Search

The agribusiness sector represents an economic sector of particular importance and with the highest employment rate. The sector is very complex due to the characteristics of the organizations that are part of it and need to base their competitive advantage on innovations often obtained by sharing knowledge with third organizations. The study highlights the main theories of the key organizational factors that influence the knowledge transfer process between universities and firms and presents the first results of an exploratory analysis, aimed to understand what are the key organizational factors identified by the entrepreneurs of the agribusiness sector that affect knowledge transfer for innovation, in particular from universities and high educational institutions. The study can help agribusiness organizations to activate and manage their interorganizational relationships in order to improve their mechanism of knowledge sharing for innovation and shed light for scholars on an important business sector. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the 21st century, organisations have to face pressing "big challenges" (George et al., 2016). These can include adverse events such as global pandemics and climate change. The impacts of these adverse events lead organisations and decision-makers to adopt new behaviours. Although these adverse events are inevitable, organisations do not respond in the same ways, and some organisations are better able to withstand and recover from such shocks than others (Van der Vegt et.al, 2015). High-risk events that at first appear to cause only local and isolated effects, can multiply in intensity and damage vital infrastructure, affecting events on a national or global scale. McFarlane and Norris (2006, p. 4) defined an adverse event as "a potentially traumatic event that is experienced collectively, has an acute onset, and is limited in time; it can be attributed to natural, technological or human causes". An adverse event is caused by factors external to the system, unforeseen, and requiring immediate action. Examples include hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes and pandemics. The traditional way of dealing with adverse events is to develop approaches and systems to identify risks. Now, scholars are shifting their attention from identifying and mitigating risk to attempting to increase resilience (Sutcliffe & Vogus, 2003). The term "resilience" almost always has the positive connotation of flexibility and strengthening: The desired result is better than the preparation needed to face disruptive unexpected events. The purpose of this study is to understand the impact of strategic choices in response to adverse events on the life of organisations. Specifically, when their responses to adverse events occur in a non-adaptive or non-resilient way (inertia). In order to understand this, we based this study on a review of the literature specifically linked to adverse events and the way in which it is possible to confront them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]