An Analysis of the Different Labelling Options for Traditional Method Sparkling
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
An Analysis of the Different Labelling Options for Traditional Method Sparkling Wines in the Region of Penedès Candidate 24485 Word count 9901 December 2020 CONTENTS 1.- SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 1 2.- INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 2 2.1.- The Role of Protected Designations of Origin ........................................... 2 2.2.- Traditional Method Sparkling Wine in Penedès ......................................... 4 2.2.1.- DO Cava ______________________________________________________________ 5 2.2.2.- Clàssic Penedès ________________________________________________________ 7 2.2.3.- Corpinnat ______________________________________________________________ 7 2.2.4.- Conca del Riu Anoia _____________________________________________________ 8 2.3.- Criteria ........................................................................................................... 9 3.- LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................................................... 11 4.- METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................ 14 4.1.- Introduction ................................................................................................. 14 4.2.- Research Population .................................................................................. 14 4.3.- Research Questions ................................................................................... 18 4.4.- Data Analysis .............................................................................................. 19 4.5.- Scope and Limitations ................................................................................ 19 5.- RESULTS AND ANALYSIS ............................................................................... 20 5.1.- What Are the Main Reasons Why Producers Decided to Leave DO Cava? .............................................................................................................................. 20 5.1.1.- Desire to Identify Origin __________________________________________________ 20 5.1.2.- Reputation of Cava Brand ________________________________________________ 22 5.1.3.- Desire to Use Corpinnat Name ____________________________________________ 24 5.1.4.- Other Primary Motivations ________________________________________________ 24 5.1.5.- Secondary Motivations for Leaving DO Cava _________________________________ 24 5.2.- What Are the Advantages and Disadvantages of Producers Leaving DO Cava in the View of the Interested Parties? ...................................................... 27 5.2.1.- Advantages for Producers Outside DO Cava _________________________________ 27 5.2.1.1.- Ability to Identify Their Origin ...................................................................................... 27 5.2.1.2.- Stricter Production Requirements ............................................................................... 29 5.2.1.3.- Being Part of a Group of Like-Minded Individuals ...................................................... 30 5.2.1.4.- Positive Attention from Media and Trade.................................................................... 31 5.2.1.5.- Detachment from the Cava Brand .............................................................................. 31 5.2.1.6.- Possibility of Using Non-Permitted Grape Varieties ................................................... 31 5.2.1.7.- Higher Pricing of Scandinavian Tenders .................................................................... 32 5.2.1.8.- Other Advantages ....................................................................................................... 33 5.2.2.- Advantages for Producers Within DO Cava __________________________________ 33 5.2.3.- Advantages for the Consejo Regulador of Producers Leaving DO Cava ____________ 33 5.2.4.- Disadvantages for Producers Outside DO Cava _______________________________ 34 5.2.5.- Disadvantages for Producers Within DO Cava ________________________________ 36 5.2.6.- Disadvantages for the Consejo Regulador of Producers Leaving DO Cava __________ 37 5.3.- A SWOT Analysis of the Different Labelling Options for Traditional Method Sparkling Wines in the Region of Penedès. ........................................ 38 5.3.1.- Identification of Origin ___________________________________________________ 38 5.3.2.- Prestige ______________________________________________________________ 39 5.3.3.- Production Requirements ________________________________________________ 40 5.3.4.- Other Considerations ____________________________________________________ 44 5.3.5.- SWOT Analysis ________________________________________________________ 46 5.3.6.- Recommendations to Producers ___________________________________________ 49 6.- CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................. 51 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 53 APPENDIX A – Research Paper Proposal ............................................................ 61 APPENDIX B – Interview Templates ..................................................................... 65 1 1.- SUMMARY The Penedès region in Spain has been undergoing a period of controversy. Since 2002, several of its traditional method sparkling wine producers have decided to leave the Denominación de Origen (‘DO’) Cava. There are currently four labelling options for producers of traditional method sparkling wine in Penedès: DO Cava, Clàssic Penedès, Corpinnat and Conca del Riu Anoia. This research paper sets out to: (1) Understand the main reasons why producers left DO Cava; (2) Identify the advantages and disadvantages to producers leaving DO Cava; and (3) Analyse the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats for each of the four labelling options. This research shows that the desire to identify the specific origin of their wines was the most important motivation for producers to leave DO Cava, followed by not wanting to be linked with DO Cava because of its poor image. Clàssic Penedès, Corpinnat and Conca del Riu Anoia initiatives are more suited to small estate wineries wishing to be part of a smaller group of like-minded individuals. DO Cava’s improvement plans have addressed the perceived shortcomings of the appellation and could prevent further departures. DO Cava remains the only option for large wineries who buy in most of their fruit, négociant -style producers and cooperatives. 2 2.- INTRODUCTION 2.1.- The Role of Protected Designations of Origin According to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Protected Designations of Origin 1 (‘PDOs’) have three main objectives: to provide clear information to consumers of all products labelled under their umbrella, to protect against products from other regions wishing to take advantage of their reputation, and to ensure minimum quality levels and fair returns for producers. However, in recent times, several European wine PDOs have faced controversy, with high-quality producers choosing to label their wines outside of appellation rules. In France, the Vin de France category is normally associated with low-priced, high- yielding wines made from grapes from different regions. 2 The category was created in 2010 to give producers more flexibility in the labelling of their wines, whilst enabling them to state the vintage and grape variety on the label. 3 However, Vin de France has also become the preference for a small number of leading, high-quality producers who do not feel represented by the values of certain appellations of origin. For example, Richard Leroy left the AOC Anjou Blanc in 2005 as he “did not want to be associated with an organisation that had no standards of quality”. 4 In Spain, leading Rioja producer Artadi, announced in December 2015 that they would withdraw all their wines from DOCa Rioja. 5 The main reasons given were the image of 1 The Spanish equivalent of PDO is Denominación de Origen Protegida (‘DOP’); however, wine producers may use the term Denominación de Origen (‘DO’). Priorat and Rioja were awarded a superior status: Denominación de Origen Calificada (‘DOCa’). The Italian equivalent to PDOs applied to wine are Denominazione di Origine Controllata (‘DOC’) and Denominazione di Origine Controllata e Garantita (‘DOCG’). The French equivalent to PDO applied to wine is Appellation d’Origine Contrôlée (‘AOC’) (Robinson, 2006). 2 Lewin, 2014. 3 Budd, 2017. 4 Feiring, 2014. 5 Matthews, 2016. 3 cheap wine associated with Rioja and the fact that DOCa rules prohibited mention of any “local districts, villages or vineyard names on labels”. 6 López de Lacalle of Artadi hoped for an appellation system in Spain that would emphasise viticultural areas, as opposed to political borders. 7 He believes this would bring more heterogeneity to the commercial proposition, leading to higher demand for value-added products. This issue is not exclusive to wine. For example, leading jamón ibérico producers Joselito and 5 Jotas, and olive oil producer Castillo de Canena, label their products outside of their respective approved Spanish PDOs. According to María Naranjo Crespo, 8 for leading producers (of wine or other foodstuffs), being part of a PDO can risk undermining their image as brands, leading to them bringing prestige to the region and not vice versa. This is due