Innovation has been approached from multiple disciplines as a central process in the evolution of organizations. The literature acknowledges that it is not limited to the invention of entirely new products but also encompasses the adaptation, enhancement, and re-configuration of existing solutions. Schumpeter (1934) defined innovation as the introduction of new goods, production methods, sources of supply, markets, or industrial organizations, asserting that such practices constitute a key driver of economic change. Along similar lines, the OECD (2005) conceptualizes innovation as the implementation of a new or significantly improved product or process, as well as new organizational and marketing methods. More recent perspectives, such as those advanced by Tidd and Bessant (2020), argue that innovation involves translating ideas and knowledge into solutions that create value not only in business contexts but also at the societal level. This broad understanding has led to the recognition of multiple forms of innovation, including organizational, process, and marketing innovation, as well as the growing relevance of imitation as a deliberate strategy.

In this context, imitation has shifted from being understood as a mere passive replication to being regarded as a strategic mechanism that enables organizations to reduce uncertainty, save resources, and accelerate incremental innovation processes. Schnaars (1994) contends that imitators can achieve competitive advantages comparable to those of pioneers while incurring lower risks and costs. Chesbrough (2003) argues that imitation can complement open innovation by allowing existing products to be modified and adapted to specific contexts. Scholars such as Hu et al. (2017) and Wang and Wang (2020) reinforce this notion by framing imitation as a creative process in which firms reinterpret existing solutions through technological absorption capabilities. From an organizational theory standpoint, March and Olsen (1976) introduced the concept of organizational imitation as a form of adaptation under uncertainty, while Dimaggio and Powell (1999) described isomorphism as a logic driving organizations to resemble one another due to coercive, normative, or mimetic pressures. This perspective aligns with the work of Hannan and Freeman (2009), who argue that organizational survival depends not only on radical innovation but also on selection, variation, and imitation within competitive environments.

In the specific case of the Colombian chocolate and confectionery sector, these dynamics acquire particular significance. This industry is characterized by diverse offerings, intense competition, and constant pressure from both domestic and international actors. The similarities in products, packaging, and positioning strategies reveal patterns of imitation that cannot be solely attributed to creative limitations but rather to strategic decisions aimed at sustaining competitiveness. This logic intensifies in a context where traditional festivities, urban growth, and rising disposable income have expanded the market, while increasing consumer demands have compelled firms to incorporate innovations focused on health, sustainability, and differentiation. Informes de Expertos (2025) and Rivera Godoy et al. (2022) have documented how this industry is marked by dynamism, financial fluctuations, and the capacity to generate economic value even under conditions of high variability.

The general objective of this research is to analyze product imitation as an innovation strategy and its impact on the competitiveness of Colombian firms in the chocolate and confectionery sector. Two specific objectives were established: first, to evaluate the forms of imitation employed by these firms, considering their strategic benefits and risks; and second, to contrast the sector's actual practices with existing theoretical approaches to imitation as a form of organizational innovation. This dual perspective enables a comprehensive understanding of both current practices and theoretical rationales underpinning them, situating the analysis within a framework that both contextualizes and critically examines the phenomenon.

Methodologically, a qualitative approach was adopted as it is particularly suitable for studying complex organizational phenomena whose understanding requires the interpretation of discourses, meanings, and rationalities. Unlike quantitative approaches, which focus on measuring variables and generalizing results, qualitative methods allow for an in-depth exploration of how organizational actors construct strategic decisions within specific contexts. In this case, the aim was not only to identify whether firms imitate but also to investigate how, why, and with what consequences they engage in such practices. This perspective aligns with the need to interpret the ways organizations configure their strategies under conditions of uncertainty, competition, and institutional pressure.

The research design was structured around a case study focusing on the Colombian chocolate and confectionery sector. This industry was selected due to its economic relevance, the presence of firms with visible imitation practices, and its strategic importance within the national economy. According to Yin (2003), case study methodology is well suited for analyzing contemporary phenomena in depth, especially when these cannot be isolated from their contextual realities. In this case, the analysis examined how firms adopt, adapt, or replicate existing strategies and products not as a mechanical reaction but as a deliberate effort to remain competitive and relevant.

Data collection was conducted through semi structured interviews with product managers from leading firms in the sector. These individuals occupy key roles in the processes of product development, refinement, differentiation, and market positioning. Their perspectives provided access to the strategic decisions underpinning imitation, both in its explicit forms and in its more implicit or normalized manifestations within organizational logic. The semi structured format balanced the direction provided by the interview guide with the flexibility to explore emergent themes, thus enabling a richer understanding of the phenomenon. The data were analyzed using discourse analysis techniques, which facilitated the identification of narratives, interpretative frameworks, and justifications employed by interviewees to legitimize or question imitation in their daily practices.

The findings reveal that imitation within the sector is neither homogeneous nor limited to literal product copying. Firms employ diverse forms of imitation ranging from direct replication to strategic adaptation of external elements, including practices such as "tropicalization" and the enhancement of foreign products. This variety can be explained by factors such as access to market information, pressure to innovate with limited resources, and the need to respond to local preferences. The interviews demonstrate that product managers do not perceive imitation as an inferior or secondary activity compared to original innovation. On the contrary, they view it as a legitimate means of achieving competitive advantage, reducing investment risks, and accelerating product development processes. This perspective resonates with the work of Lieberman and Asaba (2006), who distinguish between information based and rivalry driven forms of imitation.

Another relevant finding is that imitation does not occur in isolation but within an organizational field where practices mutually reinforce each other. The mimetic isomorphism described by Dimaggio and Powell (1999) is evident in the tendency of firms to replicate the strategies of actors perceived as successful, thereby generating a certain degree of homogeneity in the market offering. However, this process does not preclude differentiation, as many firms combine imitative elements with incremental innovations to maintain a recognizable brand identity. The strategic use of imitation, therefore, does not exclude creativity but can coexist with it as part of an adaptive organizational logic.

The conclusions of this research reinforce the idea that imitation can serve as a viable organizational strategy for value creation, provided it is undertaken in an informed, ethical, and context sensitive manner. Firms in the analyzed sector do not imitate merely because of innovation capability constraints but rather as part of a strategic calculation shaped by an environment that rewards speed, efficiency, and alignment with consumer expectations. In this sense, imitation can be understood as a form of situated innovation that responds to real market conditions and specific organizational dynamics.

The remainder of the document is organized into five sections. First, the theoretical framework is presented, addressing the concepts of innovation, imitation, and their organizational implications. Second, the sectoral context of the Colombian chocolate and confectionery industry is described. Third, the research methodology is detailed, including the approach, methods, and data collection and analysis techniques. Fourth, the study's findings are presented based on the established analytical categories. Finally, conclusions are discussed, along with implications for future research and organizational practice.

Conceptions and Typologies of Innovation in the Organizational Context

Innovation has been examined from diverse perspectives. Schumpeter (1934, 1939) defined it as the introduction of new goods, production methods, sources of supply, markets, or organizational forms, linking it to economic change and business development. The OECD (2005) characterized it as the implementation of new or significantly improved products, processes, marketing methods, or organizational practices applicable to goods, services, and internal or external structures. García (2019) described it as a set of improvements aimed at benefiting the consumer. Oduro (2019) associated it with the transformation of ideas into commercial applications. Zaverzhenets and Lobacz (2021) highlighted its relevance for organizational sustainability and adaptability. Tidd and Bessant (2020) defined innovation as the process of translating ideas into solutions that generate value for the market or society.

A common thread in these definitions lies in the practical application of ideas. Innovation becomes tangible when an organization implements it and derives added value from the process. The European Commission, as cited by Rojo Gutiérrez et al. (2019), observed that innovative organizations introduce disruptions, establish partnerships, secure financing, and expand operations. These same authors emphasized that innovation influences marketing, logistics, and management, enabling firms to optimize resources, reduce costs, and improve quality standards.

The literature identifies various forms of innovation. Product innovation refers to new or improved goods or services (OECD & Eurostat, 2018), whether radical or incremental. Process innovation entails the development of more efficient production or distribution methods. Schilling (2020) viewed this type of innovation as essential for competitiveness, particularly in industrial sectors. Organizational innovation encompasses transformations in structures and management practices. Tidd and Bessant (2020) argued that such changes strengthen organizational responsiveness and adaptability. Marketing innovation involves the introduction of new methods for presenting or promoting products. Kotler and Keller (2016) underscored its value for market positioning without necessarily altering the product itself.

Chesbrough (2003) introduced the concept of open innovation, grounded in the exchange of knowledge with external actors. This approach accelerates development processes, reduces risks, and expands market opportunities. In the social sphere, Mulgan et al. (2007) noted that social innovation addresses collective challenges, aiming for positive impact beyond profitability. Kerzner (2022) identified additional typologies, including continuous, discontinuous, incremental, radical, closed, and open innovation, all summarized in Figure 1.

Figure 1 Source: Author's elaboration based on Kerzner (2022).

Another pathway for innovation is strategic imitation. Gawer and Cusumano (2014) argued that follower firms can achieve advantages comparable to those of pioneers while avoiding initial development costs. In volatile or emerging contexts, this approach allows firms to mitigate risks and accelerate market entry. Hu et al. (2017) indicated that imitation enables organizations to reinterpret existing solutions, while Wang and Wang (2020) observed that many imitator firms develop technological and learning capabilities to adapt products or processes to specific contexts.

After conducting a descriptive analysis of the results, it becomes necessary to delve deeper into the interviewees' opinions and perceptions. This section first examines the findings by thematic family, followed by an analysis of each code individually. This approach allows for a comprehensive understanding of the perspectives regarding imitation within Colombia's chocolate and confectionery sector.

From the family-level analysis, innovation is identified within this sector as a strategic and systemic process. Firms do not restrict themselves to developing entirely new products; instead, they adopt an integrated perspective in which the adaptation, improvement, and optimization of existing products are also valued. This approach enables organizations to remain agile, respond to market trends, and sustain a competitive position aligned with customer needs. Interviewee 1 summarizes this by stating that "there is an Innovation Management unit that conducts market research, consumer analysis, and works closely with the Market Intelligence area, which continuously evaluates consumer behavior." Similarly, Interviewee 2 notes that "changes were also made to existing products. It was not only about introducing new items, but about improving key attributes, such as flavor and formulation, based on consumer behavior."

The analysis also identified imitation as a valid tool for improvement and optimization. Far from being a simple act of replication, imitation is understood as a strategy that enhances, adjusts, and streamlines the innovation process. Interviewee 2 asserted that "the company leverages lessons from the sector, evaluates what has already been done, and builds something better or more efficient on that basis." Complementing this view, Interviewee 1 remarked that "observing what works in other companies can serve as a foundation, but the key lies in adapting it to one's own reality, not in making a direct copy." Both perspectives associate imitation with analysis and adaptation rather than mechanical reproduction.

Interviewee 0, as an external validator, offered a similar viewpoint, noting that "sometimes we start with something that already works, but we adjust it so it makes more sense within the product line," while Interviewee 4 cautioned that "copying without discernment is pointless; one must understand the reasons behind success before replicating it." These statements reinforce the notion that imitation adds value when combined with critical evaluation and differentiation objectives.

Finally, for this particular sector, information and intellectual property protection emerged as fundamental pillars. Safeguarding formulas, brands, trade secrets, and maintaining confidentiality is essential to preserving competitive advantages. Interviewee 4 explained that "all of us had confidentiality agreements for the projects. It was part of the standard procedure" and added that "confidentiality was always a priority, especially when working with external suppliers or during early development stages." Similarly, Interviewee 2 highlighted that "technical information does not circulate outside the team. Not even all employees have access to it-only those directly involved." These statements reveal organizational policies designed to restrict access to sensitive information.

Interviewee 0 emphasized the strategic importance of this control, stating that "protecting formulas and processes is a basic condition. You cannot compete without it." This was echoed by Interviewee 1, who noted that "if that information is lost, part of the company's value is lost as well." Together, these perspectives demonstrate that firms implement legal, structural, and cultural mechanisms to ensure the security of knowledge.

For the chocolate and confectionery sector, the balance between innovation, imitation, and effective protection is vital to organizational success. Properly managing these elements creates value, optimizes resources, and ensures sustainable and ethical practices. This balance strengthens firms' capacity to adapt to diverse markets, preserves organizational identity, and consolidates long term strategic advantages.

The analysis presented here contrasts theories that frame imitation as a pathway to innovation with the dynamics observed in Colombia's chocolate and confectionery industry. This industry-marked by the constant need to adapt to a competitive, fluid, and globalized environment-offers an ideal context for examining how imitative practices materialize within innovative processes. To do so, we relate findings from a qualitative analysis based on interviews with key sector actors to the conceptual framework developed from sources such as Schumpeter (1934, 1939), Rojas and Pérez (2017), Nian (2004), and other authors who have examined imitation from different perspectives.

Historically, innovation has been understood in terms of radical, original creation. However, authors such as Schnaars (1994), Rojas and Pérez (2017), and Spithoven et al. (2011) have argued that imitation can be an equally legitimate route to innovation. This approach-often termed imitative innovation-rests on the premise that adapting, improving, and customizing existing solutions can create value, minimize risk, and respond more effectively to market needs.

The literature distinguishes several types of imitation: exact, creative, and adaptive. Exact imitation involves direct copying of a product or process; creative imitation adds differentiating elements; and adaptive imitation adjusts to cultural, social, or technical context. As Nian (2004) notes, this process includes several stages: identifying relevant innovations, selecting the mode of imitation (imported, defensive, or patent-based), developing the solution, and adapting it to the firm's own context.

The analysis of interviews conducted with firms in the Colombian chocolate and confectionery sector shows that imitation is not only widespread but also constitutes a strategic, deliberate, and structured practice. Firms do not replicate without judgment; instead, they develop internal capabilities to observe, analyze, and adapt practices that have proven successful in other contexts. In this regard, Figure 4 synthesizes the process of strategic imitation identified in the sector, which integrates the observation of external benchmarks, the selection of viable practices, their adaptation to the organizational context, the incorporation of added value, and the protection of knowledge as part of a competitiveness-oriented logic. As Interviewee 2 put it, "It is essential to observe what other companies are doing. If something is working well (or even moderately well), it may represent an opportunity for improvement." This statement reflects an optimization-based imitation in which the goal is not exact copying but a contextualized reinterpretation of observed good practices. The same interviewee adds that "although we always seek to offer something original with the brand's own DNA, it is valid to draw inspiration from what is seen in the market" (Interviewee 2).

Figure 4 Note: The process does not follow the logic of mechanical replication but rather a dynamic of observation, analysis, reinterpretation, and differentiation aimed at building competitive advantage. Source: Own elaboration.

This logic can also be interpreted through the lens of dynamic capabilities, insofar as imitation in the sector does not reduce to the reproduction of external benchmarks but involves identifying opportunities in the environment, assimilating relevant learning, and reconfiguring resources, processes, and value propositions according to organizational and market conditions. In this regard, Teece et al. (1997) and Teece (2010) argue that competitive advantage in changing environments depends on the ability to integrate, build, and reconfigure internal and external competencies. Similarly, Londoño-Cardozo et al. (2025) show that these capabilities can be analyzed through components such as opportunity sensing, learning and absorptive capacity, integration, reconfiguration, and innovation. From this perspective, the strategic imitation identified in firms within the Colombian confectionery sector can be understood as a manifestation of dynamic capabilities, as it transforms external knowledge into contextually grounded and competitively relevant organizational responses.

This view aligns with the notion of creative imitation described by Rojas and Pérez (2017), whereby external knowledge is transformed into relevant internal solutions through adaptation and innovation. In the same vein, the external validator underscores that "it is valuable to learn from others, provided that local conditions and context are taken into account" (Interviewee 0), clarifying that imitation is not replication without analysis but a deliberate process of abstraction and reinterpretation with added value.

Another prominent theme is the reluctance to use the term imitation because of its negative connotations. Instead, firms prefer to speak of strategic adaptation or innovation based on existing products. As Interviewee 4 stated, "Rather than talking about imitation, we prefer to speak of strategic adaptation aimed at achieving a product aligned with the market and with our operational capabilities." This terminological choice is not trivial; it reveals a sophisticated conception of innovation as a dynamic process of transformation rather than simple reproduction. From a theoretical standpoint, Schnaars (1994) emphasizes that successful imitators do more than copy; they improve and personalize products to generate competitive advantages. This perspective is evident in sector practice. As Interviewee 4 explains, "It was not about replicating a product as such-that is, not about making an identical copy or an exact replica of another. Rather, what we did was adapt." Another interviewee reinforces the point: "In many cases, we started from a replicated or adapted idea, but that did not jeopardize the innovation process. Innovation was still necessary, because even when replicating or adapting something, we had to rebrand under our own labels and adjust it to our processes and internal capabilities" (Interviewee 1).

Indeed, interview evidence indicates that firms pursue continuous improvement of what is imitated-through adjustments in quality, presentation, functionality, and packaging. This phenomenon is not unique to this sector; the external validator illustrates it succinctly: "It is not necessarily about being the first in the world to do something, but about being the first to dare to apply existing knowledge in a new context" (Interviewee 0). These underscores contextualized innovation as a basis for differentiation.

The process is neither ad hoc nor purely empirical. Several firms apply structured methodologies to analyze benchmarks and execute adaptation. Interviewee 4 notes that "the organization followed an internal methodology developed over more than 20 years, based on collaboration among marketing, innovation, legal, and production, which ensured coherence from project inception through implementation." This organizational structure supports experience-based innovation while also systematizing environmental scanning, as proposed by Spithoven et al. (2011).

Theory also highlights one of imitation's key advantages: reducing technical and financial risk (Tidd & Bessant, 2020). Interviewee 3 put it this way: "I believe innovation is not only about creating something entirely new; it is also about improving what already exists, possibly with a more efficient and disruptive approach." In this sense, imitation enables novel solutions without incurring the full costs of failure. The external validator concurs: "Innovation requires a lot of time and money, and time is a critical factor. So, if I can save time and even money-or invest those resources in later stages-I can get closer to achieving meaningful innovation in my context" (Interviewee 0). Here, imitation functions as a catalyst that optimizes time and resources, which is crucial under intense competitive pressure.

That said, the line between ethical and unfair imitation is delicate. Most interviewees insisted that imitation without transformation and discernment is not only ineffective but harmful. As Interviewee 4 warned, "If what you do is replicate a product exactly-copying the product itself, its consumption mode, the target niche, and the distribution channels-then we are talking about 100% replication." The prevailing view is that only transformative imitation aligns with innovation principles.

In practice, imitation is tightly coupled with added value. Interviewee 1 summarized it as follows: "The physical product may resemble that of the competition, but what we seek is to add value through the consumer experience. That is where the difference is made and where, for us, the real added value lies." This is consistent with Nian's (2004) definition, which holds that effective imitation entails adapting, improving, and delivering something distinctive. In Colombia's chocolate and confectionery sector, we thus observe a form of innovation grounded in creative, conscious, and adaptive imitation-external knowledge interpreted and transformed through structured methodologies, internal capabilities, and a strong customer orientation. This approach generates differentiated products, reduces risk, and strengthens competitiveness without resorting to simple copying. As Schumpeter (1934, 1939) argued, innovation does not reside exclusively in ex nihilo creation but also in the intelligent recombination of preexisting elements-a principle that clearly guides sector practices.

This strategy also lets Colombian firms respond rapidly to market dynamics-a critical capability in an environment where trends evolve quickly. Active observation of domestic and international competitors becomes a constant source of inspiration and adjustment. Spithoven et al. (2011) and Wang and Wang (2020) emphasize that effective imitation requires the ability to absorb external knowledge. In the chocolate and confectionery sector, there is evident openness to international best practices.

From a theoretical standpoint, a necessary condition for imitation to become value adding innovation is the existence of internal absorptive capacity (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990). This implies organizational structures, and technical teams are able not only to capture environmental signals but also to reinterpret, transform, and reconfigure external knowledge into proprietary solutions. In Colombia's sector, however, there appears to be uneven alignment between imitative practices and internal research and development (R&D) capacity.

Some firms, primarily larger ones, show a more mature integration of imitation and innovation. As Interviewee 2 explains, "Developing it from scratch with our own research, imagery, flavor, and value proposition. Thus, it is not about copying but about reinventing what exists in a new context." This reflects a deliberate strategy of reinterpretation in which external knowledge is deconstructed, analyzed, and recomposed according to the firm's capabilities, thereby generating genuine innovation. Still, this reality is not generalizable across the sector; many firms lack formal R&D structures and therefore rely on simpler operational adaptations, limiting their ability to transform knowledge into sustained differentiation.

Another relevant theoretical angle is proposed by DiMaggio and Powell (1999), who argue that organizations facing uncertainty tend to resemble each other through mimetic isomorphism. From this perspective, imitation does not necessarily arise from rational choice but from normative, social, or institutional pressures that push firms to replicate what is already deemed legitimate. In Colombian business discourse, however, this institutional dimension is rarely acknowledged as a driver of imitation.

Indeed, most interviewees justify imitative practices on pragmatic or commercial grounds. Interviewee 3, for example, stated: "We focus heavily on market analysis and on tracking global trends; that is always our starting point." And Interviewee 1 added: "The physical product may resemble that of the competition, but what we seek is to add value through the consumer experience." These accounts do not mention institutional pressures as incentives to imitate, suggesting that although the processes technically reflect an isomorphic pattern, actors neither perceive nor label them as such. This omission highlights a gap between academic analysis and day-to-day business experience.

Finally, a salient divergence between theory and practice concerns knowledge protection. The literature (Cohen et al., 2000) underscores mechanisms such as patents, trade secrets, temporary protection, and complementary capabilities as means to shield innovation from imitators. In the sector studied, however, reliance on formal patents is limited; protection strategies lean more on informal mechanisms. Interviews reveal that firms participate in trade fairs and collaborate with foreign partners to track trends; such strategic scanning translates into selective use of validated technologies, ingredients, and processes later adapted to the Colombian market. Imitation does occur, but within a critical, contextualized logic. As Interviewee 4 explained, "Confidentiality was always contractually stipulated [...] We all had specific non-disclosure agreements for products slated for launch." The external validator likewise cautioned, "If we do not properly secure confidentiality around our processes, formulas, market information, or insights, that competitive advantage can be easily lost" (Interviewee 0).

These statements indicate that, rather than relying on institutional protection such as patents, which can be costly and require the disclosure of technical information, firms resort to internal non-disclosure agreements, a loyalty-based organizational culture, access controls, and the protection of sensitive data. This informal model is functional in contexts of accelerated competition and limited resources but also entails risks, given its comparatively weaker legal backing against external breaches.

In sum, juxtaposing theory and practice around imitation as a mechanism for innovation reveals significant tensions concerning the meaning attributed to the concept, its acceptance within organizations, and its strategic application. Academia has broadly legitimized imitation as a valid mechanism for generating innovation, particularly in resource constrained environments. Yet firms in Colombia's confectionery sector-though they frequently use this strategy-tend to avoid the term, to improvise in its execution, and to protect outcomes through informal means. This gap underscores the need to build a bridge between theory and practice that recognizes imitation not as a threat to creativity but as a useful tool when managed with discernment, planning, and a transformative purpose.

The analysis developed throughout this study reveals multiple layers of reflection that move beyond a merely instrumental assessment of imitation as an innovation strategy. First, a structural contradiction emerges between business discourse that champions innovation as the engine of competitive development and organizational practices that, in reality, privilege forms of creation grounded in previously validated market references. This tension is significant. Although the interviews and documentary review show that many firms in Colombia's chocolate and confectionery sector apply clear principles of creative imitation, the practice is often renamed through euphemisms or displaced by expressions intended to distance it from the stigma associated with "copying." The reluctance to label imitation as such is not merely linguistic but profoundly symbolic: it reflects a social construction of innovation anchored in a logic of absolute originality that sidelines other legitimate ways of creating value.

This point is especially salient in highly competitive environments, where the possibilities for radical innovation are typically limited. Economic and organizational realities in the country make it difficult for most firms to adopt radical innovation as their primary path. In this context, imitation emerges as a rational, adaptive alternative aligned with environmental conditions. Nevertheless, despite its practical utility, imitation remains excluded from the hegemonic discourse on innovation. This disconnect between what organizations do and what is publicly recognized as innovative may be constraining the strategic development of imitation by failing to generate the necessary conditions-clear guidelines, dedicated resources, or supportive policy instruments-for its deliberate, ethical, and sustained application.

From a sectoral standpoint, the findings also indicate that Colombia's chocolate and confectionery industry compete through nuanced differentiation. While many products conform to similar formats-by flavor, presentation, or market segment-firms implement targeted adjustments that allow them to position offerings as novel without significantly altering existing production or commercial structures. These adjustments are not random; they result from careful analysis of successful practices observed among market leaders. This form of incremental innovation-continuous improvement over familiar products-can be read as a clear example of strategic imitation. What is noteworthy, however, is that companies seldom acknowledge it as such, justifying it instead in terms of customization, continuous improvement, or alignment with consumer preferences. The result is an invisibilization of imitation that hinders its systematic study, theoretical validation, and inclusion within formal business training frameworks.

This dynamic also has implications for SMES within the same sector, as the practices developed by large firms and multinational corporations do not remain isolated but tend to diffuse toward smaller actors. In many cases, SMES end up imitating products, formats, presentations, or commercial strategies of larger competitors, not only because these firms set market trends, but also because their internal capabilities to generate original innovation are often more limited. In this way, the strategies of large companies are not only applicable to the broader sector but also directly shape the competitive orientation of SMES, which rely on adaptive imitation as a mechanism for survival and response within a market dominated by larger-scale corporate benchmarks.

This finding opens a methodological discussion relevant to organizational studies in emerging economies. If organizations imitate but do not declare it; if experts recognize the process but disavow it in their formulations; and if regulatory frameworks privilege an elitist vision of innovation, then traditional analytical instruments are insufficient to capture the complexity of value creation dynamics in these contexts. The methodology employed in this work-semi-structured interviews and hermeneutic analysis-made it possible to access discursive dimensions that would otherwise remain unnoticed. It also revealed limits to accessing strategic information, as well as ethical tensions arising from confidentiality, knowledge protection, and the fear of being imitated by others. This situation underscores the need for more flexible, context-sensitive methodologies capable of interpreting silences, omissions, and linguistic substitutions as part of the findings rather than mere information gaps.

A direct pedagogical implication is the need to incorporate the analysis of imitation as an innovation strategy into curricula in management, business administration, and product engineering. In particular, innovation courses should embrace approaches that recognize that creation does not always begin from scratch; in many cases, innovating means identifying what already works, reinterpreting it, and adapting it to new needs or audiences. This perspective not only expands the strategic toolkit available to future professionals but also helps dismantle prejudices that constrain recognition of valid forms of innovation. It thus strengthens a more realistic, critical, and contextualized understanding of the innovation process-one that better matches the structural conditions of the Colombian environment.

In the same vein, a cross-cutting recommendation is to normalize the concept of imitation within academic, industry, and public policy arenas. This does not mean legitimizing unfair copying or illegitimate appropriation of others' knowledge; rather, it entails recognizing that there are ethical, legitimate, and strategic ways to imitate. As evidenced in the interviews, creative imitation requires research, market insight, adaptive capacity, and cultural sensitivity. It is neither a shortcut nor an easy fix, but a pathway to innovation with its own characteristics-worthy of study, instruction, and promotion with the same rigor as other forms of creation. To that end, business-promotion bodies-such as chambers of commerce, innovation agencies, and entrepreneurship funds-should design instruments that include this perspective, guiding firms on how to imitate lawfully, appropriately, and with differentiation.

The study also revealed significant difficulties in accessing granular sectoral information. This limitation not only hinders research but also complicates informed decision-making by firms, trade associations, and policymakers. That companies closely guard their sources of innovation, strategic decisions, and internal processes is not problematic in itself; what is problematic is the absence of mechanisms for sharing learning in aggregated, anonymized, or collaborative ways. Creating sectoral exchange spaces, university-industry collaboration networks and applied innovation observatories could help address this gap. Such initiatives would enable the construction of a collective knowledge base that benefits the broader business ecosystem without compromising individual competitive advantage.

Finally, the findings invite extending the analysis to other sectors of the national economy. Conducting similar exercises in industries such as textiles, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, processed foods, or consumer technologies would help identify common patterns, contextual differences, and sector specific imitation strategies. This cross-sector comparison would not only enrich the theoretical framework on imitative innovation but also offer a broader picture of how Colombian firms create value under conditions of scarcity, volatility, or constraint. It would also provide inputs for designing sector-differentiated policies, recognizing that industries face distinct challenges and possess varying capacities to innovate from scratch.