Factors that the specialized literature identifies as limiting the development of GIs: an analysis through the lens of the stakeholder engagement theory

Abstracts

Abstract

The number of Geographic Indications (GI) recognized by both private and governmental entities on emerging countries has increased substantially. This number is followed by evidence of the fact that a significant proportion of such IGs does not fulfill the expected goals on regards of them contributing to regional and local development.In order to GIs become active in the market, it is necessary that the needs and expectations from multiple stakeholders to be met. This article performed a systematic literature review (SLR) with the goal to identify what are the factors that present time academic research points to as the reasons for non-successful development of GIs and analyze them through the lens of the Stakeholder’s Engagement Theory. The analysis contains 29 published articles between the years of 2017 and 2022 that point out detrimental factors for GIs development. SLR identified 13 factors, which were grouped in three causal categories. This investigation contributes to the literature of GIs development as it identifies and summarizes those factors, thus providing a conceptual basis to diagnose the reasons why stakeholders are not engaging on specific GIs.

Keywords:
geographical indications; engagement; stakeholders; rural producer

Resumo

O número de Indicações Geográficas (IG) reconhecidas por entidades governamentais ou privadas em países com economias emergentes tem aumentado muito. Este aumento é acompanhado por evidências de que proporção significativa de IGs não atinge os objetivos de contribuir para o desenvolvimento regional e local. Para que as IGs se tornem ativas no mercado, é necessário que as necessidades e expectativas dos grupos de partes interessadas, stakeholders, tenham suas necessidades e expectativas atendidas. Este artigo realiza revisão sistemática da literatura (RSL) para identificar os fatores que a pesquisa acadêmica aponta como causas do não desenvolvimento das IGs e os analisa sob a perspectiva da Teoria do Engajamento de Stakeholders. Realizamos análise de conteúdo de 29 artigos publicados entre 2017 e 2022 sobre fatores que limitam o desenvolvimento das IGs. A RSL identifica 13 fatores agrupados em três categorias como causas. A investigação contribui para a literatura sobre o desenvolvimento das IGs identificando fatores que limitam o seu desenvolvimento e analisando esses fatores na perspectiva do envolvimento dos stakeholders. Fornece uma base conceptual para diagnosticar as razões para o não envolvimento dos stakeholders nas IGs.

Palavras-chave:
indicações geográficas; engajamento; stakeholders; produtor rural

1. INTRODUCTION

Geographical indications (GIs) are labels used in products that have specific qualities or a reputation due to their geographical origin and serve to communicate that a certain region has specialized and capacitated in the production of a particular product or service in a differentiated way and with excellence (Instituto Nacional da Propriedade Industrial, 2021). Acquiring the GI label emerges as a strategy to stimulate and strengthen regional development. They are important tools to promote products through the authenticity of production or peculiarities linked to their history, culture, or tradition, determining the direct rights reserved to producers established in the said region (Dullius, 2009).

Since Law 9.279/1996 (Brasil, 1996) established the regulation, GIs in Brazil have experienced a sharp expansion. Currently, the National Institute of Industrial Property (Instituto Nacional da Propriedade Industrial, 2021) has registered 103 GIs and is evaluating another 203 for registration. However, despite all the efforts of national institutions such as the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock and Supply (MAPA), the Support Service for Micro and Small Enterprises (Sebrae), the INPI, and EMBRAPA, among others, important problems persist in the involvement between GIs and their stakeholders. The study carried out by the Sebrae System in 2021 under the title “Scenario das Indicações Geográficas Brasileiras” highlights several achievements of the institution of GIs but boldly points out several problems, such as the difficulty of aggregating producers and service providers, the ignorance of the basic concepts about the GIs, and the dependence of an intermediary agent, the “atravessador”. The study also points out that few GIs market their products with proper control and a distinction label (Serviço Brasileiro de Apoio às Micro e Pequenas Empresas, 2021).

Still, with regard to the study (Serviço Brasileiro de Apoio às Micro e Pequenas Empresas, 2021), which to our knowledge is the most complete global diagnosis of GIs in Brazil, some of the productors aiming for the GI seal have not even been interviewed, they are completely inoperant, and their recognitions have not yet been exploited. Furthermore, the proportion of producers subscribing to the GIs' representative entities is low in many of the surveyed territories. One of the biggest complaints of these producers is the difficulty of placing products on the market because of the lack of interest of this buyer market in products with GI (Serviço Brasileiro de Apoio às Micro e Pequenas Empresas, 2021).

Given the scarcity of studies on the factors that may negatively impact the engagement of the stakeholders of an GI, this research uses the support of the Stakeholders Theory to analyze the factors that the literature points out that limit the development of GIs. Thus, the question arises: How, from the perspective of stakeholder engagement, do factors negatively impact the development of geographical indications?

The Stakeholders Theory is a strategic management theory (Freeman, 1984), and engagement is an analyzed variable in the theory. According to Campbell (2007), the Stakeholders Theory is crucial to understanding how to generate wealth in companies. It shows that it is not possible for companies to survive without delivering value to important stakeholders.

The Stakeholders Theory has advanced in the knowledge of different issues that influence corporate management, such as identifying, classifying, and prioritizing the different groups of stakeholders, analyzing their interests, managing conflicts and pressures, and obtaining group commitment to organizational goals (Mitchell et al., 1997; Noland & Phillips, 2010; Bosse & Coughlan, 2016; Bundy et al., 2018; Bridoux & Vishwanathan, 2020). This theoretical lens's knowledge enables the analysis of factors that negatively impact an GI's performance.

This literature review contributes by using stakeholder theory as a theoretical perspective to investigate factors that may negatively influence stakeholder engagement in an GI. This theoretical focus represents an innovation in the study of GIs. In addition, this article helps to systematize existing knowledge about GIs and contributes to the proposal of actions and policies that encourage stakeholders to support their training and development. These entities are critical not only for the valuation of products, particularly regional ones, but also for the economic and social sustainability of producers and local communities.

2. TEORICAL FUNDAMENTATION

2.1. Geographical Indications

Geographical Indications (GIs) originated in European countries to safeguard local producers against the misuse of region names by large and prestigious marks established on agricultural markets. Simultaneously, this type of branding has been widely disseminated and implemented as a certification mechanism, with the goal of highlighting the intrinsic qualities of locations and the origin of products. (Mafra, 2008). According to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), an GI is a distinctive sign used in products that have qualities or reputations that are due to a geographical origin. This distinctive sign communicates that a specific region has specialized in producing a particular good or service in a unique manner, showcasing unparalleled excellence in that specific product.

Geographical indicators are widely associated with agri-food products in the European Union, such as traditional cheeses, wines, and other products whose production dates back several centuries. Some examples are the Chianti wine in Italy, the Porto wine in Portugal, and French Champagne, which already had protections that resembled those of today's GIs in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The emergence of this form of protection in Latin America began in the 20th century with pisco, a Chilean drink, and Mexican tequila. Agro-food products such as coffee and local wines began to seek the identification seal in Brazil in the 1990 (Ayala Durán & Radomsky, 2020).

The presence of GIs in developing countries has been a subject of frequent research in various disciplines, mainly with regard to their role in driving and accelerating economic development. Chabrol et al. (2017) claim that GIs have characteristics of the collective production dimension, which serves as an organizational mechanism for marketing and adding value to local products. This strategy may also promote the integration of rural areas into indigenous and disadvantaged communities on their margins, according to the authors.

The Industrial Property Act, No. 9.279 of 1996 (Brasil, 1996), formalized GIs in Brazil by defining them as a collective right of intellectual property. Articles 176 to 182 of the said law regulate this definition, dividing GIs into two modalities: indication of origin (IP) and denomination of origin (DO). IP consists of the geographical name that has become known as the center of extraction, production, or manufacture of a product or provision of a service. A DO is the geographical name of a country, city, region, or locality in its territory, which designates a product or service whose qualities or characteristics are due exclusively or essentially to the geographic environment, including natural and human factors. Examples of DOs are the wines of the Vale dos Vinhedos in Rio Grande do Sul and the Cerrado Mineiro coffee in Minas Gerais (Instituto Nacional da Propriedade Industrial, 2021).

Several studies have highlighted the importance of GIs in Brazil and noted their growth. However, some authors consider that the number of Brazilian products and services seeking this regulation is still insufficient, which indicates little dissemination of the concept (Barbosa, 2012). However, despite the potential impact that GIs may have in developing countries, the number of GIs in these countries is much smaller than in Europe, for example. In Latin America and the Caribbean, there were just over 100 GIs in 2022, while in Europe, the quantity exceeded five thousand. (Fronzaglia, 2023). In this scenario, there are great efforts by governmental institutions, non-governmental organizations, and class entities, among others, to promote and increase the number of Brazilian GIs (Serviço Brasileiro de Apoio às Micro e Pequenas Empresas, 2021).

GIs refers to products with specific characteristics, qualities, or reputations arising from their geographical origin, which differentiates products based on unique local features, history, or distinctive characteristics of composition, production, or benefit, linked to natural and human factors such as soil, climate, symbiosis, local know-how, and traditions (Vandecandelaere, 2010).

According to studies by Europe Direct (2023), an GI-protected product's sales value typically doubles compared to similar uncertified products. Protection enables the incorporation of products at various levels: socially through collective processes, economically through the creation of value-added products, culturally through the establishment of cultural ties, and ecologically through the promotion of sustainable practices (Bowen, 2010).

The improvement in collective institutions that tends to result from the increase in the number of GIs in a region enables the producers involved to capture value. These improvements should have an impact on distribution and local development (Fronzaglia, 2023).

In this way, it is understood that IGs provide an ideal lens to critically analyze the construction of markets and generate interest from many stakeholders that revolve around them. Niederle et al. (2017) define that the governance of IGs encompasses a vast network of participants, both from the public and private sectors, operating on various territorial scales. This governance is formed by the interaction of local producer associations with global multilateral organizations, ministries, private legal consultancy offices, research and development entities, and social movements that promote the appreciation of regional gastronomy. Niederle et al. (2017) believe that the construction of this mechanism should be analyzed through approaches that transcend conventional models of public regulation. Specifically, it goes beyond those that assume a centralized state, focusing on clearly defined and limited sectors (Niederle et al., 2017).

2.2. Stakeholders Theory

Stakeholders, as defined by Freeman (1984, p. 46), “are groups or individuals who have the ability to influence or are impacted by the activities of an organization in relation to the achievement of its goals.” Freeman (1984) also reports that the term “stakeholders” was first introduced in an internal memo by the Stanford Research Institute in 1963. Freeman et al. (2010) proposed a model that addresses the management of stakeholders in three distinct dimensions: the rational level, the procedural level, and the transactional. level.

Each of these levels plays a key role in understanding and managing relationships with a corporation’s stakeholders. At the rational level, the importance of accurately identifying who the stakeholders of the organization are and what position each occupies within that context is highlighted. This step is crucial to understanding which groups or individuals have legitimate interests or influence over corporate operations and decisions. The procedural level concentrates on analyzing organizational processes that have a direct impact on stakeholder relationships. Understanding the establishment, refinement, and evolution of these processes over time, as well as the interconnections with the rational level, is essential. When it comes to practical interactions between the organization and its stakeholders, the transaction level comes into play. It involves negotiations, agreements, collaborations, and conflicts that emerge from established relationships. The identification of stakeholders and the organizational processes that shape relationships influence negotiations, directly connecting this level to the two previous levels. (Freeman et al., 2010).

In addition to the three levels mentioned, Freeman et al. (2010) expands the scope of the concept of stakeholders to cover four distinct areas of development. Initially, the authors note the integration of this concept into corporate strategic planning, recognizing the importance of stakeholder consideration in the development of long-term strategies. In a second approach, the authors establish a connection with the theory of systems, highlighting how stakeholders can be interpreted as interconnected elements within a broader system, exerting influence on the overall functioning of the organization and, at the same time, being influenced by it. (Freeman et al., 2010).

The concept of stakeholders expands to include corporate social responsibility. Freeman et al. (2010) argues that ethical practices and positive contributions to society intrinsically link to effective management of stakeholders. Finally, Freeman et al. (2010) highlights the connection between organizational theory and stakeholder management, emphasizing how relationships between the organization and its stakeholders can shape the internal dynamics, structure, and functioning of the entity itself.

In short, the Freeman et al. (2010) model provides a comprehensive approach to understanding and managing stakeholders, from identification to practical interaction, and recognizes the implications of this process in critical areas of corporate management and organizational theories. From a strategic point of view, stakeholder management refers to the organization's need to manage relationships with its stakeholders (Freeman et al., 2010).

Donaldson & Preston (1995) argue that the development of stakeholder theory has taken place in three dimensions: descriptive, instrumental, and normative. Clarkson's (1995) conception categorizes stakeholders as either primary or secondary. Primary stakeholders are those whose participation is vital to the company's survival and are characterized by a high degree of interdependence between the corporation and those stakeholder groups. Conversely, secondary stakeholders influence or experience the impact of the corporation without having direct relationships with it.

2.3. Stakeholders Involvement

Various definitions of stakeholder involvement can be found in the literature. For example, Mitchell et al. (2022, p. 77) describe stakeholder engagement as “the interaction between a company and its stakeholders, with an emphasis on solving knowledge issues to improve mutual understanding between managers and stakeholders, contributing to addressing ethical challenges faced by managers.” The development of an understanding of stakeholder engagement evolved naturally from the studies of the theory of stakeholders, which aimed to explore relationships and interactions between organizations and their stakeholdings (Kujala et al., 2022). Greenwood (2007, pp. 317-318) was one of the pioneers in conceptualizing stakeholder engagement, and its definition of engagement as “the practices adopted by an organization to positively involve stakeholders in organizational activities” gained prominence in business and society literature.

Other researchers have also provided various definitions of stakeholder engagement. For example, O’Riordan & Fairbrass (2014) conceptualize it as actions aimed at creating opportunities for dialogue between an organization and its stakeholders, with a view to supporting organizational decisions. Hine & Preuss (2009) see it as a practical mechanism for incorporating social responsibility into corporate decision-making. Cundy et al. (2013, p. 285) describe stakeholder engagement as “a broad and continuous process between a project and those potentially affected by it.”.

In addition, collaboration often involves joint activities with external stakeholders to achieve goals that would be difficult to achieve internally (Desai, 2018, p. 220). A more inclusive approach to the concept of engagement is proposed by Kujala et al. (2022), who define it as the objectives, activities, and impacts of relationships with stakeholders, addressing the moral, strategic, and/or pragmatic dimensions of interactions.

3. METHODOLOGY

This systematic review of the literature was conducted on the basis of predefined criteria and consistent scientific evidence, with the aim of assisting in the selection of studies and/or analytical and methodological approaches to address the proposed research question.

The stages of the systematic review were as follows: for data collection, searches were carried out for articles relevant and aligned with the objective of the study. To this end, the Scopus database was researched, considering that this platform is one of the largest repositories of peer-reviewed journals in the areas of management, organization, and social sciences (Pisoni et al., 2018). It is important to note that the business and management fields are widely addressed on this basis (Hossain, 2018).

After the Scopus database selection, the articles were identified using the main keywords: “Geographic Indication” AND“stakeholders”. The Boolean operator “AND” was used to match these search terms (Passo 1). As a result, a total of 36 published articles were obtained. No duplicate items were found (Passo 2). In the analysis of titles, keywords, and summaries, no articles were deleted (Passo 3). Then we applied the following criteria: first: articles published in the specified period (2017-2022), in which three articles were excluded; and second: articles that discussed the negative impacts of stakeholders in the GIs, a process by which four articles have been excluded (Passo 3). After exploratory reading and careful selection of the material, the information relevant to the subject under study was recorded, organized, and analyzed in a final sample of 29 articles (Step 4), adapted according to the studies of Tranfield et al. (2003) and Xiao & Watson (2019), as shown in the Flowchart shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1
Articles Search and Selection.

After the codification of the 29 articles, categorization was carried out, which is an operation of classifying the constituent elements of a set by differentiating its passages. This criterion involves the identification of elements or units of meaning that differ from each other. In differentiation, the researcher seeks to establish clear boundaries between categories, ensuring that each represents a specific concept or theme. This helps to avoid overlaps and confusion in data analysis.

In Table 1, we present the distributions of the selected publications. From the categorization process, the 13 factors listed in Table 2 resulted. Then we group the factors into categories with similar meanings. In this process, we seek to gather factors that share common characteristics or themes, facilitating the understanding and interpretation of patterns in the data. Three categories of factors resulted from this process. In the analysis we conduct in the Results Section, the factors appear grouped according to these categories. The combination of these two criteria allows the researcher to create a coherent and logical system. Differentiation ensures the clarity and specificity of the categories, while grouping helps in the organization and synthesis of the data (Bardin, 2011). MaxQda Software was used to support this categorization. The three categories resulting from the grouping process are:

Table 1
- Analyzed Articles.

	Author/Year	Title	Contributions	Methodology	Country
1	Adebola (2023)	The legal construction of geographical indications in Africa	Discusses how African countries and organizations build their GI systems.	Revisão de literatura	African Countries
2	Bashir (2020)	Protection of geographical indication products from different states of India	It analyses GIs in India and interaction with stakeholders indicating that the legal framework available for the protection of GIs is rather insignificant in terms of scope, effect, and protection.	Case Study	India
3	Bustamante (2019)	Intellectual property rights as branding services for exports value-adding: An analysis of Chile's 'sello de origen' programme	Shows how GIs, DOs, collective trademarks, and certification are intangible assets used as branding services.	Case Study	Chile
4	Castelló (2021)	The will for terroir: A communicative approach	Discusses the concept of terroir by in the light of communicational practices.	Literature Review	Spain
5	Carbone (2017)	Food supply chains: Coordination governance and other shaping forces	It discusses how the functioning and performance of food chains are affected by the way stakeholders are inserted into the chains, the modes of coordination and the type of governance.	Descriptive Analysis	Does not Apply
6	Cerdan et al. (2018)	Agricultural research, a key factor in promoting collective dynamics in rural area: The “vales da uva goethe” geographical indication (IG) in Brazil	It analyses how research can strengthen collective dynamics in rural territories.	Case Study	Brazil
7	Drivas & Iliopoulos (2017)	An empirical investigation in the relationship between PDOs/PGIs and trademarks	It examines empirically the relationship between GIs and brands.	Literature Review	European Union Countries
8	García-Hernández et al. (2022)	Geographical indications in cheese mountain areas: Opportunity or threat to landscape and environmental conservation? the case of cabrales (Spain)	It examines the impact of GIs on cheesy mountain areas, exploring their potential to contribute to landscape and environmental sustainability.	Case Study	Spain
9	Ingram et al. (2020)	To label or not? governing the costs and benefits of geographic indication of an African forest honey value chain	Check the reality of the benefits of the GI of Oku white honey.	Case Study	Comoros
10	Kohsaka & Miyake (2021)	The politics of quality and geographic indications for non-timber forest products: Applying convention theory beyond food contexts	Examines how quality is defined, redefined, and dynamically formulated among stakeholders under political and global market pressures by registering GIs for non-eatable non-tree forest products (PFNMs).	Case Study	Japan
11	Kokthi et al. (2021)	Assessing the applicability of geographical indications from the social capital analysis perspective: Evidences from Albania	Explores the readiness of local stakeholders in a rural area to undertake the collective actions necessary to create a cheese GI to protect it from unfair competitiveness provided by brand usurpation.	Case Study	Albania
12	Mancini et al. (2022)	Geographical indications and public good relationships: Evidence and policy implications	It shows that, due to unique local geographical conditions, the aroma and flavor of Kangra tea is different from tea produced in other parts of India, which resulted in world fame in the past.	Case Study	India
13	Manisha et al. (2022)	What is brewing with kangra tea!!	It presents the analysis of the main constraints faced by different stakeholders in the Kangra tea value chain.	Case Study	India
14	Mariani et al. (2021)	Origin food schemes and the paradox of reducing diversity to defend it	Explores the standardization effects of OFS on the diversity of local practices and knowledge.	Case Study	France
15	Marie‐Vivien (2020)	Protection of geographical indications in ASEAN countries: Convergences and challenges to awakening sleeping geographical indications	It investigates how GIs developed in ASEAN and Asia, the new most active area for GIs worldwide.	Descriptive	ASEAN (Vietnan Cambodia, Thailand, Indonesia, Malasia, Lao, Singapore, Myanmar), Japan and India
16	Millet et al. (2020)	Product qualification as a means of identifying sustainability pathways for place-based agri-food systems: The case of the GI Corsican grapefruit (France)	Builds a typology of relationships between farmers suppliers of milk and dairy products, based on the theory of value worlds (do industrial ao artesanal).	Case Study	Italy
17	Millet & Casabianca (2019)	Sharing values for changing practices, a lever for sustainable transformation? the case of farmers and processors in interaction within localized cheese sectors	Authors study the relationships between the stakeholders of the GIs of Corsica and the Western Pyrenees (WP), regions where traditional cheeses (GI Brocciu and GI Ossau-Iraty) are produced with sheep's milk.	Qualitative	Italy
18	Mishra & Fatesaria (2022)	Basmati rice – the on-going domestic challenge	It examines the arguments for not including the districts of Madhya Pradesh in the GI's request for Basmati and criticizes the misunderstanding behind the reason for acquiring this label.	Estudo de caso	India
19	Neilson et al. (2018)	Geographical indications and value capture in the Indonesia coffee sector	The study aims to assess the impact on the development of formally registered (protected) GIs in the Indonesian coffee industry.	Case Study	Indonesia
20	Niederle et al. (2017)	Governança e institucionalização das indicações geográficas no Brasil	It analyzes the process of governance and institutionalization of this mechanism.	Literature Review	Brazil
21	Owen et al. (2020)	Place-based pathways to sustainability: Exploring alignment between geographical indications and the concept of agroecology territories in Wales	Narrates a content analysis of GI product specification documents and data from interviews with GI’s stakeholders.	Descriptive Analyse	Wales
22	Pérez-Akaki et al. (2021)	Designation of origin distillates in Mexico: value chains and territorial development	It examines the development of two Mexican GIs' value chains and their effects on territorial development.	Case Study	Mexico
23	Pick & Marie-Vivien (2021)	Representativeness in geographical indications: A comparison between the state-driven and producer-driven systems in Vietnam and France	It explores the issues of representativity and participation in the collective processes involved in the elaboration of the GI specifications and the governance of GI initiatives.	Case Study	Vietnan and France
24	Priyadarshini & Iyer (2020)	Sustenance of languishing craft – gollabhama saree of siddipet, telegana, India	Describres the case of Saree's GI in India.	Case Study	India
25	Sekine (2021)	The potential and contradictions of geographical indication and patrimonization for the sustainability of indigenous communities: A case of cordillera heirloom rice in the Philippines	It analyzes whether GI and patrimonialization contribute to the sustainability of IP communities in the Cordillera.	Case Study	The Philippines
26	Uchiyama et al. (2017)	Expectations of residents and tourists of agriculture-related certification systems: Analysis of public perceptions	It considers the gaps between residents and tourists and states that taking measures to resolve them can contribute to the management of the areas certified by stakeholder collaboration.	Case Study	Japan
27	van der Merwe et al. (2018)	The karoo meat of origin certification scheme: A silver bullet?	It understands the notion of Karoo Lamb as an GI and the subsequent establishment of the Karoo Meat of Origin certification scheme.	Case Study	South Africa
28	Vandecandelaere et al. (2020)	Strengthening sustainable food systems through geographical indications: Evidence from 9 worldwide case studies	It presents research results from a collection and analysis of data on the economic impact of GI processes worldwide.	Case Study	Does not apply
29	Warui et al. (2020)	Existing value addition initiatives enhancing recognition of territorial traits of three Kenyan honey	It evaluates existing value-adding initiatives by increasing the recognition of territorial or local characteristics of Kenyan honey, i.e., Kitui, West Pokot, and Baringo honey.	Case Study	Kenya

• Source: Made by the authors, based on a systematic literature review (2024).

Table 2
- Factors observed in the literature that may negatively impact geographical indications.

Factors	Author/Year
1. Unequal value appropriation: Economic benefits generated by GI do not reach stakeholders due to the appropriation of value by more powerful players in the supply chain.	Marsoof & Tan (2021)
2. Information asymmetry: a name given when one party has more information about a product or service than the other party.	Niederle et al. (2017) and Warui et al. (2020)
3. Power asymmetry: Power is not distributed evenly among stakeholders. A small group holds control.	Carbone (2017) and Niederle et al. (2017)
4. Costs to comply with the standards required by GIS: Costs are one factor that makes it difficult for stakeholders to comply.	Ingram et al. (2020) and Quiñones-Ruiz et al. (2016)
5. Unfair Competition: Unfair competition is a factor that interferes with the marketing of GI’s products.	Kokthi et al. (2021)
6. Ignorance of the rules for using the seal: The lack of knowledge about the use of the seal and its benefits is a factor that discourages the adherence of stakeholders.	Bustamante (2019) and Bashir (2020)
7. Bureaucratic difficulties: The bureaucracy for the use of the seal is a deterrent factor.	Bustamante (2019), Owen et al. (2020) and Mishra & Fatesaria (2022)
8. Difficulty in protecting and monitoring GI: Although GI aims to protect products against counterfeiting, often this protection does not happen.	Marie‐Vivien (2020)
9. Lack of stakeholder confidence: stakeholders do not trust the institutions and other stakeholders.	Kokthi et al. (2021) and van der Merwe et al. (2018)
10. Lack of publicity and marketing: The absence of advertising and marketing activities has a negative impact on GI’s.	Bustamante (2019) and Carbone (2017)
11. Governance in the hands of few: The process of governance dictates the administration of the GI. It is often concentrated in the hands of a few.	Sekine (2021), Pick & Marie-Vivien (2021) and Drivas & Iliopoulos (2017)
12. Heterogeneity: An GI has multiple types of stakeholders (producers, associations, cooperatives, suppliers, and consumers) add to these differences in each group.	Carbone (2017) and Mariani et al. (2021)
13. Institutional inefficiency: refers to the lack of institutional support due to insufficiency or inadequacy of the institutions.	Ingram et al. (2020), Neilson et al. (2018) and Priyadarshini & Iyer (2020)

• Source: Made by the authors, based on a systematic literature review (2024).

1. Political and ethical issues within the GIs. It groups the factors as follows: information asymmetry, power asymetrie, governance in the hands of a few, unequal appropriation of value, and heterogeneity of stakeholders. This category is consistent with Derry (2012), which states that local communities and multinational corporations often experience power imbalances, leading to cultural shocks, misalignments of interests and values. The importance of giving voice to marginalized or less powerful stakeholders must be recognized.

2. Cultural and institutional issues of the countries in which GIs are located. It brings together the factors: ignorance of the rules for the use of the seal, the costs of the adequacy of the GIs, bureaucratic difficulties, poor protection and enforcement of rights, unfair competition, and institutional inefficiency. Strategic engagement activities need internal and external support structures.

3. External action of the GIs. It brings together the factors: lack of GI disclosure and marketing, ignorance of the rules and benefits of GI, unfair competition, lack of confidence, and heterogeneity of producers and mediators who help in building relationships and bidirectional communication in and in the exchange of information and the establishment of external partnerships through activities aimed at establishing commitments (Dawkins, 2014).

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Table 1 highlights some data from the articles we reviewed: author, title, contribution, method, and country. Two things draw attention to the relationship between articles. The prevalence countries of Asia, Africa, and Latin America are the countries that are the focus of the studies, and case studies are a method. The predominance of regions corresponding to emerging-economy countries is explained by the fact that it is in these countries that the phenomenon of GIs is recent and raises questions. The high proportion of case studies can also be attributed to the phenomenon's contemporaneity in some of the study countries. As the phenomenon is new, quantitative data are still lacking, and even the number of GIs makes it difficult to carry out quantitative studies.

The establishment of GIs is an essential practice for protecting and promoting unique, traditional, and geographically rooted products. However, this strategy is not free of challenges, dilemmas, and controversies, as presented in the literature. It is therefore not surprising that the number of publications has grown over the years covered by our analysis. In terms of the number of articles per year, our results suggest that there is an increase in the intensity of publications on the topic, probably reflecting an increased recognition of its importance. For 2017, our search brought four articles; for 2018, three; for 2019, five; for 2020, eight; and for 2021, eight.

Table 2 gives a brief description of the factors that we identified in the review of the literature and the identification of the authors who mentioned these factors. Next, we present the factors, grouped into three categories, according to our analysis.

4.1. Political and ethical questions within the GIs.

We classify as political and ethical issues within GIs the factors of power asymmetry, unequal appropriation of value, and governance in the hands of a few who emerged from the literature.

Regarding the asymmetry of power, Niederle et al. (2017) claim that the GI has become a “club property” in the sense that only a small group leads the process, which ceases to be a collective property, which mobilizes the whole of the territorial actors for the defense and appreciation of the common goods. Carbone (2017) highlights that a major concern with regard to GIs is the control of GIs in the hands of one or a few large companies, which can guide GIs according to their own interests. This leaves producers at a disadvantage, limiting their ability to negotiate and making them dependent on these companies. This risk is all the greater the number and heterogeneity of producers in the area covered.

According to the literature, it is possible that the economic benefits generated by GI do not reach the various groups of stakeholders, mainly producers, due to the actions of more powerful actors in the supply chain. Marsoof & Tan (2021) speak of unequal value appropriation, arguing that despite the expressive economic benefits that the Darjeeling tea GI has brought to the region through higher prices, increased jobs, and tea tourism, the workers employed in the tea plantations and factories remain in extreme poverty. They continue to face precarious working conditions, exposure to hazardous chemicals, and, in some cases, child labor. In this same vein, Mancini et al. (2022) describe the case of an GI in Nicaragua and show that broad quality rules have left producers exposed to value appropriation by more powerful agents. They draw attention to the fact that GIs are not always strong enough to implement local social equity.

In Vietnam, the involvement of government authorities in the management of associations and producers facilitates governance in the hands of a select few. Pick & Marie-Vivien (2021) report the situation in this country, in which a consultant under the supervision of the state elaborated on the initial rules of operation of the GI. According to Pick & Marie-Vivien (2021), governments and authorities should be careful not to fall into the trap of this top-down approach to protecting GIs since the rules are by membership. This type of approach usually results in little understanding, little adherence, and little commitment from stakeholders. It can give stakeholders little space to participate in meaningful decisions and therefore not perceive themselves as owners of the GI. Sekine (2021) argues that in the Philippines, the Slow Food Company selects GI products according to its criteria, so that this process leaves products of the type it rejects, as well as the biodiversity associated with it, at risk of extinction.

The lack of confidence of producers in GI stakeholders is discussed in several articles. Kokthi et al. (2021) test a model based on Elinor Ostrom's theory, suggesting that for a community to be willing to take collective action toward a common goal, it is necessary that there be confidence in neighboring institutions and producers. Kokthi et al. (2021) conducted a test of this model in a Gjirokastra cheese producer community in Albania, concluding that the current levels of confidence are insufficient to facilitate the development of successful GI formation actions. van der Merwe et al. (2018) also corroborated another research situation where there is distrust between the farmer and the GI Karoo Lamb slaughterhouse.

The literature also observes that the heterogeneity of stakeholders restricts the good performance of the GI. Carbone (2017) argue that the larger the protected area and the number of producers, together with their heterogeneity, the more difficult it is to reach an effective agreement for GI governance, and the more likely conflicts and parasitic behaviors will arise. The heterogeneity of stakeholders and their different perspectives can affect the level of cooperation and, consequently, negatively influence the GI's governance. Mariani et al. (2021) report that when the heterogeneity of the actors and the imbalance in their bargaining power increase, negotiations become conflicting, as in the case of Ossau-Iraty cheese.

4.2. Cultural and Institutional questions in countries where GIs operate.

One of the main factors limiting stakeholder involvement with GIs is the lack of knowledge about the rules for the use of the seal, even among potential beneficiaries of the GIs, as many do not know what an GI is or do not understand its functioning, as well as the benefits it can offer. In Bustamante’s survey (2019), one of the reasons for the non-use of the seal by stakeholders was their lack of interest, among other things, in ignorance of the opportunities that protected products enjoy. Chile's Sello de Origen program does not provide the expected benefits, as small producers do not know how to apply the seal properly. Bashir (2020), in a survey conducted with 100 producers of three GIs in India, showed that the ignorance rate on the issue was high, so that only nine of these respondents answered affirmatively to the question, “Do you know what an GI is?” Among the actions it considers necessary for the dissemination of the concept are the opening of more centers for the registration of applications for GIs; the application of legislation protecting the rights of existing GIs; and the increased confidence of producers that this application will happen in case of violations.

The costs of compliance with the standards required by the GI include monetary expenses related to the establishment of the GI, the price of the raw materials necessary to produce in accordance with standards established by the standards set by the GI, and consultancy and laboratory analyses to verify that the characteristics of the products are in conformity with the required standards. Ingram et al. (2020), analyzing an GI of honey in Cameron, found that, while revenues increased by 60%, production increased by 220%. Part of these cost increases were due to the influx of producers attracted by the new price. Ingram et al. (2020) highlight that the intensification of the exploitation of essential natural resources has not only created a clear imbalance between revenue and expenditure, but also posed a threat to local production due to environmental issues.

In addition to the factors that negatively impact GIs, we have identified bureaucratic difficulties. In general, applying for recognition of a region or product as distinct or notorious involves several steps, which are often difficult to accomplish by small communities and even by some larger ones. It entails a discussion of the region covered, as well as its territorial and geographical boundaries. It requires negotiation of the level of attributes and characteristics of the products that will be required of producers in order to receive recognition of compliance with the requirements of the GI. The association or body that leads the process needs to raise documents that prove the claims about the product or region's excellence or notoriety. All this process needs to be submitted to a body, in general, which checks the veracity and sufficiency of the information, among other measures.

Owen et al. (2020) points out that only the process of deliberation on the part of the authorities, which is to decide on the adequacy or not of GI requests, can take months and sometimes years. Bustamante (2019) provides a concise overview of this process in Chile, incorporating the stages of required producer disbursements, which may be costly for smaller producers. Throughout the process, it's crucial to avoid romanticizing and presenting GIs as inherently good. The process of developing knowledge and awareness about the reason for the GIs is what will ultimately turn the existing regime into something different.

Mishra & Fatesaria (2022) report the difficulties of the Indian State of Madhya Pradesh in including its 13 districts as basmati rice-producing regions in the country. The battle has been dragging on since 2008 between APEDA, which is the authority responsible for the development of Indian edible agricultural and processed products, and APEDA, which sets the specifications to ensure that exported rice meets international requirements, promoting Indian rice on the global market. Despite the state's repeated appeals to the Indian Intellectual Property Council against APEDA's decisions, the Indian Supreme Court's recent decision in the Mishra & Fatesaria (2022) article indicates that this legal battle is far from over.

Marie‐Vivien (2020) provides a comprehensive overview of the difficulties GIs face in achieving poor protection and enforcement of rights, especially in Asia. Emerging control systems sometimes exist in theory or in legal schemes, but their practical implementation is rare. In Thailand, the law restricts itself to protecting the use of the logo. In Vietnam, an agency under the responsibility of the Ministry of Science and Technology is the competent authority, but no body responsible for the certification of GIs inspects them, although there are several certification bodies. Similar to the French system in Cambodia, the GI itself monitors internal controls through fees paid by affiliated members, often lacking the necessary resources. In Myanmar, the law is vague and does not specify details. In some countries, the responsibility for obtaining protection lies with the state; in others, it lies with the association. In the first case, the operation tends to be precarious because the GI lacks resources. In the second scenario, the GI only suppresses the misuse of the logo, leaving the GI name unrestricted.

The issue of unfair competition that GIs face is a direct consequence of problems such as the protection and enforcement of rights. Marketers sell products from other regions or countries under the GI sign, potentially creating unfair competition with local small producers. Kokthi et al. (2021) report that other cheese growers, usurping the brand name and offering lower quality for the same price, expose Gjirokastra cheese producers to unfair competition and parasitism.

The institutional inefficiency is evident in the Gollabhama Saree, which is known for its centuries-old tradition of tears. Centered on the local community and holding the GI brand, it is on the verge of extinction with a drastic decline in weavers, from 2000 in the 1970s to six in 2019 (Priyadarshini & Iyer, 2020). According to Ingram et al. (2020), although Oku white honey GI has contributed to positive short-term survival effects, the long-term positive impacts that support landscape conservation have been ineffective, and the durability of the positive economic impacts is questionable. According to Ingram et al. (2020), multiple but inconsistent and weak arrangements govern the production chain and are responsible for this questionability. Regarding institutional inefficiency, Neilson et al. (2018) points out that the poor development performance of Indonesian coffee GIs is explained by the inability of local institutional environments to allow the appropriation of the value generated. Although some actors, such as major coffee exporters, have entered global chains, the institutional environment remains permeated by relations with the state and based on a state logic of accumulation. (Neilson et al., 2018).

4.3. External actions of GIs

This category brings together the asymmetry of information between producers and consumers, as well as the lack of GI dissemination and marketing.

Information asymmetry occurs when one party has more information about a product or service than the other party. Theories on information asymmetry explain that market distortions, increases in transaction costs, and an increased risk of fraud can occur when one party holds more information than another in a transaction. The articles mention them in the context of the relationship between producers and customers. Warui et al. (2020) describe a situation in which producers and others involved in the honey trade from some counties in Kenya were interviewed. According to Warui et al. (2020), the elimination of intermediaries and direct contact between producers and consumers led to a decrease in communication distortions. The fact that producers have the opportunity to inform consumers about the characteristics of products and that consumers are able to obtain first-hand information has reduced the cost of transactions and other market failures.

Bustamante (2019) points out the lack of dissemination and marketing as a factor in weight. In this sense, they report that GI Limón de Pica in Chile, eight years after the product was registered, had no marketing strategies. The packaging did not contain the product seal. Bustamante (2019) highlights the importance of branding actions to add value to traditional products, such as those produced by GI. Carbone (2017) argue that communication failures have significantly impacted the success of a product whose special qualities are derived from its place of origin and need to be in constant evidence to strengthen GI. Drivas & Iliopoulos (2017) note that while one of the main arguments in favor of GIs is that they can offer agricultural products a quality attribute that can be effectively signaled to consumers, it is a challenging task for GIs to do branding and marketing activities, suggesting that the adoption of registered trademarks may be a way in the right direction to remedy this situation.

5. CONCLUSION

Different authors have identified a wide range of factors in the systematic review of the literature, including challenges in forming GIs and aligning their objectives with their constitution. Several of these factors depend directly on stakeholder engagement.

Political and ethical issues affecting the internal functioning of the GIs cause small groups to take advantage of its management and appropriate most of the value generated. In the process, they exclude the other less powerful stakeholders from having access to the benefits that GIs generate, causing their alienation.

Cultural and institutional issues in the countries and regions where GIs are located make it difficult for stakeholders to mobilize to form GIs, make it more difficult for their purposes, and do not make things easier for the GIs that come into being. Institutions often do not protect the rights of the established GIs or encourage potential consumers to value the institute of the GIs and become interested in them and their products. Failure to carry out marketing actions decreases the value added by GIs to their products and, consequently, the appeal that GIs could have for their stakeholders.

Questions of the external action of GIs reduce the possibility for their potential consumers to know the nature of the products and services offered and reduce the visibility of the GIs in the markets. The asymmetry of information between producers and consumers and the lack of disclosure of GIs through marketing tools, such as the placement of stamps on packaging and a lack of branding, undermine the value generation by GIs and, consequently, their interest in stakeholders.

The development of an GI requires collective action and considerable efforts from multiple actors, which involves the involvement of multiple and diverse stakeholders in order to defend collective interests and ensure the benefits of belonging to an GI. Given the range of factors that make it difficult for stakeholders to engage, it is understandable why a high proportion of GIs fail to achieve their objectives and remain in a state of dormancy.

It is important to note that the basic literature of this review focuses exclusively on emerging-economy countries. These are countries in which, in general, the institutions operate with widespread and well-known limitations and in which national and subnational states have limited resources to subsidize and support even meritorious and relevant initiatives for their development. In addition, many of these countries have large territorial and population extensions, which tends to accentuate these limitations. Also, unlike the European countries, where the establishment of GIs originates, in most of the countries examined by the articles, the GI institute is recent, which explains to a large extent the question of the lack of knowledge of this institute.

By pointing out and summarizing the factors that the academic literature identifies and analyzes as hindering the expansion and growth of the number of GIs and their negative impacts, this article contributes to the facilitation of their identification, and we hope that, for the overcoming of the same, the articles analyzed almost always, in addition to pointing out the factors, also discuss ways to minimize or overcome them. A possible deployment of this article for future studies is the elaboration of an analogue but focused on aspects of overcoming and solving the factors.

Finally, this article, like any other one, has its limitations. Among those we recognize are at least two: the fact that we select articles only from a database and that our factor classifications and their categorization can be discussed. The fact that we use only one database for the identification of articles is justified by the fact that Scopus is the largest database of articles in the field of our analysis and because it is a procedure widely used by literature reviews in the area. The fact that classification and categorization criteria can be discussed can only be minimized by adopting procedures dedicated to their implementation, which in our case is given by the adoption of content analysis.

• How to cite: Malaguti, J. M. A., & Avrichir, I. (2024). Factors that the specialized literature identifies as limiting the development of GIs: an analysis through the lens of the stakeholder engagement theory. Revista de Economia e Sociologia Rural, 62(3), e277978. https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9479.2023.277978en
• JEL Classification: Q10, Q13.

REFERÊNCIAS

• Adebola, T. (2023). The legal construction of geographical indications in Africa. The Journal of World Intellectual Property, 26(1), 3-29.
• Ayala Durán, C., & Radomsky, G. (2020). Indicaciones geográficas en Centroamérica: un crecimiento poco diversificado. Rivar, 7(20), 1-21.
• Barbosa, J. N. (2012). Isótopos estáveis para a discriminação da origem geográfica de cafés especiais da Serra da Mantiqueira de Minas Gerais (Tese de doutorado). Universidade Federal de Lavras, Lavras.
• Bardin, L. (2011). Análise de conteúdo. São Paulo: Edições 70.
• Bashir, A. (2020). Protection of geographical indication products from different states of India. Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 25(3-4), 74-79.
• Bosse, D. A., & Coughlan, R. (2016). Stakeholder relationship bonds. Journal of Management Studies, 53(7), 1197-1222.
• Bowen, S. (2010). Embedding local places in global spaces: geographical indications as a territorial development strategy. Rural Sociology, 75(2), 209-243.
• Brasil. (1996). Lei nº 9.279, de 14 de maio de 1996. Regula direitos e obrigações relativos à propriedade industrial. Diário Oficial [da] República Federativa do Brasil, Brasília.
• Bridoux, F. M., & Vishwanathan, P. (2020). When do powerful stakeholders give managers the latitude to balance all stakeholders’ interests? Business & Society, 59(2), 232-262.
• Bundy, J., Vogel, R. M., & Zachary, M. A. (2018). Organization–stakeholder fit: A dynamic theory of cooperation, compromise, and conflict between an organization and its stakeholders. Strategic Management Journal, 39(2), 476-501.
• Bustamante, J. C. (2019). Intellectual property rights as branding services for exports value-adding: an analysis of Chile-s-Sello de Origen-programme. International Journal of Intellectual Property Management, 9(3-4), 315-341.
• Campbell, J. (2007). Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 946-967.
• Carbone, A. (2017). Food supply chains: coordination governance and other shaping forces. Agricultural and Food Economics, 5(1), 3.
• Castelló, E. (2021). The will for terroir: a communicative approach. Journal of Rural Studies, 86, 386-397.
• Cerdan, C., Andrade, N., Silva, A. L., Vieira, H., Silva, E., & Le Guerroue, J. L. (2018). Agricultural research, a key factor in promoting collective dynamics in rural area: the” Vales da Uva Goethe” Geographical Indication (IG) in Brazil. Cahiers Agricultures, 27(2), 1.
• Chabrol, D., Mariani, M., & Sautier, D. (2017). Establishing geographical indications without state involvement? Learning from case studies in Central and West Africa. World Development, 98, 68-81.
• Clarkson, M. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92-117.
• Cundy, A. B., Bardos, R. P., Church, A., Puschenreiter, M., Friesl-Hanl, W., Müller, I., Neu, S., Mench, M., Witters, N., & Vangronsveld, J. (2013). Developing principles of sustainability and stakeholder engagement for “gentle” remediation approaches: the European context. Journal of Environmental Management, 129, 283-291.
• Dawkins, C. E. (2014). The principle of good faith: Toward substantive stakeholder engagement. Journal of Business Ethics, 121, 283-295.
• Derry, R. (2012). Reclaiming marginalized stakeholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(2), 253-264.
• Desai, V. M. (2018). Collaborative stakeholder engagement: An integration between theories of organizational legitimacy and learning. Academy of Management Journal, 61(1), 220-244.
• Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65-91.
• Drivas, K., & Iliopoulos, C. (2017). An empirical investigation in the relationship between PDOs/PGIs and trademarks. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 8, 585-595.
• Dullius, P. R. (2009). Indicações geográficas e desenvolvimento territorial: as experiências do Rio Grande do Sul (Dissertação de mestrado). Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Santa Maria.
• Europe Direct. (2023). Indicações geográficas: um património europeu no valor de 75 000 milhões de euros. Recuperado em 25 de novembro de 2023, de https://europedirectminho.ipca.pt/indicacoes-geograficas-um-patrimonio-europeu-no-valor-de-75-000-milhoes-de-euros/
  » https://europedirectminho.ipca.pt/indicacoes-geograficas-um-patrimonio-europeu-no-valor-de-75-000-milhoes-de-euros/
• Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. London: Pitman Publising.
• Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Parmar, B., & Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: the state of the art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Fronzaglia, T. (2023). A evolução da indicação geográfica da França ao Brasil: emergência, difusão, adaptação e perspectivas. In Propriedade Intelectual, Desenvolvimento e Inovação: perspectivas futuras (pp. 138-159). Ponta Grossa: AYA Editora. http://dx.doi.org/10.47573/aya.5379.2.197.8
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.47573/aya.5379.2.197.8
• García-Hernández, C., Ruiz-Fernández, J., & Rodríguez-Gutiérrez, F. (2022). Geographical indications in cheese mountain areas: opportunity or threat to landscape and environmental conservation? The case of Cabrales (Spain). Applied Geography, 146, 102753.
• Greenwood, M. (2007). Stakeholder engagement: beyond the myth of corporate responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 74(4), 315-327.
• Hine, J. A., & Preuss, L. (2009). “Society is out there, organisation is in here”: on the perceptions of corporate social responsibility held by different managerial groups. Journal of Business Ethics, 88, 381-393.
• Hossain, M. (2018). Frugal innovation: a review and research agenda. Journal of Cleaner Production, 182, 926-936.
• Ingram, V., Hansen, M. E., & Bosselmann, A. S. (2020). To label or not? Governing the costs and benefits of geographic indication of an African forest honey value chain. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change, 3, 102.
• Instituto Nacional da Propriedade Industrial – INPI. (2021). Pedidos de indicação geográfica no Brasil. Recuperado em 14 de fevereiro de 2023, de https://www.gov.br/inpi/pt-br/servicos/indicacoes-geograficas/pedidos-de-indicacao-geografica-no-brasil
  » https://www.gov.br/inpi/pt-br/servicos/indicacoes-geograficas/pedidos-de-indicacao-geografica-no-brasil
• Kohsaka, R., & Miyake, Y. (2021). The politics of quality and geographic indications for non-timber forest products: applying convention theory beyond food contexts. Journal of Rural Studies, 88, 28-39.
• Kokthi, E., Guri, G., & Muco, E. (2021). Assessing the applicability of geographical indications from the social capital analysis perspective: evidences from Albania. Economia e Sociologia, 14(3), 32-53.
• Kujala, J., Sachs, S., Leinonen, H., Heikkinen, A., & Laude, D. (2022). Stakeholder engagement: past, present, and future. Business & Society, 61(5), 1136-1196.
• Mafra, L. A. S. (2008). Indicação geográfica e construção do mercado: a valorização da origem no Cerrado Mineiro (Tese de doutorado). Curso de Pós-graduação em Desenvolvimento Agricultura e Sociedade, Instituto de Ciências Humanas e Sociais, Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro.
• Mancini, M. C., Guareschi, M., Bellassen, V., & Arfini, F. (2022). Geographical indications and public good relationships: evidence and policy implications. EuroChoices, 21(2), 66-71.
• Manisha, Rao, R. V. S., Reddy, B. S., & Verma, P. (2022). What is brewing with Kangra tea!! FIIB Business Review, 8(2), 94-101.
• Mariani, M., Cerdan, C., & Peri, I. (2021). Origin food schemes and the paradox of reducing diversity to defend it. Sociologia Ruralis, 61(2), 465-490.
• Marie‐Vivien, D. (2020). Protection of geographical indications in ASEAN countries: convergences and challenges to awakening sleeping geographical Indications. The Journal of World Intellectual Property, 23(3-4), 328-349.
• Marsoof, A., & Tan, L. T. (2021). A CSR/fair trade inspired policy for fairer geographical indications. The Journal of World Intellectual Property, 24(3-4), 253-273.
• Millet, M., & Casabianca, F. (2019). Sharing values for changing practices, a lever for sustainable transformation? The case of farmers and processors in interaction within localized cheese sectors. Sustainability, 11(17), 4520.
• Millet, M., Keast, V., Gonano, S., & Casabianca, F. (2020). Product qualification as a means of identifying sustainability pathways for place-based agri-food systems: the case of the GI Corsican grapefruit (France). Sustainability, 12(17), 7148.
• Mishra, A., & Fatesaria, H. (2022). Basmati rice: the on-going domestic challenge. Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 27(2), 100-106.
• Mitchell, J. R., Mitchell, R. K., Hunt, R. A., Townsend, D. M., & Lee, J. H. (2022). Stakeholder engagement, knowledge problems and ethical challenges. Journal of Business Ethics, 175, 75-94.
• Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853-886.
• Neilson, J., Wright, J., & Aklimawati, L. (2018). Geographical indications and value capture in the Indonesia coffee sector. Journal of Rural Studies, 59, 35-48.
• Niederle, P. A., Mascarenhas, G. C. C., & Wilkinson, J. (2017). Governança e institucionalização das indicações geográficas no Brasil. Revista de Economia e Sociologia Rural, 55(1), 85-102.
• Noland, J., & Phillips, R. (2010). Stakeholder engagement, discourse ethics and strategic management. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 39-49.
• O’Riordan, L., & Fairbrass, J. (2014). Managing CSR stakeholder engagement: a new conceptual framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 125, 121-145.
• Owen, L., Udall, D., Franklin, A., & Kneafsey, M. (2020). Place-based pathways to sustainability: Exploring alignment between geographical indications and the concept of agroecology territories in Wales. Sustainability, 12(12), 4890.
• Pérez-Akaki, P., Vega-Vera, N. V., Enríquez-Caballero, Y. P., & Velázquez-Salazar, M. (2021). Designation of origin distillates in Mexico: value chains and territorial development. Sustainability, 13(10), 5496.
• Pick, B., & Marie-Vivien, D. (2021). Representativeness in geographical indications: a comparison between the state-driven and producer-driven systems in Vietnam and France. Sustainability, 13(9), 5056.
• Pisoni, A., Michelini, L., & Martignoni, G. (2018). Frugal approach to innovation: State of the art and future perspectives. Journal of Cleaner Production, 171, 107-126.
• Priyadarshini, T., & Iyer, K. (2020). Sustenance of languishing craft-Gollabhama Saree of Siddipet, Telegana, India. Man-Made Textiles in India, 98(12), 403-410.
• Quiñones-Ruiz, X. F., Penker, M., Belletti, G., Marescotti, A., Scaramuzzi, S., Barzini, E., Pircher, M., Leitgeb, F., & Samper-Gartner, L. F. (2016). Insights into the black box of collective efforts for the registration of Geographical Indications. Land Use Policy, 57, 103-116.
• Serviço Brasileiro de Apoio às Micro e Pequenas Empresas – Sebrae. (2021). Cenários da indicações geográficas no Brasil. Brasília: Sebrae.
• Sekine, K. (2021). The potential and contradictions of geographical indication and patrimonization for the sustainability of indigenous communities: a case of cordillera heirloom rice in the Philippines. Sustainability, 13(8), 4366.
• Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence‐informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207-222.
• Uchiyama, Y., Tanaka, Y., Matsuoka, H., & Kohsaka, R. (2017). Expectations of residents and tourists of agriculture-related certification systems: analysis of public perceptions. Journal of Ethnic Foods, 4(2), 110-117.
• van der Merwe, M., Kirsten, J. F., & Trienekens, J. H. (2018). The Karoo Meat of Origin certification scheme: a silver bullet? The International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 21(5), 655-668.
• Vandecandelaere, E. (2010). Geographic origin and identification labels: associating food quality with location. In J. Albert (Ed.), Innovations in food labelling (pp. 137-152). Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing.
• Vandecandelaere, E., Teyssier, C., Barjolle, D., Fournier, S., Beucherie, O., & Jeanneaux, P. (2020). Strengthening sustainable food systems through geographical indications: evidence from 9 worldwide case studies. Journal of Sustainability Research, 4(3), 1.
• Warui, M. W., Mburu, J., Kironchi, G., & Gikungu, M. (2020). Existing value addition initiatives enhancing recognition of territorial traits of three Kenyan honey. The Journal of World Intellectual Property, 23(3-4), 598-605.
• Xiao, Y., & Watson, M. (2019). Guidance on conducting a systematic literature review. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 39(1), 93-112.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  08 July 2024
• Date of issue
  2024

History

• Received
  28 Aug 2023
• Accepted
  12 Mar 2024