Epsilon Archive for Student Projects

Abstract

In the transition to more sustainable food systems, food innovations, especially radical ones, are considered a key solution. However, implementing them is not without institutional, cognitive, and cultural challenges. Implementation of these innovations is a complex process, requiring integration of sociocultural, institutional, and policy changes. Therefore, solutions cannot be addressed solely by entrepreneurs or the private sector. Collaboration and communication between governments and other stakeholders are in demand. Innovative solutions in food are usually proposed by innovative entrepreneurs who play a role in developing solutions for sustainability. However, those micro/small entrepreneurial businesses often face difficulties in establishing collaborations with other stakeholders. In order to understand what makes the collaboration and communication between radical food innovation projects provided by micro entrepreneurial businesses, and the institutional innovation support in the Swedish food sector seem to experience perceived dysfunction, this thesis mainly focuses on one of the intangible factors, which is interaction at the meso level that specifically takes place during the implementation stage of radical food innovations between micro-entrepreneurs engaged in radical food innovations and public authorities. To do so, the study focuses primarily on identifying the different discursive frames that shape the stakeholders' understanding of the interaction process that occurs during the implementation stage of these innovations, which can provide an initial understanding of how stakeholders construct the interaction process. Three discursive frames emerged from the analysis: speed frame, cautious frame and emotion frame. Additionally, the analysis adds an additional layer of understanding, as it revealed potential tensions between the frames and their underlying assumptions, which were elaborated further by paradox theory. Three potential paradoxical tensions emerged from the discursive frames: speed/cautious, fear/hope and bureaucracy/innovation. Although stakeholders may not be aware that they are framing and there are paradoxical tensions, the analysis illuminates a number of tension management strategies that appear to be useful to be adopted for collaboration and communication improvement.