Sui Generis Geographical Indications Fostering Localized Sustainable Fashion: A Cross-Industry Assessment
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Background
2.1. The Potential of GIs for Geographically-Rooted Fashion Items: Re-Framing the Origin Link through the Socio-Terroir Concept
2.2. The Link between GIs and Sustainability: Cross-Industry and Transdisciplinary Research between the Wine and Fashion Sectors
3. Research Methodology
3.1. IP Assets Protecting Locally Made Garments and Footwear in France and Italy
- Kind of mark: collective;
- Nice Class: 25 (including apparel and footwear);
- Trademark status: registered.
- Data sourced and adapted from;
- Type of product;
- Production method;
- Raw materials;
- Nature of the link;
- Applicant;
- Check and balance mechanism.
3.2. Sustainability and Sui-Generis GI: The Wine Industry in Gioia del Colle
- Economic;
- Environmental;
- Social;
- Holistic.
4. Results
4.1. Terroir Criteria Safeguarding Localized Fashion Items
4.1.1. Type of Product
4.1.2. Production Methods
4.1.3. Raw Materials
4.1.4. Link with the Geographic Area
4.1.5. Traceability
4.1.6. Applicants
4.1.7. Check and Balance Mechanism
4.2. Sustainable GI Production from the Winegrowers’ Perspective
5. Discussion
5.1. Socio-Terroir and Sustainability Criteria for Geographically Rooted Apparel and Footwear
5.1.1. Raw Materials
5.1.2. Production Methods
5.1.3. Link with the Geographic Area
5.1.4. Applicants
5.2. Sustainable GIs and the Benefits of a Trust Enabler in the Consumer, Producer, and Institutional Dimensions
6. Conclusions and Research Limitations
Author Contributions
Funding
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Ling, W.; Lorusso, M.; Reinach, S.S. Critical Studies in Global Fashion. ZoneModa J. 2019, 9, V–XVI. [Google Scholar]
- Arrigo, E. Global Sourcing in Fast Fashion Retailers: Sourcing Locations and Sustainability Considerations. Sustainability 2020, 12, 508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, H.; Harris, L. The impact of COVID-19 pandemic on corporate social responsibility and marketing philosophy. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 116, 176–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Curtis, F. Eco-localism and sustainability. Ecol. Econ. 2003, 46, 83–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dybdahl, L. Business Model Innovation for Sustainability through Localism: Select Proceedings of IC3E 2018. In Recent Trends in Communication, Computing, and Electronics; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; pp. 193–211. [Google Scholar]
- Fletcher, K. The Fashion Land Ethic: Localism, Clothing Activity, and Macclesfield. Fash. Pract. 2018, 10, 139–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klepp, I.G.; Tobiasson, T.S. Local, Slow and Sustainable Fashion: Wool as a Fabric for Change; Klepp, I.G., Tobiasson, T.S., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Fletcher, K.; Tham, M. Earth Logic: Fashion Action Research Plan; JJ Charitable Trust: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Caron, P.; Valette, É.; Wassenaar, T.; Coppens, D.E.; Papazian, V. Living Territories to Transform the World; Éditions Quae: Paris, France, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- EUCJ. Organisation Juive Européenne and Vignoble Psagot; EUCJ: Ingolstadt, Germany, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- European Union. Regulation (EU) No 952/2013; Laying Down the Union Customs Code; European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 9 October 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Warnaby, G.; Medway, D. What about the ‘place’ in place marketing? Mark. Theory 2013, 13, 345–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saatcioglu, B.; Ozanne, J.L. A Critical Spatial Approach to Marketplace Exclusion and Inclusion. J. Public Policy Mark. 2013, 32, 32–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vacca, F. Design sul Filo della Tradizione; Pitagora Editrice: Bologna, Italy, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Stanton, J.L.; Wiley, J.B.; Wirth, F.F. Who are the locavores? J. Consum. Mark. 2012, 29, 248–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Minca, C.; Colombino, A. Breve Manuale di Geografia Umana; CEDAM: Milano, Italy, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Bowen, S.; Mutersbaugh, T. Local or localized? Exploring the contributions of Franco-Mediterranean agrifood theory to alternative food research. Agric. Hum. Values 2014, 31, 201–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Belletti, G.; Marescotti, A.; Touzard, J.-M. Geographical Indications, Public Goods, and Sustainable Development: The Roles of Actors’ Strategies and Public Policies. World Dev. 2017, 98, 45–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Commission. Farm to Fork Strategy; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- EU Commission. Inception Impact Assessment on EU Protection of Geographical Indications for Non-Agricultural Products, in Ares(2020)7158775, D.G.; EU Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Fletcher, K.; Vittersø, G. Local Food Initiatives and Fashion Change: Comparing Food and Clothes to Better Understand Fashion Localism. Fash. Pract. 2018, 10, 160–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- WTO. Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS); WTO: Geneva, Switzerland, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Bérard, L.; Cegarra, M.; Djama, M.; Louafi, S.; Marchenay, P.; Roussel, B.; Verdeaux, F. Savoirs et savoir-faire naturalistes locaux: L’originalité française. VertigO Rev. Électronique Sci. Environ. 2005, 6. Available online: https://agritrop.cirad.fr/530567/1/document_530567.pdf (accessed on 4 April 2022). [CrossRef]
- Smith, J. Coffee Landscapes: Specialty Coffee, Terroir, and Traceability in Costa Rica. Cult. Agric. Food Environ. 2018, 40, 36–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marie-Vivien, D. The protection of geographical indications for handicrafts: How to apply the concepts of natural and human factors to all products. WIPO J. 2013, 4, 191–205. [Google Scholar]
- EPRS. Geographical Indications for Non-Agricultural Products—Cost of Non-Europe Report; EPRS: Brussels, Belgium; Luxembourg; Strasbourg, France, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- European Commission. A Single Market for Intellectual Property Rights, in (COM/2011/0287 Fnal); European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- EU Commission. Study on Geographical Indications Protection for Non-Agricultural Products in the Internal Market. 2013. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/14897 (accessed on 15 March 2022).
- European Parliament. Resolution of 6 October 2015 on the Possible Extension of Geographical Indication Protection of the European Union to Non-Agricultural Products (2015/2053(INI)). 2015. Available online: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2015-0331_EN.html (accessed on 15 March 2022).
- EU Commission. Study on Enforcement of GI. 2021. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/46632 (accessed on 15 March 2022).
- WIPO. Lisbon Agreement for the Protection of Appellations of Origin and Their International Registration; WIPO: Geneva, Switzerland, 1958. [Google Scholar]
- EU Commission. Regulation on Geographical Indications for Craft and Industrial Products Documents. 2022. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/growth/publications/regulation-geographical-indications-craft-and-industrial-products-documents_en (accessed on 15 March 2022).
- Giordano, S. Territorial Identity and Rural Development: Organic Viticulture in Apulia Region and Languedoc Roussillon. In L’apporto Della Geografia tra Rivoluzioni Riforme; Atti del XXXII Congresso Geografico Italiano; Salvatori, F., Ed.; AGEI: Rome, Italy, 2019; pp. 1901–1909. [Google Scholar]
- European Comission. Economic Aspects of Geographical Indication Protection at EU Level for Non-Agricultural Products in the EU; Publications Office: Luxembourg, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Carls, S.; Gocci, A.; Guerrieri, F.; Knaak, R.; Kur, A.; Zappalaglio, A. Study on the Functioning of the EU GI System; Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition: München, Germany, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Gocci, A.; Luetge, C. The Synergy of Tradition and Innovation Leading to Sustainable Geographical Indication Products: A Literature Review. J. Manag. Sustain. 2020, 10, 152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Commission. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on European Union Geographical Indications for Wine, Spirit Drinks and Agricultural Products, and Quality Schemes for Agricultural Products, Amending Regulations (EU) No 1308/2013, (EU) 2017/1001 and (EU) 2019/787 and Repealing Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, in COM(2022) 134 Final; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Guerrieri, F. The Farm to Fork strategy as an external driver for change: Possible impacts on nested GI rule systems. J. Intellect. Prop. Law Pract. 2021, 16, 331–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marescotti, A.; Quiñones-Ruiz, X.F.; Edelmann, H.; Belletti, G.; Broscha, K.; Altenbuchner, C.; Penker, M.; Scaramuzzi, S. Are Protected Geographical Indications Evolving Due to Environmentally Related Justifications? An Analysis of Amendments in the Fruit and Vegetable Sector in the European Union. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prothero, A.; McDonagh, P. Sustainability Marketing Research: Past, Present and Future. J. Mark. Manag. 2014, 30, 1186–1219. [Google Scholar]
- Schwarz, G.; Vanni, F.; Miller, D. The role of transdisciplinary research in the transformation of food systems. Agric. Food Econ. 2021, 9, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huysmans, M.; Swinnen, J. No Terroir in the Cold? A Note on the Geography of Geographical Indications. J. Agric. Econ. 2019, 70, 550–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Code de de la Propriété Intellectuelle. Section 2: Indications Géographiques Protégeant les Produits Industriels et Artisanaux. Articles L721-2–L721-10. Available online: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/section_lc/LEGITEXT000006069414/LEGISCTA000028742898/ (accessed on 4 April 2022).
- INPI. National Register Geographical Indications; INPI: Courbevoie, France, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- INPI. All Registered GIs for Non-Agricultural Products. Available online: https://base-indications-geographiques.inpi.fr/fr/ig-homologuees (accessed on 4 April 2022).
- INPI-2003—Linge Basque. Available online: https://base-indications-geographiques.inpi.fr/fr/document/linge-basque-0#ig-detail (accessed on 4 April 2022).
- INPI-1901—Charentaise de Charente-Périgord. Available online: https://base-indications-geographiques.inpi.fr/fr/document/charentaise-de-charente-p%C3%A9rigord#ig-detail (accessed on 4 April 2022).
- Regulation (EU) 2017/1001; The European Union Trade Mark. European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 4 June 2017.
- Michaelsen, F.; Hill, J.; Buckingham, S.; Rzepecka, J.; Chever, T.; Kane, F.; Lepeule, L.; Romieu, V.; Zappalaglio, A. Study on Control and Enforcement Rules for Geographical Indication (GI) Protection for Non-Agricultural Products in the EU; EU Report; Publication Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- EUIPO. eSearch Plus. Available online: https://euipo.europa.eu/ohimportal/it/esearch (accessed on 4 April 2022).
- Consorzio Vera Pelle Italiana Conciata al Vegetale. Available online: http://www.pellealvegetale.it/en/consortium/ (accessed on 4 April 2022).
- Cardato Recycled Made in Prato. Available online: http://www.cardato.it/it/marchi/marchio-cardato-recycled/ (accessed on 4 April 2022).
- Protected Designation of Origin—PDO-IT-A0549—Gioia del Colle. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/food-safety-and-quality/certification/quality-labels/geographical-indications-register/includes/showSpecification.cfm?attachmentId=24175 (accessed on 4 April 2022).
- Giordano, S. Cultural Tourism and Districts: The Future of Organic Viticulture in the Apulia Region. The Case of the CDO Gioia del Colle. In Tourism Management and Development of Territory” UNICART Selected Papers; International Academic Research Center: Brussels, Belgium, 2020; Volume 1. [Google Scholar]
- Protected Designation of Origin—PDO-IT-02384 Mozzarella di Gioia del Colle. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3AOJ.L_.2020.415.01.0046.01.ENG&toc=OJ%3AL%3°2020%3°415%3ATOC (accessed on 4 April 2022).
- Ministero delle Attività Produttive. Decreto Ministeriale (Attività Produttive). Adeguamento alla Disciplina Comunitaria dei Criteri di Individuazione di Piccole e Medie Imprese; G.U. n. 238 del 12 ottobre 2005; Ministero delle Attività Produttive: Roma, Italy, 18 April 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Strauss, A.L. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, 2nd ed.; Corbin, J.M., Ed.; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA; London, UK, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- United Nations. 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- European Commission. Impact Assessment on Policy Options for a Review of the GI/TSG Scheme; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Purvis, B.; Mao, Y.; Robinson, D. Three pillars of sustainability: In search of conceptual origins. Sustain. Sci. 2019, 14, 681–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Regulation (EU) 2018/848; Organic Production and Labelling of Organic Products. European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 30 May 2018.
- Italy, Law of 12 December 2016 n. 238 (“Testo Unico del Vino”). Gazzetta Ufficiale, 2016. Available online: https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/2016/12/28/16G00251/sg (accessed on 15 March 2022).
- Zappalaglio, A.; Guerrieri, F.; Carls, S. Sui Generis Geographical Indications for the Protection of Non-Agricultural Products in the EU: Can the Quality Schemes Fulfil the Task? IIC Int. Rev. Intellect. Prop. Compet. Law 2020, 51, 31–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012; Quality Schemes for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs. European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 21 November 2012.
- India, Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act. 1999. Available online: https://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/A1999-48.pdf (accessed on 15 March 2022).
- Marie Vivien, D. The Protection of Geographical Indications in India: A New Perspective on the French and European Experience; Ringgold Inc.: Beaverton, OR, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Fibershed. Available online: https://fibershed.org/about/ (accessed on 4 April 2022).
- Marie-Vivien, D.; Carimentrand, A.; Fournier, S.; Cerdan, C.; Sautier, D. Controversies around geographical indications. Br. Food J. 2019, 121, 2995–3010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Noto La Diega, G. Can the law fix the problems of fashion? An empirical study on social norms and power imbalance in the fashion industry. J. Intellect. Prop. Law Pract. 2018, 14, 18–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rafi-Ul-Shan, P.M.; Grant, D.B.; Perry, P. Are fashion supply chains capable of coopetition? An exploratory study in the UK. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 2020, 25, 278–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Commission. Product Environmental Information. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/smgp/pdf/infographic-env-info.pdf (accessed on 4 April 2022).
- UNECE. Recommendation No. 46: Enhancing Traceability and Transparency of Sustainable Value Chains in the Garment and Footwear Sector; UNECE: Geneva, Switzerland, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Taufique, K.M.R.; Polonsky, M.J.; Vocino, A.; Siwar, C. Measuring consumer understanding and perception of eco-labelling: Item selection and scale validation. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2019, 43, 298–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chon, M. Trademark goodwill as a public good: Brands and innovations in corporate social responsibility. Lewis Clark Law Rev. 2017, 21, 277. [Google Scholar]
- UNWTO. Framework Convention on Tourism Ethics, Resolution; A/RES/722XXIII; UNWTO: Madrid, Spain, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Prévost, D.; Alexovicova, I.; Hillebrand Pohl, J. Restoring Trust in Trade: Liber Amicorum in Honour of Peter Van Den Bossche; Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.: London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Barjolle, D.; Paus, M.; Perret, A. Impacts of Geographical Indications—Review of Methods and Empirical Evidences. 2009. Available online: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/51737/ (accessed on 15 March 2022).
- Osei-Tutu, J.J. Protecting Culturally Identifiable Fashion: What Role for GIs? FIU Law Rev. 2021, 14, 571–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Joosse, S.; Hracs, B. Curating the quest for good food: The practices, spatial dynamics and influence of food-related curation in Sweden. Geoforum 2015, 64, 205–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nilssen, R.; Bick, G.; Abratt, R. Comparing the relative importance of sustainability as a consumer purchase criterion of food and clothing in the retail sector. J. Brand Manag. 2019, 26, 71–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Linge Basque | Charentaise de Charente-Périgord | |
---|---|---|
Sourced and adapted from | INPI-2003—Linge Basque https://base-indications-geographiques.inpi.fr/fr/document/linge-basque-0#ig-detail (accessed on 15 March 2022) | INPI-1901—Charentaise de Charente-Périgord https://base-indications-geographiques.inpi.fr/fr/document/charentaise-de-charente-p%C3%A9rigord#ig-detail (accessed on 15 March 2022) |
Type of product |
| Finished product: closed shoe with an upper part that runs up the instep. Flat sole. No right or left foot. |
Production method | Four mandatory steps: warping, knotting, setting, and weaving (on the loom). Making up, finishing, and shipping operations are not mandatory for the fabric production. Only traditional motifs and geometric patterns admitted. No color limitations. | Sew-and-turn only, in four steps:
|
Raw materials | Natural fibres only:
| No limitations for the upper and lining materials. For the sole:
|
Nature of the link | Production located in the area for centuries. Traditional, cultural, and symbolic meaning of weaving. Distinctive features of the linen (strength, durability) associated with the identity of the Basque people. Soil and climate characteristics ensuring flax cultivation. Strategic geographical position for supplying complementary raw materials. Supply chain fully structured within the territory, including cotton spinning and industrial dyeing, because of the distance from the centers of production or processing of raw materials. Shaping/adaptation to the needs of local populations from self-consumption to industrialization in connection with agro-pastoralism and agriculture. | Product stemming from vegetable fiber or leather deriving from local agriculture and livestock:
|
Applicant | Syndicat des tisseurs du linge basque, established in 1953. | Association pour la promotion de la Charentaise, established in 1901. |
Check and balance mechanism | Internal and external check-audit. | Internal and external check-audit. |
Cardato Recycled Made in Prato | Consorzio Vera Pelle Italiana Conciata al Vegetale | |
---|---|---|
Sourced and adapted from | Cardato Recycled Made in Prato http://www.cardato.it/it/marchi/marchio-cardato-recycled/ (accessed on 15 March 2022). | Consorzio Vera Pelle Italiana Conciata al Vegetale http://www.pellealvegetale.it/en/consortium/ (accessed on 15 March 2022). |
Type of product | “Lana meccanica”: regenerated wool fiber resulting from the carbonization and shredding processes of used or discarded fabrics, rags, or scraps of clothing. Fabrics and yarns deriving from the transformation of mechanical wool, being composed at least of 65% “lana meccanica”. | Leather products, as defined by Directive 94/11/CE, transformed through vegetable tannins. |
Production method | Not regulated. | Not mandatory but traditional and generally abided by:
|
Raw materials | At least 65% of used or discarded fabrics, rags, or scraps of clothing. | Leather originates from Tuscany; if not, it has undergone the entire manufacturing process of most relevant phases in Tuscany. |
Traceability | The company is required to trace the production history of the goods, with particular emphasis on:
| A leather list, including sourcing and manufacturing locations, shall be always available for auditing purposes. |
Sustainable impact | Preliminary environmental impact assessment required throughout the product life cycle, from the acquisition of raw materials or the generation of natural resources to final disposal (UNI EN ISO 14044). |
|
Territorial link | Prato district, defined according to Art. 36 of law 317/1991 modified by art. 6 paragraph 8, law 110/1999. | Associated companies must have their production facilities in Tuscany. Suppliers shall operate in Tuscany, and a list of suppliers involved in the production process shall be kept for audit purposes. |
Applicant | Prato Chamber of Commerce | Genuine Italian Vegetable-Tanned Leather Consortium. |
Check and balance mechanism | Consultancy Company Certification body carries out the inspection for data validation | Internal and external check-audit. |
Sustainable Development Goals | GI’s Potential Contribution | |
---|---|---|
Straightforward Benefits | Ancillary Advantages and Required Actions | |
ECONOMIC IMPACT | ||
| Energy from renewable sources (only); Boost in energy savings through more efficient strategies. | Costs and infrastructures to improve energy efficiency. |
| Access to financial services and diversification of funding sources; Greater investment in R&D; New marketing channels; International market segments reached; Implementation of innovative techniques. | Weak infrastructures (physical and digital) that need to be reinforced;New technologies or environmentally friendly industrial processes needed to compete in global markets;Urgency to enhance use of digital tools;Lack of economic incentives based on environmental commitment or quality. |
SOCIAL IMPACT | ||
| Boost cooperation with education system for training skilled workers (especially for manual activities);Financial support for training or for obtaining advisory services;Foster skills development through vocational training and innovation “on the job”;Facilitate inter-generational transmission of traditional techniques (also in innovative ways). | |
| Higher involvement of women in leading positions;Poor implementation of gender-sensitive policies;Increase number of women in managerial roles;Limited promotion of gender equality and women empowerment at all levels;Equal wage is still not always achieved. | |
| Higher diversity in the workforce (especially nationality and ethnicity). | Positive role in local employment (job creation and maintaining) in rural areas;Better income than non-GI enterprises not confirmed;Non-systematic impact on income;Differences among territories and non-homogeneous benefits;Youth employment still needs to take off;Code of conduct: recognized importance but still low adoption. |
| Increased social, economic, and political inclusion within local communities; Discrimination (gender, race, ethnicity, origin, religion, etc.) is more effectively managed; Preservation of living cultural heritage, especially traditional techniques. | Social protection policies do not go beyond legal requirements, Higher vulnerability for seasonal workers and migrants. |
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT | ||
| Awareness-raising campaigns needed;Low data and scattered actions to reduce GHG emissions;Waste prevention, reduction, recycling, and reuse not widely implemented;Little knowledge of profitable circular economy strategies;Productivity affected by climate change and no support to producers;Need to implement adaptation, mitigation, early warning, and impact reduction measures in business strategies but institutional support needed. | |
| More efficient water-management strategies also due to traditional production methods and localized value chain. | Reduced use of chemicals and chemical fertilizers, especially affecting water: still not related to GIs’ adoption;Impact on the production intensity after chemical removal;Limited awareness of marine pollution related to land-based activities. |
| Ancillary benefits of promoting cultural heritage and traditional landscape (e.g., restoring biodiversity). | Minimized impact of the value chains on environment (water, soil, air), improved animal welfare, preservation of traditional landscapes: not dependent upon the GI;Fostered biodiversity using old varieties and techniques but lack of data collection to support the statements;Favor for more extensive methods (imposing maximum yields);Slow process with different level of commitment depending on public and private initiatives not strictly related to the GI;Voluntary-based initiatives, lack of encompassing and binding requirements;Conservation, restoration, sustainable use of terrestrial, inland freshwater ecosystems (forests, mountains, drylands): boosted following the independent adoption of strategies not related to the GI. |
HOLISTIC IMPACT | ||
| Turn production constraints (e.g., isolation and weak infrastructures) into assets; Enhanced cross-sector relationships (especially for slow-tourism and gastronomy, beyond a seasonal approach); Promotion and proudness of regional identity, local culture, and natural heritage. | Cross-industry potential not fully unleashed;Limited economic, social, and environmental links between urban and rural areas. |
| More reliable information to consumers; Fair return for producers; Price premium and better income for the value-adding characteristics of products; De-commoditization (reduced price volatility). | Lack of understanding of detailed meaning of GI schemes;Positive economic impacts highly dependent on economic environment and strategies implemented by operators;Transparency (e.g., via information on website or labels or sustainability reports) hampered for many reasons (data collection, costs, etc.);Scant attention to packaging and labeling methods. |
| Prominent role of the Consortium; Positive “emulation” effect within the Consortium; Partnerships among producers to mobilize and share knowledge, skills, and technology; Partnerships with local actors, universities, and peers located abroad through the Consortium. | Consortium’s role to be reinforced;Limited number of effective public–private partnerships, also involving civil society, to achieve the SDGs;Cross-industry partnerships (especially for circular and bioeconomy) little explored;No legislative requirements to guide partnership agreements;Strong individualism and fragmentation;Discrepancies in cultural and entrepreneurial mindsets;Need to increase mutually beneficial partnerships with big players. |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Cavagnero, S.; Giordano, S. Sui Generis Geographical Indications Fostering Localized Sustainable Fashion: A Cross-Industry Assessment. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5251. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095251
Cavagnero S, Giordano S. Sui Generis Geographical Indications Fostering Localized Sustainable Fashion: A Cross-Industry Assessment. Sustainability. 2022; 14(9):5251. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095251
Chicago/Turabian StyleCavagnero, Sara, and Simona Giordano. 2022. "Sui Generis Geographical Indications Fostering Localized Sustainable Fashion: A Cross-Industry Assessment" Sustainability 14, no. 9: 5251. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095251