UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND
Faculty of Social Sciences and Business Studies Business School
Describing connections and lack of connections between branding, country of origin and the EU quality schemes:
the Finnish and Italian food entrepreneurs’ perspectives
Master’s thesis
Innovation Management Lähdesalmi Mia
May 2018
Abstract
UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND
Faculty
Social Sciences and Business Studies
Department Business School Author
Lähdesalmi Mia
Supervisor
Professor Eriksson Päivi Title
Describing connections and lack of connections between branding, country of origin and the EU quality schemes: the Finnish and Italian food entrepreneurs’ perspectives
Main subject
Innovation Management
Level
Master’s Degree
Date May 2018
Number of pages 87
Abstract
The main purpose of this narrative study is to describe the connections and lack of connections between branding, country of origin (COO) and the EU agri-food quality schemes from the Finnish and Italian entrepreneurs’ perspectives. In this respect, narrative study means that stories are used to describe human action. Moreover, the EU quality system consists of designation of origin (PDO), protected geographical indication (PGI) and traditional speciality guaranteed (TSG) schemes, whose meaning is to illustrate authenticity of regional origin or traditional production of food. In addition, through branding a company creates brands that differ from the competing ones and can add value of that company and its products, which in turn can improve the gained profits.
The data for this study is collected through the theme interviews of ten food entrepreneurs and one cheese maker, all working either in their micro or small-sized enterprises. Then the data is analysed as follows, the interviews are examined for themes (theme analysis) and then, developed as storylines that integrate the themes into the stories (narrative analysis). Altogether, four stories are written that are fictitiously titled as Lady Baker, Mr Restaurateur, Mr Land and Mrs Alpine.
According to the narrative results, both Finnish entrepreneurs, Lady Baker and Mr Restaurateur, describe possible future marketing and publicity of Finnish blueberry rye pie, fish pie and berry liqueur internationally and domestically with the help of the quality schemes. However, they narrate to lack information concerning the practical matters of the quality scheme system and to have too small outputs and sales volumes for starting to use the schemes for their foods. Conversely, both Italian entrepreneurs, Mr Land and Mrs Alpine, describe that the PDO scheme, which is used for Parmesan, adds value and certifies the origin of the cheese. Overall, Mr Land tells that the PDO scheme helps him and the other entrepreneurs, who make Parmesan, to produce cheese with the same features. Nevertheless, Mrs Alpine describes that Parmesan has lost a little its characteristic.
Therefore, and due to the mountain environment where her farm locates, she has differentiated in producing milk that is used solely for making organic and mountain Parmesan.
The implications of this study suggest that ProAgria, a Finnish agricultural and rural expert organisation and cooperative partner of this study, could possibly utilise the described connections and lack of connections between branding, country of origin and the quality schemes in their consultancies with the local food entrepreneurs. In the future, this study could be taken further by studying the same topic from a different perspective, for instance, from the consumers’ perspective.
Key words: entrepreneurs, branding, country of origin (COO), the EU quality schemes, narrative study.
Tiivistelmä
ITÄ-SUOMEN YLIOPISTO
Tiedekunta
Yhteiskuntatieteiden ja kauppatieteiden tiedekunta Yksikkö
Kauppatieteiden laitos Tekijä
Lähdesalmi Mia
Ohjaaja
Professori Eriksson Päivi Työn nimi
Brändäyksen, alkuperämaan ja EU:n nimisuojatuotteiden väliset yhteydet ja yhteyksien puuttuminen suomalaisten ja italialaisten ruokayrittäjien kuvailemina
Pääaine
Innovation Management
Työn laji
Pro Gradu -tutkielma
Aika
Toukokuu 2018
Sivuja 87 Tiivistelmä
Tämän narratiivisen tutkimuksen päätavoitteena on kuvata brändäyksen, alkuperämaan ja EU:n nimisuojaruokatuotteiden välisiä yhteyksiä ja yhteyksien puuttumista suomalaisten ja italialaisten yrittäjien näkökulmista. Narratiivinen tutkimus tarkoittaa ihmisten toiminnan kuvaamista tarinoiden avulla. Nimisuojilla taas tarkoitetaan suojattuja alkuperänimityksiä (SAN), maantieteellisiä merkintöjä (SMM) ja aitoja perinteisiä tuotteita (APT) koskevia EU-tason laatujärjestelmiä. Lisäksi brändäämisen avulla yritys luo brändejä, jotka erottavat sen kilpailijoista ja lisäävät sekä yrityksen että sen tuotteiden arvoa, mikä taas vuorostaan voi parantaa yrityksen tulosta.
Tutkimuksen aineisto kerätään kymmenen mikro- ja pienikokoisten ruokayritysten yrittäjien ja yhden juustontekijän teemahaastatteluiden avulla. Seuraavaksi haastatteluiden aineisto teemoitellaan (teema- analyysi) ja löydetyt teemat yhdistetään aineistosta löydettyjen juonien avulla tarinoiksi (narratiivinen analyysi). Tuloksena syntyy neljä tutkijan kirjoittamaa tarinaa, jotka on kuvitteellisesti nimetty Rouva Leipuriksi, Herra Ravintoloitsijaksi, Herra Maaksi ja Rouva Vuoristoksi.
Tutkimuksen narratiivisten tuloksien mukaan molemmat suomalaiset yrittäjät, Rouva Leipuri ja Herra Ravintoloitsija, kuvaavat mahdollista suomalaisen mustikkapiirakan, kalakukon ja hedelmäliköörin markkinointia ja julkisuutta sekä koti- että ulkomailla nimisuojien avulla. He kertovat kuitenkin etteivät tiedä nimisuojajärjestelmän käytännönasioista ja kokevat tuotanto- ja myyntimääriensä olevan liian pieniä alkaakseen hyödyntämään nimisuojia omille ruokatuotteilleen. Italialaiset yrittäjät, Herra Maa ja Rouva Vuoristo, sen sijaan kuvaavat heidän käyttämänsä Parmesanin SAN-merkinnän lisäävän juuston arvoa ja suojaavan sen italialaista alkuperää. Lisäksi Herra Maa kertoo, että kokonaisuudessaan SAN-merkintä auttaa häntä ja muita yrittäjiä, jotka tuottavat Parmesania, tekemään juustoa samoilla ominaisuuksilla. Rouva Vuoristo sen sijaan kuvaa Parmesanin menettäneen hieman nimeään. Lievän nimenmenetyksen sekä vuoristoympäristön takia, jossa hänen maatilansa sijaitsee, hän onkin erikoistunut tuottamaan maitoa pelkästään luomu ja vuoristo Parmesanin valmistamiseen.
ProAgria, joka on suomalainen maatalousalan neuvonta- ja kehittämisorganisaatio sekä tämän tutkimuksen yhteistyökumppani, voisi mahdollisesti käyttää brändäyksen, alkuperämaan ja nimisuojan välillä kuvattuja yhteyksiä ja yhteyksien puuttumista avukseen konsultaatioissaan paikallisten ruokayrittäjien kanssa. Jatkotutkimusmahdollisuuksia ajatellen tämä sama tutkimus voitaisiin toteuttaa eri näkökulmaa käyttäen, esimerkiksi kuluttajien näkökulmasta.
Avainsanat: yrittäjät, brändäys, alkuperämaa, EU:n nimisuojajärjestelmä, narratiivinen tutkimus
‘ There are three sides to every story: your side, my side, and the truth.
And no one is lying.’
- Robert Evans
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ... 6
1.1 Background ... 6
1.2 Problem statement ... 8
1.3 The research gap, motivation and cooperation ... 10
1.4 Purpose of the study ... 11
1.5 Contribution attempts of the study ... 13
1.6 Structure of the thesis ... 14
2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ... 16
2.1 Key concepts ... 16
2.2 Benefits and challenges of branding in SMEs ... 19
2.3 The EU agri-food quality schemes ... 22
2.4 Branding, country of origin and the agri-food quality schemes ... 27
2.5 Theoretical framework ... 30
3 METHODOLOGY ... 33
3.1 Qualitative methodology and narrative research strategy ... 33
3.2 Interviews ... 35
3.3 Narrative analysis by means of thematic analysis ... 38
3.4 Evaluation of the methodology ... 44
4 ANALYSES AND RESULTS ... 48
4.1 The Finnish stories ... 48
4.2 The Finnish results ... 51
4.3 The Italian stories ... 57
4.4 The Italian results ... 60
4.5 Comparison between the Finnish and Italian results ... 68
5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ... 71
5.1 Summary of the study ... 71
5.2 Key findings and contributions of the study ... 73
5.3 Limitations and suggestions for future studies ... 78
5.4 Implications ... 80
REFERENCES ... 82
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
It is easy for me, just as a role of an author, to say that branding in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)1 is important. However, I do understand that normally SMEs are without too many resources and even with some challenges. Nevertheless, as Abimbola (2001), and Abimbola and Vallaster (2007) state, SMEs share the same competitive environment and dynamic market trends than big companies, and these are reasons that enable also them to take care of branding.
Naturally, the role of an entrepreneur in building and managing company and product branding in SMEs is important too. Accordingly, Abimbola (2001), Krake (2005), and Abimbola and Vallaster (2007) say that the entrepreneurs can exploit their individual personalities through branding communication. Krake (2005) even highlights that entrepreneurs not merely have the role in the personification of a brand, but also in deciding how much attention, or whether at all, it is paid on branding.
The entrepreneurs can also decide whether to take into consideration the aspect of country of origin (shortened as COO) in company’s and, especially, its food branding. In order to support their decision of taking it into consideration, Tregear and Gorton (2005) state that origin indication has been used to differentiate agri-food products over the course of decades, or in some cases even centuries. By trusting on this, they say that some of the most successful agri- food products built their quality reputations with reference to their geographic origin, such as Champagne and Parma ham.
Small and medium-sizedcompany criteria of European Commission (2017) (1) medium-sized, staff headcount <
250 and turnover 50 m or balance sheet total 43 m (2) small-sized, staff headcount < 50 and turnover 10 m or balance sheet total 10 m (3) micro-sized, staff headcount < 10 and turnover 2 m or balance sheet total
2 m. Moreover, these ceilings apply to the figures for individual firms only.
Van der Lans, van Ittersum, De Cicco and Loseby (2001) even argue that origin indications fulfil the same function as brands. In this regard, Baker and Ballington (2002) claim that like brand names, COO labels have potential to change the consumer perceptions of products, whose attributes, otherwise, might be similar to competing products from other geographic origins.
However, Usunier (2006) strongly argues that global branding and the rules of World Trade Organization (WTO) ‘blur the COO issue and lessen its relevance’.
I think that COO is not a less important aspect to take into account, when it is considered with the EU agri-food EU quality schemes. This is due the regulated rules of the EU’s protected designation of origin (PDO) and protected geographical indication (PGI) schemes that aim to guarantee and protect the region of origins of foods (European Commission 2017). Likewise, Roderick and Maureen (2016) take the view that Geographical indications (GIs)2 are important in COO branding.
Nevertheless, Ilbery, Kneafsey and Bamford (2000) claim that the EU regulations might even damage the products, which do not carry GIs. In order to demonstrate this, they explain that the long-term English feta cheese producer was not allowed to use the PDO label because feta from Greece has it already. I must add, indeed, that only the Greeks can also use the whole Feta brand name in Europe, due to the PDO protection that they have.
On one hand, Lim and O’Cass (2001) claim that consumers no longer even use COO as a source of quality and rely instead on culture of brand origin. On the other hand, Verbeke and Roosen (2009) state that COO labelling is gaining considerable attention as means to provide product- specific information and reduce quality uncertainty. Similarly, Roderick and Maureen (2016) claim that GIs help producers to transform their region into a product attribute and highlight place of origin in a product differentiation.
2 Geographical indications is an interchangeably term for the PDO and PGI schemes in Europe.
In fact, Hajdukiewicz (2014) suitably claims that the growing number of quality scheme registrations confirms producers’ interest to create competitive advantage by means of the schemes. Recently, also Albuquerque, Oliveira and Costa (2018) analyse the evolution of the quality schemes since it was born 25 years ago, and found that the registrations have increased significantly. Unfortunately, the growth is not steady across Europe. At the moment, the Italians have 295 quality scheme registered foods, whereas the Finnish have only 10 foods under the same system (European Commission 2018).
1.2 Problem statement
Referring to the background presented above, the problem that I am approaching in this study is that there is no common voice of the Finnish and Italian entrepreneurs that would describe branding in SMEs by considering the aspects of COO and the quality schemes. In short, the quality scheme registrations to protect origin and tradition of foods are growing, branding is important, but sometimes challenging, COO is affecting both branding and the schemes, but none has studied, as far as the author is concerned, the voice of the entrepreneurs in this.
Generally speaking, the concept of branding in SMEs has started to gain academic interest only in 2000. At that time, researchers (e.g. Abimbola 2001, Krake 2005) woke up to that although a large part of companies are SMEs there was no literature about their branding, whereas the big multinational companies were well covered. In fact, the group without an academic attention was significant since SMEs cover 99% of all businesses in the EU (European Commission 2017). In any case, recently, Odoom, Narteh and Boateng (2017) have noticed that significant progress has been made in the research field of SME branding. They say that several gaps in issues and empirical evidence, as well as, in theoretical and methodological approaches, have been studied now.
During this study, I rely on the already explored background of SME branding by referring especially to brand building (e.g. Abimbola 2001), brand management (Krake 2005), corporate branding (e.g. Razeghi, Roosta, Alemtabriz & Gharache 2014) and brand identity and reputation (e.g. Spence & Essoussi 2010) approaches. I rely on these, because through them, I can highlight benefits and challenges that the entrepreneurs face with branding.
Referring back to my research problem that the voice of the entrepreneurs in not heard when branding is connected with COO and the quality schemes; the existing literature of branding in SMEs is not contributing to the problem, despite its development over these years. More specifically, COO is a very scarce concept among the branding studies of SMEs, while the quality schemes are not studied at all, as far as I am concerned.
Therefore, I move on now to find out, what the previous literature says of branding, COO and the quality schemes in the first place, without the specific link to SMEs. However, I consider only the studies from the perspectives to which the entrepreneurs can relate best. In this regard, I have found out that Baker and Ballington (2002) study COO as a competitive advantage from a manager’s perspective, Tregear and Gorton (2005) the challenges of using origin in branding from a producer’s perspective, Roderick and Maureen (2016) collective COO branding from a manager’s perspective, Dentoni, Tonsor, Calantone and Peterson (2013) differentiation by means of brand’s geographical indication (GI) from a farmer and manager’s perspectives and Ilbery, Kneafsey and Bamford (2000) geographical origin of the PDOs and PGIs from producer and, partly, from SME’s perspectives.
However, it is important to mention that Ilbery’s et al. (2000) article is only a commentary without an empirical study like Tregear and Gorton’s (2005) review as well. Yet, I consider them, since the previous literature that combines branding, COO and the quality schemes, especially from the suitable viewpoint to entrepreneurs, is scarce, at least as far as I am aware of it, during this two years of getting to know the research area. During this time, I have noticed that most of these studies take the viewpoint of customers, such as Espejel, Fandos and Flavián’s (2008) and Verbeke and Roosen’s (2009) papers. Moreover, the EU also funds many of the studies considering the EU quality schemes.
Within the frames of international marketing, Tregear and Gorton (2005) and Insch and Cuthbert (2017) state that while the role of COO is among the most commonly studied terms, COO of food has not gained as much attention from researchers as the other product categories. Furthermore, Ilbery et al. (2000) say that far more studies are needed concerning the production of high quality regional speciality food and drink products, including the dimension of the quality scheme labelling.
1.3 The research gap, motivation and cooperation
Basing on the background above, the research gap, which I am approaching, is that the connections and lack of connections between branding, COO and the quality schemes in SMEs from the entrepreneurs’ perspective are not studied.
Building on from the idea that the perspective of the entrepreneurs is heard in this study, I have to find a way to make their voices heard. In response to this, I choose narrative study as a methodology of my study. Polkinghorne (1995) explains narrative study by stating that it is one form of qualitative research strategies, in which stories are used to describe human action. In this regard, Johansson (2004) even argues that stories should be seen as fundamental to knowing among studies about entrepreneurs.
After all, my personal fascination with entrepreneurship, storytelling and current business issues drives me to explore this topic. In this regard, my interests met with two employees of Proagria Northern Savo, and they became the cooperative partners of my study. They made me very interested in the quality schemes, and so we involved the schemes in this research. However, as I have not been familiar with the quality schemes before, I have spent my time in Italy to familiarise myself properly with the schemes. In this case, Italy was a better option than Finland, since we have very few food products under the system, while Italy is the leading county of the products registered under the schemes (European Union 2017). In total, by choosing this topic I am able to combine my university learnings about branding and entrepreneurship with the topic of the EU quality schemes.
Together with two professionals of ProAgria, we have modified the topic and data collection interviews to some extent; yet, their roles remain more supportive than active in this thesis. In fact, they wanted to offer me their kind support to have a practical relevance for this study.
Therefore, the audience of my study is ProAgria and the food entrepreneurs interested in widening their understanding about branding, COO and the quality schemes.
To introduce ProAgria shortly, it is a non-profit Finnish expert organisation that offers business development consultations and know-how to develop competitiveness in agriculture and rural businesses. The biggest group of their customers are farmers and, in addition, they serve 1.000 SMEs annually. More specifically, ProAgria Northern Savo, a cooperative partner of my study, is a member of ProAgria that has in total 11 regional advisory and 14 special association centres across Finland. In total, the turnover of whole ProAgria is around 100 million euros and the amount of personnel 1.300. (ProAgria Annual Report 2016).
1.4 Purpose of the study
Referring to the background above, the purpose of this narrative study is to describe the connections and lack of connections between branding, COO and the EU agri-food quality schemes from the Finnish and Italian entrepreneurs’ perspectives. To the best of my knowledge, the goal is to generate a new understanding from the micro and small-sized enterprise context.
I will achieve this purpose by dividing it into the smaller objectives: (1) To explore the existing literature about branding, COO and the quality schemes from the entrepreneurs’ point of view (2) To study narrative research as a study philosophy and narrative and thematic analyses as data analysing methods (3) To empirically discover the connections and lack of connections between branding, COO and the quality schemes.
Based on the research problem, which I have explained previously in this chapter, and the objectives mentioned above, I seek an answer to the following main question:
(1) How do the Finnish and Italian entrepreneurs describe the connections and lack of connections between branding, COO and the quality schemes?
In addition, I address the following sub-questions:
(2) How do the entrepreneurs describe their branding?
(3) How do the descriptions differ between the Finnish and Italian entrepreneurs?
In terms of my research objectives and questions above, I will apply semi-structured interviews of the Finnish and Italian entrepreneurs and one Italian cheese maker. In this regard, I will look for and determine suitable themes from the interview data and develop storylines that integrate the themes into four stories. In other words, I will analyse the interview data by using narrative data analysis by means of thematic analysis.
In the theoretical part, I will limit branding in SMEs through brand building, brand management, corporate branding, and brand identity and reputation approaches to the entrepreneurs’
perspective. Thereafter, I study the EU quality schemes from the same perspective. Lastly, country of origin will be discussed together with branding and the quality schemes from the perspectives that are suitable for the food entrepreneurs, such as producers and managers.
In terms of the limitation of this study, the entrepreneurs’ perspective will limit both the empirical and theoretical parts of my study. Furthermore, I will consider branding as the main theoretical and empirical topic of my study. In this respect, the concepts of COO and the quality schemes are dealt from the viewpoint of branding too.
In general, the empirical and theoretical confrontations will shape my discussions. In the theoretical part, I will compare the benefits and challenges of both branding and the quality schemes. Thereafter, I will compare the different viewpoints of the studies that combine branding to COO and the quality schemes. In the theoretical part, I will compare the connections and lack of connections between branding, COO and the quality schemes from the perspectives of the Finnish and Italian entrepreneurs.
With respect to my main research question, I will consider the country-by-country varying use of the quality schemes by studying empirically both the connections and lack of connections between branding, COO and the quality schemes. In this regard, the Finnish entrepreneurs interviewed for this study do not use the quality schemes for their food brands, but they could or could apply for the schemes, while the Italian interviewees use the PDO scheme for the brand of Parmesan.
With respect to my sub-questions, I will focus on describing the entrepreneurs’ branding more in detail. Secondly, I will highlight the differences between the Finnish and Italian entrepreneurs’
descriptions of the connections and lack of connections between branding, COO and the quality schemes, and the differences between their descriptions about branding.
1.5 Contribution attempts of the study
Through this study, I will attempt to contribute to the research field of branding, COO and the quality schemes by discovering and exploring the connections and lack of connections between branding, COO and the quality schemes. In this respect, I will strive to organise and refer to the suitable theoretical background that will support me (and possibly also future researchers) in finding these previously not founded connections and lack of connections between branding, COO and the quality schemes. Moreover, I will aim to contribute to the trending issue, the significant growth of the quality schemes.
Methodologically, I will strive to contribute by putting into action a narrative research and narrative data analysis. This contribution is based on my knowledge that the previous empirical studies in my topical area seem not to utilise the corresponding study methods. Moreover, I will address this contribution in more detail in the methodology part (See Chapter 3).
Empirically, my contribution attempt will be to report a new understanding through the data collection interviews from two different countries, Finland and Italy. Secondly, I will contribute from the perspectives of the Finnish and Italian entrepreneurs.
Practically, I will strive to make a contribution through my cooperative partner ProAgria, and the food entrepreneurs interested in the topic, since all of them could possibly benefit from this study. More specifically, ProAgria could possible utilise the results of this study during consultancies with their client entrepreneurs. Importantly, the food entrepreneurs could possibly understand even better the connections between branding, COO and the quality schemes through this study, while getting possible to know the challenges that may occur as well. Furthermore, the food entrepreneurs could possibly identify with the stories that I will construct based on the interviews of the Finnish and Italian entrepreneurs.
1.6 Structure of the thesis
Finally, to provide the integrated structure for my thesis, I will divide it into five chapters, including this Chapter 1. In Chapter 2, I will address the theoretical background of my study. I will start by specifying the key concepts carefully and will then discuss some benefits and challenges of branding in SMEs. Thereafter, I will study the EU quality schemes and compare some benefits and challenges of the system in Finland and Italy. Then, I will discuss more closely branding, COO and the quality schemes at the same time. Lastly, I will illustrate the theoretical framework of this study.
In Chapter 3, I will analyse my own choices to apply qualitative philosophy and narrative research strategy and will shortly outline the research methods used in the existing studies on my topical area. Then, I will illustrate my data collection process by focusing on semi-structured theme interviews. Thereafter, I will explain how I have applied narrative analysis by means of thematic analysis. Finally, I will evaluate my methodological choices.
In Chapter 4, I will focus on the analyses and results of this study. At first, I will present four stories that I have constructed. Then, I will answer the main research questions of the connections and lack of connections between branding, COO and the quality schemes, and then the first sub- question of how the entrepreneurs describe branding. Finally, I will summarise the discovered results in one table and then, move on to answer my second sub-question of the differences between the Finnish and Italian entrepreneurs’ descriptions concerning my main question and first sub-question.
In Chapter 5, I will conclude and discuss the study. I will refer to the goals, key results and contribution of this study. Thereafter, I will evaluate the study and give ideas for future studies.
Finally, I will present my managerial and practical suggestions for the food entrepreneurs and cooperative partner of this study, ProAgria.
2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
In this chapter, I will address the theoretical background of my study from the entrepreneurs’
perspective. I will start by specifying the key concepts of my study, and then move on to discuss some benefits and challenges of branding in SMEs. Thereafter, I will explain the EU agri-food quality schemes, and compare some benefits and challenges of the system in Italy and Finland.
Then, I will discuss branding, COO and the quality schemes at the same time. Finally, I will illustrate the theoretical framework of the study.
2.1 Key concepts
Brand and branding
In this study, I will focus on branding in SMEs through four approaches: brand building, brand management, corporate branding, and brand identity and reputation. In this respect, I consider Sammut-Bonnici’s (2014) definition for a brand: ’A brand is as a set of tangible and intangible attributes designed to create awareness and identity, and to build the reputation of a product or organisation’. I think that this definition combines the right elements from the ‘classical’ brand definitions, such as Keller’s (1998, 5): ‘A brand is a set of mental associations, held by the consumer, which add to the perceived value of the product’. Furthermore, in terms of brand identity and reputation, Kapferer (2012, 151) states that brand identity refers to the perceived brand determinants of a company, whereas brand image means customers’ perceptions of a brand. In addition, I rely on De Chernatony, Wallace and McDonald’s (2011, 19) idea that a brand is a name, symbol or design that identifies the product of the company as having a sustainable competitive advantage.
However, Kapferer (2012, 20 & 149) correctly states that a brand does not directly mean a name of a product or company since, as de Chernatony et al. (2011, 20) say, status for a brand needs to be earned and it should never take for granted. In this respect, I understand that branding consists
of the actual actions, tactics and moves through which companies gain statuses for their brands.
In any case, Sammut-Bonnici (2014) correctly explains this by stating that through branding a company creates brands that differ from the competing ones and can also reduce the amount of substitutes, which in turn can raise the prices and improve the gained profits.
Brands and branding are also connected through their legal definition to the intellectual property rights to which the EU quality schemes (will be defined next) belong as well. In this respect, Kapferer (2012, 8) and Keller (2013, 30 & 35) state the legal definition for a brand: ‘A brand is sign or a set of signs certifying the origin of the product or service and differentiating it from the competition’. They say that the intellectual property rights enable companies to invest safely in their brands and to gather benefits without fear of losing them for competitors. In this respect, they highlight the importance of trademark registrations since brands are properties that should protect from counterfeits.
Lastly within branding, I specify the concept of added value since as argued above branding can add value of a company and its products. In this respect, Keller (2013, 35) states that companies create value to their customers by simplifying their decision-making process and by lowering the perceived risks of buying. The other way round, Kapferer (2012, 23) and Keller (2013, 35) state that branding adds value to the company as well, because the successfully branded products are less risky investments. Therefore, they claim that brand images of the high quality validate the use of high prices.
The EU agri-food quality schemes
During this study, I will address the EU agri-food schemes through branding. The quality schemes are divided into three main categories: protected designation of origin (PDO), protected geographical indication (PGI) and traditional speciality guaranteed (TSG). The idea of these schemes is to protect and promote the names of the quality agricultural products and foods and to clarify the specific characters of the products (European Commission 2017).
Importantly, I apply the terms of the EU quality schemes and the geographical indications (GIs) interchangeably during my study. In this respect, European Commission (2018) determines that GIs mean distinctive signs used to identify products as originating from a particular country, region or locality where their quality, reputation or other characteristics are connected with geographical origin.
Country of origin
In addition to the EU quality schemes, I will also look at country of origin (COO) through branding. Thakor and Kohli (1996) determine that brand’s COO means a place, region or country where the product is placed and it can be seen as a demographic variable in terms of origin, for instance, Parmesan as Italian cheese. Moreover, Özsomer and Cavusgil (1991) determine that COO is a location of corporate headquarters, while Lee and Schaninger (1996) claim that it is the country of manufacture.
In this thesis, I consider the terms of brand’s COO and solely COO as synonyms. However, Thakor and Kohli (1996) make a distinction between these concepts. In this regard, they say that COO focuses on the consumers’ perceptions of the product quality in different countries and their choice processes, whereas brand’s COO refers to the origin integration within the brand image.
Furthermore, the researchers think that brand’s COO should not change in consumers’ minds when the manufacturing location is changing. They say that the ‘made-in label’, COO, does not need to be the same than the perceived brand origin.
2.2 Benefits and challenges of branding in SMEs
Having determined the key concepts of this study, I discus now some benefits and possible challenges of branding in SMEs based on the existing literature. In this regard, I highlight the entrepreneurs’ perspective through four approaches: brand building, brand management, corporate branding, and brand identity and reputation. Thus, I start with Table 1 where I contrast the determined benefits of branding to its challenges.
Abimbola (2001) correctly claims that brand building is beneficial to SMEs since it creates unique product associations and meanings that differ the product from its competitors. He explains that a branded product will be ranked e.g. as its high quality among consumers, who might repeat purchasing when being satisfied. This behaviour leads eventually to brand loyalty by offering companies a way to affect their demand. Consequently, he highlights that a well- established brand can be difficult to copy, and thus represents a key source of immutable assets for SMEs. This kind of an immutable association supports a sustainable growth, as well as, the intellectual property rights. Furthermore, the branding instruments, such as a patent, trademark and logo, can enhance consumer trust, perceived quality and value of the product.
However, Abimbola (2001) continues to assert that branding can be challenging to organise and maintain in SMEs. More specifically, Centeno, Hart and Dinnie (2013) have found that SMEs build their brands by using a minimum brand planning and limited resources compared to the large companies. Nevertheless, they stress that owner’s commitment and drive forward the brand building process despite the circumstances.
By the same token, Renton, Daellenbach, Davenport and Richard (2015) take the view that the experience, skills and competencies of managers and founders are essential in driving brand management practices. More closely, they have found that smaller companies concentrate on building and communicating brand identities, whereas the medium-sized on building positive brand associations based on COO and co-branding and controlling brand identities. Likewise, Abimbola (2001), Krake (2005), Rode and Vallaster (2005), and Abimbola and Vallaster (2007)
state that entrepreneurs can exploit their individual personality in branding through a brand naming, an organisational culture and approach to business and in day-to-day decision-making.
Table 1: Some benefits and challenges of branding through brand building, brand management, corporate branding, and brand identity and reputation approaches considered
from the entrepreneurs’ perspective.
Benefits Challenges
Brand building A well-established brand can be difficult to copy, and thus represents a source of immutable assets to SMEs
(Abimbola 2001).
The owner’s commitment furthers a brand building process (Centeno et al. 2013).
Brands in SMEs are built with a minimum brand planning and limited resources
(Centeno at al. 2013).
Brand management
The experience, skills and competencies of a manager are essential in positioning, differentiation and communicating of
brand identities, values and associations for customers (Renton et al. 2015).
Entrepreneurs can reflect their personality through a brand naming, an organisational culture and approach
to business and in day-to-day decision-making (Abimbola 2001; Krake 2005; Rode & Vallaster 2005;
Abimbola & Vallaster 2007).
SMEs often have resource limitations, both in terms of time and money, which leads to a ‘survival mentality’
(Berthon et al. 2008).
SME has a little or not at all effect on changing the market compared to its larger competitors
(Krake 2005).
Corporate branding An entrepreneur’s understanding about the market is affecting
corporate branding (Razeghi et al. 2014).
Successful leaders act as “integrating forces” of the company (Vallaster & de Chernatony 2006).
Leaders mediate between the corporate branding structures and the individuals
(Vallaster & de Chernatony 2006).
Brand identity & reputation
Founders’ values and beliefs are the base for the core competencies to be developed and transmitted through brand
identity (Spence & Essoussi 2010).
Branding and reputation building are the key resources that allow SMEs to be successful in long-term
(Abimbola & Kocak 2007).
Good reputation is associated with trustworthy business behaviour (Lähdesmäki & Siltaoja 2010).
Brand diversification needs to follow the capabilities of a company
(Spence and Essoussi 2010).
The owner-managers discursively distinguish themselves from bigger companies
(Lähdesmäki & Siltaoja 2010)
Yet, the environment sets its own challenges, since Krake (2005) claims that SMEs have a little or not at all effect on changing the market compared to its larger competitors. Likewise, Berthon, Ewing and Napoli (2008) note that the resource limitations, both in terms of time and money, can turn the owners and managers even on ‘survival mentality’.
Razeghi et al. (2014), although, propose that corporate branding should not be capsulized solely to the entrepreneurs even if their understanding about the market has effects on branding. He suggests that branding should be based on an alignment between values and characteristics of the entrepreneur and corporate brand. This alignment would help SMEs to reduce their dependence on the entrepreneur and focus on a unique and distinctive brand that can stay strong even if the entrepreneur changes.
Conversely, Vallaster and de Chernatony (2006) hold the view that the successful leaders act as
‘integrating forces’ of the company. They say that the leaders integrate the elements of the corporate identity structures and balance between the corporate branding structures and the individual. In the same way, Spence and Essoussi (2010) claim that the founders’ values and beliefs are the core competencies to be developed and transmitted through brand identity. They propose that the entrepreneurs’ image should always be coherent with the values they want to further in their businesses. However, due to the limited resources that the SMEs had in their study, a limited number of product or service features, which complement the entrepreneur’s core values, can be selected to enhance brand equity. Among those, they suggest that features connected with the capabilities of company and to COO would be the most cost-efficient and effective. Furthermore, they propose that a number of brand diversification strategies (e.g.
including activities, such as development of product lines or other proprietary brands) can be used to accelerate the growth, although, they must follow, again, the capabilities of companies.
After all, Abimbola and Kocak (2007) believe that branding and reputation building are the key resources that allow SMEs to be successful over an extended period of time. They stress that the SMEs are more integrative in brand and reputation building compared with the big companies, where these activities are often shared among disparate teams. In fact, Lähdesmäki and Siltaoja (2010) conclude that the owner-managers of the small businesses discursively distinguish
themselves from the big companies when constructing the meanings of reputation. In this regard, they correctly argue that reputation shapes an established part of stakeholder and responsibility discussions within the small business context. Moreover, their study shows that a good reputation is associated with trustworthy business behaviour.
2.3 The EU agri-food quality schemes
As next, trusting the idea that the entrepreneurs can utilise the EU quality schemes in branding, I specify the quality schemes at first in Picture 1 and compare then, some benefits and challenges of the system, summarised in Table 2. In terms of used logic in Table 2, some of the quality scheme benefits and challenges concern both Finland and Italy, and some just one or the other country, marked as ‘ symbol’.
To begin with, European Commission (2017) states that the logos of protected designation of origin (PDO), protected geographical indication (PGI) and traditional speciality guaranteed (TSG) illustrate authenticity of food in terms of the regional origin or traditional production (See Picture 1). In this regard, the logo of the PDO scheme (on the left side of Picture 1) symbolises that products are produced, processed and prepared in a certain geographical area, utilizing the recognised know-how of the local producers and using the ingredients from that specific region.
Furthermore, as far as this scheme is concerned, the product attributes must be connected to their geographical origin. Next, the PGI scheme logo (in the middle of Picture 1) illustrates the quality or reputation of the products that are connected to the place or region where they are produced, processed or prepared. However, within this scheme, the ingredients do not necessarily need to come from that geographical area. Lastly, the TSG scheme logo (on the right side of Picture 1) focuses on representing the traditional products, either in the composition or means of production, without a necessary link to a geographical area.
Picture 1. Protected designation of origin (PDO), protected geographical indication (PGI) and traditional speciality guaranteed (TSG) logos of the EU quality schemes
(European Commission 2018).
As it is summarised in Table 2, the quality scheme registrations are constantly growing and this offers possibilities for the food entrepreneurs to brand their registered foods through the quality schemes. In this regard, the biggest quality scheme groups are wines that are marked with the PDO or PGI logos and if solely the food products are considered, the biggest groups are vegetables, fruits and cheeses (Särkkä-Tirkkonen 2016, Finnish Food Safety Authority 2017).
Altogether, the quality scheme registrations cover 3 640 food and alcoholic products across Europe (European Commission 2018). In this respect, Qualivita Foundation (2017) states that PDO, PGI and TSG products have almost tripled their numbers from less than one thousand in 1996 to almost three thousand in 2016 (+197 %). Moreover, Chever, Renault, Renault and Romieu (2012) specify that the estimated worldwide sales value of PDO and PGI products was 54.3 billion euros at the wholesale stage in 2010.
The biggest numbers of the quality scheme registered products are in Italy, France, Spain, Greece, Portugal and Germany (Särkkä-Tirkkonen 2016; Finnish Food Safety Authority 2017).
In this respect, Särkkä-Tirkkonen (2016) says that some of those food products are known worldwide and the others just in that specific country where the product is protected by the quality scheme. In any case, she states that all these products are known and important, at least, in their own geographical area.
Table 2: Some benefits and challenges of the EU quality schemes in Finland and Italy.
Benefits of the quality schemes FIN IT Challenges of the quality schemes FIN IT Continuous growth of the registrations
(e.g. Qualivita Foundation 2017) Additional costs
(e.g. Hajdukiewicz 2014)
Counterfeit protection and traceability
(e.g. Särkkä-Tirkkonen 2016) Small outputs
(Särkkä-Tirkkonen & Tuusjärvi 2014) Higher product prices
(e.g. Chever et al. 2012) The schemes are not known or clear
(Särkkä-Tirkkonen 2016)
Food marketing
(Rosati 2016; Särkkä-Tirkkonen 2016) Possible limitations to the freedom
of competition (Mazzetti 2016)
The good news for the food entrepreneurs is that according to Tuusjärvi (2013) and Särkkä- Tirkkonen (2016) the quality schemes can protect the names of the food products from imitations, faking, frauds and counterfeits. Furthermore, they state that the system improves the traceability of the products. In this regard, the intellectual property rights determine that the quality scheme registered product names may only be used on the conditions presented in the product specifications included in the registrations (European Commission 2017; Finnish Food Safety Authority 2017).
Secondly, the food entrepreneurs can possibly set the higher product prices when using the quality schemes for their products. This is based on, for instance, Chever’s et al. (2012) study where they summarise that on average the GI products are sold 2.23 times as high as comparable non-GI products. Likiwise, Albayrak and Gunes (2010) argue that the EU consumers are willing to pay more when the food is traditional. However, additional costs might cause to the entrepreneurs when their foods are using the quality schemes. In this regard, Chever et al. (2012) correctly states that it does not mean that the companies using the quality scheme have in total 2.23 times higher margins. Hajdukiewicz (2014) explains this by clarifying that the quality scheme controls and marketing can cause additional costs and therefore, the entrepreneurs should continuously develop their own production in order to benefit most from the schemes.
Nevertheless, the challenge of the Finnish entrepreneurs is that they do not register their products under the schemes as much as they could. More specifically, the Finnish have ten food products, two liqueurs and one vodka are under the quality schemes. In contrast, the Italians have 968 quality scheme registered food products, wines and spirits. More specifically, the Italians have 635 wines, 295 foodstuffs, 37 spirits and one aromatized drink under the system. (European Commission 2018.) In this regard, Chever et al. (2012) study that the estimated worldwide sales value of PDO and PGI products was 365 million of the total sales value altogether in Finland and in the Baltic, Nordic and Benelux countries in 2010 (no single country-specific numbers).
Conversely, the same number was 11.806 million only in Italy in 2010.
Thus, Särkkä-Tirkkonen and Tuusjärvi (2014) take the view that the challenges of Finland are small outputs, which means that widening the circulation of the EU quality schemes is difficult.
Moreover, they say that the Finnish consumers lack possibilities to get to know the quality scheme products. Therefore, they suggest that the Finnish food products that have high production volumes should apply for the schemes.
Notwithstanding these Finnish challenges, Särkkä-Tirkkonen (2016) states that the Finnish food products could have the great background for narrative trust stories based on GIs. She demonstrates that the Finnish food production is totally a controlled process form the fields to the consumers’ tables. Moreover, the Finnish industry can use clean water directly from the Finnish water system and the cold climate is decreasing the use of pesticides. She deduces that these Finnish good practices could be advertised globally through the quality schemes. Moreover, she ponders that the schemes could even be the major contributors to the competitiveness of Finland in the future.
In any case, Särkkä-Tirkkonen (2016) admits that the Finnish have not been benefited enough from the quality schemes and the whole system has not been clear or known. For instance, the Finnish do not know that their berry and fruit liqueurs are on the same quality scheme list with French Cognac.
Despite the challenges that the Finnish meet with, Särkkä-Tirkkonen (2016) argues that Finland would have the top position among many foodstuffs because of the Northern geographical location. To demonstrate this, she states that it does not exist the EU quality schemes for wild berries. Furthermore, she says that this could be a good opportunity for Finland to brand itself through the premium quality of the wild products.
Conversely, as Table 2 illustrates, due to the success of the quality schemes in Italy, Mazzetti (2016) even ponders that the schemes could set some limitations to freedom of competition for the Italian companies and industries. In any case, he continues to state that this is not what seems to happen, since the Italian companies have based their success into these regulated rules. As an example, Qualivita Foundation (2017) states that the Italian food export revenue of PDO and PGI reached 3.1 billion euros in 2015 with the annual increase of 17 %, whereas the total export grew only 7,8 %.
In order to organise the growth of the quality schemes, the Italians have developed their own quality scheme system, from which the Italian entrepreneurs can benefit. According to Rosati (2016), the Italian system has been proved to represent a successful economic model with the public policies and democratic participation of the whole production chain through the network system, including reasoning about the protection and innovation strategies of the Italian food.
Finally, Rosati (2016) lists seven beneficial actors that have encouraged the Italian GI sector to grow: the large scale retail channel agreements, digital operator agreements, national promotion plan, ‘made in Italy’ promotion plan, company and consortium training, research and innovations. More specifically, he emphasises the GIs sector is an important part of the Italian agricultural and food economy that leverages the ‘made in’ concept. Altogether, the coordination and cohesion between these actors develop the Italian quality scheme system.
2.4 Branding, country of origin and the agri-food quality schemes
Building on from the idea that the quality schemes can be helpful for the entrepreneurs who brand through the origin of food, I illustrate some previous studies concerning branding, COO and the quality schemes in Table 3 as next. In this respect, the existing literature is scarce and therefore, I also consider one review and commentary. Furthermore, in terms of the entrepreneurs’ perspective, I refer to the managers, producers, and farmers’ perspectives and, as one part of the commentary article, to SMEs’ perspective.
Table 3: Studies considering branding, COO and the EU quality schemes from the perspectives of which serve food entrepreneurs as key decision makers of their companies.
Focus Finding/Argument Perspective Type
paper Country of origin as a
competitive advantage (Baker & Ballington 2002)
Continuous unwillingness to utilise country of origin and country image in domestic markets as a
competitive advantage. Managers Qualitative
research paper The challenges of using
origin in branding (Tregear and Gorton 2005)
Producers should focus on both sides of country of origin branding: the supply side, how to deliver brand value and the demand side, how to create brand value.
Producers Review article
Collective country of origin branding (Roderick &
Maureen 2016)
A new conceptualisation of collective country of origin branding as an integrating process with
a network of relationships.
Managers Qualitative research paper Differentiation by means of
brand’s geographical indication (GI) (Dentoni et al. 2013)
The descriptions of GI and the PDO (Protected Designation of Origin) can be used to differentiate producers, who want to compete with others in the
same place of origin.
Farmers and
managers Quantitative research paper Geographical origin of the
PDOs and PGIs (Ilbery et al. 2000)
Between SME producers there would seem to prevail some resistance to the need for the certification and quality logos in the northern European countries.
Producers (SME
as a one part) Commentary
By opening Table 3, Baker and Ballington (2002) argue that COO or the country image attributes of a product offer a sustainable competitive advantage to benefit at home and in the foreign markets. However, their analysis of ‘the Scotland the Brand initiative’ and the exploratory in- depth interviews of the managers reveal that there is continuous unwillingness to utilise COO and the country image in the domestic markets.
Conversely, Tregear and Gorton (2005) address as a challenge the use of county of origin in branding. They say that producers should focus on both sides of COO branding, the supply side, how to deliver brand value, and the demand side, how to create brand value. In this regard, the companies with the high reputation brands should consider as a priority the demand side challenges of building and maintaining the uniqueness and authenticity of the brand. Therefore, the companies developing brands based on the tradition and heritage can face the risk of brands being approached only from the production practice sides, rather than starting from the viewpoint of the consumers. Moreover, the authors stress that the producers should avoid that their COO brands do not only reflect some policy agendas (e.g. the preservation of certain landscapes) of some supporting agencies rather than being the most meaningful or unique to their target consumers.
However, an alternative perspective illustrated by Roderick and Maureen (2016) supports the collective COO branding. In this respect, the researchers argue that the national collective level of COO branding is as important as the customer and company levels in building a successful brand for a company. They mean as a collective branding that the industry’s industry is the market organisation that plays an active role. In terms of their claims, they develop a conceptual framework that is supported by a new theoretical perspective of national branding that integrates COO branding, based on the identification and image, with a branding perspective that facilitates the collective meaning within the networks of the industry, market and stakeholder. Accordingly, they support their new framework development with the case study from the wine industry of New Zealand.
On the other hand, another angle of collective COO branding is worried about the producers, who compete with each other for the limited shelf spaces at shops. Taking this view, Dentoni et al.
(2013) have found that the description of GI (Geographical Indication) region, its associations with food and the explanation of the PDO meaning can be used as differentiation tools by the producers, who want to compete with others in the same place of origin. Furthermore, they discovered that the given brand endorsements (from chefs and buyers) differentiate the brand from the competing brands when consumers have the prior knowledge of the promoted region.
The researchers argue that when consumers receive these brand endorsements, they prefer the brand mainly because they believe that the given information is associated with the higher quality.
For understanding better the role of geographical origins from the viewpoint of the producers, Ilbery et al. (2000) made a commentary considering PDOs and PGIs. They argue that the scheme rules could possibly benefit the large producers and retailers rather than genuine SMEs. In this regard, they argue that the large companies rather than SMEs are using the PDO and PGI designations when creating a regional and cultural identity for their products in the Northern European countries. Therefore, they claim that it would seem to prevail some resistance against the certification and quality labelling between SME producers in Northern Europe. In this respect, the most important proofs of the quality for many producers are raw materials and methods of production, rather than associations with a geographical region and consumer attraction. Accordingly, the researchers stress that the EU regulation does not refer to the quality per se, but there is an assumption that the quality can be directly attributable to and protected by the geographic location of the production.
2.5 Theoretical framework
As I have presented my whole theoretical background now, I illustrate the theoretical framework based on it as next (See Figure 1). Through the referred theoretical background, I have strived to construct a theoretical framework that combines branding, COO and the quality schemes. Thus, the background will support me in discovering and exploring a new understanding about the connections and lack of connections between branding, COO and the quality schemes that are not studied before, as far as I am concerned.
Figure 1. Theoretical framework of this study.
In Figure 1, I visualise the logic of my theoretical framework. In terms of its representation, the entrepreneurs’ perspective (illustrated as a green box) shapes the theoretical discussion between branding, COO and the EU quality schemes. In this regard, I have considered branding as the main theoretical topic of my study (illustrated as a blue colour) and the concepts of COO and the quality schemes are dealt from the viewpoint of branding (visualised as orange boxes).
Altogether, I have argued through the theoretical background of my study that country of origin and the quality schemes can be connected with branding but challenges might also occur either with branding or the schemes when considered from the SME entrepreneurs’ perspective.
Entrepreneurs' perspective
Branding in SMEs
Quality schemes
Country of origin
I started this chapter by discussing some benefits and challenges of branding in SMEs through the approaches of brand building, brand management, corporate branding, and brand identity and reputation. In this respect, I strived to argue the importance of branding in SMEs while highlighting the central role of the entrepreneur in this process. Firstly, I stated through brand building approach that SMEs should build their brands systematically. Next, I highlighted through the brand management approach how central is the role of the entrepreneurs in managing their brands, and how they can positively affect branding with their own attitude. Thereafter, I referred to the approach of branding in corporates that stress the importance of the entrepreneurs’
understanding about the markets. Finally, I agreed with the previous literature that the entrepreneurs who develop and nurture their brand identities and reputations are successful in the long run. However, I also referred to the challenges of branding in SMEs through the previous literature that correctly states SMEs lacking capabilities in branding and not having almost at all effect on changing the markets. Regarding to this part of my theoretical background, I will be exploring empirically later of how the Finnish and Italian food entrepreneurs describe their branding (that is the first sub-question of my research).
As next, I continued to present and discuss the EU quality schemes and argued through the existing literature some benefits and challenges that the use of the quality schemes offers the entrepreneurs. In this regard, the existing literature asserts that the quality schemes are constantly growing in Europe, which makes the topic actual to discuss from the entrepreneurs’ viewpoint.
However, there are significant differences in numeral data and the ways of using the schemes between Finland and Italy. Namely, the Italians are the leading country of the quality scheme registrations while the Finnish are on the other end of the spectrum. Moreover, the existing literature claims that there is lack of information considering the quality scheme system among Finnish, while the schemes are stated to be truly important to the Italian economy.
Lastly, I detailed my interest in the literature that address branding, COO and the quality schemes at the same time. In this regard, Baker and Ballington (2002) claim that between manages there prevails some unwillingness to utilise COO and country image in domestic markets as a competitive advantage. Conversely, Tregear and Gorton (2005) say that COO in branding can be also a challenge if the producers do not consider both the supply and demand sides. However,
Roderick and Maureen (2016) supports the collective COO branding since it is as important as a company or customer’s levels when building a brand from the managers’ perspective. On the other hand, Dentoni et al. (2013) take the view that the producers can use the description of GI (Geographical Indication) region in differentiation within the same place of origin. However, Ilbery et al. (2000) comment that between SME producers there would seem to prevail some resistance to the need for the quality certification in the northern European countries. In any case, the researchers have not studied the connections and lack of connections between branding, COO and the quality schemes, as far as I am concerned and therefore, it is my research gap. Through next chapters, I seek to fulfil that gap empirically.
3 METHODOLOGY
Next, I will explain and analyse my choices to apply qualitative methodology and narrative research strategy. In this respect, I will also shortly outline the methods that the existing studies on my topical area have been applied. Then, I will illustrate my data collection process by focusing on semi-structured theme interviews. Thereafter, I will explain my choices to analyse the data through narrative analysis by means of thematic analyses. Finally, I will assess the validity of the methods and research ethic applied in this study.
3.1 Qualitative methodology and narrative research strategy
The methodology of this study is qualitative, and within the approach I apply narrative research strategy in order to discover and describe the connections and lack of connections between branding, COO and the EU quality schemes. In terms of qualitative methodology, Silverman (2014, 4–7) states that it often aims at providing verbal descriptions of real-life situations. He explains this by saying that qualitative methodology describes the phenomena of some context and construes meanings by utilizing theoretically based concepts, and tries to discover understanding. Within the frame of qualitative methodology, Polkinghorne (1995) identifies narrative study strategy, in which stories are used to describe human action.
Referring back to my theoretical part, the existing literature concerning SME branding mostly applied qualitative research methodology (e.g. Krake 2005) by utilising multiple case studies (e.g. Spence & Essoussi 2010) or exploratory researches (e.g. Abimbola & Kocak 2007). In this regard, those prior studies that focused on generation of understanding (e.g. Centeno et al. 2013) collected qualitative research data, like I did in this study. However, the existing studies addressing branding, COO and the EU quality schemes at the same time, applied both qualitative (Baker & Ballington 2002; Roderick & Maureen 2016) and quantitative (Dentoni et al. 2013) methodologies. In terms of the qualitative methodologies, the applied data collection methods were the review and exploratory interviews in Baker and Ballington’s (2002) study and the
