The self-definitions provide some explanations as to the diversity amongst the self- categorisations (see Table 5.7). Many definitions aligned somewhat with the defining characteristics from the literature. For example, the Cheese SACE referred to small- scale, employees less than five, hand-made and hands-on (i.e. similar to the category of owner being investor and labourer). The Berry SACE cited a cottage enterprise as one that is home-based and is associated with the methods of production (i.e. artisanal/ hands-on). Interestingly, they also described a cottage enterprise as one that can be more of a supplementary income provider rather than a full income provider. The Wine SACE furthered this by saying that a cottage enterprise was one that was undertaken on a part-time basis, was not a sole income earner, and the couple or family carried out business operations after hours (e.g. weekends). A common theme running through the ESACEs’ self-definitions were the use of the principal’s own labour, doing everything themselves and not employing staff. However, in saying this, it was also stated that even if the industry used off-site facilities in a minor way, it was still a cottage
enterprise. Furthermore, despite suggesting that a cottage industry did not employ external to the family, it could still be classified as a cottage enterprise if an occasional worker was employed. Thus, the diversity in self-definitions can partly explain the range of self-categorisations that were provided. While there were common
characteristics within most of the self-definitions, there were also many exceptions and differences.
Adding to the differences in self-categorisations and definitions were the key informant’s comments. It became increasingly clear that many of the key informants interviewed during the study were unable to offer a clear definition of the cottage industry concept. Instead, the key informants offered definitions that shifted throughout the interview. For example, one knowledgeable referred to “a multinational cottage- type industry”. This certainly is a contradiction in terms, yet it demonstrates that those who know the industry see something in the larger enterprises that are present in the smaller ones. Furthermore, during the interviews, some altered their definitions as I was speaking with them. This most notably occurred when providing definitions regarding the number of employees. One knowledgeable referred to the Wine ESACE (a larger business) as being a cottage industry, which challenged their earlier definition that they could not own other enterprises. Another knowledgeable referred to the geographical confinement of activities and provided an example of a cottage food industry that I, as a researcher, would have positioned as an ESACE. Moreover, during the study, only one participant displayed hesitancy at the appropriateness of the identity (out of all the participants and non-participants). On the contrary, even the larger enterprises were identified as cottage food industries.
In summary, it has been demonstrated that the informal cottage industry label is an identity that is attached by the enterprises themselves and by external actors. The above exploration has shown the level of diversity and confusion that surrounds this concept. The lack of knowledge over what a cottage industry is can, in part, explain the
categorisation of enterprises as cottage industries that have obviously expanded past the cottage industry size. However, it is proposed that the labelling of expanded enterprises as cottage industries can be partly explained by looking beyond the structural or physical characteristics to features that are intangible and which assign in-group membership, as the following describes.
commitment”) occurs through defining “their identity in relation to other relevant groups in situ” and “derive[ing] their meaning from a particular social context”
(Ellemers et al., 1999, p.1). It is suggested that the in-group membership of the cottage industry opposes the out-group membership of those enterprises positioned within the industrialised agri-food system and the associated negative issues (such as intensive chemical use, spatially produced and anonymity, lack of producer-consumer
interaction, mechanised versus labour intensive, lack of care and time taken). In this respect, it is suggested that there are a number of processors’ intangibles that inform in- group membership for all of the enterprises under study. The use of the term intangible refers to the expression of the processors’ values and beliefs. That is, the expression of the processors’ values and beliefs is potentially manifested in various ways. This expression can possibly be evidenced in production methods, the types of social relationships that surround production and consumption, and ultimately in the final product.
The intangibles that are present in both the small and large scale units and which inform group membership include:
• Care and time taken – care for how the raw agricultural product is produced and the way it is processed;
• Social interaction with customer – face-to-face relationships;
• Passion – for producing the best product that they can;
• Knowledge – intimate knowledge of the raw produce, the land, the processed product;
• Trust – consumers trust how it was produced and who produced it;
• Respect – for the land and consumers;
• Creativity – achieving difference, uniqueness, taking the time to work with the different climates and landscapes; and,
• Expression of place.
It is suggested that these intangibles are manifested and embodied in the enterprises’ products and, in part, are situated in opposition to those seen in the industrial agri-food system. It is acknowledged that although there is no clear cut dichotomy, there are obvious differences: for example, anonymity in the industrial agri-food system, as
opposed to face-to-face relationships; time taken in the processing of a product versus machine use for efficiency; and a certain level of creativity in the processing of a product that a machine cannot attain. All of these intangibles are expressed in the resultant product.
In supporting Granovetter’s (1985) thesis, it is suggested that the acknowledgement of these intangibles recognises that all economic activities are embedded in the social. For these enterprises, there is much more to business than just structural characteristics, such as being small in terms of the number of employees or the units produced. As Vanclay (2004, p. 213) says of farming, food processing “is a socio-cultural practice rather than just a technical activity”. Perhaps the principals do not specifically draw on the processors’ intangibles when explaining a cottage industry because it is not part of a dominant economic discourse. Nevertheless, these intangibles ultimately value-add and have social, environmental and economic ramifications.
An additional consideration regarding the intangibles is that of the potential non- alignment with the ‘conventionalisation thesis’. Although referring specifically to organic agriculture, conventionalisation relates to the notion that “organic farming is becoming a slightly modified version of modern conventional agriculture” (Hall and Mogyorody, 2001, p. 399). That is, organic farming is beginning to resemble conventional agriculture in a number of ways (“socially, technically and
economically”), such as labour being replaced by mechanisation, enterprises focusing upon exporting as opposed to local sales, and small-scale farms increasing in size (Hall and Mogyorody, 2001, p. 399). As Lockie and Halpin (2005, p. 284 - 285) suggest, “conventionalisation refers to a process through which organic agriculture comes increasingly, as it grows, to resemble in structure and ideology the mainstream food sector it was established in opposition to.”
Darnhofer (2006) suggests that conventionalisation can be akin to “modernisation”, where farms become larger, where there is more dependence upon off-farm inputs (such as mechanisation and chemicals), and where resources are replaced (such as labour for capital) A concern is that those arenas in which there is more value, such as organics, are at risk of being taken over by agribusiness, which would desert the sustainable practices linked to organics (Buck et al., 1997). This taking over by agribusiness would thus lead to organics resembling the conventional farming model (Guthman, 2004).
The jury is still out on whether conventionalisation in organics is actually occurring. Coombes and Campbell (1998, p.130) “refute the tendency in recent organics research to regard these processes [i.e. conventionalisation] as both universal and
universalising”. As Darnhofer (2006) suggests, the evidence thus far indicates that the development of organic farming differs from area to area.
In relation to this study, however, there are two pieces of data gathered from the fieldwork which are pertinent to the conventionalisation thesis: albeit artisanal food production. The first piece of data is that the expanded enterprises still strongly ascribe to most of the intangibles. The second is the usage of the term “multinational cottage- type industry” by a key informant. Although preliminary, this suggests that the expanded enterprises under study could potentially be more alike than different to the small-scale enterprises and that they do not come to ‘resemble’ industrial agri-food processing units as they expand. This phenomenon will be explored further throughout the discussion chapters.