ANTECEDENTS OF STANDARDS COMPLIANCE FOR THE

ANTECEDENTS OF STANDARDS COMPLIANCE FOR THE

INTERNATIONALISATION OF KENYAN HORTICULTURE

BY

GAETAN KABANO

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY – AFRICA

FALL 2017



BY

GAETAN KABANO


FALL 2017



BY

GAETAN KABANO

A Dissertation Report Submitted to the Chandaria School of

Business in partial fulfilment of the Requirement of the award of the

Degree of Doctorate in Business Administration (DBA)


FALL 2017

i

STUDENT’S DECLARATION

I, the undersigned, declare that this is my original work and has not been submitted to any other

institution, or university other than the United States International University-Africa in Nairobi

for academic credit.

Signed:____________________________________ Date:________________________

Gaetan Kabano (ID 644031)

This dissertation has been presented for examination with our approval as the appointed

supervisors.

Signed: ____________________________________ Date: ________________________

Prof. Peter Lewa

Signed: ____________________________________ Date: ________________________

Prof. Paul Katuse

Signed: ____________________________________ Date: ________________________

Dean, School of business

Signed: ____________________________________ Date: ________________________

Deputy Vice Chancellor, Academic affairs

ii

COPYRIGHT

All rights reserved. No part of this dissertation report may be photocopied, recorded or otherwise

reproduced, stored in retrieval system or transmitted in any electronic or mechanical means

without prior permission of USIU-A or the author.

Gaetan Kabano © 2017.

iii

ABSTRACT

The objective of this study was to investigate the antecedents of standards compliance for the

internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture. This was achieved by answering to specific

objectives related to the influence of exporters’ awareness of standards compliance and

exporters’ competences; input use, technology use, and infrastructure on the internationalisation

of Kenyan horticulture with the moderating role of regulatory framework. This study was mainly

anchored on the Competitive Advantage of Nation’s model and was guided by a positivism

research philosophy. A descriptive and explanatory research design was applied by utilising

qualitative and quantitative approaches.

The population of the study was made of 161 ordinary members of the Fresh Produce Exporters

Association of Kenya (FPEAK) who were registered by March 2017.The sample population was

115 units guided by Yamane’s (1967) formula. A stratified random sampling was used to pick

the sample units and a semi-structured questionnaire, an interview guide and a focus group guide

were used to collect data. The pilot study was conducted to test the reliability and validity of the

data collection tools. The quantitative data was entered in statistical package for social sciences

(SPSS) for analysis and the statistics generated were descriptive and inferential statistics. The

descriptive statistics included percentages and frequencies while the inferential statistics included

Pearson Correlation and linear regression model. Qualitative data were processed and analysed

following thematic approach.

The findings from this study showed a very weak positive and not statistically significant effect

of exporters’ awareness of standards compliance on the internationalisation of Kenyan

horticulture. They also indicated a very weak positive and not statistically significant effect of

exporters ‘competences on the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture. Besides, the results

revealed a moderate positive effect and statistically significant of input use on the

internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture. The findings of the study also indicated a moderate

positive and statistically significant effect on technology use on the internationalisation of

Kenyan horticulture. In addition, the results revealed a very weak positive effect and statistically

significant of infrastructure on the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture. Finally, the study

iv

indicated that the interaction between antecedents of standards compliance and regulatory

framework was not statistically significant.

Based on the findings of this study, it was concluded that exporters’ awareness of standards

compliance and exporters’ competences had no significant influence on the internationalisation

of Kenyan horticulture. However, input use, technology use and the infrastructure had a

significant influence on the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture. Finally, the regulatory

framework played no significant moderating role between the antecedents of standards

compliance and the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture.

Considering the findings and the conclusions of this study, it is recommended to make available

and accessible to the public information related to agricultural good practices for all categories of

horticulture farming in order to comply with standards. A better coordination of the trainings and

a comprehensive training program in horticulture farming should be established at the national

level. The controlling system of certificates should be revised to avoid requesting several

certificates standing for the same purpose. A systematic risk assessment should be mandatory for

horticulture faming, and alternative methods of water management developed and disseminated.

Controlling mechanisms to ensure that subsidies to fertilisers and pesticides lead to affordability

of products and an efficient monitoring system of illegal and counterfeit products should be put

in place. Producers and exporters in horticulture should be regularly updated on the new

technologies related to use of pesticide and fertilisers, harvesting, sorting, grading and packaging

system. Areas with potential of horticulture farming not currently accessible should be opened up

by new roads and the distribution of electricity should continue with more emphasis on the

alternative sources of energy such as green energy. Horticulture farming intended to export

should be included into the proposed Special Economic Zones (SEZs) in order to benefit from

the incentives given by the government.The institutions in charge of controlling the standards

compliance in horticulture should act also as facilitators to assist producers and exporters

improve the quality of their produce. In addition, more strictness is required before issuance of

certificate of export. Further research should be carried out on the same topic of Kenyan

horticulture, focusing on the standards compliance in the local market or looking at other factors

influencing the dynamic of the international market for the Kenyan horticulture.

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This dissertation would not have been successfully completed without valuable support received

from several sources. I acknowledge with immense gratitude, the support received from my

supervisors, Prof. Peter Lewa and Prof. Paul Katuse. Your guidance, patience, and time in the

whole process are highly appreciated. To my family, relatives, and friends, please accept my

sincere gratitude for your great support and being part of my academic journey.

vi

DEDICATION

I dedicate this dissertation to my late parents Mathias and Veronica; you guided me on the path

of life and taught me the great values of Love and Humanity. To my wife Judith, my beloved

children Ange, Ariane and Christian, you are behind all my achievements in life. To you my

brothers and sisters, you have been and are always there for me. I could never thank you enough.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

STUDENT’S DECLARATION .................................................................................................... i

COPYRIGHT ................................................................................................................................ ii

ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................. iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ............................................................................................................ v

TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................... vii

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ x

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................... xiv

LIST OF ABREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ..................................................................... xv

CHAPTER ONE ........................................................................................................................... 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Background of the study .................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Statement of the problem ............................................................................................... 12

1.3 General objective............................................................................................................ 14

1.4 Specific objectives.......................................................................................................... 14

1.5. Hypotheses ..................................................................................................................... 15

1.6 Justification of the study ................................................................................................ 15

1.7 Scope of the Study.......................................................................................................... 16

1.8 Definition of Terms ........................................................................................................ 17

1.9 Chapter Summary ........................................................................................................... 19

CHAPTER TWO ........................................................................................................................ 20

2.0. LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................... 20

2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 20

2.2 Theoretical review .......................................................................................................... 20

2.3 Conceptual framework ................................................................................................... 30

2.4 Empirical review ............................................................................................................ 54

2.5 Chapter summary ........................................................................................................... 65

viii

CHAPTER THREE .................................................................................................................... 66

3.0 RESEARCH METHODS ................................................................................................ 66

3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 66

3.2 Research Philosophy ...................................................................................................... 66

3.3 Research Design ............................................................................................................. 68

3.4 Population....................................................................................................................... 69

3.5 Sampling design ............................................................................................................. 69

3.6 Data Collection methods ................................................................................................ 72

3.7 Research procedures ....................................................................................................... 76

3.8 Data Analysis Methods .................................................................................................. 83

3.9 Chapter Summary ........................................................................................................... 96

CHAPTER FOUR ....................................................................................................................... 97

4.0 RESULTS AND FINDINGS ................................................................................................ 97

4.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 97

4.2 General information ............................................................................................................ 98

4.3 Internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture ...................................................................... 115

4.4. Exporters’ awareness of standards compliance and the internationalisation of Kenyan

horticulture .............................................................................................................................. 117

4.5. Exporters’ competences and the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture ................. 130

4.6 Input use in horticulture and the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture .................. 138

4.7 Technology use in horticulture and the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture ........ 147

4.8 Infrastructure and the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture ................................... 153

4.9 Moderating role of Regulatory Framework ...................................................................... 157

4.10 Results of hypotheses testing ....................................................................................... 162

4.11 Optimal model ................................................................................................................. 164

4.12 Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................ 166

ix

CHAPTER FIVE ...................................................................................................................... 168

5.0. SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......... 168

5.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 168

5.2 Summary of the Study .................................................................................................. 168

5.3 Discussion of the results ............................................................................................... 171

5.4 Conclusions .................................................................................................................. 182

5.5. Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 187

REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 191

APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................... 204

Appendix I: Analysis of the pilot study findings .................................................................... 204

Appendix II: Cover letter to farm managers participating in survey ...................................... 206

Appendix III: Statement of consent ........................................................................................ 207

Appendix IV: Final questionnaire ........................................................................................... 208

Appendix V: Interview and focus group guide for producers and exporters in horticulture. . 213

Appendix VI: Research authorisation ..................................................................................... 214

x

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: Operationalisation of the model...................................................................... 33

Table 3.1: Distribution of population.............................................................................. 69

Table 3.2: Sample size distribution of producers/exporters in horticulture..................... 72

Table 3.3: Total of scale items used and number of questions........................................ 75

Table 3.4: Questionnaire amendments after pilot study.................................................. 80

Table 3.5: Regression models.......................................................................................... 91

Table 3.6: Summary of statistics used............................................................................. 95

Table 4.1: Respondents by gender................................................................................... 99

Table 4.2: Respondents’ Number of Trainings Attended by Category of Horticultural

produce ............................................................................................................

102

Table 4.3: Respondent by Years of Experience and Number of Trainings in

Horticultural produce......................................................................................

103

Table 4.4: Years of Experience and Category of Horticultures Produce......................... 103

Table 4.5: Test for Normality.......................................................................................... 105

Table 4.6: Test for Linearity............................................................................................ 113

Table 4.7: Test for Homoscedasticity.............................................................................. 113

Table 4.8: Test for Multicollinearity................................................................................ 114

Table 4.9: Correlation of the antecedents of standards compliance and the

internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture....................................................

115

Table 4.10: Responses on the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture....................... 116

Table 4.11: Responses on exporters’ awareness of standards compliance ........................ 118

Table 4.12: Cross tabulation of level of exporters’ awareness of standards compliance

and category of horticultural produce..............................................................

120

Table 4.13: Cross tabulation of level of exporters’ awareness on the changing attitudes

of overseas’ consumers on the quality of fresh produce and category of

horticultural produce.......................................................................................

121

Table 4.14: Cross tabulation on the attitudes of respondents on KEPHIS’s performance

xi

by category of horticultural produces.............................................................. 122

Table 4.15: Cross tabulation on the attitudes of respondents on HCDA’s performance

by category of horticultural produce...............................................................

122

Table 4.16: Cross tabulation on the attitudes of respondents on FPEAK’s performance

by category of horticultural produce................................................................

123

Table 4.17: Cross tabulation on the attitudes of respondents on KFC’s performance by

category of horticultural produce.....................................................................

124

Table 4.18: Cross tabulation on the attitudes of respondents on KEBS’s performance by

category of horticultural produce................................................................

125

Table 4.19: Cross tabulation on the attitudes of respondents on PCPB’s performance by

category of horticultural produce....................................................................

125

Table 4.20: Model Summary of standards compliance and the internationalisation of

Kenyan horticulture…………………………………………………….……

126

Table 4.21: ANOVA of exporters’ awareness of standards compliance on the

internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture.....................................................

127

Table 4.22: Effect of exporters’ awareness of standards compliance on the

internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture......................................................

127

Table 4.23: Responses on exporters’ competences in horticulture and the

internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture......................................................

130

Table 4.24: Cross tabulation Trainings in standards compliance and Category of


131

Table 4.25: Cross tabulation availability of institutions offering certification services by

Category of horticultural produce....................................................................

132

Table 4.26: Cross tabulation on efficiency of institutions offering certification services

by Category of horticultural produce.............................................................

133

Table 4.27: Cross tabulation on affordability of certification services by Category of


134

Table 4.28: Model Summary of exporters’ competences and the internationalisation of

Kenyan horticulture…………………………………………………..……

135

xii

Table 4.29: ANOVA of exporters ‘competences on the internationalisation of Kenyan

horticulture.......................................................................................................

135

Table 4.30: Relationship between exporters’ competences and the internationalisation of

Kenyan horticulture..........................................................................................

136

Table 4.31: Responses on the input use and internationalisation of Kenyan

horticulture.....................................................................................................

138

Table 4.32: Cross tabulation on keeping abreast with recommended fertilisers/pesticides

and category of horticultural produce .............................................................

140

Table 4.33: Cross tabulation Availability of recommended fertilisers/pesticides and

category of horticultural produce ...................................................................

141

Table 4.34: Cross tabulation affordability of recommended fertilisers/pesticides and

category of horticultural produce ...................................................................

142

Table 4.35: Cross tabulation on enforcement of legislation requiring prior approval of

fertilisers/pesticides and category of horticultural produce............................

142

Table 4.36: Model Summary of inputs use in horticulture and the internationalisation of

Kenyan horticulture…………………………………………………………..

143

Table 4.37: ANOVA of inputs use on the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture….. 144

Table 4.38: Effect of input use in horticulture on the internationalisation of Kenyan

horticulture.......................................................................................................

144

Table 4.39: Responses on technology use and internationalisation of Kenyan

horticulture.......................................................................................................

147

Table 4.40: Cross tabulation existence of laboratories to test pests and diseases and

category of horticultural produce.....................................................................

148

Table 4.41: Cross tabulation on the efficiency of laboratories to test pests and diseases


149

Table 4.42: Cross tabulation on affordability of laboratories to test pests and diseases


150

Table 4.43: Model Summary of technology use in horticulture and the

internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture…………………………….……

151

Table 4.44: ANOVA of technology use on the internationalisation of Kenyan

xiii

horticulture..................................................................................................... 151

Table 4.45: Effect of technology use in horticulture on the internationalisation of

Kenyan horticulture........................................................................................

152

Table 4.46: Responses on infrastructure and internationalisation of Kenyan

horticulture......................................................................................................

154

Table 4.47: Model Summary of infrastructure and the internationalisation of Kenyan

horticulture……………………………………...……………………………

155

Table 4.48: ANOVA of infrastructure on the internationalisation of Kenyan

horticulture......................................................................................................

155

Table 4.49: Effect of infrastructure on the internationalisation of Kenyan

horticulture.......................................................................................................

156

Table 4.50: Responses on the moderating role of Regulatory Framework......................... 158

Table 4.51: Moderating role of regulatory framework on the relationship between

antecedents of standards compliance and internationalisation of Kenyan

horticulture.........................................................................,.............................

159

Table4. 52: ANOVA of the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture and other factors 160

Table4. 53: Effect of the moderating role of regulatory framework in the relationship

between antecedents of standards compliance and internationalisation of

Kenyan horticulture.........................................................................................

161

Table4.54: Summary of hypotheses testing........................................................................ 162

Table4. 55: Model summary of input, technology and the internationalisation of Kenyan

horticulture.......................................................................................................

164

Table4. 56: ANOVA of input, technology and the internationalisation of Kenyan

horticulture.......................................................................................................

164

Table4. 57: Effect on inputs, technology on the internationalisation of Kenyan

horticulture......................................................................................................

165

xiv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1: Porter’s diamond model................................................................................... 25

Figure 2.2: Theoretical framework………………..……………………………………... 29

Figure 2.3: Conceptual framework..................................................................................... 31

Figure 4.1: Response Rate.................................................................................................. 98

Figure 4.2: Distribution of Respondents by Age............................................................... 100

Figure 4.3: Distribution of Respondents by Education level.............................................. 101

Figure 4.4: Respondents by the number of trainings attended .......................................... 101

Figure 4.5: Respondents by Category of Activities in Horticulture................................... 104

Figure 4.6: Normality test for awareness of standards compliance ................................... 106

Figure 4.7: Normality test for competences of producers/exporters.................................. 107

Figure 4.8: Normality test for inputs use in horticulture.................................................... 108

Figure 4.9: Normality test for technology use in horticulture............................................ 109

Figure 4.10: Normality test for infrastructure...................................................................... 110

Figure 4.11: Normality test for regulatory framework......................................................... 111

Figure 4.12: Normality test for the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture.................. 112

Figure 4.13: Optimal model................................................................................................. 165

xv

LIST OF ABREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ADF Africa Development Funds

ASCU Agricultural Sector Coordination Unit

EFSA European Food Safety Authority

EU European Union

FPEAK Fresh Produce Exporters Association of Kenya

GDP Gross Domestic Product

HACCP Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points

HCDA Horticulture Crops Development Authority

IDS Institute of Development Studies of the University of Nairobi.

IMF International Monetary Fund

ISO International Standards Organisation

KARI Kenya Agricultural Research Institute

KEBS Kenya Bureau of Standards

KEPHIS Kenya Plant Health inspection Service

KFC Kenya Flower Council

KNBS Kenya National Bureau of Statistics

MRL Maximum Residue Levels

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and development

PCPB Pest Control Products Board

RSA Research Solutions Africa

SDG Sustainable Development Goals

SEZ Special Economic Zones

SME Small and Medium Enterprises

SPS Sanitary and Phytosanitary

SPSS Statistical Package for Social Sciences

UNIDO United Nations Industrial Development Organisation

WTO World Trade Organisation

1

CHAPTER ONE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the study

Over the last 20 years, Kenyan horticulture exports have drastically increased, making it the

third sector after Tourism and Tea in bringing foreign currencies into Kenya (RSA, 2015).

Nevertheless, to maintain and increase the international market share in export, Kenyan

horticulture is facing serious challenges on complying with the international standards related to

food quality and food safety (WTO, 2014). This study therefore is about antecedents of standards

compliance for the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture. It goes deep into the upstream of

Kenyan horticulture farming leading to export and discusses issues related to: exporters’

awareness of standards compliance in relation to international market preferences, standard

requirements and institutions involved; exporters’ competences in terms of education, trainings

on food safety and certification of their produces; knowledge, availability and accessibility of

input use during farming such as seeds, fertilisers, pesticides and water; technology use in the

management of pests and diseases, harvesting, grading, processing and packaging; issue of

infrastructure such as energy and transport; and finally the moderating role of regulatory

framework including the surveillance system and certification of produce for export.

Globally, over the last decade, there has been a considerable increase of standards of food safety

and legal requirements for quality assurance systems and food safety controls along the entire

food chain in horticulture (Oloo, 2010). This effort aimed at achieving an appropriate level of

protection for human health, consumers’ interests, production process that promotes a safe

environment and sustainable agriculture, fair trade attributes like working conditions, in short,

fair practices in all kinds of food trade (Mahajan et al., 2014, Reardon et al., 2001). International

bodies like Codex, Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) introduced by World Trade Organization

(WTO) established standards in this regard. The growing importance of food quality and food

safety standards in international horticulture markets is influencing production and marketing

conditions of farmers worldwide. Developing countries which are export-oriented, increasingly

introduced these standards into their agricultural production systems to secure continuing access

to major markets (Edewa, 2016). To ensure food quality and food safety of fresh produce, all

2

stakeholders in the food supply chain recognize that public control is based on risk assessment

and that the primary responsibility lies with those who produce, process, and trade (Oloo,

2010).

A focus on Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) of pesticides on fresh produce, and the need to

ensure that exports do not exceed has led to an increasing emphasis on the traceability of

horticultural production (Muendo & Tschirley, 2004). Exporters want to be able to trace

production back to the specific farm from which it came in order to ensure quality, safe

production and handling procedures. The objective of food traceability is to ensure product

safety and quality by setting up a monitoring system of the supply chain of products, quality,

production processes and linking produce to each transition from farm level to consumer level

(Mahajan et al.,2014).To meet the steadily rising requirements of low-cost, year-round supply of

premium quality fruit and vegetables especially in developing countries, production of fresh

vegetables for export has grown rapidly in a number of countries around the world over the last

decade. This trade brings producers and exporters of the world together with importers and

retailers (Sharm &Alam, 2013).

In the developed countries, quality assurance influences firms' participation in export supply

chains significantly in horticulture. This is mainly important for access to the Organisation for

Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) markets which requires implementation of

international quality assurance programs (Marcus, Katinka, Matin, 2009). Among the stimulating

factors in developed countries behind export of horticultural produce, there is an increasing

consumers’ awareness about the role of fresh food in health, the opening up of markets, regional

trade agreements and direct contact between developed countries’ supermarkets and producers in

developing countries (Mubarik, 2008). This trend in the export of horticultural produce goes with

a shift of the production system in horticulture. In this respect, Sharm &Alam (2013) noted the

decline in horticultural production in many developed countries around the world, caused by the

general unavailability of low-cost labour and the increasing cost of land. As a result, production

has shifted to countries where land and labour permit cost- competitiveness, for instance Kenya.

https://www.omicsonline.org/searchresult.php?keyword=vegetables

3

Developing countries involved in horticulture have a particular concern related to the impact of

Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) standards and other related measures on their ability to access

export markets. Though horticulture exports can provide opportunities for developing countries

to benefit from trade (Aksoy&Kaynak, 1994), the ability to cope with SPS requirements in

industrialised countries is challenging for developing countries (World Bank, 2005). These

challenges are driven by the increase of consumer demand for food quality and food safety in

developed countries and by the rise of supermarkets in these areas (Muendo & Tschirley, 2004,

Reardon et al., 2001). Exporting countries must have the capacity to meet those requirements,

both in public and private sector, and undertake necessary conformity checks in order to ensure

compliance (World Bank, 2005b). The limitations in respecting international standards in

horticulture are related to information gaps, inadequate or lack of information on the expectation

of the requirements by the consumers, especially on the expected standards, inadequate trained

manpower on food safety and quality, under-developed marketing information system, lack of

knowledge flow through the supply chain, high cost of farms inputs, management of pest and

disease and poorly developed infrastructure (SAFEACC, 2015). According to Aksoy&Kaynak

(1994), the stimulating factors in horticulture exports are the pressing needs of less developed

countries to increase foreign exchange earnings against debts, reduce poverty, unemployment

and dependence on other nations, raise education standards; better market opportunities

overseas following excessive domestic production as a result of geographical location,

climatic advantages and natural resource endowments; historical and political ties between

the exporter and the export market; shorter transport distance; and unsolicited orders received

by fresh produce‐marketing firms.

In Africa, with exceptions of countries like Egypt, Kenya, Ghana and South Africa, there is lack

of horticulture development, mainly due to poor political and economic governance, general

political uncertainty combined with poor infrastructure and a lack of institutional support (FAO,

2004). In addition, scholars have indicated other factors like technology, professionalism, capital

investment, managerial skills, and physical infrastructure as key factors hindering the growth and

contribution of horticulture sector towards the country’s economic growth (Ruteri, 2009).

4

Kenyan horticulture is considered as a success story (ASCU, 2012). It is among the leading

contributors to the agricultural Gross Domestic Product (GDP) at 36 per cent and continues to

grow at the rate between 15 and 20 per cent per year (RSA, 2015). The data from the Kenya

National Bureau of Statistics showed that exports of flowers, fruits and vegetables earned Kenya

a total of Sh90.44 billion in 2015 which makes horticulture sector a major foreign exchange

earner alongside tea, remittances from Kenyans living abroad and tourism (KNBS, 2016). It

contributes enormously to food security and household incomes to a majority of Kenyan

producers who carry out one or another form of horticultural production (RSA, 2015). According

to the Horticultural Crops Directorate Authority (HCDA), the horticultural subsector employs

approximately 6 million countrywide in production, processing and marketing while another 3.5

million people benefit indirectly through trade and other related activities (HCDA, 2016).

There are at least 150 large and medium-scale flower farms in the country which contribute to 60

per cent of the cut-flower exports, and 2,500 out growers .According to Institute of Development

Studies (IDS) of University of Nairobi. Small-scale fruit and vegetable growers in the country

involved in the export trade are estimated at 4,500 (IDS, 2016). Horticulture subsector is made

up of five commodities: vegetables, flowers, fruits, nuts, medicinal and aromatic plants. Of the

total value of horticultural produce, vegetables account for 44.6 per cent, fruits 29.6 per cent,

flowers 20.3 per cent, nuts, medicinal and aromatic plants account for the rest (RSA, 2015).

Kenyan horticulture has received an attention over the past decade due to the rapid and sustained

growth of its exports to European Union. This impressive growth has undoubtedly contributed to

increased rural incomes and reduced rural poverty (Muendo & Tschirley, 2004).

Kenyan horticulture is mainly rain-fed although a number of farms, especially the ones growing

horticulture crops for export, also use irrigation (ASCU, 12). The sub-sector is characterised by a

tremendous diversity in terms of farm sizes, a variety of produce, and geographical area of

production. Farm sizes range from large scale estates with substantial investment in irrigation

and the high-level use of inputs, hired labour and skilled management to small farms, usually

under one acre (EPZ, 2005). Large-scale growers dominate commercial horticulture, while the

majority of horticultural growers (about 80%) are small-scale farmers. However, virtually all

rural households located in arable areas grow fruits and vegetables for home consumption and

5

sale (ADF, 2007). Through Fresh Produce Exports Association of Kenya (FPEAK), the

companies assist each other in both technical and marketing aspects. The flower council of

Kenya (KFC) is another member’s body that supports and lobbies particularly for flowers’

growers and exporters (EPZ, 2005).

Several reasons have promoted the growth of Kenyan horticulture. These include a high demand

for fresh produce at the international European markets, better trade terms and liberalization of

economies, need for diversification, growing health and dietary awareness linked to fresh

produce and the desire of having year-round availability of fresh produce (Justus & Yu, 2014).

Europe is the main market for fresh Kenyan horticultural produce with the main importing

countries being the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Switzerland, Belgium, Holland and

Italy. Other importing countries include Saudi Arabia and South Africa (EPZ, 2005).

To succeed in the export of horticultural produce, Storck and Hörmann (1981) insisted on the

important factors that producers and exporters have to deal with such as available resources like

competence of workforce, input, capital, technology, information, awareness and coordination.

These variables contribute to food safety and business farms in horticulture do not have any

choice rather than adopting them when they understand the benefit they get out of it. These

benefits are the better market acceptance, higher market share, more consumers inclined toward

their produce.

Awareness of the prerequisites in complying with standards in horticulture, and awareness of

requirements of consumers and linkage between growers and institutions involved in horticulture

are vital for the success of exports in horticulture (Hilda & Chistine, 2010). According to Julie

&Tim (2008), the concern of horticultural export markets is to get the products that are grown

according to buyer’s terms, specifically regarding the use of chemical input, maintenance of

sanitary, social and environmental growing conditions and the grower must be reliable over time

to ensure constant availability of given horticultural crops. United Nations Industrial

Development Organisation (UNIDO), (2012) has found that growers are not aware of the

lifestyle and consumption patterns in the export markets where consumers prefer fresh produce

to processed products. According to Sharm &Alam (2013), current trends indicate

6

that consumers are seeking greater ease and a higher proportion of fresh produce in their diets

and are looking for increased variety, freshness, and healthy options in their eating choices.

UNIDO (2012) noted a significant absence of dialogue between public and private sector. In the

same vein, Safak & Erdener (1994) indicated that lack of exposure to other cultures and

inadequate comprehension of export market channel constitutes a barrier to the exports of

fresh produce. Therefore, Marcus et al. (2009) argues that the management of processing firms

has to find appropriate strategies to deal with rising customer demand for food safety and food

quality in export supply chains.

Considering that costumer’s demands are not similar in all export markets, Marcus et al. (2009)

argued that overseas markets are differentiated and have different requirements in terms of food

quality and food safety. For instance; the markets in the rich countries belonging to the

Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) might be more demanding in

terms of food quality and food safety than the markets in other countries. This implies that the

marketing strategies should be specific to each category of the market where horticultural

produce is exported. Concerning the markets of developed countries, Safak & Erdener (1994)

found out that successful exporters maintain overseas offices through which they plan and

execute their marketing activities; they employ staff at these offices, competent to deal with

issues related to each of the marketing mix elements.

In the Kenyan horticultural sector, awareness of good practices among small producers is

insignificant (Oloo, 2010). According to Kemunto (2014), governing bodies need to create

awareness among the general public on the export documentation requirements, any special

requirement and the international standards set in regard to international exports. In addition,

entrepreneurs need to be vigilant in finding out on the current state of the international market as

well as educate themselves in what is expected of them from the global market they seek to

venture into. In most cases, Kenyan farmers are not aware of frequent changes of international

standards and regulations, which might lead to important losses. For instance, in 2015, farmers

lost more than Sh60 billion as a result of the new European Union’s (EU) stringent import

regulations which addressed chemical residue levels in Kenyan horticultural produce. In

addition, few days after the expiry of a previous agreement on October 1, 2014, Kenyan flowers

https://www.omicsonline.org/searchresult.php?keyword=consumers

7

and other fresh produce had been locked out of the European markets, to prompt the signing of

the new deal which would adversely affect Kenyan industries (Michira, 2016). Concerning the

linkage between growers and various bodies acting as enablers or regulators in the Kenyan

horticulture, the findings of Hilda & Chistine (2010) indicate that linkages between the various

actors and farmers are weak and each actor is driven by its own motives and interest, some of

which were conflicting. Furthermore, farmers do not have adequate access to agricultural

information and knowledge of production, processing and marketing. Rees et

al., (2000) observed that linkages between research, extension, civil society organisations and

farmers were weak and that often the new improved technologies did not reach their intended

beneficiaries.

Exporters’ competence to comply with standards in horticulture is another attribute that many

scholars consider to be relevant for exports. In this regard, Fischer (2004) argues that education

and training of staff are the major determinants of a firm's success in international food supply

chains. This is similar to the findings of Marcus et al. (2009), which indicate that the probability

of being exporters was very high in the farms where management considers university education

among the most important sources of employee qualifications. UNIDO (2012) noted that in the

export of fruits, low quality was the result of the inability to process and export locally produced

fruits like mangos.

According to Trienekens & Zuurbier (2008), the proliferation of standards worldwide in

horticulture has an important effect in increasing the marginal cost of certification and

accreditation. Mahajan et al., (2014) argued that the high cost incurred in procuring international

certifications is a hindrance to implementing all the global food safety measures especially for

small and even medium exporters of processed and fresh food. FAO (2005) noted that when

exporters are unable to obtain certification, they run the risk of being excluded from export

markets. In the export of Kenyan horticulture, farmers and farmer groups interested in becoming

certified to the Kenya GAP standard must apply for a certification audit by an accredited

certification body, like AfriCert for horticultural producers. There are also two other Kenya GAP

accredited certification bodies in Kenya: Bureau Veritas Kenya Limited and Société Générale de

Surveillance (SGS). Waitathu (2014c) noted that in Kenya, the trend of using nonconformity

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/JAMR-01-2013-0007

8

documents was increased because some growers did not have capabilities of complying with

international standards. Hence, the authority obliged a phytosanitary certificate for all

agricultural produce being exported even when the destination country did not require it

(Waitathu, 2014c). When intercepted shipping fresh produce suspected to have high levels of

pesticides, some exporters are banned from export activities and their export certificates

confiscated. Nevertheless, such exporters find a way of coming back into the system by setting

up new companies and continue with illegal business (Waitathu,2014a). This situation might be

justified by inadequately trained manpower on food safety and quality (SAFEACC, 2015), lack

of technical knowledge regarding pest and diseases identification and control, inadequate

technical information and skills with the extension staff and farmers who are not able to source

information (ADF, 2007).

Input use during farming of horticultural crops has a direct impact on safety and quality of the

crops (SAFEACC, 2015). However, it is still difficult for farmers to respect the established

standards. In many cases, farmers do not get required input due to high prices, poor distribution

of farm input stockists, and unavailability of farm input provided by buyers to their contracted

farmers as a result of poor quality of infrastructure. Poor quality of seeds is also another issue of

concern (ADF, 2007). On the other hand, even when the input is available, farmers lack required

skills to use them efficiently which might lead to the ban of Kenyan horticultural for exports.

According to EFSA (2014), the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) undertook an inspection

visit to Kenya in November 2013 to conduct an audit of the Kenyan horticulture industry,

following growing concern over the safety of vegetable exports from Kenya. By then, the EU

had been closely monitoring the incidence of pesticide residues in peas and French beans

imported from Kenya since 2011. These controls revealed higher residue levels in a number of

consignments, giving rise to strict EU controls on peas and beans from January 2013, with 10%

of all imports being sampled. In 2014, due to high levels of pesticides and other harmful

organisms in the produce, more than 5,000 horticultural farmers and 11 horticulture firms have

been banned from exporting fresh produce to the EU market and their licenses withdrawn

(Waitathu, 2014b). EFSA (2014) noted that the problems occurring in the Kenyan horticulture

sector would be attributed to a few rogue operators who take shortcuts and cause problems for

everyone by making it difficult to ensure traceability to specific producers.

9

Water is another valuable agricultural input and availability of water is the most relevant issue

that is facing horticultural production in almost all areas of the world (Sharm &Alam, 2013). The

provision for adequate water for irrigation is critical to increase production in horticulture

considering that less than 20% of Kenya is arable and the rest either arid or semi-arid zones

(ADF, 2007). The production in horticulture has been below optimum and flactuating mainly due

to seasonally rainfall and vagaries of weather. The quantity of water available for horticultural

activities is insufficient while the quality is continually declining (RSA, 2015). The country’s

heavy reliance on rain-fed agriculture slows the process of attaining food security and self-

sufficiency. This is exacerbated by the fact that the pace of irrigation development in the country

is very slow, with only 19% of the total potential (ADF, 2007). According to Agricultural sector

coordination unit (ASCU) 2012, the main challenges related to water in the Kenyan horticulture

remain the low level of water harvesting for irrigation, the low investment in irrigation

infrastructure as a result of high costs, the use of unsuitable and poor quality water for irrigation,

the lack of good quality water for irrigation in areas with potential for horticulture, the over-

exploitation of water resources and continued degradation of water catchment areas, among

others.

Another challenge that horticultural growers are facing to comply with international standards of

export is related to technology. According to DeMori C. (2016), more stringent grades and

standards imply changes in production practices and investments, such as reducing pesticide use

and increasing integrated pest management (IPM). Some of these investments are quite costly

and are simply unaffordable by many small growers. Reardon (2001) argues that changes in

grades and standards imply investment, which has driven many small farms out of business in

developing countries and accelerated industry concentration. In addition, horticulture crops are

often affected by the high incidence of pests and diseases, and inadequate technical knowledge

regarding pest and diseases identification and control (ADF, 2007). Farmers in most developing

countries like Kenya are limited in technology and methods of farming. As an example, in 2015,

farmers of capsicum in Central Kenya, Naivasha, Athi River, Kitengela and Isinya were put on

high alert after an outbreak of the False Codling Moth. A pesticide was yet to be identified to

deal with the threat, which had already seen capsicum produce from Uganda banned from the EU

10

market (Gitonga, 2015). The limitation in technology is also manifested in poor quality grading

and packaging which makes products less competitive in the global markets in addition to

shortening the expiry date (UNIDO, 2012). Furthermore, owing to increased consumer interest

towards the eating of fresh rather than frozen produce, another challenge for horticulture is to

improve capabilities and methods for short-term storage so that best quality is retained rather

than focusing on longer-term storage for prolonged marketing (Sharm &Alam, 2013). This

requires an efficient cooling system of horticultural produce from production to final consumer.

The Kenyan horticulture, ADF (2007) has already identified the problem of lack of cold storage

facilities.

The state of infrastructure in horticulture, including transport, electricity is also indicated by

many scholars among the factors influencing the safety and quality of horticultural produce

intend to export. Reardon (2001) specifies that the better the agro-climate and infrastructure of a

zone, the lager the agribusiness or farm, and the more tradable the product, the greater is the

exposure to the changes in markets and grades and standards. By contrast, the small poor firms

and farms in the rural hinterlands, offering non-tradable products, are least able to respond to the

new opportunities and requirements. United Nations Industrial Development Organisation

(UNIDO) (2012) pointed out that poorly developed infrastructure drastically affects exports of

Kenyan agro-products made by perishable commodities, very often, facing strict deadlines for

delivery. Furthermore, poor road infrastructure to horticulture production areas contributes to

high post-harvest losses of horticultural produce and high transport costs (ADF, 2007).

Infrastructure related to energy is another concern for the Kenyan horticulture which consumes a

high amount of energy in production, irrigation, storage lighting, plant and machinery operation,

processing, transportation and packaging. According to ASCU (2012), the main challenges

related to energy for the Kenyan horticulture are the frequent power outages leading to losses or

deterioration of quality of produce, high cost of electricity and fuel making horticultural produce

uncompetitive in the domestic, regional and international markets, and finally, inadequate energy

infrastructure installed in the production areas.

11

The regulatory framework is necessary to achieve an appropriate level of protection for human

health, consumers’ interests, including fair practices in all kinds of food trade. All the global

food safety norms like GLOBALGAP, ISO 9000 and others laid down by WTO such as Good

Manufacturing Practices (GMP), Good Hygienic Practices (GHP), Hazard Analysis Critical

Control Point (HACCP), have been developed to embody principles of safe food processing

sector globally (Mahajan et al.2014). It is for this reason that exported horticultural products

have to comply with sanitary and phytosanitary measures which are applied to protect human

and animal life from foodborne risks and from plant carried diseases. These regulations and

measures applied by governments for legitimate policy reasons. On one hand, they can improve

participation in export supply chains from developing countries to western markets (Marcus,

Katinka, Matin, 2009). However, on the other hand, they could in practice create barriers to trade

and such barriers arise when regulations differ from country to country. Therefore, exporters

have to ensure that in such situation the products they export meet the different requirements

(ITC, 2004). The standards in horticulture ensure that produce is of acceptable quality, accurately

labelled and that produce of unsatisfactory quality is kept out of the market. Standards are

applied to meet the qualitative aspects of the demand from importers inclusive of packaging,

sizes and quality, requirements of health etc. Plant quarantine check is applied to all horticultural

exports by inspectors at the airports, seaports, and extracting samples from a lot of produce.

In the European Union, the stringent and complex requirements for the horticulture compliance

framework were developed to ensure food safety, protect worker’s health and the environment.

The impact of these requirements filters all the way down the supply chain, the small-scale

horticultural producers across the developing world who seek to export to the EU, (Carey, 2008).

European retailers sell produce that is grown both in Europe and imported from third-world

countries, and have come to acquire the same Global gap standards from all their producers

regardless of their location. Carey (2008) argued that at times, there have been tensions in

developing countries where the standards have been perceived to act as a barrier to access the

European market. However, in Kenya, the horticulture sector viewed Global gap as an

opportunity to coalesce and strengthen itself.

12

Despite the existence of a regulatory framework for food safety and quality controls in the

Kenyan horticulture, ASCU (2012) stressed the poor enforcement of standards, pesticide use,

labour laws, ethical trade practices and public health among others. As a consequence of such

inefficiency, WTO (2014) reported that some horticultural produce from Kenya are of sub-

standard quality and according to the World Bank (2005), the main challenges that trends in SPS,

mainly in European Union (EU) pose to Kenya are the increasing oversight and attention in

OECD markets to phytosanitary controls, increasing use of pre-approval arrangement, presence

of pesticides in fresh produce, certificate of conformity, regulatory authorities increasingly adopt

a full supply chain perspective, increase on HACCP. During its inspection visit to Kenyan

horticulture, EFSA (2014) noted the complexity involved in meeting EU SPS and food safety

standards in Kenya and emphasised the need for effective collaboration between all stakeholders

and effective enforcement of regulatory framework for exports.

1.2 Statement of the problem

In 2014, more than 5,000 horticulture farmers and 11 horticulture firms have been banned from

exporting fresh produce to the EU market and their licenses were withdrawn due to high levels of

pesticides and other harmful organisms in their produce (Waitathu, 2014b). In addition,

according to Business Daily (2017), between April 2016 and May 2017, the horticulture exports

have been intercepted 46 times due to harmful organisms in a crackdown that makes it difficult

for Kenya to be removed from the European Union’s quality watch list. Many studies ITC

(2004), HCDA (2009), SAFEACC (2014) have revealed factors which justify why producers and

exporters are not meeting measures related to food safety and food quality which undermine

Kenyan competitiveness in horticulture exports such as lack of professionalism and inadequate

trained manpower; underdeveloped marketing information mainly in upstream; difficulties in

getting appropriate inputs used in farming including seeds, fertilisers and chemicals; insufficient

horticulture services, ineffective extension messages and poor delivery system adoption of fruit

and vegetable technology, inefficient management of pest and diseases, lack of appropriate

technology in the farming and processing stage, poor post-harvest handling, inappropriate

packaging; poorly developed infrastructure etc.

13

Despite that many studies have revealed the challenges this sector is facing to meet food safety

and food quality requirements for exports in foreign markets, Henson (2006) argues that there is

little empirical evidence on how firms in the food industry of developing countries respond to

increasing demands for food safety and food quality in export supply chains. Globally in recent

years, notable contributions were approaching the export of fresh produce phenomena with a

managerial focus at the firm level (marketing mix strategies: 5P). On the export of horticultural

produce, Aksoy & Kaynak (1994) recommended direct research on the determining factors

related to macro perspective approach such as available resources (environmental conditions,

labour, capital, technology know-how, infrastructure), external constraints (economic and

agricultural policies), important single functions (production, sorting, packaging, transportation

and export marketing) etc.

In his study on the “Challenges and Opportunities for Horticulture and Priorities for Horticultural

Research at the start of the Twenty-First century”, Warrington (2011) looked at the rapid

changes in the consumers’ attitudes in the export markets of horticultural produce and

subsequent implications on the production process and related technology. He argued that future

research should focus more on the standards compliance to help the producers of developing

countries adapt to the current dynamic. In addition, in the study “Global food safety:

determinants are Codex standards and WTO's SPS food safety regulations”, Mahajan et al.

(2014) stated that the effect of aspects behind standards compliance on the export of horticultural

produce has not been well studied and recommended more studies on this topic.

In Africa, Belwal and Chala (2008) conducted a case study on Ethiopian floriculture industry,

aiming to reveal the catalysts and barriers to cut flower export in Ethiopia. The study concluded

that the success of Ethiopia in the cut flower exports from Africa had some threats linked to

infrastructure bottlenecks appended by shortage of agricultural inputs, narrow products range,

and lack of adherence to international codes of practices. They stated that although some

research about export in horticulture farming was done, much about factors stimulating or

hindering horticulture export was not known, especially in developing countries. To fill this gap,

they recommended further research in the concerned areas so that a strong foundation can be laid

for the sectors’ growth.

14

In Kenya, Edewa (2016) carried out a doctoral research in the ability of Kenya’s Sanitary and

phytosanitary system to support safe trade in agricultural and food products. He covered five key

areas: causes and impacts of SPS related trade concerns, implementation of the SPS agreement in

Kenya, regional SPS framework, value chain upgrading for SPS compliance and integrating

smallholder producers into global value chains. Another doctoral research by Otieno (2016) on

Standards and development: Perspectives from Kenya’s horticultural Export Industry looked at

the impact of standards on the Kenyan horticultural export industry discussing aspects such as

mapping industry’s standards, investigating the impact of standards on export etc. However, both

pieces of research did not focus on the effect of the antecedents of standards compliance and the

internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture. The main focus of this study was on this under-

researched area and has attempted to fill the specified gaps, based on empirical researches and

current issues identified in the Kenyan horticulture.

1.3 General objective

The main objective of this study was to investigate the effect of antecedents of standards

compliance on the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture.

1.4 Specific objectives

This study was guided by the following specific objectives:

1.4.1. To investigate the influence of exporters’ awareness of standards compliance on the

internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture.

1.4.2. To examine the effect of exporters’ competences in standards compliance on the


1.4.3. To assess the influence of standards compliance in input use on the internationalisation of

Kenyan horticulture.

1.4.4. To analyse the effect of standards compliance in technology use on the internationalisation

of Kenyan horticulture.

1.4.5. To explore the influence of infrastructure in perspective of standards compliance on the


1.4.6. To determine the moderating role of regulatory framework between antecedents of

standards compliance and the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture.

15

1.5. Hypotheses

To achieve the objectives of this study, the following null hypotheses were formulated:

H01: Exporters’ awareness of standards compliance (ASC) has no significant influence on the

internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture (IKH).

H02: Exporters’ competences to comply with standards (CSC) have no significant influence on

the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture (IKH).

H03: Standards compliance in input use (ISC) has no significant influence on the


H04: Standards compliance in technology use (TSC) has no significant influence on the


H05: Infrastructure in perspective of standards compliance (FSC) has no significant influence on


H06: Regulatory framework (RF) plays no significant moderating role between antecedents of

standards compliance and the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture (IKH).

1.6 Justification of the study

The results of this study are valuable for exporters in Kenyan horticulture, policymakers and

scholars.

1.6.1 Exporters in the Kenyan horticulture

Exporters in the Kenya horticulture will benefit from this study by getting sufficient information

about the aspects they have to work on to meet the standards required and ultimately become

more competitive on the international markets. In addition, they will be able to benchmark their

own strategies against industry standards and to identify strengths and weaknesses with their

own practices.

16

1.6.2 Policymakers

Kenyan vision 2030 identifies challenges facing agricultural sector including productivity, land

use, markets and value addition. It has proposed key strategies to transform agricultural sector

into ‘an innovative, commercially oriented and modern agriculture’. To increase productivity and

competitiveness of the crops sub-sector mainly in horticulture, the solutions proposed include

increasing market access through value addition by processing, packaging and branding;

reforming institutions in the sector to facilitate growth; provision of widely accessible inputs and

services to farmers, fertilizer cost reduction, irrigation and seed improvement (NESC, 2007).

Furthermore, in the 2030 agenda of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), there was a

commitment to double agricultural productivity and incomes of small-scale food producers,

ensuring sustainable food production systems and progressively improve land and soil quality

maintaining genetic diversity of seeds, increasing access to land, preventing trade restriction and

distortions in world agricultural markets to limit extreme food price volatility (UNDP, 2017).

Therefore, driven by vision 2030 and SDGs, policymakers will benefit from the results of this

study by getting a better understanding of challenges that different actors are facing to comply

with international standards in horticulture. Such awareness will help them to evaluate and

improve interventions to mitigate hindrances; meet food safety and food quality in horticulture

hence boost exports in the horticultural sector.

1.6.3 Scholars

This study will help academics understand the antecedents of standards compliance, and to

which extend those factors influence the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture. Given the

lack of researches in the field of the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture, this study will be

more useful as it will help to fill such knowledge gap. In addition, it will lay a platform for

further researches such as antecedents of standards compliance for the local market, factors

influencing internationalisation of Kenya horticulture etc.

1.7 Scope of the Study

This study covered a population of 161 ordinary members of Fresh Produce Exporters

Association of Kenya distributed in the whole country and comprising of all categories in the

Kenyan horticulture namely flowers, vegetables, fruits and herbs. It only focused on the

17

standards compliance in the Kenyan horticulture for export. Therefore, the results of the study

would not necessarily be generalised to the standards compliance in horticulture for the local

markets. This study was carried out over a period of 2 years starting from 2016 to 2017.

1.8 Definition of Terms

1.8.1 Internationalisation

Internationalisation of businesses and firms began with the ability of people to travel across the

seas and borders. Scholars and academics have tried to define internationalisation on many

occasions using many different perspectives and variables. The definition which includes most of

the aspects given by different scholars is the one of Welch and Luostarinen (1988), defining

internationalisation as the process by which firms increase their involvements in international

operations.

1.8.2. Horticulture

Horticulture is the science and art of growing fruits, vegetables, flowers or ornamental plants

(Relf, 1992).

1.8.3 Global Gap

Global Gap was established in 1997 for and by European retailers with the aim of establishing

one global reference standard for Good agricultural practices (GAP), with different product

applications applicable to various agricultural sectors (Carey, 2008).GAP systems include a set

of guidelines for agricultural practices (GAPs), aiming at assuring minimum standards for

production and storage. Important topics are pest management (optimal use of pesticides),

manure handling on animal farms, maintenance of water quality, worker and field sanitation,

guidelines for post-harvest handling and transportation, among others. In the previous years,

increasing attention has been given to marginal aspects like documentation, complaint and recall

procedures, labelling etc. (Trienekens & Zuurbier, 2011).

1.8.4 Kenya Gap

Kenya Gap is a national voluntary standard for the Kenyan horticulture sector. Kenya Gap

standards were the first in Africa benchmarked to the international Global Gap standard for

fruits, vegetables and flowers. It was launched in 2007 and is a multi-stakeholder, public-private

initiative, managed by FPEAK (Carey, 2008).

18

1.8.5 Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC)

The CAC is an intergovernmental body established in 1961 with the purpose of protecting the

health of consumers and ensuring fair practices on a global level. The mandate was to develop

and implement joint food standards by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and World

Health Organization (WHO) (Mahajan et al., 2014). The CAC is a collection of internationally

adopted food standards, guidelines, codes of practice and other recommendations. It is intended

to guide, promote, the establishment of definitions and requirements for food in order to assist in

their harmonization and facilitating international trade of food (USDA, 2012).

1.8.6 ISO standards

ISO standards are international standards aiming to achieve uniformity and to prevent technical

barriers to trade throughout the world. The essence of an ISO -9000 based quality system is that

all activities and handling must be established in the procedures, which must be followed by

ensuring clear assignment of responsibilities and authorities. In 2005, the new ISO 22000

standard, specifically aiming at managing safety in the food chain was published. It is a specific

standard for food processors setting out safety management procedures. The standard applies to

organisations ranging from feed producers, primary producers, through food manufactures,

transport and storage operators and subcontractors to retail and food service outlets (Trienekens

& Zuurbier, 2011).

1.8.7 Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS agreement)

SPS measures are defined as any measure which concerns the application of food safety, animal

and plant health regulations (Mahajan et al.2014). The Agreement on the Application of Sanitary

and Phytosanitary Measures (the "SPS Agreement") entered into force with the establishment of

the World Trade Organization on 1 January 1995. Under WTO regulations, all the member

nations are required to publish their regulations. The member nations must accept SPS measures

of another country as equivalent (Engler et al., 2012).

1.8.8 Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP)

HACCP is a systemic approach to identification, evaluation and controls of those steps in food

manufacturing that are critical to product safety. Currently, HACCP principals are the basis of

most food quality and food safety assurance systems (Codex Alimentarius, EU and US food

legislation, most private standards). HACCP identifies risks in the production processes that can

lead to unsafe products, and design measurements to reduce these risks to acceptable levels.

19

HACCP aims at prevention of hazards, instead of the end of pipe inspection. It is basically

designed for application in all links of the food chain, ranging from growing, harvesting,

processing, distribution and retail to preparing food for consumption (Trienekens & Zuurbier,

2011).

1.8.9 Traceability

The concept of traceability was developed in industrial engineering and was originally seen as a

tool to ensure the quality of production. Economic literature from supply chain management

defines food traceability as that information necessary to describe the production history of a

food crop and any subsequent transformation of processes that the crop might be subject to on its

journey from the growers to the consumer’s plate (Wilson & Clarke, 1998).

1.9 Chapter Summary

This chapter has discussed the background of the study. Issues related to the antecedents of

standards compliance affecting the export of Kenyan horticultural produce were covered. The

problem statement articulated how the antecedents of standards compliance and the

internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture were under searched. The main objective, the specific

objectives and the hypotheses that guided the study were covered in this chapter. In addition, the

justification, the scope of the study and definition of terms were given. Following chapter two

concerning literature review covered the theoretical framework, the conceptual framework, and

the empirical review. The theoretical framework covering the theories underpinning this study,

and the conceptual framework covering the independent and dependent variables were discussed.

The empirical review presented the results of different researches related to variables covered by

this study.

20

CHAPTER TWO

2.0. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

This chapter of literature review presented first the key theories that form the foundation of this

study. These theories are the Mercantilism theory, the Absolute advantage and Comparative

advantage theories, and Competitive advantage of nations. It continued by presenting the

conceptual framework with a thorough elaboration of dependant, independent and moderating

variables. It finally gave the empirical review in relation to different variables of the conceptual

framework.

2.2 Theoretical review

International trade in business is the purchase, sale or exchange of goods and services across

national borders. There are many theories regarding international trade. Some of these include

Mercantilism theory, Absolute advantage theory, Comparative advantage theory, Factor

proportion theory, International product life cycle, New trade theory, and Competitive advantage

of nations (Porter’s diamond principal). This study is grounded on the Mercantilism theory, the

Absolute advantage and Comparative advantage theories, and on Porter’s Diamond principal.

2.2.1 Mercantilism

Mercantilism theory was one of the earliest efforts to develop an economic theory (Humphrey,

1999). Developed in the sixteenth century by William Petty, Thomas Mun and Antoine de

Montchretien, it stated that a country should accumulate financial wealth through exports and

discourage imports. The objective of each country was to have a trade surplus or a situation

where the value of exports is greater than the value of imports. This was accomplished through

trade surplus, government intervention and colonisation and all these factors worked together.

The trade surplus was maintained through the colonisation of under developed territories for

their raw materials. The country could colonise under-developed countries, ship their raw

materials needed for export back home and export the finished products around the world. The

government intervention occurred when they banned certain imports or imposed a tariff on these

imports (Mun, 1664). At the same time, the government would subsidise their own industries to

expand exports. Mercantilism theory remains one part of the modern thinking though it is one of

the oldest trade theories. Many countries at one stage or another have favoured or still favour

21

exports and discourage imports by domestic industries subsidies, a combination of protectionist

policies and restrictions. Mercantilism stands in contrast to the theory of free trade – which

argues that country’s economic well-being can be best improved through reduction of tariffs and

fair free trade (Humphrey, 1999).

North (1691) argued that wealth could exist independently of gold or silver. In fact, agriculture

and manufacturing industry were the true sources of wealth. He considered money as one

element of wealth, performing invaluable services in facilitating the exchange of goods. The

quantity of money in a country might be in excess or less than the requirements of the nation's

trade but this was something which would regulate itself without human interference. Domestic

trade was extraordinarily important in a world so dominated by the concern over foreign trade.

He condemned the practice of granting business privileges and concessions to one particular

group of merchants, saying that every exclusive privilege was to the public's disadvantage

(North, 1691). With mercantilism theory, rival countries would refuse to trade with a nation that

would not reciprocate; there would be stagnation of domestic industries when freed from

competition (Coke, 1675). In addition, trade might increase rather than diminish if restrictions

against imports were removed (Babton, 1690). Trade would be self-regulated and would prosper

better if freed from control (Davenant, 1699). In the same vein, Adam Smith in 1776 argued for

the benefits of free trade and criticised the inefficiency of monopoly.

Looking at the Kenyan horticulture intended for exports, this theory finds partially its application

in the efforts of the public and private sectors to increase horticultural exports by reducing taxes

on the input use in horticulture, addressing in this way the third objective of the study. In

addition, same efforts are manifested by improving technology use and infrastructure in

horticulture, hence addressing the fourth and fifth objectives of the study, and by engaging in a

high-level negotiation to remove tariff on exports in horticulture, thus addressing the sixth

objective of the study. However, the dynamic of horticulture local market does not allow

discouraging import of some horticultural produce mainly fruits which cannot be produced

locally or not produced in sufficient quantity.

22

2.2.2 The Absolute advantage and Comparative advantage theories

The absolute advantage theory was introduced by Adam Smith in 1776 while questioning

Mercantilism theory. He focussed on the country’s ability to produce goods more efficiently than

another nation and arguing that trade between nations should not be regulated or restricted by

government policy or intervention. Trade should flow freely according to market forces.

Nation’s wealth is measured on the living standards of the people and not on the money the

country has in its reserve (Smith, 1776). This theory indicates that production would become

efficient by specialisation because there would be an incentive to create faster and better

production methods. In addition, with increased efficiency, people in both countries would both

benefit and trade should be encouraged.

Smith's approach did not indicate what would happen if the same country had an absolute

advantage in both products. Ricardo took up this case in 1817 and demonstrated the principle of

comparative advantage where a country will trade in the pattern that maximizes its advantage (or

minimizes its disadvantage). It refers to the ability of a nation or person to produce a particular

good at a lower marginal cost and cost opportunity than another nation or person. Comparative

trade explains how trade can create value for both parties even when one can produce all goods

with fewer resources than the other. It is based on differences in labour productivity (Ricardo,

1817). One country might have an absolute advantage in two different types of exports but it cost

more monetarily or in labour than another country. This second country then has a comparative

advantage. It is able to produce and export this second good to the first country cheaper and more

efficiently (Ricardo, 1817).

The main criticism of absolute advantage is that it fails to explain how free trade can be

advantageous to the two trading patterns when one country, trading partner, has an absolute

advantage in producing all the goods. David Ricardo, working in the early part of the 19th

century, realized that absolute advantage was a limited case of a more general theory (Ricardo,

1817). With the exception that one country has an absolute advantage in both products, the

example to demonstrate Ricardo's insight is very similar to the example used to illustrate Smith's

insight. Both theories are one-sided since they ignore the demand and concentrates only on the

supply side. They do not say at what prices the goods will be demanded and traded. In addition,

23

they ignore the fact that international trade takes place not only on account of differences in

factor endowments, but also where the factor endowments are similar, e.g. between industrialised

countries. Furthermore, actual trade between countries may be dictated by military or strategic

consideration and not merely by absolute advantage. Hence, the absolute advantage theory does

not furnish an adequate explanation of international trade. Most of the assumptions on which

comparative advantage is based do not hold in real life.

In the Kenyan horticulture, the absolute advantage and comparative advantage theories find their

applications in the global competition of export in horticulture. In fact, Kenya has developed

ability to efficiently produce flowers, vegetables and fruits compared to many other developing

countries, consequently causing Kenya to have a bigger market share on the international market.

However, considering the coming of new players such as Ethiopia in flowers market, Kenyan

farmers are looking for diversification by investing in a specific type of flowers and targeting a

well-defined segment of the market. Those are segments that are poorly targeted or not targeted

at all. In addition, they have started developing expertise in herbs farming which have a high

demand with less competition. In such a way, they capitalise on the opportunities that lie in an

untapped segment which can open up the doors for an influx of success. Both theories address

specifically the dependent variable concerning internationalisation of the Kenyan horticulture

measured by the size of market share.

2.2.3 Competitive advantage of nations (Porter’s Diamond Principal)

In the mid of 1980s, Michael Porter developed a framework to assess the competitiveness of

regions, states and nations. He argued that successful international industries tend to be located

within particular cities and regions. Geographic concentration is vital for firms to efficiently

draw on each other’s resources and capabilities and to benefit from a shared culture and learning

experience, supply capabilities and local infrastructure. Industry clusters are geographical

concentrations of interconnected businesses, suppliers, and associated institutions in a particular

field. Clusters lead to productivity increase, higher innovation rates and faster new business

development (Porter, 1990). Porter argued that productivity is the main factor for international

competitiveness and that the standard of living of a country’s population can be improved as a

direct result of increase in that productivity. Clusters may take different forms between firms

producing different products across value-added chains or between firms producing similar

24

products at different stages of the same chain. Porter’s Diamond of competitive advantage model

of nations consists of four main attributes that shape the national environment in which local

firms compete that promote or impede the creation of competitive advantage: Factor conditions,

demand conditions, related and supporting industries, firm strategy, structure and rivalry. There

are two additional factors which can also affect the model: chance and government (Porter,

1990). These attributes are illustrated in the Figure 2.1 and address all variables of this study.

25

Figure 2.1: Porter’s diamond model

Source: Porter (1990)

2.2.3.1 Firm strategy, structure, and rivalry

The conditions in the nation governing how companies are created, organised and managed and

the nature of domestic rivalry are important. There are distinguishable patterns of goals, typical

strategies and ways of organising firms and the fit between these patterns with the needs of the

industry play an important role in attaining a competitive advantage (Porter, 1990). In the

Kenyan horticulture, these attributes address many independent variables of this study including

awareness and competences of exporters, inputs and technology use in horticulture. The large

firms in horticulture adapt easily to frequent changes in standards of food safety because they

possess sufficient financial resources and skilled employees who can easily adopt new

technologies. This is a big challenge for small-scale farmers’ who have limitations in almost

everything. Some of them struggle to enter into networks where they would benefit from needed

inputs for farming, training on agricultural good practices and access to international markets. In

addition, large firms have overseas subsidiaries which assist them in networking and selling of

their produce while small-holder farmers are struggling to get the market for their produce.

26

2.2.3.2 Factor conditions

These are human resources, physical resources, knowledge resources, capital resources and

infrastructure. These factors are split into two: basic vs. advanced factors and generalised vs.

specialised factors (Porter, 1990). They are comprised of natural resources (nation’s land, water,

mineral hydroelectric power source), climate, location, labour, skilled employees, debt capital,

technological, infrastructure, and university research institutes. In Kenyan horticulture, factor

conditions address all independent variables including awareness and competences of exporters

and other stakeholders in the sector. They include as well the input and technology use in

horticulture such as water and fertile soil favourable for horticulture prosperity. There is also the

know-how in horticulture and good supportive services like laboratories provided by KEPHIS,

KARI, and DVS. Other factor conditions might refer to the variable of infrastructure such as

roads and electricity which are being worked on to reduce their negative impact on horticulture.

2.2.3.3 Demand conditions

Demand conditions are related to home demand. Due to its proximity, home demand is much

more important for the comparative advantage compared to foreign demand. Moreover, quality,

size and pattern of growth also reinforce the competitive advantage of nations. Three broad

attributes of demand conditions are significant: nature of buyer needs, size and pattern of growth

of the home demand, and internationalisation of domestic demand (Porter, 1990). In the Kenyan

horticulture, farmers concerned by exports do not produce for local market. They do not care

about the local market due to lower prices that would be given to their produce and they are

ready to deal with the strictness of standards compliance which does not necessarily apply to

home demand of horticultural produce. However, if there was enforcement of standards

compliance in horticulture at the local market, this would have a positive impact of complying

with standards in the export of horticultural produce. Thus, the demand conditions would refer to

the moderating role of the regulatory framework on the aspect of surveillance of standards

compliance for the home demand which is not covered by this study.

2.2.3.4 Related and supporting industries

If there are industries sharing the same technology, inputs, distribution channels, skills,

customers, or providing complementary products, these particular industries have the more

competitive advantage. The presence or absence in the nation of internationally competitive

supplier and related industries is a key factor. In Kenya, some firms exporting horticultural

27

produce are working in the Export Processing Zones. This status offers a conducive environment

by providing quality infrastructure at a moderate price, thus contributing to the better

performance among the concerned firms. There are however exporters who face difficulties in

getting loan facilities to buy inputs like pesticides and fertilisers. Furthermore, the cost of air

transport of horticultural produce from Kenya to overseas is considered by many exporters as

very exorbitant. In the Kenyan horticulture for export, this attribute addresses the variable of

inputs use and infrastructure.

Porter stated two additional variables that indirectly influence the diamond:

2.2.3.5 Chance events

The chance in Porter’s diamond refers to disruptive development outside the control of firms and

government. It allows new players to exploit an opportunity arising from a reshaped industry

structure. For example, radical innovations, unexpected oil price rises, revolutions, wars, etc. In

the export of Kenyan horticulture, the role of mobile phones in improving the business of

Kenyan export-orientated small-scale farmers of fruits and vegetables is a good example. In fact,

to improve their horticulture farming, some farmers have started using mobile data in different

types of exchange such as payment, production, marketing, knowledge transfer, and their

competitiveness and integration in international value chains, (Dannenberg, 2013). This attribute

addresses the variables of technology use, awareness and competences of exporters.

2.2.3.6 Government

Government is a pusher and a challenger. Its effects on factor creation are listed to be via

improving education and training, science and technology, infrastructure, information and direct

subsidies. Moreover, the government intervenes in the market to promote the international

competitiveness of industries in the nation. Government choice of policies can influence each of

the four determinants. Successful government policies work in those industries where underlying

determinants of national advantage are present and reinforced by government actions.

Government officials can use the model for guidance on how best to build a supporting policy

framework for a given industry.

In this regard, NESC (2007) stresses in vision 2030, the commitment of Kenyan government to

increase the share of Kenyan horticultural produce in the regional and international markets.

28

Therefore, the Kenyan government contributes to bilateral and multilateral discussions to

maintain or increase existing markets in horticulture. In addition, it establishes a regulatory

framework to ensure that international standards related to export in horticulture are respected. In

the same vein, more initiatives are undertaken such as reducing taxes on some inputs to ensure

their accessibility, investing more in the infrastructure to reduce cost of energy and ensure safe

transport of horticultural produce. These attributes address almost all the variables of this study,

especially the regulatory framework, the input use, the technology use and the infrastructure.

All conditions need to be present and favourable for an industry/company within a country to

attain global supremacy (Porter, 1990). Therefore the model is useful in determining a country’s

competitive advantage. However, it has some criticism in the literature. Some scholars like

Rugman and Verbeke (1993) state that Porter’s case studies lack a homogenous analytical tool to

determine the importance and precise impact of each determinant on the industries’ competitive

position. It is therefore difficult to operationalise the model and put it into practice. Each

determinant should be systematically analysed with the help of conventional SWOT analysis.

(Rugman &Verbeke, 1993).

Porter’s approach to measuring the international competitiveness is via export share as an

indicator of international competitiveness. This approach lacks a coherent view as international

success is measured by industrial ability to export and to engage in outbound foreign direct

investment and inward FDI is seen as a sign of weakness (Davies & Ellis, 2000). In fact, when

Rugman and D’Cruz (1993) applied this model in Canada, they found that two ways nature of

FDI are crucial in explaining the international competitiveness on nations (Rugman & D’Cruz,

1993). Moreover, industries chosen by Porter are the most successful and competitive ones. This

selection is said to create a bias in the study. Porter’s Diamond model has a better fit for large

and developed countries like USA, EU and Japan. Thus, there is a need of different diamond

models for different regions in the world (Rugman&D’Cruz, 1993).

29

2.2.4 Summary of the theories

In the sixteenth century, when nations expanded their wealth by using their colonies around the

world in the effort to control more trade and acquire more riches, Mercantilism theory was

developed, stating that a country should accumulate financial wealth through exports and

discourage imports. When questioning Mercantilism theory in 1776, Adam Smith introduced

Absolute advantage theory focussing on the ability of a country to produce goods more

efficiently than another nation and arguing that trade between nations should not be regulated or

restricted by government policy or intervention (Smith, 1776). However, Smith's approach did

not indicate what would happen when the same country had absolute advantage on both

products. Ricardo took up this case in 1817 and demonstrated the principle of comparative

advantage where a country will trade in the pattern that maximizes its advantage (Ricardo, 1817).

In the continuing evolution of international trade theories, Michael Porter developed a new

model to explain national competitive advantage in 1990 with six determinants: factor

conditions, demand conditions, related and supporting industries, firm strategy-structure and

rivalry, government, and chance (Porter, 1990).

2.2.5 Theoretical framework

The figure 2.2 shows the theories that were linked to the internationalisation of Kenyan

horticulture.

Figure 2.2: Theoretical framework

Source: Researcher (2017)

Mercantilism theory

Internationalisation of Kenyan

horticulture Comparative advantage theory

Absolute advantage theory

Competitive advantage of

nation’s model

30

2.3 Conceptual framework

The conceptual framework provides a theoretical overview of intended research and order within

which the research is carried out and hypotheses tested (Leshem&Trafford, 2007). According to

Camp (2001), a conceptual framework is a structure of how the study can be carried out and best

explain the natural development of a phenomenon that is being studied. Conception framework

fulfils two roles; it provides theoretical clarification of what researchers intend to investigate, and

it also enables readers to be clear on what the research seeks to achieve, and how that will be

achieved (Leshem&T rafford, 2007).

Carlson & Wu (2012) argue that a variable can play one of three roles in research design. The

two most common roles are independent variables and dependent variables. Independent

variables represent theorised explanations for changes in outcomes of the study. They drive the

dependent variables in explaining the relationship between the two variables. Dependent

variables represent what the theory hopes to explain or variables whose values are presumed to

depend on or are caused by factors represented by independent variables. The independent

variables and dependent variable are commonly used to drive the research design.

Researchers in horticulture including Storck &Hörmann (1981), Rakesh & Meseret (2008)

identified a combination of 5 factors antecedent of standards compliance in horticulture. Those

factors are awareness, competences, input use, technology use and infrastructure as main factors

antecedent of standards compliance. These are the independent variables (IVs) and this study

will investigate the effect of them on the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture which is the

dependent variable (DV). In addition, it will look at the role of the regulatory framework, which

is the moderating factor in those relationships. This model will be tested using a regression

model to understand the relationship between the variables.

This gives a conceptual framework presented in the following figure 2.3, showing the

independent variables, the dependent variable and the moderating variable.

31

Figure 2.3: Conceptual framework

Source: Researcher (2017)

Regulatory framework

Surveillance system

Certification for exports

Exporters’ competences

Education

Training on food safety and quality

Certification

Exporters’ awareness

Standards in horticulture

Life style and consumption patterns in

exports markets

Institutions supporting horticulture and

their role

Internationalisation of

Kenyan horticulture

Market share

Technology use

Treatment of pests and diseases methods

Harvesting, sorting/grading, packaging

methods/practices

Infrastructure

Transport

Energy

Input use

Seeds

Water

Fertilisers/Pesticides

Dependent variable (DV) Independent variables (IVs)

Moderating variable

H1

H6

H5

H4

H3

H2

32

Null Hypotheses:









H05: Infrastructure in perspective of standards compliance (FSC) has no significant influence

on the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture (IKH).

H06: Regulatory framework (RF) plays no significant moderating role between antecedents of

standards compliance and the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture (IKH).

The following section will clarify further the variables of the conceptual framework by giving a

description of their measurements and tests which will apply to accept or reject hypotheses

related to them.

2.3.1 Operational framework

In research design, especially in psychology, social sciences, file sciences, and physics,

operationalisation is a process of defining the measurement of a phenomenon that is not directly

measurable, though its existence is indicated by other phenomena. Operationalisation is thus the

process of defining a fuzzy concept so as to make it clearly distinguishable, measurable, and

understandable in terms of empirical observation (Zacharewicz, 2011).

In this study, the constructs also known as unobserved or latent variables were measured by

composite variables. There are seven latent variables and sixteen composite variables that were

used to measure the latent variables.

33

The summarised description of measures of composite variables and the statistical tests that shall be used are indicated in the table 2.1,

below:

Table 2.1: Operationalisation of the model

Constructs/latent

variables

Hypothesised

relationships

Composite variables Description of measures of composite

variables

Tests

Exporters’ awareness

of standards

compliance (ASC)

ASC→ IKH - Standards in horticulture

- Life style and consumption

patterns in export markets

- Institutions supporting

horticulture and their roles

- Identification of standards requirements

for export in horticulture.

- Description of customers’ preferences in

overseas’ markets.

- Identification of activities of different

institutions involved in standards

compliance.

Correlation and linear

regression. Accept null

hypothesis if p>0.05 or

otherwise reject.

Exporters’ competences

to comply with

standards (CSC)

CSC → IKH - Education

- Training on food safety and

food quality

- Certification

- Level of education.

- Number of trainings on food safety and

food quality attended.

- Type of certifications possessed.




otherwise reject.

Inputs use in

horticulture (ISC)

ISC → IKH - Seeds

- Water

- Fertilisers and Pesticides

- Knowledge and availability of appropriate

seeds.

- Availability of water of good quality

- Knowledge and availability of appropriate

fertilisers and pesticides.




otherwise reject.

Technology use in

horticulture (TSC)

TSC → IKH - Treatment of pests and

diseases methods

- Appropriateness of methods used to

manage pests and diseases.


regression.

34

- Harvesting, sorting/grading,

packaging

methods/practices.

- Appropriateness of methods and tools

used during harvesting, sorting/grading,

packaging.

Accept null hypothesis if

p>0.05 or otherwise

reject.

Infrastructure affecting

horticulture (FSC)

FSC → IKH.

- Transport

- Energy

- Quality of infrastructure in the transport

of horticultural produce

- Regularity of electricity.




otherwise reject.


(RF)

RF moderates

the antecedents

of standards

compliance and

the IKH

- Surveillance system

- Certification for exports

- Existence and efficiency of control system

for standards compliance.

- Existence and efficiency of certification

for exports.




otherwise reject.


Kenyan horticulture

(IKH)

Dependent

Variable

- Market share - Contribution of awareness to increase of

market share.

- Contribution of competencies to increase

of market share

- Contribution of inputs to increase of

market share.

- Contribution of Technology to increase of

market share.

- Contribution of infrastructure to increase

of market share.




otherwise reject.

Source: researcher (2017)

35

This study focuses on exporters ’awareness, their competencies, input use, technology use,

infrastructure impacting horticulture and considered as predictor variables. The

internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture was taken as an outcome of the study. In the

following section, the review of literature for each of the research objectives and the

measurement items used will be discussed.

2.3.2 Internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture

The trade in fresh horticultural produce has become increasingly global and the market demand

is no longer confined to local or regional supply. It is vertically integrated through contracts

rather than control and ownership of the mean of production (Trienekens& Zuurbier, 2011). This

trend has been encouraged by liberalising international and national regulatory framework,

associated with WTO, IMF and World Bank policies, and has been further facilitated by

improvements in communication and packaging technologies. Others estimate that trade in fresh

fruits, vegetables and cut flowers is equivalent to eight per cent of global commodity trade,

equivalent to that of crude oil (Barno et al., 2011).

Among the criteria of success in the export of horticulture, Aksoy & Kaynak (1994) identified

selling excess produce above the minimum requested price, export profits and exports sale

volume, and the strength of overseas organisation structural. This success is achieved when

exporters get more control of their marketing management component and this aspect remains a

challenge for the smallholder farmers. Hortiwise (2012) argued that to access export markets,

smallholder farmers pass mainly through intermediaries who are either specialised export

companies or medium and large-scale exporters who also grow and export their own produce. In

most cases, the exporters provide extension and technical support to the smallholder farmers.

Export companies are setting subsequent standards for their smallholder farmers, which is

causing difficulties for the smallholders and reduces export opportunities for them. USAID

(2012) noted that horticultural production for export is completely market driven and sensitive to

factors that facilitate market access such as global trade agreements and compliance to standards.

This is the case of The Economic Partnership Agreements (EPA) between the European Union

(EU) and the African Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) where states are designed to replace the

36

preferential trade provisions of the COTONOU partnership agreements which are no longer

acceptable under the WTO rules.

Horticultural export from the developing countries in Africa has become a major growth sector

in international trade. The major developing African producers like Kenya, Egypt, Zimbabwe,

Gambia, Ivory Coast and Zambia have benefited from this trade. They export especially

vegetables ready to eat and pre-washed salads to the European Union (Barno et al., 2011). Kenya

is in the enviable position of being among the leading exporters of flowers and fresh vegetables

to the EU market and has a good reputation (USAID, 2012). In 2017 Kenya exported 159,961

tons of flowers, 87,240 tons of vegetables and 56,945 tons of fruits, earning Sh82.24 billion,

Sh24 billion, Sh9 billion respectively (KNBS, 2017). This is as a result of huge private

investments made in the sector by producers in the cut flower and pre-packaged fresh fruits and

vegetable sectors in response to changes in demands in EU. Kenya is a higher supplier of high-

value horticultural produce such as green beans, snow peas, runner beans, okra, chillies,

avocados, mangoes, and cut flowers (Barno et al., 2011). Though Kenyan horticulture has

achieved a great reputation, it is challenged to continued growth and diversification into new

markets in the future. Therefore, rather than concentrating on EU markets where competition is

high and consumer spending power is reducing, the emerging markets of Asia may have more

potential.

On the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA), Kenya negotiated under the East African

Community, only an interim agreement was initiated and the process has recently stalled. Kenya

would suffer if no agreement is reached since all other member states are least developed

countries (LDC) which enjoy preferential access to the EU duty and quota free. According to

USAID (2012), the result would be that only Kenya would lose out to the preferential trading

access and this would negatively impact the horticultural sector in particular as the resulting

failure would make Kenyan product liable to 5% to 15% duties.

So far, many publications and studies have discussed the success of Kenyan horticulture in

exports. However, the aspect of antecedents of standards compliance for such success has not

been given much attention and this study addresses this gap.

37

2.3.3 Effect of exporters ’awareness of standards compliance on the internationalisation


The international market of fresh fruits and vegetables is rapidly changing not only because of

the development of new technologies, which allow better and long preservation of these

perishable products, but also because of an increasing consumer demand for food quality and

diversified diets (Nicola, 2010). In developed countries, a desire for year-round availability, and

increased diversity of food, as well as growing awareness of the relationship between diet and

health, all contribute to increased consumption of these fresh produce (Warrington, 2011). They

are seeking new eating experiences; different quality attributes and improved convenience and

they are prepared to pay a premium for such produce if their expectations are met. In some

instances, these premiums are considerable and bring benefit to the overall industry through

improving the popularity of the crop overall (Nicola, 2010). In addition, they are becoming more

interested in understanding the sources of the foods they eat and customers are becoming vocal

on issues such as carbon taxes, buy-local campaigns, the use of pesticides, labour conditions for

farm workers, and sustainability of production methods Warrington (2011). Apart from safety,

quality and convenience, the modern consumers also choose food produced according to ethical

values, prioritizing human good health, working conditions, environmental/ landscape impact of

the production and processing practices, geographic origin, local traditions, etc. (Nicola, 2010).

On the aspect of protection of the environment and climate change, Reuters (2009) indicates that

the carbon footprints campaign, also known as food miles concept, seeks to have all horticultural

products sold in Europe labeled according to how far they have travelled between the farm and

the retail shelves. This implies that horticultural products from European farms are considered to

have caused less damage to the environment than imported fresh produce from Africa and Latin

America that are airlifted over thousands of kilometers to reach the consumers. The latest survey,

conducted under the Euro barometer platform found that four out of five Europeans consider the

environmental impact of the products they bought and would welcome help in making that

decision through labelling of products for carbon footprints. Nevertheless, research by the key

European institutions has found that producing vegetables in a greenhouse produces nearly 20

times more carbon than those produced under the sun in Africa and South America and airlifted

to Europe. In reaction to such campaign, KFC and FPEAK started an advertising campaign

38

“Grow Under the Sun” asserting that emissions produced by growing flowers in Kenya and

flying them to the UK can be less than a fifth of those grown in the heated and lighted

greenhouses of Holland (Golub & Manus, 2008). This campaign started to get success especially

by demonstrating that African horticulture actually has smaller carbon footprint than European

horticulture since the latter is more energy-intensive in production.

To understand what creates value from the consumer's point of view and to identify the activities

which are necessary to deliver that value across the whole supply chain, exporters and other

actors in horticulture need to share accurate, adequate and credible information (Jie et al. 2013).

This goes with creating awareness among industry on the role and impact of standardisation

activities at both national and international level. In fact, the prevalence of substandard hygiene

and quality of horticultural products observed among the farmers, producers, and traders in

horticulture of most developing countries is a result of the lack of enforcement of standards, and

poor consumer awareness (RSA, 2015). This raises the question on whether the role of

International Standards in the trade of horticultural produce has been communicated on lower

levels of industry and in particular to small and medium producers. Without knowledge of the

requirements to be fulfilled in order to ensure that horticultural produce will be accepted by the

importing country, those involved in export of such products will certainly face many challenges

(ITC, 2004).

While agriculture networks have become more increasingly global, significant changes have also

occurred in both consumer food demands and food retailing in the developed market economies

(Goodman & Redclif, 2001). In these countries, demand is for year-round supplies of food

supplies by traditional extensive agricultural techniques with a strong ethical component. This

change in demand is clearly consumer-led and is articulated in the EU, which is increasingly

adopting a global sourcing policy to satisfy these new demands. This shift in consumer demand

and subsequent changes in production methods is a transition that embraces the whole food chain

from production and processing to consumer choices and the marketing systems that have

evolved to link them, (Barrett et al., 1990).

39

The EU consumers give more emphasis on aspects of quality and convenience than to price and

quantity. There is demand for healthy food and foods from market ‘niches’ which often reflect

ethnic variety and traditions. There is a new emphasis on taste and aesthetics thus higher demand

for healthy, ethically produced high-quality food, presented as conveniently product, with

costumers willing to pay for the added value. Customers demand that now farmers and retailers

are accountable for food safety and are prepared to pay for this assurance. These new consumer

demands are encouraging the spread of agricultural production systems in developing countries

(Barno et al., 2011).

In the Kenyan horticulture, Oloo (2010) pointed out the lack of awareness of good practices

among the smallholder producers without establishing the relationship between standards

compliance and export in horticulture. Moreover, awareness of overseas consumers’ attitudes by

Kenyan producers/exporters was not given much attention. Concerning the governing bodies

involved in horticulture, Kemunto (2014) encouraged them to get more involved in creating

awareness among producers in horticulture. However, it is not known whether those producers

are aware of those institutions and their roles. Therefore, this study will address those gaps

related to awareness of standards for export in horticulture, awareness of attitudes of overseas’

clients and awareness of institutions involved in standards compliance.

2.3.3 Effect of exporters’ competences on the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture.

To succeed in the export of horticultural produce, exporters from developing countries should

ensure consistency in supply and provide records for traceability of products (Warrington, 2011).

The international markets of horticulture are organised in framework contracts between

buyers/retailers and producers/distributors done on a bilateral level with detailed procedures

focussing on efficiency and effectiveness in private labels, packaging, pricing, production, and

delivery schedule. Due to limited competences, producers from developing countries are facing

increasing difficulties to comply, on an individual basis, with international requirements (World

Bank, 2005b). This is why RSA (2015) argued that contract for farming and promotion of farmer

organisations might be appropriate for smallholder producers to actively produce for exports by

increasing the bargaining power and benefit from economies of scale as well as cushioning from

price fluctuation.

40

In developing countries, the contribution of smallholders in the export of horticultural produce is

very important. However, unhygienic handling of their products is frequent due to lack of

education linked with not knowing much about international standards (FAO, 2004). Often the

provision of knowledge from both private and public sectors is poorly developed, the demand for

useful and relevant information is growing as enterprises become more sophisticated and often

more focussed on exporting their produce (Warrington, 2011). There are changes related to an

unprecedented expansion of methods of information transfer: mobile phones, the internet, private

and public networking, and so on. The major challenge is to filter the information that is

available into useful knowledge that will allow producers to be more effective and efficient in

their various enterprises. To have horticultural produce certified is another obstacle to exports on

horticulture. In their study, Mahajan et al. (2014) noted that it was extremely difficult to

implement all the global food safety measures especially for small and medium exporters of

processed and fresh food, because of high cost incurred in procuring international certifications.

As a direct consequence, opportunities of international business are lost many times.

In the Kenyan horticultural sector, many institutions are offering training in the agricultural good

practices and the question remains whether there is a coordination system of such training to

ensure efficiency of information provided in order to comply with requirements of international

markets. It is also possible that some producers are not aware of such training or not able to

afford the cost of attending them. So far, there is no study that has established the relationship

between the educational level of producers/exporters and the compliance with standards for

export. Therefore, the current study will address the issue of training and education level of

exporters and producers in the export of Kenyan horticulture.

The certification system is another aspect that reflects the competences of exporters in

horticulture. ITC (2004) noted that the absence of an effective system of certification by a

recognized national accreditation body leads to doubtfulness of conformity assessment carried

out. As a consequence, importing countries do not consider manufacturer’s declaration of

conformity sufficient and requires imported products to be accompanied by a certificate of

conformity assessment issued by a properly accredited laboratory, inspection body or

certification body. Kenyan farmers and farmer’s groups interested in becoming certified to the

41

Kenya Gap standard must apply for a certification audit by an accredited certification body, like

AfriCert for horticultural producers against the Kenya Gap fruit and vegetable standards. There

are also two other Kenya Gap accredited certification bodies in Kenya: Bureau Veritas Kenya

limited and Societe General de Surveillance (SGS) (Carey, 2008). The existence of accredited

certification bodies in Kenya helped to secure greater access to international standards not only

in Kenya but in the whole region by lowering the cost of access to certification and consequently

to standards. In fact, without such accredited certification bodies, applicants would have to pay

expensively for all expenses of auditors and consultants from abroad. In addition, Carey (2008)

pointed out that local auditors have a greater understanding of local conditions and how control

points and compliance criteria are followed in the region. However, even if these accredited

certification bodies have reduced the cost of certification, the question still remains whether their

certification charges are affordable or not especially for smallholder’s farmers. In addition, it is

not known whether the certification of horticultural produce is a guarantee for acceptability of

fresh produce in the international markets. Considering that there are different types of

mandatory certification and that some of them are checking similar aspects, producers might end

up paying for certifications which have similar content due to lack of proper coordination in the

certification process at the regulatory level. Hence, this study will address issues related to

advantages, efficiency and affordability of certification services in the Kenyan horticulture sector

intended to export.

2.3.4 Effect of input use in horticulture on internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture.

Efficient horticulture seed industry enables farmers to get good quality seed, in sufficient

quantity with affordable price. It is essential for the promotion of horticultural production

because the share of seed cost is relatively high, approximately 12 to 42 per cent of the total

production cost (USAID, 2007). In Kenya, the business of the horticultural produce seed is well

established and efficient due to the high demand of imported seeds on the national and regional

level (USAID (2012). According to Sikinyi (2010), horticulture seed traded in Kenya comprises

of locally produced seed and imported seed. Seeds are also exported from Kenya of which is

either locally produced or re-exports of imported seeds. All imported seed must meet the national

quarantine requirements, the minimum Kenyan standards and must have been tested for

adaptability in the country. Importation of hybrid seed is regulated by KEPHIS to ensure supply

42

is of the correct quality for germination and without contaminants (USAID, 2012). Some

producers are using inferior seeds from their own harvest or from unsupervised private nurseries

due to high cost of imported and certified seeds. Various challenges related to availability and

affordability of appropriate seeds that producers are facing in the Kenyan horticulture for export

will be covered by this study.

A part from the concern of seeds in horticulture, Warrington (2011) asserts that the issue facing

horticultural production all over the world is in the availability of water. Pressure on water

resources for urban, industrial, recreational, conservation and other uses all appear to have a

higher priority compared to water for horticultural production. On the aspect of quality of water,

Manning &Soon (2013) revealed that the produce contamination may also be caused by

contaminated water for washing, hydro-cooling or icing. Furthermore, irrigation water is a

potential point of pathogen entry into the food chain as many bacteria and viruses and protozoa

of faecal origin can be found in waters which are used in the primary production of food crops. A

pathogen can be taken upon plant surfaces especially at the point of harvesting and trimming

wounds, damage caused during handling and processing or natural points of entry. Considering

the seriousness of water issue in horticulture, Warrington (2011) recommended urgent researches

to resolve an issue such as the development of drought-tolerant crops, the management of crops

under the managed water deficits, dealing with increased salinity, and the use of lower quality

water.

In the Kenyan farming activities, Africa Development funds (2007) indicates that water remains

a major challenge as the agriculture largely dependent on seasonal rainfall but the amount of

rainfall has not been adequate to sustain crop production. Hence, there is need to minimize

dependence on rain-fed agriculture by utilizing water resources for irrigation under sustainable

environmental management. This study will address issues related to management of water in the

Kenyan horticulture by looking at the challenges that producers/exporters are facing to get water

of good quality and sufficient for the produce, and the efficiency of mechanisms put in place to

solve this problem.

Utilisation of fertilisers and pesticides is frequent in horticulture farming of developing countries

and the latter are facing problems in complying with the rules adopted by importing countries

43

limiting the maximum level of pesticides and other residues (MLRs) in fresh fruits and

vegetables. They often find it difficult to comply with these requirements, as many of them do

not have legislation requiring prior approval of fertilisers and pesticides that are marketed in the

country. This result in fertilisers and pesticides that are prohibited from use in importing

countries being used in the production of crops intended for exports. Farmers are also often

influenced in making excessive use of pesticides in order to ensure that exports of fresh fruits

and vegetables are not banned by importing countries because of the presence of pest and

diseases (ITC, 2004). Of a particular concern in this regard, is the decision by the EU to set

import tolerances for pesticides residues for as many as 100 chemical ingredients to zero as from

July 2003. Exporters of fresh fruits and vegetables from a number of developing countries are

apprehensive complying with these requirements which are causing them serious problems (ITC,

2004).

Legislation in some countries requires that a country wishing to exports fresh fruits and

vegetables to them must obtain prior approval from the appropriate authorities before it can

commence exports. Such approval is granted only if the authorities are satisfied that the fruits are

free from diseases and pests not existing in the importing country. In the same vein, a number of

countries such as Australia, Japan, and the Republic of Korea exercise strict control over imports

of fresh fruits, vegetables and flowers to prevent entry of exotic plant pests and diseases.

Imports of such products are prohibited unless prior approval is obtained or a specific treatment

given to the produce before exports (ITC, 2004). Therefore the use of pesticides becomes

inevitable in order to succeed in the export of agricultural products.

According to USAID (2012), compliance with MRLs is crucial for the continued growth of the

Kenyan horticulture. With an increased number of interceptions frequently observed, there is

need to enforce regulatory systems on chemical use in horticulture and ensure that a message is

sent to all producers concerned by the export of horticultural produce. For instance, the ban of

dimethoate use on fruits and vegetables should contribute significantly to adherence to MRL

requirements. Recently the government of Kenya introduced assistance for small growers by

placing discounted prices on fertilisers purchased through the National Cereals Produce Board

(NCPB), but it is not known whether this measure has borne fruits or not. This study should

44

assess aspects related to availability and affordability of appropriate fertilisers and pesticides for

horticultural produce in the local market, the expertise of producers to use them and the

interference of counterfeit or substandard fertilisers and pesticides on the local market.

2.3.5 Effect of Technology use in horticulture on the internationalisation of Kenyan

horticulture.

The fresh fruit and vegetable market has been influenced by globalisation and competitiveness

concerning the high safety and quality requirements of the products. The great increase in this

trade has been made possible mainly due to many technological innovations made in the storage,

transport and post-harvest technology fields (Nicola, 2010). However, losses are still high in

developing countries, because of the inherent difficulty of collecting and transporting small

quantities of produce from numerous small farms and trying to collect these into a large enough

quantity for efficient domestic marketing or for export. The poor post-harvest handling may also

become a source of microbial contamination on fruits and vegetables and all these post-harvest

problems reduce the competitiveness of horticultural products on the international market

(Mubarik, 2008).

Technology capability plays an important role in achieving efficiency in horticulture farming and

it is associated with the skills and knowledge necessary for a company to absorb, use, adapt,

develop, and transfer the technologies (DeMori, 2016). In Europe and most of developing

countries, horticulture companies are currently dealing with issues such as high labour costs,

energy serving and reducing the use of crop protection produce. Generally, horticultural

production has experienced technological innovation with regard to irrigation, seed priming,

chemical fertilization, treatment, disease and insect resistance and overall quality improvement,

pruning techniques and harvesting among others. The introduction and adoption of tissue culture

has become a standard technique for propagation of fruits, vegetables and ornamental plants and

some tree crops such as oil palm. However, the increase of profitability associated with such

technological advancement has not been fully enjoyed in developing countries due to no

adoption, partially adoption or inappropriate adoption of the improved technologies (Nzomoi et

al., 2007).

During production process of horticulture and as far as pest and diseases management is

concerned, insect pest reduces yields directly by attacking crops and indirectly by transmitting

45

viral diseases. As a result, farmers sell damaged produce or use high levels of pesticide, which

can be dangerous to both farmers and consumers, small-scale growers rarely have access to

training on effective pesticide use or alternative methods of pest control, such as integrated pest

management (USAID, 2014). This explains why before export, there is an increase in demand

for analysis of residues in most of developing countries, to ensure that tolerance levels are met

and in a number of countries, such laboratories do not exist or are inadequate (ITC, 2004).

Horticulture products are perishable by nature; hence, a need to carefully handle the produce so

as to reduce post-harvest losses and ensure it is in good condition by the time it reaches overseas

consumers. Producing vegetables and fruits in areas far away from the market require careful

transportation and, in this case, shelf life is a critical factor (Nzomoi et al., 2007). Looking at the

appropriate technology in this matter, there is a need for quickly cooling produce after harvest

which extends shelf life by reducing metabolic activity, water loss, and microbial growth.

However, rates of post-harvest loss exceed 50 per cent in developing countries, and cold storage

is virtually non-existent due to the high cost of equipment and limited electricity (USAID, 2014).

Currently, lack of storage facilities accounts for the majority of vegetable waste (RSA, 2015).

For instance, in their study about “Quality assurance programs and access to international

markets: the case of horticultural processors in Vietnam”, Marcus et al., (2009) argue that most

Vietnamese exporters had temporarily lost international market access at some point in the past

and in one‐third of the cases, the loss of international market access was linked to quality

problems, like spoiled produce due to a non‐continuous cold‐chain. This cooling process is

extremely important to maintain good quality of horticulture products for domestic market and

export. Furthermore, there are no standard methods that have been suggested for the postharvest

handling as they may differ from vegetable to vegetable, market to market and consumer to

consumer (Shukor et al., 2001).

Taking the marketing approach of horticultural produce, modern consumers do not store food

products for long periods within the household and are able to discern the difference in quality

(taste and texture) between products that have been stored for short versus long periods. The

challenge for horticultural producers is therefore, to refine the methods for short-term storage so

46

that premium quality is retained rather than focusing on long-term storage for prolonged

marketing. Hence, the options to provide for new approaches that can be used for quality

retention during short-term storage should be an absolute priority (Warrington, 2011). In some

contexts, governments provide incentives for the horticultural sector by setting up cold storage

chains even if they might provide through the private sector (Mubarik, 2008).

In Kenya, the local horticultural farming is vulnerable to the risk of spread of pests and diseases

that can be detrimental to local production due to imports in horticulture from COMESA and

EAC member countries (ASCU, 2012). It is difficult on the national level to set up an efficient

controlling system as there are several unofficial entries of exchanges for horticultural produce.

The consequences might be detrimental when an outbreak of pest or diseases from neighbouring

countries arrives in Kenya and there is no treatment available as was the case with the threat of

an outbreak of the False Codling Moth in 2015 from Uganda (Gitonga, 2015). Therefore, the

country should be equipped with appropriate treatment for pest and disease not only known in

the country but also in the whole region to deal with any surprise attack that might occur. So far,

most of the studies about technology in Kenyan horticulture focused on agricultural methods

used and the consequences on environment following use of fertilisers and pesticides. Another

concern in the Kenyan horticultural sector is the inappropriateness of pre and post-harvest

handling practices which are frequent. Furthermore, agro-processing and packaging technologies

are relatively underdeveloped, which negatively impact the produce shelf life, increases post-

harvest loses and reduces consumer acceptance (RSA, 2015). This implies that appropriate

technology is not available to some producers or it is available but not affordable. Alternatively,

some producers might not have enough competences to adopt new technology related to good

practices in horticulture farming. In the same vein, (UNIDO, 2012) asserts that Kenyan farmers

have limited ability to add value to agricultural produce. Such a situation, coupled with high

product costs, make Kenyan exports in horticulture less competitive on the international market.

Justus &Yu (2014) noted that Kenyan horticultural sector grows in a scattered way as there is no

national horticulture policy to guide its growth and sustainability. In the same way, the

distribution of cold rooms for horticultural produce in the country is not aligned with the volume

of horticulture farming per region. As a result of this mismatch, there are regions with a high

volume of horticultural produce and a limited number of cold rooms’ facilities and regions with

47

plenty of cold rooms and very little horticultural produce. This study will address the challenges

producers and exporters face in treating pest and diseases, availability of laboratories to perform

relevant tests, issues related to pro and post-harvest technologies concerning handling,

packaging, shipping and cold chain management to improve shelf-life and to guarantee the shelf-

quality of the horticultural produce.

2.3.6 Effect of infrastructure on the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture.

Reardon et al., (2001) argued that in general, the better the agro-climate and infrastructure of a

zone, the lager the agribusiness or farm, and the more tradable the product, the greater the

exposure to the changes in markets, grades and standards. They continue specifying that the

capacity to respond to standard’s requirements increases with firm scale, although there tends to

be pockets of smaller firms in more favourable zones and firms operated by more educated

managers that are also capable for responding. By contrast, the small poor firms and farms in

the rural hinterlands, producing non-tradable, are least able to respond to the new opportunities

and requirements. This indicates how infrastructure is of a paramount importance to comply with

horticultural standards hence increasing the volume of exports.

Accessibility is one aspect of infrastructure, which is crucial at any form of business enterprise

whether agricultural or industrial. It applies particularly well to horticultural produce, which in

addition, needs to be stored and transported at the prescribed temperature and humidity levels for

each specific type of produce (RSA, 2015). Exporters of horticultural produce are faced with an

unusual combination of circumstances in moving their products to international markets. Many

of these products are highly perishable and must be transported rapidly under controlled

conditions of temperature and humidity. Some crops are produced almost entirely in a few

localities, which means that they must be transported considerable distances to reach overseas’

markets. In this regard, some governments assist the producers by providing infrastructural

development such as roads as incentives for horticultural produce (Mubarik, 2008).

In Kenya, most of the feeder roads in horticultural production areas are impassable especially

during the rainy season USAID (2012). This affects the quality of produce due to damage and

causes inability to deliver and/or delay in delivery of produce. Poor roads are one of the major

48

hindrances to commercialisation and competitiveness of Kenyan horticultural produce (ASCU,

2012). According to SAFEACC (2014), the main challenges that the Kenyan horticulture is

facing in terms of infrastructure is poor access to roads to production areas, expensive airfreight

rate, insufficient and yet expensive electricity. The findings of the study by Nzomoi et al. (2007)

about determinants of technology adoption in the production of horticultural export produce in

Kenya indicate that only 10.7% of the respondents were accessible while the rest either had poor

access roads or were simply inaccessible. This was especially the case for small-scale producers

who lack the financial capacity to improve access roads leading to their enterprises. The issue of

poor road network as a constraint regarding where they can source their produce and where they

can sell it was as well mentioned. Poor road network also damages the fresh consignments and

greatly reduces the lifespan of the vehicles carrying the produce (Nzomoi et al., 2007). Among

the alternative solutions of the problem of infrastructure, EPZ (2005) indicates that exporters in

horticulture want their sector included in the proposed Special Economic Zones (SEZs) in order

to enjoy more incentives from the government. In fact, under the SEZs, the exporting companies

enjoy better services like roads and they are exempted from levies like Value Added Tax on

electricity.

Smallholder farming presents its particular challenge of transport due to the fragmentation of

production into small individual units and they are typically located far from the main road

network therefore it becomes difficult to meet high-value horticultural produce exported because

it is highly dependent on efficient transport (Hortiwise, 2012). In this regard, Aksoy&Kaynak

(1994) argues that transport of a far reaching distance is one of the barriers to the export of

horticultural produce. The challenges the small scale farmers are facing include among others:

highly perishable produce and maintenance of transport infrastructure in view of heavy rainfalls

received in agriculture production areas of the country.

The horticultural industry for export consumes a high amount of energy in production, irrigation,

storage, lighting, plant and machinery operation, processing, packaging and transportation. The

major source of energy used in the Kenyan horticulture is electricity mainly generated through

hydro-electric means and diesel fuel. According to Ariya Capital (2017), Energy is an important

part of modern Kenyan agriculture, accounting for 15 per cent of input costs. A lack of stable

49

and available energy sources is an issue, which leads farmers to rely on expensive, polluting

diesel generators as a backup source. ASCU (2012) asserts that in the Kenyan horticultural

sector, there are frequent power outages leading to losses and reduces efficiency in industrial

operations. In addition, the high cost of electricity makes horticultural produce less competitive

in the regional and international markets. FPEAK (2007) indicates that energy price in Kenya is

expected to keep rising over the years. Therefore, investing in an own energy supply is an

attractive prospect. It provides horticultural businesses with considerable cost savings and

enables them to be less dependent on the uncertain electricity supply. Ariya Capital (2017)

specifies that due to unreliable, low quality and yet expensive electricity, producers in the

Kenyan horticulture are looking for alternative energy sources which are more efficient and cost-

effective such as solar energy. This study will discuss the effect of challenges related to transport

and energy on the export of Kenyan horticulture.

2.3.7 Moderating role of regulatory frameworks between the antecedents of standards


The major concern of producers and exporters involved in horticulture for exports is to ensure

that horticultural produce meets the stringent food quality and food safety standards. Meeting the

chemical standards such as low and/or no pesticide residue and heavy metal contents is equally

or even more important than meeting the physical standards in terms of shape, colour, or taste.

The increased consumer awareness has created demand for some mechanism to ensure that the

use of harmful metals and contamination are within prescribed limits. As a result, various

internationally recognized food quality standards have emerged, including the Good Agricultural

Practices (GAP), Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) like ISO 9000, EUREP GAP, Hazard

Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP), and environmental standards like ISO 14000

standards (Plaggenhoef et al. 2002). However, the regulatory environment in the horticulture

sector can be an opportunity to gain secure and stable access to affluent and remunerative new

markets, which generates large value-adding activities in developing countries. The increase in

safety standards is a recent occurrence that is closely related to the food-safety crisis of recent

years. Procedure methods, such as Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP)

systems, have been introduced and enforced to identify and monitor safety risks and find

acceptable solutions to ensure process and product safety.

50

Despite the existence of Codex Alimentarius, many developed countries maintain stringent

parameters than Codex. They have consistently upgraded their standards, particularly for

imports, by installing new institutions, methods and standards to regulate food safety and hazard

control. This has resulted in measures that accentuate compliance issues. Standards are raised

each time to the next higher levels, in many cases, making it difficult for developing countries to

cope with. According to Mahajan et al. (2014), all the global food safety norms laid down by

WTO such as goods manufacturing practices, good hygienic practice, hazard analysis critical

control point, have been developed to embody principles of safe food processing sector globally.

However, concerns have been raised by developing countries, that some private certification

systems may create barriers to market access and raise the costs of production and marketing.

In developing countries, food industry tends to detour while complying with standards, owing to

costs involved in setting up systems and procedures, (Silpa et al.,2009). According to RSA

(2015), the aspect which justifies the prevalence of substandard hygiene and quality of

horticultural products is the lack of enforcement of standards and poor consumer awareness.

While a strong surveillance mechanism is essential for a good compliant system, this has to be

preceded by supporting measures such as linking of domestic and international markets,

consolidation of institutional structures, strengthening of legal/regulatory systems, etc. The

progress in strengthening the regulatory system of horticultural farming is noticeable in some

developing countries. For instance, in India, Food Safety Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) is

instrumental in carrying out risk analysis and enforcing regulations for the prevention of

fraudulent, deceptive or unfair trade practices. The standard of food safety has increased in the

last decades and policy-makers attention is shifting to other food-related problems such as

obesity and unhealthy diets (Mahajan et al., 2014).

In Kenya, food laws are in place to protect the consumers. These laws have established the

Kenyan standards which are practically adopted from international ones such as International

Organisation for Standardization (ISO), Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC), HACCP,

GLOBALGAP. Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards (SPS) and Technical Barrier to Trade

(TBT) agreements. The Kenyan legal framework in regard to horticulture is handled by both the

government ministries and their relevant agency such as Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of

51

Trade and industry, HCDA, as well as adhering to international rules notably the legal

framework of trade bodies like the WTO and the EU (EPZ 2005). At the national level, the

responsibility for coordinating the multiple institutions (agencies) involved in food safety

management belongs to the Department of Public Health (DPH) under the Ministry of Public

Health and Sanitation. Chain supporters provide the necessary impetus while chain enablers

provide the control and/or regulation. Kenya Bureau of Standards (KEBS) is the major chain

enabler. It is the National Codex Contact Point, which serves as the secretariat of the National

Codex Committee and is the National Enquiry Point of the WTO (ISEAL, 2008).

Standards are applied to meet the qualitative aspect of demand from the importers, including

packaging, size and quality, health requirements etc. According to USAID (2012), the Kenyan

horticultural industry has recognized the need to comply with the numerous regulations on

standards set up by destination markets and has embraced these requirements which have now

become a “license to trade”. On the same, Carey (2008) argues that Kenyan horticultural sector

viewed Global gap as an opportunity to coalesce and strengthen itself. The ministry of

agriculture has established the quality standards for major horticultural export produce, covering

size, appearance/colour, packaging module/weight etc. Plant quarantine check is applied to all

horticultural exports by ministry inspectors at the airports and seaports by extracting samples

from various products. Export rules and regulations are enforced in the sector. These include the

EU where import regulations have continued to get more stringent (EPZ, 2005). Compliance

with regulations and standards for fresh produce horticulture is verified at the port of exit by

KEPHIS. Each export is expected to have an export license issued by HCDA. The license is

renewed every year. There are specific standards for containers used for export and the produce

must meet certain specification (SEFACC, 2005).

KEBS is a statutory public body under the Ministry of Industrialization. Operational since July

1974, it is mandated by the Standards Act Chapter 496. KEBS coordinates all activities

concerning the development and implementation of both local and international standards

relevant to Kenya. It has implemented the Pre-Export Verification of Conformity (PVoC) to

Standards programme beginning September 29, 2005. In addition, it gathers information on

quality concerns through industrial visits and receives private samples for analysis in its

52

laboratories as part of quality assurance and testing services components of its operations (Oloo,

2010).

The horticulture crops development authority (HCDA) is a government parastatal established

under the Agriculture Act CAP 318 by an order in 1967. It is the main regulatory body of the

horticultural subsector in Kenya with the responsibility of promoting the development of

horticultural crops. It offers vital services including facilitating increased production of top

quality horticultural produce for export and local market, provides technical advisory services

which include quality control, training and extension services, consultancy and engineering as

well as marketing services including cold storage facilities and licensing of exporters (HCDA,

2008). The Kenya Plant Health Inspection Service (KEPHIS), established under the State

Corporation Act, is responsible for all matters concerning plant health, including quarantine, of

imported plant and plant products, phytosanitary citification of exports and export grading. It

also has the mandate to implement national policy on the introduction and use of genetically

modified species of plants, insects and micro-organisms. It has an analytical chemistry

laboratory, which is available to perform services as required by other areas of government, as

well as the diagnostic laboratory for plant pest and diseases, the Plant Production Act, the

Fertilizer and Animal Food staffs Act and the Pest Control Products Act (KEPHIS (2012).

KEPHIS and HCDA seem to play both supportive and enabling roles in horticultural supply

chain in Kenya.

The Fresh Produce Exporter Association of Kenya (FPEAK) was formed in 1975 when the local

horticultural industry was barely noticeable. Currently, the membership is in excess of 160. It is

open to all active exporters and other interest groups. FPEAK is a focal point for the fresh

produce exporters industry, advocates for a favourable trading environment for its members, and

supports and enhances members’ ability to comply with international standards. Furthermore, it

promotes Kenyan products in international markets and provides members with the market and

technical information. FPEAK has been one of the main engines behind the Kenya GAP

standards, drawing upon its own Code of Practice adopted in 1996, and the small-scale producer

compliance guidelines to benchmark to the FPEAK Code of Practice (FPEAK, 2015).

53

The Kenya Flower Council (KFC) is a voluntary association of independent growers and

exporters of cut-flowers and ornamentals, established in 1996. On behalf of its members, the

Council liaises with governments, development agencies, media, trade bodies, unions, civil

society, non-governmental organizations, partners, market organizations and other stakeholders

on specific sector issues to create an enabling environment for the floricultural industry locally

and abroad (Oloo, 2010).

In 2007, KEBS signed an agreement with the Fresh Produce Exporters Association of Kenya

(FPEAK) and the Kenya Flower Council (KFC) to promote standardisation and quality assurance

activities to assure the quality of goods from the horticultural sector. The objective of the

agreement was to support farmers to adapt and embrace the Kenya GAP standards, with the

ultimate aim of securing expanded markets for Kenyan horticultural produce (ISEAL, 2008).

Among other collaborating agencies in horticulture, we have Export Promotion Council (EPC),

Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI), Ministry of Agriculture, Pest Control Products

Board (PCPB), Kenya Industry Research and Development Institute (KIRDI), Kenya

Universities and Colleges of Agriculture, National Resources Institute (NRI), Japan External

Trade Organisation (JETRO), Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) etc. The Ministry

of Agriculture has Agriculture Extension officers up to divisional levels to enforce GAP as

stipulated in the Agriculture Act (Oloo, 2010).

RSA (2015) specified that activities of government agencies involved in regulating the industry

are not harmonised, which leads to delays and increased cost of compliance. The challenges in

the sector require a multi-sectoral approach in seeking and providing appropriate solutions.

Presently the National Horticulture Task Force provides a platform for addressing challenges that

are multi-sectoral in nature, though it lacks the legal status to implement or enforce policy

(ASCU, 2012). It is therefore imperative that the industry establishes an institutional mechanism

to address multi-sectoral challenges (HCDA, 2008). Hence, this study will address aspects

related to the efficiency of the regulating mechanisms and efficiency of issuance of the certificate

for export which have not been given much attention in the existing literature.

54

2.4 Empirical review

This section presents a review of empirical studies related to this research. Those are studies

which have investigated on factors such as exporters’ awareness and competences in

horticulture, input use and technology use, infrastructure and regulatory framework in the area.

2.4.1 Exporters’ awareness in standards compliance

A study by Ali et al. (2010) was carried out in India with the purpose of developing a marketing

strategy for a modern food/grocery market based on consumer preferences and behaviour. A

survey with a structured questionnaire was used on a sample of 101 households randomly

selected in the area where respondents were considered to be progressive; health, hygiene and

quality conscious with sufficient purchasing power. The findings of the study indicate that Food

consumption patterns are rapidly changing. Customers are giving priority to

freshness/cleanliness of food products followed by price, quality, variety, packaging and non-

seasonal availability. The preference of the market place depends on the availability of additional

services, the attraction for children basic amenities and affordability. Fruits and vegetables are

purchased nearby market on daily basis or twice a week because they are perishable and

groceries are less frequently purchased (Ali et al., 2010).

This research was done on a sample of households in India with a good awareness level of

nutrition and health aspects with high purchasing power. This category of customers is keen on

quality and safety of food products. Therefore, when targeting this category, the marketing

strategy should be customized according to certain requirements and standards. The results of

this study would not be generalised to households of different socio-economical background in

developing countries as they might have different preferences. However, the characteristics of

the sample used for the study are common with the customers in the European market where

Kenya exports a lot of quantity of horticultural produce. It is therefore possible to consider these

findings for costumers of horticultural produce in the European market.

Another study by Connolly et al. (2016) attempted to outline considerations for the continuing

evolution of the Chinese food safety system. Based on literature review, this study intervened in

a context where scandals drive consumers to demand for safe food as food scares were more

public and food chain was long and more complex. The findings point out the need to improve

55

food safety awareness at the beginning of the food chain, and an important need of educating and

supervising the small enterprises (Connolly et al., 2016). Following the scandals of food in

China, the government has improved the food system control to ensure food safety for domestic

consumption and exports. Similarly, all the times Kenyan horticulture products were banned in

the European market, producers were becoming more aware of the consequences of not

complying with standards and the government was taking stringent measures to reinforce

standards compliance in exports of horticultural produce. The study of Connolly et al. (2016)

looked at the reaction of the government on the local market, when the measures of food quality

and food safety are not respected. .

Tumsifu & Silayo (2013) examined information needs and sources of the rural farmers in

Tanzania, specifically from Iringa rural district. Using survey as data collection technique, 120

rural farmers were interviewed. In-depth interviews of ten key informants from two villages of

Ifunda and Kalenga complemented the survey. The findings of the study indicate that 70% of

farmers' information needs is about crop and livestock husbandry, marketing, funding options

and value addition. To a great extent, farmers use the old means of communication, the

traditional and interpersonal by default, due to relevancy in the context and content. The modern

means of communication are used to access non-agricultural information (Tumsifu & Silayo,

2013). Though there is heterogeneity within farming communities in terms of information needs,

this study did not take into consideration the particularities of each and every group. However,

despite this limitation, this study has the advantage of being done in a context which is similar to

most Kenyan villages with farmers. Therefore, to some extent, these findings can be applied to

awareness and information needs of the Kenyan farmers.

Ali et al. (2010) looked at awareness of consumers’ preferences on the local market without

paying attention to the aspect of standards in horticultural supply chain. The study by Connolly

et al. (2016) focused on awareness of food safety standards for the local markets and Tumsifu &

Silayo (2013) looked at the type of information needed by farmers. The three studies researched

on various aspects of awareness focussing mainly on the local market. However, our study will

investigate the export of horticultural produce in overseas’ markets with particular emphasis on

awareness of international standards in horticulture, awareness of overseas consumers’ attitudes

56

in horticultural produce and awareness of institutions providing support in horticulture.

Therefore this study hypothesises that:



2.4.2 Exporters’ competences to comply with standards in horticulture

An empirical study by Mulder et al. (2007) examined the learning of entrepreneurs in authentic

learning environments in Netherlands’ horticulture. Ten small business owners participated in a

self‐assessment and an assessment by employees and external consultants. Descriptive

statistics, t‐tests, correlation tests, and a qualitative analysis of interview transcriptions were

performed. The findings of the study indicate that the top competence strength is having a

learning orientation. A total of 99 learning activities were found embedded in the innovative

work processes of the entrepreneurs. The top three learning activities were reflection,

observation and experimentation. In terms of international orientation and human resource

management, there was much room for improvement. Entrepreneurs who wanted to expand their

business and go beyond the regional and national borders for trade and those who wanted to

increase the number of their employees would have to strengthen their competences in respective

fields (Mulder et al., 2007). The sample of ten entrepreneurs was not representative as it was

taken from a total group of 200 entrepreneurs, having a mix in age and geographical location of

farms.

Netherlands’ entrepreneurs in horticulture (producers) and Kenyan’s entrepreneurs in exports of

horticulture (producers/exporters) have one common point of targeting the same market though

they operate in different contexts. By looking at the three top learning activities mentioned in the

study of Mulder M. et al. (2007) namely reflection, observation and experimentation, it can be

noted that Netherlands’ entrepreneurs in horticulture have a better advantage of being exposed to

the target market compared to the Kenyan’s ones. In addition, Mulder M. et al. (2007)

highlighted the need to increase competences in export for those interested in the regional trade

of horticultural produce. This is in line with our study which should investigate on how

education of exporters and training attended affect the export in the Kenyan horticulture.

57

Karipidis & Tselmpis (2014) explored Greece farmers’ intention to stay under a quality

certification scheme and the facts that impact this intention. Using regression analysis, this study

was done on a randomly selected sample of 231 heads of certified farms producing fruits and

vegetables in central Macedonia-North Greece. The results of the study indicate that quality

certification, combined with proper quality signalling, helps suppliers of products and services to

communicate their quality to customers and society at large. In addition, it leads to an

elimination of market information asymmetries, resulting in an increase in social welfare and an

improvement in the quality of life. The intention to maintain certification increases when the

farmer is a woman; when they have undergone special training related to issues of agriculture,

food or environment; when they use computers; when they receive subsidies; and when they

have implemented the quality system before the other farmers, thus behaving innovatively. The

intention also increases when the share of farm income from the certified products increases and

when the farmers acquire information related to certification from the main players in the food

supply chain, such as customers, other farmers, agricultural cooperatives and input suppliers.

This implies that the information acquired by farmers from supply chain players is decisive in

order for quality certification to become viable (Karipidis & Tselmpis, 2014). This study gives

an insight on farmer’s intention to maintain certification however such intention is analysed

independently of the quality standards that each one implements.

The sample size and analysis methods used in this study are appropriate. Different intents of

Greece farmers’ to maintain the certification system in horticultural produce were analysed. In

the Kenyan context, the certification process of horticultural produce intended for export is

compulsory. Exporters have only one option: to apply for a certification audit by an accredited

certification body (Carey, 2008), as the importing countries do not consider exporter’s

declaration of conformity sufficient. Indeed, for all imported products, they insist on being

accompanied by a certificate of conformity assessment issued by a properly accredited

laboratory, inspection body or certification body ITC (2004). In the study of Karipidis &

Tselmpis (2014), the concern of certification is analysed in the perspective of a production done

for the local market. It is not certain whether they could have reached the same results if they

could have looked at the certification of Greece’s horticulture intended to export.

58

Mulder et al., (2007 examined the competences of Netherland’s entrepreneurs for the local

market and emphasised the need to increase competences in export for those interested in the

regional trade of horticulture. Karipidis & Tselmpis, (2014) explored Greece farmers’ intention

to stay under a quality certification scheme for the local market. None of both studies

investigated on the required competences for entrepreneurs in developing countries or looked at

the efficiency of the certification system for horticultural produce intended for export. This study

will fill this gap by testing the following hypothesis:



2.4.3 Input use in horticulture

Kumar & Ali (2010) examined the factors influencing entrepreneurship in Indian seed business.

Their study was based on in-depth personal interviews on a sample of respondent selected using

a conventional sampling method. A total of 40 entrepreneurs involved in establishing 31 seed

firms based in five districts covering three states Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, and Uttarakhand were

interviewed. The study concluded that quality along with purity of seed is the most important

factor in building trust and brand image, which in turn is the most critical element for building

and retaining market share. Furthermore, firms established during last five to ten years by then

had shown continuous growth indicating attractiveness of the industry. Realizing the importance

of the availability of quality seeds to the farming communities in adequate quantity, the

government policies were geared towards promoting and fostering entrepreneurship in seed

industry in India (Kumar & Ali, 2010).

This study was done in a context similar to Kenya where horticulture farming is picking up and

given special attention. Furthermore, the research method used is appropriate and therefore to

some extent, the findings of Kumar & Ali (2010) would be useful for our research of antecedents

of standards compliance for the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture. Nevertheless, this

study focussed mainly on the importance of using good quality seeds and doesn’t discuss the

aspects related to awareness, available and affordable of recommended seeds by producers which

should be investigated by our study.

59

Another study by Manning (2008) explored the issues surrounding water security in terms of

quantity and quality and its impact on food availability. The research method used was an

examination and an evaluation of existing literature. The study concluded that one of the key

drivers of water security is the current and continued ability of water resources to meet the often-

conflicting needs of domestic supply, food production and amenity uses, including the

requirement to irrigate food production areas in order to improve food yields and feed the

growing global human population and mitigate the impact of any environmental change

(Manning, 2008). This study provides a comprehensive overview on the aspect of water security.

It indicates most of the aspects which concern extension of horticulture in Kenya and the need

for water: global demand for water, agriculture sustainability, water for agricultural production,

sustainable water management etc. It is an insight very useful to define the dimension of demand

for water in the current extension of Kenyan horticulture. However, the information provided in

this study is very broad and not context specific. Hence, it does not assess whether there are

critical issues related to quality and quantity of water in the Kenyan horticulture. The study of

antecedents of standards compliance for the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture will fill

this gap by discussing the availability and quality of water and other inputs use in the Kenyan

horticulture for export. Therefore, this study hypothesises that:



2.4.4 Technology use in horticulture

Dobbs & Rowling (2006) explored significant changes within New Zealand apple industry that

growers experienced in the past decade. This research used a sample of orchardists obtained

using a snowballing technique, with the researchers existing contacts within the industry

providing an adequate starting point. All respondents were involved with the apple industry and

the research was conducted using structured interviews administered face‐to‐face on 29

respondents. One respondent was contacted over the telephone. In addition, an adapted set of the

questions was used to interview a nursery man (a supplier of apple trees to orchards), in order to

provide the researchers with an informed third party perspective.The findings revealed that in

major cases, technological improvements have come to the benefit of growers such as Smart

Fresh, a new technology designed to increase the storage life of apples and Integrated Fruit

60

Production Program (IFP) designed to bring growers closer to organic production by cutting out

the unnecessary use of chemicals during the apple production process.However, a number of

environmental changes such as world oversupply of fruit, a high foreign exchange rate and a

significant change in structure are identified by growers as having a significant contribution to

the industry’s current state of turmoil (Dobbs & Rowling, 2006).

One of the limitations of this study is that the sample used was taken from one of the country’s

growing regions. Hence, it does not reflect the perspective of different variations between

regions. However, the findings of the study can inspire our research in the sense that Dobbs &

Rowling (2006) discussed issues related to increase of storage life of fruits and cutting out the

unnecessary use of chemicals during the production process which are of a great concern when it

comes to technology of cold chain and the Maximum Residual Level to be considered during

export of Kenyan horticultural produce. Our study will go further to discuss issues related

efficiency of laboratories to perform required tests and the efficiency of technology use in

harvesting, sorting, grading and packaging of horticultural produce for export.

Another study by Xuedong (2006) examined the effect of innovation and technology transfer in

the Chinese agricultural sector. The research used a case study of the science and technology

transformation fund to illustrate how innovation and technology transfers are facilitated in the

agricultural sector. The findings of the research point out that technology transfer in agriculture

plays an essential role to increase agricultural productivity as well as farmers’ income, fostering

agricultural re-structuring speeding up the construction of comparative well off villages

(Xuedong, 2006). The findings of this study articulate the advantage of transfer of technology

such as an increase in farmer’s income. Our study will investigate whether the appropriate

technology is available, known and affordable and whether it contributes to increase the

international market share in the Kenyan horticulture. Hence, our study hypothesises that:



2.4.5 Infrastructure

The study by Belwal &Chala (2008) attempted to conduct an environmental appraisal of the

floriculture industry in Ethiopia. It intended particularly to reveal the catalysts and barriers

61

prevalent in the industry that concerns the growth. In this study, the first stage was a desk

research to assess the global and Ethiopian floricultural industry. The second stage was the

analysis of primary data collected through interviews of managers eight floricultural farms

located around Addis Ababa. In addition, it utilizes qualitative analysis of data acquired using

judgmental‐cum‐convenience sampling and semi‐structured interviews with the owner/managers

of the farms, and officials from government and business associations. The results of the study

reveal that foreign investments, government support and the formation of the horticultural

producers and exporters Association are the major catalysts in the sector. Infrastructural

bottlenecks appended by the shortage of agricultural inputs, narrow product range and lack of

adherence to international codes of practices are major among the perceived barriers.

Even though the government is making efforts to develop infrastructure throughout the country,

still there are problems in acquiring such services in slightly remote areas. In some farms, access

to telephone lines is limited to wireless phones, which impose severe restrictions on

communication. The roads connecting the farms to the main hubs are also not well. There is a

repeated outage of electricity in farm sites which affects the cost of production, for they need to

use generators. In addition, there is lack of airport facilities and cargo bottlenecks (Belwal

&Chala, 2008).

The findings of this study are useful for our research as they concern a neighbouring country,

where floriculture is catching up and start competing with the Kenyan floriculture. However, the

sample used by Belwal &Chala (2008) was made by managers in eight floricultural farms

located around Addis Ababa where there are better conditions of infrastructure which does not

reflect the situation of infrastructure for farmers of floriculture in remote areas. Contrary to this

study, our research will use a sample of exporters in the Kenyan horticulturalareas where

infrastructure is in good conditions like Nairobi and its surroundings and exporters in remote

areas which are not easily accessible due to inappropriate infrastructure. Furthermore, Belwal

&Chala (2008) investigated the floricultural subsector only yet our research will include

vegetables, fruits and herbs as well. In relation to previous research discussed, this study

hypothesises that:

62



2.4.6 Moderating role of the Regulatory Framework

In an attempt to investigate whether the implementation of quality assurance programs helps to

improve access to export in Vietnam, Mergenthaler et al. (2009) used a sample of 50 firms

randomly drawn from a list of 96 fruit and vegetable processing firms. A structured

questionnaire was used to capture information about firm attributes and characteristics of an

upstream and downstream supply chain. In addition, firm’s managers were interviewed face to

face to improve data reliability. In addition, descriptive statistics and econometric analysis were

used. The results of the study revealed that such programs are not a general pre-requisite for

exports, but that they definitely facilitate participation in international supply chains. However,

international quality assurance programs like HACCP, GLOBALGAP, or ISO 9000 notably

improve participation in export supply chains to OECD countries, and national quality

Management Programs seem to be sufficient for participation in export supply chains to non-

OECD countries. This study was done in a developing country like Kenya and its findings

confirm how the implementation of international standards contributes to improving horticultural

exports especially to OECD countries. Our study goes deep in the implementation of the

programs related to compliance with international standards in horticulture by looking at the

surveillance mechanisms to ensure that exporters comply with standards during export of

horticultural produce. In addition, it investigates the efficiency of certification system for

exports.

Aiming to offer a blueprint, or outline considerations for the continuing evolution of the Chinese

food safety system, Connolly et al. (2016) examined existing literature and argued that a

combination of risk-based education on one hand and supervision on the other hand, will help to

counter poor compliance with food safety regulations and standards. In addition, the ability to

detect food safety system weaknesses and evaluation of corrective measure needed development

as well. The limitation of this study is that some of the recommendations were formulated when

they were already adopted by the Chinese government. Connolly et al. (2016) were mainly

interested in the measures to put in place to ensure food safety in China, following several

incidents of food safety that had happened in the country like melamine in 2008 which exposed

63

serious weaknesses in the national food system (Connolly et al., 2016). Our study, on the

contrary, will investigate the surveillance mechanisms in place that ensure food quality and food

safety of horticultural produce for exports. It will therefore be concerned by issues such as rejects

of horticultural produce decided by KEPHIS at the airport before export, the banning of Kenyan

horticultural produce in overseas’ markets due to MRLs etc. In addition, our study will

investigate the efficiency of issuance of certificate for export, aspect which is beyond what

Connolly et al. (2016) researched.

A study by Fernando et al. (2015) investigated the contribution of regulatory incentives offered

by the regulator as a moderating variable enhancing adoption of Malaysian food safety system. It

is an exploratory study based on hypothesis testing to explain the nature of a certain relationship.

The research method used was structural equation modelling with a partial least square used to

examine the determinants of Malaysian food safety system adoption in the food industry. A

sample of 89 firms was used to collect data and the results confirmed that organisational factors

(top management support and perceived technical competent) and scheme factors (perceived

usefulness and perceived ease of use) have a significant influence upon Malaysian food safety

system adoption. However, environment factors (perceived industry pressure and perceived

government pressure) did not have significant impact on Malaysian food safety adoption.

Furthermore, the regulatory incentives offered by the government had no moderating effect on

the relationships of determinants studied.

The exploratory research method used by Fernando et al. (2015) was appropriate as little was

known about the area being investigated. However, there is no enough information to conclude

whether the sample used was representative or not. This study was carried out in a context of

developing country like Kenya where big companies are the only one meeting the international

standards yet many SMEs still struggle to comply with the requirements, hence the need of

government incentives. This case might inspire the Kenyan regulator in horticulture, especially

on the role of the facilitator which is needed to promote small scale producers and exporters

involved in the export of horticultural produce. This study investigated the organisational factors,

scheme factors, environmental factors yet our study investigated the antecedents of standards

64

compliance particularly awareness in standards compliance, competences of producers and

exporters, inputs use, technology use, and infrastructure.

In their study on legislation, standards and diagnostics as a backbone of food safety assurance,

Smigic et al., (2015) attempted to analyse the situation of multidimensional food safety

assurance in Serbian, as a candidate for EU membership by then, in relation to its EU food law

harmonisation efforts. They used a descriptive approach by comparing respective requirements

and legislation governing Serbian and European food safety. The study argues that for EU food

law harmonisation efforts, particular attention should be given for improvement and efficiency of

food safety control, inspection services, knowledge and expertise of state inspectors, consultants

and auditors, improvements of transparency and communications between legal authorities,

customers, consumers, and food business operators.

Using a pair-wise comparison on a total of 13 critical elements in India, Sagheer et al. (2009)

carried out a study on the application of interpretative structural modelling of the compliance to

food standards. The study aimed to identify and analyse critical factors influencing standards

compliance in the food industry of developing countries with a specific reference to India. The

study revealed that in the global competition of food industry, developing countries tend to

detour while complying with standards owing to costs involved in setting up systems and

procedures. The study insisted on the need for strong surveillance mechanism and strengthening

of legal and regulatory systems.

Another study by Zheng et al. (2012) related to the evolution of food traceability system

concluded that to establish international safety standards, regulation systems including

International Organization for Standards (ISO9000), the Quantity and Safety Standards, and

Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) Standards are commonly used. These

standards can provide useful information to food producers and help them identify, evaluate and

control food-related health risks.

In relation to previous studies, this study will therefore test the hypothesis that:

H06: Regulatory Framework (RF) plays no significant moderating role between antecedents of

standards compliance and internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture.

65

2.4.7 Development of hypotheses

Based on the review of empirical studies presented in this section which has investigated on

exporters’ awareness and competences in horticulture, inputs use and technology use,

infrastructure and regulatory framework, this study has hypothesised that:



H02: Exporters’ competences to comply with standards (CSC) in farming have no significant

influence on the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture (IKH).







H06: Regulatory Framework (RF) plays no significant moderating role between antecedents of

standards compliance and internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture.

2.5 Chapter summary

The second chapter of literature review has presented the key theories that underpin this study. In

addition, it has presented the conceptual framework and the empirical review related to different

variables of the conceptual framework. The competitive advantage of nations (Porter’s Diamond

principal) was the main theory that informed the study. In the conceptual framework, the

independent variables, the dependent variable and the moderating variable were discussed.

Lastly, the empirical review covered the research objectives, moderating and independent

variables. The following third chapter presents the research methods. It covers the research

philosophy, the research design and the procedures followed in undertaking the study, the

research population, the sampling design, the data collection and analysis methods.

66

CHAPTER THREE

3.0 RESEARCH METHODS

3.1 Introduction

This study describes the research methodology used in this study. It addresses the research

philosophy that was followed in the study, discusses the research design, population studied and

sample design, data collection method used, research procedure and data analysis methods.

Further discussions within this chapter include internal and external validity, and

instrumentation. A summary of the chapter is provided at the end.

3.2 Research Philosophy

Research philosophy refers to development of knowledge and the nature of that knowledge. It

contains important assumptions about the way in which researchers view the world. The

assumptions underpin the research strategy and methods chosen as part of that strategy. It

outlines the way data of a certain phenomenon should be gathered and analysed (Saunders et al.,

2003). The term epistemology (what is known to be true) as opposed to doxology (what is

believed to be true) encompasses the various philosophies of research approach. The purpose of

science, then, is the process of transforming things believed into things known: doxa to episteme.

Two major research philosophies have been identified in the Western tradition of science,

namely positivist sometimes called scientific (deductive research) and interpretivist or

phenomenology also known as anti-positivist (inductive research) (Galliers, 1991).

Positivism research philosophy reflects the belief that reality is stable, can be observed and

described from an objective view point without interfering with the phenomena being studied

(Levin, 1988). It contends that phenomena should be isolated and that observations should be

repeatable. This often involves manipulation of reality with variations in only a single

independent variable so as to identify regularities in, and to form relationships between some of

the constituent elements of the social world. Predictions can be made on the basis of the

previously observed and explained realities and their inter-relationships. Hatch &Cunliffe (2006)

assert that positivism research philosophy can be used to investigate what truly happens in

organizations through scientific measurement of people and system behaviours. This research

67

philosophy can therefore be used to investigate the effect of antecedents of standards compliance

on internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture.

Interpretivists contend that only through the subjective interpretation of and intervention in

reality can that reality be fully understood. The study of phenomena in their natural environment

is a key to the interpretivist philosophy, together with the acknowledgement that scientists cannot

avoid affecting those phenomena they study. They admit that there may be many interpretations

of reality, but maintain that these interpretations are in themselves a part of the scientific

knowledge they are pursuing. Interpretivism has a tradition that is no less glorious than that the

one of positivism, nor is it shorter (Leitch, Hill, and Harrison, 2010).

In this regard, the research philosophy that best fits this study’s objectives is the positivism

which applies the research tradition of the natural sciences to social science research, (Saunders

et al., 2003). In this tradition, research results are typically obtained through formulation and

testing of hypotheses which would be validated or invalidated by qualitative and statistical

methods. Hence, we have accomplished the research purpose by answering the research

objectives. In order to test the hypothesis, there was need to translate the underlying concepts

into measurable forms (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009). Therefore, in this study,

antecedents of standards compliance were a construct that needed to be measured in order to test

their effect on the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture. Existing theories were used to

develop hypotheses about the relationship that exists between exporters’ awareness in standards

compliance and the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture, exporters’ competence and the

internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture , input use in farming and the internationalisation of

Kenyan horticulture, technology use in farming and the internationalisation of Kenyan

horticulture and infrastructure in relation to horticulture farming and the internationalisation of

Kenyan horticulture. In addition, the moderating role of the regulatory framework was taken into

account.The study therefore seeked to verify the propositions through empirical tests by

operationalising the variables in the conceptual framework to allow measurement. The principle

of positivism was used since the researcher used existing theory in developing hypotheses.

68

3.3 Research Design

A research design is defined as a general framework of how the researcher intends to go about

answering research questions. Cooper and Schindler(2014) assert that research design is a

blueprint for collection, measurement and analysis of data. Kothari (2004) argued that it is the

conceptual structure within which the research is conducted. There are three main research

designs namely: descriptive, explanatory and exploratory research designs.

A descriptive survey is used when collecting information about people’s attitude, opinions and

habits (Orodho & Kombo, 2002). It enables the researcher to narrate how various behaviours and

events occur. It is appropriate when the purpose of the study is description of a situation or of an

association between variables as it helps to minimize biases and maximizes the reliability of the

evidence collected. It describes a phenomenon occurring in a population without influencing the

subjects being studied. An explanatory survey design shows how variables relate to each other

by focusing on why questions (Fox & Bayat, 2007). In fact, answering the why questions

involves developing causal explanations. The fundamental purpose of research design in

exploratory research is to avoid inferences. Cooper & Schindler (2014) argue that an exploratory

research design is conducted on research problem when there are few or no earlier studies to

refer to. The focus is on gaining insights and familiarity for later investigation or undertaken

when problems are in a preliminary stage of investigation.

This study applied descriptive and explanatory research design because the objective of the study

was to describe the antecedents of standards compliance including awareness, competences,

inputs, technology, infrastructure and regulatory framework as moderating the effect of

antecedents of standards compliance and the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture; and

relate the variables to find out their influence on the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture.

Therefore, it estimated the proportion of population and described its characteristics. In addition,

it used secondary data and indicated the causality between events and variables. It went beyond

simple exploration and description and looked for the reasons of the events or situations being

stated.

69

3.4 Population

Cooper & Schindler (2011), define the population as the total collection of elements about which

some inferences are made. The target population for this study is the total number of FPEAK

ordinary members. According to FPEAK (2017), the total number of its registered ordinary

members by March 2017 was 161 exporters. Firm managers in charge of standards compliance

for exporter of horticultural produce were selected for this study as they are the ones responsible

for safety and quality of horticultural produce for export. The Table 3.1 indicates the number of

exporters according to category of horticultural produce.

Table 3.1: Distribution of population

Category of horticultural

produce

Number of

exporters

Percentage (%)

Flowers 24 15

Fruits 32 20

Vegetables 90 56

Herbs 15 9

Total 161 100

Source: FPEAK(2017)

3.5 Sampling design

3.5.1 Sampling frame

According to Saunders et al. (2009), the sampling frame for any probability sample is a complete

list of all the cases in the population from which the sample will be drawn. The sample frame for

our study consisted of the list of 161 FPEAK ordinary members registered by March 2017. From

this list, a sample of 115 exporters from different categories of horticultural produce was selected

for the survey.

3.5.2 Sampling technique

Good sampling technique includes maximizing the degree to which the selected group represents

the population (Salkind, 2003). In addition, sampling techniques define who will participate in

the survey; and for the results to be meaningful, the individuals who take the survey should be

70

representative of the entire population under investigation (Jackson, 2010). Jankowicz (2002)

argues that sampling is a delibarate choice of a number of people who will provide the data from

which conclusions will be drawn on a large group which these people represent. There are

various sampling techniques including simple random sampling, stratified random sampling,

purposive sampling and snowball sampling (Kothari, 2004), just to mention a few. These

techniques can be broadly classified as either probability or non-probability sampling. According

to Cooper & Schindler (2014), non- probability sampling is a sampling procedure whereby the

chance of selecting a firm to be included in the sample is not known. Some of the non-

probability sampling techniques include convenience sampling and snowball sampling. On the

other hand, for probability sampling the chance of selecting a firm for inclusion in the sample is

known. Some of the probability sampling techniques include simple random sampling, stratified

random sampling among others.

In attempt to achieve a representative sample for this study, stratified random sampling was

adopted with strata defined by category of horticultural produce for export. Swanborn (2010)

argues that this method reduces sampling error by giving the researcher a greater control over the

composition of the sample, especially in variables where it is important that the sample be

representative. In addition, it ensures that a small group within the population is adequately

represented in a sample in order to compare it to the large sample. In this way, every unit in the

stratum has same chance of being selected and we use same sampling fraction for all strata to

ensure proportionate representation in the sample. Therefore, stratified sampling helped to avoid

biasness consequently having unbiased parameter estimates. Based on distribution of 161

exporters in the Kenyan horticulture (Table 3.1), the researcher used proportions calculated in

the population distribution to come up with a representative sample distribution as shown in

Table 3.2. The proportions calculated gave the number of exporters to be included in the sample

for each stratum. Thereafter simple random sampling was used to select the number of exporters

from whom data were collected.

3.5.3 Sample size

A sample size is the number of units of observation that the researcher intends to collect

information from (Cooper & Schindler, 2014).The purpose is to reduce expenses and time by

allowing the researcher to estimate information about the whole population from a representative

71

sample. The larger the sample size, the more accurate the results. A sample of 10% to 20% is

considered adequate for detailed studies (Ramenyi et al.,2003). According to Kothari (2008), the

sample size depends on the population size and objectives of the study. In this study, the

objective was to get a representative sample size in order to generalize results to the whole

population. The study used a stratified random sampling technique. Determining a final

population for a large population was assumed to be normally distributed with a confidence level

of 95% or a significance interval of 10% (Mugenda 2014). In this study, the researcher used

Yamane’s (1967) formula:

Where

n= sample size

N= population

e= acceptable sampling error

Under this formula, a 95% level of confidence and p=0.05 were assumed.

When this formula was applied to above sample for the number of FPEAK ordinary member’s in

this study, we got

n=N

1+N (e) 2

n=161

1+161(0.05)2

n=115

Therefore, a simple size of 115FPEAK ordinary members’ was selected for this study from a

total population of 161 exporters.

Several reasons explain why Yamane’s formula was chosen for this study. Firstly, Yamane

(1967) formula assumes a normal distribution as explained by Kasiulevicius & Sapoka (2006).

This study assumed that exporters in horticulture are normally distributed in terms of parameters

72

related to antecedents of standards compliance for the internationalisation of Kenyan

horticulture. Under Yamane (1967) formula, a 95% confidence level and p <=0.05 are assumed.

Secondly, for the calculation of the sample size, Yamane’s formula assumes that a stratified

random sample (which is the case for this study) is the sampling design especially appropriate

when regression, correlation and other analysis are needed for the study (Israel, 2015). Thirdly,

Fox, Hunn and Mathers (2009) explain that Yamane (1967) formula is suitable when the

population from which the sample is drawn from is known, as this excludes the need for the

mean and standard deviation in the calculation of the sample size. For this study, the population

was known and hence the choice of the formula. The population distribution and the sample size

distribution are indicated in the Tables 3.2.

Table 3.2: Sample size distribution of producers and exporters in horticulture

Category of horticultural

produce

Total

population

Sample

size

Percentage for the

sample size (%)

Flowers 24 17 15

Fruits 32 23 20

Vegetables 90 64 55

Herbs 15 11 10

Total 161 115 100

3.6 Data Collection methods

The study applied both primary and secondary data. The primary data, either qualitative or

quantitative were collected using a self-administrated questionnaire, an interview guide and

focus group guide. The secondary data were obtained from various library books, referenced

journals, previous research papers etc.

3.6.1 Self-administrated Questionnaire

Kotahari (2008) defines a questionnaire as a document that consists of a number of questions

printed or typed in a definite order on a form or a set of forms. The use of structured

questionnaires is expected to apply consistency in the results hence increase its reliability

(Cooper & Schindler, 2014). The data collection was conducted through a survey involving the

use of self-administrated questionnaire. The challenge of a self-administered questionnaire is the

73

reliance on the clarity of the written words of the respondents, which also depends on the skills

of the respondents. However, the advantage of this method is that it allows respondents to

complete the questionnaire at their convenient time. Respondents would not be put under

pressure to complete the questionnaire which might increase quality of responses and a tendency

to improve the response rate. This method is economical and efficient for a large sample,

compared to personnel interviews. In addition, respondents are educated to understand and

answer the questions without the presence of the researcher.

Questionnaires may have open and close ended questions (Creswell, 2005). In this study, the

self-administrated questionnaire used both open and close ended questions where some

responses were restricted to small set of responses that generate precise answers to develop the

empirical study and others allowed the respondent to express themselves. The questionnaire was

designed with a five point Likert scale to provide the extent of respondent’s pinions on the

impact of the antecedents of standards compliance under consideration for the

internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture. The self-administrated questionnaire was divided

into two sections, mainly section 1 and section 2. The first section of the questionnairefocused on

general questions related to demographic information of respondents while the second section

dealt with the constructs measured. This second sections was dived in seven parts covering seven

constructs representing five independents variables, one dependent variable and one moderating

variable. The detailed presentation of each section is discussed in following sections.

The first section of the questionnaire contained six questions asking respondents about their

gender, age, level of education, trainings attended in horticultural farming, years of experience in

horticulture, and finally category of horticultural produce. Section two of the questionnaire was

divided into seven parts covering items for each construct to be measured. The first part included

fourteen questions related to exporters’ awareness in relation to standards compliance,

preferences of international markets in horticulture, and knowledge about institutions involved in

the Kenyan horticulture. The second part included eight questions asking respondents about

competences in horticultural produce for export. The questions were focusing on the aspects such

as the level of education, the trainings attended in relation to food safety and food security,

possession of certificates attesting compliance with recommended good practices during

74

farming. The third part included twelve questions related to input use in horticulture for export.

The questions reflected the four dimensions of input use related to seeds, water, fertilisers, and

pesticides. The fourth part included nine questions related to technology use in horticulture for

export. Methods and technology use for the treatment of pests and diseases, availability and

accessibility of laboratories, availability and accessibility of cold rooms, methods use during

harvesting, sorting, grading and packaging etc. The fifth part of the second section contained five

questions related infrastructure and horticulture intended to export. These questions covered

aspects such as transport, cost and regularity of electricity. The sixth part of the questionnaire

included six questions related to the moderating role of the regulatory framework. These

questions were related to the controlling system of standard compliance and the system of

issuing certificate of export. Finally, the seventh part contained twelve questions asking

respondents how exporters’ awareness and competences, input use in horticulture, technology

use in horticulture, infrastructure, and the moderating role of regulatory framework contributed

to increase the international market share of Kenya horticulture.

3.6.2. Scale development

This section of the chapter explains the selection of scale items that were used to measure the

constructs in the study. There were seven main constructs comprising of five independent

variables, one dependent variable and one moderating variable. The independent variables were

awareness with three observed items, competences with three observed items, input use with

three observed items, technology with three observed items, and infrastructure with two observed

items. Internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture as a dependent variable had one observed item

while the regulatory framework as moderating variable had two observable items.

The items used to measure the constructs of this study were selected from the review of previous

studies and literatures that were relevant to this study. One of the purposes of review of previous

literature was to determine the items that measure the content of each construct and composite

variables used in this study. Therefore, all the scales used in this study were adopted from

previous studies, while validity and reliability of the scales were examined to ensure the scales

were acceptable and relevant to this study through pilot study.

75

A total of 16 items were used to measure the constructs in this study. The number and source of

items used to assess each construct is shown in the Table 3.3. Following the pre-test during the

pilot study, the final self-administrated questionnaire was modified and administrated in the

field. Each construct had selected multi-items to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the

research objectives and helped the researcher to overcome the shortcoming of a single item

measure. Multi items scales were considered necessary to achieve a valid measurement of

complex construct (Lietz,2010). In fact, single item scales lack sufficient correlation with the

attribute being measured and may give unreliable response.

Table 3.3: Total of scale items used and number of questions

Constructs Items Number of questions

Exporters’ awareness of

standards compliance (ASC)

- Standards in horticulture

- Life style and consumption

patterns in exports

4

4

- Institutions supporting

horticulture and their role

6

Exporters’ competences to

comply with standards

(CSC)

- Education 2

- Training on food safety and

quality

2

- Certification 4

Input use in horticulture

(ISC))

- Seeds

- Water

4

4

- Fertilisers/Pesticides 4

Technology use in

horticulture (TSC)

- Treatment of pests and

diseases methods

- Harvesting, sorting/grading,

packaging methods/practices

3

6

Infrastructure affecting

horticulture (FSC)

- Transport 2

- Energy 3

Regulatory framework (RF) - Surveillance system 4

- Certification services 2


Kenyan horticulture (IKH)

- Market share 12

76

The constructs have been operationalised using a 5 point likert scale. The likert scale was

selected because it is easy to answer and takes less time (Finstad, 2010). The lack of

reproducibility is its major limitation (Dawes, 2007).

3.6.3 Interview guide and Focus group guide development

Conducting a qualitative interview can often enhance the value of research that uses primarily

quantitative measurement techniques (Onwegbuzie & Collins, 2007). Therefore, qualitative data

was collected using an interview guide and focus group guide. This was done to complement the

findings from the main quantitative data collected through questionnaires and also helped the

respondents to give out any information which the research has no prior knowledge. The

interview was probed information on awareness and capabilities of farmers to comply with

standards in horticulture, and further details on the challenges they are facing with regard to

inputs, technology and infrastructure. In addition, respondents provided their opinions on what

should be done in horticulture to comply with standards and increase horticultural exports.

Interviews were conducted with exporters in each category of exports in horticulture as follow: 5

interviews with exporters of flowers, 4 interviews with exporters of vegetables, 4 interviews with

exporters of fruits and 2 interviews with exporters of herbs. Interviews were conducted as well

with senior officials in the institutions and bodies involved in Standards compliance of Kenya

Horticulture such as HCDA, KEPHIS, FPEAK, KFC etc. The information was gathered

following thematic form of patterns and analysed. An interview guide covering the six specific

objectives was used. In addition, focus group was organised with 2 groups of exporters of

flowers, 2 groups of exporters of vegetables and 1 group of exporters of fruits. A focus group

guide was used for this purpose. There was no group of exporters of herbs met.

3.7 Research procedures

This study was carried out in two phases comprising of the pilot study and the main survey.

During the pilot study, the questionnaire was pre-tested with a selected sample from the

population. The interview guide and a focus group guide were pre-tested during interviews with

firm managers and focus group discussions with household farmers in horticulture. After the

77

pilot study, the questionnaire, the interview guide and the focus group guide were validated and

corrections made before conducting the main survey.

3.7.1 Pilot study

A pilot study is a screening procedure that involves a trial run with a group of respondents to iron

out fundamental problems in the survey design (McDaniel & Gates, 2010). There is a wide

agreement among scholars that the pre-testing is an integral part of the questionnaire

development process. A pilot study must be conducted prior to the main survey in order to

validate the instrument and to ensure that the survey questionnaire is free of errors and

ambiguities (Lietz, 2010). It is important in detecting ambiguity and evaluating the type of

answers given to determine whether they help to lay down objectives (Robson, 2007). Therefore,

before the final and actual data collection for the study, the questionnaire was initially pre-tested

in a piloting test. In order to proceed with the pre-testing of the instrument, the researcher had to

identify who should be the subject in the pretesting and how large would be the sample for the

pre-test (Allen & Nimon, 2007). In this regard, respondents who are part of the population were

approached in the pilot study. Given that a pre-test sample should be between 5% and 10%

depending on the sample size (Mugenda, 2014), pilot test was conducted on 12 respondents

which is 10% of the sample size. These respondents were firm managers in all categories of

Kenyan horticulture in charge of standards compliance for exporter of horticultural produce: 5

firm managers from flower firms, 3 from vegetable firms, 3 from fruit firms and 1 from herb

firms. They were selected in the firms from counties surrounding Nairobi based on accessibility

and availability of all categories of Kenyan horticultural produce. This has allowed testing of all

the aspects of the questionnaire, including wording, sequence, layout and remove any error or

omission. The findings of the pilot test were used to adjust the questionnaire for the final study.

To pre-test the interview guide and focus group guide, interviews were conducted with 3

exporters of flowers, 2 exporters of vegetables, 2 exporters of fruits, and 1exporter of herbs. In

addition, one focus group discussion was conducted with a group of exporters of vegetables. The

purpose of pre-testing the interview guide and focus group guide was to assess the relevance of

the questions to cover the research question variable. Besides, exporters in horticulture were

requested to make further suggestions and criticisms and comment on the interview guide and

focus group guide. Finally, the pre-test of interview and focus group guide was used to assess

78

whether the questions in the interview guide and focus guide were able to compliment the

questions in the self-administrated questionnaire.

The main objective of the pilot study was first to improve the internal consistency (reliability) of

the questionnaire. Besides, it was used to improve the face and content validity of the

questionnaire. Finally, it assessed whether the research protocol was realistic and workable for

example whether the distribution of the questionnaire online was preferred to hand delivery

copies. Twelve questionnaires were distributed for the pilot study sample. The aim of this was to

test the questions wording, sequence, and layout, familiarity with respondents and response rate

while assessing the content validity and reliability of the questionnaire. All the attempts to

distribute the questionnaire by email were not successful as only one respondent replied. Eleven

questionnaires were distributed by hand and therefore, it was expected that, with a physical

distribution of the questionnaire, a good response rate would be achieved during the final study.

The overall Cronbach’s alpha was equivalent to 0.927 and the general feeling of the respondents

was that the questions were clear and easy to respond to. It was reported that questionnaire took

approximately an average of fifteen minutes to be completed. The findings of the pilot study are

presented in the appendix I.

3.7.2 Reliability of the instrument

Joppe (2000) defines reliability as the extent to which results are consistent over time, and

according to Creswell (2005), reliability refers to the consistency and stability of scores obtained

from an instrument. Reliability refers to question wherever the instrument constantly measures

what it is intended to measure. An accurate representation of the total population under study is

referred to as reliability and if the results of a study can be reproduced under a similar

methodology, then the research instrument is considered to be reliable.

For both pilot study and main survey, the results from the questionnaires were analysed to assess

the reliability of the measurements. In the pilot study, the questionnaire was subjected to overall

reliability analysis for internal consistency. This was done using the Cronbach’s alpha as a co-

efficient of internal consistency test for the items measuring each construct. Indeed, Cronbach’s

alpha is known as a good measure of reliability (Monette, at el., 2002). Internal consistency

measures the correlations between different items on the same test (or the same subscale on a

79

larger test) and whether several items that propose to measure the same general construct

produce similar scores. Castillio (2009) provides the following rules of thumb: >0.9 – Excellent,

>0.8 – Good, >0.7 – Acceptable, >0.6 – Questionable, >0.5 – Poor and <0.5 – Unacceptable. The

closer the Cronbach’s alpha gets to 1 the better the reliability. The acceptable value of 0.7 was

used as a cut-off of reliability for this study. For the sample used, one of the results of data

analysis indicates a value of Cronbach’s alpha equivalent to 0.927. This value shows a high level

of internal consistency between the 39 items on the questionnaire used. The results also revealed

that almost all the variables had alpha values higher than 0.7, which indicates a significant

degree of internal consistency. In addition, reliability test was carried out for the final study and

the results were presented in chapter four.

3.7.3 Validity of the instrument

Validity refers to the ability to gain meaning and sense from the scores obtained from an

instrument. Validity is also important to draw accurate conclusions from scores collected from

instruments (Creswell, 2005). Validity is the extent to which an instrument measures what is

supposed to measure and performs what it is designed to perform (Salkind, 2012). There are

Face Validity (or External validity) and Content Validity (or Internal validity).

Face Validity

Face validity involves generalising the results of the study from a sample to a population

(Creswell, 2005). As a recall, a sample should be an accurate representation of the population.

To ensure face validity of this mixed study, respondents from different strata of exporters in

Kenyan horticulture were considered.

Content Validity

Content validity refers to the appropriateness of the content of an instrument (Salkind, 2012).

Will the measures assess accurately what the study will need to know? The experiences of

participants can threaten internal validity and can affect conclusions drawn about a study

(Creswell, 2005). The findings of the pilot-study were used to remove any ambiguity, refine and

improve the data collection instruments in order to ensure higher level of validity. Validity was

also achieved by subjecting the questionnaire to experts for review, including supervisors and

colleagues.

80

Table 3.4: Questionnaire amendments after pilot study

No of Q Pilot

questionnaire

Final questionnaire Comments

Part A

Q5

In which

category do you

classify your

activities:

Farming,

processing?

In which category of

horticultural produce

do you classify your

farming: Flowers,

vegetables, fruits,

herbs?

The concepts of “farming” and

“processing” were confusing during

pilot study. According to

respondents, the processing is part of

farming. In the final question, a clear

classification of crops in horticulture

was given.

Part A

Q6

The level of

activities in

farming:

Smallholder,

middle size,

large size

farming

Question was removed The question about the size of the

farm was removed because there was

no clear demarcation between large

and middle size farms and between

middle size and smallholder farms.

Part B,

III /Q 9,

10,11,12

There was no

question related

to pesticides in

horticulture

Questions about

knowledge and

availability of

appropriate pesticides

for farming and

whether the use of

appropriate pesticides

contributes to increase

of market share.

During interviews in the pilot study,

information related to pesticides use

in horticulture was collected but the

questionnaire used did not include

any question related to them.

Part B,

III /Q 14

There was no

question related

to testing the

water used in

horticulture

Question about testing

the water used during

farming


it was difficult for respondents to

assess whether or not the water used

was of good quality or not. Hence the

need to bring in a question related to

how they can know the quality of

water.

Part B,

IV /

Q 10,

11,12

Rating of

efficiency of

“processing

technology” and

whether

efficient

processing

technology

contributes to

increase the

market share.

No question related to

“processing

technology” in

horticulture as this

information is included

in the question related

to methods used in

harvesting, sorting/

grading, packaging.


the term “processing technology” in

horticulture was not precise. It was

appropriate to replace it with the

process of harvesting, sorting/

grading, packaging which were

referred to in questions 6,7,8,9.

Therefore questions 10, 11, 12 were

deleted.

81

3.7.4 Administration of the instruments

The research instruments used in the study to collect primary data were a self-administered

questionnaire, an interview guide and a focus group guide. The researcher obtained an

introductory letter from the university – USIUA – to collect data and self-administer the

questionnaires to the respondents. A self-administered questionnaire (SAQ) is an instrument

designed to be completed by a respondent without intervention of the researcher (or interviewer)

collecting data, and can also be used in conjunction with other data collection modalities directed

by a trained interviewer (Cooper & Schindler, 2014). According to Salkind (2003), a

questionnaire is more appropriate because it provides focused questions, allows for surveying of

a broad geographical area and allows participants to be more truthful and anonymous. (Creswell,

2005) argues that special care must be taken with SAQ to ensure proper wording of questions

and how the questions are formatted to avoid measurement error. A set of coded questionnaires

was developed based on performance measures linked to variables of the study as indicated in

Appendix IV (Final questionnaire). The questionnaires were reformulated through pilot test

process undertaken to confirm their reliability and validity. The questionnaires were self-

administrated to the respondents using the drop and pick later method. To ensure the

questionnaires were answered accordingly and that no information was left out, Emails, phone

calls were used for follow up by reminding the respondents to complete the questionnaires, and

providing clarifications where needed.

To assist in data collection, data entry, data coding and cleaning, the researcher employed 2

research assistants to distribute the questionnaires. The researcher ensured that the research

assistants employed had experience in data collection and data entry. The research assistants

were facilitated in terms of financial and relevant information such as location of exporters in

Kenyan horticulture (FPEAK ordinary members). Before the research assistants start data

collection, they were trained on the best data collection procedures. The data was collected

during week days from 9am to 4pm and the researcher kept in touch with the research assistants

via mobile phone and mid-week meetings. After completion of data collection, the research

assistants entered data in Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) using uniform codes.

Thereafter, the researcher conducted data cleaning and analysis.

82

Using an interview guide and focus group guide, the researcher conducted interviews with some

respondents identified by convenience in each category of Kenyan horticulture.

3.7.5 Ethical considerations

The British Broadcasting Corporation (2015) defines ethics as a system of moral principal that

defines what is good for individuals and to society at large. Cooper & Schlindler (2014) argue

that there are several ethical issues in academic research which includes: deception which refers

to an intentional misinterpretation of facts related to the purpose, nature or consequences of an

investigation. In the context of academic research, deception may refer to either an omission or a

commission on the part of the researcher in his/her interaction with the participants (Haverkamp,

2005). According to Hoover (2005), another ethical issue in academic research is privacy, which

refers to an individual’s right to control the distribution of personal information. He explains that

as a rule of thumb, the invasion of a respondent’s privacy should be kept at a minimum. Another

ethical issue is the respondent’s informed consent (AERA, 2002). According to Robbins (2000),

informed consent ensures that respondents have complete understanding of the purpose and

methods used in the study, the risk involved, and the demand of the study. Another issue in

academic research is ethics, which states that the researcher has a moral obligation to protect the

participants from harm, unnecessary invasion of their privacy and the promotion of their

wellbeing (Swan, 2003). In the context of academic research, harm may be broadly defined as

psychological stress, personal embarrassment or humiliation or a myriad of influences that may

adversary affect the participants in any significant way (Rubin, 2000). Protecting participant

from harm is a key consideration in any research undertaken.

In order to take care of ethical issues in the present study, the requisite permission to conduct the

study was requested from the National Council for Science, Technology and Innovation

(NACOSTI). Secondly, an introduction letter to public and private institutions and bodies

involved in Kenyan horticulture was obtained from the University. This letter explained the

purpose of the study, its significant contribution to concerned sector and the crucial role of those

institutions/ bodies for its success. The researcher looked for another introduction letter from

University addressed to respondents, stating the topic and explaining the purpose of the research.

The researcher also added an introduction letter giving assurance of confidentiality to the

respondents. To keep confidentiality and anonymity, participant names were omitted.

83

Participants were informed that participation is voluntary and that the study could be used for

future presentations, publications, or educational endeavours. Only the conductor of the study

had access to the data. The data were kept in a locked file cabinet and will be shredded and

destroyed after 2 years period. Electronic data, such as the mailing list were deleted and

overwritten to ensure the data cannot be restored after being erased.

3.8 Data Analysis Methods

To investigate the antecedents of standards compliance for the internationalisation of Kenyan

horticulture was the primary purpose of this study. To achieve this objective, data was collected

and cleaned of errors or omission which could have interfered with the accuracy of the findings.

This was expected to reduce the margin of error and enhance the assurance and accuracy of the

results. Data was then compiled and coded according to each variable of the study. The coding of

the data helped in the transformation of all qualitative data into quantitative form, making it

easier for analysis in SPSS. Both descriptive and inferential analyses were used in the study.

3.8.1 Preliminary data analysis

Quantitative data collected from questionnaires was analysed using Statistical Package for Social

Sciences (SPSS). The data was screened in terms of coding, missing data, identification of

outliers like normal probability plot and test of data normality. Descriptive statistics such as

measures of central tendencies mainly mean, and standard deviation was computed and analysed.

Screening of data was done to ensure that data was clean, complete, reliable and valid for

subsequent analysis. The aim of analysing data is to gain preliminary information about the data

gathered as discussed in the following sections.

3.8.1.2 Normality, Linearity, Multicollinearity and Homoscedasticity

Normality, Linearity, Multicollinearity and Homoscedasticity were checked as prerequisite

before drawing conclusions about a population based on regression analysis. According to Hair,

et al. (2006) testing the assumptions of regression analysis is critically important in order to

reduce any complication of the relationship between the variables. According to Tabachnick &

Fidell (2007), data is normal if the data distribution in each item and in all linear combination of

items is normally distributed. Normal distribution is the symmetrical bell shaped curve which is

84

defined by mean and variance where standardised normal curve will have a mean of 0 and

variance of 1. The symmetry of distribution is known as skewness. A positively skewed

distribution will depict scores that are clustered to the left, with the tail extending to the right a

negatively skewed distribution will depict scores that are clustered to the right, with the tail

extending to the left (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007) . Meanwhile, all the variables were checked if

they were within the normal range of skewness and kurtosis of -1<X<1 (Hair et al., 2006).

According to Pallant (2007), negative or positive skewness and kurtosis do not represent any

problem until and unless they are within normal range. Furthermore, the normality tests were

conducted using the Kolmogrov –Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk test (K-S test).However, sometimes

K-S test could be significant due to a large sample size (Pallant, 2007) and the significance of the

K-S test for a large sample size cannot be considered as a deviation of data from normal

distribution (Field, 2009). Besides, positive kurtosis values indicates a peak distribution while a

negative kurtosis values indicates a flat distribution and ranges from -2<X<2 should hold

threshold for a normal distribution data (Hair et al., 2006).

Linearity test was administered on the collected data to determine the relationship between

independent variables and dependent variable. Linearity means that two variables are related by a

mathematical equation Y = cX, where c is any constant number. The linearity was tested with

scatter plots. If the value sig. Deviation from Linearity > 0.05 then, the relationships between the

independent variables and dependent variable are linearly dependent. If the value sig. Deviation

from Linearity < 0.05 then, the relationship between the independent variables and dependent

variable is not linear.

Multicollinearity diagnostic was also performed. It is expected that two variables should show

correlation. But when correlations are high (rho >+/-90), the problem is referred to as

multicollinearity (Hair et al., 2006). Multicollinearity poses a real problem for the researcher

because: it severely limits the size of the proportion of variance which can be accounted for by

the regression or extraction (R). This is because the predictors are going after much of the same

variance on dependent variables (Field, 2009). Further, it makes determination of the importance

of a given predictor difficult because the effects of the predictors are confounded due to the

85

correlation among them. In addition, it increases the variances of the regression coefficients, the

greater these variances, the more instable the prediction equation will be (Field, 2009).

To diagnose multicollinearity, the variance inflation factors (VIF) were checked. The VIF of a

predictor should indicate whether there is a strong linear association between it and all the

remaining predictors. The second thing was to check the tolerance values. This refers to the

degree to which one predictor can by itself be predicted by the other predictor in the model

(Pallant, 2007). By creating each variable as dependent variable and regressing against

independent variables in a multivariate regression, the VIF can help to examine whether

multicollinearity exists in the data. By the rule of the thumb VIF < 3 indicates no problem,

VIF>5 indicates a likely problem while VIF>10 indicates a significant problem left (Tabachnick

& Fidell (2007).As suggested by Pallant (2007), variables with normality, multicollinearity were

deleted during analysis.

3.8.2 Descriptive Statistics

According to Sekaran & Bougie (2013), descriptive analyses are a group of statistical methods

that are used to describe the basic features of the data in a study and provide simple summaries

about the sample and the measures. According to Cooper & Schindler (2014), descriptive

statistics form the basis of virtually every data analysis. According to Coolis & Hussey (2009),

descriptive statistics make it possible for patterns that are not apparent in the raw data to be

discerned and positively aids in the subsequent hypotheses rejection or confirmation. For this

study, the descriptive statistics used will be frequency distribution, percentages and means.

3.8.2.1 Frequency distribution

According to McGivern (2006), a frequency is a count of the number of times value occurs in the

data set, or the number of respondents who give a particular answer. On the other hand, Kent

(2007) explains that frequency distribution shows how frequently each response or classification

occurs, and the percentage in relation to the whole population. According to Bornmann (2012),

the percentages are used to simplify the data into a standard numerical range which allow for

easy comparability. According to Mazzocchi (2008), a percentage tells us the relative proportion

or incidence in every 100 cases. For this study, frequency distribution will be used to present

86

demographic information of the respondents, the number of years in horticulture and also present

some basic information on different variables in the study.

3.8.2.2 Mean

The mean is the sum of observed values in the distribution divided by the number of

observations. According to Sekaran and Bougie (2013), the mean is the location measure most

frequently used for interval ratio data but can be misleading when the distribution contains

extreme scores. That is the scores are either too large or too small. For this study, means will be

used to present the respondents’ demographic profiles and to explore different aspects in each

research objective.

3.8.3 Inferential statistics

According to Van Elst (2013), inferential statistics refer to a group of statistical methods and

models used to draw conclusions that extend beyond the immediate data about a population from

quantitative data relating to a random sample. Lear (2012) explains that inferential statistics are

used to make judgments of the probability that an observed difference between groups is a

dependable one or whether it might have happed by chance in a study. For this study, the

following statistics will be used in data analysis:

3.8.3.1 Correlations

Lear (2012) explains that correlations reveal the magnitude and direction of relationships, where

the magnitude is the degree to which variables move in unison or opposition. She explains

further that the co-efficient’s sign(+/-), signifies the direction of the relationship, while direction

indicates whether the large values of one variable are associated with large values on the other

+1, indicating a perfect positive relationship and -1 indicating a perfect negative or reverse

relationship (as one variable grows larger, the other variable grows smaller) (Cooper &

Schendler, 2014). On the other hand, McBurney and White (2010) explain that a p-value is a

major of how much evidence there is against the null hypotheses (H0), and point out that the

smaller the p-value, the more evidence there is against H0. According to Coolidge (2006), the

null hypothesis is rejected when the p-value is less than a significant level (µ) of 0.05. According

to McDonald (2014), when the result of an analysis is significantly significant, the null

hypothesis is rejected. The correlation analysis was done on a number of variables to test the

87

relationship between awareness, competences, input, technology, infrastructure and the


For the first research question, the analysis looked at the correlation between awareness of

exporters and the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture. This was measured by analysing

export’s awareness of the life style and consumption patterns in export markets, the standards in

horticulture, the institutions supporting Kenyan horticulture. On the second research question,

the analysis considered the correlation between exports’ competences and internationalisation of

Kenyan horticulture. This was measured by analysing exporters’ education level, training

attended on food safety and food quality, and certifications possessed. For the third research

question, the analysis focused on the correlation between input use in horticulture and the

internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture. This was measured by analysing the use of seeds,

water, pesticides and fertilisers during farming. On the fourth research question, the analysis

looked at the correlation between technology use in horticulture and the internationalisation of

Kenyan horticulture. This was measured based on the analysis of the methods and technology

use for the management of pests and diseases, technology use for testing the crops, and methods

of harvesting, sorting/grading, packaging. For the fifth research question analysis focused at the

correlation between infrastructure in horticulture and the internationalisation of Kenyan

horticulture. This was measured by analysing the transport and electricity.

In this case r>0 indicated a positive relationship and r<0 indicated a negative relationship while

r=0 indicated no relationship between independent and dependent variables. In addition, r=+1.0

implied a perfect positive correlation and 1= -1.0 described a perfect negative correlation.

3.8.3.2 Regression analysis and hypothesis testing

Regression analysis is a statistical technique which can be used to analyse the relationship

between a single dependent variable and several independent variables (Hair et al., 2005). The

regression model helps to explain the magnitude and direction of the relationship between the

variables of the study through the use of co-efficients like the correlation, co-efficient of

determination and the level of significance. Each independent variable is weighed by the

regression analysis procedure to ensure a maximum prediction from the set of independent

variables, and the weight denote the relative contribution of independent variables to the

88

dependent variable to the overall prediction and facilitate interpretation of the influence of each

variable in marking the prediction (Phelan &Wren, 2012). The regression analysis helped in

determining the co-efficient. The co-efficient of multiple determination (R2) was used to the

percentage of variation in the dependent variables. McClave & Sincich (2003), regard this co-

efficient of multiple determination as a statistical quantity that show how well multiple

regression model fits the data. They state that a value close to zero indicates a week fit while a

value close to one implies a good fit. Finally, the error in the estimate of the dependent variable

from multiple independent variables was measured by the multiple standards error of estimate.

This was a measure of variability in predicting the dependent variable from a number of

independent variables (Lind et al., 2002). A small value indicates low variability whereas a large

value shows high variability.

In this study, both simple linear regression and multiple linear regression were used to test the

relationship between independent, moderating and dependent variable. According to Cooper

&Schindler (2014), hypothesis testing is the process used to evaluate the strength of evidence

from the sample and provides a framework for marking determination related to the population.

It provides a method for understanding how reliable one can extrapolate observed findings in a

sample under study to the larger population from which the sample was drawn.

The inferential statistic of simple regression analysis was used to determine whether statistical

significance did or did not exist between each independent variable and dependent variable; thus,

determining whether any of the research hypotheses were rejected. Each of the hypotheses was

tested using a single regression. Single regression analysis was adopted in order to calculate the

contribution of each predictive variable on the outcome variable. Each variable was needed to be

tested separately (Field, 2009). In this study, each hypothesis separately describes the

relationship between each independent variable and the dependent variable. Further, the results

from analysis are best accomplished through the use of parametric (interval and ratio) data

analysis. Each hypothesis was tested independently. The general form of the regression model

used was as follow:

89

Y ==β0+ βi Xi+ε, Where:

Y= Internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture

β0= the constant term of Y

β i = change in the mean of Y per unit changed in Xi

Xi= one independent variable of antecedent of standards compliance

ε= random error which captures the unexpected variation in the model

The moderated regression analysis was performed to test the moderating effect of regulatory

framework between the components of the antecedents of standards compliance as predictor

variables and the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture. Moderated regression analysis

provides the most straightforward method for testing hypotheses in which an interaction is

applied (Dawson, 2013). To test the moderating effect of the Regulatory Framework (RF) on the

relationship between antecedents of standards compliance (NSC) and the Internationalisation of

Kenyan horticulture (IKH), a hierarchical multiple regression was conducted. According to

Frazier & Tix (2004), hierarchical regression highlights the change in predictability related with

independent variables entered later in the analysis compared to the changes in the predictability

contributed to by predictor variables entered earlier in the analysis. In the first step, the

independent variable (antecedent of standards compliance) was entered into the model as a

predictor of the outcome variable the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture. In the second

step, an interaction term which is the product of the independent variables (NSC) and the

moderator (RF) was computed. An interaction term presents a joint relationship between

antecedents of standards compliance and regulatory framework and this relationship accounts for

additional variance in the dependent variable beyond that explained by antecedent of standards

compliance alone.

The moderating effect is present if the interaction term explains statistically significant amount

of variance in the dependent variable. The regression equation was presented as

Y= β0+β1Xi+β2Z+β1β2XiZ+ εi , where:

Y = Internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture.

β0= the regression constant term or intercept.

90

β1= the coefficient relating to the independent variable Xi (NSC), to the outcome Y (IKH), when

Z (RF) =0.

β2= the coefficient relating to the moderator Z, to the outcome Y (IKH), when Xi=0.

β1β2= the coefficient relating to the product of antecedents of standards compliance and

regulatory framework.

XiZ= the product of antecedents of standards compliance and regulatory framework.

εi= error term which captures the unexpected variation in the model.

The regression coefficient for the interaction term β1β2 provided an estimate of the moderating

effect. If β1β2was statistically different to zero, there was a significant moderation on the X

(NSC) and Y (IKH) relation.

91

The regression models of each hypothesis of this study are indicated in the Table 3.5.

Table 3.5: Regression models

Hypothesis statement Regression model Interpretation of regression output

H01: Exporters’ awareness of

standards compliance (ASC) has

no significant influence on the

internationalisation of Kenyan

horticulture (IKH).

IKH= β0+ β1ASC + ε1

Where:

IKH is the composite score of

internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture

β0is the constant ( intercept)

β1is the regression coefficient

ASC is the composite of score of exporters’

awareness of standards compliance

ε1 is the error term (composite of other types of

individual differences not explicitly identified in

the model).

R2 to assess how much of the

dependent variable’s variation is due

to its relationship with the

independent variable.

To conduct an F test (Analysis of

Variance) to assess overall robustness

and significance of the simple

regression model.

Conduct t test to determine individual

significance of the relationship.

H02: Exporter’s competences to

comply with standards (CSC) have



horticulture (IKH).

IKH= β0+ β1CSC + ε1

Where:



β0is the constant (intercept)






92


CSC is the composite of score of competences

to comply with standards in horticulture.



the model).



regression model.



H03: Standards compliance in

input use (ISC) has no significant

influence on the


horticulture (IKH).

IKH= β0+ β1ISC + ε1

Where:





ISC is the composite of score of input use in

horticulture.



the model).








regression model.



H04: Standards compliance in

technology use (TSC) has no

significant influence on the

IKH= β0+ β1TSC + ε1

Where:





93


horticulture (IKH).




TSC is the composite of score of technology

use in horticulture.



the model).





regression model.



H05: Infrastructure in perspective

of standards compliance (FSC) has



horticulture (IKH).

IKH= β0+ β1FSC + ε1

Where:





FSC is the composite of score of infrastructure.



the model).








regression model.



H06: Regulatory framework (RF)

plays no significant moderating

IKH=β0+ β1X(SC)+ β2Z(RF)+ β1 β2X(SC)* R2 to assess how much of the


94

role between antecedents of

standards compliance and


horticulture (IKH).

Z(RF) + ε

Where:



β0is the constant (y intercept)

β1, β2are the regression coefficients

X(SC) is the composite of score of antecedents

of standards compliance

Z (RF) is the composite of score of regulatory

framework

εis error term (composite of other types of


the model).



A significant change in adjusted R2

upon introduction of interaction term

b3X (SC)* Z (RF) (antecedents of

standards compliance multiplied by

regulatory framework) confirms the

moderating effect of the interaction

term.



and significance of the regression

model.

Conduct t-test to determine individual


95

The statistics used at different stages of this study are summarized in the Table 3.6.

Table 3.6: Summary of statistics used

No Statistics Purpose of use Remarks

(1) Kurtosis and Skewness To find out data normality Maximum acceptable limits of observation value up to

+/-1 for the skenwness end up to +/- 3 for the kurtosis

were used.

(2) Descriptive statistics (frequencies,

means, standards deviation)

To summarize background

information of respondents.

The demographic profile of the respondents was

analysed in order to get preliminary information and

the feel of the data.

(3) Cronbach’s Alpha To examine the internal

consistency of each measure

Cronbach’s Alpha estimate value above 7.0 was

considered as acceptable for this study.

(4) Pearson’s correlation To obtain preliminary

information about

relationships between

variables.

Correlation varies from no to excellent relationship

depending on the rho value.

(5) Regression analysis To test hypotheses of the

study.

Test the significance of the model (the significance of

slope, the model is significant if P value is less than

0.05

96

3.8.4 Qualitative data analysis

According to Onwuegbuzie& Combs (2010), the qualitative data can be used to complement the

quantitative data. The results from interviews were analysed and interpreted to enhance, expend,

illustrate, or clarify findings derived from the quantitative method.

The qualitative data collected through interviews, focus group and open-ended questions were

processed and analysed following thematic approach. This involved classification of various

responses and identifying keys responses for various themes. The key responses were then listed

and tallied by specific themes. Emerging patterns of the key responses were identified and the

relationship between the identified patterns studied. Inferences from the patterns and their

relationships were therefore drawn to get information from the data.

3.8.5 Presentation of Data findings

Quantitative data analysed through descriptive and inferential statistics was presented in graphs,

figures and tables. The naming was done chronologically downwards and a brief interpretation

was provided adjacent to the figures. Qualitative data on the contrary was presented in

meaningful statements in prose form as per the theme of the study.

3.9 Chapter Summary

This chapter discussed the research methodology that was used to answer different objectives of

the study. It has identified positivism research philosophy as appropriate for this study and the

research design adopted was descriptive and explanatory. The population of the study was 161

FPEAK ordinary members and the study adopted a stratified random sampling to get a sample

size of 115 producers/exporters used to get accurate data for the study. The three main data

collection methods used in this study were the self-administrated question, the interview and the

focus group. A pilot study was conducted on 12 exporters to pre-test the questionnaire, 8

interviews with producers/exporters and 1focus group were as well organised. The tools were

revised before being used for the main study. This study used SPSS to analyse preliminary data

and finally proposed to test hypotheses using regression model. The following fourth chapter will

present the results of the study and the findings.

97

CHAPTER FOUR

4.0 RESULTS AND FINDINGS

4.1 Introduction

The results of this study are presented in this chapter using text, charts and tables. The chapter is

divided into nine sections. Section one covers the response rate and the demographic

characteristic of the respondents, including gender, age, education of respondents, number of

trainings attended, years of experience in horticulture, category of horticultural produce, and

different category of horticultural activities the respondents are working in. Data analysis

covering normality, linearity, hetersoscasdicity, multicollinearity, and Pearson correlation. are as

well covered in this section.

Section two reports the findings related to descriptive statistics, and regression analysis for

hypothesis testing on the first objective of this study covering exporters’ awareness in standards

compliance and internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture. Section three covers the findings

related to the second subjective concerning exporters’ competences and internationalisations of

Kenyan horticulture. Under this objective, findings related to descriptive statistics, and

regression analysis for hypothesis testing are covered. Regression analysis is used to test

hypotheses on the relationship between exporters’ competences and the internationalisation of


Section four reports the findings related to descriptive statistics, and regression analysis for

hypothesis testing on the third objective of this study covering input use in farming and the

internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture. Section five covers the findings related to the fourth

objective covering technology use in horticulture and the internationalisations of Kenyan

horticulture. Under this objective, findings related to descriptive statistics, and regression

analysis for hypothesis testing are covered. Regression analysis is used to test hypotheses on the

relationship between technology use on horticulture and the internationalisation of Kenyan

horticulture.

Sections six reports the findings related to descriptive statistics, and regression analysis for

hypothesis testing on the fifth objective of this study covering infrastructure and the

internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture. Section seven reports the findings related to the sixth

98

subjective which covers the moderating role of regulatory framework on the relationship

between antecedents of standards compliance and the internationalisations of Kenyan

horticulture. Under this objective, findings related to descriptive statistics are covered. In

addition, the regression analysis for hypothesis testing is used to test whether regulatory

framework moderates the relationship between the antecedents of standards compliance and the

internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture. Section eight gives the optimum model and section

nine covers the summary of the chapter.

4.2 General information

4.2.1 Response rate

The response rate is the extent to which the final data set includes all sample members and is

calculated from the number of people with whom interviews were completed divided by the total

number of people in the entire sample. The study targeted a sample of 115 exporters in

horticultural sector who are ordinary members of FPEAK. Out of 115 questionnaires distributed,

108 (94 percent) questionnaires were returned filled in and 7 (6 percent) respondents declined

participation (Figure 4.1). This was a valid and reliable representation of the target population

therefore appropriate for the study analysis. The high response rate was achieved through

physical distribution of the questionnaires to the respondents and the willingness of respondents

to participate in the study. The results of response rate are shown in Figure 4.1.

Figure 4.1: Response Rate

99

4.2.2 Demographic characteristics

The demographic characteristics of the respondents covered by this study were gender, age,

education level, number of trainings attended, experience in horticulture, and category of

horticultural activities undertaken. The data obtained on the respective variables are explained in

the following subsections.

4.2.2.1 Gender of Respondents

Kenyan horticultural production is dominated mainly by female farmers in the proportion of 60

percent (ASCU,2012).The information about gender was of importance for this study as it should

shed light on the proportion of involvement between men and women in the export of

horticultural produce. In this regard a question about gender of respondents was posed to all

participants and the data obtained is summarized in the Table 4.1

Table 4.1: Respondents by gender

Gender Frequency Percentage

Male 75 69.4

Female 33 30.6

Total 108 100

The data displayed in Table 4.1 shows that majority of respondents who participated in this study

were male (69%) while the remaining 31% were female. This indicates that majority of exporters

involved in the export of Kenyan horticultural produce were male. The findings of this study

indicate that contrary to horticultural production where there is a high dominance of female, the

horticultural export is highly dominated by the male.

4.2.2.2 Distribution of Respondents by Age brackets

The study sought for information about the age of the respondents in order to understand how

age influences the participation in the export of horticultural produce. The data obtained from the

respondents in this respect was analysed and the results are as shown in Figure 4.2.

100

Figure 4.2: Distribution of Respondents by Age

The results of the study depicted in Figure 4.2 show that the respondents were fairly distributed

in terms of age. However, the majority of respondents (88%) were aged between 24 and 54 years

of age, representing a large proportion of the active population of the country. The remaining

12% of the respondents were either below 24 years of age (5%) or above 54 years of age (7%).

This is a clear indication that most of the producers and exporters of horticultural produce in

Kenya are within the active age.

4.2.2.3 Education level of Respondents

The export of horticultural produce requires various abilities including collection and analysis of

information, excellent communication and networking skills that require certain level of

education. Data was obtained from all the respondents concerning their education level and

results are as summarised in Figure 4.3 below.

Data displayed in Figure 4.3 shows that the respondents who took part in this study were also

fairly distributed in terms of education level. However, 70% of the participants had high school

and university level of education while only 18% of respondents had a primary school level and

12% of respondents had post-graduate level. These findings indicate that majority of the

producers and exporters in horticulture had sufficient education background which should

contribute to good performance in export of horticultural produce.

101

Figure 4.3: Distribution of Respondents by Education level

4.2.2.4 Trainings attended by Respondents in Horticultural produce

Information about trainings in the standards and requirements to succeed in the export of

horticultural produce is of great importance in assessing the competences of exporters. In this

respect, the participants were asked to indicate the number of trainings attended meant for

capacity buildings for those interested in export of horticultural produce. The data gathered in

this regard were analysed and the results are as shown in Figure 4.4.

Figure 4.4: Respondents by the number of trainings attended

102

The findings depicted in Figure 4.4 clearly shows that more than 50% of the participants in this

study attended three and above trainings in horticultural produce, 39% attended one to two

trainings while only 7% did not attend any training. Considering that more than 76% had

attended more than 2 trainings, it implies that majority of people working in export of Kenyan

horticultural produce were interested in getting specific knowledge related to this activity.

Further, analysis was conducted relating to the number of trainings attended and the various

horticultural categories the participants were involved in. The data obtained is displayed in Table

4.2.

Table 4.2: Respondents’ Number of Trainings Attended by Category of Horticultural

produce

Category None One Two Three More than 3 Total

Flowers 0 0 5 6 4 15

Vegetables 0 12 15 18 15 60

Fruits 0 2 4 10 6 22

Herbs 7 4 0 0 0 11

Total 7 18 24 34 25 108

The data displayed in Table 4.2 indicates that majority of the participants in the study were

engaged in export of vegetables (60 out of 108) followed by fruits (22 out of 108) and flowers

(15 out of 108) and only a few in herbs (11 out 0f 108). As regard to trainings in the various

horticultural produce, a large proportion of the participants attended two and above trainings in

vegetables, fruits and flowers respectively while majority involved in herbs did not attend any

training. This means that most of the trainings have been on vegetables, fruits and flowers while

little attention was given to herbs.

4.2.2.5 Years of Experience and Number of Training in Horticultural produce

The study also sought to establish the relationship between the number of years the respondents

worked in the export of horticultural produce and the number of trainings attended. This

information helped in shedding light on whether the experience gained in export of horticulture

103

activities would contribute to standards compliance and increases the international market share.

The data obtained in regard to this analysis is presented in Table 4.3.

Table 4.3: Respondent by Years of Experience and Number of Trainings in Horticultural

produce

Experience None One Two Three More than three Total

Less than 2 years 6 13 2 2 0 23

2 to 5 years 1 5 13 9 2 30

Over 5 years 0 0 9 23 23 55

Total 7 18 24 34 25 108

Data summarised in Table 4.3 shows a fair representation of the participants in terms of

experience in horticultural sector. However, most of the participants (51%) had more than 5

years of experience in the sector while the rest had 5 years and less. In terms of training, the

participants who had more than 5 years of experience had attended more than two trainings while

most of those between 3 and 5 years of experience attended between one and three trainings on

horticultural produce. Similarly, most of the participants with less than two years of experience

attended one training or none at all. These results imply that majority of respondents (83%) have

been working in the export of horticultural sector for more than 2 years and should have

therefore acquired good practices to comply with standards. In addition, the study also looked

into the relationship between years of experience and various horticultural produce. The results

obtained are as presented in Table 4.4.

Table 4.4: Years of Experience and Category of Horticultures Produce

Category Less than 2 years 2 to 5 years Over 5 years Total

Flowers 0 4 11 15

Vegetables 12 18 30 60

Fruits 2 6 14 22

Herbs 9 2 0 11

Total 23 30 55 108

104

The findings depicted in Table 4.4 indicate that majority of the participants involved in

vegetables, fruits and flowers had above 5 years of experience while those dealing with herbs

had less than two years of experience. This is a clear indication that the export of herbs is a

recent activity in the Kenyan horticultural intended to export.

4.2.2.6 Respondents by Category of activities in horticulture

The export of Kenyan horticultural produce is made by flowers, vegetables, fruits and herbs.

Among exporters, there are those who are involved in both production and exporting process and

those interested by export only. The categorisation of respondents according to different

activities of the sub-sector helps to shed light on particularities that are specific to each category

of activities in the subsector. Data displayed in Figure 4.4 shows such distribution.

Figure 4.5: Respondents by Category of Activities in Horticulture

The findings presented in the figure 4.4show that most participants dealing with vegetables and

fruits were exporters only with 43% and 16% respectively. Conversely, most of the participants

dealing with flowers (12%) and herbs (11%) were mainly both producers and exporters. The

results of the study imply that most flowers and herbs exporters are involved l in the production

process as well. However, this is not the case for fruits and vegetables.

105

4.2.3 Results of Diagnostic Tests

4.2.3.1 Reliability

The reliability test was performed using a coefficient of internal consistency test, Cronbach’s

alpha for the items measuring each construct. The results showed that all the constructs had a

cronbach’s alpha value from .759 to .978.The overall Cronbach’s alpha for the six constructs was

.873, which is above .70, the acceptable benchmark. This result of Cronbach’s alpha value

indicated a high level of internal consistency for the items of the study.

4.2.3.2 Normality of Data Distribution

The assumption is that in a regression model, the errors in data should normally be distributed.

For data set small than 2000 elements, the Shapiro-Wilk test is used. Otherwise, the

Kolmogorov-Smirnov test is used. For this study, the Shapiro-Wilk test was used because the

focus was on 108 elements only. The results of normality test are presented in the Table 4.5.

Table 4.5: Test for Normality

Tests of Normality

Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.

Awareness .068 100 .200* .988 100 .488

Competencies .075 100 .175 .981 100 .150

Input .120 100 .001 .973 100 .071

Technology .125 100 .001 .970 100 .154

Infrastructure .087 100 .057 .973 100 .163

Regulatory

Framework .107 100 .007 .957 100 .067

Internationalisation .118 100 .002 .961 100 .252

*. This is a lower bound of the true significance.

a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

The findings summarised in Table 4.5 show that the p-value for all variables are above 0.05.As

p-value is > 0.05, we can reject the null hypothesis and conclude that the data comes from a

normal distribution.

106

When data of exporters’ awareness of standards compliance is plotted, the distribution is normal

as indicated in the figure 4.6.

Figure 4.6: Normality test for exporters’ awareness of standards compliance

107

When data of exporters’ competences is plotted, the distribution is normal as indicated in the

figure 4.7.

Figure 4.7: Normality test for exporters’ competences

108

When data of input use in horticulture is plotted, the distribution is normal as indicated in the

figure 4.8.

Figure 4.8: Normality test for input use in horticulture

109

When data of technology use in horticulture is plotted, the distribution is normal as indicated in

the figure 4.9.

Figure 4.9: Normality test for technology use in horticulture

110

When data of infrastructure is plotted, the distribution is normal as indicated in the figure 4.10.

Figure 4.10: Normality test for infrastructure

111

When data of regulatory framework is plotted, the distribution is normal as indicated in the

figure 4.11.

Figure 4.11: Normality test for regulatory framework

112

When data of internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture is plotted, the distribution is normal as

indicated in the figure 4.12.

Figure 4.12: Normality test for internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture

4.2.3.3 Test for Linearity

In this study, linearity test was used to establish whether the relationship between the dependent

and independent variables was linear. The assumption is that in the regression model, there

should be a linear relationship between variables. If the p-value for the deviation from linearity is

> 0.05 then the relationship between the predictor (independent) and the outcome (dependent)

variables is deemed to be linearly dependent. The results of linearity test done are presented in

the Table 4.6

113

Table 4.6: Test for Linearity

Variables p-value for deviation from Linearity

Internationalisation and exporters’ awareness 0.07

Internationalisation and exporters’ competencies 0.204

Internationalisation and Input use 0.061

Internationalisation and Technology use 0.489

Internationalisation and Infrastructure 0.082

Internationalisation and Regulatory Framework 0.461

The findings depicted in Table 4.6 shows that there is a linear relationship between exporters’

awareness and internationalisation (p-value=0.07); exporters’ competencies and

internationalisation (p-value=0.204); input use and internationalisation (p-value=0.061);

technology use and internationalisation (p-value=0.489); infrastructure and internationalisation

(p-value=0.082); regulatory framework and internationalisation (p-value=0.461).

4.2.3.4 Test of Equal variance (homoscedasticity)

The study sought to establish whether there was a difference of residual variance from one

observation period to another. A good regression model should not have heteroscedasticity as the

error variance should be constant. The assumption is that if p-value is greater than 0.05, there is

no problem of heteroscedasticity. The results of the study are summarised in the Table 4.7.

Table 4.7: Test for Homoscedasticity

Coefficientsa

Model Un-standardised

Coefficients

Standardised

Coefficients

t Sig.

B Std. Error Beta

(Constant) 1.301 .301 4.321 .000

Awareness -.042 .059 -.084 -.709 .480

Competences -.060 .065 -.096 -.917 .362

Input -.027 .063 -.053 -.435 .665

Technology -.124 .076 -.242 -1.629 .107

Infrastructure .086 .061 .193 1.405 .163

Regulatory Framework -.042 .057 -.087 -.729 .468

a. Dependent Variable: AbsUt

114

The findings of the study in the Table 4.7 show that the output coefficient of p-vale for all the

variables is above 0.05, implying that there is no problem of heteroscedasticity.

4.2.3.5Test for multicollinearity (Independence)

The study examined whether there was similarity between independent variables of the model.

The errors associated with one observation are not correlated with the errors of any other

observation. The assumption is that if the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) lies between 1 and10,

then there is no multicollinearity. The Table 4.8 presents the data of the study.

Table 4.8: Test for Multicollinearity

Internationalisation Unstandardised

Coefficients

Standardised

Coefficients

t Sig. Collinearity

Statistics

B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF

(Constant) 1.733 .527 3.290 .001

Awareness -.275 .104 -.257 -2.646 .010 .691 1.448

Competencies -.153 .114 -.115 -1.343 .182 .881 1.135

Inputs .275 .110 .248 2.512 .014 .666 1.501

Technology .177 .133 .161 1.331 .186 .441 2.265

Infrastructure .133 .107 .140 1.249 .215 .516 1.940

Regulatory

Framework .430 .100 .419 4.288 .000 .681 1.468

The results of the study depicted in the Table 4.8 indicate that the VIF of all the variables is

between 1 and 10, hence there is no multicollinearity.

4.2.3.6 Pearson correlation tests on the antecedents of standards compliance and the


The study examined the significance of the correlation between the antecedents of standards

compliance (exporters’ awareness, exporters’ competences, input use, technology use, and

infrastructure) and the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture. The results are shown in the

Table 4.9.

115

Table 4.9: Correlation of the antecedents of standards compliance and the


Internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture

Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N

Awareness .182 .060 108

Competences .166 .085 108

Input .484 .000 108

Technology .456 000 108

Infrastructure .210 .029 108

The data depicted in the Table 4.9 indicates a very weak positive association and not statistically

significant between exporters’ awareness of standards compliance and the internationalisation of

Kenyan horticulture (r=0.182, p-value=0.06). In addition, it shows as well a very weak positive

association and not statistically significant between exporters’ competences and the

internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture (r=0.166, p-value=0.085). However, there is a

moderate and statistically significant relationship between input use in horticulture farming and

internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture (r=0.484, p-value=0.00). The relationship between

technology use in horticulture and the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture is also

moderate positive and statistically significant (r=0.456, p-value=0.00). Finally, the data shows a

very weak positive association though statistically significant between infrastructure and the

internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture (r=0.210, p-value=0.029).

4.3 Internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture

The study sought to investigate various aspects of standards compliance and the

internationalisation of Kenyan Horticulture. The study used 12 items on a Likert scale of 1-5

where 1 was the lowest and 5 the highest to show the level of agreement or disagreement on the

aspects affecting the export of the Kenyan horticulture. The results of the study are presented in

the Table 4.10.

116

Table 4.10: Responses on the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture

Items 1(SD) 2(D) 3(N) 4(A) 5(SA) Mean Std.

Deviat

ion

My knowledge of requirements in

export helps me getting more buyers

abroad for my horticultural produce.

4

(3.7%)

8

(7.4%)

26

(24.1%)

40

(37%)

27

(25%)

3.74 1.047

Keeping abreast with life style of

consumer’s abroad contributes to

maintain and increase market share

0

(0%)

1

(0.9%)

30

(27.8%)

53

(49.1%)

24

(22.2%)

3.93 0.732

The services provided by institutions

like HCDA, KEPHIS, FPEAK, KFC

contribute to increase of the volume

of export

5

(4.6%)

14

(13%)

42

(38.9%)

31

(28.7%)

16

(14.8%)

3.36 1.036

The periodic trainings attended in

horticulture contribute to export more

of my horticultural produce.

2

(1.9%)

7

(6.5%)

43

(39.8%)

33

(30.6%)

18

(16.7%)

3.56 0.925

When horticultural produce are

certified, they are better accepted for

export.

3

(2.8%)

5

(4.6%)

38

(35.2%)

33

(30.6%)

29

(26.9%)

3.74 0.999

I managed to sell more horticultural

produce due to use of water of good

quality.

4

(3.7%)

3

(2.8%)

33

(30.6%)

36

(33.3%)

32

(29.6%)

3.82 1.012

My horticultural produce were not

rejected during export because I used

recommended fertilisers and

pesticides.

5

(4.6%)

10

(9.3%)

31

(28.7%)

31

(28.7%)

31

(28.7%)

3.68 1.126

The use of adequate laboratories

contributes to acceptability of my

produce on international market.

9

(8.3%)

9

(8.3%)

47

(43.5%)

28

(25.9%)

15

(13.9%)

3.29 1.077

Keeping good quality of fresh

produce helps me selling more of my

horticultural produce.

2

(1.9%)

12

(11.1%)

26

(24.1%)

35

(32.4%)

33

(30.6%)

3.79 1.059

Efficient transport of my horticultural

produce contributes to increase the

volume of export.

11

(10.2%)

13

(12%)

44

(40.7%)

24

(22.2%)

16

(14.8%)

3.19 1.148

Enforcing international standards in

horticulture contributes to increase of

exports.

9

(8.3%)

9

(8.3%)

33

(30.6%)

31

(28.7%)

26

(24.1%)

3.52 1.188

Respecting criteria when issuing

certificates for export helps

acceptability of Kenyan horticultural

produce abroad.

1

(0.9%)

13

(12%)

42

(38.9%)

43

(39.8%)

9

(8.3%)

3.43 0.845

The findings of the study in Table 4.10 show that majority of respondents maintained and

increased market share due to keeping abreast with life style of consumer’s abroad (71%,

117

mean=3.94), that they managed to sell more horticultural produce due to use of water of good

quality (63%, mean=3.82) and that keeping good quality of fresh produce helped them to sell

more of their horticultural produce (63%, mean=3.79). In addition, majority of participants

agreed that their knowledge of requirements in export helped them get more buyers abroad

(62%, mean=3.74), that their horticultural produce were not rejected during export because they

used recommended fertilisers and pesticides (57%, mean=3.68) and that when horticultural

produce were certified, they were better accepted for export (57%, mean=3.74). Furthermore,

they agreed that enforcing international standards in horticulture contributed to increase of

exports (53%, mean=3.52), and that respecting criteria when issuing certificates for export

helped acceptability of Kenyan horticultural produce abroad (48%, mean=3.42), then that

periodic trainings attended in horticulture contribute to export more of horticultural produce

(47%, mean=3.56) and finally that the services provided by institutions like HCDA, KEPHIS,

FPEAK, KFC contributed to increase of the volume of export (43%, mean=3.36).

4.4. Exporters’ awareness of standards compliance and the internationalisation of Kenyan

horticulture

4.4.1 Effect of exporters’ awareness of standards compliance on the internationalisation of

Kenyan horticulture

The study was interested in exploring the level of exporters’ awareness in various aspects of

standards in the Kenyan horticulture intended to export. The study used 14 items on a Likert

scale of 1-5 where 1 was the lowest and 5 the highest, to show the level of agreement or

disagreement on the effect of awareness in standards compliance and the internationalisation of

the Kenyan horticulture. The data obtained in this regard is summarised in the Table 4.11.

118

Table 4.11: Responses on exporters’ awareness of standards compliance


Deviation

I am very much aware of all the

standards set for food quality of

horticultural produce that I export.

0

(0%)

10

(9.3%)

33

(30.6%)

39

(36.1%)

26

(24.1%)

3.75 0.929

I adhere to all the standards of food

safety for the horticultural produce I

export.

1

(0.9%)

1

(0.9%)

26

(24.1%)

53

(49.1%)

27

(25%)

3.96 0.784

I have good knowledge of all

requirements to avoid air, soil and water

pollution in my farming activities.

13

(12%)

40

(37%)

41

(38%)

13

(12%)

1

(0.9%)

2.53 0.891

I keep abreast with requirements of

social welfare of my employees and

others in my horticultural activities

0

(0%)

2

(1.9%)

32

(29.6%)

43

(39.8%)

31

(28.7%)

3.95 0.813

I am always updated on the changing

attitudes of overseas’ consumers on the

good quality of fresh produce.

0

(0%)

12

(11.1

%)

35

(32.4%)

31

(28.7%)

30

(27.8%)

3.73 0.992

I keep abreast with requirements of

overseas’ consumers on the packaging

of fresh produce exported.

22

(20.4%)

37

(34.3

%)

25

(23.1%)

21

(19.4%)

3

(2.8%)

2.5 1.106

I am aware of conditions of productions

recommended by overseas’ consumers

for horticultural produce.

1

(0.9%)

11

(10.2

%)

32

(29.6%)

39

(36.1%)

25

(23.1%)

3.7 0.969

I keep abreast with requirements of one-

year round supply of horticultural

produce for overseas’ consumers.

5

(4.6%)

34

(31.5

%)

32

(29.6%)

27

25%)

10

(9.3%)

3.03 1.063

KEPHIS has done a good job in

ensuring that all the standards for plant

health issues, quality of agricultural

inputs and produce are met in Kenya.

3

(2.8%)

10

(9.3%)

42

(38.9%)

38

(35.2%)

15

(13.9%)

3.48 0.942

HCDA’s policy interventions have

helped to revamp and reposition the

Horticultural demands in Kenya .

5

(4.6%)

15

(13.9

%)

44

(40.7%)

32

(29.6%)

12

(11.1%)

3.29 0.996

FPEAK is representing effectively the

growers, exporters and service

providers of the horticultural produce in

Kenya.

12

(11.1%)

7

(6.5%)

47

(43.5%)

33

(30.6%)

9

(8.3%)

3.19 1.06

KFC has done a good job of fostering

responsible and safe production of cut

flower in Kenya

20

(18.5%)

9

(8.3%)

40

(37%)

23

(21.3%)

16

(14.8%)

3.06 1.281

KEBS provides effectively

standardisation and conformity

assessment services in Kenya.

15

(13.9%)

10

(9.3%)

43

(39.8%)

25

(23.1%)

15

(13.9%)

3.14 1.195

PCPB is excellent to regulate

importation, distribution and use of

products used for the control of pests

and diseases in Kenya.

9

(8.3%)

12

(11.1

%)

53

(49.1%)

22

(20.4%)

12

(11.1%)

3.15 1.04

119

The data summarised in the Table 4.11 shows that the majority of participants adhered to all the

standards of food safety for the horticultural produce intended to export ((74%, mean=3.96) and

that they kept abreast with requirements of social welfare of their employees and others in their

horticultural activities (69%, mean=3.95). In addition, they were very much aware of all the

standards set for food quality of horticultural produce that they export (60%, mean=3.75).

Despite the participants agreement on the above items, they disagreed on the fact of having good

knowledge of all requirements to avoid air, soil and water pollution in their farming activities

(49%, mean=2.53).

In addition, majority of participants were aware of the conditions of productions recommended

by overseas’ consumers for horticultural produce (59% mean=3.7) and they were always updated

on the changing attitudes of overseas’ consumers on the good quality of fresh produce (56%

mean=3.7). However, despite the participants agreement on the above items, they disagreed on

the fact that keeping abreast with requirements of overseas’ consumers on the packaging of

fresh produce exported (55%, mean=2.5). On the item of keeping abreast with requirements of

one-year-round supply of horticultural produce for overseas’ consumers, the participants who

agreed (34%) and those who disagreed (36%) were equally divided (mean=3).

Majority of participants agreed that KEPHIS has done a good job in ensuring that all the

standards for plant health issues, quality of agricultural inputs and produce are met (49%,

mean=3.48). Other participants were neutral on the fact that PCPB was excellent to regulate

importation, distribution and use of products used for the control of pests and diseases in Kenya

(49%, mean=3.15), and that FPEAK was representing effectively the growers, exporters and

service providers of the horticultural produce in Kenya (44%, mean=3.19). They were also

neutral to the fact that HCDA’s policy interventions helped to revamp and reposition the

Horticultural demands in Kenya (41%, mean=3.29), and that KEBS provided effectively

standardisation and conformity assessment services in Kenya (40%, mean=3.14), and then KFC

has done a good job of fostering responsible and safe production of cut flower in Kenya (37%,

mean=3.06).

120

4.4.2 Level of exporters’ awareness of standards compliance by categories of horticultural

produce

A cross tabulation between the level of exporters’ awareness of standards compliance and the

category of horticultural produce was done. The data obtained in this study is shown in the Table

4.12.

Table 4.12: Cross tabulation of level of exporters’ awareness of standards compliance by

category of horticultural produce

Category of

horticultural

produce

Level of exporters’ awareness of standard requirements Total

1 (SD) 2 (D) 3 (N) 4 (A) 5(SA)

Flowers 0

(0%)

0

(0%)

5

(4.6%)

8

(7.4%)

2

(1.8%)

15 (13.8%)

Vegetables 1

(0.09%)

7

(6.4%)

18

(16.6%)

18

(16.6%)

16

(14.8%)

60

(55.5%)

Fruits 2

(1.8%)

1

(0.09%)

8

(7.4%)

7

(6.4%)

4

(3.7%)

22

(20.4%)

Herbs 2

(1.8%)

9

(8.3)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

11

(10.2%)

Total 5

(4.6%)

17

(15.7%)

31

(28.7%)

33

(30.5%)

22

(20.4%)

108 (100%)

The results in the Table 4.12 show that majority of respondents in the category of flowers (9%)

vegetables (31%) and fruits (10%) are in agreement on having a good level of awareness of

standards related to horticultural produce for export while all respondents in the category of

herbs (10%) were in disagreement on having a good level of awareness of standards for export in

horticulture.

4.4.3. Level of exporters’ awareness on the changing attitudes of overseas’ consumers by


A cross tabulation between the level of exporters’ awareness on the changing attitudes of

overseas’ consumers related to quality of fresh produce by category of horticultural produce was

done and the results are presented in Table 4.13.

121

Table 4.13: Cross tabulation of level of exporters’ awareness on the changing attitudes of

overseas’ consumers and category of horticultural produce

Category of

horticultural

produce

Level of exporters’ awareness on the changing attitudes of

overseas’ consumers

Total

1 (SD) 2 (D) 3 (N) 4 (A) 5(SA)

Flowers 0

(0%)

0

(0%)

4

(3.7%)

8

(7.4%)

3

(2.8%)

15

(14%)

Vegetables 3

(2.8%)

11

(10.2%)

15

(14%)

12

(11%)

19

(17.6%)

60

(55.6%)

Fruits 2

(1.8%)

1

(0.9%)

8

(7.4%)

7

(6.5%)

4

(3.7%)

22

(20.4%)

Herbs 3

(2.8%)

5

(4.6%)

3

(2.8%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

11

(10.2%)

Total 8

(7.4%)

17

(15.7%)

30

(27.8%)

27

(25%)

26

(24%)

108

(100%)

The Table 4.13 indicates that majority of participants in the category of flowers (10%)

vegetables (29%) and fruits (10%) were agreeable on having a good level of awareness on the

changing attitudes of overseas’ consumers on the quality of fresh produce, whereas majority of

respondents in the category of herbs (7%) were in disagreement on the same item.

4.4.3. Attitudes of respondents on KEPHIS’s performance by category of horticultural

produce

A cross tabulation between KEPHIS performance indicator and category of horticultural produce

was done and the results are shown in the Table 4.14. The findings depicted in this table show

that majority of participants in the category of flowers (8%) agreed that KEPHIS did a good job

while majority of participants in the category of herbs (6%) disagreed. Majority of participants in

the category of vegetable were neutral on whether KEPHIS did a good job whereas, participants

in the category of fruits were divided among those who agreed (9%) and those who were neutral

(8%).

122

Table 4.14: Cross tabulation on the attitudes of respondents on KEPHIS’s performance

and category of horticultural produce

Category of

horticultural

produce

KEPHIS’s performance Total

1 (SD) 2 (D) 3 (N) 4 (A) 5(SA)

Flowers 0

(0%)

1

(0.9%)

5

(4.6%)

8

(7.4%)

1

(0.9%)

15

(14%)

Vegetables 1

(0.9%)

8

(7.4%)

26

(24%)

14

(13%)

11

(10.2)

60

(55.6%)

Fruits 2

(1.8%)

1

(0.9%)

9

(8.3)

9

(8.3)

1

(0.9%)

22

(20.4%)

Herbs 1

(0.9%)

6

(5.5)

4

(3.7%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

11

(10.2%)

Total 4

(3.7%)

16

(14.2)

44

(40.7%)

31

(27.8)

13

(12%)

108

(100%)

4.4.4. Attitudes of respondents on HCDA’s performance by category of horticultural

produce.

The Table 4.15 presents the results of a cross tabulation done between the HCDA’s performance

indicator and category of horticultural produce.

Table 4.15: Cross tabulation on the attitudes of respondents on HCDA’s performance and


Category of

horticultural

produce

HCDA’s performance Total

1 (SD) 2 (D) 3 (N) 4 (A) 5(SA)

Flowers 0

(0%)

3

(2.8%)

7

(6.5%)

3

(2.8%)

2

(1.8%)

15

(14%)

Vegetables 4

(3.7%)

11

(10.2%)

18

(16.7%)

19

(17.6%)

8

(7.4%)

60

(55.6%)

Fruits 1

(0.9%)

0

(0%)

16

(14.8%)

5

(4.6%)

0

(0%)

22

(20.4%)

Herbs 0

(0%)

7

(6.5%)

4

(3.7%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

11

(10.2%)

Total 5

(4.6%)

21

(19.4%)

45

(41.2%)

27

(25%)

10

(9.3%)

108

(100%)

123

The findings indicated in Table 4.15 show that majority of participants in the category of

vegetables (25%) agreed on the good performance of HCDA while, majority of participants in

Herbs (7%) disagree. Most of participants in flowers (7%) and in fruits (15%) were neutral on

whether HCDA was performing well.

4.4.5Attitudes of respondents on FPEAK’s performance by category of horticultural

produce

The study performed a cross tabulation between the FPEAK’s performance indicator and

category of horticultural produce. The results are shown in the Table 4.16.

Table 4.16: Cross tabulation on the attitudes of respondents on FPEAK’s performance and


Category of

horticultural

produce

FPEAK’s performance Total

1 (SD) 2 (D) 3 (N) 4 (A) 5(SA)

Flowers 4

(3.7%)

0

(0%)

8

(7.4%)

3

(2.8%)

0

(0%)

15

(14%)

Vegetables 6

(5.5)

6

(5.5)

16

(14.8%)

27

(25%)

5

(4.6%)

60

(55.6%)

Fruits 2

(1.8%)

1

(0.9%)

6

(5.5)

11

(10.2%)

2

(1.8%)

22

(20.4%)

Herbs 0

(0%)

0

(0%)

1

(0.9%)

8

(7.4%)

2

(1.8%)

11

(10.2%)

Total 12

(11%)

7

(6.5)

47

(443.5)

33

(30.6%)

9

(8.4%)

108

(100%)

The data depicted in Table 4.16 indicates that majority of participants in the category of

vegetables (30%), fruits (12%), and herbs (9%) were agreeable on that FPEAK has good

performance yet majority of participants in flowers (7%) were neutral on the good performance

of FPEAK.

124

4.4.6 Attitudes of respondents on KFC’s performance by category of horticultural produce

A cross tabulation between KFC’s performance and the category of horticultural produce was

done and the results are presented in the Table 4.17.

Table 4.17: Cross tabulation on the attitudes of respondents on KFC’s performance and


Category of

horticultural

produce

KFC’s performance Total

1 (SD) 2 (D) 3 (N) 4 (A) 5(SA)

Flowers 1 0 2 5 7 15

(0.90%) (0%) (1.80%) (4.60%) (6.50%) (14%)

Vegetables 12

(11%)

5 29 6 8 60

(4.60%) (26.90%) (5.5%) (7.40%) (55.60%

Fruits 6 4 7 5 0 22

(5.5) (3.70%) (6.50%) (4.60%) (0%) (20.40%)

Herbs 1 0 2 7 1 11

(0.90%) (0%) (1.80%) (6.50%) (0.90%) (10.20%)

Total 20 9 40 23 16 108

(100%) (18.50%) (8.30%) (37%) (21.30%) (14.8%)

The Table 4.17 indicates that majority of participants in the category of flowers (11%) and herbs

(7%) agreed on the good performance of KFC while majority of participants in the category of

fruits (9%) disagreed on that. Most participants in the category of vegetables (27%) were neutral

about KFC’s performance.

4.4.7Attitudes of respondents on KEBS’s performance by category of horticultural produce

A cross tabulation between KEBS’s performance and the category of horticultural produce was

done and the results are presented in the Table4.18. The results presented in this table indicate

that majority of participants in the category of herbs (6%) agreed on the good performance of

KEBS while majority of participants in the category of flowers (16%) and fruits (8%) disagreed

on that. Majority of participants in the category of vegetables (29%) were neutral about KEBS’s

performance.

125

Table 4.18: Cross tabulation on the attitudes of respondents on KEBS’s performance and


Category of

horticultural

produce

KEBS’s performance Total

1 (SD) 2 (D)

3 (N) 4 (A) 5(SA)

Flowers 2

(1.8%)

15

(14%)

4

(3.7%)

7

(6.5)

0

(0%)

15

(14%)

Vegetables 6

(5.5%)

3

(2.8%)

31

(28.7%)

9

(8.3%

11

(10.2%)

60

(55.6%)

Fruits 5

(4.6%)

4

(3.7%)

7

(6.5)

3

(2.8%)

3

(2.8%)

22

(20.4%)

Herbs 2

(1.8%)

1

(0.9%)

1

(0.9%)

6

(5.5)

1

(0.9%)

11

(10.2%)

Total 15

(14%)

22

(20.4%)

43

(39.8)

25

(23.1)

1515

(14%)

108

(100%)

4.4.8Attitudes of respondents on PCPB’s performance by category of horticultural produce

A cross tabulation between PCPB’s performance and category of horticultural produce was done

and the results are presented in the Table 4.19.

Table 4.19: Cross tabulation on the attitudes of respondents on PCPB’s performance and

category of horticultural produce.

Category of

horticultural

produce

PCPB’s performance Total

1 (SD) 2 (D) 3 (N) 4 (A) 5(SA)

Flowers 2

(1.8%)

1

(0.9%)

7

(6.5)

3

(2.8%)

2

(1.8%)

15

(14%)

Vegetables 4

(3.7%)

6

(5.5)

35

(32.4)

6

(5.5)

9

(8.3%)

60

(55.6%)

Fruits 3

(2.8%)

4

(3.7%)

7

(6.5)

8

(7.4%)

0

(0%)

22

(20.4%)

Herbs 1

(0.9%)

6

(5.5)

4

(3.7%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

11

(10.2%)

Total 10

(9.3%)

17

(15.7)

53

(49%)

17

(15.7%)

11

(10.2%)

108

(100%)

The Table 4.19 indicates that most of participants in the category of fruits (7%) agreed on the

good performance of PCPB, yet majority of participants in herbs (6%) disagreed on the good

126

performance of PCPB. Majority of participants in the category of flowers (7%) and vegetables

(32%) were neutral about PCPB’s performance.

4.4.9 Regression analysis

The study sought to investigate the influence of exporters’ awareness of standards compliance on

the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture using the following hypothesis:

H01: Exporters’ awareness of standards compliance has no significant influence on the


The data in the Table 4.20 of Model Summary presents the goodness of fit between exporters’

awareness of standards compliance and the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture.

Table 4.20: Model Summary of exporters’ awareness of standards compliance and the


Model Summaryb

Model R R Square

Adjusted R

Square

Std. Error of

the Estimate

1 .182a .033 .024 .69871

a. Predictors: (Constant), Exporters’ awareness

b. Dependent Variable: Internationalisation

The model summary in Table 4.20 explains the strength of the relationship (r=0.182) and the

prediction (r2=3, 3%) of the internationalisation based on exporters’ awareness of standards

compliance. The remaining 96.7% of internationalisation were caused by other variables.

The study performed ANOVA to determine if there was a linear relationship between exporters’

awareness of standards compliance and the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture. The

results of ANOVA are presented in the Table 4.21. The findings in this table show that there is

no significant linear relationship between exporters’ awareness and internationalisation of

Kenyan horticulture (F=3.616, p-value > 0.05).

127

Table 4.21: ANOVA for linear relationship between exporters’ awareness of standards

compliance and the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture

ANOVAb

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 1.765 1 1.765 3.616 .060a

Residual 51.749 106 .488

Total 53.514 107

a. Predictors: (Constant), Exporters’ awareness

b. Dependent Variable: Internationalisation

The study performed a regression coefficient model presented in the Table 4.22.

Table 4.22: Effect of exporters’ awareness of standards compliance on the


Coefficientsa


Coefficients

Standardised

Coefficients

t Sig.

B Std. Error Beta

1 (Constant) 2.812 0.411 6.84 0

Awareness 0.232 0.122 0.182 1.902 0.06

a. Dependent Variable:

Internationalisation

The analysis of the regression model in the Table 4.22 indicates that exporters’ awareness in

standards compliance does not statistically predict value of the internationalisation of Kenyan

Horticulture (Beta=0.182, t=1.902, p-value=0.06>0.05). The beta weight gauges the importance

of explanatory variable across the model and is positive on the exporters’ awareness of standards

compliance. Beta value is 0.182 but not statistically significant at p-value > 0.05. This means that

one-unit increase in exporters’ awareness of standards compliance increases the unit of the

internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture by 0.182 with the influence of moderating variable.

128

The general form of regression model that was used is as follows:

y (Internationalisation) =β0+ β i Xi+ε

Y=2.812+0.182 X+0.122

The value of variance R2 = .033, shows that 3.3% of the internationalisation is explained by

awareness. The values of F (3.616) =1.765, p-value=0.06, show that awareness is not statistically

significant predictor of the internationalisation (i.e., the regression model is not a good fit of the

data). Therefore, the null hypothesis H01; that “Exporters’ awareness of standards compliance

has no significant relationship with the internationalisation of Kenyan Horticulture” hence not

rejected. The value of exporters’ awareness is not statistically significant (t=1.902, p-

value=0.06), hence, does not affect internationalisation. The regression model explaining the

results in Table 4.27 is given

by: Internationalisation=2.812+0.182 x Awareness

The model shows that exporters’ awareness positively affects the internationalisation, i.e. a mean

index increase in exporters’ awareness increases the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture

by a positive unit mean index value of 0.182.

4.4.10 Results of interviews and focus group discussions

During the interviews and focus group discussions, it was revealed that exporters’ awareness of

standards compliance in the Kenyan horticulture was generally good. This is due to the private

and government bodies’ efforts, to ensure that the requirements for food safety and food quality

are respected in order to increase the market share of exports in horticulture. It was also noted

that improvement of awareness among small producers and exporters is explained by the

increase of contract-farming whereby small producers are given strict instructions to follow

during the whole farming process. All exporters were unanimous that without such awareness, it

would be difficult, even impossible, to survive in the export business of horticultural produce.

On this, emphasis was put on the availability and accessibility of information related to food

safety and food quality of horticultural produce. They recognised that such information existed,

however regretted that it is very costly and not available online to make it widely accessible.

This is the case of the New Kenyan Standards in horticulture known as “KS1758” launched on

129

21st July 2017 for Horticulture Industry-Code of Practice part II, concerning fruits and

vegetables. This document is of paramount importance to increase exporters’ awareness in

horticultural good practices. Many exporters claimed that it would be very useful only that it is

not affordable for small scale producers. In fact, it is very expensive (one copy costs Kshs 3000)

and not available online. In addition, this document is criticised for being very broad as it does

not provide particularities which are specific to each crop intended to export.

It was also revealed that export of Kenyan horticultural produce is, in many times, done in

consignments by well-known companies for export, having overseas representation or subsidiary

companies acting as “selling arm”. Those companies have a competitive advantage of dealing

directly with the buyers. In fact, they are able to easily identify specific needs of consumers and

hence setting up appropriate strategies to satisfy them. Nevertheless, in most of these cases,

these big companies of exporters face the challenges of working in contract farming with small

scale producers. The latter follow instructions given without good understanding of such

practices or the consequences that would result in not respecting them. Furthermore, companies

working on contract farming arrangement were complaining that small scale producers’ use

banned products to get crops which looked good, yet they ended up being rejected on the

international market as they exceeded the stipulated MRL. Such products would be efficient in

controlling pests and diseases but harmful to human beings. This results in negative

consequences to concerned exporters and the sector as a whole. Producers turning to such

practices are mainly profit oriented rather than ignorance of recommended products. It was also

revealed that new local exporters in the Kenyan horticultural industry are limited in the

knowledge of export market channel. They lack a global perspective when entering the

international market of horticultural produce. In fact, they get in touch with one person abroad, to

whom they can deliver the produce and negotiate issues related to pricing and quality of the

produce to be exported. Focusing only on the short term income, they are not able to build and

maintain long lasting relationship as they fail to be consistent in quality or fail to ensure one year

round supply. Finally, this study revealed the lack of coordination among institutions involved in


130

4.5. Exporters’ competences and the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture

4.5.1 Effect of exporters’ competences on the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture

The study sought to investigate the exporters’ competences of those involved in the export of

Kenyan horticulture. Eight items were used on a Likert scale of 1-5 where 1 was the lowest and 5

the highest, to show the level of agreement or disagreement on the effect of exporters’

competences and the internationalisation of the Kenyan horticulture. The results obtained in this

respect are presented in the Table 4.23.

Table 4.23: Responses on the exporters’ competences and the internationalisation of

Kenyan horticulture


Deviation

My education level helped me

internalise the standards used in

horticulture sector for export.

0

(0%)

4

(3.7%)

20

(18.5%)

42

(38.9%)

42

(38.9%)

4.13 0.844

My education background

played an important role in

adopting good agricultural

practices in horticulture.

0

(%)

1

(0.9%)

9

(8.3%)

48

(44.4%)

50

(46.3%)

4.36 0.676

I have been fully trained on all

aspects of standards

requirements in horticulture for

exports.

1

(0.9%)

3

(2.8%)

20

(18.5%)

38

(35.2%)

46

(42.6%)

4.16 0.888

I got better understanding of

standards in horticulture from

the trainings attended on food

safety and food quality.

0

(%)

0

(%)

9

(8.3%)

42

(38.9%)

57

(52.8%)

4.44 0.646

The institutions offering

certification services for

horticultural produce are

available.

4

(3.7%)

1

(0.9%)

31

(28.7%)

28

(25.9%)

44

(40.7%)

3.99 1.037

The institutions offering

certification services for

horticultural produce are

efficient.

64

(59.3%)

36

(33.3%)

8

(7.4%)

0

(%)

0

(%)

1.48 0.634

The services of certification are

affordable.

5

(4.6%)

95

(88%)

8

(7.4%)

0

(%)

0

(%)

2.03 0.347

With an effective system of

certification, the conformity

assessment of horticultural

produce is not doubtful.

9

(8.3%)

91

(84.3%)

8

(7.4%)

0

(%)

0

(%)

1.99 0.398

131

The findings depicted in the Table 4.23 show that for majority of participants, the education

background played an important role in adopting good agricultural practices in horticulture

(91%, mean=4.36) and helped to internalise the standards used in horticultural sector for export

(78%, mean=4.13). In addition, they show that majority of participants got better understanding

of standards in horticulture from the trainings attended on food safety and food quality (92%,

mean=4.44). Moreover, majority of participants agreed that they have been fully trained on all

aspects of standards requirements in horticulture for exports (78%, mean=4.16).

Majority of participants agreed that institutions offering certification services for horticultural

produce were available. However, a number of participants disagreed that the institutions

offering certification services for horticultural produce were efficient (93%, mean=1.48), and

that the services of certification were affordable (93%, mean=2.03) and that with an effective

system of certification, the conformity assessment of horticultural produce was not doubtful

(93%, mean=1.99).

4.5.2 Trainings in standards compliance by Category of horticultural produce

A cross tabulation between the trainings received in standards compliance and category of

horticultural produce was done and the findings are presented in the Table 4.24.

Table 4.24: Cross tabulation of Trainings in standards compliance and Category of


Category of

horticultural

produce

Trainings received in standards compliance Total

1 (SD) 2 (D) 3 (N) 4 (A) 5(SA)

Flowers 0

(0%)

0

(0%)

5

(4.6%)

6

(5.5)

4

(3.7%)

15

(14%)

Vegetables 1

(0.9%)

2

(1.8%)

11

(10.2%)

18

(16.7%)

28

(26%)

60

(55.6%)

Fruits 0

(0%)

2

(1.8%)

3

(2.8%)

10

(9.3%)

7

(6.5)

22

(20.4%)

Herbs 3

(2.8%)

8

(7.4%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

11

(10.2%)

Total 4

(3.7%)

12

(11%)

19

(17.6%)

34

(31.5%)

39

(36%)

108

(100%)

132

The data depicted in Table 4.24 indicates that majority of participants in the category of flowers

(9%), vegetables (420%), and fruits (16%) had received at least three trainings in standards

compliance yet majority of participants in herbs (9%) received one training only or none.

4.5.3 Availability of institutions offering certification services by category of horticultural

produce.

The Table4.25 shows a cross tabulation on availability of institutions offering certification

services and category of horticultural produce.

Table 4.25: Cross tabulation on availability of institutions offering certification services

and Category of horticultural produce

Category of

horticultural

produce

Availability of institutions offering certification services Total

1 (SD) 2 (D) 3 (N) 4 (A) 5(SA)

Flowers 0

(0%)

0

(0%)

5

(4.6%)

5

(4.6%)

5

(4.6%)

15

(14%)

Vegetables 2

(1.8%)

1

(0.9%)

21

(19.5%)

11

(10.2%)

25

(23%)

60

(55.6%)

Fruits 2

(1.8%)

0

(0%)

3

(2.8%)

7

(6.5%)

10

(9.3%)

22

(20.4%)

Herbs 6

(5.5)

5

(4.6%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

11

(10.2%)

Total 10

(9.3%)

6

(5.5)

29

(27%)

23

(21.3%)

40

(37%)

108

(100%)

The findings depicted in the Table 4.25 indicate that majority of participants in the category of

flowers (9%), vegetables (33%) and fruits (16%) agreed on the availability of institutions

offering certification for their horticultural produce. However, majority of participants in the

category of herbs (10%) disagreed on the availability of institutions offering certification for

their horticultural produce.

133

4.5.4 Efficiency of institutions offering certification services by category of horticultural

produce.

A cross tabulation between institutions offering certification services and category of


Table 4.26: Cross tabulation on efficiency of institutions offering certification services and

Category of horticultural produce

Category of

horticultural

produce

Efficiency of institutions offering certification services

for horticultural produce

Total

1 (SD) 2 (D) 3 (N) 4 (A) 5(SA)

Flowers 9

(8.3%)

5

(4.6%)

1

(0.9%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

15

(14%)

Vegetables 37

(34.3%)

19

(17.6%)

4

(3.7%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

60

(55.6%)

Fruits 13

(12%)

9

(8.3%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

22

(20.4%)

Herbs 5

(4.6%)

3

(2.8%)

3

(2.8%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

11

(10.2%)

Total 64

(59.3)

36

(33.3%)

8

(7.4%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

108

(100%)

The findings presented in the Table 4.26 indicate that majority of participants in all categories:

flowers (13%), vegetables (52%), fruits (20%), and herbs (7%) disagreed on the efficiency of the

institutions offering certification for their horticultural produce.

4.5.5Affordability of certification services

A cross tabulation between affordability of certification services and category of horticultural

produce was done and the findings are presented in the Table 4.27. The findings presented in this

table indicate that majority of participants in all categories: flowers (13%), vegetables (52%),

fruits (20%), and herbs (9%) disagreed on the affordability of certification services.

134

Table 4.27: Cross tabulation on affordability of certification services and Category of


Category of

horticultural

produce

Affordability of certification services Total

1 (SD) 2 (D) 3 (N) 4 (A) 5(SA)

Flowers 0

(0%)

14

(13%)

1

(0.9%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

15

(14%)

Vegetables 3

(2.8%)

53

(49%)

4

(3.7%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

60

(55.6%)

Fruits 2

(1.8%)

20

(18.5%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

22

(20.4%)

Herbs 3

(2.8%)

7

(6.5%)

1

(0.9%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

11

(10.2%)

Total 8

(7.4%)

94

(87%)

6

(5.5%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

108

(100%)


The study sought to examine the effect of exporters’ competences to comply with standards in

farming on the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture using the following hypothesis:

H02: Exporters’ competences to comply with standards in farming have no significant influence

on the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture.

The data in the Table 4.28 of Model Summary presents the goodness of fit between exporters’

competences and the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture. The model summary in this

table explains the strength of the relationship (r=0.166) and the prediction (r2=2.8%) of the

internationalisation based on exporters’ competences. The remaining 97.2% of

internationalisation were caused by other variables.

135

Table 4.28: Model Summary of exporters’ competences and the internationalisation of

Kenyan horticulture

Model Summaryb

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square

Std. Error of the

Estimate

1 .166a .028 .018 .70063

a. Predictors: (Constant), exporters’ competences

b. Dependent Variable: internationalisation

The study performed ANOVA to determine if there was a linear relationship between exporters’

competences and the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture. The results of ANOVA are

presented in the Table 4.29.

Table 4.29: ANOVA of exporters’ competences on the internationalisation of Kenyan

horticulture

ANOVAb


1 Regression 1.480 1 1.480 3.014 .085a

Residual 52.034 106 .491

Total 53.514 107

a. Predictors: (Constant), exporters’ competences


The analysis of variance indicated in Table 4.29 shows that there is no significant linear

relationship between exporters’ competences and the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture

(F=3.014, p-value > 0.05).


136

Table 4.30: Effect of exporters’ competences on the internationalisation of Kenyan

horticulture

Coefficientsa

Model Un-standardised Coefficients Standardised Coefficients t Sig.

B Std. Error Beta

1 (Constant) 2.596 0.573 4.532 0

competences 0.297 0.171 0.166 1.736 0.085

a. Dependent Variable: internationalisation

The analysis of the regression model presented in Table 4.30 indicates that exporters’

competences does not statistically predict value of the internationalisation of Kenyan

Horticulture (Beta=0.166 t=1.736, p-value=0.085>0.05). The beta weight gauges the importance

of explanatory variable across the model and is positive on the exporters’ competences. Beta

value is 0.166 but not statistically significant at p-value > 0.05. This means that one unit increase

in exporters’ competences increases the unit of the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture by

0.166 with the influence of moderating variable.



Y=2.596+0.166 X+0.171

The value of variance R2= 0.028, shows that 2.8% of the internationalisation is explained by

exporters’ competences. The values of F (3.014) =1.480, p-value=0.085, show that exporters’

competences is not statistically significant predictor of the internationalisation (i.e., the

regression model is not a good fit of the data). Therefore, the null hypothesis H02; that

“Exporters’ competence to comply with standards in farming has no significant influence on the

internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture” is not rejected. The value of exporters’ competences

is not statistically significant (t=1.736, p-value=0.085), hence, does not affect

internationalisation. The regression model explaining the results in Table 4.35 is given

by: Internationalisation=2.596+0.166 x Competences

137

The model shows that exporters’ competences positively affect the internationalisation, i.e. a

mean index increase in exporters’ competences increase the internationalisation of Kenyan

horticulture by a positive unit mean index value of 0.166.


During interviews and focus group discussions, participants confirmed that trainings in good

agricultural practices were in general offered and what should be questionable is their quality.

Trainings are being organised on various specific topics, only that those trainings are not based

on needs assessment. There is lack of a holistic approach to achieve effectiveness in standards

compliance for export in horticulture and that there is no coordination among institutions

offering those trainings. Furthermore, extension officers from the Ministry of Agriculture do not

have the capacity of training and monitoring them as far as respecting the standards is concerned.

They are not motivated and rarely carried field visits to meet them. Consequently, most of

respondents were not confident in their capabilities to comply with standards in horticulture,

reason why they refer to consultancy services which are very costly. Furthermore, they expressed

the need for training in risk assessment in the whole supply chain of export in horticulture.

Participants expressed their concern about the regular controls done by KEPHIS and HCDA

officers when assessing availability of required certificates. They do not understand why the

officers insist on having different types of certificates including Kenyan Gap certificate when

one is in a possession of Global Gap. This confusion results from the fact that different

certificates refer to same requirements and most of them are benchmarked on Global Gap

certificate. The cost of these certificates is very high and exporters think that officers look for

them not because they are needed but as a way to assist funding institutions which are issuing

them. They assume that at the national level, Kenyan Gap certificate would be relevant only for

those who do not have Global Gap and it would be up to exporters to look for additional

certificates required by the overseas buyers. Concerning the farming of herbs, exporters are

using the Global Gap for vegetables or flowers by default because there is no institution which

has the capacity of issuing certification specific for these crops. There are very few researchers

focusing of herbs as the volume currently produced is very limited and considered not worthy of

interest to justify research in that domain. To overcome such weakness, export of herbs is done

under the cover of vegetables or flowers certification, which is very risky.

138

4.6 Input use in horticulture and the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture

4.6.1 Effect of input use on the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture

The study was interested in looking at the aspects of input use by exporters involved in the

export of Kenyan horticultural produce. The study used 12 items on a Likert scale of 1-5 where 1

was the lowest and 5 the highest, to show the level of agreement or disagreement on the effect of

input use and the internationalisation of the Kenyan horticulture. The data obtained in this regard

is presented the table 4.31.

Table 4.31: Responses on the input use and internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture

Items 1(SD) 2(D) 3(N) 4(A) 5(SA) Mea

n

Std.

Deviat

ion

I know very well recommended

seeds for my horticultural produce

for export.

2

(1.9%)

12

(11.1%)

35

(32.4%)

30

(27.8%)

29

(26.9%)

3.67 1.05

The recommended seeds are

available at the local market.

2

(1.9%)

23

(21.3%)

50

(46.3%)

22

(20.4%)

11

(10.2%)

3.16 0.939

The recommended seeds are

affordable.

15

(13.9%)

36

(33.3%)

52

(48.1%)

5

(4.6%)

0

(%)

2.44 0.789

Seeds certified locally are of same

quality as imported certified seeds.

49

(45.4%)

59

(54.6%)

0

(%)

0

(%)

0

(%)

1.55 0.5

The water used in my farming is of

good quality.

3

(2.8%)

14

(13%)

55

(50.9%)

22

(20.4%)

14

(13.0%)

3.28 0.946

The water needed for my farming is

available in quantity.

4

(3.7%)

28

(25.9%)

43

(39.8%)

19

(17.6%)

14

(13%)

3.1 1.05

There is a need of proceeding with

test of water.

50

(46.3%)

45

(41.7%)

13

(12%)

0

(%)

0

(%)

1.66 0.686

I am looking for type of

horticultural produce consuming

less water.

32

(39.6%)

51

(47.2%)

25

(23.1%)

0

(%)

0

(%)

1.94 0.727

I keep abreast with recommended

fertilisers and pesticides for my


4

(3.7%)

9

(8.3%)

42

(38.9%)

29

(26.9%)

24

(22.2%)

3.56 1.044

I can get recommended fertilisers

and pesticides at the local markets.

3

(2.8%)

18

(16.7%)

45

(41.7%)

30

(27.8%)

12

(11.1%)

3.28 0.965

I can easily afford recommended

fertilisers and pesticides

12

(11.1%)

55

(50.9%)

39

(36.1%)

2

(1.9%)

0

(0%)

2.29 0.684

The enforcement of legislation

requiring prior approval of

fertilisers and pesticides in the

Kenyan market is efficient

16

(14.8%)

51

(47.2%)

41

(38%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

2.23 0.692

139

The results of the study presented in the Table 4.31 show that most of the participants knew very

well recommended seeds for their horticultural produce for export (55%, mean=3.67). However,

despite the participants who agreed on this item, majority of participants disagreed on the fact

that seeds certified locally were of same quality as imported certified seeds (100%, mean=1.55)

and that the recommended seeds were affordable. (47%, mean=2.44). A number of participants

were neutral on the fact that the recommended seeds were available at the local market (46%,

mean=3.16).

Most of participants disagreed that there was a need of proceeding with test of water (88%,

mean=2.66) and that they were looking for type of horticultural produce consuming less water

(87%, mean=1.94). A number of participants were neutral on the fact that the water used in their

farming was of good quality (51%, mean=3.25) and that the water needed for their farming was

available in quantity (40%, mean=3.1).

In addition, the results indicate that most of participants kept abreast with recommended

fertilisers and pesticides for their horticultural produce (49%, mean=3.56). However, they

disagreed that they could easily afford recommended fertilisers and pesticides (62%,

mean=2.29), and that the enforcement of legislation requiring prior approval of fertilisers and

pesticides in the Kenyan market was efficient (62%, mean=2.23). A number of participants were

neutral on the fact of getting recommended fertilisers and pesticides at the local markets (42%,

mean=3.28).

During interviews, it was revealed that most of producers did not proceed with risk assessment to

ensure that soil, climate and other conditions were appropriate for given crops. Most of them did

not have competences to make risk assessment, and therefore they were outsourcing that service

on expensive cost. Furthermore, they insisted on the crucial role that was supposed to be played

by extension officer in horticulture. All of them were unanimous that these officers were very

rare on the field and when met, they were not competent.

140

4.6.2 Keeping abreast with recommended fertilisers and pesticides by category of


A cross tabulation between keeping abreast with recommended fertilisers and pesticides and

category of horticultural produce was done and the findings are presented in the Table 4.32

Table 4.32: Cross tabulation on keeping abreast with recommended fertilisers/pesticides

and category of horticultural produce

Category of

horticultural

produce

Keeping abreast with recommended fertilisers and

pesticides

Total

1 (SD) 2 (D) 3 (N) 4 (A) 5(SA)

Flowers 1

(0.9%)

0

(0%)

3

(2.8%)

7

(6.5%)

4

(3.7%)

15

(14%)

Vegetables 1

(0.9%)

7

(6.5%)

24

(22.2%)

13

(12%)

15

(14%)

60

(55.6%)

Fruits 1

(0.9%)

2

(1.8%)

9

(8.3%)

7

(6.5%)

3

(2.8%)

22

(20.4%)

Herbs 4

(3.7%)

5

(4.6%)

2

(1.8%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

11

(10.2%)

Total 7

(6.5%)

14

(13%)

38

(35.2%)

27

(25%)

22

(20.4%)

108

(100%)

The findings shown in the Table 4.32 indicate that majority of participants in the category of

flowers (10%), vegetables (27%) and fruits (9%) agreed on keeping abreast with recommended

fertilisers and pesticides, whereas majority of participants in the category of herbs (8%)

disagreed on keeping abreast with recommended fertilisers and pesticides.

4.6.3 Availability of recommended fertilisers and pesticides by category of horticultural

produce

A cross tabulation between availability of recommended fertilisers and pesticides and category of

horticultural produce was done and the results are presented in the Table 4.33.

141

Table 4.33: Cross tabulation on availability of recommended fertilisers and pesticides and


Category of

horticultural

produce

Availability of recommended fertilisers and pesticides

at the local market

Total

1 (SD) 2 (D) 3 (N) 4 (A) 5(SA)

Flowers 0

(0%)

1

(0.9%)

4

(3.7%)

8

(7.4%)

2

(1.8%)

15

(14%)

Vegetables 0

(0%)

13

(12%)

27

(25%)

13

(12%)

7

(6.5%)

60

(55.6%)

Fruits 2

(1.8%)

3

(2.8%)

11

(10.2%)

5

(4.6%)

1

(0.9%)

22

(20.4%)

Herbs 3

(2.8%)

6

(5.5%)

2

(1.8%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

11

(10.2%)

Total 5

(4.6%)

23

(21.3%)

44

(40.7%)

26

(24%)

10

(9.3%)

108

(100%)

The data in the Table 4.33 indicates that majority of participants in the category of flowers (9%)

agreed on the availability of recommended fertilisers and pesticides, yet majority of participants

in the category of herbs (8%) disagreed on this item. Most participants in the category of

vegetables (25%) and fruits (10.2%) were neutral on availability of recommended fertilisers and

pesticides.

4.6.4 Affordability of recommended fertilisers and pesticides by category of horticultural

produce

A cross tabulation between Affordability of recommended fertilisers and pesticides and category

of horticultural produce was done and the findings are presented in the Table 3.34. The results

presented in this table show that majority of participants in all categories: flowers (8%),

vegetables (31%), fruits (16%), and herbs (7%) disagreed on affordability of recommended

fertilisers/pesticides in Kenya.

142

Table 4.34: Cross tabulation on affordability of recommended fertilisers/pesticides and


Category of

horticultural

produce

Affordability of recommended fertilisers and pesticides Total

1 (SD) 2 (D) 3 (N) 4 (A) 5(SA)

Flowers 2

(1.8%)

7

(6.5%)

6

(5.5%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

15

(14%)

Vegetables 5

(4.6%)

29

(26.9%)

24

(22.2%)

2

(1.8%)

0

(0%)

60

(55.6%)

Fruits 3

(2.8%)

14

(13%)

5

(4.6%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

22

(20.4%)

Herbs 2

(1.8%)

6

(5.5%)

3

(2.8%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

11

(10.2%)

Total 12

(11%)

56

(51.9%)

38

(35.2%)

2

(1.8%)

0

(0%)

108

(100%)

4.6.5 Efficiency of enforcement of legislation requiring prior approval of

fertilisers/pesticides by category of horticultural produce

The Table 4.35 presents a cross tabulation between enforcement of legislation requiring prior

approval of fertilisers/pesticides and category of horticultural produce.

Table 4.35: Cross tabulation on enforcement of legislation requiring prior approval of

fertilisers/pesticides and category of horticultural produce

Category of

horticultur

al produce

Efficiency of enforcement of legislation requiring

prior approval of fertilisers/pesticides

Total

1 (SD) 2 (D) 3 (N) 4 (A) 5(SA)

Flowers 1

(0.9%)

8

(7.4%)

6

(5.5%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

15

(14%)

Vegetables 8

(7.4%)

28

(26%)

24

(22.2%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

60

(55.6%)

Fruits 5

(4.6%)

10

(9.3%)

7

(6.5%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

22

(20.4%)

Herbs 4

(3.7%)

6

(5.5%)

1

(0.9%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

11

(10.2%)

Total 18

(16.7%)

52

(48.1%)

38

(35.2%

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

108

(100%)

143

The findings of the study depicted in the Table 4.35 indicate that majority of participants in all

categories: flowers (8%), vegetables (33%), fruits (14%), and herbs (9%) disagreed on efficiency

of enforcement of legislation requiring prior approval of fertilisers and pesticides.


The study sought to investigate the influence of input use during farming in relation with

standards compliance on the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture using the following

hypothesis:

H03: Standards compliance in input use has no significant influence on the internationalisation


The data in the Table4.36 of Model Summary presents the goodness of fit between input use in

horticulture and the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture.

Table 4.36: Model Summary of input use in horticulture and the internationalisation of

Kenyan horticulture

Model Summaryb

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate

1 .484a .234 .139 .65615

a. Predictors: (Constant),input


The model summary explains the strength of the relationship (r=0.484) and the prediction

(r2=23.4%) of the internationalisation based on input use in horticulture. The remaining 76.6% of

internationalisation were caused by other variables as shown in the Table 4.36.

The study performed ANOVA to determine if there was a linear relationship between input use

in horticulture and the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture. The results of ANOVA are


144

Table 4.37: ANOVA of input use on the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture

ANOVAb


1 Regression 7.877 1 7.877 18.295 .000a

Residual 45.637 106 .431

Total 53.514 107

a. Predictors: (Constant), inputs


The analysis of variance indicated in Table 4.37 shows that there is a significant linear

relationship between inputs use in horticulture and the internationalisation of Kenyan

horticulture (F =18.295, P<0.05).


Table 4.38: Effect of input use in horticulture and the internationalisation of Kenyan

horticulture

Coefficientsa

Model Un-standardised Coefficients Standardised Coefficients t Sig.

B Std. Error Beta

1 (Constant) 1.78 0.426 4.175 0

inputs 0.674 0.157 0.484 4.277 0


The analysis of the regression model indicates that input use in horticulture statistically predict

value of the internationalisation of Kenyan Horticulture (Beta=0.484 t=4.277,p-

value=0.00<0.05). The beta weight gauges the importance of explanatory variable across the

model and is positive on the input use in horticulture. Beta value is 0.484 and statistically

significant at p-value< 0.05. This means that one unit increase in input use in horticulture

increases the unit of the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture by 0.484 with the influence

of moderating variable.


145

Y (Internationalisation) =β0+ β i Xi+ε

Y=1.78+0.484 X+0.157

The value of variance R2 = 0.147, shows that 14.7% of the internationalisation is explained by

inputs. The values of F (18.295) =7.877, p-value=0.00, show that input use is statistically

significant predictor of the internationalisation (i.e., the regression model is a good fit of the

data). Therefore, the study rejects the null hypothesis H03; that “Standards compliance in input

has no significant influence on the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture” and accepts the

alternative hypothesis, H3: “Standards compliance in input use has a significant influence on the

internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture”. The value of input use is statistically significant

(t=4.277, p-value=0.00), hence, affects internationalisation. The regression model explaining the

results in Table 4.43 is given

by: Internationalisation = 1.78 + 0.484 x Input

The model shows that input use positively affects the internationalisation, i.e. a mean index

increase in input use increases the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture by a positive unit

mean index value of 0.484.


During interviews and focus group discussions, it was revealed that some specific seeds are very

rare or not present at all at the local market because seed’s importers are interested in seeds with

high demand. This is a big challenge for some exporters who would like to venture in the market

which is not yet saturated such as herbs and edible flowers etc. The absence of those specific

seeds on the local market is an obstacle to the diversification strategy in export which was a

solution to the stiff competition on international market of horticultural produce. It was

suggested to improve research on the horticultural seeds to get locally produced seeds of good

quality at a fair price. In fact, from the past, KARI had put effort in getting appropriate seeds for

traditional crops like coffee and tea and less attention was given to seeds for horticultural crops.

In addition, producers and exporters were unanimous that water is a critical factor for the success

in horticultural export. The main challenge they are facing in this aspect is linked to the

unpredictability of the rainy season and the drought period. The small scale producers indicated

that currently, they are experiencing long period of drought or unexpected rainy season which

affects the quality and quantity of crops. Most of them do not use borehole for irrigation purpose

146

as this system is considered very expensive, hence not affordable. Without an efficient irrigation

system, they are not able to achieve the farming throughout the year in order to meet the demand

of horticultural produce in the international market which insists on the year round supply. Most

of respondents claimed using water of good quality however, issue of taking water for testing to

ensure that it is of good or bad quality was somehow strange for them. Furthermore, they

asserted that the choice of type of crops cultivated for export is driven by the need expressed on

international market rather than the resistance of crops to drought season. There is no research

related to aspects such as development of drought tolerant crops, management of crops under

managed water deficit, use of low quality/waste water, or use of simple greenhouses etc. Most of

respondents highlighted the lack of knowledge related to technology of harvesting the rainfall

water or treatment of waste and/or poor quality water for irrigation. Most participants do not

understand the need to proceed with water testing and they do not look for the type of

horticultural produce consuming less water.

The participants indicated that instead of using recommended products which are expensive,

some producers go for counterfeit or banned products because they are cheap and effective in

managing pests and diseases though not efficient as they are harmful to human beings. They

indicated having observed that the safer the product, the more expensive it was. Hence, they

criticised the international market which regulates the type of products to use as relevant

regulations keep on changing, and the new product recommended always more expensive than

the previous one. Therefore, it becomes confusing and difficult to adapt to frequent changes of

recommended products. They observed that in the first years, small scale farmers try to follow

instructions related to the use of fertilisers and pesticides to avoid compromising the quality of

produce. With time, however, they go back to bad practices that reduce the cost of production by

sacrificing the quality as far as use of fertilisers and pesticides is concerned. Unfortunately, when

the substandard produces are intercepted, it does not only affect the consignment concerned. In

addition, it damages the reputation for horticultural produce in that category and an immediate

ban which might take long to be lifted. Producers of herbs face the challenge of not getting

products specifically certified for their crops. In such a case, they use the products indicated for

vegetables or flowers which are not necessarily appropriate for herbs. During export, they are

requested to justify the kind of products used and face high risk of getting their produce rejected.

147

4.7 Technology use in horticulture and the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture

4.7.1 Effect of technology use on the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture

The study investigated the effect of the technology use in horticulture on the internationalisation

of Kenyan horticulture. Nine items were used on a Likert scale of 1-5 where 1 was the lowest

and 5 the highest to show the level of agreement or disagreement on the effect of technology use

on the internationalisation of the Kenyan horticulture. The findings of this study are shown in the

Table 4.39.

Table 4.39: Responses on technology use and internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture


Deviation

There are sufficient laboratories

to test pests and diseases.

2

(1.9%)

16

(14.8%)

38

(35.2%)

38

(35.2%)

14

(13%)

3.43 0.959

Existing laboratories are

appropriate to test bests and

diseases in horticulture farming.

7

(6.5%)

16

(14.8%)

44

(40.7%)

25

(23.1%)

16

(14.8%)

3.25 1.086

The cost of laboratory tests for

horticultural produce is

affordable in Kenya.

18

(16.7%)

34

(31.5%)

42

(38.9%)

10

(9.3%)

4

(3.7%)

2.52 1

Cold rooms for my horticultural

produce are available.

22

(20.4%)

16

(14.8%)

33

(30.6%)

20

(18.5%)

17

(15.7%)

2.94 1.338

The cost of storage in cold

rooms is affordable.

22

(20.4%)

21

(19.4%)

38

(35.2%)

16

(14.8%)

11

(10.2%)

2.75 1.231

I keep good quality of my

horticultural produce in the

whole harvesting process.

8

(7.4%)

12

(11.1%)

42

(38.9%)

28

(25.9%)

18

(16.7%)

3.33 1.111

I am using better methods for

sorting/grading my horticultural

produce.

0

(0%)

7

(6.5%)

44

(40.7%)

50

(46.3%)

7

(6.5%)

3.53 0.716

I have better options of adding

value to horticultural produce

before export.

7

(6.5%)

58

(53.7%)

42

(38.9%)

1

(0.9%)

0

(0%)

2.34 0.614

I am using the modern

technology of packaging when

exporting my horticultural

produce.

4

(3.7%)

46

(42.6%)

54

(50%)

4

(3.7%)

0

(0%)

2.54 0.633

The results of the study presented in the Table 4.39 indicate that majority of participants were in

agreement with the existence of sufficient laboratories to test pests and diseases (48%,

mean=3.43). Despite the participants agreeable of this item, they disagreed on the fact that the

cost of laboratory tests for horticultural produce was affordable in Kenya (48%, mean=2.52) and

148

41% of the participants were neutral on whether existing laboratories were appropriate to test

pests and diseases in horticulture farming (mean=3.25).

Majority of participants disagreed on the fact that the cost of storage in cold rooms was

affordable (40%, mean=2.75) and participants were divided on the fact that cold rooms for their

horticultural produce were available (35% disagreed and 34% agreed, mean=2.94). Majority of

participants agreed with the use of better methods for sorting/grading their horticultural produce

(53%, mean=3.53) and they agreed on keeping good quality of their horticultural produce during

the whole harvesting process (42%, mean=3.33). Despite the participants who agreed on these

items, most of the participants were in disagreement of having better options of adding value to

horticultural produce before export (60%, mean=2.34) and that they used the modern technology

of packaging when exporting their horticultural produce (47%, mean=2.54).

4.7.2 Existence of laboratories to test pests and diseases and category of horticultural

produce

The Table 4.40 presents a cross tabulation between existence of laboratories to test pests and

diseases and category of horticultural produce.

Table 4.40: Cross tabulation existence of laboratories to test pests and diseases and


Category of

horticultural

produce

Existence of sufficient laboratories to test pests and diseases Total

1 (SD) 2 (D) 3 (N) 4 (A) 5(SA)

Flowers 0

(0%)

1

(0.9%)

4

(3.7%)

8

(7.4%)

2

(1.8%)

15

(14%)

Vegetables 1

(0.9%)

9

(8.3%)

21

(19.4%)

21

(19.4%)

8

(7.4%)

60

(55.6%)

Fruits 1

(0.9%)

5

(4.6%)

7

(6.5%)

6

(5.5%)

3

(2.8%)

22

(20.4%)

Herbs 1

(0.9%)

6

(5.5%)

4

(3.7%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

11

(10.2%)

Total 3

(2.8%)

21

(19.4%)

36

(33.3%)

35

(32.4%)

13

(12%)

108

(100%)

149

The findings presented in the Table 4.40 indicate that majority of participants in the category of

flowers (9%), vegetables (27%) and fruits (8%) agreed on existence of sufficient laboratories to

test pests and disease in horticultural farming. However, majority of participants in the category

of herbs (6%) disagreed on the existence of laboratories needed for their horticultural produce.

4.7.3 Efficiency of laboratories to test pests and diseases and category of horticultural

produce

A cross tabulation between efficiency of laboratories to test pests and diseases and category of


Table 4.41: Cross tabulation on the efficiency of laboratories to test pests and diseases and


Category of

horticultural

produce

Efficiency of existing laboratories to test pests and

diseases

Total

1 (SD) 2 (D) 3 (N) 4 (A) 5(SA)

Flowers 0

(0%)

0

(0%)

8

(7.4%)

4

(3.7%)

3

(2.8%)

15

(14%)

Vegetables 5

(4.6%)

11

(10.2%)

24

(22.2%)

11

(10.2%)

9

(8.3%)

60

(55.6%)

Fruits 1

(0.9%)

5

(4.6%)

8

(7.4%)

5

(4.6%)

3

(2.8%)

22

(20.4%)

Herbs 2

(1.8%)

6

(5.5%)

3

(2.8%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

11

(10.2%)

Total 8

(7.4%)

22

(20.4%)

43

(39.8%)

20

(18.5%)

15

(14%)

108

(100%)


herbs (7%) disagreed on efficiency of existing laboratories to test pests and diseases in the

farming of herbs for export. Most of participants in the category of flowers (7%) and vegetables

(22%) were neutral on whether existing laboratories were efficient to test pests and diseases

respectively for flowers and vegetables. 7% of participants in the category of fruits were neutral

and other 7% agreed on the efficiency of existing laboratories to test pest and diseases for fruits.

150

4.7.4 Affordability of laboratory’s tests for pests/diseases and category of horticultural

produce

A cross tabulation between affordability of laboratories to test pests and diseases and category of

horticultural produce was done and the findings are presented in the Table 4.42

Table 4.42: Cross tabulation on affordability of laboratory’s tests for pests/diseases and


Category of

horticultural

produce

Affordability of laboratory’s tests for pests/diseases Total

1 (SD) 2 (D) 3 (N) 4 (A) 5(SA)

Flowers 1

(0.9%)

6

(5.5%)

8

(7.4%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

15

(14%)

Vegetables 11

(10.2%)

18

(16.7%)

20

(18.5)

8

(7.4%)

3

(2.8%)

60

(55.6%)

Fruits 4

(3.7%)

7

(6.5%)

8

(7.4%)

2

(1.8%)

1

(0.9%)

22

(20.4%)

Herbs 2

(1.8%)

6

(5.5%)

3

(2.8%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

11

(10.2%)

Total 18

(16.7%)

37

(34.3%)

39

(36.1%)

10

(9.3%)

4

(3.7%)

108

(100%)


vegetables (27%), fruits (10%), and herbs (7%) disagreed on affordability of laboratories to test

respectively vegetables, fruits and herbs. Most of participants in flowers (7%) were neutral on

affordability of existing laboratories to test flowers.


The study sought to analyse the influence of technology use in relation with standards

compliance on the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture using the following hypothesis:

H03: Standards compliance in technology use has no significant influence on the


The data in the Table 4.43 of Model Summary presents the goodness of fit between Technology

use in horticulture and the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture.

151

Table 4.43: Model Summary of technology use in horticulture and the internationalisation

of Kenyan horticulture

Model Summaryb


1 .456a .208 .201 .63217

a. Predictors: (Constant), technology use



(r2=20.8%) of the internationalisation based on technology use in horticulture. The remaining

79.2% of internationalisation were caused by other variables as shown in the Table 4.43.

The study performed ANOVA to determine if there was a linear relationship between technology

use and the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture. The results of ANOVA are presented in

the Table 4.44.

Table 4.44: ANOVA of technology use on the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture

ANOVAb


1 Regression 11.152 1 11.152 27.904 .000a

Residual 42.362 106 .400

Total 53.514 107

a. Predictors: (Constant), technology use

b. Dependent Variable: international

The analysis of variance indicated in the Table 4.44 shows that there is a linear relationship

between technology use in horticulture and the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture (F

=27.904, p-value <0.05).


152

Table 4.45: Effect of technology use in horticulture and the internationalisation of Kenyan

horticulture

Coefficientsa

Model Un-standardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig.

B Std. Error Beta

1 (Constant) 2.039 0.299 6.831 0

technology 0.522 0.099 0.456 5.282 0


The analysis of the regression model in the Table 4.45 indicates that technology use in

horticulture statistically predict value of the internationalisation of Kenyan Horticulture

(Beta=0.456, t=5.282, p-value=0.00<0.05). The beta weight gauges the importance of

explanatory variable across the model and is positive on the technology use in horticulture. Beta

value is 0.456 statistically significant at p-value < 0.05. This means that one unit increase in

technology use increases the unit of the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture by 0.456 with

the influence of moderating variable.



Y=2.039+0.456 X+0.099

The value of variance R2 = .208, shows that 20.8% of the internationalisation is explained by

technology use. The values of F (27.904) =11.152, p-value=0.00, show that technology use is a

statistically significant predictor of the internationalisation (i.e., the regression model is a good

fit of the data). Therefore, the study rejects the null hypothesis H04; that “Standards compliance

in technology use has no significant influence on the internationalisation of Kenyan

horticulture.” and accepts the alternative hypothesis, H4: “Standards compliance in technology

use has a significant influence on the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture”. The value of

technology use is statistically significant (t=5.282, p-value=0.00), hence, affects

internationalisation. The regression model explaining the results in Table 4.50 is given

by: Internationalisation=2.039+0.456 x Technology

153

The model shows that technology use positively affects the internationalisation, i.e. a mean index

increase in technology use increases the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture by a positive

unit mean index value of 0.456.


During interviews and focus group discussions, participants indicated that the methods and

practices used during harvesting, sorting, grading and packaging were generally good. This was

possible due to predominance of contract farming where big companies involved in export of

horticultural produce provide sufficient trainings and required tools to small scale farmers in

order to achieve required quality. Nevertheless, small scale producers expressed the need of

getting better technology for harvesting, sorting, and grading to use less time in the process and

get better quality of the produce. Furthermore, they expressed the need of getting regular updates

on new technologies used to maintain good quality of exported produce from the postharvest to

end consumer. This lack of knowledge on appropriate technology is limiting them to add value to

horticultural produce. Another concern expressed by producers and exporters is the cost of

testing pest and diseases and the cost of testing residues level in the plants which is expensive. In

addition, among existing laboratories, some of them are not well equipped to perform all tests

required to meet the international standards. There is for instance no specific laboratory

designed for testing herbal produce. Thus, herbs are being tested abroad at a higher cost. With

respect to cold rooms in Kenyan horticulture, their distribution in different areas is questionable

as some of them are located in places where there are no farming activities undertaken, yet there

are other places with intense farming without available cold rooms facilities. This is the case of

cold rooms underused in Limuru and Sagana.

4.8 Infrastructure and the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture

4.8.1 Effect of infrastructure on the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture

The study sought to investigate how infrastructure affected the export of horticultural produce in

Kenya. In this respect, five items were used on a Likert scale of 1-5 where 1 was the lowest and

5 the highest, to show the level of agreement or disagreement on the effect of infrastructure on

the internationalisation of the Kenyan horticulture. The data obtained in this regard is

summarised in the Table 4.46.

154

Table 4.46 Responses on infrastructure and internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture

Items 1(SD) 2(D) 3(N) 4(A) 5(SA) Mea

n

Std.

Deviation

The area of my farming is

accessible by good roads.

5

(4.6%)

19

(17.59%)

30

(27.8%)

42

(38.8%)

12

(11%)

3.54 1.007

During export of

horticultural produce, air

freight rate is affordable.

36

(33.3%)

48

(44.4%)

24

(22.2%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

1.89 0.74

Electricity needed during

horticulture farming is

consistent

24

(22.2%)

19

(17.6%)

45

(41.7%)

12

(11.1%)

8

(7.4%)

2.64 1.164

The cost of electricity is

affordable.

16

(14.8%)

57

(52.8%)

34

(31.5%)

1

(0.9%)

0

(0%)

2.19 0.686

I have started looking for

better alternative sources

of energy

13

(12%)

53

(49.1%)

40

(37%)

2

(1.9%)

0

(0%)

2.29 0.698

The findings of the study shown in the Table 4.46 indicate that for majority of participants, the

area of their faming was accessible by good roads (50%, mean= 3.54). However, most of them

disagreed on the fact that during export of horticultural produce, air freight rate is affordable

(78%, mean=1.89).

They also disagreed on the fact that the cost of electricity was affordable (67%, mean=2.19) and

that they would have started looking for better alternative sources of energy (61%, mean=2.29).

A number of participants were neutral on the fact that the electricity needed during horticultural

farming was consistent (42%, mean=2.64).


The study sought to investigate the effect of infrastructure available in perspective of standards

compliance on the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture using the following hypothesis:

H05: Infrastructure in perspective of standards compliance has no significant influence on the


The data in the Table 4.47 of Model Summary presents the goodness of fit between infrastructure

and the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture.

155

Table 4.47: Model Summary of infrastructure and the internationalisation of Kenyan

horticulture

Model Summaryb


1 .210a .044 .035 .69466

a. Predictors: (Constant), infrastructure



(r2=4.4%) of the internationalisation based on infrastructure. The remaining 95.6% of

internationalisation were caused by other variables as shown in the Table 4.47.

The study performed ANOVA to determine if there was a linear relationship between

infrastructure and the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture. The result of ANOVA is


Table 4.48: ANOVA of infrastructure on the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture

ANOVAb

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square

F Sig.

Regression 2.363 1 2.363 4.897 0.029a

Residual 51.151 106 .483

Total 53.514 107

a. Predictors: (Constant), infrastructure


The results shown in Table 4.48 indicate that there is a no linear relationship between

infrastructure and the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture (F=4.897, p-value <0.05)


156

Table 4.49: Effect of infrastructure on the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture

Coefficientsa

Model Un-standardized

Coefficients

Standardized Coefficients t Sig.

B Std. Error Beta

1 (Constant) 2.824 0.349 8.084 0

infrastructure 0.318 0.144 0.21 2.213 0.029


The analysis of the regression model in Table 4.49 indicates that infrastructure statistically

predicts value of the internationalisation of Kenyan Horticulture (Beta=0.21 t=2.213, p-

value=0.029<0.05). The beta weight gauges the importance of explanatory variable across the

model and is positive on the infrastructure. Beta value is 0.21 statistically significant at p-value <

0.05. This means that one unit increase in infrastructure increases the unit of the

internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture by 0.21 with the influence of moderating variable.



Y=2.824+0.21 X+0.144

The value of variance R2 = .044shows that 4.4% of the internationalisation is explained by

infrastructure. The values of F (4.897) =2.363, p-value=0.029, show that infrastructure is

statistically significant predictor of the internationalisation (i.e., the regression model is a good

fit of the data). Therefore, the study rejects the null hypothesis H05; that “Infrastructure in

perspective of standards compliance has no significant influence on the internationalisation of

Kenyan horticulture” and accepts the alternative hypothesis, H5: “Infrastructure in perspective of

standards compliance has a significant influence on the internationalisation of Kenyan

horticulture”. The value of infrastructure is statistically significant (t=2.213, p-value=0.029),

hence, affects internationalisation. The regression model explaining the results in Table 4.54 is

given

by: Internationalisation=2.824+0.21 x Infrastructure

157

The model shows that infrastructure positively affects the internationalisation, i.e. a mean index

increase in infrastructure increases the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture by a positive

unit mean index value of 0.21.


During interviews and focus group discussions, producers and exporters noted the improvement

in roads infrastructure which contributed in keeping good quality of horticultural produce from

farms to airport. They attributed this success to government’s efforts to improve the quality of

roads. However, there are other respondents who expressed their concern in terms of having

lands which could not be exploited due to lack of good roads. They attested that good roads are

sine qua non condition to avoid deterioration of quality of horticultural produce during transport.

This criterion excludes a huge number of farmers wishing to do farming for exports because their

lands are located in none accessible rural areas. In addition, producers and exporters were

complaining on the high cost of electricity and the frequent power cuts, causing them to go for

alternative of generator, also very much demanding for fuel. Unfortunately, technologies for

alternatives source of energy are not known and it is not sure whether they could be the cheapest.

4.9 Moderating role of Regulatory Framework

4.9.1 Moderating role of regulatory framework in the relationship between antecedents of

standards compliance and the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture

The study was interested in exploring the moderating role of regulatory framework between the

antecedents of standards compliance and the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture. The

study used 6 items on a Likert scale of 1-5 where 1 was the lowest and 5 the highest, to show the

level of agreement or disagreement on the moderating effect of regulatory framework. The

results obtained are summarised in the Table 4.50.

158

Table 4.50: Responses on the moderating role of Regulatory Framework


Deviat

ion

Regular inspection visits

contribute to enforcement of

standards in horticulture sector.

5

(4.6%)

16

(14.8%)

43

(39.8%)

32

(29.6%)

12

(11.1%)

3.28 1.003

Officers checking standards

compliance in horticulture have

relevant expertise to assist

producers and exporters.

0

(0%)

5

(4.6%)

42

(38.9%)

49

(45.4%)

12

(11.1%)

3.63 0.744

Inspectors of standards checking

my horticulture farming act as

facilitator to help me comply with

requirements.

20

(18.5%)

55

(50.9%)

30

(27.8%)

3

(2.8%)

0

(0%)

2.15 0.747

Export rules and regulations in

horticulture are strictly enforced.

3

(2.8%)

32

(29.6%)

49

(45.4%)

24

(22.2%)

0

(0%)

2.87 0.786

The criteria of issuing export

certificates are strictly and

objectively respected for exporter.

8

(7.4%)

16

(14.8%)

40

(37%)

31

(28.7%)

13

(12%)

3.23 1.082

Issuance of certificate of export

contributes to standards

compliance in horticulture.

4

(3.7%)

9

(8.3%)

29

(26.9%)

45

(41.7%)

21

(19.4%)

3.65 1.008

The data summarised in the Table 4.50 indicates that majority of participants agreed on the fact

that officers checking standards compliance in horticulture have relevant expertise to assist

producers and exporters (56%, mean=3.63). They further concurred on that regular inspection

visits contributed to enforcement of standards in horticultural sector (41%, mean=3.28).

Nevertheless, most of participants disagreed that inspectors of standards checking their

horticultural farming act as facilitator to help them comply with requirements (69%, mean=2.15).

45% of participants were neutral on the fact that export rules and regulations in horticulture were

strictly enforced (mean=2.87).

Majority of participants agreed on the fact that issuance of certificate of export contributed to

standards compliance in horticulture (61%, mean=3.65). They further concurred on the fact that

criteria of issuing export certificates were strictly and objectively respected for export (41%,

mean=3.23).

159


The study sought to examine the moderating role of regulatory framework between the

antecedents of standards compliance and the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture using

the following hypothesis:

H06: Regulatory framework plays no significant moderating role between the antecedents of

standards compliance and the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture.

The data in the Table 4.51 of Model Summary presents the goodness of fit of the moderating role

of regulatory framework in the relationship between antecedents of standards compliance and the


Table 4.51: Moderating role of regulatory framework on the relationship between

antecedents of standards compliance and internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture

Model Summary

Model R R Square Adjusted R

Square

Std. Error of

the Estimate

1 .498a .248 .227 .62197

a. Predictors: (Constant), Antecedences of Standards and

Regulatory Framework, Antecedences of Standards

Compliance, Regulatory framework

The value of variance R2– Adjusted = 0.227, shows that 22.7% of the internationalisation for

Kenyan horticulture is explained by regulatory framework, antecedents of standards compliance

and interaction between the antecedents of standards compliance and regulatory framework.

The study performed ANOVA to determine if there was a linear relationship between

internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture and other factors. The result of ANOVA is presented

in the Table 4.52.

160

Table 4.52: ANOVA of internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture and other factors

ANOVAa

Model Sum of

Squares

df Mean

Square

F Sig.

1

Regression 13.282 3 4.427 11.445 .000b

Residual 40.232 104 .387

Total 53.514 107

a. Dependent Variable: Internationalisation

b. Predictors: (Constant), Antecedences of Standards compliance and

Regulatory Framework, Antecedences of Standards Compliance, Regulatory

framework.

The findings depicted in Table 4.52 show a statistically significant liner relationship between

internationalisation and other factors: Antecedences of Standards Compliance, Regulatory

framework, Antecedences of Standards compliance and Regulatory Framework (F=11.445, p-

value <0.05).

The study performed a regression coefficient model presented in the Table 4.53. The analysis in

this table shows that the interaction between antecedents of standards compliance and regulatory

framework is not statistically significant (t=-0.217, p-value = 0.828). This shows that regulatory

framework does not significantly moderate the antecedents of standards compliance and

internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture. Therefore, the null hypothesis H06; that “Regulatory

Framework plays no significant moderating role between antecedents of standards compliance

and the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture.” is not rejected.

161

Table 4.53: Effect of the moderating role of regulatory framework in the relationship

between antecedents of standards compliance and the internationalisation of Kenyan

horticulture

Coefficientsa


Coefficients

Standardised

Coefficients

t Sig. 95.0% Confidence

Interval for B

B Std.

Error

Beta Lower

Bound

Upper

Bound

1

(Constant) -.247 2.930 -.084 .933 -6.057 5.562

Regulatory

framework .517 .977 .417 .529 .598 -1.421 2.454

Antecedences of

Standards

Compliance

.988 1.041 .441 .949 .345 -1.077 3.053

Antecedences of

Standards and

Regulatory

Framework

-.074 .341 -.230 -.217 .828 -.750 .602



During interviews and focus group discussions, producers and exporters pointed out that quality

and safety of horticultural produce would greatly improve if inspectors checking standards

compliance would combine the role of “watchdog” with the one of “facilitator”. Some exporters

emphasised that issuance of certificates in horticulture is done without accurate controls on the

field to ensure that relevant criteria of food quality and food safety are respected. As a result,

some unqualified producers/exporters in horticulture get certificates and bring to the market

substandard produces which, in most of the cases, are rejected. The immediate consequence

includes the ban of export of produce of same category generally for a long period.

162

4.10 Results of hypotheses testing

To achieve the objectives of this study, six hypotheses were tested and the results are

summarised in the Table 4.54.

Table 4.54: Summary of hypotheses testing

Hypotheses Pearson

Correlation

Regression

analysis

Result

H01 Exporters’ awareness in standards

compliance (ASC) has no significant

influence on the internationalisation of

Kenyan horticulture (IKH).

r=0.182

p-value=0.06

(very weak

positive

association and

not statistically

significant)

Beta=0.182

t=1.902

p-value=0.06

(not statistically

significant

prediction)

Accepted

H02 Exporters’ competences to comply

with standards (CSC) have no



horticulture (IKH).

r=0.166

p-value=0.085

(very weak

positive

association and

not statistically

significant)

Beta=0.166

t=1.736

p-value=0.085

(not statistically

significant

prediction)

Accepted

H03 Standards compliance in input use

(ISC) has no significant influence on

the internationalisation of Kenyan

horticulture (IKH).

r=0.484

p-value=0.00

(moderate

positive

association and

statistically

significant)

Beta=0.484

t=4.277

p-value=0.00

(statistically

significant

prediction)

Rejected

H04 Standards compliance in technology

use (TSC) has no significant influence

on the internationalisation of Kenyan

r=0.456

p-value=0.00

(moderate

Beta=0.456

t=5.282

p-value=0.00

Rejected

163

horticulture (IKH). positive

association and

statistically

significant)

(statistically

significant

prediction)

H05 Infrastructure in perspective of

standards compliance (FSC) has no



horticulture (IKH).

r=0.210

p-value=0.029

(very weak

positive

association but

statistically

significant)

Beta=0.210

t=2.213

p-value=0.029

(statistically

significant

prediction)

Rejected

H06 Regulatory framework (RF) plays no

significant moderating role between

antecedents of standards compliance

and the internationalisation of Kenyan

horticulture (IKH).

t=0.217

p-value=0.828

(very weak

interaction and

not statistically

significant)

Accepted

164

4.11 Optimal model

From the tested hypothesised models, the researcher sought to establish the optimal model for

the study. Subsequently, a stepwise regression analysis was performed and only variables with

and significant values and moderate relationship with internationalisation were included in the

model (p<0.05). Exporters’ awareness and exporters’ competencies were excluded since they

were not statistically significant, with a very weak relationship with the internationalisation.

Even if infrastructure had a statistically significant value, it was excluded because it had no

linear relationship with the internationalisation. The data in the Table 4.55 of Model Summary

presents the goodness of fit between input use, technology use and the internationalisation of


Table 4.55: Model Summary of input, technology and the internationalisation of Kenyan

horticulture

Model Summary


1 .514a .264 .250 .61240

a. Predictors: (Constant), Input, Technology

The value of variance R2- Adjusted= 0.250, shows that 25% of the internationalisation is of input

use and technology use.

The study performed ANOVA to determine if there was a linear relationship between input use,

technology use and the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture. The result of ANOVA is


Table 4.56: ANOVA of input use, technology use and the internationalisation of Kenyan

horticulture

ANOVAa

Model Sum of

Squares

df Mean

Square

F Sig.

1

Regression 14.135 2 7.067 18.845 .000b

Residual 39.379 105 .375

Total 53.514 107


b. Predictors: (Constant), Technology, Input

165

The value of F (2, 105) = 18.845, p-value< 0.05, shows that there is a statistically significant

linear relationship between input use and technology use; and the internationalisation of Kenyan

horticulture (i.e., the regression model is a good fit of the data).


Table 4.57: Effect of input, technology on the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture

Coefficientsa


Coefficients

Standardised

Coefficients

t Sig. 95.0% Confidence

Interval for B

B Std. Error Beta Lower

Bound

Upper

Bound

1

(Constant) 1.157 .426 2.714 .008 .312 2.002

Input .444 .157 .253 2.820 .006 .132 .756

Technology .419 .102 .366 4.085 .000 .215 .622


Technology (t=4.085, p< 0.05) and Input (t=2.820, p<0.05) are the only antecedents for

standards compliance with statistically significant values; implying that technology use and input

use exert significant influence on internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture.

The optimal regression model is given by:

Internationalisation = 1.157 + 0.444 x Input + 0.419 x Technology

The model shows that only input use and technology use are the only antecedents of standards

compliance with fundamental positive effect on internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture. I.e.

holding input use constant, increase in technology use increases the internationalisation by a

positive unit mean index value of the 0.419. Holding technology use constant, increase in input

use increases the internationalisation by a positive unit mean index value of the 0.444. The

Figure 4.13 shows the optimal model.

Figure 4.13: Optimal model

Input use in horticulture Internationalisation of

Kenyan horticulture

Technology use in horticulture

166

4.12 Chapter Summary

Chapter four has provided results and findings as per the data collected from respondents, who

were FPEAK ordinary members registered by March 2017.The results were presented in this

chapter using text, charts and tables. The results covering the general information of this study

showed a response rate of 94% of which 31% were female and 69% were male. Further, the data

were screened and normality, linearity, homoscedasticity and multicollinearity tests were

performed. Analysis on the background information and essential factors of exporters’

awareness of standards compliance on the internationalisation of the Kenyan horticulture,

exporters’ competences on the internationalisation of the Kenyan horticulture, input use on the

internationalisation of the Kenyan horticulture, technology use on the internationalisation of the

Kenyan horticulture, infrastructure on the internationalisation of the Kenyan horticulture, and the

moderating role of regulatory framework between antecedents of standards compliance and the

internationalisation of the Kenyan horticulture were provided in this chapter.

The findings on the first objective of this study covering the effect of exporter’s awareness of

standards compliance (ASC) on the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture (IKH) showed a

very weak positive relationship and not statistically significant between the two variables

(r=0.182, p-value=0.06). Based on these results, the study accepts the null hypothesis. The

findings of the second objective of this study related to the influence on exporters’ competences

in horticulture (CSC) on the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture (IKH) showed a very

weak positive relationship and not statistically significant between the two variables (r=0.166, p-

value=0.085). Therefore, the null hypothesis was accepted.

The findings of the third objective of this study covering the effect of the standards compliance

in input use (ISC) on the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture (IKH) showed a moderate

positive and statistically significant relationship between the variables, (r=0.484, p-value=0.00).

Hence, the study rejects the null hypotheses. The findings of the fourth objective of this study

covering the influence of technology use in horticulture (TSC) on the internationalisation of

Kenyan horticulture (IKH) showed a moderate positive and statistically significant relationship

between the variables (r=0.456, p-value=0.00). Based on these results, the study rejects the null

hypotheses.

167

The fifth objective of this study covering the effect of infrastructure in horticulture (FSC) on the

internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture (IKH) showed that there was a weak positive and

significant relationship between both variables (r=0.210, p-value=0.029). Based on these results,

the study rejects the null hypotheses. Finally, the findings of the sixth objective covering the

moderating role of regulatory framework (RF) on the relationship between the antecedents of

standards compliance (ASC) and the internationalisation of the Kenyan horticulture (IKH)

showed that the interaction between antecedents of standards compliance and regulatory

framework was not statistically significant (t=-0.217, p-value = 0.828).

In the following chapter five, discussions of the findings of this study in references to other

studies under literature review were covered. In addition, conclusions were made on the findings

and recommendations formulated on the implications of knowledge and policy gaps.

Recommendations for further studies were covered as well.

168

CHAPTER FIVE

5.0. SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Introduction

The previous chapter presented the results and findings arising out of this research of the

antecedents of standards compliance for the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture.

Chapter five aimed to interpret the results reported in the previous chapter covering the six

objectives of this study. This chapter was dived into four sections. Section one covered the

summary of this study indicating the purpose of the study, research question, the summary of the

research methodology and major findings based on the research objectives. Section two covered

the discussions of the results comparing the explanations of similarities and differences of the

findings of this study with the empirical studies covered in chapter two of this study. Section

three covered broad conclusions based on the research objectives, analysis done and the results

obtained for each research objective of this study. Finally, section four covered the

recommendations, suggestions for improvements and suggestions for further research.

5.2 Summary of the Study

The general objective of this study was to investigate the effect of the antecedents of standards

compliance on the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture. This study was guided by six

specific objectives. The first objective investigated the influence of exporters’ awareness of

standards compliance on the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture. The second objective

examined the effect of exporters’ competences to comply with standards in horticulture and the

internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture. The third objective assessed the influence of input

used during farming in relation to standards on the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture.

The fourth objective analysed the influence of technology use in relation to standards compliance

on the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture. The fifth objective explored the influence of

the availability of infrastructure in perspective of standards compliance on the

internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture. Finally, the sixth objective determined the extent to

which the regulatory framework moderates the relationship between antecedents of standards

compliance (awareness, competences, input, technology, and infrastructure) and the


169

The research philosophy adopted in this study was the positivism approach and the research

design applied was descriptive and explanatory. The population of this study was 161 producers

and exporters who were FPEAK ordinary members by March 2017. A sample of 115 producers

and exporters in horticulture was selected for quantitative component of this study. In addition,

15 producers and exporters were interviewed through the purposive non-sampling method and 5

focus group discussions were conducted for the qualitative component of this study. The self-

administrated questionnaire, the in-depth interview guide and focus group discussion guide were

the data collection instruments used in the study. The pilot study was conducted and the data

collection tools were revised before being administrated for the final study to the field. The data

collected was analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics. The descriptive statistics

included frequencies and percentages, whereas inferential statistics included Pearson Correlation

and Linear Regression. The statistics package for social sciences (SPSS) was used in the

analysis.

The study used a Pearson Correlation test to examine the relationship between exporters’

awareness of standards compliance and the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture. The

findings obtained from this test indicated a weak positive and no statistically significant

relationship between both variables (r=0.182, p-value=0.06). In addition, the results of linear

regression indicated that exporters’ awareness of standards compliance does not statistically

predict the value of the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture (Beta=0.182, t=1.902, p-

value=0.06>0.05). Therefore, the study accepted the null hypothesis.

The study also used a Person Correlation test to examine the relationship between exporters’

competences and the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture. The results of the study

indicated as well a very weak positive association and not statistically significant between

exporters’ competences and the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture (r=0.166, p-

value=0.085). The results of linear regression indicated that exporters’ competences do not

statistically predict the value of the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture (Beta=0.166

t=1.736, p-value=0.085>0.05). Hence, the study accepted the null hypothesis.

A Pearson Correlation test to examine the relationship between input use in horticulture and the

internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture was used by this study. This test revealed that there

170

was a moderate positive and statistically significant relationship between input use in horticulture

and the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture (r=0.484, p-value=0.00). The results of linear

regression indicated that input use in horticulture statistically predict value of the

internationalisation of Kenyan Horticulture (Beta=0.484 t=4.277, p-value=0.00<0.05). Thus, the

study rejects the null hypothesis.

This study used a Person Correlation test to examine the relationship between technology use in

horticulture and the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture. The results of the study revealed

a moderate positive and statistically significant relationship between technology use in

horticulture and internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture (r=0.456, p-value=0.00). Likewise,

the analysis of linear regression indicated that technology use in horticulture statistically predict

value of the internationalisation of Kenyan Horticulture (Beta=0.456, t=5.282, p-

value=0.00<0.05). Based on this, the study rejects the null hypothesis.

Using a Pearson Correlation test, the study examined the relationship between infrastructure for

horticulture and the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture and obtained a very weak

positive association though statistically significant between infrastructure and the

internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture (r=0.210, p-value=0.029).The results obtained using

linear regression model indicated that infrastructure statistically predicts value of the

internationalisation of Kenyan Horticulture (Beta=0.21 t=2.213, p-value=0.029<0.05).

Therefore, the study rejects the null hypothesis.

The study used a regression model to examine the moderating role of regulatory framework

between the antecedents of standards compliance and the internationalisation of Kenyan

horticulture. The results indicated that regulatory framework did not moderate the relationship

between antecedents of standards compliance and the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture

as the interaction between antecedents of standards compliance and regulatory framework was

not statistically significant (t=-0.217, p-value = 0.828). Thus, the study accepts the null

hypothesis.

171

5.3 Discussion of the results

In this section, the results of the study are discussed. The key findings for each research objective

are discussed in relation to the literature reviewed.

5.3.1 Exporters’ awareness of standards compliance and the internationalisation of Kenyan

horticulture

This study examined the influence of exporters’ awareness of standards compliance on the

internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture. The findings established that exporters’ awareness of

standards compliance has a positive effect but not statistically significant on the

internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture (r=0.182, p-value=0.06>0.05). This study revealed

the efforts of the private and governmental bodies to ensure that requirements for standards are

respected in order to increase the market share of export in horticulture. Government’s

involvement is one among the factors of Porter’s diamond model which clarifies that successful

government policies work in the industry where underlying determinants of national advantage

are present and reinforced by government actions (Porter, 1990). This is in line with previous

studies which pointed out the effort in some developing countries to comply with international

standards in horticulture to open up and maintain the markets in developed countries (Mubarik,

2008).

On the other hand, RSA (2015) noted that the prevalence of substandard hygiene and quality of

horticultural produce observed among producers and traders in horticulture of most developing

countries is a result of the lack of enforcement of standards and poor consumer awareness.

Review of the literature indicated that those involved in export of horticultural produce will

actually face many challenges if they are not aware of the requirements to be fulfilled in order to

ensure that horticultural produce will be accepted by the importing country (ITC, 2004). In

addition, the empirical review pointed out the need to improve the food safety awareness at the

beginning of the food chain, and an important need of educating and supervising the producers

(Connolly et al., 2016). The findings of this study revealed a good level of awareness of food

quality and food safety among the producers and exporters of the Kenyan horticultural produce.

Moreover, exporters are convinced that it would be impossible to survive in such export business

without good awareness of standards compliance in horticulture. Such awareness is attributed to

172

government bodies’ efforts and the involvement of private sector. This is not in line with the

findings of Oloo (2010) and ASCU (2012) which highlighted a low level of awareness of the

good practices, especially among the small scale producers.

Review of the literature indicated the growing demand for useful and applicable information as

the horticultural enterprises become more focused on exporting of their produce (Sharm &Alam,

2013). This is in line with the findings of this study which pointed out how small scale

producers and exporters are eager to get information about good agricultural practices indicated

in the Kenyan standards, “KS1758”.These findings are in agreement with Hilda & Chistine

(2010) who argued that farmers do not have adequate access to agricultural information and

knowledge on production, processing and marketing. This is also in line with the empirical

review, where Tumsifu & Silayo (2013) highlighted the same need of information among

producers in horticulture with regard to aspects of livestock husbandry, marketing, funding

options and value addition.

According to Warrington (2011), modern consumers of horticultural produce are becoming more

interested in understanding the sources of food they eat and they are becoming vocal on issues

such as carbon taxes, the use of pesticides, labour conditions for farm workers, and sustainability

of production methods. In this aspect, this study has revealed a low level of awareness among

participants related to air, soil and water pollution caused by horticultural farming. These

findings are in agreement with Hilda & Chistine (2010) who noted the lack of knowledge in the

production process of horticultural produce leading to pollution of water, soil and air. On the

protection of the environment and climate change, Reuters (2009) indicated that the carbon

footprints campaign, known as food miles concept, seeks to have all horticultural products sold

in Europe labelled according to how far they have travelled between the farm and the retail

shelves. Such kind of measures caused Carey (2008) to argue that at times, it created tensions in

developing countries where the standards may have been perceived to act as a barrier to access

the European market.

In the empirical review, Ali et al. (2010) argued that food consumption patterns are rapidly

changing and customers are giving priority to freshness /cleanliness of food products followed

by price, quality, variety, packaging and non-seasonal availability. Furthermore, review of the

173

literature indicated that producers and exporters are now accountable for food safety and this is

required by customers (Barno et al., 2011). This study revealed that companies exporting a large

share of horticultural consignments were aware of the quality of produce recommended by

overseas consumers and they were updated on the changing attitude of consumers related to the

quality of fresh produce. These companies have overseas subsidiaries acting as “selling arm”.

They are in direct contact with the buyers, hence; easily identify specific consumer’s needs.

These findings are in line with the review of literature which indicated that successful exporters

in horticulture maintain over sea’s offices through which they plan and execute

their marketing activities (Safak & Erdener, 1994). This study revealed that good quality of

horticultural produce is ensured when such companies are also involved as growers as they are

able to monitor the whole production process. However, when they use the model of contract

farming with small scale producers, they face the challenge of maintaining the good quality of

produce. In most of the cases, these small scale producers do not follow instructions given to

reduce the production cost. They are aware of the recommended quality of produce but might not

anticipate the consequences of not respecting recommended good practices. This is contrary to

other studies which indicated that growers in the Kenyan horticulture are not aware of the

lifestyle and consumption patterns in the export markets (UNIDO, 2012) or producers in the

Kenyan horticulture lack awareness of consumers’ requirements (Hilda & Chistine, 2010).

The empirical review indicated that the lack of exposure to other cultures and inadequate

comprehension of export market channel constitutes a barrier to fresh produce exports (Safak &

Erdener, 1994). This study noted that the export of Kenyan horticulture is dominated by

multinational companies with sufficient exposure to other cultures and good experience in the

international market. However, the new local exporters in the Kenyan horticulture industry are

limited in the knowledge of export market channel. It becomes very difficult for them to build a

solid relationship as they fail to respect the terms and conditions agreed upon related to

consistency in quality and consistency in one year-round supply.

The findings of this study revealed that exporters of KFC in the flowers industry and those of

FPEAK in the vegetables and fruits sector appreciated the services received from respective

institutions including training, networking with government bodies and access to international

174

markets. This is in agreement with review of the literature which noted that FPEAK and KFC

promote Kenyan horticultural produce on international markets and provide members with

market and technical information (ISEAL, 2008). This study highlighted the lack of coordination

among institutions involved in horticultural produce, which is in agreement with Hilda &

Chistine (2010) who has indicated that linkages between the various actors and producers are

weak and each actor is driven by their own motives and interests, some of which were

conflicting.

5.3.2 Exporters’ competences to comply with standards and the internationalisation of

Kenyan horticulture

This study investigated the influence of exporters’ competences to comply with standards on the

internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture. The findings of the study revealed that exporters’

competences have a positive effect on the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture but that

effect is not statistically significant (r=0.166, p-value=0.085>0.05).

The literature review indicated that education and training of staff are major determinants of a

firm's success in the international food supply chains (Fischer, 2004). The empirical review

indicated that probability of being successful exporters of horticultural produce was very high in

the farms where management considers good education level among the most important sources

of employee qualification (Marcus et al., 2009). In the same vein, Mulder M. et al., (2007)

highlighted the need to increase competences in export for those interested in the regional and

international trade of horticultural produce. This study established that majority of respondents

82% had at least a high school level. In addition, 91% of respondents considered that education

background played an important role in adopting good agricultural practices in horticulture. This

is not in line with FAO (2004) which indicated that the lack of education was the cause of

frequent unhygienic handling of Kenyan horticultural produce.

Contrary to the previous study which indicated that frequent interceptions and rejections of

Kenyan horticultural produce were justified by inadequately trained manpower on food safety

and food quality (SAFEACC, 2015), the findings of this study revealed that producers and

exporters in the Kenyan horticulture were receiving lot of training related to standards

compliance in exporters. In this respect, more than 76% of participants attended more than two

175

training. The study also exposed the correlation between the years of experience in horticulture

and the number of training attended which implies that the more producers and exporters were in

the sector, the higher the number of training received. In this, a majority of participants in herbs

farming have received one training only or none, as this subsector is relatively new thus less

experienced respondents (8% with less than 2 years). However, those involved in flowers,

vegetables and fruits are more experienced (26% between 2 and 5 years, 50% above 5 years) and

have attended lot of training.

The empirical review indicated that quality certification, combined with proper quality

signalling, helps suppliers of produce and services to communicate their quality to customers and

society at large (Karipidis & Tselmpis, 2014). However, the high cost incurred in procuring

international certification is a hindrance to implementing all the global food safety measures

especially for small and even medium exporters of processed and fresh food (Mahajan et al.,

2014). Review of the literature indicated that when exporters are unable to obtain certification,

they run the risk of being excluded from export markets (FAO, 2005). This study extended the

findings of previous studies by highlighting the role of certification of horticultural produce in

order to export. It has also revealed the challenges producers and exporters are facing to have

their produce certified due to the high cost of certification services.

This study revealed the absence of institutions which have accreditation of issuing certification

for herbs. In order to export them, producers and exporters have to refer to laboratories abroad to

perform tests at a very high cost. In some cases, export of herbs is done under the cover of

vegetables or flowers’ certification. However, this option is very risky as it might lead to

rejection due to the lack to justification of conformity. This is in agreement with ITC (2004)

which noted the absence of an effective system of certification by a recognised national

accreditation body, leading to doubtfulness of conformity assessment carried out.

5.3.3 Standards compliance in input use and the internationalisation of Kenyan

horticulture

Input use during horticultural farming has a direct impact on safety and quality of the crops

(SAFEACC, 2015). This study examined the influence of input use in horticulture on the

internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture. The findings established that input use in horticulture

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/JAMR-01-2013-0007

176

has a very positive effect, statistically significant, on the internationalisation of Kenyan

horticulture (r=0.484, p-value=0.00<0.05).

The empirical review indicated that quality along with purity of seed is the most important factor

in building trust and brand image, which in turn is the most critical element for building and

retaining market share (Kumar & Ali, 2010). This study established that exporters have good

knowledge of recommended seeds and to a certain extent those recommended seeds are available

at the local market. This is in line with the findings of USAID (2012) which indicated that in

Kenya, the business of horticultural produce seeds is well established and efficient due to the

high demand of imported seeds on the national and regional level. According to Sikinyi (2010),

horticultural seeds traded in Kenya are comprised of locally produced seeds and imported seeds.

Our study revealed that seeds produced and certified locally are of less quality than imported

certified seeds. This is in agreement with ADF (2007) which expressed a concern of the poor

quality of horticultural seeds produced in Kenya. The study revealed also that the seeds are very

expensive on the local market. In this case, the example of India can be a good reference where

Kumar & Ali (2010) noted that realizing the importance of availability and quality seeds for

horticultural farming, the government policies were geared towards promoting and fostering

entrepreneurship in the seed industry.

The findings of this study indicated that producers and exporters were unanimous that water is a

critical factor for the success in horticulture for export. This is in line with the literature review

which indicated that water is a valuable agricultural input; its availability is the most relevant

issue that is facing horticultural production in almost all areas of the world (Sharm &Alam

(2013). Furthermore, in the Kenyan farming activities, water remains a major challenge as the

agriculture largely dependents on seasonal rainfall but the amount of rainfall has not been

adequate to sustain crop production (Africa Development Fund, 2007).

This study revealed that the majority of participants were neutral on whether the quantity of

water required for horticultural farming was sufficient or was of good quality. This is not fully in

line with RSA (2015) which asserted that in the Kenyan horticultural farming, the quantity of

water available is insufficient while the quality is continually declining.

177

The findings of the study indicated that the main challenge the small scale producers were

facing is linked to the unpredictability of the rainy season and the drought period. They do not

use borehole for irrigation purpose as this system is considered expensive, hence not affordable.

They emphasized on the need for developing different technologies for a better management of

water. In this respect, the literature review discussed the seriousness of water concern in

horticulture and recommended urgent research to resolve related issues such as the development

of drought-tolerant crops, the management of crops under the managed water deficits, dealing

with increased salinity, and the use of lower quality water (Warrington, 2011). The study

revealed the lack of knowledge related to the technology of harvesting the rainfall water or

treatment of waste and/or poor-quality water for irrigation. This is in line with ASCU (2012)

which noted that the main challenges related to water in the Kenyan horticulture remain the low

level of water harvesting for irrigation.

The literature review indicated that exporters of fresh fruits and vegetables from a number of

developing countries are apprehensive about complying with MRLs requirements, which are

causing them serious problems (ITC, 2004). Furthermore, compliance with MRLs is crucial for

the continued growth of the Kenyan horticulture USAID (2012). The findings of this study

indicated that, except for herbs, producers and exporters of other categories of horticultural

produce have good knowledge of fertilisers and pesticides required for their farming in order to

comply with international standards for export. In general, recommended fertilisers and

pesticides are available but still very expensive. Instead of using recommended products which

are expensive, some producers go for counterfeit or banned products because they are cheap and

effective in managing pests and diseases though not efficient as they are harmful to human.

5.3.4 Standards compliance in technology use and the internationalisation of Kenyan

horticulture

This study examined the effect of standards compliance in technology use on the

internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture. The findings of the study established that the

technology use has a positive effect, statistically significant, on the internationalisation of

Kenyan horticulture (r=0.456, p-value=0.00<0.05). This is line with the empirical review, which

178

indicated that technology transfer in agriculture plays an essential role to increase agricultural

productivity as well as farmers’ income (Xuedong, 2006).

The literature review indicated that technology capability plays an important role in achieving

efficiency in horticultural farming and it is associated with the necessary skills and knowledge

for a company to absorb, use, adapt, develop, and transfer the technologies (De Mori C., 2016).

However, the increase of profitability associated with such technological advancement has not

been fully enjoyed in developing countries due to no adoption, partially adoption or

inappropriate adoption of the improved technologies (Nzomoi et al., 2007). To succeed in the

export of horticultural produce, ITC (2004) noted an increased demand for analysis of residues in

most of developing countries, to ensure that tolerance levels are met and in a number of

countries, such laboratories do not exist or are inadequate. The findings of this study revealed

that producers and exporters were satisfied with the number of local laboratories to perform

recommended sanitary and phytosanitary tests mainly for flowers, vegetables and fruits. In

addition, those laboratories were efficient. However, the cost of laboratories was considered

expensive. For herbs, respondents were unanimous about none existence for appropriate

laboratories as in most of the cases, herbs were taken overseas for testing at a high cost.

According to Shukor et al., (2001), the cooling process is extremely important to maintain good

quality of horticultural produce for domestic market and export. In this regard, Warrington,

(2011) argued that options to provide for new approaches that can be used for quality retention

during short-term storage should be an absolute priority. This study established that for half of

the respondents, the cold room’s facilities were not sufficient for their horticultural produce and

most of the respondents consider expensive the cost of storage in a cold room. However, they

keep on struggling to ensure good quality of their produce during harvesting period. This is in

line with Justus &Yu (2014) who noted that distribution of cold rooms for horticultural produce

in Kenya is not aligned with the volume of horticultural farming per region. The government has

intervened in increasing the cooling facilities in different regions of the countries and this is in

agreement with Mubarik (2008) who indicated that in some contexts, governments provide

incentives for the horticultural sector by setting up cold storage chains even if they might be

provided through the private sector.

179

According to UNIDO (2012), limitation in technology is manifested in poor quality of grading

and packaging which makes products less competitive in the global markets in addition to

shortening the expiry date. In this respect, Mubarik (2008) was very specific by clarifying that

poor post-harvest handling may also become a source of microbial contamination on fruits and

vegetables and all these post-harvest problems reduce the competitiveness of horticultural

products on the international market. This study revealed that respondents generally appreciate

the methods they were using for sorting/grading the horticultural produce. They consider

themselves limited somehow in adding value to horticultural produce before export and a need to

improve packaging technology. This is in line with RSA (2015) which noted that agro-

processing and packaging technologies in Kenya are relatively underdeveloped, which

negatively impact the produce shelf life, increases post-harvest loses and reduces consumer

acceptance. UNIDO (2012) has also noted that Kenya’s farmers have limited ability to add value

to agricultural produce and ASCU (2012) has highlighted inadequate enforcement of packaging

and labelling standards in Kenyan horticulture. And UNIDO (2012) noted that in the export of

fruits, low quality was the result of an inability to process and export locally produced fruits like

mangos.

5.3.6 Infrastructure and the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture

This study analysed the effect of infrastructure available on the internationalisation of Kenyan

horticulture. The results of the study established that infrastructure has a positive effect,

statistically significant, on the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture (r=0.210, p-

value=0.029<0.05). The literature review indicated that accessibility is one aspect of

infrastructure, which is crucial at any form of business enterprise whether agricultural or

industrial. It applies particularly well to horticultural produce which in addition, needs to be

stored and transported at the prescribed temperature and humidity levels for each produce (RSA,

2015). In addition, some crops are produced almost entirely in a few localities, which means that

they must be transported considerable distances to reach overseas’ markets. In this regard, some

governments assist the producers by providing infrastructure development such as roads as

incentives for horticultural produce (Mubarik, 2008).

180

The findings of this study indicated that many areas of horticulturl farming for export are

accessible by good roads thanks to government’s effort to improve roads infrastructure and this

is contributing in maintaining good quality of horticultural produce from farm to the airport. This

is not in line with United Nations Industrial Development Organisation (UNIDO) (2012) which

pointed out that poorly developed infrastructure drastically affects exports of Kenyan agro-

products made by perishable commodities, very often, facing strict deadlines for delivery.

The study also indicated the concern of some producers having lands which could not be

exploited due to lack of good roads. They attested that good roads are sine qua non condition to

avoid deterioration of the quality of horticultural produce during transport. This is in agreement

with Reardon (2001) who specified that the better the agro-climate and infrastructure of a zone,

the lager the agribusiness or farm, and the more tradable the product, the greater is the exposure

to the changes in markets and grades and standards. By contrast, the small poor firms and farms

in the rural hinterlands, producing non-tradable, are least able to respond to the new

opportunities and requirements. Hortiwise (2012) also specified that small scale farming

presents its particular challenge of transport due to the fragmentation of production into small

individual units and they are typically located far from the main road network. It becomes

difficult to meet high-value horticultural produce exported because it is highly dependent on

efficient transport. This study revealed also that during export, the air freight rate for

horticultural produce is considered very expensive. This is in agreement with SAFEACC (2014)

which indicated that expensive airfreight rate is one of the main challenges that the Kenyan

horticulture is facing in terms of infrastructure.

The findings of this study established that electricity needed for horticultural produce is costly

yet not consistent, and rare initiatives to look for better alternative sources of energy. This is in

agreement with ASCU (2012) which argues that the main challenges related to energy for the

Kenyan horticulture are the frequent power outages leading to losses or deterioration of quality

of produce, high cost of electricity and fuel making horticultural produce uncompetitive in the

domestic, regional and international markets, and finally, inadequate energy infrastructure

installed in the production areas. In this regard, Ariya Capital (2017) noted that energy is an

181

important part of modern Kenyan agriculture, accounting for 15 per cent of input costs. Lack of

stable and available energy sources is an issue leading farmers to rely on expensive, polluting

diesel generators as a backup source.

5.3.7 Moderating role of the regulatory framework

This study investigated the moderating role of regulatory framework between the antecedents of

standards compliance and the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture. The findings of the

study established that the interaction between antecedents of standards compliance and

regulatory framework is not statistically significant (t=-0.217, p-value = 0.828) which indicates

that regulatory framework does not significantly moderate the antecedents of standards


According to Mahajan et al. (2014), all the global food safety norms laid down by WTO such as

goods manufacturing practices, good hygienic practice, hazard analysis critical control point,

have been developed to embody principles of safe food processing sector globally. Silpa et al.

(2009) noted that in developing countries, food industry tends to detour while complying with

standards, owing to costs involved in setting up systems and procedures. This study established

that to a certain extent, regular inspection visits contribute to the enforcement of standards in

horticultural sector and officers checking standards compliance in horticulture have relevant

expertise to assist producers/exporters.

Literature review indicated that Kenyan horticultural has recognized the need to comply with the

numerous regulations on standards set up by destination markets and has embraced relevant

requirements (USAID, 2012). In addition, Kenyan horticultural sector viewed Global gap as an

opportunity to coalesce and strengthen itself (Carey, 2008). However, the findings of this study

revealed that officers checking standards compliance do not act as facilitators to assist exporters

to comply with the requirements. This is in agreement with EFSA (2014) which stressed the need

for effective collaboration between all stakeholders and effective enforcement of regulatory

framework for exports.

182

5.4 Conclusions

This section covered the conclusions made on the findings of each specific objective of this

study. In this regard, conclusions were made on the effect of exporters’ awareness and

competences, inputs use and technology use in horticulture, infrastructure on the

internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture. The conclusions of the results on these objectives are

summarised in the following sub-sections.

5.4.1 Exporters’ awareness of standards compliance and the internationalisation of

Kenyan horticulture

This study examined the influence of exporters’ awareness of standards compliance on the

internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture. It therefore analysed the effect of exporters’

awareness of standards in horticulture, exporters’ awareness of lifestyle and consumption

patterns in export markets and exporters’ awareness of institutions supporting horticulture and

the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture. It has concluded that exporters’ awareness of

standards compliance has a positive effect but not statistically significant on the

internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture (r=0.182, p-value=0.06>0.05). This study revealed

that the level of exporters’ awareness of standards in horticulture was good thanks to the efforts

of private and governmental bodies to ensure that requirements for standards are respected in

order to increase the market share of export in horticulture. The demand for useful and applicable

information is growing for horticulture intended to export. Though it is available such as Kenyan

Standards “KS1758”, it is not accessible as it is expensive and not available online. Facing a

growing expansion of different types of information, there is a challenge related to the provision

of relevant knowledge and identification of the effective means of conveying the relevant and

required information. This study revealed a low level of awareness among participants related to

air, soil and water pollution caused by horticultural farming. However, a majority of respondents

were aware of the quality of produce recommended by overseas consumers and was updated on

the changing attitudes of consumers in respect of the quality of fresh produce. The respondents in

flowers were very much aware of KFC activities and those in vegetables and fruits appreciated

the services received from FPEAK. They are aware of services offered by KEPHIS, HCDA,

PCPB, and KEBS but deplore the lack of coordination among institutions involved in


183

5.4.2 Exporters’ competences to comply with standards and the internationalisation of

Kenyan horticulture

This study examined the influence of exporter’s competences on the internationalisation of

Kenyan horticulture. It, therefore, analysed the effect of education and training of exporters in

horticulture, and the effect of certification of produce on the internationalisation of Kenyan

horticulture. It has concluded that exporters’ competences have a positive effect on the

internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture but that effect is not statistically significant (r=0.166,

p-value=0.085>0.05).

This study revealed that the level of education of producers and exporters in horticulture was

very good and that most producers and exporters have attended much training except in the

subsector of herbs. Furthermore, the education background and training attended played an

important role in adopting good agricultural practices in horticulture. However, the training is

not based on needs assessment and there is lack of a holistic approach to achieve effectiveness in

standards compliance for export in horticulture. In addition, there is no coordination among

institutions offering those trainings. Efficiency of extension officers from the Ministry of

Agriculture is questionable in terms of capacity of training and monitoring of producers in good

agricultural practices. Institutions offering certifications for horticultural produces except herbs

are available, however their services are considered very expensive and exporters wonder why

officers look for many certifications standing for the same purpose.

5.4.3 Standards compliance in input use and the internationalisation of Kenyan

horticulture

This study examined the effect of input use in horticulture on the internationalisation of Kenyan

horticulture. It, therefore, analysed the effect of seeds, water, fertilisers and pesticides used in

horticulture on the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture. This study established that input

use in horticulture has a very positive effect, statistically significant, on the internationalisation

of Kenyan horticulture (r=0.484, p-value=0.00<0.05). The findings of this study revealed that

producers are aware of recommended seeds; those seeds are available at local markets however,

they are very costly. Seeds produced and certified locally are of bad quality. Seeds on the local

markets are the commonly recommended seeds. The specific seeds are not available yet they are

184

recommended for the diversification of horticultural produce on the international markets, where

competition is becoming stiff for the traditional horticultural produce.

Water is a critical factor for success in horticulture for export; however producers are facing a

major challenge of the unpredictability of rainy season and periods of drought. This is more

challenging to small scale producers who do not have the capability of getting a borehole for

irrigation purposes as it is not affordable; furthermore, there is lack of knowledge related to the

technology of harvesting the rainfall water or treatment of waste and/or poor quality water for

irrigation. Producers have not yet understood the need to proceed with water testing to ensure

that water used in farming is of good quality. The choice of type of crops for farming is

determined by the availability of the market and not by the resistance of crops to drought

(drought tolerant crops). Except for herbs, recommended fertilisers and pesticides for other

horticultural produce are available at the local market and producers have good knowledge of

them. However, they are expensive and for that reason, some producers use counterfeit or

banned products with serious consequences on the export of horticultural produce.

5.4.4 Standards compliance in technology use and the internationalisation of Kenyan

horticulture

This study examined the effect of technology use in horticulture on the internationalisation of

Kenyan horticulture. It therefore analysed the effect of treatment of pests and diseases methods,

and the methods for harvesting, sorting/grading, packaging on the internationalisation of Kenyan

horticulture. This study established that technology use has a positive effect, statistically

significant, on the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture (r=0.456, p-value=0.00<0.05). The

findings of this study revealed a sufficient number of laboratories to perform recommended tests

of sanitary and phytosanitary mainly for flowers, vegetables and fruits however, on expensive

cost. Tests for herbs are done abroad on a high cost as there is not specific laboratory in the

country to perform such tests. The cooling facilities are not fairly distributed in all zones of

horticulture farming for export. This inconveniences some producers who have to pay high price

to maintain the cooling chain of horticultural produce for export. The methods used for sorting

and grading the horticultural produce are relatively good but there is lack of knowledge about

appropriate modern new technologies of using less time in the process and get better quality of

185

the produce during harvesting, sorting, and grading. In addition, there is limitation in adding

value to horticultural produce before export and a need to improve packaging technology.

5.4.5 Infrastructure and the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture

This study examined the effect of infrastructure on the internationalisation of Kenyan

horticulture. It therefore analysed the effect of transport and energy on the internationalisation of

Kenyan horticulture. This study established that infrastructure has positive effect, statistically

significant, on the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture (r=0.210, p-value=0.029<0.05).

The findings of this study established that many areas of horticultural farming for export are

accessible by good roads however; they are still some rural areas with appropriate lands for

horticultural farming which are not exploited due to lack of good roads. The air freight rate for

horticultural produce is very expensive and electricity needed for horticultural produce is costly

and yet not consistent. Furthermore, there are few initiatives to look for better alternative source

of energy.

5.4.6 Moderating role of regulatory framework

This study examined the moderating effect of regulatory framework in the relationship between

the antecedents of standards compliance and the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture.

Aspects of regulatory framework analysed to moderate this relationship are the surveillance

system and the service of certification for exports. This study established that regulatory

framework does not significantly moderate the relationship between antecedents of standards

compliance and the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture (t=-0.217, p-value = 0.828>0.05).

The results of the study indicate that to a certain extent, regular inspection visits contribute to

enforcement of standards, that officers checking standards compliance in horticulture have

relevant expertise to assist exporters. However, they only focus on checking the requirements to

comply with standards, and pay less attention to the role of facilitator they should as well play.

The issuance of certificate of export contributes to standards compliance in horticulture however;

the criteria of issuing export certificates are not always respected. In some cases, it is done

without accurate controls on the field to ensure that relevant criteria of food quality and food

safety are respected.

186

5.4.7 Internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture

On the international markets, competition in horticulture, especially for flowers is becoming

stiffer, especially with new growers from Africa and South America such as Ethiopia and

Colombia. Kenyan producers and exporters would maintain or even increase their international

market share either by improving the quality of produce or by diversifying the produce in the

niche of horticulture markets where there is less competition such as herbs, some special type of

flowers etc., or by diversifying to new markets on the regional (EAC, Nigeria) and international

levels (Asian and Arab countries).

Although large scale exporters are more likely to cope better with international market and

barriers to exports than small and dispersed exporters (Aksoy & Kaynak, 1994), the current

model where small scale producers are in contract farming with exporting companies does not

allow small scale producers getting full information about overseas’ market in terms of pricing

and requirement on standards . Hence, there is a need of a new model which would function as a

consortium of small scale producers to enable them gain a direct access to international markets,

getting better understanding of the preferences of overseas consumers. In the consortium

framework, producers would consolidate their productions into larger consignments for export to

reduce the transport cost, they would ensure year round production, and would assist each other

in complying with standards, getting bigger and larger market overseas etc. This model would

enable small scale producers become more powerful and competitive. This consortium might be

initiated by individual entrepreneurs and smallholder producers in horticultural farming who

would come together for such common goal.

The European Union has been negotiating an “economic partnership agreements” (EPAs) with

its former colonies in Africa, the Caribbean & the Pacific since September 2002. The aim was to

replace the non-reciprocal trade preferences granted by the EU to the 77 ACP countries under the

existing Cotonou agreement, which was originally intended to span from 2000-2020, but has

been contested by other developing countries for being incompatible with WTO rules. Kenya

would suffer if no agreement is reached since all other East African member states are Least

Developed Countries (LDC), which enjoy preferential access to the EU duty and quota free.

Kenyan government continued to assure the sector that all is being done to conclude the

187

agreement but the uncertainty continues which is reflected in the increase of production by

Kenyan companies in neighbouring countries (vegetable production to Tanzania and flowers to

Ethiopia) because to some extent, this situation in threatening the sector. In fact, the result would

be that only Kenya would lose out to the preferential trading access and this would negatively

impact the horticultural sector in particular as the resulting failure would make Kenyan products

liable from 5% to 15% duties (USAID (2012). The success of Kenyan horticultural export will

depend on the capacity of the Kenyan government to keep the EPA between EAC countries and

Europe.

5.5. Recommendations

This study used five components of antecedents of standards compliance and found that

exporters’ awareness of standards compliance and exporters’ competences to comply with

standards had a weak positive and not statistically significant effect on the internationalisation of

Kenyan horticulture. The infrastructure had a weak positive and significant effect on the

internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture. In addition, the input use and the technology use had

a moderate positive and statistically significant effect on the internationalisation of Kenyan

horticulture. The recommendations of this study are summarised in the following sub-sections.

5.5.1 Suggestions for Improvements

5.5.1.1 Exporters’ awareness of standards compliance

In reference to the findings and conclusions on the influence of exporters’ awareness of

standards compliance on the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture, it is recommended to

make available and accessible to the public information related to good practices in horticultural

farming in order to comply with standards. This should be done using more effective means of

dissemination such as web links where such information would be available to public domain via

internet. Similarly, an online platform where Kenyan producers and exporters would get basic

information related to standards compliance, procedures, and tools to help them be more

competitive would be very useful. The recent manual “KS1758” about Kenyan standards for

vegetables and fruits is useful with limitation of being very broad. Hence it is recommended to

accompany it with annexes providing specificities or particularities for each horticultural

produce subject to export. Furthermore, to ensure that standards in the whole horticultural sector

are established, it is recommended to come up with Horticulture Industry-Code of Practice part

III which would cover the subsector of herbs.

188

5.5.1.2 Exporters’ competences to comply with standards

Many institutions involved in the trainings of horticultural farming have different competences in

specific topics where producers and exporters are trained on. This study recommend a better

coordination of the training offered by these institutions to avoid waste of resources by repeating

the same trainings, or giving contradicting messages which creates confusion, even missing some

relevant topics in the whole training process. This coordination would help to streamline all

trainings by establishing a comprehensive program on a national level with well-defined modules

to be trained on. Each producer and exporter would know that to be efficient in export of

horticultural produce, he/she should complete the trainings indicated for the whole program. In

addition, it is recommended to redefine; even restructure the role of extension officers of the

ministry of agriculture. Either they would be empowered and given more resources to be more

efficient or their position would be abolished and their responsibilities given to private

institutions involved in the follow up of producers and exporters.

The current controlling system of recommended certifications to comply with good practices in

horticultural farming for export insist on many certifications which in a way or another stand for

the same purpose. This study recommends revisiting this controlling system to avoid requesting

several certificates standing for the same purpose and only focus on relevant certifications

confirming that required standards are respected at the national and international level.

5.5.1.3 Input use in horticulture

This study recommends more research to develop locally appropriate seeds in horticultural

farming with emphasis on specific crops that would create a competitive edge. A comprehensive

program of seeds production in horticultural farming should be established and trainings of

competent personnel organised accordingly. Furthermore, the government in conjunction with

horticultural producers and exporters need to broaden the horticultural development strategy to

diversify horticultural crops. Hence, they should initiate a dialogue with importers of seeds to

ensure that during importation, seeds that contribute to diversification of horticultural crops are

not left out. This study recommends a systematic risk assessment of soil and water. Considering

the challenges of getting enough water for horticultural farming worsened by unpredictability of

rainy season and prolonged drought period, the study recommends increase in research on crops

which are less demanding of water, to develop and disseminate alternative methods of water

189

management such as rainfall water harvesting, treatment of waste water, and to encourage effort

in irrigation. As newly recommended products continue to become more expensive pushing

producers to use shortcuts to get products of less quality, PCPB should put in place controlling

mechanisms to ensure that subsidies to fertilisers and pesticides lead to affordability of products

and at the same time, setting up an efficient monitoring system of illegal and counterfeit

products.

5.5.1.4 Technology use in horticulture

The study recommends setting up a clear program of training related to identification and

treatment of pests and diseases generally frequent in the region. It also recommends regular

updates to producers and exporters about new technologies in horticulture related to use of

pesticide and fertilisers, harvesting, sorting, grading and packaging system. The government’s

support to institutions like KEPHIS to enable them reduce the cost of testing horticultural crops

is recommended and it is crucial to increase the competencies of laborites in order to perform

required tests for all types of horticultural crops, especially herbs. The mapping of cold rooms in

the areas where there is predominance of horticultural farming for export should be revised in

order to identify where privates and government initiatives would consider setting up such

facilities.

5.5.1.5 Infrastructure

The study noted effort recently made by the authorities to improve the quality of roads and

distribution of electricity into areas of horticultural farming. This study recommends more efforts

to open up areas with potential of horticultural farming which are currently not accessible.

Similar efforts to continue the distribution of electricity are recommended and emphasis should

be put in looking for alternative sources of energy such as green energy that can be used in

horticultural farming. FPEAK and KFC should continue negotiations with the government

authorities to have horticultural farming intended for export included in the proposed Special

Economic Zones (SEZs) in order to enjoy more incentives from the government such as better

roads, exemption from levies like Value Added Tax on electricity.

5.5.1.6 Regulatory framework

The study recommends that institutions in charge of controlling the standards compliance in

horticulture like HCDA and KEPHIS become more involved as facilitators to assist producers

190

and exporters improve the quality of their produce. In addition, more strictness is recommended

before issuance of certificate of export to ensure that all requirements related to food safety and

food quality are fulfilled during export of horticultural produce.

5.5.2 Suggestions for Further Research

This study looked at the internationalisation of the Kenyan horticulture focusing mainly on the

antecedents of standards compliance such as exporters’ awareness and competences, input use,

technology use, infrastructure and regulatory framework. However, there are other factors

influencing the dynamic of the international market of the Kenyan horticulture such as political,

economical etc., which were not covered in this study. Therefore, further research and

investigations in these areas are required.

In addition, this study focused on the standards compliance for the international market of

Kenyan horticultural produce. Further research on the standards compliance for the Kenyan

horticultural produce for the local market is recommended.

191

REFERENCES

AERA (2002). Ethical standards of the American Educational Research Association: cases and

commentary. Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association.

Africa Development funds (2007). Small-Scale Horticulture Development project, Appraisal

Report.

Aksoy, S., & Kaynak, A. (1994). Export Behaviour of Fresh Produce Marketers: Towards a

Co‐ordination with General Theory of Exporting, International Marketing Review, 11

(2), 16 – 32.

Ali, J., Kapoor, S., Moorthy, J., (2010). Buying behaviour of consumers for food products in an

emerging economy. British Food Journal, 112 (2), 109 - 124.

Allen, J., & Nimon, K. (2007). Retrospective pre-test: a practical technique for professional

development evaluation. Journal for Industrial Teacher Education, 44(3).

ASCU (2012). Government of Kenya, National horticulture policy, June 2012.

Ariya Capital (2017). Powering Agriculture with Renewable Energy, (Online). Available:

https://poweringag.org/innovators/powering-agriculture-renewable-energy.

Barbon, N. (1690). A Discourse of Trade, The Lord Baltimore Press, Baltimore.

Barno, A., Ondanje, B., Ngwiri, J. (2011). Dynamics of horticultural export to European Union

market: challenges and opportunities in Sub-Sahara Africa. Acta Hortic. 911, 61-72.

Beamish P.W., Banks J.C. (1987). Equity joint ventures. Journal of International Business

Studies, 18(2), 1-16.

Belwal ,M; Chala, M. (2008).Catalysts and barriers to cut flower export: A case study of

Ethiopian floriculture industry, International Journal of Emerging Markets, 3(2), 216 –

235.

British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) (2015). Ethics: A general introduction (online).

Available : http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/intro_1.shtml.

Bornmann, L. (2012). The use of Percentiles and Percentile rank classes in Analysis of

Bibliometric data: Opportunity and limits (online). Available:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1211.0381.

Business Daily (2017). Rising EU blockage worries Kenyan fresh produce exporters,

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 21, 2017. (Online). Avalable:

https://experts.umn.edu/en/publications/ethical-standards-of-the-american-educational-research-associatio

https://poweringag.org/innovators/powering-agriculture-renewable-energy

https://archive.org/search.php?query=publisher%3A%22%5BBaltimore+%3A+The+Lord+Baltimore+Press%22

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/intro_1.shtml

https://arxiv.org/abs/1211.0381

192

https://www.businessdailyafrica.com/economy/Rising-EU-blockage-worries-Kenyan-

fresh-produce-exporters/3946234-3981724-8cpt9vz/index.html.

Camp, W.G. (2001). Formulating and evaluating theoretical frameworks for career and technical

education research. Journal of Vocational Education Research. 26 (1).

Carey, C. (2008). Kenya and the KenyaGAP Standard for Good Agricultural Practice, 2008.

Carlson, K.D., & Wu, J. (2012). The illusion of statistical control: control variable practice in

management research. Organisation Research Methods. 15(3), 413-435.

CBK (2014). Coffee Farming in Kenya.

Coladarci,T. et al.(2010). Fundamentals of Statistics Reasoning in Education. New York:

ProQuest.

Coke, R. (1675). England’s Improvements by Foreign Trade.

Connolly, A.J., Luo, L.S., Woolsey, M., Lyons, M., Phillip-Connolly, K. (2016). A blueprint for

food safety in China. China Agricultural Economic Review, 8 (1), 129 – 147.

Coolidge, F.L. (200). Statistics: A Gentle Introduction (2nd Edition).Thousand oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Coolis, J. and Hussey, R. (2009). Business Research: A practical guide for Undergraduate and

Post Graduate Students. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Cooper, D. & Schindler, P. (2014). Business Research Method (12th Ed,), New York: McGraw-

Hill Publishers.

Creswell, J., W. (2005). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method

approaches. SAGE, l4th edition.

CTA. (2013). Agritrade, informed analysis, Update September 2013.

Dannenberg, P. (2013). The use of mobile phones by Kenyan export-orientated small-scale

farmers – Insights from fruit and vegetable farming in the Mt. Kenya region (online).

Available:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261097765_The_use_of_mobile_pho

nes_by_Kenyan_export_orientated_small_scale_farmers_Insights_from_fruit_and_veget

able_farming_in_the_Mt_Kenya_region.

Dawes, J. (2007).Do Data characteristics change according to the number of scale points used?

An experiment using 5- point, 7- point and 10- point scales. International Journal of

Marketing Research, 50 (1).

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Peter_Dannenberg

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261097765_The_use_of_mobile_phones_by_Kenyan_export_orientated_small_scale_farmers_Insights_from_fruit_and_vegetable_farming_in_the_Mt_Kenya_region



193

Dawson, J. F. (2013). Moderation in management research: What, why, when and how. Journal

of Business and Psychology. DOI: 10.1007/s10869-013-9308-7.

Davenant, C. (1699). An Essay on the probable means of making the people gainers in the

balance of Trade.

Davies, H.A. P. (2000). Porter’s competitive advantage of nations: Time for the final judgment?

Journal of Management studies, 37 (8).

DeMori, C., Batalha, M. O., Alfranca, O. (2016). A model for measuring technology capability

in the agri-food industry companies. British Food Journal, 18 (6), 1422 - 1461.

Desmond, N.G.; Siebert; John, W. (2009). Toward Better Defining the Field of Agribusiness

Management. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 12 (4).

Dobbs ,M., Rowling, D. (2006).Revisiting the New Zealand apple industry: the impact of

changes, British Food Journal, 108 (7), 574-585.

Edewa, A. (2016). Sanitary & Phytosanitary standards, Implications for Trade and Development

in Kenya, PhD Dissertation, 2016.

EFSA (2014), EFSA to inspect Kenyan horticulture industry control systems, 26 January 2014

(Online).Available: http://agritrade.cta.int/Agriculture/Commodities/Horticulture/EFSA-

to-inspect-Kenyan-horticulture-industry-control-systems.

EPZ (2005). Horticulture industry in Kenya 2005.

FAO (2004). Strengthening farm-agribusiness linkages in Africa. Summary results of five

country studies in Ghana, Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda, and South Africa. AGSF occasional

paper.

FAO (2007). International seafood trade: challenges and opportunities, Fisheries and aquaculture

proceedings.

Fernando, Y., Huang, H., Walters, T. (2015). Regulatory incentives as moderator of determinants

for the adoption of Malaysian food safety system, British Food Journal, 117(4), 1336-

1353.

Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS, 3rd Edition, London,UK: Sage.

Finstad, K.(2010). Response Interpolation and Scale Sensitivity: Evidence against 5- Point Scale.

Journal of usability studies, 5(3), 104-110.

194

Fox, N., Hunn, A. & Mathers, N. (2009). Sampling and sampling size calculation (online).

Avaialble:http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ed571/571-Modules/M3/NIHS-

Sampling_Sample_Size_calculation.pdf

Fox, W., Bayat, M.S. (2007). Guide to Managing Research, Juta,1st edition.

FPEAK (2007). Kenyan Horticulture, The challenges 50 years down the line.

Galliers, R.D. (1991). Choosing appropriate information systems research approaches: a revised

taxonomy. Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent

Traditions, 327–345.

Gelman, A. (2008).”Variance analysis of”: The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd Ed.

Basingstoke, Hampshire New York: Palgrave Mcmillan.

George Murithi Nyamu, J. K. (2014). The challenges on meat industry that impact on the

operations of Kenya meat commission, IOSR Journal of Business and Management

(IOSR-JBM),16 (10.II ), 25-30.

Gitonga, A. (2015). Trade lobby warns horticulture sector under threat over new EU rules.

Business, Updated, Monday May 25th, 2015.

Golub,S.S. &Manus, J. (2008). Horticulture Exports and African Development, Paper prepared

for UNCTAD.

Govender, R. (2014). A hazard analysis methodology for the South Africanabattoirs hygiene

management system. British Food Journal, 116(12), 2026-2047.

Hair, J.F., Black W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. (2006). Multivariate Data Analysis (5th

edition ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prenticelle-hall.

Haverkamp, B. E. (2005). Ethical perspectives on qualitative research in applied psychology.

Journal of Counselling Psychology, 52, 146-155.

HCDA (2008), Five Year Strategic Plan 2009-2013.

HCDA (2016), Horticultural crop’s statistics, 2016.

Henson, s., (2006). The role of public and private standards in regulating international food

market, paper presented at the Summer Symposium of the International Agricultural

Trade Research Consortium (IATRC) Food Regulation and trade: Institutional

framework, concept on analysis and Empirical Evidence, Bonn, 28-30 May 2006.

195

Hilda, M., & Christine, S. (2010). A mixed qualitative‐quantitative‐ participatory

methodology: A study of the agricultural knowledge and information system (AKIS) of

small‐scale farmers in Kirinyaga district, Kenya, Library Management, 31(1/2), 5 – 18.

Hoover, E. (2005). The Ethics of Undercover Research. Chronicle Of Higher Education, 51(47),

A37.

Hortiwise (2012). A study on the Kenyan-Dutch Horticulture Supply Chain, The Dutch Ministry

of Economic affairs, Agriculture and Innovation.

Humphrey, Thomas M. (1999). Mercantilists and Classicals: Insights from Doctrinal History

FRB Richmond Economic Quarterly, 85(2), 55-82 (online). Available:

SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2129903.

ITC (2004). Influencing and Meeting International Standards. Challenges for developing

countries, Geneva 2004.

ISEAL (2008). Trade Standards Practitioners Network: Kenya and the KenyaGap Standard for

Good Agricultural Practice, September 2008.

Israel,D.G.(2015).Determining the sample size (online). Available:

http://www.sut.ac.th/im/data/read6.pdf

Jankowicz D. (2005). Research Method for Business and Management, Edinburgh Business

School, Heriot-Watt University.

Jie,F., Patron, K. A., Cox, R.J. (2013). Linking supply chain practices to competitive advantage:

An example from Australian agribusiness. British Food Journal, 115 (7), 1003 - 1024.

Johanson J., Vahlne J.E. (1977). The internationalisation process of the firm: a model of

knowledge development and increasing foreign market commitments. Journal of

International Business Studies 8(1): 23-32.

Joppe, M. (2000). The Research Process (online). Available.

http://www.ryerson.ca/~mjoppe/rp.htm.

Julie V., S., Tim, J., B. (2008). Improving small farmer participation in export marketing

channels: perceptions of US fresh produce importers, Supply Chain Management: An

International Journal, 13 (3), 199 – 210.

https://ssrn.com/abstract=2129903

http://www.sut.ac.th/im/data/read6.pdf

http://www.ryerson.ca/~mjoppe/rp.htm

196

Justus,F., Yu,D. (2014). Spatial Distribution of Greenhouse Commercial Horticulture in Kenya

and the Role of Demographic, Infrastructure and Topo-Edaphic Factors, International

Journal of Geo-Information 31(1):274-296.

Kamaruddin, R., Baharuddin, A. H. (2015). The importance of good aquaculture practices in

improving fish farmer’s income: A case of Malaysia. International Journal of Social

Economics, 42 (12), .1090 – 1105.

Karipidis,P., Tselmpis, D. (2014). Farmers’ intention to maintain quality certification. EuroMed

Journal of Business, 9 (1), 93 – 110.

Kasiulevicius,V., Sapoka,V., Filipaviciute,R. (2006).Sample size calculation in Epidemiological

Studies (Online). Available:

http://www.gerontologija.lt/files/edit_files/File/pdf/2006/nr_4/2006_225_231.pdf

KEPHIS (2012). Strategic plan 2012/2013-2017/2018.

Kemunto,J.,K., (2014) Challenges facing international agribusiness in Kenya.

Kent, R. (2007).Marketing Research: Approaches, Methods and Application in Europe (1st Ed.).

London: Thomson Learning.

Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (KNBS) (2016). Economic survey 2016

KHRC (2008). A Comparative Study of the Tea Sector in Kenya, A case study of large Scale

Tea Estates.

Kotabe M., Helsen, K. (2011). Global Marketing Managment, 5th Edition.

Kothari, C.R. (2008). Reaserach Methodology, Methods and Techniques. New Dehli, Wishwa

Prakshan.

Kumar,S. Ali,J. (2010). Indian agri‐seed industry: understanding the entrepreneurial process.

Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 17 (3), 455 – 474.

Lear, W.L. (2012). The Relationship between Strategic Leadership and Strategic Alignment in

High-Performing Companies in South Africa (PHD Thesis). University of South Africa,

Durban, South Africa.

Lei, P. & Wu, Q. (2007). Introduction to Structural Equation Modelling: Issues and Practical

Considerations. Instruction Topic in Education, 3 (2), 33-43.

Levin, D. M. (1988). The Opening of Vision: Nihilism and the Postmodern Situation. New York:

Chapman & Hall Inc.

https://www.researchgate.net/journal/2220-9964_International_Journal_of_Geo-Information

https://www.researchgate.net/journal/2220-9964_International_Journal_of_Geo-Information

http://www.gerontologija.lt/files/edit_files/File/pdf/2006/nr_4/2006_225_231.pdf

197

Leitch,C.M., Hill,F.M., Harrison, R.T. (2010).The Philosophy and Practice of Interpretivist

Research in Entrepreneurship: Quality, Validation, and Trust. Organizational Research

Methods, 13:67.

Lietz, P. (2010). Research into questionnaire design. Summary of the literature. International

journal of market research, 52(2).

Leshem,s., Trafford, V., (2007). Overlooking the conceptual framework. Innovations in

Education and Teaching International, 44, (1), 93-105.

Mahajan, R., Garg, S., Sharma, P.B. (2014) Global food safety: determinants are Codex

standards and WTO's SPS food safety regulations, Journal of Advances in Management

Research,11(2),176 – 191.

Manning L. (2008). The impact of water quality and availability on food production, British

Food Journal, 110 (8), 762 - 780

Manning, L., Soon,J. M. (2013). GAP framework for fresh produce supply. British food journal,

115 (6), 796-820.

Manos, B. & Manikas,I. (2010). Traceability in the Greek fresh produce sector:drivers and

constraints. British Food Journal, 112(6), 640-652.

Mariyono, J. (2015). Green-revolution and wetland-linked technological change of rice

agriculture in Indonesia. Management of Environment Quality: An International Journal,

26(5), 683-700.

Marcus, M., Katinka, W.,Matin,Q. (2009) "Quality assurance programs and access to

international markets: the case of horticultural processors in Vietnam", Supply Chain

Management: An International Journal, 14 (5), 359 – 368,

Matopoulos, A., Vlachopoulou, M., Manthou, V., and Manos, B. (2007). A conceptual

framework for supply chain collaboration: empirical evidence from the agri-food

industry, Supply chain management: An International Journal, 12(3), 177-186.

Matthew Dobbs, M.; Rowling, D. (2006). Revisiting the New Zealand apple industry: the

impacts of change, British Food Journal, 108(7), 574 – 585.

Mazzocchi, M. (2008). Statistics for Marketing and Consumer Research (1st Ed.).London: Sage

Publications Ltd.

198

McBurney, D.H. & White, T.L. (2010). Research Methods (8th Ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth

Cengage Learning.

McDaniel, C., Gates, R., (2010). Marketing Research Essentials, 8th Edition.

McDonald, J. (2014). Basic Concepts of Hypothesis Testing (online). Available:

http://www.biostathandbook.com/hypothesistesing.html.

McGivern, Y. (2006). The Practice of Market and Social Research (2nd Ed.). England: Pearson

Education ltd.

Mensah, J.O., Copuroglu,G., Fening, F.A. (2012). The status of total quality management

(TQM) in Ghana: A comparison with selected quality awards winners from Turkey.

International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 29 (8), 851-871.

Mergenthaler, M.;Weinberger,K.; Qaim,M. (2009). Quality assurance programs and access to

international markets: the case of horticultural processors in Vietnam, Supply Chain

Management: An International Journal, 14(5) 359 – 368.

Michira, M. (2016). European Union trade deal is bad for Kenya. Business News, Updated

Tuesday, April 15th 2016.

Monette, D.R., Sullivan, T.J. & DeJong, C.R. (2002). Applied Social Research, A Tool for the

Human Services. Thomson Learning Inc: Toronto, Canada.

Mubarik A. (2008). Horticultural Revolution for the Poor: Nature, Challenges and Opportunities

(online). Available:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254965287_Horticultural_Revolution_for_the_

Poor_Nature_Challenges_and_Opportunities.

Muendo K. M., Tschirley D. (2004). Improving Kenya’s horticultural production and marketing

system: current competitiveness, forces of change, and challenges for the future. Working

paper No.08C/2004.

Mugenda, O. (2014). Research Methods and Statistics, Nairobi: Acts Press.

Mulder, M.;Lans T.;Verstegen, J.;Biemans, H.;Meijer, Y., (2007) .Competence development of

entrepreneurs in innovative horticulture, Journal of Workplace Learning,19 (1),32 - 44

Mun, T. (1664). England’s treasure by Forraign trade.

NESC (2007). Kenya Vision 2030.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254965287_Horticultural_Revolution_for_the_Poor_Nature_Challenges_and_Opportunities

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254965287_Horticultural_Revolution_for_the_Poor_Nature_Challenges_and_Opportunities

199

Nicola,S. (2010). Global horticulture: Challenge and Opportunities (online).

Available:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280610764_Global_Horticulture_Ch

allenges_and_Opportunities.

North, D., (1691). Discourse upon Trade, Tho. Basset, at the George in Fleet-Street.

Nunnaly, J., (1978). Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Nzomoi J.N.; Byaruhanga J.K; Maritim H.K.; Omboto P.I., (2007), Determinants of technology

adoption in the production of horticulture export produce in Kenya, African Journal of

Business Management, 1(5), 129-135.

Oloo, J., (2010). Food Safety and quality management in Kenya: An overview of the roles

played by various stakeholders. African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and

Development, 10 (11), 4379-4397.

Onwegbuzie, A., Collins, K. (2007). A Typology of Mixed Methods Sampling Designs in Social

Sciences Research. The qualitative Report, 12(2), 281-316.

Onwuegbuzie, A., Combs, J., (2010). Describing and Illustrating Data Analysisin Mixed

Research. International Journal of Education ISSN 1948-54762010, 2(2): E13.

Otieno, G.,A., (2016). Standards and development: Perspectives from Kenya’s horticultural

Export Industry. PhD dissertation.

Pallant, J., (2007). SPSS Survival Manual: step by step guide to data analysis, 3rd edition,

Australia, Allen & Unwin.

Penrose, E., (1959). The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Porter, M., (1990). Competitive Advantage of Nations. New York: The free press.

R.M. Gesimba, M. L., (2005). The Tea Industry in Kenya; The Challenges and Positive

Developments. Journal of Applied Sciences, 5: 334-336.

Rakesh B., Meseret, C., (2008), Catalysts and barriers to cut follower export. International

Journal of Emerging Markets, 3(2), 216-235.

Reardon T., Cordon, J.M., Bush L., Bingen L., Harris, C. (2001). Global changes in Agri-food

grade &standards: Agribusiness strategic responses in developing countries. International

Food and Agribusiness Management Review,2 (3/4), 421-435.

Relf D.,(1992). Human issues in horticulture, HortTechnology, April/June 1992 2(2), (Online),

Available: http://www.hort.vt.edu/HUMAN/hihart.htm.

http://www.hort.vt.edu/HUMAN/hihart.htm

200

RSA, (2015). Report of a Study on fresh vegetables market in Kenya, Ministry of economic

affairs, Agriculture and Innovation, December 2015.

Ricardo, D., (1817). The principal of Political Economy and Taxation.

Robbins, S.P., (2014). Organisational behaviour. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Robson, C., (2007). Real World Research. Blackwell, 2nd Edition.

Rubin,S.,(2000). Margin of Error: The Ethics of Mistakes in The Practice of Medicine

(Frederick, Maryland: University Publishing Group, 2000), co-edited with Laurie Zoloth-

Dorfman.

Rugman, A.M.; D'Cruz, J.R., (1993). The double diamond model of international

competitiveness: Canada's experience. Management International Review, 33(2), 17–39.

Ruteri, J. M., (2009). Supply Chain Management and Challenges Facing the Food Industry

Sector in Tanzania. International Journal of Business and Management , 4 (12).

SAFEACC, (2015). Vegetable and fruit, fish and beef products. The Kenyan component.

Sagheer, S., Yadav, S.S., Deshmukh, S.G., (2009). An application of interpretative structural

modelling of the compliance to food standards. International Journal of Productivity and

Performance Management, 58 (2), 136 – 159.

Salkind, N.J., (2012). Statistics for People Who Think they Hate Statistics, Gabriel Donleavy, 4th

Edition.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A., (2003). Research Methods for Business Students (3rd

ed.). Upper Saddle River (NJ: Prentice Hall.

Sekaran, U. &Bougie,R., (2013). Research Methods for Business: A Skill-Building Approach,

6th Edition.

Sharm, V., &Alam, A., ( 2013). Current Trends and Emerging Challenges in Horticulture,

Journal of Horticulture, (online). Avalable: https://www.omicsonline.org/open-

access/current-trends-and-emerging-challenges-in-horticulture-

horticulture.1000e101.php?aid=21632.

Silpa, S., Surendra, S.Y., Deshmukh, S.G., (2009). An application of interpretative structural

modelling of the compliance to food standard, International Journal of Productivity and

Performance Management, 58 (2), 136 – 159.

201

Smigic,N., Rajkovic, A., DJekic, I. Tomic, N., (2015). Legeslation, standards and diagnostics as

a backbone of food safety assurance in Serbia. British Food Journal, 117(12), 94-108.

Smith, L.I. (2002). Principal Component Analysis (online). Available:

http://faculty.iiit.ac.in/~mkrishna/PrincipalComponents.pdf

Sikinyi, E.,O., (2010). Baseline study/Survey Report on the Seed Sector in Kenya.

Smith, A. (1776). The Wealth of Nations.

Stanton, J.V., Burkink, T., (2008). Improving small farmer participation in export marketing

channels, perceptions of US fresh produce importers, Supply chain, 14(5), 359-368.

Storck,H. and Hörmann, D.M., (1981). Horticultural Exports, Instrument of

Development, Sociologia Ruralis, 21 (3/4), 254‐68.

Swan, E.A., (2003).Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction: Engaging classrooms, Lifelong

Learners. New York: Guilford Press.

Tabachnick, B.G. & Fidell, L.S., (2007).Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA: Pearson

Education.

Theuvsen, L., Heyder, M., (2011). Problem of world agriculture, Scientific Journal,Warsaw

University of life science – SGGW, 11 (3).

Trienekens, J., Zuurbier, P., (2011). Quality and Safety standards in food industry, developments

and challenges, International Journal of Production Economics, 2008, int, J Production

Economics 113, (2008), 107- 122.

Tumsifu E., Silayo E.E., (2013).Agricultural information needs and sources of the rural farmers

in Tanzania: A case of Iringa rural district, Library Review, 62(8/9) 547 – 566.

UNDP, (2017). Goal 2: Zero hunger, Retrieved 13 April 2017.

UNIDO, (2012). Agribusiness for African’s prosperity: Country case study. Working Paper

Second Edition.

USAID, (2007). Assessment Of Horticulture Seed Industry, Raise Plus IQC No. EDH-I-00-05-

00004-00.

USAID, (2012). Kenya’s competitive position in horticulture, Progress Report, May 2012.

USAID, (2014). Innovative technologies for horticulture development. UCDAVIS, University of

California

http://faculty.iiit.ac.in/~mkrishna/PrincipalComponents.pdf

202

Van Elst, H., (2013). Foundations of Descriptive Statistics and Inferential Statistics (online).

Avaialable: http://www.mth.uct.ac.za/henk/Stats.pdf.

Verbeke, A. R., (1993). Foreign subsidiaries and Multinational Strategic Management: an

Extention and Correction of Porter’s single Diamond Framework. Management

International Review, 2(33), 71-84.

Waitathu, N., (2014a). Six million Kenyans may lose jobs if EU bans fresh produce. Business

Beat, Updated Tuesday, July 29th, , 2014.

Waitathu, N., (2014b). Fresh produce farmers, firms banned from European Union market.

Business Beat, Updated Tuesday, August 12th, , 2014.

Waitathu, N., (2014c). Directive on fresh produce exports to EU market. Business News,

Updated Friday, September 19th, 2014.

Warrington, I.J., (2011). Challenges and Opportunities for Horticulture and Priorities for

Horticultural Research at the start of the Twenty First century (online). Avalable:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265977820_Challenges_and_Opportunities_for

_Horticulture_and_Priorities_for_Horticultural_Research_at_the_start_of_the_Twenty-

First_Century.

Welch, L., Luostarinen, R., (1988). Internationalisation - evolution of a concept.

Journal of General Management, 14 (2), 34-55.

Williams, Y., (2015. Cross tabulation Analysis (online).

Available:http://study.com/academy/lesson/cross-tabulation-definition-examples-

quiz.html.

Wilson, N., Clarke,W., (1998).Food Safety and Traceability in the Agricultural Supply Chain:

Using the Internet to Deliver Traceability. Supply chain Management 3: 127-133.

Wyse, S., (2012). Benefits of Using Cross Tabulations in Survey Analysis (online). Available:

https://www.snapsurveys.com/blog/benefits-cross-tabulations-survey-analysis/

World Bank, (2005a). The role of standards under Kenya’s export strategy: Contribution of the

Kenya Diagnostic Trade and Integration Study.

World Bank, (2005b). The European Horticulture Market, Opportunities for Sub-Sahara African

Exports , World Bank Working Paper no 63.

WTO, (2014). Influencing and Meeting International Standards. Challenges for developing

countries. Geneva 2014,Volume 2.

http://www.mth.uct.ac.za/

203

Xuedong D., (2006). Innovation and technology transfer in Chinese agriculture, Journal of Small

Business and Enterprise Development, 13(2), 242 – 247.

Yamane, T., (1967). Statistics: An introductory analysis, 2nd Edition. New York: Harper and

Row.

Zacharewicz,N.,(2011). What Is Operational Framework in a Thesis? (Online). Available:

http://classroom.synonym.com/operational-framework-thesis-12111701.html.

Zheng,S., Xu, P., Wang, Z., Song, S., (2012). Willingness to pay for traceable pork: evidence

from Beijing, China. China Agricultural Economic Review, 4 (2), 200 – 215.

Zkmund, W.G., (2003). Business Research Methods. Cinncinnati, Ohio: South-Western

Publishing Co.

Zylbersztajn,D., Pinheiro Macadho Filho, C. A., (2003). Competitiveness of meat agri‐food

chain in Brazil", Supply Chain Management. Supply Chain Management: An

International Journal, 8 (2), 155 – 165.

204

APPENDICES

Appendix I: Analysis of the pilot study findings

The main goal of the pilot study was to evaluate the feasibility of the proposed research project

“Antecedents of standards compliance for the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture”. Being

a test study, its results have provided information that had enabled the researcher to anticipate all

the possible problems and thus contributed to the successful completion of the whole research

project.

Twelve firm managers representing all the categories of the Kenyan horticultural sector were

selected from the counties surrounding Nairobi to participate in this pilot study: 5 firm managers

from flower firms, 3 from vegetable firms, 3 from fruit firms and 1 from herb firms. A self-

administrated questionnaire was used to collect the data. It used a five-point Likert scale to elicit

information about the respondent’s opinions on the impact of the antecedents of standards

compliance under consideration for the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture. In addition,

semi-structured and focus group interviews were conducted at meetings with farm managers: 3

farm managers from flower farms, 2 from vegetable farms, 2 from fruit farms, and 1 from herb

farms were interviewed. Furthermore, one focus group discussion was organized with vegetable

household farmers.

One of the results of data analysis indicates a value of Cronbach’s alpha equivalent to 0.927.

This value shows a high level of internal consistency between the 39 items on the questionnaire

used. The results of the pilot study also revealed that almost all the variables had alpha values

higher than 0.7, which indicates a significant degree of internal consistency. When filling in the

questionnaire, the respondents suggested amendments to some questions for more clarity and

conciseness. Their suggestions were taken into account while revising the questionnaire for the

main study.

The analysis of the correlation between the different variables of the antecedents of standards

compliance and the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture revealed a strong positive and

significant association between inputs, technology, regulatory framework and

internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture (r>0.7, p-value<0.005). However, there was no

significant association between awareness, competencies, infrastructure and internationalisation

205

of Kenyan horticulture, presumably due to the limited number of items used for these variables.

This problem was solved by adding more items to the final questionnaire for the main study.

Concerning regression analysis, it was necessary to first of all check the prerequisites for linear

regression. Therefore, the test of normality was performed, which revealed that the data set came

from a normal distribution. The test of linearity revealed a linear relationship between awareness,

competencies, input, technology infrastructure, regulatory framework and internationalisation of

Kenyan horticulture. As for the test of multicollinearity / independence, it was noted that the VIF

lies of all the variables were between 1 and 10; hence, there was no multicollinearity. The test of

heteroskedasticity revealed that the p-value of all the variables was above 0.05, which means that

there was no problem of heteroskedasticity. Thus, all the conditions were met to perform a linear

regression.

The model used for regression analysis revealed that awareness, competencies, inputs, and

technology all had a positive effect on the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture. However,

the model also indicated that infrastructure had a negative effect on this internationalisation,

which must be an error. This error must have been caused by the way questions were formulated,

which, during data analysis, led to a negative interpretation of an expected positive impact of

infrastructure. On the questionnaire for the main study, the questions concerned were

reformulated. Finally, the regulatory framework was found to have significantly moderated the

antecedents of standards compliance and the internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture.

The qualitative information collected at this pilot stage indicated that small-holder farmers

followed the instructions given to them without a clear understanding of the reasons behind

them. The farmers appreciated the training sessions offered by the FPEAK and the KFC but

regretted the inability of the extension officers from the Ministry of Agriculture to provide the

expected technical support. In addition, they expressed their concerns about having access to the

recommended seeds, fertilisers, and pesticides. It was further observed that the regulatory bodies

did not respect the established criteria when issuing export certificates.

The results of this pilot study were valuable for both the qualitative and the quantitative nature of

the research project: they have enabled the researcher to proceed to the main study after only

effecting minor changes to it in the form of some adjustments to the questionnaire.

206

Appendix II: Cover letter to farm managers participating in survey

GAETAN KABANO

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY – AFRICA (USIU)

P.o.Box 14634, 00800

NAIROBI

1st May 2017

Dear respondent,

Re: Academic research project

I am a doctorate student at USIU carrying out a research on antecedent of standards compliance

for the internationalisation of Kenyan agribusiness.

I am grateful for your participation and assistance in answering this questionnaire. The purpose

of asking these questions is to assess your attitude; your practices and environment in relation

with standards requirements to influence the exports of your produce. This questionnaire is for

farm managers’ like you involved in export of horticultural produce and it is in this ground that

you have been randomly selected to participate in the research. Before answering the following

questions, please take a moment to reflect on all aspects that are involved in achieving food

safety and standards during exports. We thank you for answering all questions accurately as you

can. Your responses will be highly respected and accorded the highest confidentiality.

Thank you.

Yours faithfully,

GAETAN KABANO

(Researcher)

207

Appendix III: Statement of consent

THESIS TOPIC: ANTECEDENTS OF STANDARDS COMPLIANCE FOR THE


Researcher:

Gaetan Kabano (DBA Student)

Chandaria School of Business, United States International University (USIU)

Email:[email protected]

Phone 0723680001

Statement of Consent

By signing below, you are indicating that you:

Have read and understood the information sheet about the thesis

Have had any questions answered to your satisfaction

Understand that if you have any additional questions you can contact the research team

Understand that you are free to withdraw at any time, without comment or penalty

Understand that you can contact the research team if you have any questions about the

thesis or the Chandaria School of Business office on 0730 116 414 or Commission for

University Education if you have concerns about the ethical conduct of the thesis and

Agree to participate in the thesis

Full Name :----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Signature :------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date : --------------/--------------/------------

208

Appendix IV: Final questionnaire

SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE FOR PRODUCERS/EXPORTERS

PART A: GENERAL DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

1. Kindly indicate your gender.

a. Male

b. Female

2. What is your age bracket?

a. Less than 24

b. 24-34

c. 35-44

d. 45-54

e. 55 and above

3. Please indicate your highest level of education attained

a. None

b. Primary School Level

c. High school/College level

d. University level

e. Post graduate level

4. How many training did you attend on food safety and quality standards of products?

a. None

b. One

c. Two

d. Three

e. More than three

5. How many years have you worked in horticulture sector?

a. Less than 2 years

b. 3 to 5 years

c. Over 5 years

6. Indicate the main category of horticulture you are engaged in:

Category Export only Export and producer

1 Flowers

2 Vegetables

3 Fruits

4 Herbs

209

PART B: ANTECEDENTS OF STANDARDS COMPLIANCE

Please indicate your level of agreement/ disagreement with the following, using a rating scale of

1 to 5 where 1= Strongly Disagree/SD, 2=Disagree/D, 3=Neutral/N, 4=Agree/A, and 5=Strongly

Agree/SA.

Statement items SD D N A SA

Awareness of standards for exporters/producers

7. I am very much aware of all the standards set for food quality of

horticultural produce that I export.

1 2 3 4 5

8. I adhere to all the standards for food safety of the horticultural produce

I export.

1 2 3 4 5

9. I ensure that all requirements to avoid air, soil and water pollution are

followed in the horticultural produce that I export.

1 2 3 4 5

10. I keep abreast with the social welfare requirements of my employees. 1 2 3 4 5

11. I am always updated on the changing attitudes of consumers on the

quality of fresh produce.

1 2 3 4 5

12. I keep abreast with of overseas consumers’ requirements on the

packaging of fresh produce exported.

1 2 3 4 5

13. I am aware of conditions of productions recommended by overseas

consumers for horticultural produce.

1 2 3 4 5

14. I keep abreast with requirements of one-year round supply of

horticultural produce for overseas’ consumers.

1 2 3 4 5

15. KEPHIS has done a good job in ensuring that all the standards for

plant health issues, quality of agricultural inputs and produce are met

in Kenya.

1 2 3 4 5

16. HCDA’s policy interventions have helped to revamp and reposition

the Horticultural demands in Kenya.

1 2 3 4 5

17. FPEAK is representing effectively the growers, exporters and service

providers of the horticultural produce in Kenya.

1 2 3 4 5

18. KFC has done a good job of fostering responsible and safe production

of cut flower in Kenya.

1 2 3 4 5

19. KEBS provides effectively standardization and conformity assessment

services in Kenya.

1 2 3 4 5

20. PCPB is excellent to regulate importation, distribution and use of

products used for the control of pests and diseases in Kenya.

1 2 3 4 5

210


Competencies of Horticultural exporters

21. My education level helped me internalise the standards used in

horticulture sector for export.

1 2 3 4 5

22. My educational background played an important role in adopting

good agricultural practices to meet the required safety for the


1 2 3 4 5

23. I have been fully trained on all aspects of standards requirements in

horticultural produce for exports.

1 2 3 4 5

24. I got better understanding of standards in horticulture from the

trainings I attended on food safety and food quality.

1 2 3 4 5

25. The institutions offering certification services for horticultural produce

are available.

1 2 3 4 5

26. The institutions offering certification services for horticultural produce

are efficient.

1 2 3 4 5

27. The services of certification are affordable. 1 2 3 4 5

28. With an effective system of certification, the conformity assessment of

horticultural produce is not doubtful.

1 2 3 4 5

Inputs use in horticulture

29. I know very well recommended seeds for my horticultural produce for

export.

1 2 3 4 5

30. The recommended seeds are available at the local market. 1 2 3 4 5

31. The recommended seeds are affordable. 1 2 3 4 5

32. Seeds certified locally are of same quality as imported certified seeds. 1 2 3 4 5

33. The water used in my farming is of good quality. 1 2 3 4 5

34. The water needed for my farming is available in quantity. 1 2 3 4 5

35. There is a need of proceeding with test of water. 1 2 3 4 5

36. I am looking for type of horticultural produce consuming less water. 1 2 3 4 5

37. I keep abreast with recommended fertilisers and pesticides for my


1 2 3 4 5

211

38. I can get recommended fertilisers and pesticides at the local markets. 1 2 3 4 5

39. I can easily afford recommended fertilisers and pesticides. 1 2 3 4 5

40. The enforcement of legislation requiring prior approval of fertilisers

and pesticides in the Kenyan market is efficient.

1 2 3 4 5


Technology use

41. There are sufficient laboratories to test pests and diseases. 1 2 3 4 5

42. Existing laboratories are appropriate to test bests and diseases in

horticulture farming.

1 2 3 4 5

43. The cost of laboratory tests for horticultural produce is affordable in

Kenya.

1 2 3 4 5

44. Cold rooms for my horticultural produce are available. 1 2 3 4 5

45. The cost of storage in cold rooms is affordable. 1 2 3 4 5

46. I keep good quality of my horticultural product in the whole

harvesting process.

1 2 3 4 5

47. I am using better methods for sorting/grading my horticultural

produce

1 2 3 4 5

48. I have better options of adding value to horticultural produce before

export.

1 2 3 4 5

49. I am using the modern technology of packaging when exporting my


1 2 3 4 5

Infrastructure

50. The area of my farming is accessible by good roads. 1 2 3 4 5

51. During export of horticultural produce, air freight rate is affordable. 1 2 3 4 5

52. Electricity needed during horticultural farming is consistent. 1 2 3 4 5

53. The cost of electricity is affordable. 1 2 3 4 5

54. I have started looking for better alternative sources of energy. 1 2 3 4 5

212



55. Regular inspection visits contribute to enforcement of standards in

horticulture sector.

1 2 3 4 5

56. Officers checking standards compliance in horticulture have relevant

expertise to assist farmers/exporters. 1 2 3 4 5

57. Inspectors of standards checking my horticulture farming act as

facilitator to help me comply with requirements.

1 2 3 4 5

58. Export rules and regulations in horticulture are strictly enforced. 1 2 3 4 5

59. The criteria of issuing export certificates are strictly and objectively

respected for exporter.

1 2 3 4 5

60. Issuance of certificate of export contributes to standards compliance in

horticulture.

1 2 3 4 5

Internationalisation of Kenyan horticulture

61. My knowledge of requirements in export helps me getting more

buyers abroad for my horticultural produce.

1 2 3 4 5

62. Keeping abreast with life style of consumer’s abroad contributes to

maintain and increase market share.

1 2 3 4 5

63. The services provided by institutions like HCDA, KEPHIS, FPEAK,

KFC contribute to increase the volume of export.

1 2 3 4 5

64. The periodic trainings attended in horticultural contribute to export

more of my horticultural produce.

1 2 3 4 5

65. Horticulture certified produce are better accepted for export. 1 2 3 4 5

66. I managed to sell more horticultural produce due to use of water of

good quality.

1 2 3 4 5

67. My horticultural produce was not rejected during export because I

used recommended fertilisers and pesticides.

1 2 3 4 5

68. The use of adequate laboratories contributes to acceptability of my

produce on international market.

1 2 3 4 5

69. Keeping good quality of fresh produce helps me selling more of my


1 2 3 4 5

70. Efficient transport of my horticultural produce contributes to increase

the volume of export.

1 2 3 4 5

71. Enforcing international standards in horticulture contributes to

increase of exports.

1 2 3 4 5

72. Respecting criteria when issuing certificates for export helps 1 2 3 4 5

213

acceptability of Kenyan horticultural produce abroad.

Appendix V: Interview and focus group guide for producers and exporters in

horticulture.

Q1.Please, explain the standards compliance expected in horticulture and share your knowledge

about institutions giving support to meet those standards.

Q2.Please, explain the kind of trainings you received in relation to standards compliance. Also

share further issues related to standards compliance where you would like to be trained on.

Q3.Please, share you knowledge about recommended seeds, pesticides, and fertilisers in farming.

Tell us about their availability and accessibility at the local market.

Q4.Please, explain how efficient is the technology use in farming, watering, spraying, harvesting

and packaging.

Q5.Please, explain the effect of transport on the quality of produce. Please share your experience

about availability and accessibility of cold rooms and frequency of power cut.

Q6.Please, share your knowledge about institutions regulating standards in horticulture, their

efficiency, and efficiency of the system of issuing certificates for exports.

Q7.Please, explain the main challenges faced to comply with standards in horticulture.

214

Appendix VI: Research authorisation

215

Documents

ANTECEDENTS OF STANDARDS COMPLIANCE FOR THE