IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v172y2021ics0040162521004601.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploration, exploitation and environmental innovation in agriculture. The case of variety mixture in France and Denmark

Author

Listed:
  • Labarthe, Pierre
  • Coléno, François
  • Enjalbert, Jérôme
  • Fugeray-Scarbel, Aline
  • Hannachi, Mourad
  • Lemarié, Stéphane

Abstract

By studying a case of environmental innovation, variety mixture in the cereal supply chains, this paper shows that the adoption of this type of innovation is not limited to the integration of a new product or process. Environmental innovations can require a profound change in the knowledge base of economic actors. Furthermore, these innovations are based on an ecosystem involving a diversity of actors operating along the supply chain who need to explore new knowledge to understand, test and evaluate their potential. Such exploration needs are studied in detail on the basis of interdisciplinary research. The case studied here reflects innovation “in the making”. Several development scenarios are possible, leading to a more or less pronounced redistribution of the roles of the actors in innovation. Beyond the actors’ exploration needs, we show that current market regulations and standards can constitute obstacles to exploration. Thus, the development of such systemic innovations requires both an exploration of new knowledge by the actors of the sector and an evolution of market standards.

Suggested Citation

  • Labarthe, Pierre & Coléno, François & Enjalbert, Jérôme & Fugeray-Scarbel, Aline & Hannachi, Mourad & Lemarié, Stéphane, 2021. "Exploration, exploitation and environmental innovation in agriculture. The case of variety mixture in France and Denmark," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:172:y:2021:i:c:s0040162521004601
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121028
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162521004601
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121028?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Howells, Jeremy, 2006. "Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 715-728, June.
    2. Arthur, W Brian, 1989. "Competing Technologies, Increasing Returns, and Lock-In by Historical Events," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 99(394), pages 116-131, March.
    3. Bresciani, Stefano & Ferraris, Alberto & Del Giudice, Manlio, 2018. "The management of organizational ambidexterity through alliances in a new context of analysis: Internet of Things (IoT) smart city projects," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 331-338.
    4. Rennings, Klaus, 2000. "Redefining innovation -- eco-innovation research and the contribution from ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 319-332, February.
    5. Kivimaa, Paula & Boon, Wouter & Hyysalo, Sampsa & Klerkx, Laurens, 2019. "Towards a typology of intermediaries in sustainability transitions: A systematic review and a research agenda," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 1062-1075.
    6. David, Paul A, 1985. "Clio and the Economics of QWERTY," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(2), pages 332-337, May.
    7. Ron Adner & Rahul Kapoor, 2010. "Value creation in innovation ecosystems: how the structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(3), pages 306-333, March.
    8. Centobelli, Piera & Cerchione, Roberto & Esposito, Emilio & Shashi,, 2019. "Exploration and exploitation in the development of more entrepreneurial universities: A twisting learning path model of ambidexterity," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 172-194.
    9. Jensen, Are & Clausen, Tommy H., 2017. "Origins and emergence of exploration and exploitation capabilities in new technology-based firms," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 163-175.
    10. De Marchi, Valentina, 2012. "Environmental innovation and R&D cooperation: Empirical evidence from Spanish manufacturing firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 614-623.
    11. Gustafsson, Robin & Autio, Erkko, 2011. "A failure trichotomy in knowledge exploration and exploitation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(6), pages 819-831, July.
    12. Cowan, Robin & Gunby, Philip, 1996. "Sprayed to Death: Path Dependence, Lock-In and Pest Control Strategies," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 106(436), pages 521-542, May.
    13. Claude Ménard & Peter G. Klein, 2004. "Organizational Issues in the Agrifood Sector: Toward a Comparative Approach," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(3), pages 750-755.
    14. Magrini, Marie-Benoit & Anton, Marc & Cholez, Célia & Corre-Hellou, Guenaelle & Duc, Gérard & Jeuffroy, Marie-Hélène & Meynard, Jean-Marc & Pelzer, Elise & Voisin, Anne-Sophie & Walrand, Stéphane, 2016. "Why are grain-legumes rarely present in cropping systems despite their environmental and nutritional benefits? Analyzing lock-in in the French agrifood system," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 152-162.
    15. Malerba, Franco, 2002. "Sectoral systems of innovation and production," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 247-264, February.
    16. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    17. Vanloqueren, Gaëtan & Baret, Philippe V., 2008. "Why are ecological, low-input, multi-resistant wheat cultivars slow to develop commercially? A Belgian agricultural 'lock-in' case study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(2-3), pages 436-446, June.
    18. Zhang, Zhengang & Luo, Taiye, 2020. "Network capital, exploitative and exploratory innovations——from the perspective of network dynamics," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    19. Zi-Lin He & Poh-Kam Wong, 2004. "Exploration vs. Exploitation: An Empirical Test of the Ambidexterity Hypothesis," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(4), pages 481-494, August.
    20. Hoppmann, Joern & Peters, Michael & Schneider, Malte & Hoffmann, Volker H., 2013. "The two faces of market support—How deployment policies affect technological exploration and exploitation in the solar photovoltaic industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 989-1003.
    21. Muller, Emmanuel & Zenker, Andrea, 2001. "Business services as actors of knowledge transformation: the role of KIBS in regional and national innovation systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(9), pages 1501-1516, December.
    22. Christine M. Beckman & Pamela R. Haunschild & Damon J. Phillips, 2004. "Friends or Strangers? Firm-Specific Uncertainty, Market Uncertainty, and Network Partner Selection," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(3), pages 259-275, June.
    23. Jatinder S. Sidhu & Henk W. Volberda & Harry R. Commandeur, 2004. "Exploring Exploration Orientation and its Determinants: Some Empirical Evidence," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(6), pages 913-932, September.
    24. Constantine Andriopoulos & Marianne W. Lewis, 2009. "Exploitation-Exploration Tensions and Organizational Ambidexterity: Managing Paradoxes of Innovation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 696-717, August.
    25. Polzin, Friedemann & von Flotow, Paschen & Klerkx, Laurens, 2016. "Addressing barriers to eco-innovation: Exploring the finance mobilisation functions of institutional innovation intermediaries," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 34-46.
    26. Mikael Holmqvist, 2004. "Experiential Learning Processes of Exploitation and Exploration Within and Between Organizations: An Empirical Study of Product Development," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(1), pages 70-81, February.
    27. Klerkx, Laurens & Leeuwis, Cees, 2008. "Matching demand and supply in the agricultural knowledge infrastructure: Experiences with innovation intermediaries," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 260-276, June.
    28. Wang, Yuandi & Sutherland, Dylan & Ning, Lutao & Pan, Xin, 2015. "The evolving nature of China's regional innovation systems: Insights from an exploration–exploitation approach," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 140-152.
    29. 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.
    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. Spaniol, Matthew J. & Rowland, Nicholas J., 2022. "Business ecosystems and the view from the future: The use of corporate foresight by stakeholders of the Ro-Ro shipping ecosystem in the Baltic Sea Region," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    2. Polge, Etienne & Pagès, Hugo, 2022. "Relational drivers of the agroecological transition: An analysis of farmer trajectories in the Limagne plain, France," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 200(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. Caloffi, Annalisa & Colovic, Ana & Rizzoli, Valentina & Rossi, Federica, 2023. "Innovation intermediaries' types and functions: A computational analysis of the literature," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    2. Albert Faber & Koen Frenken, 2008. "Models in evolutionary economics and environmental policy: Towards an evolutionary environmental economics," Innovation Studies Utrecht (ISU) working paper series 08-15, Utrecht University, Department of Innovation Studies, revised Apr 2008.
    3. Karl Aschenbrücker & Tobias Kretschmer, 2022. "Performance-based incentives and innovative activity in small firms: evidence from German manufacturing," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 11(2), pages 47-64, June.
    4. Meynard, Jean-Marc & Jeuffroy, Marie-Hélène & Le Bail, Marianne & Lefèvre, Amélie & Magrini, Marie-Benoit & Michon, Camille, 2017. "Designing coupled innovations for the sustainability transition of agrifood systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 330-339.
    5. Grazia Cecere & Nicoletta Corrocher & Cédric Gossart & Muge Ozman, 2014. "Lock-in and path dependence: an evolutionary approach to eco-innovations," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 24(5), pages 1037-1065, November.
    6. Hoppmann, Joern & Peters, Michael & Schneider, Malte & Hoffmann, Volker H., 2013. "The two faces of market support—How deployment policies affect technological exploration and exploitation in the solar photovoltaic industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 989-1003.
    7. Zhang, Feng & Jiang, Guohua & Cantwell, John A., 2015. "Subsidiary exploration and the innovative performance of large multinational corporations," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 224-234.
    8. Christoph P. Kiefer & Pablo Del Río González & Javier Carrillo‐Hermosilla, 2019. "Drivers and barriers of eco‐innovation types for sustainable transitions: A quantitative perspective," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(1), pages 155-172, January.
    9. Carolina Rojas-Córdova & Amanda J. Williamson & Julio A. Pertuze & Gustavo Calvo, 2023. "Why one strategy does not fit all: a systematic review on exploration–exploitation in different organizational archetypes," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 17(7), pages 2251-2295, October.
    10. Pino G. Audia & Jack A. Goncalo, 2007. "Past Success and Creativity over Time: A Study of Inventors in the Hard Disk Drive Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(1), pages 1-15, January.
    11. Vanhaverbeke, Wim & Li, Ying & Van de Vrande, Vareska, 2009. "The dual role of external corporate venturing in technological exploration," MPRA Paper 26488, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 2010.
    12. Ciarli, Tommaso & Ràfols, Ismael, 2019. "The relation between research priorities and societal demands: The case of rice," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 949-967.
    13. Jan Ossenbrink & Joern Hoppmann & Volker H. Hoffmann, 2019. "Hybrid Ambidexterity: How the Environment Shapes Incumbents’ Use of Structural and Contextual Approaches," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(6), pages 1319-1348, November.
    14. Ramani, Shyama V. & Thutupalli, Ajay, 2015. "Emergence of controversy in technology transitions: Green Revolution and Bt cotton in India," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 198-212.
    15. Magrini, Marie-Benoit & Anton, Marc & Cholez, Célia & Corre-Hellou, Guenaelle & Duc, Gérard & Jeuffroy, Marie-Hélène & Meynard, Jean-Marc & Pelzer, Elise & Voisin, Anne-Sophie & Walrand, Stéphane, 2016. "Why are grain-legumes rarely present in cropping systems despite their environmental and nutritional benefits? Analyzing lock-in in the French agrifood system," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 152-162.
    16. 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.
    17. David B. Audretsch & Maribel Guerrero, 2023. "Is ambidexterity the missing link between entrepreneurship, management, and innovation?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(6), pages 1891-1918, December.
    18. Koryak, Oksana & Lockett, Andy & Hayton, James & Nicolaou, Nicos & Mole, Kevin, 2018. "Disentangling the antecedents of ambidexterity: Exploration and exploitation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 413-427.
    19. Jan Ossenbrink & Joern Hoppmann, 2019. "Polytope Conditioning and Linear Convergence of the Frank–Wolfe Algorithm," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 44(1), pages 1319-1348, February.
    20. Feng Zhang & Lei Zhu, 2019. "Enhancing corporate sustainable development: Stakeholder pressures, organizational learning, and green innovation," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(6), pages 1012-1026, 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:eee:tefoso:v:172:y:2021:i:c:s0040162521004601. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625 .

    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.