Page 242 - UKZN Proceedings of the Conference Report

The absence of a proactive strategies and the minimal adoption of active strategies are particularly worth noting. The innovation literature traditionally commends the virtues of proactive innovation, where firms actively seek out new opportunities and drive market changes through aggressive R&D and collaborative efforts (Dodgson et al., 2008). However, the fact that no agribusinesses in this study adopted such an approach suggests a significant departure from this ideal. The reluctance or inability of these firms to engage in proactive strategies could be indicative of the sector’s risk-averse nature, especially in the face of uncertainty. This finding calls for a re-evaluation of the assumption that proactive strategies are universally applicable or desirable. It suggests that in sectors like agriculture, where external variables such as climate and market volatility are more pronounced, a proactive approach may be seen as too risky or resource-intensive.
Passive innovators
Passive innovators were characterised by their minimal engagement in active innovation activities and often relied heavily on external public research institutes without conducting substantial in-house or outsourced R&D. The high percentage of businesses that preferred a passive innovation strategy suggests that many firms were either constrained by resources or preferred a low-risk approach to innovation, relying mostly on external entities to guide their innovation efforts. Moreover, this reliance on external sources may reflect a conservative approach to innovation management, potentially limiting their ability to rapidly adapt to market changes and technological innovations. The predominance of passive and reactive strategies provides further evidence of this cautious approach. Passive innovators, who rely heavily on external public research and avoid substantial in-house R&D, appear to
be favouring a low-risk strategy that minimizes exposure to market fluctuations. This approach, while reducing immediate risks, potentially stifles the firm’s ability to rapidly adapt to changes, aligning with the observations of Williamson (1999), who noted that passive strategies often result in short-term efficiency at the expense of long- term innovation capability. The high prevalence of passive strategies suggests a widespread preference for external dependency over internal development, reflecting a conservative stance on innovation management within the sector.
Reactive innovators
Meanwhile, the largest proportion of firms, 43.12%, were categorised as reactive innovators (Figure 1). These firms were engaged in innovation activities primarily in response to external pressures and opportunities. They often depended significantly on outsourced R&D, external knowledge acquisition, and consultancy services. The high prevalence of businesses that chose the reactive innovation strategies suggests that many firms were responsive rather than proactive in adapting their innovation efforts based on immediate needs and external inputs. This approach may enable firms to remain flexible and adaptable, but it also suggests a lack of long-term strategic planning for innovation.
Reactive innovation strategies, which were the most common among the firms, highlight a response-driven approach to innovation. These firms typically engage in innovation only when prompted by external pressures or opportunities, relying on outsourced R&D and external knowledge to guide their efforts. This strategy can indeed provide flexibility and adaptability, allowing firms to respond quickly to market demands without committing
Figure 2: Classification of innovation strategies
240
| Proceedings of the conference on Public innovation, develoPment and sustainability