Page 243 - UKZN Proceedings of the Conference Report

extensive resources to uncertain outcomes. However, the reliance on reactive strategies also suggests a lack of long- term strategic planning, which could hinder sustained growth and competitiveness. This aligns with the literature that critiques reactive strategies for their tendency to focus on immediate, short-term goals rather than on building a robust, forward-looking innovation pipeline (Teece, 2007).
Stagnant innovators
As illustrated in Figure 2, a considerable proportion of firms, 28.25%, were classified as stagnant innovators. These firms were characterised by inconsistent or adhoc innovation strategies in responding to changes without a specific or coherent strategic alignment. The high percentage of stagnant innovators highlights a substantial number of firms that may have been struggling to develop or implement effective innovation strategies.
This stagnation could be due to various factors, including limited resources, increased uncertainty of the pandemic,
or operational challenges. Chesbrough (2003) identified innovation inertia as a critical barrier to growth, and the presence of so many stagnant innovators in this study underlines the relevance of this issue within the agricultural sector.
Innovation strategies by pandemic impact
The analysis of innovation strategies by pandemic impact showed that the type of innovation strategy by agribusinesses was associated or influenced by their ability to navigate the challenges posed by the Covid-19 pandemic. The analysis in Figure 2 showed that agribusinesses that undertook an active innovation strategy were entirely resilient to the pandemic, with 100% of these firms reporting no influence on their innovation activities. This suggests that firms employing an active strategy, which typically involves internal R&D and collaborations with suppliers, customers, and competitors, were well-equipped to withstand the disruptions caused by the pandemic.
Figure 3: Strategies influenced by pandemic
In contrast, passive innovation strategies, which rely heavily on external institutions such as public research institutes, were more susceptible to the pandemic’s impact. The data indicates that 54.30% of passive innovators experienced disruptions, while 45.70% managed to maintain their innovation activities unaffected. This mixed resilience highlights the dependence of passive strategies on external factors, which can be both a strength and a vulnerability in times of crisis. While reliance on public research can provide access to valuable knowledge and reduce the need for in-house R&D, it also exposes firms to external risks, particularly when those external institutions are themselves under strain. This dual-edged nature of passive strategies is well-documented in the literature,
where Williamson (1999) noted that while such strategies can optimise short-term efficiency, they often limit a firm’s capacity to adapt quickly to unforeseen challenges. The mixed outcomes observed here reinforce the idea that passive strategies, while reducing direct costs and risks, may compromise a firm’s agility in the face of external shocks.
Reactive innovation strategies, characterized by their dependence on outsourced R&D and external knowledge acquisition, seem particularly vulnerable to external shocks. The analysis showed that, 70.74% of firms that chose reactive innovation strategies were the most adversely affected by the pandemic. The high susceptibility
Proceedings of the conference on Public innovation, develoPment and sustainability | 241