This paper discusses strategic decision making in firms pursuing biotechnology innovation and the influence of risk regulation on firm strategy. Data from three research projects, involving interviews with over 60 managers from agricultural and food related biotechnology companies and also over 60 key participants in the regulatory process in the UK and EC, shows a diversity of strategy and opinion. While some industry representatives identified new risk regulations governing the release of genetically manipulated organisms (GMOs) as the primary constraint on biotechnology innovation, the findings of the study painted a more complex picture. The controversies surrounding the issue of risk regulation and its impact on innovation are best understood if viewed in the context of other political and economic factors. We conclude that the actual impact of risk regulation on industry strategies is probably less than the rhetoric of industry lobbyists would suggest. At the same time, the very act of lobbying so forcefully could lead to a public backlash against industry that would be much more damaging than the regulation itself.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
Amendola, M. and Bruno, S. 1990. “The Behaviour of the Innovative Firm: Relations to the Environment.”Research Policy, 19, 419–433.
Anon. 1992. “White House Policy on Environmental Release.”The Gene Exchange, 3 (1), 1–2.
Brunsson, N. 1989.The Organisation of Hypocrisy: Talk, Decisions and Actions in Organisations. Chichester: Wiley.
Commission of the European Communities. 1984. “Eurofutures: the Challenges of Innovation.” Forecasting and Assessment in Science and Technology (FAST) The Commission of the European Communities in association with the journalFutures. London: Butterworth, p. 10.
Dosi, G. 1989. “The Nature of the innovative process.” In G. Dosiet al. (infra).
Dosi, G.et al. 1989.Technical Change and Economic Theory. London and New York: Pinter.
Freeman, C., J. Clark, and E. Strete. 1982.Employment and Technical Innovation. London: Frances Pinter.
Hair, J. D. 1992. “The Reality of Controversy.”Bio/technology, 10, 216.
Levidow, L. and J. Tait. 1991. “The Greening of Biotechnology: from GMOs to Environment-friendly Products.”Science and Public Policy, 18 (5), 271–280.
Levidow, L. and J. Tait. 1992. “Release of Genetically Modified Organisms: Precautionary Legislation.”Project Appraisal.
Martin, S. and J. Tait. 1992. “Attitudes of Selected Public Groups in the UK to Biotechnology.'” In J. Durant (ed.)Biotechnology in Public: a Review of Recent Research, Science Museum for the European Federation of Biotechnology, pp. 28–41.
Metz, G. 1984. “Solving Structural Problems in the European Chemical Industry.”Chemistry and Industry, 24, 871–877.
National Economic Development Council. 1991.New Life for Industry. London: NEDC.
Porter, M. E. 1990.The Competitive Advantage of Nations. London: Macmillan.
Roobeek, A. 1987. “The Crisis in Fordism and the Rise of a New Technological Paradigm.”Futures, 19 April, 129–154.
Rousch, W. 1991. “Who Decides about Biotech? The Clash over Bovine Growth Hormone.”Technology Review, July, 36.
SAGB. 1990.Community Policy for Biotechnology: Priorities and Actions. Brussels.
SAGB. 1991.Community Policy for Biotechnology: Economic Benefits and European Competitiveness. Brussels.
Shackley, S., L. Levidow, and J. Tait. (manuscript in preparation). “Contending Rationalities and Regulatory Politics.”
Tait, J. 1990. “Environmental Risks and the Regulation of Biotechnology.”. In P. Loweet al. (eds.)Technological change and the Rural Environment. London: David Fulton, pp. 168–202.
Tait, J., J. Chataway, and S. Jones. 1990. “The Status of Biotechnology-Based Innovations.”Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 2(3), 293–305.
Tait, J., J. Chataway, and L. Levidow. 1991. “Assessment and Management of Innovations in Biotechnology.” Paper presented at the conferenceMaitrise Sociale de la Technologie, Lyon “Proactive and Reactive Approaches to Risk Regulation; the Case of Biotechnology.”Futures, April 1992, 219–231.
Thompson, S. 1986. “Biotechnology — the Shape of Things to Come or False Promise?”Futures, August 1986, 514–525.
Joanna Chataway is a Research Fellow at the Centre for Technology Strategy at the Open University. She has carried out extensive research on the emergence of biotechnology. Recent work includes research on the management of biotechnology, factors influencing the rate and direction of innovation and biotechnology policy in industrially developing countries.
Joyce Tait is Deputy Director, Research and Advisory Services, Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) and is also a visiting professor at the Centre for Technology Strategy, Open University. SNH is a public body charged with the conservation of the natural environment in Scotland. Prior to taking up these recent appointments she was a professor in Strathclyde Graduate Business School, teaching Environmental and Technology Management, following from a senior lectureship in the Systems Department of the Open University. At the Open University and at Strathclyde University she has directed three major research projects—“Strategies and R & D Decision Making in Biotechnology Companies”, “Risk Regulation of Biotechnology”, and “Public Attitudes to Biotechnology,” resulting in an integrated analysis of the interactions between industry, government, and the public in the development of this new technology.
About this article
Cite this article
Chataway, J., Tait, J. Is risk regulation a strategic influence on decision making in the biotechnology industry?. Agric Hum Values 10, 60–67 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02217605
- Regulatory Process
- Economic Factor
- Strategic Decision
- Agricultural Economic
- Actual Impact