How to fund learning and innovation networks for sustainable agriculture: a conceptual framework

ABSTRACT Purpose Learning and innovation networks for sustainable agriculture (LINSA) are considered drivers of innovation towards a more sustainable agri-food system. However, sustaining long-term funding remains a challenge for many networks. This paper aims to provide a comprehensive conceptualization of how funding relates to LINSA continuation and suggests a classification of relevant funding instruments. Design/Methodology/Approach Being purely conceptual, this paper combines perspectives of strategic management and nonprofit finance with empirical insights from innovation network literature to develop a conceptual framework on LINSA funding. Findings The conceptual framework suggests that thriving LINSA require both an appropriate funding mix, which corresponds with the benefits provided, and an anticipatory utilization of financial resources to build and maintain relevant intangible resources. The availability of funding instruments which incorporate these findings is crucial for successful LINSA. Practical Implications The conceptual framework provides guidance to practitioners and policy makers who reflect on appropriate strategies and instruments for LINSA funding. Theoretical Implications By integrating perspectives from different disciplines, namely the resource-based view and the benefits theory of nonprofit finance, this paper contributes to an increased understanding of funding in network organizations. Originality/Value This is the first paper to offer an explicit conceptualization of how funding relates to LINSA development. It also provides a classification of relevant funding instruments.


Introduction
The global agri-food system requires a transition towards more sustainable food production and consumption patterns in order to respect planetary boundaries (Gerten et al. 2020).Innovation is considered to be crucial to advance this transformation process (Herrero et al. 2020).Appropriate innovation bundles depend on the local or regional context.They are best developed with the involvement of different actors in order to accelerate adaptation, diffusion and upscaling (Barrett et al. 2020).
Learning and innovation networks for sustainable agriculture (LINSA) represent one organizational pattern, in which various actors share knowledge and jointly develop contextualized solutions (Moschitz et al. 2015).The LINSA concept builds on the notions of communities of practice (Wenger 2000), networks of practice (Brown and Duguid 2001) and niche (Ingram 2015).It refers to a specific network type consisting of 'producers, customers, experts, NGOs, SMEs, local administrations, as well as official researchers and extensionists, that are mutually engaged with common goals for sustainable agriculture and rural developmentcooperating, sharing resources and co-producing new knowledge by creating conditions for communication' (Brunori et al. 2013, 30).Successful LINSA are considered drivers of transition towards sustainability in the agri-food sector (Burkart, Helmle, and Hoffmann 2013).While they require a minimum level of governance and network organization, LINSA vary considerably in their degree of network integration, governance form, scale, origin and function (Ingram et al. 2013a;Moschitz et al. 2015).
Irrespective of their organizational form, LINSA ultimately need financial resources to cover expenses related to their activities and network administration.Securing continued funding, however, is challenging due to the short-term nature of many support mechanisms (Burkart, Helmle, and Hoffmann 2013;Ingram 2015) and a general lack of funds (Hermans, Klerkx, and Roep 2015).The public good character of sustainability-related innovation further suggests that LINSA may have difficulties to mobilize private capital (Pray and Fuglie 2015).
Given that funding is a key constraint to LINSA development (Ingram et al. 2013a) but is crucial to realize the transformative potential of learning and collaboration in networks, this paper aims to provide an explicit and comprehensive conceptualization of how funding and available funding instruments relate to network development.The particular contribution of this paper refers to its level of analysis.It offers a conceptualization from the perspective of LINSA and is guided by the following research questions: How does funding affect the (dis)continuation of LINSA?How do funding sources relate to LINSA development?And how can relevant funding instruments for LINSA be classified?
Our conceptual work builds on two theoretical perspectives: the resource-based view (RBV) from the field of strategic management (Barney 1995) and the benefits theory of nonprofit finance (Young 2006).It is structured as follows.First, we address the selection process leading to the two theories our conceptualization builds on.For each of the two perspectives, we present a set of propositions.Merging these propositions provides a rationale behind different LINSA trajectories and has relevant implications for LINSA members and funders.We argue that the design of funding instruments should incorporate these findings and therefore suggest a classification of LINSA funding instruments.We conclude with a range of implications for network members, policy makers and for future research.

Theory selection
The underlying theories for our conceptual framework were selected throughout an iterative literature review process.With our research questions in mind, we assumed that the following research domains might provide relevant theories to conceptualize LINSA funding: We focussed on strategic management (to address the strategic component of funding for network continuation and to allow for interrelations with other functional areas), innovation funding (to consider particularities of innovation financing compared to investment financing) and network dynamics (to incorporate network development over time).While they served as a starting point for our review of potential theoretical concepts, the application of the selection criteria as described below led to the identification of nonprofit management as another research domain of relevance.
Since this paper aims to conceptualize how funding and respective instruments relate to the (dis)continuation of LINSA, we searched for theories, which explicitly address funding.The second criterion refers to the level of analysis: We only considered theories compatible with the LINSA context, that is to say, theories which can be applied to the particularity of a network organization and its focus on sustainability.Table 1 provides an overview of the reviewed theories, their compliance with the selection criteria and the reasoning behind the selection.
We acknowledge that financial resources alone do not sufficiently explain LINSA dynamics.Rather, it is the combination of and the interaction between different kinds of resources that affects network trajectories (Purchase, Olaru, and Denize 2014).The resource-based view (RBV) from the field of strategic management considers interrelations between financial and non-financial resources, has already been applied to the network level and is therefore a viable concept to address the role of LINSA's financial resources from an integrated perspective.
A review on both private and public innovation funding literature (e.g.Kerr and Nanda 2015;Mazzucato and Semieniuk 2017) revealed that related theories do not meet the second selection criterion.They often focus on how profit-seeking firms finance innovation to realize a competitive advantage, e.g. on the role of capital structure or the design of public support for innovative companies.Given that learning and innovation activities of LINSA address sustainability in agriculture and do not necessarily aim at profit, a different perspective is required.From a financial perspective, LINSA rather resemble nonprofit organizations (NPO) than corporations since they lack owners and have a distinct revenue structure (Bowman 2002;Zietlow, Hankin, and Seidner 2007;Yan, Denison, and Butler 2009).As NPO debt is 'rarely amortized by regular cash flow' (Yan, Denison, and Butler 2009, 49) and the 'source of external equity to nonprofits is philanthropy' (Sloan, Valvona, and Hassan 1988, 38), many NPO scholars focus on the structure (concentration or diversification) of these revenues (e.g.Chang and Tuckman 1994;Carroll and Stater 2009;Schnurbein and Fritz 2017;Shon, Hamidullah, and McDougle 2019).The benefits theory of nonprofit finance (Young 2006) argues that funding sources should correspond with the nature of benefits that an organization provides.Analogously, studying benefits arising from learning and innovation activities helps to conceptualize the relevance of different funding sources for LINSA.
Our conceptualization of LINSA funding builds mainly on the combination of the RBV and the benefits theory of nonprofit finance because it accounts for both the interaction between financial and other relevant network resources on the one hand and the importance of funding sources on the other hand.While we acknowledge that a dynamic perspective is crucial for the analysis of LINSA development, the conceptual framework does not explicitly incorporate a theory which addresses network dynamics over time.This is mainly because respective theories do not clearly consider the role of funding (first selection criterion), and because our conceptualization is not supposed to relate funding to particular life-cycle phases of network development.Rather the proposition development for the two selected theories inherently considers a dynamic perspective.

Proposition development
The proposition development for the two theoretical perspectives builds on a literature review.It focused on empirical studies on (innovation) networks which explicitly address their financial resources.Following a deductive approach, we screened identified papers for information (1) on how financial resources interrelate with non-financial resources, and (2) on how the presented benefits of network activities relate to their funding sources.For each perspective, we organized the findings according to the logic described below to build up our propositions.

A resource-based view
The RBV originally emphasized the role of resources for the competitive advantage of a single firm (Wernerfelt 1984;Barney 1991).Resources are understood as 'the tangible and intangible assets a firm uses to choose and implement its strategies' (Barney 2001, 54).Extensions to this theory acknowledge that firms also access resources through inter-firm networks (Gulati 1999).These (external) resources affect firms' performance and include, for instance, partners' human resources, reputation and financial assets (Lavie 2007).
While most research considers a single firm as the unit of analysis, the RBV has also been applied to the network level (Musiolik, Markard, and Hekkert 2012;Purchase, Olaru, and Denize 2014).Network resources refer to the assets which are 'generated through the interplay of actors and their organizational resources in the network' (Musiolik, Markard, andHekkert 2012, 1042).Tangible network resources largely encompass financial assets whereas intangible network resources comprise a wide range of immaterial assets such as human, structural and relational resources (Musiolik, Markard, and Hekkert 2012), knowledge and social capital (Olaru and Purchase 2015) or reputation (Huang and Provan 2006).Previous research on (agricultural) innovation networks indicates various relationships between different resource types.Since this paper explicitly focuses on financial resources, we distinguished between (1) how financial resources affect other types of resources and (2) how financial resources are affected by other resource types to organize research findings for proposition development.
Social capital refers to trust, norms and connections (Putnam 1993), requires continuous social relations to successfully develop (Bourdieu 1986) and, as an analytical concept, it is broadly used to study agricultural innovation and networks (e.g.Cofré-Bravo, Klerkx, and Engler 2019).Social capital is understood as a category of intangible resources (Diefenbach 2006) and affects the access to both internal and external financial resources.With regard to internal financial resources, examples from agrifood networks (Hubeau et al. 2019), rural business associations (Newbery et al. 2013) and a pharmaceutical innovation network (Filieri et al. 2014) indicate that trust among members increases their willingness to contribute (financially).Similarly, social capital in networks also appears to have an effect on the access to external financial resources.A review of multi-actor co-innovation projects in agriculture and forestry reveals that many projects which receive (public) funding emerge from existing partnerships and networks and that previous cooperation experience is relevant (Fieldsend et al. 2020).Furthermore, research on a small winery cluster in Australia (Sellitto and Burgess 2005) as well as on policy-induced innovation networks and clusters in other sectors (Martin, Pahor, and Jaklič 2015;Gallié et al. 2013;Töpfer, Cantner, and Graf 2019) indicates the importance of previous cooperation experience and trust for the effectiveness and securing of (public) funding.Conversely, the lack of partnership experience can impede the access to external funding.
In addition to social capital, human resources are also critical for the access to financial resources.Turner et al. (2017) argue that the right actor configuration in an agricultural innovation project can secure on-going funding on the network level.This is because particular individuals bring relevant capabilities.For instance, network managers may play a key role in raising financial resources for network activities (Berthet and Hickey 2018).In this context, relevant human resources include, but are not limited to, knowledge and experience with regard to proposal writing (Diefenbach 2006;Fieldsend et al. 2020).Lastly, research from other sectors provides evidence that reputation and credibility improves networks' access to external financial resources (Gretzinger and Royer 2014;van Rijnsoever, Welle, and Bakker 2014).Accordingly, we derive our first proposition: Proposition P1a: Intangible network resources of LINSA, mainly social capital, human resources and reputation, can facilitate access to internal and external financial resources.
In turn, financial resources also affect the formation of intangible resources.For instance, they allow LINSA to employ a network manager, who is likely to have a substantial influence on the outcome of an innovation process (Berthet and Hickey 2018).Moreover, several studies in the context of agriculture and related sectors indicate how (publicly) funded and facilitated networks or groups strengthen existing or establish new linkages between actors (Hartwich and Negro 2010;Asai and Langer 2014) and foster the development of social capital (Sobels, Curtis, and Lockie 2001;Prager 2022).Therefore, our second proposition is the following: Proposition P1b: Financial resources can support the development of a LINSA's intangible resources.
Our first two propositions reflect a static perspective and focus on the reciprocal relationship between tangible (financial) and intangible network resources.To explain different LINSA trajectories and to address the challenge of long-term funding, a dynamic perspective is required.Resource bundles develop over time and interactions between these resources have a strong influence on network performance (Purchase, Olaru, and Denize 2014).Networks with similar resources at the beginning might follow different trajectories (Olaru and Purchase 2015), which highlights the importance of resource allocation within networks.
Financial resources are of major importance during particular stages of network development (McAdam et al. 2014;Tavassoli and Tsagdis 2014;Høegh-Guldberg et al. 2018).For instance, Høegh-Guldberg et al. ( 2018) identify financing as one critical factor in the development of innovation networks for regional tourism, being most relevant during the phases of network establishment and continued network development.Thus, financial resources enable network evolution.As illustrated by Filieri et al. (2014), who investigate a pharmaceutical innovation network, public funding provides the basis for establishing a network in which positive collaboration experience enhances trust among network members.This, in turn, increases members' willingness to contribute financially.Accordingly, financial resourcesif available at the right time and used to strengthen relevant intangible resourceshave the potential to initiate a positive feedback loop.Conversely, the reduction of financial resources may impede the maintenance of crucial intangible resources or contribute to their loss.For instance, if financial resources are only available for a limited period, as it is in the case of project funding, relevant human resourcesin the form of a knowledgeable network managermay be lost after the project ends (Lambrecht et al. 2018).This, in turn, may worsen the financial situation of a network since network managers often play an important role in raising funds (Berthet and Hickey 2018).Similarly, if financial resources are not sufficiently utilized to foster community and trust building during the project period, actor relationships and network activities are difficult to sustain afterwards, as a case of knowledge networks on sustainable dairy farming in Northern Ireland illustrates (Triste et al. 2018).Hence, we propose the following: Proposition P1c: Building and maintaining resources over time are critical for LINSA continuation.Financial resources can initiate a feedback loop towards favourable resource development.
Figure 1 illustrates our first set of propositions.
A benefits approach NPO typically rely on a mix of different funding sources (Wilsker and Young 2010).These include private contributions from individuals, corporations or foundations, government support or commercial activities (Froelich 1999).The composition of different funding sources can be understood through the lens of the benefits theory (Young 2006(Young , 2018)).The basic idea is that funding sources correspond with the nature of benefits, either private, public or mixed (Fischer, Wilsker, and Young 2011), which an organization provides.This implies that those who benefit from NPO activities or value these benefits contribute accordingly.For instance, activities related to public good provision are often linked to a high proportion of public funding and institutional philanthropy (Wilsker and Young 2010).
We apply this theory to the LINSA context in order to emphasize how funding is linked to the benefits such networks (potentially) provide.Following a classification suggested by Hermans et al. (2019), benefits of LINSA are either public or private and result either specifically from an innovation or more generally from the collaboration in networks.For the purpose of proposition development, we structured the findings from previous research along different benefit types and related them to the respective funding sources (internal or external).
Internal funding of LINSA implies that network members use their own (financial) resources to support network activities.Following benefits theory, internal funding should be particularly relevant for LINSA where members benefit (economically) from the activities and are therefore willing to contribute.Potential private benefits of innovation entail productivity increases, cost or risk reductions and the development of new products and market opportunities (Hermans et al. 2019).Examples include partnerships, which either result in the setup of a supply chain as in the case of hemp farmers in France (Berthet and Hickey 2018), or improve production methods to the benefit of growers as a co-innovation project with New Zealand apple growers and researchers suggests (Fielke et al. 2018): Since the underlying motive of lowering chemical residue in apple production was to sustain access to the European market, a producer-levy funded pipfruit industry organization had a keen interest and financially supported the programme.Apart from specific innovation benefits, collaboration per se can be advantageous for network members, e.g. in terms of improved access to knowledge and technology or increased innovation capacity (Hermans et al. 2019).The case of an innovation network in the UK agri-food sector indicates that network members consider an improved access to resources and knowledge as well as decreased transactions costs as clear benefits of their collaboration (McAdam et al. 2014).
In contrast, external funding of LINSA refers to financial support from either public or private sources beyond the network.From a benefits perspective, external funding sources are most appropriate for LINSA, whose benefits are not limited to their own members.With their focus on sustainable agriculture, learning and innovation activities of LINSA potentially contribute to the provision of public goods such as farmland biodiversity, water quality, climate stability, rural vitality or farm animal welfare (Cooper, Hart, and Baldock 2009).Accordingly, a varying proportion of benefits is assumed to be of public nature and range from environmental or social benefits of sustainability innovations to increased employment opportunities (Hermans et al. 2019).Therefore, governments on different levels support learning and innovation activities in networks with a wide range of funding instruments.For instance, the European Union (EU) introduced various programmes to foster innovation in the agri-food sector and increasingly incorporates the multi-actor approach (Verbeek, Fackelmann, and McDonagh 2019;Fieldsend et al. 2021).Apart from the public sector, different private funding sources such as philanthropic organizations or corporations that value the benefits LINSA provide may support network activities.The rising popularity of crowdfunding for sustainability-related projects in the food sector (Testa et al. 2020) suggests that the 'crowd' (a large number of individuals, who each provide relatively small amounts) could be an additional external funding source.
The benefits theory of nonprofit finance offers part of an explanation why LINSA struggle to persist.While it is difficult to accurately quantify the distribution of LINSA benefits, the following proposition emphasizes the relevance of an appropriate funding structure: Proposition P2a: In order for a LINSA to persist, its funding sources should correspond with the mix of benefits it provides.
Since innovation activities are highly uncertain, LINSA members engaged in innovation activities can hardly anticipate future benefits.Given that, at the same time, the agri-food sector is considered risk-averse (Verbeek, Fackelmann, and McDonagh 2019), internal funding might be difficult to obtain.The case of a collective innovation process in an Italian wheat supply chain provides an interesting example (Stanco et al. 2020): In the beginning, it was difficult to find farmers willing to implement a field trial due to the required investments and a lack of incentives.Farmers' participation was only achieved when public funding was provided.However, the outcome of the innovation process was not restricted to public benefits (e.g.emission reduction) but farmers also benefited directly through stabilized farm income.If the external funder, as the government in this case, considers itself as a risk-taker (Mazzucato and Semieniuk 2017), public funding can encourage private innovation activities, which might lead to transformative innovation.Thus, we formulate an additional proposition: Proposition P2b: Given the uncertainty of future private benefits of innovation processes, a LINSA is more likely to develop or to continue its innovation activities if the share of external funding exceeds the share of immediate public benefits.
Figure 2 provides a schematic representation of the two propositions based on the benefits theory.

Merging the propositions
Our conceptual ideas on LINSA funding build on the integration of the RBV and the benefits theory.Merging the two sets of propositions as illustrated in Figure 3 enhances the understanding of how financial resources, their origin and their interplay with nonfinancial resources drive LINSA (dis)continuation.The main message is that thriving LINSA require both an appropriate funding mix (corresponding with the perceived benefits at a particular time) and an anticipatory utilization of financial resources (to build and maintain relevant intangible resources).One without the other is not likely to support a promising network development in the long term.
Our framework aims to provide a rationale behind different network trajectories and to offer one explanatory approach why some LINSA fail (for financial reasons).The following two examples shortly illustrate the need to consider both the origin and utilization of financial resources.In the case of knowledge networks on sustainable dairy farming in Northern Ireland, farmers benefited directly from participating, for instance, because the application of newly acquired knowledge resulted in cost savings on their farms (Triste et al. 2018).Despite these private benefits, the network failed to sustain farmers' collaboration after the end of the project because group activities, which could have fostered community and trust building, were limited (Triste et al. 2018).Hence, the lack of intangible resources, or more specifically the lack of social capital, in this case, explains why network members were unable to acquire (internal or external) follow-up funding for their collaboration.The well-researched Landcare programme in Australia (Robins 2018) provides a contrasting example where supportive intangible resources have developed but benefit types were disregarded in the first place: Research on Landcare groups and networks has shown that public funding could stimulate community development and the generation of social capital (Sobels, Curtis, and Lockie 2001;Compton and Beeton 2012).Yet, the assumption that government funding was only necessary to 'kick-start' the formation of groups, which then quickly become independent, turned out to be unrealistic (Simpson and Clifton 2010) because a large share of benefits such as improved water quality or biodiversity are of public nature (Compton and Beeton 2012).
These two examples indicate that the combination of RBV and the benefits theory as suggested in our framework enhances the understanding of how funding relates to network development and provides useful guidance for LINSA members to reflect on possible funding strategies.Moreover, they stress the importance of well-designed funding mechanisms leading to important implications for policy makers and other external funders of LINSA.

Classifying LINSA funding instruments
Our conceptualization of LINSA funding has relevant implications for the reflection on and the design of appropriate funding instruments.To improve the applicability of our framework, we develop a classification of funding instruments for network organizations. 1  The first classification criterion relates to the funding source.As argued above, we suggest a distinction between internal and external funding to incorporate the main idea of the benefits theory.In this regard, LINSA membership is the distinctive feature 2 : Internal funding refers to financial resources provided by network members while external funding comprises financial support from either public or private sources beyond the network.Given the particular funding challenges of LINSA, we borrow from Michalowsky et al. (2017) who analyse determinants of a sustainable funding model for healthcare networks, and include an additional criterion: the purpose of funding.They argue for a distinction between funding which is linked to services provided by the network and funding which aims to support network infrastructure and personnel (Michalowsky et al. 2017).Analogously, we propose to differentiate between funding which relates to specific learning and innovation activities of a LINSA or supports its network structure (infrastructure, staff).Our second classification criterion provides a link to our propositions based on the RBV: Funding instruments, which support network structure, potentially allow to build and maintain relevant intangible resources such as human resources (Berthet and Hickey 2018).Table 2 illustrates the classification and provides examples of different funding instruments.
Internal funds are commonly less restricted than external support from governments or donors (Shon, Hamidullah, and McDougle 2019) and can therefore be used to support either network structure or specific learning and innovation activities.Membership fees are one suitable instrument to fund expenses and simultaneously increase members' commitment (Planko et al. 2017).Furthermore, in-kind contributions can play an important role in successful network development (Halkier and James 2022).Lastly, commercially oriented LINSA rely on revenues from commercialization or value chain development (Ingram et al. 2013b).Since a considerable share of benefits provided by LINSA is of public nature, external funding is regarded particularly relevant.Potential external funders comprise both public and private actors.Public research and innovation funding programmes usually provide a large share of activity-related funds in terms of project funding (Fieldsend et al. 2020).Examples include Transforum in the Netherlands (Fischer et al. 2012) or the European Innovation Partnership on Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability (EIP-AGRI), a programme that supports groups, which aim to develop, test and disseminate innovative solutions for sustainable farming and forestry (European Commission 2022).While these programmes explicitly focus on the multi-actor character of learning and innovation activities, LINSA can also draw on traditional innovation or investment grants.In addition to the public sector, private actors such as donor organizations (Fieldsend et al. 2020) or corporations are potential external funding sources for LINSA.The innovation fund for climate and water protection set up by a semi-privatized energy provider in Germany presents one example of how a for-profit organization offers financial support for sustainability-related innovation activities (Rohracher and Späth 2014;Schmidt et al. 2019).Ultimately, for consumer-oriented LINSA (Moschitz et al. 2015), crowdfunding and similar approaches provide an opportunity to obtain funding from a large number of individual supporters (Testa et al. 2020;Behrendt et al. 2022).
External support of network structures can include funding instruments with an explicit focus on the setup of new network structures as shown by the Norwegian Innovation Clusters programme (Larsen, Nesse, and Rubach 2018).Yet, even the policy instrument of facilitated networks is often project-based (Beers and Geerling-Eiff 2014) and only provides support for a limited period.As an alternative to the project format, external funders can establish and fund a Network Administrative Organization (NAO) at a public entity or nonprofit, which coordinates and sustains the network centrally (Provan and Kenis 2007).
Previous research indicates that networks usually rely on a combination of different funding sources and instruments and that this funding mix develops over time (Klerkx, Aarts, and Leeuwis 2010;Burkart, Helmle, and Hoffmann 2013;Ingram et al. 2013b;Berthet and Hickey 2018).Furthermore, as suggested by a study on an innovation network in the UK agri-food sector, both the perceived benefits and the needs for (financial) support evolve over time (McAdam et al. 2014).A dynamic perspective helps to assess whether available funding instruments are adequate to enable LINSA continuation.Following our propositions, the appropriateness of funding instruments depends on both the resource endowment and the (perception of) benefits at a particular time.

How to fund LINSA: implications and concluding remarks
The conceptual analysis and classification of funding instruments harnessed in this paper emphasize that the establishment and the continuation of LINSA require both an appropriate funding mix (corresponding with the mix of benefits provided) and an anticipatory utilization of financial resources (to build and maintain relevant intangible resources).The perception of benefits and the need for financial resources, either to support the network structure or to fund specific activities, evolve during LINSA development.As LINSAper definitionfocus on sustainability aspects, they depend, at least at some point, on external funding.The availability of appropriate funding instruments that incorporate these findings is crucial.
Our framework and the classification of funding instruments provide a novel conceptual link between the literature on (agricultural) innovation networks, strategic management and nonprofit finance.The lessons learnt from the reflection on LINSA funding can contribute to an efficient use of financial resources in accelerating adaptation, diffusion and upscaling of innovations towards more sustainable agri-food or other industries.Although our conceptual work will not result in a practical how-to guide for network members and managers or funders, the presented framework for network funding can guide the reflection on and the assessment of appropriate funding strategies and instruments for LINSA.
Network members and managers can consider our conceptual framework when they develop a strategy for the acquisition and use of financial resources.The basic idea of benefits theory (P2a) encourages LINSA members to reflect on the type of benefits their activities generate.The quantification of the distribution of benefits is challenging because outcomes of collaborative innovation processes are generally difficult to assess (Hermans, Klerkx, and Roep 2015).However, the identification and discussion of the various benefits among network members can provide the basis for strategic decisions on internal funding or useful justifications for grant applications.Acknowledging the importance of intangible resources such as knowledge, experience, reputation and credibility in obtaining funding (P1a) can help to decide on an adequate utilization of financial resources to build such resources (P1b).The appropriate funding mix may develop over time, as it not only depends on the related benefits for LINSA members or the public, but also on the stage of network development and the specific network activities required.Given that most external funding is still project-based and is rather short-term, LINSA are well-advised to reflect on and plan their future funding opportunities well before their current funding ends (Høegh-Guldberg et al. 2018).
Policy makers and philanthropic organizations can draw on our conceptual work when concerned with the design of funding instruments for LINSA.They can acknowledge the diversity of LINSA and offer funding instruments which correspond with both LINSA's needs at a particular stage within network development on the one hand and on the nature of the benefits that they (potentially) provide on the other hand.If LINSA largely contribute to the provision of public goods, long-term support of network structures in combination with regular benefits reviews can increase predictability of funding.This would assure relevant resources (P1c), such as a skilled network manager, to maintain connectedness, enable social learning and deal with the acquisition of additional funds.In contrast, LINSA where members benefit considerably from membership, funding and maintaining network structure is regarded the responsibility of those members.In this case, public or philanthropic funders' best focus on supporting specific learning and innovation activities related to the provision of public goods or acting as risk takers in early innovation stages (P2b).External funders can more explicitly address the importance of intangible resources in LINSA by specifically taking the benefits of new relationships and networks into account.Public support is often granted to existing networks and partnerships, e.g. because it is considered to be more effective than supporting ad-hoc groups (Sellitto and Burgess 2005).This can lead to the exclusion of actors, who are not yet allied to relevant networks (Fieldsend et al. 2020), and might miss innovation and learning opportunities favoured by new constellations of actors and knowledge.Instead, funding instruments should acknowledge and support the time-consuming process of community and trust building in order to target specifically the development of social capital such as trust, common norms and connectedness (Prager 2022).Network activities might otherwise be difficult to sustain over time although individual members could have benefited from it (Triste et al. 2018).
In summary, a diversity of funding instruments to support either LINSA activities or structures is required, which consider both the distribution of benefits and the (resource) needs emerging during LINSA development.Policy makers can benefit from our conceptual work as it raises awareness and triggers critical reflection about the particular role of the public sector as risk-taker in transformation processes (Mazzucato and Semieniuk 2017).
This paper is a first attempt to conceptualize funding for network organizations using the example of LINSA.It will serve as starting point for further research to provide empirical evidence to test, specify and back up this framework.For instance, while the reviewed literature on resource interactions in networks mainly indicates the importance of social capital and human resources for the access to financial resources, an exploratory, inductive approach could reveal gaps and refine the framework.This would require an in-depth analysis of how LINSA, their financial resources and benefits develop over time.Furthermore, a differentiation among different types of LINSA members and the varying benefits they derive from membership could reveal further insights into internal funding mechanisms.Notes 1.While the focus of our paper is on LINSA funding, the classification criteria are rather generic and also apply to other network types.2. We acknowledge that the distinction whether an actor is internal or external to a LINSA is not necessarily straightforward and depends, among others, on the degree of formalization of LINSA structure and membership.However, we decided to draw on this differentiation because it best reflects the main idea of the benefits theory.Moreover, we assume that it will be helpful for LINSA practitioners for reflection and strategic decision making.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.Interrelations between financial and intangible resources.

Figure 2 .
Figure 2. Benefits theory of nonprofit finance.

Figure 3 .
Figure 3. Merging the resource-based view and benefits theory.

Table 2 .
Classification of LINSA funding instruments.
Gerlinde Behrendt is a research associate at the unit 'Policy and Markets in the Agro-Food Sector' at Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development.She completed her undergraduate studies in Business Administration and holds a MSc in Agricultural Economics from Humboldt University of Berlin, Germany.Her research interests include the role of finance in moving towards more sustainable food systems as well as alternative and cooperative economies.Dr Susanne von Münchhausen is a Senior Researcher and an agricultural economist with nearly 20 years of experience in EU and national-level research projects.Her work focuses on farm business strategies and agricultural policies in changing economic and policy environments.As a coordinator of the Horizon 2020 project LIAISON, she contributes to the enhancement of co-creation for innovation and the farmer-led development of sustainable solutions in the agri-food sector.She actively engages in a wide range of academic and practitioner networks, and in dissemination and outreach.Before working at HNEE, Susanne was a Senior Researcher at the Institute for Rural Development Research, IfLS Frankfurt, and a Senior Policy Analyst in the New Zealand Ministry for Agriculture.Dr Anna Maria Häring is an agricultural economist, head of the unit 'Policy and Markets in the Agro-Food Sector' at Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development (HNEE) and the 'Innovation Forum Organic Farming Brandenburg'.Her work focuses on innovation policy and co-creation in the food and farming sector, supply-chain development and cooperation and coordination in rural-urban value-nets.She holds a Doctorate in Agricultural Economics from Hohenheim University, Germany and MSc in Agronomy from Ohio State University, USA.Before working at HNEE, Anna has worked as a senior researcher at Hohenheim University, and as visiting researcher at IFPRI and CIAT.Since 2014, Anna is a board member of the German Agricultural Research Alliance.