Examining innovation in the coffee industry: an exploratory and cross-national study

Coffee is among the most traded commodities and among the most popular and widely consumed beverages worldwide (Andersen and Münchow, 2024; Lima-Solano et al., 2025). Figures from various sources (International Coffee Organisation, ICO, 2026; Statista, 2026a, 2026b) illustrate a steady increase in production and consumption since 2021. Innovation plays a crucial role in the coffee industry. For instance, and for many generations, Italy has been a world leader in coffee roasting techniques and equipment manufacturing, becoming synonymous with a coffee culture (e.g. Pascucci, 2018; Sabatini et al., 2023). Sharing a similar innovative drive, Germany has gained global prominence, adding value to coffee production through roasting and re-exporting coffee (Venus et al., 2024). These two non-coffee-growing nations, together with others such as Switzerland and the USA, are among the world’s key coffee exporters by value (Pascucci, 2018) and illustrate their innovative strength. The need to address challenges in coffee-growing environments and the increasing demand for high-quality products further underscore the importance of innovation at various stages across the coffee value chain (Lima-Solano et al., 2025).

The academic literature has conceptualised innovation in numerous forms. Kanter (1983) refers to innovation as the process by which any new and problem-solving idea is brought into use, including ideas for communication improvements, cost reduction, reorganisation or incorporation of new budgeting systems. Innovation can take the form of the acceptance, creation and operationalisation of new ideas, services, processes or products and can take place in different parts of an organisation (Kanter, 1983; Thompson, 1965). Kahn (2018) delves further into this domain, positing that innovation should be considered as a process and an outcome.

While authors have examined innovation in the coffee industry from different angles (e.g. De Massis et al., 2016; Ramírez-Gómez et al., 2022; Ramírez-Zúñiga et al., 2024), relevant themes remain underexplored. Recently, Lima-Solano et al. (2025) identified several gaps associated with coffee innovation and related research, including gaps concerning the evolution of areas of inquiry presented in publications, trends, cutting-edge themes and areas of knowledge (Lima-Solano et al., 2025). Additionally, research on innovation among coffee-producing firms operating in different geographic contexts, or cross-national, that is, in coffee-producing nations, is limited. A cross-national approach can reveal insightful differences between nations (Davidov et al., 2014). More importantly, when conducted qualitatively, cross-national research can enable a deeper understanding of experiences, attitudes, behaviour, local practices and everyday life (Gómez and Kuronen, 2011). Uncovering how coffee firm managers/owners involved in coffee production across different coffee-producing nations perceive innovation could be useful, including by learning about:

Approaches to innovation in the coffee industry from the perspective of a key industry stakeholder group at the frontline of coffee production, and

The extent to which coffee firms’ approaches vary, or are similar, across different socioeconomic, sociocultural or geographic contexts.

To address these scarcely developed areas, the present study will examine the following overarching research question (ORQ) from a cross-national perspective:

This ORQ underscores the significance of three key themes:

1. how innovation’s role in a coffee firm context is perceived,

2. how innovation could contribute to a stronger positioning of the coffee industry, and

3. what challenges prevent firms’ engagement in innovation practices.

Addressing these themes will fulfil various objectives. Firstly, aligned with the aims of exploratory research, which underscore the importance of producing new information or updating existing one (Hair et al., 2020), the study will develop new empirical insights that inform both industry practitioners and the research community. These insights will include comparisons between two groups of participants: those from leading coffee-producing nations and those from emerging producers. Secondly, by choosing a general inductive approach (Thomas, 2006), qualitative content analysis (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005), and a data structure template (Gioia et al., 2013), the resulting codes, categories, teams and aggregate dimensions will help develop a model that will conceptually inform innovation in a coffee industry context. This objective is timely and valuable because studies discussing innovation in the coffee industry often fall short of deepening conceptual understanding and rigour.

To support the antecedents of this process of conceptual development, and in line with contemporary food research (Castellani et al., 2026; Yi et al., 2022), the diffusion of innovations theory (Rogers, 1987, 2003) will serve as the theoretical backbone of the following literature review section. By doing so, a third and final objective of the present study is to evaluate the insightfulness of this theory with respect to the explored themes.

Several studies have considered the diffusion of innovations theory (DOIT) to investigate innovation across various activities. These activities include manufacturing among small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) (Mamun, 2018), the coffee industry (e.g. Eissler, 2015), service ecosystems (Vargo et al., 2020) and agriculture (Dan et al., 2019; Lavoie et al., 2021; Melaku et al., 2024; Rogers et al., 2019). In fact, the DOIT originated in the field of agriculture (García-Avilés, 2020) and is closely linked to Rogers’s (2003) integration of innovation adoption research (Kapoor and Dwivedi, 2020).

According to Rogers (1987), four predominant aspects constitute a traditional model of DOI: The innovation, communication channels, time and members of a social system. Innovation encompasses several of the aforementioned definitions (e.g. Kahn, 2018; Kanter, 1983; Thompson, 1965). While new knowledge is part of an innovation’s newness, persuasion and a decision to adopt it are also involved; in this context, Rogers (1987, 2003) points to five characteristics of innovations:

Relative advantage underscores the extent to which an innovation may be viewed as superior to the innovation it may replace, taking the form of convenience, satisfaction, social prestige or financial gain (Rogers, 1987, 2003). Compatibility refers to perceptions of consistency with various aspects that include the needs of those adopting the innovation, prior experiences, values or the need for changes resulting from the implementation of an incompatible innovation (Rogers, 1987, 2003). Complexity underscores the perceived difficulty of using or understanding an innovation, while trialability, the level of experimentation of an innovation during a limited time, and observability, the extent to which the outcomes of an innovation may be noticeable by others (Rogers, 1987, 2003). These characteristics, therefore, suggest that, provided that an innovation is less complex, observable, triable, compatible and useful, its acceptance and adoption would be more likely, while the opposite would act as a deterrent (Melaku et al., 2024)

Furthermore, communication channels connect individuals knowledgeable or experts in a particular innovation with those who are not, thereby enabling evaluation of an innovation through information from individuals or organisations, also referred to as ‘near-peers’ (Rogers, 1987). This aspect reinforces notions of the DOIT that some authors suggest are group- and individually oriented and constitute an important element, as the present research gathers views from SMEs. Indeed, according to Chan et al. (2023), the DOIT emphasises how new products or ideas spread through a specific population, and that the process between knowing and adopting a product is dependent upon one’s behaviour and decision, “indicating that adoption is a complete individual process” (p. 4757). Partly aligned with this point, the social system comprises units ranging from informal groups and individuals to complex organisations; while their functions differ, they participate in problem-solving related to common objectives (Rogers, 1987). Understanding time also emphasises both group and individuals, notably in the diffusion, innovation-decision process or “in the relative innovativeness of the individual or other relevant unit of adoptions, and in the innovation’s rate of adoption in the social system” (Rogers, 1987, p. 115).

These notions concerning the DOIT are additionally complemented by several stages depicting the innovation decision-making process (Rogers, 1995, 2003):

Knowledge, which becomes apparent through exposure to an innovation, thereby increasing understanding of how it operates among individuals or decision-makers (Rogers, 2003). Such is the case of the mining industry, where raising awareness of the significance of innovation among decision-makers, together with the application of innovative technologies, is crucial for the industry’s future (Gruenhagen and Parker, 2020). Increasing knowledge may lead to persuasion as decision-makers adopt favourable or unfavourable stances towards the innovation (Rogers, 2003). These stages are followed by a decision that takes place through engagement in activities conducive to either embracing or rejecting the innovation (Rogers, 2003). The last two stages stress individuals’ efforts to reduce the uncertainty surrounding an innovation’s outcomes (García-Avilés, 2020). If their perceptions and choice are favourable, implementation occurs (Rogers, 2003). Upon making a decision, confirmation underscores individuals’ search for reinforcement; nevertheless, previously made decisions may be reversed if the messages received about the innovation are conflicting (Rogers, 2003).

Contemporary studies have sought to operationalise the DOIT in various industrial contexts. For instance, in farming, the theory can usefully illuminate the antecedents prior to the decision to adopt an innovation, namely, understanding, developing favourable/unfavourable attitudes and forming views about the potential usefulness of innovation for their organisations (Sun et al., 2020). More specifically, a study among New Zealand dairy farmers (Kaine and Wright, 2022) ascertained the role of technology’s novelty in amplifying expectations of relative advantage. However, this novelty also heightened perceptions of the difficulty of technology integration, thereby highlighting the role of complexity (Kaine and Wright, 2022). Furthermore, the higher the perceived relative advantage, the higher the confidence that technology adoption would be successful, resulting in greater emotional engagement with potential outcomes, whether successful or unsuccessful (Kaine and Wright, 2022).

In turn, Lavoie et al.’s (2021) investigation on the potential of implementing cover crops to improve water and soil quality among USA farmers found low levels of relative advantage and compatibility, primarily due to negative perceptions of profitability and increased costs. Unsurprisingly, low levels of trialability predominated due to the perceived complexity of experimenting with these innovative practices and the absence of directly observable outcomes (Lavoie et al., 2021). In an emerging economy context, Melaku et al.’s (2024) research among Ethiopian farmers revealed “a grey area” regarding the adoption of new agricultural tools. This issue was illustrated by frustration and confusion stemming from communication gaps between the farmers and extension and development agent workers (Melaku et al., 2024). Farmers’ lack of practical knowledge and experience using agricultural innovations additionally exacerbated their negative attitudes (Melaku et al., 2024).

Despite these efforts to illuminate the DOIT among food producers, to date, such studies appear to be non-existent in the coffee industry. Also notable is the lack of studies across different coffee-producing nations that advance the understanding of DOIT. By examining coffee firm managers/owners’ experiences with innovation through the aforementioned themes and from a cross-national lens, the potential links between the analysis and the DOIT underpinnings will be evaluated. In doing so, the study will make a timely empirical and conceptual contribution to the extant innovation and DOIT literature.

From an industrial and consumer perspective, Gorgoglione et al.’s (2018) results ascertained the challenges managers face in blending innovation and tradition in coffee products, especially as consumers may perceive them in opposite ways. For instance, while consumers may rate a coffee brand highly on tradition-associated attributes, they may also rate it poorly based on innovation-related ones (Gorgoglione et al., 2018). Ramírez-Zúñiga et al. (2024) identified innovation factor variables that can affect production processes at the coffee farm gate, including digital technology adoption, waste management and identification and traceability. By implementing these variables, coffee firms can advance from a standard to a more specialised production process that enhances not only product quality but also coffee’s marketability in the eyes of consumers who adhere to sustainability principles.

Again, although numerous empirical studies such as the above investigate innovation in the coffee industry, very few examine the perspectives of coffee firm managers/owners regarding the role of innovation in their businesses’ performance, its potential to contribute to the coffee industry, or the challenges in achieving it. Even fewer studies focus on a cross-national perspective. These research gaps motivate the present research, which aims to develop deeper empirical and conceptual insights.

The characteristics of the study, which focuses on a phenomenon that has received scant attention in contemporary research, suggest the value of taking an exploratory direction. Hair et al. (2020) underscore the merit of exploratory inquiry when the data have become outdated or when knowledge of an issue is lacking. As a result, exploratory research, which often involves qualitative techniques (e.g. interviews), can produce new themes, ideas or relationships (Hair et al., 2020). These principles align with a general inductive approach for analysing qualitative data (Thomas, 2006).

To learn about the key themes under investigation, purposive sampling is also chosen. This method entails making decisions concerning the participation of subjects based on several criteria that include their specialist knowledge, experience associated with the particular focus of the study, as well as their disposition and capacity to partake in it (Jupp, 2006). Additional criteria for this research included, but were not limited to, at least one year of experience in the coffee industry, employment in this industry at the time of the research and serving in an ownership or managerial role.

Once ethics clearance was obtained for this low-risk project, in early 2024, a web search of coffee associations and individual businesses produced a list of 103 contacts at coffee firms in five nations: Bolivia, Colombia, India, Peru and Vietnam. Data from 2021 to 2023 (Statista, 2026c) indicate that Vietnam ranked second and Colombia fourth in coffee production before roasting, while both India and Peru ranked below the world’s top seven, and Bolivia’s production is much more modest. Moreover, the case of Bolivia’s coffee industry suggests its current stage of development. For instance, in 2009 / 2010, Bolivia produced approximately 16 tons and, in 2023 / 2024, it produced 20.9 tons (Statista, 2026d), much less than other coffee producers, including Peru (369,550 tons) and India (332,848 tons) (Statista, 2026c). However, demand for the nation’s specialty coffee beans is surging, driven by its distinctive terroir and commitment to sustainable coffee growing practices (Statista, 2026e). Thus, the following two groups are distinctive in this research: leading (Vietnam and Colombia) and emerging coffee-producing nations (Bolivia, India, and Peru).

The 103 firms were subsequently contacted, informed of the study’s goals and aims and asked for an opportunity to interview their owners and/or managers. This process allowed for the recruitment of 77 potential participants. Upon completing interviews during the remainder of 2024, requests were made to participants to (voluntarily) provide the contacts of other experienced and knowledgeable individuals; this snowball sampling technique (Noy, 2008) helped extend the number of participants to 131 (Table 1). The interview protocol was developed in English (India), Spanish (Bolivia, Colombia and Peru) and Vietnamese (Vietnam), adhering to principles of iterative translation to maximise functional, category and construct equivalence (e.g. Douglas and Craig, 2007).

Two sections were featured in the interview protocol, with the first seeking to learn about participants and their businesses (Table 1), while the second was composed of the following semi-structured open-ended questions (SOQs):

SOQ1: How is innovation currently illustrated in your coffee business?

SOQ2: How can innovation contribute to a stronger positioning of this nation’s coffee industry?

SOQ3: What key challenges prevent engagement in innovation practices (e.g. at an industry level)?

Posing the above questions was expected to yield new insights, deepen conceptual understanding, and help evaluate the usefulness of the DOIT in the context of innovation in the coffee industry among coffee-growing firms in various nations. This point was also meritorious, as the study sought to narrow a gap regarding the absence of cross-national research. Consequently, the crafting of these questions considered various existing contributions to the fields of innovation, innovation in the coffee industry and the DOIT, including Eissler (2015), Kahn (2018), Kaine and Wright (2022), Lavoie et al. (2021), Pascucci (2018), Ramírez-Gómez et al. (2022) and Rogers et al. (2019). To maximise data collection, participants were asked to provide extended comments and illustrations based on their experience and knowledge.

At the start of the online and face-to-face meetings, conducted by several members of the research team, the firm managers/owners were informed that completing the interview would constitute their consent to participate in the research. The interviews averaged approximately 60 min. While most (115, 87.8%) were conducted online due to the significant fragmentation of coffee farms, associated travel and logistical constraints and unavailability of some participants, opportunities arose to triangulate the data. For instance, in 16 instances, the interviews were conducted onsite in Vietnam. Additionally, company information (both in soft- and hardcopy formats) and participation in an international coffee event in Ho Chi Minh City in 2024 enabled learning about innovative tools and activities undertaken by various businesses. Although the study subscribes to notions of data appropriateness (O’Reilly and Parker, 2013), saturation was observed during the interviews, specifically after the 28th interview (Colombia and Vietnam) and the 18th interview (Bolivia, India and Peru), respectively.

In line with the chosen inductive approach, two methods were considered for the data analysis. Firstly, qualitative content analysis was used; this method enables the interpretation of text data by allowing researchers to code and identify themes and patterns through a classification process (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005). Within this method, conventional content analysis was selected as it is appropriate to describe a phenomenon and when research literature and existing theory is limited (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005).

Secondly, in line with recent studies (Izharuddin, 2025; Lacombe and Jarboui, 2023), the study embraces a data structure template, the “Gioia methodology” (Gioia et al., 2013). This method, which comprises several stages, allows a systematic presentation of the analysis (Gioia et al., 2013) and contributes to more rigour (Magnani and Gioia, 2023). In one of the stages, analytical categories are developed and assembled through first-order codes, which are “informant-centric” or stemming from participants’ data or words (Gioia et al., 2013; Magnani and Gioia, 2023). Figures 1–3, as well as many of the verbatim comments (e.g. B6, I8), illustrate how this process was completed. Moreover, the bottom section of each figure and the first column of text boxes show the first-order codes, which, through a more abstract procedure, are grouped to form second-order themes.

Furthermore, the text boxes in the middle portion of each figure present the second-order themes, and the right-hand side presents the overarching dimensions. Participants’ comments and answers to the questions are analysed to produce codes and categories that, subsequently, result in the development of second-order themes and aggregate dimensions (Magnani and Gioia, 2023). These last two critical components are developed by reducing and sorting the first-order codes to achieve a deeper level of abstraction (Magnani and Gioia, 2023). An additional stage of the Gioia Methodology involves comparing the data across the participants to develop a grounded and dynamic model, as illustrated in Figure 4. A final stage of Gioia’s Methodology comprises the presentation of the study’s results through a data-based narrative that includes participants’ quotes (Magnani and Gioia, 2023).

When appropriate, part of the data analysis (Table 2) presents comparisons between the aforementioned two groups: Colombia and Vietnam (CV) and Bolivia, India and Peru (BIP). Aligned with the Gioia methodology’s premises, the study’s results section will highlight selected participant comments. As with the data collection, several members of the research team contributed to this process. To de-identify participants, the following acronyms will be used: Bolivia: B1; Colombia: C1; India: I1; Peru: P1 and Vietnam: V1.

As documented in the above subsections, the study adheres to conventions of trustworthiness in qualitative inquiry recommended by various authors, particularly the seminal work of Guba (1981), later complemented by Shenton (2004) and others. Guba (1981) proposed four criteria that were addressed as follows:

Credibility and confirmability can be both partly addressed by triangulation, which in this study was demonstrated through several onsite visits (Vietnamese firms), gathering company data and several researchers gathering data. In addition, aligned with Shenton (2004), credibility was addressed by adopting well-established methods, and confirmability by presenting a detailed methodological description. While demonstrating transferability is almost impossible given that qualitative research findings are based on a limited number of individuals or environments (Shenton, 2004), Gioia et al. (2013) posit that transferability is possible if principles or concepts emerging from a case illustrate “obvious relevance to some other domain” (p. 10). Further, following Guba’s (1981) and Shenton’s (2004) notions, the study addressed dependability, for instance, through detailed descriptions of the operational process of data collection and a description of the research design and its execution.

Several demographic characteristics presented in Table 1 are worth noting. For instance, most firms (61.9%) have operated for at least 11 years and are small or micro-sized (54.2%). Firms’ main business activities are in exports (65.6%) and coffee growing/production (58.0%), followed by domestic retail (48.1%) and roasting (37.4%). A higher percentage of owners (54.2%) than managers (45.8%) partook in the research, and male participants were the clear majority (74.0% versus 26%). Similar to firms’ age groups, the majority (64.8%) of participants have worked in the coffee industry for over a decade.

When participants were asked to share their experiences of how innovation is currently illustrated in their coffee businesses (SOQ1), the analysis resulted in 16 main first-order codes as supporting evidence (Figure 1). When these codes are considered based on response frequencies, innovation primarily contributes to the quest for higher quality standards, primarily through adherence to government, importer or industry regulations, norms and requirements. As C1 recognised: “The market now demands that each of our processes be more environmentally friendly.” The significance of applying innovation practices and tools to embrace more sustainable production approaches, particularly traceability and increasing efficiencies and firms’ involvement in research-based or experimentation practices, follows. These findings are partly supported by contemporary research underscoring the importance of technologies to improve farming activities and production, for instance, artificial intelligence (e.g. Ben Ayed and Hanana, 2021).

As verbalised in the following compressed quotes, these terms to some extent overlap with one another, as sustainability, efficiencies or experimentation can arguably promote, have an impact, or result in higher-quality coffee products:

An additional first-order code highlighted the importance of innovation in differentiating coffee production, while adding an element of uniqueness. Developing a niche market served various purposes, adding value that helped the firm move away from mainstream practices perceived as perpetuating the dependency on global bulk coffee prices. This strategy consists of addressing the unfulfilled needs of a small share of the market using a bottom-up approach, where, starting from a few customers, the marketer gradually expands the customer base (Shani and Chalasani, 1992).

Comparing the two groups, one representing the leading (top three) coffee-producing nations (CV) with the one composed of emerging producers (BIP) revealed additional insights. While efficiency improvements applied almost equally to both groups, a larger proportion of CV participants viewed five of the remaining demonstrations of innovation more strongly than their BIP counterparts did. In turn, a higher percentage of BIP participants valued innovation as a means to differentiate their coffee products.

Queried about the role of innovation in the future positioning of their industry (SOQ2), four terms stood out among the predominant 15 (Figure 2). Among these, nearly 50% of the responses suggested the value of innovation in helping towards exploiting opportunities by developing or expanding into new markets. In addition, and similar to what numerous participants had indicated regarding their firm context (SOQ1), the impact of innovation was strongly perceived on helping their nation’s coffee industry to develop niche market products and improving coffee’s quality standards. This finding echoes earlier research highlighting the strategic importance of innovation for firms operating in niche markets (e.g. Farhana and Swietlicki, 2020; Yakovleva and Flynn, 2009).

More than one-third of respondents viewed innovation as a crucial tool to enhance the ‘predictability’ of coffee production, ensuring consistency, efficiency and standardisation in processes and outcomes with important implications for reassuring importers and end consumers. This finding extends a recent line of inquiry in the food processing domain that identifies the juxtaposition of innovation in promoting food quality and safety (Dhal and Kar, 2025). A selection of verbatim comments follows:

Comparing the CV and BIP groups to the first-order codes illustrates various differences (Table 2). Indeed, while both groups perceived the importance of innovation for developing niche markets and enhancing their industry’s brand almost equally, CV participants noted innovation for market expansion, scientific immersion and sustainable practices more markedly. In contrast, the BIP group observed the role of innovation more strongly in quality improvement and consistency.

While innovation provides numerous opportunities for both the coffee firm and the industry, participants also identified numerous challenges that prevent its further maximisation, operationalisation and implementation (SOQ3). Although a lack of resources is a usual limitation among SMEs (e.g. Deakins and Bensemann, 2019; Woschke et al., 2017), behavioural barriers were almost as constraining as resource-related ones (Figure 3). In fact, a lack of awareness and limited knowledge regarding the value-adding potential of innovation was recognised by over one-third of the participants.

Similarly, and resonating with earlier research findings (e.g. Maldonado-Guzmán et al., 2017), more than 30% observed mindset issues such as being too cautious or simply rejecting innovation. In both cases, participants commonly identified partnering industry actors, particularly coffee growers/farmers. Furthermore, external (policy mechanisms) and internal issues (inconsistent firm practices) reported by participants resonate with SMEs research in other industries (Forsman, 2021; Indrawati et al., 2020; Silva et al., 2025). Selected participant observations further complement these results:

Once again, comparisons were made between the findings and the responses of CV and BIP. Both groups appeared close to agreement on the scarcity of resources and awareness. However, in line with the previous findings presented (Table 2), differences were also noticed. The CV cohort identified the prevailing (negative) mindset, limited knowledge and inconsistent practices more frequently among industry actors, including growers and the firm itself. BIP members, however, referred to policy mechanisms as a source of constraints for their firms.

This study advances the current empirical and conceptual understanding of innovation in the coffee industry. A key contribution was narrowing an existing knowledge gap regarding innovation in the coffee industry from a cross-national perspective, thereby producing new information that transcends entrepreneurial boundaries to examine both already established and emerging coffee-producing nations. Innovative initiatives and efforts, for instance, experimenting with fermentation practices or creating new roasting techniques while improving packaging (SOQ1), are important discoveries that align with an exploratory lens (Hair et al., 2020). Similarly, learning how innovation can elevate the coffee industry’s current standing (SOQ2) underscores potentially beneficial impacts on a variety of domains. These domains include digging deeper into coffee firms’ creativity (“frontstage interest”) while maintaining production standards, building trust, adding value while expanding the industry’s scope (“backstage interest”) and, ultimately, benefiting coffee growers, a fundamental strategic and raw-material stakeholder. In identifying challenges (SOQ3), the study highlights various approaches that constrain the application of innovative practices, more than constraints arising from external factors, such as policy mechanisms, market volatility or a lack of resources.

While the data analysis revealed patterns across the three SOQs, differences among producer groups (CV versus BIP) were also observed. These findings yielded new insights that illuminate key aspects of the coffee industry that, to date, the academic research has ignored or paid limited attention to. For instance, the higher response frequencies from the CV cohort regarding aiming for higher quality standards or embracing more sustainable practices, or those of the BIP participants concerning consistency through “predictability,” are lessons that firms operating in these geographic settings could consider as part of their future strategies.

With the rise in coffee consumption (e.g. Carvalho et al., 2016) and production, along with the challenges participants voiced, the present research is timely and provides a baseline for a deeper understanding and for future research to build upon or extend. Additionally, while several knowledge gaps in the coffee industry have been acknowledged after the study’s beginning (Lima-Solano et al., 2025), the study’s analysis also helps address some of these gaps.

Various theoretical implications are highlighted. For instance, the nine dimensions that emerged from the analysis provide a deeper conceptual meaning that can illuminate both practitioners and researchers. For instance, the “perfecting the journey” dimension (Figure 1) underlines and sheds light on the linkages between the first-order codes and the influence of innovation, in this case, emphasising the deeper immersions into product and production-based approaches. The “perfecting the outcomes” dimension suggests how innovative steps can contribute to excellence and, by extension, firm/industry competitiveness, while the “extending the outcomes” dimension underscores the value of further strengthening those steps to maintain consistency. Similarly, the “inspiring excellence” dimension (Figure 2) underscores the significance of innovation practices as a vehicle to stimulate “frontstage” interest in coffee, while, likewise, the “intensifying the appeal” dimension depicts the role of stimulating “backstage” interest.

Conversely, the “grassroots advocate” dimension encourages reflecting on the coffee industry’s most valuable and yet often most vulnerable stakeholder, the growers. Regarding challenges innovating (Figure 3), the “frame of mind factors” dimension cautions about fundamental limitations within firms and their managers/owners, particularly in terms of attitudinal and behavioural characteristics, habits, work ethic and philosophy, which result in fragmentation, inconsistency and other potential impediments. Additional challenges that seem unmanageable, particularly policy mechanisms and market volatility, or the threat of coffee operations’ generational renewal, particularly farming staff, can be understood by the “outer environment” and “structural factors” dimensions. Overall, despite the abstract nature of the conceptualisation of these dimensions, they lend guidance for understanding innovation in the coffee industry settings from both firm and industry perspectives.

The value of these dimensions is further strengthened in the proposed model (Figure 4). This conceptual outcome identifies multiple juxtapositions between the dimensions emanating through the analysis of SOQ1 and SOQ2, the four aspects predicated in the traditional model of DOI, and those more strongly associated with the DOIT (e.g. Rogers, 1987, 2003). For instance, the “perfecting the journey” dimension strongly relates to the traditional DOI, including communication channels, time or members of a social system. Moreover, first-order codes such as aiming for higher quality, increasing efficiency, absorbing new knowledge or upgrading infrastructure, underpin various impacts beyond innovation to also include members of a social system or in terms of communication channels and time.

A similar argument can be made of the stages of the innovation-decision process (DOIT), where embracing more sustainable approaches or the potential to achieve cost savings through innovation can lead to persuasion, implementation or decision-making. Relationships between the “perfecting the journey” dimension and the DOIT are also reflected between the first-order codes, including developing new coffee-roasting techniques and the characteristics of innovation, particularly relative advantage or observability after trialling the techniques. The evidence that links the “perfecting the journey” dimension, the DOI and the DOIT also applies to the other dimensions and demonstrates how the study contributes to extending the DOIT framework to deepen conceptual understanding of innovation in the coffee industry.

Furthermore, while the composition of the perceived challenges (SOQ3) limited the emergence of multiple alignments among the dimensions, the aspects of the DOI and the stages and characteristics of innovation (DOIT), some are nevertheless noteworthy. For example, there are links between the “frame of mind factors” dimension, the DOI and DOIT. Indeed, the prevailing mindset, lack of unity or low firm/industry commitment can affect members of a social system (aspects of the DOI) or have impacts on persuasion, decision or implementation (stages of innovation-decision process, DOIT.

The study underscores various practical implications. First, “perfecting” the journey of coffee product development and production approaches, along with “perfecting the outcomes,” requires coffee firms to apply innovation to continually improve and remain in a state of constant development, vying for excellence and positioning their firms and industry more highly on the global stage. Innovation can also serve as a complementary instrument (“extending the outcomes”) through networking and educational steps and processes, both internally (firm staff) and externally (importers/consumers). This extension of firms’ innovation journey can improve competitiveness while also addressing increasing consumer demands (e.g. Lima-Solano et al., 2025).

A key implication here concerns the growing complexity for those firms seeking to overcome the challenges of selling bulk coffee while entering new value-adding territory. As Figures 1 and 2 illustrate, this journey requires experimenting, promotion and design, to name a few value-adding activities, and requires time, financial and emotional investments, partnering with new bodies and organisations along the supply chain. Moreover, while many downstream initiatives can help maximise innovation’s potential through stimulating frontstage and backstage interest, equally important for the firms is not to overlook the significance of upstream actors. The role of “grassroots advocate,” therefore, should be revisited regularly to examine, support, and strengthen the role and contribution of coffee growers who represent the very foundation of the coffee industry. These notions also strongly underscore implications for government, industry associations, and consumers vis-à-vis perceived challenges (Figure 3). For instance, recognising coffee producers’ efforts embracing innovative approaches, including through policy or resource support (government/industry) or preparedness to pay higher coffee prices (consumers/importers), can stimulate further innovation, with reciprocal benefits for supply chain actors.

At its outset, the present study had three precise aims. Firstly, it sought to address extant research gaps, particularly the lack of cross-national research focusing on innovation in the coffee industry. Additional gaps (e.g. Lima-Solano et al., 2025) have been identified concerning the evolutionary state of various themes related to the coffee industry, including cutting-edge and knowledge domains. By investigating three key areas of concern from the perspective of 131 coffee firm managers/owners operating in five coffee-producing nations, as well as differences between selected coffee producer groups (CV versus BIP), the study addressed and narrowed some of these gaps.

Based on the participants’ viewpoints, innovation plays various roles in their firms, including deeper immersion in product and production-based approaches. Innovation can contribute to positioning the nations’ coffee industry primarily by stimulating “frontstage” (e.g. developing “niche markets”) and “backstage” interest (e.g., building trust/awareness). However, these strengths are primarily challenged by the actors’ approach to innovation (e.g. behavioural, attitudinal), external influences and the lack of essential means. Several differences were revealed when comparing the CV and BIP cohorts, further underscoring the value of a cross-national perspective for examining innovation in the coffee industry.

Secondly, the study endeavoured to develop conceptual understanding to add rigour while helping explain this phenomenon. Third, drawing on the DOIT foundations, it sought to evaluate their merit in the context of the examined themes. Aligned with methodological conventions (e.g. Gioia et al., 2013; Hsieh and Shannon, 2005; Thomas, 2006), the development of conceptual dimensions led to proposing a model (Figure 4) that provides both practical and conceptual guidance for understanding the linkages between the studied themes, the key dimensions revealed and the DOIT.

Despite narrowing extant research gaps while presenting new empirical and conceptual insights, this study, like every study (Ross and Bibler Zaidi, 2019), has limitations that provide future research opportunities. For instance, while the study features participants from various coffee-producing nations, the experiences from additional countries were not gathered, including the world’s largest producer, Brazil, and producers from Central America, Africa and Asia (Indonesia), which could have enriched the study’s findings. Future examinations could consider addressing this gap. Additionally, the study interviewed coffee business managers/owners; thus, opportunities arise to study innovation from different industry stakeholders’ viewpoints, including suppliers or consumers.

Furthermore, the study was conducted in 2024, with no follow-up, previous data collection or pilot study stages. Future research could adopt a longitudinal approach to identify potential changes in innovative approaches, including industry actors’ mindsets, awareness, knowledge, preparation or preparedness to invest. Given the numerous comments related to the lack of support from government and industry association representatives, the voices of these groups could also be considered in future research. Finally, while the study developed various dimensions and a model following an inductive approach, they apply to this study’s content; thus, they could be evaluated or their usefulness confirmed in future studies.

Abel Duarte Alonso: Conception, design, analysis, interpretation, drafting and critical revision of the manuscript.; Oanh Thi Kim Vu: Conception, design, drafting, and critical revision of the manuscript; Brendali Carrillo: Data collection, analysis, interpretation and critical revision of the manuscript; Santiago Velasquez: Data collection, analysis, interpretation and critical revision of the manuscript; María Alejandra Buitrago Solis: Conception, analysis, interpretation and critical revision of the manuscript; Naresh P. Nayak: Conception, data collection and critical revision of the manuscript; Chuyen Nguyen: Conception, design and critical revision of the manuscript; Luong Ngoc Tran: Data collection, analysis and critical revision of the manuscript; Britney Esther Gonzalez Alandia: Data collection, drafting and critical revision of the manuscript; Ngan Mai Nguyen: Conception, drafting and critical revision of the manuscript; Juan Pablo Cáceres Gutierrez: Data collection, drafting and critical revision of the manuscript.