National drinks and value chains: a perspective to improve community resilience through the development of adaptive capacities in Latin America

The agri-food system encompasses interconnected activities from production to waste management, shaped by economic, social and environmental factors (FAO, 2024). Raw agricultural goods face increasing pressure due to economic inequality among producers and climate change impacts. Globally, the agri-food sector contributes around 4% of GDP, with higher relevance in developing economies such as Mexico and Brazil (FAO, 2022). It uses over one billion people, primarily small-scale farmers at the local level (OECD, 2023), and reached a market value exceeding US$8tn in 2022 (FAO, 2022).

In countries like Mexico, Peru, Bolivia and Brazil, the agri-food sector is closely tied to distinct geographical, cultural and historical contexts. In the beverage sub-sector, geographically indicated drinks such as Tequila, Pisco, Singani and Cachaça, respectively, officially recognized by national authorities (Gonzalez-Perez, 2022), embody national identity and export value by linking specific product attributes to their place of origin (OIV, 2024).

We use a global value chain (GVC) analysis to explore the antecedents and implications of the interactions and strategies used by drinks producers across multiple countries, emphasizing the dynamic interplay between local actors and international markets. This approach allows us to identify how producers navigate complex global trade networks, balancing local traditions and global demands. Drawing on cross-case data, we show that these efforts shape both the international positioning of these drinks and broader regional development initiatives that strengthen community resilience.

In addition, we explore how collaboration among different actors plays a pivotal role in strengthening value chains. Policies that support sustainable production, innovation and promote international differentiation are critical to ensuring the resilience of these value chains. This research underscores the interconnectedness of economic, cultural and social factors in shaping the success of iconic drinks in international markets, while also reinforcing their role as ambassadors of their regions’ heritage and identity.

The main objective of this research is to analyze how the government, private sector and society contribute to strengthening value chains in the national drinks sector to improve community resilience in Latin America within a challenging global economy. Four questions follow this objective:

This paper contributes to GVC literature by extending the notion of upgrading to include adaptive processes in symbolic industries within institutionally fragile contexts. We demonstrate how governance asymmetries, certification pressures and local institutional voids interact with community-based adaptive capacities to shape resilience outcomes. Rather than assuming a direct effect of GVC participation on resilience, we show that governance configurations condition how specific adaptive capacities, particularly institutional capacity, social networks and innovation/technology, are enabled or constrained across contexts. In this sense, governance asymmetries influence resilience indirectly, through their effects on the development and mobilization of adaptive capacities within local communities.

The paper is structured in five sections:

1. an overview of the four national drinks as context of analysis;

2. the literature review on GVCs and their governance in Latin America, and the conceptual foundations of community resilience and adaptive capacities;

3. the methodological approach for the multiple case study;

4. a findings section presenting cross-country results; and

5. conclusions and recommendations.

In Mexico, the agri-food sector – particularly agriculture, forestry and fisheries – plays a central role in the national economy. Tequila, derived from the Blue Weber Agave, is the country’s iconic beverage and a key export product. Protected by the Mexican Industrial Property Law since 1974, the Geographical Indication (GI) for Tequila extends beyond Jalisco to regions including Nayarit, Michoacán, Guanajuato and Tamaulipas (Nava, 2024b). Tequila illustrates how beverage sub-sectors can drive global expansion. In 2023, Mexico exported over 400 million liters to more than 120 countries, with the USA as its primary market (Statista, 2024a, 2024b). The industry includes more than 2,500 brands, nearly 200 producers, and sustains over 70,000 agave farmers (Romo, 2024a). As a symbol of national identity, tequila holds substantial cultural and economic value (Romo, 2024b).

Since 1994, the Tequila Regulatory Council (CRT) has coordinated the entire agave-tequila value chain, integrating producers, packagers, marketers and government agencies to ensure quality, traceability and sectoral resilience (CRT, 2024). Tequila’s trajectory – from local craft to a premium global product – demonstrates how strategic governance and branding can reposition traditional beverages in international markets (Nava, 2024a).

Pisco is Peru’s national beverage and holds GI status recognized by UNESCO and 73 countries (Angulo, 2024). A grape-based brandy with approximately 40% alcohol content, Pisco production involves grape selection, fermentation and distillation (Chacaliaza Ramos, 2024). Its origins trace back to the 16th century, with exports historically routed through the port of Pisco (Huertas Vallejos, 2004). The country celebrates Pisco Day on the fourth Sunday of July (CNN, 2017).

Despite strong cultural identity and international recognition, Pisco’s export performance has fluctuated. After surging by 75.5% in 2021 and 50.9% in 2022, exports declined by 13.3% in 2023 and reached only US$8.6m in 2024, down from US$9.7 million the previous year (Chávez-Quispe, 2024; Salazar, 2025). Key markets include the USA, Japan, Spain, Belgium and Italy (América Economía, 2024). Compared to tequila, Pisco remains underleveraged internationally, revealing untapped potential within its GVC. The Peruvian government recognizes more than 495 formally authorized producers in the country (Ministerio de la Producción, 2024).

The value chain of Singani, Bolivia’s national spirit, reflects the region’s broader trajectory toward global market integration. Produced primarily by local cooperatives using traditional methods, Singani exemplifies heritage-based craftsmanship embedded in rural economies. Its distinctiveness, derived from Muscat of Alexandria grapes and the high-altitude terroir, aligns with global demand for artisanal and origin-specific products.

Although Singani possesses strong cultural and market potential, its integration into GVCs remains limited by governance gaps and restricted market access. Unlocking its competitiveness requires clearer trade strategies and a sustained focus on authenticity and geographical identity (Pietrobelli and Staritz, 2013). According to an industry expert, efforts in consumer education and clearer market positioning are still needed to prevent confusion with other regional beverages, such as pisco (LS, Interview 2025).

Cachaça serves as a cultural emblem of Brazil, rooted in artisanal practices and the sugarcane economy. The sector sustains thousands of rural livelihoods and plays an expanding role in LATAM’s beverage value chains. In 2023, Brazil registered over 10,500 brands, 6,000 products and 1,200 distilleries (Brasil. Ministério da Agricultura e Pecuária, 2024). Despite its scale, the industry faces structural challenges, particularly in integrating small producers into sustainable and competitive models.

Internationally, cachaça ranks among the most consumed spirits, driven by high domestic demand and growing exports to over 70 countries, notably Paraguay, the USA and Germany (Brasil. Ministério da Agricultura e Pecuária, 2024). In 2024, the global market was valued at US$1.5bn (Business Research Insight, 2025). Its USA recognition as a distinctive Brazilian product in 2013 enhanced its positioning as a premium export, mirroring tequila’s global ascent. Once a domestic staple, cachaça is now emerging as a globally recognized super-premium spirit.

The agri-food sector’s contribution to economic growth depends on its integration into GVCs, which organize geographically dispersed and specialized stages of production, distribution, and consumption through distinct governance mechanisms (Buckley, 2009; Mudambi, 2008). Agriculture is central to food security and local livelihoods in LATAM. Crops used in Tequila, Cachaça, Pisco and Singani support both subsistence and export markets, linking domestic production to GVCs. However, local communities are often excluded from governance and decision-making processes related to value generation, limiting their upgrading within GVCs (Bolwig et al., 2010; Challies and Murray, 2011; Florini and Pauli, 2018; Humphrey, 2006).

Figure 1 summarizes the framework used to analyze how these four national drinks operate within agri-food GVCs and how governance, shaped by government, industry and society, affects stakeholder participation. It also highlights the role of local farming communities and the adaptive capacities amid global crises that support their long-term resilience.

GVC theory offers a conceptual framework for examining the organization of global industries and companies and the process in which value is generated, allocated and appropriate among various actors and across national boundaries.

Therefore, it is worth underscoring how power in GVC governance plays a critical role. Governance refers to “actions, institutions and norms that shape the conditions to inclusion, exclusion and mode of participation in a value chain” (Dallas et al., p. 2019). In an integrated and complex global society, new strategic actors can shape the dynamics of GVCs such as the government and institutions, nongovernmental organizations, certification offices, stakeholders and civil society, in many cases with more influence than traditional lead companies and suppliers (Challies and Murray, 2011). Gereffi et al. (2005) and Gereffi and Lee (2012) proposed a typology of value chain governance: market, modular, rationale, captive and hierarchical. Table 1 shows the description, supplier relationship and power linkage for this typology.

This typology depends on three main elements:

1. how transactions are conducted between firms (value);

2. the level of competence of suppliers (power); and

3. how information can be codified (knowledge).

From low control to high complexity in the chain, it is essential to emphasize how these elements move within firms, and how actors can be integrated and add value. According to Gereffi and Lee (2012), scholars focused on value chain studies would be able to identify how value generation is distributed among the activities and participants through the analysis of this typology.

To understand the governance dynamics, there are four types of power: bargaining, demonstrative, institutional and constitutive. In addition, there are two dimensions to analyze power and governance. First, transmission mechanisms (direct and diffuse) and second, arena of actors, which means how actors are engaged in the process of GVC governance (Ponte et al., 2019). Hence, more than the sector or industry, or the traditional relation between a firm and suppliers, what would matter the most is the type of relations among actors and how they are participating in GVCs or being excluded from them (Challies and Murray, 2011; Florini and Pauli, 2018; Ponte et al., 2019), and how these actors are able to jointly manage planning, adaptation and recovery through their relationships, triggering resilience development within (Bolwig et al., 2010; Ali et al., 2022).

In LATAM, the agri-food sector significantly contributes to GDP, exports, and local livelihoods but faces increasing threats from climate change and global shocks. Disruptions such as pandemics and geopolitical tensions highlight the need for coordinated responses across government, industry and society (Gomez-Valencia et al., 2022). These crises also underscore the importance of strengthening local partners within GVCs to enhance resilience and competitiveness (Ali et al., 2022; Perez-Batres and Treviño, 2020).

According to Bourbeau (2015) and Rochira et al. (2019), the concept of resilience in psychology has become of interest to researchers, even though every discipline gives a different meaning for resilience. The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction defines resilience as “the ability of a system, community or society exposed to hazards to resist, absorb, accommodate, adapt to, transform and recover from the effects of a hazard in a timely and efficient manner, including through the preservation and restoration of its essential basic structures and functions through risk management” (UNDRR, 2024). For the National Research Council (NRC) (2012) of the USA, “Resilience is the ability to prepare and plan for, absorb, recover from and more successfully adapt to adverse events.” Resilience is also a demonstrable outcome of an organization’s capability to cope with uncertainty in a changing environment (Gibson, 2010).

Community resilience (CR) is the community’s ability to plan for, absorb and recover from disruptive events, and has garnered growing scholarly attention (Koliou et al., 2018; Patel et al., 2017). From an ecological lens, CR enables communities to mobilize resources in response to adversity (Cavaye and Ross, 2019). It encompasses the capacity to respond to disasters while maintaining core functions and identity (Kuir-Ayius, 2016) and is influenced by public-private relationships as well as by the availability of critical local resources (Stewart et al., 2009). As Matarrita-Cascante et al. (2016) note, CR is context-dependent and shaped by the nature of stressors and community dynamics.

CR generally implies strengthened local capacity, adaptive learning and enhanced social support (Patel et al., 2017). Therefore, ten interconnected factors foster CR: economic development, infrastructure, social capital, communication, competence, leadership, equity, collective action, shared values and governance (Matarrita-Cascante et al., 2016).

LATAM countries have special conditions that would drive community resilience. For example, climate change impacts agriculture performance, water scarcity, policy interventions, social networks, food security and subsistence (Aldrich and Meyer, 2015; Altieri and Nicholls, 2017; Eakin et al., 2009; Monje-Cueto et al., 2024; Nava-Aguirre et al., 2022). Depending on the situation and context, communities respond to disruptions through adaptability mechanisms. This concept is often defined as the capacity to adjust behaviors, strategies and structures in response to external and internal changes. Hence, community adaptability refers to the capacity of social systems to adapt their structures and processes to emerging conditions while maintaining fairness in participation and resource allocation (Bolwig et al., 2010; Norris et al., 2008).

CR also relies on collective actions, relationships and institutional arrangements that allow a group to respond to challenges and changes. This response can be preventive, anticipating changes or reacting after certain events. Literature states that in a volatile society, collective action is needed to face rapid changes and disruptions and that additional elements should be incorporated into community actions such as the extension of social networks, government support, and access to scientific and technical information (Matarrita-Cascante et al., 2016; Turner et al., 2017). While CR reflects a community’s capacity to recover from disruptions, adaptive capacities refer to the resources, traits and processes that enable proactive adjustment to those changing conditions (Eakin and Lemos, 2010). These capacities encompass social, economic, institutional and environmental assets that support community responses to adverse contexts, developing resilience (Eakin and Lemos, 2006).

Adaptive capacity is shaped by various components that enhance resilience across institutional and community contexts (Eakin and Lemos, 2006; Matarrita-Cascante et al., 2016; Mendis-Millard et al., 2003; Wall and Marzall, 2006). Wall and Marzall (2006) identify five resource domains – social, human, institutional, natural and economic – while Mendis-Millard et al. (2003) emphasize economic, human and social capital. Also, key factors include information exchange, flexible and responsive governance, and policy frameworks that foster human, social and political capital. Thus, equitable resource distribution further strengthens adaptive capacity, which underpins resilience for adaptability.

The study conducts an inductive qualitative research based on a multiple case study through a GVC approach (Gallo et al., 2023). A case study investigates a contemporary phenomenon in depth and in its real context (Yin, 2018). A case study as research method is recommended when the research questions are how and why, when researchers do not require to control behavioral events and when the study focuses on contemporary events (Yin, 2014).

The GVC approach provides a valuable lens for analyzing the organization of global industries by exploring the roles and multiple economic interactions of diverse actors within a specific sector. This methodology serves as an effective tool for describing and explaining the evolving patterns of global production, connecting geographically dispersed activities and stakeholders, and identifying their contributions across both developed and developing economies. This comprehensive perspective enables a dual analysis of global industries, integrating macrolevel structures with microlevel processes (Gereffi and Fernandez-Stark, 2011).

This multicase is organized in four units of analysis (cases): Tequila in Mexico, Pisco in Peru, Cachaça in Brazil and Singani in Bolivia, emphasizing the dynamic interplay between local actors in a globalized environment. We selected these cases for four main reasons. First, to have the opportunity to analyze in deep and compare between cases in one region that face social, political and environmental challenges, identifying patterns and characteristics in more than one case; second, the four national drinks represent the agri-food sector, a relevant sector in LATAM, all with different backgrounds; third, all are illustrative cases of international and managerial experiences; and finally, authors have access to information in their country of origin. Figure 2 illustrates the study design from this multiple case.

For data collection, we used literature review from academic and institutional secondary sources (Gallo et al., 2018) such as scientific papers, governmental written and digital official documents, nongovernmental organizations and regulatory agencies in Bolivia, Brazil, Mexico and Peru. To corroborate key secondary data, confirmatory interviews were conducted with associations/institutions, companies and distilleries. We conducted five convenience interviews to representative experts in each country (Hernández Sampieri et al., 2023) such as professionals from Consejo Regulador del Tequila (CRT) in Mexico (organization), Agri-Food Cluster in Mexico (cited as AC), Consejo Regulador del Pisco (PER) en Peru (organization), a company from Bolivia (CEO at International Advisor company, cited as LS) and a medium cachaça producer and President of a Regional Cachaça Association from Brazil (cited as AB). Primary data collection through interviews in Mexico, Peru, Bolivia and Brazil were conducted in 2025. This study draws on symbolic GI-certified drinks across diverse Latin American contexts, triangulates multiple data sources including interviews, and applies pattern coding to compare governance structures and adaptive capacities.

This study applied an evaluative categorization – high (H), average (A), low (L), and not applicable (N/A) – commonly used in multicase qualitative research (Miles et al., 2014). These categories were used to assess the ten community resilience factors proposed by Matarrita-Cascante et al. (2016) across the four national drinks, where H indicates strong presence, A moderate relevance, L limited expression and N/A absence. This classification supported a systematic cross-case comparison after the individual country analyses. Following Yin’s (2014) logic of cross-case replication, this categorization facilitated structured comparison and identification of convergent and divergent patterns across the four national drinks.

We integrated and consolidated findings in word tables according to literature categories through a cross-case synthesis. First, collecting data regarding government, private and civil mechanisms for community resilience in four countries, and then, analyzing GVC governance in national drinks. We compared through a qualitative analysis these four national drinks to identify patterns, insights and challenges in their GVC governance for community resilience through adaptive capacities. This analytic technique relied strongly on argumentative interpretations of findings. Case studies assist to generalize theories (no populations) and to generalize findings from corroborating or rejected theoretical frameworks (Yin, 2014). Multicase studies must predict similar results (literal replications) or contrasting (theoretical replication). Finally, we concluded our study producing empirical base findings from four national drinks, and some recommendations for multinationals managers and policymakers in LATAM.

The value chains of these four national drinks in LATAM are shaped by government and private mechanisms designed to drive economic development and foster community engagement. These mechanisms integrate agricultural innovation, trade facilitation and localized governance, which collectively aim to enhance the efficiency and competitiveness of the value chains. By aligning policy frameworks with community needs and market demands, these efforts would significantly contribute to the sector’s sustainable growth. Tables 2, 3 and 4, present the factors for resilience in Latin America per country/national drink. These factors are evaluated from high to low.

One of the main contributions of Table 2 is that coordinated public policies, along with communication and dialogue with actors, can strengthen adaptive capacities, foster community resilience and support the growth of the beverage sector.

The Mexican government has implemented strategic initiatives to enhance the Tequila industry’s national and global competitiveness. Trade liberalization and free trade agreements have been instrumental in expanding Tequila exports. The state’s role includes establishing regulatory frameworks, safeguarding the GI, promoting export-led growth, and encouraging sustainability through circular economy practices. Small producers and local communities benefit from subsidies and training programs, notably via the Secretariat of Agriculture and Rural Development (SADER), including initiatives such as Producción para el Bienestar, which provides support to agave farmers (SADER, 2024b).

In Bolivia, the public sector plays a limited role in supporting the Singani value chain. Indicators such as economic development, infrastructure and resource access remain low, suggesting minimal investment in modernization or small producer support (Matarrita-Cascante et al., 2016). While the GI grants formal recognition, governance remains weak, with fragmented coordination and limited regulation. Public communication and community competence are average, highlighting the need for educational initiatives to differentiate Singani from products like Pisco. Deficient promotion of social capital and leadership further constrains collective resilience, underscoring the state’s marginal contribution to community-led development.

In Peru, public engagement in the Pisco value chain remains limited and, at times, detrimental. Regulatory measures have been perceived as politically motivated (under a politically biased decision-making process), privileging only small and informal producers while disadvantaged established firms, thus weakening institutional coherence and long-term competitiveness (PER, Interview, 2025). Once established, these policies are difficult to reverse. Government agencies have been noted for leveraging private-sector success to portray coordinated efforts, enhancing their reputation by supporting the national drink, yet focus their regulatory oversight and taxation primarily on formal producers, while indirectly supporting the expansion of the informal sector (PER, Interview 2025).

The Brazilian government has introduced policies to enhance the cachaça industry’s global competitiveness, including export promotion and bilateral agreements that raise international visibility. Regulatory frameworks by the Ministry of Agriculture and INPI have reinforced geographical indications (GI) and appellation of origin protections (Souza and Barbosa, 2024). Institutions like Serviço Brasileiro de Apoio às Micro e Pequenas Empresas (SEBRAE) and Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (EMBRAPA) offer technical training and credit to small producers, while initiatives such as “Agro + Cachaça” promote quality and branding. State programs in Minas Gerais and Pernambuco preserve artisanal methods and support rural resilience (IBRAC, 2025). However, many institutional efforts fail to reach small and medium artisanal producers, particularly regarding access to international markets (AB, Interview, 2025).

Table 3 presents empirical evidence on how the private sector and firms led innovation, and strategic alliances contribute to building adaptive capacities and developing community resilience. Mechanisms such as collective action, social capital, infrastructure and industry leadership encourage transformation in the beverages sector.

The Tequila Regulatory Council (CRT), established in 1994, is the official private body governing the tequila industry, bringing together producers, agave farmers, bottlers, traders, and public officials under a multistakeholder model with equal voting rights, and a stated commitment to local community benefits (CRT, 2025). Beyond its technical role, CRT supports training, R&D and sustainability initiatives, including the launch of the ARA (Environmentally Responsible Agave) program in 2023, to prevent deforestation through sustainable cultivation (CRT, 2024; CRT, Interview, 2025; Nava, 2024b). In 2024, CRT strengthened the value chain through partnerships with universities and government, focusing on equitable contract farming between agaveros and tequileros, while complementary bodies such as the Consejo Regulador de Agave Azul (CRAA) and Padrón Único de Agavero en México (PUAM) regulate and register agave producers, certifying sustainable practices and fair standards for small farmers (CRT, 2024; Secretaría de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural, 2024a, 2024b).

Bolivia’s private sector also plays a crucial role in advancing the Singani industry. High ratings in economic development, infrastructure, and leadership reflect the significant contributions of major distilleries in Tarija, such as Kuhlmann, which have driven improvements in product quality, export orientation, and global branding These companies import premium inputs, advocate for diplomatic recognition (particularly in US markets), and lead efforts to diversify product lines. Nonetheless, other factors like communication, access to resources, and collective action are rated as average, reflecting disparities between large and small producers. Many smaller actors face technological, financial and logistical barriers to entering export markets. Governance is still rated low, suggesting the absence of a unified private sector strategy or industry-wide regulation:

The local Peruvian Pisco value chain accounts for independent individual producers, associated producers, as well as well-recognized industrial brands (Higuchi et al., 2009). In addition, its foreign value chain’s sections for exporting are formed by importers, distributors, and retailers, which represent nearly 30% margin for each participant, making the product more expensive abroad (Lama et al., 2007). Private sector actors work together and promote joint efforts to move forward the GI of Pisco, as well as the promotion and commercialization of this beverage. Thus, the private sector is well organized through official associations, and also through recognized leaders and ancestral highly-valuable distillation processes (PER, Interview 2025).

In Brazil, the private sector plays a key role in shaping the cachaça industry. The Instituto Brasileiro da Cachaça (IBRAC), established in 2006, represents all producers and advocates for legal protection, standardization and global visibility. In collaboration with Ministério da Agricultura e Pecuária (MAPA) and the Cachaça Sectoral Chamber, it contributes to strategic policymaking, though high taxation, weak regulation and informality persist (AB, Interview, 2025). Private initiatives increasingly emphasize sustainability, traceability and fair labor, with distilleries adopting environmentally responsible models and supporting biodiversity. Partnerships with (EMBRAPA) foster innovation in fermentation, quality control and production technologies for smaller producers (AB, Interview, 2025). Producer associations promote GIs to strengthen regional identity, while contract farming between distilleries and sugarcane growers advances more inclusive supply chains (Souza and Barbosa, 2024).

Table 4 reveals how civil organizations and local networks contribute to fostering adaptive capacities while enhancing community resilience in national drinks value chains. One of the main contributions of this table confirms the constrained role of civil society in the four countries, and how small actors depend on big firms, leading to inequalities.

In Mexico, NGOs have significantly shaped sustainability in the tequila industry by engaging local communities. SACRED, not-for-profit corporation focuses on water management; the Tequila Interchange Project (TIP) fosters sustainable production and connects consumers, producers, and the CRT; and the Rainforest Alliance promotes community resilience and environmental practices. The “Tequila Route,” a civil association-managed tourism brand, integrates businesses and service providers to enhance local value through sustainable tourism (CRT, Interview 2025). Academic institutions also contribute by supporting research and preserving tequila’s cultural heritage and global recognition. However, some small farmers and agave cultivators depend on leading firms and they became captive suppliers with limited negotiation power (AC, Interview, 2025). Small agave producers protested against debts and over production (Speed and Murray, 2025) and tensions appeared.

Civil society participation in Bolivia’s Singani value chain remains limited, with weak performance in economic development, competence, resource access and collective action. While infrastructure, social capital and leadership are moderately developed, their impact is largely informal and concentrated within Tarija’s close-knit communities. Though cultural appreciation of Singani reinforces shared identity and modest coordination, civil society has yet to exert significant structural influence on the sector. Deficiencies in communication and governance further hinder grassroots advocacy and engagement. According to an industry advisor, the most visible community-level contributions stem from professional training efforts and hybrid production models that include small-scale suppliers, suggesting localized collaboration but limited systemic transformation (LS, Interview 2025).

According to the representative of the Pisco value chain in Peru, civil society was supportive and collaborative with the industry in the past. They worked as a family (mostly in the Ica region, which is the most important area for Pisco production), sharing insights and knowledge, promoting the skill development of workers at every level, and supporting the industry’s growth. Nevertheless, these relationships have been broken over time and they become more transactional and monetary based. This negatively affected social inequalities in the sector as well as the benefits that surrounding communities were getting from Pisco growth. However, there is no doubt that despite the obstacles that the public sector puts in between, Pisco’s perception abroad is growing and the civil society feels passionate and eager to promote it (PER, Interview 2025).

Brazil’s growing alignment with the cachaça industry reflects cultural valorization, ethical consumption and creative economy integration. Chefs, mixologists, academics and media have redefined cachaça as a symbol of national heritage, promoting its artisanal production and territorial identity, while challenging past stereotypes and supporting the premium segment (AB, Interview 2025). Events, festivals and tourism have strengthened its domestic and global image. Although civil society engagement remains limited, it supports sustainability and cultural identity by linking producers and consumers, yet weak institutional coordination still constrains sectoral development (IBRAC, 2019).

The comparative analysis of the four cases highlights the strategic role of public–private coordination in fostering community resilience. In Mexico, the Tequila industry exemplifies a consolidated value chain supported by institutional collaboration between government and the private sector (CRT, Interview 2025). This configuration promotes critical resilience dimensions – including infrastructure investment, access to knowledge, communication networks and inter-organizational linkages (Matarrita-Cascante et al., 2016). The Tequila Regulatory Council (CRT) exemplifies sectoral leadership, mobilizing over 200 producers, 43,000 agave farmers, distributors and public regulators to enable collective action and strengthen local adaptive capacities (CRT, Interview 2025)

Similarly, Brazil’s Cachaça industry benefits from robust private-sector engagement. Industry-led initiatives, enhanced by formal representation and collaborative ties with government, mirror Mexico’s model, enabling competitive environments, sectoral coordination, and value chain development.

By contrast, Bolivia and Peru demonstrate weaker institutional arrangements. Limited state support and the absence of coordinated governance mechanisms restrict progress on community resilience, with deficiencies in infrastructure, services, connectivity and equitable resource access. Nonetheless, private actors in both countries have initiated modest mid-level strategies that foster local development and knowledge diffusion, albeit with more constrained reach than in Mexico or Brazil.

A critical insight across all four cases is the limited role of civil society, including communities and NGOs, in supporting resilience. Engagement levels remain low to moderate, undermining their potential to contribute meaningfully to adaptive strategies (Matarrita-Cascante et al., 2016). Moreover, responsive governance and adaptive institutional frameworks remain underdeveloped across all cases, weakening systemic support for value chain stakeholders.

After analyzing government, private sector, and civil society mechanisms across the four cases, Table 5 synthesizes the key comparative elements linking GVC governance and community resilience. It consolidates the main cross-case patterns and highlights how differences in governance structures shape adaptive capacities across the national drinks value chains. Table 6 complements this analysis by summarizing the main governance insights derived from the interviews.

The comparative analysis of GVCs in Latin America’s national drinks (Table 5) reveals asymmetries in governance, institutional support and community resilience. Tequila’s GVC in Mexico is marked by vertical consolidation, CRT-led coordination, and technological upgrading aimed at premiumization and Asian market expansion (CRT, 2024; Nava, 2024b). Strong institutional backing via the GI and CRT’s leadership supports both producers and sustainability efforts. However, government financial support remains limited, leaving small agave farmers vulnerable to market volatility and debt (Matarrita-Cascante et al., 2016).

In contrast, Singani’s GVC in Bolivia lacks centralized regulation, with coordination led by a few private distilleries such as Colberg and Culmann. Governance is relational and fragmented, with weak public engagement and limited upgrading among small producers due to certification and infrastructure barriers (Pietrobelli and Staritz, 2013). Although Singani holds an GI, institutional support is moderate and confined to Tarija. Community resilience is informally driven through hybrid cooperative networks, but public policies and protections are largely absent.

Peru’s Pisco value chain shows clearer private-sector leadership, but state presence is ineffective, especially outside Lima. The absence of robust public institutions facilitates informality, weak regulation and adulterated products (Briolo and Cordova, 2022; Cordova, 2020; Pazos Hayashida and Cordova, 2024). While some Pisco producers maintain traditional methods and community bonds, increasing monetization and declining social values undermine community resilience (PER, Interview 2025).

Cachaça’s GVC in Brazil presents a dual structure: an informal artisanal base and formalized distilleries targeting premium and export markets. State institutions like MAPA and SEBRAE promote certification, quality and branding, yet coordination and funding are inconsistent (Souza and Barbosa, 2024). Upgrading is evident in both sustainable practices and GIs. Community resilience is supported via cooperatives, entrepreneurship and rural networks, but formalization, credit access, and climate risks remain key barriers (AB, Interview 2025).

While Mexico and Brazil show stronger institutional and private-sector alignment, Bolivia and Peru reveal fragmented governance and weaker state engagement. Across all cases, civil society contributions to resilience remain uneven, and inclusive upgrading depends on stronger multilevel coordination and investment.

GVCs in Latin America have many challenges to solve ahead. Our findings show that community resilience in Latin America’s national drinks value chains depends not only on participation in GVCs, but on how governance asymmetries and institutional fragmentation shape adaptive capacities. Building on Mendis-Millard et al. (2003) and Wall and Marzall (2006), we identify eight adaptive capacities: social networks, institutional capacity, financial resources, infrastructure, economic diversification, environmental responsiveness, skills and innovation and technology, that strengthen value creation and distribution across the four cases. However, these capacities do not operate uniformly across contexts. Governance configurations condition their development and inclusiveness, shaping upgrading and resilience outcomes.

These capacities strengthen value creation and distribution among local actors across the GVCs of the four national drinks in Mexico, Peru, Brazil and Bolivia. Table 7 provides a comparative overview of adaptive capacities in the four national beverage industries examined in Latin America.

Among the eight capacities, institutional capacity, social networks and innovation and technology show the strongest cross-case contrasts. Institutional capacity varies systematically. In Mexico, coordinated governance and regulatory frameworks strengthen traceability, organization and upgrading, although small farmers remain dependent on larger actors. In Brazil, institutional support exists but is uneven. In Peru, ineffective public institutions and informality weaken institutional coherence, and in Bolivia fragmented governance and limited state engagement constrain diversification and upgrading. These findings support Gereffi and Lee (2012) by showing that value generated by farmers and distillers is context-contingent and dependent on governance-structured access to resources.

Hence, our findings support Gereffi and Lee (2012) by pointing out where critical value is generated within these value chains (farmers and distillers), but even more how the generation of value by these nodes is context-contingent, because they would need resources from other participants to able to unleash this potential.

Social networks also reflect governance differences. Under fragmented governance and institutional fragmentation, limited coordination operates through weak regulatory enforcement and uneven resource access, which weakens institutional capacity and constrains upgrading and community resilience

In Mexico, stronger coordination supports collective action and sectoral organization. In Brazil and Peru, regulatory inconsistencies and transactional relations limit broader coordination, while in Bolivia networks remain localized and informal. Innovation and technology follow a similar pattern: Tequila demonstrates stronger technological investment and upgrading, whereas Singani, Cachaça and Pisco face certification barriers, informality, or uneven diffusion to small producers. Thus, governance asymmetries do not affect resilience directly; they operate through adaptive capacities that condition coordination, resource access and upgrading opportunities. Under inconsistent governance and informality, transactional relations operate through reduced collective action and coordination, which weakens social networks and limits inclusive resilience outcomes. Under governance asymmetries and certification pressures, unequal coordination operates through restricted access to technology and infrastructure, which limits innovation and technology diffusion and concentrates upgrading among larger actors.

The remaining capacities, financial resources, infrastructure, economic diversification, environmental responsiveness and skills, also contribute to resilience but are mediated by the same governance dynamics. Where public–private coordination is stronger, as in Mexico and partially in Brazil, these capacities are more stable and integrated. Where governance is fragmented, as in Peru and Bolivia, their development is uneven and selective.

Across Bolivia and Peru, fragmented governance limited local upgrading and constrained the development of adaptive capacities, despite GI recognition. Weak institutional arrangements reduced infrastructure, connectivity and equitable resource access. In contrast, Mexico and Brazil demonstrate stronger public–private coordination, supporting more stable institutional capacity and more consistent upgrading. Overall, governance asymmetries and institutional fragmentation mediate how resilience and upgrading unfold across contexts.

This study contributes to GVC governance models (Gereffi et al., 2005; Ponte and Sturgeon, 2014; Dallas et al., 2019; Ponte et al., 2019) by showing how governance asymmetries shape adaptive capacities and, consequently, community resilience in symbolic GI industries. Certification can enable upgrading but also reinforce exclusion (Ponte et al., 2019). Building on Bolwig et al. (2010) and Humphrey (2006), we argue that community actors’ involvement in GVCs can upgrade local conditions when governance supports inclusive coordination. Consistent with Ali et al. (2022) and Perez-Batres and Treviño (2020), strengthening adaptive capacities enhances both competitiveness and resilience within GVCs. In symbolic value chains anchored in place-based identity, resilience and upgrading depend on integrative governance rather than on participation in GVCs alone.

This study examined how globally integrated value chains rooted in nationally emblematic beverage sectors in Latin America – Tequila, Pisco, Cachaça and Singani – contribute to community resilience in institutionally fragile contexts. Through a comparative analysis across four cases, the research advances the IB and GVC literatures by showing that local adaptive capacities, rather than GVC participation alone, are critical enablers of inclusive, competitive and resilient outcomes. Building on the adaptive capacity framework (Matarrita-Cascante et al., 2016; Mendis-Millard et al., 2006; Wall and Marzall, 2006), the study identified eight key dimensions – social networks, institutional capacity, infrastructure, economic diversification, innovation and technology, skills, environmental responsiveness and financial access – as central to community resilience. Among these, institutional capacity, social networks and innovation and technology show the strongest cross-case contrasts.

Cross-case findings refine GVC assumptions by showing that upgrading depends on the interaction between governance structures and territorial embeddedness, where adaptive capacities operate as the mechanisms through which local actors negotiate constraints and opportunities. Our results illustrate how governance asymmetries and institutional voids shape these capacities and influence how producers adapt, respond to shocks and pursue upgrading trajectories in context-specific ways.

In line with the four guiding questions of this study, our findings demonstrate that the form of governance in GVCs shapes community resilience by conditioning how institutional frameworks, private sector coordination and community participation are organized within national drinks value chains. Where public–private coordination is stronger and regulatory frameworks are more consistent, institutional capacity, social networks and innovation and technology are more effectively developed, supporting upgrading and resilience. Conversely, where governance asymmetries, institutional fragmentation and informality prevail, adaptive capacities remain uneven and upgrading becomes concentrated among larger actors. The role of the private sector is therefore central but contingent on its interaction with government and civil society, as collaboration, resource access and coordination determine whether value creation translates into inclusive resilience. Across the four cases, the eight adaptive capacities identified, social networks, institutional capacity, financial resources, infrastructure, economic diversification, environmental responsiveness, skills and innovation and technology, operate as the channels through which governance configurations influence resilience in symbolic GI industries. In this sense, strengthening value chains in Latin America’s national drinks sector requires integrative governance arrangements that support adaptive capacities and enable community resilience within a challenging global economy.

The multiple-case approach offers comparative insights but limits generalizability beyond the selected beverage sectors. Data constraints, especially in informal segments like artisanal Cachaça and Pisco, may underrepresent small-scale actors. The cross-sectional design restricts understanding of how adaptive capacities evolve over time. The limited role of MNEs was noted but not fully explored. Future research could adopt longitudinal or mixed methods to track capacity-building processes; include other agri-food and other national identity sectors such as wine, coffee, or cocoa; and evaluate the effects of GIs or export policies on inclusive upgrading. Studies might also examine how MNEs co-create local value in fragile institutional contexts.

Managers operating in symbolic agri-food value chains can strengthen resilience by reinforcing concrete adaptive capacities among small producers. Building stronger social networks, improving access to finance and infrastructure, and supporting skills development help local actors cope with governance asymmetries and environmental or market shocks. This requires shifting from transactional sourcing to longer-term, risk-sharing arrangements that stabilize suppliers. Targeted investments in technical training, digital traceability, and climate-responsive tools can accelerate innovation and enable upgrading. Because certification frequently excludes small producers, firms should simplify and co-finance GI or sustainability processes to widen participation. Co-created territorial branding can also enhance authenticity and premium positioning. Finally, sustained engagement in multiactor governance platforms improves coordination, information flows, and the overall inclusiveness of GVC governance.

Policymakers can strengthen resilience in emblematic beverage chains by reinforcing local institutions and reducing fragmented governance, especially in Bolivia and Peru. Priority should be given to integrated programs that combine technical assistance, rural infrastructure, digital connectivity and accessible financial tools to protect small producers from climate and market shocks. Clearer and more consistent regulation of GIs and quality standards, along with multiactor councils that coordinate public, private and civic actors, can sustain legitimacy, improve coordination, and expand adaptive capacity in fragile institutional environments.