The Role of Absorptive Capacity in Driving Innovation in Valencian Fruit and Vegetable Cooperatives

Abstract

The capacity of the Valencian fruit and vegetable sector (i.e., cooperatives) to absorb knowledge has been analysed, as well as the influence of this capacity on the adoption of technological innovations and production processes. This objective is motivated by the multiple challenges currently facing the agricultural sector. The dominance of large distribution chains and competition from products imported from other countries have increased production costs without a proportional increase in income. The study was conducted with a sample of 14 fruit and vegetable companies and cooperatives. This study explored how these organisations acquire and assimilate knowledge from abroad and the barriers they face in this process. The results reveal that the extent of assimilation is fundamental to transforming potential absorption capacity into reality. Acquiring knowledge is not the problem, given the abundance of information available. The challenge lies in discerning which knowledge is relevant and aligning it with the needs of the organisation and its customers. The importance of generational change and team dynamics in knowledge consolidation is evident. The importance of effectively managing knowledge assimilation for the success of innovation in agri-food cooperatives is highlighted. In addition, common barriers to the implementation of innovation are identified. The lack of gender diversity is evident in the leadership profiles of cooperatives, highlighting the need for future research addressing absorptive capacity from a gender perspective.

1. Introduction

The agricultural sector is of vital importance to the economy and society of the European Union (EU). It supports an ecosystem primarily consisting of cooperatives and small and medium-sized enterprises that produce food, ensure food security and preserve the fabric of rural communities. However, it is under increasing pressure due to the dominance of large retail chains, economies of scale and competition from produce imported from other countries. The European Commission has documented these trends, reporting a steady increase in production and input costs in recent years that has not been matched by farm-gate prices (EC, 2024). Similarly, the socio-economic report by the OSCAE (2022) shows that producer incomes in the Valencian agrifood sector have remained stagnant despite rising operational costs, thus confirming the aforementioned structural imbalance. This structural pressure is closely related to the innovation dynamics of agrifood cooperatives. On the one hand, global competition and the dominance of large retailers increase the strategic need for innovation and for incorporating external knowledge in order to differentiate products and improve efficiency. Conversely, rising production costs and stagnant producer incomes limit cooperatives’ financial capacity to invest in new technologies, training or organisational routines that enhance absorptive capacity. This tension is consistent with the absorptive capacity framework, which recognises that environmental pressure and resource constraints influence a firm’s capacity to transform and utilise acquired knowledge (Zahra & George, 2002).

These factors have increased costs without a commensurate increase in producer incomes. In response to these challenges, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) for the period 2023–2027 aims to bolster the resilience of the EU’s agricultural sector by supporting farmers in developing sustainable food systems that align with current environmental and economic demands. These measures will ensure higher incomes for farmers and are key to curbing rural depopulation, preventing land abandonment, and enhancing the stability of rural communities.

There has also been an increase in consumer demand for organic, local, fairer and healthier food from local producers, which is marketed through short sales channels. The highly competitive agrifood environment forces cooperatives to constantly introduce new technologies and innovations in order to maintain their market position (Meliá-Martí et al., 2024). There are two ways in which an organisation can introduce new technologies and innovations: by creating new knowledge internally or by acquiring it from outside (López & Oliver, 2023). However, most cooperatives lack the resources to establish an R&D department or generate such knowledge internally. Consequently, they must be able to acquire knowledge from external sources in order to implement modern technologies and innovations (Sama-Berrocal & Corchuelo Martínez-Azúa, 2023). Thus, knowledge acquisition is one of the key factors for innovative organisations. However, knowledge is not a commodity that can simply be bought. It must be absorbed and internalised by the people within the organisation. This is why it is necessary to analyse organisations’ capacity to absorb knowledge and innovate by adopting new technologies, processes, organisational structures and marketing methods. Most research on absorptive capacity has focused on technology companies, with few studies addressing absorptive capacity in agricultural organisations (Micheels & Nolan, 2016; Xie et al., 2018).

This research asks how such cooperatives and companies absorb knowledge from abroad, and what the barriers to its implementation are. To answer this question, a mixed analysis (quantitative and qualitative) has been conducted. The quantitative statistical analysis enables us to conduct a confirmatory study. A series of interviews has been conducted to enable an exploratory qualitative study.

This article is divided into five sections. After this introduction, Section 2 sets out the theoretical framework, providing a review of references on the absorptive capacity construct to focus our field of study. The population to be studied has been defined in the empirical framework presented in this section. Section 3 describes the method. Section 4 presents and analyses the results, while Section 5 presents the discussions and conclusions.

2. Theoretical Framework

The concept of absorptive capacity emerged in the 1970s from studies of R&D activities and technological change (Tilton, 1971; Allen, 1977). These authors found that certain business activities fostered the development of internal innovations and enhanced the ability to recognise and assimilate external innovations.

A decade later, Cohen and Levinthal (1990) provided a definition that established absorptive capacity as a construct. They formulated the first and most influential version of the construct by considering the double effect of R&D activities, introducing a notable extension to the antecedent basis of absorptive capacity. They defined absorptive capacity as central to a firm’s ability to recognise the value of new and external information, assimilate it, and apply it commercially. They suggested that absorptive capacity is largely a function of the firm’s level of prior knowledge. According to these authors, therefore, the ability to evaluate and use external knowledge is determined by the level of prior knowledge.

Cohen and Levinthal (1990) also characterised the factors influencing absorptive capacity at an organisational level. They identified the differences between the absorptive capacity of an organisation and that of its individual members, as well as the role of knowledge diversity within an organisation. In their work, the authors emphasise the importance of R&D in contributing to a firm’s absorptive capacity. Furthermore, they emphasise the value of basic research, the adoption and diffusion of innovations, and the decision to participate in external R&D organisations.

Human relations are particularly relevant to a firm’s absorptive capacity. According to Cohen and Levinthal (1990), a company’s absorptive capacity depends on three factors: the relationship between the company and its external environment, the relationship between company departments, and the relationship between individuals within each department.

As Lane et al. (2002) argue, absorptive capacity has been explored from several perspectives. These include organisational learning, knowledge management, strategic alliances, and innovation management. However, few researchers have revised and extended the original definition of absorptive capacity proposed by Cohen and Levinthal (1990). Prominent examples include the work of Lane and Lubatkin (1998), Van den Bosch et al. (1999), and Zahra and George (2002).

Lane and Lubatkin (1998) define external learning as knowledge acquired from another company, with the former acting as a ‘student’ firm and the latter as a ‘teacher’ firm. These authors do not consider the external learning that a firm can obtain from its sector or environment as a whole. Therefore, they developed the concept of relative absorptive capacity. This implies that a firm’s ability to learn from another is determined by the characteristics of both the student and teacher firms. A student firm’s absorptive capacity depends on its ability to value, assimilate and apply new knowledge from an external partner. This capacity also depends on three factors: the specific type of new knowledge offered by the teacher firm; the similarity between the student firm’s and teacher firm’s practices and organisational structures; and the student firm’s knowledge of the teacher firm’s organisational problems.

Van den Bosch et al. (1999) return to the definition of Cohen and Levinthal (1990), which gives prime importance to internal learning that is subsequently transformed into new absorptive capacity. This is influenced by the firm’s environment and can differ in stable or turbulent conditions.

Zahra and George (2002) redefine absorptive capacity as a set of organisational routines and processes through which firms acquire, assimilate, transform and exploit knowledge in order to develop dynamic organisational capabilities. They propose the concepts of potential and realised absorptive capacity, as well as the four dimensions that comprise them. They define potential absorptive capacity as the ability to acquire and assimilate knowledge. However, if it is not transformed and exploited, it will not lead to innovations being implemented in the company, and therefore it will not become realised absorptive capacity.

The above contribution adds a fourth dimension to the three proposed by Cohen and Levinthal (and maintained by other researchers), grouping them into two components (see Table 1).

Table 1. Dimensions of absorptive capacity.

Cohen and Levinthal (1990)	Zahra and George (2002)
Recognise	Procurement: A company’s ability to identify and acquire externally generated knowledge that is critical to its operations.	Potential Exploitation Capacity
Assimilate	Assimilation: Routines and processes of a company, which enable it to analyse, process, interpret and understand information obtained from external sources.
Apply	Transformation: A company’s ability to develop and refine routines that facilitate the combination of existing knowledge.	Realised Absorptive Capacity
	Exploitation: Organisational capability based on routines that enable enterprises to refine, extend and build on existing competencies or create new ones by incorporating acquired and transformed knowledge into their operations.

Source: Own elaboration.

Zahra and George (2002) introduce the concept of efficiency as the capacity to convert potential absorptive capacity into realised absorptive capacity. They emphasise that social integration mechanisms reduce barriers to information exchange, thereby increasing the efficiency of assimilation and transformation capabilities. In other words, they argue that good management of a firm’s internal relationships helps it to transition more easily from potential absorptive capacity to realised absorptive capacity. Consequently, acquiring new knowledge from outside the company becomes a source of competitive advantage.

Absorptive capacity is a concept that encompasses many scenarios and study variables. It has been studied from many different perspectives, and, as Rodríguez-Albor et al. (2017) have indicated, the background to absorptive capacity is sometimes controversial due to limited empirical validation, given the relatively small number of case studies that have been carried out. There have been no associations generated between the cases studied, nor has there been any integration of results with independent interpretations. Fernández Alarcón (2005) highlights limitations such as the lack of studies on the diversity of external knowledge to be acquired and the absence of consistent, cumulative literature.

Several studies analyse the relationship between absorptive capacity, innovation and geographical proximity (Presutti et al., 2019; Maté-Sánchez-Val & Harris, 2018; Galliano et al., 2019). These studies demonstrate that proximity between firms is not a determining factor in the development of innovation capacity. However, they reveal the importance of proximity to customers in enhancing absorptive capacity. In any case, Maté-Sánchez-Val and Harris (2018) demonstrate that proximity is more significant for developing absorptive capacity in the Spanish agrifood sector.

Camisón and Forés (2010) address absorptive capacity as a crucial dynamic competence for organisations in competitive environments and analyse methodological gaps in the literature, particularly with regard to the definition and measurement of the construct. They also explore how shared competencies within an industry sector can affect knowledge absorptive capacity and internal knowledge creation capability. Their study focused on data from 952 Spanish firms in 35 industrial districts. They developed a structural equation model to test the relationship between firms’ integration in industrial districts and their shared skills, and the impact of these on firms’ knowledge absorptive and internal knowledge creation capabilities. They demonstrated that shared skills within industrial districts, such as social capital and knowledge networks, significantly impact firms’ ability to absorb external knowledge (Camisón & Forés, 2011).

In another study, this time applied to the tourism sector in Spain, they address the interaction between the internal and external capabilities of firms—specifically, exploration and exploitation capabilities—and their impact on radical and incremental innovation in the agricultural sector. Based on a sample of over one thousand firms, the study uses regression models to assess the direct and moderating effects of exploration and exploitation capabilities on innovation. The study demonstrates that exploration capabilities have a positive effect on radical innovation, which is further enhanced by shared capabilities. In contrast, exploitative capabilities have a significant positive effect on incremental innovation, though shared exploitative capabilities can weaken the impact of internal exploitative capabilities. The differing impacts of exploration and exploitation capabilities on radical and incremental innovation are demonstrated (Camisón et al., 2018).

Within the literature on absorptive capacity, several authors have focused their studies on the agricultural sector. Some have addressed the relevance of various factors to absorptive capacity, such as organisational resources, technology-based knowledge management practices, the incorporation of R&D networks and continuous learning for mentoring. Others have focused on the challenges facing small firms.

One of the studies in the factor analysis-oriented group focuses on grain and livestock farms in Canada and analyses the role of organisational resources such as social capital, knowledge networks and absorptive capacity in the adoption of innovations. Micheels and Nolan (2016) emphasise the importance of absorptive capacity in adopting farm-level innovations and in linking information integration and participation in knowledge networks. Silva et al. (2023) analysed the influence of technology-oriented knowledge management practices on absorptive capacity in soybean farming in Brazil. In this study, the authors related knowledge management practices to absorptive capacity, emphasising their role in the institutionalisation of organisational memory. Stræte et al. (2023) examined how agricultural advisory organisations in Norway enhance their absorptive capacity and improve their services by integrating R&D networks and continuous learning. They emphasise the importance of organisational structures and learning processes for improving absorptive capacity in agricultural organisations.

The SME study group focuses on exploring the absorptive capacity of smallholder farmers in riparian wetlands in Indonesia, with the aim of adapting agricultural technologies to respond to local needs and constraints. The group emphasises the importance of adapting agricultural technologies based on smallholder absorptive capacity, as well as the necessity of direct observation and dialogue with farmers (Lakitan et al., 2018). The influence of absorptive capacity on the strategic renewal of SMEs in Pakistani agriculture (mediated by strategic agility and social capital) has also been examined. Absorptive capacity has been identified as a catalyst in the relationship between social capital and strategic renewal applicable to SMEs in the agricultural sector (Khan et al., 2020). Furthermore, the impact of absorptive capacity, leadership capacity and government support on product, process and distribution channel innovation in SMEs in Vietnam demonstrates how absorptive capacity, when combined with other factors, can stimulate innovation and enhance performance within the agricultural sector (Tran et al., 2023).

There is widespread political and societal concern about how to revitalise the rural economy. This concern originates from attempts to avoid the continuous abandonment of rural life and population migration to major cities. One of the best-known initiatives is the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy, which evolved in response to changing economic circumstances and popular demand. For the period 2023–2027, the European Commission is providing support for farmers and rural stakeholders in the 27 EU countries through strategic plans that contribute to the common goals of the European Green Deal, the Farm to Fork Strategy and the Biodiversity Strategy (EC, 2024). These initiatives aim to support resilient food systems that are better adapted to present and future threats, producing healthier, more environmentally friendly food in the process. This will also enable farming incomes to increase and curb general depopulation and land abandonment. A great deal of debate has been generated around marketing systems through short food supply channels (SFSCs) (Chioleau & Dourian, 2020).

The Innovative Downscaled Food Processing in a Box (FOX) project is worth highlighting. Funded by the European Commission (EC, 2019), its objective is to develop innovative solutions that generate products using new fruit and vegetable processing systems. The project aims to reduce the dependence of small and medium-sized producers on large processing industries, enabling them to produce end products from their own crops as close to the point of production as possible. The project seeks to reduce the scale of processing systems for agricultural products, thereby increasing profitability for producers by bringing them closer to end consumers. The project focuses specifically on processing fruit and vegetables on a small scale in a box. In other words, it involves flexible and mobile processing units for use in regional food systems, forming the basis for innovative business models run by SMEs. In this way, the programme responds to the needs of today’s consumers and provides business opportunities for small, local producers and processors. Marketing through SFSC is also encouraged.

The Valencian Region has the third largest agricultural area in Spain. It generates €9.4 billion of gross added value (9.6% of the regional economy) and employs 12.2% of workers in the region. Distribution accounts for 51.3% of the sector’s gross value added (GVA, 2023). Valencia is the largest producer of citrus fruits in Spain and the second largest producer of plants and flowers. The regional sector comprises 2534 companies, representing 8.4% of those in the Spanish agrifood industry. Micro-companies represent 62.5% of the sector. In recent years, however, the sector has struggled with competitiveness due to low productivity and high costs (Maudos & Salamanca, 2022).

3. Materials and Methods

The following research question will be addressed: how do cooperatives and companies absorb knowledge from abroad, and what are the barriers to its implementation? In order to respond to the aforementioned research question, a mixed analysis has been conducted. A range of data collection techniques, including both qualitative and quantitative methods, were employed to achieve the objective. These techniques offer a comprehensive means of studying and thinking about social reality, simultaneously enabling the acquisition of broad knowledge and the discovery of people’s actions and thoughts in the field (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). In this study, quantitative information was incorporated to map the distribution of absorptive-capacity indicators across the sample and to enhance the interpretative framework of the qualitative findings. The quantitative component was therefore descriptive in scope and not intended to produce generalisable prevalence metrics for the broader agrifood sector.

The selection of cooperatives analysed in this research was derived from directory data sourced from the Association of Agrifood Cooperatives of the Valencian Region (https://cooperativesagroalimentariescv.com/asociadas (accessed on 8 October 2024)). The utilisation of companies from this directory ensured the uniformity of the criteria employed, as all the registered companies and cooperatives are from the agrifood sector.

According to data from the latest Socio-economic Observatory of Agrifood Cooperatives, which is part of the Spanish Ministry of Labour and Social Economy (OSCAE, 2022), the association grouped 252 cooperatives and companies at the end of 2022, representing 97% of the turnover of the Valencian agrifood cooperative sector. Consequently, the utilisation of this association’s directory data ensures a sample universe that encompasses nearly all agrifood co-operative companies in the region.

The sampling universe was defined using the directory of the Association of Agrifood Cooperatives of the Valencian Region (https://cooperativesagroalimentariescv.com/asociadas (accessed on 8 October 2024)), which lists approximately 252 cooperatives and agrifood companies (OSCAE, 2022). Of these, 60 organisations operate specifically within the fruits and vegetables sector, the focus of this study. This sector is of strategic importance, accounting for 57.2% of the total agrifood turnover in the Valencian Region and 27% of national agrifood turnover (see Table 2).

Table 2. Distribution of stakeholders contacted for the survey/interviews and their response rate.

Stakeholder Group	Description	Nr Contacted	Nr of Responses	Response Rate (%)
Fruit-and-Vegetable Cooperatives and Agrifood Companies	Organisations listed in the official directory of the Association of Agrifood Cooperatives of the Valencian Region (target population = 60 fruits and vegetables organisations).	78	15 initial replies	19.2%
Eligible Organisations Participating in the Study	Organisations that provided complete information and agreed to a face-to-face interview.	15	14 completed interviews	93.3%

It is crucial to elucidate that the study’s population frame comprises exclusively fruit and vegetable cooperatives and agrifood companies that are registered with the regional agrifood association. Individual small-scale farms and family-run microenterprises are not part of this institutional ecosystem and were therefore not included.

The interviews were conducted in person in nine cases and via videoconference with representatives from nine cooperatives (C) and five companies in the agricultural sector (E). In the majority of cases, the interviewees are involved in production, with two exceptions (a person in charge of new developments and products, and a sales manager) (Table 3). The analysis of the results and the interviewee answers are treated anonymously.

Table 3. List of organisations and sample interviewees.

NO.	Code	Designation	Interviewee
1	C1	Production cooperative	Production Manager
2	C2	Production cooperative	Operations Director
3	E1	Producer (of vegetables)	Owner
4	E2	Producer (and transformer)	Production Manager
5	C3	Production cooperative	Director
6	C4	Production cooperative	Production Manager
7	E3	Marketer	New Product Manager
8	C5	Production cooperative	Manager
9	C6	Production cooperative	Director
10	E4	Producer (of tomatoes)	Production Manager
11	C7	Production cooperative	Head of Technical Dept.
12	E5	Producer (of tomatoes)	Production Manager
13	C8	Production cooperative	Managing Director
14	C9	Production cooperative	Sales Manager

Source: Own elaboration.

The final sample comprised 14 organisations (8 cooperatives and 6 agrifood enterprises), selected through simple random sampling. As this represents 23.3% of the target population, the finite population correction (FPC) was applied, following established recommendations for simple random sampling when n/N is greater than 5% (Cochran, 1977; Lohr, 2019). The margin of error was estimated using the standard formula for proportions (Levi & Lemeshow, 2013), assuming p = 0.5 and a 90% confidence level (z = 1.645). The uncorrected margin of error was:

$${MOE}_{\infty }=1.645\ast \sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{0.25}{14}}} \approx 0.220.$$

The finite population correction, defined as:

$$FPC= \sqrt{{\displaystyle \raisebox{1ex}{$60-14$}\!\left/ \!\raisebox{-1ex}{$60-1$}\right.}} \approx 0.883.$$

was applied according to classical sampling formulations (Cochran, 1977; Scheaffer et al., 2011). The resulting final margin of error was:

$$MOE={MOE}_{\infty }\times FPC\approx 0.914.$$

Accordingly, the study presents a margin of error of ±19.4% at the 90% confidence level. Although this margin is relatively high, it is considered acceptable for exploratory research in sectors characterised by limited data availability and high organisational heterogeneity, such as the Valencian fruit and vegetable cooperative sector.

The collection of data through interviews was conducted during the months of June and July 2022. The 78 cooperatives/companies were contacted via email, in which the purpose of the interview and the study was explained. Following the distribution of the request for participation, a response was received from 15 companies. These companies were then contacted by telephone in order to arrange an appointment with the CEO for the purpose of conducting an interview. The interview was conducted in person with 14 companies; however, one company failed to provide the requisite information for the interview to take place. The interviewees were correctly informed of the use of the data and the purpose of the research. All parties involved provided consent for the data to be used anonymously and for the conversation to be recorded for the purpose of enhanced analysis.

A total of fourteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with managers, directors and specialists of companies and cooperatives in the agricultural sector in the Valencian Region (Spain). The objective of these interviews was to ascertain the reasons why some cooperatives engage in innovation while others do not, to understand the factors that motivate those that do, and to identify the barriers to innovation.

The proposed methodology was designed to address the following research questions:

• How does the common thread of absorptive capacity, understood with the four dimensions provided by Zahra and George (2002), play out in organisations?
• What barriers are there to moving between them?
• The interview questions were organised using Zahra and George’s (2002) structure of two components and four dimensions, generating four main blocks of questions. These blocks deal with the acquisition, assimilation, transformation, and exploitation of external knowledge by companies (Table 3). The proposal put forward in the Colef-Colson (2014) report, described in Olea-Miranda et al. (2016), was used as a basis.

4. Results

The results of the interview are analysed following the structure outlined in Table 4.

Table 4. Interview Structure.

I.	Introduction
II.	Initial Capacities (IC)
III.	Absorptive Capacities (AC-2-component and 4-dimensional)
III.1.	Potential AC, procurement
III.2.	AC potential, assimilation
III.3.	AC realised, transformation
III.4.	AC realised, exploitation
IV.	Conclusion

Source: Own elaboration.

I.

Introduction

In order to circumvent any potential disparities in comprehension of the concepts pertaining to absorptive capacity, a concise elucidation is herein provided. This explanation elucidates the objective of the study and demonstrates how absorptive capacity and its various dimensions influence the application of innovations and modern technologies in organisations. The initial contact and introduction of the concept is conducive to the establishment of a certain degree of trust with the interviewees, thus motivating them to engage in self-disclosure regarding their activities, knowledge, and perspectives on the subject.

The business model of the majority of cooperatives is analogous, with the exception of a number of enterprises interviewed, which are of a diminutive size and do not engage in export activities. It is evident that while certain entities have achieved a tenfold increase in turnover, others have experienced a halving of their revenue.

II.

Initial capacities

It is imperative that an organisation possesses a competent technical team (2.1.1, 2.1.3, 2.1.4) and is affiliated with a group that oversees the marketing of products from multiple cooperatives (2.1.5). It is an inherent aspect of membership of a group that oversees marketing that there is an acceptance of quality standards with regard to the volume of products and the food safety requirements of large supermarkets.

With regard to the training of management and technical staff (2.1.4), no significant differences were observed, since in all the cooperatives and companies, the fundamental training is agronomic and typically of a high standard. In the cases examined, there is an absence of an innovation specialist who is tasked with specific responsibilities.

In relation to the topic of infrastructure (2.1.6), the majority of interviewees attest to the adequate equipment status of their respective organisations, with no significant disparities observed between them. It can be posited that a cohesive team engenders investment in the necessary elements for enhanced production and marketing.

It has been observed that when the initial capacities of an organisation are enhanced, the transition from potential to realised capability becomes more straightforward. C1, for instance, references a recruitment process that led to an augmentation in the number of staff from 4 to 17 specialists. This process was developed at the initiative of a director, who appointed a specialist to be responsible for the rest. This initiative resulted in enhanced knowledge among management personnel, thereby facilitating enhanced communication between various departments. This, in turn, proved to be a revitalising element within the organisation.

However, it has been observed that the number of technical staff is not a limiting factor when it comes to moving from potential to realised CA. C5 serves as a case in point, illustrating a process of renewal that is characterised by the involvement of a reduced group of technicians and an emphasis on knowledge sharing. Concurrently, employees are engaged in a variety of roles, thereby enhancing the flexibility of the workforce.

Another example of this phenomenon is evident in the case of C8, where significant alterations have been implemented by a small number of technicians. This enterprise has achieved an eightfold turnover increase over the past 13 years. This outcome can be attributed to the integration of a newly established team that has demonstrated proficiency in the effective management of resources and the maximisation of local products. The team has promoted existing products (olive oil, walnuts, vegetables, and almonds) and has incorporated new products (such as wine, processed products, and a line of natural cosmetics made from home-grown extra virgin olive oil). These initiatives have facilitated the professionalisation of staff and motivated them to become proactive in their involvement with management.

It is evident that certain cooperatives are not exclusively dedicated to the production and marketing of fruit and vegetables; rather, their focus extends to the marketing of services. This is exemplified by C5, where the technical team and turnover (ranging from €3 to €5 million per annum) are comparatively diminutive in relation to the other cooperatives that were interviewed.

In instances where specialists are engaged in the process of renewal, the increase in number is not of primary significance; rather, the pivotal factor is the distinct working dynamics that are engendered between teams. This is exemplified by C2 and C5, where the implementation of these tools at the individual level has been instrumental in facilitating enhanced information exchange, thereby fostering a more dynamic environment for knowledge sharing through meetings and informal interactions.

Consequently, the generational renewal that has occurred in most cases has been extremely beneficial, resulting in novel dynamics in the relationships between staff members. However, it is important to note that the renewal of the team is significant for reasons that extend beyond the mere incorporation of young people. Indeed, the renewal process represents a rupture with the existing dynamics, which is a key point to consider. This phenomenon is exemplified by the renewal of staff members who were initially appointed many years prior and have since demonstrated pronounced and deeply entrenched idiosyncrasies. It was evident that senior managers were not always adequately trained for their roles, and issues arose from external sources. These aspects rendered the organisation incapable of resolving various issues and anticipating future market trends, consequently placing it in a disadvantageous position to address the challenges presented by the market. As demonstrated by the case of C2, who, upon his arrival at the organisation, discovered that the manner in which meetings were conducted did not align with agile principles. This state of affairs resulted in a failure to hold meetings with the requisite frequency. In addition, there was an absence of interdepartmental collaboration and a lack of commitment to implementing improvements. Conversely, the utilisation of communications was employed for the reprimand of customers in instances of error and non-conformity.

III.1

Potential absorptive capacity. Acquisition

Sources of information. All the interviewees generally agree that the internet is a great ally for acquiring knowledge. Various channels mentioned in the interview (information sheets, specialised publications, magazines, webinars, social networks, and forums) were being widely used and the acquisition of knowledge is not seen as a problem (3.1.1).

However, its usefulness for market intelligence (3.1.2) is less clear. It seems to be helpful for small companies, where there is less connection with large corporate groups. The Internet is a good tool for connecting with markets and final prices, as well as for keeping in touch with other small producers with whom knowledge can be shared.

In the training section (3.1.3), a clear pattern emerges: large companies that have significantly increased their turnover in recent years all have continuous training plans.

III.2

Potential absorptive capacity. Assimilation

When it comes to knowledge assimilation, the interviewees usually have partnerships with suppliers and customers (3.2.1). Collaborations with suppliers are developed to test new varieties and products (3.2.2). Collaboration with customers occurs for studying new packaging lines, as is the case for C1, C2, C3, and C9 (3.2.2). Collaboration with research institutes and universities is also widespread (3.2.3; 3.2.6), and there is usually a close relationship with a recognised regional agricultural research centre. Participation in European projects and operational groups is not common, except in large cooperatives and E3 due to their size. This participation is usually assessed positively.

Where there is disparity is in the question as to whether regular meetings are encouraged to share new knowledge with colleagues in the organisation (3.2.4). The answers range from once a month for C1; not at all and it should be more dynamic for C2; informally but constantly for C3; weekly for C5 and C7; yes, but not in a formal manner for C8; while C9 commented that they have too many meetings (three a week). In the case of the companies, in E2, E3, and E5 meetings take place on a regular basis, but not in the rest due to their small size (3.2.5). This discontinuity and disparity are a problem for internal relations and therefore becomes a possible barrier to the assimilation of absorptive capacity.

III.3

Realised absorptive capacity. Transformation

In the context of the transformation dimension, a significant proportion of large companies and cooperatives have opted to engage external consultancy services. A substantial proportion of these services are oriented towards aspects pertaining to quality, technology and finance (3.3.1 a, b.). It has been determined that strategic plans are deficient in their execution, as they have only been referenced by C1 and C2. The former has been completed, while the latter is currently undergoing development. In both cases, the process of contracting out has been initiated.

In the majority of cases, the acquisition of contemporary technologies and the enhancement of infrastructures is a continuous process, with the market itself compelling the implementation of these technologies (3.3.2, a, b).

The possession of certification with the most common quality seals in the industry (such as GlobalGap, IFS, BRCGS, CAE, or those of Anecoop and Naturane) enables sales to large European supermarkets and marketing groups. It is notable that there are some unusual circumstances, as evidenced by the case of C9 (which is part of the PGI Cítricos Valencianos) and C7 and C9 (which are certified for biodynamic agriculture) (3.3.3).

It was found that all interviewees expressed a favourable response to the organisation’s propensity to learn, create knowledge, and disseminate it to other members of the organisation. However, it was also observed that this propensity is not often reflected in formal action protocols or processes (3.3.4). This signifies that a proportion of the company’s expertise is forfeited when an employee departs. It was determined that exceptions to the aforementioned criteria were C3, which has a functions manual, and C5, which is implementing some processes of the lean manufacturing system and is therefore obliged to draft action protocols, functions manuals, etc. Furthermore, C5 has developed pilot workshops, facilitated by a presenter who elucidates novel innovations in the market to the remainder of the team.

With regard to human resources skills (3.3.5), generational renewal (a) is evident in 8 of the 14 interviews (wherein one response is omitted). With regard to the matter of whether connectivity between departments is permitted (b), 13 reports indicate that it is permitted and deemed significant, while one interviewee reports that their company has no organisational subdivisions. In addressing the question of whether knowledge is generated and shared within the company (C), the results indicate that this is a salient issue in all companies, with the exception of the company with no departments. The findings suggest that this factor is well managed. In conclusion, with regard to the utilisation of codes for protocols and processes, six interviewees indicate that these are employed, while three indicate that they are in the process of being applied, and three do not apply codes.

It is noteworthy that merely two interviewees indicated that production improvement practices (3.3.6) were not applicable or carried out on an ad hoc basis. The other interviewees indicated that they are used constantly. In the context of agricultural experimentation, certain organisations undertake their testing procedures on fields that are owned by employees. Conversely, some companies possess dedicated facilities for conducting experiments on the production and acclimatisation of novel varieties, which are designated as C6, C8 and C9, respectively.

III.4

Realised absorptive capacity. Exploitation

In the farming section, all interviewees report that their organisations have generated or adopted product innovations in the last two years, with the exception of C2 (3.4.1. a). C1 reports have indicated an increase in the variety of vegetables produced, while C3 has focused on pre-prepared convenience food ranges. Furthermore, C4 has introduced novel presentations and products, C5 has launched organic products, E4 has launched new varieties, E5 has introduced grated tomato in a pre-prepared convenience food range, and C9 has identified the development of bioplastics as a significant priority, in addition to collaborating on a project with a research centre. It is evident that the vast majority of cooperatives and companies have adopted new technologies in areas such as digitalisation, processing, post-harvest handling, remote sensing, product weighing and labelling (3.4.1. b).

With regard to process innovations (3.4.2), C3 has modified its collaborative relationships in order to ensure the security of production. The C5 has been instrumental in preventing the addition of fertiliser to irrigation water, thereby facilitating the initiation of ecological production by partners. It is evident that C6 reports no innovations, whereas C8 has incorporated a pre-churning paste cooling process for oil production. E2 has implemented a reduced plant production system for salads, and E4 has made innovations in grafting and pruning tomato plants. The remaining respondents provided a positive response without providing any additional contextual information.

In the context of novel advancements in the domain of corporate organisation (3.4.3), the endeavours undertaken in recent years have precipitated a paradigm shift in the configuration of the constituents of the C1 cooperative. This agricultural cooperative has evolved from a mere role of producers (sometimes exhibiting a lack of professional diligence in the management of their agricultural land) to that of full-time farmers, engaging in the continuous development of new business ventures. This is a significant step forward, and the increased scale will allow it to become more resilient and better prepared to face future challenges. C8 assumes responsibility for the administration of fields that are owned by retired members.

The case of C3 is also very clear. Following a substantial and progressive decline in turnover, the organisation underwent a restructuring of its relationships with its members and assumed the management of abandoned fields. Consequently, the cooperative can be appropriately sized in accordance with the available production capacity. The objective of the study was to examine the variables of the fields owned by members in order to prevent their disappearance in the future. The study encompasses a range of variables, including the varieties cultivated, the age of the plantation, the age of the grower, and the intention to perpetuate the activity. Furthermore, C3 has announced its intention to conduct a study on the projected output within a five-year timeframe.

With regard to the marketing innovations (3.4.4), C7 has established seven retail outlets, while C2 is in the process of opening shops. C3 remarks that the marketing company Anecoop is responsible for its commercialisation. C5’s foray into internet sales proved unsuccessful. C8 has achieved notable success in the domains of internet sales and agritourism. C9 asserts that it has implemented novel marketing strategies; however, the company acknowledges that this is becoming increasingly challenging due to intensified market competition. E4 has innovated by creating its own packaging and brand, while E1 is attempting to market its higher-quality land.

In general, the impact of these innovations on organisations has been positive and varied (3.4.5). Despite the absence of any increase in profitability, there has been a marked improvement in both confidence and stability. It is evident that C2 has had a significant impact on cost reduction, whilst concomitantly enhancing control and supply. C4 has achieved a reduction in costs and an enhancement in stability. Although there have been no significant enhancements, the C5 has successfully sustained its level of turnover. It is evident that both C6 and C7 have succeeded in reducing expenditure whilst concomitantly increasing sales and profits. C8 has increased the added value of its products. According to E4, there has been a significant enhancement in the ease of conducting business. Furthermore, E5 has successfully acquired new customers and penetrated new markets.

IV.

Conclusion

In relation to the concluding inquiries concerning satisfaction with the degree of improvement (4.1.a) and the resolution of problems and perception of progress (4.1.b), it is noteworthy that all interviewees expressed satisfaction with the necessity for innovation and continuous development to incorporate new technologies (e.g., digitalisation, traceability, robotics, new products, packaging, and bioplastics). Nevertheless, variances exist in the velocity of these alterations.

The barriers to the implementation of such improvements, in the form of modern technologies and innovations, are typically financial in nature, although this is not universally the case. C9 remarks that the magnitude of these investments is growing, indicating a parallel increase in the volume of investments. This suggests that certain members of the cooperative, including its staff, may encounter challenges in adapting to these changes. C4 continues to observe a reluctance among management to embrace change, with a lack of comprehension regarding the reasons behind the high fees charged by specialists and the persistence of entrenched problems without resolution. C6 has experienced a considerable rate of attrition, with approximately 50–60% of cooperative members departing in recent years. This has significantly impeded the implementation of long-term changes, and C2 has expressed concerns regarding the adequacy of information flow.

The quantitative element of the study was not designed to produce generalisable prevalence estimates, but rather to support the categorisation and comparison of patterns across the four absorptive capacity dimensions. In light of the study’s exploratory nature and the limited population size, a quantitative approach was adopted for the analysis. This method was employed to achieve three objectives: firstly, to identify the presence, absence, or strength of each capacity dimension; secondly, to triangulate the findings obtained from semi-structured interviews (see Table 5); and thirdly, to enhance the overall reliability of the study findings.

Table 5. Presence of Capacities by Absorptive Capacity Dimension (n = 14).

Dimension	Capability Indicator	Nr of Organisations	Evidence from the Study
Acquisition	Organisations using continuous training	N/S	Continuous training appears mainly in larger cooperatives with recent growth, but no exact number is provided (3.1.3).
	Organisations collaborating with suppliers	14	All interviewees report collaboration with suppliers for testing new varieties and products (3.2.1–3.2.2).
	Organisations monitoring markets	N/S	Market monitoring is noted as more relevant for smaller firms, but a precise count is not given (3.1.2).
Assimilation	Organisations holding regular meetings	8	C1, C3, C5, C7, C8, C9, E2, E3, and E5 report regular or frequent meetings; C2 and several small firms do not (3.2.4–3.2.5).
	Organisations using manuals or codified procedures	9	Six organisations apply protocols; three are in the process of implementation; three do not apply them; one has no departments (3.3.5).
	Organisations with effective interdepartmental links	13	Thirteen organisations report effective departmental connectivity; one firm has no subdivisions (3.3.5).
Transformation	Organisations holding certifications (e.g., Global G.A.P., IFS, BRC)	14	All organisations report holding the certifications required for large-scale commercialisation (3.3.3).
	Organisations hiring external consultancy services	N/S	The text states that all large cooperatives and most of the organisations have hired external consultants, but no exact number is provided (3.3.1).
	Organisations adopting new technologies	12	Only two organisations report not applying production improvements or doing so on an ad hoc basis; the remainder adopt technologies such as digitalisation, post-harvest systems, or remote sensing (3.3.6).
Exploitation	Organisations launching new products in the past two years	13	All except C2 report product innovations (3.4.1).
	Organisations adopting process innovations	13	All except C6 report process innovations; several provide concrete examples (3.4.2).
	Organisations adopting marketing innovations	N/S	Several organisations report marketing innovations (C2, C3, C5, C7, C8, C9, E4, E1), but the text does not confirm whether this constitutes the complete set (3.4.4).

5. Discussion & Conclusions

The agricultural sector within the European Union (EU) continues to serve as a pivotal component of the economy and social stability. The sector is predominantly composed of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which play a pivotal role in ensuring food production and food security, thereby underpinning the rural fabric of society. However, the sector is facing increasing pressures, including competition from third-country products and the dominance of large distribution chains. This competition has resulted in increased costs without concomitant increases in producer incomes. The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) for the period 2023–2027, in alignment with the European Green Pact, seeks to strengthen the sector by promoting sustainability and ensuring greater welfare for farmers through innovations and food systems better adapted to today’s environmental and economic requirements (EC, 2025).

The present study corroborates the notion that knowledge absorptive capacity is imperative for agricultural cooperatives and enterprises to innovate and adapt. According to the seminal contributions of Cohen and Levinthal (1990) and Zahra and George (2002), absorptive capacity is defined as the process of acquiring, assimilating, transforming, and utilising external knowledge. Empirical analysis indicates that the assimilation dimension is pivotal in transforming potential absorptive capacity into realised absorptive capacity. The primary challenge lies in the ability to discern the relevant knowledge and align it with organisational and customer needs. The study also indicates that innovation is about technological solutions, as well as the ability to absorb changing customer needs (which can become a key factor for organisational success).

The competitive pressures affecting the Valencian fruits and vegetables sector help to explain the patterns observed in the results of this study (OSCAE, 2022). As posited in the extant theoretical framework, absorptive capacity becomes imperative in such conditions, since firms must not only access external knowledge but also internalise it and apply it to their own practices if they are to remain competitive (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990; Zahra & George, 2002). The present study lends support to the aforementioned perspective. It is evident that while all organisations engage in active collaboration with suppliers and have access to diverse information sources (Results, Acquisition), internal assimilation mechanisms remain disparate. A mere eight organisations report regular internal meetings, and only nine use formalised procedures, thus limiting the transition from potential to realised absorptive capacity (Results, Assimilation; Table 5). This finding is consistent with the conclusions of earlier research, which highlighted the significance of internal routines and cross-departmental coordination in facilitating knowledge integration (Lane & Lubatkin, 1998; Van den Bosch et al., 1999). In contrast, organisations with robust internal structures have been found to demonstrate a consistent propensity for the introduction of novel products (13 out of 14) and the adoption of technological or process innovations (Results, Exploitation). It can thus be concluded that the external market pressures described in the introduction are not merely contextual but directly condition how absorptive capacity manifests within organisations. This in turn reinforces the finding that innovation performance depends as much on internal assimilation capabilities as on external knowledge access.

The conclusions drawn from this research indicate that companies lacking the capacity to generate internal knowledge must develop clear strategies to facilitate the absorption of external knowledge. Nonetheless, the efficacy of this process is contingent upon the effective management of assimilation, which necessitates a congruence with the company’s strategic plan and robust team dynamics. The transition of knowledge and expertise between generations, often facilitated by the dynamisation of teams, has been observed to contribute to the consolidation of knowledge and the effective transition to transformation and exploitation, as evidenced by the cases of C5 and C7. However, the study reveals that assimilation is the most vulnerable dimension, as inadequate management of this stage has the potential to impede absorption and the successful implementation of innovation.

The model proposed by Zahra and George (2002) identifies some exceptions to this generalisation. In certain cases, such as C7, the process of acquiring knowledge was directly transferred to the transformation phase without undergoing adequate assimilation. This resulted in a failure to exploit innovation. This underscores the notion that the successful assimilation of knowledge is contingent upon not only the acquisition of information but also a meticulous process of assimilation that engages all pertinent departments and key stakeholders within the organisational structure.

Interpersonal relationships within teams, in conjunction with the effective management of human resources, have been identified as playing a pivotal role in the assimilation of knowledge. These relationships have been identified as one of the primary factors that determine the success of the innovation process. It is important to note that the transformation dimension can be managed externally. By contrast, assimilation requires intense internal work.

The present study acknowledges several methodological limitations that should be considered when interpreting the results. Firstly, although the universe of fruit and vegetable cooperatives in the Valencian Region is well defined, the final sample comprises 14 organisations, which (despite representing 23.3% of the population) results in a relatively high sampling error (±19.4% at a 90% confidence level). This methodological decision serves to constrain the extent to which the quantitative findings can be generalised, thereby underscoring the exploratory nature of the study. Secondly, it should be noted that participation was voluntary, a factor which may introduce bias as a result of self-selection. This is due to the fact that the organisations most willing to participate may be those with a stronger interest in innovation or absorptive capacity. Thirdly, the qualitative component is dependent on semi-structured interviews conducted primarily with senior managers, which provide valuable strategic insights but may underrepresent the perspectives of other organisational actors involved in knowledge assimilation and transformation. Ultimately, the cross-sectional design does not permit the capture of the dynamic evolution of absorptive capacity over time, particularly in periods of generational renewal or structural change. These limitations necessitate a cautious approach when interpreting the results and underscore the necessity for future studies to be conducted with more extensive samples and longitudinal designs.

Finally, it is important to note that all interviewees are male, thus highlighting a significant finding of the study: namely, the lack of gender diversity in the management of the companies studied. This aspect provides a foundation for future research that can address absorptive capacity from a gender perspective, considering how inclusion could influence innovation and knowledge management in the agricultural sector.

It should be noted that the present study does not include small family farms or micro-scale producers, whose organisational structures differ significantly from those of cooperatives. It is recommended that future research focus on the examination of absorptive capacity in these actors, given the potential divergence of their innovation dynamics from those observed in professionalised cooperative organisations.

To summarise, the present study corroborates the necessity for agricultural organisations to cultivate a robust knowledge absorptive capacity in order to sustain competitiveness within a highly dynamic environment. While the Common Agricultural Policy provides an adequate strategic framework, the success of companies is contingent on their ability to efficiently manage internal relationships, assimilate relevant knowledge, and adapt to market demands. The alignment of internal needs with technological solutions, in conjunction with committed leadership and adequate funding strategies, is imperative to ensure sustainability and innovation in the European agricultural sector.