The Importance of Collective Brands in Protected Areas Management and Promotion: Natural.PT, Portugal Case Study

Abstract

The objective of this study is to gain a deeper understanding of the importance of collective brands in protected areas and what is the process and impact of their development on protected areas management. This study is applied to the collective brand Natural.PT, in Portugal, using a case study approach. The study adds value to the existing literature insofar as it explores what the process of creating a collective brand involves, what benefits and/or difficulties, and what dynamics can be developed to promote this collective brand to the tourism players operating in protected areas. To this end, a qualitative study based on documentary analysis and interviews with key informants was developed, covering the different dimensions of protected areas management and collective brands. Natura.PT case is at an early stage and the main conclusions point to the need for promotion for this collective brand and a higher advantage for stakeholders allowing more decisions according to their personal and business interests and due to the fact of operating in a protected area.

1. Introduction

The involvement of tourist destinations in brand strategy began in the 1990s, with the city of New York [1]. However, it was only at the end of that decade that the approach to destination brands reached greater expression Ritchie and Ritchie [2], fuelled by the need to compete more effectively, make decisions with greater structure, and increase accountability to stakeholders [1]. Protected areas (PA) are of particular relevance within tourism destinations, playing a crucial role in preserving biodiversity globally and conserving ecosystems while maintaining cultural values and traditional practices [3]. By establishing a recognizable identity through a collective brand, these areas can promote themselves to tourists, maintain their unique character, and facilitate collaboration among stakeholders on conservation efforts for long-term sustainability by promoting improved management and governance of natural resources [3, 4].

Concerning collective brands, the development of knowledge is in an embryonic state. The sector where there is a greater relationship with the concept is the winery [5], although there are other sectors that also need to be addressed in scientific articles. When we refer to the tourism sector, and within PA, the study of the benefits of implementing collective brands is seen as a gap, as the literature on this topic is practically non-existent.

Zhang et al. [6] argue that an increase in scientific studies on the conservation and economic development of protected areas is expected in the coming years, to improve their management. In the literature, there are many studies about the success and failure of the management of certain specific PAs [7, 8, 9, 10]. However, regarding cooperation applied to protected areas, knowledge is still underdeveloped.

Since the tourism sector is highly relevant to the economy and due to the combination of these concepts having a high importance and impact on business management and the brand, there is a notorious gap in the literature and, for this reason, it is pertinent to choose this subject for study and deepening knowledge. Furthermore, given the current circumstances, where companies must respond quickly to consumers’ desires and adapt to new realities to survive, this study will bring not only academic theoretical contributions but also practical contributions to brands that operate in PA, as well as provide support for the practical management and promotion of territories.

This research involved assembling views of experts on the collective brand Natu-ral.PT and the Peneda-Gerês National Park (PGNP), the only protected area classified as National Park in Portugal. The research design used in this explorative research incorporated a qualitative case study approach. Methods included documentary analysis and in-depth interviews with key informants. Content analysis was used to analyze these data.

This chapter contributes to the understanding of the importance of the existence of collective brands in protected areas, as a way of leveraging the existing businesses in these regions and with that, creating a real and positive impact on territorial management. It is relevant to assess all the details of the creation process, as well as the difficulties and benefits associated with the existence of this type of brand, and the effect of their communication on regional tourism businesses, a phenomenon where still few studies have been developed [11].

2. Literature review

Regarding the definition of a collective brand, there is some agreement among authors regarding the fact that a collective brand is composed of more than one singular brand, the number that composes it can vary, although the most common is a high number of companies. The point of contention centers on decision-making. On the one hand, some authors [12] emphasize that there is total freedom in the choices inherent in business. On the other hand, some defend that the values of the collective brand must be presented [13, 14] and, accordingly, decisions must be based on common criteria regulated by a competent entity for this purpose. Therefore, a collective brand can be conceptualized as a set of unique companies that sell products and services, which may have total or partial independence in the decisions taken about their businesses and which collaborate, to extract benefits from the collective brand image.

Fishman et al. [15] mention that brands should invest in the quality of their reputation because brand recognition makes consumers formulate expectations about the quality of their products. Although the best-known brands are unique, there are many cases of collective brands where, generally, consumers are unaware of the set of singular brands that make up the same collective brand. The same authors also mention examples of products such as wine, cheese, and coffee that prove this position. These collective brands have in common the fact that they brand regional agricultural products protected by designation of origin (DOP) and geographical indication (IGP), highly regulated and certified by the competent authorities for this purpose.

The fact that collective brands are associated with superior quality results in a higher investment in quality by these collective brands, compared to individual brands. The larger the collective brand, that is, the greater the number of associated individual brands, the greater the incentive to increase the quality of products and services and, consequently, the more profitable the association of all will be, more precisely, the more profitable the collective brand to its consumers. Collective brand image affects the profit of individual companies more than their brands [12].

Collective brands, in tourism, are created to support the unique brands that constitute it, these refer to a territory or a particular tourist destination [16]. As, for the most part, tourism companies are small, associating them under a single brand can make them benefit from the transfer effect and contribute to positive synergies [17]. For the development of a collective brand, in addition to the members mutually agreeing to their association, it is also necessary that they mutually agree to share the name of the brand [12]. To achieve the success of the collective brand, all those involved must benefit from their association, making the partnership lasting. The balance between the parties is essential so that no single brand takes advantage of the other [18].

One difficulty described in the literature about collective brands is the free-riding effect. Free riding is when a given company obtains benefits from being associated with another(s), without wasting its resources. Knowing the contribution of each brand to the collective brand, it should be possible to identify inappropriate behavior and find out if there is a practice of free-riding within it, so managers must ensure compliance with minimum quality standards that do not condition or harm free-riding [16].

Collective brands, in the case of their application to protected areas, should contribute to creating sustainable development solutions, based on increasing local entrepreneurship and allowing their dissemination [19]. In addition, they can be seen as initiatives that help to achieve one of the fundamental pillars of sustainable development—governance, contributing to the increase of collaborative processes between the diverse business [20] and, helping protected areas to overcome challenges they face.

3. Methodology

To investigate the importance of the collective brand Natural.PT, a qualitative case study on Peneda-Gerês National Park—Portugal (PGNP) was developed. Data were initially collected from archival and management information sources, such as previous studies on the PGNP and open consultation documents on the Co-management Plan for the PGNP. These sources also underpinned the development of the primary tool for data collection: semi-structured face-to-face interviews.

In-depth interviews were conducted, in February 2023, with two purposefully selected members of INFC, the national organization responsible for the creation and management of the collective brand Natural.PT. Conducted in person, these interviews provided an opportunity to explore the interviewee’s perceptions of the following dimensions: (C1) creation of collective brands in protected areas, (C2) dynamics of cooperation, (C3) benefits, (C4) challenges /barriers, and (C5) impact on spatial planning. The interviews were transcribed and subject to content analysis, using both a deductive approach, based on themes commonly used in the literature, and an inductive approach, considering new themes which were identified from the data.

4. Discussion

4.1 Case description: the collective brand Natural.PT and the Peneda-Gerês National Park (Portugal)

The collective brand Natural.PT is a national strategy whose implementation is the responsibility of the Portuguese Institute for Nature and Forest Conservation (INFC). This collective brand aims at the integrated promotion of the territory, the products, and the services existing in the National Network of Protected Areas and its surroundings. Its members include public and private entities that develop activities related to tourist recreational activities, accommodation, restaurants, local retail outlets, agri-food products, handcrafted products, intangible identity products, and research and dissemination projects.

The PGNP, located in the North region of Portugal, was the first protected area created in 1971 and stills being the only one that has the status of a national park. Contrary to other parks in Europe and the world, people live in the PGNP and human presence has been vital in building and maintaining the unique characteristics of this region, making this PA the most important in the country. Since its creation, and given its size and complexity, it deserves recognition for the high value of its natural and cultural heritage, combined with objectives of conservation, study, and sustainable management of its resources [21]. The PGNP follows a co-management model, which establishes strategic partners’ intervention in managing these territories, such as municipalities, higher education, and non-governmental organizations that, in close cooperation with the INFC, collaborate for the sustainable preservation, development, and promotion of this protected area, its heritage, and its communities. The co-management of the PGNP is materialized through a Co-management Plan drawn up and executed by the co-management commission of this protected area. This document determines the strategy and corresponding measures and actions to be implemented to enhance and promote the territory, raising the awareness of the local populations and improving communication with all the stakeholders of this territory [22].

4.2 Creation of collective brands in protected areas

Regarding the first category (C1)—the creation of collective brands, it was divided into three subcategories, of which: (C1.1) brand objectives, (C1.2) process stages, and (C1.3) promotion.

The main objectives of creating the Natural.PT collective brand (C1.1) are to attribute value, visibility, and allow the promotion of products and services within the protected areas, and provide information about the PA to visitors, so that they, in addition to knowledge to use it, are encouraged to more conscious behaviors in these areas.

The stages of the process of creating a collective brand, in the case of Natural.PT, are: (1) conducting studies of bench branding to understand what was being done in the rest of the EU (European Union); (2) development of the brand by a single entity (INFC), intentionally, as there are already many conflicts within the PA and, with the involvement of a single entity, management becomes easier; (3) development of the brand counted with the help of other invited singular brands, representatives of certain regions, with their intervention being minimal, through meetings, so that the adherents could be made known and so that they would feel involved in the brand; (4) recognition by the Ministry and the Secretary of State and, for this reason, it obtained several financings; (5) definition of the regulation and the minimum necessary commitments (not too reductive to attract a high number of adherents); (6) allow free membership to the brand; (7) follow-up and monitoring, in a first phase, to be able to show interest and attract many people, that is, to have products and services that integrate the brand and start to work and create a network, the verification of the requirements is minimal, almost null, despite the regulation sometimes going further. Subsequently, with a high number of companies that allow joint cooperative work, mechanisms must be created to monitor and control what is or is not being done (e.g, listening through satisfaction questionnaires).

It should be noted that, in this subcategory (C1.2), it is extremely important to adapt the rules at the beginning and over time, always in line with the brand’s objective, as it is possible to exclude relevant stakeholders. For example, initially, because they were associated with the State, the brand was very legalistic, asking for documents related to finance and social security debts. Later they retreated, as they realized that there is no business with the company, there is no money involved, only its promotion, that is, if the company can carry out its activity, that is enough. Another example is the fact that, initially, the regulation asked that the products be certified by another entity. Subsequently, there was a retreat in this decision, because when going to the field, it was clear that only the large companies had the financial capacity to certify their products, putting aside the adherents with local, appetizing, good quality products, but that could not pay certifications.

Something that has not yet been done by this collective brand, but which stands out as a point of improvement is the use of the co-management committee as the entity that has recognition and gives opinions to brand adherents, in other words, that monitors. The co-management committee meets monthly and, given the fact that one of its objectives is this collective brand, it would be interesting for them to verify these entities in the territory.

Concerning the promotion of the brand (C1.3), since the brand belongs to the State and the ministry is very involved and committed to its success, access to financing was facilitated. With this, the actions carried out were: (1) presence at fairs with a high number of tents and video mapping; (2) presence at events in the tourism sector with brand identification roll-ups; (3) placement of a flag with the brand’s logo in the PA reception centers, to promote the council’s adherent products/services; (4) sale of a plaque with the brand’s logo to members, to be placed in their spaces and identification of belonging to the brand; and (5) brand guide, merchandising products, brochures with a list of all members, among other physical documents.

4.3 Dynamics of cooperation within collective brands

Concerning cooperation dynamics (C2), the brand’s portal refers to “joint work” as a justification for joining Natural.PT. However, on the ground, only two activities were carried out, and these were not transversal to all geographic areas, due to lack of time and because the brand was still in its initial state. The activities carried out were:

1. In a bus, with some brand members from that region, a visit was made to the national park, with technicians who explained the dynamics in the area. With this, it was noticed that people all knew each other but, until then, they did not do business with each other. This was important to boost and initiate a network of contacts and cooperation between those companies that participated in the activity. The objective of this activity was exactly the creation of a business network, insofar as there is sharing of capabilities or even products, among others.

2. In a meeting with members of the municipality of the Guadiana natural park, they were challenged to put on a map of the park what each one valued in the PA, which could be a visiting point, a restaurant, a company that sold a certain product, or another presence in the area, if it added value. After that, they were challenged to develop a three-day itinerary, simulating being a travel agency. These scripts had a practical application, at a fair in Madrid, which had real consequences and, for this reason, the motivation for participating in this type of dynamics increased. With this action, it was noticed that there were many possibilities for creating value within the PA, which the companies that operated in the area were unaware of.

A difficulty detected for this type of dynamics is related to the fact that not all participants show the same interest in their involvement. Companies without great projection capacity are the ones that most seek ways to promote their products and services, such as tourist animation companies and accommodation. On the other hand, restaurants consider that word of mouth is enough to promote their business and that, despite being part of the collective brand, they do not value involvement in this type of initiative.

The cooperation between the singular brands that are part of Natural.PT has evidence of effectively existing, even if at a very early stage. An example of this was, by the Secretary of State, a reception of representatives from other countries, highly sensitive to the question of what is natural, where, immediately, the Natural.PT network combined efforts to gather a large sample of products. This was only possible because there was information on who the producers were and who could best represent each PA.

It should be noted that the perception of the development of these initiatives is positive and should be reinforced, as the entity responsible for managing the brand considers that, in this way, companies are open to business.

In terms of cooperation, the performance of some producer associations stands out, which has contributed to the enhancement of the territory. It would be important to create or reinforce the articulation between the sector’s representative associations and educational institutions, as a way of bringing learning/training closer to the potentialities and opportunities of the territory.

Also noteworthy is the role of local development associations, which operate at various levels and with common development objectives, and which in some way have contributed to the establishment of strategic lines of action in the territory, namely about training for employability in emerging activities, support for economic activities and enhancement of local products, requalification of rural centers and built heritage, enhancement of natural and cultural heritage, qualification and tourism promotion, among others. These associations and other local, municipal, or supra-municipal institutions have been instrumental in channeling European funds and applying them to projects to boost and enhance the territory.

As a result of the existing natural and cultural conditions, tourism associated with nature and the rural environment and hydrotherapy are the most expressive segments and have been driving forces behind the development of the hotel sector, tourist entertainment activities, catering services, and small businesses.

However, seasonality and the tendency to concentrate in certain places are considered a problem, jeopardizing the sustainable and qualified development model of tourism in the region. Many of the economic and social benefits that tourism induces end up following the seasonal trend, such as the creation of jobs in the summer, which does not benefit the qualification of the workforce employed in the sector and economic and social stability.

Regarding tourist demand, there is also an inequality in the distribution of the flow of visitors in the region, with greater demand in the central area of the park. Data from recent years reveal a greater balance in the distribution of the flow of visitors, highlighting the importance of the park ports, with different dynamics of tourist attractiveness in the respective territory, but also the dynamization and dissemination of new spaces, the installation of new accommodation and tourist infrastructure outside the main centers of demand.

In general, the existing accommodation units in the region are of high quality. However, there are very few accommodations recognized as nature tourism ventures and Natural.PT. For the promotion of accommodation, there are currently new platforms, more current and in line with the needs of tourists, which work with the dissemination and sale of accommodation and tourist programs throughout the park.

Concerning tourist entertainment activities, in particular nature tourism, the PGNP presents a very significant offer. However, the collective brand Natural.PT still has little expression. The PA co-management model is seen as an opportunity to strengthen partnerships and establish common commitments in terms of the promotion and sustainable enhancement of the territory, heritage, and communities.

The qualitative information gathered allowed us to understand that the actual PGNP Co-Management Plan incentives associations and cooperative dynamics that contribute to the development of the territory, try to generate identity value of the territory for the local population, which has contributed to the appreciation of the patrimony; considers initiatives for employability in emerging and strategic activities for the development of the territory and progressive and qualitative growth of the tourism sector in the park, especially in terms of the offer of tourist accommodation and nature tourism activities.

However, the territory does not have yet enough resources for effective management and surveillance of the different uses of the territory, an absence of a system for surveying and recording intangible heritage throughout the territory, and a global centralized project for the interpretation of relevant cultural heritage elements. The qualitative study highlighted: (i) some failures in the promotion, communication, and positioning of the PGNP referred during the interview and overlapping actions of the various local entities; (ii) lack of safety information regarding the risks inherent to visitation; (iii) lack of a specific framework for tourist entertainment companies working in the PGNP; (iv) inadequacy of the tourist offer for different target types; (v) difficulty in monitoring and managing visitors; and (vi) a lack of information and interpretation strategy on the natural and cultural heritage.

The co-management strategy is based on a participatory model, which is intended to create a proximity and collaborative management dynamic, involving all those who are part of or who can contribute to the sustainability and enhancement of the territory. In this way, the involvement and participation of stakeholders of interest in the constructive discussion of proposals and concrete actions constitute a fundamental process in the management of PAs.

Being an exercise in strategic planning, consultation with the various stakeholders was carried out at different times, namely:

1. public sessions to present the PA co-management model to the municipalities;

2. online survey on the ADERE (Association for the Development of PGNP) website;

3. participatory sessions with key actors in the territory;

4. public consultation;

After collecting all the contributions, it is analyzed and the management plan will be prepared. Following the objectives defined in the Co-management Plan, three strategic axes were established, which accommodate initiatives that meet the promotion of PGNP, socioeconomic and sustainable development use of the PGNP [21].

4.4 Benefits, challenges/barriers of collective brands

From the perspective of the entity that manages Natural.PT, the enormous benefit (C3) is fundamentally the possibility of disclosing participating companies on the platforms of the collective brand. Only at the level of perception, the adherents felt that Natural.PT was advantageous for them since it originated, many people were interested, and it is believed that they were encouraged by seeing the involvement of those who were already part of the collective brand. Proof of this appreciation of business by the brand is the fact that adherents often question the responsible entity about the management of the brand.

Another benefit is the fact that a connection was created with the entity responsible for managing the PAs, far beyond the collective brand, what is now a facility to deal with conflicts that may exist within the scope of business. Cooperation goes beyond the brand; it has to do with the training provided and the information exchanged with members. In other words, adherents are oriented toward whom to approach and how to approach them to manage their businesses.

The degree of satisfaction of stakeholders with the brand has never been heard before. It is believed to be premature, given the state in which its development is found, lacking growth. However, it is considered relevant, as it is not yet possible to recognize whether people looking for participating companies do so through prior contact with Natural.PT. This would be interesting to measure, as it would be a good way to understand the effect of the collective brand on visitation.

On the part of the stakeholders for publicizing the brand, thet put the Natural.PT brand logo on the communications used. The companies themselves aroused interest in others and regional entities and the brand spread.

Specifically in Guadiana, instead of creating a new brand, the brand’s image was used, and a new project called Natural.PT Guadiana was founded, and there was a large investment in promotion, people gathered for workshops, among other initiatives.

The great importance of the involvement of the municipalities in the question of the brand, when holding events and fairs, is highlighted. If there is an invitation for Natural.PT to participate, the participating brands may be present and, consequently, promote the awareness of their products and services.

Regarding the visibility of Natural.PT, it is considered that everything related to nature is more sought after and sold, that is, there is a great propensity to associate the word “natural” with products and services. It should be noted that, in the Azores, there is no natural park. However, despite the PA classifications not being the same as on the mainland and given the importance attributed to what is natural, as a way of adding value to PA communication, the set of PA on each of the archipelago’s islands was given the name of Natural Park. This is from the point of view of communication, of selling an image, this terminology is the strongest abroad.

For those responsible for the brand, having it visible that the origin of the product comes from a PA is more important than placing the collective brand that covers it, as they claim that the purpose of the brand is to identify products with the PA. These indications for members may prove to be a weak point, compromising the achievement of high brand awareness. In addition, it is believed that there is still a long way to go in terms of Natural.PT’s notoriety because the brand and its members cannot demonstrate how advantageous this association is, and its interest in attracting other stakeholders for it.

On the other hand, the challenges/barriers (C4) are: (a) the lack of doors, in most regions, which prevent the monitoring and counting of visitors, which makes the action in the PA difficult; (b) despite adherence, the lack of contact points with the brand sometimes causes a feeling of distance with the PA, as the structure of the responsible entity does not have anyone physically allocated to the regions; (c) people are afraid to put the word “natural park” on their products, due to the authorization they may require from the park; (d) Natural.PT suggests placing information relating to PA on companies’ online platforms, the problem is that some companies are so small that they have the management of their online platforms contracted to external entities and when any change is necessary; however, small it may be, these companies have to pay for the changes and then back off; (e) at this time, the collective brand platform accepts new members but, after a certain period, eliminates them; (f) there is no verification for entities with fewer environmentalist practices associated with the protection, there is the only incentive for more correct behavior, rectification, going toward more sustainable practices; (g) there are no legal measures that prevent the action of brands in the PA, there is a regulation to be complied with, but the control is only on the minimum requirements. If they are not reached, those responsible get in touch with those who propose to join and communicate what should be changed, improved, or added, after a certain time, eliminate them.

4.5 Impact of collective brands on territorial management and planning

According to Environmental Fund [22], in a sustainable base model, it is necessary to adapt and innovate so that the territory is better prepared for new challenges and can thus create more and new opportunities for development, valuing people and their legacy and promote more proactive management of nature conservation, biological and geological diversity, and the landscape. It is in this context that co-management fits, a model of proximity management, which enshrines the intervention of strategic partners in the management of this territory which, in close articulation with the INFC (Institute for Nature and Forests Conservation), assumes the commitment to collaborate for the promotion and sustainable enhancement of the territory, its heritage, and its communities. The implementation of the PA co-management model implies the elaboration of a Co-management Plan.

According to Melgaço [23], the proposed PGNP Co-Management Plan, from 2022 to 2027, has the following objectives:

1. The creation of a shared dynamic for valuing the PA, based on its sustainability and focusing specifically on the fields of promotion, awareness, and communication.

2. Establish concerted procedures, aimed at better performance in safeguarding natural values and in responding to society’s requests, through greater articulation and efficiency of interactions between the INFC, municipalities, and other competent public entities.

3. Generate a closer relationship with citizens and relevant entities for the promotion of the sustainable development of the PA.

The public and associative sector has sought to publicize and increase the attractiveness of the cultural heritage, with a view to enhancing the touristic value of the territory. Even so, there is a lack of complementary heritage interpretation initiatives that facilitate the perception of its value and its enjoyment by the local population and visitors. In terms of promotion, a mainly local strategy is maintained, with campaigns and publications driven mainly by the municipalities, to the detriment of a joint communication that, perhaps, could be more efficient in terms of tourist promotion and have more impact and return for the territory. The collective brand Natural.PT could give extra help with this objective. The perception of the quality and economic value of local products/services is an objective that can also be applied to traditional knowledge and practices incorporated into products and human activities carried out, in a strategy to enhance existing resources. In addition, it can serve as a strategy to leverage and differentiate other expanding areas such as nature tourism, restoration, and handicrafts, among others.

Finally, to understand the impact on territorial planning (C5), the collective brand Natural.PT is present in several structures, which does not allow its extinction because it is part of INFC’s PA co-management division, integrating the co-management commission, as one of its indicators (there are objectives concerning the number of Natural.PT adherents per year).

The great advantage of the co-management committee relates to the fact that communication between all those involved allows for complementarity and avoids wasting resources. Previously, there could have been multiple brands associated with the PA. At this moment, everyone competes to strengthen the Natural.PT collective brand.

5. Conclusion

Probably implied by the fact that Natural.PT is still at an early stage, there is a need to create new dynamics for this brand. Although each stakeholder makes decisions according to their personal and business interests, the information actively disclosed by the collective brand means that people cannot claim that they were not informed about how to act more responsibly within the PA. Because joining the brand has no cost for members, it is believed that the country’s economic situation has no impact on Natural.PT.

The primary point will be to attract new members, an objective already established in the co-management plan. Understanding the stakeholders involved in the collective brand will also be a relevant topic in brand management and, consequently, in its success, as listening to those on the ground helps to understand the real points of improvement in the business and the difficulties faced in the PA.

At this moment, it remains to continue the brand’s cooperative actions, although two activities have already been carried out, it is necessary that they cover all protected areas, transversally, and that they have more consistency. Only then will it be possible for PA members to get to know each other, gain confidence, and start networking (this is one of the main objectives of the brand).

One of the main points to leverage this brand is the investment in promotion, as this is the only way to boost visitation. Despite the existence of Natural.PT, it is not possible, until then, to monitor whether people looking for members arrive because they have been in contact with the collective brand. A suggestion for this practice will be the use of digital branding strategies, such as investing in social networks, and email branding, among others.

The co-management plan is evaluated according to a minimum set of indicators (21, in this case), defined in an ordinance. Each PA can, to these indicators, and add others, but these must be included. The mission of the indicators is to assess how executable the plan is, in other words, how well the objectives defined in it are being achieved. Normally, the indicators have a starting point, which is the moment when the evaluation begins, and an endpoint, which defines the effectiveness and efficiency of the action. The minimums are established by each PA and are assessed annually.

One of these indicators is exactly the number of adherents to the collective brand, which means that, in the plan, there must be one or more actions that make the connection to the collective brand attractive and desirable.

Another obligation of the co-management division is the promotion of the PA. The PA is greatly promoted when it has the scope of the collective brand with a certain quality, with singular brands that assert themselves in a certain way. With this, a relevant topic is the search and identification of stakeholders. Those already involved in the collective brand were companies that are concerned with this issue and are committed to it. However, this topic should maintain consistency over time and continue to evolve.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the UIDB/05105/2020 Program Contract, funded by national funds through the FCT I.P.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.