Refine
Document Type
- Article (5)
- Conference Proceeding (4)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (9)
Keywords
- Agricultural innovation project (1)
- Agricultural innovation system (1)
- Co-innovation effectiveness; Organisational Innovation System; Attitude towards interaction; Ideal type (1)
- Farm advisory service; Innovation; Agriculture; Coinnovation; AKIS; Innovation support service; EIP-AGRI (1)
- Learning and innovation network for sustainable agriculture; financial resources; nonprofit funding; benefits theory; resource-based view; conceptual framework (1)
- Organisational innovation system (1)
- Project assessment (1)
- Resilienzstrategie; Leguminosenanbau; Ackerbau; Biogasproduktion (1)
- Spillover effect (1)
- adaptive capacity; local food; organic value chains; resilience; Values-Based Territorial Food Networks (1)
Institute
This article explores how locally oriented organic businesses adapt to handle crises during a growth process to build resilience, how these businesses maintain the local orientation when growing and what the implications are for the relationship between territoriality and organic production. We explored four cases of organic businesses in Sweden, Norway, Germany and Austria. The cases can be described as Values-based Territorial Food Networks. All cases experienced challenges and crises during their growth processes and sought to provide stability and flexibility in order to deal with change. The restructuration process required internalising learning into their organisations, using diversity in a strategic way and forming long-term partnerships within their value chains. While organic certification was never at stake, the meaning of ‘local’ shifted in some of the cases.
The Multi-Actor Approach (MAA) is a normative standard the European Commission (EC) formally applies to many of its (co-)funded innovative projects in agriculture, forestry and rural development. The MAA requires projects 1. to build on the activities of partners with complementary types of knowledge, including in particular (representatives of) the targeted users of the project results; and 2. to ensure the joint engagement of these diverse partners in all phases of the innovation process.
Projects that are required to comply with the MAA are officially called ‘Multi-Actor projects’. They include some international research and innovation projects funded under the EC’s Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development Horizon Europe (or its predecessor Horizon 2020), as well as local EIP Agri Operational Groups (OGs), which are co-funded by the EC and the Member States (MS).
As with all public policies, several groups of actors – including the EC itself – have a legitimate interest in learning how well the MAA is being implemented by its intended target actors. A general answer to this question is complicated by the fact that Multi-Actor projects differ in many respects, such as the innovative objectives they pursue, the size and composition of their consortia, the duration of their activity, and their geographic scope. One aspect that makes it particularly difficult to identify general implementation determinants is their embeddedness in distinct multi-level governance settings. For example, while Horizon Europe-funded research project consortia operate under the direct management of the EC’s agencies, OGs are funded under a measure which is formulated by the EC but implemented at the national, or in some MS, regional level. These differences inevitably have an impact on how success in the implementation of the MAA can be achieved.
In this paper, we propose a framework for analysing the factors that determine success in the implementation of the MAA, as well as their interrelations. This framework builds on a review and integration of insights from various fields of social scientific research, notably research on public policy implementation, multi-level governance, and participatory approaches in agricultural policy. To test the framework, we apply it to data from four case studies of OGs that we conducted in 2020 in the frame of the H2020-funded research project LIAISON.
A large variety of organisations provides support for cooperative approaches in the field of research and innovation in agriculture, forestry and rural development, and acts as Innovation Support Services (ISS). The findings from ProAkis (2015) show that different types of organisations such as administrative offices, public or semi-public advisory services, rural academies/universities, producer organisations, other NGOs or private consultants engaged in the Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System (AKIS) can act as ISS. The funding of ISS can be public, private or a mix of both. A first literature review indicates that studies often focus on the larger “enabling environment” and the structure of the Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems (AKIS). Moreover, many authors pay particular attention to the role of public or semi-public advisory organisations (Knierim et al., 2015; Sulaiman 2015). The aim of this paper is to assess the different types of organisations that provide support for interactive innovation, and to analyse the particular role of each type of organisation for interactive innovation projects.
Particular attention will be payed to the divers group of organisations that are not part of a (semi)-public advisory organisation. The paper is based on the analysis of more than 200 case studies of publically or privately funded interactive innovation projects within the EU and beyond. The selection of cases took place under the framework of the project LIAISON funding by the EU research and innovation programme Horizon 2020 (grant agreement No 773418). European and national databases contain several thousands of projects in agriculture, forestry and rural development. We selected projects applying the interactive innovation approach from a) EU programmes (EIP-Agri, Horizon2020, Interreg, and LIFE+); b) nationally/regionally or privately funded projects; and c) informal initiatives or networks in the agri-food, forestry, bioeconomy or nature conservation area. Preliminary results indicate that publically funded IIS play a core role for legal/administrative compliance of projects. Semi-public advisory services take up this role as well, and they are strong in linking farmers with scientists, technicians, entrepreneurs etc.
However, they often exist and offer efficient ISS only for those industries that have a long tradition for a sector or area (e.g. dairy, pork, poultry or club fruit). Niche sectors or industries with little policy engagement often lack the support of a publically funded advisory service but profit more from producer organisations or rural academies/universities when they take up the role of ISS.
CONTEXT
Innovation is an important driver of increased productivity, sustainability and resilience in agriculture, forestry and related sectors. An analysis of how different types of multi-actor co-innovation partnerships function can help to identify the reasons why some are more successful than others in ‘speeding up’ innovation.
OBJECTIVE
To provide a framework for the analysis of the co-innovation process, we developed a multidimensional conceptual typology of co-innovation activities based on a review of 200 such partnerships involving farmers and foresters from across Europe. This framework is based on innovation systems theory and the prevailing policy context of the ‘multi-actor approach’.
METHODS
The overarching concept or dependent variable measured by the typology is ‘effectiveness of co-innovation by a multi-actor partnership’ and the two dimensions of the overarching concept are the ‘structural components of the Organisational Innovation System’, with four categories, and ‘attitude towards interaction’, with two categories. The result is a matrix of eight ‘ideal types’ of co-innovation activity. These eight types are characterised according to first-order constructs derived from our research data.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
The results show that the co-innovation process can successfully take contrasting forms according to the ‘contextual contingencies’ encountered by the partnership. In other words, no one ideal type is intrinsically ‘superior’ to another but may be more ‘appropriate’ in given circumstances. Factors influencing approaches to implementation include actor capacities, aspirations and networks, the co-innovation topic and its influence on the partnership size and the workplan structure, the type of co-innovation activity outputs and the need to engage with the ‘larger periphery’ of stakeholders, and the nature of the enabling environment.
SIGNIFICANCE
The typology is not a classification since the ideal types represent organisational forms that might exist rather than real partnerships. However, the analytical framework it provides will help policy makers and programme managers to develop targeted interventions, according to actor needs and local circumstances, for ‘speeding up’ innovation.
Vertical integration is a means of increasing market power. For some agricultural products, it is easier for farmers to exert control over their product beyond the farm gate, but for others it is more difficult. Cases in the latter category have two main characteristics. First, the farmer cannot sell the respective product to final consumers without processing. Second, processing is capital-intensive. Consequently, farmers have limited sales channels, and vertical integration of the supply chain is complex and challenging. It implies cooperation among farmers to process the raw material at a profitable scale and to finance the installation of processing facilities. Thus, for these product categories, farmers are prone to market power issues, since they depend on private businesses that have the financial means to install processing facilities and the logistical capacities to organize the collection of large amounts of raw material. This paper aims to identify and analyze the role of supply chain integration for farmers who are already cooperating horizontally. Two case studies serve as the basis for the analysis: sugar beet in Flanders, Belgium, and oilseed rape in Hessen, Germany. The analysis is based on a qualitative research approach combining interviews, focus groups, and workshops with farmers and processors. While for sugar beet, the effects of market power are emerging only now with the termination of the quota system, farmers growing oilseed rape have been experiencing these problems since the 1990s. Our analysis concludes that most strategies to maintain or improve farm income have been exhausted. Even various forms of vertical integration supported by European policies do not necessarily work as a successful strategy.
How to fund learning and innovation networks for sustainable agriculture: a conceptual framework
(2023)
Purpose
Learning and innovation networks for sustainable agriculture (LINSA) are considered drivers of innovation towards a more sustainable agri-food system. However, sustaining long-term funding remains a challenge for many networks. This paper aims to provide a comprehensive conceptualization of how funding relates to LINSA continuation and suggests a classification of relevant funding instruments.
Design/Methodology/Approach
Being purely conceptual, this paper combines perspectives of strategic management and nonprofit finance with empirical insights from innovation network literature to develop a conceptual framework on LINSA funding.
Findings
The conceptual framework suggests that thriving LINSA require both an appropriate funding mix, which corresponds with the benefits provided, and an anticipatory utilization of financial resources to build and maintain relevant intangible resources. The availability of funding instruments which incorporate these findings is crucial for successful LINSA.
Practical Implications
The conceptual framework provides guidance to practitioners and policy makers who reflect on appropriate strategies and instruments for LINSA funding.
Theoretical Implications
By integrating perspectives from different disciplines, namely the resource-based view and the benefits theory of nonprofit finance, this paper contributes to an increased understanding of funding in network organizations.
Originality/Value
This is the first paper to offer an explicit conceptualization of how funding relates to LINSA development. It also provides a classification of relevant funding instruments.
A large variety of organisations provides support for cooperative approaches in the field of research and innovation in agriculture, forestry and rural development, and acts as Innovation Support Services (ISS). The findings from ProAkis (2015) show that different types of organisations such as administrative offices, public or semi-public advisory services, rural academies/universities, producer organisations, other NGOs or private consultants engaged in the Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System (AKIS) can act as ISS. The funding of ISS can be public, private or a mix of both. A literature review indicates that studies often focus on the
larger “enabling environment” and the structure of the Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems (AKIS). Moreover, many authors pay particular attention to the role of public or semi-public farm advisory organisations (Knierim et al., 2015; Sulaiman 2015). The paper is based on the analysis of more than 200 case studies of publically or privately funded interactive innovation projects within the EU and beyond. The selection of cases took place under the framework of the Horizon2020-funded European research and innovation project LIAISON. European and national databases contain several thousands of projects in agriculture, forestry and rural development. We selected projects applying the interactive innovation approach from a) EU programmes (EIP-Agri, Horizon2020, Interreg, and LIFE+); b) nationally/regionally or privately funded projects; and c) informal initiatives or networks in the agri-food, forestry, bioeconomy or nature conservation area. The results indicate that publically funded IIS play a core role for legal/administrative compliance of projects. Semi-public advisory services take up this role as well, and they are strong in linking farmers with scientists, technicians, entrepreneurs etc. However, they often exist and offer efficient ISS only for those industries that have a long tradition for a sector or area (e.g. dairy, pork, poultry or club fruit). This paper shows that different types of organisations (research institutes, farmers or producer organisations, NGOs, processing or marketing SMEs, or public bodies) provide various forms of support for the studied interactive innovation groups. No particular type of organisation such as the farm advisory services are more suitable than the other organisations for the delivery of ISS. Instead, it depends on former collaboration, the particular topic, objective or capacities available as well as the cultural/political context who engages in interactive innovation and provides innovation support.
CONTEXT
Current research emphasises that agricultural innovation projects are influenced in multiple ways by the Agricultural Innovation Systems (AIS) in which they operate. Yet little attention has been paid to the reverse direction of this relationship, i.e. how agricultural innovation projects affect AIS in the course of their innovative activities. Accordingly, there are currently no tools to measure such AIS spillovers from agricultural innovation projects.
OBJECTIVE
This paper shows that even where agricultural innovation projects have not been designed with the explicit aim of influencing AIS they can have spillovers on the AIS in which they operate. Based on this finding, it argues that designing agricultural innovation projects in a way that maximises such positive and reduces negative AIS spillovers would be a useful tool for strengthening agricultural innovation capacities in a particular territory or sector.
METHODS
Based on the concept of agricultural innovation projects as Organisational Innovation Systems (OIS) that are embedded in AIS, the paper develops an analytical framework for assessing spillovers of such projects on AIS and applies it to a case study of an Operational Group in the German Federal State of Hessen.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
The case study shows that agricultural innovation projects may yield diverse spillovers on the AIS in which they operate. In addition to considering how agricultural innovation projects are shaped – constrained and/or enabled – by AIS, the research community on agricultural innovation should pay more attention to this side of the interrelation of AIS and agricultural innovation projects. Designing agricultural innovation projects responsibly so that spillovers on AIS are monitored can help to improve national or sectoral AIS.
SIGNIFICANCE
This paper points to an underexplored issue in research on agricultural innovation and, related to this, a thus far unused potential policy tool for improving national and sectoral AIS. It further develops the concept of innovation projects as OIS into an approach for assessing the effects of projects on AIS; an area of project assessment that until now has not been adequately covered.