Cooperation in the food industry: contributions and limitations of the open innovation model

This article focuses on the multi-partner relationships between agrofood firms and external stakeholders to innovate, which some authors today call the Open Innovation model (Chesbrough, 2003). Based on various studies we have conducted on innovation and cooperation processes in agrofood companies, we show that innovation processes are not always “open”, as some companies prefer to develop their innovations internally. For various reasons (confidentiality, obstacles in protecting innovations, difficulties in establishing relationships in the absence of internal R&D, etc.) these firms can choose to innovate without recourse to external partners. Furthermore, we discuss the hypothesis that geographical proximity between companies and stakeholders would automatically result in a greater ability to absorb external knowledge and technologies. “Remote” cooperation is strong and organised proximity plays a key role in facilitating the cooperation.

[1]  Jean-Benoit Zimmermann,et al.  Le territoire dans l'analyse économique : Proximité géographique et proximité organisée , 2008 .

[2]  D. Talbot.  Les institutions créatrices de proximités , 2008 .

[3]  P. Muller,et al.  Innovation ouverte et évolution des business models dans les pôles de compétitivité : le rôle des intermédiaires dans la création variétale végétale , 2014 .

[4]  S. Breschi,et al.  Knowledge Spillovers And Local Innovation Systems: A Critical Survey , 2001 .

[5]  Sophie Reboud,et al.  Proximités organisationnelle et géographique dans les relations de coopération : une application aux secteurs agroalimentaires , 2012 .

[6]  Karim Messeghem,et al.  L'émergence d'un pôle de compétitivité agroalimentaire : de l'encastrement à l'ambidextrie , 2009 .

[7]  Sungjoon Lee,et al.  Open innovation in SMEs—An intermediated network model , 2010 .

[8]  André Torre,et al.  Proximity and Localization , 2005 .

[9]  D. Doloreux,et al.  Regional Innovation Systems in Canada: A Comparative Study , 2004 .

[10]  S. Sedita,et al.  Learning at the boundaries in an "Open Regional Innovation System": A focus on firms' innovation strategies in the Emilia Romagna life science industry , 2010 .

[11]  Julien Pénin.  Are You Open?. An Investigation of the Concept of Openness for Knowledge and Innovation , 2013 .

[12]  D. Mercier,et al.  Comptences-cls de territoires. le rle des relations interorganisationnelles , 2006 .

[13]  D. Teece,et al.  DYNAMIC CAPABILITIES AND STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT , 1997 .

[14]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  Innovation and Learning: The Two Faces of R&D , 1989 .

[15]  Sylvain Amisse,et al.  Les logiques à l'origine des dynamiques de coopération dans les clusters : l'exemple de filières du végétal spécialisé , 2011 .

[16]  E. Huizingh.  Open innovation: State of the art and future perspectives , 2011 .

[17]  R. Boschma.  Proximity and Innovation: A Critical Assessment , 2005 .

[18]  François Fulconis,et al.  Management des pôles de compétitivité et structures en réseau , 2009 .

[19]  A. Malmberg,et al.  The Elusive Concept of Localization Economies: Towards a Knowledge-Based Theory of Spatial Clustering , 2002 .

[20]  P. Trott,et al.  WHY 'OPEN INNOVATION' IS OLD WINE IN NEW BOTTLES , 2009, International Journal of Innovation Management.

[21]  Michael Martin,et al.  Quelle est la propension des entreprises à coopérer pour innover et à quelles échelles spatiales ? Une analyse des entreprises agroalimentaires françaises sur la période 2006-2008 , 2015 .

[22]  H. Bathelt,et al.  Between Luminaires and Meat Grinders: International Trade Fairs as Temporary Clusters , 2008 .

[23]  M. Bell,et al.  The micro-determinants of meso-level learning and innovation: evidence from a Chilean wine cluster , 2005 .

[24]  Oliver Gassmann,et al.  Opening Up the Innovation Process: Towards an Agenda , 2006 .

[25]  Ron Boschma,et al.  Co-evolution of Firms, Industries and Networks in Space , 2011 .

[26]  D. Gann,et al.  How open is innovation , 2010 .

[27]  B. Nooteboom.  Learning by Interaction: Absorptive Capacity, Cognitive Distance and Governance , 2000 .

[28]  La Géographie des comportements d'innovation au Québec : des territoires « européens » aux accessibilités « canadiennes » ? , 2012 .

[29]  Maureen McKelvey,et al.  Does co-location matter for formal knowledge collaboration in the Swedish biotechnology-pharmaceutical sector? , 2003 .

[30]  A. Torre.  On the Role Played by Temporary Geographical Proximity in Knowledge Transmission , 2008 .

[31]  Danièle Benezech,et al.  The Open Innovation model: Some issues regarding its internal consistency , 2012 .

[32]  K. Pavitt.  Sectoral Patterns of Technical Change : Towards a Taxonomy and a Theory : Research Policy , 1984 .

[33]  G. Soutar,et al.  Low-tech vs high-tech entrepreneurship: A study in France and Australia , 2014 .

[34]  H. Bathelt,et al.  Clusters and knowledge: local buzz, global pipelines and the process of knowledge creation , 2004 .

[35]  Denis Lescop,et al.  Une analyse critique des fondements de l'innovation ouverte , 2011 .

[36]  Raphaël Suire,et al.  Théorie économique des clusters et management des réseaux d'entreprises innovantes , 2008 .

[37]  Open Innovation in SMEs , 2017 .

[38]  Bj⊘rn Asheim,et al.  Knowledge bases and Regional Innovation Systems: Comparing Nordic Clusters. , 2005 .

[39]  M. Freel,et al.  Sectoral patterns of small firm innovation, networking and proximity , 2003 .

[40]  A. Torre.  Relations de proximité et comportements d'innovation des entreprises des clusters. Le cas du cluster de l'optique en Île-de-France , 2014 .