Next Article in Journal
Low-Carbon Transformational Leadership: Conceptualization, Measurement, and Its Impact on Innovation Outcomes
Next Article in Special Issue
A Sustainable Approach to Boost Resilience in Fast-Moving Consumer Goods: The Critical Role of Suppliers and Transportation Capacity Explored Through PLS-SEM and NCA
Previous Article in Journal
Infrastructure Decommissioning: A Brief Report on Embracing Future Generations’ Perspectives to Avoid Intergenerational Procrastination
Previous Article in Special Issue
Supply Chain Stability and Enterprises’ Total Factor Productivity: From the Perspective of Development Sustainability
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 24
10.3390/su162410842
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Benefit-Sharing Mechanism in Cross-Regional Agricultural Product Supply Chain: A Grounded Theory Approach

by
Yidan Gao
and
Yixiang Zong
*
College of Economics and Management, Hebei Agricultural University, Baoding 071000, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(24), 10842; https://doi.org/10.3390/su162410842
Submission received: 5 November 2024 / Revised: 4 December 2024 / Accepted: 8 December 2024 / Published: 11 December 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Supply Chain Management in a Sustainable Business Environment)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The accelerated development of economic globalization has given rise to the formation of supply chain networks for cross-regional agricultural products. However, the unequal rights and status of the partners and an imperfect benefit linkage mechanism have made it difficult to reasonably distribute and share benefits. Understanding how to establish a benefit-sharing mechanism among partners has been a popular topic in the industry, but thematic research and discussions are lacking in the academic community. Therefore, in this study, we utilized a grounded theory approach and selected five supply chain master enterprises with different supply chain systems as samples. We constructed a theoretical model of a benefit-sharing mechanism and systematically revealed the key elements and theoretical logic of benefit sharing. The results of this study showed that (1) the five elements of benefit creation, benefit integration, benefit distribution, benefit constraint, and benefit coordination have important impacts on benefit sharing in the supply chain; (2) the dimensions within these five elements are independent of each other, and these elements can be combined to demonstrate a common impact on benefit sharing. The dynamic interaction among the five elements constituted a self-regulating and self-optimizing cyclic system; (3) benefit integration and benefit distribution have a dynamic cyclic facilitating effect on benefit sharing. This study has refined the key elements of the benefit-sharing mechanism, and the results provide theoretical references for benefit sharing and in-depth collaboration among supply chain members.

1. Introduction

Accompanied by the continuous expansion of the scale of the agricultural industry and an increasing degree of segmentation, the supply chain system has been expanding horizontally and vertically. The number of subject members is increasing, and the relationship among the members is becoming increasingly complex, forming a network-like intertwining [1]. As a result of the increasing intensity of international agricultural supply, agricultural companies have spread across different countries (regions) in the world as upstream and downstream members of the supply chain. By carrying out economic functions according to the characteristics of these country (regional) borders, a supply chain network for cross-regional agricultural products has been formed [2]. The key issues in the cross-regional agricultural product supply chain (CrAPSC) include the formation of a supply chain network and the establishment of a benefit-sharing mechanism among the partners. Therefore, by coordinating benefits and forming partnerships among the node enterprises, each node enterprise can perform its own duties. Based on mutual trust, all partners in the supply chain can achieve win–win benefits [3].
Along with the diversification and complexity of the CrAPSC, collaboration among the subjects has been affected by some problems, such as information flow breaks, supply chain members violating their agreement, and poor demand responsiveness. As a whole, CrAPSC is in a situation of “weak collaboration” and a state of “loose benefit linkage” [4]. Therefore, the stability of collaboration and fair benefit sharing among the subjects in the CrAPSC has increasingly received attention. Existing studies on supply chain benefit sharing have mainly explored the influence of a single or individual factor on the benefit-sharing mechanism. These studies have been conducted in a fragmented or piecemeal manner, failing to conduct in-depth explorations of the key elements and logical relationships necessary to achieve members’ benefit sharing [5]. In fact, supply chain benefit sharing has been hindered by multiple and complex factors. Only by specifically analyzing the typical characteristics of the supply chain for cross-regional agricultural products and fully exploring the logical mechanisms of these key elements can we achieve reasonable benefit sharing among the subject members of the supply chain.
China’s agricultural market is huge. It is the world’s largest importer of agricultural products and one of the world’s largest exporters of agricultural products. Many Chinese enterprises play a prominent role in the CrAPSC and are active members in the establishment of benefit-sharing mechanisms [6]. Therefore, in this study, we used the case of Chinese supply chain master enterprises participating in CrAPSC benefit sharing and explored the following questions in depth:
Question 1: What are the key elements for achieving the benefit sharing of CrAPSC?
Question 2: What are the links among these elements?
Question 3: How do these elements interact to facilitate the construction of the benefit-sharing mechanism of CrAPSC?
In this study, we examined the construction of fair and reasonable benefit-sharing mechanisms of CrAPSC based on grounded theory, revealed the theoretical logic and the relationship chain among the elements, and provided a theoretical reference and practical inspiration for the optimization of the benefit-sharing mechanisms of the supply chain. Our research results can provide supply chain members with specific management tools to promote the modernization of production and distribution. We established an effective benefit-sharing mechanism to help supply chain members form a synergistic effect, and realize the win–win situation of individual and overall benefits.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: Section 2 presents a literature review. Section 3 describes the method and data, including the research methods, case selection, and data collection. Section 4 presents an analysis of results and open coding, axial coding, selective coding, and theoretical saturation tests. Section 5 includes a discussion that focuses on the interpretation of the model results. Section 6 presents the conclusions, including the main conclusions, research limitations, and research prospects.

2. Literature Review

We reviewed studies on CrAPSC and benefit sharing in the supply chain. The former focuses on analyzing the collaborative relationship between supply chain subjects, supply chain management, and performance evaluation, while the latter focuses on analyzing the factors that influence supply chain benefit sharing and the methods for constructing supply chain benefit-sharing mechanisms.

2.1. Research on CrAPSC

The creation of CrAPSC is the result of multiple factors, including adjustment pressure placed on the national or regional economic structure, the continuous improvement of trade logistics technology and service systems, the promotion of the sustained and healthy development of the economy and trade by various countries, and supply chain stabilization measures [7]. Currently, most scholars examining CrAPSC are in the initial stage of research, and this research can be divided into three main categories. The first category is research on CrAPSC partnerships, which specifically analyzes the selection of partnership models, influencing factors, and effects. Widadie [8] explored the consistency between vertical and horizontal collaboration in the supply chain of vegetables in Indonesia. When vertical collaborators enhanced horizontal collaboration through producer organizations, the efficiency of quality and safety control of vegetables increased and coordination costs decreased. Groot [9] examined the impact of quality standards on contractual choices in the food supply chain, in which supply chain participants reduced transaction costs by aligning quality standards with appropriate contractual arrangements. Biró [10] compared the effects of implementing vertical and horizontal collaboration in the supply chain and found that a high degree of vertical integration enabled producers to achieve a favorable bargaining position, thus reducing the development potential of horizontal collaboration.
The second research category is CrAPSC digital management, which emphasizes the importance of an information system for the CrAPSC [11,12], intelligent management of the CrAPSC [13], and the role of blockchain technology in driving CrAPSC development. Blockchain technology can provide open and transparent information about the entire process of food production, transportation, and transactions; improve the reliability and efficiency of cross-regional agricultural product transactions; and reduce transaction costs [14].
The third research category is CrAPSC performance evaluation. Yontar [15] evaluated the sustainability performance of the Turkish fruit and vegetable supply chain according to five dimensions: supply chain management, resource management, food safety, packaging, and waste management, of which the performance score of supply chain management was the highest. CrAPSC performance is influenced primarily by agricultural product quality, supply chain responsiveness, supply chain flexibility, and enterprise efficiency [16].

2.2. Research on Supply Chain Benefit-Sharing

The agri-supply chain is undergoing profound changes, especially in emerging economies, and the influence of downstream members in the supply chain has further increased. The share of value-added benefits obtained has also increased, posing a challenge to the rate of return of upstream production subjects, which has affected benefit sharing and coordination of benefits in the supply chain [17,18]. Some scholars have analyzed the influencing factors of benefit sharing and found that each subject’s benefit sharing in the supply chain is affected primarily by his/her specific situation in the supply chain as well as by his/her degree of trust and the benefit linkage mechanism. Min [19] argued that resource sharing can support interaction between organizations, exert a synergistic effect of resources, and promote the subject’s collaboration and benefit sharing. Pezeshki [20] showed that mechanisms that include trust as a decision-making factor performed better than “no trust” mechanisms in all cases, and the impact of trust on supply chain performance should be considered when designing benefit-sharing mechanisms. Li [21] found that close benefit linkage mechanisms, such as contractual transactions or horizontal collaboration, are more conducive to subject collaboration and income stability. Other scholars believe that in addition to these factors, the power position of the participating subjects in the supply chain, internal and external environments, and other factors also have a significant impact on benefit sharing [22,23]. On this basis, some scholars have explored new methods to construct a supply chain benefit-sharing mechanism. The existing research has focused on the game analysis of the relevant benefit-sharing subjects in the supply chain and constructed a reasonable benefit-sharing mechanism among subjects using a mathematical model. Panda [24] used Stackelberg game analysis and Nash equilibrium to analyze the coordination of benefits in a manufacturer–distributor–retailer supply chain, in which the manufacturer demonstrated corporate social responsibility and proposed a contract-negotiation process to resolve channel conflicts and distribute residual profits. Ge [25] established an evolutionary game model of benefit sharing among members of agricultural associations. Their analytical results showed that (share, share) and (do not share, do not share) are evolutionarily stable strategies for both players, and their model analysis found that reducing the risk of benefit sharing, increasing the benefits of participants, and increasing the amount of resources owned by members of the organization can encourage members to choose (share, share) strategies.

2.3. Research Review

Research related to benefit sharing in CrAPSC has achieved certain results, but the following limitations remain: CrAPSC is a new type of supply chain network system that emerged after the accelerated development of economic globalization. Its benefit-sharing mechanism is more complex, and the current research on CrAPSC benefit sharing remains relatively limited and requires detailed analysis. CrAPSC benefit sharing is affected by the influence and role of multiple factors, including resource sharing, the subject’s degree of trust, and the status of the subject’s rights. Most of the existing studies, however, have adopted game theory to portray the role of single or individual factors in supply chain benefit sharing. Thus, it is difficult to systematically reveal the multiple factors of supply chain benefit sharing and their correlation. Existing studies are less likely to reveal the logical mechanism among the influencing factors of CrAPSC benefit sharing. Therefore, it is necessary to specifically analyze the logical structure and benefit relationship among the influencing factors and construct a systematic theoretical framework for the study of benefit-sharing mechanisms.
In this study, based on case studies and in-depth interview data of multilink subjects in the CrAPSC, we applied the grounded theory method to construct a multidimensional integration model of benefit sharing for the CrAPSC, systematically revealed the logical structure and relationship among the key elements, and refined the mechanism of the key elements in supply chain benefit sharing to provide a systematic theoretical framework for research and to enrich the intrinsic mechanism of supply chain benefit sharing.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Research Method

Grounded theory is a qualitative research method proposed by Glaser [26], which establishes a theoretical framework through an inductive analysis of empirical data. The main reasons we selected grounded theory in this study are as follows: first, this exploratory study addressed the problem of “what,” and therefore, the case study was most appropriate [27]. Second, quantitative research is advantageous for testing theories, but qualitative research is more advantageous when existing theories are not yet perfect. Inadequate research theories on supply chain benefit-sharing issues require qualitative research to reveal the causal relationship of events and to construct new theories. Third, the grounded theory can reveal the dynamic process of the benefit-sharing mechanism of CrAPSC. The approach focuses on the interactions and games between stakeholders, and further explores how to achieve a fair distribution of benefits through collaboration. As a representative of qualitative research, grounded theory follows the research steps of “data collection–open coding–axial coding–selective coding” [28], and the research process is shown in Figure 1.

3.2. Case Selection

We analyzed the supply chain system and the benefit-sharing mechanism formed under the leadership of five supply chain master enterprises. Since the supply chain master enterprises played a key role in integrating upstream and downstream resources, standardizing transaction processes, and optimizing benefit allocation, we studied different types of supply chains led by them. We selected the five supply chain master enterprises, including China Oil and Foodstuffs Corporation (COFCO), Beijing Capital Agribusiness & Foods Group (CAG), Wanbang International Group (WIG), Alibaba, and JD.com, as samples and focused on analyzing the interest relationships and benefit-sharing mechanisms between the master enterprises and upstream and downstream entities. COFCO and CAG represent production-supporting supply chain systems, WIG represents circulation-driven supply chain systems, and Alibaba and JD.com represent sales-led supply chain systems. The main types of supply chains and information on the supply chain master enterprises are shown in Table 1.

3.3. Data Collection

Our data mainly came from the following four sources: first, company websites, microblogs, public numbers, and annual reports. Data and information of supply chain master enterprises and related stakeholders were collected from them; second, external information, including various authoritative media reports, information from industry associations, and all kinds of data and information published by all kinds of enterprises in their business activities; third, scientific research results of research institutions and experts, which mainly included research works and theses, and literature resources from the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI); and, fourth, data collection through semi-structured interviews.
We adopted the method of conducting in-depth enterprise interviews, mainly for enterprise managers and supply chain project leaders and participants. The interview methods included telephone interviews, e-mail interviews, and face-to-face interviews, and two relevant personnel were interviewed, respectively, for each supply chain. For each interview, we designed specific questions regarding the practices of supply chain master enterprise in driving cooperation among supply chain main bodies, the drivers of benefit sharing among supply chain main bodies, and the impact of benefit sharing on the performance of supply chain main bodies. Then, we organized the relevant text and sorted results according to the interviewee’s answers, which we then refined and analyzed [29]. The data collection period was from January 2024 to September 2024, and a total of 98,000 words of text were organized through the noted ways. The types and sources of data are shown in Table 2.

4. Results

4.1. Open Coding

The open-coding process included coding, labeling, and registering the primitive statements verbatim from the public data of the sample companies and interview data; condensing the initial concepts from the primitive statements; and then refining the initial categories [30]. First, we coded the primitive statements without subjective bias or preconceptions to complete the initial conceptualization. We obtained a total of 358 original statements and 42 corresponding initial concepts. For example, we extracted the initial concept from the primitive statement “Producers collaborate with COFCO in planting and harvesting, and work together to reduce costs and ensure product quality” (c1-01) and defined it as “joint planting”. Then, we refined this concept to form a category by aggregating several concepts with the same meaning. For example, “joint planting”, “low-cost logistics”, and “reducing inventory backlog” were combined into the single category of “cost control”. Finally, we obtained 16 initial categories, as shown in Table 3.

4.2. Axial Coding

We used axial coding to categorize and organize the categories obtained from open coding and utilized cluster analysis to form links among the categories and to refine the principal categories. We discovered the attributes and dimensions of the categories and identified the potential logical relationships among them [31]. Finally, we identified five main categories: benefit creation, benefit integration, benefit distribution, benefit constraint, and benefit coordination, as shown in Table 4.

4.3. Selective Coding

The first task in the selective coding stage was to take the principal categories as the basis, systematically analyze them, extract the core categories, and sort the interconnections between the principal categories and the core categories to construct a theoretical framework [32]. At this stage, we extracted the core category of the CrAPSC benefit-sharing mechanism, around which we described the following “storyline”: Benefit creation is the starting point and prerequisite for benefit sharing in CrAPSC. Benefit integration, benefit distribution and benefit constraint together constitute the realization path of benefit sharing in CrAPSC, respectively, responsible for value synergy, fair allocation, and mechanism guarantee. As an equilibrium mechanism, benefit coordination is both the result and the driving force of benefit sharing in CrAPSC. The dynamic interactions among elements constitute a cyclic system. The cyclic system starts from benefit creation, realizes benefit sharing through benefit integration, benefit distribution and benefit constraint, and then adjusts the demands of all parties through benefit coordination to provide impetus for the next round of benefit creation.

4.4. Theoretical Saturation Test

We used the theory saturation test as the criterion to determine whether sampling was saturated. When we collected new information (new interviewees, new interview materials), if we could not form new theoretical ideas or a new category within the scope of this study, we determined that the theory was saturated. In this study, we set aside interview data from five managers from previous interviews to conduct theoretical saturation tests. First, we coded and analyzed the content from five interviews according to the previous process, and we found that the results of these interviews after full analysis were in alignment with the previous relational attributes and conceptual dimensions. In other words, the coding and analysis of the last five interview transcripts did not result in any new categories or relationships, and the key elements of the CrAPSC benefit-sharing mechanism and its logical relationships still fell within the scope of this study. Therefore, we concluded that the coding results obtained in this study reached theoretical saturation.

5. Discussion

5.1. Structure of the Analysis

Based on the case study and analysis of multisource interview data, in this study, we constructed a “premise–action–result” theoretical model of CrAPSC benefit sharing (Figure 2). This model not only drew on existing research results from multiple perspectives, such as benefit distribution and benefit coordination, but also incorporated two new categories, benefit integration and benefit constraint. The logical relationship among these elements was as follows: (1) Creating more benefits by controlling costs, improving efficiency, and improving quality constitutes the prerequisite for supply chain benefit sharing. Benefit creation not only affected benefit sharing individually but also indirectly promoted benefit sharing through benefit integration and benefit distribution (e.g., cost control → strengthening of main body collaboration, cost control → procurement modality). (2) Benefit integration, benefit distribution, and benefit constraint were the practical pathways to achieve supply chain benefit sharing. Among them, benefit integration and benefit distribution influenced each other, benefit integration provided support for benefit distribution, reasonable benefit distribution stimulated further benefit integration, and dynamic cyclic promotion had an effect on benefit sharing (e.g., strengthening of main body collaboration→ protecting the benefits of farmers, and mode of distribution → optimizing the linkage mode). The levels of benefit simultaneously constrained the integration and distribution of the benefits. (3) Benefit coordination, the goal of this model, was the result not only of CrAPSC benefit sharing, but also the chief motivation for supply chain members to collaborate. It could drive more value-creating behaviors. (4) Overall, the benefit-sharing mechanism of CrAPSC was a dynamic and interwoven system. The interdependence and mutual promotion of the various elements within the system could realize the coordination of the overall benefits of the supply chain and the benefits of individual members. The dynamic relationship between these elements could be reflected through the circular feedback mechanism. Changes in each element affected other elements, thus forming a self-regulating and self-optimizing circular system.

5.2. Connotation of the Elements

5.2.1. Premise Element: Benefit Creation

The optimization and development of CrAPSC not only added value but also, and more importantly, created new value. Benefit creation was the premise and foundation of benefit sharing. The theory of value creation suggested that enterprises could create value through the use of resource technology and information to achieve economic growth [33], emphasizing the improvement of internal production and supply processes. As shown in Figure 3, we categorized benefit creation according to three dimensions (i.e., cost control, efficiency improvement, and quality improvement) and emphasized value addition by focusing on external consumer demand response (demand for quality improvement) while also improving internal supply chain performance. The benefit creation process was a Pareto optimization process, in which the greater the value surplus was within the supply chain, the greater the amount of benefits that partners could share [34]. The spatial extension of the CrAPSC made it more complicated to match supply and demand, lengthened the upstream and downstream market chains of the supply chain, and sharply increased the production cost of the supply chain. Therefore, it was essential to control the overall cost of the supply chain. In addition, “Collaboration between producers and buyers in planting and harvesting” (c1-01) “development of high-speed and low-cost logistics” (c4-21) and “reduction of losses in agricultural product reserves” (c1-26) were the top priorities for cost control and value enhancement. Against the backdrop of increasing market uncertainty, the stability and high efficiency of the supply chain were important guarantees for the long-term development of enterprises [35]. Furthermore, “Implement control and data management for the whole process of crop cultivation, management and harvesting” (c5-16) supported the application of supply chain information technology. It was noted that the “JD.com platform has formed a complete system of product sales, distribution and after-sales service” (c5-31), which was conducive to improving the transparency of information in supply chain, thus helping enterprises identify market demand in a timely and accurate manner and improve the supply chain’s operational efficiency. From the consumer side, consumer demand for certain agricultural products was largely influenced by certain quality characteristics of such products [36]. The selection of good varieties, standardized production, cultivation of brands, and good service highlighted the distinct quality attributes of agricultural products, and consumers were more willing to buy and recognize the value of agricultural products.

5.2.2. Action Element: Benefit Integration

It has been shown that the integration of stakeholders’ benefits could fully rationalize the systematic allocation of resources in the supply chain and clarified the roles and tasks of stakeholders [37]. The integration of benefits required an adjustment to the effective supply of the object of benefit, an adjustment of the concept and behavior of human benefits, and an adjustment of the relationship of benefits between people, including the three dimensions of resource sharing, strengthening of main body collaboration, and optimizing the linkage model, as shown in Figure 4. Resource sharing provides the basis of benefit sharing, and the sharing of resources in the CrAPSC emphasized the “in-depth integration of various systems to open up the whole chain and the whole process of data” (c2-03). This integration promoted the sharing of resources across the links of production, processing, circulation, and sales of agricultural products and supported the unified deployment of resources in all aspects, thus solving the problems of information asymmetry in the traditional supply chain. The supply chain also strengthened the main collaboration, including international exchanges, horizontal collaboration and vertical coordination. Frequent national exchanges raised “international agricultural trade collaboration to a new height” (c1-32), horizontal collaboration “realized the enterprise mission of efficient circulation and deep distribution of products” (c2-07) and vertical coordination “improved the market acceptance of products” (c2-15), promoted the supply chain’s original improvement, and upgraded the functional attribute system [38]. The main body collaboration improved the technological development and research capacity of the CrAPSC and optimized the supply chain service process oriented by the domestic and international market demand, which further supported the interrelationships of the links and achieved the integration and optimal allocation of benefits [39]. Experience and practice have shown that each link in the CrAPSC cannot rely on its own innovative approach to maintain a long-term competitive advantage [40]. Only by continuously innovating the organizational framework and linkage model of the supply chain [41], restructuring the agricultural supply chain by e-commerce sales, short-chain direct marketing and platform live broadcasting, and coordinating the partnership of each link in the supply chain [42,43] can the benefit-sharing mechanism of the CrAPSC be improved.

5.2.3. Action Element: Benefit Distribution

Benefit distribution is the focal point of reducing the opportunistic behavior of supply chain subjects and effectively allocating resources [44], and it is also the core feature of benefit sharing. According to the principle of incentives, a reasonable benefit distribution mechanism promotes the subject of benefit to take full advantage of subjective initiative and to improve enthusiasm and effort. According to the principle of fairness, a reasonable benefit distribution mechanism unifies individual efforts and rewards as well as the fairness and justice of intersubject rewards to promote benefit sharing.
The procurement modality affected the distribution of benefits. Compared with the traditional procurement model, online procurement created an “electronic and transparent procurement model” (c2-25). In addition, tender procurement “established a direct purchasing channel dominated by large enterprises” (c2-25), which achieved economies of scale through centralized purchasing and helped enterprises improve purchasing efficiency, reduce supply chain costs, and establish long-term partnerships [45]. The mode of distribution was directly related to the maximization of individual benefits and the benefit-sharing mechanism among supply chain members. New distribution methods, such as contract distribution, share distribution, and investment support, were conducive to the formation of a long-term cooperative relationship between upstream and downstream subjects in the supply chain [46] and they also promoted a reasonable distribution that met the benefits of all parties. According to the perspective of agricultural modernization, a breakthrough in the farm household economy was the key factor needed to realize the scale, intensification, and marketization of agricultural production as well as future information technology advancements [47], and it was necessary to increase the importance and influence of farmers in the supply chain [48]. To ensure the sustainable development of the supply chain and the basic protection of investors’ benefits, we must “let ordinary farmers share more of the value-added benefits of the industry” (c5-04) and improve the distribution of benefits between farmers and enterprises. As a result, all stakeholders could negotiate on the same mechanism platform [49] and thus could achieve the benefit-sharing mechanism and the sustainable development of the supply chain. The main elements of benefit distribution are shown in Figure 5.

5.2.4. Action Element: Benefit Constraint

The benefit constraint is an extremely effective part of the constraint mechanism. Benefit constraint refers to the adoption of various methods, such as supply chain management, institutional constraints, supervision and examine, and key link control, to exert influence on the operation process, as shown in Figure 6. The goal is to constrain the benefit factors in the supply chain operation process. Supply chain management is an important means of benefit constraint and is a prerequisite for the establishment of a benefit-sharing mechanism. By managing the supply chain transaction process, it was possible to reasonably arrange the time and resources of production, processing, transportation, and other links to constrain the behavior of supply chain subjects [50]. Moreover, supply chain risk management is also an important element of CrAPSC management [51] and can “embed risk prevention and control in all aspects of the business process, and enhance the ability to identify and dispose of risks” (c4-26), which ensured that the supply chain would be unimpeded if emergencies occurred. Institutional constraints directly constrained the benefits of all parties, the corporate governance system constrained the behavior of supply chain subjects, and the transportation management system constrained the supply chain operation process. To establish a CrAPSC benefit-sharing mechanism, it is necessary to eliminate institutional barriers that are unfavorable to the development of the supply chain through institutional coordination and reform, establish a standardized institutional mechanism, and provide a level playing field for all participants. Strengthening supply chain supervision and examination can effectively limit the opportunistic behaviors of members of theCrAPSC and constrain their benefit boundaries [52] by “implementing classified supervision and establishing a process supervision system supported by information technology” (c2-51) and by “strengthening the key links such as loading and quality certification” (c3-13). As a result, the co-construction and co-rule of process control and quality inspection of the CrAPSC promoted honesty and self-regulation of the main body in the supply chain [53]. In addition, it was necessary to control the key links in the operation of the CrAPSC, such as “promote agricultural production and the cultivation of farmers and businessmen” (c5-29) in the production link and “accelerate the construction of e-commerce layout of benefit and realize digital integrated marketing” (c2-62) in the sales link, to constrain the economic behavior of the main body.

5.2.5. Result Element: Benefit Coordination

Benefits are shared among the participants in the system, with the ultimate goal of coordinating benefits among the various subjects and reducing the boundaries and conflicts of benefit between them. In addition to simultaneously satisfying the reasonable needs of each subsystem, the overall function of the coordinated system was greater than the sum of the functions of the original subsystems, and the harmony and stability of the relationship between the stakeholders was maintained [54]. Coordination contract theory suggests that the method of supply chain benefit coordination is to design an effective incentive contract that motivates node firms to maintain strategic collaboration [55]. Competition theory assumes that benefit coordination presupposes the harmonization of competitive and cooperative relationships between subjects [56]. The coordination of benefits in this study was a continuous dynamic evolutionary process, which we specifically divided into three stages: the premise of benefit coordination was the standardized operation, the core element was the collaboration of benefits, and the result was the sharing of results, as shown in Figure 7. The prerequisite of benefit coordination was selected to ensure the standardized operation of the supply chain, including delivery confirmation and inventory management. Delivery confirmation ensured the “stable supply of livelihood materials” (c1-35). The members of the supply chain coordinated the inventory management policy to achieve the system optimization of the supply chain [57] and to improve the supply chain’s market responsiveness and product and service quality. The core element of benefit coordination was the collaboration of benefits. If the upstream and downstream subjects of the supply chain failed to reach a close collaborative relationship, they would fall into the internal competition of the supply chain in the process of supplying agricultural products with high risk and low added value. For this reason, cross-regional supply chain market players should take strong measures to guide supply chain members transcend geographical and administrative restrictions, thus “establishing the strongest relationship with important people in the industry” (c5-40). The sharing of results was due to the coordination of benefits through the establishment of benefit linking mechanisms, supply chain co-construction, and resource interoperability. Each member enterprise in the supply chain could obtain valuable information, realize complementary advantages, and achieve coordination of benefits [58]. As a result, they effectively reduced costs, increased profits, improved product quality, reduced systemic risks [59,60], enhanced the overall competitiveness of the supply chain, and maintained long-term relationships.

6. Conclusions and Prospects

6.1. Conclusions

In this study, we constructed a “premise–action–result” theoretical model of CrAPSC benefit sharing. We systematically explained the key elements and theoretical logic of supply chain members’ benefit sharing and specifically drew the following conclusions: (1) The five elements of benefit creation, benefit integration, benefit distribution, benefit constraint, and benefit coordination had a significant impact on supply chain benefit sharing. Among these elements, benefit creation was the premise element for benefit sharing; benefit integration, benefit distribution, and benefit constraint were the action elements for benefit sharing; and benefit coordination was the result element for benefit sharing; (2) the dimensions within the five elements were independent of each other, and the elements partially overlapped or interacted with each other to have a common impact on benefit sharing. The dynamic interaction among the five elements constituted a self-regulating and self-optimizing cyclic system. The cyclic system started from benefit creation, realized benefit sharing through benefit integration, benefit distribution and benefit constraint, and then adjusted the demands of all parties through benefit coordination to provide impetus for the next round of benefit creation. Each element promoted the other, realizing the improvement of the supply chain’s overall efficiency and the partners’ benefit sharing; (3) for the action elements, benefit integration and benefit distribution had a dynamic and circular promotive effect on benefit sharing, and the level of benefit constraint restricted both benefit integration and benefit distribution.

6.2. Research Contribution

This study has made several theoretical and practical contributions. (1) At the theoretical level, we constructed a “premise–action–result” theoretical model of the benefit-sharing mechanism of CrAPSC to analyze the logical relationship among the elements and the chain of benefit. We defined benefit sharing as a dynamic equilibrium process, expanded the past research paradigm, which was dominated by static distribution, and emphasized the importance of multi-party collaboration and dynamic adjustment. We expanded the theory of value creation and emphasized that benefit creation should focus simultaneously on internal production and supply (internal concern) and on consumer demand (external concern). We also incorporated benefit constraint into the framework, provided a new theoretical tool for resolving multi-party conflicts of benefit in supply chains, and advanced research in the field of conflicts of benefit management. Thus, we have provided a new perspective and approach to the research on CrAPSC. (2) At the practical level, for the first time, the key elements of a benefit-sharing mechanism for the CrAPSC have been systematically summarized and organized according to grounded theory. On the basis of this approach, we elaborated on the chain of benefits among the members of the new supply chain network system in the context of economic globalization. This could provide methodological guidance for supply chain members to design more efficient benefit-sharing mechanisms. On one hand, supply chain members should strengthen collaboration and innovation to enhance the overall value of the supply chain. On the other hand, supply chain members should optimize the allocation of resources, and establish a reasonable constraint and distribution mechanism.

6.3. Research Limitations and Prospects

Although this study offers theoretical value and practical contribution, it has some shortcomings. First, in this study, we selected five case models as the research samples to analyze the benefit relationships between upstream and downstream subjects. However, the limited collection of sample size led to some limitations in terms of credibility, which could have had a certain impact on the final model. Second, the method of using grounded theory can only help to identify the key elements of the supply chain benefit-sharing mechanism and the logical relationship, but it cannot compare the differences in the degree of influence among the elements. In the future, the Delphi method could be used to further validate and supplement the key elements and theoretical logic of the benefit-sharing mechanism of the CrAPSC. In addition, the model of influencing factors could be quantitatively analyzed and tested through questionnaires to improve the objectivity of the model, with a view to provide a richer theoretical basis and decision-making reference and to identify a practical path for benefit sharing among subjects in a supply chain.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.G. and Y.Z.; methodology, Y.G.; formal analysis, Y.G.; resources, Y.Z.; data curation, Y.G.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.G.; writing—review and editing, Y.Z.; supervision, Y.Z.; funding acquisition, Y.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Science Research Project of Hebei Education Department, grant number JCZX2024008.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study involving human participants was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Review Committee of College of Economics and Management of Hebei Agricultural University. All methods were carried out in accordance with the Ethics Review Committee of Hebei Agricultural University guidelines and regulations. We confirmed that all participants were informed about the purpose of the study. Approval Code: 2023003, Approval Date: 12 October 2023.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article material. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Grabs, J.; Carodenuto, S.; Jespersen, K.; Adams, A.M. The role of midstream actors in advancing the sustainability of agri-food supply chains. Nat. Sustain. 2024, 7, 527–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Lezoche, M.; Hernandez, J.E.; Díaz, M.D.M.E.A.; Panetto, H.; Kacprzyk, J. Agri-food 4.0: A survey of the supply chains and technologies for the future agriculture. Comput. Ind. 2020, 117, 103187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Ding, H.; Guo, B.; Liu, Z. Information sharing and profit allotment based on supply chain cooperation. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2011, 133, 70–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Bezat-Jarzebowska, A.; Krieger-Güss, S.; Jarzębowski, S.; Petersen, B. Integration of the Food Supply Chain as a Driver of Sustainability: A Conceptual Framework. Agriculture 2024, 14, 1403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Sun, H.; Li, X.; Duan, Y.; Zhang, N. Realizing Benefit Sharing through Reasonable Land Compensation in the Sustainable Development of Water Resources: Two Case Studies in China. Sustainability 2023, 15, 8366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Li, R.D. Optimization of strategies for Chinese enterprises to integrate into cross-border agricultural supply chains. Agric. Econ. 2022, 12, 133–134. [Google Scholar]
  7. Liu, Y.; Zheng, J. Intelligent management of supply chain logistics based on 5g LoT. Clust. Comput. 2022, 25, 2271–2280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Widadie, F.; Bijman, J.; Trienekens, J. Alignment between vertical and horizontal coordination for food quality and safety in Indonesian vegetable chains. Agric. Food Econ. 2022, 10, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Groot-Kormelinck, A.; Trienekens, J.; Bijman, J. Coordinating food quality: How do quality standards influence contract arrangements? A study on Uruguayan food supply chains. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2021, 26, 449–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Biró, S.; Hamza, E.; Rácz, K. Economic and social importance of vertical and horizontal forms of agricultural cooperation in Hungary. Stud. Agric. Econ. 2016, 118, 77–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Xie, R.; Zhang, Y.; Luo, H.; Yu, P.; Chen, Z. Optimizing decisions for post-harvest ripening agricultural produce supply chain management: A dynamic quality-based model. Int. Tran. Oper. Res. 2023, 30, 3625–3653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Hu, Y.; Xiao, S.; Wen, J.; Li, J. An ANP-multicriteria-based methodology to construct maintenance networks for agricultural machinery cluster in a balanced scorecard context. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2019, 158, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Putri, A.N.; Hariadi, M.; Rachmad, R.F. Supply chain management serious game using blockchain smart contract. IEEE Access 2023, 11, 131089–131113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Xiong, H.; Dalhaus, T.; Wang, P.; Huang, J. Blockchain technology for agriculture: Applications and rationale. Front. Blockchain 2020, 3, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Yontar, E.; Ersöz, S. Sustainability assessment with structural equation modeling in fresh food supply chain management. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 39558–39575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Wang, F. Analysis of factors affecting the performance of regional agricultural supply chain. Bus. Econ. Res. 2016, 712, 157–158. [Google Scholar]
  17. Jespersen, K.S.; Kelling, I.; Ponte, S.; Kruijssen, F. What shapes food value chains? Lessons from aquaculture in Asia. Food Policy 2014, 49, 228–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Olthaar, M.; Dolfsma, W.; Lutz, C.; Noseleit, F. Strategic resources and smallholder performance at the bottom of the pyramid. Int. Food Agribus. Manag. Rev. 2019, 22, 365–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Min, S.; Roath, A.S.; Daugherty, P.J.; Genchev, S.E.; Chen, H.; Arndt, A.D.; Glenn Richey, R. Supply chain collaboration: What’s happening? Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2005, 16, 237–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Pezeshki, Y.; Baboli, A.; Cheikhrouhou, N.; Modarres, M.; Jokar, M.R.A. A rewarding-punishing coordination mechanism based on Trust in a divergent supply chain. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2013, 230, 527–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Li, L.; Guo, H.; Bijman, J.; Heerink, N. The influence of uncertainty on the choice of business relationships: The case of vegetable farmers in China. Agribusiness 2018, 34, 597–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Zhao, H.; Yang, J. Evolutionary game analysis of stakeholders’ decision-making behavior in agricultural data supply chain. Front. Phys. 2024, 11, 1321973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Rolfe, J.; Akbar, D.; Rahman, A.; Rajapaksa, D. Can cooperative business models solve horizontal and vertical coordination challenges? A case study in the Australian pineapple industry. J. Co-Oper. Organ. Manag. 2022, 10, 100184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Panda, S.; Modak, N.M.; Basu, M.; Goyal, S.K. Channel coordination and profit distribution in a social responsible three-layer supply chain. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2015, 168, 224–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ge, X.J.; Zhang, J.M. An evolutionary game analysis of benefit sharing among members of rural professional economic associations. Stat. Decis. 2014, 19, 71–72. [Google Scholar]
  26. Glaser, B.G.; Strauss, A.L.; Strutzel, E. The discovery of grounded theory; strategies for qualitative research. Nurs. Res. 1968, 17, 364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Li, X.; Du, J.; Long, H. Green development behavior and performance of industrial enterprises based on grounded theory study: Evidence from China. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. He, Y.Q.; Bu, Z.X.; Pan, J.Y. Key influencing factors of platform innovation: A multi-case study based on Grounded Theory. Lan. Acad. J. 2021, 1, 36–48. [Google Scholar]
  29. Toscano, A.; Balzarotti, M.; Re, I. Sustainability Practices and Greenwashing Risk in the Italian Poultry Sector: A Grounded Theory Study. Sustainability 2022, 14, 14088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Connor, J.; Flenady, T.; Massey, D.; Dwyer, T. Classic grounded theory: Identifying the main concern. Res. Nurs. Health 2024, 47, 277–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Pramani, R.; Iyer, S.V. Adoption of payments banks: A grounded theory approach. J. Financ. Serv. Mark. 2023, 28, 43–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Glaser, B.G.; Holton, J. Remodeling grounded theory. Forum. Qual. Soc. Res. 2004, 5, 1–22. [Google Scholar]
  33. Ma, H.J.; Lin, Y. How do digital platform companies realize value creation? A dual case study of –Telecom Network and Haier Zhijia. Fore Econ. Manag. 2023, 45, 22–37. [Google Scholar]
  34. Schenkel, M.; Caniëls, M.C.; Krikke, H.; Van Der Laan, E. Understanding value creation in closed loop supply chains–Past findings and future directions. J. Manuf. Syst. 2015, 37, 729–745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ballou, R.H.; Gilbert, S.M.; Mukherjee, A. New managerial challenges from supply chain opportunities. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2000, 29, 7–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Boone, T.; Ganeshan, R.; Jain, A.; Sanders, N.R. Forecasting sales in the supply chain: Consumer analytics in the big data era. Int. J. Forecast. 2019, 35, 170–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Chen, J.H.; Zhao, N. Research on Drivers and Processes of Supply Chain Value Creation. Sci. Technol. Manag. Res. 2006, 12, 243–246. [Google Scholar]
  38. Nemes, G.; Reckinger, R.; Lajos, V.; Zollet, S. ‘Values-based Territorial Food Networks’—Benefits, challenges and controversies. Sociol. Rural. 2023, 63, 3–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Geng, S.H. Research on cross-border e-commerce supply chain model innovation based on rooting theory. Res. Bus. Econ. 2018, 18, 96–98. [Google Scholar]
  40. Peter, T.; Groznik, A.; Alex, K. Measurement of supply chain integration benefits. Interdiscip. J. Inf. Knowl. Manag. 2006, 1, 37–55. [Google Scholar]
  41. Sahay, B.S. Supply chain collaboration: The key to value creation. Work Study 2003, 52, 76–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Christopher, M. Logistics and Supply Chain Management: Strategies for Reducing Cost and Improving Service; Financial Times Pitman Publishing: London, UK, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  43. Jraisat, L.; Upadhyay, A.; Ghalia, T.; Jresseit, M.; Kumar, V.; Sarpong, D. Triads in sustainable supply-chain perspective: Why is a collaboration mechanism needed? Int. J. Prod. Res. 2023, 61, 4725–4741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Pan, H.; Chen, R. A study on division of cooperative profit in supply chain. Syst. Eng. Theory Pract. 2005, 25, 87–93. [Google Scholar]
  45. Mogale, D.G.; Ghadge, A.; Kumar, S.K.; Tiwari, M.K. Modeling supply chain network for procurement of food grains in India. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2020, 58, 6493–6512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Cachon, G.P.; Lariviere, M.A. Supply chain coordination with revenue-sharing contracts: Strengths and limitations. Manag. Sci. 2005, 51, 30–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Zhao, X.F. Theoretical Framework and Guarantee Mechanism of Agricultural Supply Chain Integration under Omni-Channel Mode. Bus. Econ. Manag. 2022, 7, 5–17. [Google Scholar]
  48. Gu, F.; Yu, X. Profit distribution mechanism of agricultural supply chain based on fair entropy. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0271693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Gardas, B.B.; Raut, R.D.; Cheikhrouhou, N.; Narkhede, B.E. A hybrid decision support system for analyzing challenges of the agricultural supply chain. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2019, 18, 19–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Park, J.; Lee, S.B. The Effects of Supply Chain Management on Project Manager’s Capability and Sustainable Benefit Sharing in Global Leading Companies. J. Korea Acad. Ind. Coop. Soc. 2018, 19, 548–560. [Google Scholar]
  51. Madzík, P.; Falát, L.; Copuš, L.; Čarnogurský, K. Resilience in supply chain risk management in disruptive world: Rerouting research directions during and after pandemic. Ann. Oper. Res. 2024, 7, 1–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Naspetti, S.; Lampkin, N.; Nicolas, P.; Stolze, M.; Zanoli, R. Organic supply chain collaboration: A case study in eight EU countries. J. Food Prod. Mark. 2011, 17, 141–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Li, M.; Zhao, X.F. Research on Characteristics and Laws of Supply Chain Integration of Agricultural Products—A Comparative Analysis Based on Traditional Channel Model and Omni-Channel Model. Economist 2022, 7, 119–128. [Google Scholar]
  54. Cachon, G.P. Supply chain coordination with contracts. In Handbooks in Operations Research and Management Science; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2003; Volume 11, pp. 227–339. [Google Scholar]
  55. Chen, C.B.; Yang, Z. A theoretical review of supply chain coordination mechanisms. Prod. Res. 2009, 4, 173–176. [Google Scholar]
  56. Nalebuff, B.J.; Brandenburger, A.M. Co-opetition: Competitive and cooperative business strategies for the digital economy. Strategy Leadersh. 1997, 25, 28–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Jain, K.; Nagar, L.; Srivastava, V. Benefit sharing in inter-organizational coordination. Supply Chain Manag. 2006, 11, 400–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Sharma, M.; Antony, R.; Tsagarakis, K. Green, resilient, agile, and sustainable fresh food supply chain enablers: Evidence from India. Ann. Oper. Res. 2023, 1, 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Handayati, Y.; Simatupang, T.M.; Perdana, T. Agri-food supply chain coordination: The state-of-the-art and recent developments. Logist. Res. 2015, 8, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Mirzabeiki, V.; He, Q.; Sarpong, D. Sustainability-driven co-opetition in supply chains as strategic capabilities: Drivers, facilitators, and barriers. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2023, 61, 4826–4852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 16 10842 g001
Figure 1. Logic of grounded theory.
Figure 1. Logic of grounded theory.
Sustainability 16 10842 g001
Sustainability 16 10842 g002
Figure 2. Structure of key elements for benefit-sharing mechanisms in CrAPSC.
Figure 2. Structure of key elements for benefit-sharing mechanisms in CrAPSC.
Sustainability 16 10842 g002
Sustainability 16 10842 g003
Figure 3. Main elements of benefit creation.
Figure 3. Main elements of benefit creation.
Sustainability 16 10842 g003
Sustainability 16 10842 g004
Figure 4. Main elements of benefit integration.
Figure 4. Main elements of benefit integration.
Sustainability 16 10842 g004
Sustainability 16 10842 g005
Figure 5. Main elements of benefit distribution.
Figure 5. Main elements of benefit distribution.
Sustainability 16 10842 g005
Sustainability 16 10842 g006
Figure 6. Main elements of benefit constraint.
Figure 6. Main elements of benefit constraint.
Sustainability 16 10842 g006
Sustainability 16 10842 g007
Figure 7. Main elements of benefit coordination.
Figure 7. Main elements of benefit coordination.
Sustainability 16 10842 g007
Table 1. Supply chain types and information table of supply chain master enterprises.
Table 1. Supply chain types and information table of supply chain master enterprises.
Type of Supply ChainSupply Chain Master Enterprise IdentificationSupply Chain Master Enterprise CharacterizationAnnual Turnover
Production-supporting supply chainChina Oil and Foodstuffs Corporation (COFCO)China’s top 50 enterprises. The business focuses on the whole supply chain operation of procurement, storage and processing of grain, oil, sugar, meat, and dairy, with an annual comprehensive processing capacity of more than 95 million tons.Turnover of RMB 692.1 billion in 2023
Beijing Capital Agribusiness & Foods Group (CAG)China’s top 10 agribusinesses. The business covers the production, processing, and sales of dairy products, grains, oils, meats, and seafood.Turnover of RMB 161.9 billion in 2023
Circulation-driven supply chainWanbang International Group (WIG)China’s top 10 agribusinesses. The business covers cold chain logistics of agricultural products, fresh food supermarket chains, cross-border e-commerce, and import and export trade.Transaction volume of RMB 200 billion in 2023
Sales-led supply chainAlibabaChina’s top 50 enterprises, e-commerce business. The agriculture segment covers rural e-commerce, fresh food e-commerce, retailing, and agricultural big data services.Agricultural product e-commerce turnover of RMB 540 billion in 2023
JD.comChina’s top 50 enterprises, e-commerce business. The agriculture segment is comprehensively laid out around the production end, channel distribution end, and consumer retail endAgricultural product e-commerce turnover of RMB 206 billion in 2023
Table 2. Data types and sources.
Table 2. Data types and sources.
Data TypesData SourceMain Content
Official dataEnterprise website, microblog, public numbers, and annual financial reportThe practices and effectiveness of the supply chain master enterprises in the various links of the CrAPSC, and the design of mechanisms for linking the benefits of the subjects.
External dataAuthoritative media reports, information from industry associations, and data on business activities of supply chain master enterprisesThe contribution of the supply chain master enterprises in the whole supply chain and the leading role of the main body.
Research dataResearch works and theses, and CNKI literatureCoverage of supply chain management, e-commerce operations, distribution methods, and contract design for supply chain master enterprises.
Interview dataEnterprise management personnel, and supply chain project leaders and participantsInterviews on the practices of supply chain master enterprise in driving cooperation among supply chain main bodies, the drivers of benefit sharing among supply chain main bodies, and the impact of benefit sharing on the performance of supply chain main bodies.
Table 3. Analysis of open coding and categorization (part).
Table 3. Analysis of open coding and categorization (part).
Initial CategoryInitial ConceptPart of the Original Statement
A1. Cost controlaa1. Joint plantingc1-01. Producers collaborate with COFCO in planting and harvesting and work together to reduce costs and ensure product quality.
aa2. Low-cost logisticsc4-21. Developing high-speed and low-cost logistics is the key to increasing the premium power of agricultural products, and reducing logistics costs has become a priority for value enhancement.
aa3. Reduce lossesc1-26. Our grain is directly sent to the COFCO Reserve Warehouse, where the grain loss is reduced to nearly zero.
A2. Improve efficiencyaa4. Information technology applicationsc5-16. JD.com will build digital farms with cooperative enterprises and implement control and data management for the whole process of crop cultivation, management, and harvesting.
aa5. Building a sales platformc5-31. In the downstream, through the JD.com platform, a complete system of product sales, distribution, and after-sales service has been formed, ultimately realizing the user reach of agricultural products.
A3. Improve qualityaa7. Variety breedingc1-15. The “Breeding of Characteristic Japonica Rice Varieties” project focuses on genetic analysis of important quality traits, germplasm resource innovation, and selection and breeding of new varieties of Japonica rice.
aa8. Brand cultivationc4-35. Helping the county to realize the upgrading of agricultural products, quality control and branding, and promoting the transformation of agricultural products from commodities to high-quality products.
A4. Resource sharingaa11. Resource harmonizationc2-12. After further integration and reorganization, resources in all aspects are unified and centralized for procurement and distribution.
aa12. Supply chain data integrationc2-03. Through the in-depth integration of various systems, we opened up the entire chain and processed data to form a “data supply chain”.
A5. Strengthening of main body collaborationaa13. International exchangec1-32. Promote China–Uzbekistan agricultural trade collaboration to a new level and strive to export more high-quality Uzbek commodities to China.
aa14. Horizontal collaborationc2-07. Horizontally open up all links in the supply chain to realize the mission of efficient circulation and in-depth distribution of products.
aa15. Vertical coordinationc2-15. We have been working with CAG to sell their grain and oil products for nearly 20 years, and the market has a very high recognition rate for our products.
A6. Optimizing the linkage modelaa16. E-commerce salesc2-46. Closely linked to the Beijing consumer market, it has established sales platforms for bulk group purchases of products, new media, and online e-commerce.
aa17. Short supply chain salesc4-06. Alibaba’s activities in the county, such as the farm’s special session to help farmers and docking with a new retail supermarket, have greatly increased the volume of e-commerce orders in the county.
aa18. Platform live broadcastingc4-01. I am really into live streaming now. In just a few minutes during a live stream, I sold 500 kg of flour, which is equivalent to my sales for the past two weeks.
A7. Mode of distributionaa19. Contract distributionc3-01. Supporting and encouraging market dealers to sign long-term purchase agreements with farmers and producers to develop order-based agriculture.
aa20. Share distributionc1-53. The implementation of employee shareholding is a very effective method of incentivization, which enables the company to share benefits and risks with its employees.
A8. Procurement modalityaa22. Online procurementc2-25. Shift from the traditional bidding model, which is heavily manual and paper-based, to an online procurement model.
aa23. Bidding procurementc3-25. Promotion of bidding and procurement, gradually forming a direct purchasing channel mainly for large enterprises.
A9. Protecting the benefits of farmersaa25. Sharing of value-added benefitsc5-04. We promote the industrialization of agriculture, facilitating the sharing of resources, results, and benefits, and allowing farmers to share more of the value-added benefits of the industry.
aa26. Supporting and driving farmersc1-75. We fully fulfill our responsibilities to stakeholders, support and encourage farmers to grow and produce good food, and develop together with our partners.
A10. Supply chain managementaa27. Transaction process managementc1-71. When the market closes, we aggregate and put all trades into the system and ensure that all trades are correctly reported to the market risk team.
aa28. Risk managementc4-26. We embed risk prevention and control in all aspects of business processes to enhance risk identification and disposal capabilities and promote sound corporate development.
A11. Institutional constraintaa29. Corporate governance systemc1-46. COFCO adheres to the corporate governance system of “3 Rules of Procedure + 6 Decision Checklists”.
aa30. Transportation management systemc1-22. COFCO has implemented a unified transportation management system and a sealed rice transportation policy to keep losses below 0.1%.
A12. Supervise and examineaa31. Process monitoringc2-51. Carrying out classification management according to the development stage and governance structure of specialized companies and establishing a process supervision system supported by information technology.
aa32. Quality inspectionc3-13. Strengthening loading quality signing, loading reinforcement supervision and inspection, and dynamic tracking of cargo loading status.
A13. Key link controlaa34. Standardization of production processc5-29. In the upper reaches, JD.com can promote agricultural production, support agricultural business training for farmers, and establish the country’s first free-range chicken base by standardized breeding.
aa35. Digitalization of sales processc2-62. CAG broadens terminal sales channels, accelerates the layout of e-commerce, and establishes the TikTok Operations Center to realize digital marketing.
A14. Standardized operationaa37. Shipment confirmationc1-35. COFCO Fats & Oils office staff in Shanghai completed source determination and order processing in 3 h to ensure stable delivery of livelihood goods.
aa38. Inventory managementc2-18. CAG took multiple measures to ensure that corn stocks are adequate in preparation for corn sales.
A15. Benefits collaborationaa39. Stable collaborationc5-40. Operating assets in a secure manner requires close relationships with key people in the industry, such as farmers, brokers, associates, and other traders.
aa40. Coexistence of benefitsc3-38. The seller and the company have a common benefit, as the seller’s business is only as strong as the company’s platform.
A16. Sharing of resultsaa41. Benefit linking mechanismc4-18. Through the establishment of benefit linkage mechanisms with poor farmers, poor farmers are turned into shareholders and thus obtain capital income shares.
aa42. Supply chain co-constructionc2-39. Promote scientific and humanistic exchanges, joint laboratories, and collaboration in science and technology parks, and jointly explore new technologies, new business forms, and new models.
Notes: c refers to the sample code and the corresponding original statement code, aa refers to the initial concept extracted from the original statement, and A refers to the initial category formed by classifying and refining the initial concept.
Table 4. Spindle code analysis.
Table 4. Spindle code analysis.
Principal CategoryInitial CategoryCategory Meaning
Benefit creationCost controlControl of production, distribution, and inventory costs in supply chain operations
Improve efficiencyMaximize the value of resource allocation through the application of new technologies, transportation, and marketing improvements
Improve qualityImprove the quality of agricultural products and increase the selling price and business value of enterprises
Benefit integrationResource sharingSupport resource exchange and sharing and complementary advantages between supply chain entities
Strengthening of main body collaborationCoordinate the action plans of all parties in the supply chain to achieve complementary advantages and maximize common benefits
Optimizing the linkage modelCreate innovative supply chain benefit linkages to shorten supply chain lengths
Benefit distributionMode of distributionImplement orders, equity allocation, direct investment, and other distribution methods to promote the rationalization of benefit distribution
Procurement modalityExpand online purchasing, centralized purchasing, and bidding purchasing to reduce intermediate links and increase the distribution share of supply chain entities
Protecting the benefits of farmersSupport and encourage farmers to share the value-added benefits and ensure the stability of the supply chain source
Benefit constraintSupply chain managementPlan and coordinate all aspects of the supply chain from production to consumption of agricultural products to realize the improvement of overall economic efficiency
Institutional constraintInclude institutional constraints in the main body of the supply chain and supply chain operation process
Supervise and examineEnsure the standardization of the subject’s behavior through supervision and inspection
Key link controlControl key issues in production, circulation, and sales to restrain the behavior of the main body
Benefit coordinationStandardized operationRationalize and standardize the supply chain operation and promote the coordination of the benefits of all parties
Benefits collaborationEstablish a strong collaborative relationship, and share benefits and risks
Sharing of resultsEnable supply chain members to share the value-added benefits and development results of the supply chain, reduce internal costs, and improve competitiveness
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Gao, Y.; Zong, Y. Benefit-Sharing Mechanism in Cross-Regional Agricultural Product Supply Chain: A Grounded Theory Approach. Sustainability 2024, 16, 10842. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162410842

AMA Style

Gao Y, Zong Y. Benefit-Sharing Mechanism in Cross-Regional Agricultural Product Supply Chain: A Grounded Theory Approach. Sustainability. 2024; 16(24):10842. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162410842

Chicago/Turabian Style

Gao, Yidan, and Yixiang Zong. 2024. "Benefit-Sharing Mechanism in Cross-Regional Agricultural Product Supply Chain: A Grounded Theory Approach" Sustainability 16, no. 24: 10842. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162410842

APA Style

Gao, Y., & Zong, Y. (2024). Benefit-Sharing Mechanism in Cross-Regional Agricultural Product Supply Chain: A Grounded Theory Approach. Sustainability, 16(24), 10842. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162410842

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop