Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Procedural Justice and the Realization of Just Outcomes in Agricultural Innovation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Social Justice and Agricultural Innovation

  • 208 Accesses

Abstract

Conceptions of procedural justice have great potential to help improve the design of processes and guidelines meant to improve social and environmental outcomes in agricultural innovation. In this chapter I introduce the general principles of procedural justice applied to agricultural innovation and discuss some of the specific procedures concerning good scientific practice and the incorporation of genetic resources and traditional knowledge. Informed consent and inclusive decision-making procedures are defended as the central demands of procedural justice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Álvarez, Lina, and Brendan Coolsaet. 2020. Decolonizing environmental justice studies: A Latin American perspective. Capitalism Nature Socialism 31 (2): 50–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/10455752.2018.1558272.

  • Anderson, Colin Ray, Janneke Bruil, Michael Jahi Chappell, Csilla Kiss, and Michel Patrick Pimbert. 2019. From transition to domains of transformation: Getting to sustainable and just food systems through agroecology. Sustainability 11 (19): 5272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, Elizabeth. 2009. Democracy: Instrumental versus non-instrumental value. In Contemporary debates in political philosophy, ed. Thomas Christiano and John Christman, 213–27. Malden and Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, Trevor R. 2005. The effective practice of agricultural science. In Ethics in agriculture—An African perspective, ed. Alvin Van Niekerk, 143–163. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asveld, Lotte, Jurgen Ganzevles, and Patricia Osseweijer. 2015. Trustworthiness and responsible research and innovation: The case of the bio-economy. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 28 (3): 571–588.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atenas, Javiera, and Leo Havemann. 2019. Open data sectors and communities: Education. In The state of open data: Histories and horizons, ed. T. Davies, S. Walker, M. Rubinstein and F. Perini, 91–102. Cape Town and Ottawa: African Minds and International Development Research Centre.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barugahare, John, and Reidar K. Lie. 2014. Obligations of poor countries in ensuring global justice: The case of Uganda. Etikk i praksis-Nordic Journal of Applied Ethics 8 (2): 82–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blok, Vincent, and Pieter Lemmens. 2015. The emerging concept of responsible innovation. Three reasons why it is questionable and calls for a radical transformation of the concept of innovation. In Responsible Innovation 2: Concepts, Approaches, and Applications, ed. Bert-Jaap Koops, Ilse Oosterlaken, Henny Romijn, Tsjalling Swierstra, and Jeroen van den Hoven, 19–35. Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boot, Eric R. 2019. The feasibility of a public interest defense for whistleblowing. Law and Philosophy 39: 1–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bornemann, Basil, and Sabine Weiland. 2019. Empowering people—Democratising the food system? Exploring the democratic potential of food-related empowerment forms. Politics and Governance 7 (4): 105–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bovenkerk, Bernice. 2012. The biotechnology debate: Democracy in the face of intractable disagreement. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, James. 2008. The public domain. Enclosing the commons of the mind. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. https://thepublicdomain.org.

  • Bragdon, Susan H. 2016. Reinvigorating the public sector: The case of food security, small-scale farmers, trade and intellectual property rules. Development 59 (3–4): 280–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, Jason. 2011. The right to a competent electorate. The Philosophical Quarterly 61 (245): 700–724. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9213.2011.699.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cabrera, Laura Y. 2017. Pesticides: A case domain for environmental neuroethics. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 26 (4): 602–615.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ceva, Emanuela, and Maria Paola Ferretti. 2018. The ethics of anti-corruption policies. In The Routledge handbook of ethics and public policy, ed. Annabelle Lever and Andrei Poama, 255–266. Oxon and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conde Gutiérrez, Carlos. 2018. Una aproximación a la propiedad intelectual y el acceso a recursos genéticos desde la perspectiva del contrato social y la justicia global. In Propiedad intelectual. Fundamento y crítica, ed. Martín Hevía and Facundo M. Rojo, 145–198. Bogotá: Universidad del Externado.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Graeff, Nienke, Léon E. Dijkman, Karin R. Jongsma, and Annelien L. Bredenoord. 2018. Fair governance of biotechnology: Patents, private governance, and procedural justice. The American Journal of Bioethics 18 (12): 57–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Jonge, Bram. 2011. What is fair and equitable benefit-sharing? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 24 (2): 127–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Melo-Martín, Inmaculada, and Kristen Intemann. 2012. Interpreting evidence: Why values can matter as much as science. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 55 (1): 59.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Schutter, Olivier. 2011. The right of everyone to enjoy the benefits from scientific progress and the right to food: From conflict to complementarity. Human Rights Quarterly 33: 304–350.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Schutter, Olivier. 2017. The political economy of food systems reform. European Review of Agricultural Economics 44 (4): 705–731.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Winter, Jan, and Laszlo Kosolosky. 2013. The epistemic integrity of scientific research. Science and Engineering Ethics 19 (3): 757–774.

    Google Scholar 

  • de-Shalit, Avner. 2004. Political philosophy and empowering citizens. Political Studies 52 (4): 802–818

    Google Scholar 

  • Dekker, Sidney W.A., and Hugh Breakey. 2016. ‘Just culture:’ Improving safety by achieving substantive, procedural and restorative justice. Safety Science 85: 187–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delgado, Ana. 2010. ¿Democratizar la Ciencia? Diálogo, reflexividad y apertura. Revista Iberoamericana de Ciencia, Tecnología y Sociedad-CTS 5: 15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deplazes-Zemp, Anna, Samuel Abiven, Peter Schaber, Michael Schaepman, Gabriela Schaepman-Strub, Bernhard Schmid, Kentaro K. Shimizu, and Florian Altermatt. 2018. The Nagoya Protocol could backfire on the global South. Nature Ecology & Evolution 2 (6): 917.

    Google Scholar 

  • Desai, Pranav N. 2007. Traditional knowledge and intellectual property protection: Past and future. Science and Public Policy 34 (3): 185–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doorn, Neelke. 2010. A procedural approach to distributing responsibilities in R&D networks. Poiesis & Praxis 7 (3): 169–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernández Pinto, Manuela. 2019. Scientific ignorance. Theoria: An International Journal for Theory, History and Foundations of Science 34 (2): 195–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernández Pinto, Manuela, and Daniel J. Hicks. 2019. Legitimizing values in regulatory science. Environmental Health Perspectives 127 (3): 035001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Francis, Charles, G. Lieblein, S. Gliessman, T.A. Breland, N. Creamer, R. Harwood, L. Salomonsson, J. Helenius, D. Rickerl, and R. Salvador. 2003. Agroecology: The ecology of food systems. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 22 (3): 99–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galtung, Johan. 1971. A structural theory of imperialism. Journal of Peace Research 81–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gliessman, Stephen R. 2007. Agroecology: The ecology of sustainable food systems. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glover, Dominic. 2010. The corporate shaping of GM crops as a technology for the poor. The Journal of Peasant Studies 37 (1): 67–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodin, Robert E. 1983. The ethics of destroying irreplaceable assets. International Journal of Environmental Studies 21: 55–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gosseries, Axel. 2008. On future generations’ future rights. Journal of Political Philosophy 16 (4): 446–474.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansson, Sven Ove. 2018. Risk, science and policy: A treacherous triangle. Ethical Perspectives 25 (3): 391–418.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hicks, Daniel J. 2017. Genetically modified crops, inclusion, and democracy. Perspectives on Science 25 (4): 488–520.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hisano, Shuji. 2005. A critical observation on the mainstream discourse of biotechnology for the poor. Tailoring Biotechnologies 1 (2): 81–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holtug, Nils. 2002. The harm principle. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 5 (4): 357–389.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holzer, Felicitas S. 2017. Defending the social value of knowledge as a safeguard for public trust. Bioethics 31 (7): 559–567.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ickowitz, A, Bronwen Powell, D Rowland, A Jones, and TCH Sunderland. 2019. Agricultural intensification, dietary diversity, and markets in the global food security narrative. Global Food Security 20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Intemann, Kristen, and Inmaculada de Melo-Martín. 2014. Addressing problems in profit-driven research: How can feminist conceptions of objectivity help? European Journal for Philosophy of Science 4 (2): 135–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • IPBES. 2019. Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Bonn: IPBES Secretariat.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacob, Claus, and Adam Walters. 2005. Risk and responsibility in chemical research: The case of agent orange. HYLE–International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry 11 (2): 147–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jauernig, Johanna, Ingo Pies, Paul B. Thompson, and Vladislav Valentinov. 2019. Theorizing agriculture-society tensions: An ordonomic approach to the agrarian vision. In Sustainable governance and management of food systems: Ethical perspectives, ed. Eija Vinnari and Markus Vinnari, 634–657. Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kapczynski, Amy. 2008. The access to knowledge mobilization and the new politics of intellectual property. Yale Law Journal 117 (5): 804–885.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keulartz, J., M. Schermer, M. Korthals, and T. Swierstra. 2004. Ethics in technological culture: A programmatic proposal for a pragmatist approach. Science Technology & Human Values 29 (1): 3–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243903259188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koepsell, David. 2016. Scientific integrity and research ethics: An approach from the ethos of science. Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroma, Margaret M., and Cornelia Butler Flora. 2003. Greening pesticides: A historical analysis of the social construction of farm chemical advertisements. Agriculture and Human Values 20 (1): 21–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuyper, Jonathan. 2015. Deliberative capacity in the intellectual property rights regime complex. Critical Policy Studies 9 (3): 317–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lafont, Cristina. 2003. Procedural justice? Implications of the Rawls-Habermas debate for discourse ethics. Philosophy & Social Criticism 29 (2): 163–181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lauer, Helen. 2017. Global justice as process: Applying normative ideals of indigenous African governance. Philosophical Papers 46 (1): 163–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lebel, Jean, and Robert McLean. 2018. A better measure of research from the global south. Nature 559: 23–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levidow, Les, and Theo Papaioannou. 2018. Which inclusive innovation? Competing normative assumptions around social justice. Innovation and Development 8 (2): 209–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lim, Daryl. 2013. Self-replicating technologies and the challenge for the patent and antitrust laws. Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal 32 (1): 131–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manca, Annalisa, Javiera Atenas, Chiara Ciociola, and Fabio Nascimbeni. 2017. Critical pedagogy and open data for educating towards social cohesion. Italian Journal of Educational Technology 25 (1): 111–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marion Suiseeya, Kimberly R. 2014. Negotiating the Nagoya Protocol: Indigenous demands for justice. Global Environmental Politics 14 (3): 102–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marks, Stephen P. 2011. The neglected human right to benefit from scientific progress: Implications for human development. In Human Development and Capabilities Association 2011 International Conference, Den Haag, September 6–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • McIntyre, Beverly D., Hans R. Herren, Judi Wakhungu, and Robert T. Watson. 2009. International assessment of agricultural knowledge, science and technology for development (IAASTD): Synthesis report with executive summary: A synthesis of the global and sub-global IAASTD reports. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McMichael, Anthony. 2017. Climate change and the health of nations: Famines, fevers, and the fate of populations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metz, Thaddeus. 2009. African moral theory and public governance: Nepotism, preferential hiring and other partiality. In African ethics: An anthology for comparative and applied ethics, ed. F. Munyaradzi, 335–356. Pietermaritzburg: University of KwaZulu-Natal Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millaleo-Hernández, Salvador. 2019. Recursos genéticos y pueblos Indígenas: La tesis de la propiedad cultural indígena frente al dominio público. Acta bioethica 25 (1): 51–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muldoon, James. 2019. Academics: It's time to get behind decolonising the curriculum. The Guardian, 20 Mar 2019. Accessed 26 Dec 2019. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/mar/20/academics-its-time-to-get-behind-decolonising-the-curriculum.

  • Ottinger, Gwen. 2013. Changing knowledge, local knowledge, and knowledge gaps: STS insights into procedural justice. Science, Technology, & Human Values 38 (2): 250–270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patel, Raj, and Jason W. Moore. 2017. A history of the world in seven cheap things: A guide to capitalism, nature, and the future of the planet. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piketty, Thomas. 2014. El capital en el siglo XXI. Mexico, DF: Fondo de Cultura Económica.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plomer, Aurora. 2012. The right to access the benefits of science and intellectual property rights. In Biotech innovations and fundamental rights, ed. Roberto Bin, Sara Lorenzon, and Nicola Lucchi, 45–68. Milan: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popa, Eugen Octav, Vincent Blok, and Renate Wesselink. 2020. Discussion structures as tools for public deliberation. Public Understanding of Science 29 (1): 76–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662519880675.

  • Prathapan, K Divakaran, and Priyadarsanan Dharma Rajan. 2011. Biological diversity: A common heritage. Economic & Political Weekly 46 (14): 15–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiss, Julian. 2019. Expertise, agreement, and the nature of social scientific facts or: Against epistocracy. Social Epistemology 33 (2): 183–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnik, David B. 2009. International standards for research integrity: An idea whose time has come? Accountability in Research 16 (4): 218–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricciardi, Vincent, Navin Ramankutty, Zia Mehrabi, Larissa Jarvis, and Brenton Chookolingo. 2018. How much of the world’s food do smallholders produce? Global Food Security 17: 64–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robaey, Zoë. 2016a. Gone with the wind: Conceiving of moral responsibility in the case of GMO contamination. Science and Engineering Ethics 22 (3): 889–906.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robaey, Zoë. 2016b. Transferring moral responsibility for technological hazards: The case of GMOs in agriculture. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 29 (5): 767–786.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rolin, Kristina. 2015. Values in science: The case of scientific collaboration. Philosophy of Science 82 (2): 157–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandin, Per. 2004. The precautionary principle and the concept of precaution. Environmental Values 13 (4): 461–475.

    Google Scholar 

  • Santoro, Daniele, and Manohar Kumar. 2018. Speaking truth to power-A theory of whistleblowing. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlosberg, David. 2013. Theorising environmental justice: The expanding sphere of a discourse. Environmental Politics 22 (1): 37–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlosberg, David, and David Carruthers. 2010. Indigenous struggles, environmental justice, and community capabilities. Global Environmental Politics 10 (4): 12–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder, Doris, and Carolina Lasén-Díaz. 2006. Sharing the benefits of genetic resources: From biodiversity to human genetics. Developing World Bioethics 6 (3): 135–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder, Doris, and Balakrishna Pisupati. 2010. Ethics, justice and the convention on biological diversity. Nairobi: United Nations Environmental Program.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, Amartya. 2009. The idea of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shiva, Vandana, and Poonam Pandey. 2006. Biodiversity based organic farming: A new paradigm for food security and food safety. New Dehli: Navdanya.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrader-Frechette, Kristin. 2002. Environmental justice: Creating equality, reclaiming democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, Peter. 1975/2009. Animal liberation. New York: HarperCollins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solum, Lawrence B. 2004. Procedural justice. Southern California Law Review 78: 181–321.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stilgoe, Jack, Richard Owen, and Phil Macnaghten. 2013. Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy 42 (9): 1568–1580.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, Jeremy. 2019. Reporting research findings to participants is an ethical imperative. BMJ 367: l6324. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l6324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, Paul B. 2009. Philosophy of agricultural technology. In Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences, ed. Anthonie Meijers, 1257–1273. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, Paul B. 2018. Emerging (food) technology as an environmental and philosophical issue in the era of climate change. In Food, environment, and climate change: justice at the intersections, ed. Erinn Cunniff Gilson and Sarah Kenehan, 195–211. Lanham: Rowman & Littelfield International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Timmermann, Cristian, and Zoë Robaey. 2016. Agrobiodiversity under different property regimes. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 29 (2): 285–303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-016-9602-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tittonell, Pablo. 2014. Ecological intensification of agriculture—Sustainable by nature. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 8: 53–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tittonell, Pablo. 2016. Feeding the world with soil science: Embracing sustainability, complexity and uncertainty. Soil Discuss. https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-2016-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torrance, Andrew W., and Eric von Hippel. 2015. The right to innovate. Michigan State Law Review 2015 (2): 793–829.

    Google Scholar 

  • UN Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights. 1999. General Comment No. 12. The right to adequate food (article 11) (E/C.12/1999/5). Geneva: United Nations Economic and Social Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • van den Belt, Henk. 2015. Design for values in agricultural biotechnology. In Handbook of ethics, values, and technological design: Sources, theory, values and application domains, ed. Jeroen van den Hoven, Pieter E. Vermaas, and Ibo van de Poel, 571–588. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Ploeg, Jan Douwe. 2010. The peasantries of the twenty-first century: The commoditisation debate revisited. The Journal of peasant studies 37 (1): 1–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vermunt, Riël, and Herman Steensma. 2016. Procedural justice. In Handbook of social justice theory and research, ed. Clara Sabbagh and Manfred Schmitt, 219–236. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Villarroel, Raúl. 2013. Ética del desarrollo, democracia deliberativa y ciudadanía ambiental: El desafío global de la sustentabilidad. Acta bioethica 19 (2): 189–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Schomberg, René. 1997. Öffentlichkeit als Kontrolle technologischer Innovation. Analyse & Kritik 19 (1): 108–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallack, Michael. 2006. Justice between generations: the limits of procedural justice. In Handbook of intergenerational justice, ed. Joerg Chet Tremmel, 86–105. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walzer, Michael. 1993. Objectivity and social meaning. In The quality of life, ed. Martha C. Nussbaum and Amartya Sen, 165–177. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolff, Jonathan, and Avner de-Shalit. 2007. Disadvantage. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woolston, Chris. 2019. PhDs: The tortuous truth. Nature 575: 403–406.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wray, K. Bradley. 2007. Evaluating scientists: Examining the effects of sexism and nepotism. In Value-free science: Ideal and illusions?, ed. Harold Kincaid, John Dupré, and Alison Wylie, 87–106. Oxford: Oxford Univesity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zakaras, Alex. 2016. Democracy, children, and the environment: A case for commons trusts. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 19 (2): 141–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ziegler, Jean. 2011. Destruction massive: Géopolitique de la faim. Paris: Seuil.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Interdisciplinary Center for Studies in Bioethics, University of Chile, Santiago, Chile

    Cristian Timmermann

Authors
  1. Cristian Timmermann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cristian Timmermann .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Timmermann, C. (2020). Procedural Justice and the Realization of Just Outcomes in Agricultural Innovation. In: Social Justice and Agricultural Innovation. The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics, vol 31. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56193-2_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation