The Dynamics behind the Likelihood of Adopting Inclusive Agrarian Innovations in Disadvantaged Central American Communities

Abstract

Although innovation studies form a consolidated field in developed countries, the same is not true in disadvantaged countries especially in agriculture, despite the importance of innovation in generating wealth and inclusiveness. With this study, we aim to contribute to the knowledge of the processes of adopting innovation in agrarian contexts of poverty. Thus, we examined the main factors that influence the probability of accepting a new product, and their interrelationships in a Central American community. Based on a qualitative methodology, we held 42 in-depth interviews with small-scale producers. All the information collected was the subject of a discursive and content analysis, with support from the NVivo 12 software programme. The results show how key factors such as culture, the market, networks, attitudes, expectations, and social references are interrelated and enhanced or hindered by other social dynamics. These findings underline the idea that the entrepreneur’s relationship with innovation is a dynamic reality where the probability of acceptance is the outcome of combining cultural, individual, institutional, and organisational factors. Any innovation support policy that arises in these contexts should be based on more systemic approaches if the acceptance of inclusive innovation is to be improved.

1. Introduction

While innovation studies constitute a consolidated field in the developed world, disadvantaged countries have not received the same attention [1]. In these cases, innovation issues have not been on the agenda of most researchers and policymakers. More focused on the challenges of meeting basic needs, innovation has been seen more as an end than as a means to development. However, it has an important role in reducing poverty and generating social inclusion [2].

In this sense, we stress the emergence, in recent years, of a new subfield of research at the intersection of innovation, management, and development studies: inclusive innovation [3], which is ‘the development and implementation of new ideas which aspire to create opportunities that enhance social and economic wellbeing for disenfranchised members of society’ [4].

In the context of poverty, innovation problems take on a characteristic physiognomy that needs to be specifically addressed and on which more light must be shed. Obstacles such as fewer companies and worker mobility or weak interactions and cooperation between the private and public sectors can hinder the dissemination of innovation. To move toward more inclusive and sustainable growth, the focus on innovation must be extended beyond high tech, which is considered highly innovative, to innovation in labour-intensive sectors. Foster and Heeks [5] noted that sustainable innovation must include industries of particular importance to marginalised populations, such as health, education, and small-scale agriculture.

Zanello [1], in a systematic review of the literature on innovation in developing countries highlighted various absences, limitations, and understudied aspects. Regarding the type of innovations analysed, most studies have examined organisational or process forms of innovation, and very few explore products. On the other hand, few papers have described, in detail, the nature of the products or methods investigated, either because most adopt a macroeconomic perspective or because they do not sufficiently clarify the concept of innovation in developing countries. From a geographic point of view, there are few Latin American studies, thus prompting the need to broaden the geographic and sectoral focus.

Methodologically, the majority of studies is quantitative in nature (mostly econometric approaches, while the rest are based on correlations and group comparisons). However, there is a lack of qualitative studies that better capture the intrinsic dynamics related to the diffusion and adoption of innovation [6]. Another problem is with the design of the sample. Hence, the bias toward large companies has been criticised: The lack of significant coverage of small companies of greater representation prevents an understanding the real process of knowledge generation and dissemination that occurs in disadvantaged countries [7].

We aim to contribute to knowledge about the processes of diffusing and adopting innovation in disadvantaged countries, addressing some of the limitations mentioned above. Specifically, we intend to shed light on how different factors are interrelated in the processes of diffusion and adoption, generating a greater or lesser probability that a product, method, or idea will be adopted among small-scale producers from disadvantaged communities. The knowledge generated can help to shorten adoption time, a problem of special urgency in these contexts.

We investigated the processes related to a product innovation, specifically the production and marketing of two coffee by-products: pulp flour and pulp tea, with several characteristics relevant to the analysis: (1) The innovation does not require large financial resources and capabilities (minimal investment in infrastructure and low technical training); (2) it is an imitative innovation, it is not a completely unknown technology and is already being experimented with by some producers in the area, which facilitates assimilation. This kind of imitative innovation is more common in disadvantaged countries since risks, costs, the cumulative nature of the innovation, or the relatively low level of education make breakthrough innovation difficult; (3) it is an inclusive type of innovation which seeks to strengthen the capacity of disadvantaged producers to access the market, and to integrate women into productive activities; and (4) it is a complementary innovation of the main product of the studied area (coffee). That is, both by-products can be worked during the transformation of coffee, which avoids a possible rejection derived from the strangeness of having to face a completely new innovation.

We also provide a perspective on the dissemination and adoption of ideas, products, and methods in the agricultural sector (compared with a majority of previous studies, which focused on the industrial and service sectors) and in the Central American context, which enriches the current literature. On the other hand, the innovative proposal analysed, supposes a mixture of local knowledge and external know-how. This allowed us to study, through a qualitative approach, how innovation has been promoted and which institutions have been key to facilitating the process. Understanding how new products, ideas, and methods arise and are adopted, and which policies can support them, is fundamental to the development of policy design.

2. Theoretical Background

Innovation is a multilevel phenomenon [8] with a wide variety of meanings. It includes not only the adoption of new products or processes or new organisational and marketing practices (where ‘new’ is a polysemic term that can mean new to the world, to a country, or to a company), but also new business models and new sources of supply [1]. Generally, two basic types of innovation are identified: (1) ground-breaking, novel innovation or (2) imitative innovation (applying innovation in the same way in another organization [9]. Although both types of innovation can take place anywhere, imitative innovation, as noted above, is more common in more impoverished countries [1].

In regard to innovation in disadvantaged communities, the main aspects addressed in the literature have focused on barriers and channels of dissemination from within or outside a country [1].

2.1. Factors of the Diffusion and Adoption of Innovation in Disadvantaged Countries

The classic reference model for studies on the diffusion and adoption of innovation is the model of Rogers [10]. Despite its relevance to research, the model has been criticised for being excessively centred on developed countries with homogeneous economic environments and structures. According to Strang and Meyer [11] and Strang and Soule [12], the model neglects: (1) the characteristics of the place in which innovation occurs; (2) the way in which what is diffused is transformed over time; and (3) temporal variables affecting diffusion.

Specifically, the context and particular characteristics of developing countries affect the processes of diffusion and acceptance. Zanello et al. [1] underscored aspects such as: advanced, versus green, high-tech innovation that might not find the absorptive capacity that allows diffusion in the receiving country. On the other hand, innovation can fail if it is not designed by people with similar needs. Communication channels are essential vectors for diffusion, but the efficiency of communication will depend on the level of infrastructure development and the geographic and cultural distance between the actors involved in communication. A large portion of diffusion between countries takes place between companies and through intermediaries (trade associations, government policies, and personnel movements), but poorer countries generally have less diversified sectors, few large companies, and little mobility of workers between companies, thereby reducing the possibilities of dissemination. Likewise, institutional instability (political and legal) can discourage foreign investment and the diffusion of innovation from outside the country. The creation and adoption of new ideas, products, and methods in developing countries is still strongly influenced by the insight and skills of entrepreneurship, much more so than in developed nations. In more institutionally unstructured areas, innovation is driven by people with characteristics that make them distinctive. Thus, the constraints of poorer countries are strongly influenced by insight and entrepreneurship skills.

On the other hand, the adoption of innovation in disadvantaged countries can be hindered by other barriers due to both external and internal factors.

External factors include political and economic barriers. For example, poor institutional environments reduce companies’ return on investment [13]. In this sense, the lack of connection between institutions (such as universities and the private sector) reduces the chance of success, or the lack of trust between the private sector and public policymakers inhibits innovation activities [14]. Institutional factors, such as training services and material support through government and national/local non-governmental organisations (NGOs), can make a difference [15]. Innovation is instead favoured when industrial growth is directed in accordance with a region’s social institutions, capacities, and competencies [14]. National innovation systems are more likely to flourish in politically stable countries [16]. Likewise, the capacity for innovation often requires technical and educational skills that can only be fostered with long-term investments, which is unusual in disadvantaged countries [16], as they generally suffer from high levels of corruption that lead to a lower probability of new products being introduced [17].

In the business sphere, strong dependence on a single form of industrial production (generally of low added value), an excessive fragmentation of companies, or a lack of critical mass of industrial and technological capacity can hinder the learning process and the transition from a purely imitative strategy to the domestic generation of technological knowledge [7,18].

In relation to the actors internal to an organisation, the main barriers are related to a lack of different forms of capital (human, financial, and social) [19]. There is a positive correlation between the level of innovation and the training level of managers [20]. However, in other cases, education is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for innovation. For example, low levels of training can be compensated for by informal education [21]. On the other hand, a company’s size may also be relevant for access to the necessary financial capital or information on innovative technologies, although the difficulty of size may be attenuated by the capacity for networking, where connections and relationships facilitate the exchange of information and the creation of collective knowledge [10].

The importance of personal circumstances should also be emphasised. Household factors such as education level, monthly income, age and family structure, religion, caste membership, exposure to external contacts, and values or attitudes influence the process of adopting a new product, method, or idea. The magnitude and intensity of these factors can vary from place to place with variations in agroecological, socioeconomic, and institutional settings [15].

Finally, different attributes such as relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, probability, observability, and predictability or preventive character affect the adoption rate [22].

2.2. Inclusive and Responsible Innovation

The study of the diffusion and adoption of innovation in impoverished countries was enriched more recently by the introduction of approaches that go beyond the mere instrumental nature of innovation at the service of competitiveness to reposition it in a broader context that facilitates socioeconomic growth. Here, two concepts that do not necessarily overlap are differentiated: that of responsible innovation and that of inclusive innovation. The first underscores the alignment of innovation with society’s values, needs, and expectations. The literature on responsible innovation is primarily concerned with including all stakeholders in the design of emerging technologies. On the other hand, inclusivity can indicate different dimensions [5]: the inclusivity of the precursors of innovation (e.g., that address problems of importance to the poor); the inclusivity of innovation processes (e.g., the participation of the poor in the development of innovative goods and services); the inclusiveness of adoption (e.g., the ability of poor consumers to use new products, methods or ideas); and the inclusivity of innovation impacts (e.g., the beneficial effect on the livelihoods of the poor). According to Vasen [23], responsible innovation does not necessarily have to be inclusive (this should be the case of a technology developed with the participation of all actors, but whose objective is not linked to the problem of social inclusion). The opposite need not be true either; for example, approaches such as the ‘base of the pyramid’ do not have to incorporate different stakeholders into the process, which is the central principle of responsible innovation.

In any case, inclusive innovation has aroused interest in the aid and government sectors, which see it as a way to promote more inclusive development models [3] or to promote greater social and environmental sustainability worldwide [24] increasing the provision of funds and initiatives to promote this type of innovation [23].

Despite the increase in studies on innovation processes in disadvantaged countries, little is known about how the different identified barriers and influencing factors interact and interrelate in various cultural contexts. There is a lack of knowledge about which aspects, limitations, and drivers tend to be relevant in a certain context, or why particular catalysts or inhibitors are pertinent in some places and not in others. We also need to improve our knowledge about the causes of asymmetries in access to information in more or less homogeneous communities, or to what extent the inclusive nature of innovation is a factor that encourages its acceptance.

In the present study, we tried to address some of these issues, trying to understand how different factors identified in the literature interact in the processes of dissemination and acceptance in a specific sociocultural context: a poor Honduran community, which due to cultural affinity, can offer us a vision of what can happen in the broader Central American milieu.

To contextualise the results, and to highlight interest in them and encourage discussion about them, it is crucial to explain the profile of the innovation on which this work is based (

Table 1. Characteristics of the innovation under study.

Objective	Manufacture Flour and Tea from Coffee Pulp (Obtained as By-Products of Coffee Processing).
Type of innovation	Product innovation
Sector	Agricultural
Characteristics	Incremental innovation (added value to a product that already exists within the market), not too disruptive; Connected with the productive characteristics of the area (the knowledge of coffee production is used to generate the new by-products); Inclusive with respect to precursors, poor families (a focus on needs detected in the area); Inclusive process (the inclusion of disadvantaged small-scale producers); Inclusive impact (at the social level: the inclusion of women; at the environmental level: the elimination of negative impacts on soil; at the economic level: the increase in producers’ incomes); Not perceived as invasive or imposed by local producers (innovation diffusion is promoted by local actors).
Disseminating institutions	Innovation promoted from within the country, within an institution that knows the area and the needs of beneficiaries (ADOPCAM-Denomination of Origin, Café Marcala); Support from external institutions (EU and Spanish university).

).

Next, we will review the chief characteristics of the socioeconomic context of our case study, as well as the public project in which the dissemination of the analysed innovation is circumscribed.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. The Case Study

The study is rooted in a cooperative project developed in the region of Marcala, Honduras. Honduras is the largest coffee producer in Central America. Coffee is a strategic dynamic axis for the country’s economy; it is present in most of the national territory, and its importance in social development lies in the fact that a large share of the rural population is dedicated to (or depends on) this economic activity. Coffee represents more than 5% of the gross domestic product (GDP) and approximately 30% of agricultural GDP for Honduras. The coffee activity in Honduras is in the hands of approximately 120,000 producers, 90% of which are small-scale. The sector generates approximately one million jobs in the processes of cutting, wetting, drying, and transporting the product [25].

In recent years, Honduras has recorded the second highest growth rate in Central America, well-above the average in Latin America and the Caribbean. However, the country faces high levels of poverty and inequality. Before the double impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and hurricanes Eta and Iota, 14.8% of the population lived on less than $1.90 per day. In addition, nearly half of the population (4.8 million people) lived on less than $5.50 a day, the second highest poverty rate in LAC after Haiti. Another third of the population was nearly poor and vulnerable to falling back into poverty, while the size of the middle class (18%) was among the smallest in the region, compared with an average middle class of 41% [26].

Specifically, the Marcala region is comprised of 202 villages and 19 municipalities located in the Montecillos mountain. This region has been growing coffee for more than 160 years, an economic activity that has become the most important in the region, and a benchmark for quality coffee. Most of its production is organic and destined for export. As an example of its commercial success, the renowned American coffee company Starbucks launched the Honduras Premier product in its Starbucks Reserve line, with coffee harvested in Marcala.

In this context, in April 2019, a project awarded by EUROSAN-INNOVA was launched and financed by the European Union (EU) and the Government of Honduras (Call EuropeAid/161366/ID/ACT/HN) with the aim of contributing to economic improvement and food security among coffee families in the Marcala region, based on the development of an innovative technology rooted in the use of coffee pulp to produce flour and tea for national and international markets. The focus was therefore aimed at the dissemination of innovation, management, and knowledge transfer.

The beneficiaries of the project spanned a representative selection of independent organisations and producers at different altitudinal levels. The project consisted of an initial phase centred on establishing best practices to produce marketable pulp flour and tea. The second phase entailed dissemination among producers and organisations. The work presented here was suggested as a meta-study of the project, seeking to obtain knowledge associated with how a positive predisposition is generated (or not) to accept a proposed innovation.

3.2. Methodology

To respond to the objective set out in this research, we chose a qualitative approach. This allowed us to better understand the nature of the interactions between factors and their nuances using questionnaires and a quantitative analysis.

The qualitative methodology was based on a critical review of the literature, from which we derived the theoretical and conceptual framework to support the subsequent field study. Second, we conducted a series of in-depth interviews with small-scale producers and proceeded to perform a categorical and interpretative analysis. The usefulness of the interviews stemmed from the need to deepen the perspective of each producer. This allowed us to confirm and consolidate the information, as well as to examine how the identified factors are interrelated. We used an appropriate method to capture information in situations where reality does not yet respond to standard or generalised patterns.

The process of designing a qualitative interview follows a series of stages ranging from the determination of research topics, conversation issues, and other aspects of the interview session to the selection of interviewees and other preparations [27].

For reasons of cost and opportunity, we worked with a sample of 42 producers. When identifying the persons to be interviewed, we considered those who met the following selection criteria: they possessed the relevant information; they were physically and socially accessible; they were willing to provide information; and they were able to communicate the information accurately [28]. We also considered whether or not they were beneficiaries of the project, farm size, and whether they lived in a rural/urban area. Of the 42 partners selected, 20 were beneficiaries of the project (they had some prior information and were going to receive training), while 22 were not. More information about the respondents is seen in

Table 2. Demographic characteristics of the respondents.

Age		Sex
Less than 30	33%	Male	23%
More than 30	67%	Female	77%
Education		Farm Size Owned (ha)
Primary or less	43%	Less than 1	33%
Secondary	25%	1–10	55%
Higher	32%	More than 10	17%

.

Other relevant aspects were the selection of the interviewers and the date, place, and recording of the interviews. There were two interviewers from the area to guarantee cultural proximity and an adaptation of the language to the characteristics of the interviewees. They also knew the idiosyncrasies of the coffee business. The authors travelled on site in December 2019 to work with the interviewers to conduct pilot interviews. These interviews were then discussed in groups in successive meetings to ensure the quality of the information collected later.

The interviews, held between January and March 2020 at the families’ homes, were digitally recorded and complemented by handwritten notes. This made it possible to not only record the participants’ voices, but also to observe their various reactions [27].

To obtain quality information and to take care of ethical aspects, we ensured the following: An appointment was arranged prior to the interview to explain to the interviewee the purpose of the research, as well as to inform him/her about the interviewer; informed consent was requested, guaranteeing confidentiality; and permission was requested to record the conversation and to take photos.

ADOPCAM’s support facilitated access to some of the people interviewed, removing barriers that can hinder communication. Certain difficulties had to be overcome: (1) some interlocutors declined to participate in the study; (2) on other occasions, an intermediary with a position of some relevance in the sector acted as a mediator to meet with the interviewee and prepare the scenario; and (3) on several occasions, we were referred to other people who were finally interviewed.

We carried out and recorded in a field diary all activities and steps throughout this process of contact with the interviewees. This included conversations that arose before the interview, as well as details observed during the interview or at other informal meetings. The purpose of this double record was to compare what was recorded during the interview. This clarified certain nuances or circumstances for the analyses that we carried out later.

Open interviews were conducted. The idea was to bring up the topic of innovation to see how the interviewees experienced it. Hence, in the first part, the interviews began by asking them about their business: They were asked to describe their activities, functions, problems experienced, and if they had adopted new practices or products in recent years. In the second phase, they were presented with the innovation that was intended to be spread and asked for their opinion on the matter. Each interview lasted an average of 45 to 50 min.

Given the number of hours of recording, we decided to make the encodings directly on the recordings using the NVivo 12 software programme. From each interview, we prepared memos summarising the main aspects and verbatim statements of the respondents that seemed significant.

With the support of Nvivo 12, we carried out coding based on the extraction of concepts from the original data and their development in terms of their properties and dimensions [29].

Table 3. System of categories for analysis.

Code	Description
1.  Cultural factors (CF)	Communal habits of influence
2.  Individual factors (IF)	Influencing factors related to the psychology of individuals
Attitudes (ATT)	Interest and predisposition to innovate, to take risks
Expectations (E)	Expectations generated by innovation
Motivations (M)	Motivation to be involved in the implementation of innovation
Perceptions (P)	Individuals’ perceptions of their personal situation, knowledge, learning, or innovation
Values (V)	Values held by individuals
Inclusivity (IN)	Persuaded that all individuals should experience development
Religion (R)	Religious beliefs
Sustainability (S)	Concern for the natural environment
Education (ED)	Education level
Age (A)	Age of the interviewee
Incomes (INC)	Household income
3.  Institutional factors (INS)	Social institutions’ influence on innovation
Market influences (MI)	Market influence on innovation decisions
Community-based referents (CR)	Institutions stimulating inclusion, and the diffusion and adoption of innovation
Social networks (SN)	Influence of shared networks
4.  Organisational factors (OF)	Influences relating to the characteristics of the organisation
Dependence (D)	Limitations perceived as barriers to action
Experience (EX)	Experience with related innovation
Resources (RE)	Human, material, financial, and intangible resources
Farm size (FS)	No. Mz (0.70 hectares)

displays the identified categories.

Once we coded all resources and interviews, we proceeded with the interpretation phase based on a discourse and content analysis. In examining the discourse, we studied the words and the speech used by the interviewees. As for the content, we explored the categories or concepts that guided the first part of the analysis.

Our results are presented below. To ensure the anonymity of the participants, we identified the verbatim references of the interviewees with a letter and a number.

4. Results

Next, we present the main influencing factors found in the analysed context in relation to the predisposition to adopt an inclusive innovation, highlighting the interactions between them, as well as the buffering or driving effects that the different factors have on each other.

4.1. Attitudes toward Innovation

The initial minority group of producers, regardless of other conditions, had a proactive attitude toward innovation. With a willingness to take risks within their means, they showed a great openness to new ideas, receptivity, and a tendency to experiment by learning from their mistakes or failures. Interviewee I1 told us, ‘We have the raw material and an insatiable determination to innovate. Quality has no social class. We all can do it (…) we want to take advantage of everything that the coffee plant gives of itself. We are constantly looking for continuous improvement’. His attitude toward innovation led him to experiment with and research the pulp and other by-products of coffee. Others were willing to break the usual cycle and to try new things. They expressed an extraordinary motivation to learn, to perform something different, to innovate, and to investigate. In this group, 20.9% of the interviewees were classified.

The second group consisted of a greater number of producers who were also open to innovation, but with caution. They showed greater risk aversion, which led to greater hesitation in integrating innovation. They demanded greater guarantees to launch an innovation. For example, I18 stated: ‘(…) Yes, I have heard of coffee flour (…) we have productive knowledge, but we would like to first know about the product and learn about other initiatives’. A total of 37.2% of the interviewees responded to this profile.

The third group of producers exhibited a very conservative, sceptical attitude toward novel proposals. They showed no special interest in innovation, experimentation, or looking for new ways, not only to produce, but also to commercialise. They preferred to wait for others to take risks and ‘jump on board’ if they succeeded, or to wait to be told exactly what to do, and to be given the resources. As I13 told us, ‘Producers hardly receive aid; much more money is given to non-productive activities. Economic support is lacking’. This group of producers constitutes the highest percentage of the community (41.9%).

4.2. Expectations

The motivational forces of attitudes about the willingness to accept innovation were influenced by expectations and perceptions. Resistance to innovation seemed to increase when expectations for the commercialisation of new by-products were low. However, what we might call ‘marketing pessimism’ was a combination of a personal interpretation of the environment and previous negative experiences among producers with their main product: coffee. More desperate producers were generally more reticent about the possibilities of commercialising the innovation that was presented to them. This is how I36 expressed it: ‘One does not have the possibility to generate more. We lack the marketing part, the packaging process (…). Many exporters keep the profits. The producer gets very little’.

In certain cases, poverty and scarce resources caused the producers to become distrustful and apathetic, an attitude that was difficult to dispel. Desperation, along with other elements, encourages young people to leave the area. I5 told us how ‘(…) Social media offers an incentive for emigration’. Certainly, this was not the case for everyone. Other producers faced with fear and distrust clung to the illusion of a new innovation, which they believed would allow them to continue surviving in the market.

The sheer appeal of innovation was not enough to attract their attention. The success of policies for the dissemination and implementation of inclusive innovation in contexts of poverty requires understanding the psychological and motivational aspects of adopters.

Another obstacle to innovation that we perceived during the interviews was the strangeness of the proposal. The new products to be promoted were based on the use of coffee pulp. Although this implied a natural, complementary continuity of the production process, in many cases, the participants viewed the pulp as ‘dirty’ and disgusting. For example, I10 said: ‘People have an image of the pulp as ‘dirty’, as ‘garbage’. If they are told that something is made with that flour, they will not buy it. You need to try it first’.

4.3. The Influence of Religiosity

One of the limiting behaviours for innovation identified by different interviewees regarded the fact that many people, especially younger individuals, feel trapped in the mental dynamics of a lack of vital horizon, which leads them to spend time on social networks, watch television, or drink alcohol, with no more vital expectation than waiting for a stroke of luck.

However, this was sometimes buffered by the influence of values derived from religious beliefs. In particular, some producers cited belief in God as motivation to search for solutions to the situation and not to fall into despair. More dynamic entrepreneurs such as I11 stated: ‘I always say that we are in God’s hands’. I12 remarked: ‘God is the main force that moves me, that gives me strength, that animates me (…)’, I17 commented: ‘My husband abandoned me but thank God I saw the light and set up a family microenterprise (…). Entering the market is complicated, but God has blessed us through the cooperative. It was a tough challenge when we entered the cooperative: they wanted excellence’.

Religious values projected, beyond a personal worldview, hope for entrepreneurial activity, ultimately manifesting as a driver of positive attitudes toward innovation. On the other hand, among certain opinion leaders, as will be seen, there was an attitude of helping other poor producers in the community, extending that halo of hope.

4.4. The Market as a Driver

In the context analysed, the market shows a positive effect of drag toward innovation, especially in the case of international markets. I13 told us, ‘We have no experience with pulp, although we are asking for it from Germany. We thought about the idea after receiving the request for the interview’. I43 stated: ‘(…), yes…we have a buyer in France who asks us for the pulp tea…’. However, this effect did not occur in the same way in the local market, as there is no prior demand due to cultural reluctance toward the products in question, as they are made with waste and are substitutes for other strongly rooted essentials (corn or wheat flour, or coffee as a stimulant).

However, the carry-over force of international demand is weakened by several relevant aspects that come into play. On the one hand, we noted uncertainty with the technology and/or the process, as in the diffusion of innovation, in the phase when the technology was not completely defined. It was not clear which variety of coffee would be the most suitable for making pulp tea, if it should be presented in pieces of greater or lesser size or packaged in sachets such as tea. I14 remarked, ‘I am interested in the possibility of making pulp flour, but we would have to see if customers like it (…). We need to know the process; we cannot go blind’. In addition, it was still unknown whether the pulp of the coffee in the area was entirely suitable for consumption in the form of flour, with the particularity that there are no companies in the country that can perform the relevant clinical analyses, which means ordering them outside at a high cost, or what the appropriate grinding thickness should be. I20 told us, ‘There is a need for analysis; the customer has to know that he is consuming something healthy’. I4, who sells pulp to make tea and makes it in his business through trial-and-error, said: ‘(…) there may be market demand, but there is no certainty about the suitability of the product; it is risky to try to export’. On the other hand, international demand was discouraged for productive reasons. According to I3 ‘International buyers want volume, which makes quality work difficult’. The size of the farms and the human resources available to many producers did not allow the volume requirements to be met. In addition, there was another factor: distrust. The area analysed is characterised by a tendency to act individually, as well as by a climate of distrust toward the other. This makes it difficult to tackle joint projects or sources from other actors. As I3 commented, ‘The pulp of coffee requires great care if you want to make a product that people are going to consume. I know what I do, but I do not know what my neighbours do. I cannot risk buying their pulp to increase my production’. I5 stated: ‘There is great competitiveness. We live in a coffee village, but everyone is doing their own thing. The people around are not trusted’.

All these fears are exacerbated in the case of entrepreneurs with a less positive attitude toward innovation. They are trapped in a conservative circle, resistant to possible innovations, especially if they do not have many prospects of commercialisation in local markets, and with a single objective of survival. I33 expressed a fairly widespread feeling in this group of entrepreneurs: ‘We need to get money and for this we have to get the coffee anyway. If we do not have money, we cannot compete, even if we have the best coffee’. This means that products are usually in the hands of local intermediaries, with no interest other than obtaining a good price, abandoning any attempt to experiment with new products.

Other more dynamic producers have made attempts at small-scale experimentation in local markets, which has led them to focus on a niche of gourmet consumers (especially tourists and young people looking for new experiences) and outside rural areas. In this sense, some interviewees pointed out that a certain cultural change was taking place. For example, I37 said: ‘There is a certain attraction to the new, a greater interest in changing, in making and consuming different things’. In the same vein, I4, an owner of an urban cafeteria commented: ‘The new generation has changed, people have become more daring, more curious. They want something new; they are attracted to innovation’. In short, even in ideas or products that clash with established cultural habits, small local experiences can encourage the search for new niche markets.

In any case, access to information buffers some of the barriers indicated. Some producers were attracted by the product after observing that it was sold in other countries and that there were companies already marketing it abroad. This was the case of I28, who remarked: ‘On a trip to Santa Rosa I saw how they dried the pulp for the tea and took them to the US’.

4.5. Community Referents as an Inclusion Factor

The interviews carried out showed us the sometimes decisive role that certain actors play in the leadership of inclusive processes, which allow for the integration of more disadvantaged producers who have little propensity for innovation in the circuits of dissemination and adoption.

We identified two types of leaders. On the one hand, well-established actors in the market with resources (economic resources, plus access to national and international markets) have designed inclusive processes to facilitate market access for disadvantaged small-scale producers. This is the case, for example, with I5, a marketer trained in the US (in international business), who gained professional experience before dedicating herself to cultivating coffee and owning a coffee cooperative with a strong presence in international markets. Located in a very poor rural area, she acts as an intermediary nexus, creating and strengthening a network of small-scale producers in the area (coffee suppliers) with the aim of sharing the profit with them. Not only has she managed to associate them; she has also introduced them to organic production, care and respect for the product, the need to innovate, and the creation of community links. Beyond purely commercial tasks, her house and work centre are simultaneously a training workshop for women and young people (embroidery, painting, crafts, etc.). For the rural environment in which she lives, she is an institutional entrepreneur [30,31] due to her ability to transform and create social institutions of socioeconomic cooperation. In this case, innovation is favoured in two ways. On the one hand, small-scale producers in the area should be involved together with market agents to identify common interests, share knowledge, and develop new business opportunities. This is how I26 told us about her experience: ‘We started working with organic coffee and it was a terrible disappointment because the farms did not work for us. We were about to switch to chemical fertilisers when X (name of the marketing company) came in. Then, I5 visited me, visited my husband, and said to continue as we were, that we had a lot of preparation in the management of organic products, and that this can be improved. They offered us a market’. On the other hand, there is a drive to create communities of ‘meaning’, of empowerment, of developing links that transcend commercial activity. This helps to break down barriers such as distrust, hopelessness, and a lack of vital perspectives.

The second type of leadership, such as project champions regarded activities carried out by other active innovators. They not only act as references for other producers, but also as potential mentors to help develop new ideas in other businesses. As I1 told us, ‘We are willing to help other producers in whatever is needed. We have no problem with that. We want our community to develop’. These approaches are generators of inclusivity in innovation for the most disadvantaged producers.

In our study, both leadership profiles were invariably exhibited in people strongly moved by certain values: religiosity, inclusivity, and sustainability. On the one hand, the people identified in these leadership categories manifested great religiosity during the interviews; religiosity materialised in what we can call the ‘concept of hosting’. On the other hand, they also expressed concern and demonstrated efforts to include women and the unemployed in productive activities. In addition, they had a strong conviction regarding the need to function sustainably. In the words of I1, ‘We care about sustainability, about maintaining endemic species. In addition, we seek the sustainability of the project, generating added value in all its dimensions: human dignity, the generation of skills, and the abilities of the human team’.

These values are key aspects that enabled us to interpret the findings to better understand the facilitating action of this type of actor, as well as their institutional importance in contexts of poverty. They can be ideas, or forces that contribute to reducing distrust and increasing collaboration among producers.

4.6. Networks and Innovation

In the literature review, we weighted networks as one of the chief assets (there is passivity in their absence) to explain the dynamics of diffusion and adoption. In resource-limited contexts, networks can play an important role in local governance, business creation, and access to business opportunities [4].

In the reference community of our study, we found two types of networks: (1) cooperatives, the main institutions that train their members and help to commercialise the product; and (2) formal and informal institutions (such as NGOs, denominations of origin (DO), fairs, and business forums). These networks have a double fundamental role in contexts such as the one analysed. On the one hand, they are the main points of diffusion for innovation, allowing us to alleviate asymmetries of access to information. I18 stated: ‘We learned about the experience with pulp by-products in Ocotepeque from an agreement with Dutch cooperation’. I25 commented: ‘I hadn’t heard anything about by-products until they called me from the Denomination of Origin to participate in the project’. Those producers who participated manifested a greater knowledge of the potential of coffee pulp to generate new by-products. When they simply said, ‘We have heard of it’, they always meant through some network. This dissemination of information on innovation occurs in various ways: through trainings, experiments organised by cooperatives, development projects, or informal relationships. I17 summed up his experience: ‘I attended a workshop in my cooperative on the production of coffee by-products (wines, biscuits and breads). Thus far, I have sold them at fairs; we do not have access to another market’.

However, participation in networks does not guarantee the flow of information when producers’ participation is limited to purely contractual relationships of sale. We observed that, for example, among members from the same cooperative that participated in the interviews, some had heard about innovation with coffee pulp, while others had no idea. They simply interacted with the cooperative to sell their coffee. This was the case with I23, who remarked: ‘We only know how to cut the coffee, pulp it and go to sell it. We have no knowledge about the nutritional properties and uses of the pulp. Other comrades have had information from X (the cooperative)’.

These behaviours were more common among producers in rural areas, which are often poorly linked to, and disconnected from, urban centres. Therefore, access to information is due to greater involvement of actors, which does not always occur, especially in rural areas, or active information dissemination policies. When information about innovation does reach humble producers in rural areas, this is due to the leadership of community referents such as I5, which act as dissemination centres.

On the other hand, the networks in Marcala serve as mechanisms for the inclusion of small-scale producers in innovation processes, especially among those without resources and those furthest from information centres. In fact, the project to disseminate and promote innovation with coffee pulp, on which this study is based, was led by ADOPCAM, which brings together many small-scale producers. Hence, networks add to the role of leaders as a prominent factor of inclusivity in innovation.

One of the problems of the community analysed is that not all producers are integrated into networks. I5 told us: ‘There is great competitiveness. We live in a coffee village, but everyone is walking by his or her side. In addition, here there is a lot of coffee, but the market is very saturated’. We noted that membership in networks is higher among producers without university studies and among those over 30 years of age. People with university studies may consider themselves more qualified to undertake solo projects. In fact, almost all of those interviewed had direct international customers for the export of their products or used online sales channels for direct sales. This implies a certain loss of human capital, which can have an impact on the improvement of the conditions of other producers. On the other hand, the fact that those over 30 are most involved in networks seems to indicate a certain disenchantment or frustration of many solo experiences.

Regarding the type of network, we observed that active involvement in cooperatives was more frequent among producers with more resources. On the other hand, those with fewer resources were more influenced by other institutional networks, especially DOs and NGOs. In the interviews, the latter participants showed greater resistance to formal association motivated mainly by two reasons: avoiding more payments for membership (a problem for their limited income) and survival needs. The need to obtain immediate income during the productive cycle leads them to (badly) sell their product to local intermediaries, who take advantage of their desperation to pay low prices.

5. Discussion

Our results provide evidence of the underlying dynamics behind the adoption of inclusive innovation in disadvantaged communities in the agricultural sector, especially in the Central American cultural context. Understanding specific contexts seems crucial because it allows us to discuss certain theoretical approaches in the search to understand the probability of adoption of innovation, and to offer new insights for the design of more effective action policies regarding the shortening of adoption times and increasing the number of adopters.

The type of innovation we dealt with has two characteristics that are often considered important for strengthening innovation in disadvantaged countries: local innovation (to facilitate the diffusion of innovation within countries) and incremental innovation (compared with the most disruptive kind). This enabled us to analyse how these characteristics interact with other variables common to innovation studies.

5.1. The Relevance of Expectations

The influence of expectations as a promoter of interest in innovation in disadvantaged countries coincides with what has been found by authors such as [32], who hypothesised that optimistic owners are more likely to think their attempts at innovation will pay off and thus be more likely to attempt to innovate. We observed this in our interviews, which would also support the results of Hochgerner [33], who pointed out that the effort necessary to assert the new against the old, or to form an idea or an invention into an innovation that is successful in society, or which ends up in the market, is less if the innovation basically conforms to existing expectations. However, the interaction with other variables, such as the context of poverty, leads to more problematic claims, such as that of Hoffmann [34], who argued that the discrepancy between an organisation’s expectations and its actual performance can trigger the innovation process. Many of the producers interviewed, although they expressed desperation about their organisation’s situation in the market, did not reach the phase of planning and design of innovations as indicated by Hoffmann (pairing). In these cases, the situation of poverty and the lack of expectations were so pronounced that they inhibited that type of organisational logic.

5.2. Social Referents as Generators of Trust and Inclusion

The role of social referents is evidenced in our study as a salient figure in disadvantaged communities. Consequently, the speed with which these actors adopt innovation will accelerate comparison and possible acceptance among other producers, who will be more willing to compare themselves with these referents than with other producers [34].

This role stands out in paradigmatic cases such as that of I5, an influencer, leader, and promoter of inclusivity and support for small-scale and poor producers, fitting with the theses of Sinha [35]. In his study, he underlined the relevance of exploring empathic motivations. In particular, he was referring to a situation where internalising third-party pain can create internal stress that leads to experimentation and innovation. We clearly perceived this during our conversation with I5.

5.3. The Importance of Networks

The analysis of Marcala can serve as an example of what can happen in other disadvantaged communities, illustrating the importance of active membership in social networks for agricultural innovation. There is still a lack of knowledge about how small agricultural businesses can address specific challenges in a network. Questions such as what type of social network will offer changing business advantages or improve the effective decision-making of small-scale agribusiness owners remain unanswered [36]. In our study, the most effective type of network perceived, for its ability not only to improve competitiveness and to guide decision-making toward innovation, but also to provide shared meanings, is the one constituted around a marketer who is well-established in the market in communities of learning and collaboration.

The emergence of this type of network and its importance for the dissemination and acceptance of innovation is decisive in communities where homophilic interpersonal ties abound (the degree to which two or more interacting individuals are similar in certain attributes), especially in rural areas. According to Hoffman [34], homophily can act as an invisible barrier to the rapid flow of innovation within a social system, as similar people interact in socially horizontal patterns. The efficacy of this type of experience has been found in other studies such as that of La Red Papa Andina, with the use of the participatory market chain approach (EPCP) and stakeholder platforms that involve small-scale potato producers, together with market agents and agricultural service providers in group activities [37].

Identifying current or potential opinion leaders in the community and supporting them can ensure the dignity of small-scale producers. The fact that individuals form a closer or broader network of social relations is a function of social capital in society and can lead to different drivers of innovation and business performance in developed and developing countries alike [7,34]. It remains to be studied whether this type of network generates continuous dependence for them or empowers them (as seems to be the case in Marcala) for greater autonomy in decision-making.

However, the importance of other networks, such as DOs, cooperatives, or business associations cannot be ignored to coordinate and facilitate interorganisational interactions and flows of knowledge and information [38]. That said, as can be deduced from our study, the main obstacle facing these networks is their lower power to generate emotional bonds and more active participation among small-scale producers, who have less predisposition toward innovation and few points of access to information. Here, we must consider, the interactions with other dynamics such as distrust, physical access to infrastructure, or producers’ economic difficulties. Without relating these aspects, the mere promotion of sectorial and community associations does not in itself guarantee the active inclusivity of the participants. For some of the actors interviewed, the status of the partner mattered in that the interviewee responded more to a nominal question of ‘being there’ for what ‘could happen’ or to obtain certain benefits, but without assuming other commitments of collaboration and sharing ideas and experiences. It is possible that these cases were also influenced by the fact that they generally entail larger networks, which can discourage participation.

5.4. Market Power

The observed influence of the market on the processes of the diffusion and acceptance of innovation differs in part from that found in other disadvantaged cultural contexts, where local demand is the primary determinant [39]. However, in our study, international demand was one of the main factors involved in innovation. As noted above, these customers played an important role in experimenting with and adopting innovation in relation to the most active entrepreneurs. This drag effect of international markets helps, if there are other circumstances (resources, information, productive capacity, confidence, etc.), to integrate the producer into the rapid dynamics of changes, and to search for new products and the experiences of richer countries. It is more difficult for local demand in disadvantaged contexts (where people are much slower to accept changes) to encourage innovation in the case of agricultural products. Here, cultural habits also come into play, leaving the prospects of sale in the domestic market to niches of new consumers.

Notwithstanding, the influence of the market interacts with other social institutions, generating synergies. In successive research, Ayadi, Rahmouni, and Yildizoglu [40] revealed the fundamental role played by universities, research centres, laboratories, national and international organisations, other companies, and external technical assistance. These results suggest that to generate innovation in companies that lack internal inventive capacity, absorption capacity plays a crucial role. Our results confirm the importance of these agents’ work. In fact, the innovation project was driven by collaboration between a local association, an international NGO, and a foreign university. This meant the diffusion of innovation to small, uninvolved producers who would otherwise have found it difficult to access this knowledge. This highlights, as Altenburg [2] implies, the interest in using neo-institutionalist perspectives to better understand how these institutions interact with national innovation systems, and how these should be shaped to enhance technological learning.

Given the clear attractiveness of the international market to boost innovation, we cannot ignore the risk that its sustainability entails over time, as it is subject to the ups and downs of demand.

5.5. The Influence of Personal Sociodemographic Factors

The influence of these variables has been observed in studies such as that of Bekele and Drake [15]. Some authors have pointed out that creativity and formal education are not correlated. For example, according to Hoffmann [34], some of the most notable, communicative innovators are practically illiterate. However, this does not mean that education has no role in increasing farmers’ creativity and propensity to innovate. The level of education in developed countries is associated with a higher likelihood of taking advantage of entrepreneurial opportunities and higher performance of those enterprises [19]. This influence of education has also been found in studies in disadvantaged countries, where farmer households headed by a member with higher education are more likely to sell in the supermarket compared with households headed by a less educated member [41]. According to Schipmann and Qaim [42], a year of additional education increases the rate of innovation adoption by 12%.

In our study, the most innovative were those with a university education. This positive association of education with a higher predisposition to innovation can be explained by the fact that educated people are generally less rigid and exposed to reliable sources of agricultural information, which create a state of rationality that in turn predisposes people to adopt new practices [22]. This can be an obstacle in an area with weak education systems (from primary education to vocational and university education). In our community of reference, the possibilities of access to higher education are very limited by the economic precariousness and the cost it represents. We did not even see an aspiration to be trained in many young interviewees. Nevertheless, we noted that entrepreneurs with a university education expressed their desire for their children to go to university. As I12 told us, ‘I feel very proud that my daughter can go to university. Knowledge empowers us’.

Compared with other studies where formal education and training, beyond initiatory knowledge, did not appear as something that farmers wanted or perceived as particularly necessary [43], in the community studied, the opposite was appreciated: an obsessive interest in education and training. Unlike other agrarian contexts such as Tunisia [44], in our study, the weight of ‘communities of practice’ did not manifest, where experience represents tacit knowledge and serves as a generator of innovation. Our interviewees all valued training, learning, or external training. Bradley et al. [19] found that those who gained knowledge through previous business experience or training may see opportunities for innovation that will not be recognised by all players in a particular market.

Age is usually considered in studies on entrepreneurship and innovation insofar as it incorporates the positive effect of experience and provides credibility when transmitting information to other people when seeking to obtain resources or to develop a company [45]. However, a negative impact was also revealed: a one-year increase reduces the risk of innovation adoption by 2% [42].

In our study, the influence of biological age was not a relevant factor, but years of professional experience were. This led to more opportunities to become familiar with some by-products of coffee, experiences developed in the market by other actors, and greater relational experiences with international buyers, which increased access to information and predisposed them to the acceptance of innovation.

The results regarding the different influencing factors led us to a systemic perspective of the process of acceptance of innovation in disadvantaged contexts. This is a perspective where the dynamics between variables, due to their inhibitory or catalytic effects, largely determine the final probability of adoption. This more systemic approach highlights the idea that the entrepreneur’s relationship with innovation is a dynamic reality, where the probability that an innovation will be accepted is the outcome of combining the characteristics of innovation with cultural, individual, institutional, and organisational factors (Scheme 1). During the presentation of the results, we realised how they interrelate and influence the decision to accept innovation.

We combined the different factors, generating different profiles of entrepreneurs in relation to the probability that they may accept the innovation and the period in which this can happen. Any design of supportive public policies should be based on an analysis and identification of these profiles of entrepreneurs in disadvantaged communities and propose action strategies tailored to their particularities.

For example, identifying and supporting the innovators who are most active in the creation and dissemination of innovation is essential to foster acceptance in other producers. These innovators can, on the one hand, present themselves as benchmarks of success for other entrepreneurs who may be more cautious or passive in the face of innovation, thus inspiring the desire for emulation or generating optimistic expectations. Yet on the other hand, processes can be designed so that these innovators participate in mentoring and sharing experiences or serving as nuclei of social networks that favour inclusion in the innovation processes of other entrepreneurs who may be circumstantially less prone to innovation. Both dynamics not only generate inclusivity, but also favour access to information for many producers, especially in rural areas, which are more disconnected; some of these producers might be attitudinally inclined to innovate.

Institutional support is also vital to define technological processes and eliminate uncertainty regarding their application for innovation. Here, it will be key to collaborate with universities, research centres, or to gain support with resources so that these processes can be undertaken collectively. The elimination of technological uncertainty can mean a significant increase in the probability that entrepreneurs with a more favourable attitude toward innovation will end up accepting a new idea, method, or product.

Another policy group should address the problem of distrust of the other. In disadvantaged communities, the undertaking of joint actions is more complex. Factors such as poverty, scarcity of options, or negative experiences feed a climate of distrust toward other producers. In innovation where success depends on its extension being generalised, and where the outcome depends on collaboration, the design of work dynamics with entrepreneurs to generate trust can be very relevant.

On the other hand, training programmes and support for potential innovators can lead to the emergence of human capacities that would be germane to the community. Producers with very positive attitudes toward innovation, but without the means to channel it, can become active innovators and in turn community references.

The probability of accepting innovation will depend to a large extent on demand expectations. Cultural and market aspects come into play here. All innovation (even if it is not excessively disruptive) is a social novelty that sometimes clashes with entrenched cultural habits. Policies supporting research on cultural habits, resistance to factors of change, and designing social marketing strategies to promote other habits that may be beneficial will help improve the likelihood of adoption. In this sense, the support of initiatives that encourage experimentation in local markets, testing the product, observing consumer reactions, or defining possible profiles can be very productive.

As we observed, international demand can be key to driving the development of an innovation. However, access to these markets is not a key resource for most smallholders in disadvantaged communities. Here, it will be essential to support communication policies that strengthen the role of key intermediaries as well as the work, with the innovative social referents best positioned in terms of their relationships with international clients.

6. Conclusions

The study highlights the need to contextualise research on the processes of dissemination and adoption in disadvantaged communities. The findings offer us an overview of what may be happening in the agricultural sector of Honduras and, by extension of cultural similarity, in other Central American countries. Interest in analysing the intrinsic dynamics between factors to better understand the innovation process was also highlighted.

The vision presented on the interactions between the different factors influencing the probability of acceptance of an innovation was made possible by the adoption of systemic perspective, together with a qualitative methodology. As highlighted above, most studies on the diffusion and adoption of innovations have been based on quantitative methodologies, with extensive data sets, which, although they offer more generalisable evidence from a macro point of view, do not allow to capture more subtle aspects of the relationships between the different factors that are relevant for the acceptance of innovations between producers located in a given cultural and socio-economic context. Thus, the evidence obtained in this work contributes to the discussion and advancement of knowledge about the processes analysed, expanding the comparative basis of study. At the same time, the focus on small producers broadens the perspective of study and shows how the dynamics of influence do not have to be similar to those of large producers, the most common focus in innovation studies.

Since we carried out the study within the framework of an innovation dissemination project, it was not possible to verify to what extent innovation was finally accepted and integrated by producers in the area. It would be interesting to perform a second study to see what obstacles or catalysts ended up marking the processes and rhythms of adoption.

The very characteristics of innovation mean that the results offered cannot be generalised in this context to other types of innovation. Here, we studied incremental product innovation with a low technological profile, which does not require expensive resources. It is possible that, for other types of innovation that are more technologically sophisticated or based on organisational or management processes, the dynamics of diffusion and adoption will create a scenario that differs from what was shown here.

A more systemic analysis approach of actors and processes involved in a given context helps to increase the probability of adoption. This approach to analysis represents a valuable contribution to the implementation of actions and public policies that aim to promote inclusive innovation in disadvantaged contexts.