Next Article in Journal
Standards on Corporate and Public Sustainability Reporting
Previous Article in Journal
Navigating Unserved Areas: A Comprehensive Review of Medical Deserts
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Standards
Volume 6
Issue 1
10.3390/standards6010007
standards-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Regulatory Innovation and Sustainable Growth Strategies in the Wine Industry: The Case of an Italian Sparkling Wine Designation of Origin

by
Michele Antonio Fino
1,* and
Carmine Garzia
1,2,*
1
University of Gastronomic Science, UNISG, Bra, 12042 Pollenzo, Italy
2
University of Applied Sciences and Arts of Southern Switzerland SUPSI, 6928 Manno, Switzerland
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Standards 2026, 6(1), 7; https://doi.org/10.3390/standards6010007
Submission received: 6 December 2025 / Revised: 22 January 2026 / Accepted: 27 January 2026 / Published: 5 February 2026
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

In the context of strategies for the promotion of a sustainable wine industry, the utilization of production regulations under the European Geographical Indications system is seldom contemplated. Furthermore, when such texts are considered, the focus is typically on rules for viticulture or winemaking, rather than on articles governing the boundaries of a PDO or PGI. The present study examines the manner in which regulatory innovation, when viewed from a strictly geographical perspective, can promote the sustainable growth of the sparkling wine districts of Franciacorta and Oltrepò Pavese, which are located in the Italian Lombardy region. Through a comparative analysis of Franciacorta and Oltrepò Pavese, we explore how regulatory frameworks, land-use constraints, and production capacities interact to shape environmental, social, and economic sustainability. Franciacorta’s premium positioning and global reputation are constrained by its limited geographic area, making expansion environmentally and socially challenging. In contrast, Oltrepò Pavese has substantial production potential, particularly for Pinot Noir-based classic-method sparkling wines but suffers from a fragmented identity and weak market recognition. Benchmarking the Prosecco PDO evolution, we propose a sustainability-oriented growth model integrating multiple territories under harmonized rules, termed “Grande Franciacorta”. This framework would enable controlled growth, reduce land pressure in high-density areas, enhance regional competitiveness, and support long-term ecological stewardship. This study outlines managerial implications for producers, emphasizing multi-tier product architectures, dynamic capabilities, and coordinated governance mechanisms. Policy recommendations highlight the need for regulatory frameworks that embed sustainability criteria, optimize land use, and consolidate regional reputation to ensure the long-term viability of high-quality sparkling wine production.

1. Introduction

The wine industry is increasingly embracing environmental, economic, and social sustainability. Viticulture is moving away from resource-intensive, linear practices toward regenerative, value-chain models that highlight climate vulnerability and the need for coordinated governance among producers, regulators, and consumers [1]. Although research in this area has grown over the past decade, empirical studies on social equity and regulatory consistency remain limited [2]. Environmental sustainability, especially pesticide use and water management, is the most pressing challenge, while packaging and transport add further environmental impacts [3]. Organic cultivation lowers chemical inputs but can increase land and energy demands when yields are lower [4]. Multi-indicator assessments that integrate environmental, social, and economic performance offer useful benchmarks for reporting and help steer sustainable transitions [5]. Cooperative structures facilitate knowledge sharing and joint investment, but targeted policy incentives are needed to address financial and technological constraints [6]. Consumers show moderate but context-dependent willingness to pay premiums for sustainability-certified wines, underscoring the need for credible certification and clear communication [7].
Despite these advances, the role of geographical indications (GIs) in supporting sustainability remains underexplored [8]. This gap is significant, as five EU Member States—Italy, France, Spain, Germany, and Portugal—account for over 55% of global wine production [9] and collectively register over 2200 protected designations of origin (PDOs) and protected geographical indications (PGIs) [10], with wine-related GIs representing more than half. Understanding how PDO influences sustainable development is therefore essential for high-quality wine regions.
When a PDO or PGI is successful among consumers, demand naturally increases for grapes to be cultivated within the designated production areas. For PDO wines, production is limited to grapes sourced from vineyards within the designated geographical boundaries, as recorded in official registers. PGI wines allow up to 15% of grapes to come from areas outside the designated boundaries, according to Art. 84, Reg. EU 2024/1143 [11].
The sustainability of viticultural practices depends on territory size and the ability to balance competing land uses, economic interests, and societal demands [12]. Small PDO or PGI areas with extensive cultivation may reach a point where additional growth becomes environmentally and socially unsustainable. Consequently, PDO and PGI regulations can serve as a strategy for sustainable growth, particularly for the most successful PDO wines.
Italy ranks among the world’s leading wine producers by volume and second by output value [13]. Over the past fifteen years, sparkling wine production has grown markedly, driven largely by the “Prosecco system”, which comprises Prosecco PDO, Conegliano–Valdobbiadene Prosecco Superiore PDO, and Asolo Prosecco PDO. Prosecco PDO represents more than 80% of total output, prompting the consortium to adopt specific sustainability measures [14]. According to Italian legislation (Statute 238/2016, art. 28), a national PDO wine can be classified as DOC (Denominazione di Origine Controllata) or DOCG (Denominazione di Origine Controllata e Garantita): the second one represents a sub-category characterised by a stricter set of regulations, and consequently a higher level of prestige.
Wines produced under the Prosecco system appellations are predominantly made using the Charmat method [15], while classic-method sparkling wine districts—based on in-bottle refermentation—have developed in other regions. In 2024, major classic-method districts included the Trentodoc PDO in Trentino (12 million bottles) [16], the Franciacorta PDO (over 19 million bottles) and the Oltrepò Pavese PDO in Lombardy (580 thousand bottles) [17], and the Alta Langa PDO in Piedmont (1.8 million bottles) [18]. Beyond these major districts, smaller pockets of classic method production exist elsewhere in Italy, although their volumes remain far below those of the leading appellations.
Regions producing PDO classic-method sparkling wines have lower yields per hectare than those within the Prosecco system, reflecting the requirements of secondary in-bottle fermentation and extended aging on the lees. This process requires higher sugar and acid content in the base wines. Franciacorta, a premium sparkling wine produced in northern Italy in a geographically defined area with a long history of vine cultivation [19], offers a useful case for examining how regulatory tools can align market opportunities with environmental sustainability. Specifically, this study investigates whether a new regulatory framework for sparkling wine production in Lombardy can upgrade the regional wine industry, promote sustainable soil use, and enhance the new denomination’s competitiveness in international markets.
The Franciacorta region, located in the province of Brescia in the Lombardy region of Italy, emerged as a notable sparkling wine district in the 1960s. The first producers in the area began focusing on sparkling wine production, which led to a decline in the making of still wines. The Franciacorta PDO is currently dedicated exclusively to sparkling wines, which have been produced using only the classic method since 1995 [20]. Vineyards now cover nearly 13% of the territory, competing with natural areas, infrastructure, housing, and production facilities.
The Oltrepò Pavese area, in the Lombardy region, located south of the River Po in the province of Pavia, is home to a significant wine-growing district that spans the hilly terrain between the Tortonese area in Piedmont and the Colli Piacentini area in Emilia-Romagna. The area has a long tradition of producing sparkling wine, dating back more than a century. Today, the district is fragmented into many product types, limiting producers’ ability to maximize the value of their grapes. According to the local consortium, Oltrepò Pavese, one of Italy’s most important viticultural regions, accounts for roughly 75% of the Pinot Noir grown nationally [21] used for classic-method sparkling wines. This heritage can be traced back to the period of Italian unification in the late 19th century [22].
The goal of the present study is to explore a sustainability growth strategy in PDO wine production and leveraging on the opportunities and implications of potential regulatory changes, particularly those concerning the delimitation of production areas. It aims to develop policy recommendations that support the sustainable development of high-quality wine regions such as Franciacorta without expanding original territorial boundaries, focusing instead on achieving growth objectives by optimizing the use of suitable areas within the existing region.
From a methodological perspective, this paper adopts a theoretical and conceptual research design, grounded in a structured review of the most relevant academic literature and complemented by the analysis of secondary data drawn from both private and institutional sources.
More specifically, the study is based on a systematic and critical literature review, which serves two main purposes. First, it enables a comparative analysis of different development models of Protected Designations of Origin (PDOs) in the context of similar products, with particular reference to sparkling wines. This comparative perspective allows the identification of recurring patterns, governance mechanisms, and strategic choices that characterize alternative territorial and organizational development trajectories.
Second, the literature review provides the analytical foundation for interpreting secondary data related to production volumes, territorial expansion, environmental constraints, and market dynamics. These data are sourced from official reports, consortia publications, and sectoral statistics released by institutional bodies, ensuring robustness and coherence with the research objectives.
The integration of theoretical insights and secondary data supports the development of a conceptual framework aimed at assessing the sustainability implications of different PDO development strategies. Building on the comparative analysis and the conceptual framework, the paper formulates a set of policy-oriented recommendations. These recommendations are intended to support policymakers, regulatory bodies, and consortia in designing development paths for PDOs that are consistent with principles of sustainable territorial development, avoiding over-concentration, environmental degradation, and governance inefficiencies.
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. The next section reviews the literature on the sustainable development of geographical denominations. Section 3 examines Lombardy’s sparkling wine production, analyzing its supply structure, regional system weaknesses, and untapped opportunities, with a focus on the “dual cluster” configuration. Section 4 explores the drivers behind the growth of the Prosecco PDO. Section 5 proposes a reformulation of the DOCG with a sustainability orientation, aiming to create a broader regional denomination encompassing all of Lombardy and leveraging the existing PDO Franciacorta under harmonized sustainability criteria. Section 6 assesses the potential environmental and regional competitive impacts of this redesign. The final section discusses the limitations, managerial implications, and future research directions, highlighting the analytical and practical consequences for the regional wine system.

2. Managing Sustainability-Related Issues in PDO Definition and Development

As producers seek to align with consumer preferences and strengthen environmental stewardship, sustainability in PDO wines has gained increasing attention. The wine industry is adopting sustainable practices that integrate environmental considerations into business models, improving cultivation and production, despite higher management costs [23]. These innovations improve product quality and meet the growing demand for eco-friendly wines, serving as a strategic marketing tool [24]. Efforts to manage and reduce carbon footprints are also expanding. For example, Carrasco et al. [25] highlight initiatives in the Spanish wine sector to reduce greenhouse gas emissions during distribution, which accounts for a significant portion of overall emissions. However, international trade can complicate these efforts by driving growth while simultaneously increasing environmental pressures. Therefore, measuring and mitigating carbon footprints is essential. The adoption of organic and biodynamic farming is also increasing within PDO frameworks, with evidence indicating that these practices can produce high-quality wines while effectively addressing sustainability challenges [26]. These approaches often use adaptive agricultural methods that respond to climate variability and soil conditions, thus enhancing resilience to environmental change.
Consumers are increasingly willing to pay a premium for sustainable wines, highlighting sustainability as a key driver of purchasing decisions [27]. However, an attitude–behavior gap exists, whereby consumers express favorable views toward sustainable products but do not necessarily act on them when making purchases [28], underscoring the need for effective communication strategies that emphasize the environmental benefits of PDO wines.
Wine tourism has become an important catalyst for promoting sustainable practices in wineries. Tourism can stimulate innovations in green products and processes, enhancing overall sustainability. By integrating wine tourism with PDO branding, wineries can leverage their unique identities, contribute to local economies, and promote sustainable practices. Innovative grape production methods, especially the cultivation of disease-resistant varieties, show potential in reducing chemical inputs. Support for eco-sustainable genetic improvements is increasingly shaping market dynamics, establishing sustainability as a hallmark of quality differentiation [29]. The rising demand for environmentally friendly and health-conscious production methods further signals a transformative shift in consumer expectations [30]. Producers are incorporating sustainable practices into their business models to mitigate environmental impacts and strengthen their market position.
The interaction between wine production and the landscape is multifaceted, encompassing the ecological, cultural, and economic dimensions. PDO vineyard practices influence landscape quality and biodiversity [31], with sustainability initiatives enhancing social and environmental performance while preserving unique vineyard landscapes that attract tourists. Global warming presents additional risks, emphasizing the importance of sustainability strategies for production performance.
Cultural ecosystem services in wine-growing regions play a key role in enhancing territorial attractiveness. Perceptions of landscape complexity can increase the aesthetic value attributed by visitors [32]. Extensive vineyard management practices can improve both landscape beauty and ecosystem services, supporting sustainable tourism. Understanding the interaction between market dynamics and landscape evolution is therefore crucial for analyzing land use in PDO areas. International tourism and high-quality wine markets both influence agricultural intensity and landscape management, indicating that market forces can drive landscape changes aligned with sustainability when effectively integrated into marketing strategies [33].
Integrating sustainability into PDO wine production supports both environmental preservation and the long-term viability of vineyard landscapes. Research on converting low-input wine production systems into quality-oriented approaches in contested landscapes highlights the importance of careful landscape management to balance agricultural demands with heritage preservation [34]. Therefore, the connection between wine quality and landscape integrity is critical. PDO vineyards are increasingly recognized as cultural landscapes that provide multiple ecosystem services. Multifunctional territorialized agri-food systems enhance sustainability by linking cultural identity with agricultural practices [35]. Leveraging the heritage associated with PDO wines allows producers to implement sustainable practices that benefit both the landscape and the local economy. Visual assessment tools can capture landscape preferences and perceptions of ecosystem services [36]. Consequently, aligning cultural identity with ecological management is essential for developing effective and sustainable wine tourism strategies.
Geographical indications can contribute to the achievement of sustainable development goals. PDO specifications promote improved environmental stewardship and landscape management [37], with their effectiveness largely dependent on the ability to positively influence land management practices. However, there are often gaps between policy intentions and practical outcomes, underscoring the need for ongoing improvements in implementation. Climate change poses additional threats to vineyard landscapes, highlighting the need for regulatory frameworks that can adapt to these challenges [38]. Research on vineyard management emphasizes the importance of preserving biodiversity. For instance, vineyard landscapes with varying levels of fragmentation support local Coleoptera communities, indicating that maintaining landscape diversity enhances ecological resilience [39].

3. Sparkling Wine Production in Lombardy, the “Dual Cluster” Market Configuration

Historically, wine production in Lombardy, one of Italy’s most industrialized regions with a strong agricultural and enogastronomic tradition, developed around two distinct clusters [40]. Franciacorta has a limited, high-quality production system based on the classic method (méthode champenoise). This system has achieved a premium market position through craftsmanship, territorial branding, and strict production discipline [41,42]. In contrast, Oltrepò Pavese has developed a more diversified, volume-oriented model. This area produces sparkling wines using both the classic method and the Charmat method. They primarily target the budget and mid-range segments, where productivity and accessibility prevail over exclusivity and brand prestige [43,44].
Despite these differences, both clusters are territorial systems of high landscape and cultural value, representing complementary expressions of Lombard sparkling wine: one reputation-based and premium, the other efficiency-oriented and accessible [45,46]. These dual trajectories illustrate the broader dynamics of regional specialization and market segmentation in Italian wine clusters, balancing heritage, innovation, and economic adaptation [47].
Franciacorta wines enjoy a strong reputation and command the highest average prices among classic-method wines in Italy [48]. Annual production remains stable, with the majority of sales occurring domestically and only 10% exported. This contributes to the international perception of Italian sparkling wine as “Prosecco”, a term often used generically abroad [49].
Organic growth in international markets requires increased production, but developing the required infrastructure, including temperature-controlled warehouses, tirage, disgorging facilities, and a trained workforce, is time-consuming and underscores the importance of the local production systems [50]. Establishing new vineyards requires long-term planning with optimal yields reached only after four to five years and substantial early-stage investment [51].
Current regulations cap yields at 10 tons per hectare, with a 65% conversion rate from grapes to wine. Each new hectare can produce a maximum of 8700 bottles, but this is not achievable until at least six years after planting. This is because it takes four years to produce grapes, plus a minimum of 18 months for secondary fermentation, and six months for harvesting and vin clair production. The Franciacorta PDO permits the production of base sparkling wine and four variants: Rosé, Satén, Vintage, and Reserve. Each variant has minimum aging requirements: six months for base wine, six additional months for vintage wines, and up to 60 months for “riserva” wines [art. 5.5.2 of the Franciacorta DOCG product specification].
The most significant constraint on expanding Franciacorta production is the limited availability of land suitable for vineyards and related facilities. In a densely developed region, further vineyard expansion poses environmental and social challenges. High-density viticultural districts often face land-use conflicts and ecological limits [52,53]. Franciacorta’s contemporary landscape is heavily anthropogenic, with centuries of permanent habitation, extensive infrastructure, and non-agricultural enterprises contributing to economic growth [54].
The eighteen Franciacorta DOCG municipalities cover a total area of 266 km2. Vineyards occupy 3390 ha—approximately 12.7% of the territory—competing with agriculture, infrastructure, housing, and services (Table 1). The Iseo Peat Bogs, a protected area established by a Ministerial Decree on 11 June 1984 and Regional Council Decree No. 1846 on 19 December 1984, lies near the district’s center. The region has over 150,000 inhabitants, with a population density of 652 people per km2, which is 50% higher than the average in Lombardy at 420 inhabitants per km2 (Table 2).
Expanding vineyard areas under these constraints could generate tension between winegrowers and local communities, as observed in other regions with limited land [55,56]. At present, new grape varieties derived from intraspecific hybrids, which reduce pesticide requirements, are unsuitable for producing high-quality sparkling wine [57]. Expansion into remote areas would require converting natural habitats, which could lead to biodiversity loss [58].
Consequently, strategies for increasing production are limited, and it is unrealistic to expect that rising costs can be offset solely through higher domestic prices [59]. Maintaining the status quo risks stagnation and threatens the viability of Franciacorta firms with weaker brands [60]. A growth strategy aimed at increasing exports requires higher production, but achieving this within the current PDO boundaries is impractical. Leveraging PDO flexibility is a recognized approach to reconciling sustainability and competitiveness [61]. For example, producing an additional one million bottles would require 114 ha of vineyards and six years of maturation, a challenge complicated by market volatility and shifting consumer preferences [62].
The Oltrepò Pavese region, located south of the Po River in the province of Pavia, is a significant wine-growing district with a long tradition of sparkling wine production dating back over a century [63]. The area includes 42 municipalities, some entirely within the PDO boundaries and others only partially within them. The Oltrepò Pavese PDO encompasses 36 distinct wine types, reflecting the structural complexity typical of Italian PDO systems [64].
In 2007, classic-method sparkling wines from the region received DOCG recognition under the Oltrepò Pavese Metodo Classico (OPMC) denomination. This PDO produces four types: OPMC, OPMC Rosé, OPMC Pinot Nero, and OPMC Pinot Nero Rosé. Pinot Noir is the primary grape variety, representing at least 70% of OPMC and OPMC Rosé, and at least 85% in the Pinot Nero designations due to its suitability for producing sparkling wine in a climate-sensitive region.
As of August 2025, vineyards registered under the Oltrepò Pavese DOC covered over 11,000 ha, while OPMC DOCG vineyards accounted for nearly 800 ha. Notably, Pinot Noir occupies approximately 3000 ha of the Oltrepò Pavese area: the highest concentration in Italy. As shown in Table 3, from 2022 to 2024, the OPMC Pinot Nero and OPMC Pinot Nero Rose represented over 97% of all bottles produced within OPMC DOCG (these data are derived from the number of declarations, compiled by producers every year after the harvest, divided per type of wine they assess to make), underscoring the grape’s strategic importance for market repositioning and potential growth [65].
Establishing OPMC DOCG wines in the market is challenging. The designation ‘Oltrepò Pavese Metodo Classico DOCG’ bears a striking resemblance to ‘Oltrepò Pavese DOC’, suggesting a lack of originality and distinctiveness. Notably, the latter is a very generic designation that even permits the production of sparkling wines using the Charmat method. This considerable similarity does not clearly convey distinct quality objectives, which consequently engenders a commercial risk. This is consistent with literature that highlights the risks of consumer confusion and weak differential signalling in PDO systems when designations are semantically or visually similar [66,67]. In response, the protection consortium proposed the use of a collective mark, “Classese”, for OPMC bottles produced from 2025 onwards. Data from the certification body Valoritalia illustrate the complexity of implementation: within the first eight months of 2025, 2.6 million bottles in the OPMC Pinot Nero category alone were downgraded or reclassified (Table 4).
In 2025, OPMC Pinot Noir production totaled just over 5.7 million bottles, of which about one-third were downgraded and sold as VSQ (sparkling quality wine, without any GI). Downgrading to another PDO, like OP DOC, is feasible only at the moment of the harvest, not during the following months and years. More commonly, therefore, the wine is sold sur lattes (sparkling wine in the bottle prior to dégorgement) to other producers who create their own classic-method, non-GI sparkling wines. The value of PDO membership depends on the consortium’s ability to maintain a collective reputation, protect quality standards, and sustain premium pricing [68].
The Oltrepò Pavese region produces high-quality wines within a predominantly agricultural landscape, characterized by varied altitudes and long-standing viticultural expertise. It encompasses over 11,000 ha registered under the Oltrepò Pavese PDO and demonstrates strong territorial consistency. Vineyards suitable for sparkling wine production (Pinot Noir and Chardonnay) exceed the area currently registered under the Franciacorta DOCG, offering significant untapped potential for classic-method sparkling wine with limited environmental or social constraints [69]. However, given the region’s current market positioning and brand recognition, expansion may be inadvisable, as regions with weak or inconsistent place branding tend to underperform in quality-driven markets [70].
Although Franciacorta has the reputation and positioning to support growth in volume, such expansion is unsustainable within the current regulatory boundaries. Conversely, Oltrepò Pavese has available capacity but lacks a pressing market need for expansion. An effective approach would be to combine the strengths of each region while mitigating their respective constraints. The evolution of Prosecco since 2009, through differentiated zoning, dual PDOs, and tiered roles between DOC and DOCG, demonstrates how robust market expansion can be achieved while protecting hillside territories, offering a valuable model for this strategy [71].

4. The Rise and Evolution of the Prosecco Denomination, the Largest Wine PDO in the Global Market

Although prosecco (lowercase, as a generic term) has become a global phenomenon, its rise is relatively recent. The most common production method, refermentation in large stainless-steel tanks rather than in bottles, was adopted in Conegliano, Treviso, in the 1960s using the Martinotti method [72]. This innovation had a significant impact on trade relations both in Italy and internationally. Until 1 August 2009 [73], the term Prosecco referred to a grape variety under paragraph 6 of Article 24 of the TRIPS Agreement. Prior to this date, international catalogs of Vitis vinifera cultivars listed “prosecco” as a grape variety used to produce wine of the same name. On 27 March 2009, the Italian Minister of Agriculture signed the decree establishing “Prosecco” as a geographical designation within the EU, thereby transitioning it from a variety name to a place-based appellation. The grape itself was officially renamed Glera, previously a lesser-known synonym [74].
This policy decision enabled the expansion of the original cultivation area in northeastern Italy—from Treviso to the border with Slovenia near the town of Prosecco, close to Trieste—effectively preventing the production of Prosecco elsewhere, including in countries such as Brazil and Australia [75]. Although the regulatory framework for designations of origin was comprehensively updated, some confusion remained. Today, “Prosecco” is lawfully used on the labels of three distinct PDOs: Asolo Prosecco DOCG, Conegliano-Valdobbiadene Prosecco Superiore DOCG, and Prosecco DOC.
These regulatory changes have had a profound impact on Prosecco’s global presence. Production increased from approximately 140 million bottles in 2010 to around 627 million in 2021, reflecting significant growth [76]. This expansion was facilitated by increased production capacity, the mechanization of vineyard operations, improved industrial organization, and more sophisticated supply chain management [77]. Prosecco’s production model is designed for scalability and affordability, which has reinforced its status as the leading PDO sparkling wine worldwide. Its lower price point compared with traditionally esteemed sparkling wines, such as Champagne, has been a key strategic advantage, facilitating wider consumer access and greater market penetration [78]. Although the production methods differ from Champagne, Prosecco’s competitive edge lies in its efficient pricing, high-volume output, and consistent quality. This strategy also positions Prosecco favorably relative to other sparkling wine categories, such as Cava and Franciacorta, which have achieved varying degrees of global visibility due to differences in production scale and marketing investment.
The evolution of Prosecco illustrates the interaction between regulatory innovation, strategic production enhancements, and effective territorial branding. Together, these factors have increased industrial competitiveness and facilitated broader international diffusion, illustrating the dynamic nature of PDO-based agricultural systems [79]. The Prosecco case exemplifies how effective governance and market adaptations can transform local varieties into global phenomena [80]. Since 2012, Prosecco DOC production has increased from 1.4 million to 5 million HL (Table 5).
Due to the production limits established by Prosecco DOC regulations, it became essential to assess the feasibility of increasing output by 500 million bottles between 2009 and 2025. This assumed that up to 15% of vineyards that were previously used for other purposes could be converted to Prosecco DOC production. According to our evaluation and considering to achieve this increase, the cultivated area would have needed to expand to over 29,000 ha s. For comparison, the Champagne AOC covers 34,300 ha across 319 municipalities, as defined by French law since 1927.
Currently, Treviso province has just over 28,000 ha dedicated to viticulture, a significant portion of which is used for non-Prosecco DOC wines. Allocating an additional 20,000 ha exclusively to Treviso would exacerbate environmental and social sustainability concerns. For years, journalistic investigations, petitions, and citizen committees have highlighted the unsustainability of transforming Treviso into “Proseccoshire” [81]. Vineyards have always been present in the landscape, yet contemporary perceptions of these agrarian features have undergone a notable shift. Individuals now report feelings of being both surrounded and overwhelmed by vineyards. Concerns include the loss of agricultural biodiversity and conflicts between vineyards and residential areas, where inhabitants are exposed to measures for controlling vine pathogens. Such treatments typically involve the use of turbo sprayers for plant protection products. While these sprayers have not been linked to increased public health risks in densely planted Veneto vineyards, they are nonetheless perceived as a local concern [82].
This issue has been extensively reported by the Italian press and television. However, the impact of the expansion would have been far more severe had it relied solely on Treviso. In practice, the increase in Prosecco DOC cultivation between 2009 and 2025 also involved the provinces of Belluno, Gorizia, Padua, Pordenone, Trieste, Udine, Venice, and Vicenza. Table 6 shows the number of hectares planted with Glera, the variety required to constitute at least 85% of Prosecco DOC, at the end of 2024, as reported by the Prosecco DOC Consortium.
The policy decision to change “Prosecco” from the name of a grape variety to a geographical designation, expanding its production area to include the town of Prosecco on the Slovenian border, achieved two key objectives. First, it enabled the appellation to be protected under the TRIPs Agreement. However, challenges persist in countries such as Brazil and Australia, where Italian immigrants have traditionally cultivated the grape and labeled the wine under the historic name [83]. Second, it facilitated the rapid expansion of production capacity, which—while not entirely without local impact—was more widely dispersed across the territory [84]. Although sustainability challenges remain, mitigation measures have proven effective [85].
Today, Prosecco DOC grapes are cultivated within and beyond the province of Treviso, allowing for the temporary and extraordinary expansion of 6900 additional hectares of vineyards, as requested by the Consortium in 2025 [86]. This expansion is distributed across a broad geographical area, helping to reduce the sustainability pressures associated with monoculture viticulture and easing tensions with local communities, particularly those not directly involved in production [87].

5. A Sustainability-Oriented PDO Growth Strategy

Examining the Prosecco system offers valuable insights into designing growth strategies for other PDOs. Prosecco benefits from a sufficiently large cultivation area to satisfy market demand while ensuring environmental, economic, and social sustainability.
In the context of climate change, establishing a unified sparkling wine region in Lombardy—incorporating the Franciacorta and Oltrepò Pavese PDOs and extending to suitable pre-Alpine regions—would ensure adequate supply without compromising the environmental and social equilibrium of the current Franciacorta region. This approach would integrate sustainability into the strategic evolution of PDOs, a dimension that has previously been underexplored [88].
A sustainability-oriented PDO growth strategy should be based on a new, larger denomination called “Grande Franciacorta” (“grande” means “large” in Italian). Any producer of classic-method sparkling wines made from Pinot Noir and/or Chardonnay within Lombardy, currently under any PDO, could adopt the Grande Franciacorta DOC designation. The existing Franciacorta DOCG would be reclassified as Franciacorta Superiore DOCG. The “Superiore” label, commonly used in many protected designations, emphasizes higher quality and stricter production standards, underscoring the historical primacy and reputation of the original Franciacorta area. Unlike still wines, where the term “Classico” indicates primacy (e.g., Chianti Classico, Amarone della Valpolicella Classico), using “Classico” for sparkling wines would create confusion with the “classic method” specification. Following the Prosecco precedent, “Superiore” is therefore the recommended term.
The new Grande Franciacorta DOCG should be optional rather than mandatory, respecting existing habits and local pride. Producers are likely to welcome the inclusion of other sparkling wines—primarily Oltrepò Pavese Metodo Classico—under this umbrella, given the established reputation of Franciacorta. Such reclassification could substantially increase the availability of bottles under this designation while reducing the proliferation of lesser-known PDOs.
Potential disparities among amalgamated areas can be mitigated by two factors. First, sparkling wine production is distinctive, with oenological decisions influencing wine quality more than terroir differences. Second, historical precedents demonstrate the successful integration of non-contiguous territories. The 2009 establishment of the Prosecco system, which integrated areas with varying soils, geology, and climate, provides a clear example. Similarly, the delineation of the Champagne region (1903–1911) [89] involved considerable conflict but ultimately incorporated Aube (now Côte de Bar) permanently. The distances between these regions underscore the feasibility of non-contiguous integration: Troyes to Reims is 127 km, Valdobbiadene to Prosecco approximately 130 km, and Broni to Erbusco 80 km.
A lack of contiguity between territories is not a relevant obstacle. Regulatory frameworks for designated viticultural areas ensure that new vineyards are established in optimal locations. From a planning perspective, guaranteeing the multidimensional sustainability of producers’ strategic choices is best achieved through production regulations—following the examples of Prosecco DOC and Champagne AOC—provided the defined territory is large enough to support sustainable growth.
Extending the Franciacorta designation regionally requires an integrated policy and strategy that aligns market segmentation, territorial sustainability, and firm-level development. The next section outlines the key implications for policymakers and managers.

6. Managerial Implications

A DOC/DOCG structure with multi-tiered quality levels (e.g., premium, core, and entry) enables broader and more nuanced strategic positioning. By differentiating production regulations, sensory expectations, and aging requirements across tiers, consortia can address diverse consumer segments while maintaining a unified identity. This approach aligns with portfolio-based market segmentation, where the overarching designation provides reputational capital and legitimacy, while the individual tiers allow for price-quality differentiation and targeted market access [90].
When this stratification is supported with transparent governance mechanisms and clearly codified in product specifications and communication standards, the risks of brand dilution or intra-denomination fragmentation are minimized. Instead, it allows the denomination to expand in domestic and international markets while reinforcing its perceived consistency and reliability [91].
A sustainable DOC/DOCG growth model requires moving beyond traditional product rules and incorporating territorial stewardship principles, embedding sustainability into the denomination’s identity and regulatory framework (Figure 1). This includes explicit criteria on vineyard density, soil health, biodiversity corridors, and low-impact viticulture to define a recognizably sustainable landscape. When these rules are enforceable and monitored, they serve a dual purpose: preserving ecological assets that support long-term production viability, and providing a distinctive value proposition that strengthens territorial branding while signaling responsible production practices to environmentally conscious consumers. In this way, sustainability shifts from an operational constraint to a strategic differentiation lever, enhancing the cultural and environmental embeddedness of the designation [92].
Sustainable designation also requires multi-actor, public–private governance capable of fostering collective learning, shared measurement infrastructures, and transparent disclosure of sustainability measures and metrics. Effective governance provides the institutional framework for synchronized upgrading, in which wineries evolve as part of a coordinated transformation rather than as isolated firms [93]. Mechanisms such as joint standard-setting, open benchmarking, shared training programs, and integrated destination management, particularly when including wine tourism, help reduce transition frictions and enable cumulative capability building [94]. These arrangements reinforce the socio-technical alignment necessary to shift the entire designation toward sustainability-oriented trajectories.
At the firm level, producers participating in an expanded sustainability-oriented denomination should conduct a structured analysis of their resources and capabilities to identify the investments required to align internal processes with new regulatory expectations [95]. Priority areas typically include low-impact agronomy (e.g., soil regeneration, water management, and reduced inputs), energy- and resource-efficient processing technologies, digital systems for traceability and transparency, and market and channel capabilities to differentiate quality tiers.
Bridging these gaps influences not only compliance, but also competitiveness at the firm level, as organizations with well-developed dynamic capabilities are better able to create value from regulatory transitions [96].
A multi-product, multi-channel approach emphasizes building a tiered portfolio (DOCG/DOC/other sparkling styles) and deploying diversified distribution strategies, including specialist retail, on-trade, direct-to-consumer, and export partnerships. This trajectory leverages cooperative logics, such as horizontal and vertical integration, shared logistics, joint promotional platforms, and collaborative capability building, enabling economies of scale and scope while preserving the coherence of the territorial brand.
In terms of managerial implications is important to point out that wineries should develop dynamic capabilities, such as sensing evolving consumer demands (e.g., sustainability-driven wine tourism), seizing opportunities through timely investments, and reconfiguring assets and partnerships as the designation evolves [97].
Institutionalizing continuous improvement requires linking sustainability inputs, practices, and outcomes to competitive metrics, thereby aligning PDO evolution with evidence-based sustainability management and ensuring that environmental progress translates into long-term competitiveness and value creation. Credible certification schemes, transparent communication, and landscape-based storytelling further enhance premium positioning.
The sustainability- and terroir-led positioning, which emphasizes alignment between responsible land use, low-impact viticulture, and an authenticity-rich narrative has relevant social impacts. This approach is particularly effective in regions where wine, landscape, and local culture reinforce one another, and where experiential value and reputational spillovers are commercially significant [98]. Beyond its economic and environmental implications, a sustainability-oriented PDO strategy also produces significant social benefits at the territorial level. By anchoring value creation to place-specific resources and collective rules, sustainable PDOs contribute to the strengthening of social cohesion and local governance structures, fostering cooperation among producers, institutions, and other territorial stakeholders. This collective orientation enhances social capital, trust, and shared norms, which are critical for long-term coordination and resilience within wine regions [99].
Moreover, sustainable PDO models tend to support employment stability and skill upgrading, as quality-oriented and environmentally responsible production systems require specialized knowledge, continuous learning, and a more qualified local workforce. This can generate positive spillovers in terms of youth retention, intergenerational continuity, and the preservation of traditional know-how, while simultaneously encouraging innovation in sustainable farming and management practices [100].
From a broader socio-territorial perspective, sustainability-led PDOs also promote inclusive and balanced rural development [101]. By avoiding excessive concentration of production and value capture, they help mitigate spatial inequalities within the denomination area and support the economic viability of smaller producers. Additionally, the emphasis on landscape preservation and cultural heritage enhances residents’ quality of life and reinforces the social legitimacy of viticulture in the eyes of local communities.

7. Future Research Agenda

This study provides conceptual insights into the strategic, sustainability, and institutional implications of extending a DOCG. However, several limitations suggest avenues for future research.
First, the analysis does not examine firms’ readiness to transition to a region-wide, sustainability-oriented DOCG system. It is critical to assess the resource gap—the difference between existing capabilities and those required to meet new quality and multidimensional sustainability standards [102]—to evaluate the feasibility of such a transformation. Future studies could employ in-depth, longitudinal case studies, potentially supported by system dynamics and resource-based modeling, to explore firms’ adaptive capacity and identify the dynamic capabilities necessary for business model evolution [103]. This would provide empirical evidence to the literature on sustainability transitions and organizational adaptation, highlighting how regional clusters can align competitiveness with sustainability.
Second, research could investigate the polarization of business models following institutional extensions of DOCGs. In the Prosecco system, for example, expansion has favored bottler-based models that emphasize scale and distribution efficiency. Future studies could examine whether Lombardy might experience a similar divergence by contrasting bottler-centric models with integrated producer models that prioritize authenticity and sustainability. Frameworks such as coopetition dynamics could help clarify which configurations best support long-term sustainable competitiveness. Comparative case studies and network analyses would allow tracing how these models coevolve and identify the most sustainable cluster development strategies.
Third, sustainable tourism may serve as a key catalyst for systemic transformation. Defined as the balance of economic, environmental, and cultural impacts, sustainable tourism can reinforce the transition to responsible production models. Evidence suggests that it stimulates both the demand and supply of sustainable products, creating reinforcing loops that enhance regional sustainability [104]. Simulation studies could model the interactions among tourism growth, sustainable investments, and the adoption of new production standards, revealing how tourism can accelerate systemic change in wine regions.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.A.F. and C.G.; methodology, M.A.F. and C.G.; validation, M.A.F. and C.G.; formal analysis, M.A.F. and C.G.; resources, M.A.F. and C.G.; data curation, M.A.F. and C.G.; writing—original draft, M.A.F. and C.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This publication is part of the project NODES which has received funding from the MUR-M4C2 1.5 of PNRR funded by the European Union-NextGenerationEU (Grant agreement no ECS00000036).

Data Availability Statement

Data used for this review come from public sources, no new data were created for the purpose of this review.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Wagner, M.; Stanbury, P.; Dietrich, T.; Döring, J.; Ewert, J.; Foerster, C.; Freund, M.; Friedel, M.; Kammann, C.; Koch, M.; et al. Developing a sustainability vision for the global wine industry. Sustainability 2023, 15, 10487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Martínez-Falcó, J.; Sánchez-García, E.; Marco-Lajara, B.; Claver-Cortés, E.; Úbeda-García, M. The interplay between competitive advantage and sustainability in the wine industry: A bibliometric and systematic review. Discov. Sustain. 2024, 5, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Giacopelli, F.; Rossi, L.; Challita, C.; Bacenetti, J. Environmental sustainability of wine sector: A focus on pesticide management. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2025, 115, 108022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Foerster, F.C.; Döring, J.; Koch, M.; Kauer, R.; Stoll, M.; Wohlfahrt, Y.; Wagner, M. Comparative life cycle assessment of integrated and organic viticulture based on a long-term field trial in Germany. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2024, 52, 487–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Trigo, A.; Marta-Costa, A.; Fragoso, R. Enhancing wine industry sustainability: An empirical test of the sustainable wine assessment tool. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 472, 143480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Marques, A.; Teixeira, C.A. Vine and wine sustainability in a cooperative ecosystem—A review. Agronomy 2023, 13, 2644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Gastaldello, G.; Bošnjak, M.; Schäufele-Elbers, I.; Schamel, G. Are consumers willing to pay more for sustainable wine? A pre-registered systematic review and meta-analysis. Food Qual. Prefer. 2025, 134, 105655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Gutierrez, E. Geographical Indicators: A unique European perspective on intellectual property. Hastings Int. Comp. Law Rev. 2005, 29, 29–50. [Google Scholar]
  9. Organisation Internationale de la Vigne et du Vin (OIV). State of the World Vine and Wine Sector 2024. 2024. Available online: https://www.oiv.int/sites/default/files/2025-04/OIV-State_of_the_World_Vine-and-Wine-Sector-in-2024.pdf (accessed on 6 December 2025).
  10. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eambrosia/geographical-indications-register/ (accessed on 6 December 2025).
  11. Regulation (EU) 2024/1143 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 April 2024 on Geographical Indications for Wine, Spirit Drinks and Agricultural Products, as Well as Traditional Specialities Guaranteed and Optional Quality Terms for Agricultural Products. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32024R1143 (accessed on 6 December 2025).
  12. Alston, J.M.; Gaeta, D. Reflections on the political economy of European wine appellations. Ital. Econ. J. 2021, 7, 219–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Di Chiara, V.; Battistella, A.; Boatto, V.; Furlan, S.; Giavi, L.; Liggieri, S.; Paiola, A.; Pomarici, E.; Stefanucci, S. Collaborative approach for achieving ambitious sustainability goals: The Prosecco sustainability project. Sustainability 2024, 16, 583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Luchian, C.E.; Grosaru, D.; Scutarașu, E.C.; Colibaba, L.C.; Scutarașu, A.; Cotea, V.V. Advancing sparkling wine in the 21st century: From traditional methods to modern innovations and market trends. Fermentation 2025, 11, 174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ruggeri, G.; Mazzocchi, C.; Corsi, S. Drinking biodiversity: A choice experiment on Franciacorta sparkling wines. Br. Food J. 2020, 122, 2531–2549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Available online: https://www.trentodoc.com/it/vini-del-trentino/ (accessed on 6 December 2025).
  17. Available online: https://franciacorta.wine/it/consorzio/dati/ (accessed on 6 December 2025).
  18. Available online: https://www.valoritalia.it/wp-content/uploads/dati-2024/oltrepo-pavese-metodo-classico-docg.jpg (accessed on 6 December 2025).
  19. Available online: https://www.valoritalia.it/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/VI-Annual-Report-2025-Schede-Consorzi-DO-EVO-22x22-02b_99-scaled.jpg (accessed on 6 December 2025).
  20. Corsi, A.; Mazzarino, S.; Pomarici, E. The Italian wine industry. In The Palgrave Handbook of Wine Industry Economics; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 47–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Reinhardt, T.; Ambrogio, Y. Geographical indications and sustainable viticulture: Empirical and theoretical perspectives. Sustainability 2023, 15, 16318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Available online: https://www.consorziovinioltrepo.it/5193/un-grande-evento-per-eccellenti-espressioni-di-pinot-nero-doltrepo-pavese (accessed on 6 December 2025).
  23. Ouvrard, S.; Jasimuddin, S.; Spiga, A. Does sustainability push to reshape business models? Evidence from the European wine industry. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Sogari, G.; Mora, C.; Menozzi, D. Factors driving sustainable choice: The case of wine. Br. Food J. 2016, 118, 632–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Carrasco, I.; Valero, J.; Fuentes, C.; Carchano, M. Greening wine exports? Changes in the carbon footprint of Spanish wine exports. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 9035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Thiollet-Scholtus, M.; Müller, A.; Bailly, C.; Köller, R.; Ley, L.; Nassr, N.; Weissbart, J. Success of organic and biodynamic system experiment to produce high quality wines. BIO Web Conf. 2019, 15, 01032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Valenzuela, L.; Blu, R.; Moscovici, D.; Gow, J.; Ugaglia, A.; Mihăilescu, R. Consumer willingness to pay for sustainable wine—The Chilean case. Sustainability 2022, 14, 10910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Forbes, S.; Cohen, D.; Cullen, R.; Wratten, S.; Fountain, J. Consumer attitudes regarding environmentally sustainable wine: An exploratory study of the New Zealand marketplace. J. Clean. Prod. 2009, 17, 1195–1199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Borrello, M.; Cembalo, L.; Vecchio, R. Role of information in consumers’ preferences for eco-sustainable genetic improvements in plant breeding. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0255130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Espinoza, A.; Hubert, A.; Raineau, Y.; Franc, C.; Giraud-Heraud, E. Resistant grape varieties and market acceptance: An evaluation based on experimental economics. OENO One 2018, 52, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Belfiore, N.; Amato, A.; Gardiman, M.; Gaiotti, F.; Zenoni, S.; Tornielli, G.B.; Fasoli, M.; Bavaresco, L. The role of terroir on the ripening traits of V. vinifera cv ‘Glera’ in the Prosecco area. Plants 2024, 13, 816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Hervé, M.; Boudes, P.; Cieslik, C.; Montembault, D.; Jung, V.; Burel, F.; Nicolaï, A. Landscape complexity perception and representation in a wine-growing region with the designation of origin in the Loire Valley (France): A cultural ecosystem service? Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2018, 35, 77–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Arias-Navarro, I.; Gomis, F.; Agulló-Torres, A.; Poveda, Á. Environmental sustainability in vineyards under a protected designation of origin in view of the implementation of photovoltaic solar energy plants. Land 2023, 12, 1871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Vlahos, G. Farming system transformation impacts on landscape: A case study on quality wine production in a highly contested agricultural landscape. Land 2020, 9, 120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Arnáiz, M.; Rodríguez, E.; Luque, D. Multifunctional territorialized agri-food systems, geographical quality marks and agricultural landscapes: The case of vineyards. Land 2022, 11, 457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Bidegain, Í.; López, C.; González, J.; Martínez-Sastre, R.; Ravera, F.; Cerda, C. Social valuation of Mediterranean cultural landscapes: Exploring landscape preferences and ecosystem services perceptions through a visual approach. Land 2020, 9, 390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Flinzberger, L.; Cebrián-Piqueras, M.; Peppler-Lisbach, C.; Zinngrebe, Y. Why geographical indications can support sustainable development in European agri-food landscapes. Front. Conserv. Sci. 2022, 2, 752377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Ducman, A.; Dıaconıța, V.; Botha, I.; Velicanu, A.; Corbea, A. Government oversight and economic impacts: Sustainability in the vineyard and the evolution of wine regulations, trade and production. Agronomy 2023, 13, 2991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Taranto, L.; Rodrigues, I.; Santos, S.; Villa, M.; Pereira, J. Intermediate fragmentation surrounding vineyards favours the Coleoptera community within the crop. Agric. For. Entomol. 2022, 25, 9–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Tedeschi, P. The improvement of the production and quality: The case of wine production in eastern Lombardy during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries (Provinces of Bergamo and Brescia). In A History of Wine in Europe, 19th to 20th Centuries, Volume I: Winegrowing and Regional Features; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 197–225. [Google Scholar]
  41. Beverland, M. Crafting brand authenticity: The case of luxury wines. J. Manag. Stud. 2005, 42, 1003–1029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Charters, S.; Spielmann, N.; Babin, B.J. The nature and value of terroir products. Eur. J. Mark. 2017, 51, 748–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Cei, L.; Rossetto, L. The demand for sparkling wine: Insights on a diversified European market. Int. J. Wine Bus. Res. 2024, 36, 505–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Pomarici, E.; Vecchio, R. Will sustainability shape the future wine market? Wine Econ. Policy 2019, 8, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Hall, C.M.; Mitchell, R. Wine Marketing: A Practical Guide; Routledge: London, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Tassi, E.; Cavicchi, A.; Santini, C. Place-based strategies for sustainable wine tourism. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Marescotti, A.; Belletti, G.; Touzard, J.-M. Geographical indications and local agri-food systems. World Dev. 2020, 135, 105073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Schamel, G. Quality, reputation, and price in the sparkling wine market. J. Wine Econ. 2018, 13, 52–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Dal Bianco, A.; Boatto, V.; Trestini, S.; Caracciolo, F. Understanding consumption choice of Prosecco wine: An empirical analysis using Italian and German Homescan data. J. Wine Res. 2018, 29, 190–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Borrello, M.; Vecchio, R.; Barisan, L.; Franceschi, D.; Pomarici, E.; Galletto, L. Is wine perception influenced by sustainability information? Insights from a consumer experiment with fungus resistant grape and organic wines. Food Res. Int. 2024, 190, 114580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Galati, A.; Crescimanno, M.; Tinervia, S.; Iliopoulos, C.; Theodorakopoulou, I. Internal resources as tools to increase the global competition: The Italian wine industry case. Br. Food J. 2017, 119, 2406–2420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Mariani, A.; Vastola, A. Sustainability transitions in premium wine regions: A comparative analysis. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Christ, K.L.; Burritt, R. Accounting for sustainable wine production. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 256, 120390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Begalli, D.; Codurri, S.; Gaeta, D. Land-use change and landscape transformation in wine-producing regions: Evidence from Italy. Land Use Policy 2020, 92, 104441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Demossier, M. Wine and Culture: Vineyard to Glass; Bloomsbury Academic: London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  56. Tanguay, L.; Bissonnette, J.F.; Calmé, S.; Koutouki, K.; Turgeon, K. Avoiding an anticipated social-ecological trap in biodiversity conservation on private lands in Quebec Province, Canada. Environ. Sci. Policy 2025, 170, 104095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Baltazar, M.; Castro, I.; Gonçalves, B. Adaptation to climate change in viticulture: The role of varietal selection—A review. Plants 2025, 14, 104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Ferrara, C.; Nuti, M.; Rossi, F.; Orlandini, S. Biodiversity and environmental sustainability in viticulture: A review. Sustainability 2023, 15, 3102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Capitello, R.; Sirieix, L. What does ‘sustainable wine’ mean? An investigation of French and Italian wine consumers. In Social Sustainability in the Global Wine Industry: Concepts and Cases; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 137–154. [Google Scholar]
  60. Szolnoki, G.; Hoffmann, D. Consumer segmentation based on sustainability and value perception. J. Wine Res. 2014, 25, 247–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Alonso, A.D.; Liu, Y. Geographical indications, sustainability, and rural development: A systematic review. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. La Porta, V.; Migheli, M. Grapes grow better in the backyard: The effect of organic growth strategies on Italian wineries’ profits. Int. J. Wine Bus. Res. 2019, 31, 243–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Cavicchi, A.; Santini, C. Wine, Sustainability and Territorial Development; Routledge: London, UK, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  64. De Roest, K.; Menghi, A. Geographical indications and sustainability in European agri-food systems. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Dal Bianco, A.; Boatto, V. Premiumization strategies in sparkling wine: Evidence from Italy. J. Wine Econ. 2019, 14, 104–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Savelli, E.; Bravi, L.; Francioni, B.; Murmura, F.; Pencarelli, T. PDO labels and food preferences: Results from a sensory analysis. Br. Food J. 2021, 123, 1170–1189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Vandecandelaere, E.; Samper, L.F.; Rey, A.; Daza, A.; Mejía, P.; Tartanac, F.; Vittori, M. The geographical indication pathway to sustainability: A framework to assess and monitor the contributions of geographical indications to sustainability through a participatory process. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Gergaud, O.; Ginsburgh, V.; Moreno-Ternero, J.D. Wine ratings: Seeking a consensus among tasters via normalization, approval, and aggregation. J. Wine Econ. 2021, 16, 321–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Pomarici, E.; Lerro, M.; Chiodo, E. Wine tourism, sustainability, and territorial pressure. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Orth, U.R.; Krŝka, P. Estimating optimal prices for wine exhibition awards using comparative judgements. J. Food Prod. Mark. 2001, 7, 81–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Galletto, L.; Caracciolo, F.; Boatto, V.L.; Barisan, L.; Franceschi, D.; Lillo, M. Do consumers really recognise a distinct quality hierarchy amongst PDO sparkling wines? The answer from experimental auctions. Br. Food J. 2020, 123, 1478–1493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Sedita, S.; Hoffmann, V.; Guarnieri, P.; Carraro, E. Prosecco has another story to tell: The coexistence of multiple knowledge networks in the same value chain. Int. J. Wine Bus. Res. 2021, 33, 502–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Erling, U.; Pater, J. Prosit to Prosecco! On sparkling wine and geographical indications. Monash Univ. Law Rev. 2022, 48, 65–112. [Google Scholar]
  74. Gordon, S.H. The Story of Prosecco Superiore; Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham, MD, USA, 2024; ISBN 978153819126. [Google Scholar]
  75. Garzia, C.; Slerca, E.; Gentile, F.M. Dominant business model in the Prosecco industry: A resource-based analysis. Int. J. Wine Bus. Res. 2025. ahead-of-print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Available online: https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/eu-trade-relationships-country-and-region/countries-and-regions/australia/eu-australia-agreement_en (accessed on 6 December 2025).
  77. Tariku, G.; Ghiglieno, I.; Sanchez Morchio, A.; Facciano, L.; Birolleau, C.; Simonetto, A.; Serina, I.; Gilioli, G. Deep learning based land cover mapping in Franciacorta wine growing Area. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Ponte, S.; Marchi, V.; Bettiol, M.; Maria, E. The horizontal governance of environmental upgrading: Lessons from the Prosecco and Valpolicella wine value chains in Italy. Environ. Plan. A 2023, 55, 1884–1905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Barisan, L.; Lucchetta, M.; Bolzonella, C.; Boatto, V. How does carbon footprint create shared values in the wine industry? Empirical evidence from Prosecco Superiore PDO’s wine district. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Visentin, F.; Vallerani, F. A countryside to sip: Venice inland and the Prosecco’s uneasy relationship with wine tourism and rural exploitation. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Bonadio, E.; Contardi, M. The geographic indication prosecco battle between Italy and Australia: Some lessons from the history and geography of the most famous Italian wine. J. World Investig. Trade 2022, 23, 260–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Ponte, S. Bursting the Bubble? The hidden costs and visible conflicts behind the Prosecco wine ‘miracle’. J. Rural Stud. 2021, 86, 542–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Regione del Veneto, ULSS 2, La salute Nei Territori ad Alto Sviluppo Vitivinicolo Della Provincia di Treviso. 2019. Available online: https://www.aulss2.veneto.it/mys/apridoc/iddoc/6950 (accessed on 6 December 2025).
  84. Basso, M.; Fregolent, L. Fighting against monocultures: Wine-growing and tourism in the Veneto Region. In Social Movements and Public Policies in Southern European Cities; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 151–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Basso, M. Land-use changes triggered by the expansion of wine-growing areas: A study on the municipalities in the Prosecco’s production zone (Italy). Land Use Policy 2019, 83, 390–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Martínez-Salvador, L.E.; Reyes-Jaime, A. Sustainability in protected designations of origin (PDO) in the European Union: An approach from a systematic literature review. Siembra 2021, 8, 2. [Google Scholar]
  87. Bollettino Ufficiale Della Regione del Veneto, 18 Luglio 2025. Available online: https://bur.regione.veneto.it/BurvServices/Pubblica/DettaglioAvviso.aspx?id=560676 (accessed on 6 December 2025).
  88. Wolikow, C. La Champagne Viticole, Banc d’Essai de la Délimitation (1903–1927): Territoires du Vin (1). Territ. Du Vin 2009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Martínez-Falcó, J.; Marco-Lajara, B.; Zaragoza-Sáez, P.; Millán-Tudela, L. Wine tourism as a catalyst for green innovation: Evidence from the Spanish wine industry. Br. Food J. 2023, 126, 1904–1922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Tempere, S.; Pérès, S.; Espinoza, A.F.; Darriet, P.; Giraud-Héraud, E.; Pons, A. Consumer preferences for different red wine styles and repeated exposure effects. Food Qual. Prefer. 2019, 73, 110–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Lozano, R. Sustainable business models: Providing a more holistic perspective. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2018, 27, 1159–1166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Martínez-Falcó, J.; Sánchez-García, E.; Marco-Lajara, B.; Millán-Tudela, L. Do organizational commitment and consumer satisfaction mediate the relationship corporate social responsibility-sustainable performance? Assessing happiness management in Spanish wineries. Manag. Decis. 2024, 62, 643–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Bowen, S.; Zapata, A.V. Geographical indications, terroir, and socioeconomic and ecological sustainability: The case of Tequila. J. Rural Stud. 2009, 25, 108–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Lozano, R.; Carpenter, A.; Huisingh, D. A review of ‘theories of the firm’ and their contributions to corporate sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 106, 430–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Teece, D.J. Business models and dynamic capabilities. Long Range Plan. 2018, 51, 40–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Foss, N.J.; Saebi, T. Fifteen years of research on business model innovation: How far have we come, and where should we go? J. Manag. 2017, 43, 200–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Bassi, F.; Pennoni, F.; Rossetto, L. Market segmentation and dynamic analysis of sparkling wine purchases in Italy. J. Wine Econ. 2021, 16, 283–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Eisenhardt, K.M.; Martin, J.A. Dynamic capabilities: What are they? In The SMS Blackwell Handbook of Organizational Capabilities; Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 2017; pp. 341–363. [Google Scholar]
  99. Barisan, L.; Galletto, L. How do sparkling wine producers adopt a sub-appellation? Evidence from an exploratory study on heroic Prosecco Superiore Rive. Wine Econ. Policy 2021, 10, 140–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Olabisi, M.; Saweda OLiverpool-Tasie, L.; Badiane, O.; Olaniyan, O. Female earnings and dietary diversity: Evidence from an inflationary economic crisis. Food Policy 2026, 134, 103037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. del Campo-Villares, J.L.; Fuentes-Fernández, R. Wine tourism in Galicia: Sustainability, circular economy and unique experiences, the future for the wine sector. Sustainability 2025, 17, 5335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Ašonja, A.; Vještica, S.; Bošković, A.; Živković Radeta, S.; Ćeranić, M.; Jovanović, Z.; Škrbić, S. Research into the Energy Potential of Vine Pruning Residues in Western Serbia. Energies 2025, 18, 6384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Tregear, A.; Gorton, M. The challenges of sharing: Brands as club goods. Eur. J. Mark. 2009, 43, 826–842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Grechi, D.; Pavione, E.; Gazzola, P.; Cardini, F. Tradition and innovation in the Italian wine industry: The best practices of Casa Paladin. Sustainability 2024, 16, 2857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Standards 06 00007 g001
Figure 1. “Grande Franciacorta” PDO sustainable growth model. Source: author’s elaboration.
Figure 1. “Grande Franciacorta” PDO sustainable growth model. Source: author’s elaboration.
Standards 06 00007 g001
Table 1. Vineyard density in the Franciacorta DOC production area.
Table 1. Vineyard density in the Franciacorta DOC production area.
Total Franciacorta Surface Area (km2)266.72
Total vineyards installments in Franciacorta (km2)33.90
Vineyard density (%)12.7%
Source: ISTAT Italian National Institute of Statistics (https://www.istat.it/tag/vino/, accessed on 6 December 2025).
Table 2. Population density in the Franciacorta DOC production area.
Table 2. Population density in the Franciacorta DOC production area.
Franciacorta DOC Production Area Population (Inhabitants)150.189
Franciacorta DOC production area population density (inhabitants/km2)652
Lombardy region population density (inhabitants/km2)420
Italy population density (inhabitants/km2)200
Source: ISTAT Italian National Institute of Statistics (https://demo.istat.it, accessed on 6 December 2025).
Table 3. Oltrepò Pavese Metodo Classico DOCG. Production by vintage, type, and number of Declarations.
Table 3. Oltrepò Pavese Metodo Classico DOCG. Production by vintage, type, and number of Declarations.
2022-Number of Declarations%2023-Number of Declarations%2024-Number of Declarations%
Oltrepò Pavese Metodo Classico DOCG31.5%51.6%41.6%
Oltrepò Pavese Metodo Classico Pinot Nero DOCG14171.6%21069.1%20479.1%
Oltrepò Pavese Metodo Classico Pinot Nero Rosè DOCG5226.4%8828.9%4919.0%
Oltrepò Pavese Metodo Classico Rosè DOCG 0.5% 0.3% 0.4%
Total197100%304100%258100%
Source: Valoreitalia (https://www.valoritalia.it/, accessed on 6 December 2025).
Table 4. Oltrepò Pavese Metodo Classico DOCG. Total downgrades and reclassifications (equivalent 0.75 L bottles).
Table 4. Oltrepò Pavese Metodo Classico DOCG. Total downgrades and reclassifications (equivalent 0.75 L bottles).
202320242025
Number of Bottles%Number of Bottles%Number of Bottles%
Oltrepò Pavese Metodo Classico DOCG73001%45550.4%54850.2%
Oltrepò Pavese Metodo Classico Pinot Nero Rosè DOCG 170,80818%149,05714%172,4496%
Oltrepò Pavese Metodo Classico Pinot Nero DOCG728,50878%920,99484%2,611,01293%
Oltrepò Pavese Metodo Classico Pinot Nero Rosè Vigna 73331%
Oltrepò Pavese Metodo Classico Pinot Nero Vigna DOCG23,1132%13,8331%37600%
Oltrepò Pavese Metodo Classico Rosè DOCG5.4001%66001%240%
Total935,129100%1,102,372100%2,792,731100%
Source: Valoreitalia (https://www.valoritalia.it/, accessed on 6 December 2025).
Table 5. Prosecco DOC production evolution (hl bottled).
Table 5. Prosecco DOC production evolution (hl bottled).
YearTotalSparklingRosé Sparkling“Frizzante”
Light Sparkling		“Tranquillo”
Very Light Sparkling
20121,458,452914,148 566,3482801
20131,811,7641,186,578 622,6542531
20142,300,1571,664,389 633,4232345
20152,664,2382,041,198 620,9722068
20163,081,7002,488,453 591,8611386
20173,297,7572,703,471 592,6761610
20183,481,8922,901,065 579,2591569
20193,650,7433,051,007 598,5231213
20203,753,0082,998,095126,375627,3391199
20214,706,4173,537,824537,334630,292966
20224,789,2543,733,956469,462584,7531083
20234,621,1093,546,384383,603690,177945
20244,948,3753,800,251462,798681,8293497
Source: Consorzio Tutela della DOC Prosecco (https://www.prosecco.wine/media-room/?opentab=progetti, accessed on 6 December 2025).
Table 6. Glera vineyards producing Prosecco DOC.
Table 6. Glera vineyards producing Prosecco DOC.
Districtha (Hectares) Glera Vineyards
Treviso14,019
Vicenza1527
Venezia2312
Belluno48
Padova2016
Pordenone2881
Udine1485
Gorizia150
Trieste12
Source: Consorzio Tutela della DOC Prosecco (https://www.prosecco.wine/media-room/?opentab=progetti, accessed on 6 December 2025).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Fino, M.A.; Garzia, C. Regulatory Innovation and Sustainable Growth Strategies in the Wine Industry: The Case of an Italian Sparkling Wine Designation of Origin. Standards 2026, 6, 7. https://doi.org/10.3390/standards6010007

AMA Style

Fino MA, Garzia C. Regulatory Innovation and Sustainable Growth Strategies in the Wine Industry: The Case of an Italian Sparkling Wine Designation of Origin. Standards. 2026; 6(1):7. https://doi.org/10.3390/standards6010007

Chicago/Turabian Style

Fino, Michele Antonio, and Carmine Garzia. 2026. "Regulatory Innovation and Sustainable Growth Strategies in the Wine Industry: The Case of an Italian Sparkling Wine Designation of Origin" Standards 6, no. 1: 7. https://doi.org/10.3390/standards6010007

APA Style

Fino, M. A., & Garzia, C. (2026). Regulatory Innovation and Sustainable Growth Strategies in the Wine Industry: The Case of an Italian Sparkling Wine Designation of Origin. Standards, 6(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.3390/standards6010007

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop