Skip to content
BY 4.0 license Open Access Published by De Gruyter Open Access March 24, 2021

Supply chain efficiency of red chili based on the performance measurement system in Yogyakarta, Indonesia

Susanawati, Heri Akhmadi, Muhammad Fauzan and Zuhud Rozaki
From the journal Open Agriculture

Abstract

This study aimed to describe the relationship structure of the red chili supply chain based on actors and their activities and to measure the efficiency of the red chili supply chain using the Performance Measuring System (PMS) framework. The distribution of the red chili supply chain in this study began with farmers in Kulon Progo, Yogyakarta, and extended to consumers in Jakarta, Indonesia. The sampling technique was carried out in several stages for 132 respondents consisting of red chili farmers and consumers. The supply chain relationship structure was analyzed descriptively, while the efficiency of the red chili supply chain was examined using the PMS framework, including indicators of production costs, transaction costs, profits, and return on investment. The results revealed that the relationship structure of the red chili supply chain was formed by three chains consisting of eight actors: farmers, middlemen, wholesalers at the regency level, auction markets, Kramat Jati Central Market or Pasar Induk Kramat Jati (PIKJ) dealers, PIKJ centeng, retailers, and consumers. According to production costs, transaction costs, profits, and the rate of return on investment, chain three was the most efficient with chain actors comprising farmers – auction markets – wholesalers at the regency level – PIKJ dealers – PIKJ centeng – retailers – consumers.

1 Introduction

Indonesia is well-known not only as a significant agrarian country, but also as the largest archipelago in the world. To build its national economy, priority of place has been given to the agricultural sector (Hamilton-Hart 2019). This strategic position of agriculture vis-à-vis the national economy (Morley et al. 2019) translates into its primacy in development efforts, its role as a source of national income, and its contribution to poverty reduction (Libin 2018).

One of the subsectors of agricultural development consists of horticultural crops. Horticulture comprises several types of potential commodities such as vegetables, fruits, ornamental plants, and biopharmaceuticals. An increase in Indonesian vegetable production occurred in 2013–2017, and as depicted in Figure 1, this increase was most pronounced in 2015–2016, at 3.87%.

Figure 1 
               Trend of vegetable production in Indonesia in 2013–2017. Source: Ministry of Agriculture Republic Indonesia (2018).

Figure 1

Trend of vegetable production in Indonesia in 2013–2017. Source: Ministry of Agriculture Republic Indonesia (2018).

With regard to particular vegetable crops, Indonesian consumers are very fond of chilies (Capsicum annuum L.), and they use them as a complementary ingredient in many of their dishes (Zamrodah and Pintakami 2020). Chilies can thus be seen as an important commodity favored by consumers which meets their household needs (Amaral et al. 2019). Additionally, chilies are used as raw material in the chili processing and medicine or herbal medicine industries. In general, chilies contain many nutrients and vitamins, including calories, protein, fat, carbohydrates, calcium, vitamin A, vitamin B1, and vitamin C (Karyani et al. 2020).

Although chili is not a staple food, its high consumption in Indonesia, given its use in daily cooking, indicates that it is a high demand commodity. Gaging the relationship between consumer demand and availability, the price of chilies is likely to fluctuate and thereby impact the national economy (Chen Van et al. 2017). Table 1 presents the development of chili consumption data in Indonesia in 2010–2014. It signifies that the development of chili consumption had an average growth rate of 20% per year.

Table 1

Development of chili consumption in Indonesia (2010–2014)

Types of chili Consumption (kg/Capita/Year) Total
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Red chili pepper 1.528 1.497 1.653 1.424 1.460 7.562
Green chili 0.256 0.261 0.214 0.198 0.214 1.143
Cayenne pepper 1.298 1.210 1.403 1.272 1.262 6.445
Total 3.082 2.968 3.270 2.894 2.936 15.150

Source: Ministry of Agriculture (2015).

Red chilies are one of the major agricultural products in the Special Region of Yogyakarta. As presented in Table 2, from 2014 to 2017, the harvested area for chili pepper in this region displayed an upward trend; more specifically, it decreased by 0.85% from 2014 to 2015 and increased from 2016 to 2017.

Table 2

Harvested area of seasonal vegetable plants by plant type in the Special Region of Yogyakarta (2014–2017) (in hectares)

No Types of plants Year
2014 2015 2016 2017
1 Chili pepper 2,791 2,767 3,376 3,581
2 Cayenne pepper 1,256 925 1,072 1,353

Source: Statistics of D.I. Yogyakarta (2017).

We chose to investigate red chili because of its high demand, high selling price, and good market prospects, as evidenced by consumer interest and yearly price increases. In addition, it has a reasonably good marketing area and can be planted in various environments such as coastal areas, medium plains, and highlands (Romeida et al. 2020). National red chili production during 2006–2015 contributed an average of 50.79% per year, while production outside of Java contributed 43.21% (Yanuarti and Afsari 2016).

One of the red chili production base areas in Java Island is the Special Region of Yogyakarta (DIY). There are four red chili producing regencies in DIY: Kulon Progo, Sleman, Bantul, and Gunungkidul, which are presented in Table 3. This table shows that the highest red chili productivity was in Kulon Progo, with an average productivity of 9 tons/hectare.

Table 3

Development of red chili production in DIY (2011–2015) (in tons)

Regency Year
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Kulon Progo 10,722.6 11,581.6 10,920.8 12,507.5 16,828.0
Sleman 2,785.5 2,859.9 4,193.8 3,615.7 4,430.7
Bantul 525.1 1,670.2 1,765.1 1,224.4 1,969.3
Gunungkidul 336.9 345.3 253.8 253.8 159.9
DIY 14,370.1 16,457.0 17,133.5 17,601.4 23,387.9

Source: Statistics of D.I. Yogyakarta (2016).

Kulon Progo Regency as a center for red chili production not only meets the needs of the region, but also outside areas such as Jakarta, Malang, Surabaya, and Lampung. The process of red chili distribution to consumers is inseparable from the supply chain concept. More specifically, the supply chain covers all interactions between suppliers, manufacturers, distributors, and customers (Yildiz and Ahi 2020). This interaction among stakeholders is managed in order to achieve a sustainable supply chain (Giacomarra et al. 2019) and provide a value creation (Pucci et al. 2018). Moreover, a supply chain can be defined as the set of relationships between companies or activities which carry out the distribution of the supply of goods or services from the place of origin to the place of the buyer or customers (Assauri 2011). In the horizontal perspective, there are five major actors in the supply chain: supplier, manufacturer, wholesaler, retailer, and customer (Sunny et al. 2020). In the vertical perspective, there are five major components of the supply chain: buyer, carrier, warehouses (storage), customer, and seller.

The supply chain evolves in three parts (Anatan 2010), namely, the upstream supply chain, the internal supply chain, and the downstream supply chain. Chopra and Meidl (2004) claim that the supply chain is dynamic and covers the flow of information, products, and money at the supply chain level. Moreover, a supply chain consists of parties involved either directly or indirectly in response to customers, and these parties include manufacturing, suppliers, transportation, warehouses, retailers, and customers. Meanwhile, Vorst (2004) explains that the supply chain constitutes several physical activities and decision-making processes related to the flow of substances, information, and money. Physical flow concerns the movement of products from supplier to customer, while information flow concerns the number of requests, supply chain network coordination, delivery status, and payment information (Athaillah and Hamid 2018). Financial flow includes cash and credit payments and payment schedules. In the supply chain itself, the meaning of the flow of material from the beginning to the consumer takes into account the factors of timeliness, cost, and number of products (Aquilano 2006).

The majority of supply chain guides build their conceptual framework around the notions of chain governance and upgrading (Springer-Heinze 2007; Webber and Labaste 2009; Devaux et al. 2016). The food supply chain, in particular, would implement effective practices that improve the state of sustainable food security, such as food security governance involvement, input resource management, output management, and information sharing. The success of the food supply chain depends on the strong and effective interaction among stakeholders (Fiore et al. 2020), including the raw materials supplier, the packaging provider, repackers, printing companies, intermediary traders, and other suppliers (Djuric and Götz 2016; Pujawan and Mahendrawathi 2017). Notably, the typical characteristics of agricultural products cause the complexity of supply chain problems to increase (Soepatini et al. 2018). For instance, supply chain stakeholders, mainly small and marginal farmers, receive a very minimal share in consumer rupee due to market uncertainty, high postharvest loses, information asymmetry, a lack of processing facilities, and an erratic demand-supply situation. The logistics systems of agricultural products possess certain specific characteristics and therefore require specific and different handling methods as well, given that they are affected by production systems, the nature of the product, and the consumers themselves (Yun and Kurniawan 2015). Thus, the process in a supply chain – from the farmer to the consumer – determines its efficiency (Solekhah and Aspiranti 2018).

While red chili is a commodity with high economic value, at the same time, it carries a risk: there may be price fluctuations because of an unstable supply, counterbalanced with high consumer demand (Karyani et al. 2020). This demand will likely continue to increase as the population itself increases (Suwarsinah et al. 2018). As prices relative to each actor usually differ according to their respective interests, the costs of production and transactions will be affected and ultimately impact the profit earned by the actor. Profit is an indicator of measuring the efficiency of a supply chain, including the red chili commodity. Moreover, the measurement of supply chain performance efficiency plays an important role in determining the condition of a company (Pohlmann et al. 2020), whether it has decreased or increased in scope and productivity, and what improvements should be made to improve the company’s performance (Sufa et al. 2016). In addition, inefficiency is another issue in the food supply chain for commodities such as red chili (Kamble et al. 2020). Therefore, it is necessary to conduct a study to describe the relationship structure of the red chili supply chain in terms of actors and activities, and the efficiency of the supply chain based on the performance measurement system (PMS) framework, viewed from the perspective of production costs, transaction costs, profits, and investment returns.

2 Research method

This research employed a descriptive method that systematically describes, actually and accurately, the factors, properties, and relationships between the phenomena in the study (Sugiyono 2017). This method facilitated a study of the efficiency of the red chili supply chain by describing the analysis results. The research location in Kulon Progo Regency, Indonesia, was selected because the region is a red chili production center in the Special Region of Yogyakarta, as presented in Table 3. The sampling of this study was carried out through the following stages:

  1. The first stage was determining the district. Research was purposively carried out in Panjatan District, since it has the highest rate of red chili production compared to the other 11 districts in Kulon Progo Regency, namely, 10565.3 tons in 2018, as presented in Table 4.

  2. The second stage was village sampling. From the selected district, namely Panjatan District, three villages possessed auction markets for red chilies, namely Bugel, Garongan, and Pleret, as shown in Table 5. Out of the three villages, Garongan was selected, as it had the most auction market members.

  3. The third stage was determining the farmer groups in Garongan Village. A total of 285 farmers registered as members of the auction markets in Garongan Village, who came from three farmer groups: Bangunkaryo, Jangkang Wetan 1, Jangkang Wetan 2, and Ngudi Hasil, each in sequences of 115, 100, and 70 farmers, respectively. At the time of the research, there were only two farmer groups whose auction markets were active, namely, Bangunkaryo and Ngudi Hasil. Of the 115 farmers in the Bangunkaryo farmer group, only 60 were active, while in the Ngudi Hasil farmer group, only 20 farmers planted red chilies during the research. Hence, the number of farmers sampled was 80 people.

  4. The fourth stage was determining the respondents of red chili supply chain actors, other than farmers, using snowball sampling. Snowball sampling techniques are a method of identifying, selecting, and sampling in a continuous network or chain of relationships (Nurdiani 2014). The respondents consisted of two middlemen in Garongan Village, the Head of the Auction Market Management, two collecting traders at the Kulon Progo Regency level, three dealers at Kramat Jati Central Market in Jakarta or Pasar Induk Kramat Jati (PIKJ), ten PIKJ centeng (a person taking merchandise from a dealer and having a narrow and sometimes nonpermanent place to sell), 20 retailers in Jakarta, and 30 consumers who were also in Jakarta.

Table 4

Red chili production in Kulon Progo (2018)

No Districts 2018 production (ton)
1 Temon 4,299.9
2 Wates 5,972.9
3 Panjatan 10,565.3
4 Galur 2,377.4
5 Lendah 1,077.7
6 Sentolo 252.1
7 Pengasih 425.3
8 Kokap 194.6
9 Girimulyo 62.6
10 Nanggulan 15.4
11 Kalibawang 173.0
12 Samigaluh 26.6
Total 25,442.8

Source: Agriculture Office of Kulon Progo Regency (2019).

Table 5

Number of auction markets and the members in Panjatan District, Kulon Progo Regency (2019)

Village Number of auction markets Auction market members
Bojong
Bugel 2 170
Cerme
Depok
Garongan 4 285
Gotakan
Kanoman
Krembangan
Panjatan
Pleret 2 100
Tayuban

Source: Bangunkaryo Farmer Group (2019).

Moreover, the data used in this study were primary data that included supply chain actors’ activities, explicit costs, implicit costs, fixed costs, variable costs, total production costs, transaction costs, investment costs, negotiation costs, market search costs, red chili production, red chili prices, red chili discounted prices in the auction market, and revenue. The data were collected via interviews with the help of a questionnaire for all actors in the red chili supply chain.

Descriptive analysis in the form of a chart was employed to explain the red chili supply chain relationship. The chart depicted the number of chains and actors making up the supply chain structure. Apart from being in chart form, descriptive analysis in table form was also required to explain each actor’s activities within the relationship structure of the red chili supply chain. The supply chain efficiency of red chili was analyzed based on the PMS framework, which consisted of five indicators: production costs, transaction costs, profits, inventory costs, and return on investment (ROI). The red chili commodity was in fresh form, thus causing the supply indicator to be excluded in this study. Many studies have identified the supply chain management (SCM) components that need to be addressed by the organizations, with Beamon (1999) in particular stating that a PMS framework is important to an effective performance measurement in SCM. In order for PMS to be appropriately structured, it must provide managers with easily accessible and comprehensible information (Morgan 2004). As an essential management technique, PMS provides the assistance need to improve supply chain achievement and increase overall customer satisfaction, the level of competitiveness, and a firm’s profitability (Ahmad and Zabri 2018).

  1. Informed consent: Informed consent has been obtained from all individuals included in this study.

  2. Ethical approval: The institutional review board of the Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta indicated that the present study was exempt from a full review because there was minimal risk to participants.

3 Results and discussion

3.1 Relationship structure of the red chili supply chain

The relationship structure of the red chili supply chain was viewed from the perspective of the actors forming the supply chain and the activities of each of these actors. “Actors” referred to the institutions or actors involved in the flow of products, information, and money, starting with the red chili farmers in Panjatan District, and ending with the final consumers in Jakarta. The relationship structure of the red chili supply chain in Yogyakarta was formed by three chains consisting of eight actors: farmers, auction markets, middlemen, wholesalers at the regency level, Kramat Jati Central Market or PIKJ dealers, PIKJ centeng, retailers, and consumers. PIKJ centeng is a wholesaler who buys chilies in bulk from PIKJ dealers and then sells them to retailers in smaller quantities (Yuliarti and Fitrani 2011). The minimum amount of chili purchases from PIKJ centeng by retailers is 50 kg.

Theoretically, there are four main actors in the food supply chain: manufacturers, suppliers, logistics service providers, and retailers (Manders et al. 2016). Moreover, this study found that there were several actors in the relationship structure of the red chili supply chain in Yogyakarta, as illustrated in Figure 2. Based on Figure 2, the farmer is the manufacturer or producer of red chili, while auction markets, middlemen, collecting traders, and PIKJ dealers act as suppliers. Suppliers play an important role in the food supply chain as both trader and supplier to multiple channels (Perdana et al. 2018).

Figure 2 
                  Relationship structure of the red chili supply chain in Panjatan District, Kulon Progo Regency, Yogyakarta.

Figure 2

Relationship structure of the red chili supply chain in Panjatan District, Kulon Progo Regency, Yogyakarta.

Each red chili supply chain actor in the relationship structure played a different role, as shown by the activities they carried out, which in turn contributed to a well-run supply chain. More specifically, the activities of the red chili supply chain actors in Panjatan District, Kulon Progo Regency, are presented in Table 6.

Table 6

Activities of red chili supply chain actors in Kulon Progo Regency

No Activities Actors
Farmers Middlemen Auction markets Collecting traders Dealers Centeng Retailers Consumers
1 Red chili farming
2 Sorting
3 Packaging
4 Pricing
5 Bid
6 Updating information
7 Purchasing red chilies
8 Transporting
9 Delivery of red chilies
10 Receiving payment
11 Sales
12 Cleaning and separating the red chilies

Based on Table 6, packaging, pricing, and purchasing were the most numerous activities carried out by the majority of supply chain actors. Moreover, collecting traders and centeng at PIKJ market were the actors who were most involved in many red chili supply chain activities.

3.2 Red chili supply chain efficiency

Efficiency is one of the supply chain performance indicators based on the PMS framework in terms of responsibility, flexibility, and food quality. There are also several sub-indicators that measure supply chain efficiency, including production costs, transaction costs (Aramyan 2007), profits, and ROI (Stranieri et al. 2021).

3.2.1 Production cost

Production costs are incurred by supply chain actors during the production process on land or in the process of buying and selling red chili for actors other than farmers. Production costs at the farm level consist of explicit and implicit costs. As for actors other than farmers, the concept of production costs applies fixed and variable costs.

Table 7

Production costs of red chili supply chain actors during one planting season (May–July 2019)

Supply chain actors Value (IDR) Percentage
Farmers 49,348,527 22.95
Auction markets 31,787,000 14.78
Middleman 1,464,367 0.68
Wholesalers at regency level 38,138,375 17.74
PIKJ Dealers 62,471,500 29.06
PIKJ Centeng 27,216,565 12.66
Retailers 4,579,200 2.13
Total 215,005,534 100

PIKJ dealers issued the highest production cost of IDR 62,471,500, used for the entire process of selling red chilies (Table 7). The high production cost incurred by dealers may be because of the risks they bear in the supply chain, such as the risk of decreasing product quality (Kurniawan et al. 2019). Middlemen incurred the lowest cost of IDR 1,464,367, which was due to the fact that the red chilies they sold were not as numerous as those in the auction markets, thereby causing the least costs incurred to sell chilies.

3.2.2 Transaction fees

Transaction aspects are one of the most widely referenced organizational theories in operations and supply chain management research (Ketokivi and Mahoney 2020). Transaction fees are charges other than those incurred in trading red chilies, consisting of market search, implementation, and negotiation costs. Market search costs were used to obtain information about buying and selling opportunities for red chilies, negotiation costs were incurred for an exchange under negotiation, and contract implementation costs were incurred in executing the contract (Table 8).

Table 8

Transaction costs of red chili supply chain actors during one planting season (May–July 2019)

Supply chain actors Transaction fee (IDR)
Implementation cost Negotiation fee Market search costs
Farmers 1,838,386
Auction markets
Middleman
Kulon Progo wholesalers
PIKJ Dealers 32,067
PIKJ Centeng 42,314
Retailers 56,600
Consumers 1,495,500 708,000
Total 3,432,800 708,000

Transaction fees for farmers solely consisted of discounted fees for auction market cash, agreed to by all farmers within the farmer group and auction market administrators. The discount was based on the chili price in multiples of five, as depicted in Table 9.

Table 9

Discounts on red chili

The price of chili (IDR) per kg Discount (IDR)
5,000 100
10,000 200
15,000 300
20,000 400
25,000 500
30,000 600
35,000 700
40,000 800
45,000 900
50,000 1,000
55,000 1,100
60,000 1,200
65,000 1,300

Dealers incurred a negotiation fee of IDR 32,067 for the exchange or transaction process after negotiation (Table 8). This negotiation process was carried out between the dealers and the centeng in PIKJ to reach an agreement on the exchange or transaction of red chili. The PIKJ centeng employed a delay system in the payment process, thereby agreeing to negotiate returns. PIKJ centeng would pay for the red chilies after receiving money from sales to retailers. Retailers paid a negotiation fee of IDR 56,600. This fee arose when a transaction between a centeng and a retailer reached an agreement on an exchange or transaction of red chili. Retailers made cash payments, thus causing no delay in payments. Moreover, in order to increase supply chain efficiency, the red chili supply chain should decrease transaction fees. Accordingly, information technology can be used to facilitate the transaction process so as to reduce transaction costs (Kamilaris et al. 2019).

3.2.3 Profit

Profits were derived by subtracting total expenses from total income. Income from supply chain actors was obtained from the multiplication of the sales and selling price of red chilies, and profits would affect the return on investment for each supply chain actor. The income and profits of supply chain actors are discussed below.

Table 10

Income and profits of red chili supply chain actors during one planting season (May–July 2019)

Supply chain actors Income (IDR) Profits (IDR)
Farmers 123,549,064 74,200,537
Auction markets 52,602,372 20,815,372
Middleman 12,715,000 11,250,633
Wholesalers at the regency level 336,750,000 298,611,625
PIKJ dealers 34,600,000 283,528,500
PIKJ Centeng 40,021,429 12,804,864
Retailers 8,020,250 3,441,050
Total 919,658,115 704,652,581

The supply chain actor with the highest profit was the wholesalers at the regency level, with IDR 298,611,625, because the income of the PIKJ dealers was higher than the total cost incurred (Table 10). Conversely, the lowest profit was for retailers, with IDR 3,441,050, since they did not only sell chilies, but also vegetables and other spices. Hence, their profits were not only from selling red chilies. Supply chain actors profit could be increased by improving the coordinated supply chain and government incentives such as grants or tax reductions to wholesaler or auction markets (Heydari et al. 2017).

3.2.4 Return on investment (ROI)

Return on investment, or ROI, is one of the profitability ratios frequently employed to assess an organization’s financial performance based on financial reports and company profits (Romadani et al. 2016). Similarly, Munawir (2004) mentions that ROI is the ability to generate profits with funds and assets, and according to Hanafi and Mamduh (2010), ROI measurement is an assessment of a company’s ability to generate net income based on companies and investors. Syamsudin (2011) states that the higher the ROI value, the better the condition. ROI is considered good if its value is more than zero (Sarsour and Sabri 2020), and bad if it is less than zero or negative. In this red chili supply chain, the ROI measurement was an assessment of the chain actor’s ability to generate profits based on the investment issued.

Table 11

ROI of red chili supply chain actors during one planting season (May–July 2019)

Supply chain actors ROI (%)
Farmers 2.4
Auction markets 1.2
Middleman 1.1
Wholesalers at regency level 2.0
PIKJ dealers 6.8
PIKJ Centeng 1.4
Retailers 1.4
Total 16.3

The highest ROI occurred for PIKJ dealers, with a value of 6.8, meaning that one rupiah of capital invested by a PIKJ dealer would generate a 6.8-times return (Table 11). In other words, the red chili business carried out by the PIKJ dealer was profitable. Conversely, the lowest ROI was for the middlemen at 1.1, as they did not sell many red chilies and thus earned a smaller profit.

To measure the efficiency of the red chili supply chain, it is necessary to look at the indicators of production costs, transaction costs, profits, and ROI. The efficiency of the complete three chains is presented as follows.

Table 12 illustrates that the lowest production costs occurred in chain 1, while the highest was in chain 2. The highest profit was in chain 3, and the lowest occurred in chain 1. The best rate of ROI occurred in chain 3, and the lowest was in chain 1. The value of transaction costs was the same for all three chains, thereby determining that the efficiency of the red chili supply chain was merely viewed from 3 indicators comprising production costs, profits, and the rate of ROI. Based on the three indicators, the most efficient red chili supply chain occurred in chain 3 because both profits and ROI achieved the highest result, followed by chain 2 and chain 1. With ROI analysis, it can be seen which chain is the most efficient in terms of investment, so that it can be used to reduce investment costs in the supply chain (Rahayu et al. 2020).

Table 12

The efficiency of red chili supply chain during one planting season (May–July 2019)

Indicator Farmers Middlemen Collecting traders PIKJ dealers PIKJ Centeng Retailers Consumers Total
Chain 1
Production costs 7,908,044 1,464,367 38,138,375 62,471,500 27,216,565 4,579,200 141,778,051
Profits 12,168,679 11,250,633 298,611,625 283,528,500 12,804,864 2,393,550 620,757,851
Return on investment 1.4 1.1 2.0 6.8 1.4 1.4 14.1
Transaction fees 32,067 42,314 56,600 2,203,500 2,334,481
Chain 2
Production costs 7,908,044 1,464,367 31,787,000 38,138,375 62,471,500 27,216,565 4,579,200
Profits 12,168,679 11,250,633 20,815,372 298,611,625 283,528,500 12,804,864 2,393,550
Return on investment 1.4 1.1 1.2 2.0 6.8 1.4 1.4
Transaction fees 32,067 42,314 56,600 2,203,500
Chain 3
Production costs 8,664,886 31,787,000 38,138,375 62,471,500 27,216,565 4,579,200 172,857,526
Profits 74,884,178 20,815,372 298,611,625 283,528,500 12,804,864 2,393,550 693,038,089
Return on investment 8.8 1.2 2.0 6.8 1.4 1.4 21.6
Transaction fees 32,067 42,314 56,600 2,203,500 2,334,481

4 Conclusions and recommendations

This study sought to examine the relationship structure of the red chili supply chain in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. There were three chains and eight actors on the red chili supply, namely: (1) Farmers – Middlemen – Wholesalers at the Regency Level – PIKJ Dealers – PIKJ Centeng – Retailers – Consumers; (2) Farmers – Middlemen – Auction Markets – Wholesalers at the Regency Level – PIKJ Dealers – PIKJ Centeng – Retailers – Consumers; and (3) Farmers – Auction Markets – Wholesalers at the Regency Level – PIKJ Dealers – PIKJ Centeng – Retailers – Consumers. Based on the indicators of production costs, transaction costs, profits, and the rate of ROI, chain 3 was the most efficient, as it produced the most massive profit and ROI, followed by chain 2 and chain 1. Moreover, the distribution of red chili from farmers directly to the auction markets in chain 3 also contributed to the red chili supply chain’s efficiency.

The findings of this study may provide implications from both theoretical and practical perspectives. Theoretically, it contributes to the supply chain efficiency theory of food products with fluctuating prices such as chili. From a practical point of view, this study provides useful recommendations for stakeholders in the chili supply chain, such as farmer groups and governments, to optimize and increase the role of the auction market in the chili supply chain. Moreover, the limitation of this study is the scope of the sample, which is only one major producer of chili in Indonesia. Future research should consider and possibly compare these findings with the aspects of another chili production center in Indonesia in order to obtain the broader perspective of red chili supply chain behavior.

Acknowledgments

This research has been financially supported by Ministry of Research and Technology/National Research and Innovation Agency Republic of Indonesia, Deputy for Strengthening Research and Development, under research grants of the Higher Education Leading Basic Research (PDUPT) scheme No. 277/SP2H/AMD/LT/DRPM/2020.

We also would like to thank Mr. Sudiro as Head of Auction Market Association of Kulon Progo, Indonesia, and member of Auction Market Association of Panjatan District, Kulon Progo, Indonesia, including farmers and traders, for their support and assistance on data collection of red chili supply chain network.

Our sincere thanks also goes to our colleagues from Department of Agribusiness who provided expertise and supported on data collection, although they may not agree with all of the interpretations provided in this paper.

  1. Funding information: Research grants of the Higher Education Leading Basic Research (PDUPT) scheme No. 277/SP2H/AMD/LT/DRPM/2020 by Ministry of Research and Technology/National Research and Innovation Agency Republic of Indonesia, Deputy for Strengthening Research and Development.

  2. Author contribution: MF: project administration; S: conceptualization, methodology, and writing original draft; ZR: visualization; HA: writing-review and editing.

  3. Conflict of interest: The authors state no conflict of interest.

  4. Data availability statement: The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

[1] Ahmad K, Zabri SM. The development of performance measurement system under the supply chain management environment: the case of Malaysian manufacturing companis. Manag Prod Eng Rev. 2018;9(1):3–12.Search in Google Scholar

[2] Amaral HDDR, Situmeang YP, Suarta M. The effects of compost and biochar on the growth and yield of red chili plants. J Phys Conf Ser. 2019;1402(3):1–6.10.1088/1742-6596/1402/3/033057Search in Google Scholar

[3] Anatan L. Pengaruh Implementasi Praktik-Praktik Manajemen Rantai Pasokan Terhadap Kinerja Rantai Pasok Dan Keunggulan Kompetitif. Jurnal Karisma. 2010;4(2):106–17.Search in Google Scholar

[4] Aquilano NJ. Operation management. McGraw-Hill/Irwin. A business unit of the McGrawHill companies. 11th edn. New York: Avenue of the Americans; 2006.Search in Google Scholar

[5] Aramyan LH. Measuring supply chain performance in the agri-food sector. Wageningen: Wageningen University; 2007.Search in Google Scholar

[6] Assauri S. Manajemen Produksi Dan Operasi. Jakarta: FEUI; 2011.Search in Google Scholar

[7] Athaillah T, Hamid AH. Analisis Efisiensi Kinerja Rantai Pasok Ikan Tuna Di Bandar. Marine Fishieries. 2018;9(2):169–81.Search in Google Scholar

[8] Beamon BM. Measuring supply chain performance. Int J Prod Res. 1999;19(3/4):275–92.10.1108/01443579910249714Search in Google Scholar

[9] Van JC, Huang WC, Anindita R, Chang WI, Yang SH. Price volatility of cayenne pepper and red chili pepper in Papua and Maluku Provinces, Indonesia. Scholar J Econ Bus Manag. 2017;4(9):590–9.Search in Google Scholar

[10] Chopra S, Meidl P. Strategy, planning, and operation. Supply chain management. London, England: Pearson Education International; 2004.Search in Google Scholar

[11] Devaux A, Velasco C, Jager M. Integrating agricultural innovation and inclusive value chain development. Washington, DC, USA: International Food Policy Research Institute; 2016. p. 159–73.Search in Google Scholar

[12] Djuric I, Götz L. Export restrictions-do consumers really benefit? The wheat-to-bread supply chain in Serbia. Food Policy. 2016;63:112–23.10.1016/j.foodpol.2016.07.002Search in Google Scholar

[13] Fiore M, Galati A, Gołębiewski J, Drejerska N. Stakeholders’ involvement in establishing sustainable business models: the case of polish dairy cooperatives. Br Food J. 2020;122(5):1671–91.10.1108/BFJ-04-2019-0263Search in Google Scholar

[14] Giacomarra M, Crescimanno M, Sakka G, Galati. A. Stakeholder engagement toward value co-creation in the F&B packaging industry. EuroMed J Bus. 2019;15(3):315–31.10.1108/EMJB-06-2019-0077Search in Google Scholar

[15] Hamilton-Hart N. Indonesia’s quest for food self-sufficiency: a new agricultural political economy? J Contemp Asia. 2019;49(5):734–58. 10.1080/00472336.2019.1617890.Search in Google Scholar

[16] Hanafi, Mamduh M. Manajemen Keuangan. Yogyakarta: BPFE; 2010.Search in Google Scholar

[17] Heydari J, Govindan K, Jafari A. Reverse and closed loop supply chain coordination by considering government role. Transport Res Part D Transport Environ. 2017;52:379–98.10.1016/j.trd.2017.03.008Search in Google Scholar

[18] Kamble SS, Gunasekaran A, Gawankar SA. Achieving sustainable performance in a data-driven agriculture supply chain: a review for research and applications. Int J Prod Econ. 2020;219:179–94. 10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.05.022.Search in Google Scholar

[19] Kamilaris A, Fonts A, Prenafeta-Boldύ FX. The rise of blockchain technology in agriculture and food supply chains. Trends Food Sci Technol. 2019;91:640–52.10.1016/j.tifs.2019.07.034Search in Google Scholar

[20] Karyani T, Susanto A, Djuwendah E, Hapsari H. Red chili agribusiness and the risks faced by the farmers. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci. 2020;466(1):1–8.10.1088/1755-1315/466/1/012002Search in Google Scholar

[21] Ketokivi M, Mahoney JT. Transaction cost economics as a theory of supply chain efficiency. Production and Operation Management. New Jersey, USA: Wiley; 2020.10.1111/poms.13148Search in Google Scholar

[22] Kurniawan M, Santoso I, Kamal MA. Risk management of shallot supply chain using failure mode effect analysis and analytic network process (case study in Batu, East Java). IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci. 2019;230(1):012055.10.1088/1755-1315/230/1/012055Search in Google Scholar

[23] Rusliyadi M, Libin W. Agriculture development programs for poverty reduction evidences from Indonesia and China – comparative study. Asian J Agric Rural Dev. 2018;8(2):104–18.10.18488/journal.1005/2018.8.2/1005.2.104.118Search in Google Scholar

[24] Manders JHM, Caniels MCJ, Ghijsen PWT. Exploring supply chain flexibility in a FMCG food supply chain. J Purch Supply Manag. 2016;22(3):181–95.10.1016/j.pursup.2016.06.001Search in Google Scholar

[25] Morgan C. Structure, speed, and salience: performance measurement in the supply chain. Bus Process Manag J. 2004;10(5):522–36.10.1108/14637150410559207Search in Google Scholar

[26] Morley S, Kennedy A, Pradesha A, Hadiwidjaja G. The role of agriculture in the structural transformation of Indonesia. Washington, DC, USA: International Food and Policy Research Institute; 2019.Search in Google Scholar

[27] Munawir. Analisis Laporan Keuangan. Yogyakarta: Liberty; 2004.Search in Google Scholar

[28] Nurdiani N. Teknik Sampling Snowball Dalam Penelitian Lapangan Architecture. ComTech Comput Math Eng Appl. 2014;5(2):1110–8.Search in Google Scholar

[29] Perdana T, Hermiatin FR, Pratiwi ASN, Ginanjar T. Lean production on chili pepper supply chain using value stream mapping. MIMBAR: Jurnal Sosial dan Pembangunan. 2018;34(2):311–20.10.29313/mimbar.v34i2.3458Search in Google Scholar

[30] Pohlmann CR, Scavarda AJ, Alves MB, Korzenowski AL. The role of the focal company in sustainable development goals: a Brazilian food poultry supply chain case study. J Clean Prod. 2020;245:118798.10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118798Search in Google Scholar

[31] Pucci T, Casprini E, Galati A, Zanni L. The virtuous cycle of stakeholder engagement in developing a sustainability culture: salcheto winery. J Bus Res. 2018;119:364–76. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.11.009.Search in Google Scholar

[32] Pujawan I, Mahendrawathi. Supply chain management. Edisi 3. Yogyakarta: Andi; 2017.Search in Google Scholar

[33] Rahayu R, Purnomo EP, Malawani AD. Using the ‘return on investment’ strategy to sustain logistic supply provider toward Indonesia’s logistic policy. J Govt Civil Soc. 2020;4(2):201–18.10.31000/jgcs.v4i2.2613Search in Google Scholar

[34] Romadani A, MG Wi Endang NP, Sulasmiyati S. Analisis return on investment (ROI) residual income (RI) (Studi Pada Perusahaan Makanan Dan Minuman Yang Terdaftar Di Bursa Efek Indonesia Tahun 2011–2014). Jurnal Administrasi Bisnis. 2016;3:1–8.Search in Google Scholar

[35] Romeida A, Ganefianti DW, Barchia MF, Supanjani, Herawati R. Plant growth regulator formulation for propagating red chili UNIB CH23 hybrid through stem cutting. Int J Agric Technol. 2020;16(4):959–74.Search in Google Scholar

[36] Sarsour WM, Sabri SRM. Evaluating the investment in the Malaysian construction sector in the long-run using the modified internal rate of return: a Markov chain approach. J Asian Financ Econ Bus. 2020;7(8):281–7.10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no8.281Search in Google Scholar

[37] Soepatini N, Isa AP, Syamsudin M. Supply chain analysis and commodity marketing of chilli in Subosukowonosraten. International conference on economics, business and economic education 2018. KnE Social Sciences; 2018. p. 957–73.10.18502/kss.v3i10.3185Search in Google Scholar

[38] Solekhah U, Aspiranti T. Analisis Efisiensi Kinerja Manajemen Rantai Paok Komoditas Paprika Di Desa Pasarlingu Cisarua Kabupaten Bandung Barat (Studi Kasus Pada UKM Paprici Segar Segar Barokah Di Desa Pasarlingu Cisarua Kabupaten Bandung Barat). Prosiding Manajemen Bandung Program Studi Manajemen Fakultas Ekonomi Dan Bisnis Universitas Islam Bandung. 2018. p. 188–96.Search in Google Scholar

[39] Springer-Heinze A. Valuelinks manual: the methodology of value chain promotion. Eschborn: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit; 2007.Search in Google Scholar

[40] Stranieri S, Miranda FR, Meuwissen PM, Soregaroli. C. Exploring the impact of blockchain on the performance of agri-food supply chains. Food Control. 2021;119:107495. 10.1016/j.foodcont.2020.107495.Search in Google Scholar

[41] Sufa MF, Wigaringtyas LD, Munawir H. Strategi Peningkatan Kinerja Rantai Pasok UKM Batik Dengan Supply Chain Operation Reference (SCOR). IENACO (Industrial Engineering National Conference); 2016.Search in Google Scholar

[42] Sugiyono. Metode Penelitian Bisnis. Pendekatan Kuantitatif, Kualitatif, Kombinasi, Dan R&D. Bandung: CV Alfabeta; 2017.Search in Google Scholar

[43] Sunny J, Undralla N, Pillai VM. Supply chain transparency through blockchain-based traceability: an overview with demonstration. Comput Ind Eng. 2020;150:106895.10.1016/j.cie.2020.106895Search in Google Scholar

[44] Suwarsinah HK, Harwanti NF, Hastuti, Firdaus M. The pricing system of red onion and red chili commodities. Jurnal Management and Agribusiness. 2018;15(2):150–61.10.17358/jma.15.2.150Search in Google Scholar

[45] Syamsudin L. Manajemen Keuangan Perusahaan. Jakarta: Rajagrafindo; 2011.Search in Google Scholar

[46] Vorst JGAJvander. Supply chain management: theory and practice. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Elsevier; 2004.Search in Google Scholar

[47] Webber CM, Labaste P. Building competitiveness in Africa’s agriculture: a guide to value chain concepts and applications. Washington: World Bank; 2009.10.1596/978-0-8213-7952-3Search in Google Scholar

[48] Yanuarti, Afsari. Profil Komoditas Barang Kebutuhan Pokok Dan Barang Penting “Komoditas Cabai”. Jakarta: Kementrian Perdagangan RI; 2016.Search in Google Scholar

[49] Yildiz K, Ahi MT. Innovative decision support model for construction supply chain performance management. Prod Plann Control. 2020:1–13. 10.1080/09537287.2020.1837936.Search in Google Scholar

[50] Yuliarti Y, Fitrani M. Studi Eksplorasi Permasalahan Di Pasar Induk Kramat Jati Jakarta. Planesa. 2011;2(2):105–13.Search in Google Scholar

[51] Yun Y, Kurniawan A. Supply Chain N Logistik Dalam Kaitannya Dengan Ketahanan Pangan Di Pedesaan. Prosiding Sembistek 2014. 2015. p. 63–75.Search in Google Scholar

[52] Zamrodah Y, Pintakami LB. Pendapatan Dan Kelayakan Usahatani Cabai Rawit. J Agric Soc Econ. 2020;1(1):48–53.10.33474/jase.v1i1.7242Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2020-10-16
Revised: 2021-01-02
Accepted: 2021-01-05
Published Online: 2021-03-24

© 2021 Susanawati et al., published by De Gruyter

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Scroll Up Arrow