IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i11p6428-d569321.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Analytical Framework to Study Multi-Actor Partnerships Engaged in Interactive Innovation Processes in the Agriculture, Forestry, and Rural Development Sector

Author

Listed:
  • Evelien Cronin

    (Flanders Research Institute for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (ILVO), 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium)

  • Sylvie Fosselle

    (Flanders Research Institute for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (ILVO), 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium)

  • Elke Rogge

    (Flanders Research Institute for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (ILVO), 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium)

  • Robert Home

    (Department of Socioeconomics, Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), 5070 Frick, Switzerland)

Abstract

Communities of practice (CoPs) interact with a range of external stakeholders who collectively influence the direction of the community and the achievement of its goals. In the case of multi-actor co-innovation partnerships, which are perceived as a type of combination between a community of practice and innovation network in this paper, internal and external interactions consequently influence the ability of these partnerships to co-innovate. The aim of this contribution is to develop an analytical framework to understand the factors and processes that enable or hinder interactions, both within and external to multi-actor co-innovation partnerships. The analytical framework was built around interactions with funding mechanisms, external stakeholders, the context/environment, and societal challenges, along with interactions within the partnership. Each of these five interactions is influenced by structures and capacity, along with how these combine to overcome the challenges faced by the partnership. For this study, 30 case study multi-actor co-innovation partnerships from across Europe were selected and analysed according to the framework. The results show that interactions with funding bodies can lead to partnerships adapting to what they perceive to be the goals of the funding body, and sometimes to the overpromising of expected outputs in an effort to win scarce funding. The reflection of societal needs in the goals of funding bodies could thereby capitalize on the motivations and aspirations of partnerships to combine socio-economic and environmental benefits at both individual and societal levels. Factors that enable partnerships to achieve their own goals are commonly based around the inclusion or recruitment of experienced partners with existing networks, in which the partnership may be embedded, that can facilitate internal collaboration and navigate the external environments, such as political structures and market conditions.

Suggested Citation

  • Evelien Cronin & Sylvie Fosselle & Elke Rogge & Robert Home, 2021. "An Analytical Framework to Study Multi-Actor Partnerships Engaged in Interactive Innovation Processes in the Agriculture, Forestry, and Rural Development Sector," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-19, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:11:p:6428-:d:569321
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/11/6428/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/11/6428/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Irma Booyens & Tim G. B. Hart & Kgabo H. Ramoroka, 2018. "Local Innovation Networking Dynamics: Evidence from South Africa," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 30(4), pages 749-767, September.
    2. Howells, Jeremy, 2006. "Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 715-728, June.
    3. Hermans, Frans & Stuiver, Marian & Beers, P.J. & Kok, Kasper, 2013. "The distribution of roles and functions for upscaling and outscaling innovations in agricultural innovation systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 117-128.
    4. Eggers, Fabian & Niemand, Thomas & Filser, Matthias & Kraus, Sascha & Berchtold, Jennifer, 2020. "To network or not to network – Is that really the question? The impact of networking intensity and strategic orientations on innovation success," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    5. Dolinska, Aleksandra & d'Aquino, Patrick, 2016. "Farmers as agents in innovation systems. Empowering farmers for innovation through communities of practice," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 122-130.
    6. Ika Darnhofer, 2020. "Farm resilience in the face of the unexpected: lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 37(3), pages 605-606, September.
    7. Elisabeth Maidl & David N. Bresch & Matthias Buchecker, 2021. "Social integration matters: factors influencing natural hazard risk preparedness—a survey of Swiss households," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 105(2), pages 1861-1890, January.
    8. Meuwissen, Miranda P.M. & Feindt, Peter H. & Spiegel, Alisa & Termeer, Catrien J.A.M. & Mathijs, Erik & de Mey, Yann & Finger, Robert & Balmann, Alfons & Wauters, Erwin & Urquhart, Julie & Vigani, Mau, 2019. "A framework to assess the resilience of farming systems," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 176, pages 1-10.
    9. Andrea L. Larson, 2000. "Sustainable innovation through an entrepreneurship lens," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(5), pages 304-317, September.
    10. Van Lancker, Jonas & Mondelaers, Koen & Wauters, Erwin & Van Huylenbroeck, Guido, 2016. "The Organizational Innovation System: A systemic framework for radical innovation at the organizational level," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 52, pages 40-50.
    11. Klerkx, Laurens & Aarts, Noelle & Leeuwis, Cees, 2010. "Adaptive management in agricultural innovation systems: The interactions between innovation networks and their environment," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 103(6), pages 390-400, July.
    12. Raffaella Taddeo & Alberto Simboli & Giuseppe Ioppolo & Anna Morgante, 2017. "Industrial Symbiosis, Networking and Innovation: The Potential Role of Innovation Poles," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-17, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Fieldsend, Andrew F. & Varga, Eszter & Biró, Szabolcs & Von Münchhausen, Susanne & Häring, Anna Maria, 2022. "Multi-actor co-innovation partnerships in agriculture, forestry and related sectors in Europe: Contrasting approaches to implementation," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 202(C).
    2. Markow, Jekaterina & Fieldsend, Andrew F. & Münchhausen, Susanne von & Häring, Anna Maria, 2023. "Building agricultural innovation capacity from the bottom up: Using spillover effects from projects to strengthen agricultural innovation systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Maria, Kernecker & Maria, Busse & Andrea, Knierim, 2021. "Exploring actors, their constellations, and roles in digital agricultural innovations," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).
    2. Natalia Molina & Gianluca Brunori & Elena Favilli & Stefano Grando & Patrizia Proietti, 2021. "Farmers’ Participation in Operational Groups to Foster Innovation in the Agricultural Sector: An Italian Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-27, May.
    3. Pachoud, Carine, 2024. "Conciliation or a confrontation of agricultural visions? A characterisation of the networks and key actors for sustainable agrifood transformations in the Bauges," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 218(C).
    4. Menary, Jonathan & Collier, Rosemary & Seers, Kate, 2019. "Innovation in the UK fresh produce sector: Identifying systemic problems and the move towards systemic facilitation," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    5. Naouri, Mohamed & Kuper, Marcel & Hartani, Tarik, 2020. "The power of translation: Innovation dialogues in the context of farmer-led innovation in the Algerian Sahara," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    6. Caloffi, Annalisa & Freo, Marzia & Ghinoi, Stefano & Mariani, Marco & Rossi, Federica, 2022. "Assessing the effects of a deliberate policy mix: The case of technology and innovation advisory services and innovation vouchers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(6).
    7. Cholez, Celia & Pauly, Olivier & Mahdad, Maral & Mehrabi, Sepide & Giagnocavo, Cynthia & Bijman, Jos, 2023. "Heterogeneity of inter-organizational collaborations in agrifood chain sustainability-oriented innovations," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    8. Aurélie Cardona & Cristiana Carusi & Michael Mayerfeld Bell, 2021. "Engaged Intermediaries to Bridge the Gap between Scientists, Educational Practitioners and Farmers to Develop Sustainable Agri-Food Innovation Systems: A US Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-13, October.
    9. Fieldsend, Andrew F. & Varga, Eszter & Biró, Szabolcs & Von Münchhausen, Susanne & Häring, Anna Maria, 2022. "Multi-actor co-innovation partnerships in agriculture, forestry and related sectors in Europe: Contrasting approaches to implementation," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 202(C).
    10. Slijper, Thomas & Urquhart, Julie & Poortvliet, P. Marijn & Soriano, Bárbara & Meuwissen, Miranda P.M., 2022. "Exploring how social capital and learning are related to the resilience of Dutch arable farmers," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    11. Kathrin Hasler & Hans-Werner Olfs & Onno Omta & Stefanie Bröring, 2016. "Drivers for the Adoption of Eco-Innovations in the German Fertilizer Supply Chain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-18, July.
    12. Thomas Slijper & Yann de Mey & P Marijn Poortvliet & Miranda P M Meuwissen, 2022. "Quantifying the resilience of European farms using FADN," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 49(1), pages 121-150.
    13. Roldán-Suárez, Elizabeth & Rendón-Medel, Roberto & Camacho-Villa, Tania Carolina & Aguilar-Ávila, Jorge & Toledo, José, 2020. "Innovation in the rural sector of Mexico: the role of the innovation broker," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 20(02), December.
    14. Isaac, Marney E., 2012. "Agricultural information exchange and organizational ties: The effect of network topology on managing agrodiversity," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 9-15.
    15. Alex Koutsouris, 2012. "Exploring the emerging facilitation and brokerage roles for agricultural extension education," Working Papers 2012-4, Agricultural University of Athens, Department Of Agricultural Economics.
    16. Dan Wang & Xu Du & Jian Sun & Xiangyu Guo & Yao Chen, 2018. "Synergy of National Agricultural Innovation Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-20, September.
    17. Yang, Huan & Klerkx, Laurens & Leeuwis, Cees, 2014. "Functions and limitations of farmer cooperatives as innovation intermediaries: Findings from China," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 115-125.
    18. Perrin, Augustine & Martin, Guillaume, 2021. "Resilience of French organic dairy cattle farms and supply chains to the Covid-19 pandemic," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    19. Hermans, Frans & Stuiver, Marian & Beers, P.J. & Kok, Kasper, 2013. "The distribution of roles and functions for upscaling and outscaling innovations in agricultural innovation systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 117-128.
    20. Florence A. Becot & Shoshanah M. Inwood, 2022. "Medical economic vulnerability: a next step in expanding the farm resilience scholarship," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(3), pages 1097-1116, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:11:p:6428-:d:569321. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.