数字化转型 Capability as a Driver of Agropreneurial 性能 in 社会 电商 上下文

The Resource-Based 查看 (RBV), 动态 能力 Theory (DCT) and 机构 Theory address different but interdependent parts of the explanation developed in this study. RBV begins inside the firm and asks why enterprises facing a broadly similar market environment achieve heterogeneous outcomes. For agropreneurs, product knowledge, customer insight, brand credibility, content-production routines and fulfilment know-how can become strategically valuable when combined in ways that support market exchange. 访问 to TikTok 商店 is not, by itself, a rare resource. Heterogeneity instead arises from firm-specific routines that connect product attributes, audience understanding and operational execution.

RBV alone is insufficient in a social-commerce setting because a valuable resource bundle may lose relevance when platform formats, recommendation mechanisms, customer preferences or campaign rules change. DCT supplies the temporal and process logic by explaining how firms sense changes, seize opportunities and reconfigure their resource base. Adaptive content capability reflects sensing and adjustment, while platform capability utilisation reflects seizing and orchestration. DCT thus explains how an inherited stock of knowledge and routines is repeatedly renewed rather than simply possessed.

The relationship between RBV and DCT is complementary rather than substitutive. RBV identifies what may underpin performance heterogeneity, whereas DCT explains how the usefulness of those resources is maintained under change. 内容 expertise without adaptation may become obsolete; adaptation without a substantive resource base may produce activity without a coherent value proposition. Transformation occurs when entrepreneurs convert generic technological affordances into situated routines that reflect their 产品, customers and operating constraints.

机构 Theory extends the explanation beyond managerial discretion. Agropreneurs do not deploy capabilities in an institutional vacuum. Formal platform rules, programme requirements, public-agency procedures, product standards and data-reporting expectations establish permissible and legitimate modes of action. AMTTSE adds a salient institutional layer because FAMA supplies programme legitimacy, training and market facilitation while TikTok 商店 controls important elements of the transaction infrastructure. 机构 alignment capability captures the entrepreneur's capacity to interpret, access and incorporate these arrangements into business routines rather than treating alignment as passive compliance.

机构 conditions can enable capability deployment by reducing information gaps, legitimising unfamiliar selling practices, connecting firms with training and creating structured opportunities for experimentation. They may constrain deployment when standardised schedules do not fit product cycles, platform rules change, or reporting requirements consume scarce managerial attention. 机构 support is therefore not an automatically beneficial input. Its value depends on an entrepreneur's capacity to absorb and translate support and on the fit between institutional arrangements and firm-level needs.

潜在 tensions arise from the theories' assumptions about agency, advantage and conformity. RBV emphasises firm heterogeneity, whereas institutional accounts explain why organisations exposed to common pressures may become more alike. DCT stresses purposeful reconfiguration, while 机构 Theory recognises that rules, norms and dependence 限制 feasible choices. Programme standardisation may create a common capability floor but narrow experimentation. 合规 may secure legitimacy and resources while diverting effort from differentiation. 性能 consequently depends on balancing differentiation, adaptation and legitimacy.

The theories also operate at different levels. RBV and DCT principally explain intra-firm resources and managerial processes, while 机构 Theory addresses the organisational field in which those processes occur. The levels connect through institutional alignment capability. 外部 support or constraint is filtered through entrepreneurs' prior resources and adaptive capacity. 平台 governance, agency support, regional infrastructure and product regulation may strengthen or weaken the translation of capability into performance.

All three theories are required simultaneously. An RBV-only account would understate change and external dependence. A DCT-only account would explain adaptation without fully specifying the resource base or institutional limits. An institutional-only account would explain support, legitimacy and constraint but not persistent differences among firms in the same programme. Their synthesis maps H1 to valuable and renewable adaptive-content routines, H2 to platform-based opportunity seizure, H3 to institutional access and fit, and H4 to platform utilisation as the mechanism through which adaptive content becomes commercially actionable.

RBV, DCT and 机构 Theory provide complementary explanations across firm and institutional levels.

H4 denotes the indirect relationship through platform capability utilisation. Arrows do not imply causality.

Taken together, the reported findings portray digital transformation capability as a configuration rather than a single resource. The archived record establishes the direction and significance of relationships but does not preserve path magnitudes or full structural-model diagnostics. The discussion therefore explains why the relationships are theoretically plausible without ranking their importance or treating significance as evidence of practical magnitude.

H1. The adaptive-content relationship is consistent with RBV because product knowledge, customer understanding and credible presentation become valuable when organised into market-facing routines. DCT explains why those routines must be renewed as audience feedback and platform conventions change. 机构 conditions bound adaptation because product claims, programme expectations and platform rules determine which forms of communication are legitimate and executable.

H2. The platform-utilisation relationship distinguishes access from effective deployment. RBV locates value in an embedded routine connecting discovery, product information, interaction, ordering and fulfilment. DCT explains utilisation as opportunity seizure and orchestration. 机构 Theory qualifies the process because platform governance allocates visibility and defines acceptable commercial conduct.

H3. The institutional-alignment relationship is compatible with resources, legitimacy and structured learning available through a government-supported programme. 机构 Theory explains access; RBV explains why firms differ in internalising the same support; and DCT explains how guidance is translated into revised routines. This reading does not attribute recorded GMV to FAMA alone.

H4. Adaptive content may create relevance and attention, but it becomes commercially actionable only when platform functions connect audiences with product access and transaction. RBV identifies content knowledge as an input, DCT explains conversion through platform-based sensing and seizure, and 机构 Theory specifies rules and support conditions. Because the indirect coefficient, confidence interval and direct effect were not retained, mediation cannot be classified or quantified.

The figure illustrates mediation logic without assigning unavailable path magnitudes.