Drawing Institution-Sustainability Matrix of the Iranian Dairy Industry Innovation System

مجله اقتصاد و توسعه کشاورزی

Article 3, Volume 31, Issue 3 - Serial Number 37, October 2017, Pages 216-227   

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: 10.22067/jead2.v31i3.61742

Authors

Z. Fozouni Ardekani¹; H. Farhadian¹; Gh. R. Pezeshki Rad^{* 1}; H. Ranaei Kordshouli²; H. Tabatabaeian³

¹Tarbiat Modares University

²Shiraz University

³Allameh Tabatabai University

Abstract

Introduction: Attention tothe firmssustainability dimensions including social, environmental, and economic responsibilities haveincreased due to their unsustainable business models. Accordingly, studies have shown that innovation is a key to achieve sustainability dimensions and applying Innovation System (IS) approach has recommended as an assessment tool for sustainable innovation. The purpose of this system is to decrease the pressure on the environment and public resources. It also helps policymakers determine the processes and components of the system which intervention makes positive changes to them. Hence, in the face of challenges such as resources limitation, climate change effects, and increasing population in the dairy industry, the importance of innovation has been raised for competitiveness and economic, environmental, and social promotion. So that, it leads to the sustainable, ethical, accessible, safe, and nutritious productions. In this case, innovation with the aim of profitability and in a sustainable and environmental manner is one of the most important challenges facing the dairy industry. Sincethe innovation system is an effective and continuous motivator for sustainable technological innovation and the institutional environment has a great influence on technological innovation; current study has outlined the institution-sustainability matrix of the Iranian dairy industry innovation system because some studies show that this industry has been unstable in recent years (for instance: lack of attention into the regional differences in the policy-making of dairy industry and heterogeneity and insufficient development in line with indices of dairy industry development).
Materials and Methods: In terms of research goals, we applied a qualitative-exploratory study. In-depth and semi-structured interviews (with dairy key informants (n=26) and subject-matter specialists (n=20)) also helped in the data collectionstage. In this regard, the snowball sampling technique supported this research in identification of the individual samples that were in the bestposition in the dairy industry in terms of organizational status, management experiences, technical knowledge and executive aspect of this industry. Content analysis technique and Atlas. This software (for coding and classification of the concepts) wasused in order to attain research goals. In this way, we attempted to answer two research questions which include:
1. What are the most important recent innovations of the Iranian dairy industry IS to achieve economic, social, and environmental sustainability?
2. How are the sustainability type and situation of IS institutions which have contributed tothese innovations presentation?
Therefore, the frequencies mentioned for each sustainable innovation (including economic, social, and environmental dimensions) were calculated. Then, institutional actors of dairy innovation system and their involved subsystems which played a role in these innovations network were determined and their sustainability matrix was drawn to show the status of each institution in terms of its relation to the sustainability dimensions. Respondents explained also toward their attitude related to the sustainability or instability of these institutions.
Results and Discussion: Our findings explain that innovations ineconomic dimension are at maximum (25 sub-categories) while social (14 sub-categories), and environmental (7 sub-categories) innovations are in the lower situation. This issue represents the fact that despite the emphasis on triple dimensions of sustainable innovations in recent years, and especially in the international community; they haven't found their original position in the Iranian dairy industry. According to the plentiful and negative impacts of dairy industry waste tothe environment, pay attention to the environmental innovation codes, in comparison with the other codes, has not had much importance in this industry. Although environmental innovations havethe lowest frequency, they have a great importance in promoting the sustainability of the Iranian dairy industry so that, the two first ranks of this industry recent innovations are allocated to the environmental type.Our analysis also shows that institutional sustainability of the Iranian dairy industry IS is much less than the expected situation and responses indicated that there are a variety of instabilities in the macro and micro institutions/organizations of this industry.
Conclusions: According to the role of systemic and sustainable innovation toward achieving sustainability goals, innovation system policy making of an Iranian dairy industry requires a comprehensive view to all dimensions of sustainability, including economic, social, and environmental. Additionally, instabilities have been considered in terms of social and economic dimensions, and environmental instability of the system less mentioned. So, environmental sustainability is a newer debate that should be seriously participated in the innovation policy and sustainability of the dairy industry. Finally, this study has suggested that institutional sustainability dimensions and capacities call for more investigation in the future researchers.

Keywords

Interactions; Dairy value chain; Institutional environment; Sustainable innovation

References

1. Ar I.M. 2012. The impact of green product innovation on firm performance and competitive capability: the moderating role of managerial environmental concern. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 62:854-864.

2. Augustin M.A., Udabage P., Juliano P., and Clarke P.T. 2013. Towards a more sustainable dairy industry: integration across the farm–factory interface and the dairy factory of the future. International Dairy Journal, 31(1):2-11.

3. Ayuso S., Ángel Rodriguez M., Garcia‐Castro R., and Ángel Ariño M. 2011. Does stakeholder engagement promote sustainable innovation orientation?. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 111(9):1399-1417.

4. Bikar V., Capron H., and Cincera M. 2006. An integrated evaluation scheme of innovation systems from an institutional perspective. Research series N°06-09.RS, May. (pp. 34). DULBEA.

5. Bikar V., Capron H., and Cincera M. 2004. An integrated scheme for the evaluation of institutional set-ups: the case of the belgian regional innovation system. In the XLème Colloque de l’ASRDLF, Convergence et disparites regionales au sein de, l’espace europeen, Les politiques regionales à l’epreuve des faits, 1-3 September. Brussels, Belgium.

6. Boons F., Montalvo C., Quist J., and Wagner M. 2013. Sustainable innovation, business models and economic performance: an overview. Journal of Cleaner Production, 45:1-8.

7. Burke S., and Gaughran W.F. 2007. Developing a framework for sustainability management in engineering SMEs. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 23(6):696-703.

8. Busse M., Schwerdtner W., Siebert R., Doernberg A., Kuntosch A., König B., and Bokelmann W. 2015. Analysis of animal monitoring technologies in Germany from an innovation system perspective. Agricultural Systems, 138:55-65.

9. Calik E., and Bardudeen F. 2016. A measurement scale to evaluate sustainable innovation performance in manufacturing organizations. Procedia CIRP, 40:449-454.

10. Charter M., and Clark T. 2007. Sustainable innovation: key conclusions from sustainable innovation conferences 2003–2006. The Centre for Sustainable Design, University College for the Creative Arts. May 2007. Available at www.cfsd.org.uk(visited 17 August 2014).

11. Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy. 2013. 2012 U.S. Dairy Sustainability Report.Available at https://www.usdairy.com/sustainability/reporting/us-dairy-sustainability-report (visited 2 May 2015).

12. Devi Prasad B. 2008. Content analysis: a method of social science research. p. 173-193. In D. K. L. D. a. V. Bhaskaran (ed.) Research Methods for Social Work. New Delhi, Rawat Publications.

13. Elo S., Kääriäinen M., Kanste O., Pölkki T., Utriainen K., and Kyngäs H. 2014. Qualitative content analysis. SAGE Open, 4(1):2158244014522633.

14. Elo S., and Kyngäs H. 2008. The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1):107-115.

15. Fozouni Ardekani Z., Farhadian H., and Pezeshki Rad Gh.R. 2017. Determine the degree of dairy industry development in Iran provinces; using numerical taxonomi technique. Iranian Journal of Food Science and Technology, 14(64):51-60.(In Persian with English abstract.(

16. Grosse-Dunker F., and Hansen E.G. 2012. Product-service systems as enabler for sustainability-oriented innovation: the case of Osram’s off-grid lighting. p. 40-54. In N. Farley Simon et al. (eds.) Technological, Managerial and Organizational Core Competencies: Dynamic Innovation and Sustainable Development. Hershey, PA, USA: IGI Global.

17. Hallstedt S.I., Thompson A.W., and Lindahl P. 2013. Key elements for implementing a strategic sustainability perspective in the product innovation process. Journal of Cleaner Production, 51:277-288.

18. Hansen E.G., Grosse-Dunker F., and Reichwald R. 2009. Sustainability innovation cube — a framework to evaluate sustainability-oriented innovations. International Journal of Innovation Management, 13(4):683-713.

19. Hartwich F., and Negro C. 2010. The role of collaborative partnerships in industry innovation: lessons from New Zealand's dairy sector. Agribusiness, 26(3):425-449.

20. Hoffren J., and Apajalahti E. 2009. Emergent eco-efficiency paradigm in corporate environment management. Sustainable Development, 17(4):233-243.

21. Hosseini M.H., and Rezaei M. 2011. An investigation of effective factors in brand loyalty of dairy products market. Journal of Business Management Perspective (Management Perspective), 5(38):57-79.(In Persian.(

22. Hosseini S., and Erfanian Z. 2009. Modeling the effects of advertising on the demand for dairies in iran (case study: milk industries of Iran). Iranian Journal of Agricultural Economics and Development Resaerch, 39(1):1-10. (in Persian).

23. Jacobsson S., and Bergek A. 2011. Innovation system analyses and sustainability transitions: contributions and suggestions for research. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 1(1):41-57.

24. Jinzhou W. 2011. Discussion on the relationship between green technological innovation and system innovation. Energy Procedia, 5:2352-2357.

25. Ketata I., Sofka W., and Grimpe C. 2015. The role of internal capabilities and firms' environment for sustainable innovation: evidence for Germany. R&D Management, 45(1):60-75.

26. Kilkis S. 2016. Sustainability-oriented innovation system analyses of Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Turkey and Singapore. Journal of Cleaner Production, 130:235-247.

27. Klerkx L., and Nettle R. 2013. Achievements and challenges of innovation co-production support initiatives in the Australian and Dutch dairy sectors: a comparative study. Food Policy, 40:74-89.

28. Klewitz J., and Hansen E.G. 2014. Sustainability-oriented innovation of SMEs: a systematic review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65:57-75.

29. Loorbach D., van Bakel J.C., Whiteman G., and Rotmans J. 2010. Business strategies for transitions towards sustainable systems. Business Strategy and the Environment, 19(2):133-146.

30. Mayring P. 2014. Qualitative content analysis: theoretical foundation, basic procedures and software solution. Klagenfurt, Austria.

31. OECD/Eurostat. 2005. Oslo manual: guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data. OECD Publishing, Paris.

32. Raee Dehaghi M., Karimi F., and Zahedi Keyvan M. 2011. Economic investment feasibility for constructing dairy plants under uncertainty conditions. Journal of Agricultural Economics Research, 3(1):47-72. (In Persian.(

33. Roscoe S., Cousins P.D., and Lamming R.C. 2016. Developing eco-innovations: a three-stage typology of supply networks. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112:1948-1959.

34. Sadeghi Shahdani M., and Abd Almaleki H.A. 2009. Modeling for advantage measuring of dairy industry in Iranian provinces, using multi-criteria decision making methods. Iranian Journal of trade studies, 13(50): 33-72. (In Persian.(

35. Spielman D.J., Davis K., Negash M., and Ayele G. 2011. Rural innovation systems and networks: findings from a study of Ethiopian smallholders. Agriculture and Human Values, 28(2):195-212.

36. Thompson A.W., Larsson T.C., and Broman G. 2011. Towards sustainability-driven innovation through product-service systems. p. 117-122. In J. Hesselbach, and C. Herrmann (eds.), Functional Thinking for Value Creation: Proceedings of the 3rd CIRP International Conference on Industrial Product Service Systems, 5-6 May. 2011. Technische Universität Braunschweig, Braunschweig, Germany, Berlin.

37. van Kleef J.A.G., and Roome N.J. 2007. Developing capabilities and competence for sustainable business management as innovation: a research agenda. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15(1):38-51.