Institutional support and behavioural pathways to climate adaptability: evidence from farmer producer organisations in India

Purpose To empirically test a dual-pathway structural model, that explains how institutional support (IS) from Farmer Producer Organisations (FPOs) enhances climate adaptability (CA) among smallholder farmers in India. This study aims to move beyond purely economic outcomes to investigate the mediating roles of both behavioural change and psychological resilience. Design/methodology/approach A cross-sectional survey was conducted with 326 smallholder farmers, who are members of 38 FPOs, across three distinct agroecological regions in India. The hypothesised relationships, grounded in social cognitive theory and resilience theory, were tested using partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM), with the measurement model validated using the heterotrait–monotrait criterion. Findings The results confirm that the influence of IS on CA is fully mediated and operates through two significant indirect pathways. The model validates a behavioural pathway, where support positively influences the adoption of adaptive agricultural practices and a sequential psychological pathway, where support fosters financial resilience, which in turn enhances psychological resilience, ultimately leading to greater climate adaptability. Research limitations/implications The study is based on cross-sectional data, limiting the ability to infer causality. Future research may benefit from longitudinal or experimental designs. Practical implications The findings suggest that FPOs should design interventions that provide services and foster behavioural change and mental resilience among farmers to strengthen climate adaptability. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is among the first to empirically validate the crucial, distinct roles of both behavioural adoption and psychological fortitude in the context of FPO-led climate adaptation. It offers a more nuanced, process-based model of resilience that challenges a one-size-fits-all view of institutional support. The findings provide evidence-driven policy recommendations that account for the complex interplay between external support and farmers’ internal capacities.