IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rif/wpaper/78.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Digitalization and Platforms in Agriculture: Organizations, Power Asymmetry, and Collective Action Solutions

Author

Listed:
  • Kenney, Martin
  • Serhan, Hiam
  • Trystram, Gilles

Abstract

Technologies such as digitally-equipped agricultural equipment, drones, image recognition, sensors, robots and artificial intelligence are being rapidly adopted throughout the agrifood system. As a result, actors in the system are generating and using ever more data. While this is already contributing to greater productivity, efficiency, and resilience, for the most part, this data has been siloed at its production sites whether on the farm or at the other nodes in the system. Sharing this data can be used to create value at other nodes in the system by increasing transparency, traceability, and productivity. Ever greater connectivity allows the sharing of this data with actors, at the same node in the value chain, e.g., farmer-to-farmer, or between different nodes in the value chain, e.g., farmer-to-equipment producer. The benefits of data sharing for efficiency, productivity and sustainability are predicated upon the adoption of an online digital platform. The conundrum is that, as the intermediary, the owner of a successful platform acquires significant power in relationship to the platform sides. This paper identifies five types of platform business models/ownership arrangements and their benefits and drawbacks for the various actors in the agri-food system and, in particular farmers. The types discussed are: 1) venture capital financed startups; 2) existing agro-food industry firms including equipment makers such as John Deere, agrochemical/seed conglomerates such as Bayer/Monsanto, and agricultural commodity traders such as ADM and Cargill; 3) agricultural cooperative such as InVivo in France; 4) various specially formed consortia of diverse sets of agri-food system actors including farmers, and 5) the internet giants such as Amazon, Microsoft and Google. The paper assesses the business models for each of these organizational forms. Finally, we describe the drawbacks each of these organizational forms have experienced as they attempt to secure adoption of their particular platform solution.

Suggested Citation

  • Kenney, Martin & Serhan, Hiam & Trystram, Gilles, 2020. "Digitalization and Platforms in Agriculture: Organizations, Power Asymmetry, and Collective Action Solutions," ETLA Working Papers 78, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
    • Handle: RePEc:rif:wpaper:78
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.etla.fi/wp-content/uploads/ETLA-Working-Papers-78.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Krijn J. Poppe & Sjaak Wolfert & Cor Verdouw & Tim Verwaart, 2013. "Information and Communication Technology as a Driver for Change in Agri-food Chains," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 12(1), pages 60-65, April.
    2. Busse, M. & Schwerdtner, W. & Siebert, R. & Doernberg, A. & Kuntosch, A. & König, B. & Bokelmann, W., 2015. "Analysis of animal monitoring technologies in Germany from an innovation system perspective," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 55-65.
    3. Evans David S., 2003. "Some Empirical Aspects of Multi-sided Platform Industries," Review of Network Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 2(3), pages 1-19, September.
    4. Charlton, Diane & Taylor, J. Edward & Vougioukas, Stavros & Rutledge, Zachariah, 2019. "Innovations for a Shrinking Agricultural Workforce," Choices: The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resource Issues, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 34(2), May.
    5. MacDonald, James M. & Hoppe, Robert A., 2018. "Examining Consolidation in U.S. Agriculture," Amber Waves:The Economics of Food, Farming, Natural Resources, and Rural America, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, vol. 0(02), March.
    6. W. Richard Goe & Martin Kenney, 1986. "The Information Age: Implications For U.S. Agriculture," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 6(2), pages 260-272, November.
    7. Maryline Filippi, 2014. "Using the Regional Advantage: French Agricultural Cooperatives' Economic and Governance Tool," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 85(4), pages 597-615, December.
    8. Frey, Carl Benedikt & Osborne, Michael A., 2017. "The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 254-280.
    9. Sykuta, Michael E., 2016. "Big Data in Agriculture: Property Rights, Privacy and Competition in Ag Data Services," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 19(A), pages 1-18, June.
    10. LaRose, Robert & Gregg, Jennifer L. & Strover, Sharon & Straubhaar, Joseph & Carpenter, Serena, 0. "Closing the rural broadband gap: Promoting adoption of the Internet in rural America," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(6-7), pages 359-373, July.
    11. Dabbous, Amal & Tarhini, Abbas, 2019. "Assessing the impact of knowledge and perceived economic benefits on sustainable consumption through the sharing economy: A sociotechnical approach," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    12. Wolfert, Sjaak & Ge, Lan & Verdouw, Cor & Bogaardt, Marc-Jeroen, 2017. "Big Data in Smart Farming – A review," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 69-80.
    13. Erik Brynjolfsson & Yu (Jeffrey) Hu & Michael D. Smith, 2010. "Research Commentary --- Long Tails vs. Superstars: The Effect of Information Technology on Product Variety and Sales Concentration Patterns," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 21(4), pages 736-747, December.
    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. Ingram, Julie & Maye, Damian & Bailye, Clive & Barnes, Andrew & Bear, Christopher & Bell, Matthew & Cutress, David & Davies, Lynfa & de Boon, Auvikki & Dinnie, Liz & Gairdner, Julian & Hafferty, Caitl, 2022. "What are the priority research questions for digital agriculture?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(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. Ehlers, Melf-Hinrich & Huber, Robert & Finger, Robert, 2021. "Agricultural policy in the era of digitalisation," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    2. Parra-López, Carlos & Reina-Usuga, Liliana & Carmona-Torres, Carmen & Sayadi, Samir & Klerkx, Laurens, 2021. "Digital transformation of the agrifood system: Quantifying the conditioning factors to inform policy planning in the olive sector," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    3. Barituka Bekee & Michelle S. Segovia & Corinne Valdivia, 2024. "Adoption of smart farm networks: a translational process to inform digital agricultural technologies," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 41(4), pages 1573-1590, December.
    4. Jacobides, Michael G. & Cennamo, Carmelo & Gawer, Annabelle, 2024. "Externalities and complementarities in platforms and ecosystems: From structural solutions to endogenous failures," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(1).
    5. Robert Finger, 2023. "Digital innovations for sustainable and resilient agricultural systems," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 50(4), pages 1277-1309.
    6. Omar Abu Hassim & Ismah Osman & Asmah Awal & Fhaisol Mat Amin, 2024. "Navigating the Path to Equitable and Sustainable Digital Agriculture among Small Farmers in Malaysia: A Comprehensive Review," Information Management and Business Review, AMH International, vol. 16(2), pages 173-188.
    7. Louise O Fresco & Floor Geerling-Eiff & Anne-Charlotte Hoes & Lan van Wassenaer & Krijn J Poppe & Jack G A J van der Vorst, 2021. "Sustainable food systems: do agricultural economists have a role? [Interdisciplinary collaboration between natural and social sciences–status and trends exemplified in groundwater research]," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 48(4), pages 694-718.
    8. Turner, James A. & Klerkx, Laurens & White, Toni & Nelson, Tracy & Everett-Hincks, Julie & Mackay, Alec & Botha, Neels, 2017. "Unpacking systemic innovation capacity as strategic ambidexterity: How projects dynamically configure capabilities for agricultural innovation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 503-523.
    9. Iordanis Parikoglou & Grigorios Emvalomatis & Fiona Thorne, 2022. "Precision livestock agriculture and productive efficiency: The case of milk recording in Ireland," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 53(S1), pages 109-120, November.
    10. Loebbing, Jonas, 2018. "An Elementary Theory of Endogenous Technical Change and Wage Inequality," VfS Annual Conference 2018 (Freiburg, Breisgau): Digital Economy 181603, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    11. Basso, Henrique S. & Jimeno, Juan F., 2021. "From secular stagnation to robocalypse? Implications of demographic and technological changes," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 833-847.
    12. Hrosul, Viktoriia & Kruhlova, Olena & Kolesnyk, Alina, 2023. "Digitalization of the agricultural sector: the impact of ICT on the development of enterprises in Ukraine," Agricultural and Resource Economics: International Scientific E-Journal, Agricultural and Resource Economics: International Scientific E-Journal, vol. 9(4), December.
    13. Caroline Lloyd & Jonathan Payne, 2021. "Fewer jobs, better jobs? An international comparative study of robots and ‘routine’ work in the public sector," Industrial Relations Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(2), pages 109-124, March.
    14. Lawrence Bunnell & Kweku-Muata Osei-Bryson & Victoria Y. Yoon, 0. "RecSys Issues Ontology: A Knowledge Classification of Issues for Recommender Systems Researchers," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-42.
    15. Gilberto Santos & Jose Carlos Sá & Maria João Félix & Luís Barreto & Filipe Carvalho & Manuel Doiro & Kristína Zgodavová & Miladin Stefanović, 2021. "New Needed Quality Management Skills for Quality Managers 4.0," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-22, May.
    16. Jascha-Alexander Koch & Michael Siering, 2019. "The recipe of successful crowdfunding campaigns," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 29(4), pages 661-679, December.
    17. Zhang, Cheng & Weng, Xiyan, 2024. "Can broadband infrastructure construction promote equality of opportunity? Evidence from a quasi-natural experiment in China☆," Journal of Asian Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    18. Cho, Daegon & Hwang, Youngdeok & Park, Jongwon, 2018. "More buzz, more vibes: Impact of social media on concert distribution," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 103-113.
    19. Cecere, Grazia & Corrocher, Nicoletta & Battaglia, Riccardo David, 2015. "Innovation and competition in the smartphone industry: Is there a dominant design?," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 162-175.
    20. Czarnitzki, Dirk & Fernández, Gastón P. & Rammer, Christian, 2023. "Artificial intelligence and firm-level productivity," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 188-205.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Digitization; Platform Economy; Agriculture; Agri-food systems; Cooperatives; Platforms;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q1 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture
    • Q13 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Markets and Marketing; Cooperatives; Agribusiness
    • L6 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Manufacturing
    • L66 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Manufacturing - - - Food; Beverages; Cosmetics; Tobacco

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:rif:wpaper:78. 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: Kaija Hyvönen-Rajecki (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/etlaafi.html .

    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.