Copyright is owned by the Author of the thesis.  Permission is given for 
a copy to be downloaded by an individual for the purpose of research and 
private study only.  The thesis may not be reproduced elsewhere without 
the permission of the Author. 
 



  

 

 

Achieving effective traceability systems for 
the domestic fresh produce industry in New 

Zealand 
 

 

 

	
 

A thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of 

Master in Food Technology 

 

Massey University,  

Albany Campus, New Zealand 

 

 

Jiaojiao Gao 

2019 

  



i 
 

Acknowledgements 
The completion of my Master study in Food Technology at Massey University would have 

been impossible without the support and the help from several individuals and organisations. 

Firstly, I am extraordinarily fortunate in having Ying Zhao as my partner whose love and 

unconditional support has made this project a great success and fulfilled my dream. Words 

fail me to express my appreciation to my family whose support and persistent confidence in 

me have got me where I am today. 

My deepest appreciation goes to my supervisor Dr. Tony Mutukumira at Massey University 

for his supervision, guidance, encouragement and constant inspiration from the very early 

stage of this research. I am grateful for his continuous support and help in achieving my goals 

and fulfilling my dreams. I am also highly indebted to my co-supervisor Dr Pieternel Luning 

from Wageningen University & Research for her supervision, advice and guidance. Their 

crucial contributions and supervisions have made them a backbone to this research and so to 

this report.  

I would like to acknowledge the financial support given by Ministry for Primary Industries 

(MPI) through my awarded MPI Postgraduate Science Scholarship to conduct this project and 

also my MPI mentor Dr Anne-Marie Perchec Merien who guided and encouraged me to 

complete this project. Above all and most needed she provided me unflinching 

encouragement and support in various ways without which the completion of this project 

would have not been possible.  

I gratefully acknowledge my employer The AgriChain Centre Limited for allowing me access 

to all company information, data and images and also providing necessary information 

regarding the project. I would like to thank United Fresh New Zealand Incorporated and GS1 

New Zealand for their help and support during this research. 

I would also like to thank Dr Hans Maurer, Anne-Marie Arts and Melanie Trotman from The 

AgriChain Centre Limited and the Manager of Quality Services at GS1 New Zealand Owen 

Dance for sharing their views and ideas in the project and training me during this study.  

  



ii 
 

Abstract 
A reliable and effective traceability system is important to the food industry especially when 

a foodborne illness outbreak occurs. In particular, fresh fruit and vegetables are highly 

perishable, fragile, seasonal, diverse products with relatively short shelf life, thereby making 

their value chain complex and fast-paced. Hence, the traceability system in the fresh produce 

industry becomes critical in the event of a food crisis where products need to be tracked and 

traced in a timely manner. The objective of this study was to investigate current traceability 

systems in the fresh produce industry in New Zealand and also to explore potential 

improvement in the traceability system along the domestic supply chains. There were four 

different methods applied in this study: observation of traceability information available on 

fresh produce products, interviews with industry participants using a questionnaire, survey 

strategy by means of a questionnaire that was sent to growers, and a pilot study using GS1 

technology to examine a modelled traceability system in two supply chains of strawberries.  

There were 336 fresh produce samples observed for traceability information analysis 

throughout the supply chain. Four growers, three wholesalers and one retailer from the fresh 

produce industry participated the face to face interviews. The questionnaire developed in the 

survey was sent to 578 growers with 40 of them responded and answered. Two pallets of 

strawberries were selected and GS1 (Global Standards One) barcodes and systems were used 

in the pilot study to track and trace each strawberry punnet throughout the supply chains. 

Qualitative and quantitative data were collected from produce traceability data samples, 

interviewed industry stakeholders, surveyed growers, and the pilot study to generate 

empirical information on traceability systems along fresh produce supply chains in New 

Zealand. Subsequently, data were analysed using quantitative tools such as frequency 

distributions, Chi-Square test (X2) and Fisher’s Exact test, and qualitative descriptions in this 

study. 

The findings show that fragmentation of product traceability information, lack of 

standardisation in data format and information asymmetry exist in the domestic fresh produce 

industry. As only a ‘one-up, one-down’ traceability system for food businesses is required by 

regulators in New Zealand, industry players intend to solely focus on their own or internal 

needs without recognising the importance of an industry-wide traceability system in the fresh 

produce supply chain. The findings pose a question mark as to whether or not the ‘one-up, 

one-down’ traceability requirement is sufficient for the fresh produce industry. The findings 



iii 
 

also indicate that an effective and efficient external traceability system throughout the fresh 

produce value chain in New Zealand is feasible to implement by industry-wide cooperation 

from growers, packers, transporters and receivers/buyers.  

This study fills the gap found in the literature where few academic papers focused attention 

on traceability systems in the fresh produce industry in New Zealand.  

 

  



iv 
 

Table of Contents 
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................. i 

Abstract .................................................................................................................................. ii 

Table of Contents .................................................................................................................. iv 

List of Figures ...................................................................................................................... vii 

List of Tables ......................................................................................................................... ix 

List of Appendices ................................................................................................................. x 

Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................ xi 

1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1 

1.1 Main Objective ................................................................................................................. 2 

1.2 Specific Objectives ........................................................................................................... 3 

2.0 Literature review .................................................................................................................. 4 

2.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 4 

2.2 Foodborne illness outbreaks ............................................................................................. 5 

2.3 Characteristics of food traceability .................................................................................. 8 

2.3.1 Defining food traceability .......................................................................................... 8 

2.3.2 Advantages and disadvantages of food traceability ................................................ 10 

2.3.3 Internal and external traceability ............................................................................. 13 

2.3.4 Components of food traceability systems ................................................................ 14 

2.4 Food traceability technology .......................................................................................... 17 

2.5 Barriers of the implementation of traceability systems and their current shortcomings 22 

2.6 Fresh produce supply chain in New Zealand ................................................................. 26 

2.6.1 Characteristics of fresh produce and its supply chain ............................................. 26 

2.6.2 Relationship in fresh produce supply chain in New Zealand .................................. 29 

2.6.3 Fresh produce supply channels in New Zealand ..................................................... 30 

2.6.4 The scale of the fresh produce industry in New Zealand ........................................ 33 

2.6.5 Export and domestic markets in New Zealand ........................................................ 33 

2.6.6 Current traceability regulations in New Zealand ..................................................... 35 

2.7 Some stakeholders of fresh produce supply chain in New Zealand ............................... 36 

2.7.1 Role of Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) ....................................................... 37 

2.7.2 Roles of United Fresh New Zealand Incorporated and The AgriChain Centre ....... 37 

2.7.3 Role of GS1 ............................................................................................................. 38 

3.0 Materials and methods ....................................................................................................... 40 



v 
 

3.1 Study design ................................................................................................................... 40 

3.2 Limitations and Constraints ........................................................................................... 41 

3.3 Current fresh produce traceability observation .............................................................. 41 

3.3.1 Fresh produce selection ........................................................................................... 41 

3.3.2 Inspection of fresh produce traceability .................................................................. 43 

3.3.3 Analysis of data on fresh produce traceability ........................................................ 49 

3.4 Industry stakeholder interview ....................................................................................... 50 

3.4.1 Development of questionnaire ................................................................................. 50 

3.4.2 Conducting interviews ............................................................................................. 50 

3.4.3 Sample size .............................................................................................................. 51 

3.4.4 Data collection and analysis .................................................................................... 53 

3.5 Grower survey ................................................................................................................ 53 

3.5.1 Development of questionnaire ................................................................................. 53 

3.5.2 Conducting survey ................................................................................................... 54 

3.5.3 Data collection and statistical analysis .................................................................... 54 

3.6 Pilot study ....................................................................................................................... 55 

3.6.1 Selection of pilot sample ......................................................................................... 55 

3.6.2 Design of pilot study ................................................................................................ 56 

3.6.3 Field trial .................................................................................................................. 64 

3.6.4 Data collection and analysis .................................................................................... 65 

4.0 Results and discussion ....................................................................................................... 67 

4.1 Current fresh produce traceability .................................................................................. 67 

4.2 Industry stakeholder interview ....................................................................................... 73 

4.2.1 Objectives and product definitions .......................................................................... 73 

4.2.2 Internal traceability, establishment of procedures and flow of materials ................ 74 

4.2.3 Information and documentation requirements ......................................................... 80 

4.2.4 Structure and responsibilities ................................................................................... 81 

4.2.5 Training and external traceability ............................................................................ 81 

4.2.6 Internal assessment .................................................................................................. 82 

4.2.7 Summary of the industry stakeholder interview ...................................................... 83 

4.3 Grower survey ................................................................................................................ 86 

4.3.1 Profile analysis of growers ...................................................................................... 86 

4.3.2 Perception of growers on traceability ...................................................................... 88 



vi 
 

4.3.3 Current practices in relation to traceability ............................................................. 90 

4.3.4 Summary of the grower survey ............................................................................. 102 

4.4 Pilot study ..................................................................................................................... 103 

5.0 General Discussion .......................................................................................................... 109 

6.0 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 111 

7.0 Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 112 

8.0 References ........................................................................................................................ 113 

9.0 Appendices ....................................................................................................................... 125 

  



vii 
 

List of Figures 
Figure 2.1 Conceptual representation of product and traceability information flow in a food 
supply chain. .............................................................................................................................. 9 

Figure 2.2 Process flow of traceable resource units (TRUs) aggregation and splitting through 
a typical supply chain in current food traceability systems. .................................................... 16 

Figure 2.3 A typical fresh produce supply chain in New Zealand. .......................................... 31 

Figure 2.4 Complexity of fresh produce supply channels in New Zealand. ............................ 32 

Figure 2.5 Different proportions of export and domestic markets in New Zealand in 2018. .. 34 

Figure 2.6 Traceability information needed at different steps in the supply chain. ................. 36 

Figure 2.7 Identification in each level of packaging using GS1 standards. ............................. 39 

Figure 3.1 Product traceability information on outer packaging from growers. ..................... 44 

Figure 3.2 Product traceability information on market packaging from wholesalers. ............. 44 

Figure 3.3 Product traceability information on retail packaging (at retailers). ........................ 45 

Figure 3.4 A typical product container with traceability information from two sources (left: a 
card from a packhouse; right: a sticker from a wholesaler). .................................................... 46 

Figure 3.5 A typical product traceability information with Product ID and Grower ID 
(Product ID means product identification; Grower ID means grower identification). ............ 48 

Figure 3.6 Selection of supply channels in the pilot study for strawberries at packhouse A. . 58 

Figure 3.7 Selection of supply channels in the pilot study for strawberries at packhouse B. .. 59 

Figure 3.8 An example of strawberry punnet label used in the pilot study. ............................ 60 

Figure 3.9 An example of strawberry crate label used in the pilot study. ............................... 61 

Figure 3.10 An example of strawberry pallet label used in the pilot study. ............................ 61 

Figure 3.11 Pocket 2-dimensional (2D) barcode scanner. ....................................................... 62 

Figure 3.12 Ten process steps involved in the strawberry pilot were modelled into the GEM 
software system. ....................................................................................................................... 63 

Figure 3.13 Screenshot showing GEM software system during process step 1 loading punnets 
into tray/crate. .......................................................................................................................... 65 

Figure 4.1 Prevalence rate of different traceability components on product outer packaging in 
written and GS1 format. ........................................................................................................... 69 

Figure 4.2 Prevalence rate of different traceability components on product market packaging 
in written and GS1 format. ....................................................................................................... 70 

Figure 4.3 Prevalence rate of different traceability components on product retail packaging in 
written and GS1 format. ........................................................................................................... 71 

Figure 4.4 Fresh produce process flow at growers’ premises. ................................................. 76 

Figure 4.5 Fresh produce process flow in the three wholesalers. ............................................ 77 

Figure 4.6 Fresh produce process flow at the retailer Distribution Centre (DC) ..................... 78 



viii 
 

Figure 4.7 Choropleth map of responded growers. .................................................................. 86 

Figure 4.8 Perceptions (%) of importance on traceability from fresh produce growers. ......... 88 

Figure 4.9 Reasons of perception (%) on traceability importance from growers. ................... 89 

Figure 4.10 Reasons (%) of traceability recording from growers. .......................................... 90 

Figure 4.11 Differences (%) in method of product labelling from growers. ........................... 91 

Figure 4.12 Different drivers on product label determination. ................................................ 92 

Figure 4.13 Distribution channels of domestic fresh produce. ................................................ 93 

Figure 4.14 Product packaging format at selling point from growers. .................................... 93 

Figure 4.15 Premises of packing for pre-packed products. ..................................................... 94 

Figure 4.16 Traceability information on pre-packed products. ............................................... 95 

Figure 4.17 Reasons of using labelling system from growers. ................................................ 96 

Figure 4.18 Product labels printing from growers. .................................................................. 96 

Figure 4.19 Notification methods on product delivery to wholesaler or distributor from 
growers. .................................................................................................................................... 97 

Figure 4.20 Involvement in product recall from growers. ....................................................... 98 

Figure 4.21 Time spent on tracing fresh produce in product recall from growers. ................. 99 

Figure 4.22 Extent of difficulty of contacting supply chain partners from growers. ............. 100 

Figure 4.23 Product recall plans development from growers. ............................................... 101 

Figure 4.24 Challenges in a product recall from growers. ..................................................... 102 

 

 

  



ix 
 

List of Tables 
Table 2.1 Examples of foodborne outbreaks due to contaminated produce between 1999 and 
2019............................................................................................................................................ 6 

Table 2.2 Application of different food traceability technologies in the food industry. ......... 17 

Table 2.3 Comparison between barcodes and RFID technology. ............................................ 19 

Table 2.4 Characteristics of fresh produce supply chain. ........................................................ 27 

Table 3.1 Fresh produce selection. .......................................................................................... 42 

Table 3.2 Traceability data collected in the strawberry pilot study. ........................................ 66 

Table 4.1 Selected fresh produce sample details. .................................................................... 67 

Table 4.2 Estimated (%) costs of growers on product labelling each year. ............................. 87 

Table 4.3 Details of strawberry punnets tracked along the supply chain present in this pilot 
study. ...................................................................................................................................... 103 

Table 4.4 Product traceability information extracted from GEM software system for 
strawberry punnet GTIN 00000940.00611.0502. .................................................................. 105 

Table 4.5 A timeline of product movement and relevant traceability details extracted from 
GEM software system for strawberry pallet SSCC 942101221.30000000. .......................... 106 

Table 4.6 Strawberry traceability details extracted from GEM software system for pallet 
SSCC 942101221.30000000 after the pallet left packhouse A and was depalletised in DC. 107 

Table 4.7 Strawberry punnets details extracted from GEM software system for crate (GTIN 
942101221.0999.0013) at retail store A1. ............................................................................. 108 

Table 4.8 Summary of the challenges encountered in the strawberry pilot study. ................ 108 

 

  



x 
 

List of Appendices 
Appendix 9.1 Traceability assessment questionnaire. ........................................................... 125 

Appendix 9.2 Survey Monkey questionnaire. ........................................................................ 128 

Appendix 9.3 Permission from The AgriChain Centre Limited. ........................................... 134 

Appendix 9.4 Outputs of statistical analysis of grower survey ............................................. 135 

 

  



xi 
 

Abbreviations 
 
CDC = Centre of Disease Control and Prevention 
EAN = European Article Number 
FCP = Food Control Plan 
FDA = Food and Drug Administration 
Global GAP = Global Good Agricultural Practice 
GS1 = Global Standards One 
GTIN = Global Trade Item Number 
LITS = Livestock Identification and Traceability System 
MPI = Ministry for Primary Industries 
NFC = Near Field Communication 
NP = National Programme 
NZ GAP = New Zealand Good Agricultural Practice 
PNs = Petri Nets 
QR Code = Quick Response Code 
RFID = Radio Frequency Identification 
SSCC  Serial Shipping Container Code 
TRU = Traceable Resource Unit 
UCC = Uniform Code Council 
1D Barcode = One-Dimensional Barcode 
2D Barcode = Two-Dimensional Barcode 

 
 

 

  



1 
 

1.0 Introduction 

Foodborne disease outbreaks have always been one of the biggest concerns for government 

agencies, food industry sectors, consumers and medical professionals (Arendt et al., 2013; 

Haleem, Khan & Khan, 2019; Hussain & Dawson, 2013; World Health Organization, 2008; 

Bosona & Gebresenbet, 2013; Wognum, Bremmers, Trienekens & Van der Vorst, 2011). In 

particular, fresh produce contributes significantly to foodborne illness outbreaks as they are 

often eaten raw, with minimal or no further processing such as heating to kill any potential 

pathogens (Bennett et al., 2018; Lynch, Tauxe & Hedberg, 2009; Sivapalasingam, Friedman, 

Cohen & Tauxe, 2004; Julien-Javaux, Gerard, Campagnoli & Zuber, 2019; Mahajan, Caleb, 

Singh, Watkins & Geyer, 2014; Prakash, 2016). For example, a Yersinia pseudotuberculosis 

outbreak linked to fresh produce was reported in New Zealand in 2014 and resulted in over 

300 illnesses in the country (Ministry for Primary Industries, 2014). Another outbreak caused 

by Escherichia coli O104:H4 occurred in Germany and France in 2011 was associated with 

imported fenugreek seeds (De Henriette, 2016). Moreover, a Listeria monocytogenes 

outbreak caused by contaminated cantaloupe was reported in the United States and was 

blamed for at least 26 deaths (Claiborn, 2011). In such cases, a reliable traceability system 

plays a vital role and becomes an effective method when a food recall is required (Dzwolak, 

2016; Porter, Baker & Agrawal, 2011; Fan et al., 2019; Mgonia, Luning & Van der Vorst, 

2013; Rong & Grunow, 2010; Zhao & Nakano, 2018; Mainetti et al., 2013; Pouliot & 

Sumner, 2008; Dabbene, Gay & Tortia, 2014). According to Lindh and Olsson (2010), food 

traceability can be used to improve food safety management systems for food businesses and 

enhance customer confidence in their products. It was described as the ability to trace food 

products through the supply chain from farm or production to consumer (Charlebois & 

Haratifar, 2015). There are various elements and information included in a reliable 

traceability system throughout the produce value chain, ranging from grower name, grower 

contact details, product name, variety, colour, size, pack date, harvest date, field code, 

transport details, to wholesaler and retailer information (Kondo, 2010; Fresh Produce Safety 

Centre Australia & New Zealand, 2019). This type of information is vital in the event of a 

product recall (Pouliot & Sumner, 2008).  

It is well-known that the meat and dairy industries have made huge efforts to ensure that 

product traceability procedures are implemented and a great deal of research has been 

undertaken to improve their traceability systems (Donnelly, Karlsen & Olsen, 2009; Mgonia 



2 
 

et al., 2013; Mutua et al., 2018; Vulton, 2010). For instance, Mgonia et al. (2013) evaluated 

the traceability system of a fish processing company with a diagnostic tool. Mutua et al. 

(2018) conducted a livestock identification and traceability pilot with a beef supply chain 

between Tanzania and Kenya. On the other hand, there were also a number of studies carried 

out to investigate current traceability systems for fresh fruit and vegetables value chains 

worldwide (Manikas et al., 2010; Canavari et al., 2010; Gichure et al., 2017; Kondo, 2010; 

Kim, Hilton, Burks & Reyes, 2018). Manikas et al. (2010) studied different factors affecting 

the efficiency of traceability systems in the fresh produce industry in Greece. Canavari et al. 

(2010) investigated traceability systems as part of information management in the fruit value 

chain in Italy. Gichure et al. (2017) carried out a case study on product traceability system 

within the kale supply chain in Kenya and examined a variety of factors influencing the 

implementation of effective traceability systems.  

However, very few studies have been conducted to explore the existing traceability systems 

in the fresh produce industry in New Zealand. Additionally, the challenges and limitations of 

food traceability system implementation throughout fresh horticultural products supply chain 

in New Zealand are not well understood. To date, there is no standardized industry-wide 

method used in New Zealand that allows traceability from the grower, through the supply 

chain to the consumer. In addition, the fresh produce supply chain is fragmented, and has 

fragmented information in terms of effective traceability due to the sheer number of products 

and the intricacies of each supply chain merging at various levels before reaching the 

consumer (Manos & Manikas, 2010; MacKenzie & Apte, 2017; Manikas et al., 2010). 

Furthermore, the fresh produce industry is fast-paced, with most products moving from farm 

to plate in as little as a few days (MacKenzie & Apte, 2017). This all contributes to produce 

traceability challenges. Therefore, there is a need to make headway in improving traceability 

systems for the sector.  

 

1.1 Main Objective 

The main objective of this study was to understand current traceability systems in the fresh 

produce industry in New Zealand and explore potential improvement in the traceability 

system along the domestic value chains. 



3 
 

 

1.2 Specific Objectives 

Specific objectives were: 

1. To explore the current traceability practices in the fresh produce industry in New 

Zealand; 
2. To investigate barriers in the design and implementation of tracking and tracing 

systems; 
3. To demonstrate perceptions and attitudes to the uptake of traceability within the fresh 

produce industry;  
4. To propose a reliable traceability framework for the domestic fresh produce industry 

to achieve an effective traceability system. 

 

 

  



4 
 

2.0 Literature review 

2.1 Introduction 

Along with the high consumption of fresh fruit and vegetables due to healthy eating 

recommendations, the rate of foodborne illness outbreaks associated with fresh produce 

continues to increase worldwide (Callejon et al., 2015; Hanning, Nutt & Ricke, 2009; Harris 

et al., 2003; Prakash, 2016; Curtis, Yeager, Black, Drost & Ward, 2014). By implementing a 

reliable traceability system across the product value chain, food businesses can target the 

products affected by a food safety problem and therefore minimise any potential public health 

risks in a timely manner (Bertolini, Bevilacqua & Massini, 2006; Bello, Mirabella & Torrisi, 

2005; Mainetti et al., 2013; Sun & Wang, 2019; Kim et al., 2018; Costa et al., 2013). 

Meanwhile, fresh produce is perishable, seasonal, fragile and has relatively short shelf life, 

thereby increasing the complexity and difficulty of traceability implementation in the fresh 

produce supply chain (Gokarn & Kuthambalayan, 2019; Wognum et al., 2011; Priyadarshani 

& Wickramasinghe, 2018).  

However, information on the traceability system of the domestic fresh produce supply chain 

is limited and little research has been conducted in New Zealand. United Fresh NZ Inc., the 

pan-industry fresh produce trade association, proposed a framework to encourage 

comprehensive interaction among the produce industry towards establishing a traceability 

system in New Zealand (Maurer, Dolan & Arts, 2015). The proposed framework was 

introduced by Maurer et al. (2015) and all fresh produce stakeholders were encouraged to 

take responsibility and work together as an industry. This proposed framework required a 

huge involvement and co-operation from all produce stakeholders, including government and 

regulators (i.e. Ministry for Primary Industries), New Zealand industry bodies, retailer 

businesses, research bodies, training providers, system verifiers, and so on (Maurer et al., 

2015). Maurer et al. (2015) also stated that the framework could be beneficial for the entire 

produce supply chain as a more structured approach to achieve a robust food safety culture. 

Nevertheless, details of the implementation of an effective traceability system for the 

horticultural industry in New Zealand were not well described in this study.  

Effective traceability systems are important when the product has to move rapidly through 

the chain especially as a large number of products are consumed raw without further 



5 
 

processing (Mainetti et al., 2013). This means that if the product is contaminated with a 

microbial organism at any point in the supply chain and there is no kill step, it could lead to 

illness. Outbreaks of Hepatitis A in late 2015 linked to frozen berries and Yersinia 

pseudotuberculosis in late 2014 potentially associated with fresh carrots and lettuce have 

been reported in New Zealand (Ministry for Primary Industries, 2014). 

Therefore, the objective of this literature review was to understand the current traceability 

systems implemented in the fresh produce industry and identify any outcomes from previous 

research. Complexity and different roles of stakeholders of fresh produce supply chain in 

New Zealand were explored and discussed. Food traceability studies from other countries 

were also examined to assist with understanding of current systems and their application in 

the New Zealand domestic environment to improve fresh produce traceability system, both 

internally and externally. This review consists of six sections: foodborne illness outbreaks, 

characteristics of food traceability, food traceability technology, barriers of the 

implementation of traceability systems and their current shortcomings, fresh produce supply 

chain in New Zealand, and some stakeholders of fresh produce supply chain in New Zealand. 

 

2.2 Foodborne illness outbreaks 

There has been a great number of foodborne illness outbreaks associated with fresh produce 

consumption over the past decades and many people suffered or even died from this (Julien-

Javaux et al., 2019; Ministry for Primary Industries, 2014; Pouliot & Sumner, 2008; Hanning 

et al., 2009; Kirezieva et al., 2013; Sun & Wang, 2019). Contaminated alfalfa sprouts were 

linked to two large Salmonella outbreaks in the United States, Finland and Canada between 

1995 and 1996 with more than 700 illnesses and one death reported (Hanning et al., 2009; 

Mahon et al., 1997; Van Beneden et al., 1999). It was concluded that contaminated alfalfa 

seeds were the main reason causing Salmonella infections after investigations (Mahon et al., 

1997; Van Beneden et al., 1999). Some examples of foodborne outbreaks related to 

contaminated produce within the last two decades were summarised in Table 2.1. 

 

 



6 
 

Table 2.1 Examples of foodborne outbreaks due to contaminated produce between 1999 and 
2019.  

Produce Pathogen Year No. of 
illnesses 

Reference 

Mung sprouts  Salmonella 2000 45 Hanning et al., 2009;  
Mohle-Boetani et al., 2009 

Tomatoes  Salmonella 2004 561 Gupta et al., 2007;  
Hanning et al., 2009 

Watermelon Salmonella 2006 20 Hanning et al., 2009 

Bagged spinach Escherichia coli 
O157:H7 

2006 204 
(3 deaths) 

Pouliot & Sumner, 2008; 
Calvin, 2007 

Alfalfa sprouts  Salmonella 2008 13 Hanning et al., 2009 

Cantaloupe Salmonella 2008 51 Hanning et al., 2009 

Serrano peppers  Salmonella 2008 1442 Hanning et al., 2009 

Cantaloupe Listeria 
monocytogenes 

2011 >130 
(At least 
26 deaths) 

Claiborn, 2011 

Fenugreek seeds Escherichia coli 
O104:H4 

2011 >3,000 
(37 deaths) 

Bilinski et al., 2012;  
De Henriette, 2016;  
Sun & Wang, 2019 

Fresh produce 
(likely) 

Yersinia 
pseudotuberculosis 

2014 217 Ministry for Primary 
Industries, 2014 

Cilantro Cyclosporiasis 2015 546 Julien-Javaux et al., 2019 

Strawberry  Hepatitis A virus  2016 143 Julien-Javaux et al., 2019 

Romaine lettuce Escherichia coli 
O157:H7 

2018 210 
(5 deaths) 

Julien-Javaux et al., 2019 

 

A huge number of studies were performed and investigations were undertaken to analyse the 

root cause and cross contamination. For instance, foodborne outbreaks associated with fresh 

fruit and vegetables were studied and reviewed to understand factors contributing to the 

incidences (Harris et al., 2003). It was indicated that various fresh produce has become a 

source of Salmonella outbreaks, such as watermelon, iceberg lettuce, orange, cantaloupe and 

strawberries (Harris et al., 2003). It was also mentioned that a hepatitis A virus outbreak 

linked to frozen berry fruits was investigated and infected workers and contaminated 

irrigation water were considered to be the potential causes of cross contamination (Harris et 

al., 2003). A number of foodborne illness outbreaks associated with fresh tomatoes 



7 
 

contaminated by Salmonella were investigated and discussed by some researchers (Dev 

Kumar et al., 2018; Hanning et al., 2009). In addition, the involvement of Salmonella in 

tomato associated outbreaks and its growth in soil and water were examined and studied (Dev 

Kumar et al., 2018). Another Salmonella outbreak associated with serrano peppers from 

Mexico was confirmed by FDA in 2008 with over 1000 illnesses reported (Hanning et al., 

2009). An investigation was undertaken to trace products back through their distribution 

channels to the origins of products and contaminated irrigation water from a farm in Mexico 

was identified as the source of causing this outbreak in the United States (“FDA extends 

consumer,” 2008). 

Nevertheless, the root cause of contamination from a foodborne illness outbreak could not 

always be confirmed in spite of numerous time and labour being spent on the investigation. 

For example, a Yersinia pseudotuberculosis outbreak likely associated with fresh produce 

was reported in New Zealand in 2014 and resulted in a total of 217 cases linked to infection 

by Yersinia pseudotuberculosis from 1 September to 7 October (Ministry for Primary 

Industries, 2014). However, the source of contamination was not clearly identified even 

though huge efforts have been made to undertake investigations throughout the product 

supply and distribution chains (Ministry for Primary Industries, 2014). A hepatitis A virus 

outbreak associated with frozen strawberries was reported in 2016 and the Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA) carried out investigations to trace back the contaminated strawberry 

products (Julien-Javaux et al., 2019). It was found out that the strawberries were imported 

from Egypt (Julien-Javaux et al., 2019). However, it was still unknown of the root cause of 

the contamination on the Egyptian strawberries from investigations (Julien-Javaux et al., 

2019). 

Furthermore, industry stakeholders such as produce growers could greatly be affected due to 

unexpected outbreaks linked to their fresh fruit and vegetables. For instance, the Escherichia 

coli O104:H4 outbreak in 2011 which caused over 3,000 infections and 37 deaths was 

initially thought to be linked to cucumbers produced in Spain (Abend, 2011). The reputation 

of Spanish producers was therefore greatly damaged and it was estimated that Spanish 

agriculture sales lost 200 million euros in the first week of the crisis (Abend, 2011). 

According to Pouliot and Sumner (2008), a Escherichia coli outbreak in September 2006 was 

linked to bagged fresh spinach and caused at least 200 illnesses in the United States. The 

contaminated spinach was traced back to the original packer Natural Selection Foods and 

eventually tracked back to one of four farms in California from the investigation (Pouliot & 



8 
 

Sumner, 2008). After six months of the E. coli outbreak, the consumption of bagged spinach 

still kept decreasing and below the level from previous year whilst the consumption of 

bunched spinach has rebounded (Calvin, 2007).  

 

2.3 Characteristics of food traceability 

2.3.1 Defining food traceability 

There were various definitions with regards to food traceability rather than a standardised 

definition applied in literatures, even though some of them were presenting very similar 

information (Bosona & Gebresenbet, 2013). For example, traceability was defined as the 

ability to trace and follow a food product through all stages of production, processing and 

distribution by European Parliament and Council (2002), whilst Souza-Monteiro and Caswell 

(2010) explained that traceability indicated an information flow amongst food companies and 

also involved interfirm coordination. The Codex Alimentarius Commission (1999) specified 

traceability as the ability to trace the history, application or location of an entity with 

recorded identifications. According to Olivier, Fourie and Evans (2006), food traceability was 

considered as a voluntary and regulative framework to bridge the information gaps among 

industry participants, including grower or farmer, food producer, retailer and consumer.  

An effective traceability system in the fresh produce industry indicates that any movement of 

products could be traced backwards and forwards at any point within the supply chain 

(Haleem et al., 2019). It is the ability to track the history, application or location of fresh fruit 

and vegetables through all stages of growing, processing and distribution, ranging from 

growers, packhouses, wholesalers, distribution centres to retailers (Canavari et al., 2010). 

Similarly, Mainetti et al. (2013) indicated that traceability was the ability to capture, collect 

and store data associated with all process operations within the supply chain in terms of the 

origin, location and life history of a product, thereby providing guarantee to both industry 

participants and the consumer. Charlebois and Haratifar (2015) described traceability as the 

ability to trace products back throughout the supply chain from farm or production to the end 

user. Manos and Manikas (2010) explained that fresh produce traceability in the primary 

industry was referred to the ability to trace the produce product history through the entire 

supply chain, ranging from product identification to operations undertaken during the product 



9 
 

life cycle. Overall, three key elements of food traceability were summarised by Bosona and 

Gebresenbet (2013) as tracing or backward follow-up of products, tracking or forward 

follow-up of products, and the history information of product along the supply chain. Bosona 

and Gebresenbet (2013) also presented the concept of food traceability with a schematic 

representation in Figure 2.1.   

 

Figure 2.1 Conceptual representation of product and traceability information flow in a food 
supply chain. 

(Bosona & Gebresenbet, 2013). 

 

In addition, according to ISO 22005:2007 standards, all food businesses were required to 

establish a one-up, one-down traceability system and to know both their customers and 

suppliers (International Organization for Standardization, 2006). The concept of one-up, one-

down approach was further illustrated by Bosona and Gebresenbet (2013), including two 

questions that food businesses should ask themselves:  

1. Who is the supplier/s of ingredients and/or partially processed food?  

2. Who is the receiver/s of food items?  

Moreover, the European Parliament and the Council established the principles and 

requirements of general food law through regulation (EC) 178/2002 and created the European 

Food Safety Authority in 2002 (Souza-Monteiro & Caswell, 2010; Wognum et al., 2011). 



10 
 

General procedures in terms of food safety were provided and the implementation of 

traceability systems in the food supply chains in Europe was required by the European 

Parliament and the Council (Stranieri, Cavaliere & Banterle, 2017).  

 

2.3.2 Advantages and disadvantages of food traceability 

Food traceability has always been a focus by food businesses to improve their food safety 

management systems and also gain customer confidence on their food products (Lindh & 

Olsson, 2010; Olivier et al., 2006; Haleem et al., 2019; Costa et al., 2013). In addition, 

Souza-Monteiro and Caswell (2010) demonstrated that traceability could be utilised as a tool 

to obtain product information and manage food safety risks linked to these products. 

Traceability system was also considered as an important tool to control and optimise food 

production, obtain better industrial data and make better decisions, as well as profile desirable 

product characteristics (Storoy, Thakur & Olsen, 2013). 

Furthermore, food traceability systems have also been widely applied in the food industry for 

meat and dairy products (Bennet, 2010; International Organization for Standardization, 2011; 

Mania, Delgado, Barone & Parisi, 2018). Traceability has emerged as a risk management tool 

that enables food companies or authorities to recall or withdrawal unsafe food products 

promptly (Mgonia et al., 2013). 

A traceability system was considered as an effective and efficient tool to manage product 

information flow between different parties within a supply chain (Souza-Monteiro & Caswell, 

2010; Dai, Ge & Zhou, 2015). Additionally, it could enhance logistics processes and 

minimise the impact of food safety risks (Hobbs, 2004: Meuwissen, Velthuis, Hogeveen & 

Huirne, 2003). Furthermore, Cozzolino (2012) highlighted that food adulteration could be 

reduced and minimised by tracing and authenticating agricultural products. Bosona and 

Gebresenbet (2013) identified and explained the benefits of food traceability implementation 

in their study, including increased customer satisfaction, enhanced food safety incidents 

management, improved food supply chain management, competence development for food 

businesses, technological and scientific contribution, and contribution to agricultural 

sustainability. 



11 
 

Traceability systems enable food businesses to track products effectively and efficiently in 

the event of a product recall due to food safety issues, thereby preventing consumers from 

any potential illness or injury caused by this product purchase (Bai & Li, 2014; Olivier et al., 

2006). In addition, as traceability systems identify specific products to be recalled, the other 

products within the same category could potentially be avoided suffering the same destiny 

and disruption of trading will be reduced (Olivier et al., 2006). For instance, when a batch of 

fresh orange associated with foodborne illness is provided by a grower and needs to be 

recalled from a retailer, effective traceability system enables this retailer to target the batch of 

orange and track it back to a specific grower, or even a specific field block. Corrective and 

preventative actions will be taken to investigate the food safety issue with the affected orange 

grower and all affected orange products will be isolated from other products. Therefore, all 

other orange growers with the same variety of orange can still supply their produce to the 

retailer and disruption of trading is minimised. Olivier et al. (2006) stated that the advantage 

of product tracing was the ability to react quickly and demonstrated the procedures of tracing 

product in the event of a food safety crisis. Typically, the affected product and issue were 

identified at first, then the origin of the product and its problem were identified through the 

supply chain. Subsequently, other products at risk and their locations within the supply chain 

were detected. Finally, appropriate actions were taken and if necessary product withdrawal or 

recall was carried out to minimise their risks to the public (Olivier et al., 2006).   

Costa et al. (2013) implied that food traceability in the agri-food sector was an efficient tool 

to share information and was potentially capable of providing more information for industry 

actors through the production and distribution chain. In addition, the time needed to intervene 

in the event of a food crisis was reduced in terms of recalling a whole stock from the market 

and individuating the real origin of the problem by applying an effective traceability system 

(Costa et al., 2013). 

Olivier et al. (2006) considered that it was important to maintain effective traceability in the 

food chain not only due to food safety risks but also because it may result in painful 

consequences from food scandals for both industry participants and those in positions of 

authority such as government. In addition, it was stated that a better fresh produce traceability 

system was needed to avoid loss of sales through food safety recalls due to illness outbreaks 

(Food & Drug Administration, 2007; Olivier et al., 2006). More importantly, a robust 

traceability system could help the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to narrow its search 



12 
 

quickly and the costs caused by foodborne illness could be reduced to a minimum (Food & 

Drug Administration, 2007). 

It was stated that traceability could be used for food crisis management such as distinguishing 

product identity and food fraud prevention (Badia-Melis, Mishra & Ruiz-Garcia, 2015). 

Lower cost distribution systems and reduced product recall expenses could also be achieved 

by the application of a reliable traceability system (Golan, Krissoff & Kuchler, 2004).  

An effective traceability system could also promote food product sales as part of decision-

making factors from buyers (Sun & Wang, 2019). Sun and Wang (2019) studied the 

preference of buyers such as retails in terms of sourcing products from suppliers such as food 

producers in a food supply chain. It was indicated that the buyer would prefer to source food 

products from the supplier who had a high-level traceability (Sun & Wang, 2019). 

In addition, Hobbs, Bailey, Dickinson and Haghiri (2005) used experimental auctions to 

examine consumer willingness in terms of paying for traceability in beef and pork products in 

the United States and Canada in their study. It was pointed out that American and Canadian 

consumers were willing to pay a premium for beef and pork traceability (Hobbs et al., 2005). 

However, Wognum et al. (2011) discussed challenges in food supply chains and explored 

factors influencing the buying decisions of consumers. It was concluded that consumers 

appeared not to be willing to pay more for better traceability (Wognum et al., 2011). 

However, there were also disadvantages of food traceability identified and discussed in 

previous research (Bosona & Gebresenbet, 2013; Souza-Monteiro & Caswell, 2010). Barriers 

and limitations to achieve effective food traceability implementation were discussed by 

Bosona and Gebresenbet (2013). There were five key limitations identified during their study 

from different directions, covering resource, information, standard, capacity and awareness 

(Bosona & Gebresenbet, 2013). Firstly, extra effort and cost were required for food 

businesses to develop and implement traceability systems and could potentially lead to 

financial issues. Secondly, traceability in the agricultural industry was linked to inherent 

uncertainty and sometimes it was difficult to obtain detailed information in a timely manner 

throughout all steps within the food supply chain. Thirdly, lack of sufficient and standardised 

information and methods of data exchange also became one of the main obstacles in terms of 

food traceability improvement and implementation. Fourthly, there was no adequately skilled 

employees that able to develop, implement and manage the traceability due to the complex 

nature of food traceability system in the supply chain. Finally, traceability implementation 



13 
 

was considered as extra burden by industry partners and there was a lack of clarity 

information to understand traceability and its advantages, leading to concerns of the 

investment cost over its benefits and causing lack of awareness as well as less willingness to 

achieve traceability implementation (Bosona & Gebresenbet, 2013).  

On the other hand, Souza-Monteiro and Caswell (2010) stated that food traceability was 

costly because it required obtaining, storing and sharing information. Furthermore, the 

benefits of a food traceability system may not be evenly distributed throughout the supply 

chain (Souza-Monteiro & Caswell, 2010). 

Bosona and Gebresenbet (2013) undertook a comprehensive literature review on food 

traceability systems along different supply chains and indicated five main factors or concerns 

influencing the development and implementation of food traceability: regulatory concern, 

concerns of food safety and quality, social concern, economic and technological concerns.  

 

2.3.3 Internal and external traceability 

According to GS1 (2010), there are two different types of traceability: internal and external. 

Whilst, food traceability could also be categorised into internal traceability and chain 

traceability (Moe, 1998; Souza-Monteiro & Caswell, 2010). Similarly, Lindh and Olsson 

(2010) named external traceability as chain traceability and explained that participation and 

co-ordination of all actors from the supply chain were important to chain traceability. Good 

co-operation within all actors of the supply chain was required for an effective chain 

traceability system to ensure that it could be implemented successfully (Lindh & Olsson 

2010). However, Olivier et al. (2006) emphasized that the supply chain co-operation was very 

difficult to achieve since it involved traceability information synchronisation through the 

supply chain and required a high level of transparency and collaboration between industry 

players. 

Both internal and external traceability systems play important roles in the fresh fruit and 

vegetables supply chain. Internal traceability was considered as the proprietary data that a 

company used within its operations, but external traceability was the information exchange 

between trading partners (GS1, 2010; Souza-Monteiro & Caswell, 2010). Internal traceability 

allows people to track fresh produce through all steps of process flow within the business, 



14 
 

while external traceability is associated with tracking fruit and vegetables outside of the 

business but within the supply chain (Rong & Grunow, 2010). According to Mgonia et al. 

(2013), internal traceability focuses on product activities within one company and it relates to 

traceability information of raw materials and processes to the final product prior to delivery. 

On the other hand, external or chain traceability is associated with data from one level to the 

next across the supply chain (Rong & Grunow, 2010). Souza-Monteiro and Caswell (2010) 

explained that chain traceability tracked the history of a batch within the value chain, 

including production, transport, storage, processing, distribution and sales. For example, a 

produce wholesaler is able to track its produce products from product arrival, quality checks, 

temporary storage, dispatch to delivery within the wholesaler through its internal traceability 

system. However, external traceability becomes vital when a product recall occurs and fresh 

produce purchased by consumers needs to be traced back to where it was grown and when it 

was packed.  

A slightly different description was stated by Bello et al. (2005) in terms of internal and 

external traceability but still with fundamentally the same principles. Bello et al. (2005) 

indicated that two monitoring systems were required to achieve a full traceability: one system 

operated at production level and recorded product and process data from each stage of 

production; the other system operated at factory level and coordinated traceability 

information received from the first one for logistics (Bello et al., 2005).   

 

2.3.4 Components of food traceability systems 

Recently, Olsen and Borit (2018) defined Traceable Resource Unit (TRU) and described 

different components of a traceability system. According to Olsen and Borit (2018), a TRU in 

a traceability system was considered as a traceable object or product along a supply chain. 

The same concept of TRU was also proposed by Fan et al. (2019) and used to test a food 

traceability system and equipment in their study. In addition, Dabbene and Gay (2011) 

considered TRU as the foundation to implement an effective traceability system and stated 

that TRUs must be defined in the traceability system. A TRU was a uniquely identifiable unit 

and it needed to be consistent with traceability information recorded along the supply chain 

(Fan et al., 2019; Olsen & Borit, 2013).  



15 
 

There were three different types of TRUs identified in a traceability system (Olsen & Borit, 

2018; Aung & Chang, 2014). A TRU could be a trade unit such as a box or a crate, a logistic 

unit such as a pallet or a production unit such as a batch (Olsen & Borit, 2018). Nevertheless, 

Aung and Chang (2014) proposed three types of TRUs which were slightly different 

compared to Olsen and Borit (2018). Batch, trade unit and logistical unit were considered as 

three types of TRUs by Aung and Chang (2014). A batch was a quantity or a number of 

products that went through the same processes. A trade unit was described as a unit delivered 

from one company to the next within a supply chain while a logistical unit was referred to a 

type of trade unit created as a group by a company prior to its transport or storage (Karlsen, 

Donnelly & Olsen, 2011). 

Olsen and Borit (2018) analysed and discussed different components of a food traceability 

system. It was concluded that there were three main components of a traceability system, 

including a mechanism for identifying each TRU throughout its entire life cycle, the way of 

recording TRU relationships (e.g. connections between TRUs as they move through the 

supply chain), and the way of documenting all information relating to TRU attributes (Olsen 

& Borit, 2018). Firstly, a traceability system has to be able to identify the unit traced and 

therefore each unit must be unique and identifiable from the others. Secondly, the joining and 

splitting of units in the entire supply chain need to be recorded and documented in the 

traceability system to clearly show the product movements. Finally, the traceability system 

should also capture data of unit attributes such as product weight, location and temperature 

(Olsen & Borit, 2018).  

The transformation of TRUs was commonly manifested by package splitting and aggregation 

(Fan et al., 2019). Fan et al. (2019) illustrated the joining and splitting of TRUs within a 

typical supply chain in current food traceability systems in Figure 2.2.  



16 
 

 

Figure 2.2 Process flow of traceable resource units (TRUs) aggregation and splitting through a 
typical supply chain in current food traceability systems.  

(Fan et al., 2019). 

 

However, Opara (2003) considered that an integrated agricultural and food value chain 

traceability system consisted of six important elements: product traceability, process 

traceability, genetic traceability, inputs traceability, disease and pest traceability, and 

measurement traceability. Product traceability determines physical locations of products at 

any stage within the supply chain while process traceability ascertains the type and sequence 

of activities applied on products. Genetic traceability covers genetic formation of products 

and inputs traceability determines type and origin of inputs such as fertilizer, chemical sprays 

and irrigation water. Disease and pest traceability traces the epidemiology of pests and 

biological hazards. Measurement traceability relates individual measurement results to 

accepted reference standards (Opara, 2003). 

Olivier et al. (2006) pointed out that there were three main types of traceability for fresh 

produce. Firstly, the origin of a fresh produce was identified and subsequently the relevant 

product records was linked to the farm. Secondly, a product was tracked within a facility or 

internal processes such as packing or palletising. Thirdly, fresh produce products were 

tracked and traced through the value chain, commonly with a ‘one step forward and one step 

back’ approach (Olivier et al., 2006).    



17 
 

 

2.4 Food traceability technology 

In order to establish an efficient and effective traceability system along the supply chain, 

innovative technologies were required for product identification, process characterization, 

system integration and dealing with relevant data such as capture, analysis, storage and 

transmission (Mainetti et al., 2013; Borrero, 2019; Dabbene & Gay, 2011). These 

technologies involved in both hardware and software solutions (Mainetti et al., 2013). The 

hardware solutions included identification tags and labels for products, logistic units and 

locations while software solutions covered computer programs and information systems 

(Mainetti et al., 2013).  

In particular, a wide range of technologies were applied in food traceability to identify and 

trace products along their value chains (Abdullah, Nurilmala & Sitaresmi, 2019; Fan et al., 

2019; Foster, Buskirk, Schweihofer, Grooms & Clarke, 2018; Institute of Food Technologists, 

2019; Ishiyama, Kudo & Takahashi, 2016; Qiao, Wei & Yang, 2013; Costa et al., 2013; 

Dandage, Badia-Melis & Ruiz-Garcia, 2017). Specifically, barcodes, radio frequency 

identification (RFID), near field communication (NFC) and other technologies such as 

blockchain were examined and discussed in many studies in the past years (Abdullah et al., 

2019; Alfian et al., 2017; Bai et al., 2017; Bello et al., 2005; Feng, Fu, Wang, Xu & Zhang, 

2013; Ghaani, Cozzolino, Castelli & Farris, 2016; Luvisi et al., 2012; Mainetti et al., 2013; 

Sermpinis & Sermpinis, 2018; Kim et al., 2018; Bibi, Guillaume, Gontard & Sorli, 2017; 

Galvez, Mejuto & Simal-Gandara, 2018). The different technologies applied in the food 

industry and their benefits were summarised in Table 2.2 below. 

 

Table 2.2 Application of different food traceability technologies in the food industry. 

Technology  Advantage  Application  Reference 
DNA mini-
barcodes 

As a molecular marker to 
prevent food fraud and to 
improve traceability system 

Hairtail fish products 
authentication 

Abdullah et al., 
2019 

Barcodes  Cost-effective;  
Ease of use 

Animal identification Bai et al., 2017; 
Ghaani et al., 2016 

RFID Real-time;  
Accurate data acquisition 
and transmission;  

Environmental 
monitoring in a 
kimchi supply chain; 

Alfian et al., 2017; 
Feng et al., 2013; 
Luvisi et al., 2012; 



18 
 

High efficiency Product tracking in 
the beef industry;  
Grapevines 

Bibi et al., 2017 

NFC Derived from the RFID 
family;  
Inherit basic features of 
RFID but could also share 
data across active devices 

Piloted in a vegetable 
supply chain for 
location identification 

Mainetti et al., 
2013 

Blockchain  Tamperproof;  
Transparent;  
Real-time;  
High efficiency and security 

Theoretical study and 
pilot only so far 

Sermpinis & 
Sermpinis, 2018; 
Kim et al., 2018; 
Galvez et al., 2018 

 

Barcodes have been widely applied in retail over the last three decades to facilitate their 

inventory control and stock recording as a low cost and easy to use technology (Ghaani et al., 

2016; Bibi et al., 2017). Barcodes were classified as one-dimensional (1D) barcode and two-

dimensional (2D) barcode (Fan et al., 2019). 1D barcode was also named as linear barcode 

(Bello et al., 2005). It was a pattern of parallel spaces and bars arranged to represent a series 

of digits and its encoded information was read by an optical barcode scanner (Bibi et al., 

2017; Fan et al., 2019). Subsequently, the relevant information was sent to a system to be 

stored and processed during the scanning stage (Fan et al., 2019). 2D barcode was associated 

with composite codes and contained multi-row bars in a matrix (Bello et al., 2005). 

Compared to 1D barcodes, 2D barcodes were able to store more information by combining 

dots and spaces arranged in an array or a matrix rather than bars and spaces (Fan et al., 2019; 

Liang et al., 2013). In particular, the quick response (QR) code was a typical 2D barcode used 

widely in product identification and traceability on labels (Fan et al., 2019). QR code 

technology was very similar to 1D barcode but it could only become readable by a QR code 

reader or scanner (Seino et al., 2004). 

RFID has drawn attention from the public since it was implemented by Wal-Mart in its 

supply chain in 2003 with publicly announced initiative (Singh, Singh, Desautels, Saha & 

Olsen, 2010).  Recently, RFID has increasingly been adopted in the food industry for product 

traceability systems due to its superiority of automated and highly precise data recording (Bai 

et al., 2017; Bello et al., 2005; Mainetti et al., 2013; Bibi et al., 2017). It was a flow control 

technology which enabled traceability of products along all stages of the supply chain to be 

captured (Costa et al., 2013; Kelepouris, Pramatari & Doukidis, 2007; Ngai, Moon, Riggins 

& Yi, 2008). Additionally, RFID became an important technology applied in traceability due 



19 
 

to its advantages such as eliminating the manual control, improving versatility of operational 

and logistical contexts, long service life and miniaturisation of equipment and devices (Sarac, 

Absi & Dauzere-Peres, 2010). RFID was composed by three different elements: an RFID tag, 

an interrogator and a database system (Costa et al., 2013; Bibi et al., 2017). The tag was 

generally applied on the displacing product directly and the interrogator was a device such as 

a reader to capture data from the tag, while the database system or a host computer was to 

store the data obtained through the interrogation process (Costa et al., 2013; Bibi et al., 2017). 

The RFID tag normally had an identification code and a microchip unit containing memory 

storage. The tags were classified as read-only and read-write tags (Costa et al., 2013). The 

former could be read in multiple times but could not be modified, while the latter could be 

both read and modified for several times (Costa et al., 2013).  

RFID technology allowed contactless identification of products and effective information 

sharing with customisation and handling (Bosona & Gebresenbet, 2013; Fan et al., 2019). 

Olivier et al. (2006) implied that RFID enabled food products to be tracked and monitored 

across the supply chain without human intervention. RFID was also considered as a 

technology that could be used to enhance the information flow management through the food 

supply chain and improve security in the agri-food industry (Costa et al., 2013). RFID 

technology was more convenient to identify products compared to barcode systems because 

visual contact was not required by RFID tags and therefore they could be placed into product 

containers, injected into animals or embedded into an object (Bibi et al., 2017). However, 

barcodes were still widely used and dominated on the market because the cost of barcode 

systems was less than RFID technology (Bibi et al., 2017).  

The differences between barcodes and RFID technology discussed in literatures were 

summarised in Table 2.3.  

 

Table 2.3 Comparison between barcodes and RFID technology. 

(Fan et al., 2019; Ghaani et al., 2016). 

Attribute/feature 1D barcode 2D barcode RFID 
Technology Optical (laser) Optical (laser) RF (radio frequency) 
Environment 
condition 

Sensitive to 
environment, dirt, 
scratches 

Sensitive to 
environment, dirt, 
scratches 

Durable, waterproof 

Security Low  Higher  Highest  



20 
 

(non-encryption) (simple encryption) (deep encryption) 
Reading distance Near Near Far 
Storage capacity Very small  

(only express numbers) 
Small  
(can express 
alphabet or other 
characters) 

Big  
(can store data 
around 32-128Bit) 

Reading/writing Cannot be updated Cannot be updated New information 
can be over-written 

Price Cheap Cheap Expensive 
 

A RFID based traceability system applied in beef production was examined and explored 

(Feng et al., 2013). In particular, it was concluded that real-time and accurate data acquisition 

and transmission were achieved by applying the RFID-enabled system. Furthermore, it was 

highly efficient to track traceability information throughout the beef production supply chain 

with the application of RFID based traceability system (Feng et al., 2013).  

Recently, a barcode-RFID bidirectional transformation equipment was used by Fan et al. 

(2019) to enhance continuous traceability systems in the food industry. Apart from this, NFC 

was demonstrated as a short-range wireless technology derived from RFID but it was 

distinguished by the ability to share information through active and powered devices 

(Mainetti et al., 2013).  

It was illustrated that blockchain technology could have great applications across a number of 

areas in the food industry especially for traceability (Institute of Food Technologists, 2019). 

Borrero (2019) also considered that the implementation of blockchain technology and 

cooperation of industry participants could be beneficial to the horticultural industry by 

providing more transparency and reducing the risk of food fraud and adulteration.  

Blockchain technology used hash-based cryptology to ensure security and trust and it had 

three essential parts of data: transaction details, the transaction timestamp and a new hash 

connecting the hash and details from previous transaction (Institute of Food Technologists, 

2019; Pierro, 2017). A hash was described as an encrypted type of a string or sequence of 

characters and it was considered as computationally impossible to derive the original without 

a key (Institute of Food Technologists, 2019). Subsequently, each transaction was distributed 

throughout the network and therefore a continuous encrypted record of the transaction was 

kept and became immutable once added to the blockchain (Institute of Food Technologists, 

2019; Pierro, 2017). Transactional and distributed ledger functionality were provided via 



21 
 

blockchain to allow different industry parties to operate without the requirement of a 

centralised and trusted authority (Galvez et al., 2018).  

Blockchain technology enabled a more transparent and decentralised system across 

companies within the supply chain and allowed businesses to add information into the system 

with a level of anonymity and control (Institute of Food Technologists, 2019). Every 

computer or node within the network stored a copy of the blockchain and the nodes were 

periodically synchronised to ensure that all were sharing the same database (Galvez et al., 

2018). In addition, different companies throughout the food supply chain could potentially 

add data into a shared ledger and the shared ledger could reach both ends of the value chain 

from grower to consumer (Institute of Food Technologists, 2019; Tian, 2017; Galvez et al., 

2018). Digital product data such as grower details, batch numbers and logistical information 

were connected to food products and relevant information was added into the blockchain at 

each stage of the process along the supply chain with the application of blockchain 

technology (Galvez et al., 2018). Furthermore, industry participants could add traceability 

data while keeping important proprietary information hidden (Institute of Food Technologists, 

2019).  

However, Galvez et al. (2018) pointed out some challenges in implementing a blockchain 

technology on food traceability within the value chains. Its complexity made it difficult to be 

adopted and all industry participants in the supply chain had to collaborate to implement 

(Iansiti & Lakhani, 2017). Additionally, there was a lack of understanding and standards for 

the implementation of blockchain since it was still at an early stage of development (Galvez 

et al., 2018). Moreover, all involved parties needed to operate on an agreed type of 

blockchain, which made them under pressure (Galvez et al., 2018).  

Noticeably, costs of technologies related to food traceability systems was still considered as 

high and therefore blocked their wide adoption in the fresh produce industry especially for 

low cost products (Mainetti et al., 2013). 

 



22 
 

2.5 Barriers of the implementation of traceability systems and their current 

shortcomings 

A variety of studies have explored the implementation of traceability systems and discussed 

its barriers in the food industry (Donnelly et al., 2009; Feng et al., 2013; Mania et al., 2018; 

Mgonia et al., 2013; Mutua et al., 2018; Manikas et al., 2010; Olivier et al., 2006). For 

example, in the meat, dairy and seafood industry, Mgonia et al. (2013) introduced a 

diagnostic tool to assess company traceability systems internally for fish processing 

businesses. They pointed out that traceability systems were generally developed at company 

level and therefore only limited traceability data were provided. In addition, these data were 

fragmented and uncoordinated in approach through the entire supply chain (Mgonia et al., 

2013). A RFID based traceability system in beef production was developed and assessed by 

Feng et al. (2013). The process flow for beef production along the supply chain and key 

information from the beef products traceability system were identified via a survey (Feng et 

al., 2013). 

Recently, a livestock identification and traceability system (LITS) was designed and piloted 

by Mutua et al. (2018) within the northern Tanzania-Narok-Nairobi beef value chain. 

Traceability data from identified animals along with the value chain were collected and added 

into an online database and meat samples were also analysed for tetracycline and diminazene 

residues. In addition, a questionnaire survey was carried out and stakeholders from the beef 

value chain such as traders, producers and transporters were interviewed at the end of the 

pilot to understand their perceptions and level of acceptance on the LITS. Cui et al. (2018) 

introduced a systematic modelling approach to capture relevant critical traceability 

information from the sheep meat supply chain in China. A process modelling tool named 

petri nets (PNs) was proposed and used in this study. Advantages of PNs based information 

traceability model were also explained and illustrated by Cui et al. (2018). 

Some studies were also undertaken to determine the implementation of traceability systems in 

the fresh produce industry worldwide. However, there was limited research carried out to 

explore the implementation of traceability system in the fresh produce industry in New 

Zealand and challenges of its implementation were not well understood in detail. A case 

study was conducted in Greece to examine a variety of factors affecting the efficiency of 

traceability with regards to fresh produce supply chain. Semi-structured in-depth interviews 



23 
 

with key personnel from each company were employed and multi fragmentation and lack of 

vertical integration were observed in this fresh produce supply chain (Manikas et al., 2010).  

Traceability as part of information management in the fruit supply chain was also explored by 

Canavari et al. (2010) through semi-structured in-depth interviews with key personnel from 

the Italian fresh produce supply chain. There were 17 key informants interviewed from the 

fruit supply chain, including producers, co-operatives, wholesalers, major and small retailers, 

and a catering company. Furthermore, interviews were carried out at decision-making level 

with six topics covered in the interview questions, including information about the company, 

product management, information management, purchasing needs versus company 

capabilities, co-ordination issues, and compliance with other management systems and 

voluntary certifications (Canavari et al., 2010). It was considered that data and information 

were managed and transferred in different ways by fruit businesses within the Italian supply 

chain, depending on their positions in the fruit supply chain and their mission as well as 

resources (Canavari et al., 2010).  

Additionally, Canavari et al. (2010) stated that poor co-ordination with food business 

operators among different stages of the fruit supply chain caused transaction costs and 

resource wastage, especially at the control stages. Specifically, control costs were created by 

quality controllers in the field, warehouse, or retailers to control produce quality and verify 

the correspondence to their signed agreements. However, control of the same product in 

various ways by different produce companies caused inefficiency and unnecessary costs in 

the entire supply chain system. The costs for physical samples, laboratory tests, labour cost, 

instruments and transport costs could potentially be minimised with a better co-ordination 

system.  

Olivier et al. (2006) carried out a traceability study in the fruit export industry in South Africa 

and semi-structured interviews were conducted with 27 key stakeholders and experts from the 

industry. It was highlighted that information fragmentation and the demand of managing 

costs carefully in a highly competitive market resulted in the need for effective traceability 

system within the entire supply chain (Olivier et al., 2006).  

A specific study with regards to fresh produce traceability implementation was undertaken 

and its drivers and constraints were examined by Manos and Manikas (2010) in the Greek 

supply chain. Interviews of key representatives from the Greek agricultural businesses were 



24 
 

carried out and qualitative data were collected using a questionnaire in this study. It was 

concluded that tight profit margins from the agricultural businesses and inadequate 

knowledge of understanding potential benefits from a reliable traceability system have 

become challenges in terms of the traceability implementation (Manos & Manikas, 2010). 

Gichure et al. (2017) performed a case study on traceability systems along organic kale 

supply chain in Kenya to understand the factors influencing its implementation and 

maintenance. Interviews were carried out with organic kale farmers, traders and farmers’ 

market officials using semi-structured questionnaires in this study. According to Gichure et al. 

(2017), it was suggested that the there was a need to increase the awareness of industry 

stakeholders on traceability through organisational activities and enhanced information flow 

to achieve safer products. 

Mainetti et al. (2013) investigated food traceability system through the fresh vegetables 

supply chain using RFID technology and implemented a pilot project in one of the largest 

fresh vegetables producers in Italy. A gapless traceability system using RFID technology in 

both greenhouses and the processing factory was proposed by Mainetti et al. (2013). 

Kim et al. (2018) introduced an integrated ‘farm to fork’ food traceability system using 

blockchain technology and illustrated this theoretical system in detail. The proposed 

traceability system for the agricultural value chain applied blockchain distributed ledgers to 

streamline data sharing across the network and allowed all industry participants to have 

access to a trustless source of data (Kim et al., 2018; Miller, 2018). The blockchain ledger 

was updated accordingly with process information and delivery trucks were tracked while in 

transit as products moved through facilities and loaded onto trucks. Product traceability 

information such as temperature and other logistic data were transmitted into the blockchain 

ledger at the same time. When products arrived at the destination and accepted by the buyer, 

contractual payment for products was executed through triggering blockchain smart contract 

by electronic notification. Therefore, the growers were able to monitor their products for 

when it reached the consumer through the blockchain enabled supply chain. Meanwhile, the 

consumer could scan a product at a retailer store and find relevant information related to the 

product, including where the product was from, how long it was in the store and other logistic 

details (Kim et al., 2018).  

Borrero (2019) developed a proof of concept for agri-food supply chain traceability to 

explore the possible implication of blockchain application in the berries value chain in Spain 



25 
 

recently. It showed that the adoption of blockchain technology in terms of traceability 

provided added value in the agri-food supply chain. In addition, it was feasible to combine all 

data from the field, processing factory, packaging and transporting into a chain of blocks 

using an authorised ledger and a smart contract (Borrero, 2019). Compared to traditional 

methods with centralised databases in different companies knowing different stages of 

product information through its value chain, the same level of relevant information from 

industry participants could be shared using blockchain technology within the whole industry 

(Borrero, 2019). 

According to Wognum et al. (2011), an international benchmark study was carried out in 

Australia, The Netherlands, Germany, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom as well as the 

United States of America. It was indicated that traceability performance levels between food 

supply chains differed while the differences among the countries were not very large 

(Wognum et al., 2011). Legislation was considered as an important motivation for food 

businesses to meet requirements of traceability standards (Wognum et al., 2011). However, 

there was no clear requirement or standard identified from current legislation to provide 

details for food companies to implement full traceability and most legislations focused on in-

company traceability instead of full supply chain traceability (Wognum et al., 2011). One of 

the consequences was that most food companies placed emphasis on their own business 

rather than the entire supply chain in terms of traceability implementation and the majority 

had developed certain traceability across company borders (Wognum et al., 2011; Luning, 

Devlieghee & Verhe, 2006; Van der Vorst, 2006). In addition, most food businesses were 

focusing on the prevention of product recall rather than traceability implementation because 

they could not always obtain benefits from traceability especially when the traceability 

outcomes were not very precise. It was common that retailers removed all batches of the food 

products from the shelf rather than only the specific batch concerned in the event of a food 

safety crisis (Wognum et al., 2011; Luning et al., 2006; Van der Vorst, 2006). 

Remarkably, vulnerabilities of produce supply chain were discussed intensively and 

traceability was identified as a key issue by the government and industry due to the food 

tampering incidents which occurred in Australia and New Zealand, involving sewing needles 

inserted into fresh strawberries in September 2018 (Food Standards Australia New Zealand, 

2018). It was concluded that some factors affecting an effective traceability system included: 

• Lack of regulatory requirements in the horticulture sector; 



26 
 

• The fragmented nature of the sector, with many small companies and no regulatory or 

industry oversight; 

• The current practice of mixing and combining produce from more than one grower or 

supplier; 

• The complexity of the supply chain; 

• Loosely sold produce without any packaging (where product traceability information 

could be present); 

• The seasonal nature of labour hiring practices resulted in difficulties in monitoring 

workers. 

Furthermore, it was indicated that the ‘one step forward, one step backward’ approach to 

traceability was not sufficient and traceability along the supply chain was suggested to be 

better understood to improve supply chain integrity (Food Standards Australia New Zealand, 

2018). 

 

2.6 Fresh produce supply chain in New Zealand 

2.6.1 Characteristics of fresh produce and its supply chain  

Fresh fruit and vegetables are considered as foods from plant origin with limited shelf life 

(Gokarn & Kuthambalayan, 2019; Hospido et al., 2009; Clements, Lazo & Martin, 2008). In 

addition, there are many uncertainties in the fresh produce supply chain due to their intrinsic 

properties, including seasonality, perishability and quality variation (Gokarn & 

Kuthambalayan, 2019). The high level of perishability and fragility of fresh produce can 

result in high wastage levels and therefore make it very difficult for retailers to manage when 

consumers require fresh and high-quality produce (Clements et al., 2008). Horticultural 

products are highly perishable due to their nature that fresh fruit and vegetables continue 

metabolic processes after harvesting, which lead to their ripening or senescence and 

eventually unmarketable state (Falagan & Terry, 2018; Mahajan et al., 2017; Kramer, 

Wunderlich & Muranyi, 2018; Song, He & Xu, 2019; Mahajan et al., 2014). The perishable 

nature of fresh produce and variability in quantity and quality due to weather conditions, 

seasonality and biological variation increases the difficulty and complexity of traceability 



27 
 

implementation in food supply chains (Wognum et al., 2011; Priyadarshani & 

Wickramasinghe, 2018). Clements et al. (2008) also indicated that the biological nature of 

horticultural products posed further challenges to maintain product quality and continuous 

supply, including seasonal production, unpredictable weather, pest of disease outbreaks. 

Hence, in order to maintain the quality of fresh produce and reduce product losses caused by 

its perishability, industry coordination from all participants such as growers, storage 

operators, processors, shippers and retailers are required (Mahajan et al., 2017; Ali, 2016).  

Furthermore, fresh fruit and vegetables have short deterioration time and are easily 

contaminated, making the management of their value chains especially important (Gokarn & 

Kuthambalayan, 2019). For instance, Codron et al. (2014) explained that fresh produce 

growers in the supply chain were considered as one of the sources of product loss caused by 

chemical contamination from pesticides. Additionally, it was stated that produce spoilage and 

postharvest loss caused by deterioration and contamination could occur at any stage across 

the fresh produce supply chain (Mahajan et al., 2017). Blackburn and Scudder (2009) also 

implied that fresh produce deteriorated rapidly and their value decreased significantly over 

time along the supply chain at rates which were highly temperature and humidity dependent. 

The characteristics of fresh produce supply chain were summarised by Gokarn and 

Kuthambalayan (2019) in Table 2.4 below:  

 

Table 2.4 Characteristics of fresh produce supply chain. 

(Gokarn & Kuthambalayan, 2019). 

No. Element  Characteristics  

1 Nature of product Perishable  

2 Nature of supply chain Complex, inefficient 

3 Nature of demand Fluctuating  

4 Wastage  High  

5 Cost pressure  High  

6 Product range  Diverse  

7 Dependencies over climate High  

8 Sector  Agriculture, unorganised  



28 
 

According to Mahajan et al. (2017), there were many factors influencing the perishability and 

deterioration of fresh fruit and vegetables since each individual produce had inherent 

physiologies and biochemistries. For example, different skins of fresh produce are associated 

with different gas exchange, water loss and rates of metabolism especially respiration, which 

are linked to various storage potentials (Mahajan et al., 2017). Additionally, the harvested 

part from plants could vary depending on different developmental stages of products, 

including sprouts, stems, leaves, inflorescences, partially developed fruit, fully developed 

fruit, roots and tubers (Mahajan et al., 2017). Furthermore, even for the same fresh produce, 

the harvest time and physiological characteristics such as shape, size, colour, and sugar level 

vary depending on different varieties, which extends the diversity of the fresh produce 

products (Mehdi, Ahmad, Yaseen, Adeel & Sayyed, 2016).  

There have always been fluctuations in the supply of agricultural produce as fresh fruit and 

vegetables are seasonal products and they are only available in a short period of time during 

the year (Van Walbeek, 1996; Mehdi et al., 2016; Ge, Canning, Goetz & Perez, 2018). A 

typical example is that mango produced in Pakistan is only available during summer as a type 

of seasonal fruit (Mehdi et al., 2016). The period for apples harvesting in Hawkes Bay in 

New Zealand was estimated to be from February to May depending on the cultivar (Goossens, 

2019). Van Walbeek (1996) stated that climatic and weather conditions largely influenced the 

production of fresh produce, thereby leading to the seasonal variation in the quantity and 

quality of produce. For instance, Hospido et al. (2009) pointed out that some north European 

countries were not able to grow fresh produce all year round because of their climatic 

constraints. Furthermore, Ge et al. (2018) explained that each variety of fresh produce was 

harvested in a given range of weeks within the harvest period and the products had to be 

consolidated quickly and carefully. Noticeably, the fluctuation and seasonality of fresh 

produce supply could also be influenced by extreme climate events such as heavy rainfalls 

and floods. For example, contamination of irrigation water sources due to heavy rainfalls or 

floods would potentially result in food safety issues and product loss in the agricultural 

produce industry (Kirezieva, Jacxsens, Van Boekel & Luning, 2015). 

 



29 
 

2.6.2 Relationship in fresh produce supply chain in New Zealand 

Fresh produce supply chain involved a great deal of different industry actors, including 

farmers or growers, manufacturers or processors, wholesalers, logistics, retailers, 

supermarkets, and others (Borrero, 2019; Codron et al., 2014; Jadav, Leua & Darji, 2011; 

Givens & Dunning, 2019). Hardesty et al. (2015) categorised produce suppliers into different 

groups by the type of retail outlet and the number of stores they own: farmers market, 

independent vendor representing single store, neighbourhood store meaning 2 to 6 stores, and 

chain store for retailers owning more than 7 stores. Fouayzi, Caswell and Hooker (2006) 

illustrated the produce supply chain and considered that it covered growers, packers, 

processors, shippers, wholesalers, retailers, food service operations and consumers.  

According to Worinu (2007), industry actors along the fresh produce supply chain included 

supermarkets, hotels, restaurants, fast food outlets, urban and roadside markets and others. 

These could be generally categorised into two main systems: formal and informal ones 

(Worinu, 2007). Formal supply channel or market is also named as direct market and refers to 

when fresh produce is delivered from growers or packhouses through wholesalers to retailers 

such as supermarkets, the relationships between different parties within the supply channel 

are generally characterised by company agreements and products are supplied on an ongoing 

basis (Trienekens, Van Velzen, Lees, Saunders & Pascucci, 2017). There are some 

relationships built up between the suppliers and buyers (Worinu, 2007). Whilst, informal 

supply channel or market is commonly referred to open market and is related to purely trust 

and commitment developed between industry actors such as farmers and buyers and products 

are provided occasionally or periodically without agreed contracts (Givens & Dunning, 2019; 

Timsina & Shivakoti, 2018). For example, fresh fruit and vegetables sold via roadside stalls 

and farmers markets by growers are considered as informal supply channel and there is no 

long-term relationship between farmers and buyers as products are supplied occasionally 

(Worinu, 2007). Curtis et al. (2014) interpreted that farmers markets provided local growers a 

great opportunity to eliminate costs of the middle man and it was easier for small producers 

to participate in with relatively lower vendor fees and limited contractual obligations. It was 

indicated that the number of industry participants with formal and informal relationships 

across a food supply chain could be large (Wognum et al., 2011).  

Relationships in fresh produce supply chains have been changing over the past few decades 

due to demand conditions, new technologies, private supply chain requirements and public 



30 
 

regulatory standards (Fouayzi et al., 2006). An adversarial relationship with multiple 

suppliers has gradually become a closer and on-going relationship with a few selected 

suppliers or even exclusive supplier (Clements et al., 2008; Kalwani & Narayandas, 1995). 

This trend could be driven by various reasons (White, 2000; Fearne & Hughes, 2000; Hingley 

& Lindgreen, 2002). White (2000) indicated that on-going relationship allowed retailers to 

have access to adequate fresh produce products and maintain the continuity of supply. In 

addition, a competitive advantage over other retailers was obtained through exclusive access 

to the best raw material producers (Fearne & Hughes, 2000; Hingley & Lindgreen, 2002). 

Furthermore, search time and cost were reduced and therefore productivity was improved 

through the integration of retailer and supplier systems (Hingley & Lindgreen, 2002; 

Brookes, 1995). Meanwhile, this on-going relationship would also benefit producers from 

selected suppliers through increased security and reduced risk (Hingley, 2001). 

Lee and Nuthall (2015) carried out a case study on supplier commitment to agri-food supply 

chains in New Zealand and factors attracting suppliers to be committed to long-term 

relationships were examined. According to Lee and Nuthall (2015), increased price certainty, 

premium prices and related quality were considered as three main factors.  

Clements et al. (2008) investigated fresh produce supply chains in New Zealand focusing on 

relationship connectors, supply chain functions and product characteristics. In addition, two 

case studies of fresh produce supply chains in the South Island of New Zealand were 

undertaken under this research. Clements et al. (2008) stated that many factors in the fresh 

produce supply chain could impact on relationships within a supply chain for both between 

chain partners and within companies themselves, such as difficulties of guaranteeing 

continuity of supply due to seasonal and unexpected shortage or oversupply, logistics and 

quality management, information exchange and process alignment along the chain.   

 

2.6.3 Fresh produce supply channels in New Zealand 

There are several studies undertaken to understand the fresh produce supply channels in New 

Zealand over the past two decades (Maurer, 1999; Clements et al., 2008; Ministry for 

Primary Industries, 2014). Maurer (1999) introduced a framework to describe a typical 

produce supply chain in New Zealand in Figure 2.3 as below. 



31 
 

 

Figure 2.3 A typical fresh produce supply chain in New Zealand. 

(Maurer, 1999). 

 

Fresh produce was initially harvested and transported to packhouse or storage facility, 

through distribution centre or market and subsequently delivered to stores for consumer 

purchasing (Maurer, 1999). Noticeably, Maurer (1999) explained that the all possible supply 

chain variations for New Zealand produce were incorporated in the framework, however, not 

all produce products moving along the supply chain necessarily passed through all stages.  

However, the fresh produce supply chain is not always linear (Ministry for Primary 

Industries, 2014). Products could reach the consumer through a number of different routes 

(Ministry for Primary Industries, 2014). For instance, fresh produce may be purchased by 

consumers via farmers markets or online sales from the grower directly. In addition, products 

could also be supplied by growers and transported to retail stores nationally (Ministry for 



32 
 

Primary Industries, 2014). Givens and Dunning (2019) demonstrated that fresh fruit and 

vegetables could be delivered by farmers directly to restaurants as a short supply channel to 

avoid extra expense via intermediary distributors.  

Moreover, a food supply chain was also considered as a network since industry participants 

in the supply chain commonly had several or many suppliers and customers which made the 

whole chain more complex (Wognum et al., 2011). The network of fresh produce supply 

channels in New Zealand was illustrated in Figure 2.4 (Ministry for Primary Industries, 2014; 

Clements et al., 2008; Maurer, 1999).  

 

Figure 2.4 Complexity of fresh produce supply channels in New Zealand.  

(Ministry for Primary Industries, 2014; Clements et al., 2008; Maurer, 1999). 

 

According to Clements et al. (2008), some retail stores throughout New Zealand were 

individually owned but managed by one organisation who had a cooperative buying structure 

to source most of fresh fruit and vegetables for stores, whereas the other retail outlets were 

owned by one company who had a corporate business structure around the country. Products 

Prepacked 

Market 
Wholesalers 

Packhouses 

Growers 

Retail 
stores 

Loose packed 

Often the same 
company 

 

C
o
n
s
u
m
e
r
s 

Farmers markets or online sales 

Product Movement 
(Note that information paths are excluded and this only shows product movement along the 
fresh produce supply chain in New Zealand). 



33 
 

sourced by organisations for retail stores could be from market wholesalers or directly from 

their own preferred growers (Clements et al., 2008). In addition, market wholesalers also had 

their own preferred and non-preferred growers where they purchased fresh produce from 

(Clements et al., 2008).  

 

2.6.4 The scale of the fresh produce industry in New Zealand 

It was indicated that New Zealand was a major agricultural producer as an island nation and 

free from many diseases and pests around the world (Webb, Strutt & Rae, 2016). The 

geographical restriction impeded both importing and exporting of fresh fruit and vegetables 

to certain extent in the country (Webb et al., 2016). As a relatively small country in the world, 

the total population of New Zealand was 4.762 million in 2017 and was expected to grow 

steadily (Horticulture New Zealand, 2017). It was reported that there were approximately 

5,000 growers in total in New Zealand and around 121,413 hectares la