IS EMBEDDEDNESS A KEY FEATURE OF BUSINESS ECOSYSTEMS? THE CASE OF CRAFT BREWERIES IN ITALY

Öz

The aim of this study is to analyze how a local economic system can grow without a pre-existing sector-related tradition. The case analyzed is that of craft beer production in Italian region where the production of beer is not part of the local culture. A multiple case study analysis has been conducted in order to identify the development conditions and the competitive features of a local system in the Italian region Marche. The perspective adopted was that of business ecosystems, deepening how the lack of embeddedness in the local production fabric could still allow the development of relationships characterized by mutual trust between firms, common language and uncodified systems of rules, similarly to traditional local systems. The study was conducted by analyzing six cases, which made it possible to identify the characteristics of the relationships between companies and the role of the local social, economic and cultural context. Results highlight that in the sector analyzed the lack of a sector-related common culture hinders the development of cooperative relationships, thus eliminating that character of interdependence between the companies, which identifies both traditional industrial districts and business ecosystems.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Business Ecosystems
• Craft Beer Industry
• Embeddedness

Kaynakça

1. Adner, R. (2006). Match your innovation strategy to your innovation ecosystem. Harvard business review, 84(4), 98.
2. Andersson, T., Serger, S.S., So¨rvik, J. & Hansson, W.E. (2004) The Clusters Policies Whitebook (Malmo: Iked).
3. Asheim, B.T. & Coenen, L. (2005). Knowledge bases and regional innovation systems: comparing Nordic clusters. Research Policy, 34, 1173–1190.
4. Becattini G. (1990). The Marshallian industrial district as a socio-economic notion, in Pyke F.G., Becattini G. and Sengenberger W. (eds) Industrial Districts and Inter-firm Cooperation in Italy, pp. 37–51. International Institute for Labour Studies, Geneva.
5. Belussi, F. & Sedita, S.R., (2012). Industrial Districts as Open Learning Systems: Combining Emergent and Deliberate Knowledge Structures, Regional Studies, 46(2), pp.165–184.
6. Boix, R., & Trullén, J. (2010). Industrial districts, innovation and I-district effect: territory or industrial specialization?. European Planning Studies, 18(10), 1707-1729.
7. Boschma, Ron A., Jan G. Lambooy, & Vajm Schutjens (2002). ‘Embeddedness and Innovation’, in Michael Taylor and Simon Leonard (eds), Embedded Enterprise and Social Capital: International Perspectives, Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 19–35.
8. Brown, Kerry A., Burgess, John D. & Waterhouse, Jennifer M. (2007). Towards a New Conceptualisation of Clusters. In Chapman, R. (Eds.), Proceedings of Managing our Intellectual and Social Capital: 21st ANZAM 2007 Conference, pages pp. 1-13, Sydney, Australia.

9. Camagni R. P. (Ed.) (1991). Innovation Networks. Spatial Perspective. Belhaven, London.
10. Caraganciu A., Musso F. & Francioni B. (2016). "Industrial Districts and International Supply Chains: The Case of Italy", in Vrontis D., Weber Y., Tsoukatos E. (Eds.), Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Digital Ecosystems. Book of Proceedings, 9th Annual Conference of the EuroMed Academy of Business, September 14-16, 2016, Warsaw, Poland, Euromed Press, Nicosia, pp. 1950-1952.
11. Caraganciu A., Musso F., & Francioni B. (2018). “The Influence of Business Ecosystems on Innovation-Based Industries: A Research on the Mechanical Sector in Italy”, in Mărginean S., Ogrean C., Orăștean R. (eds), Emerging Issues in the Global Economy, Springer, Cham, pp. 101-111. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-71876-7_9.
12. Carroll, G.R., & Hannan, M.T. (2000). The Demography of Corporations and Industries. Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ.
13. Chetty, S. & Blankenburg Holm, D. (2000). Internationalisation of small to medium-sized manufacturing firms: a network approach, International Business Review, 9, 77–93.
14. Chiffoleau, Y., Dreyfus, F., Stofer ,R., & Touzard, J.M. (2007). Networks, innovation and performance: Evidence from a cluster of wine co-operatives (Languedoc, South of France). In Karantinis, K. and Nilsson, J. (eds). Vertical markets and cooperative hierarchies, 37–62. Copenhagen: Springer.
15. Crouch, C., Le Gale`s, P., Trigilia, C. & Voelzkow, H. (2001). Local Production Systems in Europe: Rise or Demise? (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
16. Daidj N. (2011). "Les écosystèmes d’affaires: une nouvelle forme d’organisation en réseau?, Management & Avenir, 6, n° 46, 35 pp. 105-130.
17. Duarte Alonso, A., Bressan, A., O'Shea, M. & Krajsic, V. (2014). Exporting wine in complex times: a study among small and medium wineries, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 21(2), 345-364.
18. Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research, Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-50.
19. Eisenhardt, K.M. & Galunic, D.C. (2000). Coevolving: at last, a way to make synergies. Harvard Business Review, 78, 91–101.
20. Esposti, R., Fastigi, M. & Viganò, E. (2017). "Italian craft beer revolution: do spatial factors matter?", Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 24(3), 503-527. doi: 10.1108/JSBED-12-2016-0191
21. Fournier, S., & Muchnik, J. (2012). El enfoque SIAL y la activacion de recursos territoriales. Agroalimentaria, 18(34): 133–144.
22. Francioni, B., & Viganò, E. (2020). Craft and agricultural brewing in the Marche region: theoretical and empirical implications of global versus local sourcing. In Case Studies in the Beer Sector (pp. 183-200). Woodhead Publishing.
23. Fujita M., Krugman P. & Venables A. (1999). The Spatial Economy: Cities, Regions and International Trade. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
24. Giuliani, E., (2013). Network dynamics in regional clusters: Evidence from Chile. Research Policy, 42(8), pp.1406–1419.
25. Grandori, A. & Soda, G., (1995). Inter-firm Networks: Antecedents, Mechanisms and Forms, Organization Studies, 16(2), pp.183–214.
26. Gueguen, G., & Torres, O. (2004). La dynamiques concurrentielle des écosystèmes d’affaires. Linux contre Microsoft, Revue Française de Gestion, 30(148), 227-248.
27. Hannan, M.T., & Freeman, J. (1989). Organizational Ecology. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.
28. Humphrey, J. & Schmitz, H. (2002). How does insertion in global value chains affect uprgrading in industrial clusters? Regional Studies, 36(9), pp. 1017–1027.
29. Iansiti, M., & R. Levien (2004). “Strategy as Ecology,” Harvard Business Review (82)3, pp. 68–78.
30. Koenig, G. (2012). Business ecosystems revisited, Management (France), 15(2), pp.208–224.
31. Lombardi, M. (2003). The emergence of local productive systems. Research Policy, 32(8): 1443–1462.
32. Lopez, E. & Muchnik, J. (eds.). (1997). Petites entreprises et grands enjeux: Le developpement agroalimentaire local. Paris: l’Harmattan.
33. Markusen, A. (1996). Sticky Places in Slippery Space : A Typology of Industrial Districts, Economic Geography, 72(3), pp.293–313.
34. Maskell, P. (2001). ‘Towards a Knowledge-Based Theory of the Geographical Cluster’, Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(4): 921–943.
35. Merry, U. (1999). Organizational strategy on different landscapes: A new science approach. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 12: 257-278.
36. Miles, M.B. & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, Sage, London.
37. Moore, J.F. (2006).Business ecosystems and the view from the firm. The Antitrust Bulletin, 51(1), pp. 31-75.
38. Muchnik, J., & de Sainte Marie, C. (eds.) (2010). Le temps des SYALs. Versailles: QUAE. Musso F. (2013). Strategie e competitività internazionale delle piccole e medie imprese. Un'analisi sul settore della meccanica, Cedam, Padova.
39. Musso F. & Francioni B. (2018). “Fattori di competitività per le imprese distrettuali nell’economia globalizzata” Convegno Sinergie-SIMA 2018, Strategie in trasformazione e nuovi modelli per la creazione di valore, Università Ca’ Foscari, Venezia, 14-15 giugno, pp. 1-7.
40. Musso F., & Francioni B. (2015). "L’approccio all’internazionalizzazione del piccolo e medio imprenditore: un’analisi sui birrifici artigianali", Paper presentato al XII Convegno annuale della Società Italiana Marketing, Università degli Studi di Torino, Dipartimento di Management, Torino, 22-23 ottobre, pp. 1-6. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.1.2682.5202.
41. Pecqueur, B., & Zimmermann, J.-B. (2004). Economie de proximite´s. Paris: Herme`s.
42. Peltoniemi M. (2006). "Preliminary theoretical framework for the study of business ecosystems", E:CO. Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 10-19.
43. Peltoniemi M., & Vuori E. (2004). “Business ecosystem as the new approach to complex adaptive business environments”, Proceedings of eBusiness Research Forum, Tampere 20-22 September. pp.267–281.
44. Pierce L. (2009). "Big Losses in Ecosystem Niches: How Core Firm Decisions Drive Complementary Product Shakeouts", Strategic Management Journal, 30, pp. 323–347.
45. Porter, M.E. (1998). Clusters and the new economics of competition, Harvard Business Review, 76(November/December), 77–90.
46. Requier-Desjardin, D., Boucher, F., & Cerdan, C. (2003). Globalization, competitive advantage and evolution of productive systems. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 15: 49–67.
47. Rocha, H. (2004). Entrepreneurship and Development: The Role of Clusters. Small Business Economics, 23(5), 363-400.
48. Scott A. J. (1998). Regions and the World Economy: The Coming Shape of Global Production, Competition, and Political Order. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
49. Scott A.J., & Storper M. (2003). Regions, Globalization, Development, Regional Studies, Vol. 37.6&7, pp. 579–593, August/October 2003.
50. Sforzi, F. (1990). ‘The Quantitative Importance of Marshallian District in the Italian Economy’, in Pyke, F., G. Becattini and W. Sengenberger (eds.), Industrial Districts and Inter-Firm Co-Operation in Italy, Geneva: International Institute for Labour Studies, pp. 98–123.
51. Tallman, S., Jenkins, M., Henry, N., & Pinch, S. (2004). Knowledge, clusters, and competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 29, 258–271.
52. Thompson, J., & Scoones, I. (2009). Addressing the dynamics of agri-food systems: an emerging agenda for social science research. Environmental science & policy, 12(4), 386-397.
53. Uzzi, B. (1997). Social Structure and Competition in Interfirm Networks: The Paradox of Embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42: 35–67.
54. Van der Borgh M., Cloodt M., & Romme A.G.L. (2012). Value creation by knowledge-based ecosystems: evidence from a field study, R&D Management, 42, 2, pp. 150-169.
55. Vissak, T., Francioni, B. & Musso, F. (2015). The role of network relationships in Italian wine producers’ internationalization: Six cases, Proceedings of the 42nd Academy of International Business UK & Ireland Conference, Manchester Metropolitan University Business School, Manchester, UK, 16-18 April, pp. 1-29.
56. Vissak, T., Francioni, & B., Musso, F. (2017). The role of network relationships in small wineries' internationalization: a case study from Marche, Italy. International Journal of Wine Business Research, 29(1), 37 – 57, doi: 10.1108/IJWBR-07-2015-0025.
57. Yin RK (1994). Case Study Research Design and Methods. London: Sage.
58. Zucchella A. (2006). "Local cluster dynamics: trajectories of mature industrial districts between decline and multiple embeddedness", Journal of Institutional Economics, Vol. 2, Issue 01, April, pp 21 – 44.