# How do Mission-Oriented Innovation Systems Develop? An Analysis of a Regional Formal Network Supporting Legumes Sustainable Development

Hippolyte Lion da Silva Aguiar, Marie-Benoît Magrini, Pierre Labarthe

► To cite this version:

Hippolyte Lion da Silva Aguiar, Marie-Benoît Magrini, Pierre Labarthe. How do Mission-Oriented Innovation Systems Develop? An Analysis of a Regional Formal Network Supporting Legumes Sustainable Development. Journal of Innovation Economics & Management, In press, pp.1195-XXVII. 10.3917/e.jie.pr2.0195 . hal-05217507

HAL Id: hal-05217507

https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-05217507v1

Submitted on 21 Aug 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# How do Mission-Oriented Innovation Systems Develop? An Analysis of a Regional Formal Network Supporting Legumes Sustainable Development

## Hippolyte Lion DA SILVA AGUIAR

Université de Toulouse, INRAE, INPT, El PURPAN, AGIR, Castanet-Tolosan, France
[hippolyte-lion.da-silva-aguiar@inrae.fr](mailto:hippolyte-lion.da-silva-aguiar@inrae.fr)

## Marie-Benoit MAGRINI

Université de Toulouse, INRAE, INPT, El PURPAN, AGIR, Castanet-Tolosan, France
[marie-benoit.magrini@inrae.fr](mailto:marie-benoit.magrini@inrae.fr)

## Pierre LABARTHE

Université de Toulouse, INRAE, INPT, El PURPAN, AGIR, Castanet-Tolosan, France
[pierre.labarthe@inrae.fr](mailto:pierre.labarthe@inrae.fr)

## ABSTRACT

Mission-oriented Innovation Systems (MIS) play a crucial role in policies for sustainability transitions, yet their development through bottom-up dynamics is not well understood. We mobilized innovation functions and Resources-Based-View approaches to investigate how a formal network in the agri-food sector developed as an MIS. Within the conceptual framework we built, innovation functions are entry points for understanding how collective action leads to resource sharing and building. This study investigates the FILEG association in southern France, created to promote the sustainable development of the regional legume value chain, involving over 70 actors. Data collected through desk research, a questionnaire, and interviews reveal diverse perceptions among members regarding the association's contributions to innovation functions. This raises questions about the collective's ability to achieve internal and external legitimacy and highlights the need for dialogue between MIS and institutional approaches, which could advance governance and coordination as a key innovation function in MIS.

**Key words:** Sustainable Value Chains, Sustainability Transitions, Innovation Functions, Mission-Oriented Approach, Agri-Food Systems Transformation

**JEL Codes:** O31, O35

## Introduction
Innovation has a systemic character, being influenced by many different actors and their relationships (Edquist, 2001). This feature is acknowledged by the agri-food innovation literature (Saint-Ges et al., 2021) and public authorities have tried to operationalize the concept of Innovation Systems (IS) in agricultural policies. One example is the European Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) for 2023-2027, in which one of the ten cross-cutting objectives is to strengthen agricultural knowledge and Innovation Systems. Fostering IS is advanced as a way to accelerate the valorization of knowledge and changes in farmers' practices to meet the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development of the European Commission (2023). To implement this objective, each EU member state has to draw up a strategic plan aimed at fostering the development of its agricultural IS. In France, one of the measures proposed is support for collective innovation, as part of the European Innovation Partnership Programme for agricultural productivity and sustainability (Ministry of Agriculture and Food Sovereignty, 2023). Furthermore, by considering that these innovation policies must deal with current sustainability and societal challenges, a new normative dimension is expected to be taken into account. This creates new challenges and opportunities for IS (Georget et al., 2023) and generates new research questions, such as how IS is to operate under normative missions (e.g. achieving sustainability) in the agrifood sector and beyond.

In the IS literature, this concept of Mission-oriented Innovation Systems (MIS) has recently been the focus of debate (Hekkert et al., 2020; Klerkx, Begemann, 2020). MIS encompass a set of actors who aim to achieve and actively pursue a common societal mission. But, as recalled by several authors, such normativity must be collectively built to become legitimate and to strongly engage actors (Reynaud, Richebé, 2011, 2009). Nevertheless, there is little empirical knowledge about how mission-oriented networks actually develop and how they could collectively build responses to a mission. Our aim is to address this knowledge gap, by focusing on the case of an MIS that emerged in a bottom-up configuration.

In order to analyze a new network of actors engaged in responding to a societal mission, we built an analytical framework based on a functionalist approach (Hekkert et al., 2020, 2007) that has been applied to various contexts, including in the agrifood sector (Magrini, 2023; Vermunt et al., 2022); and we combined it with a Resource-Based View (RBV) (Wernerfelt, 1984) of system building (Musiolik et al., 2020, 2012). The functionalist perspective allows us to break down collective action into several key groups of activities essential for the development of MIS and the achievement of the mission. Complementarily, the RBV allows us to take into consideration the strategic view of actors when creating and sharing resources in the network. We applied this framework to study a formal network, called FILEG, organized around a common mission in the South of France. FILEG is a non-profit multi-stakeholder association created in 2022. The association has the purpose of federating actors of the legume value chain and coordinating collective action toward a sustainable and ethical development of the regional legume value chain. The history of FILEG began in 2017 as a project led by several organizations (both private and public) engaged in supporting legumes. The achievement of those organizations was to gather economic actors and define a common set of objectives and activities (CISALI, 2021). In February 2022, a formal non-profit association was set up and today (in 2024), it brings together more than 70 stakeholders in the agrifood sector (FILEG, 2022). By studying the FILEG case, we explore how its members perceive the role of the formal network related to each innovation function, as well as what actions have already been taken. Innovation functions are considered as entry points to understand how actors build and share resources in a mission-oriented network, hence shaping their collective action.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section 1 introduces the theoretical background of MIS functions and RBV from which we establish our analytical framework. Section 2 presents how the legume value chain can contribute to a sustainability transition in the French agrifood sector and the context in which FILEG came up. Section 3 describes our material and methods. Section 4 presents the main results. Section 5 discusses our findings in terms of how a formal network of actors implements collective action through innovation functions, and how to enrich this framework with more institutional approaches to emphasize some dimensions such as the legitimacy of collective action. Section 6 concludes.

# 1. Theoretical background

To analyze MIS, we considered both the actions conducted by the actors and the societal mission they aim at. In this section, we present the concept of MIS (1.1) and the set of key innovation functions which we mobilized in order to study this (1.2). We enriched this approach with RBV to highlight how resources are mobilized and created through formal networks in the process of system building (1.3).

## 1.1. Analyzing a mission-oriented innovation system in the making

An Innovation System (IS) is a set of actors and institutions influencing both the rate and direction of innovation (Lundvall, Edquist, 1993). It can be composed of actors from different social groups (producers, processors, public institutes, civil associations, intermediaries...) who are in line with the dominant sociotechnical regime, or who are experiencing new paths to favor more sustainability (Geels, 2004). In innovation economics, IS can be studied from different perspectives. First approaches were developed regarding National Innovation Systems, focusing on actors and institutions acting as drivers for innovation to promote national growth. The Sectoral Innovation System (SIS) and the Technological Innovation System (TIS) approaches took different starting points, focusing on the group of actors and institutions influencing the development of a particular sector, for the former, or a technological field, for the latter (Greenacre et al., 2012). Mission-oriented Innovation Systems (MIS), for their part, come from a policy context in which innovation is increasingly expected to tackle societal challenges. This represents a switch in the rationale used to understand the innovation process, in which correcting market failures is not enough to promote desired innovations (and change) in society, and guidance toward a certain direction needs to be provided (Schot, Steinmueller, 2018). As proposed by Hekkert et al. (2020, p. 76), "*MIS consists of networks of agents and a set of institutions that contribute to the development and diffusion of innovative solutions with the aim to define, pursue and complete a societal mission*". Missions may come from supply-push (policies, science or business), from demand-pull (consumers, citizens, and social movements), or a combination of both (Klerkx, Begemann, 2020). In other words, MIS are a kind of IS in which actors coordinate innovation activities to meet a societal objective. For this reason, the selection of new socio-technical solutions is likely to be much more a "*politically and normatively laden process*" (Hekkert et al., 2020, p. 78), requiring a high level of legitimacy for MIS to be built and carry out innovation activities.

In this paper, we want to explore how a bottom-up MIS has been structured or, in other words, how the legitimacy allowing the structuration of this MIS has been forged. As highlighted by various social sciences, including sociology, understanding collective action means understanding the drivers of actors’ collaboration. In this sense, Reynaud and Richebé (2009) described as the 'common good' the convention in a given collective on ‘what’ actors accept to
do collectively. The legitimacy of this common good does not depend only on its content, but also on other factors, such as mutual trust, power struggles, negotiation, and different types of relations between actors. Missions in the IS literature can be compared to such common good, as a collective project negotiated and deployed by MIS actors – which is in a continuous process of legitimation.

## 1.2. Adopting a functionalist approach of collective action within MIS

To understand the structuration of an MIS in its very creation, we adopted a functionalist perspective. Originally, this framework consisted in using a set of key functions to analyze the development of Innovation Systems. Here, we use them as heuristic categories to explore domains in which an MIS builds legitimacy and works collectively to answer its mission.

<table><caption>Table 1 - Functions considered to analyze MIS in the agrifood sector</caption><thead><tr><td>Function</td><td>Definition</td><td>Influence on innovation</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Entrepreneurial activities</td><td>Appearance in the system of new activities, such as new entrants, new products put into the market, diversification of production, exploration of new commercial partners ...</td><td>Through experimentation on new activities, knowledge on how innovation functions under different circumstances can be acquired and possibilities are explored. Hekkert et al. (2007) considered this function as the first and prime indication of performance of an IS.</td></tr><tr><td>Knowledge development</td><td>Creation of new knowledge through internal R&D projects, investment in external R&D, and development of patents.</td><td>Knowledge development creates new perspectives of fields that can be explored by entrepreneurs. It also improves the functioning of existing methods.</td></tr><tr><td>Knowledge diffusion</td><td>Measures taken to make knowledge available within the entire system, expressed by activities such as workshops, conferences, diffusion of information in publications, social media...</td><td>All the system parts are connected and influence each other. To work together in a cohesive way all actors must have the same level of knowledge.</td></tr><tr><td>Guidance for the search</td><td>Measures taken for the reinforcement or clarification of a common vision among actors.</td><td>Resources are limited and, to efficiently use them and achieve successful innovation, it is important that the system follows a coherent path and has a common vision of future.</td></tr><tr><td>Market formation</td><td>Measures taken to form and structure markets</td><td>The formation of markets is important to keep actors innovating.</td></tr><tr><td>Resource mobilization</td><td>Mobilization of sufficient resources to carry out all the system activities.</td><td>Human and financial resources are necessary for all activities in an MIS.</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tr><td>Legitimacy creation</td><td>Activities that promote and improve the image of innovations to external actors and society, such as external communication, creation of brands and adoption of certifications, and lobbying with public authorities</td><td>The development and adoption of an innovation is linked to its societal acceptance. The innovation must be legitimate to obtain investment from external actors and to be used by final consumers.</td></tr><tr><td>Ethics in commercial relationships</td><td>Common will and search for fairness in commercial trades</td><td rowspan="2">Ethics in commercial relationships and environmental engagement are key challenges for the agrifood industry. They are, then, functions that the MIS also needs to work on.</td></tr><tr><td>Environmental engagement</td><td>Engagement on avoiding, reducing or compensating environmental impacts, as well as a constant effort to reinforce the sustainability of practices</td></tr></table>

Source: Adapted from Magrini (2023) (bold characters) and Hekkert et al. (2007)

More precisely, we chose to mobilize the framework of Hekkert et al. (2007), who summarized a set of seven functions from the IS literature. This set of functions has been used in several sectors and was recently transposed to the agrifood sector by Vermunt et al. (2022) or Magrini (2023). Magrini (2023) specifically analyzed highly coordinated value chains and suggested two additional functions as regards the sustainability challenges of the sector: i) ethics on commercial relationships and ii) environmental engagement. In our work we have retained these two additional dimensions as they reflect the context and the mission of our case study (see Sub-section 2.3). Table 1 summarizes all the functions proposed by Hekkert et al. (2007) and the additional functions proposed by Magrini (2023) for agrifood chains.

## 1.3. Describing resource mobilization in a formal network

The negotiation process happening inside MIS to define and deploy missions also raises questions about the capacity of individuals to act as a network to produce change. In that sense, Musiolik et al. (2012, p. 1035) defined the concept of system building as “the deliberate creation or modification of broader institutional or organizational structures in a technological innovation system carried out by innovating actors”. Deepening the understanding about the coordination of actors, Musiolik et al. (2020) distinguished two possible ways of system building. On the one hand, systems can show an emergent formation pattern, in which actors are coordinated by informal institutions, such as collective expectations. On the other hand, actors can also coordinate themselves in an explicit and strategic way. An MIS could be positioned in relation to this second case, in which an intermediary structure that orchestrates the formulation and deployment of the mission is created.

To explain the articulation between individual and collective action in system building, Musiolik et al. (2012) adopted a resource-based view (RBV). The RBV comes from management science, explaining that the sustained competitive advantages of firms are a result of the deployment of their particular resources (Wernerfelt, 1984). Resources are both tangible (such as equipment and financial assets) and intangible assets (such as expertise, norms, and mutual trust) used by an organization to deploy its strategy (Barney, 1991). Further developments of the framework acknowledged the role of interfirm relations in sustaining competitive advantages, proposing the existence of network resources (Dyer, Singh, 1998). Those resources are accessed by the members of a network and result from the complementarity
of firms' organizational resources (Lavie, 2006). Musiolik et al. (2012) proposed an adaptation of RBV for Innovation Systems literature, conceptualizing how the deployment of organizational resources (by actors) and network resources contribute to the creation of new resources at the system level or, in other words, to the process of system building. Table 2 presents the main differences between organizational and network resources and Figure 1 schematizes resource dynamics according to Musiolik et al.'s view.

<table><caption>Table 2 – Resources involved in system building</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Organizational resources of network members</th><th>Network resources</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Creation</td><td>Created at the firm level</td><td>Created within the network</td></tr><tr><td>Control</td><td>Controlled by the members, access may be withdrawn by member exit</td><td>Not under the control of single members, access cannot be withdrawn</td></tr><tr><td>Examples</td><td>Member fees, shared facilities owned by specific members; members' power, influence, and reputation.</td><td>Network R&D programs; network governance; trust and stabilization of members; network reputation</td></tr></tbody></table>

Source: Adapted from Musiolik et al. (2012)

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1 – Analytical framework of Musiolik et al. (2012) (adapted)</figcaption></figure>

The literature highlights the importance of formal networks for system building because they allow actors to influence structures at higher levels, such as national organizations and policies (Musiolik et al., 2020). Those formal networks are even more important when considering long value chains (Cholez et al., 2023), because organizations do not have the “resources, power or legitimacy to produce change alone” (Van de Ven, 2005, p. 365). Such a rationale can be applied to bottom-up MIS, in which actors join forces around a mission to tackle a broader societal challenge. All those considerations led us to combine the RBV with the functional approach to look at what kind of resources a bottom-up MIS may mobilize when acting on each innovation function. More precisely, we analyzed an MIS in the agrifood sector, with a societal mission on legume development: the FILEG association.
## 2. The emergence of FILEG in the French legume sector

FILEG is an association that federates stakeholders aiming to promote the sustainable and equitable development of the legume value chain in the French Occitanie region. The legume value chain is a relevant case study to analyze the system building process as this production was historically marginalized and available resources for innovation are scarce, especially knowledge. In this section, we sum up the importance of legumes for a sustainable agricultural model aligned with healthy diets, which creates a context that is favorable for the emergence of mission-oriented initiatives such as the FILEG association.

### 2.1. Legumes for sustainable and healthy agroecosystems and diets

Increasing the cultivation and use of legumes is largely recognized as a key action to promote agri-food systems' sustainability. The word 'legume' is used to indicate any plant belonging to the *Fabaceae* (or *Leguminosae*) group (Magrini, Bedoussac, 2017). Many legume species are cultivated around the world and are important for the sustainability of agroecosystems if combined with good management, such as the choice of adapted species, crop rotation, and low use of pesticides (e.g. Notz et al., 2023; Schneider, Huygue, 2015). Most legumes do not need nitrogenous fertilizers since they have a symbiotic relation with microorganisms that are able to fix atmospheric nitrogen, which can remain available in the soil for the next crops, enhancing their yield (Peoples et al., 2019; Zander et al., 2016). Some modelling studies also point out that a significant augmentation in the use of legumes in European agriculture would have several positive impacts, such as a decrease in the need for synthetic inputs and in the deforestation caused by the cultivation of soybeans in Latin America. They estimate a decrease of 40% in GHG emissions by 2050 (compared to 2010) essentially via a lower use of fertilizers and decreased livestock activities, in a scenario where legumes are largely cultivated and people follow more flexitarian diets based on more legume consumption (Magrini, Julier, 2019).

Legumes are also recognized as essential for healthy diets, as a good source of many nutrients, including fibre and proteins, but French average consumption is still too low (Magrini, Julier, 2019). Scientific knowledge on the importance of legumes in sustainable human diets has been progressing and it is currently acknowledged in any food study that eating more legumes is important to reduce animal-based consumption. An increase in legume cultivation (providing different ecosystem services) and consumption (having benefits to human health) is, hence, of true importance to achieve an agroecological transition.

### 2.2. The past evolution of the legume sector

Even if legumes have a very long history of use, their consumption and cultivation in Europe has been decreasing since the second half of the 20th century (Cusworth et al., 2021a). Such a mismatch between their potential and the current reality can be understood as a consequence of a socio-technical lock-in, occasioned by past choices and low investments in those crops. The fact that legumes were less cultivated in Europe after the Second World War is strongly related to the rise of the current agricultural regime, based on low crop biodiversity and high inputs to optimize crop productivity. Some crops, such as cereals, gained significantly in competitiveness and now the gap between those major crops and the minor ones is difficult to retrieve. Because of system resistance to change, the legume harvested area, for example, has not increased, even if crop subsidies have been implemented over the last few decades and new varieties have been launched, which have barely been adopted (Magrini et al., 2016; Meynard et al., 2018). In the
words of Cusworth et al. (2021b, p. 3), “Farm practices and their business models became dependent on high-yielding and intensive systems for cereals, oilseed, specialist dairy, pork, beef production, [...] [making legumes] financially untenable and socially undesirable”.

In the last few years, Europe and the French government have been trying to increase legume production, aiming for more sustainable agricultural systems and less dependency on imports. However, few results have been obtained. Nowadays, those cultures are still considered as having little economic interest (less profitable than major crops such as wheat) and productivity is too unstable, caused by diseases and hydric and heat stress (Cusworth et al., 2021b). Those problems are reinforced by historically low R&D investment, which could provide solutions.

## 2.3. The emergence of FILEG

The legume sector remains currently underdeveloped in Europe and France. Even if France is the second largest producer of grain legumes in Europe (including pulses and soybean), legumes represent only about 4% of the field crops planted area. This area more than doubled compared to 2013, but, as shown before, grain legume productivity has been diminishing with a current tendency of lower yields in every French region (Terres Univia, 2021). If we travel to the southern French Occitanie region, where FILEG was born, a similar situation is observed. Occitanie has a historical cultivation of grain legume crops such as beans, peas, and chickpeas. Today the region is the major producer of grain legumes in France and, compared with other crops, grain legumes represent 10% of the field surface, with half of it soybean (Occitanie Chambers of Agriculture, 2022). Nonetheless, several factors are recognized to hinder or even threaten sectoral growth, such as tensions in fertilizer markets, price volatility, weather conditions, and farms' financial capacity to invest (Chambres d'Agriculture Occitanie, 2022).

Terres Univia, the French grain legume and oil crops interbranch organization, leads the current national plan for legume value chain structuration at the national level. At the regional level, through its technical institute, Terres Inovia, the organization supports local initiatives. In 2017, after positive feedback gathered during participatory meetings in 2016 (designated by the United Nations as the international year of “pulses”), Terres Inovia, with several other organizations, initiated what would later be called the FILEG project. The project was carried out with a set of actors involved in agricultural research and knowledge transfer (organizations, institutes, research centers), with support by the regional public authorities. Gathering together economic and public actors, FILEG became a non-profit association in 2022, with more than 70 members in 2023. Its aim is to promote the conditions necessary for a partnership between upstream and downstream actors. Its mission is written in its constitution: “*contribute to the development of a legume value chain in the region of Occitanie. This must be sustainable, territorialized, structured, a creator of added value with the aim of an equitable value share between actors, endowed with research, development and share dynamics, financed collectively*”. FILEG can be considered, hence, as an MIS, contained in the societal mission of increasing legume production and consumption to build sustainable and equitable value chains. In the next section, we present the methodology we used to deploy our framework on this case study.

# 3. Materials and methods

We studied the contribution of FILEG to MIS functions through three complementary methods: document desk research based on documents about activities carried out by the FILEG project
(since 2017); a questionnaire addressed to all members of the FILEG association (in February 2023) and semi-directive interviews with 15 members (between March and June 2023) (Table 3). In addition, the research benefited from active observation as one co-author actively participated in the FILEG project and is the correspondent for its institution (INRAE) in one committee of the current FILEG association.

<table><caption>Table 3 – Summary of data collection methods, their objective, and the sample studied</caption><thead><tr><td>Data collection method</td><td>Objective</td><td>Sample</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Document desk research</td><td>Find actions in FILEG's history that have already contributed to MIS functions</td><td>Text corpus formed by the association's internal documents and reports; press releases; white paper; association's and partners' website.</td></tr><tr><td>Questionnaire</td><td>Collect from a large number of members their opinions related to MIS functions and FILEG possibilities of action</td><td>Addressed to all 76 members (55 answers).</td></tr><tr><td>Interviews</td><td>Collect detailed perceptions and suggestions of actions for FILEG</td><td>15 interviewees</td></tr></tbody></table>

The desk research aimed to find, in the history of FILEG, the activities that were linked to MIS functions. To do so, we looked for any action carried out by the association that directly promoted an MIS function. For example, participating in a workshop was considered by us as an action that fosters knowledge diffusion, or a press release as an action for legitimacy creation. We considered as an action any event originated by the FILEG agency that was explicitly shown in the documents analyzed. We considered all actions as ad hoc, even if they or their consequences lasted for some time. An action can be translated, hence, by a verbal noun with a complement, meaning the initiation of something, the approval of something, or participation in something. The classification of actions into functions was made by following the functions' definition given in the theoretical background section. In sum, we analyzed FILEG activities since the project creation (considered in 2017), considering the ones directly linked to each MIS function (when present) through intervals of one year.

By using this approach, our aim was not to count the activities and obtain quantitative data. Rather, we were searching for any evidence of actions taken by FILEG that were directly related (or not) to each MIS function over the years. In the same way, this approach did not allow us to compare the functions' impact or importance but only helped us to organize the events of FILEG's history according to the MIS framework and to see into which functions FILEG seems to put energy and in which order. The list of actions also helped us to see what resources FILEG created to contribute to system building. We organized the actions in a story line, highlighting the moments where actions fostering MIS functions were taken (see the results and discussion section).

To complement this document analysis approach, a questionnaire was formulated and sent to all members to ask them about the capacity of FILEG to perform each function. To analyze the results, we followed the association's classification of its members, made up of groups of actors according to their position in the value chain: College 1 (plant breeders, producers, collectors,
and technical advisers), College 2 (processors and transporters), and College 3 (caterers, retailers, final users, and consumer representatives). There is also the “associated members” group, to which private and public structures that do not carry legume-based economic activities belong, but which are engaged in the association, sharing their knowledge or funding activities (such as the applied research organization Terres Inovia, the research institute INRAE, public authorities such as the agricultural regional public committee, other inter-branch organizations from livestock value chains, educational centers, etc). In spite of the heterogeneity of actors inside those groups, we decided to keep this classification in our questionnaire analysis because it reflected the structure of the governance of FILEG (Table 4). We obtained 55 answers in our questionnaire, 30 from College 1, 8 from College 2, 6 from College 3 and 11 from the associated members. Those answers were considered to be representative, since they corresponded to around 50% of the structures belonging to College 1, 56% of those in College 2, 75% in College 3 and 47% of the associated members.

<table><caption>Table 4 - Types and number of structures belonging to each FILEG college</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>College 1</th><th>College 2</th><th>College 3</th><th>Associated members</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Type of structures</th><td>Plant breeders, producers, collectors, and technicians</td><td>Conditioners, transformers, and transporters</td><td>Distributors, final users and consumer representatives</td><td>Technical institutes, research centers, public powers, other inter-branch organizations, educational centers, etc.</td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Total number of structures</th><td>40</td><td>9</td><td>8</td><td>19</td><td>76</td></tr></tbody></table>

After the questionnaire, we selected fifteen members for in-depth open-ended interviews. Thirteen structures were involved, amounting to fifteen interviewees. The choice of interviewees was made with FILEG facilitators meeting some central actors and new ones in the network, from all colleges (Table 5). All MIS functions were first explained to the interviewed person with a printed document. Based on this document, they were asked to express their level of agreement with a statement concerning the current performance of each innovation function presented to them. From their reaction, questions such as “why do you think that?” and “what could FILEG do about it?” were asked. The aim was to collect interviewee perceptions about i) the importance of the innovation function for the legume sector; ii) if the innovation function currently performs well in the legume sector; and iii) what is the role of FILEG concerning this function and what actions can be carried out. Questions about past actions were not asked, because we considered them to be useless as some actors had just joined the association, and it is easier to talk about the present and future. The interviews were transcribed and a thematic coding of their content was made to organize different types of views concerning each function. We synthesized those views and we present them in the next section, together with illustrative anonymous verbatim (through Id codes) (see Table 5).

<table><caption>Table 5 – The 15 interviewed actors and their Id codes (used to reference verbatim) related to college membership</caption><thead><tr><th>ID*</th><th>Type of structure</th><th>College</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>a4</td><td>Interbranch organization</td><td>Associated member</td></tr><tr><td>b3</td><td>Collective catering</td><td>College 3</td></tr><tr><td>c1</td><td>Seed company</td><td>College 1</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tr><td>d1</td><td>Seed company</td><td>College 1</td></tr><tr><td>e1</td><td>Cooperative</td><td>College 1</td></tr><tr><td>f1</td><td>Cooperative</td><td>College 1</td></tr><tr><td>g3</td><td>Local authority</td><td>College 3</td></tr><tr><td>h3</td><td>Local authority</td><td>College 3</td></tr><tr><td>i2</td><td>Processing</td><td>College 2</td></tr><tr><td>j3</td><td>Local authority</td><td>College 3</td></tr><tr><td>k1</td><td>Cooperative</td><td>College 1</td></tr><tr><td>l3</td><td>Cooperative</td><td>College 3</td></tr><tr><td>m2</td><td>Processing</td><td>College 2</td></tr><tr><td>n2</td><td>Processing</td><td>College 2</td></tr><tr><td>o2</td><td>Processing</td><td>College 2</td></tr></table>

*1 = College 1; 2 = College 2; 3 = College 3; 4 = Associated member

The three forms of data collection were complementary regarding the type of information gathered. The desk research allowed us to show which functions of FILEG's actions have been implemented while the questionnaire and the interviews were focused on network directionality, its role in the system, and its priorities for action. In the next section we present our main findings.

## 4. Results

Based on our desk research, we began the functional analysis about the FILEG project at its commencement in 2017. During this year the project, headed by Terres Inovia (the French legume and oil seeds applied research organization), started by interviewing firms that could be interested in participating in a collective project and which then was funded by public authorities through two successive projects we call Phase 1 & 2. During FILEG Phase 1 (2018-2019) the firms and stakeholders who joined the project (around 30 actors at the beginning), started by establishing a collective diagnosis on the problems encountered in their activities for developing legumes in the region. Then, thematic meetings and workshops were organized, where actors could discuss different kinds of needs and share knowledge, particularly concerning cropping, the ways to organize crop contracts to secure value chains, and to develop outlets for food. In FILEG Phase 2 (2020-2021) the network developed and defined the first set of activities to be deployed based on the discussions of the previous phase. Until then, the project leaders, formed of public structures, managed all the network actions with the firms involved. During FILEG Phase 2 a governance mode was conceived in which economic actors became more central in the decision-making process. This governance mode has been deployed in FILEG Phase 3 (2022-2024) with the creation of the association (formalization of the project as a non-profit association). Priority work axes were collectively chosen (concerning economics, technical knowledge in production, development of outlets for food and feed, and communication), and non-economic actors kept a role of advisors and supporters. We identified different MIS functions in each phase of FILEG's history, which are summarized in Figure 2.
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2 - Functions observed in FILEG from 2017 to 2022.</figcaption></figure>

Source: Desk research on FILEG documents

We observe that, at the beginning, the first functions on which FILEG leaders focused their efforts were the mobilization of resources, legitimacy creation, and search guidance (F7, F8, and F9). This was the case because, as an emergent initiative, above all FILEG needed enthusiastic participants, organized around a common ideal, and initial resources to start its actions. To do so, the group of leaders organized interviews (2017) and financial requests with public authorities. The workshops (Phase 1) allowed us to meet actors and mobilize them around a collective project, while legitimizing the initiative and gathering funds. Once the formal project was launched (2018 - 2021), functions on knowledge (F1 and F2) were initiated. Those functions are strongly linked, as knowledge creation is often associated with its diffusion. Nevertheless, F2 sometimes took place without F1, for example when sharing existing knowledge in social media or events. Finally, we observed the beginning of activities related to market formation (F3) and ethics in commercial relationships (F5), mainly when the association was born (2022) and mainly related to activities for feed.

Activities related to F4 and F6 were not found in the desk research. Concerning entrepreneurial activities (F6), no action was clearly related to improving or facilitating entrepreneurship. A similar situation was observed for F4. The development of the legume sector (FILEG's mission) with environmental engagement may be perceived as a broader perspective when production will first be stabilized. Hence, no action directly targeting the environmental impacts of the association's activities or its members has yet been carried out. The fact that those kinds of activities were not fostered at the beginning of the project does not mean that they will not be so in the near future, especially because the association is quite recent. To better understand the current directionality of FILEG and actors' perceptions, we conducted the questionnaire and interviews. The results are presented in the following sub-sections.

## 4.1. How are MIS functions perceived by FILEG members?

Figure 3 synthesizes the answers of each college of FILEG members (as explained in Section 3) concerning their perception of the importance of the different innovation functions and whether actions should be taken in the short or ‘mid’ term.

Figure 3 – Number of answers concerning whether FILEG can contribute to each innovation function, by college and all colleges combined. Scales are adapted to the number of respondents of each college.
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Legume producers (College 1)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Legume processors (College 2)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Legume users (College 3)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>Associated members</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>All</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>

Source: questionnaire addressed to all FILEG members

Naturally, diffusing knowledge (F2) is easier than creating new knowledge (F1) and it is understandable that respondents answered that FILEG can contribute predominantly to the former in the short run and to the latter in the mid run. Ethics in commercial relationships (F3), environmental engagement (F4), market formation (F5), and entrepreneurial activities (F6) mainly had ‘mid run’ answers. As a hypothesis, it may mean that many actors consider those functions to be less easily influenced by actions carried out by FILEG. Resource mobilization (F7) is in a grey area between short and mid run, while legitimacy creation (F8) and guidance of the search (F9) are mainly placed in the short run. One important feature is that the group of associated members, supporting public structures that were formerly the leaders of the network, has the highest proportion of short run answers, which seems to decrease from up to downstream. Associated members seem to be more optimistic concerning possibilities of action for FILEG, especially when compared to College 2 (food processors) and College 3 (legume end-users).

To go further into these perceptions, we carried out 15 interviews with the different college members. Interviews allowed us to gather information on what FILEG could do to improve or contribute to each MIS function. The following sub-sections discuss those last results, illustrated by selected *verbatim* (see actors’ id-codes in Section 3).

## 4.2. Knowledge development and diffusion

Members often consider the association first as a platform of knowledge exchange favoring the creation of new knowledge. “I do not think that the role of FILEG, directly, is to acquire knowledge. Its role is to connect people who are asking the same questions and so they can
(g3). Others do not think it is up to the association (or at least not up to the association alone) to take this kind of action. "I don't think it's up to FILEG to worry about that [general public communication]. [...] [The association should worry about] suitable products, how we make local production available, how we correctly distribute the value to make the sector sustainable, solid and efficient" (d1).

A variety of discourses has also been observed concerning the function guidance of the search. Globally, network members are not sure if there is a common vision in the sector. Having such a vision is not even considered important for all actors. "A vision is [to say], no matter what, this year we'll make three thousand tons of chickpeas! [...] And the next year, we'll make three thousand five hundred, and the next year, we'll make four thousand. That is a vision! [But] today, there is no vision..." (m2). "It is not necessary that everyone goes in the [same] direction, since there are many different markets and many different orientations" (c1). "Even if the vision is common, the way to get there or the timing to get there is not necessarily the same. A distributor must satisfy a very diverse clientele, not necessarily the same as a processor based in Occitanie or a producer who will be in a few product families..." (e1).

**4.4. Market formation and ethics in commercial relationships**

Concerning the role of FILEG in market formation and the ethics of commercial relationships, in relation to which the majority of actors indicated that FILEG should act in the mid run, two views emerged. The former reasons that the creation (or regulation) of markets and equity cannot be achieved intentionally and are, hence, the consequence of the performance of other functions, with no direct measure that FILEG could take (d1, g3, k1). "FILEG is there, in fact, to structure the response to the demand. To structure and to promote!" (i2). "FILEG can help to set up the sector. Afterwards, for a sector to survive, each stream must find its account [...], but FILEG will not have any direct action on the distribution of value along the stream of the chain" (c1). Another vision reasons that FILEG could have an active role of linking buyers and sellers to secure production flow, lowering uncertainty- related inequalities and gradually increasing the supply (network resource). "If FILEG integrates [equity of commercial relationships to its principles], [...], and then provides actors with tools like contracts, the association can have a [real] role in the Occitanie [legume] sector" (g3). "[The association] knows the actors who may be involved and users of the products of this sector, so the role of FILEG is to 'match' the actors between them" (b3).

**4.5. Environmental engagement and entrepreneurial activities**

No action fostering those functions was found in the document research and, for the majority of actors surveyed, FILEG could act on these mainly in the mid run. Concerning environmental engagement, this ‘inertia’ can be related to actors’ perception that the sector already answers the environmental challenges because of the intrinsic environmental value of legumes. “We work with species that fix nitrogen, so that need less fertilization. Among legumes and pulses, there are also many species rather tolerant to drought, chickpeas in particular, and there are quite a few Mediterranean species” (c1). Some actors, however, highlighted that whether the sector can be sustainable or not depends on individual actors’ effort. For them, sustainability is not only a consequence of working with legumes, but the outcome of all system practices. “There are lots of different value chains: there can be some that are completely disconnected, exporting for example, which is not necessarily environmentally (good), even if the crop is” (j3).
Environmental engagement, as well as ethics in commercial relationships, are functions that
may be considered differently from the others in the sense that they are normative. They do not
come from an attempt to map activities that drive the innovation process (functions of Hekkert
et al., 2007) but rather that will drive the direction of the innovation. Those functions map
activities that tackle the specific problems of the agrifood sector, defined from social
expectations. We added them to reinforce the framework of MIS for the agrifood sector, as
explained in Section 1. Their degree of activation in the system may depend on how much the
actors share societal expectations and are willing to coordinate actions in that sense. As those
functions are normative, actors have different visions about how much those norms should
constrain their activities. For some, FILEG should have a direct role in improving those
functions through a charter of practices and clear principles to be followed by all members.
“[FILEG can] work, for example, on the establishment of a charter of practices to farmers that
are members [of the association]” (b3). For others, the role of the association is indirect, by
carrying out education and the diffusion of knowledge about alternative practices, without
constraining or admonishing its members. “I really see FILEG as an association that allows
[legumes] promotion. I do not see the association putting constraints by saying, [...] ‘watch
out for the good practices!’ This is more the role of the technical institutes” (13).

In contrast, even if actions concerning the function of entrepreneurial activities were not found
through desk research, the interviews revealed that FILEG contributed to the development of
some entrepreneurial activities. This contribution was represented by helping new entrants to
find funds or facilities, or for accessing retailers, and often happened informally through, for
example, phone calls or social events with the members. Informal exchange of know-how is an
important driver of the innovation process (Pyka, 2000). According to Rank (2008), informal
cooperative ties are created alongside formal ones and this helps the structuration of a formal
network. No study was found in literature concerning the role formal/informal relationships in
MIS functions; however, an informal component can be expected to exist. In our case study,
the actions contributing to entrepreneurial activities, either formal or informal, can also easily
be linked to other functions (for example, resource mobilization). This can be due to the fact
that interviewees saw this function as a consequence of the other functions' performance.
Increasing the entrepreneurship of a system, in fine, is a matter of improving the conditions in
which entrepreneurs will participate.

**5. Discussion**

The main objective of this paper was to explore the process of MIS building at the scale of a
formal network. We started from the principle that the mission, functioning as ‘a common good’
that frames collective action (Brechet, Desreumaux, 2006), needs to acquire a certain legitimacy
in order for the MIS to be able to develop. If the functionalist approach of IS focuses on external
legitimacy, our analysis suggests that legitimacy must be considered both as external (toward
other actors and government bodies, for example) and internal (toward members and their
capacity to collectively agree on actions to pursue). This legitimacy depends not only on the
content of the mission, but also on the history of actors’ relationships, power relations, and
strategic games (Reynaud, Richebé, 2009). In that sense, the variety of actions related to
innovation functions that actors assign to the MIS can constitute indicators on the institutional
work that is needed to build internal legitimacy.

For some members, FILEG is only meant to ease interactions between actors. For others, the
association should go beyond this role and promote the image of legumes (as well as the
underlying value of “sustainability”) for the whole society. Both roles are compatible with the mission of contributing to a sustainable and fair legume value chain and are related to the way actors expect to influence network resource allocation. For the first group, network resources should be created only with the purpose of favoring interactions among members. For the second group, however, the association has a supplementary role of creating a ‘good image of legumes’, deploying resources intentionally beyond network boundaries to reach the system level. In such a mission-oriented context, an opposition is also formed between the societal aims (food value-chains sustainability and equity) and the economic development of the value chain. In this regard, different roles could also be observed for FILEG, which are especially related to the effort actors are prone to make for the functions ‘Ethics in Commercial Relationships and Environmental Engagement’. For the moment, conducting direct actions in those functions seems to be difficult within the network.

Within a company, governance is a major factor in allocating resources and finding compromises in action priorities (Lavie, 2006; Reynaud, Richebé, 2009, 2011). Since the Mission-oriented approach implies a strategic coordination of resources to achieve a goal, we consider that the governance of the network should be another key innovation function for studying MIS. For instance, Lantremange et al. (2023) added such a governance/coordination function when studying agrifood value chains engaged in sustainable practices. They point out that looking to the governance of networks in value-chains is essential to understand the adherence to certain rules, ensuring fluid decision-making that regulates firms’ strategic behaviour. Aligning expectations and progressively building a ‘common agreement’ among members of a network depends on the way the network is coordinated, and how members are associated. As FILEG’s mission is quite large, the resources that the network will build and how they will be deployed are not defined ‘by default’. To define those resources, actors’ expectations have to be reconciled to secure their participation. This is especially true since the network became a non-profit organization in 2022. Before this date, as a time-bounded project, expected outputs were narrower. Now, as a non-profit organization, the output of FILEG is more flexible and depends on its capacity to mediate and negotiate different visions through effective governance, while the number of members increase.

Previous case studies mobilizing the MIS approach focused on studying a system at the level of countries (e.g. Reike et al., 2023; Wesseling, Meijerhof, 2023). Our study showed that the approach could also be deployed at smaller scales, such as a formal regional network. This was possible by using the RBV concept, assuming that actors have to combine resources and form formal networks to achieve system building when those resources are missing in the system (Musiolik et al., 2020). In our case, we understood functions as categories of actions that a formal network is carrying out to contribute to system building. The RBV was used to understand which resources actors want to build in relation to each function. This allowed us to show a variety of visions and expectations related to the MIS. The concept of resource in the RBV is criticized for being ‘all encompassing’ and unquantifiable (Kraaijenbrink et al., 2010). However, in our case, we used it as a qualitative category to understand the different rationales actors may have when participating in a formal network and defining priorities for action. RBV proposes a heuristic to study actors’ behavior and the creation of formal networks, assuming that the strategic behavior of firms also depends on the social context (Gulati, 1999). At the same time, the MIS functions approach provides categories to assess how these networks contribute to system functioning, proving to be complementary approaches for understanding collective action. Hence, classifying a network’s actions in terms of functions, taking into account the level in which those actions are expected to build resources (organization, network, and system) may create useful systematized information for network management. In the case
of FILEG, information concerning the different actors’ expectations in relation to each function
can be used to guide decision-making and the next steps of the network.

Conducting similar studies with other formal networks may be worthwhile to enrich our
observations about the building of bottom-up MIS, the relation between the network mission
and resources created, and the role of a governance function in the formation and legitimation
of MIS. In addition, as this framework has proven to be a potential to be used in network
management, testing it in other case studies can lead us to make recommendations to network
heads and policy makers.

6. Conclusion

This study built a framework based on innovation functions and the RBV to analyze how a
bottom-up MIS operates to foster innovation in relation to a collective mission. We applied this
framework to an established association (FILEG) in the agrifood sector, aimed at the sustainable
and equitable development of grain legume value chains in southern France.

Through the information gathered (document desk research, a questionnaire and interviews) we observed a diversity of actors’ visions of FILEG’s mission and the actions needed to achieve it. We also observed that this MIS developed gradually through functions, ‘activated’ with a specific order. Guidance of the search, legitimacy creation and the mobilization of resources were the first functions on which this MIS concentrated its efforts as a project. This was quickly followed by knowledge diffusion and knowledge development functions; and once the network became an association, the functions market formation and ethics in commercial relationships started.

Two major visions emerged in relation to actors’ expectations for the future role of the MIS. One in which the association acts as a ‘back office’ in which network resources are created to facilitate actors’ business; and another in which the role of the association is to create a ‘good image of legumes’ for society, deploying resources also at the system level. These two visions may be related to the diversity of public and private actors involved. Moreover, though the mission provides a guideline for the output the network is expected to produce, the resources and measures needed to achieve it are not specified. Considering a coordination/governance function, in further works, could help to analyze the capacity of MIS to define common rules and the translation of a wider mission into action.

Finally, the combination of innovation functions and the RBV provided a useful framework for
analyzing bottom-up MIS dynamics. Functions serve as categories for the mapping of a wide
range of network actions, while RBV focuses on the strategic behavior of firms and on the way
actors perceive the potential creation and allocation of resources. Further development using
more institutional approaches could reinforce this framework, notably to include another
function for governance/coordination. In order to strengthen this framework and compare the
role of bottom-up MIS for sustainability transitions, other cases must be studied in the agrifood
sector and beyond.

Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the French government grant managed by the Agence Nationale de la Recherche within the framework of the France 2030 program (SOYSTAINABLE, ANR-22-PLEG-0003) and the INRAE "MP CLIMAE" (Machicoulis project). The authors thank the members of the FILEG association for participating in the questionnaire and interviews.

## References

BARNEY, J. (1991), *Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage*, *Journal of Management*, 17, 99-120.

BRECHET, J.-P., DESREUMAUX, A. (2006), *Le projet dans l'action collective*, in Alouche, J., (eds), *Encyclopédie Des Ressources Humaines*, Vuibert, 1015-1024.

CHAMBRES D'AGRICULTURE OCCITANIE (2022a), *Grandes Cultures*, Les dossiers d'Agri'Scopie, 20p.

CHAMBRES D'AGRICULTURE OCCITANIE (2022b), *Panorama de la conjoncture 2022 en Occitanie*, 36p.

CHOLEZ, C., PAULY, O., MAHDAD, M., MEHRABI, S., GIAGNOCAVO, C., BIJMAN, J. (2023), *Heterogeneity of Inter-Organizational Collaborations in Agrifood Chain Sustainability-Oriented Innovations*, *Agricultural Systems*, 212, 1-17.

CISALI (2021), *FILEG Repenser l'Enjeu Protéine à l'Échelle de l'Occitanie*, CISALI Livre Blanc, 170p.

CUSWORTH, G., GARNETT, T., LORIMER, J. (2021a), *Legume Dreams: The Contested Futures of Sustainable Plant-Based Food Systems in Europe*, *Global Environmental Change*, 69, 102321.

CUSWORTH, G., GARNETT, T., LORIMER, J. (2021b), *Agroecological Break Out: Legumes, Crop Diversification and the Regenerative Futures of UK Agriculture*, *Journal of Rural Studies*, 88, 126-137.

DYER, J. H., SINGH, H. (1998), *The Relational View: Cooperative Strategy and Sources of Interorganizational Competitive Advantage*, *AMR*, 23(4), 660-679.

EDQUIST, C. (2001), *The Systems of Innovation Approach and Innovation Policy: An Account of the State of the Art*, *DRUID Conference*, June 12-15, Aalborg, Denmark.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION (2023), *The Common Agricultural Policy: 2023-27* [WWW Document]. Retrieved from https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/common-agricultural-policy/cap-overview/cap-2023-27_en (accessed 1.5.24).

FILEG (2022), *Structurer ensemble une filière légumineuse en Occitanie* [WWW Document], FILEG. Retrieved from https://www.fileg.org/projetfileg (accessed 2.15.23).

GEELS, F. W. (2004), *From Sectoral Systems of Innovation to Socio-Technical Systems*, *Research Policy*, 33(6-7), 897-920.

GEORGET, V., BARLATIER, P.-J., PENIN, J., RAYNA, T. (2023), *Les enjeux économiques, politiques et managériaux de l'innovation responsable*, *Innovations*, 3(72), 5-33.

GREENACRE, P., GROSS, D.R., SPEIRS, J. (2012), *Innovation Theory: A Review of the Literature*, Working Paper, 2012 ICEPT Working Paper.

GULATI, R. (1999), *Network Location and Learning: The Influence of Network Resources and Firm Capabilities on Alliance Formation*, *Strategic Management Journal*, 20(5), 397-420.

HEKKERT, M. P., JANSSEN, M. J., WESSELING, J. H., NEGRO, S. O. (2020), *Mission-Oriented Innovation Systems*, *Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions*, 34, 76-79.

HEKKERT, M. P., SUURS, R. A. A., NEGRO, S. O., KUHLMANN, S., SMITS, R. E. H. M. (2007), *Functions of Innovation Systems: A New Approach for Analysing Technological Change*, *Technological Forecasting and Social Change*, 74, 413-432.
KLERKX, L., BEGEMANN, S. (2020), Supporting Food Systems Transformation: The What, Why, Who, Where and How of Mission-Oriented Agricultural Innovation Systems, *Agricultural Systems*, 184, 102901.

KRAAIJENBRINK, J., SPENDER, J.-C., GROEN, A. J. (2010), The Resource-Based View: A Review and Assessment of Its Critiques, *Journal of Management*, 36(1), 349–372.

LANTREMANGE, H., MAGRINI, M.-B., FRAYSSIGNES, J., FORTUN-LAMOTHE, L., LAURI, P.-É., LEBRET, B., GOUIS, J. L., LULLIEN-PELLERIN, V., NOZIÈRES-PETIT, M.-O., SAINT-GES, V., SEBILLOTTE, C., TCHAMITCHIAN, M., THIOLLET-SCHOLTUS, M., THIS, P. (2023), Nurturing Niche Innovations by Agrifood Value Chains in Transition to Agroecology. A Qualitative Analysis through Eleven Case Studies in France, *14th International sustainability transitions conference: responsibility and reflexivity in transitions*, August 20th, Utrecht, Netherland.

LAVIE, D. (2006), The Competitive Advantage of Interconnected Firms: An Extension of the Resource-Based View, *The Academy of Management Review*, 31(3), 638–658.

LUNDVALL, B.-Å., EDQUIST, C. (1993), Comparing the Danish and Swedish Systems of Innovation, in Nelson, R. R. (ed), *National Innovation Systems*, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 265–298.

MAGRINI, M.-B. (2023), Interactions sociotechniques de filière et fonctions des systèmes d'innovation responsable : Une mise en perspective à partir d'enjeux de transition des filières agricoles, *Innovations*, 181–207.

MAGRINI, M.-B., ANTON, M., CHOLEZ, C., CORRE-HELLOU, G., DUC, G., JEUFFROY, M.-H., MEYNARD, J.-M., PELZER, E., VOISIN, A.-S., WALRAND, S. (2016), Why Are Grain-Legumes Rarely Present in Cropping Systems Despite Their Environmental and Nutritional Benefits? Analyzing Lock-In in the French Agrifood System, *Ecological Economics*, 126, 152–162.

MAGRINI, M.-B., BEDOUSSAC, L. (2017), Légumineuses : Définition, *Dictionnaire d'Agroécologie*. [WWW Document]. Retrieved from https://dicoagroecologie.fr/encyclopedie/les-legumineuses/ (accessed 2.19.24).

MAGRINI, M.-B., JULIER, B. (2019), Quelle place pour les légumineuses dans une Europe agroécologique ?, *Economie rurale*, 125–129.

MEYNARD, J.-M., CHARRIER, F., FARES, M., LE BAIL, M., MAGRINI, M.-B., CHARLIER, A., MESSÉAN, A. (2018), Socio-Technical Lock-In Hinders Crop Diversification in France, *Agronomy for Sustainable Development*, 38(54).

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD SOVEREIGNTY (2023), *Plan Stratégique National de la PAC 2023-2027* [WWW Document]. Retrieved from https://agriculture.gouv.fr/pac-2023-2027-le-plan-strategique-national (accessed 1.5.24).

MUSIOLIK, J., MARKARD, J., HEKKERT, M. (2012), Networks and Network Resources in Technological Innovation Systems: Towards A Conceptual Framework for System Building, *Technological Forecasting and Social Change*, 79(6), 1032–1048.

MUSIOLIK, J., MARKARD, J., HEKKERT, M., FURRER, B. (2020), Creating Innovation Systems: How Resource Constellations Affect the Strategies of System Builders, *Technological Forecasting and Social Change*, 153, 119209.

NOTZ, I., TOPP, C. F. E., SCHULER, J., ALVES, S., GALLARDO, L. A., DAUBER, J., HAASE, T., HARGREAVES, P. R., HENNESSY, M., IANTCHEVA, A., JEANNERET, P., KAY, S., RECKNAGEL, J., RITTLER, L., VASILJEVIĆ, M., WATSON, C. A., RECKLING, M. (2023), Transition to Legume-Supported Farming in Europe through Redesigning Cropping Systems, *Agronomy for Sustainable Development*, 43(12).

PEOPLES, M. B., HAUGGAARD-NIELSEN, H., HUGUENIN-ELIE, O., JENSEN, E. S., JUSTES, E., WILLIAMS, M. (2019), The Contributions of Legumes to Reducing the
Environmental Risk of Agricultural Production, in Lemaire, G., De Faccio Carvalho, P. C., Kronberg, S., Recous, S. (eds), *Agroecosystem Diversity*, Elsevier, 123–143.

PYKA, A. (2000), Informal Networking and Industrial Life Cycles, *Technovation*, 20(1), 25–35.

RANK, O. N. (2008), Formal Structures and Informal Networks: Structural Analysis in Organizations, *Scandinavian Journal of Management*, 24(2), 145–161.

REIKE, D., HEKKERT, M. P., NEGRO, S. O. (2023), Understanding Circular Economy Transitions: The Case of Circular Textiles, *Business Strategy and the Environment*, 32(3), 1032–1058.

REYNAUD, J.-D., RICHEBE, N. (2011), Valeurs, action collective et projet d'entreprise : *Humanisme et Entreprise*, 304(4), 65–72.

REYNAUD, J.-D., RICHEBE, N. (2009), Rules, Conventions and Values: A Plea in Favor of Ordinary Normativity, *Revue française de sociologie*, 50(5), 3–35.

SAINT-GES, V., TANGUY, C., THIVET, D. (2021), Innovations in Agri-food Systems – International Trends, *Journal of Innovation Economics & Management*, 34(1), 1–5.

SCHNEIDER, A., HUYGUE, C. (2015), *Les légumineuses pour des systèmes agricoles et alimentaires durables*, Quae.

SCHOT, J., STEINMUELLER, W. E. (2018), Three Frames for Innovation Policy: R&D, Systems of Innovation and Transformative Change, *Research Policy*, 47(9), 1554–1567.

TERRES UNIVIA (2021), *Plantes riches en protéines 2020*, Chiffres Clés, 24p.

VAN DE VEN, A. (2005), Running in Packs to Develop Knowledge–Intensive Technologies, *MIS Quarterly*, 29(2), 365–378.

VERMUNT, D. A., WOJTYNIA, N., HEKKERT, M. P., VAN DIJK, J., VERBURG, R., VERWEIJ, P. A., WASSEN, M., RUNHAAR, H. (2022), Five Mechanisms Blocking the Transition Towards ‘Nature-Inclusive’ Agriculture: A Systemic Analysis of Dutch Dairy Farming, *Agricultural Systems*, 195, 103280.

WERNERFELT, B. (1984), A Resource-Based View of The Firm, *Strategic Management Journal*, 5(2), 171–180.

WESSELING, J., MEIJERHOF, N. (2023), Towards a Mission-oriented Innovation Systems (MIS) Approach, Application for Dutch Sustainable Maritime Shipping, *PLOS Sustain Transform*, 2(8), e0000075.

ZANDER, P., AMJATH-BABU, T. S., PREISSEL, S., RECKLING, M., BUES, A., SCHLÄFKE, N., KUHLMAN, T., BACHINGER, J., UTHES, S., STODDARD, F., MURPHY-BOKERN, D., WATSON, C. (2016), Grain Legume Decline and Potential Recovery in European Agriculture: A Review, *Agronomy for Sustainable Development*, 36, 1–20.