Wine Economics and Policy 10(2): 15-28, 2021 Firenze University Press www.fupress.com/wep ISSN 2212-9774 (online) | ISSN 2213-3968 (print) | DOI: 10.36253/wep-10384 Wine Economics and Policy Citation: Federica Cisilino, Fabio A. Madau, Roberto Furesi, Pietro Pulina, Brunella Arru (2021) Organic and conven- tional grape growing in Italy: a techni- cal efficiency comparison using a para- metric approach. Wine Economics and Policy 10(2): 15-28. doi: 10.36253/wep- 10384 Copyright: © 2021 Federica Cisilino, Fabio A. Madau, Roberto Furesi, Pietro Pulina, Brunella Arru. This is an open access, peer-reviewed article published by Firenze University Press (http:// www.fupress.com/wep) and distributed under the terms of the Creative Com- mons Attribution License, which per- mits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Data Availability Statement: All rel- evant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files. Competing Interests: The Author(s) declare(s) no conflict of interest. Organic and conventional grape growing in Italy: a technical efficiency comparison using a parametric approach Federica Cisilino1, Fabio A. Madau2,*, Roberto Furesi2, Pietro Pulina2, Brunella Arru2 1CREA – Council for Agricultural Research and Economics - Research Centre for Agri- cultural Policies and Bio-Economy c/o University of Udine, Via delle Scienze 206, 33100, Udine (Italy). Email: federica.cisilino@crea.gov.it 2Department of Agricultural Sciences - University of Sassari, Viale Italia 39/a, 07100 – Sassari (Italy), Email: famadau@uniss.it; rfuresi@uniss.it; ppulina@uniss.it; brarru@ uniss.it *Corresponding author. Absract. Several studies have focused attention on the differences between organic and conventional farms in terms of efficiency, and controversial findings have resulted from these applications. One source of controversy concerns the assumption about the frontier(s) adopted for the comparison: a common frontier or two separate frontiers for organic and conventional methods? This paper aims to estimate technical efficiency in Italian grape farming. A stochastic frontier analysis (SFA) was applied to a sample of 531 farms (440 conventional and 91 organic farms) collected from the Farm Account- ancy Network Database. Among others, a test for evaluating whether a unique or sepa- rate frontier was performed. The findings suggest that organic and conventional farms would lie on a common frontier and that organic farms have greater capacity than con- ventional farms in using their technical inputs (efficiency amounts to 83.6% and 77.8%, respectively). Several implications derive from these findings. Keywords: stochastic frontier analysis, technological homogeneity, inefficiency sources. 1. INTRODUCTION Organic farming is a well-established reality in Europe, where it has been regulated since 1991. One of the most debated topics in this field con- sists of measuring organic and conventional agriculture’s technical and eco- nomic performance [1] to highlight similarities and differences. Compari- son between organic and conventional farming is a very interesting field of research where different approaches have been adopted to find out differenc- es between the two systems mainly to compensate for organic farming addi- tional costs and income foregone. The assumption is that the organic method discounts a gap on the production level compared to conventional agricul- ture [2,3]. 16 Federica Cisilino et al. This paper tries to give evidence of the effective dif- ferences in terms of technical efficiency in using inputs by farms as controversial findings have been found on this topic. The analysis is focused on the European grape-growing sector since the relevance of the organ- ic wine sector and because the European Union (EU) accounts for 49% of the world grape-growing area [4]. Italy is the country that devotes the larger land in the world to organic grape-growing [5]. Specifically, Italian organic vineyards covered about 110K hectares (23% in conversion), corresponding to 15.5% of the total world organic vineyards area [4]. Estimating differences in grape-growing productiv- ity is a crucial issue for better addressing policies and strategies in the sector. At the same time, assessing the role of efficiency in affecting production would provide useful information for understanding if the gap that organic grape-growing pays is only attributable to dif- ferent productivity – therefore to the adoption of a less performing technology than the conventional one – or, vice versa, to another ability in using the inputs bundle. This paper aims to provide a comparative analysis between Italian organic and conventional farms by esti- mating productivity and efficiency to confirm if a real difference in productivity exists and to evaluate the role of efficiency in affecting observed production level. This paper also tackles the debate on the typology of frontiers that must be used to compare organic and conventional farms. The question turns on the consid- eration of organic and conventional orientation as two different techniques within a single technological hori- zon or, conversely, as two different technologies that, in turns, refer to two different types of agriculture that are not directly comparable. In this context, some concep- tual and methodological problems arise and should be addressed: a) firstly, the risk is to consider systems that are not homogeneous from a technological or organisa- tional point of view because organic farming is devel- oped on well-defined production processes and use of technical inputs; b) secondly, conventional agriculture can be considered as a jumble of a plethora of agronom- ic techniques, some of them very close to the organic method, and it is difficult to trace back to a well-defined technical-production paradigm. Regarding the latter aspect, conventional agriculture can be understood as the most widespread practice in each territory or, conversely, all alternative techniques to the organic method can be included in this category [6]. The answer to this question has pivotal implications. In the first case, due to the use of the same frontier for the two orientations and thus the possibility of directly com- paring them, any different productivity levels are mainly determined by inefficiencies rather than by actual tech- nological gaps. Conversely, the two measures are not comparable in the second case because of the difference in productivity derived from both inefficiencies and the different technology adopted by the two production ori- entations. This implies that the efficiency measure must be related to specific production frontiers, one for the organic method and one for the conventional one. The remainder of this paper is organised as follows. Section 2 provides a review of the literature on efficiency estimation between organic and conventional agriculture and some information on the organic wine market. The research methodology and sample description are illustrat- ed in Section 3. Section 4 shows the research results and discussion, and Section 5 concludes our paper, outlines the implications for practitioners, academics, and policymak- ers, and makes recommendations for future research. 2. BACKGROUND Using an efficiency analysis, the manuscript aims to fill the gap in the current literature. In fact, although numerous studies have appeared on wine grape farms in other geographical contexts, these efficiency analy- ses have been applied without distinguishing between organic and conventional farming [7–12]. Concerning this sort of comparison research between organic and conventional wine grape farms, some controversial pieces of evidence have been pro- vided by Bayramoglu and Gundogmus [13] on the Turk- ish sector, Tzouvelekas et al. [14] on Grecian farms, and Guesmi et al. [15] regarding Spain. Furthermore, Aldanondo-Ochoa et al. [16] analysed environmental and economic efficiency in the Spanish sector. Previous studies on organic farming have focused on the relation- ship between environment and competitiveness and the different use of resources between organic and conven- tional farms that green approaches could produce in terms of efficiency [17,18]. Other scholars have put attention on the compari- sons related to production practices, yields and econom- ic performance [2,3,19,20] or again on profitability [21]. Other recent studies have used meta-analysis to compare different countries’ situations by implementing various methods and approaches, which gave evidence of the environmental and economic comparisons [22–25]. Still, some studies have assessed the agri-environ- mental schemes and organic measure impact of rural development policies [26–29]. Particular attention has been paid to estimating the technical and economic effi- ciency [30–34], and out of which conflicting results have 17Organic and conventional grape growing in Italy: a technical efficiency comparison using a parametric approach emerged. On the one hand, studies focused on farm technical efficiency analysis – applying parametric or non-parametric techniques – have analysed both desira- ble and non-desirable outputs (ex. pollution) in different crop productions. These studies showed that it is not so evident that organic farms are less profitable and/or less efficient than conventional ones. Lansink et al. [35] com- pared crop and livestock farms in Finland, finding that organic crop is more efficient than conventional farming considering capital, land, labour, energy as inputs and the revenue as output. A study on the coffee sector in Nepal [36] found that organic farms are more efficient than conventional ones in terms of production, inter/ shade crops, considering farm size, capital, labour cost, fertiliser and plant protection as inputs. Tzouvelakas et al. [37], analysing the olive sector in Greece applying a Stochastic Frontier Analysis (SFA), found that organic crop is more efficient than conven- tional farming. On the other hand, the Data Envelop- ment Analysis (DEA) technique applied on the studies of Damara et al. [38], Alkahtani and Elhendy [39], Beltrán- Esteve and Reig-Martínez [40], confirms the greater effi- ciency of conventional farms respectively as production, total revenue and sales are concerned. In the same vein, Madau [34] and Serra and Good- win [41], using the SFA to analyse the cereal sector in Italy and Spain, respectively, concluded that convention- al farms are more efficient in terms of income and pro- duction terms. Kramol et al. [42] analysed the efficiency of vegetable farms in Thailand, considering the revenue as the output variable, finding that conventional farms are more efficient than organic ones. Tiedemann and Latacz-Lohmann [43] concluded the same for a group of arable farms in Germany. A two-stage DEA approach was performed to compare organic and conventional rain-fed cereals in Spain [44]. The results show that organic farms are more efficient in term of input con- sumption and GHG emissions. A Local Maximum Likelihood (LML) approach was proposed by Guesmi et al. [15] to compare the efficiency levels of organic and conventional farms in Egypt. They found that results are slightly better for organic farms. Organic farms in Switzerland, Austria and Southern Germany were analysed by Lakner et al. [45] starting from the perspective of diversification and multifunc- tionality. They found that the benefits and drawbacks of diversification by applying a stochastic frontier com- bined with a metafrontier analysis estimating the effects on both productivity and efficiency. Concerning the analysed sector, the wine market has traditionally represented an important and stra- tegic segment of the EU agri-food system and, since the beginning of the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), the wine sector policy has undoubtedly enjoyed a particular treatment [46–49]. Italy is the EU leader in terms of wine market (47,5 Mhl) – followed by France (42,1 Mhl) and Spain (33,5 Mhl) – and varieties included in the vineyard register (504), and production is well oriented to bulk wines and premium certified types, specifically PDO wines. In this context, a remarkable role is played by organ- ic production, which is constantly increasing in terms of the market and investments – this market is worth approximately 90 billion dollars worldwide [50] – and has highlighted growth that affects both demand and supply. Consumers look for healthy, environmentally friendly and safe wines, while producers aim at valid and marketable alternatives to conventional production to satisfy consumer demand [51–57]. Consumers with hedonistic and environmental pro- tection values and beliefs would have a higher propen- sity to purchase organic wines [58,59]. Moreover, previ- ous studies showed that the environmental benefits of organic wine production push consumers willing to pay more for it [54,57,60]. Fanasch and Frick [61] found that “organic practices are a credible signal for consumers, inducing them to pay a price premium” [61] (p. 20). Concerning the organic certification, Abraben et al. [62] found that it exerts a positive effect on the price of low-quality rating wines, and this effect diminishes with increasing wine quality, till becoming penalis- ing for higher quality wine. According to Ruggeri et al. [63], consumer attention and the WTP for certifications vanish when there are indications of the high quality of wine as the perception of high wine quality may gener- ate less willingness to pay for more eco-certifications. Moreover, organic certification appears less important in the high-price segment than self-declaration [61]. Lim and Reed [64] research revealed a greater WTP for eco- labels of wines from less-prestigious regions rather than wines from higher-prestige regions, besides a greater WTP for organic wine than sustainable wines. Preferences for organic wine are affected by socio- demographic and attitudinal variables [63]. Previous liter- ature identifies the most frequent demographic character- istics of organic consumers: persons with higher incomes [e.g. 65–67], living in urban areas [e.g. 56,68], millennials and young adults [69,70] and women [e.g. 55,56,67]. But also the frequency of consumption [66], wine education [63] and knowledge degree of the labels [63,71]. Therefore, as eco-labelled products, organic wines allow wine producers to sell products with higher added value than conventional wines and will enable them to stay competitive in an increasingly globalised market. 18 Federica Cisilino et al. 3. MATERIALS AND METHODS Technical efficiency (TE) is defined as the meas- ure of the ability of a firm to obtain the best production from a given set of inputs (output-increasing oriented) or, vice versa, as the measure of the ability to use the mini- mum feasible amount of inputs given a level of output (input-saving oriented) [72,73]. In these terms, technical inefficiency is defined as the degree to which firms fail to reach optimal production. Different methods have been proposed in the lit- erature to estimate TE and its related measures. In this study, a stochastic frontier analysis (SFA) approach was adopted. A parametric approach was preferred to the non-parametric approach because of three inherent abil- ities: first, the possibility of including in a unique model the production frontier and the inefficiency models; sec- ond, the ability to estimate the input elasticities directly; and third, the possibility of testing the more appropriate function that describes the production process. In the SFA model, the production frontier is speci- fied, defining output as a stochastic function of a given bundle of inputs. This approach means that the error term e may be separated into two terms: a random error and a random variable explanatory of inefficiency effects as follows. yi = f (xi, ß) • exp (ε) and ε = (vi - ui) i = 1,2,…N (1) Where yi denotes the level of output for the i-th observation; xi is the row vector of inputs; ß is the vector of parameters to be estimated; f (.) is a suitable function- al form for the frontier; vi is a symmetric random error assumed to account for measurement errors and other factors not under the control of the firm; and ui is an asymmetric nonnegative error term assumed to account for technical inefficiency in production. The MLE (maxi- mum likelihood estimation) of (1) allows us to estimate the vector ß and the variance parameters σ2 = σ2u + σ2v and γ = σu / σv; where g varies between 0 and 1. Consequently, TEi = exp(-ui), and the frontier pro- duction is calculated as its observed production divided by its TEi value. Some authors have proposed a one-stage method that permits contextual estimation of the inefficiency effects caused by factors that affect efficiency, assuming that inefficiency effects (ui) are expressed as a function of a vector of observable explanatory variables . Specifical- ly, Battese and Coelli (1995) adapted these models and proposed an approach where the inefficiency term ui has a truncated (at zero) normal distribution with mean mi: ui = mi + Wi and mi = Z (zi, δ) i = 1,2,…N (2) Where Wi is a random error term that is assumed to be independently distributed, with a truncated (at –mi) normal distribution with mean zero and variance σ2; Z is the vector (Mx1) of the zi firm-specific variables of inefficiency; and d is the (1xM) vector of unknown coef- ficients associated with zi. In this way, we can estimate inefficiency effects arising from the zi explanatory vari- ables. The model adopted by Battese and Coelli [77] was used in this study. Data description The information used was collected from cross-sec- tional data of Italian specialised grape-growing farms. Specifically, we analysed 531 farms that participated in the official Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN) during 2017. The dataset consists of 440 conventional and 91 organic farms. All the selected organic farms were in the maintenance phase. However, we excluded farms with less than 40K Euros of Gross Farm Revenue (GFR) from the sample to limit the risk of considering too small and not very market-oriented activities. A summary description of the sample is reported in Table 1. It must be emphasised that farms were included with different inputs and capital endowments. The choice depends on the need for estimating the possible difference in productivity in the sample and, more pre- cisely, whether switching from conventional to organic in Italian grape growing affects productivity. In other words, we estimated if conventional and organic farms lie on the same technologic horizon, or vice versa, they separately describe two production functions, each one characterised by a given level of productivity. For this reason and contrary to other studies [e.g. 34], we did not select two homogeneous subsamples of farms. For the same reason, we included both farms that produce grapes for processing PDO and GPI wine and farms that produce other wines. Indeed, analytically, we estimated whether quality orientation affects productiv- ity or, more generally, if all farms lie or not on the same technological horizon. Table 1 shows that, on average, organic farms appear more productive than conventional farms. However, an empirical test would suggest whether this represents a discriminating factor for considering conventional and organic as two different agricultural methods in Italian grape growing. 19Organic and conventional grape growing in Italy: a technical efficiency comparison using a parametric approach The functional model A translog functional form was assumed as the fron- tier technology specification for the farms. Using the Battese and Coelli [77] procedure, the translog function is specified as follows. lnYi + ß0 + ∑4j=1 lnxji + 1/2 ∑4j≤∑4K=1ßjklnxki*lnxki + Sm + Sq + Rn + Rc + Rs +Am + Ah + Ap + (vi - ui) (3) Where the subscript i =1,2…N denotes the observa- tion for the i-th firm and j,k = 1,2…J stand for the tech- nical inputs used. The dependent variable (Y) represents the value (in Euros) of production and corresponds to the GFR. The bundle of inputs is composed by X1 is the total land area (expressed in UAA hectares) devoted to grapes by each farm; X2 is the total amount of labour (expressed in working units); X3 is the cost (Euros) of capital in terms of annual depreciation; X4 represents the other variable costs (Euros) supported by each farm. Furthermore, we included other dummy variables that can affect grape-growing productivity and, as a con- sequence, determine the technological differences among farms. First, the model involves a dummy variable (Sm) that considers the agronomic method practised (organic cul- tivation = 1; conventional cultivation = 0). The inclusion of a given variable permits us to estimate whether tech- nological homogeneity exists between organic and con- ventional grape growing. In this sense, a unique techno- logical frontier for both organic and conventional farms was assumed. The variable’s eventual estimated signifi- cant effect would suggest refereeing the analysis on sepa- rate frontiers (nontechnological homogeneity). In one case (unique frontier), possible differences in estimated efficiency by the two groups would be solely related to different abilities in using technical factors available to the farmer; in the other case (separate frontiers), efficien- cies cannot directly be compared because a difference in productivity also exists. Second, a variable (Sq) that takes into account farm orientation towards the production of PDO and GPI wines was included (farms that grow grapes for PDO Table 1. Summary statistics of the collected sample. Variable Conventional Organic Total Mean s.d Mean s.d Mean s.d Value of production (Euros) 196,634 420,374 240,784 378,282 204,200 413,461 Land area (hectares) 18.8 26.0 32.8 39.4 21.2 29.1 Labour (working units) 2.5 3.2 3.3 3.2 2.6 3.2 Annual capital depreciation (Euros) 13,552 20,549 22,505 45,769 15,086 26,775 Variable costs (Euros) 62,166 184,542 79,642 147,163 65,161 178,688 PDO and GPI (% of farms) Oriented 82.4 85.0 84.6 No oriented 17.6 15.0 15.4 Management (% of farms) Only or mostly family workers 86.2 60.3 82.2 Only or mostly wage workers 13.8 39.7 17.8 Gender of farmer (% of farms) Male 81.8 74.7 80.6 Female 18.2 25.3 19.4 Age of farmer (% of under 40) 11.4 9.9 11.1 Region (% of farms) Northern Italy 60.7 28.6 55.2 Central Italy 28.4 35.1 29.6 Southern Italy 10.9 36.3 15.2 Source: Authors’ data processing on FADN data. 20 Federica Cisilino et al. and GPI wines = 1; any orientation = 0). According to this distinction, we would understand if orientation to this well-defined quality standard plays a role in condi- tioning productivity and efficiency, living aside the culti- vation method (conventional or organic). Finally, three dummies (0 = No; Yes = 1) reflecting the geographical location of the farms (Northern Rn, Central Rc, and South Rs Italy) and three other variables corresponding to altimetry (Mountain Am, Hilly Ah, and Plane Ap) were introduced in the model. Concerning the inefficiency effects, the model has the following form: uit = δ0 + δ1 Zi1 + δ2 Zi2 + δ3 Zi3 + δ4 Sm + δ5 Sq + δ6 Rn + δ7 Rc + δ8 Rs + δ9 Am + δ10 Ah + δ11 Ap + Wi (4) Where Z1 represents the type of farm management (only or mostly family workers = 0; only or mostly wage workers = 1); Z2 represents the gender of the farmer (male = 1; female = 2); and Z3 represents the age of the farmer. The other variables are identified with the same dummies that appeared in the function model, whereas Wi is the error term. 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The production function and inefficiency parameters were estimated simultaneously using the computer pro- gram FRONTIER© 4.1, created by Coelli [78]. The preferable efficiency model A set of tests was applied to evaluate the suitability and significance of the adopted model concerning the data. All tests were carried out by the generalised like- lihood-ratio test procedure, which permits evaluating a restricted model with respect to the adopted model [79]. The statistic associated with this test is defined as fol- lows: l = -2lnΛ = -2 = -2lnL(H0) - lnL(H1)] (5) Where L(H1) and L(H0) are the log-likelihood val- ues of the adopted model and the restricted model, respectively. The statistical test λ has approximately a chi-square or a mixed-square distribution with sev- eral degrees of freedom equal to the number of param- eters (restrictions) assumed to be zero in the L(H0) null hypothesis. If the value of λ is lower than the corre- sponding critical value (for α = 0.05 significance level), the null hypothesis cannot be rejected, and therefore, the preferred model would avoid these variables. The first test concerned the functional form of the function. The starting (null) hypothesis (Cobb-Doug- las; βij = 0) was compared with the adopted hypothesis (Translog). The null hypothesis was not rejected, imply- ing that Cobb-Douglas can be a good representation of the data. The second test concerned the hypothesis of techno- logical homogeneity between organic and conventional grape growing. The starting hypothesis implies that the two methods are homogenous bundles of a defined tech- nology (Sm = 0), and it was compared with the adopted hypothesis of nontechnological homogeneity between the two methods (Sm ¹ 0). The null hypothesis was not rejected. Therefore, the variable can be avoided in the preferred model, and as a consequence, organic and con- ventional grape-growing farms lie on a unique produc- tion frontier. The third test concerned the comparison between the null hypothesis of invariance with respect to qual- ity orientation (Sq = 0) and the hypothesis of variance (Sq ¹ 0) a priori adopted. We found that the null hypoth- esis could not be rejected; hence, the preferred model is invariant to quality orientation. The fourth and fifth tests were applied to the hypotheses about the role of geographical location (R variables) and altimetry (A variable) in conditioning productivity, respectively. Additionally, in these cases, the results from the two tests suggest that geographical location and altimetry would not be significant factors in describing the technology, and a common frontier can be adopted in the preferred model (without these vari- ables). All the estimated results of the tests on the produc- tion frontier are reported in Table 2. The model was re-estimated considering these find- ings, and the following tests of the inefficiency model were applied to the re-estimated Cobb-Douglas model: – if inefficiency effects (γ; δ0; δ1...δ3) are present in the model; – the stochastic nature of the inefficiency effects (pres- ence of γ and δ0); – the presence of the intercept (δ0); – if the firm-specific factors (δ1...δ3) are present; – if the Sm and Sq variables significantly affect ineffi- ciency; – if the geographical location significantly affects inef- ficiency; – if altimetry significantly affects inefficiency; – if each firm-specific factor is present. The results suggest that all the null hypotheses could 21Organic and conventional grape growing in Italy: a technical efficiency comparison using a parametric approach be rejected except for the geographical location and altimetry variables that hence can be excluded by the final model. The estimated parameters of the preferred model are reported in Table 3. The production function Each parameter related to the function model satis- fies the monotonicity and diminishing marginal pro- ductivity properties at the point of approximation (posi- tive signs), and it can be taken as an elasticity indicator. This finding means that capital would contribute the most to grape production in the Italian sector (0.585). Labour was estimated as the second most influential fac- tor (0.371), whereas variable costs (0.121) and land area (0.085) appear to affect productivity weakly. Specifically, to the latter input, the low elasticity might depend on the fact that grapes are typically grown in an intensive or semi-intensive way in the case of scarce land avail- ability. In this sense, the land is a factor that affects production, but as estimated, it plays no relevant role in conditioning productivity. For this reason, the low amount of land contrasts with what was found in other wine grape-growing reali- ties, where this factor was estimated to be among the factors most affecting efficiency [7,12] or in other effi- ciency studies carried out on (more extensive) small farms [81]. Returns to scale – calculated summarising the sin- gle input elasticities – are generally increasing (1.162), implying that margins exist (approximately 16%) for improving the scale inefficiency of the grape-growing farms to increase the returns to scale. Similar findings have been found in other stud- ies on the wine grape-growing sector. Regarding the South African sector, for example, Townsend et  al. [82] and Conradie et  al. [7] estimated that farms are too small and prevalently operate on returns to scale con- ditions. On the other hand, Liu and Lv [83], in a study on Chinese wine grape farms, found that medium farms reveal a higher efficiency than smaller and larger farms. Table 2. Tests of hypotheses for the frontier function and inefficiency model parameters. Restrictions Model L(H0). λ d.f. χ20.95 Decision Production Function None Translog -97.08 H0 : bij = 0 Cobb-Douglas -104.71 15.26 10 18.31 Not rejected H0 : Sm = 0 Conventional vs. organic -97.98 1.80 1 3.84 Not rejected H0 : Sq = 0 PDO vs. No PDO -98.33 2.50 1 3.84 Not rejected H0 : Rn, Rc, Rs = 0 Geographical location -99.05 3.94 3 7.82 Not rejected H0 : Am, Ac, Ap = 0 Altimetry -99.41 4.66 3 7.82 Not rejected Inefficiency model None Cobb-Douglas -105.44 H0 : g = d0; d1…d3 = 0 No inefficiency effects -112.55 14.22 4 8,76* Rejected H0 : g = d0 = 0 No stochastic effects -109.01 7.14 2 5.14* Rejected H0 : d0= 0 No intercept -107.88 4.88 1 3.84 Rejected H0 : d1…d3 = 0 No firm-specific factors -110.41 9.94 3 7.82 Rejected H0 : Sm = 0 No conv vs. org. -108.82 6.76 1 3.84 Rejected H0 : Sq = 0 No quality -110.11 9.34 1 3.84 Rejected H0 : Rn, Rc, Rs = 0 No geograph. location -108.73 6.58 3 7.82 Not rejected H0 : Am, Ac, Ap = 0 No altimetry -108.90 6.92 3 7.82 Not rejected H0 : Z1= 0 No management -108.05 5.22 1 3.84 Rejected H0 : Z2= 0 No age -107.99 5.10 1 3.84 Rejected H0 : Z3= 0 No gender -108.90 6.92 1 3.84 * The statistic l for these variables is distributed as a mixed c2 because the tests involve equality and inequality restrictions. The relative upper bounds are shown in Table 1 in Kodde and Palm [80]. Source: Authors’ analysis of FADN data. 22 Federica Cisilino et al. Research findings from Carvalho [8], Moreira [9], and Coelli and Sanders [10] on the Portuguese, Chilean, and Australian sectors, respectively, reveal that returns to scale are close to unity. The inefficiency model Table 3 also reports the estimated parameters related to the inefficiency model. The findings suggest that effi- ciency tends to increase in the case of farms managed by young farmers (the positive sign associated with the var- iable Age indicates that it positively affects inefficiency) and by males (vice versa, the negative sign of the vari- able Gender means that efficiency would increase with the increase in the variable). We also found that capitalistic farms tend to be less efficient than (solely or prevalently) family-run business- es. This last finding is only apparently surprising because it is probably related to the general intensive or semi- intensive grape cultivation in Italy, living aside from the management. Furthermore, family-run farms are likely to be more cautious in using their inputs to compensate for the productivity gap, which could be a reason that may help explain this finding. Furthermore, organic and quality-oriented farms tend to be more efficient than conventional and non- oriented farms, respectively. Specifically, the param- eter associated with the organic/conventional dichotomy shows the highest magnitude, implying that it is the variable that mostly affects efficiency among the selected dichotomies. The technical efficiency The estimated technical efficiency of the sample amounts, on average, to 0.788 (Table 4). This means that room for improvement of approximately 21% exists for increasing the ability of Italian grape-growing farmers to use their technical inputs more efficiently. The value is very close to the mean technical effi- ciency estimated by Carvalho [8] on Portuguese wine grape farms in 2000 (0.793), even if this value tends to decrease over time. Additionally, Moreira et al. [9] and Coelli and Sanders [10] estimated similar scores on wine grape farms (0.778 and 0.790, respectively). However, as expected in light of the estimated inef- ficiency parameters, the organic farms reveal a greater technical efficiency than the conventional farms. Since these scores refer to a unique frontier and the difference appears significant (for α = 0.01), it is possible to argue that organic farms have greater capacity than conven- tional units in using technical inputs (in the availability of the farmer). Since technical efficiency scores are cal- culated as an output-oriented measure in this study, the results imply that both farming methods might increase production using the same input bundle. Organic and conventional grape-growing farmers would be able to increase output by 16.5% and 22.2%, respectively, with the present state of technology and using their disposable resources more efficiently. These findings confirm previous studies. In a study on Greek organic and conventional wine grape farms, Tzouvelekas et al. [84] found that organic farms show Table 3. ML Estimates for SFP parameters for the organic and con- ventional data – preferred model. Variable Parameter Coeff. S.e. Frontier Model Constant b0 0.818 0.105 Land area b1 0.085 0.222 Labour b2 0.371 0.219 Capital b3 0.585 0.280 Other expenditures (variable costs) b4 0.121 0.050 Inefficiency Model Constant Z0 -0.003 0.018 Management Z1 0.142 0.186 Gender Z2 -0.051 0.100 Age Z3 0.059 0.136 Organic Sm -0.185 0.115 Quality Sq -0.126 0.156 Variance parameters σ2 0.277 0.133 g 0.042 0.026 g* 0.467   Log-likelihood function -106.386 Source: Authors’ data processing on FADN data. Table 4. Estimated technical efficiency scores.   Mean s.d. Total sample (n. 531) 0.788 0.108 Organic (n. 91) 0.835 0.102 Conventional (n. 440) 0.778 0.107 * p-values for t-tests on the mean difference between the two sub- samples: TE = 1.33 x 10-4. 23Organic and conventional grape growing in Italy: a technical efficiency comparison using a parametric approach higher efficiency than conventional farms (0.680 and 0.612, respectively). In the Spanish sector, Guesmi et al. [15] estimated a greater difference between the two cat- egories (0.796 and 0.642, respectively). Aldanondo-ochoa et al. [16], comparing the total farm revenues of wine grape producers using inputs, such as land, labour and other costs, and assessing the environmental impact, found a higher efficiency for organic farms. Conversely, the results from Bayramoglu and Gun- dogmus [13] on Turkish farms suggest that conventional grape farms are more efficient than organic farms. How- ever, these scores refer to two separate frontiers; there- fore, our findings are not comparable to those of this previous study. Considering the observed GFR, it means that the achievement of full efficiency would lead to income increases of 47.6 M € and 55.3 M € for organic and con- ventional farms, respectively. Therefore, conventional farms could partially fill the revenue gap concerning organic farms in the case of full efficiency. An important point is to assess the weight of inef- ficiency in affecting production to evaluate whether a possible improvement in efficiency could significantly affect productivity in grape-growing farms. Analysis of the ratio parameter g provides information on the TE relevance for the production process. The estimated g is significant at the 1% level, which indicates that TE is relevant in explaining output varia- bility. On the other hand, the parameter value could not be taken as a measure of the relative contribution of the inefficiency term to the total output variance. However, this measure can be obtained by estimating parameter γ*, calculated as described in Table 3. The estimation suggests that 46.7% of the general differential between observed and best-practice output is due to farmers’ existing difference in efficiency. This study highlights some pieces of evidence in the management of organic and conventional grape farming in Italy. The results suggest that organic and convention- al farming systems would lie on a common frontier and that those organic farms seem more careful in using fac- tors of production factors (technical inputs). This factor would be partly due to their awareness of the existing gap in terms of yields compared to conventional farms, which would also represent a general behaviour of organic producers who are constantly looking for greater performance. Pricing and output value As far as the output is concerned, it has to be con- sidered that the production data estimation has been carried out in terms of farms’ production value. Since the output is higher for organic farms (compared to conventional farms), our findings show that in the wine grape-growing sector, organic farms are more technical- ly efficient than conventional farms. This point requires some further comment. First, it is worth noting that the higher selling prices that organic farms can manage to command for their products play a role in the organic and conventional farming match. It must be said in fairness that the val- ue of the grapes is substantially different, depending on their quality and typology [85]. Moreover, it is also true that the price of grapes varies according to many char- acteristics, such as the land on which the vineyards are grown, the costs of cultivation, the environmental condi- tions and any legislative decisions [86,87]. The main dis- tinction is to be made between DOP wine grapes (more expensive) and table grapes. We find different varietals with different prices within the two types, depending on the yields and the wine qualities they could express. In Italy, common criteria and specific associations are generally used to establish the prices of wine grapes, sometimes private and sometimes governmental. The latter annually provides the grape prices in agreement with the Chambers of Commerce. Then, there are pri- vate agreements between high-quality companies and winegrowers. Differences are both dependent on wheth- er the wine producer is also a grape grower or not and the owner or not of the vineyards. When the wine mar- ket is rising sharply, the large brand wine producers could find it difficult to meet their needs with their vine- yards (sometimes they cannot cover all the production in terms of grape quantities), and therefore they must go to the grape market. These companies consistently turn to the same trusted growers, entering into multi-year contracts. Any DOP wine producer uses this strategy and pays different prices, depending on the area of origin. When produc- ing high-quality wine, it is essential to establish a lasting relationship of trust and collaboration to obtain the best results. Prices can vary by a wide range, mainly depend- ing on the quality, type (red or white), grape varietal and other factors, ranging from 20 Euros to more than 200 Euros per quintal for some special wines [88]. We should also not forget that sustainable and envi- ronmentally friendly practices, as known, require higher costs and higher prices for the final products (to com- pensate). Suffice it to say that among other rules, the EU normative, for example, states that to obtain authorisa- tion for organic wine, producers must include a maxi- mum sulphite content (set at 100 mg per litre for red wine and 150 mg/L for white/rosé). The premium price 24 Federica Cisilino et al. should compensate for the higher costs for organic wine production. Today, the price of organic grapes in Italy is, on average, approximately 2,20 €/kg [89]. Second, comparing prices, another point to be con- sidered is producers’ ability to promote and communi- cate the product’s characteristics. In the recent past, in many Italian regions, organic grapes were sold as high- quality grapes, but the added value of being organic was not valued [90]. In recent years, the scenario has changed since increasing attention has been given to sustainability and climate change issues [91]. In this evolving context, grape producers have become more aware of the importance of communicating the agricul- tural methods adopted to respect both the territory and human health. In effect, “consumers seem more inter- ested in environmental aspects associated with organic production, that have more direct benefits on health than other environmental issues [and their] perception of sustainable wines seems generally associated with the terms such as organic and local” [92]. In this scenario, since a higher quality is tradition- ally attributed to sustainable wine, its communication to consumers through recognisable signs appears to be a very important marketing and competitive factor for wine producers [92,93]. In this respect, the Regula- tion of the European Commission [49], which defines and regulates organic wine production, allows farmers that respect these rules to boast the EU certification of “organic”. Finally, it must be underlined that a time lag would exist between when grapes are paid to produce wines and when wines are sold because wine generally takes several years to become market-ready. It means that the premium price applied by organic wine producers to grape-growers would reflect future wine price expecta- tions, and it can be a source of distortion along with the price transmission from buyers to farmers. 5. CONCLUSIONS With a specific application to grape growth, this study contributes to the debate on the efficiency and productivity of organic and conventional farming, which has produced controversial evidence throughout the world; however, it requires many more studies on the wine grape-growing sector. As far as the farm’s efficiency is concerned, it turns out that being organic and quality-oriented are charac- teristics that lead to a more efficient system. Because grape-growing managed by young male farmers shows a higher efficiency level, the policymaker should encourage new farms’ opening by young entre- preneurs and the generational shift even more. Moreo- ver, the lower efficiency of companies run by women implies that there is an increasing need to provide more training and tools to support female entrepreneurs. A significant point concerns the variable of business-con- ducting typology. The higher level of efficiency of grape- growing conducting family-run businesses must push policymakers increasingly to support these activities. Using their production inputs more carefully to respond to the need for an ever-decreasing use of resources, fam- ily farms appear to be crucial agents in achieving sus- tainable development goals. Concerning the two production orientations, the findings show that capital and labour are the two key issues that contribute the most to grape production in Italy, confirming previous studies in the Spanish sector [94]. Moreover, this study disavows previous studies that see land as one of the most important factors affecting the efficiency of wine grape growth [7,12]. Another noteworthy item is the positioning of the two production orientations along the same technologi- cal horizon due to the lack of a significant difference in productivity between organic and conventional wine grape farms. This aspect is relevant for those companies that, looking at the trend of organic wine and sparkling wine (+ 15.5% variation between 2020/2019) compared to non-organic products (+ 4%) [5] but also in light of the “Farm to Fork” strategy [95] aim to accelerate our transition to a sustainable food system also through the increase of up to 25% by 2030 of the area cultivated organically, intending to convert their production. This finding is also relevant for academics, who, despite the increasing number of studies that compare the performance of organic and conventional agriculture in terms of yield, environmental, and economic impacts, still quote methodological difficulties of comparing con- ventional and organic systems [1]. This paper has some limitations. The focus is on only one country (Italy). Further multi‐country research could be useful to confirm our findings in other fields, and more research needs to be done, also concerning our case (i.e., estimation of scale efficiency and the role of price in affecting productivity), to obtain more evi- dence on this issue. However, more research needs to be done to improve the quality of information about dif- ferences in efficiency between organic and conventional farming, especially in the wine grape-growing sector. 25Organic and conventional grape growing in Italy: a technical efficiency comparison using a parametric approach REFERENCES [1] A. Le Campion, F.-X. Oury, E. Heumez, B. Rol- land, 2020. Conventional versus organic farming systems: dissecting comparisons to improve cereal organic breeding strategies. Org. Agric. 10, 63–74. [2] N.H. Lampkin, 1994. Researching organic farming systems, in: The Economics of Organic Farming: An International Perspective. Cab International Wallingford, 343–359. [3] F. Offermann, N. Lampkin, 2005. Organic farm- ing in FADNs–comparison issues and analysis. Eur. Framew. Org. Mark. Inf. 107, 106. [4] OIV, 2020. Nota di congiuntura del settore vitivini- colo mondiale nel 2019. [5] SINAB, 2020. Bio in cifre 2020. [6] F. Offermann, H. Nieberg, 2000. Economic perfor- mance of organic farms in Europe, Economics and Policy. Universität Hohenheim, Hohenheim. [7] B. Conradie, G. Cookson, C. Thirtle, 2006. Farm size in Western Cape grape production: An enquiry into pooling small datasets. South Afr. J. Econ. 74, 334–343. [8] M. Carvalho, P. Henrique, F. Costa, R. Pereira, 2008. Characterization and technical efficiency of Portuguese wine farms, in: Proceedings of the XIIth Congress of the EAAE. Ghent, Belgium. [9] V.H. Moreira, J.L. Troncoso, B.E. Bravo-Ureta, 2011. Technical efficiency for a sample of Chil- ean wine grape producers: A stochastic production frontier analysis. Int. J. Agric. Nat. Resour. 38, 321– 329. [10] T. Coelli, O. Sanders, 2013. The technical efficiency of wine grape growers in the Murray-Darling Basin in Australia, in: Wine Economics: Quantitative Studies and Empirical Applications. Palgrave Mac- millan, Basingstoke, United Kingdom, 231–249. [11] J. Lwelamira, P. Wambura, J. Safari, 2015. Techni- cal efficiency in grape farming among smallholder farmers in Dodama urban districh, central Tanza- nia. Rural Plan. J. 17, 1–16. [12] J. Piesse, B. Conradie, C. Thirtle, N. Vink, 2018. Efficiency in wine grape production: comparing long‐established and newly developed regions of South Africa. Agric. Econ. 49, 203–212. [13] Z. Bayramoglu, E. Gundogmus, 2008. Cost effi- ciency on organic farming: a comparison between organic and conventional raisin-producing house- holds in Turkey. Span. J. Agric. Res. 6, 3–11. [14] V. Tzouvelekas, C.J. Pantzios, C. Fotopoulos, 2002. Measuring multiple and single factor technical effi- ciency in organic farming. Br. Food J. [15] B. Guesmi, T. Serra, Z. Kallas, J.M.G. Roig, 2012. The productive efficiency of organic farming: the case of grape sector in Catalonia. Span. J. Agric. Res. 552–566. [16] A.M. Aldanondo-Ochoa, V.L. Casasnovas-Oliva, A. Arandia-Miura, 2014. Environmental efficiency and the impact of regulation in dryland organic vine production. Land Use Policy 36, 275–284. [17] M.E. Porter, C. Van der Linde, 1995. Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship. J. Econ. Perspect. 9, 97–118. [18] S. Ambec, P. Lanoie, 2008. Does it pay to be green? A systematic overview. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 45–62. [19] H. Nieberg, F. Offermann, 2000. Economic per- formance of organic farms in Europe. Universität Hohenheim, Stuttgart-Hohenheim. [20] F. Offermann, 2004. Comparing organic and con- ventional farm incomes in FADN: Issues in inter- national harmonisation and quality assurance. Presented at the Development of a European infor- mation system for organic markets-improving the scope and quality of statistical data: Proceedings of the 1st EISFOM European Seminar. Frick: FiBL, 115–118. [21] H. Nieberg, F. Offermann, 2003. The profitability of organic farming in Europe. Organic agriculture: sustainability, markets and polices. Organic agri- culture: sustainability, markets and polices. OECD workshop on organic agriculture, Washington, UK, USA. [22] K. Mondelaers, J. Aertsens, G. Van Huylenbroeck, 2009. A meta‐analysis of the differences in envi- ronmental impacts between organic and conven- tional farming. Br. Food J. 111, 1098–1119. [23] D. Pimentel, P. Hepperly, J. Hanson, D. Douds, R. Seidel, 2005. Environmental, energetic, and eco- nomic comparisons of organic and conventional farming systems. BioScience 55, 573–582. [24] H.L. Tuomisto, I. Hodge, P. Riordan, D.W. Mac- donald, 2012. Does organic farming reduce envi- ronmental impacts?–A meta-analysis of European research. J. Environ. Manage. 112, 309–320. [25] S. Uthes, B. Matzdorf, 2013. Studies on agri-envi- ronmental measures: a survey of the literature. Environ. Manage. 51, 251–266. [26] L. Arata, P. Sckokai, 2016. The impact of agri- environmental schemes on farm performance in five EU member states: a DID-matching approach. Land Econ. 92, 167–186. [27] F. Cisilino, A. Bodini, A. Zanoli, 2019. Rural devel- opment programs’ impact on environment: An ex- 26 Federica Cisilino et al. post evaluation of organic faming. Land Use Policy 85, 454–462. [28] A. Pufahl, C.R. Weiss, 2009. Evaluating the effects of farm programmes: results from propensity score matching. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 36, 79–101. [29] M. Raggi, D. Viaggi, F. Bartolini, A. Furlan, 2015. The role of policy priorities and targeting in the spatial location of participation in Agri-Environ- mental Schemes in Emilia-Romagna (Italy). Land Use Policy 47, 78–89. [30] A. Bonfiglio, A. Arzeni, A. Bodini, 2017. Assessing eco-efficiency of arable farms in rural areas. Agric. Syst. 151, 114–125. [31] G. Breustedt, U. Latacz-Lohmann, T. Tiedemann, 2011. Organic or conventional? Optimal dairy farm- ing technology under the EU milk quota system and organic subsidies. Food Policy 36, 223–229. [32] T.J. Coelli, D.S.P. Rao, C.J. O’Donnell, G.E. Battese, 2005. An introduction to efficiency and productiv- ity analysis. Springer Science & Business Media, New York, NY. [33] W.W. Cooper, L.M. Seiford, K. Tone, 2007. Data envelopment analysis: a comprehensive text with models, applications, references and DEA-solver soft- ware: Springer Science & Business Media. N. Y. USA. [34] F.A. Madau, 2007. Technical efficiency in organic and conventional farming: Evidence from Italian cereal farms. Agric. Econ. Rev. 8, 5–21. [35] A.O. Lansink, K. Pietola, S. Bäckman, 2002. Eff- ciency and productivity of conventional and organ- ic farms in Finland 1994–1997. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 29, 51–65. [36] K.L. Poudel, T.G. Johnson, N. Yamamoto, S. Gau- tam, B. Mishra, 2015. Comparing technical effi- ciency of organic and conventional coffee farms in rural hill region of Nepal using data envelopment analysis (DEA) approach. Org. Agric. 5, 263–275. [37] V. Tzouvelekas, C.J. Pantzios, C. Fotopoulos, 2001. Technical efficiency of alternative farming systems: the case of Greek organic and conventional olive- growing farms. Food Policy 26, 549–569. [38] E. Dimara, C.J. Pantzios, D. Skuras, K. Tsekouras, 2005. The impacts of regulated notions of qual- ity on farm efficiency: A DEA application. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 161, 416–431. [39] S. Alkahtani, A. Elhendy, 2012. Organic and con- ventional date farm efficiency estimation, and its determents at Riyadh province, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 162, 219–230. [40] M. Beltrán-Esteve, E. Reig-Martínez, 2014. Com- paring conventional and organic citrus grower effi- ciency in Spain. Agric. Syst. 129, 115–123. [41] T. Serra, B.K. Goodwin, 2009. The efficiency of Spanish arable crop organic farms, a local maxi- mum likelihood approach. J. Product. Anal. 31, 113–124. [42] P. Kramol, R. Villano, P. Kristiansen, E. Fleming, 2015. Productivity differences between organic and other vegetable farming systems in northern Thai- land. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 30, 154. [43] T. Tiedemann, U. Latacz‐Lohmann, 2013. Produc- tion risk and technical efficiency in organic and conventional agriculture–the case of arable farms in Germany. J. Agric. Econ. 64, 73–96. [44] E. Gutiérrez, E. Aguilera, S. Lozano, G.I. Guzmán, 2017. A two-stage DEA approach for quantifying and analysing the inefficiency of conventional and organic rain-fed cereals in Spain. J. Clean. Prod. 149, 335–348. [45] S. Lakner, S. Kirchweger, D. Hoop, B. Brümmer, J. Kantelhardt, 2018. The effects of diversification activities on the technical efficiency of organic farms in Switzerland, Austria, and Southern Ger- many. Sustainability 10, 1304. [46] E. Pomarici, R. Sardone, 2020. EU wine policy in the framework of the CAP: post-2020 challenges. Agric. Food Econ. 8, 1–40. [47] G. Meloni, J.F.M. Swinnen, 2012. The Political Economy of European Wine Regulations (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 2279338). Social Science Research Network, Rochester, NY. [48] S. Green, 2018. The European Union and action on climate change, through the lens of the wine indus- try. Wine Econ. Policy 7, 120–127. [49] Regulation (EU) 203/2012, 2012. Amending Regu- lation (EC) No 889/2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regula- tion (EC) No 834/2007, as regards detailed rules on organic wine. [50] FIBL & IFOAM, 2019. The World of Organic Agri- culture 2019. [51] A. Castellini, C. Mauracher, S. Troiano, 2017. An overview of the biodynamic wine sector. Int. J. Wine Res. 9, 1–11. [52] M.A. Bonn, J.J. Cronin, M. Cho, 2016. Do Environ- mental Sustainable Practices of Organic Wine Sup- pliers Affect Consumers’ Behavioral Intentions? The Moderating Role of Trust. Cornell Hosp. Q. 57, 21–37. [53] M. D’Amico, G. Di Vita, L. Monaco, 2016. Explor- ing environmental consciousness and consumer preferences for organic wines without sulfites. J. Clean. Prod. 120, 64–71. [54] C. Fotopoulos, A. Krystallis, M. Ness, 2003. Wine produced by organic grapes in Greece: using 27Organic and conventional grape growing in Italy: a technical efficiency comparison using a parametric approach means—end chains analysis to reveal organic buy- ers’ purchasing motives in comparison to the non- buyers. Food Qual. Prefer. 14, 549–566. [55] M. Lanfranchi, A. Zirilli, A. Alibrandi, C. Giannet- to, 2020. The behaviour of wine consumers towards organic wine: a statistical analysis through the non- parametric combination test. Int. J. Wine Bus. Res. [56] S. Mann, A. Ferjani, L. Reissig, 2012. What mat- ters to consumers of organic wine? Br. Food J. 114, 272–284. [57] M.M.B. Mollá-Bauzá, L. Martínez-Carrasco, A. Martínez-Poveda, M.R. Pérez, 2005. Determination of the surplus that consumers are willing to pay for an organic wine. Span. J. Agric. Res. 3, 43–51. [58] J. Olsen, L. Thach, L. Hemphill, 2012. The impact of environmental protection and hedonistic values on organic wine purchases in the US. Int. J. Wine Bus. Res. [59] I. Schäufele, U. Hamm, 2018. Organic wine pur- chase behaviour in Germany: Exploring the atti- tude-behaviour-gap with data from a household panel. Food Qual. Prefer. 63, 1–11. [60] E. Pagliarini, M. Laureati, D. Gaeta, 2013. Sen- sory descriptors, hedonic perception and con- sumer’s attitudes to Sangiovese red wine deriving from organically and conventionally grown grapes. Front. Psychol. 4. [61] P. Fanasch, B. Frick, 2020. The value of signals: Do self-declaration and certification generate price premiums for organic and biodynamic wines? J. Clean. Prod. 249, 119415. [62] L.A. Abraben, K.A. Grogan, Z. Gao, 2017. Organic price premium or penalty? A comparative market analysis of organic wines from Tuscany. Food Pol- icy 69, 154–165. [63] G. Ruggeri, C. Mazzocchi, S. Corsi, 2020. Drinking biodiversity: a choice experiment on Franciacorta sparkling wines. Br. Food J. [64] K.H. Lim, M. Reed, 2020. Do ecolabels cheapen wines? J. Clean. Prod. 245, 118696. [65] J. Aschemann‐Witzel, S. Zielke, 2017. Can’t buy me green? A review of consumer perceptions of and behavior toward the price of organic food. J. Con- sum. Aff. 51, 211–251. [66] G. Migliore, A. Thrassou, M. Crescimanno, G. Schifani, A. Galati, 2020. Factors affecting consum- er preferences for “natural wine”: An exploratory study in the Italian market. Br. Food J. 122, 2463– 2479. [67] G. Szolnoki, K. Hauck, 2020. Analysis of German wine consumers’ preferences for organic and non- organic wines. Br. Food J. [68] E. Pomarici, M. Amato, R. Vecchio, 2016. Envi- ronmental Friendly Wines: A Consumer Segmen- tation Study. Agric. Agric. Sci. Procedia, Florence “Sustainability of Well-Being International Forum”. 2015: Food for Sustainability and not just food, FlorenceSWIF2015 8, 534–541. [69] D. Moscovici, R. Rezwanul, R. Mihailescu, J. Gow, A.A. Ugaglia, L. Valenzuela, A. Rinaldi, 2020. Pref- erences for eco certified wines in the United States. Int. J. Wine Bus. Res. [70] E.C. Thach, J.E. Olsen, 2006. Market segment anal- ysis to target young adult wine drinkers. Agribus. Int. J. 22, 307–322. [71] M.A. Delmas, L.E. Grant, 2014. Eco-labeling strate- gies and price-premium: the wine industry puzzle. Bus. Soc. 53, 6–44. [72] S.E. Atkinson, C. Cornwell, 1994. Estimation of output and input technical efficiency using a flex- ible functional form and panel data. Int. Econ. Rev. 35, 245–255. [73] W.H. Greene, 1980. On the estimation of a flexible frontier production model. J. Econom. 13, 101–115. [74] C.J. Huang, J.-T. Liu, 1994. Estimation of a non- neutral stochastic frontier production function. J. Product. Anal. 5, 171–180. [75] S.C. Kumbhakar, S. Ghosh, J.T. McGuckin, 1991. A generalized production frontier approach for esti- mating determinants of inefficiency in US dairy farms. J. Bus. Econ. Stat. 9, 279–286. [76] D. Reifschneider, R. Stevenson, 1991. Systematic departures from the frontier: a framework for the analysis of firm inefficiency. Int. Econ. Rev. 32, 715–723. [77] G.E. Battese, T.J. Coelli, 1995. A model for techni- cal inefficiency effects in a stochastic frontier pro- duction function for panel data. Empir. Econ. 20, 325–332. [78] T. Coelli, 1996. A Guide to Frontier Version 4.1: A Computer Program for Stochastic Frontier Produc- tion and Cost Function Estimation, Centre for Effi- ciency and Productivity Analysis (CEPA) Working paper 96/07, University of New, Australia. Center for Efficiency and Productivity Analysis, University of New England: Armidale, Australia. [79] D. Knoke, G.W. Bohrnstedt, A.P. Mee, 1994. Statis- tics for social data analysis. Itasca, Illinois. [80] D.A. Kodde, F.C. Palm, 1986. Wald criteria for jointly testing equality and inequality restrictions. Econom. J. Econom. Soc. 54, 1243–1248. [81] F.A. Madau, 2011. Parametric estimation of techni- cal and scale efficiencies in Italian citrus farming. Agric. Econ. Rev. 12, 91–111. 28 Federica Cisilino et al. [82] R.F. Townsend, J. Kirsten, N. Vink, 1998. Farm size, productivity and returns to scale in agricul- ture revisited: a case study of wine producers in South Africa. Agric. Econ. 19, 175–180. [83] H. Liu, K. Lv, 2010. Productive efficiency and its influencing factors of wine-making firms in China. A research based on DEA-Tobit approach. Collect. Essays Finance Econ. 2, 1–6. [84] V. Tzouvelekas, C.J. Pantzios, C. Fotopoulos, 2002. Measuring multiple and single factor technical effi- ciency in organic farming. Br. Food J. 104, 591–609. [85] J.M. Alston, O. Sambucci, 2019. Grapes in the world economy, in: The Grape Genome. Springer, 1–24. [86] G. Jones, M. White, O. Cooper, K. Storchmann, 2005. Climate Change and Global Wine Quality. Climate Change, 73, 319-343. [87] S. Petropoulos, C.S. Karavas, A.T. Balafoutis, I. Par- askevopoulos, S. Kallithraka, Y. Kotseridis, 2017. Fuzzy logic tool for wine quality classification. Comput. Electron. Agric. 142, 552–562. [88] ISMEA, 2020. Ismea Mercati. [89] CCIAA Bologna, 2019. Chamber of Commerce of Bologna. Commissione bio della Camera di Com- mercio di Bologna. [90] F. Cisilino, L. Cesaro, 2009. Organic versus Con- ventional Farming: A Marketing Survey on Wine Production, in: The Crisis of Food Brands. Rout- ledge, London, UK, 135–150. [91] G. Sogari, C. Mora, D. Menozzi, 2016. Sustainable wine labeling: a framework for definition and con- sumers’ perception. Agric. Agric. Sci. Procedia 8, 58–64. [92] N. Palmieri, M. Perito, 2020. Consumers’ willing- ness to consume sustainable and local wine in italy. Ital. J. Food Sci. 32. [93] G. Scozzafava, F. Gerini, A. Dominici, C. Contini, L. Casini, 2018. Reach for the stars: The impact on consumer preferences of introducing a new top-tier typology into a PDO wine. Wine Econ. Policy 7, 140–152. [94] A.M. Aldanondo-Ochoa, V.L. Casasnovas-Oliva, A. Arandia-Miura, 2014. Environmental efficiency and the impact of regulation in dryland organic vine production. Land Use Policy 36, 275–284. [95] EU COM/2020/381 final, 2020. Communication from the commission to the European parliament, the council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions. Wine Economics and Policy Volume 10, Issue 2 - 2021 Firenze University Press Productive efficiency of wine grape producers in the North of Portugal Micael Santos1,*, Xosé Antón Rodríguez2, Ana Marta-Costa3 Organic and conventional grape growing in Italy: a technical efficiency comparison using a parametric approach Federica Cisilino1, Fabio A. Madau2,*, Roberto Furesi2, Pietro Pulina2, Brunella Arru2 Competitiveness framework to support regional-level decision-making in the wine industry: a systematic literature review Jorge Mota*, Rui Costa, António Moreira, Silvana Serrão, Carlos Costa Does belonging to an appellation make a difference? New evidence from Ontario Viticultural Areas Omer Gokcekus How do sparkling wine producers adopt a sub-appellation? Evidence from an exploratory study on heroic Prosecco Superiore Rive Luigino Barisan*, Luigi Galletto Motivation factors for organic wines. An analysis from the perspective of German producers and retailers Katharina Hauck*, Gergely Szolnoki, Evelyn Pabst Consumer preferences for certified wines in France: A comparison of sustainable labels Adeline Alonso Ugaglia1,*, Britta Niklas2, Wolfram Rinke3, Dan Moscovici4, Jeff Gow5, Lionel Valenzuela6, Radu Mihailescu7 Wine ratings and advertising strategies: is there a link? Ricardo Sellers-Rubio Adaptive market hypothesis: An empirical analysis of the Wine Market Anoop S Kumar