Five Drivers Decide Whether Small-Scale Food Geographical Indications Succeed, Review Finds

Geographical Indications (GIs) protect and valorise agri-food products whose quality, reputation or characteristics are linked to a specific geographical origin. A new systematic literature review published in Agricultural and Food Economics argues that the fate of small-scale registered and qualifying agri-food GIs rests less on legal paperwork than on how well producers and stakeholders organise themselves collectively. Francesco Fasano and Francesco Pagliacci analysed peer-reviewed studies using the PRISMA methodology and identified five drivers that influence collective action in these contexts: collaboration between stakeholders, face-to-face relations among producers, trust and social capital, GI certification as a goal, and the socio-demographic characteristics of stakeholders.

The review’s central message is that collective action depends on the interaction between relational, organisational and institutional factors. No single driver operates in isolation. Collaboration becomes more effective when supported by trust and repeated interaction; GI certification can act as a collective incentive only when producers share expectations and organisational capacity; and socio-demographic characteristics influence collective action mainly through their effects on participation, learning and institutional engagement. The authors stress that their findings are qualitative analytical categories rather than statistically measurable variables or causal determinants of GI success.

The researchers conducted their systematic literature review following the PRISMA framework, collecting data from Scopus and Web of Science. They searched for the terms “Geographical Indications” combined with “Collective action” using the Boolean operator “AND” in both databases. After removing 29 duplicate records with the software Mendeley, applying subject-area filters to exclude works related to biochemistry, chemistry, genetics and biology, screening abstracts and conducting a full-text interpretive eligibility assessment, the final sample consisted of 20 articles. The total number of papers initially found was 115, with 63 documents on Scopus and 52 on Web of Science, which the authors note already suggests the existence of a scanty literature on this topic.

The review focused on small-scale agri-food products and deliberately excluded the wine sector. The authors explain this choice on methodological grounds: wine GIs represent a specific and institutionalised field, characterised by dedicated regulatory frameworks, consolidated appellation systems, stronger market segmentation and different governance structures compared with most small-scale agri-food products. Including wine GIs would have introduced substantial sectoral heterogeneity, making it difficult to compare wine-related collective action with the collective organisation of small producer groups involved in agri-food products. Grey literature, including reports, policy documents, working papers and institutional documents, was also excluded to ensure a consistent scientific standard and a transparent, replicable selection process, and only articles written in English were considered.

The 20 selected articles were analysed through a qualitative thematic coding strategy that was both theory-informed and inductively refined. The interpretation of the articles was guided by the theoretical framework on collective action, social capital and GI governance, particularly the contributions of Elinor Ostrom and Robert Putnam. Ostrom’s work shows that local communities and groups can develop self-governed arrangements based on shared rules, monitoring, communication, conflict-resolution mechanisms and graduated sanctions, challenging the assumption that collective action problems can be solved only through external authority or purely individual incentives. Putnam’s concept of social capital refers to the networks, norms and trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation among individuals and groups.

The coding process grouped similar concepts under broader analytical categories. References to cooperation, coordination among producers, institutional support or joint decision-making were coded as “collaboration between stakeholders”. References to direct interaction, proximity, informal relations, meetings or repeated communication were coded as “face-to-face relations among producers”. References to mutual confidence, reciprocity, shared norms, reputation or previous experiences of cooperation were labelled as “trust and social capital”. References to the willingness to obtain, maintain or valorise GI recognition were coded as “GI certification as a goal”, and references to education, ageing, generational renewal or human capital were coded as “socio-demographic characteristics of stakeholders”. Each driver was coded as positive when an article described it as facilitating cooperation, GI registration, product valorisation or effective governance, and as negative when its absence, weakness or problematic configuration limited these outcomes.

The geographical distribution of the case studies reflects the European origins of the GI system. Most of the works were conducted in Europe, particularly in Italy, which the authors attribute to GIs being the most important European quality schemes and Italy being the country with the largest number of GIs. Three studies were conducted outside Europe, two in Africa and one in Asia. Most case studies referred to GI beans, followed by qualifying and registered GI cheeses, and most works related to both GI and non-GI fruit and vegetables. Most of the selected articles were published in 2017, 2018 and 2021, although the authors note that a strong correlation over the years seemed not to be present.

The review distinguishes between registered GIs, which already involve formalised governance arrangements, and qualifying GIs, which are eligible to apply but not yet formally recognised. In registered GIs, positive configurations generally occur when collaboration between stakeholders is associated with repeated interaction, trust and a shared strategy for product valorisation. In these cases, collective action operates through producer coordination, definition of common objectives and governance of product reputation. Conversely, negative configurations emerge when collaboration, trust or face-to-face relations are weak, showing how fragmented producer relations, limited coordination or difficulty in managing common rules may constrain GI governance.

In qualifying GI cases, the drivers often operate before formal recognition. Here, collective action is mainly related to the formation of producer groups, the construction of trust and the evaluation of GI certification as a possible shared objective. In cases where collaboration and social capital are stronger, producers appear more capable of organising around a potential GI strategy. By contrast, weak trust, negative historical experiences, ageing or out-migration may constrain collective organisation, showing how social capital and human capital influence the feasibility of GI-oriented collective action. The authors caution that weak knowledge of the GI concept, limited institutional support and poor collaboration between producers and public bodies may constrain the development of qualifying GIs.

The authors acknowledge several limitations. The final sample consisted of only 20 articles, which limits the generalisability of the findings. The review included only peer-reviewed articles written in English and indexed in Scopus or Web of Science, a choice that improved transparency and replicability but might have led to the exclusion of relevant studies published in national languages, especially in countries where GI research is well established, such as Italy, France and Spain. The selected articles are also heterogeneous in terms of countries, products, methods and disciplinary perspectives, which requires caution when comparing their findings. Future research, the authors suggest, could focus on in-depth empirical case studies of GI agri-food products to explore how the five identified drivers operate in real-world settings, how they interact over time and how producer groups, institutions and other stakeholders manage collective action before and after GI recognition.

Subject of Research: Collective action drivers in small-scale registered and qualifying agri-food Geographical Indications

Article Title: Analysing the role of collective actions in small-scale registered and qualifying agri-food Geographical Indications through a systematic literature review

Article References: Fasano, F., & Pagliacci, F. (2026). Analysing the role of collective actions in small-scale registered and qualifying agri-food Geographical Indications through a systematic literature review. Agricultural and Food Economics, 14(1), Article 60. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40100-026-00501-x

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1186/s40100-026-00501-x

Keywords: Geographical Indications, collective action, systematic literature review, PRISMA, social capital, trust, agri-food, small-scale producers, GI certification, stakeholder collaboration, rural development, qualifying GIs