Perfil del consumidor Millennial

Overall, the supply chain literature does not focus on what happens to food after it is purchased or donated, which is when the foods move to the emergency food providers. A team of engineers at North Carolina A&T State University and NC State University researched the Food Bank of Central and Eastern North Carolina, focusing on the control mechanisms and supply chain leading to the partner agencies from the food bank itself, rather than a complete picture of how food arrives to the pantries, sometimes as the result of waste prevention (Davis et al., 2013a; Davis et al., 2013b). On the other hand, adequate training and education are needed to fully inform consumers and emergency food providers with relevant food safety practices, as food supply chain differences can have a foundational effect on health (Raspor, 2008). To illustrate, a grower might make decisions based on particular risks and desired outcomes, but fail to account for other effects, or might not find recommended practices conducive to his or her farm (Parker et al., 2012). In effect, growers and distributors have varied practices at each part of the supply chain but their products might be stored together in the food pantry. There is an unknown level of risk regarding each product, but minimizing that risk is critical for all pantries. Depending on the state, the growers can and do receive tax deductions for donated produce, gleaning rather than leaving the crops in the field (Selfa & Qazi, 2005).

Furthermore, there are various kinds of risk: to one’s self, to other people, and to society (Frewer et al., 1994). Individuals have suggested a greater level of risk for others or for society than one’s self, allowing for individuals to think food safety information is for others, rather than

themselves. How to communicate risk uncertainty has been consistently challenging; a 2002 study found that individuals want information as soon as it is available, preferring the uncertainty to lack of action (Frewer et al., 2002). Researchers found that the public understands that a foodborne

choices under conditions of risk uncertainty through the presentation of all relevant information in an understandable and intelligible way” (Frewer et al., 2002, p. 370). Managers, volunteers, and clients of food pantries may or may not have the relevant information.

The emergency food supply chain differs from a traditional supply chain in various ways, but most importantly, the recipients of the items (i.e., the food pantries) have little control over it. The supply chain literature is heavily qualitative, with various suggestions for both improvement as well as further research into the field. Generally, this literature poses the question: Is enough being done to mitigate risk? To analyze the supply chains, authors have created their own frameworks for analysis, though some compile previous research. In their review, Jüttner et al. (2010) examine the means for assessing risk sources and “chaos effect” of complex supply chains, categorizing risk mitigation strategies alongside risk drivers: 1) avoidance, 2) control, 3) cooperation, and 4) flexibility. They conclude by suggesting that assessing risk sources is the first agenda item in further research; more positive research needs to be done to be able to establish a set framework can be developed, as well as empirically-grounded research. Tang (2006) compares established supply chain risk

management frameworks to those in practice, but suggests new models for risk mitigation given that the models lack disruption risks. Beamon (1998) reviews the literature on multi-stage modeling, laying out performance measures but ultimately suggesting more models.

Yet, supply chains are generally complex; Lambert and Cooper explain, “Strictly speaking, the supply chain is not a chain of businesses with one-to-one, business-to-business relationships, but a network of multiple businesses and relationships” (2000, p. 65). Oftentimes, case studies are used to better understand any particular sophistications. For Lambert and Cooper (2000), 90 in-depth interviews in 15 companies regarding nine supply chains allowed for the categorization of processes: 1) the supply chain network structure; 2) the supply chain business processes; and 3) the

focused on value. Zsidisin et al. (2000) published an exploratory study on minimizing supply chain risk but attribute quality-related risk to the supplier and dynamic customer demands. As Vlajic et al. (2012) concentrate on vulnerability, they also request and present an integrated network that would support the design of robust supply chains. Using meat as the sample product, their analysis reaches from farmers to retail outlets and heavily stresses cost-benefit analysis.

Conversely, research into the humanitarian aid supply chain tends to center on disaster relief (c.f. Balcik et al., 2008; Balcik et al., 2010; Thomas & Kopczak, 2005; Van Wassenhove, 2006), which requires the coordination of numerous non-governmental agencies, can be unpredictable, and involve resource scarcity. Even with the few similarities, that literature does not examine American emergency food as part of the humanitarian aid supply chain.

Overall, the food donation supply chain and its nuances are incompletely documented in the academic literature, important especially as the clients have limited resources in the event of

foodborne illness. While some food sources were expected, like grocery stores and federal government commodities, the likelihood and frequency of garden harvest, hunted game, gleaned fruits and vegetables, salvaged leftover catered and restaurant meals, and even meat and dairy from local producers were uncertain, with questionable means of transport and containers. This paper describes and empirically analyzes the supply chain of the redistributed goods using a novel data set and risk framework.

3.3 Research Approach