REGIONAL PRODUCTS IN THE EUROPEAN POLICY CONTEXT– STAKEHOLDERS’ BENEFITS

Öz

This article attempts to observe the issue of so called Quality Agricultural Products (QAP) from several stakeholders’ point of view, particularly as concerns a purchaser of such type of goods. It is certain that importance of producers and specialists involved in regional products marketing cannot be omitted. Considerations presented in the article, though connected with the Common Market, have a wider meaning and can be used in a discussion about other markets in the world as a counterbalance for progressive globalization and mass production with rather anonymous goods. In the paper the author tried to stress that such initiatives as QAP are essential as they directly contribute to backing entrepreneurship and ensure publicity which particularly for small companies is often the only chance for wider promotion. Moreover, they meet contemporary expectations and requirements in market environment regarding ecological aspects, activation and stimulation of poorer regions, and encouraging fair-play yet intense competition. And as the practical experiences prove, these activities result in increasing entrepreneurial spirit.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Quality Agricultural Products (QAP), European Union, PDO, PGI, TSG, Organic Farming, Stakeholders

AVRUPA POLİTİKASI KAPSAMINDA BÖLGESEL ÜRÜNLER-PAYDAŞLARIN ÇIKARLARI

Öz

Bu çalışma, “Kaliteli Tarımsal Ürünler” olarak adlandırılan ürünlerin başta tüketicileri olmak üzere, paydaşlarının bakış açılarını ortaya koymayı hedeflemektedir. Bölgesel pazarlama kapsamında tüketicilerin olduğu kadar üretici ve uzmanların da önemi göz ardı edilemez. Bu makalede sözü geçen ürünler, aslında Ortak Piyasalar ile ilişkili olsalar da, daha geniş bir anlamda ele alınmaktadır. Bunlar, dünya piyasaları kapsamında küreselleşme ve seri üretimin yol açtığı sorunların üstesinden gelmeyi hedefleyerek pazarlanan isimsiz/markasız ürünlerdir. Çalışmanın yazarı, “Kaliteli Tarımsal Ürünler” gibi üretim dallarının girişimciliğe destek olduğunu ve bu ürünlerin özellikle küçük işletmeler için bir tanıtım aracı görevi yaptığı konusu üzerinde durmaktadır. Bu ürünler ayrıca ekolojik dengenin korunması, yoksul bölgelerin harekete geçirilerek teşvik edilmesi ve eşit şartlarda, ancak yoğun bir rekabete yön vermesi özellikleri ile günümüz beklentileri ile uyum göstermektedir. Ayrıca deneyimler, bu etkinliklerin girişimcilik ruhunu desteklediğini göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kaliteli Tarımsal Ürünler (QAP), Avrupa Birliği, PDO, PGI, TSG, Organik Tarım, Paydaşlar

Kaynakça

1. Bawa, A. (2004). Consumer Ethnocetrism: CETSCALE Validation and Measurement of Extent. Vikalpa, Vol. 29, No. 3, 43-58.
2. Cervino, J., Sanchez, J. and Cubillo, J.M. (2005). Made in Effect, Competitive Marketing Strategy and Brand Performance: An Empirical Analysis of Spanish Brands. The Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge, No. 2. 237-243.
3. Dinnie, K. (2002). Implications of National Identity for Marketing Strategy. The Marketing Review, no. 2. pp. 285-300.
4. DOLPHIN (2007). Retrieved May 08, 2007 from the World Wide Web: http://www.origin-food.org/cadre/cadal.htm.
5. Drewnowska, B. (2006). Tradycja i jakosc zdobeda klientow, Rzeczpospolita, 24.03.2006, p. B7.
6. “European Action Plan for Organic Food and Farming” (2004). Commission Communication form the Commission [COM (2004) 415 final], Brussels 10.06.2004, SEC (2004) 739, pp. 7-8. Annex to the
7. “Agriculture-Quality Policy” (2008a). Retrieved January 30, 2008 from the World Wide Web: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/qual/en/ de_en.htm.
8. “Agriculture-Quality Policy” (2008b). Retrieved January 30, 2008 from the World Wide Web: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/qual/en/uk_en .htm.

9. “Organic Farming” (2006). European Commission Documents. Retrieved April http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/qual/organic/index_en.htm. from the World Wide Web:
10. Euromontana official sides: www.euromontana.org , access: 09.05.2008.
11. Figiel, A. (2004). Etnocentryzm konsumencki, Polskie Wydawnictwo Ekonomiczne, Warszawa 2004.
12. Jasinski, J. and Rzytki, M. (2005). Oscypek w Brukseli, Rzeczpospolita, 17.02.2005.
13. Kotler, P. and Gerner, D. (2002). Country as Brand, Product, and Beyond: A Place Marketing and Brand Management Perspective. Brand Management, Vol. 9, No. 4-5, 249-261.
14. Larceneux, F. and Carpenter, M. (2007). Third Party Labelling and the Consumer Decision Process. The Case of the PGI European Label. CNRS-groupe HEC and Bordeaux School of Management – Working Papers.
15. Laroche, M., Papadopoulos, N., Heslop, L. and Bergeron, J. (2002). Effects of Subcultural Differences on Country and Product Evaluations. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 2-3, Nov., 232- 247.
16. Marreiros, C. and Ness, M. (2001). Perception of PDO Beef: The Portugese Consumer. Printed document of University of Newcastle- upon-Tyne, Dept. Of Agricultural Economics and Food Marketing, p. 13.
17. Olins, W. (2002). Branding Nations: The Historical Context. Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 9, No. 4-5, 241-248.
18. Sharma, S., Shimp T. and Shin, J. (1987). Consumer Ethnocentrism / Construction and Validation of the Scale. Journal of Marketing Research, 24 (3) August, 280-289.
19. Slow Food International official sides: www.slowfood.com , access: 08.05.2008.
20. SUS-CHAIN official sides: www.sus-chain.org , access: 09.05.2008.
21. Szczepaniak, W. (2005) Szansa, którą można jeszcze wykorzystać. Puls Biznesu. 05.12. 2005.