How production cooperatives operating a sharing economy business model innovate in rural places

Fink, Matthias; Maresch, Daniela; Lang, Richard; Richter, Ralph; Chatzichristos, Georgios Article — Published Version How production cooperatives operating a sharing economy business model innovate in rural places R&D Management Provided in Cooperation with: Leibniz Institute for Research on Society and Space (IRS) Suggested Citation: Fink, Matthias; Maresch, Daniela; Lang, Richard; Richter, Ralph; Chatzichristos, Georgios (2024) : How production cooperatives operating a sharing economy business model innovate in rural places, R&D Management, ISSN 1467-9310, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, Vol. 54, Iss. 5, pp. 1213-1233, https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12679 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/329645 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ © 2024 The Authors. R&D Management published by RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 1213 This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. How production cooperatives operating a sharing economy business model innovate in rural places Matthias Fink1,2,* , Daniela Maresch3, Richard Lang4, Ralph Richter5 and Georgios Chatzichristos6 1 Institute for Innovation Management,Johannes Kepler University Linz, Altenberger Str. 69, 4040, Linz, Austria. [email protected] 2 Strategy, Innovation, and Society Group,Grenoble Ecole de Management, 12 rue Pierre Sémard, 38000, Grenoble, France. [email protected] 3 Entrepreneurship and Innovation Group,Grenoble Ecole de Management, 12 rue Pierre Sémard, 38000, Grenoble, France. [email protected] 4 Competence Centre for the Management of Cooperatives,Free University of BozenBolzano, Piazza Università, 1, 39100, Bolzano, Italy. [email protected] 5 Economics and Civil Society Group,Leibniz Institute for Research on Society and Space e.V. (IRS), Falken Str. 2931, 15537, Erkner, Germany. [email protected] 6 Department of Political Sciences,Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, K.E.D.E.A. Building, Aristotle University Campus, 1 Tritis Septemvriou, 54636, Thessaloniki, Greece. [email protected]gean.gr In this study, we investigate how production Cooperatives with a Sharing Economy Business Model (CSEBMs) foster innovations in structurally weak rural places. Taking a placebased social capital perspective, we argue that the strength of CSEBMs in developing process, service, product, and social innovation lies in their ability to reconfigure shared resources across communities and actors located on different levels of power and with different access to resources. Empirically, we reconstruct the mobilization and reconfiguration of shared resources across the network in an indepth case study of a CSEBM in rural Greece. We find that CSEBMs can mobilize resources across the network by offering value propositions that stakeholders regard as credible because decisionmakers show attachment to the place. To realize sufficient value for members to sustain their contributions to the CSEBM, product, service, and process innovations are complemented by social innovations. Mobilizing and reconfiguring shared resources across different interest groups unleashes the innovative potential of CSEBMs but causes tensions between different mindsets at the same time. Cooperatives offer an organizational structure to turn these tensions from a threat into an opportunity for innovation. Our findings contribute to the Sharing [Correction added on 16 March 2024, after first online publication: The email address for Richard Lang has been corrected in this version.] © 2024 The Authors. R&D Management published by RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Matthias Fink, Daniela Maresch, Richard Lang, Ralph Richter and Georgios Chatzichristos 1214 R&D Management 54, 5, 2024 Economy Business Model (SEBM) literature on typology building and the construction of ideal types. We also advance the SEBM debate by shedding light on the potential of cooperative forms of organizing collaborative production in the sharing economy. Practically, we contribute to the discussion about the importance of physical vs. digital platforms as intermediaries in SEBMs. 1. Introduction In this study, we investigate how production Cooperatives (ICA, 2019) with a Sharing Economy Business Model (CSEBMs) drive innovation in structurally weak rural places. This research is motivated by three observations. First, a substantial body of literature explains the emergence of Sharing Economy Business Models (SEBMs) as a powerful form of social innovation (Belk,2014; Martin etal.,2015; Joyce and Paquin, 2016; Clauss et al., 2019); however, much less research explains how innovations develop in established organizations operating a SEBMs. This is surprising given that the sharing economy is a powerhouse of innovation (Gawer and Cusumano,2014; Richardson,2015; Bai and Velamuri,2021). Organizations pursuing SEBMs reconfigure available resources to collectively generate and capture value for the benefit of the community (Belk,2014; Clauss,2017; Zervas etal.,2017; Clauss etal.,2019; Markman et al., 2021) and its individual members (Kibler etal.,2015). These reconfigurations can result in novel social relations (social innovation, Moulaert et al., 2005; Defourny and Nyssens, 2013; Oeij etal.,2019), novel ways of production (process innovation, OECD,2005; Garud etal.,2013; Westley etal.,2014), and novel market offers (product and service innovation, Schumpeter, 1983 [1911]; Edquist etal.,2001; Bauer and Leker,2013). This observation calls for further research on the innovations that emerge from organizations operating SEBMs. The second observation is that studies on SEBM innovation tend to focus on digital platformand crowdbased sharing, leaving a void by neglecting analogue sharing models in the field of production. CSEBMs comprise production cooperatives, which provide producers an ideal organizational form to share knowhow, facilities, and machinery to improve productivity and jointly market their product. Munoz and Cohen recognize this type of business model as ‘spacebased, lowtech SEBM[s]’ (Munoz and Cohen, 2017, p. 29). Given the enormous practical relevance of these businesses—for example, in food production (Nyström and Edvardsson,1982; Nilsson,2001; Battilani and Zamagni,2012; Candemir etal.,2021)—there is a need to address this void with research focusing on CSEBMs. The third observation arises from studies suggesting that the promise of SEBMs to enable organizations to foster innovations (Joyce and Paquin,2016) is especially relevant in structurally weak rural regions because they are desperate for novel and valuable solutions to the issues faced by local communities (Neumeier,2016; Richter etal.,2020). At the same time, such regions supposedly have high social capital and strong traditions of collective and participatory problemsolving, making them an ideal context for investigating how innovations emerge from CSEBMs (Jack and Anderson, 2002; Zografos, 2007; Farmer etal.,2008; Munoz etal.,2015). Thus, the need to understand the role of CSEBMs in fostering innovations seems most pressing in structurally weak rural areas. We address these aspects by asking: How can CSEBMs foster innovations in structurally weak rural places? Specifically, we argue and empirically substantiate the claim that CSEBMs develop process, service, product, and social innovations in structurally weak rural areas. We argue that their strength lies in their ability to mobilize resources for sharing from the network in a place and reconfigure these resources in innovations that simultaneously address the interests of local communities and regimelevel actors. We explain this specific capacity of CSEBMs by drawing on the multilevel network model of regional innovation suggested by Lang and Fink(2019), which is rooted in the social capital approach (Putnam etal.,1994), social network theory (Granovetter,1985), and the concept of economic actors’ placebased behavior (Welter, 2011; Kibler et al., 2015; Kimmitt etal.,2023). Empirically, we reconstruct the mobilization and reconfiguration of shared resources across the levels of the network in an indepth case study of a Greek CSEBM to produce the sustainable crop of stevia in the structurally weak rural region of Central Greece. We followed the case organization with three waves of participatory observations and interviews conducted between 2016 and 2023. 14679310, 2024, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/radm.12679 by Leibniz-Institut Für, Wiley Online Library on [20/10/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License © 2024 The Authors. R&D Management published by RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Sharingeconomy business models & cooperatives R&D Management 54, 5, 2024 1215 We find that (1) CSEBMs mobilize resources across the levels of the network because they offer credible value propositions to both the community and regime levels. (2) These value propositions are credible because the decisionmakers in the CSEBM are instrumentally and emotionally attached to the place. (3) To realize sufficient value for the members to sustain their contributions to the CSEBM, product/service and process innovations are complemented by social innovations in the place. (4) Mobilizing and reconfiguring shared resources across the different levels of the network unleashes the innovative potential of the CSEBM, but creates tensions at the same time, because the mindsets of the actors at different powerlevels conflict. Cooperatives offer an organizational structure to turn these tensions from a threat into an opportunity for CSEBMs to become ambidextrous organizations. Our insights contribute to research, policy, and practice in the following ways. First, we contribute to the SEBM literature that deals with typologybuilding and the construction of ideal types. Second, we advance the SEBM debate by shedding more light on the potential of cooperative forms of organizing in the sharing economy. Third, we contribute to the discussion about the importance of physical vs. digital platforms as intermediaries in SEBMs. 2. Theoretical background 2.1. SEBMs and types of innovation While we still lack an established definition of SEBMs, scholars agree that the term refers to socioeconomic systems in which individual and collective actors mobilize underutilized resources for a mutually beneficial exchange of goods and services (Chase,2015; McLaren and Agyeman,2015; Munoz and Cohen,2017). Compared to traditional business models, in SEBMs the idea is to share resources that are valuable for all transaction parties rather than the exchange of resources that are more valuable for one party than for the other. SEBM is not a ‘one size fits all’ business model (Munoz and Cohen,2017, p. 21), but an umbrella concept that relates to a range of businessmodel types, each of which combines and shapes core SEBM elements in a particular way (Acquier etal.,2017). These models span from high technology dependence to lowtech; from stronger focus on P2P interactions to weaker; and from reliance on widespread sharing to optimized exchanges at local community level. Previous work has stressed the social benefits of SEBMs and linked them to the concept of social innovation (Belk, 2014; Martin et al.,2015; Joyce and Paquin,2016). SEBMs are said to advance sustainable modes of production and consumption due to their focus on realizing efficiencies from underused resources instead of promoting everincreasing purchase and usage of new products (Botsman and Rogers,2010; Heinrichs,2013). A second claimed benefit is social capital building and more equitable resource distribution as a result of P2P exchanges among citizens (Martin etal.,2015; Benjaafar and Hu2020; Stofberg etal.,2021). Despite the substantial literature linking SEBMs to the discourse around social innovation, considerably less research has explained its interplay with other components of innovation. This seems important, however, because social innovation is a rather ‘slippery’ concept, and it is even difficult to capture the meaning of ‘social’ in the notion of innovation (Oeij etal.,2019, p. 244). Thus, as a baseline, we follow a fundamental distinction between the process and outcome views of innovation (Utterback and Abernathy,1975; Moulaert etal.,2005; Bauer and Leker,2013). The outcomes of innovation come in the form of a new or improved process, product or service, or, in broader terms, a solution that is novel and creates value over and above the existing solutions in a given context (Schumpeter,1983 [1911]; Edquist etal.,2001). Innovation as a process unfolds over various stages that require different sets of skills and actors (Garud etal.,2013; Westley etal.,2014). Any innovation is related to exchanging and reconfiguring existing knowledge and ideas, which highlights the important role of social relations for both, the innovation process, and the resulting innovations (Schumpeter, 1983 [1911]; Richter, 2019). These social relations at play in the process of innovation can also be reconfigured resulting in a social innovation (Moulaert etal.,2013; TEPSIE,2014), for example, through the participation of new stakeholder groups. Social innovation can also result from product, service or process innovations, for example, when novel products, services, or processes empower social groups (Defourny and Nyssens,2013). The basic idea of any SEBM is the intermediated coordination of resources among actors to enable shared use rather than exclusive ownership (Acquier et al., 2017; Munoz and Cohen, 2017; Apte and Davis,2019). Therefore, social relations and transfer of embedded resources are crucial components of both innovation and SEBMs. This insight leads us to apply a social capital approach as an analytical perspective in the empirical part 14679310, 2024, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/radm.12679 by Leibniz-Institut Für, Wiley Online Library on [20/10/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License © 2024 The Authors. R&D Management published by RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Matthias Fink, Daniela Maresch, Richard Lang, Ralph Richter and Georgios Chatzichristos 1216 R&D Management 54, 5, 2024 of this paper (Putnam etal.,1994). Broadly, social capital refers to resources embedded in networked communities that can be mobilized through social interactions, leading to potential benefits for both individual and collective actors (Brunie, 2009). While some studies have explored how cooperatives deal with the complex interplay of different forms of social capital as organizational resources (e.g., Hatak etal., 2016; Bauwens and Defourny,2017), we believe that social capital is also a promising analytical perspective for investigating how SEBMs pursued by cooperatives— that is, CSEBMs—foster innovation in rural contexts (Johnstone and Lionais,2004; Lang and Roessl, 2011; Welter, 2011; Kibler et al., 2014, 2015). 2.2. CSEBMs as intermediaries in multilevel networks Our analysis builds on the multilevel network model of regional innovation suggested by Lang and Fink(2019), which helps explain the mobilization and innovative reconfiguration of resources across community- , intermediate- , and regimelevel actors in a specific place (see Figure1). Actors on the regime level are powerful compared to the intermediate and communitylevel actors in the sense that they have more influence and decisionmaking authority over allocation of resources and shaping of policies for the benefit of a place (Ferlander,2007). Nevertheless, the resulting power differentials between network actors need to be interpreted against the backdrop of the specific community concern and types of resources needed to address the issue. At the bottom of the network is the community level. This level is populated by individuals who share a specific issue that is bound to the place, for example, farmers who join a CSEBM to develop sustainable cultivations for crops to fight unemployment and climate change. The shared issue implies bonding social capital associated with closeness and strong ties among the members of homogenous groups, which enables resource flows among them (Granovetter, 1973; Poortinga, 2012). Because the pool of resources available in any given community in structurally weak regions is inevitably insufficient to reach the goals of the CSEBM, its members will not be able to address their shared issue effectively without reaching out to external resource holders, either in other communities or at the regime level (Lang and Fink,2019). To mobilize complementary resources from members of another community, members must establish bridging social capital that horizontally connects the two communities’ specific issues in such a way that resource holders see resource exchange as beneficial (Gittell and Vidal, 1998; Woolcock and Narayan,2000). Linking social capital also ‘cuts across different groups’ (Ferlander, 2007, p. 119), but connects actors vertically ‘across power differentials’ (Szreter and Woolcock,2004, p. 655). For instance, it can link community members to regimelevel actors who can leverage resources that are critical for addressing the community’s specific issue (Lang and Novy,2014; Agger and Jensen,2015; BraunholtzSpeight, 2015). Depending on the context, regimelevel actors can include supranational conglomerates of cooperatives, regional and national governments, universities, trade unions, international associations, or multinational Figure 1. Resource mobilization and reconfiguration in the multilevel network. 14679310, 2024, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/radm.12679 by Leibniz-Institut Für, Wiley Online Library on [20/10/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License © 2024 The Authors. R&D Management published by RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Sharingeconomy business models & cooperatives R&D Management 54, 5, 2024 1217 corporations. However, it takes actors on the intermediate level to mobilize and reconfigure resources on the other two levels through linking social capital. Most important is the ability of intermediatelevel actors to broker resource exchange horizontally, between members of the same community and members of different communities, as well as vertically, between communityand regimelevel actors (Hulgard and Spear,2006; Lehner,2011). Following Osborne etal.(2016) and Lang and Fink(2019), we argue that CSEBMs can efficiently intermediate the mobilization and sharing of resources on and across different levels of the network and thus advance innovation in rural settings. To successfully mobilize embedded resources (Kibler and Kautonen,2016), CSEBMs must communicate the right mix of emotional and instrumental place attachment to gain social legitimacy among both communityand regimelevel actors (Harvey,1996; Hudson,2001; Giuliani,2003; Lang et al., 2014; Kibler and Kautonen, 2016). Social legitimacy denotes the degree to which people in a certain place approve of CSEBMs (Bitektine and Haack,2015). In line with Kibler etal.(2015), we distinguish between emotional and instrumental place attachment. While the first notion refers to the feelings and affective bonds a person has with a place, the latter denotes closeness to a place based on its usefulness for meeting organizational goals. Expressing place attachment helps to cultivate social legitimacy among those who have positive feelings for a place. Here, the term place connotes a sociological understanding of location, highlighting aspects such as community, social networks, and the cultural identities of individuals and collective actors (Harvey,1996; Hudson,2001). Addressing a place’s challenges allows CSEBMs to articulate a credible value proposition and position themselves as advocates for the local rural community (Richter, 2021). In this way, CSEBMs build on their legitimacy in the place to ‘fake it ’til they make it.’ In other words, in order to mobilize resources embedded in the community level, CSEBMs must gain communitylevel actors’ trust in their ability to mobilize regimelevel resources—a promise they can only keep when regimelevel actors trust that they can mobilize resources embedded in the community level (Lang and Fink, 2019). This approach resolves the dilemma of a simultaneous action problem (Granovetter, 1973; Obstfeld, 2005) and idea problem (Burt,2004; Obstfeld,2005): communities lack power and ideas to tackle their challenges due to information and knowledge not being employed in cohesive groups (Granovetter,1973). At the same time, regimelevel actors struggle to implement new approaches because they are unfamiliar with the place and lack access to individuals and groups who can enact novel ideas there (Richter, 2019). Thus, CSEBMs can bind regimeand communitylevel actors together in a symbiotic relationship. Regimelevel actors gain relevance and legitimacy by investing resources in effective measures that are implemented by communitylevel actors to counter the challenges faced in rural communities. For their part, communitylevel actors in CSEBMs share their resources with other community members to gain access not only to the resources shared with them but also to those invested by regimelevel actors— such as ideas, knowledge, funds, or power—that are lacking in the place itself. 3. Research methods and data 3.1. Data collection We conducted an intensive single case study, which is appropriate for a subject with a growing body of knowledge but little theoretical agreement among scholars (e.g., Laurell and Sandström, 2018). The single case study approach enables us to reconstruct the phenomenon as an ideal type (Weber,1949) to outline CSEBMs as a specific but also paradigmatic driver of innovation in structurally weak rural places. This requires explaining the functioning of the organization and the institutional framework conditions of the mechanisms at play (Yin,2009). Repeatedly collecting explicit knowledge on a single case from diverse informants over a period of several years helps to enhance the internal validity of the empirical subject (Ebbinghaus,2009) and understand the case as a whole (Ragin,1987). In this context, data collection is an open, processoriented undertaking comprising dialogical communication in semistructured expert interviews (Lieblich etal.,1998; Flick etal.,2008), field notes from participant observations, and documents. The data collection unfolded in three phases: Between 2016 and 2017, the authors conducted 2 months of fieldwork at the location of the case organization and collected data from participatory observations, semistructured interviews, and documents. This was followed by a second research stay in 2019, which focused on collecting data about the regional framework conditions in which the case organization was operating. In early 2023, we conducted followup interviews to understand how the case organization drove innovation in the place. 14679310, 2024, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/radm.12679 by Leibniz-Institut Für, Wiley Online Library on [20/10/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License © 2024 The Authors. R&D Management published by RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Matthias Fink, Daniela Maresch, Richard Lang, Ralph Richter and Georgios Chatzichristos 1218 R&D Management 54, 5, 2024 The qualitative multimethod approach (MikMeyer, 2020) made it possible to reconstruct underlying strategies and principles, concrete actions, and subjective meanings (Przyborski and WohlrabSahr, 2010). Having multiple types of data at hand helped to establish validity through triangulation of the observation, interview, and document data in the light of concepts and categories. The selection of the interviewees aimed at capturing the most diverse perspectives possible regarding the functioning of the case organization over time, the meanings and motivations of its members, and its embeddedness in its economic and societal environment. We interviewed ordinary members, board members of the case organization and external stakeholders including business partners and politicians. Collecting data on the case from both insiders and outsiders helps to countercheck and complement internal narratives with external perspectives and results in richer and more reliable theory (Eisenhardt,1989). We conducted interviews until the data reached theoretical saturation (Strauss and Corbin, 1990) resulting in 33 pages of field notes, 12 documents, and 24 qualitative interviews (see Table1). Three interviewees were interviewed in 2016/2017 and 2023, allowing for temporal comparisons and the reconstruction of persistence and change in the organization and individual mindsets. 3.2. Data processing and analysis We transcribed, translated, and anonymized the data and transferred them into the software package MAXQDA. Starting point of the multistage analysis (Figure2) was the research motivation. In a first step, we developed a case description to identify the phenomenon in the data. Next, we mobilized the multilevel network model suggested by Lang and Fink(2019) to develop a theoretical framing that allows for an explicit formulation of a research question: How can CSEBMs foster innovations in structurally weak rural places? In the following step, we engaged in interpretive analysis. We first coded the interviews line by line and further developed the concepts and categories before selectively coding the material regarding the developed categories. We concluded this step by comparing the statements of different interview partners on similar issues to identify contrasts and commonalities and develop assumptions about the mechanisms at play. Comparing recent interview data with earlier interviews enabled us to reconstruct continuities and changes in the case organization. In the fourth step, we developed theoretical explanations for the identified mechanisms and formulated propositions (Gioia etal.,2013; see also AppendixA). Finally, we assessed the limitations imposed by our data and method on the robustness and reach of our findings. This critical assessment of the findings also highlighted implications for theory, policy, and practice. 3.3. Case selection, case description, and research context The case SteviaCo (a pseudonym) was first investigated in an EUfunded research project between 2016 and 2018 that focused on innovative enterprises with a social mission located in structurally weak rural regions across Europe (Fink etal.,2017). SteviaCo is most suitable for our investigation because it is a CSEBM that turned out to be a paradigmatic case for the investigated phenomenon. SteviaCo is a production cooperative located in a fertile area of Central Greece. It has some 50 members, most of whom are family farmers. Despite working in a traditional sector, SteviaCo is highly innovative. It has introduced novel products and processes and established an agile organizational structure. SteviaCo was among the first agricultural enterprises in Europe to begin cultivating stevia, a zerocalorie sugar substitute. Unlike other cooperatives in Greece, SteviaCo does not only produce raw Table 1. Overview of the empirical data collected during the longitudinal case study Phases of data collection Purpose of the research stay Pages of field notes No. of interviews conducted No. of documents analyzed April 2016–April 2017 Exploration of the case, understanding the SEBM and how the cooperative fosters social innovation 16 11 4 2019 Understanding the regional framework conditions 12 7 6 February 2023 Understanding the evolution of the cooperative and its business model 5 6 2 Total 33 24 12 14679310, 2024, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/radm.12679 by Leibniz-Institut Für, Wiley Online Library on [20/10/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License © 2024 The Authors. R&D Management published by RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Sharingeconomy business models & cooperatives R&D Management 54, 5, 2024 1219 materials but also processes the harvested crops and markets the final products with the idea of covering the whole value chain to generate better income for the farmers involved. A profound crisis laid the foundation for innovation. Until the early 2000s, the cultivation of tobacco plants provided a good income for Greek farmers. However, the breakdown of the tobacco market, the Greek debt crisis, and the EU’s restrictive agricultural policy forced a change of direction. Stevia, a crop that had been predominantly cultivated in South America and Asia until then, offered farmers new hope. When we investigated SteviaCo in 2016 and 2017, these initial hope seemed to realize after years of heavy investment and modest profits. Contracts with trading companies and a beverage manufacturer brought stevia products to supermarket shelves across Greece, and SteviaCo had ambitious plans to internationalize. However, tensions had emerged between agile business minds and conservative farmers. Seven years on, SteviaCo is still in operation. Its organizational structure has proved resilient, but the cooperative grew more slowly than envisaged. Recently, SteviaCo has modernized its production, introduced new products, and replicated its business model, all indicators of a dynamic and stillambitious enterprise. 4. Results 4.1. The multilevel network of regional cooperatives: how to mobilize and share resources For our case organization the Lang and Fink model (2019) implies that regimelevel actors are more powerful than actors on the intermediate or community level in the sense that they can define the framework conditions for the production and marketing of stevia by formulating laws/regulations, interfere in the market conditions by setting wholesale prices or providing subsidies, and provide publicly funded research and development. Likewise, actors on the intermediate level are more powerful than the communitylevel actors. For example, as board members of the cooperative they have to exante involve the members in decisions of strategic importance and expost justify their management decision visàvis the members in the general assembly, but in practical terms they still have more information and operative leeway than the single Figure 2. The abductive research process. Research motivation: How can CSE-BMs drive innovations in structurally weak rural places? Data from in-depth case study followed over seven years (production cooperative) Identification of the phenomenon: Description of the CSE-BM to drive innovation in rural Greece Theoretical framing of the phenomenon Formulation of research question Identification of emblematic statements capturing the phenomenon Sensemaking regarding the mechanisms at play and contingencies Theoretical explanation of the mechanisms at play Formulation of propositions Identification of limitations arising from the data and the analytical strategy Implications and contributions to theory, policy and practice Empirical realm Theoreticalrealm Identification of limitations arising from the theoretical perspective 14679310, 2024, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/radm.12679 by Leibniz-Institut Für, Wiley Online Library on [20/10/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License © 2024 The Authors. R&D Management published by RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Matthias Fink, Daniela Maresch, Richard Lang, Ralph Richter and Georgios Chatzichristos 1220 R&D Management 54, 5, 2024 member of the cooperative. The model expresses this multilevel structure in relation to the issue addressed in the regional community. SteviaCo acts as a mediator who establishes links between communities and holders of critical resources on different levels of the institutional environment. SteviaCo’s founders and CEO are two important drivers of its activities. One of the founders is the former leader of the association of tobacco cooperatives—a highly influential figure in the region due to his extensive experience and expertise in farming and the cooperative movement in Greece. He built on the social bonds among SteviaCo members to form a cohesive group and used his influence to engage in community development and sustainable farming projects. To enrich the CSEBM with new business knowledge and foster the entrepreneurial spirit of the former tobacco farmers, he hired an engineering graduate and investment banker with regional roots as CEO. The task was to convince the farmers that the main disadvantages of the region were challenges that could be overcome by joining forces in a CSEBM. Although the farmers strongly resisted change at first (see statement I3C in the Appendix), SteviaCo succeeded in recruiting some 50 members. This was possible because of credible value propositions such as experiencing social cohesion and benefiting from shared resources (appx. I1A and I1B). SteviaCo’s members share an interest in making a good living from farming, which the CSEBM serves by leveraging resources for sharing from the network embedded in the place. Sharing is one of the vital ingredients for maintaining and developing bonding social capital. While the number of shared resources has increased over time (appx. I2B), an attempt to share resources via an electronic platform—‘like an Uber for tractors’ (appx. I2D)—failed because farmers preferred sharing within their own villages and among SteviaCo members. In addition to machinery for planting, harvesting, and processing stevia, sharing also includes, for example, shared marketing and administrative expenses (appx. I2C). The limited resources available in the community make it harder for SteviaCo members to reach their common goals. By reaching out to people outside the region (bridging social capital) who can provide access to new information and resources, SteviaCo and its members tap into the resource pools of other communities. There are horizontal links with a new stevia CSEBM in Northern Greece, which SteviaCo has strongly supported and now benefits from a substantial increase in production capacity and enhanced market power. At the same time, the diffusion of the business model attests to the success of SteviaCo’s approach. In addition to bridging social capital, SteviaCo also builds linking social capital that spans different levels of the network. By taking on the intermediary role, SteviaCo establishes vertical links between the community and the regime level. Our analyses show that regime actors see SteviaCo as a role model (appx. I3B). Agriculture is an important sector in the region but suffers from low productivity and a lack of entrepreneurial spirit (appx. I3C). SteviaCo illustrates that farmers can become more entrepreneurial, which is a credible value proposition to regimelevel actors. Thus, to mobilize resources, SteviaCo must offer credible value propositions to both communityand regimelevel actors. Proposition 1 CSEBMs mobilize resources for sharing across the network by offering credible value propositions to the community and regime levels. 4.2. Emotional and instrumental place attachment: how CSEBMs gain legitimacy in the community Whether a value proposition is perceived as credible by these actors depends on the legitimacy that CSEBMs enjoy, which, in turn, depends on their emotional and instrumental attachment to the local community. SteviaCo’s members, and especially its CEO, have strong emotional ties with the place and the community. The CEO’s emotional place attachment stems from his family’s roots in the region (appx. II1B) and is reinforced by the strong endorsement of the founders. Moreover, the CEO is instrumentally attached to the place and the community because he sees them through the eyes of a successful investment banker and business developer. His expertise in financing and managing startups, as well as his entrepreneurial mindset, have shown local farmers the value in having him on board (appx. II2A). SteviaCo builds on members’ and especially the CEO’s emotional and instrumental place attachment to gain legitimacy. It leverages the community’s acceptance of its members as their own. Simultaneously, the members’ instrumental place attachment enables SteviaCo to position itself as an advocate for the community, networking with higherlevel actors such as representatives of the regional and national government and organizations such as the chamber of commerce. From the outset, SteviaCo has encouraged its members to 14679310, 2024, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/radm.12679 by Leibniz-Institut Für, Wiley Online Library on [20/10/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License © 2024 The Authors. R&D Management published by RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Sharingeconomy business models & cooperatives R&D Management 54, 5, 2024 1227 Murillo, D., Buckland, H., and Val, E. (2017) When the sharing economy becomes neoliberalism on steroids: unravelling the controversies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 125, 66–76. Neumeier, S. (2016) Social innovation in rural development: identifying the key factors of success. The Geographical Journal, 735, 1–13. Nilsson, J. (2001) Organisational principles for cooperative firms. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 17, 3, 329–356. Nyström, H. and Edvardsson, B. (1982) Product innovation in food processing—a Swedish survey. R&D Management, 12, 67–72. Obstfeld, D. (2005) Social networks, the tertius iungens orientation, and involvement in innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 1, 100–130. OECD (2005) Oslo Manual Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data (Measurement of Scientific and Technological Activities), 3rd edn. Paris: OECD. Oeij, P.R.A., van der Torre, W., Vaas, F., and Dhondt, S. (2019) Understanding social innovation as an innovation process: applying the innovation journey model. Journal of Business Research, 101, 243–254. Osborne, C., Baldwin, C., and Thomsen, D. (2016) Contributions of social capital to best practice urban planning outcomes. Urban Policy and Research, 34, 212–224. Poortinga, W. (2012) Community resilience and health: the role of bonding, bridging, and linking aspects of social capital. Health & Place, 18, 286–295. Przyborski, A. and WohlrabSahr, M. (2010) Qualitative Sozialforschung. In: Ein Arbeitsbuch [Qualitative Social Research. A Workbook]. München: Oldenbourg. Putnam, R.D., Leonardi, R., and Nanetti, R.Y. (1994) Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton, New Jersey, Vereinigte Staaten: Princeton University Press. Ragin, C.C. (1987) The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Richardson, L. (2015) Performing the sharing economy. Geoforum, 67, 121–129. Richter, R. (2019) Rural social enterprises as embedded intermediaries: the innovative power of connecting rural communities with supraregional networks. Journal of Rural Studies, 70, 179–187. Richter, R. (2021) Innovations at the edge: how local innovations are established in less favorable environments. Urban Research & Practice, 14, 5, 502–522. Richter, R., Fink, M., Lang, R., and Maresch, D. (2020) Social Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Rural Europe. London, New York: Routledge. Royer, S.J. (2023) The economic theory of agricultural and consumer cooperatives. In: Elliott, M.S. and Boland, M.A. (eds), Handbook of Research on Cooperatives and Mutuals. Cheltenham, Vereinigtes Königreich: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 9–21. Scholz, T. (2016) Platform Cooperativism – Challenging the Corporate Sharing Economy. New York: Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung. Schumpeter, J.A. (1983 [1911]) The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle. New Brunswick/New Jersey: Transaction Books. Somerville, P. and McElwee, G. (2011) Situating community enterprise: a theoretical exploration. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 23, 5–6, 317–330. Stofberg, N., Bridoux, F., Ciulli, F., Pisani, N., Kolk, A., and Vock, M. (2021) A relationalmodels view to explain peertopeer sharing. Journal of Management Studies, 58, 4, 1033–1069. Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1990) Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Szreter, S. and Woolcock, M. (2004) Health by association? Social capital, social theory, and the political economy of public health. International Journal of Epidemiology, 33, 650–667. TEPSIE (2014) Social Innovation Theory and Research: A Summary of the Findings from TEPSIE. Brussels: European Commission, DG Research. Available at https:// iupe. files. wordp ress. com/ 2015/ 11/ tepsi eresea rch_ report_ final_ web. pdf. Utterback, J.M. and Abernathy, W.J. (1975) A dynamic model of process and product innovation. Omega: The International Journal of Management Science, 3, 639–656. Weber, M. (1949) Objectivity in social science and social policy. In: Shils, E.A. and Finch, H.A. (eds), The Methodology of the Social Sciences. New York: Free Press. Welter, F. (2011) Conceptual challenges and ways forward. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35, 1, 165–184. Westley, F., Antadze, N., Riddell, D.J., Robinson, K., and Geobey, S. (2014) Five configurations for scaling up social innovation: case examples of nonprofit organizations from Canada. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 50, 3, 234–260. Woolcock, M. and Narayan, D. (2000) Social capital: implications for development theory, research and policy. The World Bank Research Observer, 15, 2, 225–249. Yin, R.K. (2009) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Zervas, G., Proserpio, D., and Byers, J.W. (2017) The rise of the sharing economy: estimating the impact of Airbnb on the hotel industry. Journal of Marketing Research, 54, 5, 687–705. Zografos, C. (2007) Rurality discourses and the role of the social enterprise in regenerating rural. Journal of Rural Studies, 23, 38–51. Matthias Fink is a professor of innovation management at JKU Linz, Austria and a professor of strategy at Grenoble Ecole de Management. His research concerns Strategy as Practice (SAP) in the context of innovation (generation of novel processes and valuable market offerings), sociotechnical transformation (interplay between social 14679310, 2024, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/radm.12679 by Leibniz-Institut Für, Wiley Online Library on [20/10/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License © 2024 The Authors. R&D Management published by RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Matthias Fink, Daniela Maresch, Richard Lang, Ralph Richter and Georgios Chatzichristos 1228 R&D Management 54, 5, 2024 change, technological progress and business models) and business venturing (in new and established organizations). Daniela Maresch an associate professor at GEM and an associate professor at the University of Southern Denmark (DK). The focus of her research is on topics at the intersection of entrepreneurship, regional development, and innovation, such as entrepreneurial finance, technology entrepreneurship, social and migrant entrepreneurship, and entrepreneurship education. In her research, she employs her interdisciplinary expertise from management and law. The results of Daniela’s work have been published both in scholarly journals such and in transfer publications such as the European Central Bank Working Paper Series. Richard Lang is a professor at the Competence Centre for the Management of Cooperatives at Free University of Bozen-Bolzano. He held an APARTfellowship of the Austrian Academy of Sciences and was Senior Research Fellow in the School of Social Policy at the University of Birmingham, UK, where he earlier held a Marie Curie Fellowship. Richard’s research interests include social innovation and social enterprises, social capital and networks, collaborative and cooperative housing, civil society and social economy organizations, as well as urban and regional development. Ralph Richter is a senior researcher at the IRS Leibniz Institute for Research on Society and Space in Erkner/ Germany and member of the research group ‘Economy and Civil Society’. The research focus of Ralph is on regional and urban development, social change in rural regions, social innovation and social entrepreneurship and socioecologic transition in transport. He is currently working in research projects on socioecologic transition in logistics and on regional factors for innovation and change in structurally weak regions. Georgios Chatzichristos is a postdoctoral researcher at the University of the Aegean. He studied Economics at the University of Macedonia. He received a MSc in Political Theory from the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), a MA in Philosophy from King’s College London (KCL) and a PhD from the University of the Aegean as a European Union. He has taught as a visiting lecturer at the European Public Law Organisation (2020–2021) and as a lecturer at the Department of Social Policy of the Democritus University of Thrace (2021–2022). He participates in the ‘ReWorkAegean’ and ‘YOUTHShare’ projects implemented by the University of the Aegean and is an external evaluator for LEADER. His research focuses on rural development, social innovation and social economy. 14679310, 2024, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/radm.12679 by Leibniz-Institut Für, Wiley Online Library on [20/10/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License © 2024 The Authors. R&D Management published by RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Sharingeconomy business models & cooperatives R&D Management 54, 5, 2024 1229 APPENDIX A Data structure and coding scheme 1st order concepts (concepts) 2nd order themes (categories) Propositions (theories) (aggregate dimension) I1A: “We are a family and should help each other. In the cooperative, we have common interests and should act as one. We all want to make our living from farming.” (Int01) Cooperative members share an interest in a good living from farming. Defending this interest requires a familylike cohesion and solidarity. I1B: “We are one big family, as I told you.” (Int02) Cooperative members have close ties, just as family members do. I1C: “Generally, the cooperative is an effort that hasn’t brought in any crazy revenue so far. So we can’t say that the first priority in what we’re doing is revenue. […] Here we’re trying for something that we built, something that’s good. We’ve come out and we have a very good brand name. We’re making a very good effort that we’re proud of.” (Int03) Cooperative members do not join in order to make money but to become part of a promising endeavor that makes them proud I1: The CSEBM promises cohesion, solidarity, and pride, which are credible value propositions to the sharing community Proposition I: CSEBMs mobilize resources for sharing across the network by offering credible value propositions to the community and regime levels I2A: “We share machines a lot. So practically from soil preparation, planting, collection, which is relatively recent because we recently bought some collection machines. These are machines that are shared out in the field and then there are the leaf sorting machines that are held in the cooperative and we all use them collectively.” (Int03) Cooperative members share machinery for infield cultivation and processing raw products. I2B: “The ratio has been small so far, clearly in favor of private machines. It was one to five, let’s say; now that we’ve got the machines collectively it may be one to one.” (Int03) More and more machinery is shared among the cooperative members. I2C: “It is difficult for an individual to manage and sell stevia, especially if you only have a small quantity. So, [the cooperative is] basically used for managing and selling stevia. And then all the financial benefits that a cooperative gives you. Plus the business taxation and so on—the accounting part.” (Int04) Individual farmers benefit from memberships in production cooperatives because they share efforts to enter the market, they share administrative costs, and help to save business taxes. I2D: “Eight years ago, we started an idea through the cooperative. We were talking about making it into a platform to expand it and get more people involved. So that’s […] like an Uber for tractors. Sharing economy: on the one hand there is demand and on the other hand there is supply. Someone uploads his machine and there is a machine there and someone else is looking for such a machine. He can find it there and do his job. […] It didn’t go very well because we don’t have the mentality in Greece to exchange these machines. Now it is dormant.” (Int05) An earlier attempt to share machinery via an electronic platform was abandoned because it didn’t meet the expectations of the Greek farmers I2: The sharing of machinery as well as shared expenses for business administration, trainings and market access are credible value propositions to the sharing community (Continues) 14679310, 2024, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/radm.12679 by Leibniz-Institut Für, Wiley Online Library on [20/10/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License © 2024 The Authors. R&D Management published by RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Matthias Fink, Daniela Maresch, Richard Lang, Ralph Richter and Georgios Chatzichristos 1230 R&D Management 54, 5, 2024 1st order concepts (concepts) 2nd order themes (categories) Propositions (theories) (aggregate dimension) I3A: “It is important that they get to know us and that we get to know them. Decisions are easier if you know the faces behind the projects.” (Int01) Cooperation with actors on higher levels is easier if they know not only the CEO but also ordinary members of the cooperative. I3B: “[SteviaCo is a] role model and a changemaker. People need to be activated. They need to understand that entrepreneurship is good for us. [SteviaCo] will show them!” (Int06) The cooperative is seen as a role model for the community in terms of activation and entrepreneurial spirit. I3C: “[Farmers] don’t think that change is something good. […] Because of that mentality, they don’t want to change and produce something new.” (Int07) Farmers tend to have conservative attitudes, which makes them averse to change and innovation I3: The CSEBM promises access to people at the community level (farmers) and to imbue them with entrepreneurial spirit—both are credible value propositions to the regime II1A: “We try to make sure that the suppliers are all from our region. The new building that we are constructing, all the contractors are from our area. We are trying as much as we can to give back to the society.” (Int05) The CSEBM demonstrates place attachment by prioritizing suppliers and contractors from its own region. II1B: “They have known me since I was a little boy, saw me growing up and they followed my international career. This familiarity opens doors.” (Int08) Sharing one origin builds trust so that working together is possible irrespective of different career paths. II1: The CSEBM gains legitimacy because its members demonstrate and incorporate place attachment Proposition II: To make their value proposition credible, CSEBMs gain legitimacy through their members’ instrumental and emotional place attachment II2A: “[He is] one of us, but he is an expert who can deal with the big players. We need his expertise, but [we] cannot work with somebody who does not understand us.” (Int09) The CEO combines both local embeddedness and the supraregional contacts and skills to deal with actors on higher levels. II2B: “[The CEO is] a born entrepreneur. He is energetic and committed. He has been successful abroad, so he will also succeed here.” (Int07) The CEO was a successful businessman abroad, which makes regional decisionmakers confident that the CEO will succeed in the region as well II2: Decisionmakers in CSEBMs who combine local embeddedness, supralocal contacts, and entrepreneurial skills are credible promoters of a successful business APPENDIX A (Continued) 14679310, 2024, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/radm.12679 by Leibniz-Institut Für, Wiley Online Library on [20/10/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License © 2024 The Authors. R&D Management published by RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Sharingeconomy business models & cooperatives R&D Management 54, 5, 2024 1231 1st order concepts (concepts) 2nd order themes (categories) Propositions (theories) (aggregate dimension) III1A: “Here we are dealing with a product that was being grown in Europe for the very first time. There was no precedent, so we were flying blind. It was definitely the cooperative that helped a lot more in allowing this effort to develop.” (Int10) The cooperative was an important prerequisite for the establishment of the product innovation. III1B: “We certainly opened up a market that didn’t exist; that is, when we started in 2012, there was practically no stevia on the supermarket shelves anywhere. So that alone… And there was certainly no stevia farming. The fact that we also worked with some institutions along the way […] and we transferred expertise to them and to anyone who was interested along the way. I think that was the big innovation that we did.” (Int03) The product innovation is reflected in the fact that the cooperative developed a new market for the product and transferred its expertise to other stakeholders III1: The CSEBM enables farmers to develop and establish product innovations and to step into new markets Proposition III: CSEBMs develop not only product/service and process innovation but also social innovation. This helps to sustain members’ contributions to the sharing community III2A: “Each of us has different skills […] I think the combination of this differentiation makes the innovation in our cooperative, ‘cause we’re not only businesspeople […] We have different people who are speaking the same language.” (Int02) Integrating people with diverse skills such as business skills in one cooperative is an innovation. III2B: “We made quite a big change compared to five years ago. We were a little bit conservative. […] We didn’t want investors. We didn’t want additional shares. Now we’re open to everything and we’ve moved forward.” (Int03) The new CSEBM has a significant impact on its members in terms of openness to change. III2C: “We’re developing a partnership with a cooperative […] It’s another cooperative that has been set up to grow stevia in Thrace. […] The old tobacco farmers there have set up a local cooperative, which is closely cooperating with ours, in the sense that basically all the product ends up here with us and the management of it from there onwards.” (Int03) The cooperative exports its innovations to another cooperative, founded by former tobacco farmers in a neighboring region III2: To sustain the members’ gain from product and process innovations, the cooperative also fosters social innovations. These social innovations reflect in a combination of skills and a new entrepreneurial mindset and its diffusion to other cooperatives (Continues) APPENDIX A (Continued) 14679310, 2024, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/radm.12679 by Leibniz-Institut Für, Wiley Online Library on [20/10/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License © 2024 The Authors. R&D Management published by RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Matthias Fink, Daniela Maresch, Richard Lang, Ralph Richter and Georgios Chatzichristos 1232 R&D Management 54, 5, 2024 1st order concepts (concepts) 2nd order themes (categories) Propositions (theories) (aggregate dimension) IV1A: “Because I think this is also very important, that one of the reasons why we have failed at the level of cooperatives in Greece is that the cooperatives were run by the producers themselves. You can’t be a farmer and at the same time be in marketing and be the CEO and be the one to communicate the product.” (Int03) Production cooperatives with farmers as managers, which are a typical cooperative model in Greece, tend to fail because farmers cannot take on multiple roles. IV1B: “I [the CEO] say to the members: ‘Guys, shall we get a loan?’ … ‘No way, man, what do we need a loan for?’ … ‘Shall we put up our own money?’… ‘Are you kidding me? We’re gonna use our own money?’ … ‘Shall we get an investor?’ … ‘If we have an investor, in the end he will take everything’ … ‘So how are we gonna do this [investment], guys?!’ It’s not the right mindset.” (Int05) Tensions arise from integrating farmers and business developers in a single cooperative because of different mindsets with regard to investments IV1: The organizational form of CSEBMs is disputed because pure production cooperatives tend to fail and cooperatives that combine production and business development tend to be conflictual Proposition IV: Because CSEBMs stretch across different interest groups with different mindsets, tensions arise. These tensions can be handled through an ambidextrous organizational structure of the cooperative form IV2A: “We’re a cooperative and […] we’re an enterprise, consisting of two layers: One layer is the layer with the farmers and the other layer is the layer with businesspeople, let’s say. So, this combination, as I told you, is the innovation of our cooperative.” (Int02) Organizing the cooperative in two distinct organizational units, the production unit and the business development unit, is an organizational novelty. IV2B: “Farmers and businesspeople—this combination is the innovation. So, […] we started a trend here in this. Because other cooperatives around the area, they are also built this way [now]. Businesspeople with farmers or with someone else, built into a cooperative.” (Int02) Combining production and business development in a cooperative is an organizational innovation and sets a trend in the region IV2: To deal with the tensions between the different interest groups CSEBMs create organizational models with distinct units: one responsible for production, the other for distribution and marketing APPENDIX A (Continued) 14679310, 2024, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/radm.12679 by Leibniz-Institut Für, Wiley Online Library on [20/10/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License © 2024 The Authors. R&D Management published by RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Sharingeconomy business models & cooperatives R&D Management 54, 5, 2024 1233 1st order concepts (concepts) 2nd order themes (categories) Propositions (theories) (aggregate dimension) Int01: Interview with a board member of the cooperative, conducted in Greek and translated into English. Central Greece, April 1, 2017, Duration: 41 min. Conducted by members of the team of authors. Int02: Interview with the CEO of the cooperative, conducted in English. Central Greece, May 11, 2016, Duration: 1 h 7 min. Conducted by members of the team of authors. Int03: Interview with farmer and board member of the cooperative, conducted in Greek and translated into English. Central Greece, February 2, 2023, Duration: 47 min. Conducted by a member of the team of authors. Int04: Interview with a farmer and board member of the cooperative, conducted in English. Central Greece, February 1, 2023, Duration: 41 min. Conducted by a member of the team of authors. Int05: Interview with the CEO of the cooperative, conducted in Greek and translated into English. Central Greece, February 2, 2023, Duration: 38 min. Conducted by a member of the team of authors. Int06: Interview with a representative of the regional government, conducted in English. Central Greece, May 12, 2016, Duration: 1 h 19 min. Conducted by members of the team of authors. Int07: Interview with a representative of the regional government, conducted in English. Central Greece, March 7, 2017, Duration: 1 h 38 min. Conducted by members of the team of authors. Int08: Interview with the CEO of the cooperative, conducted in English. Central Greece, April 1, 2017, Duration: 1 h 25 min. Conducted by members of the team of authors. Int09: Interview with members of the cooperative, conducted in English. Central Greece, March 14, 2017, Duration: 1 h 26 min. Conducted by members of the team of authors. Int10: Interview with a farmer and board member of the cooperative, conducted in Greek and translated into English. Central Greece, February 2, 2023, Duration: 32 min. Conducted by a member of the team of authors. APPENDIX A (Continued) 14679310, 2024, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/radm.12679 by Leibniz-Institut Für, Wiley Online Library on [20/10/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License