Open innovation and the formation of university–industry links in the food manufacturing and technology sector

Abstract

Purpose Despite typically being regarded as “low tech”, the food manufacturing and technology sector is increasingly turning to open innovation practices involving collaboration with universities in order to innovate. Given the broad range of activities undertaken by this sector and the fact that it utilises analytical, synthetic and symbolic knowledge for innovation, it makes an interesting case study on the factors that influence the formation of university–industry (U–I) links. The paper aims to discuss this issue. Design/methodology/approach Using data from 249 collaborative projects that occurred between UK universities and food manufacturing and technology firms, the analysis utilises a logistic regression model based on a “synthetic counterfactual approach” to modelling the probability a collaborative link will be established with one university and not others. Findings The results suggest that organisational proximity, conceptualised through the presence of prior ties between actors, has the largest influence on the formation of U–I links. In addition, spatial and technological proximities between actors also have a positive influence on link formation. This result suggests that the specificity of knowledge of the food sector is important in the formation of these U–I links. Research limitations/implications The results suggest that the open innovation practices of food manufacturing and technology firms are like other sectors, even though their innovation practices are considered to be different. However, the limitations of the paper mean that these findings may be specific to firms in the food manufacturing and technology sector in the UK. Originality/value The food sector is under-represented in empirical studies on university collaboration; this paper addresses this and provides new insights into the formation of these links.

Network, SMEs and the University. The process of Collaboration and Open Innovation. AndrewJohnstonRobertHugginsEdward Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham, UK, 2021. 192 pp. £75.00 (cloth) ISBN: 978 1 78990 337 9

“…One of the key contributions of the book is to dispel the myth of disengagement. While extant literature suggests that SMEs may be less likely to engage in UICs, this finding masks several significant differences in the form and function of UICs with SMEs (Johnston, 2020). As a result, several important differences in the behaviour of SMEs in terms UICs have been observed, including (i) SMEs are less likely to engage in formal collaborations; (ii) SMEs are more likely to undertake a higher number of collaborations; (iii) the outcomes are less likely to result in patents; (iv) SMEs are less likely to recruit new employees through the UIC; (v) SMEs may perceive fewer barriers to UICs and (vi) SMEs are more likely to collaborate with local universities (see Lehmann, 2015).…”

The significance of knowledge readiness for co-creation in university industry collaborations

“…Our study suggests that the interaction between temporary geographical proximity, i.e., short-or medium-term visits in which the partners meet face-to-face (Torre, 2008(Torre, , 2011, and cognitive proximity, i.e., a shared knowledge base (Boschma, 2005), is particularly important for knowledge creation in university-industry collaborations because these types of proximity facilitate knowledge exchanges (De Fuentes & Dutrénit, 2016;Garcia et al, 2018;Maietta, 2015). We argue that temporary geographical proximity is important in realising the innovation potential embedded in universityindustry collaborations because of the tacit component of knowledge (Johnston, 2020;Villani et al, 2017). However, existing research emphasises that geographical proximity (permanent or temporary) is not sufficient for knowledge exchange (Boschma, 2005;Müller & Stewart, 2016;Torre & Rallet, 2005).…”

Farm diversification efforts, (open) innovation networks and performance: what is the connection?

“…Another innovation intermediary is higher education institutions (HEIs) (Germundsson et al, 2020). The increasing application of high technology in the agricultural sector has enhanced collaboration between farmers and HEI to use their knowledge and expertise (Cavallo et al, 2014;Johnston, 2019). HEI promote several R&D projects and are generally involved in networks composed of different partners with their various types of knowledge, improving its collective strength and resilience and creating new shared practices (Sumane et al, 2018).…”