The first article (Rackl Menapace, 2025a) examines the role of GI certification in coordinating small- and medium-sized agri-food producers and large-scale retailers in agri-food supply chains. From a theoretical model, the authors hypothesise that GI-certified producers are more likely to deliver to large-scale retailers. This is because GIs improve the ability of the retailer to identify efficient suppliers and increase the provision of high-quality goods. This hypothesis is tested using a novel dataset from a survey among small- and medium-sized food craft suppliers in Germany. The empirical results support the hypothesis and indicate a role for GI certification in supplier-retailer coordination. Particularly, GIs seem to facilitate the access to large-scale retailers for German small-scale agri-food producers. To preserve the role of GI certification as a credible quality signal, policymakers should prioritise the implementation and strengthening of institutional frameworks and regulations that support the monitoring and enforcement of GI standards. Further, educating retailers on the role of GI certification in ensuring product quality, and informing producers about the benefits and requirements of certification could encourage greater participation, especially in regions with underexploited GI potential.

The second article (Rackl Menapace, 2025b) develops a general equilibrium model of international trade. The model captures essential features of GI policies, in particular the institutional framework for the collective management of GIs in domestic markets, and administrative protection of the GI label through trade agreements in international markets. The model accommodates cross-country asymmetries in the endowment of GI sectors, as well as in the implementation and strength of GI policies. Through simulation exercises, the model enables the analysis of the impact of GI policies on several market outcomes, including exporting behaviour and overall welfare. For instance, domestic GI policies are found to be welfare-enhancing, which supports efforts aimed at strengthening the institutional framework that facilitates cost-sharing among GI producers, consistent with the EU’s ongoing efforts to empower GI producer groups. However, strengthening domestic GI policies may come at the expense of a trading partner without such a policy. Further, the article identifies a link between optimal domestic and international GI policies: a strong institutional framework for and subsidies of collective management in the domestic market necessitate higher levels of administrative protection in international markets. From a policy perspective, this suggests that efforts to introduce and strengthen GI systems bilaterally between trading partners, while recognising the complementarity of domestic and international GI policies, can help to maximise and balance the distribution of benefits.

Rackl, J., and Menapace, L. (2025a). Coordination in agri-food supply chains: The role of Geographical Indication certification. International Journal of Production Economics, 280, 109494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2024.109494.

Rackl, Jakob, and Luisa Menapace. 2025b. “Geographical Indications in International Markets: Policy, Productivity, and Trade.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajae.70027.