| Course | SUST 5013 People First: Creating Value Beyond Profit |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 3 |
| Paper type | Community and supplier relationship analysis |
| Length | 1,240 words, about 4 pages plus title and reference pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | American College of Education |
| Program | M.S. in Organizational Leadership |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for SUST 5013 Module 3
Buying Every Egg at a Feed-Adjusted Price: Vital Farms' Relationships With Farmers and Host Communities
Student Name
American College of Education
SUST5013: People First: Creating Value Beyond Profit
Module 3 Assignment
Instructor Name
September 18, 2028
Introduction
Earlier papers mapped the stakeholders of Vital Farms and evaluated its employee practices. This paper examines two relationships that sit outside the company's own workforce but are central to its purpose: its relationships with the family farms that produce its eggs and with the communities that host its processing plants. One of its six charter benefits is fostering lasting partnerships with farms and suppliers, and another includes being supportive of the community (Vital Farms, Inc., 2026). Using the FY2025 10-K and research on interfirm relationships and social license, the paper asks how these relationships are structured and whether they create shared value.
Research on Supplier Relationships
Dyer and Singh (1998) argued that firms can earn competitive advantage not only from their own resources but from relationships with partners, when the two sides invest in assets tailored to each other, swap know-how, combine resources that fit together and govern the tie in ways that build trust. Uzzi (1997), studying apparel firms in New York, found that embedded relationships, marked by trust, fine-grained information and joint problem solving, offered benefits that arm's-length market ties could not, but that firms relying too heavily on a few embedded ties became vulnerable if those ties broke. Both ideas apply to a company that depends on hundreds of small farms for a premium product.
How the Farm Contracts Work
The 10-K describes the contracts in some detail. Vital Farms uses buy-sell contracts, generally four to five years long, which covered all laying hens in its network of contracted family farms at the end of 2025. Under them, the company is obligated to buy all the eggs a farmer produces during the term at an agreed price that depends on pallet weight and is adjusted each quarter for changes in feed cost (Vital Farms, Inc., 2026). The network includes more than 600 small farms in the region the company calls the Pasture Belt, and the company also provides educational programs on best practices.
Who Bears the Risk
These terms shift two major risks away from farmers. Because the company must buy all eggs produced, farmers do not bear market risk when egg prices fall; the 10-K notes that in past periods of oversupply the company has sold or donated excess eggs at reduced prices or no cost. Because the price adjusts quarterly for feed, farmers are partly protected from swings in corn and soybean meal prices, their largest cost. In Dyer and Singh's terms, this is effective governance: the company absorbs risk in exchange for a reliable supply of eggs produced to its standards, which supports trust and relation-specific investment.
Upfront Investment in New Farms
Growth requires new farms, and the company now pays recruitment costs before new farms begin producing. The 10-K reports that these upfront costs reduced working capital by about $15.0 million in 2024 and about $30.0 million in 2025, and expects $25.0 million to $35.0 million in 2026, with the costs recognized over the life of the contracts (Vital Farms, Inc., 2026). This is a relation-specific investment by the company in its partners. It lowers the barrier for farmers to join, since building pasture-raised operations requires land, housing and fencing, and it binds the company more closely to the network's success.
Where Power Lies
The relationship is not between equals. The company sets the standards farms must meet to keep certifications such as Certified Humane, USDA organic and, for its Restorative Eggs, Regenified, and the loss of a certification would affect the company's products (Vital Farms, Inc., 2026). A small farm under contract depends on one buyer for its egg income, while the company can spread its supply across hundreds of farms. Uzzi's warning cuts both ways: the company relies on embedded ties for quality, but each farm relies far more heavily on the company. Contract renewal is therefore the moment when a farm's position is weakest.
Accelerator Farms
The accelerator farms, which the company owns and first stocked with hens in 2025, are meant to test farming practices that can then be scaled to the family farms in its network (Vital Farms, Inc., 2026). This can benefit partners through better practices and shared knowledge, which the relational view counts as a source of joint advantage. It also introduces a new question. If owned farms prove efficient, the company could, over time, rely on them for a larger share of supply. Clear commitments about the purpose and scale of accelerator farms would help keep family farms' trust.
Community Relationships
Gunningham et al. (2004), studying pulp and paper mills, found that many companies go beyond legal requirements because they depend on a social license, the acceptance of local communities and other stakeholders, which can be withdrawn if they are seen as poor neighbors. Vital Farms reports consulting the community before it built Egg Central Station in Springfield, Missouri, restoring native vegetation on the site, managing stormwater and installing solar panels (Vital Farms, Inc., 2026). These steps fit the social license logic: a large plant brings trucks, water use and noise, and early consultation reduces the chance of opposition.
The Next Community: Seymour, Indiana
The company is building a second automated egg washing and packing plant, with cold storage, in Seymour, Indiana, which it expects to be fully operational in 2027 (Vital Farms, Inc., 2026). A new plant is when a social license is first earned. The Missouri experience offers a model, but the 10-K does not describe community engagement in Seymour. Practices worth repeating include consultation before construction, local hiring, transparent traffic and water plans and a channel for neighbors to raise concerns. The new plant will also draw new farms into the network, extending supplier relationships into a new region.
Assessment
On the evidence available, the supplier relationships are structured more generously than typical commodity arrangements: the company buys all eggs, adjusts for feed costs and invests in new farms up front. These terms create shared value by giving farmers stable income and giving the company reliable premium supply. The community relationships show deliberate effort at the Missouri plant. The main weaknesses are imbalance of power, uncertainty about accelerator farms and limited disclosure, since the 10-K gives no figures on farmer incomes, contract renewals or community investment.
Recommendations
Three steps would strengthen these relationships. First, publish annual farm network measures, such as the number of farms joining and leaving, contract renewal rates and average payment per farm, so stakeholders can judge whether partnerships are lasting. Second, state publicly the intended scale of accelerator farms relative to the family farm network. Third, set out a community engagement plan for Seymour before operations begin, with a named contact and regular public meetings, and report on it in the company's next impact report.
Conclusion
Vital Farms' contracts with more than 600 family farms commit it to buy all their eggs for four to five years at prices adjusted for feed costs, and it now invests tens of millions of dollars up front to bring new farms into its network. Research on relational advantage explains why these terms can benefit both sides, while research on embeddedness highlights the farms' dependence on one buyer. In its host community, the company has followed social license practices at its Missouri plant and faces a new test in Indiana. The next module assesses how the company reports on these and other impacts.
References
Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 660-679. https://doi.org/10.2307/259056
Gunningham, N., Kagan, R. A., & Thornton, D. (2004). Social license and environmental protection: Why businesses go beyond compliance. Law & Social Inquiry, 29(2), 307-341. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4469.2004.tb00338.x
Uzzi, B. (1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 35-67. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393808
Vital Farms, Inc. (2026). Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 28, 2025. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1579733/000119312526073423/vitl-20251228.htm
SUST 5013 Module 3 instructions, in plain terms
The third SUST 5013 paper usually asks you to examine a company's community and supplier relationships. Expect to describe how supplier relationships are structured, ideally from contract terms, payment practices or sourcing standards the company discloses, and to analyze them with research on interfirm relationships. For communities, consider how the company earns and keeps local acceptance, including at new sites. Most prompts reward judging who bears risk and where power lies, not only describing programs. Close with specific recommendations. Connect the analysis to the company's public benefits and earlier modules, and cite filings and research in APA 7. If the company is private, its benefit report, supplier code and local news coverage can stand in for a 10-K.
Inside the SUST 5013 Module 3 example
The sample introduces the relational view and research on embeddedness, then reads the 10-K's contract terms: four-to-five-year buy-sell contracts covering all hens, purchase of every egg and quarterly feed-cost adjustments. Risk allocation, upfront recruitment costs of about $30 million in 2025 and power imbalances around certifications and renewal follow. Accelerator farms raise a question about future reliance. Community relationships are analyzed with social license research, from the Missouri plant's consultation and site practices to the planned Indiana plant. An assessment and three recommendations close the paper. Claims are credited to the filing that makes them, and missing figures, such as farmer incomes and renewal rates, are named rather than guessed.
Reading the SUST 5013 Module 3 rubric
Relationship analyses are graded on evidence and critical judgment. Graders look for supplier and community relationships described from company documents, especially concrete terms, and analyzed with research. Strong papers ask who bears risk, where power lies and whether value is shared, and they notice what the company does not disclose. Treating a new site as a test of social license is often credited. Papers that repeat partnership language without examining terms, ignore power imbalances or offer vague recommendations tend to score lower. Every filing and study needs a complete APA 7 entry, and each dollar figure should carry the fiscal year it describes so readers can follow changes over time.
SUST 5013 Module 3 help from the desk
Supplier and community relationships are often described warmly in company materials and vaguely in practice. We can help you find the terms that matter in filings or reports, analyze risk and power with research and frame specific recommendations. Tell us which company you have been studying and include the prompt, and a writer will prepare an analysis that treats partners and communities as stakeholders with real interests. Food, apparel, outdoor and consumer goods companies with large supply networks all work. Most analyses are delivered within two days of your request, with sources for every figure. If your company has few disclosures, we can show you how to say so and still build a careful argument from what is available.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official American College of Education document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More SUST 5013 and M.S. in Organizational Leadership sample papers
- SUST 5013 Module 1: Vital Farms Stakeholder Map
- SUST 5013 Module 2: Vital Farms Crew Practices
- SUST 5013 Module 4: Vital Farms Impact Reporting
- SUST 5013 Module 5: Vital Farms Impact Plan
- LEAD 5673 Module 1: Ethical Leadership Models
- SUST 5003 Module 2: Warby Parker Innovation Strategy
- HRM 5463 Module 2: Performance Management Plan
- DIV 5003 Module 5: Inclusive Communication Strategy
SUST 5013 Module 3 questions, answered
What does SUST5013 Module 3 usually ask for?
Module 3 of SUST5013 usually asks you to examine a company's relationships with its suppliers and communities and judge whether they create shared value.
What is the relational view of competitive advantage?
Dyer and Singh's argument that firms gain advantage from partner relationships when partners invest in each other, share what they know and govern the tie through trust.
What is a social license to operate?
The acceptance a company needs from local communities and other stakeholders, which research shows often leads firms to go beyond legal requirements.
Where can I find a free SUST 5013 Module 3 sample paper?
This page has one: Vital Farms' four-to-five-year contracts buying all eggs from more than 600 farms at feed-adjusted prices, plus its plant communities in Missouri and Indiana.
Where can I find details of a company's supplier contracts?
10-K filings often describe key contract terms in the business, risk factor and liquidity sections; read all three.