Territorial Social Innovation and Alternative Food Networks: The Case of a New Farmers’ Cooperative on the Island of Ibiza (Spain)

Abstract

Social innovation is gaining attention as a perspective that stresses the relevance of transforming social relations to promote sustainable territorial development. This paper adopts the social innovation approach to examine Alternative Food Networks. The main aim of the study is to identify key factors in the emergence and development of social innovation processes that give rise to new organisational formulas among farmers, which contribute to the coordination and efficiency of food supply in Alternative Food Networks. The article provides an original conceptual framework on territorial social innovation (TerriSI), which is empirically tested in a case study in Ibiza (Spain). Through a mixed methods approach, the study analyses the emergence and development of a new agricultural cooperative that involves producers participating in Alternative Food Networks in Ibiza. This is considered a socially innovative initiative since it comprises novel social reconfigurations within the local context. The findings underline key factors of territorial social innovation linked to the particular conditions of territories, triggers, leadership, coordination mechanisms, and the capacity to disseminate innovation through the territory.

1. Introduction

1.1. Justification and Research Objectives

In recent years, Alternative Food Networks (AFNs) have received increasing attention as initiatives that mobilise actors in order to obtain modes of food production, distribution and/or consumption that are different from large production and distribution channels [1,2,3,4]. Food cooperatives, food buying groups, farmers’ markets, community-supported agriculture and urban agriculture are examples of AFNs that have flourished during the last few decades. Reducing the environmental impact of global production chains, recovering the proximity between producers and consumers, democratising food systems and improving their resilience are some of their main aims [3,5,6,7].

In many cases, AFNs involve initiatives that support agroecology [8,9,10]. There is certain confusion in use of this concept. Wezel et al. [11] explain that three definitions can be found: as a scientific discipline, as a political/social movement and as an agricultural practice. Their application depends on contextual factors in different countries. In 2018, the FAO presented the 10 Elements of Agroecology [12]. The diversity of crops, synergies among food systems and human and social values are some of these key principles. Thus, the FAO’s definition comprises the above three dimensions and defines agroecology as a holistic and integrated approach that simultaneously applies ecological and social concepts and principles to the design and management of sustainable agriculture and food systems.

The debate on AFNs is gaining attention due to the COVID-19 crisis. The pandemic has demonstrated the vulnerabilities of global supply chains and the importance of short and flexible channels to ensure food security [13,14,15]. AFNs have been able to maintain and even increase their activity through adaptation and innovation, reinforcing the role of digitalisation and solidarity practices [16].

Previous research on AFNs has conceptualised this novel phenomenon as innovation per se [17,18,19,20,21]. Other studies in the field have addressed why AFNs occupy a niche role and how they could make a larger impact towards food system transformation [22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29]. Some authors have identified the different evolutionary trajectories of AFNs [28,30], in addition to the elements of the diffusion and adoption of technological innovations [31].

In this context, those producers participating in AFNs often have small and scattered farms and find it difficult to afford investments to improve the efficiency of their activity [32,33,34,35]. In addition, they usually struggle to access financial capital [36]. This is also problematic for consumers, who frequently deal with an atomised and fragmented network of suppliers [37]. In this regard, there is recent empirical evidence of how producers involved in AFNs can foster cooperation and improve local food systems’ efficiency through new social relations and new ways of interacting with other territorial actors [35,38]. Such intangible innovations that occur in the field of social relations and social practices are often referred to as social innovation (SI).

During the last decade, there has been renewed interest in social innovation as an approach, emphasising the social dimension of development processes [39]. It places social relations at the heart of territorial development [40,41,42] and makes it possible to explain sustainability transitions as a collective phenomenon that encompasses transformations in several dimensions and actors of communities [17]. It is a particularly significant form of social creativity [43], whose material outcomes can be different depending on the temporal and territorial context [41,44]. In contrast, it is the intangible and social outcomes that are noteworthy, such as the satisfaction of social needs, social inclusion, the generation of capacity-building or stronger community resilience [41,45,46].

In this paper, we adopt the SI approach to study AFNs. The main aim is to detect key factors in the emergence and development of SI processes that give rise to new organisational formulas among producers, which contribute to the coordination and efficiency of food supply in AFNs. The article contributes to the AFN literature by adopting the territorial social innovation (TerriSI) conceptual approach. The SI perspective provides a better understanding of new collective initiatives such as social reconfigurations in networks, attitudes and coordination mechanisms [40,41,47]. Our approach also draws on the territorial development literature in order to understand SI as a contextual phenomenon derived from institutional dynamics and territorial trajectories [20,48,49,50].

This paper is structured as follows. The next section conceptualises territorial social innovation (TerriSI). Section 2 then presents the methods and materials used in the empirical analysis that generated the results from a case study in Ibiza (Spain), in addition to the case study and the territorial context. The results are set out in Section 3 and discussed in Section 4. Finally, Section 5 provide conclusions.

1.2. Territorial Social Innovation and Alternative Food Networks

Numerous definitions and views exist concerning SI. However, a robust and uncontested theoretical corpus is still missing [51,52]. Scholars from different disciplines have approached this phenomenon, placing more or less emphasis on the process and product dimensions of SI. Key contributions on this topic stem from the literature on entrepreneurship [53], business organisation [54], social change [55], social creativity [43] and territorial development [56,57,58].

From the territorial development perspective, SI is a comprehensive concept that stresses the multifaceted nature of local development processes. SI allows us to recognise as innovative territories not only those generating technological and technical innovation, but also those that innovate in other—interconnected—territorial dimensions, such as the socio-cultural, political, community or environmental dimensions [41]. Klein et al. [57] pointed out that SI takes place through three main processes: (1) governance arrangements, (2) the co-construction and co-production of initiatives and (3) hybrid and cross-sectoral economic mechanisms. Similarly, Moulaert and his colleagues conceptualised SI as the satisfaction of human needs through new social relations and the empowerment of actors previously excluded from local development dynamics [56]. Thus, in this study, we define SI as a process of reconfiguration in social relations that leads to new forms of action and enables the satisfaction of collective goals, whose main result is the creation of social value [59]. Latest research in the field of territorial development has examined SI impacts [45,46], the role of actors and agency [60,61,62,63], the relationship between SI and governance [64,65,66], the different intensity and trajectories that SIs can adopt [67,68], and the role of social economy entities in SI [69,70,71].

The literature on AFNs usually approaches SI through the concept of grassroots innovation (GI) [72], an idea inspired by the socio-technical transitions theory [30]. Only a few authors have explicitly employed the notion of SI in this field. Kirwan et al. [17], for instance, introduced the concept of grassroots social innovation to study the social and intangible contribution of AFNs in the UK. Jaklin et al. [37] explained farmers’ participation in AFNs in Austria as changes in social values and social relationships. Manganelli et al. [19] conceptualised AFN governance and its tensions through the SI approach. Pellicer-Sifres et al. [18] analysed organic-food-buying groups in Spain from a conceptual framework that combines SI, GI and the capabilities approach. Alberio and Moralli [20] explored the relationship between consumers and producers in Participatory Guarantee Systems in Italy as an SI process.

SI and GI are concepts that are sometimes used interchangeably and difficult to distinguish. They both refer to innovative processes that respond to social needs and challenges [18]. The TerriSI approach seeks to detect innovations in a slightly different perspective than that of the GI literature [73]. While GIs are often linked to environmental sustainability outcomes, TerriSI focuses on the process dimension of innovation. Through the generation of new social relations, communities can implement diverse practices, unleash other types of innovations, and deliver effects in unexpected domains. At the same time, while GIs are usually described as bottom-up initiatives led by activists [72], SIs can involve—and be led by—a diversity of actors and combine bottom-up and top-down processes [74,75,76]. Additionally, SIs do not necessarily have a technical component [40]. Moreover, our approach encompasses a territorial understanding of innovation processes by linking transformations in social relations with specific conditions of local communities [42]. The conceptual framework presented below draws on previous work developed by Neumeier [40], Secco et al. [47], Kluvankova et al. [67] and Vercher [68,77,78] (Figure 1).

SI processes are context-specific and perceived as novel according to the particular conditions of each community. The territorial context includes economic, social, environmental and institutional elements at different scales, from which a wide range of triggers can be generated. Triggers make community needs and opportunities visible and activate initial actions [47]. However, the territorial context cannot be defined with objective parameters as it is not always perceived in the same way by all actors. The same context may offer opportunities that are threats for others [47,79]. At the same time, actors’ perceptions and agency are influenced by the trajectories, social structures and power relations that shape a territory [44].

Triggers are negative or positive impulses, with an internal or external origin to territories, that lead to reflexivity [40,53]. For example, COVID-19 is one of the latest shocks that enabled new and more sustainable consumption behaviours [14,16]. Reflexivity is a process by which initial promoters monitor the context and deliberate about the activities and events that take place in it, aiming at developing, implementing and modifying ideas [44]. Reflexivity allows actors to identify social needs to be solved and/or territorial opportunities to be seized. Multiple needs and opportunities are tackled by AFNs, such as the need for food security [17], the protection of the natural environment [18,80] or political aspirations for food sovereignty [23].

In addition to reflexivity processes, actors (organisations and/or individuals) also design preparatory actions in order to encourage a critical mass of individuals/organisations to participate and make the idea of innovation feasible. The dissemination of narratives is one of the main preparatory actions developed in SI initiatives [75]. Producers, consumers and social economy entities are the most frequent actors in AFNs [20,81,82]. However, other actors, such as the public sector, can also play a role in some SI initiatives both at the local [83] and the national level [17]. In any case, the role of the public sector depends on the scale and specific nature of each SI initiative and, in particular, on each territorial institutional context [84].

Theoretically, a critical process in SI initiatives would occur when several actors reconfigure their social relations. This reconfiguration would take place in three interconnected dimensions: networks, attitudes and governance mechanisms [47]. The reconfiguration of networks encompasses new types of actors, new combinations of actors, or changes in roles within existing networks. For example, Kirwan et al. [17] explain that those AFNs involving a high number and heterogeneity of local actors become the most successful ones.

Some actors play a key role creating new ideas (innovators), implementing them (drivers) or constructing the conditions for actors to join networks and reconfigure their social relations (facilitators). Other actors participate in specific aspects or phases (followers) or even resist the innovation process (opponents) [47,85]. Likewise, collective and relational forms of leadership in SI are gathering increasing attention in SI theory as effective agency models to deliver more impactful democratic and transformative processes [86,87].

The reconfiguration of attitudes is one of the distinctive elements of SI [43]. Attitudes reflect evaluative judgements of facts and objects that express how someone is willing to behave or act [88]. Attitudes are also influenced by formal and informal institutions. In that regard, the emergence of new farming initiatives within AFNs is often linked to changes in producers’ attitudes, in their perception of how agricultural practices impact the natural environment [80] and in their concern of social justice and local needs [25].

The reconfiguration of governance mechanisms refers to the shaping of new forms of coordination at the network level. In order to regulate over issues of common interest, for instance, actors may need to identify new ways of self-organising to navigate complex relations of reciprocal interdependence [89]. These forms of coordination can include formal (e.g., statutes) and informal (e.g., events) elements, and be established through different intensity levels. Mattesshic and Monsey [90] suggested three levels: (1) communication or information exchange between actors for mutual benefit and effectiveness; (2) cooperation, which adds the possibility of modifying actions so that each actor achieves its goals more efficiently; (3) collaboration through common goals and shared resources and responsibilities. Participatory Guarantee Systems are an example of a coordination mechanism in AFNs to ensure food quality that can comprise high cooperation and collaboration levels [20]. SI may also involve the creation of new coordination structures, usually aligned with the social economy premises (cooperatives, social enterprises…) [50,91]. Likewise, SI sometimes develops bottom-linked governance arrangements to reach public actors and foster broader socio-political changes in the community and beyond [64,87,92].

Finally, the reconfiguration of social relations (and the whole SI process) is not a linear process but interactive. It involves uncertainty and the destruction of previous models—in a Schumpeterian sense—that transforms the very nature of the territorial context [40,57]. SI processes follow meso-trajectories along which new ideas are disseminated, adapted and adopted by a critical mass of actors [93]. The critical number and nature of actors for the innovation to be realised goes beyond the initial promoters; thus, it is difficult to be defined in advance [50].

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Data Collection and Analysis

The TerriSI framework was empirically tested by following the case study method [94]. We selected Ecofeixes, the first cooperative of agroecological producers on the island of Ibiza (Balearic Islands, Spain). The justification for this lies in the fact that Ecofeixes represents a successful SI example that is playing a key role in the AFN developed in that territory. We also selected this case study because it was accessible to the authors. There are few studies examining similar processes in Spain [18,95,96,97]. However, hardly any work addresses this topic on the Balearic Islands. Studying SIs among producers in AFNs in this region is especially relevant since the nature of small islands makes AFNs and agroecology desirable models [80,98,99]. The foundation of Ecofeixes can be associated with the growth of organic farming on the Balearic Islands, which has experienced major growth between 2000 and 2020 in both the number of hectares (950%) and operators (570%). In 2020, there were 37,825 hectares and 1020 operators dedicated to organic farming certified by regional bodies [100].

The research is based on mixed methods and combines qualitative and quantitative techniques by following three criteria [101]:

• Interaction: Qualitative and quantitative techniques mix and interact during the research process, not only in the findings. For example, SNA (2nd phase) is defined on the basis of lists of actors collected in the qualitative initial phase. The qualitative analysis is guided by the relationships that actors state in the SNA questionnaire.
• Multi-phase: The study adopts a sequential nature because interviews for SNA take place after the qualitative ones (at the individual level). In addition, there is concurrence as qualitative and quantitative data analyses are implemented at the same time, which contributes to information exchange between methods and adaptation.
• Integration criteria with a combined analysis: quantitative and qualitative data are integrated during the analytical phase of the research.

Data collection was carried out between October 2017 and February 2018 as part of a broader PhD research project started in September 2016 and finished in March 2021. Data were elaborated from 33 face-to-face interviews conducted in two phases (

Table 1. Number of interviews. Own elaboration.

Actors	Interviews’ 1st Phase (October–November 2017)	Interviews’ 2nd Phase (November–February 2018)
Public sector—Politicians	1	0
Public sector—Practitioners	2	1
LAG-LEADER	1	0
Members of Ecofeixes	11	11
Ex-members of Ecofeixes	2	0
Agriculture advisory company	1	1
Conventional agricultural cooperatives	1	0
Ecologist organisation	1	0
Total	20	13

): (1) semi-structured interviews to a wide range of informants with questions about the whole SI process (qualitative phase); (2) structured interviews with those actors interviewed during the 1st phase who play a key role in Ecofeixes (quantitative phase). In this phase, we built the initiative’s social network and collected relational attributes with a longitudinal perspective (before and during the innovation process). For example, we asked the interviewees to subjectively assess the level of trust with other actors, the frequency of contact and the length of relationships. The interviews lasted between 60 and 90 min and were complemented with participatory observation through a six-week stay in the territory (e.g., participation in agricultural exhibitions, producer training courses and cooperative meetings).

Data from semi-structured interviews (transcriptions) and participatory observation (field notes) were qualitatively analysed using the MAXQDA 2018 software, created by Udo Kuckartz and distributed by VERBI Software GmbH (Berlin, Germany) [102]. Deductive and inductive encoding techniques were implemented according to the categories developed in the TerriSI conceptual framework (Figure 1). For the structured interviews, the Social Network Analysis (SNA) method was applied using the UCINET v.6 software [103]. This software allowed socio-centric networks to be traced and social network indicators to be calculated. The level of trust, frequency of contact, and length of relationships are examined according to actors’ ties at the individual level. These variables are grouped according to the levels included in the questionnaire (high, medium and low).

The mixed methods technique allowed us to approach complex and subjective variables, such as the reconfiguration of attitudes and reflexivity. Both variables are analysed through actors’ discourse. Additionally, in the case of attitudes, proxy values of changes in trust were measured by using ordinal scales. The method has some limitations as it is almost impossible to fully capture a phenomenon that combines social and psychological processes at individual and collective levels.

2.2. Territorial Context and Case Study Description

Ibiza island is part of the region of the Balearic Islands (eastern Spain). Together with Formentera, it forms the Pityusis Islands. Ibiza island has 150,000 inhabitants and a population density of more than 200 inhabitants/km². It is a rural–urban territory, and there was only one urban settlement until the 1960s [104]. Today, the island’s agricultural and natural landscape coexists with a population structure that combines scattered settlements (20% of the population) and five urban municipalities, including Ibiza Town (approx. 50,000 inhabitants).

The recent history of this territory cannot be understood without agriculture. It has been an important activity for the subsistence of families. Today, it continues to be an essential element of the island’s character, identity and rural landscape. However, the rise of tourism in the 1960s led to rapid population growth and a change in the economic structure [105]. Today, agriculture represents less than 1% of the total employment, with industry and construction representing 15% and services representing 84%. Within the services sector, hospitality activities stand out (35%) [106]. In barely 20 years (1998–2019), the population increased by more than 70%. Part of this increase is a consequence of the high volume of a foreign population (25% of the total in 2019) and second homes. As a result, artificial land uses (urban fabric, industrial units, green urban areas…) increased by 76% between 1990 and 2012 [107].

The development of agriculture in Ibiza is affected by insularity costs. They imply substantial limitations, for example, in terms of available land, energy and water resources, transport, economic infrastructures, or the size of markets [108]. These factors make local agriculture less competitive than non-local agriculture. At the same time, the exponential growth in demand in summer encompasses serious problems in the organisation of production and work. In general, this situation has led to a part-time agricultural model.

Despite the predominance of the tourism sector and the existence of insularity costs, organic farming in Ibiza (certified by regional bodies) has experienced significant growth. Between 2000 and 2020, the number of organic producers increased by 620%, and the number of processors increased by 4400%, with 94 producers and 444 processors in 2020. Likewise, the hectares dedicated to organic practices grew by more than 860% during the same period (762 hectares in 2020) [100]. Most of this land was previously used for conventional agriculture. In 2020, the total number of producers in Ibiza was 1322, and the total number of hectares dedicated to agriculture was 8582 (INE, 2022). As we see later on, Ecofeixes has played a substantial role in this evolution.

Before the creation of Ecofeixes, only one entity created in 2001 had congregated agroecology producers participating in AFNs on the island: Associació de Productors d’Agricultura Ecològica d’Eivissa i Formentera (APAEEF). APAEEF’s activities are mostly educational and promotional. In contrast, cooperation among conventional farmers has been more intense. As an example, the conventional sector has been traditionally structured around three cooperatives: Cooperativa de Sant Antoni (services), Cooperativa Agrícola de Santa Eulàlia (services) and Agroeivissa S. Coop (production and marketing). The main activity of these cooperatives is linked to the conventional agriculture sector—with the exception of some services of the Cooperativa de Sant Antoni.

Ecofeixes is perceived as an innovative process by the interviewees as it is the first collective productive initiative in the field of AFNs in Ibiza. Its production includes a wide variety of local and seasonal food, ranging from fruit and vegetables to oil and eggs. Ecofeixes’ production obtained the Certificate of Organic Farming from the Balearic Islands (CBPAE, http://www.cbpae.org (accessed on 25 April 2022)). Most of the harvest is marketed to small shops, school canteens, food-buying groups and through weekly box schemes. Restaurants and hotels are complementary distribution channels. Furthermore, a new Ecofeixes shop was launched in January 2022. The Ecofeixes short-supply-chain model ensures that approximately 80% of the revenues are received by producers. Therefore, this case study has the potential to promote local agriculture development, environmental sustainability, food sovereignty and the recovery of the island’s rural landscape.

3. Results

3.1. Community Needs and Opportunities

The emergence of Ecofeixes is a response to the different needs of and opportunities in Ibiza. In particular, three factors can explain this process: (1) structural supply problems in AFNs; (2) unmet demands; and (3) aspirations for agricultural change and sustainability transition.

AFNs in Ibiza have usually lacked professionalisation and commercialisation infrastructure. Until the creation of Ecofeixes, commercialisation took place through direct sales on farms and sales to small local shops. It was a dispersed model made up of isolated farmers who barely planned their production and did not meet the needs of the local demand. These problems and the very nature of agriculture in Ibiza implied that few farmers worked full-time:

“All the farmers used to say that they needed better commercialisation channels. The main channel was direct sales from farms. This meant they use to waste some output or that they all had the same production at the same moment. Actually, there were few farmers producing.”

(ECO_02. Manager of Ecofeixes)

“I used to sell directly on the farm. That’s what all the other producers used to do before Ecofeixes. Some to small shops. But there was no way to commercialise together […] restaurants and some food shops always complained because I could not supply the same product with the security and continuity they wanted.”

(ECO_12. Member of Ecofeixes)

In addition to the lack of productive structure, there is a growing interest in and demand for agroecology and local products in Ibiza. This territory is well known for the high presence of neo-rural population, who have moved to the island looking for a more natural and sustainable way of living. Thus, the growing demand for local and organic products in Ibiza is part of a broader desire linked to environmental sustainability. This aspiration was also present during the interviews with Ecofeixes producers, who defend the idea that their project pursues the construction of a new territorial model, with a more diversified economy, that recovers agricultural land uses, gives new value to the island’s rural landscape and promotes environmentally sustainability. All these goals are integrated into a narrative about agroecology:

“We want the Balearic Islands to be agroecological, and everyone else, but starting here […] The current model is destroying the land and destroying ourselves.”

(ECO_14. Member of Ecofeixes)

“There is also ideology in all this. We want to present an alternative island. There is an alternative economy different from tourism and urban speculation.”

(ECO_17. Member of Ecofeixes)

The transition to a more sustainable agricultural model has a well-defined economic dimension. Ecofeixes members argue that local and cooperative agriculture is a means to achieve fairer prices for farmers. In addition, local and organic food makes it possible to differentiate products, reduce costs and promote the local economy’s competitiveness. These transformations would be particularly appropriate for islands like Ibiza:

“The conventional product is under heavy attack by products from outside the island, while ours is differentiated. Why do you think we decided to use this product? Well, it takes care of the environment, very well, all this is very clear for us. But, as an economist, I also have to look that this is a product distinguished from others. This is the only way for farmers to get the best price for their product.”

(ECO_02. Manager of Ecofeixes)

3.2. Triggers

The problems and opportunities faced by this territory are not enough to explain the activation of Ecofeixes. The stagnation of APAEEF is, paradoxically, one of the elements that explain this activation. This organisation went into crisis due to two processes. On the one hand, the economic crisis of 2008 drastically reduced public aid to this type of organisation, diminishing their capacity for action. On the other hand, the management of APAEEF had been oriented for several years towards small producers without professional aspirations, which discouraged those members who did want to consolidate their agricultural activity. APAEEF’s crisis led to a leadership change in 2010. The new board re-oriented the organisation’s activity towards professionalisation, thus promoting the dynamisation of the sector:

“[…] APAEEF was led by people without any aspiration to be professional producers. This was blocking those who wanted to have agriculture as their main activity […] This whole process [the SI process] is due to the fact that all this changed. There was a change in the board of directors and farmers with more professional interests took over the management. And well, that’s how it originated.”

(ECO_00. Local Action Group-LEADER)

The arrival in 2010 of a new actor to the organisation (ECO_02) was important to achieve the above objectives. This actor had been living abroad and recently returned to the territory. Her ties with members of APAEEF encouraged her to join the association and take over its management. Her economic background and her knowledge of the island’s AFNs—due to previous studies carried out through other local entities—led her to being in charge of the APAEEF’s revitalisation strategy. Despite the fact that she is not a farmer, her role was key for re-activating APAEFF:

“[…]. At the end of 2009, I came back here from London, where I was studying a master’s degree on globalisation and development. When I arrived to Ibiza, I was very active and willing to promote agriculture […] As an economist, I think we can’t just go with tourism alone. Don’t put all the eggs in one basket is what economists always say […] my aunt [ECO_05] knew about my interests. She offered me if I wanted to join APAEEF, as they needed someone to manage a new process of internal change.”

(ECO_02_Manager of Ecofeixes)

Shortly after joining APAEEF, ECO_02 contacted the LEADER Local Action Group (http://www.leadereivissaiformentera.com (accessed on 25 April 2022)) (LAG-LEADER) to jointly design a project to boost agroecology and AFNs in Ibiza. This project, initiated in 2011, allowed the formalisation of a well-planned development strategy and funding through the LEADER programme (the LEADER program (Liaisons entre Actions de Développement de L’Economie Rural) was launched in 1991 as part of the EU’s rural development policy as an area-based, integrated and bottom-up method for delivering rural development. Local Action Groups are in charge of designing development strategies and managing European funding). A study of the sector’s needs, the creation of a land bank, and the formation of a food-buying group were some of the actions carried out by the LEADER project. However, these measures were not sufficient to overcome some commercial difficulties and the lack of coordination among farmers. Therefore, once the project was completed, ECO_02, together with other farmers, initiated procedures for the creation of a new agricultural cooperative: Ecofeixes. The cooperative was finally set up in 2013.

3.3. Actors and Reconfiguration of Social Relations

Ecofeixes involves a process of the reconfiguration of social relations. In particular, new coordination mechanisms within a new network of actors are arranged, which are largely explained by reconfigurations in actors’ attitudes. At the same time, other existing processes in the network and the territory are reinforced as a result of this initiative (

Table 2. Reconfiguration of social relations in Ecofeixes. Own elaboration.

Social Reconfigurations	New Processes	Existing Processes That Are Reinforced
Networks	New network of farmers for producing and commercialising New leadership (manager: ECO_02)	Farmers maintain their role as producers Ibiza AFNs are expanded
Attitudes	Professionalisation Collective action	Agroecology values are enhanced Social economy values are expanded
Governance arrangements	Coordination by cooperation (collective production planning) Coordination by collaboration (cooperative hours, time exchange bank) Agricultural cooperative (Ecofeixes) as new coordination structure	APAEEF’s role as organisation for promoting agroecology

).

3.3.1. The Creation of a New Network of Actors

The creation and development of the new agricultural cooperative mainly involves local actors linked to the social economy (Figure 2). Until the creation of Ecofeixes in 2013, APAEEF was the only organisation that brought together a network of producers linked to AFNs in Ibiza. It represents the core group from which Ecofeixes is developed. Therefore, APAEEF is one of the actors that plays a promoting and facilitating role in Ecofeixes. From this organisation arose the need to propose projects and strategies to revitalise agrecology and AFNs on the island. It also promoted the dissemination of the innovation, encouraging farmers to participate in the new cooperative and communicating the advantages of joint commercialisation through Ecofeixes. In this sense, APAEEF and Ecofeixes are part of the same movement in the territory: Ecofeixes is the commercial body, whereas APAEEF is in charge of training and promoting programmes.

The new APAEEF governing board involved ECO_02 in leading and coordinating the innovation process. We identify ECO_02 as an innovator, promoter and facilitator. ECO_02 shows leadership in Ecofeixes as she played a prominent role in the design of the LEADER project and the cooperative itself, assuming the management of the cooperative and trying to generate the conditions for the reconfiguration of social relations among farmers. Her discourse and dedication clearly reflect a component of voluntariness and interest in the environmental sustainability of the island and in achieving a fairer economy for farmers.

Ecofeixes farmers are the main drivers of the SI process. At the time of the fieldwork for this research, a total of 10 producers made up the cooperative. Most of these producers are of local origin (nine), women (six), with university studies (seven), under the age of 45 (seven) and have another job as their main source of income (eight). Their participation in Ecofeixes is motivated by values linked to agroecology and the desire to reconnect with the cultural and natural environment of the territory. Their activity also has a lucrative component since agriculture is seen as a possible livelihood. However, economic objectives are complementary to socio-environmental ones.

Beyond APAEEF, ECO_02 and the producers, we found other actors playing a promoting role in Ecofeixes, such as an external consulting company. Given the lack of professionalisation of most of the cooperative’s farmers, in 2014, its members decided to hire an advisory service. The service is provided by a consulting company, a cooperative located in Catalonia (Arreu; http://www.arreu.bio (accessed on 1 May 2022)). Some members of Ecofeixes knew about this cooperative thanks to a course on organic farming organised by the local government. The course was given by members of the external company. It is in charge of planning Ecofeixes production and assisting the farmers regularly in their activity. The external support of this actor is key to Ecofeixes to generate a greater volume and variety of output.

Other actors have also contributed to the emergence and development of Ecofeixes, although their role is not as decisive as in the previous cases. LEADER, through the LAG, is one of the facilitating actors supporting the promoters. The initial project to boost agroecology and AFNs in Ibiza was key to activate the SI process (see Section 3.2). Furthermore, the LAG also holds a role as follower since it has been very supportive during the development and consolidation process (e.g., facilitating storage spaces and funding some specific initiatives).

The local government, in particular the Consell de Ibiza (Island Council), is also involved in this innovation process. It mainly provides subsidies for the incorporation of young farmers to agriculture and funding for specific projects of Ecofeixes. The Sant Antoni Cooperative provides inputs for organic farming and organises training courses in which several Ecofeixes producers have participated. Several environmental organisations have contributed to the financing of promotional campaigns (Ibiza Preservation Fund), social agriculture activities (Fundació Deixalles) and environmental education activities (Amics de la Terra). A few private companies (Trasmapi) have participated in financing new facilities (Ecofeixes shop) (https://www.diariodeibiza.es/ibiza/2021/06/01/salto-adelante-ecofeixes-ibiza-52470302.html (accessed on 18 April 2022)). Finally, the users or consumers of the products are mainly families, educational centres, food-buying groups and an integral cooperative. All these actors are identified as followers (Figure 3).

Thus, the network of key actors of Ecofeixes that we examined through ARS comprises 13 actors: the 12 main promoters (10 of them are producers, 1 actor is the manager and another actor is from the consultancy firm), plus a follower actor (a practitioner from the public sector) who plays a key role in supporting farmers in administrative procedures (

Table 3. Key actors examined in the Social Network Analysis. Own elaboration.

Actor Code	Role	Description
A50	Innovator, promoter and facilitator	Manager
A16	Follower	Practitioner from the public sector
E7	Promoter	Practitioner from the consulting company
E10	Promoter	Farmer
E26	Promoter	Farmer
E30	Promoter	Farmer
E33	Promoter	Farmer
E18	Promoter	Farmer
A584	Promoter	Farmer
E49	Promoter	Farmer
E51	Promoter	Farmer
E14	Promoter	Farmer
A258	Promoter	Farmer

). In Figure 3, we represent the social network of these key actors. The upper network shows the relationships between the 13 actors involved in Ecofeixes prior to the SI process. The network at the bottom in Figure 3 updates these links when the initiative is ongoing. In all, 60% of the relationships are new (red lines), which reveals that this is a new network. Likewise, more than 40% of the relationships among actors have been configurated during the three years prior to fieldwork (2014–2017), after the creation of Ecofeixes. Only 10% of the relationships were created 10 years before fieldwork (<2008).

3.3.2. New Coordination Mechanisms

The singularity of the Ecofeixes network lies in its functions. Ecofeixes is the first attempt to coordinate producers participating in AFNs of Ibiza for the collective planning and commercialisation of production. In essence, this is an organisational and governance innovation process of AFN’s producers in the territory, or at least part of it (those linked to the network).

The reconfiguration of governance mechanisms in the case of Ecofeixes takes place at two levels. On the one hand, those farmers who did not have any type of coordination—for example, those who were not part of APAEEF and developed their activity in isolation—with this initiative implement, for the first time, explicit coordination mechanisms. At the same time, other farmers who had a low level of coordination—based on information exchange through the APAEEF network or other informal mechanisms—set up new coordination mechanisms on a cooperative and collaborative level.

Coordination by cooperation implies that farmers modify their actions in order to achieve their particular objectives more efficiently. Ecofeixes members cooperate, for example, by participating in the agricultural accompaniment service, in which they adapt their crops and production techniques according to the needs of the cooperative.

Coordination by collaboration can be observed when the members of the Ecofeixes network share resources and responsibilities and establish common objectives. For example, we identify collaboration mechanisms when producers decide to share their final consumers and produce through the cooperative in order to jointly commercialise their product. In doing so, farmers not only aim to increase their individual income, but also to achieve other collective objectives, such as improving organic farming supply in local AFNs or promoting the values of agroecology among the local population.

Collaboration among Ecofeixes members also takes place through cooperative working hours and an hours’ exchange bank. Cooperative hours consist of a minimum number of working hours per month in the cooperative to cover some of the cooperative’s needs (e.g., selling baskets to final consumers, receiving products from suppliers, etc.). On the other hand, the hours’ exchange bank refers to services that farmers provide to each other (e.g., cultivating the field), which that are not paid with money, but are recompensed with other services of equivalent dedication in time and/or effort. Both types of collaborations, especially the hours’ exchange bank, have positive effects on internal cohesion and even on the generation of new technical and social innovations.

Another governance innovation introduced by Ecofeixes is related to the creation of a new coordination structure. All the coordination practices we have identified above are conveyed through a new formal structure within the territory: the Ecofeixes agricultural cooperative. Ecofeixes statutes were designed by the farmers themselves—the initial promoters—in order to create an entity adapted to their needs. The cooperative is the structure enabling the collective management, planning and commercialisation of the farmers’ produce. It also has a coordinating function at the territorial level as it allows the coordination of producers and AFNs with other private businesses, public sectors and social organisations.

3.3.3. New Attitudes

The transition from a scenario of isolation and low coordination among farmers to a context of cooperation and collaboration would have been impossible without changes in actors’ attitudes. In this regard, two processes took place: a new motivation for professionalisation and a new interest in collective action.

The growing interest in improving the production and commercialisation of products, both individually and collectively, is one of the most important reconfiguration processes in the attitudes of the actors involved in Ecofeixes. In particular, the aim is to improve the efficiency of AFNs in the territory through the professionalisation of producers and the creation of a productive structure for this purpose. This attitude was not so evident in the network of actors involved in APAEFF, where the members’ motivations were linked to the promotion and dissemination of agroecology.

“People with very large farms and spending eight hours a day farming is not very common in Ibiza. If that happened someday, we would be able to see agriculture as a livelihood […] First of all, we are working to transform farmers into professionals because they are not professional farmers yet. Once they are professional farmers, we will make them entrepreneurs.”

(ECO_02_Manager of Ecofeixes)

“It has been a bit annoying for all of us; a change of mentality. I am a producer and I was used to cultivate very nice and tiny lettuces, so beautiful… But they told me that they couldn’t sell those lettuces because consumers wanted something bigger […] It’s true. Tomorrow, those lettuces will have lost some leaves and nobody will want them […] I understood that we have to make a slightly better product, more adapted to commercialisation.”

(ECO_05_Member of Ecofeixes)

The formation of new values among farmers linked to collective action is another underlying process of the emergence and development of Ecofeixes. There is a change in the willingness to coordinate with other actors in the sector, something that did not occur when commercialisation was carried out individually. This attitude began to take shape before Ecofeixes, for instance, when some members of APAEEF started to make joint purchases. However, it was definitively developed from the creation of Ecofeixes.

The attitude conducive to coordination and collective action is implemented through the social economy values, i.e., participatory and horizontal business formulas—such as a cooperative—that contribute to democratising the economic system. These values were already present in some actors—owing to their participation in APAEEF—and in the sector and the territory itself—due to the predominance of agri-food cooperatives in conventional agriculture. Nonetheless, these values are expanded and reinforced during the SI process (Table 2). Similarly, the values of agroecology and the interest in AFNs were expanded beyond the members of the network through the reconfiguration of attitudes. This occurs, for instance, through greater contact and pressure on public institutions or through initiatives involving a more pluralistic set of territorial actors, such as environmental organisations or schools.

Collective action is evident when we examined the different cooperation and collaboration mechanisms established within the cooperative. This reconfiguration is also identified through the SNA applied to the key actors.

Table 4. Existing relationships prior to the SI process (in percentages). Own elaboration based on the analysis of the structured questionnaire (2nd phase). (^a) Before the SI process; (^b) during the SI process.

Levels	Trust a	Trust b	Frequency of Contact a	Frequency of Contact b
High	65	85	8	22
Medium	20	15	22	40
Low	15	0	70	38

shows the evolution of the frequency of contact and the levels of trust between the links that existed before Ecofeixes was set up. Daily, weekly and fortnightly contacts comprise high-contact frequency; monthly contacts represent medium-contact frequency; 3-monthly and annual contacts comprise low-contact frequency. As can be observed, high- and medium-contact frequencies increased as a consequence of the SI process, while the low-frequency contact decreased. On the other hand, high trust values increased 20 percentage points during the SI process, and medium and low trust values lowered 5 and 15 points, respectively. Together, more than 30% of the previously existing relationships increased trust and 45% increased contact frequency during the SI process (

Table 5. Frequency of contact and trust level between key stakeholders (in percentages). Own elaboration based on the analysis of the structured questionnaire (2nd phase). (^a): Existing relationships prior to the SI process; (^b): total relationships during the SI process.

Variation	Frequency of Contact a	Trust a	Level	Frequency of Contact b	Trust b
Decrease	8	4	High	25	66
No variation	47	65	Medium	38	28
Increase	45	31	Low	37	6

). In all the current links between Ecofeixes’ key actors, high trust predominates (more than 60% of the links), which reflects the emergent attitude conducive to cooperation, collaboration and collective action (Table 5).

3.3.4. Tensions Arising from Social Reconfigurations

The SI process of Ecofeixes has led to various tensions among actors. Some of these tensions are internal to the cooperative. For example, several farmers left the cooperative in 2015 because cooperative values and motivation for collective action were not expressed homogeneously among them. To explain this in more detail, we found two different narratives. On the one hand, some of the farmers who left the cooperative explained that Ecofeixes could not ensure all their products would be sold, and that the lack of farmers’ professionalisation was a risk for those who were professionalised:

“Putting clients together is a big responsibility, and you expect the others to do their job well. Besides, you make some products with the aim of making the most to sell them […] some people had a different idea […] it was a problem because there were different dynamics within Ecofeixes. Having your farm as a part-time job is different from having it as your main project. I needed a certain level of financial profitability to keep it going.”

(ECO_07_Ex-member of Ecofeixes)

In this regard, farmers do not represent a homogeneous actor. Within the group of 10 farmers, there are actors with high production levels who specialise in a few crops, whereas others produce small quantities of a wide variety of products. These disparities respond, in essence, to different degrees of professionalisation and different agroecological approaches:

“In Ecofeixes, I met people who are a little bit into the permaculture movement. Some are more willing to change and others less. The impact is huge […] those who resist obtain a much lower production […] So, Ecofeixes goes in two directions. On the one hand, it has to provide services to its members, and it is totally reasonable for producers to set their own approach to farming. On the other hand, producers must also be aware—I think they are aware—that they must provide a service to the group. In order to better position Ecofeixes within the Ibiza territory, farmers have to become reliable suppliers.”

(ECO_04_Representative of the consultancy company)

On the other hand, some members who remained in Ecofeixes claimed that the farmers who left the organisation did not share the same understanding of the cooperative model and the collaborative dynamics they were building up. Those farmers did not fully embrace the idea of innovation and, therefore, refused to continue as members of Ecofeixes:

“The cooperative was used as another selling point. They didn’t see the cooperative as their own company. In the first year, some members even wanted to change the statutes. They said okay to planning together. But, in case they couldn’t sell all their product, Ecofeixes should pay them anyway. We obviously answered that Ecofeixes was their own company! If we have had to ask for extra money to pay them, we all would had to pay that money.”

(ECO_12_Member of Ecofeixes)

The tensions arising from the new attitudes introduced by this innovation are not limited to Ecofeixes producers. Several interviewees pointed out that during the initial stages of the SI process, they did not get the financial and technical support expected from the local government (opponents in Figure 2). In several interviews with farmers, this public actor was accused of prioritising conventional agriculture and traditional cooperatives over Ecofeixes and AFNs. The local government’s narrative was favourable to the development of agroecology in the territory. However, they wanted Ecofeixes to be integrated within the traditional agricultural cooperatives so that the number of agricultural projects on the island is not increased but reinforced. In this regard, Ecofeixes members defended the particularity of AFNs and their organisational model and the need to differentiate their product.

Finally, we also identified tensions between Ecofeixes and Agroeivissa S.Coop over the use of publicly owned facilities, such as storage areas (opponents in Figure 2). This problem was perceived as a limitation for Ecofeixes’ capacity to grow. Additionally, members of Agroeivissa explained during the interviews that integrating Ecofeixes into the conventional cooperative was the best solution. In this sense, the three traditional cooperatives show a high level of coordination in their activities, while Ecofeixes develops its activity in a relatively more isolated way. For example, during an agriculture exhibition in Ibiza, the three conventional cooperatives shared a stand, whereas Ecofeixes was isolated.

4. Discussion

The results of this study allow us to delve deeper into the emergence and development of territorial social innovation (TerriSI) processes. In particular, we focused our research on SI processes giving rise to new organisational formulas among producers that contribute to supply coordination and efficiency in AFNs. In our case study, the constitution of a new producers’ cooperative (Ecofeixes) takes place through (1) a reconfiguration of coordination mechanisms among farmers, (2) the formation of a new network, (3) the creation of a new coordination structure (the cooperative) and (4) an improvement in coordination levels. These reconfigurations of networks and coordination arrangements are possible thanks to a transformation in the producers’ attitudes, who assume a renewed motivation for professionalisation and collective action (Figure 4). Furthermore, these processes are mainly local and led by social economy actors (Figure 2).

The key factors that make this process possible are linked to territorial specificities. Despite some disadvantages for economic competitiveness, island territories can be an opportunity for developing AFNs and agroecology [80,98,99]. Short supply chains and local varieties allow product differentiation, enhance the value of the local environment and contribute to improving the viability of farms. While some authors point out that political factors (e.g., sharing environmental values) is a priority for producers to participate in AFNs [37], our research shows that economic incentives are essential to activate cooperation among producers and boost these initiatives’ performance. Ecofeixes producers share the premises of agroecology, although their role in the cooperative is mainly focused on the practical aspects of agroecology [11]. The possibility of improving commercialisation channels and increasing the efficiency of the activity is a factor that explains, to a large extent, the reconfiguration of producers’ social relations. The high demand for organic and local produce in this territory contributes to generating this type of economic incentives.

The territory’s capacity to access different types of capital is also a key factor for SI [42]. Ibiza is a rural–urban territory inserted in global economic dynamics, with great international attractiveness and a high level of second homes with high income. This context allows the actors involved in Ecofeixes to gain access to financial capital for farming activities from different sources, e.g., other part-time activities, the Corporate Social Responsibility of private companies, and local government. Ibiza also makes the availability of human capital possible, for example, young people with university education interested in starting an agroecological activity or being involved in AFNs. This situation could be different in other territories with weaker demographic structures and less socio-economic vitality [58].

In any case, the visibility of these opportunities and the activation of social reconfigurations depends on triggers of diverse natures. Three considerations can be made in this regard: (1) crisis situations can enable collective reflection and the search for new cooperation strategies; (2) the design of projects to foster and facilitate agroecology initiatives and AFNs can be a way of activating local creativity processes with extraordinary indirect effects; (3) the arrival of new actors into the territory can be an impetus to introducing new ideas and encouraging the realisation of new collective projects [63,109]. It should be noted that some of these triggers can be promoted, whereas others are unpredictable.

Regarding the role of actors, the leadership provided by the new actor should be underlined as a key factor. This leadership is justified by the position she occupies in the new formal coordination structure (management), the particular role she adopts in the SI process (innovator, facilitator and promoter) and the human capital she retains (the only actor with business expertise). However, this actor’s individual leadership is not enough to explain the development of the SI process since her leadership also denotes a collective dimension. There are other producers committed to the cooperative’s objectives who have increased their relevance within the initiative and play a strategic role in its sustainability. This fact highlights the importance of fostering collective leadership in SI processes by integrating several producers and actors with high human capital and enhancing participatory processes [64,86,87].

However, neither the construction of leadership nor SI processes themselves are free of tensions. This research shows that social reconfigurations involve learning and negotiation processes in which farmers demand changes in their attitudes and practices. These reconfigurations encompass adaptation and adoption processes, in which some actors remain and others do not. In line with Manganelli et al. [19], we detected tensions arising from the qualitative aspirations of some producers and the pressure to improve professionalisation and productivity (organisational tensions). We also identified tensions with other actors outside the cooperative related to access to resources and equipment (resource tensions), resulting from competition between producers participating in AFNs, other activities in the territory (e.g., tourism) and organisations linked to the conventional farming industry. There are also tensions due to power imbalances and divergent values with conventional cooperatives and public actors (institutional tensions). Such tensions are often interconnected insofar as, for example, power imbalances are a factor that can limit access to certain resources.

In this regard, the construction of horizontal and participatory coordination mechanisms is important to generate cohesion among actors and cope with potential conflicts. Social economy entities show potential to manage non-hierarchical negotiation processes and to design business organisations adapted to the reality and (changing) needs of their members [41,82]. In particular, our findings demonstrate that those agricultural cooperatives involving people with cooperative behaviours can promote sustainable initiatives [110,111]. Cooperative hours or hours’ exchange banks are useful mechanisms to strengthen social relations among producers and to improve internal efficiency. However, none of these mechanisms can prevent SI processes from experiencing external tensions with other territorial actors.

Ecofeixes is a form of niche production inserted in the AFN of the territory. However, the predominant model is still that of large corporations producing conventional products from outside the island. In order to increase this initiative’s capacity (and AFNs in general) to promoting territorial transformation, they should expand social reconfigurations beyond producers. Other actors, who are even initially misaligned with the objectives of the initiative, should be involved [50]. Schools, environmental organisations, private companies in the territory, neighbourhood associations or the public sector are some of the actors that can play a key role in the expansion of the initiative at the meso level. This is not only relevant in quantitative and productive terms, but also in terms of SI adoption. The greater the number of actors that support Ecofeixes, the greater the possibility of disseminating, for example, attitudes linked to agroecology, proximity food, collective action and environmental sustainability. In this regard, the trajectory and territorial scope of this case study is still incipient. Even so, the constitution of the cooperative represents a turning point in the producers’ capacity to influence and interact with other public and private actors.

The lack of bottom-linked governance mechanisms limits the ability of producers, and other actors in Ibiza’s AFN, to influence local government and participate in decision-making processes [87,92]. However, the growing support the initiative is receiving from environmental actors—and even from private companies (e.g., transport and tourism companies)—can be a mechanism for disseminating SI in the territory, which indirectly contributes to attracting greater attention from public actors and conventional agricultural cooperatives. Actually, the involvement of local government has increased since Ecofeixes consolidated its activity.

5. Conclusions

Territorial social innovation processes can promote new forms of interaction among producers that improve the efficiency and coordination of AFNs. The main factors that explain the emergence and development of these processes are (1) the specific conditions and trajectories of each territory (territorial capital, socio-demographic and economic structure), (2) the coincidence of several triggers (which cannot always be foreseen), (3) the emergence of local collective leadership, (4) the creation of participatory and conflict-management mechanisms and (5) the capacity to disseminate innovation to a diverse range of actors in the territory, beyond the initial scope of AFNs. These results are important both for actors involved in AFNs and for the public sector, as they make it possible to improve support instruments for AFNs.