*4.3. Overview*

The overall results show a vast difference in GI products' online market performance between Mercosur and EU. Meanwhile, the number of GI products found is 388 at Mercosur supermarkets and 1784 in the EU, representing 97 products per country for the former and 254.9 for the latter, as shown in Figure 5. It shows the proportions of GI products by their origin found in each group of e-retail markets. The first observation allows the inference that most GI products found in the EU markets are from within its countries, mainly from the Mediterranean ones. On the other hand, in Mercosur's markets, about half of GI products are from outside. The GI products from within are mainly from Argentina.

**Figure 5.** GI products in e-retail markets of Mercosur and the EU according to the origins.

Besides the products, the issue of the origin and proportions of the wide variety of GIs present on the markets of each economic bloc is another important issue to consider. In Figure 6, there is a clear demonstration of the data collected. This graphic shows that the products' origins have a similarity between the number of products and the number of registered GIs present in each bloc. However, there are a few differences, such as the proportion of the variety of GI in Mercosur, which is now more abundant from countries outside the bloc.

**Figure 6.** Presence of GIs registrations on Mercosur and in the EU in the e-retail market by country.

> One other important aspect of the analysis is the issue regarding the number of registrations in each bloc and the number of GIs actually present on the e-retail market. As shown in Figure 7, only a small portion of registered products appeared in the survey for both blocs.

**Figure 7.** Difference of existing GIs versus GIs found in e-retail market in Mercosur and the EU.

Figure 7 shows that only 286, or 20.23%, GIs were found on the EU e-retail market from 1414 existing intrabloc registrations, while in Mercosur, only 6, or 11.32%, were found from 53 existing GIs. These results allow an inference that in the e-retail market, there is an absence of representation in both blocks, although, in Mercosur, the representation is even more fragile. This graph demonstrates that even a substantial number of registrations do not guarantee a product's presence in the market—or at least in the e-retail market. Besides, this denotes that whichever economic bloc is in question has an underrepresentation of its protected products. However, considering the abundance of products in the absolute and relative terms that appeared on the survey, the results point to different reasons. The

EU has demonstrated a significant number of products and GIs despite the poor results on representation. Therefore, the characteristics sugges<sup>t</sup> that such a scenario is more related to a focused commercial strategy based on a robust institutional system, as is discussed later on. On the other side, considering the absence of products and barely representing GI varieties on major e-retail, the results sugges<sup>t</sup> a discussion of the lack of systematic and coordinated policy towards developing the GI market. Nonetheless, all the possible causes and implications of such a path are discussed in the next section.

## **5. Discussion**

The difference between the Mercosur and the EU is evident. Three aspects are crucial for understanding the differences between them: the number and diversity of GI products, the categories of these products and their GI diversity, and the products commercialized in this kind of arena.

The first one relates to the number of products. Figures 1 and 3 show an enormous difference between the blocs on the number of products surveyed in e-retail markets. The EU presented 4.6 times more GI products than in the Mercosur region; however, this is not due to the number of countries, since the EU has 254.9 products per country and Mercosur has only 97. Additionally, the origin of those products is another important fact for this comparison. As presented in Figure 5, only 19 products were from countries outside the bloc, while in Mercosur, the number of products from outside the bloc was 203, more than half of the total. All of the 203 products found in Mercosur's markets were from the EU, and none of the foreign products in the EU were from Mercosur.

This asymmetry indicates that products' presence is not from bilateral agreements but due to a nontariff protectionist strategy of the agrifood market developed by the EU, as endorsed by some works and more relevant in the Mediterranean region (Josling 2006; Huysmans and Swinnen 2019; Huysmans 2020). Additionally, in the EU, the proportion of foreign products is similar to the variety of GI in the market. On the other hand, in Mercosur's e-retail markets, the proportion of inside products in the market is twice the proportion of the variety of GIs. This is due to the abundance of one specific product from within, Argentine Yerba Mate, as demonstrated in category 1.8 of Figure 4.

Consequently, such a scenario presents the assertiveness of Granovetter's (1985) approach on the association of economics and social action. The clear difference between inner products in each bloc demonstrates that the market is not only a matter of supply and demand but construction of the field. The detachment of this niche category through IP rights configure a field as theorized by Fligstein (2001) and Fligstein and McAdam (2012). Thus, the stabilization of this market involves strengthening the social relationship between the productive class and the state, as supported by Fracarolli (2021) and the argumen<sup>t</sup> pointed by Belletti et al. (2017) on the influence on private and public interventions.

However, the creation of the GI label does not guarantee this new field. The institutional support of the state, as pointed by Fracarolli (2021), pushes the market stabilization and promotion not only within territories but towards a conception of control as conceptualized by Fligstein (2002) and tends to protectionist measures, as previously observed by Swinnen (2007, 2016) and Huysmans and Swinnen (2019).

The second aspect regards the products' categories. There are significant differences between the economic blocs regarding the categories of products available via e-retail in both regions. In comparison, the EU has products in a broader diversity of categories. There were 13 categories of 30 on the electronic shelves of the EU. Among the products found, cheese products stand out, representing almost 60% of all products. On GI variety criteria, the cheese, FVC, meat products and oils represent more than 80% of GIs found, as shown in Figure 2. Despite all categories, the products and GIs commercialized in e-retail supermarkets focus only on a few types of products. On the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, the scenario is even more restricted. Only five of all these categories had products on display in e-retail markets in Mercosur. Among these products found, such as the EU, the cheese category presented the most GIs on the market, as shown in Figure 4. Products

and GI registers in e-retail markets of Mercosur regarding categories. However, it did not reflect on the number of products on the market. Regarding the products' criteria, category 1.8 had more than 50% of all found products. This is mainly due to the 153 "Yerba Mate" products and the 47 "Aceto Balsamico di Modena" products found in the supermarkets surveyed.

The difference in the variety of products found in both blocs brings the discussion onto the purposes of GI as a form of IP. Since fewer than half of the categories in both blocs had products available in e-retail markets, this raises a question on the reasons for such low performance and underrepresentation. Additionally, it needs to be asked where are these other products are sold and if they are sold. For such questions, further research is necessary. By number of registrations, wines, spirits and aromatized wines are the main focus of the EU GIs. However, this work looks only into agrifood products that exclude those beverages. There are few relevant protected categories for agrifood products presented by Figures 2 and 4. The reasons for seeking such a modality of IP could be either counterfeit protection or economic enhancement and value-adding.

The results found in this research are in accordance with Dias and Mendes's (2018) work regarding the variety of GI products. As discussed by Meloni and Swinnen (2018), Huysmans and Swinnen (2019) and Josling (2006), the southern countries of Europe stand out in this market. Therefore, it is a natural assumption that their product categories are brought into the spotlight. Such an event raises questions about the reasons for these categories to stand out, being important factors to consider in addition to the valuation premium due to the label, an ordinary object of studies (Bureau and Valceschini 2003; Crespi and Marette 2003; Deselnicu et al. 2013; Chilla et al. 2020). The distribution of product categories demonstrates the strength of the EU's IP protection quality scheme and the strength of the federalism of the EU's institutions (Fligstein 2008a). However, the research showed that most GI registers in Mercosur and the EU are not reflected by the actual market, specifically in electronic supermarkets. Moreover, such performance shows that IP rights protection does not guarantee market share, and there are possible dominant groups within the influential groups. However, such an assumption requires further studies.

The last aspect regards the number of existing registrations and the number found on the e-retail survey. Despite the significant difference between the proportions of both blocs, both severely lack absolute representation. The EU has only 20% GIs found, and Mercosur has only 11% from the existing ones. The vast majority of products not found over this survey need to be deeply investigated. If not e-retail, what kind of market is their arena of commerce? Much study has been done on wines (Agostino and Trivieri 2014; Addor and Grazioli 2002; Teuber 2011; Meloni and Swinnen 2018) and other more consolidated agrifood markets (Lamarque and Lambin 2015; Roselli et al. 2018; Dentoni et al. 2012; Hughes 2006). Nevertheless, research on less famous products can bring light to the functioning of this market.

Further investigation is required on the current economic activity of GI registrations that did not appear in the survey. The variety of unrepresented products needs further investigation. The reasons for this could rely either on the failure of the value chain of economic activity, on strictly regional commerce or on the lack of socio-political performance to guarantee similar representation for other products in the same categories. Again, the stratification of these categories and the concentration of categories sustain Swinnen's (2007, 2016) argumen<sup>t</sup> that the embeddedness of social organizations and state institutions develop arrangements that favor particular groups. The underrepresentation of such GI products enlightens the market on the matter of the results of embeddedness between groups of producers, commerce arenas and state institutions. Markets are social actions, as stated previously by Granovetter (1985), Abramovay (2004), and Allaire (2010), which require interventions by all involved parties in order to build and stabilize. The GI market is no different and this is reflected on e-commerce as demonstrated. Consequently, the EU

has a more stabilized and solid market, despite a significant lack of registered GIs in the arena.

Therefore, considering the EU and Mercosur results, the market's configuration approached points for strategic analysis. The EU, despite having a broader range of categories with significantly more registered GIs as well as translation of these GIs into products, there is a clear focus on goods such as cheese, meat products, oils and FVCs. On the other hand, Mercosur has only a few categories represented, not only in products available via e-retail but also on registrations (Fracarolli 2021). The divergent focus on strategy between countries is reflected in a market that cannot develop its full potential. It indicates that the focus on some products may incentivize others to seek GI protection. The focus on categories of products can improve commerce and benefit others. This slow snowball effect can boost commerce relations and serve as a bargaining chip subject to include other matters, also requiring further investigation.

Nevertheless, the intensifying of trade can benefit "decommodified" networks of producers by cooperation. Such detachment of products allows the institutionalization of commerce to operate in an embedded way through the state, which can now bargain for differentiated economic treatment. In this case, the Mercosur–EU agreemen<sup>t</sup> in the final stage involving GI products could benefit the market, although, some interest groups with higher tier state relations may operate to set asymmetric standards for privileged actors (Swinnen 2010, 2016).

## **6. Conclusions**

This work aimed to compare Mercosur and the European Union in terms of the performance of GI products and categories in this market exchange arena by analyzing e-retail supermarkets. To do such work, the investigation surveyed 44 e-retail supermarkets in 11 countries, seven of which were from the EU and four from Mercosur, in order to compare the GI market of both economic blocs in terms of product offerings, variety of products and effectiveness of registration. It consisted of a five-part analysis, according to Scheme 1. First, the research consisted of agrifood products labeled as GI, excluding wines, aromatized wines and spirits, resulting in 2184 products from 44 online supermarkets from 11 countries. This search presented the selling of 314 different GIs. Second, after the survey, the work classified the products according to the eAmbrosia database. Finally, it analyzed the collected data according to three essential aspects of GI in retail markets: GI offerings, the origin of the goods and the geographical influences from each bloc.

The survey of these websites revealed an expected difference between the two blocs. The differences are revelatory. The EU has a much more active GI market, well represented from within in terms of both products and GIs, and focused on specific goods categories, while Mercosur has a significantly less developed market shown on e-retail due to having fewer products and GIs in absolute and relative terms, a disadvantageous proportion of outside/inside products, and GI variety expressively for inner economy and production, along with a disordered strategy towards agrifood GI segments.

The global system leans toward expansionist capitalism, strengthening the mass production of agrifood goods by massification and standardization (Bonanno and Constance 2001). However, it also results in a countermovement in search of different, more culturally relevant products. This phenomenon creates niche markets regulated by state or suprastate institutions in the case of GI products. These regulations are embedded between the state and interest groups of niche producers. Nevertheless, they can be beneficial for intensifying the trade in value-added products and supporting the primary sector on a broad spectrum, particularly smallholder agrifood farmers.

The evidence presented in this paper supports the premise initially stated that the EU and Mercosur have a significant market difference regarding the e-retail of GI products. The differences concern quantity, variety and representativity. Such differences find pathways by strengthening strategic sorts of goods that lead institutional mechanisms towards economic benefits. Despite the risk of agendas and equity treatments being hijacked by interest groups, state actions on economic and development policies can be beneficial to smallholder farmers and culture-related agrifood producers by institutionalizing the differentiation of these products. The difference in the category of products capable of pushing forward others still requires further investigation. However, a consistent strategy for the improvement of the economic bloc points to developing the whole protected system and products. The strengthening of the system can also serve as a positive commercialdriven strategy for the primary sector of the economy. Moreover, it can promote steps towards a culturally embedded with broader democratic spectrum in the agrifood sector. Likewise, by fostering such a niche economy, there can be a positive impact on other sectors such as tourism.

Additionally, the present work revealed three major issues regarding the present market. The first one relates to the number of products. The number of GI products that appeared on the survey on e-commerce in EU markets is significantly greater than in Mercosur. This is mainly due to the strength of the institutional arrangements of each bloc. Thus, the presence of GI products shows an apparent asymmetry of inner-bloc GI performance. The second aspect regards the products' categories; here too the EU has a broader representation than Mercosur. However, even in this scenario, only a few categories were represented in e-retail in both economic blocs. This also denotes the cruciality of political institutions and their relations with the producers of such categories. The last aspect concerns the absence and underrepresentation of most GI products in eretail major supermarkets of both blocs. This discovery, despite being relevant to scientific enlightenment, needs further investigations to clarify its causes. Furthermore, the reasons rely either on the failure of the value chain of economic activity, on strictly regional commerce, or lack of socio-political performance. Overall, the creation of the GI label does not guarantee that a new field, as in Fligstein and McAdam's (2012) concept, prevails and finds favorable conditions in a niche market.

Finally, the present work brings novelty into the e-retail market of GI products in the EU and Mercosur. The mentioned findings present the importance of the socio-political construction of this market. It also points to the importance of market-oriented normativity for the development of GI products and their culturally embedded aspects. Such properly planned construction can promote the development of agrifood products.

**Funding:** This research received no external funding.

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** Not applicable.

**Informed Consent Statement:** Not applicable.

**Data Availability Statement:** The data used in this study are available on request from the author.

**Acknowledgments:** The author wishes to thank Manuel Pacheco Coelho and Daniel S. Lopes from the Lisbon School of Economics and Management and SOCIUS colleagues for research support and assistance. Additionally, the author thanks the valuable comments and suggestions from all reviewers that certainly enriched this work.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the Brazilian Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply.
