Exploring Responsible Research and Innovation in reputable agri-food cooperatives and the link to international orientation. An exploratory empirical case study in Spain

ABSTRACT

This study aims to provide a preliminary estimate of the degree of implementation of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) in agri-food cooperatives; to that end, it proposes an instrument for measuring RRI as a reflective construct. A secondary aim is to demonstrate the direct and positive relationship between RRI and international market orientation. Data were sourced from 60 managers from the top 100 reputable agri-food cooperatives in Spain. By conducting a descriptive statistical analysis, exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory tetrad analysis, and consistent PLS path modelling, it has been demonstrated that the RRI construct is reflective and unidimensional and has a direct relationship with the international orientation of cooperatives. While future research is required to refine the empirical application of RRI indicators to agri-food cooperatives, they can play a significant role in bridging the divide between theoretical RRI concepts and the development of pragmatic indicators for use in business environments.

KEYWORDS:

• Agri-food
• cooperatives
• internationalization
• Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI)
• scale
• sustainability

Introduction

Since the 1980s, the concept of sustainability has been on the agenda of most governments and enterprises around the world. The Brundtland Report defined sustainability as development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their needs (World Commission on Environment and Development 1987). Since then, much of the sustainable development discourse has focused on environmental issues, but in recent years the concept of sustainability has broadened to incorporate social dimensions (Ajmal et al. 2018; Cavagnaro and Curiel 2012; Dempsey et al. 2011).

From 2000 to 2015, the United Nations (UN) Millennium Declaration and associated Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were the focus of the world’s development agenda, with multi and bilateral organizations, governments, and civil society seeking innovative ways to achieve a more peaceful, prosperous and just world. The failure to fully achieve the MDGs by the end of this period highlighted a range of important concerns, including limitations in the formulation, structure, content, and implementation of the MDGs (Fehling, Nelson, and Venkatapuram 2013), as predicted by authors such as Poku and Whitman (2011). The UN then held a global consultation process that led to the creation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the promulgation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 2015, an intergovernmental set of 17 goals and 169 constituent targets to be reached by 2030 (UN 2015).

In this context, it is generally accepted that business models should adopt sustainability-oriented innovation to contribute to the achievement of the SDGs (Sinkovics et al. 2021). Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) is an emerging field of research that seeks to balance economic, socio-cultural, and environmental aspects in innovation processes (Gremmen, Blok, and Bovenkerk 2019). It was introduced by the EU with the aim of providing a framework for science in Europe, but academic contributions focus more on how research and innovation can benefit society while preventing potential negative impacts (Bardone, Burget, and Pedaste 2023). This comprehensive understanding of the innovation process prompted Forsberg and Wittrock (2022) to delve deeply into the concept of RRI as an overarching framework. Such studies are motivated by the need for researchers to reach a consensus on a set of fundamental conceptual foundations relating to RRI. Nonetheless, the controversy that surrounds this issue presents a compelling argument against the efficacy of RRI as a unifying umbrella concept.

According to Owen, Macnaghten, and Stilgoe (2012, 751), RRI emphasizes the democratic governance of the purposes of research and innovation and their orientation ‘towards the “right impacts” that are anchored in societal values’; it also concerns the integration and institutionalization of established approaches to research and innovation, as well as the framing of responsibility given the uncertain and unpredictable consequences. These features of RRI reflect the ambition to address societal needs, alongside more traditional objectives of research and innovation such as economic growth, profit maximization or competitive advantage. As will be discussed further below, Institutional Theory (Meyer and Rowan 1977; DiMaggio and Powell 1983) offers an explanation about how organizations adapt to the environment by assuming a set of implicit norms that condition their legitimacy. In this process of institutionalization, RRI is fundamental to providing an understanding not only of the significance of innovating and meeting new challenges, but also of doing so in a sustainable and balanced way. In fact, the EU’s definition of RRI addresses its relationship with sustainable development (Schneider, Kläy, and Zimmermann 2019; European Commission (EC) 2020; Wiarda et al. 2021). Specifically, creating knowledge that is relevant for the sustainable development is considered ‘good science’ (EC 2020, 11).

Closely related to the above, there is a growing acknowledgement in the international community that cooperatives are significant contributors to sustainable development (Birchall 2004; UN 2023). A cooperative firm is an organization which is owned and run democratically by its members, who voluntarily join it to meet their needs and to share the profits (International Cooperative Alliance 1995). Birchall (2004) shows that cooperatives may be thriving enterprises working through partnerships with a wide range of actors, contributing in significant ways to ensure social sustainability. Along the same lines, Castilla-Polo and Sánchez-Hernández (2020) point to the role of the social economy as a precursor of sustainable development and demonstrate that the cooperative movement is strongly committed to the SDGs.

The World Cooperative Monitor has explicitly acknowledged that cooperatives are essential pillars in a business model that ‘embraces the goals promoted by the 2030 Agenda in terms of human rights, fair labour, environmental sustainability, and sustainable growth’ (World Cooperative Monitor 2022, 24). Mozas-Moral et al. (2021) refer to cooperative principles and values to make the case that cooperatives are by their nature aligned with the SDGs. Considering that RRI provides a way to democratize innovation as a process, since it involves collaboration with stakeholders to address sustainability-related challenges (Stilgoe, Owen, and Macnaghten 2013), it is also worth analysing RRI in cooperatives, which are socially responsible companies by nature (Castilla-Polo, Sánchez-Hernández, and Gallardo-Vázquez 2017).

In this context, more studies about responsible agriculture innovation are needed (Bronson 2018; Tricarico et al. 2020). The role of RRI in the agri-food industry has been a focus of research in recent years, mainly because innovation in this sector can help to solve societal challenges such as the expected growth in global consumption, or the need to improve food security (Gremmen, Blok, and Bovenkerk 2019). For example, focusing on RRI in the global supply chain, Dalziel et al. (2017) analyse innovation in the agri-food industry aimed at bringing supply closer to international demand and the export of products to distant destinations. Also noteworthy is a systematic review of the scarce literature on the subject (Lubberink et al. 2017), or the work of Eastwood et al. (2019), who study RRI in livestock for dairy production. Recently, in the context of Spanish agri-food cooperatives, RRI has been considered as a moderating variable influencing the social capital-return relationship (Sánchez-Hernández and Castilla-Polo 2021). Despite these antecedents, RRI research is still an emerging field, characterized by a narrow top-down approach, and requiring a stronger focus on how companies effectively implement responsible processes (Jakobsen, Fløysand, and Overton 2019). Given the importance of the RRI for agri-food cooperatives and its links to the international orientation (IO) of these companies (which will be discussed in more detail below), this subject constitutes an emerging niche in the field of research, to which we intend to contribute with this work. The main goal of our study is to provide a preliminary estimate of the use of RRI in the agri-food cooperative sector under the fundamental principle that the ability to manage effectively requires comprehensive measurement.

Cooperatives hold a key position in many industries, especially those related to agri-food production. The Exploring the Cooperative Economy Report (World Cooperatives Monitor 2021, 57) concludes that ‘agricultural cooperatives exist in almost every country around the world. They are very well represented in both developed and emerging economies and contribute to food security and poverty reduction in different areas of the world’. In 2020, Cooperativas Agro-alimentarias de España, the organization that represents the agri-food cooperative movement in Spain (2020, 4), had 3,669 cooperatives with more than 1 million producer partners and a turnover of more than 30 billion euros. In addition, cooperatives play a dominant role in some Spanish agri-food industries, especially in fruit and vegetables. The first aim of this work is to measure RRI in cooperatives. To do so, we develop, analyse, and validate a measurement scale, before applying it to the most relevant agri-food cooperatives in Spain. Furthermore, this objective is linked to the IO of these companies, since internationalization for growth is an unquestionably important strategy for large companies in the agri-food industry (Bremmers and Zuurbier 1997; Juliá-Igual, Meliá-Martí, and García-Martinez 2012), allowing them to reduce costs (labour, equipment and raw material), find new openings in a market, secure their market share, reduce risks by distributing activities over several distinct areas, overcome trade barriers or improve access to capital. IO and its benefits are clearly improved by RRI (Distefano, Gambillara, and Di Minin 2016; Lettice et al. 2017; Maia Loureiro and Palma Conceição 2019); accordingly, analysing the link between IO and RRI is the second objective of this research. In a nutshell, our objective is twofold: the first is to develop a specific scale for measuring the implementation of RRI in agri-food cooperatives, and the second is to analyse the relationship between RRI and IO. Our study also makes a novel contribution by linking Institutional Theory to RRI in the particular case of cooperatives.

Following this introduction, Section 2 sets out the theoretical framework underpinning RRI. The methodology is described in Section 3, and the main results are presented in Section 4. In Section 5, these results are discussed with reference to previous studies. Finally, Section 6 is devoted to reflections, limitations, and future lines of research.

Theoretical background

The theoretical framework is divided into three parts. First, Institutional Theory is presented. Second, the concept of RRI is defined, connecting it with the sustainability challenges of the economy and the SDGs. Finally, RRI is contextualized in the case of agri-food cooperatives, justifying the need to analyse the link between RRI and IO.

Institutional theory and sustainability

Institutional Theory is a classical theoretical framework used for analysing social phenomena in general, but particularly for interpreting organizational events (Lawrence and Shadnam 2008). This theory of organizational phenomena offers a vision of how companies ought to behave and act, following a series of norms, which are more or less implicit, and which prevail in their surroundings (Meyer and Rowan 1977; DiMaggio and Powell 1983).

According to Geels (2010) and De Prá Carvalho et al. (2017), all innovation paradigms present important characteristics that can be allied to Institutional Theory, aspects that we extend to RRI due to its relationship with sustainability challenges (Martinuzzi et al. 2018). However, as far as RRI is concerned, individuals and organizations are different actors, and while the alignment of objectives between the two would be desirable, is not always possible. According to Wittrock et al. (2021) RRI should be understood as part of different discourses; as such, there is a need to study whether RRI can be viewed as a driver of sustainability in organizations, or a barrier to it.

Nowadays, it is especially critical for firms to behave sustainably and to try to address the SDGs (Galleli et al. 2021; Van Zanten and Van Tulder 2018) by implementing green practices (Lin and Sheu 2012), management control systems (Wijethilake, Munir, and Appuhami 2017) or involving suppliers in sustainability (Khurshid, Muzaffar, and Bhutta 2021); these actions also help enhance their legitimacy. In line with the findings of Zheng, Luo, and Maksimov (2015), a significant driving force for corporations in embracing socially responsible initiatives is the pursuit of legitimization (Bansal and Roth 2000). This rationale underscores firms’ adoption of diverse strategies aimed at achieving legitimacy, directing their focus toward various facets of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) as a managerial philosophy (Valdivia and Guston 2015). These efforts also extend to the evolutionary managerial framework embodied in the concept of corporate citizenship (Hemphill 2016). While sustainability, CSR, and corporate citizenship have different theoretical and operational frameworks, there are certain similarities between them. Indeed, all three frameworks cover the types of responsible practices that help organizations to gain legitimacy (Carroll and Shabana 2010; Matten and Moon 2020).

Cooperatives are an especially favourable setting for RRI to become institutionalized because of their culture, grounded in an interconnected set of cooperative principles and values. The cooperative principles constitute institutional adaptations helping cooperatives survive and spread (Waring, Lange, and Chakraborty 2022). There principles are a set of operational guidelines which are pervasive among cooperatives of many types. They include (1) voluntary and open membership, (2) democratic member control, (3) economic participation of members, (4) autonomy and independence, (5) education, training, and information, (6) cooperation among cooperatives, and (7) concern for community (International Cooperative Alliance 2015).

Regarding sustainability, cooperatives are a long-standing form of sustainable human collective action (Wanyama 2014), which has been institutionalized in national legislations around the world. As noted by organizations such as the International Cooperative Alliance, as well as by agri-food cooperatives, it is assumed that cooperatives engage in sustainable practices addressing both social and economic objectives, which is key to enhancing their legitimacy. Finally, RRI offers cooperatives a way to approach the objectives of becoming more sustainable and thus gaining legitimacy, by proposing a type of innovation in accordance with the values of sustainability. Furthermore, RRI is especially relevant for cooperatives’ efforts to internationalize since international markets value sustainability positively. In fact, sustainable product sourcing has become a top priority for retailers in key EU markets (International Trade Centre 2019). During the COVID-19 pandemic, the visibility of cooperatives increased considerably, as they were considered responsible enterprises worthy of supplying Spanish and European households (CEPES 2020).

Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI)

Originally promoted by the EU, RRI has been increasingly relevant in European policies (Owen, Macnaghten, and Stilgoe 2012). For instance, RRI served as a cross cutting theme in the European framework programme Horizon 2020 and it is currently included as an operational objective in Horizon Europe (Forsberg, Gerber, and Carson 2020).

Meanwhile, the ethical face of innovation has been attracting the attention of the academic literature for at least two decades (e.g. Domínguez-Hernández et al. 2023; Guston et al. 2014; Hellström 2003; Lubberink et al. 2017). According to the European Commission (2015), there is no clear consensus on what RRI entails and even less on how to measure its impact. RRI is associated with social or sustainable innovation, but they are not synonymous concepts (Lubberink et al. 2017; Owen et al. 2021). It seems evident that that RRI addresses both innovation and sustainability, in an effort to ‘promote creativity and opportunities for science and innovation that are socially desirable and undertaken in the public interest’ (EPSRC-UK 2015, 1). According to Hübel, Weissbrod, and Schaltegger (2022), firms can respond to demands for sustainability by reconfiguring their goods and processes to improve not only economic but also social and environmental outcomes. In this vein, RRI is ‘an approach that anticipates and assesses potential implications and societal expectations regarding research and innovation, with the aim of fostering the design of inclusive and sustainable research and innovation’ (European Commission 2021, 1). Following Garst et al. (2022), in the RRI research field it has been demonstrated a need to redefine the concept of innovation, whereby commercial innovation is viewed not only as a means to gain a competitive advantage but also as a way for firms to act as catalysts of innovation to address major challenges.

Two defining characteristics of RRI are that it is a dynamic concept and a cross-cutting issue (European Commission 2015). Accordingly, RRI projects must be modified over the years, and industry-specific conditions should be considered in their analysis. In addition, prevalent academic perceptions of RRI emphasize the values of ethics, public engagement, and participation (Maia Loureiro and Palma Conceição 2019).

Although the practice of RRI is still limited and has attracted some criticism – such as the comments made by Von Schomberg, González-Esteban, and Sanahuja-Sahanuja (2022) about the imposition of increasingly ambitious normative requirements – it is undoubtedly important for the agri-food industry, where its use is in an embryonic stage. According to Hemphill (2016), social entrepreneurship (that is, new ventures dedicated to addressing social issues) and clean technologies are the only two contexts where RRI has been discussed, although its inclusion in other business contexts such as the agri-food industry is warranted. In fact, Rose and Chilvers (2018, 3) propose that RRI should be used to support the fourth agricultural revolution ‘ensuring that innovations designed to improve productivity and/or eco-efficiency also provide social benefits, meet human needs and are socially responsible’. However, according to Tricarico et al. (2020), promoting RRI in the agri-food industry and ensuring the engagement of all the actors involved remains a pending task. Furthermore, the World Cooperative Monitor (2020, 6) notes that, despite the huge impact of the pandemic, ‘cooperatives have proven resilient and innovative’.

Although some attempts have been made to measure the responsible side of innovation at the organizational level (Verburg, Rook, and Pesch 2020), and some recent studies point out the need to develop indicators and measures to assess RRI (Yaghmaei and Van de Poel 2021), to the best of our knowledge, there is still no validated instrument for evaluating RRI in the agri-food industry. In this field, RRI is often associated with Green Product Innovation (GPI), which is defined as innovations related to products that promote energy-saving, waste recycling, pollution prevention, no toxicity or green product design (Zhang et al. 2020). Product attributes such as ‘animal welfare, environmental sustainability, social responsibility and cultural authenticity are termed “credence attributes” since their veracity has to be taken on trust by the consumer at the point of purchase’ (Dalziel et al. 2017, 498). In this vein, PwC Consulting (2016) points to the need for the food industry to guarantee safe, high-quality food the consumer can trust. Based on the above, we can conclude that RRI has a relevant role to play in agri-business, for both sustainability and for internationalization purposes, where the need for companies to communicate to consumers how their production and marketing systems are supporting RRI is clear. This will reinforce consumers’ positive perceptions of companies in terms of food safety, health, and food quality, which in turn directly influence consumer satisfaction and loyalty (Mercadé-Melé, Fandos-Herrera, and Velasco-Gómez 2021).

In addition, firms should be implementing more effective strategies to support the 2030 Agenda. There are only six years left, and there remains plenty to be done in many areas, including innovation. As stated by the UN (2015, 4), ‘the SDGs present an opportunity for business-led solutions and technologies to be developed and implemented to address the world’s biggest sustainable development challenges’. In fact, SDG 9 Industry, innovation, and infrastructure, is directly linked to the other SDGs. There are innumerable business cases where innovation has been used to address different SDGs, especially when RRI enables the achievement of socially and environmentally desirable goals. In this regard, Flink and Kaldewey (2018) note how RRI attempts to incorporate social responsibility into scientific research and innovation, and for this reason is a concept that promises to have a considerable impact on science, technology and innovation policy.

There is thus a need to promote RRI in a context where achieving the SDGs is crucial and doing so requires remaining up-to-date on the myriad solutions that technology can offer to organizations. The key contribution of RRI to sustainability is based on the fact that it incorporates social and ethical dimensions into innovation and development processes. Indeed, it is vital to account for all the potential social and ethical limits to innovation (Lozano and Monsonís-Payá 2020), especially in agri-food cooperatives as their dual social and economic nature is part of their essence.

RRI and the International Orientation (IO) of agri-food cooperatives

As noted by Moen, Heggeseth, and Lome (2016), the IO of agri-food cooperatives should involve actively seeking international market opportunities by adapting their products to international operations, developing the resources required for international activities, and communicating their international ambitions to all cooperative members.

Despite the widespread idea that cooperatives are not innovative – for various reasons such as their small size (Novkovic 2017), limited access to capital (Maietta and Sena 2010), or risk aversion among the worker-owners (Chevallier 2011) – RRI provides them with a valuable opportunity. In terms of international market positioning, RRI could help cooperatives to strengthen their market power by reducing costs, identifying new openings, and increasing (or at least securing) their market share (Juliá-Igual, Meliá-Martí, and García-Martinez 2012). Having a good reputation also supports the internationalization strategy of any company attempting to better orient its supply towards demand, whether they are big multinationals (Mukherjee, Makarius, and Stevens 2018), small and medium-sized companies (Zyglidopoulos, DeMartino, and Reid 2006); emerging market firms (Mukherjee, Makarius, and Stevens 2021), or cooperatives (Guillouzo and Ruffio 2005; Juliá-Igual, Meliá-Martí, and García-Martinez 2012).

There is a general consensus among researchers that the process of internationalization involves overcoming various barriers, not only financial ones. Bretos, Díaz-Foncea, and Marcuello (2018) identified the following challenges faced by cooperatives in this regard: marginal presence, small size, problems in retaining managers, inefficient decision-making processes, and weak financial structure. All these barriers limit their ability to operate in other markets. Another weakness is their fragmentation and dispersion, which limits their bargaining power with other parts of the agri-food value chain, at the same time adversely affecting their IO efforts. Conversely, some statistics about agri-food cooperatives’ internationalization have shown an increase in their exporting dynamism in recent years, especially among large cooperatives (Agri-food Cooperatives 2020). The liberalization of the European and world markets for agricultural products, the increasing concentration of food retailers, the quality assurance and product development guarantee, as well as internal reasons mainly relating to economies of scale are some of the reasons put forward by Bijman, Pyykkonen, and Ollila (2014) to justify cooperatives’ IO.

In the context of the EU, meeting societal demands is another key issue to be considered by agri-food cooperatives when it comes to their IO. The European Green Deal calls for a collaborative approach in the whole value chain and cross-industrial cooperation in the search for sustainable industries. More specifically, the EU has stated that industries must ‘be helped to modernize and exploit opportunities domestically and globally’ (European Commission 2019, 1). This recommendation supports the business interest in both IO and RRI. Marcis, de Lima, and da Costa (2019) comment on the relevance of a responsible attitude towards sustainability in agricultural cooperatives, which allows them to demonstrate their sustainable practices in other markets to establish commercial relationships.

Having presented the theoretical background and prior evidence in this field, we can now formulate the main hypothesis of this research. This paper analyses RRI as a wide-ranging set of processes and activities that can be implemented and communicated by agri-food cooperatives when they decide to approach international markets and build legitimacy there. While RRI is not an end in itself, it is a means of meeting the market's demand for sustainability, since RRI is mutually beneficial for both business and society (Gurzawska, Mäkinen, and Brey 2017). The legitimation of these firms is based on several factors, some of which relate to sustainability. RRI could help cooperatives to become international, in that improvements in their environmental impact, animal welfare, social and cultural standards of their production systems, among other sustainable practices, will foster their IO. We thus formulate the following hypothesis to test:

H1: RRI is directly and positively related to IO in agri-food cooperatives.

Materials and methods

Our approach can be characterized as an exploratory empirical case study because we prioritize understanding over generalizability (Yin 2018). The study uses a structured survey, based on a questionnaire including a scale developed for RRI consisting of nine items, and an additional scale for the selected dependent variable, the IO of the cooperative. To ensure the validity of the RRI scale, Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) with SPSS was applied to the responses received from cooperatives in Spain. Then, because the data we collected do not follow a multivariate normal distribution, we used the non-parametric analysis software SmartPLS 3.2.6. For confirmatory analysis, in line with Gudergan et al. (2008), we applied a confirmatory tetrad analysis (CTA). Finally, instead of using the exploratory modelling analysis, we used the more recent confirmatory analysis called consistent PLS (PLSc) which can be used to assess the model fit.

Sample

Data were requested from a sample of 60 cooperative managers in May-July 2020. According to many business researchers, managers are best suited to participate in research surveys about their respective companies, owing to their superior comprehension of the organizational intricacies. For instance, Goll, Johnson, and Rasheed (2002) argue that managers with international business experience are best placed to respond to research surveys about internationalization, as they possess a unique understanding of related challenges and opportunities. Zhu and Kraemer (2005) examine the usage and value of e-business in the retail industry, arguing that managers are the best informants to respond to surveys about the adoption and use of information technology in their companies. Bertrand, Betschinger, and Fryges (2019), investigate the impact of location-specific factors on the performance of corporate research, emphasizing the importance of managers’ knowledge and insights about their companies in responding to research surveys. Specifically, in the agribusiness arena, some recent studies have involved consultation with managers, such as Maizza et al. (2019) in Italy, or Abu Hatab, Lagerkvist, and Esmat (2021) in Egypt, among others.

In addition, we draw attention to the importance of the nature of the enterprises surveyed. Although there are 60 informants, each one represents many social enterprises, as most of them are second-degree cooperatives; that is, cooperatives that bring together at least two cooperatives, defined by the Spanish Business Confederation of the Social Economy (CEPES by its initials in Spanish) (2023) as cooperatives of cooperatives. The sample (60% of the total population) is drawn from the most relevant agri-food cooperatives in CEPES’ ranking of the top 100 cooperatives. CEPES prepares a report about the most relevant social economy enterprises, which offers a perspective of the relevance of these companies in the Spanish socio-economic landscape. The CEPES list can be seen as a reputation ranking for these enterprises, given the lack of specific assessments of reputation. We have used this report to select the highest-ranking cooperatives in the agri-food industry – agriculture, livestock, forestry – and send them an online ad-hoc questionnaire. More details are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Technical data sheet.

Universe / Geographical area	Agri-food Cooperatives/Spain
Population	Top 100 cooperatives according to CEPES’ ranking (2018)
Period of gathering information	May-July 2020
Method	Online questionnaire (Google Form)
Sampling unit	Cooperative Managers
Final sample	60 agri-food cooperatives

Source: Own elaboration.

RRI measurement foundations

Previous studies call for further research on RRI (Dalziel et al. 2017), and highlight the need to develop novel indicators for this field (EC 2015). Although have been some proposals in this regard, it is critical to recognize that RRI ‘is a matter of outcomes as well as characteristics of the processes that lead to the outcomes’ (EC 2015, 11). Without indicators, it will be more difficult to manage RRI, because, as the well-known business maxim states ‘you can’t manage what you can’t measure’. The European Commission (2015, 13) points to a connection between RRI and good governance principles, ‘notably openness and participation through a network approach rather than a linear, top-down chain of command’.

In our paper, we focus on the interface between RRI and the agri-food industry, given that RRI is a cross-cutting concept. As a starting point, we draw on the work of Owen et al. (2013), Long and Blok (2018) and Eastwood et al. (2019), and particularly the seminal paper of Stilgoe, Owen, and Macnaghten (2013, 1570–1573), who describe a framework for RRI with four conceptual areas: anticipation, inclusion, reflexivity, and responsiveness. These elements have subsequently been applied by other authors in the field, such as Burget, Bardone, and Pedaste (2017), Kuzma and Roberts (2018), Tricarico et al. (2020), Jansma, Dijkstra, and de Jong (2021), Sánchez-Hernández and Castilla-Polo (2021), Castilla-Polo and Sánchez-Hernández (2022), and Tabarés et al. (2022). Table 2 shows how the main implications of the RRI dimensions apply to cooperatives.

Table 2. RRI dimensions and implication for agri-food cooperatives.

RRI Dimensions	Implications for businesses	Implications for agri-food cooperatives
ANTICIPATION	Awareness of future legislation Better risk management First mover advantage	Due to the regulatory complexity of the agri-food industry, anticipation is essential to access new markets. Social certifications are a common requirement that limits companies’ access to European markets. On the other hand, for many cooperatives, the barrier of internationalization can be overcome with RRI, leading to a reduction of the risk of these activities.
INCLUSION	Transparency Sharing knowledge culture Advantages from collaboration Better ability to match social expectations	The management of internal and external social capital in cooperatives is fundamental for sharing knowledge. Likewise, internationalization requires alliances and collaborations to overcome barriers mainly associated with financial constraints. Also, different actors in cooperatives can be introduced into the RRI process, which implies matching social expectations.
REFLEXIVITY	Critical overview and improvement of innovation performance Higher probability of innovation success	Members’ participation in the cooperative facilitates their involvement in RRI activities. The idea of co-creation partnerships is fully viable in these companies due to their social capital.
RESPONSIVENESS	Increased trust from customers Reputation and public trust in offered goods	In the agri-food industry, the need to ensure consumer confidence is essential. Products that incorporate RRI to improve their quality are useful in this regard.

Source: Own elaboration based on Nazarko (2020).

Proposal of RRI indicators for agri-food cooperatives

Based on the four dimensions of RRI outlined in Table 2, we present a framework for the practical implementation of this concept in agri-food cooperatives. The proposal is built on nine indicators, drawing inspiration primarily from two key sources: firstly, the seminal work of Stilgoe, Owen, and Macnaghten (2013), and secondly, the paper by Eastwood et al. (2019) in the context of smart farming, as indicated in Table 3.

Table 3. RRI Indicators proposed for agri-food cooperatives.

	Foundations		Our Proposal
	Selection of techniques and approaches from Stilgoe, Owen, and Macnaghten (2013)	Selection of indicators and related activities in smart farming from Eastwood et al. (2019)	RRI Indicators^(1) for agri-food cooperatives ^(1) Likert scale from 0 to 10 points (Strongly Disagree-Strongly agree)
ANTICIPATION	Foresight – Technology assessment	Technology-use surveys, assessing farmer perceptions of technology	We conduct surveys to find out about the technology-use of our members (RRIA1)
	Horizon scanning – Vision assessment	Scenario building – Visioning of smart dairy farms, assessing potential social, animal, and environmental outcomes	We conduct studies about the economic, social and/or environmental potential of our members (RRIA2)
INCLUSION	Consensus conferences – Ability to interrogate the social and ethical stakes associated with new science and technology	Involvement of relevant actors –Socio-ethical discussions about farmer-technology interactions – Critical feedback in workshops	We involve our members in workshops, debates or training courses about the use and interaction with technology (RRII1)
	Quality of dialogue as a learning exercise	Private sector engagement – Private companies included as partners in R&D projects	We engage with private companies to develop R&D projects (RRII2)
	User-centred design – Open innovation	Encouraging transformative mutual learning – Open innovation and co-innovation	We encourage transformative mutual learning through co-innovation, open innovation, or user-centred designs (RRII3)
REFLEXIVITY	Ethical technology assessment	Processes to guide reflection within research teams on underlying assumptions and values around development and use of technology – Reflexive monitors used in project – People dedicated to facilitating reflection	We have research groups and/or specific job positions to promote technology-use (RRIREFI)
	Codes of conduct	Reflexivity is embedded in R&D projects using processes such as codes of conduct and standards – Engagement with codes of conduct	Our R&D is engaged with codes of conduct or best practices guidelines (RRIREF2)
RESPONSIVENESS	Constitution of grand challenges	Potential to adapt projects – Ability to change direction based on stakeholder feedback	We have the ability to change direction based on our direct and permanent link with our members and other stakeholders’ feedback (RRIRSP1)
	Open access and other mechanisms of transparency	Open research processes and access to research data – R&D is transparent, and the process are accessible to private companies, farmers, and communities – Open data exchange, open access to research results, declaring conflicts of interest	We are involved in open and completely transparent R&D projects with data exchange (RRIRSP2)

Source: Own elaboration based on Stilgoe, Owen, and Macnaghten (2013) and Eastwood et al. (2019).

It is important to note that we have designed RRI as a reflective construct. The choice between reflective and formative constructs depends on the theoretical understanding of the purpose of the construct and the measurement model (Diamantopoulos, Riefler, and Roth 2008). A reflective construct is one where the observed indicators are assumed to measure the latent construct. In our case, each indicator is considered as a reflection of the RRI construct and is expected to share variance with the other indicators of the RRI. This allows for flexibility in measurement and enables us to choose the most appropriate set of indicators, according to theory, for our case study.

We used a Likert scale from 0 to 10 points, where the informant had the option to indicate his/her agreement with the statement (from strongly disagree to strongly agree). Likert scales allow for a graded response, providing a range of options to capture the diversity of perceptions in the sample.

A pilot study was conducted with nine managers from olive oil cooperatives to validate the reliability of the questionnaire before it was officially used; this is common practice in business studies to ensure precision and identify latent issues. These managers, while not part of the main sample, had engaged in prior collaborations with the authors and had expertise in the agri-food industry. As such, helped to refine the questionnaire, mainly by addressing subtle nuances.¹

Anticipation – This prompts researchers and organizations to think about what is plausible and what is possible. By determining the desired outcomes of innovation and avoiding negative outcomes, scenarios for innovation can be developed, as identified by Lubberink et al. (2017). The EU has passed several regulations on the application of quality schemes for the agricultural and food sector, and further regulations are expected soon. Similarly, the sustainability context will also influence further regulations on production and marketing processes in these enterprises. Another definition of this dimension includes a reference to how individuals engage in the early stages of the development and execution of research and innovation activities/processes (Wittrock et al. 2021). This clearly applies to the agri-food cooperatives’ context, where members can have interchangeable roles as suppliers, customers, or employees. Conducting surveys to find out how partners integrate sustainability issues with specific and practical technology usage (RRIA1) is considered a crucial indicator of anticipation when applied to agri-food cooperatives. This is because innovation and research activities in this sector have traditionally centred around technology use (Eastwood et al. 2019).

The analysis of the economic, social, and/or environmental potential of cooperative members is captured by the second indicator for the dimension of anticipation, RRIA2. Arguably, to make progress in RRI, cooperative partners must first engage in a CSR strategy (Szostak and Boughzala 2021). For example, certifications of socially responsible behaviour are likely to become a requirement, which may limit companies’ access to European markets. Hence, incorporating the RRI dimension of anticipation requires progress to be made on responsible behaviour. In this regard, it is worth noting the scholarly debate surrounding the link between RRI and CSR (Garst et al. 2022; Hemphill 2016), which highlights RRI’s foundation in policy-driven initiatives, as opposed to CSR’s origin as a reaction to market demands (Timmermans 2017).

Inclusion – The possibility of including new perspectives in both the outcomes and the processes of innovation. According to the AREA framework (EPSRC-UK 2015, 1), for RRI ‘to take place in a meaningful way, it will be important that we and our researchers nurture and promote partnerships with other disciplines and spheres of expertise and facilitate training to enable these skills to be developed and taken forward’. This might, for example, involve integrated approaches and collaborative research incorporating social and environmental scientists and engagement practitioners. In the context of cooperatives, inclusion – which entails cooperating with other companies, organizations, or institutions – is justified by the external social capital created by these organizations (Sánchez-Hernández and Castilla-Polo 2021). By introducing new actors into the deliberation process on research and innovation, along with the knowledge derived from their internal social capital, cooperatives can achieve this RRI dimension.

While inclusion may refer to various stakeholders, for RRI processes in the agri-food industry the members under the umbrella of second-degree cooperatives are especially relevant. In accordance with the cooperative principle of education and training, these enterprises must commit to the providing their members and waged workers with education, training, and information, as well as fostering the cooperative spirit (RRII1). This has a direct impact on enabling these enterprises to share the necessary technological know-how through courses or seminars, among others, and to engage members in innovation.

Similarly, creating the context for the exchange of knowledge that underpins innovation in all its dimensions can be achieved through collaborations and strategic alliances (RRII2). This is supported by the principle of cooperative cooperation, not just between and for cooperatives, but more broadly incorporating private entities or research bodies. According to Basterretxea, Charterina, and Landeta (2019), this cooperative principle helps them to coopete – that is, to collaborate with competitors – in their innovation and internationalization processes and achieve collaborative advantages. Consequently, as in other sectors (Jansma, Dijkstra, and de Jong 2021), cooperatives must encourage transformative mutual learning through co-innovation, open innovation, or user-centred designs (RRII3). This indicator involves the mutual exchange of knowledge and insights that can lead to profound changes or transformations in how members address a specific issue in their innovation processes. In this vein, the UN (2023: par. 1) recently emphasized the importance of consistent statistics, enabling laws, capacity-building, skill development, networking, and information-sharing among cooperatives for their growth.

Reflexivity – In this dimension, scientists are asked to blur the boundary between the responsibilities associated with their role and their wider, moral responsibilities. Reflexivity is key in innovation activities (Dossa and Kaeufer 2014), involving a reflection about societal circumstances to reassess practices and adjust initiatives. Introducing RRI in non-financial codes or guidelines is an easy way to delve into how innovation is approached (RRIREF1). According to Cooperatives and Mutuals (2016), a code of conduct should be part of the cooperative's bylaws, which every elected member is bound to accept and abide by. It should also be published and made accessible to members, employees, and the general public. RRI involves multiple processes and areas, which justifies the existence of specific internal positions, such as Chief Innovation Officers, or the innovation consultancy itself (RRIREF1). Agri-food cooperatives are worried about the use of Information, Communication and Technology (ICT) (Mozas-Moral et al. 2020); however, the digitalization of these firms is in their immediate future (Jorge-Vázquez, Chivite-Cebolla, and Salinas-Ramos 2021). Dealing with the issue of ICT requires the creation of job positions relating to innovation and its management.

Responsiveness – To respond is to react and to answer (Pellizzoni 2004). A good level of responsiveness requires a capacity to change shape in response to new pressures and circumstances. This implies that stakeholders are mutually responsible to each other by recalibrating their roles and responsibilities during the innovation process (Lubberink et al. 2017). This feature is closely associated with the democratized management of cooperatives (Bijman, Muradian, and Schuurman 2016). The relationship between cooperative principles and RRI is crucial in this dimension. For the most part, it is the democratic principle of ‘one member, one vote’ that facilitates a more effective change of direction when necessary (RRIRSP1), conditional on the members’ attendance at the different meetings. This creates a channel for continuing feedback, making it more likely that research and development projects will be transparent as members hold different roles along the cooperative value chain (RRIRSP2).

IO measurement scale

Despite the tensions that internationalization entails for cooperatives (Errasti 2004; Errasti et al. 2003), potentialities have also been clearly identified in academic literature (Bretos and Marcuello 2017). Generally speaking, a cooperative oriented to international markets will be engaged in seeking new opportunities abroad, developing strategic alliances, and will spend time analysing foreign data and improving its management and marketing skills (Murray, Gao, and Kotabe 2011; Zahra, Ireland, and Hitt 2000). We have used five items to measure the dependent variable, following the work of Welch and Luostarinen (1993) and Zhou, Wu, and Luo (2007), with a mix of outward and inward indicators, including an indicator to ascertain the level of efficiency of cooperatives’ international marketing operations. The indicators used are shown in Table 4.

Table 4. Measurement of IO.

IO Indicators	Scale
We intensively seek foreign markets (INT1) We utilize foreign information (INT2) We utilize advanced management skills from foreign countries (INT3) We are focused on developing lasting alliances with foreign partners and/or clients (INT4) We manage our international marketing operations efficiently (INT5)	Likert scale from 0 to 10 points (Strongly Disagree-Strongly agree)

Source: Own elaboration, based on Welch and Luostarinen (1993) and Zhou, Wu, and Luo (2007).

Results

Descriptive analysis

Table 5 shows the mean, median, minimum and maximum values, standard deviations, kurtosis, and skewness of the scores of each of the manifest variables or items of the RRI. The mean and the median both measure central tendency. All items show high median values, ranging between 7 and 8. RRIREF2 is the item with the most outliers, showing a mean of 6.40 and a median of 8. RRIA1 and RRII3 have the lowest mean, but it is higher than 5; specifically, 6.033 and 5.88, respectively. However, the mean of all the RRI items is 6.6, above the mean value of the scale. The highest standard deviation value is 3.236 for RRIREF2 indicating the greatest spread in the data. Excess kurtosis, positive or negative in all items considered, shows that the data do not follow a normal distribution.

Table 5. Descriptive Statistics for RRI.

Manifest variable	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Standard Deviation	Excess Kurtosis	Skewness
RRIA1	6.033	7	0	10	2.938	−0.875	−0.527
RRIA2	6.85	7	0	10	2.719	−0.029	−0.904
RRII1	6.95	8	0	10	2.929	0.128	−0.966
RRII2	7.25	8	0	10	2.668	0.854	−1.177
RRII3	5.88	7	0	10	2.984	−0.547	−0.614
RRIREF1	7.00	7	0	10	2.961	−0.207	−0.948
RRIREF2	6.40	8	0	10	3.236	−0.670	−0.779
RRIRSP1	7.217	8	0	10	2.450	0.423	−0.983
RRIRSP2	6.717	8	0	10	2.995	−0.128	−0.906

Source: Own elaboration.

In addition, the data are moderately skewed except in one case, RRII2, which is highly skewed. Table 6 presents the matrix of correlations between RRI manifest variables. The high correlation found suggests the potential reflective nature of RRI, because formative measures are not expected to correlate (Christophersen and Konradt 2012).

Table 6. Correlations between RRI manifest variables.

	RRIA1	RRIA2	RRII1	RRII2	RRII3	RRIREF1	RRIREF2	RRIRSP1	RRIRSP2
RRIA1	1
RRIA2	0.756	1
RRII1	0.724	0.654	1
RRII2	0.530	0.607	0.756	1
RRII3	0.647	0.600	0.754	0.680	1
RRIREF1	0.536	0.708	0.632	0.635	0.632	1
RRIREF2	0.567	0.613	0.686	0.741	0.626	0.682	1
RRIRSP1	0.606	0.698	0.649	0.662	0.583	0.728	0.683	1
RRIRSP2	0.524	0.570	0.720	0.747	0.752	0.690	0.650	0.567	1

Source: Own elaboration.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

EFA is a method consisting of multiple steps to analyse the structure, identify correlations, and reduce the dimensions of the data, by detecting underlying latent structures. First of all, to confirm that the distribution of the data set is appropriate for EFA, the Kaiser-Mayer-Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett’s test of sphericity were conducted. Using SPSS, we found the KMO value to be higher than the recommended level of 0.7 and the significance of Barlett’s test to be p < 0.001. Specifically, the KMO measure for sample adequacy was 0.908, which is considered ‘marvellous’ according to the generally accepted criteria (Beavers et al. 2013). Next, a factor analysis was conducted using the varimax rotation. A single factor was extracted showing a cumulative variance explained of 69%. To check the internal consistency of the scale items, a reliability analysis was conducted by calculating Cronbach’s Alpha. The reliability of the total scale was excellent, with a value of 0.945 (Table 7).

Table 7. Factor analysis.

Items	Factor 1
RRII1	0.879
RRII2	0.850
RRII3	0.837
RRIREF2	0.834
RRIREF1	0.833
RRIRSP2	0.831
RRIA2	0.826
RRIRSP1	0.823
RRIA1	0.782
% of standard deviation	69.423

Notes:

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Index = 0.908

Barlett’s Test of Sphericity (Approx. Chi-square) = 431.305

df = 36

Significance level = 0.000

Source: Own elaboration.

Confirmatory Tetrad Analysis (CTA) in Partial Least Squares (PLS) path modelling

Following the EFA, we conducted a CTA-PLS to confirm data reliability, validity, and the reflexive (or formative) indicator specification. In this respect, the direction of the relationship is analysed from the measure to the construct, as a reflective measurement (Diamantopoulos, Riefler, and Roth 2008). The CTA-PLS assessment routine employs a bootstrapping procedure to conduct an appropriate statistical test to check for vanishing tetrads. It is a relatively new technique used in the academic literature on structural equation modelling (SEM) to empirically assess the measurement model type (Gudergan et al. 2008; Shah and Abd Rahim 2019; Valaei 2017).

A reflective measurement model does not fit the empirical data if at least one of the model-implied vanishing tetrads is significantly different from zero. When the confidence interval for a difference does not include zero, the hypothesis that the difference is zero is rejected. A rejection of the reflective mode provides support for a formative indicator specification. However, in our case, Table 8 shows the results from 5000 bootstrap subsamples, supporting the use of a reflective indicator specification for the RRI measurement model.

Table 8. CTA-PLs results for RRI data.

Model-implied non-redundant vanishing tetrad	Bootstrap t-value	P Values	Bias	CI Low	CI Up
RRIA1,RRIA2,RRII1,RRII2	1.006	0.315	−0.581	−16.706	34.352
RRIA1,RRIA2,RRII2,RRII1	1.947	0.052	−0.793	−7.626	37.291
RRIA1,RRIA2,RRII1,RRII3	1.458	0.145	−0.587	−10.189	30.322
RRIA1,RRII1,RRII3,RRIA2	0.255	0.798	−0.017	−8.937	10.569
RRIA1,RRII1,RRIREF1,RRIA2	1.888	0.059	−0.487	−6.807	30.241
RRIA1,RRIA2,RRII1,RRIREF2	0.717	0.474	−0.349	−18.526	30.508
RRIA1,RRIA2,RRII1,RRIRSP1	0.156	0.876	−0.132	−17.594	16.170
RRIA1,RRIA2,RRIRSP2,RRII1	1.942	0.052	−0.776	−7.768	37.611
RRIA1,RRIA2,RRII3,RRII2	1.042	0.297	−0.481	−14.843	31.221
RRIA1,RRIA2,RRIREF2,RRII2	1.911	0.056	−0.733	−8.663	39.971
RRIA1,RRIA2,RRIRSP1,RRII2	1.409	0.159	−0.441	−7.961	22.726
RRIA1,RRII2,RRIRSP2,RRIA2	0.435	0.664	0.014	−8.200	6.167
RRIA1,RRIA2,RRIRSP1,RRII3	0.973	0.331	−0.325	−9.584	19.240
RRIA1,RRIA2,RRIREF2,RRIREF1	1.042	0.297	−0.338	−17.049	35.219
RRIA1,RRIA2,RRIREF1,RRIRSP1	1.947	0.052	−0.554	−5.565	27.085
RRIA1,RRIREF1,RRIRSP1,RRIA2	0.874	0.382	0.169	−14.556	7.912
RRIA1,RRIREF2,RRIRSP1,RRIA2	0.398	0.691	−0.072	−10.380	13.586
RRIA1,RRII2,RRII3,RRIREF1	0.804	0.421	0.185	−25.672	14.842
RRIA1,RRII2,RRIREF2,RRII3	1.057	0.290	0.313	−16.141	7.493
RRIA1,RRII2,RRIREF2,RRIRSP2	1.296	0.195	0.391	−20.735	7.995
RRIA1,RRII2,RRIRSP2,RRIRSP1	1.004	0.316	0.122	−10.997	5.452
RRIA1,RRII3,RRIRSP1,RRIREF2	0.657	0.511	−0.190	−16.023	25.075
RRIA1,RRII3,RRIREF2,RRIRSP2	0.054	0.957	0.225	−28.145	26.742
RRIA1,RRIREF1,RRIRSP2,RRIREF2	0.142	0.887	−0.042	−16.703	15.326
RRIA1,RRIRSP1,RRIRSP2,RRIREF1	0.388	0.698	−0.160	−16.077	21.021
RRIA2,RRII2,RRIREF1,RRII1	1.008	0.313	0.510	−39.572	19.447
RRIA2,RRIREF1,RRIRSP1,RRII2	0.495	0.621	−0.136	−7.029	10.007

Source: Own elaboration.

Consistent PLS algorithm

The consistent PLS algorithm (PLSc) performs a correction of reflective constructs’ correlations to make results consistent with a factor model (Dijkstra and Henseler 2015). The model proposed for the scale used to measure RRI hypothesizes a direct and positive relationship between RRI and the IO of the cooperative. The main results are shown in Tables 9 and 10.

Table 9. Measurement model.

Items	Loadings	Rho-A	Composite Reliability (CR)	Average Variance Extracted (AVE)	HTMT
RRA1	0.773	0.948	0.944	0.653	0.794
RRA2	0.727
RRI1	0.894
RRI2	0.932
RRI3	0.701
RRREF1	0.699
RRREF2	0.814
RRRSP1	0.888
RRRSP2	0.808

Source: Own elaboration.

Table 10. Results for PLSc linking RRI to the IO of cooperatives.

Hypothesis/Relationship	Std. Beta	Std. Dev.	t-value	p-value	2.50%	97.50%	R^2
H1: RRI →INT	0.812	0.069	11.724	0.000	0.67	0.94	0.65

Source: Own.

Underscoring the significance of our findings, it is noteworthy that the confirmation of the reflective nature of RRI measure means it should be treated as a latent variable, with a primary focus on the relationships between the construct and its observed indicators. In simpler terms, the indicators used to assess RRI in agri-food cooperatives are regarded as partially interchangeable, indicating their assumed capacity to gauge the same latent construct. This interchangeability affords researchers a degree of flexibility, enabling the addition of new indicators or adaptations of existing ones without fundamentally altering the underlying construct. Such adaptability can prove particularly valuable for honing the measurement model or tailoring it to diverse research contexts. Consequently, in subsequent studies stemming from this research, any alterations, adjustments, or enhancements to the indicators should be underpinned by theoretical rationale. Thus, new indicators may still serve as valid measures of the construct.

Discussion

This study presents RRI as an emerging field within the agri-food industry, which merits analysis from a multidisciplinary perspective (Tricarico et al. 2020) aimed at filling the industry-related gaps in the literature noted by Hemphill (2016). A central ambition of RRI is to address societal needs, alongside the more traditional objectives such as economic growth, profit maximization or competitive advantage. However, it is an improved approach to innovation since RRI is influenced by the degree of commitment to the firms’ sustainability strategy (Kennedy, Whiteman, and van den Ende 2017). It represents a way of thinking that balances commercial goals with those concerned with wider wellbeing, introducing both sustainability and legitimacy as key foundations. The need to achieve a better alignment between innovation and societal needs is crucial to understand why innovation per se is not enough to meet current societal expectations.

In this context, we propose RRI as an unconventional source of innovation which can deal with sustainability and organizational issues in all types of business, but especially in cooperatives. More specifically, our study contributes to the development of a sustainable innovation strategy for agri-food cooperatives interested in foreign markets, by offering a preliminary set of indicators to evaluate and manage their RRI.

From a theoretical point of view, we first apply Institutional Theory to examine how formal and informal regulations, norms, and organizational structures exert an influence on organizational behaviour. When it is employed within the context of RRI, it serves as a heuristic lens, enabling the examination of how institutional entities and their established practices shape research and innovation processes. Secondly, RRI serves as a conceptual framework that promotes responsible and ethical innovation practices, considering their societal and environmental implications. The combination of Institutional Theory and RRI underscores the crucial need to recognize and address the impact of institutional forces to drive ethical and sustainable innovation.

It has long been argued in the literature that the process of internationalization is not easy for cooperatives, as it involves overcoming a variety of barriers, not only financial ones. However, internationalization is a non-negotiable strategy for large firms in the agribusiness sector (Bremmers and Zuurbier 1997), motivated by the need to reduce costs (labour, equipment and raw material), to find new openings in a market that has reached maturity in Western countries, to maintain their market power, to diversify risks by distributing activities over several distinct areas, to bypass trade barriers in certain countries, or to improve access to capital. The question then is how can RRI facilitate IO? As argued previously, Institutional Theory takes a broader perspective of the demands on an organization; in addition to those of an economic and technical nature, the organization is subject to social, environmental, and cultural demands. Transparency, interaction, and mutual responsiveness are the cornerstones of RRI (Blok and Lemmens 2015) and provide a valuable guide for IO, allowing cooperatives to draw on their legitimacy to take their business international.

From a practical point of view, considering the average value of each of the RRI indicators proposed (Table 5), it can be observed that the most reputable agri-food cooperatives in Spain are interested in RRI. Ribeiro et al. (2018) note a lack of business-oriented tools to aid RRI implementation, but, in an effort to help fill this gap, we have validated a measurement scale for this construct in the agri-food industry; indeed, this is our main contribution. We have done so by applying a confirmatory analysis using PLSc (Dijkstra and Henseler 2015). The result is a valid and reliable unidimensional RRI instrument with nine items. These items explain almost 70% of the total variance. The satisfactory Cronbach’s alpha value confirms the reliability of the scale.

The scale will allow cooperative managers to pinpoint some of the main aspects to be addressed when RRI is implemented. In line with Tabarés et al. (2022), the scale will serve to assess whether innovation is being effectively managed in an anticipatory, reflexive, inclusive, and transparent way. Our contribution to the field of study represents an incremental advance, building on the pioneering research of Stilgoe, Owen, and Macnaghten (2013). This aligns with the foundational framework for responsible innovation, as established by Owen et al. (2013), which underscores the significance of measurement in evaluating and overseeing its outcomes. Moreover, our work is congruent with the research conducted by Eastwood et al. (2019) in the agricultural sector.

As far as we know, this paper represents the first attempt to measure RRI in the specific context of the Social Economy, and we have done so using a sample of the most reputable cooperatives in the Spanish agri-food industry, which allows us to examine the role legitimacy plays through cooperatives principles and values. Since sustainability is now a required feature of an organization’s IO, RRI will pay off by facilitating the international development of social enterprises.

Conclusions, limitations, and future lines of research

While RRI can be broadly conceptualized as a discourse, or approached as a policy concept in the EU (Owen et al. 2021), this study has focused on RRI as a theoretical construct. Furthermore, this construct has been applied to agri-food cooperatives, because the technology, research, and innovation processes in these social enterprises can be considered ethically-oriented (Tabarés et al. 2022). In this sense, our work offers an ‘unexpected perspective’ (Guston et al. 2014, 3), because it addresses RRI in contexts that have not yet been explored. We argue that cooperatives have inherent advantages that facilitate the institutionalization of RRI, due to their culture, conceptualized as an intertwined set of cooperative principles and values.

The main goal of this study has been to operationalize RRI as a construct in the context of agri-food cooperatives. By so doing, we seek to demonstrate that, contrary to the general idea that cooperatives do not innovate, or lack management and innovation capabilities (Basterretxea and Martínez 2012; Chevallier 2011; Maietta and Sena 2010; Novkovic 2017), adopting RRI processes could be an opportunity to gain competitive advantages thought intangible assets (Flatt and Kowalczyk 2008) and also to meet societal and sustainability challenges. Our contribution goes slightly beyond that of Eastwood et al. (2019) in the attempt to operationalize the concept of RRI, as we have empirically validated a set of indicators in the form of a measurement scale specifically tailored to agri-food cooperatives.

Cooperative managers should take advantage of this contribution to foster RRI in their organizations instead of straightforward innovation processes. RRI aims to democratize innovation processes since it involves collaboration with stakeholders, mainly members of the second-order cooperatives, to address sustainability challenges. By so doing, it aligns with cooperative principles, enhances social capital, and makes cooperatives even more socially responsible.

This paper has established that there is a need for RRI indicators and assessment measures, and the novel contribution of this work lies in the initial development of indicators meant to support a framework for the practical implementation of RRI in agri-food cooperatives. It should be noted that the scale we propose is not intended as a stand-alone solution for the responsible governance of agri-food cooperatives. Our primary aim has been to present a practical proposition that facilitates the operationalization of the theoretical framework of RRI. This approach recognizes the fundamental business tenet that proficient management requires a thorough commitment to measurement. It is crucial to emphasize that this proposal represents only the initial step in an ongoing endeavour. Subsequent studies should seek to further develop this proposal not only within the agri-food industry but also across diverse sectors.

The main limitations of this paper are related to the specific setting of the study: in a single country, in a specific year, and based on the perceptions of the managers of a select group of successful agri-food cooperatives. Also, the exploratory nature of this analysis raises the need for a more consensual scale that relies on the opinions of a larger number of stakeholders, given that individuals and organizations may not necessarily be in agreement. Therefore, this study opens up new research opportunities aimed at validating the scales and the model with informants other than managers, and in different contexts. It would also be interesting to evaluate the potential mediation effects of other constructs on the direct and positive relationship found between RRI and IO; these could include firm-specific variables such as size, or environmental factors such as the entrepreneurial ecosystem.

In conclusion, while we recognize that this is only an approximation of the construct under study rather than a definitive measurement, the empirical assessment of RRI indicators applied to agri-food cooperatives has yielded promising results. Nevertheless, future research should focus on further enhancing and refining these indicators. Doing so is essential to bridge the gap between theoretical RRI concepts and the formulation of pragmatic indicators suitable for application in business contexts.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the managers that voluntarily agreed to participate in the survey.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Science , Innovation and Universities the Spanish Research Agency and the European Regional Development Fund [grant number PID2021-124494NB-I00].

Notes

1 Moreover, the suggested measurement scale was subject to scrutiny and deliberation at the 33rd International Congress of the International Centre of Research and Information on Public, Social, and Cooperative Economics (CIRIEC) (http://ciriec.es/valencia2022/en/home/). During this event, the authors of the study received affirmative appraisals from accomplished peers in cooperative economics.