Comparison of the case areas and promotion projects in Nordic Countries

6.4 Comparison of the case areas and promotion projects in Nordic Countries

Comparison of different Nordic Countries and the selected case areas reveals that the policies connected to HQRs are quite similar. In all the countries in the study no direct efforts to support HQRs as a part of the infrastructure have been introduced. The main measures in the policies are connected with fostering of networking and collaboration between local food producers, restaurants and other experience producers (e.g. event organisors).

National level policies have not been very influential for the development of the case restaurants but they may have generated indirect effects which have a remarkable impact on the attractivity of the region. The interviews revealed that HQR contribute to value added for the producers and identity building in local communities in all the countries. In Finland the brands of the well known events, restaurants and Charms of Saimaa chain have attracted international meetings organised by different ministries to the area. In Iceland the growth agreement made for the Eyjafjordur area triggered increased cooperation among tourism providers which resulted in increased cross-promotion of the area as a tourist destination. The case restaurant Friðrik V was an important participant in these activities and benefitted from them. In Norway it was suggested that HQRs create identity and self-consciousness for the local population. In Sweden, all the eight members of the network ―Kulinariska Gotland‖ are featured in the food connoisseurs‘ bible ―The White Guide‖ which is a guide of the 500 best restaurants in Sweden.

In addition to customers the food producers and other experience industries attach great value added to local HQRs. Even if the ordered volumes may be low the exposure of their brands in the premises of HQRs gives them reputation and credit. In Finland several food producers referred to the image factor. In Iceland the growth agreement increased cooperation among food suppliers and created a local network promoting local food, among other things through establishing a label. The potential of HQRs in development of new products and menus was emphasized in Norway i.e. in the Arctic Menu. The ―Kulinariska Gotland‖ network intends to increase customer awareness of the quality of local food. For example together they produce an eight-course menu, one course per restaurant and serve it in the Visby Castle for 1 025 guests and the tickets are easily sold out, usually within 3 days.

Previous studies emphasize the importance of social capital for rural entrepreneurship (Frazier and Niehm, 2004; Lyons, 2002; Rønning, Ljunggren and Wiklund, 2010). Popovich and Buss (1990) highlight the role of different kind of networks although they do not use the concept of social capital. Building of social capital is necessary for all the businesses and could be used as a tool for local development policy (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998; Virtanen, 2007; Rønning and Ljunggren, forthcoming). In our case regions the policy measures which seem to have had

a clear impact on the activit ies of HQR‘s are quite often the projects which encourage collaboration and networking and thus build social capital. Saimaan Charmantit Oy is an example of the outcome of two networking projects where cooperation between participants led to establishment of a marketing arena where the firms involved became the founders of the company. The Norwegian Arctic Menu is also on example of the impact of co-operation and businesses networking. The implication of this is that in the networking project the administrative personnel of the project should encourage the entrepreneurs to take advantage of business practices and their peers‘ advices (Fischer and Reuber, 2003) and in the long run the administrative project workers should obviate themselves.

To gather market information it is important to have contacts outside the region, while for local collaboration it is essential to maintain good relations with local actors. Frazier and Niehm (2004) found that rural retailers try to reduce local competition by avoiding selling same products as other companies nearby. Thus fruitful cooperation and networks could be established even if the participants are competitors within the same branch. However, it should be noticed that the commitment of the members is essential. Miller and Besser (2000) have studied the commitment of small business managers to community values. They found that commitment varies significantly and it also impact the selected strategies. The most committed SMEs were typically operating in services, retail or construction. This indicates that companies depending more on local customer base are also most committed to local values and development. In the case of HQRs this commitment could be shown by intensive linkages with local producers and event organizers within the whole value chain of the experience industries.