Introduction

For a company to remain in force in the market must constantly develop its competitiveness, both individually and systemic, i.e. wide network of value. The term competitiveness was introduced by David Ricardo in 1817, considering the comparative advantages as a core axis to measure it. ^{Porter (1990)} retakes the word considering the competitive advantages as a parent. Currently, considering the current conditions of the global economy, competitiveness is defined as: the ability to produce goods and services that meet the test of international competition, while citizens enjoy a level of growing and sustainable living (^{Rojas and Sepúlveda, 1999}; ^{Warner, 2006}).

Unlike other economic sectors, studies on competitiveness in the food sector are relatively rare. In this regard, an analysis of the strawberry, ^{Zarazúa et al. (2011)} mention that to increase the competitiveness of a crop is necessary to innovate, especially in the organizational and technological aspects; similarly ^{Macías (2003)} for horticultural products and ^{Contreras-Castillo (1999)} for avocado, argue that it is necessary to encourage producer organizations with a business profile without corporate practices. They also highlight the comparative advantages are due to the natural environment, are extremely vulnerable in the context of existing major technological advances, creating that transform them into competitive advantages not miss capacity to position agricultural products on the market. Meanwhile, ^{Iretas-Paredes et al. (2011)} analyzes the competitiveness of rice in the southern region of Morelos, and concludes that while labor occupies a significant proportion of production costs, it becomes profitable and therefore competitive to be the labor of family origin, coupled with good yields and the price differential achieve Morelos producers in the domestic market. Finally, other research in vanilla (Barrera-Rodríguez et al., 2012), beans (^{Padilla-Bernal et al., 2012}) and milk (^{Carranza-Trinidad et al., 2007}), reached similar conclusions.

However, these studies are limited analyze competitiveness level of a specific production chain, regardless of the set of actors that make up the value network. In this regard, ^{Nalebuff and Bradenburger (2005)} in his book co-opetition, raise the concept of value network, highlighting the relationships between the following players: customers, suppliers, competitors and completer. To illustrate the interrelationships between the various actors involved in a value network, these authors propose a vertical and horizontal structure for analysis (Figure 1).

Figure 1. The value network. 

On the vertical axis customers and suppliers they are. Providers do get raw materials, supplies, services and labor to the enterprise; and the company ships the product generated with this mix of resources to the client and from which comes the f low of money to the company, then f low from the company to the supplier and the latter towards the various actors involved with it to produce the product delivered to the company. The completer and competitors are on the horizontal axis. The completer through their interventions or actions make more customers value the goods and services of the company; usually they bring intangibles and not physically part of the final product. Competitors, contrary to the completer, causing that customers value less the products provided by the company, either by offering a substitute product or an identical product with a lower price or improved feature.

Meanwhile, ^{Esser et al. (1994)} proposed systemic approach to competitiveness, where its use as an analytical tool to assess the development of a country, state, region, sector or company stands. This theory suggests that some companies or industries, in apparently similar conditions, are able to grow more than others in the same sector. According to the systemic competitiveness, economic development is dynamic, not only based on the functioning of markets and individual entrepreneurship, but in the collective efforts that contribute to a supportive environment for development (^{Cordero et al., 2003}).

This doctrine sees competitiveness as a relationship between efficiency, productivity, competition, and improving the living standards of the people, which arises from the interaction between the state, enterprises, intermediary institutions and organizational capacity of society. As shown in Figure 2, to understand the dynamics of competitiveness from the systemic approach it is necessary to analyze the micro level, the meso level, the macro level and the target level (^{Esser et al., 1996}).

Figure 2. Determinants of systemic competitiveness. 

At the micro level; that is to say, at company level or industry, is considered essential to competitiveness, skilled labor and administrative capacity. The companies must be able to design and implement strategies. Considers that an important condition for competitiveness is the ability of innovation management, and the use of best practices along the value chain: development, procurement, inventory maintenance, production and marketing. The only competitive companies, from the point of view of systemic competitiveness, are those which comply simultaneously with the following four criteria. ^{Esser et al. (1994)}: efficiency: productivity of labor and capital, quality: continuous quality assurance, flexibility: time required to generate a product with new features, and speed: ability to generate innovations in succession.

^{Chavez and Porras (2010)} conducted a study aimed at examining the value networks of agricultural sectors in the state of Guerrero, including mango export, and concluded that the value network is facing problems such as low paid to primary producers prices , high costs of labor and materials, damage caused by weather conditions, low yields and low level of technological adoption.

For its part, the National Institute for the Development of Rural Sector Capabilities A. C. developed a network analysis mango value with the goal of designing an intervention strategy to improve competitiveness in the state of Oaxaca. The study raised a focused on increasing the productivity of farmers, intervening in the production process through pest control, the modernization of irrigation systems, the modernization of machinery and equipment for postharvest treatment, and development strategy, a appropriate technology package. Both studies report the problem of network mango value, but it is important to consider, in addition to the analysis of local actors involved, the vision of the environment from the perspective of consumers, who are not physically present in the production units or I postharvest handling, but who ultimately have the decision to consume or not a product.

The state of Guerrero is the leading producer of mango in Mexico with 22% of total production and has climatic and natural conditions that allow you to generate a good quality fruit and continuous production for eight months a year. However, these comparative advantages, coupled with the substantial public and private investment in recent years in infrastructure for post-harvest handling, as well as phytosanitary campaigns have failed to affect export volumes, since decreased 17% between 2008 and 2010 and 2012 only accounted for 0.3% of total exports of Mexico.

In this situation, we sense that the network value mango does not have the skills to adequately compete in international markets conditions, which an investigation was raised with the aim of analyzing the value network of mango ataulfo through the systemic approach, the purpose of determining its competitive position in export markets and formulate the main strategies to be implemented to boost competitiveness.

Materials and methods

This analysis was developed on the big coast of Guerrero, specifically in major producing municipalities of mango ataulfo: Técpan de Galeana, Atoyac de Álvarez and the Unión of Isidoro Montes de Oca, which concentrate 65% of the area planted with mango of state. Having defined the study site, in a first stage the environment was analyzed through interviews with relevant actors in the network, as well as statistical information obtained from various sources such as SIAP-SAGARPA, FAO, USDA and EMEX. In the second stage were studied the characteristics of producers (suppliers) of the value network.

In order to determine the characteristics and determinates indicators of competitiveness, a correlation of the results of the analysis was performed with micro-level factors raised by the theory of systemic competitiveness generated by ^{Esser et al. (1994)}. Later analysis of systemic factors of competitiveness at the micro level, with the aim of determining the level of competitiveness of the value network and feasible strategies implemented to improve was performed.

Results and discussion

International context

The mango consumption in the world shows an increasing trend, which is evident in the increase in exports. This increase is attributed to the strong tendency to consume natural products amid growing concern about health (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Trend of world mango exports by country (2000- 2010). 

By linking importers exporting countries, a clear market segmentation observed: India aims to Arab countries, Thailand to Asian, European and Brazil to Mexico to North America. However, while India exports diversifies send mango to 75 countries located on six continents, Mexico exported to 16 countries but concentrates 86% of its shipments in the United States, indicating high vulnerability. In sum, given the relative stagnation of exports from Mexico in a context of global consumption growth and strong focus on the US market, well it can be said that the network mango value of Mexico has been a clear loss of competitiveness, demonstrate an inability to produce goods and services that meet the test of international competition.

National context. In 2011, seven states concentrated 88.6% of mango production being Guerrero state that ranked first by volume of production, with 21.5% of the national total (Figure 4); then included states such as Nayarit (14.9%), Chiapas (12.6%), Oaxaca (12.4%), Sinaloa (11. 6%), Michoacan (8.1%) and Veracruz (7.4%). Of total production obtained at the national level, 20% is exported to 16 countries, while remaining 80% is consumed internally, either fresh or processed products. In terms of value, the 163 million dollars of exports in 2011 represented just over 50% of the total value of domestic production, which indicates the attractiveness of export to countries like the United States and Canada, same which absorb more than 95% of total exports (Table 1).

Figure 4. Trend mango acreage in the state of Guerrero (1990-2011). 

Table 1. Mexico exports by country of destination (2010). 

This high concentration of exports is explained by the proximity to the market, prevailing trade agreements, the high number of Hispanics and Asians filing in the first country, as well as changes in eating patterns, as for health has increased the consumption of fresh and natural products, where you can include the mango.

The mango imports by the United States of America has maintained an upward trend, with Mexico as the country that has covered more than 80% until 1998 (Figure 3). However, from 1999 onwards the Mexican mango has lost market share and has failed to maintain this hegemony due to quality issues related to tender mango, often sent to early season, and which does not mature properly shelf. Also, rot it caused by the disease called anthracnose has slowed exports. With regard to varieties exported, but have nine, only two concentrates over 68% of export volume and although the variety Tommy Atkins retains the lead, with 34.5% of the total, the variety Ataulfo increased by more than 200% export volumes between 2005 and 2012, accounting for 33.7% of exports.

With the exception of Michoacan and Guerrero, the other producing states mango exports increased significantly during the period 2005-2012, Sinaloa being the leader with 32% of total exports. But while yields Michoacan leadership as an exporter, exporting is still nearly a quarter of the total, while Guerrero has a marginal share in exports.

The value network ataulfo mango in Guerrero. Although Guerrero participates with 22% of domestic production of mango, the fact that only contribute 0.3% of total exports, this means that no competitive advantages that prevent you to export and thus help prevent the gradual erosion Mexico's leadership in the international market, particularly the US.

For Guerrero, the mango value network noted for its economic importance, ranking second by value of production to generate revenue of more than 1,150 million pesos in 2011, second only to corn grain. It was the fourth volume of production and fifth in planted more than 24,000 hectares, which grew by 67% between 1990 and 2011. This growth is attributed to the fact that the producers chose to replace palm plantations of coconut by mango given their greater profitability. The variety is ataulfo which has grown from surface 2002 (Figure 4) because it is considered one of the most attractive, both for the domestic market and the international.

The 60% of the state production of mango and six of the eight balers with export potential are concentrated in the big coast, the most important varieties manila and ataulfo, with 33% and 29% of total production, respectively. The six balers are owned by producers, four of them with a number of more than 100 partners, hampering the operation of them, but in turn can also represent an opportunity to supply and standardization of raw materials. The other two are also made up of producers, but have fewer than 10 members. In 2010, five of the six balers had contracted bank financing and managed public support for the construction of industrial buildings and acquisition of equipment for post-harvest handling, but for 2012 the five were nonperforming loans due to inability to pay generated by low operation.

Guerrero is the second producing state ataulfo mango, generating 27% of the more than 390 thousand tons produced in the country for 2011, surpassed only by Chiapas (39%), which also ranks first as exporter to the United States with 35%, followed by Nayarit (22%), Michoacan (16%), Sinaloa (8%) and Guerrero with only 0.7% What factors explain this situation of low competitiveness in the export market?

Competitiveness of the value network. Considering the analysis of the determinants of competitiveness at the micro level, a scale of measurement was built to establish the competitive level of the value network ataulfo mango. The scale of measurement established, allows for a minimum of 10 points and a maximum of 30. The network analyzed value obtained a total of 11 points, which shows the low competitive level having from a systemic point of view.

The seven micro-level determinants are at very low levels, which influences the low competitiveness of the value network in international markets, particularly the US, and should be considered as elements of improvement to increase it. For the low competitive network translates into four main weaknesses, namely:

Untying balers network with regard to customers. There is a key player in the value network, balers’ mango, which link to final customers with the rest of the actors involved in the network; this actor flows from the money obtained from selling the product to suppliers or producers -organizations individuals- and other participating producers. Since this actor is detached from end customers because they lack the necessary skills in quality, safety, volume and consistency in deliveries, etc., or has a bad relationship with them, the producer is disconnected from the market and is unable to meet with customer requirements.

Inadequate functionality of suppliers. Should balers’mango able to establish a solid business relationship and proper interaction with customers, suppliers do not generate the raw material with the ideal conditions demanded by consumers, so the value network stops working so efficient. Improper handling of the product at harvest, the excessive use of agrochemicals, as well as the absence of certification to guide the form of production and post-harvest handling, result in a product not according to current conditions demanded by the market.

Poor quality of the fruit. The suppliers have neglected their production activities due to the lack of certainty in product sales and uncertainty in income to receive. The fruit apparently indicates a certain level of quality, however, for the export market presents considerable defects caused by the presence of diseases such as anthracnose, as well as size and weight, which is the main reference to give more or lower monetary value to the product (^{Luna et al., 2006}).

Noncompetitive prices. Insufficient innovation management and the absence of strategic planning, coupled with scarce working capital and costly patterns of production and post- harvest handling, have contributed to low profitability of the activity, fostering a price above the established the demand.

Conclusions

The state of Guerrero is listed as the main producing state mango in the country with 21% of national production, corresponding to one third of its production to the ataulfo variety, which is characterized by achieving higher prices due to high demand the US market because of its taste, color, texture, shelf life and unique conditions to support post-harvest handling. However, the fact that this state has only contributed 0.3% of total exports for 2012 is a clear reflection of the absence of systemic competitiveness of the value network. The evaluation criteria to assess each strategy relate to the technical feasibility, social impact, and economic feasibility. It is also considered whether these strategies are within the objectives of the actors and completer, and the degree of opportunity.

The results of the assessment indicate that the most viable strategy is related to the development of suppliers, as well as being technically, socially and economically viable, is within the objectives of the actors involved in the value network, in particular of institutions financial.

Implement a development scheme providers, it involves identifying an exporting company (client), to link it with baler’s mango, which, in turn, establish a supply relationship with suppliers (producers) with the purpose of having the ideal raw material to meet customer commitments.

Since balers and suppliers of mango do not have the capabilities required to meet customer needs, should manage innovation to lead towards the correct primary postharvest handling and mango, as well as administrative and organizational issues, including certifications existing quality.

The development strategy of suppliers is intended to help increase the competitiveness of the value network in international market, based on the condition of generating a product according to the characteristics desired by the consumer to ensure a solid relationship between the consumer, customer, packing mango and suppliers.

In order to develop a strategy of this kind, the intervention of suppliers, packers of mangos, customer, financiers, completer and articulators is necessary. All the elements are present in the value network, only one articulator responsible for promoting network connectivity and achieving the objectives through strategy is required.