Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study appears ambitious and very important, and addresses a recent and important topic (non-food geographical indications GIs) following the issuance of EU Regulation 2023/2411. You have a solid foundation, but there are some methodological and editorial adjustments that will enhance the strength and academic impact of the research.
The summary is excellent at covering all the required elements (background, gap, methodology, results, contribution), but it needs to be improved to become more concise and impactful.

1- The research gap should be clearer and more concise in the summary. Currently, it begins with "While the literature... remains scarce." He suggested that the subsequent paragraph begin with "To fill this imperial gap,..." Or "This study addresses this gap by..." To link the methodology directly to bridging the gap.
2- Assembly results  (lines 19-23) The formulation of assembly results should be simplified. The phrase "yields a three-group typology labelled with a scale-first, intensity-second rule" could be clearer. You can simply state: "Hierarchical clustering situations a three-group typology based on scale and intensity, identifying strong geographic concentration... and high relative intensity in smaller economies (e.g., Portugal, Cyprus)."
3- Contributing to policies (lines 27-29) Focus on the fact that the contribution is not limited only to "bridging legal/policy discussions with imperial evidence" but also to providing direct policy tools. Make the end of the summary strong: "The study provides novel comparative tools (GI/POP, GI/GDP) to inform evidence-based policy design for European
 compliance, cultural identity, and sustainability transitions.

The methodology is clear and detailed (especially section 3.2. and 3.4.), but the statistical criteria need to be explained more deeply.
4- The choice of Ward's method and the square Euclidean distance must be justified briefly. Why is this particular method suitable for grouping economies in this context? (For example, Ward's method aims to reduce variance within groups.) This enhances the methodological rigor of the department.
5- Scenario Analysis This section needs more clarification on how to determine quantitative criteria for each scenario (Business as Usual, Intermediate Adoption, Full Implementation). How did Cost of Non-Europe (CoNE) estimates translate into an increase in the number of GIs or the percentage of adoption of the regulation? The basic assumptions for each scenario should be listed very briefly (e.g., a full implementation scenario assumes 80% of potential candidates are registered within 5 years).
6- Section 3.1. Research Design and Objects is partially repeated for other sections (2.7 and 2.8). Solution: Make it more concise and focused on the three methodological steps (data collection, descriptive/comparative statistics, scenario building) without repeating the research objectives and questions mentioned previously.

Author Response

We thank the Reviewer for the useful comments that helped us to revise and improve the manuscript.

Clarify the research gap in the Abstract and connect it directly to the methods.

Response. We rewrote the Abstract to state the gap explicitly (scarcity of empirical, comparative evidence on non-food GIs) and to link it to our dataset, indicators, and clustering.

 

Simplify the presentation of clustering results and make labels clearer.

Response. We tightened the wording and kept a single “scale-first, intensity-second” labeling rule. Please, see Section 3.4 and Section 4.4.

 

Justify the choice of Ward’s method and (squared) Euclidean distance.

Response. We added a methodological justification (variance-minimizing, compact groups; suitability for correlated indicators; interpretability of dendrogram/silhouette). Please, see Section 3.4.

 

State assumptions behind the scenario analysis.

Response. We made scenario assumptions explicit (BAU 0–10%, Intermediate 40–50%, Full 80–100% conversion of potential titles in 5 years), and we clarified the use of EPRS (2019) as conversion benchmark. Please, see Section 4.6.

 

Reduce redundancy in Methods §3.1.

Response. We streamlined the section to a concise three-step design (sources/comparative analysis/scenarios), avoiding repetition from the theoretical sections. Please, see Section 3.1.

 

Ensure numeric conventions are consistent (decimals, rounding, thousands separators).

Response. We harmonized reporting: GI/POP (2 decimals), GI/GDP (3), silhouettes/medians (2); no thousand separators. Please, see Section 3.4.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript examines the emerging policy and empirical landscape of non-food Geographical Indications (GIs) in the EU following Regulation (EU) 2023/2411. It integrates EUIPO and Eurostat data to construct comparative indicators (GI/POP and GI/GDP), performs hierarchical clustering to identify country typologies, and develops scenario analyses estimating potential socio-economic effects of different levels of regulatory implementation.

This is an original and timely contribution. Literature on non-food GIs is still scarce and fragmented, and the manuscript provides one of the first EU-wide, systematic assessments with robust comparative methods. The paper’s strength lies in its clear articulation of research gaps, its methodological transfer from agri-food GI analysis, and its relevance to EU policy debates around sustainability, territorial cohesion, and industrial competitiveness.

Major Issues and Suggestions

Depth of Scenario Analysis:

• The scenario section is promising but relatively brief. It would benefit from clearer justification of the proportional conversion assumptions and more sensitivity checks. For example, what happens under partial uptake concentrated in large incumbents versus in smaller states?

• Consider integrating a discussion of possible displacement effects or risks of over-estimation.

Governance and Implementation:

• While the manuscript recognises governance capacity as a key variable, the empirical analysis does not measure it. Future research suggestions are offered, but a short qualitative discussion of how governance structures differ across clusters would strengthen the argument.

Sectoral Specialisation:

• The sectoral results highlight ceramics and textiles but treat the “Other” category as residual. More detailed examples (e.g., leather, paper, wood) could illustrate policy opportunities in underexplored niches.

Limitations:

• The limitations section is honest, but it could better emphasise that secondary data may under-represent informal or emerging craft traditions, which risks biasing results toward heritage-heavy clusters.

 

Minor Issues

• Tables and Figures: Some figures (e.g., clustering diagram, scenario outcomes) could benefit from clearer labelling and captions that stand alone.

• References: A few citations (e.g., [21], [55], [69]) are repeated frequently; more diverse empirical references, particularly non-European case studies, would broaden the comparative perspective.

• Language: Generally polished, though some sentences remain overly dense; further light editing for conciseness would help.

 

Author Response

We thank the Reviewer for the useful comments that helped us to revise and improve the manuscript.

Provide a brief qualitative reading of governance differences across clusters.

Response. We added a dedicated subsection comparing Leaders, Emerging and Marginal, and connected governance capacity to conversion potential. Please, see Section 4.5.

 

Strengthen scenario methodology: make assumptions explicit and include sensitivity/robustness.

Response. We made the adoption shares explicit and added a sensitivity analysis (30%–60%–90% conversion) discussing mild deceleration beyond ~80% due to saturation; we also noted distributional effects if new registrations concentrate in large incumbents. Please, see Section 4.6.

 

Discuss possible over-/under-estimation and sources of bias.

Response. We added a paragraph on potential overestimation and underestimation, aligning with EU impact-assessment practice. Please, see Section 4.6.

 

 

Anchor scenario work in evaluation/impact-assessment standards.

Response. We cited European Commission Better Regulation documents (Guidelines 2021; Toolbox 2023, Ch. 8) and classic references for sensitivity and CBA (Boardman et al., 2018; OECD, 2020). Please, see Section 4.6.

 

Expand sectoral examples for the residual “Other” category.

Response. We clarified that “Other” includes leather goods, paper, and woodcrafts, highlighting latent potential once regulatory pathways are clarified. Please, see Section 4.3.

 

Make limitations more explicit (secondary-data bias; informal/emerging crafts).

Response. We expanded the Limitations inside Conclusions to acknowledge coverage bias toward formal/legacy sectors and the simplification inherent in GI/POP and GI/GDP, while arguing why this is appropriate for a comparative, policy-oriented design.

Changes. Section 6 (Conclusions), Limitations paragraph (rewritten and expanded; cites OECD, 2020).

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study fills the gap by constructing an integrated dataset that combines 132 registered non-food GIs with 380 EUIPO-identified potential candidates (a total of 512). Using secondary data analysis, documentary review, and descriptive and comparative statistics, we introduce two normalized indicators GI/POP (GIs per 17 million inhabitants) and GI/GDP (GIs per € billion of GDP) to enable fair cross-country 18 comparisons. I consider the topic original and it addresses a specific gap in the field.

Very interesting approach as it elevates non-food GIs to the political rank 140 once reserved for agri-food indications and inserts them directly into the debate on industrial strategy and territorially anchored sustainability. No specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology and the conclusions address the main question posed. The references are appropriate. No additional comments on the tables and figures, only one comment: the title of the figures should be present after the figure.

Author Response

We thank the Reviewer for the useful comments that helped us to revise and improve the manuscript.

Align figure/table captions with MDPI style; place titles below figures.

Response. We revised captions to be self-contained and confirmed placement below figures as per MDPI style.

 

 

Minor language polishing and consistency.

Response. We smoothed dense sentences and standardized phrasing; no content removed.