- Email: [email protected]
How much does size matter in agri-food firms?
JBR-08313; No of Pages 3 Journal of Business Research xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Business Research
How much does size matter in agri-food firms?☆ Vanessa Campos-Climent ⁎, Joan-Ramon Sanchis-Palacio ⁎ Tarongers Av., 46022 València, Spain
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received February 2014 Received in revised form December 2014 Accepted January 2015 Available online xxxx Keywords: Size Performance Agri-food firms Fruit and vegetable (F&V) cooperatives
a b s t r a c t Size is a contingency variable that may affect firm performance. This study checks for the existence of a significant relationship between organizational size and performance in agri-food firms, namely in Spanish fruit and vegetable (F&V) cooperatives. To do so, the empirical study applies regression analysis to financial statements taken directly from official registers. Results show the absence of a significant positive relationship between size and performance in agri-food firms. © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Among agri-food firms, agricultural cooperatives are the main associative force of farmers with small and medium-sized farms that acts as a global entrepreneurial organization. As the General Committee for Agricultural Cooperation in the European Union (COGECA) indicates, agricultural cooperatives are responsible for over 60% of the collection, processing, and marketing of agricultural production in origin areas. These firms comprise more than 32,000 cooperative firms, which integrate 11 million agricultural holdings, generating a turnover of more than 250 billion Euros. Spain has 3989 agricultural cooperatives. Their turnover is nearly 19 billion Euros, they employ 94,156 workers, and they have 1,160,337 members. Fruit and vegetable (F&V) cooperatives are a specific type of agricultural cooperative with a historical importance in Spain. They date back to the 19th century. For farmers, joining a cooperative to commercialize their products yields advantages over facing the high bargaining power of wholesalers and large retail distributors who operate in oligopsonistic agricultural markets and usually impose conditions on farmers. Creating common land management cooperatives reduces the cost of production by generating economies of scale (Valentinov, 2007). The purpose of this study is to test whether certain structural parameters or contingency factors like organizational size positively affect F&V cooperatives' performance. This study's main empirical method is
☆ The authors are grateful to contributions from Antonia Mohedano Suanes, University of València, and Yolanda Montegut Sala, University of Lleida, for their careful reading and suggestions on revising this essay. ⁎ Corresponding authors. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (V. Campos-Climent), [email protected] (J.-R. Sanchis-Palacio).
regression analysis, which takes structural parameters as independent variables and measures of firm performance as dependent variables. Official registers of Spanish cooperatives provide the data for the regression analysis.
2. Theoretical overview: the effect of organizational size on performance The success of a strategy mainly depends on contingency factors, which condition an organization's operations (Miles & Snow, 1978). Scholars typically analyze strategy-fit of models that originate from the organization design theory (Galbraith, 2002). These models analyze how contingency factors affect organizational structure through the contingency approach (Mintzberg, 1979). However, internal fit alone fails to explain firm efficiency and performance. Thus, this study considers the role of external fit, which captures the relationship between contingency factors and firm strategy (Galbraith, 2002). The literature suggests that strategy-structure fit is complete only when internal and external fit combine. Most studies seek empirical evidence about the relationship between contingency factors (e.g., organizational size) and firm profitability. However, theory on the relationship between organizational and organizational structure is scare because studies tend to focus on empirical hypothesis testing. However, many studies analyze the relationship between organizational size and strategy, especially growth strategy. Thus, while some studies demonstrate a positive relationship between size and performance (Prais, 1976), other studies report a negative relationship between such variables (Evans, 1987). Several studies cite organizational size as a determinant of firms' economic and financial behavior, which in turn affects performance (McLeay & Fieldsend, 1987).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.01.056 0148-2963/© 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article as: Campos-Climent, V., & Sanchis-Palacio, J.-R., How much does size matter in agri-food firms? Journal of Business Research (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.01.056
2
V. Campos-Climent, J.-R. Sanchis-Palacio / Journal of Business Research xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
Furthermore, recent studies underline the role of strategic responses to institutional pressures in agri-business, (Tingey-Holyoak, 2014). In the European Union, interest in the study of agri-food firms' profitability and economic effectiveness is keen because the structural crisis currently affecting agricultural firms may cause these firms to disappear in the medium term (Giagnocavo, Gerez, Vargas, & Campos, 2012). Most empirical studies on agri-food firms employ descriptive analysis of financial ratios to determine those firms' economic and financial situation. In Spain, 17 studies apply ratio analysis to agribusiness. All studies show that such firms' profitability is low, but no study proves that an increase in size improves profitability. A wide range of theoretical literature advocates increasing these firms' size through consolidation, mainly mergers, to reduce costs and gain efficiency (Galdeano, 2006). Several empirical studies report a link between size as an organizational variable and organizational performance. Some studies find a positive relationship between both variables (Youndt, Snell, Dean, & Lepak, 1996), whereas others report a negative relationship (Geary, 1999). However, scholars generally accept that larger size positively affects effective management tools and therefore leads to better organizational performance. H1. F&V cooperatives' size affects F&V cooperatives' performance, so larger F&V Cooperatives achieve better performance. To compare organizational size with different measures of organizational performance, the study divides the hypothesis into three subhypothesis. H1a. F&V cooperatives' size positively affects F&V Cooperatives' financial capability. Thus, larger F&V cooperatives have better financial capability. H1b. F&V cooperatives' size affects F&V Cooperatives' capability to generate profits. Thus, larger F&V cooperatives achieve higher profitability. H1c. F&V cooperatives' size positively affects F&V Cooperatives' capability to generate income.
Thus, larger F&V cooperatives have greater capability to generate income. 3. Method This study investigates Spanish F&V cooperatives. The study explores whether a significant relationship between organizational size and performance in agricultural cooperatives exists. The sample population consists of all Spanish F&V cooperatives. The sample comprises the Spanish F&V cooperatives that submit financial statements to the cooperatives' official registers. Results of the chi-square test show that the sample is statistically representative. Each variable belongs to one of two dimensions. The first dimension is organizational size, which consists of a multi-criteria variable built from economic, financial and equity indicators (total assets, equity, and operating income) to measure operation of the organization. Economic effectiveness indicators that relate to achieving economic and financial goals measure the second dimension (i.e., organizational performance). Two quantitative indicators measure firm effectiveness: Return on Assets (ROA) and Return on Equity (ROE) (Rumelt, 1991). Nevertheless, F&V cooperatives' economic profitability usually tends to zero because F&V cooperatives seek to maximize their members' income. Hence, the study uses other indicators to measure firm financial capability (liquidity, solvency, indebtedness, and debt structure) and the capability of the firm to generate income (sales margin, asset turnover, and efficiency). Fig. 1 summarizes the model and measures. In both cases, the study uses the median value of the ratio for the period 2008–2012 (not the mean) as measure of central trend. 4. Findings Principal component analysis (PCA) groups the indicators into just one component for each construct. Regarding organizational size, average total assets (ATA) explains 86% of the information within the three original indicators, and ATA's value is greater than 1. The high
Fig. 1. Theoretical model.
Please cite this article as: Campos-Climent, V., & Sanchis-Palacio, J.-R., How much does size matter in agri-food firms? Journal of Business Research (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.01.056
V. Campos-Climent, J.-R. Sanchis-Palacio / Journal of Business Research xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
In conclusion, results lead to the rejection of H1 (i.e., F&V cooperatives' size affects their performance) because findings do not provide empirical evidence to support such a hypothesis.
Table 1 Regression analysis. DS
Constant ATA R2 Adjusted R2 Snedecor's F Significance F
Beta
Sig.
0.68 −0.06 0.07 0.06 5.17 0.03
0.00 0.03
ROE
Constant ATA R2 Adjusted R2 Snedecor's F Significance F
3
Beta
Sig.
0.03 0.02 0.06 0.05 4.69 0.03
0.00 0.03
correlation among variables justifies the application of PCA and the component's selection as a representative indicator of organizational size (OS). The study also applies PCA to each construct to measure F&V cooperatives' performance. Nevertheless, grouping the indicators for every construct is impossible in all cases. Before estimating the regression model, Spearman's test analyzes the mutual dependence among the different indicators of organizational size and performance. Only in the cases of debt structure (DS) and return on equity (ROE) is the correlation with ATA significant at bilateral 0.01 level. Conversely, no indicator of economic capability (sales margin, asset turnover, and efficiency) significantly depends on ATA. Therefore, results fail to support H1c. As a result, the model to estimate using Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) is: DS ¼ β0 þ β1 ATA;
ð1Þ
ROE ¼ β0 þ β1 ATA:
ð2Þ
Table 1 summarizes the results from the regression analysis. First, estimation of Eq. (1) tests H1a. In this case, R2 is 0.07. The value of R2 ranges between 0, and R2 values close to 1 suggest optimal models whereas values close to 0 suggest models that fit the data poorly. The R2 values indicate that the size of F&V cooperatives cannot explain F&V cooperatives' financial capability. Furthermore, the value of the beta coefficient is −0.06, suggesting a slight negative relationship between organizational size and financial capability in F&V cooperatives. Therefore, H1a is false. Then, estimation of Eq. (2) tests H1b. In this case, the R2 value is 0.06, indicating that the size of F&V cooperatives cannot explain the mixed capability of F&V cooperatives because the estimated model does not fit the data properly. Regarding Snedecor's F analysis, the significance F value is 0.03, which is less than the threshold of 0.05. Hence, the model is significant. Nevertheless, the value of the beta coefficient is 0.02, indicating a weak positive relationship between the ROE and the ATA. Hence, H1b is false. In summary, the estimated model is: DS ¼ 0:68–0:06 ATA;
ð1Þ
ROE ¼ 0:03 þ 0:02 ATA:
ð2Þ
5. Discussion and conclusions Organizational success partially depends on different contingency factors or structural parameters such as organizational size. Thus, these factors may contribute to organizational success. The purpose of F&V cooperatives is to ensure an appropriate level of income to small farmers. Because cooperatives allow small farmers with low bargaining power to reach customers (both wholesale and retail distributors), cooperatives' survival is necessary, so cooperatives must be sufficiently profitable. Despite F&V cooperatives' historical relevance in Europe, most of them are at risk of disappearing. Many sector professionals and numerous scholars claim that increasing organizational size through mergers and acquisitions offers a solution for F&V cooperatives. Nevertheless, most empirical studies on the topic, including the present study, fail to show a clear direct relationship between organizational size and performance in F&V cooperatives. In fact, results of this study show that F&V cooperatives' economic capability in no case depends on organizational size; in fact, F&V cooperatives financial capability negatively relates to F&V cooperatives' organizational size. Just in the case of ROE, a weak positive relationship with organizational size exists; but the model's significance level is low. Therefore, the empirical analysis demonstrates that increasing F&V cooperatives' size through mergers or acquisitions is ineffective at improving F&V cooperatives' performance. Scholars should consider other strategies such as greater management professionalism or strategic alliances, among others. Future research should analyze other factors—both internal (organization age, management capability, etc.) and external (degree of industry concentration, customers' bargaining power, suppliers' bargaining power, etc.)—to test if these factors are crucial factors for F&V cooperatives to succeed. References Evans, D. S. (1987). The relationship between firm growth, size, and age: Estimates for 100 manufacturing industries. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 35(4), 567–581. Galbraith, J. R. (2002). Designing organizations: An executive guide to strategy, structure, and process. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Galdeano, E. (2006). Productivity and efficiency analysis of horticultural co-operatives. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research, 4(3), 191–201. Geary, J. K. (1999). The new workplace: Change at work in Ireland. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 10(5), 870–890. Giagnocavo, C., Gerez, S., Vargas, C., & Campos, V. (2012). Support for farmer's cooperatives: Structure and strategy of fruit and vegetables cooperatives in Almeria and Valencia, Spain. Report from the European Commission. McLeay, S., & Fieldsend, J. (1987). Sector and size effects in ratio analysis: An indirect test of ratio proportionality. Accounting and Business Research, 17(66), 133–140. Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure, and process. Tokyo: McGraw-Hill. Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations. London: Prentice-Hall. Prais, S. J. (1976). The evolution of giant firms in Britain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rumelt, R. P. (1991). How much does industry matter? Strategic Management Journal, 12, 167–185. Tingey-Holyoak, J. (2014). Sustainable water storage by agricultural businesses: Strategic responses to institutional pressures. Journal of Business Research, 67(12), 2590–2602. Valentinov, V. (2007). Why are cooperatives important in agriculture? An organizational economics perspective. Journal of Institutional Economics, 3, 55–69. Youndt, M. A., Snell, S. A., Dean, J. W., Jr., & Lepak, D. P. (1996). Human resource management manufacturing strategy and firm performance. Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), 836–866.
Please cite this article as: Campos-Climent, V., & Sanchis-Palacio, J.-R., How much does size matter in agri-food firms? Journal of Business Research (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.01.056
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Business Research
How much does size matter in agri-food firms?☆ Vanessa Campos-Climent ⁎, Joan-Ramon Sanchis-Palacio ⁎ Tarongers Av., 46022 València, Spain
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received February 2014 Received in revised form December 2014 Accepted January 2015 Available online xxxx Keywords: Size Performance Agri-food firms Fruit and vegetable (F&V) cooperatives
a b s t r a c t Size is a contingency variable that may affect firm performance. This study checks for the existence of a significant relationship between organizational size and performance in agri-food firms, namely in Spanish fruit and vegetable (F&V) cooperatives. To do so, the empirical study applies regression analysis to financial statements taken directly from official registers. Results show the absence of a significant positive relationship between size and performance in agri-food firms. © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Among agri-food firms, agricultural cooperatives are the main associative force of farmers with small and medium-sized farms that acts as a global entrepreneurial organization. As the General Committee for Agricultural Cooperation in the European Union (COGECA) indicates, agricultural cooperatives are responsible for over 60% of the collection, processing, and marketing of agricultural production in origin areas. These firms comprise more than 32,000 cooperative firms, which integrate 11 million agricultural holdings, generating a turnover of more than 250 billion Euros. Spain has 3989 agricultural cooperatives. Their turnover is nearly 19 billion Euros, they employ 94,156 workers, and they have 1,160,337 members. Fruit and vegetable (F&V) cooperatives are a specific type of agricultural cooperative with a historical importance in Spain. They date back to the 19th century. For farmers, joining a cooperative to commercialize their products yields advantages over facing the high bargaining power of wholesalers and large retail distributors who operate in oligopsonistic agricultural markets and usually impose conditions on farmers. Creating common land management cooperatives reduces the cost of production by generating economies of scale (Valentinov, 2007). The purpose of this study is to test whether certain structural parameters or contingency factors like organizational size positively affect F&V cooperatives' performance. This study's main empirical method is
☆ The authors are grateful to contributions from Antonia Mohedano Suanes, University of València, and Yolanda Montegut Sala, University of Lleida, for their careful reading and suggestions on revising this essay. ⁎ Corresponding authors. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (V. Campos-Climent), [email protected] (J.-R. Sanchis-Palacio).
regression analysis, which takes structural parameters as independent variables and measures of firm performance as dependent variables. Official registers of Spanish cooperatives provide the data for the regression analysis.
2. Theoretical overview: the effect of organizational size on performance The success of a strategy mainly depends on contingency factors, which condition an organization's operations (Miles & Snow, 1978). Scholars typically analyze strategy-fit of models that originate from the organization design theory (Galbraith, 2002). These models analyze how contingency factors affect organizational structure through the contingency approach (Mintzberg, 1979). However, internal fit alone fails to explain firm efficiency and performance. Thus, this study considers the role of external fit, which captures the relationship between contingency factors and firm strategy (Galbraith, 2002). The literature suggests that strategy-structure fit is complete only when internal and external fit combine. Most studies seek empirical evidence about the relationship between contingency factors (e.g., organizational size) and firm profitability. However, theory on the relationship between organizational and organizational structure is scare because studies tend to focus on empirical hypothesis testing. However, many studies analyze the relationship between organizational size and strategy, especially growth strategy. Thus, while some studies demonstrate a positive relationship between size and performance (Prais, 1976), other studies report a negative relationship between such variables (Evans, 1987). Several studies cite organizational size as a determinant of firms' economic and financial behavior, which in turn affects performance (McLeay & Fieldsend, 1987).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.01.056 0148-2963/© 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article as: Campos-Climent, V., & Sanchis-Palacio, J.-R., How much does size matter in agri-food firms? Journal of Business Research (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.01.056
2
V. Campos-Climent, J.-R. Sanchis-Palacio / Journal of Business Research xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
Furthermore, recent studies underline the role of strategic responses to institutional pressures in agri-business, (Tingey-Holyoak, 2014). In the European Union, interest in the study of agri-food firms' profitability and economic effectiveness is keen because the structural crisis currently affecting agricultural firms may cause these firms to disappear in the medium term (Giagnocavo, Gerez, Vargas, & Campos, 2012). Most empirical studies on agri-food firms employ descriptive analysis of financial ratios to determine those firms' economic and financial situation. In Spain, 17 studies apply ratio analysis to agribusiness. All studies show that such firms' profitability is low, but no study proves that an increase in size improves profitability. A wide range of theoretical literature advocates increasing these firms' size through consolidation, mainly mergers, to reduce costs and gain efficiency (Galdeano, 2006). Several empirical studies report a link between size as an organizational variable and organizational performance. Some studies find a positive relationship between both variables (Youndt, Snell, Dean, & Lepak, 1996), whereas others report a negative relationship (Geary, 1999). However, scholars generally accept that larger size positively affects effective management tools and therefore leads to better organizational performance. H1. F&V cooperatives' size affects F&V cooperatives' performance, so larger F&V Cooperatives achieve better performance. To compare organizational size with different measures of organizational performance, the study divides the hypothesis into three subhypothesis. H1a. F&V cooperatives' size positively affects F&V Cooperatives' financial capability. Thus, larger F&V cooperatives have better financial capability. H1b. F&V cooperatives' size affects F&V Cooperatives' capability to generate profits. Thus, larger F&V cooperatives achieve higher profitability. H1c. F&V cooperatives' size positively affects F&V Cooperatives' capability to generate income.
Thus, larger F&V cooperatives have greater capability to generate income. 3. Method This study investigates Spanish F&V cooperatives. The study explores whether a significant relationship between organizational size and performance in agricultural cooperatives exists. The sample population consists of all Spanish F&V cooperatives. The sample comprises the Spanish F&V cooperatives that submit financial statements to the cooperatives' official registers. Results of the chi-square test show that the sample is statistically representative. Each variable belongs to one of two dimensions. The first dimension is organizational size, which consists of a multi-criteria variable built from economic, financial and equity indicators (total assets, equity, and operating income) to measure operation of the organization. Economic effectiveness indicators that relate to achieving economic and financial goals measure the second dimension (i.e., organizational performance). Two quantitative indicators measure firm effectiveness: Return on Assets (ROA) and Return on Equity (ROE) (Rumelt, 1991). Nevertheless, F&V cooperatives' economic profitability usually tends to zero because F&V cooperatives seek to maximize their members' income. Hence, the study uses other indicators to measure firm financial capability (liquidity, solvency, indebtedness, and debt structure) and the capability of the firm to generate income (sales margin, asset turnover, and efficiency). Fig. 1 summarizes the model and measures. In both cases, the study uses the median value of the ratio for the period 2008–2012 (not the mean) as measure of central trend. 4. Findings Principal component analysis (PCA) groups the indicators into just one component for each construct. Regarding organizational size, average total assets (ATA) explains 86% of the information within the three original indicators, and ATA's value is greater than 1. The high
Fig. 1. Theoretical model.
Please cite this article as: Campos-Climent, V., & Sanchis-Palacio, J.-R., How much does size matter in agri-food firms? Journal of Business Research (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.01.056
V. Campos-Climent, J.-R. Sanchis-Palacio / Journal of Business Research xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
In conclusion, results lead to the rejection of H1 (i.e., F&V cooperatives' size affects their performance) because findings do not provide empirical evidence to support such a hypothesis.
Table 1 Regression analysis. DS
Constant ATA R2 Adjusted R2 Snedecor's F Significance F
Beta
Sig.
0.68 −0.06 0.07 0.06 5.17 0.03
0.00 0.03
ROE
Constant ATA R2 Adjusted R2 Snedecor's F Significance F
3
Beta
Sig.
0.03 0.02 0.06 0.05 4.69 0.03
0.00 0.03
correlation among variables justifies the application of PCA and the component's selection as a representative indicator of organizational size (OS). The study also applies PCA to each construct to measure F&V cooperatives' performance. Nevertheless, grouping the indicators for every construct is impossible in all cases. Before estimating the regression model, Spearman's test analyzes the mutual dependence among the different indicators of organizational size and performance. Only in the cases of debt structure (DS) and return on equity (ROE) is the correlation with ATA significant at bilateral 0.01 level. Conversely, no indicator of economic capability (sales margin, asset turnover, and efficiency) significantly depends on ATA. Therefore, results fail to support H1c. As a result, the model to estimate using Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) is: DS ¼ β0 þ β1 ATA;
ð1Þ
ROE ¼ β0 þ β1 ATA:
ð2Þ
Table 1 summarizes the results from the regression analysis. First, estimation of Eq. (1) tests H1a. In this case, R2 is 0.07. The value of R2 ranges between 0, and R2 values close to 1 suggest optimal models whereas values close to 0 suggest models that fit the data poorly. The R2 values indicate that the size of F&V cooperatives cannot explain F&V cooperatives' financial capability. Furthermore, the value of the beta coefficient is −0.06, suggesting a slight negative relationship between organizational size and financial capability in F&V cooperatives. Therefore, H1a is false. Then, estimation of Eq. (2) tests H1b. In this case, the R2 value is 0.06, indicating that the size of F&V cooperatives cannot explain the mixed capability of F&V cooperatives because the estimated model does not fit the data properly. Regarding Snedecor's F analysis, the significance F value is 0.03, which is less than the threshold of 0.05. Hence, the model is significant. Nevertheless, the value of the beta coefficient is 0.02, indicating a weak positive relationship between the ROE and the ATA. Hence, H1b is false. In summary, the estimated model is: DS ¼ 0:68–0:06 ATA;
ð1Þ
ROE ¼ 0:03 þ 0:02 ATA:
ð2Þ
5. Discussion and conclusions Organizational success partially depends on different contingency factors or structural parameters such as organizational size. Thus, these factors may contribute to organizational success. The purpose of F&V cooperatives is to ensure an appropriate level of income to small farmers. Because cooperatives allow small farmers with low bargaining power to reach customers (both wholesale and retail distributors), cooperatives' survival is necessary, so cooperatives must be sufficiently profitable. Despite F&V cooperatives' historical relevance in Europe, most of them are at risk of disappearing. Many sector professionals and numerous scholars claim that increasing organizational size through mergers and acquisitions offers a solution for F&V cooperatives. Nevertheless, most empirical studies on the topic, including the present study, fail to show a clear direct relationship between organizational size and performance in F&V cooperatives. In fact, results of this study show that F&V cooperatives' economic capability in no case depends on organizational size; in fact, F&V cooperatives financial capability negatively relates to F&V cooperatives' organizational size. Just in the case of ROE, a weak positive relationship with organizational size exists; but the model's significance level is low. Therefore, the empirical analysis demonstrates that increasing F&V cooperatives' size through mergers or acquisitions is ineffective at improving F&V cooperatives' performance. Scholars should consider other strategies such as greater management professionalism or strategic alliances, among others. Future research should analyze other factors—both internal (organization age, management capability, etc.) and external (degree of industry concentration, customers' bargaining power, suppliers' bargaining power, etc.)—to test if these factors are crucial factors for F&V cooperatives to succeed. References Evans, D. S. (1987). The relationship between firm growth, size, and age: Estimates for 100 manufacturing industries. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 35(4), 567–581. Galbraith, J. R. (2002). Designing organizations: An executive guide to strategy, structure, and process. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Galdeano, E. (2006). Productivity and efficiency analysis of horticultural co-operatives. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research, 4(3), 191–201. Geary, J. K. (1999). The new workplace: Change at work in Ireland. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 10(5), 870–890. Giagnocavo, C., Gerez, S., Vargas, C., & Campos, V. (2012). Support for farmer's cooperatives: Structure and strategy of fruit and vegetables cooperatives in Almeria and Valencia, Spain. Report from the European Commission. McLeay, S., & Fieldsend, J. (1987). Sector and size effects in ratio analysis: An indirect test of ratio proportionality. Accounting and Business Research, 17(66), 133–140. Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure, and process. Tokyo: McGraw-Hill. Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations. London: Prentice-Hall. Prais, S. J. (1976). The evolution of giant firms in Britain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rumelt, R. P. (1991). How much does industry matter? Strategic Management Journal, 12, 167–185. Tingey-Holyoak, J. (2014). Sustainable water storage by agricultural businesses: Strategic responses to institutional pressures. Journal of Business Research, 67(12), 2590–2602. Valentinov, V. (2007). Why are cooperatives important in agriculture? An organizational economics perspective. Journal of Institutional Economics, 3, 55–69. Youndt, M. A., Snell, S. A., Dean, J. W., Jr., & Lepak, D. P. (1996). Human resource management manufacturing strategy and firm performance. Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), 836–866.
Please cite this article as: Campos-Climent, V., & Sanchis-Palacio, J.-R., How much does size matter in agri-food firms? Journal of Business Research (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.01.056