The food sector frequently faces difficulties in implementing food safety standards. Indeed, there are many barriers to appropriation of quality management standards which make effective implementation difficult for small and medium enterprises (SMEs), such as limited access to information, lack of financing and cognitive resources, food hazard perception, and insufficient access to adequately trained personnel. Consequently, one fundamental objective for practitioners such as managers, public bodies and development agencies is to help these food SMEs in improving their implementation capacity, which is usually done through the launch of different forms of collective initiatives such as associations, clubs, learning platforms, regional actions and other forms of collaboration. Globally speaking, the objective of these initiatives typically is to develop a step by step approach providing guidance on good practices associated with the implementation of these systems. The objective of the article is to explore and test the validity of this hypothesis, rooted in a general idea of “organizational network learning”: the capacity of SMEs to adopt new food safety schemes is seen as a whole and necessitates mobilizing, at the same time, 1) formal innovation networks, which bring cognitive resources and institutional credibility, and 2) the practice by managers of informal network activities through interactive exchanges of information, benchmarking, knowledge transfer and translation, and experiential learning.
Abdirahman ZZ, Kisempa Muyuala G, Sauvée L. Chap. France: Case studies 3D Network, ARI Picardie and BioBourgogne. 2013;67–88.
2.
Abdirahman ZZ, Sauvée L. The implementation of a quality management standard in a food sme: a network learning perspective. International Journal on Food System Dynamics. 2012;(3):214–27.
3.
Argyris C, Schön A, Donald. Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method, and Practice. 1996;
4.
Borgatti S, Li X. On social network analysis in a supply chain context. Journal of Supply Chain Management. 2009;(2):5–22.
5.
Boris B, Sandra C, Isabelle H. Communication à la 16ème conférence de l’aims. 2007;
6.
Burt R. Research in organizational behavior. Research in Organizational Behavior. 2000;345–423.
7.
Conway S, Jones O, Steward F. In social action and organisational change: aston perspectives on innovation networks, eds (Chap. Realizing The Potential Of The Network Perspective. 2001;(11):349–66.
8.
Conway S, Steward F. Mapping innovation networks. International Journal of Innovation Management. 1998;(02):223–54.
9.
Conway S, Steward F. Managing and shaping innovation. 2009;
10.
Coulon F. The use of social network analysis in innovation research: a literature review "lund university. 2005;
11.
Eisenhardt K, Graebner M. Theory building from cases: opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal. 2007;(1):25–32.
12.
Geith C, Vignare K, Bourquin L, Thiagarajan D. Designing corporate training in developing economies using open educational resources. Online Learning. 2010;(3).
13.
Hatanaka M, Bain C, Busch L. Third-party certification in the global agrifood system. Food Policy. 2005;(3):354–69.
14.
Hatanaka M, Bain C, Busch L. Between the local and the global. 2006;(06):12003.
15.
Henson S, Humphrey J. The impacts of private food safety standards on the food chain and on public standard-setting processes. Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme, Codex Alimentarius Commission, Thirty-second Session. 2009;
16.
Henson S, Humphrey J. Understanding the complexities of private standards in global agri-food chains as they impact developing countries. Journal of Development Studies. 2010;(9):1628–46.
17.
Heyboer G, Kim S, Bourquin L, Thiagarajan D. Building capacity in developing countries: oer for food safety. Universitat Oberta de Catalunya. 2010;
18.
Inkpen A, Tsang E. Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer. Academy of Management Review. 2005;(1):146–65.
19.
Levitt B, March J. Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology. 1988;319–40.
20.
Mensah L, Julien D. Implementation of food safety management systems in the uk. Food Control. 2011;(8):1216–25.
21.
Nahapiet J, Ghoshal S. Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. 1998;(2):242–66.
22.
Owen-Smith J, Powell W. Knowledge networks as channels and conduits: the effects of spillovers in the boston biotechnology community. Organization Science. 2004;(1):5–21.
23.
Pawlowsky P. The treatment of organizational learning in management science. Handbook of organizational learning and knowledge. 2001;61–88.
24.
Pitsis T. Handbook of organizational and managerial innovation. 2013;
25.
Pittaway L, Robertson M, Munir K, Denyer D, Neely A. Networking and innovation: a systematic review of the evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews. 2004;(6):137–68.
26.
Podolny J, Page K. Network forms of organization. Annual Review of Sociology. 1998;57–76.
27.
Powell W, White D, Koput K, Owen-Smith J. Network dynamics and field evolution: the growth of interorganizational collaboration in the life sciences. American Journal of Sociology. 2005;(4):1132–205.
28.
Powell W, Koput K, Smith-Doerr L. Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative science quarterly. 1996;116–45.
29.
Ropkins K, Beck A. Evaluation of worldwide approaches to the use of haccp to control food safety. Trends in Food Science & Technology. 2000;(1):10–21.
30.
Scott V, Chen Y. Pathogens and toxins in foods: challenges and interventions. 2010;477–92.
31.
Trienekens J, Zuurbier P. Quality and safety standards in the food industry, developments and challenges. International Journal of Production Economics. 2008;(1):107–22.
32.
Yin R. Validity and generalization in future case study evaluations. Evaluation. 2013;(3):321–32.
33.
Zheng W. A social capital perspective of innovation from individuals to nations: where is empirical literature directing us? International Journal of Management Reviews. 2010;(2):151–83.
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
