Based on, but also adding to, the arguments presented in the volume, this final chapter provides an answer to the book’s research question about the emancipatory power of geographical indication (GI) under globalization and neoliberalism. It opens with a brief summary of the overall conclusions derived from the book, which critically reflect on the potential for GI to transform and re-organize the agri-food sector, given the broader constraints at the societal level. Overcoming thorny agri-food constraints requires comprehensive approaches that involve the restructuring of current social arrangements. Following this analysis, the overarching conclusion reached is that GI does not offer solutions to structural problems highlighted by some classic and contemporary literature. However, while GI cannot structurally change the agri-food sector, it generates a number of consequences that can be relevant for emancipatory efforts. These outcomes are synthesized into six additional conclusions. First, the chapter concludes that the emancipatory role of GI depends on local social relations and socioeconomic conditions, which are in turn contingent on existing structural factors and the exercise of human agency. The second conclusion states that the success of GI depends on the way it is implemented. Implementation involves contradictory processes that may include the loss of heterogeneity, local identity and vernacular institutions. The third conclusion finds that GI does not necessarily represent a safeguard against the functioning of the free market, because emancipatory results are often endogenously countered by opposing consequences. The fourth conclusion underscores that GI represents a socially and politically aggregating force that is both necessary and beneficial but is often accompanied by episodes of distrust and conflict. The fifth conclusion rejects the claim that GI protects the environment and supports the sustainable use of natural resources because historical food systems upon which GIs are based do not consistently inhere ecological values. The sixth conclusion indicates that GI supports the desire of producers to remain in farming and food production despite adverse conditions. The chapter ends by contending that the emancipatory power of GI in all of its implementations is contradictory, because it contains elements that simultaneously promote and hamper its ability to improve the socioeconomic conditions of stakeholders and democratize the agri-food sector.