GEA.vite, an Example of Assesment Protocol to Evaluate the Efficiency and Sustainability of Viticultural Italian Companies

Abstract

GEA.vite was born in 2008 with the aim of creating a self-assessment system that would enable wine companies to monitor and quantify their level of efficiency and sustainability. This monitoring allows companies to make aware decisions about critical points along the production chain; this leads to the ability to find and adopt measures to improve company management. The first step involved research and evaluation of the most important existing protocols at the international level; the various evaluation items derived from these protocols were then improved, integrated and adapted to the different territorial situation. The second step consisted of data collection from each wine company; the first year, this activity was carried out by staff specifically dedicated to this project, with the idea of training companies to properly fill out the GEA.vite questionnaire. From the final questionnaire, consisting of 11 chapters and about 250 questions, a website (www.geavite.it) was created to make the compilation easier; on the website wineries that adopt GEA.vite can also visualize graphics and tabs to view their critical points and areas of improvement, in addition to comparing different years of monitoring. To complete the assessment, coefficients were also set for each question according to its significance in terms of efficiency and quality of operations (EQ: Efficiency & Quality) and sustainability (BIOPASS: biodiversity, landscape, environment, sustainability and social equity). A companion document was implemented to give useful insights and directions to aid companies’ management in terms of sustainability and technical operations. As of today, GEA.vite represents one of the most complete and user-friendly protocols for Italian wine sector assessment; it has been applied for one or two years at 20 wine companies; one year of monitoring allows them to define areas where it is possible to act and intervene, while the comparison between two years of monitoring shows whether the implementation of different measures leads to a general improvement in management, particularly in terms of sustainability.