Assessment of awareness and usage of digital platforms among farmer producer organizations (FPOS): A study of selling channels used by FPOS in Gujarat

Introduction

India's recent agricultural history is marked by a paradox: record-breaking output coexisting with persistent market disadvantage for smallholder farmers. Foodgrain production reached 357.73 million tonnes in 2024-25 the highest on record (Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare [MoAFW], 2025) yet the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP, 2019) estimates that farmers receive only 30-40% of the final consumer price for major horticultural commodities [12,3] . The Government of India has responded through a dual strategy: constructing digital market infrastructure and building collective producer institutions to leverage it. The electronic National Agriculture Market (e-NAM), launched in 2016, now links 1,361 mandis across 23 states (Electronic National Agriculture Market [e-NAM], 2024) [4] . The Open Network for Digital Commerce (ONDC) became operational in 2022 (Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, 2023). Simultaneously, the Central Sector Scheme for 10,000 Farmer Producer Organizations (MoAFW, 2020) [10] accelerated the formation of producer collectives capable of engaging these platforms at a commercially viable scale, yielding more than 13,500 registered FPOs nationally by March 2024. Gujarat presents an ostensibly favourable context for digital platform adoption. The state benefits from the Amul cooperative model, above-average rural infrastructure, and over 800 registered FPOs across commodity sectors including groundnut, cumin, and kesar mango (Small Farmers Agribusiness Consortium [SFAC], 2024) [21] . However, the present study documents a troubling reality: digital platform adoption among Gujarat's FPOs remains near-zero not due to infrastructure deficiencies, but because the informational bridge between platform availability and actual use has not yet been constructed. This study surveyed 37 active FPOs across eight districts Banaskantha, Mehsana, Anand, Kheda, Junagadh, Jamnagar, Navsari, and Bardoli mapping their current selling behaviour, platform awareness, perceived barriers, and willingness to adopt digital channels. The empirical findings carry direct implications for the design of policy interventions, platform onboarding strategies, and FPO capacity-building programmes.

Review of literature 2.1 Farmer Producer Organizations: Theoretical Foundations and Empirical Evidence

The theoretical foundation of Farmer Producer Organizations (FPOs) draws from several complementary strands of institutional and collective action theory. Ostrom (1990) demonstrated that groups can successfully self-govern shared resources under appropriate institutional arrangements, challenging conventional tragedy-of-the-commons assumptions. Williamson (1985) argued that organizational forms emerge to reduce transaction costs associated with market exchange, while Olson (1965) highlighted the challenges of collective action and the conditions under which individuals cooperate to pursue shared interests. In the Indian context, Trebbin and Hassler (2012) identified producer companies as an innovative institutional mechanism through which smallholders can collectively overcome market constraints and improve their bargaining position. Thus, the FPO can be viewed as a practical application of these theoretical perspectives to the challenges of smallholder agriculture [18,25,17] . Empirical evidence on FPO performance is generally favourable, although outcomes vary considerably across regions and organizations. Studies have shown that effective producer organizations can improve farmers' market access, strengthen bargaining power, reduce transaction costs, and facilitate participation in higher-value markets (Markelova et al., 2009; Trebbin, 2014) [8,24] . However, the performance of FPOs is highly heterogeneous and depends on factors such as managerial capacity, member participation, access to finance, market linkages, and organizational maturity. Several assessments have indicated that younger FPOs often face challenges in achieving commercial viability, whereas more established organizations tend to exhibit stronger marketing performance and higher turnover levels (NABARD, 2022; NITI Aayog, 2021) [15,16] . This observation is particularly relevant to the present study, as the majority of sampled FPOs were established during 2021-22 and are still in the early stages of organizational development.

Digital Agricultural Platforms: Promise and Reality

The theoretical foundation for digital agricultural markets can be traced to the pioneering work of Jensen (2007) [7] , who examined the impact of mobile phone adoption among fishermen in Kerala, India. The study found that access to real-time market information significantly reduced-price dispersion across geographically separated fish markets and improved overall market efficiency. By enabling producers to obtain timely information on prevailing prices, mobile technology reduced information asymmetry between buyers and sellers, leading to more informed marketing decisions. These findings provide an important conceptual basis for digital agricultural platforms, suggesting that improved access to market information can enhance producers' bargaining power, facilitate better price discovery, and contribute to more efficient market outcomes. In the context of agriculture, digital platforms such as e-NAM and ONDC are expected to perform a similar function by expanding farmers' access to market intelligence and reducing informational disadvantages that have traditionally constrained their participation in competitive markets. By 2024, e-NAM had recorded a cumulative transaction value exceeding ₹3.25 lakh crore, reflecting the growing scale of digital agricultural marketing in India. The FPO Module introduced on the platform enabled Farmer Producer Organizations to participate more actively in digital trading and market linkage activities. However, Chatterjee and Krishnamurthy (2020) observed that the effectiveness of e-NAM depends heavily on existing market institutions and intermediary structures. Their analysis highlighted that digital agricultural markets continue to rely on organized institutional actors for market participation and transaction management, indicating that institutional capacity remains a critical determinant of successful platform utilization. Digital adoption among FPOs remains constrained by infrastructural and capability-related barriers. Previous studies have identified inadequate internet connectivity, limited access to digital devices, and low levels of digital literacy as important constraints affecting the adoption of digital technologies in agriculture and farmer organizations (Nagaraji et al., 2023; Singh et al., 2023) [14,19] . However, the findings of the present study indicate a contrasting situation in Gujarat, where internet connectivity emerged as the least significant adoption barrier (mean = 1.23/5). This divergence may reflect Gujarat's relatively advanced digital infrastructure and higher technological penetration, suggesting that organizational and capacity-related factors become more important once basic connectivity constraints are addressed.

Channel Choice and Transaction Cost Theory

Transaction cost theory suggests that farmers tend to prefer marketing channels characterized by established relationships, predictable transactions, and lower search and negotiation costs (Williamson, 1985) [25] . In India, traditional marketing through APMC mandis and local traders continues to dominate agricultural produce marketing due to familiarity, established trust, and readily available market networks. Studies on collective action indicate that participation in farmer organizations can improve market access, strengthen bargaining power, and reduce transaction costs; however, the effectiveness of such organizations depends significantly on their managerial capacity, governance structure, and level of member participation (Markelova et al., 2009; Trebbin, 2014) [8,24] .

Research Gaps Addressed by This Study

Three gaps in the existing literature motivated this investigation. First, most digital adoption studies treat individual farmers as the unit of analysis, overlooking the FPO's organizational marketing decision-making structure. Second, primary-data evidence on FPO selling behaviour from Gujarat remains sparse despite the state's agricultural prominence. Third, no prior study has systematically compared the relative magnitudes of informational versus infrastructural barriers to digital adoption among FPOs in a well-resourced Indian state. The present study addresses all three gaps.

Objectives of the study

The study pursued five specific objectives: 1. To map the institutional profile and current selling channels used by FPOs across the study area. 2. To examine quality grading practices, pricing authority, and payment cycles in relation to price outcomes. 3. To assess awareness and actual usage of digital agricultural platforms, including named platforms. 4. To identify and rank the barriers preventing wider digital platform adoption and the types of support FPOs require. 5. To measure willingness to engage with e-market platforms and the outcomes FPOs anticipate from such engagement.

Materials and methods 4.1 Study Area

Data collection covered eight districts spanning Gujarat's major agro-climatic zones: Banaskantha and Mehsana in north Gujarat (cumin, potato, oilseeds); Anand and Kheda in central Gujarat (diversified, dairy-linked); Junagadh in Saurashtra (groundnut); Jamnagar on the coast; and Navsari and Bardoli in south Gujarat (horticulture, sugarcaneadjacent). The multi-district design was deliberate, enabling variation across commodity systems that a single-district study would have precluded.

Sampling Design and Sample Size

Purposive sampling combined with snowball referrals was employed. Purposive criteria required that each FPO be operationally active, primarily dealing in at least one of three target commodities (groundnut, cumin, or potato), and have complete institutional records available. These criteria excluded dormant or newly registered but non-trading entities.

Snowball referrals were necessary because all publicly available FPO databases in India are outdated, with frequently changed contact details, management turnover, and continuing deregistration of inactive entities. The starting nodes were Cluster-Based Business Organizations (CBBOs) defined under the 10,000 FPO Scheme, which provided ground-level verification of operational status. Of 45 FPOs initially contacted, 37 provided complete responses; the remaining 8 were excluded due to dormancy or incomplete data. All analyses are based on n = 37.

Data Collection

Analytical Tools

Categorical variables were summarized using frequency distributions and percentage calculations. Weighted mean scores were computed for challenge severity and platform awareness indicators. Ordinal rankings were converted to average rank scores to permit cross-indicator comparisons. Relationships between institutional characteristics, channels, and platform engagement were examined through crosstabulations. All processing was performed in Microsoft Excel. Given the exploratory nature of the study and the sample size, findings are presented descriptively; inferential hypothesis testing was not applied.

Results and discussion

Geographic Distribution of Sample FPOs

The district-wise distribution of the 37 sampled FPOs is presented in Table 1. Three districts Banaskantha (21.6%), Anand (16.2%), and Junagadh (13.5%) accounted for just over half the sample, reflecting their status as established production hubs for the commodity types under study. Vav and Mehsana contributed an additional 18.9%, while the remaining nine districts each contributed one FPO. This concentration pattern has direct implications for outreach strategy: districts with eight or more FPOs offer economies of scale for demonstration workshops and peer-learning networks. Single-FPO districts at the tail of the distribution lack a local peer network, likely compounding the informational gaps documented in the barrier analysis (Section 5.9).

Year of Establishment

Table 2 presents the year-wise distribution of FPO establishment. Nearly 46 percent of the sampled FPOs were established in 2022, and the cumulative share rises to 73 percent when organizations established in 2021 are included. This concentration reflects the expansion of government-led FPO promotion initiatives following the COVID-19 period, particularly under the Central Sector Scheme for Formation and Promotion of 10,000 Farmer Producer Organizations. Consequently, most sampled organizations were only three to four years old at the time of the survey. Previous studies have emphasized that organizational maturity, managerial capability, and accumulated market experience play important roles in determining the performance and sustainability of producer organizations (Trebbin, 2014). Therefore, many of the sampled FPOs may still be in the process of building governance systems, member participation, and stable market linkages before undertaking substantial channel diversification. The lone FPO established in 2006 represents a significant outlier whose accumulated experience could serve as a valuable resource for peerlearning within the FPO ecosystem.

Membership Size

Table 3 shows the distribution of FPOs by membership size.

Primary Selling Channels

Table 4 presents the primary selling channels used by sample FPOs (multiple responses permitted). The channel profile is predominantly traditional. Direct buyers (51.4%) and APMC mandis (43.2%) accounted for the majority of reported primary channels. Institutional channels ITC Ltd., NAFED, GUJCO, and export routes appeared for 29.7% of FPOs, indicating that roughly one-third of the sample already navigates formal procurement relationships requiring quality documentation and contractual compliance.

Digital platforms featured in the selling portfolio of one FPO (2.7%). Contrary to the prevailing explanation in the digital agriculture literature which attributes low digital engagement to poor connectivity and low digital literacy the barrier analysis presented in Section 5.9 demonstrates that neither factor was salient in this sample. The substantial presence of institutional procurement channels (29.7%) is noteworthy: FPOs supplying ITC or NAFED already manage quality documentation, logistics coordination, and formal contracts precisely the organizational capabilities that digital platforms require. This capability exists; it is simply not yet directed towards digital channels. 5 reports the factors influencing selling-channel decisions, ranked by average score (lower score = higher priority). Price dominated channel selection with an average rank of 1.27, indicating near-unanimous first-place assignment. Demand availability ranked second (2.17), followed by payment speed (3.28), buyer relationships (4th, 3.72), and transportation (5th, 4.35). Two findings merit emphasis. First, buyer relationships ranking fourth rather than second contradicts a large body of agricultural marketing literature that frames relationship lock-in as the primary impediment to channel switching (Williamson, 1985). FPO managers in this sample are not discounting relationships -they are indicating that demonstrable price advantages take precedence. This creates a genuine opening for digital platforms that can provide verifiable price-improvement evidence. Second, transportation ranking last directly challenges a common assumption in rural e-commerce design; logistics convenience is not the critical value proposition for these organizations.

Factors Influencing the Selling Decision: Table

Awareness of Digital Agricultural Platforms

Table 6 presents the general awareness of digital agricultural platforms among surveyed FPOs. Approximately 60% (59.5%) of FPOs reported some awareness of digital agricultural platforms, while 40.5% were entirely unaware. The 40.5% with no awareness represents a hard adoption floor: no onboarding intervention can reach organizations that are unaware these channels exist. Basic awareness creation must precede adoption support. As Section 5.7 demonstrates, the 59.5% figure masks considerable variation in the depth and quality of that awareness.

Platform-Specific Awareness Levels

Table 7 presents awareness scores for named digital agricultural platforms on a 1-5 scale (1 = Not Aware; 5 = Very Highly Aware). Every platform scored below the scale midpoint of 3.0. ONDC recorded the highest awareness score (mean = 2.93), possibly reflecting increasing government promotion and public visibility. e-NAM scored 2.20, while private platforms such as AgriBazaar (1.82), Ninjacart (1.62), and BEAM (1.44) remained closer to the "not aware" end of the scale. These findings indicate that although a majority of respondents reported general awareness of digital marketing platforms, their knowledge was often superficial and insufficient to support informed adoption decisions. The Government e-Procurement category recorded the highest proportion of "very aware" responses (18.8%), likely due to prior exposure to government procurement systems. This suggests that familiarity with formal institutional channels does not necessarily translate into comprehensive digital marketplace literacy, a pattern consistent with studies highlighting the gap between awareness and effective utilization of digital agricultural technologies among farmers and producer organizations (Baumüller, 2018; Garg & Singhal, 2021) [1,2] .

Current Usage of Digital Platforms

Table 8 presents platform-wise usage among FPOs reporting some platform awareness (n ≈ 13). Among the 24 FPOs reporting some degree of platform awareness, only 13 reported any actual usage. However, platform-specific utilization remained extremely limited. e-Samyukti and ONDC were each used by only two organizations (15.4%), while all other platforms were used by a single organization (7.7%). Consequently, the apparent 54.2% usage rate among aware FPOs may overstate meaningful adoption, as it includes exploratory registrations and occasional trial transactions rather than sustained commercial engagement. This interpretation is reinforced by the primary channel analysis, which showed that digital platforms accounted for only 2.7% of overall selling activities. The findings suggest that awareness alone is insufficient to drive digital market participation; effective adoption requires institutional support, operational readiness, and active market integration. Similar concerns have been raised in studies of digital agricultural markets, which emphasize that the existence of a digital platform does not automatically translate into effective participation or regular market transactions (Chatterjee & Krishnamurthy, 2020).

Challenges in Digital Platform Adoption

Table 9 presents respondents' ratings of challenges to digital platform adoption (1 = lowest challenge; 5 = highest challenge). The findings directly contradict the prevailing framework in rural digital adoption research. Lack of awareness ranked highest (mean = 4.81/5; 83.9% assigned a rating of 5), followed closely by lack of platform information (4.62/5; 62.1% assigned a rating of 5). These two informational barriers tower over all others. Trust in platforms registered a moderate score (3.33/5) and payment concerns a lower score (2.93/5). Internet connectivity (1.23/5) and digital literacy (1.48/5) the barriers that dominate most rural digitalisation policy discourse ranked last, and no respondent assigned either the maximum severity rating. These results indicate that Gujarat's FPO managers possess smartphones, internet access, and sufficient digital competency to manage their organizations. What is absent is structured, credible information about how agricultural platforms operate, how to register, what the transaction process entails, and why a digital transaction would yield better outcomes than an established buyer relationship. The information gap is the adoption gap a finding consistent with Jensen's (2007) foundational insight that information access, not infrastructure access, drives market behaviour change. This finding has a clear policy corollary: investment in rural connectivity will not meaningfully accelerate FPO digital platform adoption in Gujarat; investment in knowledge dissemination will. 5.10 Support Requirements: Table 10 presents the types of support FPOs requested to improve digital platform engagement (multiple responses permitted).

Willingness to Collaborate with e-Market Platforms

Table 11 summarises FPO willingness to collaborate with digital e-market platforms.

Key Motivating Factors for Adoption

Table 12 presents the factors that would motivate FPOs to adopt digital marketplace channels, ranked by average score.

Perceived Impact among Current Platform Users

Table 13 presents the perceived impacts of digital platform use among FPOs with any platform experience (n ≈ 13). Among the 13 FPOs with any platform experience, all (100%) reported improved pricing transparency. Access to new buyers and markets followed at 84.6%, improved market access at 76.9%, reduced middlemen dependence and faster selling times both at 69.2%. Improved price realisation was reported by 53.8% and increased member income by only 46.7%. This pattern is consistent with the broader literature: price discovery benefits arrive faster than income gains (Stiglitz, 2002). Transparency informs a seller of the price they should receive; converting that knowledge into actual income improvement requires transaction volume, operational logistics, and buyer relationships that many of these organizations have not yet fully assembled. damage when initial transactions do not meet promised benchmarks, potentially accelerating disengagement. For FPO managers, the practical implication is that most peer organizations occupy the same position willing, uninformed about operational details, and awaiting a credible demonstration. Early movers through this transition will likely shape peer adoption curves in their commodity clusters.

Conclusion

For policymakers, the key lesson concerns sequencing: India's digital agricultural infrastructure has advanced significantly ahead of the institutional readiness required to utilize it. Closing this gap requires investment in knowledge dissemination, demonstration events, and trust-building interventions that are less visible than infrastructure projects but, as this study's data indicate, more likely to generate returns in the near term. For platform operators, the signal concerns onboarding quality and expectation management. The potential user base is available and willing. The question is whether the onboarding experience will be sufficient to convert trial into sustained commercial use.

Acknowledgement

AcknowledgementsThe authors express their sincere gratitude to all the Farmer Producer Organizations (FPOs) who participated in this study and provided valuable information for the research. We also acknowledge the support of Kamdhenu University and SMC College of Dairy Science, Anand, for providing the necessary academic environment and resources to complete this research successfully.

References

1. Baumüller H. The little we know: An exploratory literature review on the utility of mobile phone-enabled services for smallholder farmers. Journal of International Development. 2018;30(1):134-154. Available: https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.3314
2. Garg M, Singhal S. E-NAM-Digital agricultural market: Challenges and opportunities in India. Journal of Technology Management for Growing Economies. 2021;12(2):39-45.
3. Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices. Price policy for kharif crops 2019-20. New Delhi: Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of India; 2019.
4. Electronic National Agriculture Market. Annual progress report 2023-24. New Delhi: Small Farmers Agribusiness Consortium, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of India; 2024. Available: https://www.enam.gov.in
5. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. The State of Agricultural Commodity Markets 2020. Rome: FAO; 2020. Available: https://doi.org/10.4060/cb0665en
6. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. The State of Food and Agriculture 2023. Rome: FAO; 2023. Available: https://doi.org/10.4060/cc7724en
7. Jensen R. The digital provide: Information (technology), market performance, and welfare in the South Indian fisheries sector. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 2007;122(3):879-924. Available: https://doi.org/10.1162/qjec.122.3.879
8. Markelova H, Meinzen-Dick R, Hellin J, Dohrn S. Collective action for smallholder market access. Food Policy. 2009;34(1):1-7. Available:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2008.10.001
9. Chatterjee S, Krishnamurthy M. Understanding and misunderstanding e-NAM. Seminar. 2020;725. Available: https://www.indiaseminar.com/2020/725/725_shoumitro_and_mekhala.ht m 10. Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare. Central Sector Scheme for Formation and Promotion of 10,000 Farmer Producer Organizations. New Delhi: Government of India; 2020.
10. Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare. Agriculture at a Glance 2023-24. New Delhi: Government of India; 2024.
11. Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare. Third Advance Estimates of Production of Foodgrains 202425. New Delhi: Government of India; 2025.
12. Open Network for Digital Commerce. About ONDC. Bengaluru: ONDC; 2024. Available: https://ondc.org International Journal of Advanced Biochemistry Research https://www.biochemjournal.com
13. Nagaraji S, Raju BMK, et al. Digital needs and gaps assessment for Farmer Producer Organizations (FPOs) in India. New Delhi: CGIAR and Digital Green; 2023.
14. National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development. Farmer Producer Organisations in India: Status and Issues. Mumbai: NABARD; 2022.
15. NITI Aayog. Doubling Farmers' Income: Volume XIV Agricultural Marketing and Value Chain Promotion through FPOs. New Delhi: Government of India; 2021.
16. Olson M. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1965.
17. Ostrom E. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1990.
18. Singh S, Gupta V, Sharma R. Investigating the adoption barriers to Industry 4.0 technologies in Farmer Producer Organisations. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management. 2023;24:557-577.
19. Farmer Producer Organizations. New Delhi: Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of India; 2020.
20. Farmers Agribusiness Consortium. Annual Report 2023-24. New Delhi: Government of India; 2024.
21. Stiglitz JE. Information and the change in the paradigm in economics. American Economic Review. 2002;92(3):460-501.
22. Trebbin A, Hassler M. Farmers' producer companies in India: A new concept for collective action? Environment and Planning A. 2012;44(2):411-427. Available: https://doi.org/10.1068/a4444
23. Trebbin A. Linking small farmers to modern retail through producer organizations: Experiences with producer companies in India. Food Policy. 2014;45:3544. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2013.12.007
24. Williamson OE. The Economic Institutions of Capitalism: Firms, Markets, Relational Contracting. New York: Free Press; 1985.