As one of the world’s most traded agricultural commodities, coffee constitutes a significant part of the overall economy and a major source of foreign revenue for many developing countries. Coffee also touches a large portion of the world’s population in the South, where it is mainly produced, and in the North, where it is primarily consumed. As a product frequently purchased by a significant share of worldwide consumers on a daily basis in social occasions, the coffee industry has earned a high profile that also attracts the interest of non-governmental organizations, governments, multilateral organizations and development specialists and has been an early adopter of Voluntary Sustainability Standards (VSS). Responding to the trend of increased interest on sustainability, it is therefore not surprising that coffee continues to be at the forefront of sustainability initiatives that transcend into other agricultural industries. Based on literature and authors’ experiences, this article reflects on the VSS evolution and considers a sustainability model that specifically incorporates producers’ local realities and deals with the complex scenario of sustainability challenges in producing regions. Agreeing on a joint sustainability approach with farmers’ effective involvement is necessary so that the industry as a whole (up and downstream value chain actors) can legitimately communicate its own sustainability priorities. This top-down/bottom-up approach could also lead to origin-based, actionable and focused sustainability key performance indicators, relevant for producers and consistent with the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. The initiative also aims to provide a sustainability platform for single origin coffees and Geographical Indications (GIs) in accordance with growers’ own realities and regions, providing the credibility that consumers now expect from sustainability initiatives, additional differentiation options for origin coffees and economic upgrade opportunities for farmers.

Protected designations of origin (PDO) and Protected geographical indications (PGI) in the European Union have been recognized through a sound legal framework for more than three decades. We are recently witnessing an increased number of amendments to the product specifications of registered PDO/PGI. This paper aims to understand how PDO/PGI for the fruit and vegetables product class have evolved. Until 31 December 2018, there were 379 PDO/PGI registered under the fruit and vegetables product class and 81 amendments approved. We designed a coding guideline to: (i) analyze all the amendments to the product specifications; (ii) identify the type of rules that were modified; (iii) find out whether the amendments resulted in more flexible or more restrictive rules, and (iv) the respective justifications given by producers. We designed a database to manage all the information. Overall, amendments brought more flexible rules (particularly in Italy and Spain), while France showed a more diversified situation. Concerning the justifications stated by producers for amending the product specification, market changes, available new technology, and strengthening product quality were the most important, while environmental concerns were less relevant. Then, we in-depth analyzed the amendments that were explicitly justified with environmental reasons. The analysis showed only a light movement towards more environment-friendly rules, although environmental justifications were often used “indirectly”, as a means to achieve better marketing competitiveness, meeting new market demand and reducing production costs. These results seem consistent with previous studies, which indicated market forces as a primary motivation to amend product specifications.

Purpose: The protection of Geographical Indications (GIs) supports producers to define common quality standards while highlighting the geographical origin of food products with specific qualities. Adaptations of quality standards are driven by international competition, new production technologies or environmental change. The purpose of this paper is to analyse the modifications affecting European Union (EU) Protected Designation of Origin-Protected Geographical Indication. It specifically compares the share of amendments in diverse product class, years and countries, illustrates specific cases and identifies the factors explaining the probability to amend product specifications. Design/methodology/approach: Official documents of the DOOR Database provide the material for an analysis of changes in product specifications. They also supply the data for four illustrative cheese cases and a logistic regression of all EU amendments. Findings: Amendments of GI product specifications are very frequent: 17 per cent of all 1,276 EU GIs had at least one amendment. This happens in particular for processed products (42 per cent more often than for unprocessed ones) and specific countries (GIs in Italy are six times, Spain five times and France four times more likely to have an amendment compared to GIs from other EU countries). As illustrated by contrasting cheese amendments, the diverse modifications in the product specifications range from more flexibility and innovation on the one hand to stricter rules for strengthening the product’s identity on the other hand. Originality/value: For EU and national authorities, GI producers and scholars, this first systematic EU-wide analysis of amendments demonstrates that protected food GIs have to be conceptualised as evolving institutions and not as statically protected food production systems.

The registration of Geographical Indications (GIs) under the European Union (EU) legislation requires collective action and considerable efforts borne by multiple actors such as producers, processors, public authorities and research centers. We analyze their efforts, risks and benefits by comparing two EU GI registration processes in Italy and Austria, namely the Sorana bean Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) and the Perry from Mostviertel PGI. Results from the institutional and transaction costs analysis suggest that intensive interaction for solving conflicting interests, negotiating quality standards and defining common rules might pay off in indirect benefits and reduced risks. In particular, an inclusion of diverse and heterogeneous interest groups and a high degree of direct enterprise participation along the GI application process (as observed in the Italian case) generate benefits such as trust and social cohesion, which then support the actual use of the GI label and a better implementation of associated quality standards. A supportive legal framework with assistance from public authorities can back up the community of producers not only in technical aspects, but also as mediators when conflicts seem to be difficult to solve. As there seems to be a positive relationship between the intensity and effectiveness of collective action and the likelihood of achieving broadly accepted standards and social cohesion needed for successful GI implementation, the question for future research would not be how to avoid collective efforts but how to effectively organize the interaction among heterogeneous producer groups.