Abstract
The widespread assumption that mergers are the best way for co-operatives to break free from their “natural” territorial anchoring (perceived to be a strong impediment to their global insertion) is questionable. Observation of the recent merging processes of wine co-operatives shows a more subtle phenomenon at work. On the one hand mergers do indeed loosen their constitutive territorial anchoring.
On the other hand, they also come together with new geographical and organized proximities, prone to the re-dimensioning of the territorial scale of the co-operative action. These findings were supported by a round of thorough interviews with most of the managers of the Aquitanian co-operatives created by merger between 1994 and 2006.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
This work was carried out with the financial participation of the Aquitaine region within the framework of research projects attached to the Institut des Sciences de la Vigne et du Vin de Bordeaux.
- 3.
The studies, having been carried out in January 2006, with the latest merger to date, between the co-operatives of Landerrouat/Durasand of Cazaugitat, having taken place in March 2006, we did not study it as such but we were informed of the project by the Landerrouat Director, who explained the reasons for its creation and its future methods.
- 4.
Among the seven mergers studied, there is one which concerns two co-operatives initially belonging to the same commercial union and whose manager is also director of the commercial union. This particular case provided the opportunity, at the same time, to study the grouping that union toward co-operative constitutes.
- 5.
The logic of similarity refers to the fact that the players share the same representation system, the same beliefs and the same knowledge, independently of their affiliation to a specific organization.
- 6.
In the last case, the two organizations disappear to rebuild a new one.
- 7.
“The market share in volume of New World countries in trade exchanges increased from 4% in 1990 to 14% in 1997 and 19% in 2001.”
- 8.
OIV: Organisation Internationale de la Vigne et du vin, in charge of defining international norms in order to protect producers and consumers.
- 9.
According to Colletis and Pecqueur (2004, p. 4): “By asset we mean factors ‘in activity’, whilst by resources it is a question of factors to exploit, organise or still to be revealed.”
- 10.
“A generic factor is independent of the ‘spirit of the place’ where it is produced” (Colletis and Pecqueur 2004, p. 4).
- 11.
We know of current thinking (2006) concerning merger projects in the l’Entre-Deux-Mers region.
- 12.
The qualitative approach carried out here does not allow us to go beyond the highlighting of stylized effects that a later quantitative approach should lend support to.
- 13.
A groundbreaking innovation puts a product onto the market which can be seen as intrinsically “less good” than certain products dominating the market at present. Therefore, for this reason, it cannot be sold to the usual consumers. But it is simpler and more approachable and therefore establishes itself in a part of the market which, up to then, did not reveal demand. Subsequently, the product improves to overlap the preoccupations of the more demanding segments of the market and by doing so, helps to remodel the whole market, thereby triggering an upheaval in it.
- 14.
Term borrowed by a person interviewed.
- 15.
Expression borrowed by a person interviewed.
References
Benkala, A., and J.-P. Boutonnet. Proximité et signalisation de la qualité, approches croisées pour l’étude d’une AOC, le cas de Pellardon, 4e Journée de la proximité, 06-18-2004, 14 p.
Berthomeau, J. 2001. Comment mieux positionner les vins français sur les marchés d’exportation? Rapport remis au Ministre de l’Agriculture, juillet.
Boschma, R. 2005. Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment. Regional Studies 39 (1): 61–75.
César, G. 2002. L’avenir de la viticulture française, rapport d’information, Sénat, n° 349.
Chiffoleau, Y., F. Dreyfus, M. Filippi, J.-M. Touzard, and P. Triboulet. 2005. “Réseaux d’entreprises et réseaux sociaux dans le développement des coopératives agricoles: enseignements des recherches PSDR en Midi-Pyrénées et Languedoc-Roussillon”, Communication pour le Symposium international “Territoires et enjeux du développement régional”, Lyon, 9–11 mars 2005.
Christensen, C.M., M. Verlinden, and G. Westerman. 2002. Disruption, disintegration and the dissipation of differentiability. Industrial and Corporate Change 11 (5): 955–993.
Colletis, G., and B. Pecqueur. Révélation de ressources spécifiques et coordination située, Colloque international sur L’économie de proximité, Marseille, 8–9 juin 2004, 18 p.
Couret, F. 1999. Compte rendu de l’enquête 1999 sur l’efficacité des coopératives vinicoles d’Aquitaine, Les ateliers de la coopération vinicole Aquitaine, FCVA, Bordeaux.
D’hauteville, F., J-P. Couderc, H. Hannin, and E. Montaigne. 2004. Bacchus 2005, enjeux, stratégies et pratiques dans la filière vitivinicole, édition La Vigne, Dunod, Paris, 298 p.
———. 2005. Bacchus 2006, enjeux, stratégies et pratiques dans la filière vitivinicole, édition La Vigne, Dunod, Paris, 301 p.
Douard, J.-P., and M. Heitz. 2003. “Une lecture des réseaux d’entreprises: prise en compte des formes et des évolutions”, Revue Française de Gestion, n° 146, pp. 23–41.
Doucet, C. 2002. “Activités viticoles et développement régional”, thèse pour le doctorat ès sciences économiques, Université Montesquieu Bordeaux IV, 343 p.
Draperi, J.F., and J.M. Touzard, eds. 2003. Les coopératives entre territoires et mondialisation, 375 p. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Garciet-Parpet, M.-F. 2001. Le terroir, le cépage et la marque, Cahiers d’ESR, n° 60–61, pp. 149–180.
Hinnewinkel, J.-C., and P. Roudié. 2001. Une empreinte dans le vignoble: XXe siècle: naissance des vins d’Aquitaine d’Origine Coopérative, LPDA éditions.
ONIVINS. 2002. Stratégie et rentabilité des entreprises de négoce de Bourgogne, ONIVINS-Infos, n 97, octobre, 37p.
Pecqueur, B., and J.-B. Zimmermann. 2004. Chapitre introductif. In Économie de proximités, 13–41. Paris: Hermès-Lavoisier.
Pomel, B. 2006. Réussir l’avenir de la viticulture de France.
Rallet, A., and A. Torre. 2004. “Proximité et localisation”, Économie Rurale, n° 280, mars-avril 2004, pp. 25–41.
Rastouin, J.-L., and V. Vissac-Charles. 1999. Le groupe stratégique des entreprises de terroir. Revue internationale des PME 12: 171–192.
Ruffio, P., R. Guillouzo, and P. Perrot. 2001. Stratégies d’alliances et nouvelles frontières de la coopérative agro-alimentaire. Économie rurale, 264–265, juillet–octobre.
Samuel, K.-E. 2003. Prévenir les difficultés post-fusion/acquisition en utilisant la gestion de crise. Revue Française de Gestion 145: 41–54.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bélis-Bergouignan, MC., Corade, N. (2019). Wine Co-operatives and Territorial Anchoring. In: Alonso Ugaglia, A., Cardebat, JM., Corsi, A. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Wine Industry Economics. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98633-3_17
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98633-3_17
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-98632-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-98633-3
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)