the case of the ontario fine wine
DESCRIPTION
glocalization and Society, mediaTRANSCRIPT
1
GROBALIZING, GLOCALIZING AND THEORIZING IN A CREATIVE INDUSTRY:
THE CASE OF THE ONTARIO FINE WINE
Maxim Voronov Brock University
Faculty of Business 500 Glenridge Avenue
St. Catharines, ON L2S 3A1 (Canada) Email: [email protected]
Tel: 905 688 5550 x5189 Fax: 905 378 5716
Dirk De Clercq Brock University
Faculty of Business 500 Glenridge Avenue
St. Catharines, ON L2S 3A1 (Canada) Email: [email protected]
Tel: 905 688 5550 x5187 Fax: 905 641 8068
C.R. (Bob) Hinings University of Alberta
Department of Strategic Management & Organization School of Business
Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 2R6 (Canada) Email: [email protected]
Tel: 780 492 2801 Fax: 780 492 3325
2
GROBALIZING, GLOCALIZING AND THEORIZING IN A CREATIVE INDUSTRY:
THE CASE OF THE ONTARIO FINE WINE
ABSTRACT
This paper examines the influence of globalization upon the micro-processes through which
actors in a dominated local field theorize the local version of a global institution which they
attempt to import into their field. We attend to the dialectical relationship between grobalization
and glocalization in the context of theorization work by local actors. Grobalization refers to the
tendency of global phenomena to impose themselves onto locales, and glocalization refers to the
tendency of local actors to either appropriate or resist these global forces. The empirical work
consists of a three-year qualitative case study of the Ontario wine industry with the emphasis on
actors’ collective theorization work aimed at enhancing the reputation of Ontario fine wine. The
paper concludes with implications for future research on institutional studies of globalization.
3
Scholars increasingly recognize globalization as an institutional and cultural phenomenon,
rather than a purely economic one (Campbell, 2004; Djelic & Quack, 2003; Fligstein & Mara-
Drita, 1996). Therefore, researchers have turned their attention to the mechanisms through which
institutional and social arrangements that constitute globalization are established, maintained and
transformed (e.g., Marquis & Battilana, 2009). A central tension apparent in this research is
labeled as glocalization versus grobalization (Ritzer, 2007). A number of scholars tend to reject
the view that the world is getting more homogenized (Robertson & Khonder, 1998). Hence, the
notion of glocalization acknowledges the “interpenetration of the global and the local, resulting
in unique outcomes in different geographic areas” (Ritzer, 2003, p. 193). In other words, there is
considerable heterogeneity in globalization, such that global phenomena (e.g., institutions,
ideologies, discourses, organizations, etc.) manifest themselves differently in different locations,
which in turn offers local actors flexibility with respect to interpreting and responding to those
phenomena (Nederveen Pieterse, 1994; Robertson & Khonder, 1998). Yet, the flip-side of
globalization is grobalization, which captures these global phenomena’s colonizing and
imperialistic tendencies and attempts to impose themselves upon various geographic locations,
seeking to standardize, homogenize and subjugate them (Ritzer, 2003, 2007). This inductive
study examines the dialectical interplay between glocalization and grobalization (Hargrave and
Van de Ven, 2009), hereby explicating how the imposition of a global institution onto the local
field and local actors’ interpretation and modification of such institution, as they seek to theorize
a local version of it, are mutually constitutive.
Prior research has tended to focus on grobalization and glocalization—often mutually
exclusively (Ritzer, 2007; Robertson & Khonder, 1998)—primarily at the macro-level, such as
by investigating trade agreements (e.g., Fligstein & Mara-Drita, 1996) and national and trans-
4
national institutional systems (e.g., Djelic & Quack, 2003). In addition, some scholars have
studied the grobalizing nature of knowledge transfer (especially managerial knowledge) from
more to less “developed” countries (e.g., Frenkel & Shenhav, 2003). We extend this macro-focus
of prior research by complementing it with micro-level research that examines how individual
actors in a dominated local field navigate the tension between the two processes as they attempt
to theorize the nature of the institution that they are adopting. Furthermore, we argue that these
processes should be studied not only in the context of interrelations between more and less
“developed” societies. Instead, it should be acknowledged that fields within and across societies
may vary with respect to their relative dominance (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992), and
consequently it should be examined how such relative dominance of fields (rather than countries)
impacts actors’ theorization work.
The paper is structured as follows: first, we introduce the notions of glocalization and
grobalization into organizational institutionalism; second, we connect these two notions to
research on theorization; third, we explore the relationship between these concepts in the context
of our qualitative case study of Ontario wine industry and its attempts to establish itself as a
“world class wine region”; finally, we discuss implications for further empirical research on
glocalization and grobalization in organization studies.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Because encounters between different organizations, institutions, and fields that
constitute globalization often involve domination of one field by another—resulting in either
particular foreign institutional arrangements getting imposed on a local field, the local actors
resisting the imposition of foreign institutional order, or a mixture of both—we argue that
attention to both grobalizing and glocalizing tendencies of institutions is needed. The adoption of
5
a new institution in a particular field is a social process (Zilber, 2008) and is facilitated in
important ways by theorization that links the various components of the institution and of the
local field in a compelling and seemingly rational manner (DiMaggio, 1988; Strang & Meyer,
1993). We argue that studying theorization in the context of relations between dominated local
and dominant global fields would offer important insights into the role theorization plays in
reproducing and subverting the relations of domination between fields, and the notions of
grobalization and glocalization can usefully illuminate these dynamics.
On the one hand, as actors in a dominated local field seek to adopt a foreign institution,
they are subjected to the pressures to adopt the foreign institution as accurately as possible and
rely heavily on the categories originating from the foreign institution (Meyer, Boli, Thomas, &
Ramirez, 1997) to theorize the nature of the local field and its compatibility with the institution
being adopted. In this manner the institution exerts isomorphic pressures upon or colonizes the
local field (Frenkel & Shenhav, 2003). On the other hand, institutions are often modified heavily,
as they are diffused within a local field (Sahlin & Wedlin, 2008). This happens because the
conditions in the local field require both that some of the most “foreign” aspects be either
dropped or modified and the remainder be linked to the existing institutional categories in a
compelling manner (c.f., Campbell, 2004; Phillips, Lawrence, & Hardy, 2004). Thus, as local
actors theorize the local version of the global institution, a substantial degree of adaptation
appears inevitable, and there is a need to better understand the local actors’ interpretation of and
selective compliance with both global and local forces.
Introducing Glocalization and Grobalization into Organization Studies
Ritzer’s (2003, 2007) notions of glocalization and grobalization offer the vocabulary that
can be used to effectively study the dialectical nature of globalization. The duality highlights that,
6
on the one hand, global institutions can be heavily modified to fit the local field but, on the other
hand, also dominate and impose coercive pressures onto the local field, as global institutions
attempt to colonize and homogenize the local fields into a global totality. Thus, the essence of
the distinction is the ongoing (and likely irresolvable) struggle between conformity and
distinctiveness.
The notion of glocalization is intended to acknowledge that “little of the local remains
that has been untouched by the global. It is either shaped by the global or its nature is altered by
the fact that it is reacting against it. Thus, much of what we often think of as the local is, in
reality, the glocal” (Ritzer, 2007: 31). This notion simultaneously captures the inescapable nature
of globalization while still allowing for a significant degree of agency, expressed in interpreting,
adapting and modifying global institutions. This notion is linked closely to such related ideas as
hybridization (Nederveen Pieterse, 1994; Robertson & Khonder, 1998) and bricolage (Campbell,
2004), and emphasizes the pluralistic nature of the world, as well as the power, agency and
adaptability of the local actors. In organization studies, research on translation of institutional
practices (e.g., Sahlin & Wedlin, 2008) bears similarities with that on glocalization because it
underscores the significant modification that such practices undergo in order to be accepted in a
particular field.
In contrast, the notion of grobalization refers to the “imperialistic ambitions of nations,
corporations, organizations, and other entities and their desire—indeed, their need—to impose
themselves on various geographic areas” (Ritzer, 2003: 194). This concept is linked to and
captures such ideas as McDonaldization and Americanization (Ritzer, 2007). Some specific
examples of grobalization include the global diffusion of American notions of mental health and
disease (Watters, 2010) or the spread of certain features of nation states around the globe (Meyer
7
et al, 1997). In organization studies, issues relating to grobalization have been attended to, for
example, by postcolonial scholars who have studied the spread of American productivity models
to non-western societies (Frenkel, 2009; Frenkel & Shenhav, 2003) as well as by researchers
investigating the international diffusion of stock exchanges (Weber, Davis, & Lounsbury, 2009).
The two notions should be seen as relational and dialectic. On the one hand, imperialistic,
or grobalizing, tendencies of organizations and nations often result in backlash or resistance,
which constitutes glocalization (Ritzer, 2007). At the same time, glocalization is not all-powerful,
and grobalization, over time, “drives out” distinctive local cultural (and other) content, thereby
leaving something that is already substantively modified by the encounter with the grobal. For
example, Ritzer (2007) argues that studies of McDonalds’ ventures into East Asia and Russia
show simultaneously the grobalizing aspect of this expansion as evidenced by the centralized
control (including of customers) exercised by McDonalds and glocalization evidenced by
appropriation of the McDonalds experience by the local customers to make the experience more
compliant with their indigenous cultural norms. Alternatively, in Italy, the entry of McDonalds
sparked resistance and resurgence of “authentic” local cuisine and emergence of the notion of
slow food (Rao, 2009). Such local resistance is in fact glocal because it is a reaction to, and
therefore, to a significant degree influenced by grobalization.
Elsewhere, Campell (2004) illustrates a similar duality in the international spread of the
neoliberal taxation reform from 1970s onward. On the one hand, the policy is grobalizing in its
US cultural and political roots and concerted attempts to impose itself onto other countries. On
the other hand, glocalization is apparent in the modifications that had to be made to the policy in
the recipient countries to make it fit existing institutional arrangements. While a nuanced
understanding of globalization thus requires a “both/and” approach (Hargrave & Van de Ven,
8
2009), most research has tended to focus primarily on one of the dimensions to the near
exclusion of the other, with a substantial number of scholars gravitating toward glocalization and
overlooking its counter-part grobalization (Ritzer, 2007).
Further, the notions of grobalization and glocalization have not been applied in
organization studies and are mainly the province of macro-level research in cultural sociology.
Yet, they are compatible with the recently increased interest in micro-foundation of institutions
(e.g., Powell & Colyvas, 2008) that seeks to explain the micro-processes through which
institutions are created, maintained or changed and how the broader institutional context
simultaneously constrains and facilitates thoughts and actions (Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006). We
argue that these notions present a coherent framework that can extend current understanding of
how actors’ seemingly local day-to-day activities might be engrained with forces of globalization.
Specifically, they help explain the types of micro-level work that is undertaken by local actors
when attempting to reconcile the tensions that arise from the need to both comply with the
demands of a primarily foreign institution and respond to local geographical and social
conditions.
Grobalization/Glocalization and Theorization
We use the notions of grobalization and glocalization to better understand how local
actors in a particular field aim at theorizing the local version of a global institution. Theorization
plays important roles not only in transporting institutions from one field to another (Strang &
Meyer, 1993) but also in the emergence of new institutions in a particular field (Hwang &
Powell, 2005). It refers to “the rendering of ideas into understandable and compelling formats”
(Greenwood et al., 2002: 75), which develops abstract categories and patterned causal
relationships, and interactions between them (Strang & Meyer, 1993). The resulting categories
9
may provide the impetus for large-scale adoption of an institution within a local field by
specifying general organizational failings, justifying a possible solution, and asserting or
demonstrating the solution’s legitimacy (Greenwood, Suddaby, & Hinings, 2002). Theorizations
prescribe and proscribe certain actions (Suddaby & Greenwood, 2005), and enable actors to
benchmark their own and others’ activities, determine what constitutes success or failure (Strang
& Meyer, 1993; Wedlin, 2007).
The political nature of theorization and its complicity with domination within a field have
been acknowledged (Suddaby & Greenwood, 2005). Yet, we argue that theorization is also
complicit with domination between fields. Institutions are often adopted from more to less
dominant fields (e.g., Frenkel, 2008; Frenkel & Shenhav, 2003; Meyer et al, 1997)—with either
internal or external actors seeking to impose these arrangements onto the local field—and the
less dominant fields face significant pressure to adopt and diffuse foreign institutions. Examining
how local actors accommodate these pressures can reveal a great deal about the relationship
between globalization and theorization, because theorization is a crucial mechanism that
facilitates such imposition (c.f., Campbell, 2004). Thus, in order to successfully adopt a foreign
institution in the local field, a need for such importation must be demonstrated, and a particular
version of the local context has to be constructed, one that highlights the similarities between the
originating and the importing fields, downplays the differences between the two fields, and
accounts for the specific circumstances that characterize the local field. We suggest that such
theorization likely involves elements of both grobalization and glocalization. In other words, in
some respects actors tend to seek to conform to the foreign institution that they are adopting
while also trying to do that in a more idiosyncratic way that is responsive to the local demands
and mindful of the differences between the originating field and the recipient field.
10
In sum, we contend that the process of theorization aimed at diffusing a foreign
institution in a local field is intrinsically tied to both grobalization and glocalization, and this link
needs to be specified. Accordingly, we conduct inductive research in order to address the
following question: How do the processes of glocalization and grobalization manifest themselves
in local actors’ theorization work?
METHODS
Research Setting
Symbolic processes, such as theorization efforts, are quite salient in wine industries,
because fine wine is a complex institution that is enacted by a variety of actors (e.g., wineries,
critics, retailers, restaurateurs, and popular press), is mythology-rich, and is codified through a
variety of conventions, classification systems and traditions (Beverland, 2005; Ulin, 1995; Zhao,
2005). Our research site is the Ontario wine industry. Of the approximately 120 wineries in
Ontario, the largest concentration is located in the Niagara Peninsula. Although winemaking in
Ontario dates back to the middle of the nineteenth century (Phillips, 2004; Silliman, 2007), many
attribute the birth of “serious” winemaking or the emergence of the field of fine wine in Ontario
to the founding of Inniskillin Winery in 1975 (Frank, 2008). In 1988, the Free Trade Agreement
with the United States threatened to destroy the Canadian wine industry (Aspler, 2006), but it
also forced the local industry to uproot labrusca grapes, such as Concord, that are not
traditionally used in winemaking in Europe but that had dominated Ontario because of their cold
hardiness. Instead, vinefera grapes, such as Riesling, Chardonnay, and Pinot Noir, which appear
in high-quality wines, entered the area on a larger scale than before (Aspler, 2006).
Since then, the industry has focused on producing high-quality wines in accordance with
global standards, and since the early 1990s, the number of wineries in Ontario has grown
11
exponentially. Several Ontario wineries have since earned major international awards and
garnered critical acclaim from the noted British critic Jancis Robinson and the prestigious U.S.-
based Wine Spectator magazine, and the region’s profile and prestige has been increasing
(Aspler, 2006; Frank, 2008; Silliman, 2007). As of 2009, the industry produced 13 Million liters
of VQA1 wine with a retail value of $210 million. The most famous and the most commonly
exported Ontario wine product is Icewine,2 which in 2009 comprised 550,000 liters. The main
export destinations for Ontario wine include US, China, South Korea, UK, and Hong Kong,
among others.
Thus, the recent history of Ontario wine industry is significantly impacted by the
institutional and economic forces of globalization, such that in order to be competitive against
foreign wine, Ontario wine industry has had to work to adopt and diffuse the institution of “fine
winemaking.” That institution is essentially a foreign one and is rooted heavily in European
(“Old World”), but more recently also “New World” traditions (Robinson, 2006; Ulin, 2004).
The period under investigation (2006-2009) does not represent early efforts to introduce
the institution of fine winemaking in Ontario. It is more accurately characterized as semi-
institutionalization (Tolbert & Zucker, 1996: 177) because current adopters are fairly
heterogeneous, and the emphasis has shifted “from simple imitation to a more normative base,
reflecting implicit or explicit theorization.” The increased recognition of Ontario wine by
international critics, combined with greater enthusiasm among Canadian consumers, has
provided the impetus for the various actors to attempt to reign in the heterogeneity of approaches
and practices within the industry in order to attempt to define a more coherent and uniform
1 “VQA” is denomination of origin and refers to 100% Ontario grown grapes, and is distinctive from the wine that blends foreign and domestic grapes produced by several large players. 2 A desert style sweet wine, the grapes for which typically are harvested at the temperature ranging from -10°C to -13°C. As such, the wine is difficult to make and is very expensive (>$35/375 ml). Ontario is the world’s biggest producer of Icewine.
12
identity for Ontario wine. This period then is significant because it marks the movement from
semi-institutionalization to fuller institutionalization.
Data Collection
We draw on a three-year qualitative field-level study that encompasses 66 semi-
structured interviews, 200 hours of observations, and the examination of over 3,200 pages of
documents. Given our interest in grasping how the various actors in the Ontario wine industry
sought to theorize a local version of the global institution of fine winemaking, and the roles of
glocalization and grobalization in this collective work, an inductive qualitative study was
deemed necessary (Creswell, 1998), as it enabled us to gain an in-depth understanding of the
belief systems guiding the actors’ behavior (Scott, 2007, particularly as to how their actions
were aimed at either responding to the demands imposed by the global norms of fine
winemaking (grobalization) or creatively interpreting those norms to adapt them to the local
context (glocalization). Table 1 provides details of the various data sources.
-------------------------------------- Insert Table 1 about here
--------------------------------------
Interviews. We conducted semi-structured interviews with owners and top managers of
ten local wineries as well as with their winemakers, marketing and retail managers, and other
staff members, a total of 23 people. Each interview averaged about 1.25 hours and was tape
recorded and later transcribed. A total of 41 such interviews were conducted, as several people
were interviewed on multiple occasions. To supplement these formal interviews, we engaged in
informal conversations with the interviewees and other winery employees on multiple occasions
throughout our fieldwork. These conversations often occurred while the interviewees performed
13
their routine work, which gave them the opportunity to reflect on their situated activities (Schön,
1983).
Because critics play crucial roles in wine industries (Colman, 2008; Roberts & Reagans,
2007), we conducted one-hour semi-structured tape-recorded interviews with seven major
Canadian wine critics: 11 such interviews were conducted. In addition, because our early
interviews and reading about the wine industry highlighted the importance of prestigious
restaurants in enhancing the artistic reputation and commercial prospects of wines, we undertook
semi-structured, tape-recorded interviews with seven and conducted informal conversations with
ten high profile restaurateurs and sommeliers.
We complement the insights gained from these three key actors (wineries, wine critics,
and restaurants) with interviews with other relevant stakeholders of the Ontario fine winemaking
industry. We interviewed two representatives of the Cool Climate Oenology and Viticulture
Institute (CCOVI) at Brock University (a local university), which conducts viticulture and grape
growing research that it disseminates to the industry and offers undergraduate and graduate
degrees in fields related to winemaking and grape growing. We interviewed a representative of
the Wine Council of Ontario, a trade group that represents most of Ontario’s wineries, and a
representative of the Grape Growers of Ontario, the trade organization that represents the
interests of the grape growers who supply Ontario wineries. In addition, we interviewed one
senior representative of Ontario Wine Society, a non-profit club that offers social and
educational events aimed at promoting Ontario wines. The last group of interviewees was from
the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO), which is responsible not only for overseeing
liquor sales and distribution in Ontario but also functions as the main distribution channel for
14
both domestic and foreign alcohol distributors seeking market access in Ontario. We conducted
one-hour semi-structured interviews with four LCBO executives.
Observations. We observed a variety of staff meetings, planning sessions, staff training
sessions, winery open houses, and other events at several wineries. We also shadowed one of the
wineries’ sales representatives, as he visited client restaurants to observe how the winery
manages its client relationships and convinces restaurateurs to add wines to their wine lists. In
addition, we regularly observed the retail and other staff members as they conducted their routine
work in the wineries’ retail store. Finally, we attended and observed industry group meetings,
workshops, and presentations. These observations amounted to about 200 hours. In all cases, we
took extensive notes during or immediately after the observations.
Documents. Documents were a very important source of data for this study. In order to
grasp how wineries communicate to their customers, we compiled the e-mail newsletters of 29
wineries. To understand wine critics’ strategies for explaining and promoting Ontario wines, we
compiled their articles in newspapers and on web blogs. We also examined three books on the
industry that were written by three of the most influential Canadian critics. In addition, we
compiled general news coverage of the industry and of individual wineries from newspapers and
web blogs.
Data Analysis
In analyzing the data, we sought to grasp the extent to which the actors within the field
sought to theorize the nature of Ontario wine either by attempting to connect to global norms and
standards (grobalization) or to reinterpret, adapt or resist those norm and possibly introduce
novel approaches that are inconsistent with global norms and standards (glocalization). In doing
so, we were mindful that the work is collective, and accordingly, we sought to attend to the
15
actions of various actors (wineries, restaurants, professional wine critics, amateur wine and food
bloggers, etc.).
Figure 1 summarizes the process of data analysis. First, as our first order concepts, we
generated a list of activities through which the various actors attempted to theorize Ontario wine.
At that stage, our analysis was mainly inductive and descriptive, based on interviewees’ own
accounts. Next, we developed second order concepts (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) that captured the
relationships between our first order concepts. At that stage, we attended to the deeper
motivations underlying the practices. In other words, we aimed to grasp how these attempts to
theorize the nature of Ontario fine wine attempted to either impose or comply with global norms
and standards or to what extent they involved some sort of reinterpretation and modification of
those global norms and standards. Finally, we engaged in selective coding to develop the broad
categories of activities through which theorization was being accomplished and that enabled us
to examine the interplay between grobalizing and glocalizing facets of theorization.
-------------------------------------- Insert Figure 1 about here
--------------------------------------
Throughout the study, we triangulated the multiple sources of data (Miles and Huberman
1994), comparing and contrasting them across the different sources, to validate that a particular
practice reported to us in the interviews could be corroborated either by multiple interviews, our
own observations, or written documents. In addition, preliminary findings were periodically
presented to various actors to test the accuracy of our understanding of field dynamics (Lincoln
and Guba 1985); the respondents’ reactions ensured that we reiterated between the emerging
theory and the data (Yin, 1994).
FINDINGS
16
We found that theorization of Ontario fine wine involved three related categories. Actors
sought to (1) redefine the climate from hostile and inhospitable to suitable to fine winemaking,
(2) challenge the perceptions that expertise in proper winemaking was lacking in the field, and
(3) demonstrate that the quality of the wine was in fact top notch. In all three facets of the
theorization work, both grobalizing and glocalizing tendencies were salient.
Redefining the Climate as Suitable for Fine Winemaking
Emphasizing climate similarity to established wine regions. A salient grobalizing aspect
of Ontario wine region’s theorization is the concerted efforts by various actors to create and
maintain the impression of the region as being similar geographically and climatically to
established wine regions. A fundamental challenge faced by the Ontario wine region is the
perception, even domestically, of Canada as cold, inhospitable and, as such, unsuitable for wine
production. In order to be able to defend the quality of Ontario wines, local actors must
understand and explain to the wine drinking public why Ontario’s climate is in fact suitable for
high quality wine growing. The local actors’ work aimed at theorizing the region’s suitability for
fine winemaking in essentially defined in foreign terms—discursively linking it to regions that
already enjoy undisputed high reputation.
For example, local actors remind the public that Ontario’s wine growing regions are not
so far north as to be rendered too cold and unsuitable for fine winemaking. A common technique
is to point out either to winery visitors or on the bottle labels that the locations where grapes are
grown in Ontario are in locations that are as much south as the established wine regions. For
example, one winery proprietor explains:
And that story, if you look at that label, tells the story of where Niagara is in relation to the other
grape-growing areas in the world. We are, in fact, south of Burgundy and Bordeaux. We are just
at 43 degrees here. Toronto’s 44. And Pelee is 42 degrees. If we were another six miles south of
17
here we’d be at 42 degrees. The boundary between Oregon and California is 42 degrees latitude.
People do not realize how far south we are.
They also emphasize the similarity between the climate in Ontario’s grape growing
regions and those in the European wine regions, such as Burgundy and Germany, thereby
theorizing the geography and nature as similar to those established wine regions, highlighting the
similarities and obscuring the differences, with a focus on the unique contribution that cool
climate grape growing and winemaking can make to developing a unique wine style, making
wines more complex and refined. For example, one wine writer observed in her blog: “What Le
Clos Jordanne tells us is that the relatively cooler Niagara could provide some subtle, refined
pinots that could clearly rival Burgundy.” Similarly, when explaining its history and philosophy,
an acclaimed winery explains on its web site: “The similarities between the climates of
Burgundy and the north Niagara Peninsula encouraged him [the winery proprietor] to focus on
grape varieties typically to northeastern France.”
Emphasize the unique features of local terroir. Consistent with the emphasis on terroir3
in the global winemaking tradition (Robinson, 2006), the industry has adopted a variety of
practices meant to emphasize and showcase terroir of the wines being produced. This is a key
manifestation of glocalization because whereas the (French) notion of terroir is a hallmark of the
global institution of fine winemaking and is foreign to Ontario, the very nature of the concept
presupposes that different regions have different terroirs, and wineries have to work to express
their idiosyncratic terroir.
The development of a local appellation system—which entails codifying and labeling
different parts of the Ontario wine region to enable the consumer to appreciate the
3 This notion refers to “the relationship between the characteristics of an agricultural product (quality, taste, style) and its geographic origin, which might influence these characteristics” (Van Leeuwen & Seguin, 2006: 1).
18
climatic/geographical differences between them—has been paramount in facilitating greater
terroir awareness.
Another related aspect of glocalization is defining the unique taste and flavor profile of
Ontario wines and of different sub-appellations in Ontario. The attempts to express unique terroir
of different plots are evident in the increased popularity of single-vineyard wines (wines using
grapes grown exclusively in a particular vineyard). Some wineries may release several single-
vineyard wines (e.g., Chardonnay) during any given vintage, encouraging the customer to
compare the differences resulting from the geographical variation and different viticultural
practices that might be required in those different vineyards.
Local actors also try to define some distinctive features common to a particular grape
varietal in Ontario. Rieslings, for example, are often characterized as being “pure,” “clean,” with
“piercing acidity.” Red wines are more likely to be characterized as “earthy”. In general, the
terms that appear to feature prominently among the wine descriptors are “mineral,” and “acidity”
(even in Icewines). The high level of acidity in Ontario wine is often highlighted and
underscored as something that makes Ontario wine more food friendly. As one marketing
manager summarizes:
We want them to be very expressive, very clearly expressing themselves out of a glass. We
certainly want to make wines that are […] best with food which means they have levels of acidity
that in some cases make them better with food. And the food makes them better. Because acidity
is, you know, has been given to us in copious amounts in Ontario, and we love it, and it’s a
beautiful thing; […] we shouldn’t be so afraid of it.
Tapping into stereotypes of Canada is another manifestation of glocalization because it
involves appropriating the stereotypes for the local field’s advantage. For example, the image of
Canada as cold, clean and scenic has been instrumental to the successful international marketing
of Icewine. As one winery proprietor explained:
19
We’re leveraging what people think of Canada as being which is the magic of the Canadian
winter, because if you’re not from here, that can be very romantic and very charming. And so
that’s what we do there. […] we can’t be the oldest, can’t be the youngest either for that matter.
[…] I don’t think most countries would consider us to be in it except when you mention ice wine.
Then they can get that. “Oh, I get it, ice-- Canada,” you know, it makes sense.
Demonstrating Appropriate Expertise
Demonstrate compliance with international winemaking norms. As a region focusing
on fine winemaking, Ontario wine industry is still working to demonstrate to wine connoisseurs,
to whom it is trying to appeal, that the winemaking knowledge within the field is of the highest
caliber. To accomplish that, the theorization approach relies heavily on demonstrating rigid
compliance with established global standards. It constitutes grobalization by underscoring the
subjugation of the domestic expertise, knowledge and norms to the global ones. Possibly the
most salient aspect of the this facet of theorization of Ontario wine has been a steadfast
insistence on its compliance with and mimicking of internationally accepted standards of fine
winemaking and distancing the region from the pre-1988 winemaking practices, widely seen as
illegitimate.
The eradication of the labrusca grape varietals (such as Concord), not found in
established wine regions, that throve in and were dominant in the region until 1988, is widely
celebrated as a turning point that signaled a commitment to quality winemaking. As one winery
proprietor observes: “So with the swipe of a brush, labrusca was taken out of-- which was the
positive thing for the industry. Even though farmers complained and it was going to be the end
of the whole growing […]. But I think that was a turning point and they realized that we were
serious.”
20
In fact, not only is there an embracing of global winemaking conventions, but there is an
active distancing from the indigenous winemaking practices that the global conventions define as
illegitimate. For example, wineries and other actors have for long emphasized how far the
industry has removed itself from such practices as making sweet wines from labrusca grapes or
cheap low quality (by global standards) sparkling wines that used to be common place in the
region, as illustrated by the following quote by a winery manager: “And we’re quite a ways from
where we were, say, 15 or so years ago when the primary reputation for the industry was built
around products like Baby Duck.”
The notion of “quality” is defined, both implicitly and explicitly, in global, rather than
indigenous terms, such as commitment to internationally accepted grape varietals (e.g., Pinot
Noir, Chardonnay), and an emphasis on internationally accepted grape growing practices that
emphasize low yields, ripeness and optimal level of sugar. As one winemaker is characterized by
a marketing manager, “He’s an incredible winemaker, extremely talented, and the purist, you
know, of the sort of real old-school French mindset that it’s all about the grapes.” Although a
number of wineries have produced acclaimed cult wines from hybrid grape varietals (as
discussed below), there is a reluctance by most industry actors to legitimize these grape varietals
as deserving a place within the field. An observation made by a noted critic illustrates this point:
“there’s no denying Baco Noir is a signature grape of Ontario, but I'd place it back in the runner-
up category because the hybrid variety will never hold much export interest.” In fact, the global
definition of fine wine as something that has to be produced from certain grape varietals that are
planted within certain approved locations (or appellations) has left a number of wineries, located
either outside of the approved appellations, producing wine from different grape varietals or
from non-grape fruit (as many as 60, according to Ontario Viticulture Association, a trade group
21
representing those wineries), with limited market access and no access to the VQA seal (i.e., the
denomination of origin), an important marketing tool.
There is a considerable amount of benchmarking and attempts at imitation of established
wine regions, and wineries often hire winemakers with international experiences, as they are
seen as naturally legitimated theorists (Strang & Meyer, 1993), by virtue of their international
experiences. In fact, most of the highly acclaimed winemakers in Ontario tend to be either
foreign born or Canadian winemakers that spent time working in an established wine region. For
example, one winemaker is described in a critic’s piece as follows: “Mr. Marchand, born in
Montreal but for more than two decades a distinguished winemaker in Burgundy, rose to the
occasion.” This is exemplified further by the list of award winners (Table 2) of the “Winemaker
of the Year” award at the Ontario Wine Awards (one of the two main award ceremonies in
Ontario wine industry). Most of the winners have had significant international experiences.
Although, this is not a complete listing of high status winemakers in Ontario, the award indicates
high level of recognition and accomplishment within the industry, and the high proportion of
winemakers with significant international credentials on the list is indicative of the importance
placed on those credentials within the field.
---------------------------------- Insert Table 2 about here
----------------------------------
Local experimentation. Local actors’ reference to their possession of appropriate
knowledge also entails elements of glocalization. An important expression of glocalization is
actors’ attempts to produce and promote (a) distinctive takes on familiar grape varietals or (b)
cult wines made from hybrid grapes that do not necessarily have the international recognition or
are produced in few other wine regions. With respect to the former, a number of producers have
22
developed highly acclaimed versions of Gamay Noir (a varietal most closely associated with
Beaujolais region of France). As one winery explains in its electronic newsletter, “While other
reds may vary year to year in flavour and intensity, Niagara Gamay makes reliably delectable
wine, in spite of weather variations. It is a grape you can count on.” Whereas the French version
tends to be light-bodied, Ontario wineries have been able to produce more full bodied and
concentrated versions. In fact, one winery even developed its own clone of the grape. Several
such efforts have enjoyed domestic critical acclaim, with Canadian wine critics, often listing
Gamay amongst the most promising grape varietals to cultivate in Ontario, and one winery’s
Gamay is on the list of Fat Duck, in London (UK), ranked one of the top five restaurants in the
world. That winery’s marketing manager explained the rationale as follows:
We specialize in a great variety that very few other parts of the world do. Gamay noir, and really
we have one sort of benchmark region […] But it’s not a popular grape variety, and nobody really
wants it. So is that a good enough reason not to produce it? We don’t think it is. We think that
when you make great wine and you make great wine year after year after year and you start to
have great success and you, you know, build a better mousetrap. And people will ultimately
come to your door.
With respect to local knowledge to create cult wines from hybrid grapes, several wineries
emphasize their expertise in making wines made from Vidal, Baco Noir, and Marechal Foch.
Vidal, in particular, has been tremendously helpful in theorizing Ontario wine, both
internationally and domestically, because it is commonly used to make Icewine, Ontario’s most
famous wine product. Although, other grape varietals are used in making Icewine, Vidal remains
the most popular grape for that.
Meanwhile, Baco Noir and Marechal Foch offer Ontario wineries the opportunity to
produce quality red wines, even during vintages that present problems for more internationally
accepted reds. Their proponents argue that the problem with Ontario wine of the “old
23
generation” was not the heavy reliance on hybrid grapes but the fact that farmers tended to not
follow globally accepted standards of good winemaking. They argue, then, that as long as
internationally accepted standards of good winemaking are followed, it is possible to produce
high quality wines from hybrid grapes. One winery successfully sells out its Old Vines Foch at
$30/bottle. As one restaurateur explains:
A lot of these wines are difficult sells but if we find that that’s sort of interesting hybrid, let’s not
be afraid. I mean, our very nature of the country is one of hybridity, you know, we bring in all
kinds of immigrants who are welcome and bring with them sensitivies and sensibilities that create
the new Canada. And it’s constantly changing. And so why not have some hybrids reflected in
our winemaking identity as well?
Thus, the counterpoint to the pursuit of foreign credentials of winemakers is the
celebration of domestic winemaking expertise. Accomplishments of locally trained winemakers
are often highlighted, such as in the following excerpt from a major wine critic, “Twenty
Twenty-Seven Cellars 2007 Riesling (#92353, $25.15, 90 pts), a stellar white from Kevin
Panagapka's virtual winery. A graduate of Niagara College's winemaking program, he rents
space from a local winery to save money. It's nice to see a little guy make it big with a lovely
first effort.” Similarly, another winemaker is highlighted by a critic as follows: “He has been
involved in the wine industry since 1997. He is a graduate of the Cool Climate Oenology and
Viticulture Institute at Brock University, with a reputation in the Ontario wine industry for
making excellent red wines – noted by numerous awards.”
Demonstrating Quality and Marketing the Wine
Demonstrate compliance with international quality standards. The final facet of
theorizing Ontario fine wine is demonstrating top notch quality to (potentially skeptical)
consumers, who may still remember the days when Ontario wine was of poor quality and
findings ways to market the wine, differentiating it from competitors. The resulting wines are
24
often described in terms that are meant to highlight the similarity to those from established wine
regions, as well, as illustrated by the following quote from a famous wine critic: “It was un-
categorically pure pinot, remarkably similar to Burgundy.” Another wine is described by a critic
as follows: “Look for character very similar to basic Bordeaux, with quite complex and generous
raspberry-redcurrant fruit, green herbs, tobacco and earthiness.”
The pursuit of external validation as a theorization tool highlights grobalization by
attempting to rely on putatively more objective foreign authorities to demonstrate that the wine
complies with global ideas and norms of what constitutes fine wine. Ontario wineries actively
court major foreign critics and enter wines in international wine competitions. As one oenology
researcher observed, “They look very much towards Wine Spectator as being […] sort of the
penultimate recognition for wines and it being linked to […] having that status and recognition
and acknowledgement, as having made it in the North America wine marketplace.” This is
further illustrated by the following excerpt from an electronic newsletter sent to its clients by one
winery:
Niagara's wine region is finally getting recognized on the world stage, and [we are] leading the
pack. Take a read at the buyer's guide and you'll find that our very own 2006 Nadja's Vineyard
Riesling was given the highest rating among all Canadian table wines. Other ratings noting our
Sweet Revenge Vidal Icewine and The Rusty Shed Chardonnay are also available […] our efforts
to be the best producer in Canada are being recognized in a truly global publication.
A restaurateur concurs: “I think that it’s been a benefit because there are individuals out
there who swear by the Parker scores or swear by Wine Spectator or Decanter. So getting the
name out there internationally, I think has brought people into this area.” Wineries also highlight
international wine awards in their newsletters to customers and display the awards in the tasting
rooms.
25
Yet, another illustration of the industry’s pursuit of endorsement by foreign authorities is
the showcasing of 35 Ontario chardonnays (chosen by several top Canadian critics) at the
Canada House in London. The organizers observe that international acclaim is necessary for
domestic acceptance. In fact, a number of actors have noted in the interviews that Canadians tend
to rely upon international acclaim to determine whether or not to support a domestic product. As
one marketing manager observed, “So until we get more people telling Canadians that their wine
is good […] Until we can get some Americans and some Europeans telling Canadians the wine’s
good, then we’ll finally start to turn them around.”
Utilize local cultural resources. The aforementioned grobalizing tendencies in theorizing
the high quality of Ontario wine, in order to market it more effectively, is counterbalanced by
glocalizing efforts. One example is local actors’ development of and support for domestic
validation systems. In addition to the great number of Canadian wine critics, who vary in terms
of the relative attention they give to Ontario wine, there is a high profile wine magazine, Vines,
which focuses primarily on Canadian wine scene. Although the magazine reviews wine from all
over the world, its focus is mainly on Canadian wine, and it gives a great deal of attention to
Ontario wine in particular. The magazine also showcases a variety of wine regions, and among
the various columns appearing in it, the column by famous British wine critic, Jancis Robinson,
is featured. Thus, the magazine signals that it is not myopically focused on Canadian wine, and
should be taken seriously as a source of sound analysis of how local wine compares to foreign
ones.
In addition to two national wine competitions (Canadian Wine Awards and All Canadian
Wine Championships), there are two Ontario wine competitions, Ontario Wine Awards and The
Cuvee. The former is organized by one of Canada’s most respected wine critics. The latter is
26
often referred to as “the Oscars of the Ontario Wine Industry” because the wines are assessed
(blindly) by a panel of winemakers (though also verified by a panel of wine critics). Thus, the
award is essentially a form of peer assessment. The awards are highly publicized and receive a
substantial amount of media coverage. They constitute another attempt by the industry to create
and maintain its own form of validation that is based on the global standards and norms but
focuses purely on domestic producers. It should be noted, however, that while the setting up of
such competitions may constitute glocalization, as we discussed with respect to the actual awards
selection (e.g., Winemaker of the Year Award), decision making may be driven by grobalizing
global standards.
With respect to differentiating Ontario wine from foreign competition, especially from
competitors originating in hotter climates and currently popular regions, like Australia,
California and Chile, local actors attempt to emphasize the greater food friendliness resulting
from higher acidity of Ontario wine As one wine critic explained,
Whereas a lot of the New World wines from Australia, Chile and so on, are very high in alcohol,
they’re huge in flavor and they kill anything that you try to eat with them. The wine just
dominates everything. And you don’t get a very nice pairing of food and wine. Whereas in
Ontario wines, like a lot of French wine and Italian wine, a lot of, you know, Spanish wines and
so on, with Ontario wines you’re much more likely to get this nice match in which ,you know,
you can enjoy the food and the wine and one of them isn’t killing the other.
Wineries also try to tap into the local history and connect to events of cultural
significance. In some cases, they emphasize their families’ generations-long connection to the
region. As one marketing manager explains:
We’re lucky enough to have-- been able to track down some of our family history and that’s got
some very deep roots in the area and so we tell that story all the time. You know, people do love
the story. […]And people are, you know, somehow think that we’re like […] some sort of
27
Niagara aristocracy or something. But it’-- they’re a bunch of hillbillies like everybody else’s
ancestors were. We just happen to know about them, right, you know. Is there a strange power
in that?
In other cases, wineries may attempt to connect themselves to local historical events, as
illustrated in the following newspaper article excerpt: “The name of the new Niagara winery
Organized Crime. It purportedly refers to a much more gentle antiquated, folksy tale of a feud
between Mennonite congregations in Niagara […] which resulted in one congregation heisting a
pipe organ from the other’s church and throwing it down an embankment.”
Finally, there are concerted efforts to exploit the “go local” trend among consumers. Thus,
local actors may emphasize the greater economic benefits resulting from Ontario wine, as
compared to imported ones, or they may highlight the environmental benefits (e.g., reduced
carbon foot print) resulting from drinking local rather than shipping wine across the globe. In
addition, an increasing number of wineries emphasize the unique environmentally friendly
practices through which they produce their wines.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS
We argued that seemingly local processes, such as theorization, are often impacted by
global institutional forces. This is especially likely in nascent fields that lack the ability to
insulate themselves from other fields (Meyer et al, 1997). We studied the micro-dynamics of the
ongoing interactions between various local actors involved in the Ontario wine industry to better
understand to what extent their ongoing attempts to theorize the local version of the global
institution of fine winemaking are influenced by glocal and grobal forces that permeate the field.
We found that both grobalizing and glocalizing forces permeate local actors’ theorizing
the nature of “fine winemaking” in Ontario. On one hand, it is apparent that the global institution
of fine winemaking is strongly grobalizing in that the most fundamental aspects of “what it
28
means to make fine wine” in Ontario appear to be derived from the global understandings rather
than indigenous ones. Hence, the perception of the region as being “too cold” for serious
winemaking is seen as highly threatening and is addressed by attempts to demonstrate that there
are other (established) regions like it. Grobalization is also salient in the industry’s rigid
affirmation of the global standards of quality and wholesale repudiation of the “old” indigenous
tradition of winemaking that involved using cold-hardy labrisca and hybrid grapes, as well as in
relying on global standards to demonstrate high quality.
On the other hand, glocalization is also strongly present in the local actors’ theorization
work. Essentially, the grobalizing pressures for conformity are interpreted and modified.
However, these glocalizing tendencies, to a great extent, appear to be outcomes of the industry’s
inability to simply copy the global institution wholesale. The distancing from winemaking
tradition of the “old”, for example, may have involved “throwing baby out with bath water”
because not all parts of that tradition were necessarily harmful to the industry’s pursuit of quality.
For example, several wineries produce acclaimed wines from hybrid grapes, but few such grapes
are planted within the industry, because most of them have been replaced with internationally
accepted vinifera grapes, and few wineries are willing to experiment with making wines from
such grapes. Similarly, the somewhat more European style of wines is dictated by the climate,
rather than by choice. Many winemakers would prefer to make more Californian or Australian
influenced wines that are very popular with consumers, and some try to do so (though with little
success). It is implicit in our discussion that this single-minded focus on global conformism may
limit local actors’ ability to build a truly distinctive wine industry. For example, despite
successes of several wineries with hybrid grape varietals, these are not embraced by most actors.
29
Our investigation thus highlights the possible perpetuation of status differences across
fields (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992), such that theorization attempts of dominated fields are
complicit in the reproduction of these fields’ status as passive receivers of global standards,
rather than proactive challengers of them or creators of new ones (Frenkel, 2008; Frenkel &
Shenhav, 2003). For instance, local actors in the field of fine winemaking in Ontario
continuously navigate between the distinctive local geographical and socio-politics reality and
the dominant global views that impact this reality. They cannot divorce themselves from the
pressures imposed by global standards and external validation mechanisms. Thus, their
theorization work is socially embedded (Dacin, Ventresca, & Beal, 1999) with important
consequences not only for themselves but also for the field in which they operate. The heavily
grobalization driven theorization work leads to the reinforcement of Ontario’s position as a
recipient, but not creator, of winemaking practices. As one Oenology researcher at a local
university quipped sarcastically, “It’s a Canadian thing – you can’t have experts locally”. Indeed,
Ontario has succeeded, to an extent, in overcoming the perceptions of it as unsuitable for fine
winemaking (as evidenced by the praise given to some wineries by Jancis Robinson and The
Wine Spectator, among others), but grobalization simultaneously reinforces and naturalizes the
supposed absence of local history of high-quality winemaking, which in turn reinforces the
region’s dominated position (Ezzell, 2009; Ulin, 2004).
Accordingly, this study responds to Hardt and Negri’s (2001) call to better understand the
“social machines that create and recreate the identities and differences that are understood as the
local” (p. 45), with theorization work being one such “social machine”. Local actors’ adherence
to global standards, or their failure in challenging these arrangements, may reinforce the
grobalizing forces (De Clercq and Voronov, 2009). Even as they attempt to create a distinctively
30
“local” identity by modifying global institutions or reacting to them, they are nonetheless
captured by them and are responding to privileged referents (Sampson, 1993) rooted in those
institutions.
The study also complements postcolonial organizational research that has tended to focus
on the relations between Western (Colonizers) and Non-Western (Colonized) (e.g., Frenkel,
2008; Khan, Munir, & Willmott, 2007; Prasad, 2003) by attending to essentially colonizing
processes that take place within a “developed” Western society. This suggests that colonial
processes should be studied not only between unitary nations or cultures but also between fields.
Yet to focus purely on the grobalizing (colonial) processes is to overlook the important
glocalizing processes that may constitute resistance. Local actors can skillfully leverage glocal
material and cultural resources to bring about a genuine transformation. The example of Vidal
Icewine, as discussed above, illustrates the possibility of a dominated field actually attaining a
high status position – at least on some dimensions, and as highlighted in Ulin’s (1995) study of
Bordeaux, collective institutional work (both strategic and emergent), can over time lead to a
previously low status field attaining higher status.
In addition, by focusing how actors selectively comply with and attempt to reconcile the
tensions and contradictions (Hargrave & Van de Ven, 2009) between forces of grobalization and
glocalization, this study relates to the long-standing interest in the agency-structure debate in
institutional theory (e.g., Battilana & D’Aunno, 2009; Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006). An
important manifestation of actors’ agency might be their ongoing reflection on attempts to
provide coherent narrative of what Ontario winemaking should be all about in an attempt to fit in
with the global standards on one hand, while recognizing that such fit may not be perfect, and
31
that credible modifications of a global model are necessary and need to be rationalized and
normalized on the other hand (Crumley & Lounsbury, 2007).
A related insight that emerges from our study is that whereas prior research has attended
to the social construction and reconstruction of phenomena that are obviously socially
constructed, such as institutional logics (e.g., Rao et al., 2003), discourses (e.g., Maguire &
Hardy, 2009) and boundaries (e.g., Zietsma & Lawrence, 2010), our study indicates that
putatively objective phenomena, such as climate, may also be amenable to social reconstruction.
For example, the local actors in our study aim to reinterpret the climate and geographical
location of the region so that “cold and inhospitable” becomes “a world-class wine growing
region.” Thus, the contestation over the underlying meaning structure of a global institution
being imported revolves around determining how the local version of the global institution can
denaturalize the entrenched perception of the region as unsuitable to fine winemaking.
We note, however, that, due to the process focus of our research (Lawrence, Suddaby, &
Leca, 2009), the efficacy of such reconstruction efforts was not directly assessed, though the
increased recognition of Ontario wine, as expressed in the garnering of awards, indicates at least
some degree of success. Future research should examine the extent to which the theorization and
translation efforts undertaken by local actors aimed at denaturalization and reconstruction of
putatively objective phenomena succeed or fail. In addition, it is important to note that the field
we studied has gone a long way in institutionalizing fine winemaking, as evidenced by the
increased acceptance and recognition of Ontario wine (Aspler, 2006). Because the field appears
to be characterized by semi-institutionalization (Tolbert & Zucker, 1996), it is possible that the
theorization strategies described herein would operate somewhat differently in a field where the
process of adopting a global institution is just getting started. Such comparisons across fields that
32
are marked by different levels of “institutionalization” present another fruitful area for further
empirical inquiry.
Yet another area of future inquiry that emerges from our research is the possible
consequence of grobalization and glocalization for the stability and/or transformation of fields.
In this study we found that grobalization seemed to play an especially salient role in “driving”
the theorization work, in that actors tried as much as possible to comply with the global
standards. Thus, grobalization, in essence, appeared to be a driver of conformity and uniformity.
Glocalization influenced theorizations, mainly in as much as (a) attempts to rely exclusively on
global categories, norms and ideas failed; or (b) fortuitous accidents and deviations from the
global categories, norms and ideas took place that had to be acknowledged as leading to positive
outcomes (e.g., Icewine made from Vidal grapes). Thus, it appeared to be the driver of diversity
and innovation. This dynamic leads us to suspect that although we would expect to see the
grobalization-glocalization dynamic play out in a variety of fields, the relative strength of each
process is likely to be determined by whether it is associated with the status quo (i.e.,
grobalization in the Ontario wine industry) or insurgency (i.e., glocalization in the Ontario wine
industry), and in turn, with which of them is theorized as leading to “success”. The process that
is theorized as being associated with success is likely to be strengthened in the particular field,
but to the extent that it is theorized as leading to failures, it is likely to be weakened (c.f., De
Clercq & Voronov, 2009).
To conclude, we attempt to paint a nuanced picture of the dialectical interplay between
forces of grobalization and grocalization that local actors collectively encounter, as they attempt
to theorize the local version of a global institution, and we suggest that individual action
influences the way in which the local field operates internally and is perceived externally. Local
33
actors’ theorization work may be most successful to the extent that they are able to relate specific,
local field arrangements to broader global, cultural understandings in an effort to support the
comprehensibility of their local endeavors (Suddaby and Greenwood, 2005).
REFERENCES
Aspler, T. (2006). The wine atlas of Canada. Toronto: Random House. Barley, S.R. (2008). Coalface institutionalism. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby, & K.
Sahlin (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism (491-518). Los Angeles: Sage.
Beverland, M. B. (2005). ‘Crafting brand authenticity: The case of luxury wines’. Journal of Management Studies 42(5): 1003-1027.
Bourdieu P. (2000). Pascalian Meditations. Stanford, CA: Polity Press. Bourdieu, P., and Wacquant, L. (1992). An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Cambridge: Polity
Press. Campbell, J.L. (2004). Institutional change and globalization. Princeton: Princeton University
Press. Colman, T. 2008. Wine Politics: How Governments, Environmentalists, Mobsters, and Critics
Influence the Wines We Drink. University of California Press, Berkeley. Creed, W. E. D., Scully, M. and Austin, J.R. (2002) ‘Clothes Make the Person? The Tailoring of
Legitimating Accounts and the Social Construction of Identity’, Organization Science 13(5): 475-496.
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dacin, M.T., & Dacin, P.A. (2008). Traditions as institutionalized practice: Inplications for deinstitutionalization. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby, & K. Sahlin (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism (327-351). Los Angeles: Sage.
Dacin, T., M. Ventresca, and B. Beal (1999) The embeddedness of organisations: Dialogue and directions. Journal of Management 25: 317–356.
De Clercq, D., & Voronov, M. (2009). The Role of Domination in Newcomers’ Legitimation as Entrepreneurs. Organization, 16: 799-827.
Deephouse, D.L., & Suchman, M. (2008). Legitimacy in organizational institutionalism. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby, & K. Sahlin (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism (49-77). Los Angeles: Sage.
Djelic, M.-L., & Quack, S. 2003. (Eds.), Globalization and Institutions: Redefining the Rules of the Economic Game. London: Edward Elgar.
Ezzell, M.B. 2009. “Barbie dolls” on the pitch: Identity work, defensive othering, an inequality in women’s rugby. Social Problems, 56: 111-131.
Fligstein, N. (1997). Social skill and institutional theory. American Behavioral Scientist, 40: 397-405.
Fligstein, N. (2001). The architecture of markets: An economic sociology of twenty-first-century capitalist societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
34
Fligstein, N., & Mara-Drita, I. (1996). How to make a market: Reflections on the European Union’s single market program. American Journal of Sociology, 102: 1-33.
Frank, M. (2008). ‘Niagara rises’. Wine Spectator (May 15): 93-101. Frenkel, M. 2008. The multinational corporation as a third space: Rethinking international
management discourse on knowledge transfer through Homi Bhabha. Academy of Management Review, 33: 924-942.
Frenkel, M. 2009. The Americanization of the antimanagerialist alternative in Israel: How foreign experts retheorized and disarmed workers’ participation in management, 1950-1970. International Studies of Management and Organization, 38(4): 17-37.
Frenkel, M., & Shenhav, Y. (2003). From Americanization to colonization: The diffusion of productivity models revisited. Organization Studies, 24: 1537-1561.
Greenwood, R., Suddaby, R., & Hinings, C. R. 2002. Theorizing change: The role of professional associations in the transformation of institutionalized fields. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 58–80.
Hardt, M., & Negri, A. (2001). Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hargrave, T., & Van de Ven, A. (2009). Institutional work as the creative embrace of
contradiction. In T.B. Lawrence, R. Suddaby, & B. Leca (Eds.), institutional work: Actors and agency in institutional studies of organizations (120-140). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hensmans, M. (2003) ‘Social Movement Organizations. A Metaphor for Strategic Actors in Institutional Fields’, Organization Studies 24 (3): 355-381.
Jafar, A. 2007. Engaging fundamentalism: The case of women’s NGOs in Pakistan. Social Problems, 54: 256-273.
Khan, F.R., Munir, K.A., & Willmott, H. (2007). A dark side of institutional entrepreneurship: Soccer balls, child labour and postcolonial impoverishment. Organization Studies, 28: 1055-1077.
Kostova, T., Roth, K., & Dacin, M.T. (2008). Institutional theory in the study of multinational corporations: A critique and new directions. Academy of Management review, 33: 994-1006.
Lawrence, T.B., Phillips, N. (2002). Understanding cultural industries. Journal of Management Inquiry, 11: 430-443.
Lawrence, T.B., & Suddaby, R. 2006. Institutions and institutional work. In S.R. Clegg, C. Hardy, T.B. Lawrence, & W.R. Nord (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organization studies (2nd Ed): 213-254. London: Sage.
Maguire, S., & Hardy, C. 2009. Discourse and deinstitutionalization: The decline of DDT. Academy of Management Journal, 52: 148–178.
Marquis, C., & Battilana, J. (In Press). Acting globally but thinking locally? The enduring influence of local communities on organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior.
Meyer, J.W., Boli, J., Thomas, G.M., & Ramirez, F.O. 1997. World society and nation state. American Journal of Sociology, 103: 144-181.
Meyer, J. W. and Rowan, B. (1977) ‘Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony’, American Journal of Sociology 83: 340-63.
Miles, M. B., and Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Molotch, H. (2002). Place in product. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 26: 665-688.
35
Molotch, H., freudeburg, W., & Paulsen, K.E. (2000). History repeats itself, but how? City character, urban tradition, and the accomplishment of place. American Sociological Review, 65: 791-823.
Nederveen Pieterse, J. (1994). Globalization as hybridization. International Sociology, 9: 161-184.
Oliver, C. (1991) ‘Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes’, Academy of Management Review 16(1): 145-179.
Phillips, R. (2004). Ontario wine country. North Vacouver: Whitecap. Prasad, A. (2003). Postcolonial theory and organizational analysis: A critical engagement. New
York: Palgrave Macmillan. Rao, H. 2009. Market rebels: How activists make or break innovations. Princeton: Princeton
University Press. Rao, H., Monin, P., and Durand, R. (2003). Institutional change in Toque Ville: Nouvelle cuisine
as an identity movement in French gastronomy. American Journal of Sociology, 108 (4): 795-843.
Ritzer, G. (2003). Rethinking globalization: Glocalization/grobalization and something/nothing. Sociological Theory, 21: 193-209.
Ritzer, G. (2007). The globalization of nothing 2. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press. Roberts, P.W., and R. Reagans (2007). ‘Critical exposure and price-quality relationships for New
World wines in the US market’. Journal of Wine Economics 2: 56-69. Robertson, R., & Khonder, H.H. (1998). Discourses of globalization: Preliminary considerations.
International Sociology, 13: 25-40. Robinson, J. (2006). The Oxford Companion to Wine, 3rd Edition. Oxford; Oxford University
Press. Sahlin, K., & Wedlin, L. (2008). Circulating ideas: Imitation, translation and editing. In R.
Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby, & K. Sahlin (Eds.)., The sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism (pp. 218-242). London, UK: Sage.
Sampson, E.E. (1993). Identity politics: Challenges to psychology’s understanding. American Psychologist, 48: 1219-1230.
Schneiberg, M., and Soule, S. A. (2005). ‘Institutionalization as a contested, multilevel process’, In G. F. Davis, D. McAdam, R. W. Scott, & M. N. Zald (Eds.), Social Movements and Organization Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
Silliman, C. (2007) ‘Northern exposure part II: Wines and winemakers of the Niagara Peninsula’. www.Wein-Plus.com, 2007, April (retrieved July 5, 2007).
Scott, W.R. (2007). Institutions and Organizations (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Stinchcombe, A.L. (1965) ‘Social Structure and Organisations’, In J.G. March (Ed.), Handbook
of Organisations: 142-193. Chicago: Rand McNally. Strang, D., & Meyer, J. W. 1993. Institutional conditions for diffusion. Theory and Society, 22:
487–511. Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures
and techniques. London: Sage. Suchman, M. C. (1995) ‘Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches’,
Academy of Management Journal 20(3): 571-610.
36
Suddaby, R., & Greenwood, R.W. 2005. Rhetorical strategies of legitimacy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50: 35-67.
Tolbert, P., & Zucker, L.G. 1996. The institutionalization of institutional theory. In S. Clegg, & C. Hardy (eds), Studying organization: Theory and Method (169-184). London: Sage.
Ulin, R.C. 1995. Invention and representation as cultural capital: Southwest French winegrowing history. American Anthropologist, 97(3): 519–27.
Ulin, R. (2004). Globalization and alternative localities. Anthropologica, 46: 153-164. Watters, E. (2010). Crazy like us: The globalization of the American psyche. New York: Free
Press. Wedlin, L. 2007. The role of rankings in codifying a business school template: Classifications,
diffusion and mediated isomorphism in organizational fields. European Management Review, 4: 24-39.
Zhao, W. (2005) ‘Understanding classifications: Empirical evidence from the American and French wine industries’. Poetics 33: 179-200.
Zietsma, C., & Lawrence, T.B. 2010. Institutional work in the transformation of an organizational field: The interplay of boundary work and practice work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55: 189-221.
37
Figure 1: Data structure
1st Order Concepts 2nd Order Themes Aggregate Dimensions
Search for distinctive expressions of certain varietals Emphasize sub-appelations Emphasize single-vineyard wines Leverage images and sterotypes of Canada, when
possible (cold, clean, etc.)
Emphasizing current focus on internationally accepted winemaking
Distancing from winemaking tradition of the past Make comparisons to and benchmark other wine regions Recruit winemakers with international experience
Produce unusual take on a an internationally accepted varietal (fuller bodied Gamay Noir)
Produce cult wines from hybrid grapes (Icewine, Foch, Baco Noir)
Nurture and celebrate homegrown winemakers
Compare profiles to foreign wines Enter international competitions Seek approval from foreign wine critics
Emphasizing distinctive features of Ontario wine (acidity, food friendliness, etc.)
Tap into local history, culture and mythology Support local Promote domestic competitions and magazines
Emphasize the unique features of local terroir
Demonstrate compliance with international winemaking norms
Local experimentation
Demonstrate compliance with international quality standards
Utilize local cultural resources
Redefine climate as suitable for fine
winemaking
Demonstrate appropriate
expertise
Demonstrate quality and
market the wines
Compare climate to France (Burgundy or Champagne) or Germany
Emphasize that the temperature is not (significantly) colder than in established wine regions
Emphasize climate similarity to established wine regions
38
TABLE 1: Data sources
Data Type Number Approximate #hours/page count Semi-Structured Interviews Wineries 41 51.25 hrs Wine critics 11 11 hrs Restaurateurs 7 7 hrs Cool Climate Oenology and
Viticulture Institute 1 1 hrs
Wine Council of Ontario 1 1 hr Grape growers 2 2 hr Ontario Wine Society 1 1 hr Liquor Control Board of
Ontario 4 4 hrs
Observations Retail and marketing activities 120 150 hrs Meetings 6 10 hrs Workshops, conferences and
classes 10 30 hrs
Winemaking and grape processing activities
2 5 hrs
Documents Wineries’ newsletters 337 674 pgs Newspaper articles and blog
entries 881 1321 pgs
Trade organizations’ and government reports and publications
20 450 pgs
Miscellaneous documents and memos
10 35 pgs
Books about the industry 3 783 pgs
39
Table 2: Winners of “Winemaker of the Year Award” at Ontario Wine Awards (2002-2009)
Year Winner International Credentials 1995 Herbert Konzelmann Managed the family’s winery (founded in 1893)
in Germany until relocating the winery to Canada in 1984
1996 Karl Kaiser Born and raised in Austria with some winemaking experience; international awards; considered pioneer in producing Icewine, the most internationally acclaimed Canadian wine category; a pioneer in planting Vinefera grapes in Ontario; co-founder of one of the most internationally acclaimed Canadian wineries
1997 Jim Warren Domestic credentials 1998 Ron Giesbrecht Domestic credentials 1999 Angelo Pavan Domestic credentials 2000 J-L Groux Born and raised in Loire Valley, France;
educated in College de Beaune in Burgundy and at the University of Bordeaux
2001 John Marynissen Originally Dutch; domestic credentials; one of the first to plant Vinifera grapes in Ontario
2002 Sue-Ann Staff Educated in Australia; several vintages abroad before working in Canada
2003 Eddy Gurinskas Domestic credentials 2004 Ann Sperling Domestic credentials but international
recognition 2005 Carlo Negri Raised and educated in Italy; worked in an
Italian winery before coming to Canada 2006 Jean-Pierre Colas Head winemaker at Domaine Laroche in
Chablis; winner of Wine Spectator Magazine's 1998 White Wine of the Year
2007 Paul M. Bosc Five generations of grape growing and winemaking in France and Algeria
2008 Craig McDonald & Rob Power (co-winemakers)
CM raised in and worked Australia before coming to Canada; RP domestic credentials
2009 Thomas Bachelder Work experience in Burgundy and Oregon before returning to Canada
2010 Darryl Brooker Originally Australian; education and work experience in Australia and New Zealand