IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/cauiiw/022006.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Rückverfolgbarkeit von Lebensmitteln: Eine empirische Analyse kettenübergreifender Informationssysteme

Author

Listed:
  • Gampl, Birgit

Abstract

Die BSE-Krise in den 90er Jahren zeigte, dass Rückverfolgbarkeit von Lebensmitteln häufig nicht gewährleistet war und Rückverfolgbarkeit wurde zu einem viel diskutierten Thema. Mit Schlagworten wie gläserne Produktion und Transparenz vom Stall bis zum Teller wurden die Forderungen nach Rückverfolgbarkeit von der Politik untermauert. Artikel 18 der EUVerordnung 178/2002 schreibt vor, dass Rückverfolgbarkeit gewährleistet sein muss, indem die jeweiligen Informationen auf jeder Produktionsstufe zusammengeführt werden. Dies kann ein langwieriger und schwieriger Prozess sein. Einige Anbieterketten gehen über diese gesetzlichen Forderungen hinaus und haben ein Informationssysteme aufgebaut, bei dem alle relevanten Informationen zentral gesammelt werden. Rückverfolgbarkeit ist damit praktisch auf Knopfdruck möglich. Ein wichtiger Vorteil solcher Systeme besteht darin, dass sie in einer Krisensituation schnell in der Lage sind, die benötigten Informationen bereitzustellen. Damit ist es ihnen vor allem möglich, schneller zu reagieren als die Medien das Problem aufgreifen können und daraus möglicherweise einen Skandal entwickeln können. Solche stufenübergreifenden Systeme werden oft beispielhaft herausgehoben und beschrieben (Buhr 2002, Poignée et al. 2002). Eine umfassende Erhebung, welche übergreifenden Rückverfolgungssysteme es gibt, wie deren Informationsaustausch funktioniert, welche Standards zum Informationssaustausch genutzt werden und welche Vorteile solche übergreifenden Systeme bieten, fehlte jedoch bisher. Die vorliegende Arbeit setzt an diesem Punkt an und fasst einige Ergebnisse aus einem Forschungsprojekt am Institut für Agrarökonomie der Universität Kiel zusammen. Die vollständige Arbeit ist im Oktober 2006 im Cuvillier Verlag erschienen (Gampl 2006).

Suggested Citation

  • Gampl, Birgit, 2006. "Rückverfolgbarkeit von Lebensmitteln: Eine empirische Analyse kettenübergreifender Informationssysteme," I&I Working Paper 02/2006, Christian-Albrechts-University of Kiel, Department of Agricultural Economics, Section Innovation and Information.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:cauiiw:022006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/44471/1/653872216.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Roxanne Clemens, 2003. "Meat Traceability and Consumer Assurance in Japan," Midwest Agribusiness Trade Research and Information Center (MATRIC) Publications (archive only) 03-mbp5, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    2. Joseph Farrell & Garth Saloner, 1985. "Standardization, Compatibility, and Innovation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 16(1), pages 70-83, Spring.
    3. Dickinson, David L. & Hobbs, Jill E. & Bailey, DeeVon, 2003. "A Comparison of U. S. and Canadian Consumers' Willingness to Pay for Red-Meat Traceability," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 22060, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    4. Buxmann, Peter & Weitzel, Tim & König, Wolfgang, 1999. "Auswirkung alternativer Koordinationsmechanismen auf die Auswahl von Kommunikationsstandards," Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 36517, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).
    5. Joseph Farrell & Garth Saloner, 1988. "Coordination through Committees and Markets," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 19(2), pages 235-252, Summer.
    6. Roxanne Clemens, 2003. "Meat Traceability and Consumer Assurance in Japan," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 03-mbp5, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    7. Buhr, Brian L., 2003. "Traceability And Information Technology In The Meat Supply Chain: Implications For Firm Organization And Market Structure," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 34(3), pages 1-14, November.
    8. Roosen, Jutta, 2003. "Marketing Of Safe Food Through Labeling," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 34(3), pages 1-6, November.
    9. Golan, Elise H. & Krissoff, Barry & Kuchler, Fred & Calvin, Linda & Nelson, Kenneth E. & Price, Gregory K., 2004. "Traceability In The U.S. Food Supply: Economic Theory And Industry Studies," Agricultural Economic Reports 33939, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    10. Gellynck, Xavier & Verbeke, Wim, 2001. "Consumer Perception of Traceability in the Meat Chain," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 50(06), pages 1-7.
    11. Buhr, Brian L., 2003. "Traceability, Trade And Cool: Lessons From The Eu Meat And Poultry Industry," Working Papers 14577, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Roth, M. & Doluschitz, R., 2008. "Kosten-Nutzen-Analyse für Qualitätssicherungs- und Rückverfolgbarkeitssysteme in Wertschöpfungsketten tierischer Produkte," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 43, March.
    2. Deimel, Mark & Theuvsen, Ludwig & Ebbeskotte, Christof, 2008. "Von der Wertschöpfungskette zum Netzwerk: methodische Ansätze zur Analyse des Verbundsystems der Veredelungswirtschaft Nordwestdeutschlands," DARE Discussion Papers 0810, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Danielle Galliano & Luis Orozco, 2011. "The determinants of electronic traceability adoption: a firm‐level analysis of French agribusiness," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(3), pages 379-397, June.
    2. Schroeder, Ted C. & Tonsor, Glynn T., 2012. "International cattle ID and traceability: Competitive implications for the US," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 31-40.
    3. Lee L. Schulz & Glynn T. Tonsor, 2010. "Cow‐Calf Producer Preferences for Voluntary Traceability Systems," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(1), pages 138-162, February.
    4. Schulz, Lee L. & Tonsor, Glynn T., 2010. "Cow-Calf Producer Perceptions Regarding Individual Animal Traceability," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 42(4), pages 659-677, November.
    5. Heyder, Matthias & Theuvsen, Ludwig & Hollmann-Hespos, Thorsten, 2012. "Investments in tracking and tracing systems in the food industry: A PLS analysis," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 102-113.
    6. A Kimms, 2003. "Costing communication standards in information systems using a minimum cut approach," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 54(4), pages 426-431, April.
    7. Tobias Kretschmer & Katrin Muehlfeld, 2004. "Co-opetition in Standard-Setting: The Case of the Compact Disc," Working Papers 04-14, NET Institute, revised Oct 2004.
    8. Justus Baron & Daniel F. Spulber, 2018. "Technology Standards and Standard Setting Organizations: Introduction to the Searle Center Database," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(3), pages 462-503, September.
    9. Daniel P. Gross, 2020. "Collusive Investments in Technological Compatibility: Lessons from U.S. Railroads in the Late 19th Century," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(12), pages 5683-5700, December.
    10. Leiponen, Aija, 2006. "Competing through cooperation: Standard setting in wireless telecommunications," Discussion Papers 1056, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
    11. Vitor Trindade & Johannes Moenius, 2007. "Networks, Standards and Intellectual Property Rights," Working Papers 0705, Department of Economics, University of Missouri.
    12. Belleflamme, Paul, 2002. "Coordination on formal vs. de facto standards: a dynamic approach," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 153-176, March.
    13. Nicholas Economides, 1997. "The Economics of Networks," Brazilian Electronic Journal of Economics, Department of Economics, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, vol. 1(0), December.
    14. Bailetti, Antonio J. & Callahan, John R., 1995. "Managing consistency between product development and public standards evolution," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(6), pages 913-931, November.
    15. Kim, Dongwook & Kim, Sungbum, 2022. "How do standards committees affect the success of a standard? Comparative analysis of RCS and VoLTE and proposed hybrid standards development model of open and bandwagon approaches," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(8).
    16. Chebolu-Subramanian, Vijaya & Gaukler, Gary M., 2015. "Product contamination in a multi-stage food supply chain," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 244(1), pages 164-175.
    17. Oz Shy, 2011. "A Short Survey of Network Economics," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 38(2), pages 119-149, March.
    18. Nieto-Barthaburu, Augusto, 2021. "Competitive General Equilibrium with network externalities," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    19. Danielle Galliano & Luis Orozco, 2011. "Les déterminants industriels et spatiaux du processus d'adoption de technologies : Le cas des systèmes de traçabilité dans les firmes industrielles françaises," Géographie, économie, société, Lavoisier, vol. 13(2), pages 135-163.
    20. Souza Monteiro, Diogo M. & Caswell, Julie A., 2009. "Traceability adoption at the farm level: An empirical analysis of the Portuguese pear industry," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 94-101, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:cauiiw:022006. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iakiede.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.