Innovation and typicality in localised agri-food systems: the case of PDO Parmigiano Reggiano

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyse the determinants and the impact of some of the more significant innovations applied to the localised agri-food systems (LAFSs) bearing a (Geographical indication) GI product, considering the multi-faceted aspects of innovation and how the producers have managed the implementation of such innovations. Design/methodology/approach Parmigiano Reggiano (PR) system is considered as a representative GI product, with the system showing the features of an LAFS in terms of governance, territorial reputation and quality perceived by consumers. PR innovations from 1860 to 2015 are analyszed and classified as technological and organisational. Three determinants of innovations are identified in the PR LAFS: consumer needs; value chain (VC) strategies; and governance. Finally, the innovation impact on the VC, product quality and rural development are studied. Findings The analysis shows the positive and negative impacts of innovations. The main finding is that governance action is crucial to pursuing quality strategies and maintaining economic value at production level. Research limitations/implications The research analyses some of the more significant innovations applied to the PR VC. Despite a large number of innovations were introduced from 1860, the authors had to choose just some of them, considering also the availability of dates. Practical implications The research gives some recommendation to the PR Consortium, in specific, or governance institutions in LAFS context in general, to achieve rural development goals. The research shows that governance action is crucial to pursuing quality strategy and to maintaining economic value at production level. This implies that instead of simply raising yield per cow, the VC should aim at increasing (or maintaining) the value of production by the way of marketing strategies. Organisational, marketing and technological innovations adopted in synergy and in joint agreement among the chain actors would bring mutual benefit for the VC and for the territory. Social implications The research shows the trade-off between VC competiveness and rural development. In fact, the increase of VC competiveness involves a growth of cost of production and the decrease of labour force. Thus, it creates a loss of employee and increases the distance between dairies with high amount of capital and familiar/smaller dairies which have low amount of capital to invert, that obstructs rural development especially in disadvantage area. Originality/value The paper analyses the determinants and the impact of some of the more significant innovations applied to LAFS which are home to a GI product, considering the multi-faceted aspects of innovation and how producers have managed the implementation of such innovations. It underlines implication on territory and sustainability.

Sustainability, Innovation and Rural Development: The Case of Parmigiano-Reggiano Pdo

“…The theme of the ways in which technical progress, considered in a broad sense, is addressed by the system of GIs is particularly relevant [25], [26] [27], as it implies changing the rules between producers, potentially favouring someone and disadvantaging others, and some institutional steps at national and EU level related to the change in production regulations. It follows that in the GI system the introduction of innovations (generally of an exogenous nature to GI) is potentially the cause of conflicts between the agents of the value chain and the GI-Consortia intervene by regulating their use and acting directly or indirectly on the potential impact on the production system [27] of the LAFS. It follows as relationship between innovation and LAFS implies several levels of analysis: i) innovation and the GI value chain, in which the value chain is made up of operators who manufacture the GI; ii) innovation and consumer perception; iii) innovation and territory; and iv) innovation in governance action in GI-LAFS [27].…”

“…It follows that in the GI system the introduction of innovations (generally of an exogenous nature to GI) is potentially the cause of conflicts between the agents of the value chain and the GI-Consortia intervene by regulating their use and acting directly or indirectly on the potential impact on the production system [27] of the LAFS. It follows as relationship between innovation and LAFS implies several levels of analysis: i) innovation and the GI value chain, in which the value chain is made up of operators who manufacture the GI; ii) innovation and consumer perception; iii) innovation and territory; and iv) innovation in governance action in GI-LAFS [27].…”

“…This segmentation provides a clear picture of possible impact that each innovation can generate ( Table 2). Source: authors' elaboration from [27] Almost 50% of innovations introduced in the LAFS was aimed to increase product quality. They consist, on the one hand, of technological process or product innovations such as hygienic norms or processing rules to assure that the product is safe for health: hygienic regulations for equipment for transportation and processing, regulations on bacteria content in milk and microbiological and chemical analysis.…”

“…These innovations reduced the amount of lower quality cheeses, by reducing bacterial levels in milk, defects in cheese and moisture loss. The economic impact is estimated around 300,000 euros per year [27]. On the other hand, they concern technological process and organizational innovations related to marketing strategies as new packing and consumption models: vacuum packing of pieces of cheese or packaging sizes for "ready to eat" cheese (e.g.…”

“…It introduced, decades before EU legislation, the objectives and the tools of Regulation 1151/2012 ("Quality Package") that gives the "exofficio" protection in EU from miss uses and usurpations of the designations. At the same time, it establishes the role of Protection Consortia in terms of trade, thus recognizing the actions taken to safeguard producers' incomes [27].…”