Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Heterogeneity of Members’ Characteristics and Cooperation within Producer Groups Regulating Geographical Indications: The Case of the “Prosciutto di Parma” Consortium

Contents:

Author Info

  • Dentoni, Domenico
  • Menozzi, Davide
  • Capelli, Maria Giacinta
Registered author(s):

    Abstract

    Several studies have analyzed the conditions under which geographical indications (GIs), such as the European Protected Designations of Origin (PDOs) and Protected Geographical Indications (PGIs), can represent a profitable market opportunity for agri-food producers. The development of a common set of rules by a group of producers and the governance of the collective brand are key issues to jointly exploit market opportunities through GIs. This paper explores whether heterogeneous characteristics, resources and strategies of individual producers within a PDO Consortium influence their level of agreement on the future of the collective regulation and governance of GIs. We conduct an in-depth study on a representative sample of firms member of the “Prosciutto di Parma” PDO Consortium by integrating a multi-variate statistical analysis with a qualitative description of the vision that companies have for the future of their PDO. From the results of this study, we found confirmation that “Prosciutto di Parma” PDO Consortium members have highly heterogeneous characteristics which lead to significant segmentation in two major groups. The first segment includes a large number of Consortium members, mostly constituted by smaller firms, producing mainly PDO-labeled “Prosciutto di Parma”. The second is composed by a group of larger companies focusing on production of generic hams without the PDO-label. This difference clearly affects the level of agreement on the future regulation of "Prosciutto di Parma" as GI. The first segment advocates for the establishment of a “high-quality” PDO or for a PDO with stricter controls and standards, while the second would prefer that a PGI label was introduced, either in substitution to or parallel with the current PDO. Results, although explorative in nature, show that group heterogeneity influences the level of cooperation among the members of a producer group regulating and governing a PDO. Therefore, this study provides evidence that increasing group heterogeneity may represent a new challenge for the sustainability and profitability of GIs.

    Download Info

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
    File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/95203
    Download Restriction: no

    Bibliographic Info

    Paper provided by European Association of Agricultural Economists in its series 116th Seminar, October 27-30, 2010, Parma, Italy with number 95203.

    as in new window
    Length:
    Date of creation: 27 Oct 2010
    Date of revision:
    Handle: RePEc:ags:eaa116:95203

    Contact details of provider:
    Email:
    Web page: http://www.eaae.org
    More information through EDIRC

    Related research

    Keywords: Geographical Indications; Collective Action; Group Heterogeneity; Multi-Variate Statistics.; Agribusiness; Agricultural and Food Policy; Community/Rural/Urban Development; Food Consumption/Nutrition/Food Safety; Labor and Human Capital;

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    References

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
    as in new window
    1. Roosen, Jutta & Lusk, Jayson L. & Fox, John A., 2001. "Consumer Demand For And Attitudes Toward Alternative Beef Labeling Strategies In France, Germany, And The Uk," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20643, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    2. Céline Bonnet, 2001. "Assessing consumer response to Protected Designation of Origin labelling: a mixed multinomial logit approach," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 28(4), pages 433-450, December.
    3. Christine Boizot-Szantai & Sébastien Lecocq & Stéphan Marette, 2005. "Common Labels and Market Mechanisms," Midwest Agribusiness Trade Research and Information Center (MATRIC) Publications 05-wp405, Midwest Agribusiness Trade Research and Information Center (MATRIC) at Iowa State University.
    4. Stephan Marette & Roxanne Clemens & Bruce Babcock, 2008. "Recent international and regulatory decisions about geographical indications," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(4), pages 453-472.
    5. Riccardo Scarpa & George Philippidis & Fiorenza Spalatro, 2005. "Product-country images and preference heterogeneity for Mediterranean food products: A discrete choice framework," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(3), pages 329-349.
    6. Daniel Hassan & Sylvette Monier-Dilhan, 2004. "Signes officiels de qualité : faut-il avoir peur des marques ?," INRA Sciences Sociales, INRA Department of Economics.
    7. Crespi, John M. & Marette, Stephan, 2003. "Some Economic Implications Of Public Labeling," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 34(03), November.
    8. Marette, Stephan & Crespi, John M & Schiavina, Allesandra, 1999. "The Role of Common Labelling in a Context of Asymmetric Information," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 26(2), pages 167-78, June.
    9. Daniel Hassan & Sylvette Monier-Dilhan, 2006. "National brands and store brands: Competition through public quality labels," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(1), pages 21-30.
    10. Colin Carter & Barry Krissoff & Alix Peterson Zwane, 2006. "Can Country-of-Origin Labeling Succeed as a Marketing Tool for Produce? Lessons from Three Case Studies," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 54(4), pages 513-530, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Lists

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:eaa116:95203. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search).

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.