Analysis of Networking Drivers among Livestock Cooperatives in Isfahan Province: Scenario Building Based on the Importance-Performance Matrix

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Agricultural Planning, Economic, and Rural Development Research Institute (APERDRI), Tehran, Iran

2 Isfahan Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center, Isfahan, Iran

Abstract

Objective: The weakness of institutional collaboration among agricultural cooperatives has led to limitations in the use of new technologies, financial exchanges, information sharing, and facing numerous risks, including the risk of cash purchase and sale of products, price fluctuations, and changes in primary and final suppliers. Despite the importance of institutional networks in developing competitiveness, most previous studies have examined a few drivers of institutional networking, which have been mainly considered causally with some institutional parameters (such as performance). In fact, previous studies have failed to provide a comprehensive list of drivers of networking, especially in the context of developing countries. Moreover, most previous studies have focused on investigating the drivers of networking among small, medium, and large-scale enterprises that have purely economic motivations. However, these studies have provided limited insight into providing practical solutions among cooperative enterprises that have economic and social origins. Finally, previous studies have attempted to provide solutions for developing collaborative networks that have limited generalizability without considering institutional incentives, possibilities, and constraints (such as resource constraints, incentives to enhance strengths or reduce weaknesses, etc.).

Methods: In this study, 17 drivers identified from the literature were analyzed using the Importance-Performance analysis (IPA) and in the form of five different scenarios. For this purpose, over 21 livestock cooperatives in Isfahan province were examined. Additionally, the mean scores of the current and desired states of these drivers were compared using a paired t-test. Out of the 27 active livestock cooperatives in the province, 25 were selected using simple random sampling. After excluding incomplete questionnaires, a total of 21 valid cases were included in the final analysis.

Results: The results showed that in the normal (basis) situation, focusing on components such as new markets, cost reduction, common need, company influence/reputation, new opportunity, competence, geographical distance, transparency and to some extent information security and reducing uncertainty are considered as a necessity for the development of the livestock cooperatives' collaboration network. If focusing on the resource limitation scenario, cooperatives should always pay attention to the components of geographical distance, new markets, cost reduction, common need, company influence/reputation, competence, and commitment. In general, the availability of resources is one of the most important components for the success of cooperatives in networking and developing cooperation; however, the current situation of cooperatives as institutions based on member participation is characterized by weak financial foundations and resource constraints. Thus, the drivers obtained under the resource surplus scenario cannot be considered as a priority. In this regard, if cooperatives are to pay attention to the drivers obtained from resource constraint scenarios and strengthen strengths, it is necessary to focus on the main drivers obtained in the basis and weakness reduction scenarios. This means that most of the networking drivers obtained in these four scenarios overlap and have minor differences. Therefore, cooperatives should try to identify the most important drivers necessary for networking in order to not only help increase strengths in resource constraints but also reduce weaknesses. Thus, focusing on components such as new markets, cost reduction, common need, company influence/reputation, new markets, competence, and geographical distance are among the most important drivers in this regard. It is important to note that determining the type of networking based on geographical proximity is a fundamental principle in developing collaboration relationships among cooperatives that should always be considered.

Conclusions: In general, this study, by determining the set of drivers that are excessively in the focus of cooperatives' attention and are saturated in terms of performance, while advancing the literature on the subject, drew a new path for the development of institutional networking among these organizations.

References

  1. References:

    1. Attaran, M., & Attaran, S. (2007). Collaborative supply chain management: the most promising practice for building efficient and sustainable supply chains. Business process management journal, 13(3), 390-404. ‏
    2. Babalola, T. O. (2023). Adopting Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA) model to assess land governance in the peri-urban areas of Ibadan, Nigeria. Land Use Policy, 133, 106850.
    3. Barati, M. (2024). The relationship between entrepreneurial leadership, entrepreneurial motivation, and entrepreneurial skill. Journal of Humanities and Education Development, 6(6), 589982. ‏
    4. Bello, D. C., Lohtia, R., & Dant, S. P. (1999). Collaborative relationships for component development: the role of strategic issues, production costs, and transaction costs. Journal of Business Research, 45(1), 15-31. ‏
    5. Biswal, L., Malap, V., Chaudhary, S. K., & Patro, S. (2024). A Study on Impact of Skills on Employee Performance to Achieve the Organizational Goal. Economic Sciences, 20(1), 144-154. ‏
    6. Boeprasert, A. (2012). Does geographical proximity affect corporate social responsibility? Evidence from US market. International Business Research, 5(9), 138. ‏
    7. Brun, A., Karaosman, H., & Barresi, T. (2020). Supply chain collaboration for transparency. Sustainability, 12(11), 4429. ‏
    8. Bullinger, H.-J., Auernhammer, K., & Gomeringer, A. (2004). Managing innovation networks in the knowledge-driven economy. International Journal of Production Research, 42(17), 3337-3353.
    9. Burt, R. S. (2003). The social structure of competition. Networks in the knowledge economy, 13(2), 57-91. ‏
    10. Campione, T. J. (2003). Managers at work: making research collaborations succeed. Research-Technology Management, 46(4), 12-15. ‏
    11. Cassivi, L. (2006). Collaboration planning in a supply chain. Supply chain management: an international journal, 11(3), 249-258. ‏
    12. Chetty, S., & Michailova, S. (2011). Geographical proximity and inter-firm collaboration: The role of knowledge access and knowledge acquisition. Journal of general management, 36(4), 71-87. ‏
    13. Dahan, N. M., Doh, J. P., Oetzel, J., & Yaziji, M. (2010). Corporate-NGO collaboration: Co-creating new business models for developing markets. Long range planning, 43(2-3), 326-342. ‏
    14. Dewick, P., & Miozzo, M. (2004). Networks and innovation: sustainable technologies in Scottish social housing. R&D Management, 34(3), 323-333.
    15. Diez, J. R. (2002). Metropolitan innovation systems: a comparison between Barcelona, Stockholm, and Vienna. International Regional Science Review, 25(1), 63-85.
    16. Firdaus, V., & Handriyono, H. (2018). The Effect of Change Management and Managerial Skill to Employee Motivation. ‏
    17. Franco, M., & Haase, H. (2021). The role of reputation in the business cooperation process: multiple case studies in small and medium-sized enterprises. Journal of Strategy and Management, 14(1), 82-95. ‏
    18. Funk, R. J. (2014). Making the most of where you are: Geography, networks, and innovation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 57(1), 193-222. ‏
    19. Galli, F., & Brunori, G. (2013). Short food supply chains as drivers of sustainable development. Evidence document.
    20. Geng, X., Krishnan, H., & Sohoni, M. G. (2022). Operational collaboration between rivals: The impact of cost reduction. Production and operations management, 31(4), 1856-1871. ‏
    21. Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American journal of sociology, 91(3), 481-510. ‏
    22. Gulati, R. (1998). Alliances and networks. Strategic management journal, 19(4), 293-317. ‏
    23. Harun, M. Z. M. B., & Mahmood, R. B. (2012). The relationship between group cohesiveness and performance: An empirical study of cooperatives movement in Malaysia. International Journal of Cooperative Studies, 1(1), 15-20. ‏
    24. Hatak, I., & Hyslop, K. (2015). Cooperation between family businesses of different size: A case study. Journal of co-operative organization and management, 3(2), 52-59. ‏
    25. Hendrikse, G. W. (2005). Boards in agricultural cooperatives: Competence, authority, and incentives.
    26. Hillebrandt, M. Z. (2017). Transparency as a platform for institutional politics: The case of the Council of the European Union. Politics and Governance, 5(3), 62-74. ‏
    27. Huang, Y., & Fan, Y. (2022). Risk along the supply chain: Geographic proximity and corporate risk taking. Finance Research Letters, 50, 103150. ‏
    28. Huang, Y., & Fan, Y. (2022). Risk along the supply chain: Geographic proximity and corporate risk taking. Finance Research Letters, 50, 103150. ‏
    29. Huerta, T. R., Casebeer, A., & Vanderplaat, M. (2006). Using networks to enhance health services delivery: perspectives, paradoxes and propositions. Healthcare Papers, 7(2), 10.
    30. Ibrahim, M. A. H. D. A. N. I., Saputra, J. U. M. A. D. I. L., Adam, M. U. H. A. M. M. A. D., & Yunus, M. (2022). The moderating role of financial accessibility in relationship between resource competence, entrepreneurial leadership, good governance and performance of micro small medium enterprises in Batam, Indonesia. WSEAS Transactions on Business and Economics, 19, 86-93. ‏
    31. Jahanshad, S., & Vedadi, A. (2019). Providing a conceptual model of inter-organizational cooperation. Journal of Management and Accounting Studies, 7(01), 33-42. ‏
    32. Jarratt, D., & Morrison, M. (2003). Dependence and the application of power and control in major business relationships: a study of manufacturing and service firms in the business‐to‐business sector. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 11(4), 235-253. ‏
    33. Kechidi, M., & Talbot, D. (2010). Institutions and coordination: what is the contribution of a proximity-based analysis? The case of Airbus and its relations with the subcontracting network. International Journal of Technology Management, 50(3/4), 285-299.
    34. Kulmala, H. I., Paranko, J., & Uusi-Rauva, E. (2002). The role of cost management in network relationships. International Journal of Production Economics, 79(1), 33-43. ‏
    35. Kwon, I. W. G., & Suh, T. (2004). Factors affecting the level of trust and commitment in supply chain relationships. Journal of supply chain management, 40(1), 4-14. ‏
    36. Lavaei Adaryani, R., Kalantari, K., Asadi, A., & Alambeigi, A. (2022). Surveying the institutional collaboration in the food supply chain: A qualitative study of livestock production cooperatives. Co-Operation and Agriculture, 11(42), 139-171.
    37. Lavaei Adaryani, R., Kalantari, K., Asadi, A., Alambeigi, A., Gholami, H., & Seifollahi, N. (2023). Information sharing antecedents in the supply chain: a dynamic network perspective. Operations Management Research, 16(2), 887-903.
    38. Leite, A. R., Padilha, A. C. M., & Binotto, E. (2021). Cooperation challenges in agricultural cooperatives. Revista de Administração da UFSM, 14, 809-826. ‏
    39. Lin, K. H., & Chaney, I. (2007). The influence of domestic interfirm networks on the internationalization process of Taiwanese SMEs. Asia Pacific Business Review, 13(4), 565-583. ‏
    40. Lode, M. L., Coosemans, T., & Camargo, L. R. (2022). Is social cohesion decisive for energy cooperatives existence? A quantitative analysis. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 43, 173-199. ‏
    41. Malewicki, D. S. (2005). Member involvement in entrepreneur network organizations: The role of commitment and trust. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 10(02), 141-166. ‏
    42. Mancinelli, S., & Mazzanti, M. (2009). Innovation, networking and complementarity: Evidence on SME performances for a local economic system in North-Eastern Italy. The Annals of Regional Science, 43(3), 567-597.
    43. Mortezaei, A., Sangari, M. S., Nazari-Shirkouhi, S., & Razmi, J. (2018). The impact of business intelligence (BI) competence on customer relationship management (CRM) process: an empirical investigation of the banking industry. Journal of Information Technology Management, 10(1), 209-234. ‏
    44. Naicker, V., & Mafaiti, M. (2019). The establishment of collaboration in managing information security through multisourcing. Computers & security, 80, 224-237. ‏
    45. Nezami, M., Chisam, N., & Palmatier, R. W. (2025). Network centrality and firm performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 53(1), 79-104. ‏
    46. Oliveira, A. I., & Camarinha-Matos, L. M. (2013). Negotiation support and risk reduction in collaborative networks. In Technological Innovation for the Internet of Things: 4th IFIP WG 5.5/SOCOLNET Doctoral Conference on Computing, Electrical and Industrial Systems, DoCEIS 2013, Costa de Caparica, Portugal, April 15-17, 2013. Proceedings 4 (pp. 15-24). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. ‏
    47. Osipova, E. (2015). Establishing cooperative relationships and joint risk management in construction projects: Agency theory perspective. Journal of management in engineering, 31(6), 05014026. ‏
    48. Palakshappa, N., & Ellen Gordon, M. (2007). Collaborative business relationships: Helping firms to acquire skills and economies to prosper. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 14(2), 264-279. ‏
    49. Panahifar, F., Byrne, P. J., Salam, M. A., & Heavey, C. (2018). Supply chain collaboration and firm’s performance: the critical role of information sharing and trust. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 31(3), 358-379. ‏
    50. Philbin, S. P. (2012, July). Resource-based view of university-industry research collaboration. In 2012 Proceedings of PICMET'12: Technology Management for Emerging Technologies (pp. 400-411). IEEE. ‏
    51. Pittino, D., & Visintin, F. (2011). The propensity toward inter-organizational cooperation in small-and medium-sized family businesses. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 2(2), 57-68. ‏
    52. Ponds, R., Van Oort, F., & Frenken, K. (2007). The geographical and institutional proximity of research collaboration. Papers in regional science, 86(3), 423-444. ‏
    53. Popp, J., MacKean, G. L., Casebeer, A., Milward, H. B., & Lindstrom, R. R. (2014). Inter-organizational networks: A critical review of the literature to Inform practice: Alberta Centre for Child, Family and Community Research.
    54. Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996). Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative science quarterly, 116-145. ‏
    55. Ray, S. (2013). Strategic alliance in India under globalized economic scenario. Advances in Asian Social Science, 4(2), 824-835. ‏
    56. Razzaque, M. A., & Boon, T. G. (2003). Effects of dependence and trust on channel satisfaction, commitment and cooperation. Journal of Business to Business marketing, 10(4), 23-48. ‏
    57. Riccaboni, M., Wang, X., & Zhu, Z. (2021). Firm performance in networks: The interplay between firm centrality and corporate group size. Journal of Business Research, 129, 641-653. ‏
    58. Richards, P., & Font, X. (2019). Sustainability in the tour operator–ground agent supply chain. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 27(3), 277-291. ‏
    59. Ried, L. D. (2012). Opportunities multiply as they are seized. Journal of the American Pharmacists Association, 52(2), 150-152. ‏
    60. Sergaki, P. (2010). The role of networks on the competitiveness of agricultural cooperatives and small–medium enterprises along the supply chain in Greece. Food Economics–Acta Agricult Scand C, 7(2-4), 180-191.
    61. Shin, N., Yoo, J. S., & Kwon, I. W. G. (2020). Fostering trust and commitment in complex project networks through dedicated investment in partnership management. Sustainability, 12(24), 10397. ‏
    62. Sirilertsuwan, P., Ekwall, D., & Hjelmgren, D. (2018). Proximity manufacturing for enhancing clothing supply chain sustainability. The International Journal of Logistics Management.
    63. Sohrabi Safa, N., Maple, C., Watson, T., & Furnell, S. (2018). Information security collaboration formation in organisations. IET Information Security, 12(3), 238-245. ‏
    64. Sturtevant, V., & Jakes, P. (2010). Collaborative planning to reduce risk. In Wildfire Risk (pp. 44-63). Routledge. ‏
    65. Tegor, T., Johannes, J., Jaya, R. I. K., & Thasimmim, S. N. (2023). Skill, Transformational Leadership, And Competitiveness: Relationships in A Love Triangle. Al-Tanzim: Jurnal Manajemen Pendidikan Islam, 7(2), 422-434. ‏
    66. Tehseen, S., & Sajilan, S. (2016). Network competence based on resource-based view and resource dependence theory. International Journal of Trade and Global Markets, 9(1), 60-82. ‏
    67. Torre, A. (2008). On the role played by temporary geographical proximity in knowledge transmission. Regional studies, 42(6), 869-889.
    68. Vlastelica, T., Kostic, S. C., Okanovic, M., & Milosavljevic, M. (2018). How corporate social responsibility affects corporate reputation: Evidence from an emerging market. Journal of East European Management Studies, 23(1), 10-29. ‏
    69. Westerlund, M., Isabelle, D. A., Rajala, R., & Leminen, S. (2017). Networks, business models, and competitiveness in small Finnish firms. International Journal of Business and Globalisation, 18(1), 9-26. ‏
    70. Wieselquist, J., Rusbult, C. E., Foster, C. A., & Agnew, C. R. (1999). Commitment, pro-relationship behavior, and trust in close relationships. Journal of personality and social psychology, 77(5), 942. ‏
    71. McCallum, S., L. Forret, M., & Wolff, H. G. (2014). Internal and external networking behavior: An investigation of relationships with affective, continuance, and normative commitment. Career Development International, 19(5), 595-614. ‏
    72. Yoon, C., Lee, K., Yoon, B., & Toulan, O. (2017). Typology and success factors of collaboration for sustainable growth in the IT service industry. Sustainability, 9(11), 2017. ‏
    73. Zakrzewska-Bielawska, A., Czakon, W., & Gantert, T. M. (2024). Old guards or new friends? Relational awareness and motivation in opportunities seizing. European Management Journal, 42(1), 76-88. ‏
Governance and Development
Volume 6, Issue 2
August 2026
Pages 260-231

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics