Views and positions of WA grain growers on grain traceability

The exploratory analysis identified four factors. The first factor encompassed variables associated with Performance Benefits and Social Influence. Specifically, within performance benefits, the marketing advantage that TS could represent for the WA grain industry and the perception that TS could generate economic benefits for growers’ farm businesses stood out. In the social influence sphere, the notion that TS could cater to consumer preferences for sustainability, enhance a grower’s reputation, and satisfy the expectations of significant others were all captured by this factor. The second factor comprised variables related to the Effort Expectancy that growers associated with adopting TS, primarily the perception that the adoption process will be time-consuming, require new data collection efforts and will necessitate the development of new digital skills. The third factor included two variables associated with growers’ risk perceptions from data sharing vulnerabilities and one variable related to poor internet infrastructure as an obstacle to adopting TS. Finally, the fourth included two variables related to what growers perceive as Facilitating Conditions to ease the adoption process: the role of R&D institutions like GRDC and private consultancy services.

The results from the subset of questions delving into growers’ intention to adopt TS showed that 66% of respondents had a positive willingness to adopt TS if it becomes mandatory in conventional marketing channels. This positive disposition increased when intentions were assessed in the presence of price incentives, with an overwhelming 85% of respondents indicating a high likelihood of adoption if offered a market premium for traceable grain. Conversely, the likelihood of voluntary adoption in the initial stages appears low, especially if growers do not perceive direct benefits to their operations. Results indicated that in the face of an uncertain payoff for investing in TS, most growers would either remain neutral (40%) or opt not to adopt (36%). Additionally, about 51% of participants remained neutral about accepting an increase in their grain logistics cost to avoid adoption. Nevertheless, presenting a clear value proposition could potentially boost adoption in the long term, with 51% expressing willingness to adopt given increased clarity of long-term benefits. When asked if they would never adopt TS, no one agreed with the proposition, with 70% disagreeing, and 30% neutral, implying a broad support for TS.

When evaluating the relationship between the four identified factors and the stated intentions towards adoption under the analysed scenarios, we observed that the first factor (Performance Benefits and Social Influence) had a consistent and significant positive effect on positive intentions and can be anticipated as strong drivers for TS adoption. Conversely, Effort Expectancy and Perceived Risk (Factors 2 and 3, respectively) had a significant and positive effect in scenarios reflecting growers’ unwillingness to adopt TS, suggesting they could be potential barriers to adoption.

Finally, the study found that 56% of respondents believe that adopting TS will result in at least one financial or environmental benefit, and approximately 30% anticipate that both benefits will occur together. Not surprisingly, respondents in that group were associated with positive performance benefits expectations and positive social influences.