Intellectual capital and the adoption barriers of alternative grains supply chain: insights for sustainable businesses

Purpose – This study explores how gaps in intellectual capital contribute to the continued challenges faced by stakeholders across the alternative grains value chain. Although these crops are historically familiar and valued for their nutritional and environmental benefits, they remain underutilized. Design/methodology/approach – The study draws on semi-structured interviews with 30 stakeholders, including farmers, processors, entrepreneurs and policymakers. It combines intellectual capital theory with social cognitive theory (SCT) and innovation resistance theory (IRT) to understand why adoption remains limited. Social cognitive theory was used to examine how knowledge, environment and confidence shape decisions. Innovation resistance theory helped explain resistance related to habit, risk and social perception. Findings – The study identified five major barriers: low profitability, inadequate processing infrastructure, weak market access, limited technical knowledge and social stigma. These were linked to gaps in human, structural and relational capital. Viewed through SCT and IRT, many forms of resistance reflected practical constraints rather than unwillingness to adopt. Practical implications – The findings highlight the need for focused support in three areas: skill development for farmers and processors, investment in local processing infrastructure and stronger coordination through cooperatives or producer groups. Policy measures such as improved procurement, inclusion in public food schemes and targeted consumer outreach can help address both structural and perception-related barriers. Originality/value – This study uses intellectual capital to understand why alternative grains remain underused, showing how gaps in skills, systems and relationships contribute to resistance. The combined use of SCT and IRT helps explain how these gaps affect stakeholder decisions, offering a clearer basis for both research and policy action.