Università degli Studi di Siena
Facoltà di Economia Richard M. Goodwin
“Entrepreneurship and Network Organizations in the
Italian Industrial Cluster: the Gucci Case Study”
Lorenzo Zanni (University of Siena)
THREE GENERAL QUESTIONS
1) Is it possible to compete with a small scale in the
international markets? What is the future for Small
and Medium sized firms (SME) in a global economy?
2) In terms of organizational structures and competitive
strategies what can we learn from the Italian
experience? Is it possible to underline some original
“glocal” (global and local) solutions analysing the
Italian experience?
3) Considering fashion business, what are the main
strategic changes in the competitive scenario? Is it
possible to focus the attention on some case studies
which can explain the recent evolution?
THE OBJECT OF ANALYSIS
1)
THE MAIN CHARACTERS OF THE ITALIAN INDUSTRIAL
SYSTEM
•
The role of SME
•
The industry specialization
•
Industry location and the role of Clusters
2) THE COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE OF ITALY IN THE FASHION
BUSINESS
•
Peculiarities of Fashion Business
•
The competitive advantage of Italy in the fashion business: the new
scenario
3) ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE: THE
NETWORK APPROACH
•
Definition of Network Organizations
•
Characteristics of Network
•
Different types of Networks
4) THE GUCCI CASE STUDY
•
The emergence of a large global player: Gucci Group
•
The impact on the SME’s sub-contractors (the network)
I) THE MAIN CHARACTERS OF THE ITALIAN
INDUSTRIAL SYSTEM (Onida 2004)
1) THE PREDOMINANCE OF SMALL FIRMS IN COMPARISON
WITH OTHER EUROPEAN COUNTRIES
 Recent data confirm the high number of firms in Italy
(entrepreneurial attitude)
 The predominance of micro-firms (less of 10 employees)
 The average dimension of the Italian manufacturing firms is lower
then in the other UE countries
 In the last decades the importance of micro-firms has reduced only
a little

The success of the “Made in Italy” during the 80’s and 90’s in the
international markets is mainly based on SME’s
Number of firms for 1.000 inhabitants
Number of firms in UE countries - Years 2001 e 2007 (a)
(for 1.000 inhabitants)
Source: Eurostat, Structural Business Statistics
a) Malta: not available.
b) 2001 data not available.
Countries
2001
2007
Chaka Republic
Portugal
ITALY
Sweden
Spain
Cyprus
Greece (b)
Hungary
Luxemburg
Slovenia
Lithuania
France
Belgium
Poland
Denmark
Estonia
Austria
Bulgaria
Holland
Leetonia
United Kingdom
Finland
Germany
Romania
Ireland
Slovak
Ue27
72,5
48,5
64,8
51,3
54,8
52,8
….
53,8
47,2
65,6
16,6
32,4
36,9
37,1
36,7
21,6
26,0
30,5
29,8
15,3
25,2
35,4
20,0
13,6
18,5
6,9
36,2
85,3
81,7
65,8
61,3
60,4
56,7
55,8
54,6
50,9
49,7
41,1
40,3
40,0
38,9
38,9
35,9
34,6
33,7
33,0
31,3
27,4
23,5
22,1
22,0
22,0
11,1
41,4
2) THE ITALIAN INDUSTRIAL SPECIALIZATION IN MATURE
OR TRADITIONAL INDUSTRIES
• The Italian market share in the UE are strong in “light industries”
characterized by firms with small dimension (mechanics, textile,
clothing, furniture, shoe and food industry) (Tab. 1)
• The Italian industry is traditionally “export oriented”: Italy is the
eight country in the world in terms of export (Tab. 2-4)
• Italy is still the 12th more industrialized country in the world in
terms of GNP (2014 data). But in the last few years Italy is loosing
part of its competitive advantage in the international markets in
terms of market shares

Italy is now facing the concurrence of less industrialized countries.
It is interesting to describe how some Italian firms are defending and
sometimes even enlarging their market shares
Industry specialization
Tab. 2: The main actors of the Italian export (source Istat-ICE 2004)
Type of firm
Number of exporters
Export (in value)
Small (less 50 employees)
92,5%
30%
Medium (50-250)
6,3%
27%
Large (+ 250)
1,2%
43%
The capability to compete in foreign markets
The impact of the crisis
• Italian GNP 2009: -5% (Source Istat)
• Italian Export 2009: -17,5% (Source Ice)
The difficult situation in the domestic market, but good export
capability
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Italian GNP 2010: + 1,7%
Italian GNP 2011: + 0,4%
Italian GNP 2012: - 2,4%
Italian GNP 2013: - 1,9%
Italian GNP 2013: - 0,2% (Source IFM - estimate)
Italian Export 2010: + 11,4%
Italian Export 2011: + 5,9%
Italian Export 2012: + 2,3%
Italian Export 2013: + 0,1%
Italian Export 2014: + 2,7% (Source Ice - estimate)
The importance of export for Italian national growth
3) THE INDUSTRIAL SPECIALIZATION INFLUENCES THE
TERRITORIAL DISLOCATION OF THE ITALIAN FIRMS
At geographical level the process of industrialization in Italy has not
been homogeneous: in emerges a “Leopard-skin” Italian
process of development with three main geographical areas
(Picture 1)

• North of Italy: large firms predominance, the “company-town” model
• South of Italy: the failed effects of the State action (“Intervento Straordinario
nel Mezzogiorno”)  the creation of “cathedrals in the desert”  they did not
create other industries around their activities, neither they generated a spin-off
effect of entrepreneurship
• “Third Italy” (Central and North-East of Italy): predominance of small firms
localized in industrial districts
 Definition of industrial district: “social-territorial entities characterized by
the active presence in a concentrated area of a community of people and a
group of industrial firms” (Becattini 1989)
 industry specialization and productive decentralization
 external economies linked to the cultural heritage (A. Marshall)
 in these regions there are more network organizations
Picture1 ‐ manufacturing labor local systems in Italy (Source:
elab. Edison Foundation on Istat 2001 data)
THE ROLE OF CLUSTERS
“Clusters are geographic concentrations of interconnected companies, specialized suppliers,
service providers, and associated institutions in a particular field that are present in a
nation or region. Clusters arise because they increase the productivity with which
companies can compete” (Porter 2001).

Instead of examining firms as isolated actors, the cluster-based analysis emphasizes the
linkages among companies and supporting institutions and the synergies related both to
cooperative and to competitive behaviors of belonging enterprises

Porter (2003) claims that clusters have the potential to affect competition in three ways:
• by increasing the productivity of the companies in the cluster (efficient access to specific
inputs, employees, services, information and public goods; facilitate coordination and
transactions among companies; good diffusion of best practices)
• by driving innovation in the field (enhanced ability to perceive opportunities; share of
knowledge creation processes; exploitation of local resources)
• by stimulating new businesses in the field (high visibility of business opportunity;
commercialization of new and complementary products; starting of new companies)

•
•
•
Their relevant importance of industrial district in Italy (Istat 2012) :
Around 200 in all Italy
45% of workers in manufacturing industries
43,5% of total export (years 2009-2011) of whom 13,5% are textile-leather-clothing
II) THE COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE OF ITALY IN
THE FASHION BUSINESS
•
•
•
•
•
•
(Porter 1990; Saviolo-Testa 2000)
The importance of Italian clusters in the fashion industry: a national
system of value which allows to control different stages in the
whole filiera (see Picture 2)
Creativity combined with functionality
High quality in small scale production (craftsman)
Flexibility (division of labor and specialization)
Demand pull innovation (Italian clients are very exigent)
Original market segmentation (houte couture, prèt à porter,
diffusion, bridge and mass)

The emergences of a new scenario for the Italian fashion business:
– Market changes and new factors affecting the “Made in Italy”
– Difficulties in the export capabilities of fashion industry
– Italian clusters are good incubators of new entrepreneurship but
they do not help the dimensional growth of the firms
Picture 2: The Fibres-textile-apparel filiére
Fibres
Industry (natural and
man-made)
Greige goods yarn
mills
Textile mills
R&D, raw materials supplying, fibers
processing, fibers marketing
Yarn spinning (spun yarns and filament
yarns)
Fabric construction: weaving, knitting,
embroidering, or processing solutions
(e.g., films, foam) or directly fibers
(e.g., felt, nonwoven fabrics)
Equipment
producers/
suppliers
Converters
Service
suppliers
(trend
forecasters,
fashion
press,
consultants,
etc.)
Selling/buying
agents
Apparel
manufacturers
Finishing treatments: bleaching,
shearing, brushing, embossing, dyeing,
glazing, crinkling, printing, etc.
Supplier/buyer intermediation,
communication
Cutting, trimming, spreading,
bundling, sewing, sticking, pressing,
packing
Wholesalers
Time and space transformation,
communication, services
Retailers
End users
Evaluating, purchasing, innovating,
communicating
The Italian Diamond: the old and the new scenario
Diamond factors
(Porter 1990)
The Old Scenario
(’80-’90)
The New Challenges
Firm Strategy,
Structure and
Rivalry
Autonomous SME
Cluster innovations
Cluster networks
Craftsman (production)
Large global player
New comers (imitation)
De-localization
Brand and Distribution
Demand
Conditions
Hedonism
Fashion victims (passive)
High demand in few countries
New consuming habits
No logo; less brand loyalty
Globalization
Related
Supporting
Industries
Mechanics
“Hard” infrastructure
Small independent retailers
Specialized services
“Soft” infrastructure
Distribution chains
Factor
Conditions
Devaluation (cost leadership)
Local labor markets
Family business
Introduction Euro currency
Cognitive gap
Family succession
Fashion Market segmentation in term of price
•
•
•
•
•
Houte couture
Prèt-à-porter
Diffusion
Bridge
Mass market
III) ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND ORGANIZATIONS
STRUCTURE: THE NETWORK APPROACH (Lorenzoni, 1990)
- The predominance of external growth processes (alliances vs.
internal growth)
- Different entrepreneurial profiles: “general and serial entrepreneur”
(Mc Millan) vs. “limited and diffused” entrepreneurship

1. Different definitions of “Network” in the managerial literature
• The totality of all the units connected by a certain type of
relationships (Aldrich and Whetten)
• An aggregate of relations existing among individuals (or “units”
or “members” or “nodes”) (Kaneko and Imai)
• Our point of view: an heterogeneous aggregate of firms, linked by
multi-faceted and cooperative relations, organized around a focal
firm and instrumental in achieving at least partially common
objectives
2. Main Characteristics of Network
- Advantages for leading firm: quality; innovation; more flexible production and
shorter production runs; not necessarily a dimensional growth
- External firms: a semiautonomous position (dependent for certain parameters);
independently owned and not exclusively dependent on the focal firm for
business
- Different links among the partners of the network:
•strong relationships: the focal firm can influence the external firms with a
“non-hierarchical power” (non conventional mechanism of coordination, equity
or non equity) using: trust among partners; reciprocity; mutual adjustment;
multiple line relationships (horizontal, vertical, lateral)
•weak relationships: among external firms (without intermediation of the focal
firm)
-
The process of innovation in a network organization: interplay among different
partners (see Japanese literature); even small firms can innovate; some obstacles
for innovation in Italy (difficult access to funds and to information)
3. Different types of networks (see Picture 3)
• Different stages of evolution from informal relationships to planned
networks. During this evolution it emerges: a higher level of
systematic activities; changes in memberships; a more deliberate
consciousness in the patterns of the inter-company relationships;
• At the beginning: strong influence of the focal firm
• Later: mutual relationships; less coordination functions and more
strategic crossroad of the information flows
Picture 3: Different types of networks – a possible evolution
a) Simple and informal constellation
b) Planned and formal constellation
In brief, NETWORK ORGANIZATION:
1) ALLOW TO REACH SOME PECULIAR ADVANTAGES
- Time savings
- Quality improvements
- Innovation
- More flexible production
- Reduction of costs (external growth)
2) IS CHARACTERIZED BY DIFFERENT RELATIONSHIPS AMONG THE
PARTNERS
- Equity
- Non-equity
3) HAS A WIDE APPLICATION VERSATILITY
- Research & Development
- Marketing and distribution
- Financial
- Coupling different networks
III) THE CASE HISTORY: GUCCI AND THE
LEATHER TUSCAN NETWORK (Bacci 2004)
• Different actors in the leather Tuscan
cluster
• The Gucci case history
• The network organization and the main
changes in the SME cluster
1) THE ACTORS
(leading firms and SME’s)
1.
Large global player (as Gucci, Prada, Ferragamo)
•
•
•
•
2.
New model of corporate governance: the role of the international finance;
luxury groups;
New strategies: multi-business activities (brand extension in different related
industries as cosmetics, glasses, shoes, watches, etc.); multi-brand groups;
New organizational formula: decentralization of production; national
production platform; transnational network
New sources of competitive advantage: have a craftsmen production organized
at an industrial level; the role of brand; the importance of communication; direct
control of distribution channels (flagship stores; franchising network)
Medium local leader (small groups)
•
•
Decentralization of production
Different market segmentation but similar marketing strategies (the importance
of design, communication and direct control of distribution)
The micro and small business (the “distrectual firm”)
3.
•
•
•
•
•
Simple sub-contractors (they produce part or components)
Specialized sub-contractors (they produce products)
Partner supplier (they have designer capabilities)
Mixed producer (in part sub-contractor and in part autonomous)
Autonomous small firms (they sell with their own brand)
2) Gucci: a brief case history
1921
founded by Guccio Gucci in Florence, the son of a leather craftsman with a cosmopolitan
culture. It was a small luggage and saddlery company where he sold exclusive leather goods
created and produced by the best craftsmen he could hire.
1938
Within a few years, the small Florence shop grew and attracted a wide clientele base. A branch
was opened in Rome
19471953
Creation of the "bamboo handle handbag", which later became one of the company's icon
products. Introduction of the sons in the business (second generation in the family business)
19531969
Death of the founder. The 4 sons have the control of the company.
Company growth and commercial internationalisation (stores in London, Paris, New York,
Palm Beach, Hong Kong). Linkages with Hollywood actress and other important testimonials
(Jackie O shoulder bag)
19821995
In 1982 Gucci became a s.p.a.: the third generation has the control of the company; difficulties
in managerial strategies. In 1989 the Anglo-Arab Investorcorp acquired the 50% of shares. In
1993 all the shares are acquired by Investorcorp
Begins a turnaround strategy managed by Domenico De Sole (Chief executive officer of Gucci
Group) and by Tom Ford (design and style manager): repositioning of the brand in the luxury
market; focalisation of the business in leather, accessories and apparel industry
19951998
In 1995 Gucci Group was launched as became a publicly traded company, listing on the New
York and Amsterdam stock exchanges. It issued further shares in 1996.
Decentralization of production in the local system (mainly in Tuscany): internal activities
specialised in design, marketing and logistics. High investment in communication. Direct
control of distribution and new openings (174 monobrand shops at the end of 2002).
19981999
The firm was named "European Company of the Year 1998" by the European Business Press
Federation for its economic and financial performance, strategic vision as well as management
quality
In 1999 it launched a "strategic alliance" with the French group Pinault-Printemp-Redoute
(PPR). At the beginning. PPR owns 68% of the group
20002003
Growth strategy (brand extension and takeovers at international level). Actually Gucci Group
had whole or partial interests in 3 main business area and in the following companies or
brands:
Fashion: Gucci (100% share of ownership, also watches 100%); Yves Saint Laurent (100%,
also perfume brand 100% and watches brand 100%); Sergio Rossi (70%); Bottega Veneta
(78.5%); Alexander McQueen (51%, also perfume brand 100%); Stella McCartney (50%, also
perfume brand 100%); Balenciaga (91%)
Perfume: Roger & Gallet; Boucheron (also jewellery and watches); Ermenegildo Zegna; Oscar
del la Renta; Van Cleef & Arpels; Fendi
Watches: Bedat & Co (85%)
Since the turnaround of the mid-1990s Gucci has continued to prosper (4.000 employees) and a
highly profitable business operation.
The Gucci brand is considered one of the most frequently mentioned brands (in 2003 n.53 in
the world in the Interbrand global ranking).
2004
PPR owns the total control of Gucci: a new CEO (Robert Polet) and 4 new young style
directors. New partnership with unions and retailers for reaching the Social Accountability SA
8000 and 14.000 (ethical label)
20052007
In 2005 Mark Lee is CEO Gucci Division
Roger Polet is Chairman and CEO Gucci Group, the world’s third largest luxury group.
Coming from Unilever, bringing considerable global management experience and indepth knowledge of the development of consumer brands in a multicultural environment
In 2007 the Group’s business grew by 15% in terms of sales and by 40% in terms of
EBITA. Frida Giannini is Creative Director of Gucci Division
20082009
The Group balance a well defined portfolio brands with 8 clearly identified brands: 3 are
the engine of the growth (Gucci, Bottega Veneta, YSL), Boucheron offers
complementary expertise in few segments (jewellery, watches), 4 cutting-edge brands
with high potential for long-term growth (Balenciaga, Stella McCartney, Alexander Mc
Queen, Sergio Rossi)
Controlled development of an integrated distribution network: the Group directly
operates 560 stores in major markets throughout the world and wholesales products
through franchise stores, duty-free boutiques and leading department and specialty
stores
Strategic partnership with Soeind Group (Swiss group, luxury watches)
YSL Beauté is sold to l’Oreal (but remains a partnership); Bedat & Co is sold
In 2008 Gucci generates 2,206 million Euro in revenues (+4,2%) and 625 million Euro
in operating profits (-3,4%). The incidence of leather goods on total sales was the
55,3%, followed by shoes (15%) and clothing (14,3%).
2009
In 2009 Patrizio di Marco is the new CEO Gucci Division: his main goal is to balance
the unique tradition and the historical exclusive values of the brand in perfect
equilibrium with fashion and trend soul
In 2009 Gucci generates 2.266 million Euro in revenues (+2,7%)
Gucci has more than 7.000 employees and other 7.000 work in the regional induced
activity. Gucci manufactures all products in Italy and licenses the production and
distribution of eyewear and perfumes. Through Gucci Group Watches, located in
Cortaillod (Switzerland), the company also assembled and distribute in all the world
Gucci brand timepieces, combining outstanding Swiss craftsmanship with modern
design aesthetics
2010
February 18th: Alexander Mc Queen died. Gucci Group confirmed its commitment to
continue with the brand and has provided all logistical, financial and human support to
the Alexander McQueen team. In March 2010 Sarah Burton has been appointed
Creative Director of the brand (supervision of the creative direction and development
of all collections)
In 2010 Gucci turnover was 2.666 million Euro (+17%) with a significant profit growth
(+22,9%). Gucci recorded further strong growth in emerging markets; Asia-Pacific is
becoming the main market area for the brand.
The Gucci brand’s retail network comprised 284 stores (92 in emerging countries).
2011
2012
Gucci main values: “exclusivity, quality, made in Italy, Italian craftsmanship, design
leadership in the world of fashion”.
Strategic positioning: perfect balance of modernity and tradition, innovation and
craftsmanship, trendsetting and sophistication.
Craftsmanship and Made in Italy: strong linkages with the territory; 100% Made in Italy;
45.000 workers in all Italy; the project “artisan corner” in the shops; the project “made to
measure”
Support in the creation of 3 “Network contracts”: Gucci has sponsored the birth of 3
networks contracts to improve innovation, efficiency in the value chain, economy of scale,
facilitate credit access: 1) P.re.Gi. Network (7 firms, leather goods artisan; 11 mil. Euro
turnover); 2) Almax Network (8 firms, bags producer, 20 mil. Euro turnover, 300
employees); 3) F.a.i.r. network (9 firms, accessories and leather; 45 mil. Euro turnover, 200
employees)
Eco-friendly initiative for the environmental impact reduction of the firm activities
Innovation: Launch of the new collection in the kids market all made in Italy.
Opening of the Gucci Museum (Icon Store, Library and Gift Shop, Coffee and Restaurant)
Selective Retail strategy: 317 shops worldwide (they realized the 73% of the Gucci turnover,
the other 27% distributed in selected retail stores)
Economic Performance: In 2011 Gucci turnover was 3.140 million Euro (+17,7%) with a
profit growth at group level (+26,4%). In 2012 Gucci turnover was 3.639 million Euro.
The network of subcontractors: 750 direct supplier, 1500 subcontractor, 45.000 employees
2013- Economic Performance: In 2013 Gucci turnover was 3.561 million Euro (-2,1%)
2014 with a profit growth (Ebitda 35,8%). The composition of turnover for business
area is: 58% leather goods, 14% shoes, 11% clothing, 5% watches, 2% jewellery,
10% other products. In 2014 (first trimester) Gucci sales 838 million Euro
(+0,3%)
Strategic positioning: reduction of wholesale point of sales (indirect channels) and
increase of direct retail store. Pushing to the top of the luxury market the Gucci
positioning; in Spring 2009 the turnover of the bags collection was: 32% entry
price, 48% medium segment; 18% high market; 2% top; in Winter collection
2013-14 the figure are respectively 2%, 47%, 48%, 3%.
Craftsmanship and direct investment in the “Made in Tuscany”: continue the
strong linkages with the territory; 7.000 workers in the regional network. Key
words for manufacturing investments: efficiency, flexibility, specialization. In
2014 Gucci invested 21 million for a new manufacturing plant near Florence
Improving the “Network contracts”: from 3 networks contracts to 12 networks;
97 small and medium size firms are involved; 1.500 employees in the networks;
social responsibility and ethical code are compulsory
Investment in correlated business: in 2013 Gucci group acquire Richard Ginori an
historical porcelain firm based in Florence
•
•
Craftmanship: past and present
with the project “artisan corner”
inside the stores
Frida Giannini (Creative
Director from 2006) Exploring
Gucci’s rich heritage and its
incomparable craftsmanship
capabilities, Giannini has created
a unique vision for Gucci that
fuses past and present; history
and modernity
b) The different way to communicate the
world of Gucci
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
The shops
The products
The Advertising
The web site: http://www.gucci.com
Gucci museum: http://www.guccimuseo.com/en
Gucci and the Arts (exhibition, cinema, events)
• The shops
– direct control of distribution
– internationalization of distribution
– Flagship stores (in the photo Seul FS)
• The new products: icon products (the
new Bamboo bag)
• The Gucci Digital Flagship Store
• The Gucci Museum in Florence
c) THE FUTURE: OPPORTUNITIES AND RISKS
• The Gucci case history is a good
example of leading firm that was able
to overcome family succession
problems and to develop “a glocal
strategy”. Its local network shows high
capability to support the crisis.
• The opportunities of globalization
(new rich people in Asia) with new
personalized products and services:
– made to order handbags;
– accessories personalized;
– made to measure
• Future challenges are approaching (in
2009 De Marco said: “at 1 billion Euro
it’s easy to remain Made in Italy, at
more than 2 billion it’s much more
difficult!”
3) The influence of leading actors on the SME’s
sub-contractors (the network)
• Growth of the local network (see table 1): small and high qualified firms
(luxury supplier) while firms specialized in mass markets are
increasingly reducing
• Higher selection of local supplier: acquisition of some supplier (see
table 2) and opening the relationships outside the local system
• Differentiation of supplier and of local network relationships (see
picture 4): in the case of Gucci we can find around 9 partner supplier
(co-development partnerships); 13 sub-contractor (integrated
relationships); 30 simple supplier (market relationships)
• Not simple “predator” strategy: in some case the relationships imply a
transfer of knowledge above all in the partner supplier (see table 3).
• Weakening the autonomy of SME’s: network hierarchization (less
market knowledge, less projectual role) (see table 4).
Table 1: Changes in number of employees in the local unit in the
period 1991-2001 (in %) (Source: Istat)
Table 2: Acquisition of small-medium firms in the fashion industry in Florence by leading firms
Buyer
Firm acquired (comune)
Year of
acquisition
1994
Celine (LVMH)
Marcus (Impruneta – FI)
Dior
Mardi (Scandicci)
Gruppo Dolci
Gherardini (Scandicci)
Mariella Burani
Braccialini (Pontassieve)
LVMH,
Pucci (Firenze)
LVMH
Fendi (Bagno a Ripoli - FI)
Gucci
Conceria Caravel (Fucecchio)
Gucci
Calzaturificio Tiger (Monsummano Terme-PT)
Gucci
Calzaturificio Creazioni Bartoli (Monsummano T.-PT)
Gucci
Calzaturificio Paoletti (Pistoia)
Gruppo Dolci
Pelletteria Only Leather (Scandicci)
Gruppo Dolci
Nuova FGF- minuterie metalliche (S: Piero a Sieve)
Trussardi
Pelletteria Zetati (Bagno a Ripoli)
2003
Gucci
Conceria Blutonic (S. Miniato) (51%)
2004
Nd
2000
2000
2000
2001
2001
2002
2002
2002
2003
2003
Picture 4: Network structure: relationships between SME
and leading actors in Florence-Arezzo leather cluster
IRPET Istituto Regionale Programmazione Economica Toscana
Table 3: leather/shoes firms in Florence and Arezzo which have increased the following
factors (%)
a) Product portfolio
b) Plant dimension
c) Number of employees
d) Employees’ competences
e) Total revenues
f) Earnings margin
g) Number of supplier
h) Number of clients
Total
58
51
46
76
71
53
32
19
Table 4: changes in leather/shoes firms due to cooperation with leading firms (%)
Type of change
Total (%)
a) I have changed product
13
b) I do not use my own brand any more
24
c) No more design
17
d) I have introduced new technologies
50
e) I used new materials
36
f) Outsourcing of some phase of production
52
The impact of the recent crisis on SME
(2010 Unioncamere data)
• Different performances in the 3 main industries, in
2009 high reduction of turnover, but at the beginning
not too bad consequences in terms of reduction of
employees (fig. 1.2)
• Reduction in the number of firms, stronger for micro
artisans by comparison to industrial firm (fig 1.3)
• Despite the crisis the importance of the 3 main
industrial district in the local economy remain high in
terms of: number of firms (45%), employees (53,4%)
and export (52,8%).
FIGURA 1.2
Indicatori congiunturali delle imprese manifatturiere della provincia di Arezzo
Variazioni % tendenziali del fatturato, dell'occupazione e della produttività del lavoro (1)
Oreficeria
Tessile e
Pelle, cuoio,
Totale
abbigliamento
calzature
Manifatturiero
Fatt. Occ. Prod.
Fatt. Occ. Prod.
Fatt. Occ. Prod.
Fatt. Occ. Prod.
2004
-6,9 -5,9 -1,0
-2,9
1,8 -4,7
0,7 -2,5
3,2
-2,8 -1,5 -1,3
2005
-5,0 -2,8 -2,3
-1,6
1,1 -2,7
7,2 -2,8 10,0
0,7 -1,0
1,7
2006
-3,0 -1,4 -1,6
0,0
0,9 -0,9
2,4
1,9
0,4
1,1
0,7
0,5
2007
0,5 -0,9
1,4
1,7 11,3 -9,6
9,5
9,3
0,2
3,7
3,3
0,4
2008
-8,3
1,6 -9,9
-0,9
0,3 -1,2
-1,0
4,6 -5,6
-1,9
2,7 -4,6
2009 sem. I -28,7 -6,7 -22,1 -17,7 -6,1 -11,6 -21,2 -1,9 -19,3 -21,1 -2,9 -18,2
(1) Imprese manifatturiere con almeno 10 addetti
Fonte: elaborazioni su dati Unioncamere Toscana-Confindustria Toscana
FIGURA 1.3
Imprese toscane manifatturiere registrate in provincia di Arezzo per settore
Valori assoluti al 31/12 e variazioni %
Imprese artigiane
Imprese non artigiane
Totale imprese
2000 2008 var. %
2000 2008 var. %
2000 2008 var. %
Gioielleria e oreficeria
1.149 1.018 -11,4
522
564
8,0 1.671 1.582
-5,3
Tessile-abbigliamento
812
466 -42,6
397
380
-4,3 1.209
846 -30,0
Pelle, cuoio, calzature
378
277 -26,7
151
159
5,3
529
436 -17,6
Altri settori manifatt.
2.285 2.335
2,2 1.055 1.160
10,0 3.340 3.495
4,6
AREZZO
4.624 4.096 -11,4 2.125 2.263
6,5 6.749 6.359
-5,8
TOSCANA
41.595 36.951 -11,2 27.694 27.561
-0,5 69.289 64.512
-6,9
Fonte: elaborazioni su dati Infocamere-StockView
CONCLUSIONS
• SME companies continue to play an important role in the international
business, but the new competitive scenario obliged them to change their
strategies and firm structures
• Network organizations are only a small piece of the Italian puzzle, but they
are important to understand the process of entrepreneurial development in
certain area of the country
• In the industrial district is quite common to find network organizations, but it
is not easy to replicate this model of development in other regions.
• At the moment the Italian fashion cluster are facing new competitive
challenges that will probably change some of their original characters (it
becomes strategic the role played by leading firms; increasing role played by
advanced services)
• More researches are needed to understand better the nature and the evolution
of network organizations (key variables, stages of evolution, competition,
etc.). Only the future will tell us if network organizations will continue to be
important or will move into some new consolidated forms (medium or large
firms, small transnational groups)
• The Gucci case history is a good example of leading firm that was able to
overcome family succession problems and to develop “a glocal strategy”. Its
local network shows high capability to support the crisis, but future
challenges are approaching (in 2009 De Marco said: “at 1 billion Euro it’s
easy to remain Made in Italy, at more than 2 billion it’s much more difficult!”
REFERENCES
• Bacci L., a cura di, (2004), Distretti e imprese leader nei sistemi moda della
Toscana, F. Angeli, Milan.
• Fondazione Edison & Symbola (2009), Italia. Geografie del nuovo Made in
Italy, may.
• Istat (2012), Le esportazioni dei prodotti dei sistemi locali del lavoro, April,
Rome.
• Lorenzoni G. (1990) Architettura di sviluppo delle imprese minori, il
Mulino, Bologna.
• Onida F., (2004), Se il piccolo non cresce. Piccole e medie imprese italiane
in affanno, il Mulino, Bologna.
• Porter M. (1982) Competitive Strategy, New York, Free Press
• Porter M. (1990) The Competitive Advantage of Nation, New York, Free
Press.
• Porter M. (1998), On Competition, Boston, Harvard Business School Press.
• Unioncamere Toscana (2010), I settori dell’oreficeria e della moda in
provincia di Arezzo - Indagine strutturale 2009, Florence.
• Varaldo R., Ferrucci L., a cura di, (1997), Il distretto industriale tra logiche
di impresa e logiche di sistema, F. Angeli, Milan.
• http://www.gucci.com/uk