**3. Methodology**

As a comparative proposal of analysis, this work recognizes the necessity of adequate different realities. Social sciences often require the use of common concepts in both compared realities and acknowledge the sociocultural differences between them, and do not assume a universality (Smelser 1967; Mahoney 2007). Thus, this work compares the market in the same arena of the same modality of the IP protection of products and considers all

the differences considered by Fracarolli (2021). Additionally, Sartori (1991) points out the need for a finalistic means of comparison, for which reason this work seeks to find out how the market in both regions differs and the reasons for that, including whether it could be improved.

An alternate comparative approach proposed by Ragin (2014) describes a modern construction of the comparison, based on the calibration, of the qualitative outcomes and the set-theoretic relations regarding the different realities. This way, the present work understands that a more in-depth explanation is required. Thus, it uses economic sociological tools as an interdisciplinary approach (Smelser 2003) to address the problematic and leading causes and reasons, as the ones proposed by Swinnen (2007, 2010, 2016) on niche agrifood market formation and by Fligstein (1996, 2002, 2008a, 2008b) on how markets stabilize and are constructed. The quantitative data will be used to support the qualitative analysis. Hence, considering the contributions of both authors, the hypothesis assumed is that the EU's market will have a significantly more endogenous influence on its products. Additionally, the countries from southern Europe will have a substantial dominance in the markets of both economic blocs.

This work uses mixed methods of quantitative and qualitative research design. It compares the categories of product offerings, their origin, the penetration of GI products, and the difference between both economic blocs. In addition, the work maps the sources of GI agrifood products, excluding wine, aromatized wines and spirits. Finally, the work also evaluates the cultural aspects involved in constructing the niche market regarding IP.

This research consists of the comparison of three essential aspects of GI in retail markets. The first one is to analyze the offerings of GI agrifood products advertised by web retail supermarkets. The second is to map the origins of these goods, comparing Mercosur and the EU. The third one is to analyze the GI systems according to their inside and outside influence on web retail super- and hypermarkets. The sum of these three aspects can indicate how institutions build GI agrifood markets in each bloc.

The analysis consists of five parts. Firstly, the arena of exchange where the transaction of goods happens is selected—in this case, the chosen arena is the super- and hypermarkets available online, i.e., the e-retail market. Secondly, the regions where these trades happen are chosen—since this work aims to compare two economic blocs, Mercosur and the EU, these are the regions of the randomly selected e-retailers. Thirdly, data relating to the number of products and the variety of GIs present in online retail supermarkets of these blocs is collected. Fourthly, the analysis of these indexes is undertaken in both categories, considering GI categories and their origin. Finally, the comparison between Mercosur and the EU is conducted. After that, a discussion of the findings takes place and possible outcomes are debated. Over the following subsections, we detail each step of this analytical work according to Scheme 1.

Since "markets are socially constructed arenas where repeated exchanges occur between buyers and sellers under a set of formal and informal rules governing relations among competitors, suppliers, and customers" (Fligstein and Calder 2015, p. 1), they also need to be also investigated while considering these biases. Thus, the intention is to collect data indicating the GI products markets' differences from the perspective of both economic blocs.

Considering specific issues, it is necessary to clarify some details. This work involved a search for products and respective GIs on retail supermarkets and hypermarkets that allow web shopping. If the website requires an address to shop, the center of the country's most populated city is used. All GI agrifood products registered on the EU or Mercosur database were considered. Only agrifood products were collected and considered for this work; wines, spirits, and aromatized wines were not considered.

**Scheme 1.** Methodology of analysis of the GI market arena.

However, before searching the products sold across all countries, it was necessary to find the existing GIs. To do that, it is crucial to understand that there is a single register source for the EU, but there are independent ones for each of Mercosur's countries, according to Fracarolli (Fracarolli 2021). Therefore, this work contemplated all EU registers and all registers in each Mercosur country. On the European side, this work examined the EU database at eAmbrosia (European Commission 2020). Overseas, the considered data were from the available dataset from each authority from Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay (INPI 2020; Prosur Proyecta 2020; Ministerio de Agricultura, Ganadería y Pesca 2020); however, Paraguay is still in the process of registering products and Uruguay only has registers of wine products. Since this work does not contemplate wines, spirits, or aromatized wines, there were no products from Uruguay or Paraguay.

For the data collection, we went through the websites of four major grocery retail supermarkets for all of the active members of Mercosur (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay) and the most representative EU members (Italy, France, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Germany, and Poland). The criterion for choose these countries was the need to pick the most relevant GI markets of each. In the Mercosur case, all active members were selected due to most of the available countries allowing for comparison. Additionally, these countries chosen from the EU represent over 80% of the EU's GI registers, which ensures a significant number of registrations for a relevant comparison. For each supermarket, all products with a GI label registered in the respective country were considered.

This work uses the EU criteria to separate the products into comparable categories available at the European Commission on eAmbrosia (European Commission 2020). The categories for agrifood products are: 1.1 Fresh meat; 1.2 Meat products; 1.3 Cheeses; 1.4 Other products of animal origin; 1.5 Oils and fats; 1.6 Fruits, vegetables and cereals fresh or processed (FVC); 1.7 Fresh fish, mollusks and crustaceans and derived; 1.8 Others such as spices; 2.1 Beers; 2.2 Chocolate and derived; 2.3 Bread, pastry, cakes and alike; 2.4 Beverages from plant extracts; 2.5 Pasta; 2.6 Salt; 2.7 Natural gums and resins; 2.8 Mustard paste; 2.9 Hay; 2.10 Essential oils; 2.11 Cork; 2.12 Cochineal; 2.13 Flowers and ornamental plants; 2.14 Cotton; 2.15 Wool; 2.16 Wicker; 2.17 Scutched flax; 2.18 Leather; 2.19 Fur and; 2.20 Feathers.
