Advertisement

Agriculture and Human Values

, Volume 10, Issue 2, pp 60–67 | Cite as

Is risk regulation a strategic influence on decision making in the biotechnology industry?

  • Joanna Chataway
  • Joyce Tait
Articles

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Regulatory Process Economic Factor Strategic Decision Agricultural Economic Actual Impact 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Amendola, M. and Bruno, S. 1990. “The Behaviour of the Innovative Firm: Relations to the Environment.”Research Policy, 19, 419–433.Google Scholar
  2. Anon. 1992. “White House Policy on Environmental Release.”The Gene Exchange, 3 (1), 1–2.Google Scholar
  3. Brunsson, N. 1989.The Organisation of Hypocrisy: Talk, Decisions and Actions in Organisations. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  4. 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.Google Scholar
  5. Dosi, G. 1989. “The Nature of the innovative process.” In G. Dosiet al. (infra).Google Scholar
  6. Dosi, G.et al. 1989.Technical Change and Economic Theory. London and New York: Pinter.Google Scholar
  7. Freeman, C., J. Clark, and E. Strete. 1982.Employment and Technical Innovation. London: Frances Pinter.Google Scholar
  8. Hair, J. D. 1992. “The Reality of Controversy.”Bio/technology, 10, 216.Google Scholar
  9. Levidow, L. and J. Tait. 1991. “The Greening of Biotechnology: from GMOs to Environment-friendly Products.”Science and Public Policy, 18 (5), 271–280.Google Scholar
  10. Levidow, L. and J. Tait. 1992. “Release of Genetically Modified Organisms: Precautionary Legislation.”Project Appraisal.Google Scholar
  11. 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.Google Scholar
  12. Metz, G. 1984. “Solving Structural Problems in the European Chemical Industry.”Chemistry and Industry, 24, 871–877.Google Scholar
  13. National Economic Development Council. 1991.New Life for Industry. London: NEDC.Google Scholar
  14. Porter, M. E. 1990.The Competitive Advantage of Nations. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  15. Roobeek, A. 1987. “The Crisis in Fordism and the Rise of a New Technological Paradigm.”Futures, 19 April, 129–154.Google Scholar
  16. Rousch, W. 1991. “Who Decides about Biotech? The Clash over Bovine Growth Hormone.”Technology Review, July, 36.Google Scholar
  17. SAGB. 1990.Community Policy for Biotechnology: Priorities and Actions. Brussels.Google Scholar
  18. SAGB. 1991.Community Policy for Biotechnology: Economic Benefits and European Competitiveness. Brussels.Google Scholar
  19. Shackley, S., L. Levidow, and J. Tait. (manuscript in preparation). “Contending Rationalities and Regulatory Politics.”Google Scholar
  20. 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.Google Scholar
  21. Tait, J., J. Chataway, and S. Jones. 1990. “The Status of Biotechnology-Based Innovations.”Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 2(3), 293–305.Google Scholar
  22. 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.Google Scholar
  23. Thompson, S. 1986. “Biotechnology — the Shape of Things to Come or False Promise?”Futures, August 1986, 514–525.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joanna Chataway
  • Joyce Tait

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations