Implementation Action Plan for organic food and farming research

The Implementation Action Plan completes TP Organics’ trilogy of key documents of the Research Vision to 2025 (Niggli et al 2008) and the Strategic Research Agenda (Schmid et al 2009). The Implementation Action Plan addresses important areas for a successful implementation of the Strategic Research Agenda. It explores the strength of Europe’s organic sector on the world stage with about one quarter of the world’s organic agricultural land in 2008 and accounting for more than half of the global organic market. The aims and objectives of organic farming reflect a broad range of societal demands on the multiple roles of agriculture and food production of not only producing commodities but also ecosystem services. These are important for Europe’s economic success, the resilience of its farms and prosperity in its rural areas. The organic sector is a leading market for quality and authenticity: values at the heart of European food culture. Innovation is important across the EU economy, and no less so within the organic sector. The Implementation Action Plan devotes its third chapter to considering how innovation can be stimulated through organic food and farming research and, crucially, translated into changes in business and agricultural practice. TP Organics argues for a broad understanding of innovation that includes technology, know-how and social/organisational innovations. Accordingly, innovation can involve different actors throughout the food sector. Many examples illustrate innovations in the organic sector includign and beyond technology. The various restrictions imposed by organic standards have driven change and turned organic farms and food businesses into creative living laboratories for smart and green innovations and the sector will continue to generate new examples. The research topics proposed by TP Organics in the Strategic Research Agenda can drive innovation in areas as wide ranging as production practices for crops, technologies for livestock, food processing, quality management, on-farm renewable energy or insights into the effects of consumption of organic products on disease and wellbeing and life style of citizens. Importantly, many approaches developed within the sector are relevant and useful beyond the specific sector. The fourth chapter addresses knowledge management in organic agriculture, focusing on the further development of participatory research methods. Participatory (or trans-disciplinary) models recognise the worth and importance of different forms of knowledge and reduced boundaries between the generators and the users of knowledge, while respecting and benefitting from transparent division of tasks. The emphasis on joint creation and exchange of knowledge makes them valuable as part of a knowledge management toolkit as they have the capacity to enhance the translation of research outcomes into practical changes and lead to real-world progress. The Implementation Action Plan argues for the wider application of participatory methods in publicly-funded research and also proposes some criteria for evaluating participatory research, such as the involvement and satisfaction of stakeholders as well as real improvements in sustainability and delivery of public goods/services. European agriculture faces specific challenges but at the same time Europe has a unique potential for the development of agro-ecology based solutions that must be supported through well focused research. TP Organics believes that the most effective approaches in agriculture and food research will be systems-based, multi- and trans-disciplinary, and that in the development of research priorities, the interconnections between biodiversity, dietary diversity, functional diversity and health must be taken into account. Chapter five of the action plan identifies six themes which could be used to organise research and innovation activities in agriculture under Europe’s 8th Framework Programme on Research Cooperation: • Eco-functional intensification – A new area of agricultural research which aims to harness beneficial activities of the ecosystem to increase productivity in agriculture. • The economics of high output / low input farming Developing reliable economic and environmental assessments of new recycling, renewable-based and efficiency-boosting technologies for agriculture. • Health care schemes for livestock Shifting from therapeutics to livestock health care schemes based on good husbandry and disease prevention. • Resilience and “sustainagility” Dealing with a more rapidly changing environment by focusing on ‘adaptive capacity’ to help build resilience of farmers, farms and production methods. • From farm diversity to food diversity and health and wellbeing of citizens Building on existing initiatives to reconnect consumers and producers, use a ‘whole food chain’ approach to improve availability of natural and authentic foods. • Creating centres of innovation in farming communities A network of centres in Europe applying and developing trans-disciplinary and participatory scientific approaches to support innovation among farmers and SMEs and improving research capacities across Europe

Managing Intellectual Property to Foster Agricultural Development

Over the past decades, consideration of IPRs has become increasingly important in many areas of agricultural development, including foreign direct investment, technology transfer, trade, investment in innovation, access to genetic resources, and the protection of traditional knowledge. The widening role of IPRs in governing the ownership of—and access to—innovation, information, and knowledge makes them particularly critical in ensuring that developing countries benefit from the introduction of new technologies that could radically alter the welfare of the poor. Failing to improve IPR policies and practices to support the needs of developing countries will eliminate significant development opportunities. The discussion in this note moves away from policy prescriptions to focus on investments to improve how IPRs are used in practice in agricultural development. These investments must be seen as complementary to other investments in agricultural development. IPRs are woven into the context of innovation and R&D. They can enable entrepreneurship and allow the leveraging of private resources for resolving the problems of poverty. Conversely, IPRs issues can delay important scientific advancements, deter investment in products for the poor, and impose crippling transaction costs on organizations if the wrong tools are used or tools are badly applied. The central benefit of pursuing the investments outlined in this note is to build into the system a more robust capacity for strategic and flexible use of IPRs tailored to development goals

Stakeholders' Impact on Turnaround Performance: The Case of German Savings Banks

This study explores how savings banks as powerful stakeholders of SMEs in Germany assess turn-around performance. It tests the impact of the support provided by German savings banks and distressed SMEs’ actions with survey data from corporate advisors. The results show that structural and continuing support foster turnaround performance. This support is conducive in the initial stage of turnaround but negligible in the recovery stage. Contributing to stakeholder theory and turnaround management, the findings shed light on the factors that motivate a selected stakeholder’s involvement and SMEs’ ability to engage in actions fostering this stakeholder’s support for a turnaround

BRINGING E-BUSINESS TO RURAL REGIONS THROUGH TELECENTRE NETWORKS

In the present paper, I am trying to emphasize that telecentres � despite the difficulties they are facing due to last years� technological changes � could still be helpful in promoting the principles of the Lisbon Agenda. They could provide access to ICT in rural regions with underdeveloped and remote infrastructure, thus integrating relatively isolated communities into national and international information networks. They could be means of regional and / or rural economic development by transferring expertise in a number of areas, such as agriculture or rural tourism to and from the community. They could also improve the degree of local employment by offering teleworking opportunities. Last, but not least they could support the training of local people by using eLearning techniques, pointing out new regional trajectories to the knowledge economy. Telecentres could play an important role in establishing knowledge society and in reducing the �digital divide� that still exists between different EU-regions. My paper starts by presenting some basic ideas, such as telecentres and their role in rural development, it goes on with a brief overview of the role which telecenter networks could play in the new European informational landscape and it ends with a presentation of the case of Romania.Telecentre, Community Informatics, Regional Economics, Rural Development, Knowledge Society

Innovation behaviour and the use of research and extension services in small-scale agricultural holdings

[EN] Farmers¿ views on research and extension services (RES) included in the Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System are rarely investigated. This study analyses the relationship between key factors of innovation behaviour (market orientation, learning orientation, and innovation attitude) and the use of RES through structural equation modelling, focusing on small-scale agricultural holdings. Market orientation and learning orientation appear to be positively correlated, confirming that synergies between both factors provide a background for innovativeness. Learning orientation and farm-holders¿ education level, improve knowledge exchange and make the agriculture innovation process more inclusive. However, farmers¿ innovation attitude is not clearly correlated with the use of RES. Motivations about ¿the will to do innovations¿ are represented by a construct that does not appear to have a determinant effect as a mediator in farmer¿s decisions about using RES.Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (Project AGL2015-65897-C3-3-R "Knowledge innovation services and agri-food systems. Innovation and transfer networks.")Ramos-Sandoval, R.; García Alvarez-Coque, JM.; Mas Verdú, F. (2016). Innovation behaviour and the use of research and extension services in small-scale agricultural holdings. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research. 14(4):1-14. https://doi.org/10.5424/sjar/2016144-8548S114144García Álvarez-Coque, J. M., Alba, M. F., & López-García Usach, T. (2012). Innovation and sectoral linkages in the agri-food system in the Valencian Community. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research, 10(1), 18. doi:10.5424/sjar/2012101-207-11Alfranca, O. (2005). Private R&D and Spillovers in European Agriculture. International Advances in Economic Research, 11(2), 201-213. doi:10.1007/s11294-005-3016-7Anderson, V., & Boocock, G. (2002). Small firms and internationalisation: learning to manage and managing to learn. Human Resource Management Journal, 12(3), 5-24. doi:10.1111/j.1748-8583.2002.tb00068.xAudretsch, D. B., Lehmann, E. E., & Warning, S. (2005). University spillovers and new firm location. Research Policy, 34(7), 1113-1122. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2005.05.009Avermaete, T., Viaene, J., Morgan, E. J., Pitts, E., Crawford, N., & Mahon, D. (2004). Determinants of product and process innovation in small food manufacturing1The content of the paper is the responsibility of the first three authors. firms1. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 15(10), 474-483. doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2004.04.005Chaston, I., Badger, B., Mangles, T., & Sadler‐Smith, E. (2001). Organisational learning style, competencies and learning systems in small, UK manufacturing firms. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 21(11), 1417-1432. doi:10.1108/eum0000000006224Baker, W. E., & Sinkula, J. M. (2002). Journal of Market-Focused Management, 5(1), 5-23. doi:10.1023/a:1012543911149Baregheh, A., Rowley, J., Sambrook, S., & Davies, D. (2012). Innovation in food sector SMEs. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 19(2), 300-321. doi:10.1108/14626001211223919Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173Baron, R. A., & Tang, J. (2011). The role of entrepreneurs in firm-level innovation: Joint effects of positive affect, creativity, and environmental dynamism. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(1), 49-60. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.06.002Bell, S. J., Whitwell, G. J., & Lukas, B. A. (2002). Schools of Thought in Organizational Learning. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(1), 70-86. doi:10.1177/03079459994335Birner, R., Davis, K., Pender, J., Nkonya, E., Anandajayasekeram, P., Ekboir, J., … Cohen, M. (2009). From Best Practice to Best Fit: A Framework for Designing and Analyzing Pluralistic Agricultural Advisory Services Worldwide. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 15(4), 341-355. doi:10.1080/13892240903309595Byrne B, 2006. Structural equation modeling with AMOS: basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.) Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.Calantone, R. J., Cavusgil, S. T., & Zhao, Y. (2002). Learning orientation, firm innovation capability, and firm performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 31(6), 515-524. doi:10.1016/s0019-8501(01)00203-6Capitanio, F., Coppola, A., & Pascucci, S. (2009). Indications for drivers of innovation in the food sector. British Food Journal, 111(8), 820-838. doi:10.1108/00070700910980946Chang, Y.-Y., & Hughes, M. (2012). Drivers of innovation ambidexterity in small- to medium-sized firms. European Management Journal, 30(1), 1-17. doi:10.1016/j.emj.2011.08.003Chaston, I., Badger, B., & Sadler-Smith, E. (2001). Organizational Learning: An Empirical Assessment of Process in Small U.K. Manufacturing Firms. Journal of Small Business Management, 39(2), 139-151. doi:10.1111/1540-627x.00013Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128. doi:10.2307/2393553Day, G. S. (1994). The Capabilities of Market-Driven Organizations. Journal of Marketing, 58(4), 37. doi:10.2307/1251915Diederen P, van Meijl H, Wolters A, Bijak K, 2003. Innovation adoption in agriculture: innovators, early adopters and laggards. Cahiers d'Économie et Sociologie Rurales 67: 30-50.Edelman, L. F., Brush, C. G., & Manolova, T. (2005). Co-alignment in the resource–performance relationship: strategy as mediator. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(3), 359-383. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2004.01.004Esparcia, J. (2014). Innovation and networks in rural areas. An analysis from European innovative projects. Journal of Rural Studies, 34, 1-14. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2013.12.004Farrell MA, 1999. Antecedents and consequences of a learning orientation. Market Bull 10 (38): 38-51.Fearne, A., María García Álvarez‐Coque, J., López‐García Usach Mercedes, T., & García, S. (2013). Innovative firms and the urban/rural divide: the case of agro‐food system. Management Decision, 51(6), 1293-1310. doi:10.1108/md-12-2011-0482García Álvarez-Coque JM, López-García Usach T, Sanchez García M, 2013. Territory and innovation behaviour in agri-food firms: does rurality matter? New Medit 3: 1-10.García Álvarez-Coque JM, Mas-Verdú F, Sanchez García M, 2014. Determinants of Agri-food Firms' Participation in Public Funded Research and Development. Agribusiness (0): 1-16.Garcia Martinez, M. (2000). Innovation in the Spanish food & drink industry. The International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 3(2), 155-176. doi:10.1016/s1096-7508(00)00033-1García-Quevedo, J., Mas-Verdú, F., & Montolio, D. (2013). What types of firms acquire knowledge intensive services and from which suppliers? Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 25(4), 473-486. doi:10.1080/09537325.2013.774348Garver MS, Mentzer JT, 1999. Logistics research methods: Employing structural equation modeling to test for construct validity. J Busin Logist 20 (1): 33-57.Gellynck, X., Vermeire, B., & Viaene, J. (2007). Innovation in food firms: contribution of regional networks within the international business context. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 19(3), 209-226. doi:10.1080/08985620701218395Gellynck, X., & Kühne, B. (2008). Innovation and collaboration in traditional food chain networks. Journal on Chain and Network Science, 8(2), 121-129. doi:10.3920/jcns2008.x094Grinstein, A. (2008). The relationships between market orientation and alternative strategic orientations. European Journal of Marketing, 42(1/2), 115-134. doi:10.1108/03090560810840934Hair J, Black W, Babin B, Anderson R, 2010. Multivariate data analysis, 7th ed. Prentice-Hall, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA. Chapter 11.Hall, A., Rasheed Sulaiman, V., Clark, N., & Yoganand, B. (2003). From measuring impact to learning institutional lessons: an innovation systems perspective on improving the management of international agricultural research. Agricultural Systems, 78(2), 213-241. doi:10.1016/s0308-521x(03)00127-6Hamed G, Amran R, Parastoo R, Nadhirah N, 2012. A review on the market orientation evolution. Asia Pacific Busin Innov Technol Manage Soc 40: 542–549.Han, X., Hansen, E., Panwar, R., Hamner, R., & Orozco, N. (2013). Connecting market orientation, learning orientation and corporate social responsibility implementation: is innovativeness a mediator? Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 28(8), 784-796. doi:10.1080/02827581.2013.833290Harrison, D. A., Mykytyn, P. P., & Riemenschneider, C. K. (1997). Executive Decisions About Adoption of Information Technology in Small Business: Theory and Empirical Tests. Information Systems Research, 8(2), 171-195. doi:10.1287/isre.8.2.171HOELTER, J. W. (1983). The Analysis of Covariance Structures. Sociological Methods & Research, 11(3), 325-344. doi:10.1177/0049124183011003003Hult, G. T. M. (1998). Managing the International Strategic Sourcing Process as a Market-Driven Organizational Learning System. Decision Sciences, 29(1), 193-216. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.1998.tb01349.xHurley, R. F., & Hult, G. T. M. (1998). Innovation, Market Orientation, and Organizational Learning: An Integration and Empirical Examination. Journal of Marketing, 62(3), 42. doi:10.2307/1251742INE, 2009. Censo Agrario 2009. Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Espa-a.Isaksen, A., & Nilsson, M. (2013). Combined Innovation Policy: Linking Scientific and Practical Knowledge in Innovation Systems. European Planning Studies, 21(12), 1919-1936. doi:10.1080/09654313.2012.722966Jacobs, B., Nahuis, R., & Tang, P. J. G. (2002). De Economist, 150(2), 181-210. doi:10.1023/a:1015696202835JOHNSON, J. D., MEYER, M. E., BERKOWITZ, J. M., MILLER, V., & ETHINGTON, C. T. (1997). Testing Two Contrasting Structural Models of Innovativeness in a Contractual Network. Human Communication Research, 24(2), 320-348. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1997.tb00417.xKarantininis, K., Sauer, J., & Furtan, W. H. (2010). Innovation and integration in the agri-food industry. Food Policy, 35(2), 112-120. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2009.10.003Keskin, H. (2006). Market orientation, learning orientation, and innovation capabilities in SMEs. European Journal of Innovation Management, 9(4), 396-417. doi:10.1108/14601060610707849Klerkx, L., & Leeuwis, C. (2009). Establishment and embedding of innovation brokers at different innovation system levels: Insights from the Dutch agricultural sector. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(6), 849-860. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2008.10.001Klerkx, L., Aarts, N., & Leeuwis, C. (2010). Adaptive management in agricultural innovation systems: The interactions between innovation networks and their environment. Agricultural Systems, 103(6), 390-400. doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2010.03.012Klerkx, L., van Mierlo, B., & Leeuwis, C. (2012). Evolution of systems approaches to agricultural innovation: concepts, analysis and interventions. Farming Systems Research into the 21st Century: The New Dynamic, 457-483. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-4503-2_20Kohli, A. K., & Jaworski, B. J. (1990). Market Orientation: The Construct, Research Propositions, and Managerial Implications. Journal of Marketing, 54(2), 1. doi:10.2307/1251866Laforet, S. (2008). Size, strategic, and market orientation affects on innovation. Journal of Business Research, 61(7), 753-764. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.08.002Langemeier MR, Jones RD, 2000. Measuring the impact of farm size and specialization on financial performance. J Am Soc Farm Manag Rural Apprais 63 (1): 90–96.Läpple, D., Renwick, A., & Thorne, F. (2015). Measuring and understanding the drivers of agricultural innovation: Evidence from Ireland. Food Policy, 51, 1-8. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.11.003Leeuwis, C., & Van den Ban, A. (Eds.). (2004). Communication for Rural Innovation. doi:10.1002/9780470995235Lin, C., Peng, C., & Kao, D. T. (2008). The innovativeness effect of market orientation and learning orientation on business performance. International Journal of Manpower, 29(8), 752-772. doi:10.1108/01437720810919332Mas-Verdú, F. (2006). Services and innovation systems: European models of Technology Centres. Service Business, 1(1), 7-23. doi:10.1007/s11628-006-0002-yMavondo, F. T., Chimhanzi, J., & Stewart, J. (2005). Learning orientation and market orientation. European Journal of Marketing, 39(11/12), 1235-1263. doi:10.1108/03090560510623244Micheels ET, Gow HR, 2014. The effect of market orientation on learning, innovativeness, and performance in primary agriculture. Can J Agric Econ (0): 1–25.Morriss, S., Massey, C., Flett, R., Alpass, F., & Sligo, F. (2006). Mediating technological learning in agricultural innovation systems. Agricultural Systems, 89(1), 26-46. doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2005.08.002Narver, J. C., & Slater, S. F. (1990). The Effect of a Market Orientation on Business Profitability. Journal of Marketing, 54(4), 20. doi:10.2307/1251757Nunnally JC, 1978. Psychometric theory, 701 pp. McGraw Hill, NYOECD, 2006. The new rural paradigm: Policies and governance. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris.OECD, 2013. Agricultural innovation systems: A framework for analysing the role of the government, OECD Publ., Paris.Oreszczyn, S., Lane, A., & Carr, S. (2010). The role of networks of practice and webs of influencers on farmers’ engagement with and learning about agricultural innovations. Journal of Rural Studies, 26(4), 404-417. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2010.03.003Pascucci S, De-Magistris T, 2012. Factors affecting farmers' likelihood to use advisory and extension services. New Medit 11 (3): 2-11.Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(4), 717-731. doi:10.3758/bf03206553Rama R, Alfranca O, 2003. Introduction: innovation in the food industry and biotechnology. Int J Biotechnol 5: 213-221.Rhee, J., Park, T., & Lee, D. H. (2010). Drivers of innovativeness and performance for innovative SMEs in South Korea: Mediation of learning orientation. Technovation, 30(1), 65-75. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2009.04.008Schwartz, M., & Hornych, C. (2010). Cooperation patterns of incubator firms and the impact of incubator specialization: Empirical evidence from Germany. Technovation, 30(9-10), 485-495. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2010.05.001Segarra-Blasco, A., & Arauzo-Carod, J.-M. (2008). Sources of innovation and industry–university interaction: Evidence from Spanish firms. Research Policy, 37(8), 1283-1295. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2008.05.003Sinkula, J. M., Baker, W. E., & Noordewier, T. (1997). A Framework for Market-Based Organizational Learning: Linking Values, Knowledge, and Behavior. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(4), 305-318. doi:10.1177/0092070397254003Sivo, S. A., Fan, X., Witta, E. L., & Willse, J. T. (2006). The Search for «Optimal» Cutoff Properties: Fit Index Criteria in Structural Equation Modeling. The Journal of Experimental Education, 74(3), 267-288. doi:10.3200/jexe.74.3.267-288Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (1995). Market Orientation and the Learning Organization. Journal of Marketing, 59(3), 63. doi:10.2307/1252120Sophonthummapharn, K. (2009). The adoption of techno‐relationship innovations. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 27(3), 380-412. doi:10.1108/02634500910955254Spielman, D. J., Ekboir, J., Davis, K., & Ochieng, C. M. O. (2008). An innovation systems perspective on strengthening agricultural education and training in sub-Saharan Africa. Agricultural Systems, 98(1), 1-9. doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2008.03.004Ton, G., Klerkx, L., de Grip, K., & Rau, M.-L. (2015). Innovation grants to smallholder farmers: Revisiting the key assumptions in the impact pathways. Food Policy, 51, 9-23. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.11.002Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (1991). Cultural Leadership in Organizations. Organization Science, 2(2), 149-169. doi:10.1287/orsc.2.2.149Tsai, K.-H., & Wang, J.-C. (2005). Does R&D performance decline with firm size?—A re-examination in terms of elasticity. Research Policy, 34(6), 966-976. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2005.05.017Turan D, Ascigil S, 2014. Antecedents of innovativeness: Entrepreneurial team characteristics and networking. J Innov Manage 2 (1): 83-103.Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186-204. doi:10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.1192

The 2007-13 operational programmes: a preliminary assessment: Spring – Autumn 2005

A preliminary assessment of the 2007-13 operational programmes on EU cohesion policy