Presentation at the 5th Global Science Conference on Climate-Smart Agriculture. Title: Farmer organisations shaping entrepreneurial practices for resilience: Evidence from CSA models in Malawi and Zimbabwe Speaker: Domenico Dentoni

1. Farmer organisations shaping entrepreneurial practices for resilience:
Evidence from CSA business models in Ghana, Malawi and Zimbabwe
Domenico Dentoni, Danlette Quashigah, Timothy Manyise, Sera Gondwe,
Rob Lubberink, Golden Mahove, and Todd Rosenstock
Implementing project: ‘Organizing business model
structures for SMAllholder Resilience’ (OSMARE)
5th Global CSA conference, Bali, October 9th, 2019
Factsheet midterm findings Global Challenges Programme Call 4
Organizing business models for SMAllholder REsilience (OSMARE)
Summary
OSMARE aims to understand whether and how business models for Climate-Smart Agriculture (CSA) stimulate or stunt
smallholder resilience in East and Southern Africa. Agri-food systems in this region are undergoing rapid transformation driven
by climatic changes, urbanization and changing consumer preferences. As relatively weak actors in agri-food systems,
smallholder farmers (especially youth and women) and their farmer organizations struggle to adapt to and absorb market-,
social- and environmental shocks. While many projects focus on technology-based interventions or climate-smart farming
practices, this research focuses on how selected agri-business models allow space for resourceful and entrepreneurial
smallholder activities. This means giving smallholders space to experiment, for example in: accessing and (re)combining
resources, farming, marketing, (re)investing resources or moving to other income generating activities. It is through such
experimenting that farmers learn new skills and develop capacities to seize opportunities and to overcome challenges in rapidly
changing agri-food systems.
The OSMARE research project focuses on the organization of four existing business models in Malawi and Zimbabwe; two on
seeds and two on livestock ( i.e. dairy and goat). OSMARE examines, through participatory action research with farmers and
their business counterparts and surveys, how their business model creates a purposive space for experimentation. Space
could mean: providing access to resources, being flexible regarding rules and regulations, having a voice in decision making,
etcetera. When farmers are for example experimenting new ways of farming or marketing, they are learning how to be
resourceful and entrepreneurial by doing. This is expected to stimulate their capacity to (re)combine resources to support their
livelihoods and enhance their resilience.
Complementarily, the OSMARE project undertakes capacity-building and co-creation activities involving systems-thinking,
rapid prototyping and entrepreneurship workshops with smallholders and their business partners. These activities support

2. Are these CSA business models really inclusive?
Do these CSA models put women and youth
involvement in decision-making and empowerment at the core of their agenda?
Should they seek to do so? Why? When? To what extent? How?
Seed multiplication + peer-to-peer learning
Finance + Training
Farmer business schools + Product development
Professionalizing farming + farmer organizations

3. OSMARE Theory of change (to be tested at scale!)
Organizational
structures
(of CSA business
models)
Entrepreneurship
as Emancipation
- Distribution of tasks/rights
- Pooling and access to resources
- Formal/informal mechanisms
- Adapting CSA practices
to local socio-ecological
contexts
- Buffering social, natural
and economic shocks
to livelihoods
(Rindova et al. 2009;
Garcia-Lorenzo et al. 2018)
Socio-Ecological
Resilience
- Innovative ways to
redeploy resources to
develop and fulfil own
aspirations, build a voice,
and instigate change at
scale
(Folke 2006)(Menard 2004; Dentoni et al. 2018)
? ?

4. Entrepreneurial
practices
Are members’ resources and rights:
- Widely distributed?
- Narrowly distributed?
(Sarasvathy 2001; Servantie et
al. 2018; Chandler 2011)
(Menard 2004; Slangen et al. 2008)
How do organizational structures of CSA models relate to participants’ entrepreneurial practices?
Mandatory
resource pooling
(e.g., members’ fee)
Voluntary
resource pooling
(e.g., time, land)
Distribution of
use & income
rights on resources
Distribution of
transfer rights
on resources
Planning
= Establishing
investments to
pursue long-term
goals
Experimenting
= Trying out new
practices, varieties,
markets
Flexibility
= Adapting plans
based on threats &
opportunities
Organizational structures
of CSA business models
Do members engage in:
- Longer-term planning through
investments?
- - Shorter-term experimenting
with resources at hand?
Affordable loss
= Investing by
taking little risk of
losing vital resources
?
Key question and measurements
?

5. OSMARE empirical cases so far
GCP projects are funded by the NWO-WOTRO Science for Global Development funding instrument Food & Business Research (FBR)
Factsheet midterm findings GCP-4
Factsheet midterm findings Global Challenges Programme Call 4
Organizing business models for SMAllholder REsilience (OSMARE)
Summary
OSMARE aims to understand whether and how business models for Climate-Smart Agriculture (CSA) stimulate or stunt
smallholder resilience in East and Southern Africa. Agri-food systems in this region are undergoing rapid transformation driven
by climatic changes, urbanization and changing consumer preferences. As relatively weak actors in agri-food systems,
smallholder farmers (especially youth and women) and their farmer organizations struggle to adapt to and absorb market-,
social- and environmental shocks. While many projects focus on technology-based interventions or climate-smart farming
practices, this research focuses on how selected agri-business models allow space for resourceful and entrepreneurial
smallholder activities. This means giving smallholders space to experiment, for example in: accessing and (re)combining
resources, farming, marketing, (re)investing resources or moving to other income generating activities. It is through such
experimenting that farmers learn new skills and develop capacities to seize opportunities and to overcome challenges in rapidly
changing agri-food systems.
The OSMARE research project focuses on the organization of four existing business models in Malawi and Zimbabwe; two on
seeds and two on livestock ( i.e. dairy and goat). OSMARE examines, through participatory action research with farmers and
their business counterparts and surveys, how their business model creates a purposive space for experimentation. Space
could mean: providing access to resources, being flexible regarding rules and regulations, having a voice in decision making,
etcetera. When farmers are for example experimenting new ways of farming or marketing, they are learning how to be
resourceful and entrepreneurial by doing. This is expected to stimulate their capacity to (re)combine resources to support their
livelihoods and enhance their resilience.
Complementarily, the OSMARE project undertakes capacity-building and co-creation activities involving systems-thinking,
rapid prototyping and entrepreneurship workshops with smallholders and their business partners. These activities support
farmers and other business model actors to understand complex challenges and subsequently experiment with finding,
developing and testing (minimum-viable) solutions. So far 160 farmers and stakeholders in seed and livestock value chains
were directly involved. Workshops are designed to have transformative effects in the field of problem analyses, solution
searching, and value network (re)organization by the multiple stakeholders that comprise a smallholder inclusive business
model. These transformative effects are expected to stimulate both smallholder resilience as well as resilience of the business
model in which they are included.
Interim
research
findings
Preliminary findings from the participatory action research and surveys so far show that:
• Farmers and their business partners realize that climatic conditions are rapidly changing. Thus,
smallholders need to continuously adapt CSA practices every season. This adaptation requires a diffused
ability to effectively recombine the resources at hand.
• Business models that have a purposive space for experimentation stimulate alternative ways by
smallholders to create, deliver and capture value and enables their adaptation and thus resilience. Having
that space for experimenting enabled the dairy farmers in the previous example to overcome a severe
market crisis.
• Smallholders’ entrepreneurship, adaptation and resilience also involves navigating tensions that may
arise within the communities they live in. Several farmers mentioned that in their community they live by
the mantra ‘two are better than one, when one falls the one lifts up the other’. Yet, the business model
arrangements may conflict with this social obligation. But neglecting it could imply repercussions, which
Milk bulking groups, dairy
farmer association, Malawi
African Women in Agribusiness, Malawi
Goat value chains, Zimbabwe
Zimbabwe Super Seeds
Women Self-Help Groups,
Ghana

6. Methods: so far, quantitative in Ghana
Case and Sample Selection
125 participants in 7/30 Self-Help Groups (SHGs) in the
rice value chain, Hohoe district, Volta Region
Selection criteria:
 Heterogeneity in organizational structure
 Homogeneity in sector and agro-ecological conditions
Quantitative and qualitative data
 Measures in appendix, self-assessed, via two rounds
of interviews in Ewe language
 Multiple linear regressions
 Qualitative data via interviews: causal relationships?
 In Malawi and Zimbabwe, we are currently adapting &
pilot-testing same survey
19.2
13.6
8.8 9.6
6.4
20.821.6
0
5
10
15
20
25
Percentage
SHGs
Name and sample distribution of SHGs
Madomise
NyameBekyere
Ibaa
DimaOnse
Lorlornyo
Dibiene
Boeyawor

7. Methods: so far, quantitative in Ghana
Quantitative and qualitative data
 Measures in appendix, self-assessed, via two rounds
of interviews in Ewe language
 Multiple linear regressions
 Qualitative data via interviews: causal relationships?
 In Malawi and Zimbabwe, we are currently adapting &
pilot-testing same survey
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70 and
above
Frequency
Age
Age of respondents
Madomise
NyameBekyere
Ibaa
DimaOnse
Lorlornyo
Dibiene
Boeyawor
Case and Sample Selection
125 participants in 7/30 Self-Help Groups (SHGs) in the
rice value chain, Hohoe district, Volta Region
Selection criteria:
 Heterogeneity in organizational structure
 Homogeneity in sector and agro-ecological conditions

8. Methods: so far, quantitative in Ghana
Quantitative and qualitative data
 Measures in appendix, self-assessed, via two rounds
of interviews in Ewe language
 Multiple linear regressions
 Qualitative data via interviews: causal relationships?
 In Malawi and Zimbabwe, we are currently adapting &
pilot-testing same survey
0
5
10
15
20
25
Frequency
Marital status of respondents
Madomise
NyameBekyere
Ibaa
DimaOnse
Lorlornyo
Dibiene
Boeyawor
Case and Sample Selection
125 participants in 7/30 Self-Help Groups (SHGs) in the
rice value chain, Hohoe district, Volta Region
Selection criteria:
 Heterogeneity in organizational structure
 Homogeneity in sector and agro-ecological conditions

9. Methods: so far, quantitative in Ghana
Quantitative and qualitative data
 Measures in appendix, self-assessed, via two rounds
of interviews in Ewe language
 Multiple linear regressions
 Qualitative data via interviews: causal relationships?
 In Malawi and Zimbabwe, we are currently adapting &
pilot-testing same survey
0
5
10
15
20
25
Educational level of respondents
Madomise
NyameBekyere
Ibaa
DimaOnse
Lorlornyo
Dibiene
Boeyawor
Case and Sample Selection
125 participants in 7/30 Self-Help Groups (SHGs) in the
rice value chain, Hohoe district, Volta Region
Selection criteria:
 Heterogeneity in organizational structure
 Homogeneity in sector and agro-ecological conditions

10. Mandatory
resource pooling
(e.g., members’ fee)
Voluntary
resource pooling
(e.g., time, land)
Distribution of
use & income
rights on resources
Distribution of
transfer rights
on resources
Planning
= Establishing
investments to
pursue long-term
goals
Experimentation
= Trying out new
practices, varieties,
markets
Flexibility
= Adapting plans
based on threats &
opportunities
Affordable loss
= Taking little risk
of losing vital
resources
Empirical Findings /1
+
Empirical message #1:
Voluntary pooling of land, time,
skills encourages members’
experimentation
Note: no significant effect of formal vs. informal
mechanisms; no significant effect of education,
age, and marital status.
Effectuation logicCausation logic
How do organizational structures of CSA models relate to participants’ entrepreneurial practices?

11. Mandatory
resource pooling
(e.g., members’ fee)
Voluntary
resource pooling
(e.g., time, land)
Distribution of
use & income
rights on resources
Distribution of
transfer rights
on resources
Planning
= Establishing
investments to
pursue long-term
goals
Experimentation
= Trying out new
practices, varieties,
markets
Flexibility
= Adapting plans
based on threats &
opportunities
Affordable loss
= Taking little risk
of losing vital
resources
Empirical Findings /2
Causation logic Effectuation logic
+ + +-
Empirical message #2:
Democratic participation in
decision-making triggers
members’ risk-averse, adaptive
experimentation
… yet discourage members’
planning!
Note: no significant effect of formal vs. informal
mechanisms; no significant effect of education,
age, and marital status.
How do organizational structures of CSA models relate to participants’ entrepreneurial practices?

12. Mandatory
resource pooling
(e.g., members’ fee)
Voluntary
resource pooling
(e.g., time, land)
Distribution of
use & income
rights on resources
Distribution of
transfer rights
on resources
Planning
= Establishing
investments to
pursue long-term
goals
Experimentation
= Trying out new
practices, varieties,
markets
Flexibility
= Adapting plans
based on threats &
opportunities
Affordable loss
= Taking little risk
of losing vital
resources
Empirical Findings /3
Causation logic Effectuation logic
+-
Empirical message #3:
Opportunity of renting or
selling common resources
stimulates members’
flexibility
Note: no significant effect of formal vs. informal
mechanisms; no significant effect of education,
age, and marital status.
How do organizational structures of CSA models relate to participants’ entrepreneurial practices?

13. Implications for CSA business models /1
Watch out for trade-offs in the way CSA models are organized!
TRADE-OFF #1: Planning vs. Individual autonomy
Does your CSA model
requires farmers’ long -
term, higher-risk,
investment planning?)
Then centralize
decision-making…
possibly at the expense
of individual autonomy
Example: processing equipment requires planning & investments

14. Implications for CSA business models /2
Watch out for trade-offs in the way CSA models are organized!
TRADE-OFF #2: Experimenting vs. Centralized decision-making
Does your CSA model
prioritizes farmers’ ability
to experiment and adapt
practices by themselves?
Then DEcentralize
decision-making…
possibly at the expense
of exercising control
Example: seed multiplication requires experimenting and adapting

15. Implications for CSA business models /3
Which actions could plausibly overcome these trade-offs?
Rapid prototyping through
business/local university incubators
Participatory systems-thinking sessions
Design contracts with purposive room for experimentation

16. Thank you! We look
forward to challenging
questions and a rich
debate!
Dr. Domenico Dentoni &
#OSMAREproject team
Research sponsored by the CGIAR’s Climate
Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) and
the Dutch Scientific Organization (NWO) through
the 4th Global Challenges Program (GCP) program.
16
Arusha, March 2018, 4th GCP program launch.

17. Appendix 1: Distribution of rice-related activities
17
Level of rice businessa Responses Percent of Sample (n=125)
Sample Percent
of rice-
related
activities
Producing rice 123 28.7% 98.4%
Parboiling rice 16 3.7% 12.8%
Milling rice 50 11.7% 40.0%
Producing value-added rice products 16 3.7% 12.8%
Packaging rice 6 1.4% 4.8%
Marketing paddy rice 116 27.1% 92.8%
Marketing parboiled rice 17 4.0% 13.6%
Marketing straight milled rice 49 11.4% 39.2%
Marketing value-added rice products 18 4.2% 14.4%
Training others on rice-related activities 17 4.0% 13.6%
Total of rice-related activities 428 100.0%
Total sample = 125 participants in 7/30 Self-Help Groups (SHGs) in Hohoe district, Volta Region

18. Appendix 2: Measurements of organizational structures
18
Voluntary resource pooling
Compulsory resource pooling Distribution of user rights
Distribution of income rights
Transfer rights
All questionnaire items are posed with a 5-point Likert scale.

19. Appendix 3: Measurements of entrepreneurial practices
19
EXPERIMENTATION questionnaire items:
PLANNING questionnaire items: AFFORDABLE LOSS questionnaire items:
FLEXIBILITY questionnaire items:
All questionnaire items are posed with a 5-point Likert scale.

20. Appendix 4: Table with regression results
20
* Relationships relevant with p-value < 0,01

21. Appendix 5: References
21
Chandler, G. N., DeTienne, D. R., McKelvie, A., & Mumford, T. V. (2011). Causation and effectuation processes: A validation
study. Journal of business venturing, 26(3), 375-390.
Dentoni, D., Bitzer, V., & Schouten, G. (2018). Harnessing wicked problems in multi-stakeholder partnerships. Journal of Business
Ethics, 1-24.
Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systems analyses. Global environmental
change, 16(3), 253-267.
Garcia-Lorenzo, L., Donnelly, P., Sell-Trujillo, L., & Imas, J. M. (2018). Liminal entrepreneuring: the creative practices of nascent
necessity entrepreneurs. Organization Studies, 39(2-3), 373-395.
Rindova, V., Barry, D., & Ketchen Jr, D. J. (2009). Entrepreneuring as emancipation. Academy of management review, 34(3), 477-491.
Ménard, C. (2004). The economics of hybrid organizations. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics 160(3), 345-376.
Sarasvathy, S. D. (2001). Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial
contingency. Academy of management Review, 26(2), 243-263
Servantie, V., & Rispal, M. H. (2018). Bricolage, effectuation, and causation shifts over time in the context of social
entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 30(3-4), 310-335.
Slangen, L. H. G., Louck, L., & Slangen, A. H. L. (2008). Institutional economics and economic organisation theory: an integrated
approach TT- Wageningen Academic Publishers.