Controversies around geographical indications

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to advance our understanding of the links between the representativeness of the local community by those drafting and elaborating the specification of the geographical indication (GI), the market access and the use of the GI. Design/methodology/approach The present study followed a comparative research design, building upon primary data from the field works dealing with the elaboration and development of GIs worldwide, from legislations on the protection of GIs and from secondary data, i.e. literature dealing with the elaboration of the GI specifications at case level or national/international level. Findings The GI is permeable to a multitude of objectives and the management of controversies represent the “price of participatory democracy”, which still needs to be under the umbrella of the justice of peace, the State authority. Representativeness does not necessarily conduct to equity and fairness. It depends on the heterogeneity of the value chain, which might lead to the dilution of the GI specificity. Mandatory membership might not be always the best option Transparency to guarantee the producer’s group works for the common good is essential. Originality/value The controversies in the elaboration of the GI product specification are directly induced by the controversies in the management of the GI either by the collective organisation of producers or by the public authority. Issues such as representativeness, mandatory membership, transparency and heterogeneity of the value chain are deeply analysed to understand the functioning of GI producers associations and their limits. The state intervention as justice of the peace appears necessary.

Geographical Indication Building Process for Sharr Cheese (Kosovo): “Inside Insights” on Sustainability

“…Many scholars have turned to studying collective action and GIs' local governance, revealed as key factors in determining GIs' (positive and negative) impacts on sustainability issues, as well as on public good provision [1]. Studies have addressed the role of formal and informal institutions in the GI-building process [71,72], the controversies arising over GI management either by a collective of producers or by the public authorities, [73] or actors' configurations along value chains that favor positive collaboration or exclusion [74][75][76]. Our research focus follows this trend toward detailed analysis of the social and collective dimension of GIs.…”

Research on the Co-Creation Mechanism of Geographical Indication Industry Value Based on Evolutionary Game Analysis

“…Hence, the current focal point of management research lies in devising strategies to foster active industry-wide engagement in the development of geographical indications [12]. More specifically, we focused on three things, by transcending international comparisons and delving into critical inquiries and recommendations for enhancing the geographical indication system [13][14][15]. This study examines the structure and driving forces behind geographical indication development from the perspective of industrial producers, with a focus on key components including peasant households, firms, and associations involved in production [16].…”

Da governança da indicação geográfica à governança da Cesta de Bens e Serviços Territoriais

“…Contudo, alguns estudos alertam para as limitações desse instrumento, particularmente no Sul Global, que, por vezes, atende somente objetivos de um grupo restrito de atores da cadeia produtiva, ou gera consequências negativas não pretendidas, descaracterizando o sistema de produção que justificou sua existência (Bowen;Zapata, 2009;Cazella, 2021). Nesse contexto, a boa governança nos processos de constituição (pré-IG) e operacionalização (pós-IG) é considerada o principal fator para seu sucesso, assim como um desafio às coletividades que as detêm (Bowen;Zapata, 2009;Marie-Vivien et al, 2019;Cazella, 2021;Quiñones-Ruiz et al, 2017). (Mollard, 2001;Pecqueur, 2001).…”