Farmers' choice between endogenous vs. exogenous e-commerce: alignment with resources and performance goals

Abstract

PurposeThe literature shows that e-commerce adoption brings many benefits to farmers and agricultural businesses. However, the literature offers very limited guidance on the most effective ways for them to utilize e-commerce platforms. In this study, we unfold how a farmer's choice between endogenous (their own) vs. exogenous (third-party) e-commerce platforms should be aligned with the external (support from agricultural cooperative) and internal (usage of quality labels) resources they can leverage and the performance goals they want to achieve (market expansion vs. price premium).Design/methodology/approachOur study draws on transaction cost economics (TCE) and resource-based theory (RBT) to test the conceptual model with data from a cross-sectional survey of 324 farmers from two provinces in PR China.FindingsOur findings show that external and internal resources shed additional light on the effectiveness of endogenous vis-à-vis exogenous e-commerce platforms. For farmers who rely on exogenous e-commerce, support from an agricultural cooperative appears to be critical in increasing their market expansion. On the other hand, farmers seeking to earn a price premium should focus on developing their own e-commerce platforms, while at the same time emphasizing the quality labels of their agricultural products.Practical implicationsFarmers should pay close attention to the value-added benefits provisioned through farmers' cooperatives, as well as the benefits of acquiring quality labels for their agricultural products. However, the decision to utilize these resources should be aligned with the chosen e-commerce platform (endogenous vs. exogenous) as well as with the performance goal the farmer wants to achieve.Originality/valueOur work goes beyond the traditional focus on transaction costs and efficiency of e-commerce channels and provides specific insights into when an endogenous or exogenous e-commerce model might provide benefits for farmers. On top of this, we argue and show that this decision should reside with the farmer's ability to leverage external and internal resources, envisioned through support from an agricultural cooperative and the quality labels of agricultural products.

Promotion and sustainable development of beef cattle farming industry in agro-pasture ecotone areas, Inner Mongolia of China: A comparison between two fattening systems

“…The increasing rate of cattle farming is much higher in Haolibao than in Galadaqi. It could be due to intensive fattening, which usually requires a large number of beef cattle to reach the level of the economic scale [ 14 , 26 ]. In Galadaqi, the increasing trend is more benefited from the development of the local economy and the cluster effect of the local beef cattle industry.…”

“…Overall, the continuous fattening approach was more sustainable in terms of cost-saving and profit return than the intensive fattening approach, as it reflected the disparity in net profit and BCR between these two systems. This finding has broken the preconception that intensive agricultural production is always more efficient than traditional household farming methods [ 26 , 27 ]. Result provides evidence that income from beef cattle farming truly benefits farmers, and participation in the beef cattle farming industry has a higher marginal return than traditional farming activities, but selecting the optimal production method matters for sustainable development outcomes.…”

“…The analysis of net present values (net profit), opportunity costs, and sensitivity proved that the intensive fattening system is more efficient [ 13 , [21] , [22] , [23] , [24] ]. Meanwhile, the intensive fattening system also has high economic efficiency in production, supply, and distribution [ 21 , 25 , 26 ]. In China, the remote fattening mode as the industrial division and specialisation of calf breeding, feeder cattle raising, and intensive fattening with complementary resource advantages in different areas has promoted the economic efficiency of the whole industry [ 27 , 28 ].…”

Analysis on the Practical Logic of Agricultural Product E-commerce Platform Ecosystem under the Framework of Reconstruction and Regeneration

“…The entire internal link of the agricultural e-commerce ecosystem can be seamlessly connected with strong connectivity. At the same time, by building an information platform system, upstream and downstream enterprises in the supply chain can realize information sharing, and grasp the information of agricultural products in processing, production, circulation, distribution, warehousing and other links throughout the process, so as to facilitate timely decision-making [6]. Due to the harmonious symbiosis of the e-commerce system, the upstream and downstream industrial chains form a close interest linkage mechanism, which can effectively avoid conflicts of interest, information asymmetry, and lack of cooperation among members of the supply chain, forming a stable risk sharing mechanism.…”

Challenges for Adopting E-Commerce in Agriculture among The Farmers: Case Study in Pasir Mas, Kelantan

“…According to Carta et al, (2019), platform fraud factor mainly influences to the adoption of e-commerce. Platform fraud is also an essential factor in adopting e-commerce among the farmers in agriculture besides internet connectivity factors (FAO, 2019;Song et al, 2021).…”