of the industrial convention. These insights are supported by evidence from entrenched Niche producers (e.g., Case D); it remains to be seen how the transitioning firms will span both Niche and Growth, transition to Growth and associated conventions and priorities, or, alternatively, generate a new configuration of quality conventions.

While we did not observe Future Emergent transitions in our sample, the typology predicts that they have two likely future paths. If Future Emergent firms develop industrial conventions and produce high volume, relatively commoditized products at low prices, they will need to convert their exploratory efforts into exploitative capabilities and transition into the Mainstream quadrant. Alternatively, they may transition to Growth by developing differentiated products; this transition will also require industrial conventions. For example, if lab-grown protein can achieve differentiation via ecological conventions, or by being nutritionally superior to animal protein, a Future Emergent product could mature into a Growth product.

We identify a single firm (Case C) that occupies three quadrants (Mainstream, Growth, and Niche). This firm is a small family-owned grocer with a few locations. The paths through which Case C traveled to its current position is distinct from other retailers than occupy both Mainstream and Growth. Case C included Niche products relatively early in its history; such early introductions included wine, cheese, and condiments associated with particular locations and traditional processes (e.g., Italian balsamic vinegar). In addition, Case C developed relationships with local producers of seasonal produce early in their history. As consumer interest in place associations of food increased, the retailer expanded the marketing of its sourcing practices. These practices include developing direct relationships with specialized, high quality providers; whether local or distant (e.g., locally grown corn and air-freighted lobsters are both promoted on the basis of the social and ecologically embedded characteristics of the producer). Later, as opportunities arose in terms of both supply and demand, this retailer added Growth products. Neither Niche nor Growth products dominate Case C’s offerings; therefore, they are classified as predominately Mainstream.

While our limited sample cannot guarantee exhaustive identification of potential movement between quadrants, however, from a theoretical and practical perspective, as well as based on our empirical evidence, we find specific paths to be unlikely. Mainstream and Growth supply and demand characteristics, as well as their associated quality conventions, do not lend themselves to transitioning toward Niche production. While Case C is a notable exception, this firm spans both Mainstream and Niche quadrants, enabled, in part by its small size and position as a retailer. As a small retailer, Case C can accomplish Niche offerings with a select number of key procurement decisions. In contrast, a producer or processor would need to master entirely different capabilities to occupy the Niche space. While it might be attractive, to some extent, for a Mainstream or Growth firm to acquire a Niche producer, profound barriers to maintaining Niche conventions exist. As a result, we speculate that such acquisitions of Niche producers are likely to result in Niche products fully transitioning away from domestic conventions and occupying Mainstream or Growth quadrants. Theoretically and practically, the chief barrier to occupying combining Mainstream, Growth and Niche at the producer level is the absence of the domestic convention in Mainstream and Growth quadrants, and the corresponding absence of industrial conventions in the Niche quadrant. Similarly, we see little support for transitions from Niche or Growth to Future Emergent.

Three Niche cases (E, F, and U) are in currently in period of transition from Niche to Growth; we coded these firms as emphasizing Growth over Niche, based on the observed direction of this transition. Considering the evidence of some firms transitioning between or occupying both Niche and Growth (e.g., Cases E, F, and U), it remains to be determined if Niche and Growth can be maintained simultaneously at the producer level. Should such firms transition away from Niche into Growth, it is possible that eventually a transition could be made from Growth to Mainstream. The transition, currently under way, at McDonald’s and Walmart from cage-raised eggs to cage-free eggs could represent an opportunity for this type of transition [80,81]. Several factors suggest this possibility. First, the transition from Growth to Mainstream could occur if consumers no longer widely accept or demand cage raised eggs consumers (i.e., loss of public convention). Second, from a technological perspective, both types of egg production share strong ties to the industrial convention. Practically speaking, cage-free eggs represent a small evolution in terms of resources required as compared to cage-raised eggs; industrial conventions ensure a focus on productivity improvements, increasing the likelihood of production at a relatively low cost [82]. Notably, the most rigorous standards for egg production that certify the humane treatment of animals do not certify cage-free facilities [60]. Finally, such a transition may be possible given that some of the largest commercial buyers of eggs are driving demand for cage-free eggs. In comparison, a similar transition to pasturing under the most rigorous standard is estimated to require roughly the same amount of land as Rhode Island in order to supply pastured eggs at current volumes of US demand, making such a transition substantially more difficult [82].

5. Discussion and Conclusions

5.1. Research Contributions

From a theoretical perspective, this study contributes by explicitly incorporating the elements of sustainable strategies suggested by the NRBV with CT to develop a novel and comprehensive quality convention framework for FSCs. This is theoretically relevant because of the complexity of evaluating quality in food products, and because of the diversity present in and dynamic nature of different FSC configurations [75]. Furthermore, the proposed framework allows issues that have formerly been considered peripheral to operational performance (e.g., ecological and civic conventions) to be reflected under the umbrella of quality management.

To our knowledge, this is the first use of CT in the OM/SCM discipline. Given CT’s long history in geographic sociology and political economy as well as its tradition of explaining socially embedded quality conventions in agri-food systems, we believe that there is substantial potential for further application of CT to FSCs, as well as to other industry contexts.

5.2. Managerial Implications

Managers within the food industry must handle high levels of competition, relatively low-profit margins and increasing levels of governmental regulation, in addition to supply chain complexity. In navigating this environment, these managers need to match operational capabilities with evolving consumer preferences [27,64]. One of the contributions of this study is to provide clarity by developing a robust, theoretically grounded and empirically validated framework for the product, process, and FSC quality. This clarity is important because prior quality frameworks (e.g., Garvin’s [24]) do not capture the socially embedded nature of food products. Accurate and comprehensive quality dimensions allow managers at all levels to assess the ability of their enterprise to deliver on product claims, and, in turn, to satisfy consumer demand and expectations. In addition, Table 1 and Table 3 identify general convention attributes as well as specific examples of practices that managers may consider adopting in order to support their selected quality conventions.

In addition, we highlight the need to manage a number of tradeoffs in order to reduce the potential for quality failures. In particular, our findings suggest that firms that attempt to move from Niche to Growth positions and from Mainstream to Growth are vulnerable to systemic quality failures. We find that firms in these transitions may be particularly susceptible to allowing the pressures of achieving scale and scope to detract from or erode important quality conventions. Quality failures for conventions that are sources of differentiation and order winners (e.g., organic production methods or pasture-raised eggs), the potential for damage to the firm in terms of reputation and market share is severe. Our analysis of cases across the typology suggests that firms seeking differentiation through Niche or Growth must compete with possible substitute products that make similar claims (e.g., local claims for what is objectively a Mainstream product). The value, therefore, of a quality convention, may be diminished by: (1) Spurious use of similar claims by the competition; (2) Lack of transparency across competing FSCs; (3) Limited consumer ability to evaluate the authenticity of quality conventions; and (4) Lack of regulatory definitions for quality claims. It is therefore critical for managers to understand the quality conventions attached to various products, to develop and maintain alignment between operations and marketing functions, and to monitor and remedy quality issues throughout the FSC. Furthermore, for firms choosing to transition between quadrants, or choosing to occupy more than one quadrant, managers should consider the resource requirements necessary for pursuing an ambidextrous strategy [56,58,74]. In addition, managers need to be particularly careful when spanning quadrants where one convention may trade off with another (e.g., Niche and Growth). Where these tradeoffs exist at the quality convention level, managers should consider the extent to which resources need to be duplicated rather than shared to avoid conflicts between conventions.

Given the lack of standard definitions and regulatory protections for some methods, particularly within the Niche quadrant, managers make seek to defend their quality claims by developing local or regional institutions and branding [75,83]. In addition to the potential to develop a collective and visible presence via such institutions, we have observed at least one case within our sample where a cooperative institution allowed producers to share resources and reduced the cost of valuable certifications and infrastructure. While conducted at a national level, the Origin Green/Bord Bia program of Ireland is a best practice exemplar for collaboration between policy-making institutions and industry to develop shared sustainability standards, share resources, and develop branding to support increasing demand [83].

One potential value-add for managers adopting a quality conventions framework is that it can be used to decide and convey how social and ecological sustainability concerns are integrated into firm and supply chain strategy. We suggest that the quality conventions approach enables FSC strategy to be set, communicated, and implemented with greater authenticity than more narrow approaches. Placing sustainability under the umbrella of quality management renders these formerly ancillary considerations central to the operations management function.

We acknowledge that it is unlikely that a for-profit firm will make civic conventions their first priority. However, incorporating this dimension, to the extent deemed appropriate, directly into the quality management and supply chain strategy enables firms to articulate their social sustainability in a manner that minimizes the potential for to be perceived as engaging in impression management rather than making an actual civic contribution.

5.3. Limitations, Future Research, and Conclusions

Our research is subject to several limitations. First, the use of case methods and the accompanying limited sample could limit the generalizability of our findings. Future research using other methods such as surveys could more easily collect larger samples, confirm our exploratory findings, and provide broader generalizability. Further, we suggest that future studies should consider how to reliably measure FSC quality conventions and examine the role of firm positioning and performance against quality conventions in terms of sustainability, financial performance, and market share. More particular to supply chain management, the typology could be used to examine how firms that operate in multiple quadrants and across multiple supply chain stages balance the different types of network configurations and quality management systems required to fulfill multiple sets of quality conventions. The second limitation is that our sample is limited to FSC cases from the US. We suggest, however, that the use of quality conventions, consistent with its application in other disciplines, can be adapted to other industries. As such, we suggest that future work extend this framework to FSCs in other countries and industries.

In conclusion, the criticality of FSCs, as well as the extent to which they are embedded in social and ecological conventions demands a comprehensive and flexible quality framework. This study lays the foundation for future work and for managers to consider FSC quality in a different and more holistic manner. Looking ahead, we believe that there is potential for the integration of NRBV and CT to advance theory and practice beyond the food industry context.