Page 240 - UKZN Proceedings of the Conference Report

The regression model is described as follows:
Where:
• Innov_Outcomeij represents the observed innovation outcome for firm i in the form of a dependent variable j.
• Proactiveij, Activeij, Passiveij , Reactiveij , and Stagnantij Innovators are binary variables indicating the adoption of the corresponding innovation strategies by firm i.
• sizeGrpij and Ageij represent the firm size group and age of firm i, respectively.
• β0 represents the intercept term.
• β1, β2, β3, β4, and β5 are the coefficients associated with the respective independent variables.
• εij represents the error term capturing unobserved influences on the innovation outcome.
The described regression model above seeks to assess how the adoption of different innovation strategies, together with firm characteristics, shaped the different innovation outcomes of agribusiness firms during the pandemic.
results and discussion of research findings
Analysis of innovation focus by pandemic impact
The findings in Figure 1 show the analysis of the distribution of firms across different “Innovation Focus” categories (i.e. product only, business process only, or combination of both, or none), stratified by the presence or absence of pandemic impact. The results showed a near equal distribution of pandemic impact between firms that focused specifically on either product only and process only innovations, while firms that had a combined focus of both product and business processes were more impacted by the pandemic. The findings resonate with existing literature on dynamic capabilities but also introduce new
perspectives on how different innovation focuses affect resilience during crises.
Product Innovation focus
The analysis showed that 55% of businesses that focused on product innovation only reported that their innovation activities were not affected by the pandemic, while 45% experienced an impact. This relatively balanced distribution suggests that while a significant number of firms were resilient and able to maintain their innovation activities, a considerable portion still faced disruptions. Firms engaging in product innovation-only, may have leveraged existing technological capabilities and market knowledge to mitigate the adverse effects of the pandemic. This balance is indicative of the inherent strengths and vulnerabilities associated with product-centric strategies.
On one hand, firms that maintained their innovation activities likely drew on established technological capabilities and market knowledge to shield themselves from disruption. This is consistent with the theory of dynamic capabilities as articulated by Teece (2007), where firms that can effectively make use of their existing resources are better positioned to sustain their operations in the face of external shocks. On the other hand, the fact that 45% of these firms still faced challenges underlines the limits of product innovation when confronted with a crisis of global scale. This outcome challenges the traditional view that product innovation alone is a sufficient strategy for long-term resilience, suggesting instead that product- focused firms must also be adaptable in their operational processes to fully weather such storms.
Figure 1: Pandemic focus on Product vs Process vs Both vs None
238 | Proceedings of the conference on Public innovation, develoPment and sustainability