The influence of Michelin stars on the rise of vegetables in haute cuisine. Isabelle BOUTY, Marie-Léandre GOMEZ

ANGERS 2011 The influence of Michelin stars on the rise of vegetables in haute cuisine. Isabelle BOUTY, Marie-Léandre GOMEZ Université Paris Ouest Nanterre, ESSEC Business School We build on an institutional approach to assess the influence of Michelin stars on the rise of vegetables in haute cuisine. We define haute cuisine as the field composed of agents and organizations engaged in the world of gourmet restaurants and use Michelin ratings to define the latter as those awarded at least one star by the guidebook. We draw on longitudinal multiple sources of data to empirically study of the place of vegetables in French haute cuisine between 1997 and 2007. We show that the status of vegetables has quantitatively and qualitatively changed in French haute cuisine and highlight the leading role of elite threestar restaurants and follower position of others (one and two stars) in the process of institutional change. Our study contributes to a better understanding the influence of threestar restaurants on the evolution of haute cuisine. Keywords: institution, diffusion, creativity, Michelin, restaurant, haute cuisine "Noble products (caviar, foie gras) have long trusted the first place on menus. Veggies are now the stars" (Le Figaro 2006). "Think vegetables first. [ ] They represent a seismic shift in the French culinary mindset. [ ] The best chefs are now treating vegetables with the same respect once reserved for foie gras". (The Globe and Mail 2007). "Carrots are the new caviar" (Financial Times 2009) and we are now celebrating the "vegetarian redemption" (Wells 2007). Today media are fraught with references to vegetables being not only wealthy food products but also fashionable gastronomic ingredients. A rapid scanning of restaurants menus identically suggests that vegetables seem to receive specific attention and vegetable-based preparations flourish: "Lobster poached in vanilla butter with avocado lasagna" (Chez Dominique, Finland), Gourmet restaurants even offer vegetarian menus such as De Librije (Netherlands) or The French Laundry (US) where one of the two daily nine-course tasting menu is a vegetable menu. Twelve years ago vegetables were treated quite differently though. They were martyr's food (Daily Express 2001), "unglamorous staple diet for weekdays" (The Independent 2001). At best, vegetables were a side dish, which name was barely quoted on menus and which did not merit specific attention or preparation. What happened? Are vegetables increasingly considered elite ingredients in restaurants? Have they truly acquired a new status in gastronomy or is it simply a fashionable caprice? Institutional theory suggests that organizations do compete and survive in a field on the ground of consensus over how the actor's world should be (Thompson 1967) and that in institutionalized fields, taken for granted interpretive schemes, and organizational archetypes spread through isomorphism. We build on his view to examine the influence of Michelin stars on the rise of vegetables in haute cuisine. We define haute cuisine as the field composed of agents and organizations engaged in the world of gourmet restaurants: the restaurants themselves, their employees and clients, gastronomic critics and journalists, specialized journals, suppliers and contractors, some cooking schools and, last but not least, guidebooks. We build on Michelin ratings and identify gourmet restaurants as those awarded at least one star by the guidebook. We empirically analyze the place of vegetables in haute

cuisine on the ground of a longitudinal study of French gourmet restaurants between 1997 and 2007. We draw on multiple sources of data: a database that includes the signature dishes of all starred French chefs on the ground of annual directories issued by the Guide Michelin, interviews with elite chefs, observations at gourmet restaurants, and secondary data. We show that the status of vegetables has quantitatively and qualitatively changed in French haute cuisine. We highlight the leading role of elite three-star restaurants and follower position of others (one and two stars) in the process of institutional change. Our study contributes to a better understanding of the evolution and influence of haute cuisine, with the description of both new institutional rules and the role of three-star restaurants. In particular, whereas some studies are dedicated to the advancement of institutional theory and limit their use of gastronomy to that of an empirical field (e.g. Durand, Rao, and Monin 2007; Rao, Monin and Durand 2003; Svejenova, Planellas, and Mazza 2007), our aim here is to contribute to the understanding of haute cuisine, gastronomy and the restaurant industry with an institutional perspective. In the following pages, we first highlight the institutional theory foundations of our study. Then we turn to describing the organizational field of haute cuisine. In the third section we present our empirical study, with a description of our method, data and analysis. The article closes with a discussion of our results. Institutions and institutional change In 1967, Thompson (1967) introduced the idea that organizations compete and survive in a field on the ground of domain consensus. This consensus is, Thompson further argues "a set of expectations both for members of an organization and with whom they interact, about what the organization will and will not do"(thompson 1967, p. 29). Institutions are powerful forces that shape actors behavior by establishing how the actor's world should be. On this ground, institutional research developed to further examine the nature, sources and dynamics of consensus. In this stream of research, Di Maggio and Powell, investigated the "startling homogeneity of organizational forms and practices" (1983, p.148) and used the notion of organizational field to highlight the forces exerting pressure on organizations. Di Maggio and Powell (1983) defined organizational fields as "those organizations that, in the aggregate, constitute a recognized area of institutional life: key suppliers, resource and product consumers, regulatory agencies, and other organizations that produce similar services or products" (Di Maggio and Powell 1983, p. 149). Scholars (e.g. Di Maggio and Powell 1983; Tolbert and Zucker 1983) suggested that as a field develops, isomorphism grows and produces taken for granted interpretive schemes, and organizational archetypes. Isomorphism is a constraining process; it forces organizations that face the same environmental conditions to resemble each other. Following these explorations a number of scholars further documented how organizations adapt and conform to institutional pressures. For example Di Maggio and Powell (1983) further describe three processes as coercive isomorphism (grounded on political influence and legitimacy), mimetic isomorphism (grounded on standard responses to uncertainty) and normative isomorphism (grounded on professionalization, with the legitimization of cognitive base through formal education and the growth of professional networks). Tolbert and Zucker (1983) suggested that institutional legitimacy is an essential driving force in the process of institutionalization. Scott (2001) highlighted regulative, normative and culture/cognitive processes. These studies also address the parallel question of the diffusion of institutional changes: how are they produced, introduced and spread in institutional fields? Hargrave and Van de Ven define these institutional changes as differences "in form, quality, or state over time in an institution"

(2006, p. 966). These authors further identify four different models of institutional change in the literature that address four different aspects of institutional change (Hargrave and Van de Ven 2006; p. 867): institutional design, institutional adaptation, institutional diffusion and collective action. Institutional studies that have already been carried out in haute cuisine belong to the institutional design and adaptation categories. They concentrated on the production and adoption of changes to highlight the role of institutional entrepreneurs (Gomez and Bouty 2006; Bouty and Gomez 2010a; Durand et al. 2007; Rao et al. 2003; Rao and Giorgi 2006; Svejenova et al. 2007). In contrast, we rather focus on an institutional diffusion topic, with our attention directed to the spreading of a new practice among a population of actors. In the following pages, we first describe Haute Cuisine as an institutionalized organizational field. On this base we examine the change in status of vegetables and whether this evolution represents an institutional change in the field. Haute Cuisine The field of haute cuisine is the space composed of agents and organizations engaged in the world of gourmet restaurants: the restaurants themselves, their employees and clients, gastronomic critics and journalists, specialized journals, suppliers and contractors, some cooking schools and, last but not least, guidebooks. Haute cuisine was initially constituted as a cultural field in the post-revolutionary French society (Parkhurst-Ferguson 1998) and is today highly institutionalized (Durand et al. 2007; Rao et al. 2003). In the institutional formation and evolution of the field, the role of writings has always been prominent. In her detailed account of the making of the field, Parkhurst-Fergusson (1998) demonstrates that even the foundations of haute cuisine are textual and that today textual producers (including media and guidebooks) are "integral parts of, and active actors in, the gastronomic field" (Parkhurst-Fergusson 1998, p. 631). Among these producers, guidebooks and more specifically the Michelin Guide play a specific role: with their rankings, they define which the elite restaurants are. Today, the Michelin Guide is still the most important and internationally acknowledged guidebook (Fauchart and Von Hippel 2008; Karpik 2000; Rao et al. 2003). Despite repeated attempts by other guidebooks and media to question its hegemony over the field, Michelin maintains en even developed its international dominance, especially in the eye of chefs themselves (Fauchart and Von Hippel 2008; Karpik 2000; Rao et al. 2003). Each year, field actors look forward to the annual issue of the guidebook and the ranking is widely commented upon. This ranking is built on the base of anonymous visits to restaurants by Michelin's inspectors. Each starred restaurant is visited at least once a year and the best rated ones are visited more often, up to 12 times a year according to Michelin. The Michelin Guide ranks restaurants along two criteria: forks and stars. Forks (ranging from none to five) reflect the decorum, and stars (with a scale from none to three) reflect the gastronomic level. Stars grew in importance during the past decades and are today the criterion most valued by all agents in the field (Karpik 2000). They are awarded by Michelin on the base of two main criteria: cuisine creativity and daily operational excellence. Michelin stars are also professional certification with significant market value in the field (Parkhurst-Ferguson 1998: 20): according to Johnson, Surlemont, Nicod, and Revaz (2005, p. 173, 179), moving from two to three-star ranking involves a 30 percent increase in revenue and losing a star involves up to a 50 percent fall. In 2009 about 550 restaurants were awarded at least a star by Michelin (2000 in Europe), and only 26 of them (60 in Europe) have won the ultimate three stars, which are comparable to an Olympic gold medal. Haute cuisine experienced paramount transformations in the 1970 s with the consequences of the nouvelle cuisine wave overtaking simple food matters to generate identity changes (Rao

et al. 2003). Prior to this period, gastronomy was dominated by the classical Escoffier s rules: béchamel sauces, river fish, high cooking heat, long-lasting meals. Chefs were simple restaurant employees expected to sublimate the ingredients in conformity to Escoffier's rules. The Nouvelle Cuisine wave generated changes in food matters, with the introduction of new recipes, new products, more simple cooking styles and lighter meals. It also transfigured the role of chefs: as culinary innovation took on an ever growing importance (Rao et al. 2003 p. 806-807) chefs became leading actors. They gained dominant influence over the menu and many of them even became chef-owners. All chefs have now their name attached to the Michelin stars. Creativity and excellence expectations therefore rest on their shoulders. This is especially true for three-star chefs who are expected to regularly produce innovative dishes, renew their menu, while they keep on delighting their customers on a daily basis (Bouty and Gomez 2010b). In fact, if Michelin stars are endowed with definite market value, especially when comparing restaurants that are rated differently, their significance is moderate between restaurants that achieved the same rating. This is especially the case within the small group of three-star restaurants where chefs have to device additional differentiation to ground their value creation strategy. Creativity plays a major role in this regard and several three-star chefs build their position on the mastery of specific gastronomic universes, products or techniques. This both places them in a privileged situation to initiate gastronomical changes in the field and maintains permanent struggles among them over the definition of French cuisine. Empirical study In order to examine the rise of vegetables as gastronomic ingredients and assess whether this represents an institutional change in haute cuisine or is a temporary caprice, we empirically analyze the place of vegetables in French gourmet restaurants between 1997 and 2007. Methods and data We build our longitudinal study on both qualitative and quantitative data and therefore collected information from multiple sources. First we used primary and secondary information, to form a general understanding of the evolution of haute cuisine and then to establish the place of vegetables. Having been researching haute cuisine for ten years, we have progressively developed an in-depth knowing of the field though press and research articles, books, internet blogs, T.V., interviews with chefs, cooks and stakeholders, direct observations in various restaurants and a sustained attention towards any event in the field. We especially interviewed head chefs, their seconds and some cooks in four Michelin starred restaurants where we also conducted direct observations. On average, interviews each lasted an hour and a half and. Among other topics, we specifically discussed creation and innovation matters with the head chefs, which drove us to explore inspiration sources and vegetables. Observations in the kitchens lasted an average of five hours each, from pre-sitting preparation, cooking during sitting, to post-sitting debriefings, cleaning and supply ordering and were specifically useful to understand kitchen work and the very concrete manifestation of haut cuisine requirements in the restaurants. We also heavily draw on media. Press articles are a pertinent source to analyze haute cuisine as a field (Parkhurst-Ferguson 1998; Rao et al. 2003, p. 22). According to Parkhurst-Ferguson (1998), writings (journalism, culinary treatises, cultural commentaries) play a particularly important role in French haute cuisine, with specific discourses and rhetoric. They participate to the structuring of haute cuisine, rendering "the gastronomic field absolutely dependent on a textual base" (Parkhurst-

Ferguson 1998, p. 611). On this qualitative ground we were able to identify and qualify a change in the status of vegetables. Second and in order to further assess this change we constituted a database thoroughly indexing all the signature dishes of starred French restaurants on the ground of annual directories issued by the Guide Michelin. Each year, the guidebook systematically indicates signature dishes for each starred restaurants. These indications do not entail the total menu; they are dishes that are chosen by the restaurants. As such, they represent the type of cuisine the chef and restaurant want to be identified with and are therefore highly significant. Michelin lists on average, 3 specialties by restaurant (hors d'oeuvre, main dish and sometimes a desert). Our database includes data for the years 1997, 2001 and 2007. We chose to start our observation window in 1997 because at that time vegetables weren't a focus of attention in haut cuisine. They weren't a topic in textual productions in the field. In addition, during the interviews we had with a variety of actors in the field, all interviewees confirmed that at that time, vegetables were secondary in gastronomy. We also chose to include the year 2001 in our database because it resonates with a major change in the vegetables' trajectory (Gomez and Bouty 2006). At the end of December 2000, a French three-star chef announced that he will cease serving red meat at his restaurant and will focus his menu on his vegetable creations (Le Monde 2001). The announcement created immediate shockwaves in the field and was widely commented upon. As the Michelin Guide is annually issued in March, we selected the 2001 issue to point out this turn. In all, our database includes the total population of French starred restaurants for each year of observation: 462 restaurants in 1997, 505 in 2001, and 525 in 2007. We coded signature main dishes for the entire population of starred restaurants according to various dimensions. First, we identified restaurants which signature dishes explicitly referred to vegetables. According to the Oxford dictionary, we define a vegetable as "a plant or part of a plant used as food" and include two categories: green vegetables and starchy foods. We treated mushrooms separately though and did not considered them as vegetables, as during our interviews chefs and cooks warned us that they include very traditional gastronomic ingredients such as truffle or Porcini mushrooms. Then, we refined this count by detailing it along two dimensions: the place vegetables hold in the name of the dish (named first, second or vegetable dish) and the rating of the restaurants. We also coded the type of vegetable (green vegetable versus starchy food). Lastly we systematically listed the vegetables' names in order to capture the diversification of ingredients. Analysis We conducted our data analysis in two complementary and concomitant directions: quantitative and qualitative. These two analytical perspectives produced converging views and resulted in our acknowledgement that the status of vegetables has changed in haute cuisine. In a quantitative approach, we first assed the overall diffusion of vegetables in signature dishes of the total population of starred restaurants, as represented in Exhib Exhibit 1: Total share of starred restaurants quoting vegetables

40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 1997 2001 2007 Our data indicates that vegetables are now more often quoted in signature dishes. Whereas only a quarter of starred restaurants explicitly quoted vegetables in their signature dishes in 1997, nearly half of them do so in 2007. This increase on the one hand simply testifies that vegetables are more widely used in haute cuisine. On the other hand it also indicates that vegetables became legitimate. In fact, starred restaurants could have been using vegetables without pointing out to Michelin in their signature dishes. The fact that these restaurants assert their vegetable use through their signature dishes while Michelin grants them with stars is a manifestation of the growing gastronomic legitimacy of vegetables. This dimension is confirmed as awards by Michelin are further differentiated. Exhibit 2: Restaurant quoting vegetables; share by rating 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1997 2001 2007 1 star 2 stars 3 stars In coherence with past results (Gomez and Bouty 2006), data indicate that three-star restaurants started cooking vegetables as gastronomic ingredients before less awarded ones. They played and still hold a leading role in the emergence and institutional diffusion of the practice conferring them legitimacy. In order to confirm the first indication that vegetables were now better considered in haute cuisine, we refined our analysis with the examination of the evolution for starchy foods and green vegetables in more details. Exhibit 3 displays this contrasted evolution. Exhibit 3:

Share of green vegetables and starchy foods in Michelin starred restaurants' signature dishes 1997 2001 2007 2009 Restaurants proposing green vegetable in their signature dishes Total starred restaurants 13,4% 18,2% 22,3% 34,1% 1star 13,6% 17,1% 23,0% 34,3% 2stars 11,6% 21,6% 16,9% 35,6% 3stars 17,6% 28,6% 23,1% 26,9% 1997 2001 2007 2009 Restaurants proposing starchy foods in their signature dishes Total starred restaurants 11,47% 8,32% 14,67% 14,05% 1star 12,77% 7,32% 13,59% 13,59% 2stars 5,80% 13,51% 18,46% 17,81% 3stars 5,88% 9,52% 23,08% 11,54% In Exhibit 3 green vegetables appear to have beneficiated from a higher growth than starchy food in the name of signature dishes: green vegetables rose from 13,4% to 34,1% in signature dishes whereas the share of restaurants quoting starchy foods only moved from 11,47 to 14,05%. This is in coherence with the general spreading of vegetables in gastronomy, as starchy foods were initially the dominant category. Yet when contrasted according to the number of stars this evolution also further reinforces the leading role of three-star restaurants in the diffusion process: in this category the spread of green vegetables is wider than in less awarded restaurants, which rather granted space for more traditional and less innovative starchy foods. Reinforcing this general trend toward vegetables, we also acknowledge an extension in varieties used. It is displayed in Exhibits 4. Exhibit 4: Number of vegetable varieties quoted in Michelin starred restaurants' signature dishes

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1997 2001 2007 Total Nb of varieties Starchy foods Green vegetables The total number of varieties quoted in signature dishes evolved from 25 in 1997 to 35 in 1997. More interestingly, this rise is mainly rooted in green varieties whereas starchy foods remain stable over the observation period. A closer and more qualitative examination of this evolution in green varieties of quoted vegetables reveals that it followed a specific trajectory. The variety of green vegetables increased first to the benefit or conventional vegetables, then to that of old spices or more unusual products. In 2001, such vegetables as cress, beetroots or onions explicitly appeared in dishes names, for example: "Roasted John Dory breasts with red beetroot", "Grilled Atlantic sea bass and cress mousseline", "Roasted lobster with candied orange and onions". Then in 2007 additional green vegetables appeared that were older such as Jerusalem artichoke or potimarron (an old variety of pumpkin with a chestnut-like flavor): for example "Hare 'à la Royale', Jerusalem artichoke mousseline", or "Eclaté of wild duck, red cabbage and potimarron purée". A particular chef, three-starred Alain Passard, who orientated his restaurant and creative work towards vegetable gastronomy as early as 2000, even runs three market gardens in which gardeners grow organic vegetables to supply the restaurant and most importantly work on re-rediscovering old varieties; for example Passard now uses more than 10 different varieties of tomatoes or apples in his cooking and designs very different dishes with them. A qualitative examination of data also indicated that restaurants exhibit a growing sophistication in vegetable preparations in their signature dishes. In 1997, when vegetables were quoted, they were mostly referred to very simply, with their name or nature. For example: "Roasted squab with asparagus" or "Squab breasts, lemon and coriander-stuffed tights, young vegetables". As this last signature dishes illustrates, sometimes dishes even only mentioned "vegetables". In addition, when mentioned, the preparation of vegetables was mostly classical, with purées, steamed or candied vegetables. In 2007 on the contrary, the dishes' names contain more detailed descriptions of vegetable preparations and these preparations are themselves more sophisticated, with sometime surprising associations. For example: "Roasted Bigorre pata negra pig, braised bacon, sage juice, de-structured carrots", Beef carpaccio in red wine, shallot tatin", Sweetbreads noix in ginger, pearl onions, rhubarb and pink radishes", or "Caramelized endives, speculoos butter and banana condiment". This indicates that not only vegetables are more widely used as gastronomic ingredients but also

that they constitute material for culinary creation, thus reinforcing our argument that their status changed in haute cuisine. Last and accompanying these changes in restaurants, we also acknowledged an evolution in the textual production on vegetables in the field. Starred chefs now regularly value vegetables as rich sources of inspiration. It is especially the case of French chef Alain Passard who regularly develops discourses on this theme: vegetables are so much more colorful, more perfumed. You can play with the harmony of colors, everything is luminous (Seattle Times 2001). In their chronicles and books, gastronomy critics also acknowledge the new place of vegetables in haute cuisine. They now analyze vegetables in gastronomy with the same tone they use for traditional products, and simply comment upon the eating experience they contribute to produce instead of pointing out their being integrated in dishes in the first place. Critics also now consider it acceptable to pay up to 400 per guest at Alain Passard's to enjoy three-star vegetable inspired dishes whereas they were largely critical about it in 2001. Some of them also published vegetable orientated cookbooks, such as "Vegetable Harvest" by P. Wells (2007) and argue in favor of menus in which vegetables take center stage whereas fish or meat become accompanying complements. Last, media at large regularly refer to the treatment haute cuisine now reserves for vegetable. They sometimes simply acknowledge it (for example Le Figaro 2006), but also frequently put it forward as an example of sound though creative eating, itself a source of inspiration for our daily meals (for example New York Times 2005). The current sanitary preoccupations over the quality of food ingredients on the one hand and public health and obesity on the other hand do provide frequent opportunities to refer to how haute cuisine treats vegetables and the perspectives this gastronomic creativity opens for a renewed use of vegetables in our daily eating practices. With this specific discourse, media even contribute to the diffusion of the gastronomic treatment of vegetables outside the field of haute cuisine. In all, our analyses of quantitative and qualitative data converge and confirm that the status of vegetables changed in haute cuisine over the past ten years. From side dishes and secondary food products, they became legitimate gastronomical ingredients and a new territory of creative exploration for starred chefs. Discussion The institutional change of the gastronomic status of vegetables in haute cuisine is in coherence with phenomena already highlighted in past literature. In particular, such studies as those by Tolbert and Zucker (1983), Sherer and Lee (2002), Rao et al. (2003) or Durand et al. (2007) suggest that early adopters exert a deep influence of further diffusion of new institutional practices. Sherer and Lee (2002) found that because of their legitimacy, prestigious firms can and do innovate first; they can manage deviance. This might partly explain why it is the three-star restaurants which held a leading role in the vegetable movement: their rating provided them with the legitimacy to deviate from standard ingredients in the first place. Yet and based on prior results (2009) we would additionally argue that in our case, the necessity for threestar restaurants to differentiate each other was a powerful initial spur to embrace vegetables as a new source of creativity. Three-star restaurants form a small strategic group inside which each restaurant needs to devise further differentiating value creation strategies. Those are mostly ground on the king of cuisine served in the restaurant and therefore on creativity. As such, vegetables represented a potential source of value. At the same time, although side dishes, vegetables were also traditional ingredients and therefore constituted an already partly legitimate and rather safe source of inspiration and

differentiation. In that, the vegetable turn is different from the classical to nouvelle cuisine change that Rao et al. (2003) and Durand et al. (2007) describe because the institutional change was grounded on a very limited code violation. After three-star restaurants engaged in vegetable cuisine, other actors followed the trend in coherence with effects depicted in past literature: as Rao et al. (2003) suggested, in haute cuisine the number of innovators in the field (weighted by their reputation and stars) has a significant positive impact on institutional change. First, in search of creativity sources (or due to resource scarcity in the terms of Sherer and Lee 2002), these less awarded restaurants acknowledged the richness of vegetables while their legitimacy was being guaranteed by three-star initiators. Second, these restaurants were under pressure to adopt the change for fear of losing legitimacy because not granting a place to vegetables might be a sign of poor creativity in regard of Michelin expectations. This constituted incitation to change, in a dynamic similar to that depicted by Tolbert and Zucker (1983) and the enhanced external evaluations which Rao et al. (2003) relate to code-violating changes in French haute cuisine. Three-star restaurants for their part, and in coherence with Durand et al.'s (2007, p. 470) conclusions that "promoters of a newer code should innovate in their own register", kept on directing their creative efforts towards vegetables, therefore endowing vegetable with further legitimacy and maintaining a dynamic favorable to the institutionalization of the gastronomic treatment of vegetables. Further research will be fruitful to follow the new status of vegetables especially in less awarded restaurants and determine whether the trend initiated in haute cuisine infuses the restaurant business as a whole. In fact institutional arguments that because of their legitimacy, prestigious firms can and do manage deviance and therefore do innovate first, could be used to parallel evolutions between differently awarded restaurants in haute cuisine and those in the larger restaurant business where starred restaurants could be conceived as legitimate actors and others as followers. On these institutional grounds and given the current internationalization of the haute cuisine field, we can also reasonable expect that the new status of vegetables will even widen to worldwide gastronomy. As noted by Svejenova et al. (2007), as information about chefs and elite restaurants flows internationally and the distance travelled by both chefs and diners grow, haute cuisine is further globalizing (2007, p. 3-4). Yet, and following Parkhurst Ferguson (2004, p. 168) we would rather use the term internationalization instead of globalization. As this author insists, globalization refers to "the (re)production of an identical product in a vast range of countries in the world" whereas internationalization refers to "the marketing and consumption of a singular product from a particular location across national lines" (Parkhurst Ferguson (2004, p. 168). French cuisine is not globalized; it is regularly attacked and described as declining in face of other cuisines. A recent article from The New York Times (2003) even announced that Spanish cuisine had surpassed it in creativity, talent and quality. Interestingly though, the criteria considered (creativity and quality) are those that used to prevail in French haute cuisine and which became international. Internationalization is the term that better suits the evolution of haute cuisine because it is a highly institutionalized field (Rao et al. 2003), which rules and stakes (as opposed to recipes and production) progressively become internationally shared. As Parkhurst Ferguson (2004) outlines, elite chefs today face the same conditions, rules, exposure, and expectations throughout the world. As such, institutional changes initiated in France can infuse the field internationally. Further research might fruitfully explore these evolutions.

Conclusion In this study, we built on an institutionalism approach to examine the influence of Michelin stars on the rise of vegetables in haute cuisine. We empirically analyzed the place of vegetables in haute cuisine on the ground of a longitudinal study of French gourmet restaurants between 1997 and 2007. Based on multiple sources of data, we quantitatively and qualitatively show that the status of vegetables has changed in French haute cuisine. We highlight the leading role of elite three-star restaurants and the follower position of others (one and two stars) in the process of institutional change. Our study contributes to a better understanding of the evolution and influence of haute cuisine. We suggest that the institutionalization of vegetables is coherent with institutionalization dynamics depicted in past literature and could therefore be expected to widen both internationally in haute cuisine and from haute cuisine to the larger restaurant business. References Bouty I., M.L. Gomez. 2010a. Des ressources à la pratique : analyse de la stratégie légumière dans le champ de la haute cuisine, Revue Française de Gestion 2010(203/ mai): 149 161. Bouty I., M.L. Gomez. 2010b. Dishing up individual and collective dimensions in organizational knowing. Management Learning 41(5): 545 559. Daily Express. 2001. And the Chef's special today is. January 20th. Di Maggio, P. J. and W. W. Powell. 1983. The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism an collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review 48: 147-160. Durand, R., H. Rao, and P. Monin. 2007. Code and conduct in French cuisine: Impact of code changes on external evaluations. Strategic Management Journal 28(5): 455-472. Fauchart, E., and E. Von Hippel. 2008. Norms-based Intellectual property systems: the case of French chefs. Organization Science 19: 187-201. Financial Times. 2009. Carrots are the new caviar. June 13 th. Gomez, M-L, and I. Bouty. 2006. From Chef's practice to global change in Haute Cuisine, Proceedings of the 22 nd EGOS (European Group for Organization studies) colloquium Bergen, Norway. Hargrave, T. J. and A. H. Van de Ven. 2006. A collective action model of institutional innovation. Academy of Management Review 31(4): 964-999. Johnson, C., B. Surlemont, P. Nicod, and F. Revaz. 2005. Behind the stars: a concise typology of Michelin restaurants in Europe. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 46(2): 170-187. Karpik, L. 2000. Le Guide Rouge Michelin. Sociologie du Travail 42(3): 369-689. Le Figaro. 2006. La Nature passe à table. May 13 th. Le Monde. 2001. 'Le grand radical; Alain Passard sous le coup d'une truculente illumination. January 1 st. The New York Times. 2005. At last, France embraces the vegetable. June 15 th. Parkhurst Ferguson, P. 2004. Accounting for taste: The triumph of french cuisine. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Parkhurst-Ferguson, P. 1998. A cultural field in the making: gastronomy in 19th century France. American Journal of Sociology 104(3): 597-641. Parkhurst Ferguson, P. 2004. Accounting for Taste: The Triumph of French Cuisine. Chicago: University of Chicago Press Rao, H. and S. Giorgi. 2006. Code breaking: how entrepreneurs exploit cultural logics to generate institutional change. Research in Organizational Behavior 27:269-304. Rao, H., P. Monin, and R. Durand. 2003. Institutional change in Toque Ville: nouvelle cuisine as an identity movement in French gastronomy. American Journal of Sociology 108(4): 795-843. Scott, R. W. 2001. Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Seattle Times. 2001. Europe s mad cows coming home to roost'. January 11 th. Sherer, P. D. and K. Lee. 2002. Institutional change in large law firms: A resource dependency and institutional perspective. Academy of Management Journal 45(1): 102-119. Svejenova, S., C. Planellas, and M. Mazza. 2007. Cooking up change in haute cuisine: Ferran Adrià as an institutional entrepreneur. Journal of Organizational Behavior 28(5): 539-561. The Globe and Mail. 2007. Veggies take centre stage, June 6 th. The Independent. 2001. Parisian chef is taken to court accused of libeling the French food industry. June 27 th. The New York Times. 2003. A laboratory of taste, August 10 th. Thompson, J. D. 1967. Organizations in action. New York: McGrawHill Tolbert, P. S. and L. G. Zucker. 1983. Institutional sources of change in the formal structure of organizations: The diffusion of civil service reform, 1880-1935. Administrative Science Quarterly 28(1): 22-39. Wells, P. 2007. Vegetable harvest: vegetables at the centre of the plate. London: William Morrow