This section examines the aspects regarding to the establishment of cooperation, when the decision was indeed to cooperate. First, the reasons motivating the involvement and participation in cooperation initiatives are analysed. Second, an analysis of results regarding when was the initiative started and who has taken initiative to establish cooperation will be provided. Then, the perception of respondents with regard to the existence of any support facilitating cooperation or
any difficulties will be presented and analysed. The results are presented firstly in respect of horizontal cooperation (cooperation in the same industry), and secondly, in respect of diagonal cooperation (cooperation with a businesses from the other industry).
5.4.1. Reasons for participating in the most successful cooperation
Respondents were asked to indicate the reasons for having participated in the horizontal and diagonal cooperation initiatives they considered to be the most successful. Their responses were coded into three types of answer (Table 5.18).
The most frequently cited reasons were related to the enhancement of promotion and image (41.5% in total), followed by reasons related to the enhancement of the financial situation (38.7% in total). However, the results of a Chi-Square Test for Independence show that there were statistically significant differences (p=0.000) with a medium effect size (Cramer’s V=0.356) between tourism and wine respondents in their reasons for participating in horizontal cooperation initiatives.
The null hypothesis (that were no significant differences) was therefore rejected and the alternative hypothesis (there were significant differences) was accepted.) The difference is because the tourism respondents were more likely to participate in order to enhance promotion and image whereas wine respondents were more likely to cooperate for reasons related to the enhancement of their financial situation.
Table 5.18: Reasons for participating in the most successful horizontal cooperation
Tourism Wine Total
n % n % n %
Enhancing promotion and image 40 59.7 19 25.3 59 41.5 Enhancing financial situation 16 23.9 39 52.0 54 38.7 Complementing and offering more and/or
diversified products/services 11 16.4 17 22.7 28 19.7
Total 67 100.0 75 100.0 142 100.0
Chi-Square results χ2= 17.985 d.f.=2 p=0.000 Cramer’s V=0.356 n – sample; χ2 – Chi-square value; d.f. – degrees of freedom; p – probability value
The respondents’ reasons for participating in successful diagonal cooperation are presented in Table 5.19 and show that the most frequently indicated type of answer of the total respondents was ‘Enhancing promotion and image’ (65.7%).
Statistically significant differences were found (p=0.000) with a medium effect size (Cramer’s V= 0.449) and therefore the null hypothesis null hypothesis (that were no significant differences) was rejected and the alternative hypothesis (there were significant differences) was accepted. These differences between the answers of wine and tourism respondents because wine respondents were more likely to participate in the cooperation for reasons related to enhancing their promotion and image (78.3%), than tourism respondents. In turn, the answers given by tourism respondents were equally distributed in relation to two main reasons: the enhancement of their financial position (36.7%) and the promotion of an image (35%).
Table 5.19: Reasons for participating in the most successful diagonal cooperation
Tourism Wine Total
n % n % n %
Enhancing promotion and image 21 35.0 47 78.3 68 56.7 Enhancing financial situation 22 36.7 10 16.7 32 26.7 Complementing and offering more and/or
diversified products/services 17 28.3 3 5.0 20 16.7
Total 60 100.0 60 100.0 120 100.0
Chi-Square results χ2= 24.241 d.f.=2 p=0.000 Cramer’s V=0.449 n – sample; χ2 – Chi-square value; d.f. – degrees of freedom; p – probability value
These results suggest that when tourism respondents were cooperating horizontally and diagonally, they did so for similar reasons. However, this is not true for wine respondents as different reasons were indicated. When cooperating at a horizontal level, the main reasons were related to financial aspects whereas the main reasons for their cooperating at a diagonal level were related to promotion and image.
5.4.2. Who initiated the most successful cooperation
With regard to horizontal cooperation, for 46.5% of wine and tourism respondents, cooperation was the result of the initiative of both/all businesses involved.
However, wine and tourism respondents differed with regard to their perception of which business initiated the cooperation. These differences are statistically significant (p=0.000) with a medium effect size (Cramer’s V= 0.478), as shown in Table 5.20. Tourism respondents were more likely to initiate cooperation than were wine respondents. In turn, and although a small number of respondents of wine businesses indicated that cooperation was the initiated by the other business, more wine respondents were likely to indicate that cooperation was equally initiated by ‘Both/all businesses involved’. Given these results, the null hypothesis (there was no significant difference) was rejected and the alternative hypothesis (there were significant differences) was accepted.
Table 5.20: Who initiated cooperation when cooperating horizontally
Tourism Wine Total
n % n % n %
My Business 39 58.2 13 17.3 52 36.6
The other Business 13 19.4 11 14.7 24 16.9
Both/all businesses involved 15 22.4 51 68.0 66 46.5
Total 67 100.0 75 100.0 142 100.0
Chi-Square results χ2= 32.455 d.f.=2 p=0.000 Cramer’s V=0.478 n – sample; χ2 – Chi-square value; d.f. – degrees of freedom; p – probability value
Regarding the same question, but in relation to diagonal cooperation, the results presented in Table 5.21 reveal that, overall cooperation was the result of the initiative of the respondents. Indeed, 45% of wine and tourism respondents indicated that their business initiated cooperation. However, statistically significant differences (p=0.000) with a medium effect size (Cramer’s V= 0.336) were found between the distribution of the respondents. Tourism respondents were more likely to start the cooperation, whereas the more frequently indicated answer by wine respondents was ‘Both/all businesses involved’. The null hypothesis (there were no significant differences) was, therefore, rejected. In turn, the alternative hypothesis was accepted.
Table 5.21: Who initiated cooperation when cooperating diagonally
Tourism Wine Total
n % n % n %
My Business 37 61.7 17 28.3 54 45.0
The other Business 12 20 21 35.0 33 27.5
Both/all businesses involved 11 18.3 22 36.70 33 27.5
Total 60 100.0 60 100.0 120 100.0
Chi-Square results χ2= 13.529 d.f.=2 p=0.001 Cramer’s V=0.336 n – sample; χ2 – Chi-square value; d.f. – degrees of freedom; p – probability value
The findings indicate that in the context of the Douro Valley owners/managers of tourism businesses were more likely to take the initiative to start the cooperation with wine and tourism businesses, whereas in the case of owners/managers of wine businesses the horizontal and diagonal cooperation initiative was more likely to be initiated equally by both/all wine and tourism businesses involved.
5.4.3. Establishment of cooperation: existence of support
The respondents were asked to indicate if they had received any kind of support when establishing the cooperation. Support is considered in this study to be any form of help that can be a facilitator of the establishment of cooperation with other businesses. In this question, respondents were given five choices: financial support, recommendation from other owners and managers, recommendation from regional/local sectoral organisations, other (respondents were asked to indicate which, if it was the case) and none.
The results in Table 5.22 show that overall, the majority of wine and tourism respondents (85.2% in total) indicated that they did not receive any kind of support when establishing the horizontal cooperation. However, the assumption of the Chi-Square Test for Independence that ‘no more than 20% of expected counts should be less than 5’ was not met during the analysis and therefore, it was not possible to the test the null hypotheses for horizontal and diagonal cooperation.
Table 5.22: Existence of and type of support received when establishing the horizontal cooperation
Tourism Wine Total
n % n % n %
Financial support 0 0 5 6.7 5 3.5
Recommendation from other businesses 0 0 1 1.3 2 0.7
Recommendation from regional/local
sectorial organisations 0 0 2 2.7 2 1.4
Other 1 1.5 12 16.0 13 9.2
None 66 98.5 55 73.3 121 85.2
Total 67 100.0 75 100.0 142 100.0
The results in Table 5.23 revealed that the majority of respondents (88.3% in total) indicated that they did not receive any kind of support when establishing diagonal cooperation.
Table 5.23: Existence of and type of support received when establishing the diagonal cooperation
Tourism Wine Total
n % n % n %
Financial support 0 0 0 0 0 0
Recommendation from other businesses 1 1.7 2 3.3 3 2.5 Recommendation from regional/local
sectoral organisations 2 3.3 0 0 2 1.7
Other 4 6.7 5 8.3 9 7.5
None 53 88.3 53 88.3 106 88.3
Total 60 100.0 60 100.0 120 100.0
5.4.4. Establishment of cooperation: difficulties
Overall, wine and tourism respondents did not perceive the existence of difficulties when establishing the horizontal and diagonal cooperation initiatives. The results indicated that the majority of tourism (65 of 67) and of wine respondents (71 of 75) indicated that there were no difficulties when establishing the. Likewise, that the majority of tourism (58 of 60) and of wine respondents (58 of 60) indicated that there were no difficult issues when establishing the diagonal cooperation.
These results are interesting in the way they suggest that although most of the respondents did not receive any type of support, they did not perceive the lack of support as a difficulty of cooperation. A possible explanation for this might be related to the nature of cooperation, which will be analysed later in this chapter.
Further discussion will be provided in Chapter 8 in the discussion section.
5.4.5. When the cooperation initiative started
The results presented in Table 5.24 indicate that horizontal cooperation has started about 4 (round up) years ago (by the time interview took place). Transforming the this variable into a categorical variable, with 3 duration bands, gives results that demonstrate that for most of the respondents (76% in total) the horizontal cooperation started between one and five years prior to the interview, based on the groups identified for descriptive purposes. These results indicate that cooperation between the wine and tourism businesses in the Douro Valley is recent.
The Chi-Square Test for Independence was used to test the null hypothesis that there were no significant differences between wine and tourism respondents, based on the grouped data. The results indicate that there were no significant differences between wine and tourism businesses in terms of the number of years regarding when cooperation started. Thus, the null hypothesis was not rejected.
Table 5.24: When the horizontal cooperation started (years)
Tourism Wine Total
n % n % n %
<5 years 75 75.0 66 66.0 141 70.5
5-9 years 13 13.0 22 22.0 35 17.5
>10 years 12 12.0 12 12.0 24 12.0
Total 100 100.0 100 100.0 200 100.0
Chi-Square results χ2= 2.889 d.f.=2 p=0.236
Mean 3.39 (4.705) 3.89 (3.877) 3.64 (4.307)
n – sample; χ2 – Chi-square value; d.f. – degrees of freedom; p – probability value
With regard diagonal cooperation, the results presented in Table 5.25 indicate that, on average, the diagonal cooperation has started about 2 years ago (prior to the date on which the interview took place). The results of the identified groups regarding the number of years when diagonal cooperation started, also in Table 5.25, indicated that for 89% of all respondents, diagonal cooperation also started up to five years previous to the interview, indicating that diagonal cooperation in the Douro Valley is also recent.
The Chi-Square Test for Independence results indicate that there were no significant differences between wine and tourism businesses in terms of the number of years regarding when cooperation started. Thus, the null hypothesis (that there were no differences between wine and tourism businesses) was not rejected.
Table 5.25: When the diagonal cooperation started (years)
Tourism Wine Total
n % n % n %
<5 years 79 79.0 82 82.0 161 80.5
5-9 years 16 16.0 9 9.0 25 12.5
>10 years 5 5.0 9 9.0 14 7.0
Total 100 100.0 100 100.0 200 100.0
Chi-Square results χ2= 3.159 d.f.=2 p=0.206
Mean 2.25 (2.855) 2.52 (3.183) 2.39 (3.019)
n – sample; χ2 – Chi-square value; d.f. – degrees of freedom; p – probability value
5.5 IMPLEMENTATION OF COOPERATION THAT