The market size for GI food products – evidence from the empirical economic literature

Török, Áron; Moir, Hazel V. J.

doi:10.7896/j.1816

Cited by 14 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The official EU database (DOOR) does not provide this type of information, only detailing some basic descriptions (e.g., registration process, product description, producer group etc.). According to the DOOR database, most GI products come from Mediterranean EU Member States (in descending order: Italy, France, Spain, Portugal, and Greece), and most of them are vegetables and fruits, cheese, processed or raw meat, and olive oil [12].…”

Section: Market Share Of Gi Foods In Europementioning

confidence: 99%

Estimating the Market Share and Price Premium of GI Foods—The Case of the Hungarian Food Discounters

Jantyik

Török

2020

Sustainability

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The food security of the European Union heavily relies on the food quality systems where Geographical Indications (GI) play an important role. European food is considered world-wide secure and high quality, therefore European food names and designations represent value that should be protected as intellectual property. Despite the importance of GIs in Europe, the availability of the related economic data is very limited, and the only available comprehensive database (in the case of GI foods, the Database of Origin and Registration (DOOR)) details only some very basic and mainly administrative characteristics of such products. From an economic perspective, market size and price premium of these products are the most important in order to assess the economic sustainability of European GI foods. Empirical datasets describing these characteristics of GI products are scarcely available and can be collected only case by case. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to estimate the market size for food products with geographical indications available in Hungary (excluding wines and spirits) and their price premium compared to their direct substitute products, based on empirical data. We conducted monthly mystery shopping for one year (January–December 2018) at three food discount stores (Lidl, Aldi, and Penny Market) operating in Budapest. We collected data on all the GI products available in the stores and their closest substitutes; then the dataset was subsequently analysed and compared to the main characteristics of the DOOR database. The reason for choosing the discounters is that these stores have expanded spectacularly in recent years and are mostly available to average consumers, both in Hungary and across Europe, and based on the main characteristics of this type of retail (limited product portfolio targeting price-sensitive consumers), the data collected here can be considered to indicate the minimum level of market share and price premium. Our results show that currently, GIs have only limited importance in the Hungarian food market, in terms of both the number of products and their market share, as only a small number of such products appear in the food discounters’ supply. As regards the premium achievable with consumer prices, the average price premium is remarkably high (43% on average), even in the case of discounters. Our empirical results also suggest that in Hungary, there is an opportunity to increase the importance of GI foods, both in terms of availability and market share. For Hungarian GI food producers and processors, the level of price premium achievable in discounters might be attractive enough to stimulate their presence in the market.

show abstract

Section: Market Share Of Gi Foods In Europementioning

confidence: 99%

Estimating the Market Share and Price Premium of GI Foods—The Case of the Hungarian Food Discounters

Jantyik

Török

2020

Sustainability

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In 2017, the sales value of products under the European Union (EU) protection of origin accounted for 6.8 % of total beverage and agricultural production in the EU. This comprises a sales value of €74.8 billion [1][2][3]. Today, the origin of food is the main criterion for more than half of EU citizens when buying food products [4] (pp.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It originates in a specific place, region, or country; • the quality, reputation, or other characteristic of the product are essentially attributable to that geographical origin; and • at least one of the production steps takes place in the defined geographical area (Article 5 (2) of EU Regulation 1151/2012).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The EU Food Label ‘Protected Geographical Indication’: Economic Implications and Their Spatial Dimension

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study analyses the economic effects of the EU policy on the protection of origin. The focus is on three types of food products with Protected Geographical Indication (PGI), whose reference areas are located in the Free State of Bavaria: Beer (Bayerisches Bier PGI), asparagus (Franken-Spargel PGI, Schrobenhausener Spargel PGI), and carp (Aischgründer Karpfen PGI, Oberpfälzer Karpfen PGI). The study is based on secondary statistical analysis and a series of expert interviews. The results show positive effects on sales mainly for beer on international markets, and positive effects on price mainly for carp on the local and regional levels. All in all, we see that protection of origin stabilizes and supports the economic trajectory of its product. This study also shows that its economic effects vary widely: Firstly, price and sales effects are not automatic and differ in intensity; and secondly, the spatial dimensions of the economic effects exhibit different patterns. The primarily price-related effects at the local–regional level for carp (and to some extent for asparagus) are categorized as local effects (type A). The sales effect at the global level for beer is categorized as type B (export effect). Finally, this study postulates further potential forms of ‘price and sales geographies’.

show abstract

“…For centuries, geographical place names have been a tool for competitive positioning and for signalling the reputation of origin products, such as Champagne, Parmigiano Reggiano, Darjeeling, Gayo Coffee, Kobe beef or Argane oil. Even if their impact varies with the context, GIs allow producer groups to face economic competition through economic recognition of the specific quality of their product on the market (FAO, 2018;Sylvander et al, 2006;Török and Moir, 2018;Neilson et al, 2018;Tregear et al, 2007;Barjolle and Sylvander, 2002). In addition to concerns related to consumer and producer protection, GI protection supports territorial and rural development, biodiversity and traditional knowledge (FAO, 2009;Sylvander et al, 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Controversies around geographical indications

Marie-Vivien

Carimentrand

Fournier

et al. 2019

BFJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

The market size for GI food products – evidence from the empirical economic literature

Cited by 14 publications

References 15 publications

Estimating the Market Share and Price Premium of GI Foods—The Case of the Hungarian Food Discounters

Estimating the Market Share and Price Premium of GI Foods—The Case of the Hungarian Food Discounters

The EU Food Label ‘Protected Geographical Indication’: Economic Implications and Their Spatial Dimension

Controversies around geographical indications

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About