The governance of geographical indications

Abstract

PurposePlace-based foodstuffs have gained salience in markets worldwide and geographical indication (GI) products are prominent examples. The purpose of this paper is to focus on the governance (formal and informal institutions) of the European and Japanese GI schemes, discuss the variety of procedures of implementing the features of the governance system (inclusion and exclusion of actors) for six GI cases and reflect on future GI governance.Design/methodology/approachThe criteria for assessing the six cases were descriptive and analytical and the information and data come from official documents, literature (scientific and “grey”), interviews, observations and personal communications with key-informants of the GI systems. Three of the cases are categorized as “failures” and are included to provide more insights on the diverse dynamics of GI systems.FindingsRegistration of GIs seems to be a process rather than a single step, requesting coordination and consensus and an interplay between internal and external actors. “Success” and “failure” are relative and related to self-governance processes and the openness of the social system of the GI to establish transparency on inclusion and exclusion. GI systems require constant management and re-definition of production quality or geographical boundaries to adapt to market, climate or technological change.Originality/valueThe paper introduces GI systems categorized as “failures” (either products that did not register as GIs in the end or did register but failed to keep the registration) which provides more insights on how to design and manage complex GI systems.