Search results

This paper seeks to provide an in‐depth discussion on the impact of agricultural biotechnology in developing and least developed countries (LDCs) as well as the concomitant biosafety concerns that might have an impact on trade and the environment whilst highlighting the importance of choosing development pathways that are conducive to the specific needs of these nations without endangering the biodiversity and affecting people's health.

The paper adopts a socio‐legal approach by undertaking a content analysis of decided cases, relevant treaties and existing studies conducted in areas related to agricultural biotechnology within the framework of sustainable development imperatives.

The paper suggests that developing countries venturing into agricultural biotechnology need to enrich the technology according to their needs and capabilities in order to be able to weigh the benefits against the risks in the production and import of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) specifically via the implementation of the “precautionary principle” and viable “risk assessment” techniques which conform to their existing international law obligations in view of the findings that most of these nations have not formulated adequate legal and institutional frameworks supported with the necessary expertise to regulate, monitor, and ensure safety of agricultural GMOs produced and/or imported by them.

The issues and suggestions in this paper will enable the development process of developing and least developed economies to conform to the tenets of sustainable development and minimize the loss of Earth's biodiversity.

The paper is of practical use to stakeholders and policymakers alike venturing into agricultural biotechnology. It pools the findings of a cross‐section of studies to look at the implications therein and the arising biosafety and trade issues with special reference to developing and LDCs.

When genetically modified organisms (GMOs) were put into the international trade, people in many countries, especially European countries, became skeptical of them. A perception developed that they are harmful to human, animal, plant life and health, and destructive to the environment. It is true that if there is no safe use of genetically modified living organisms (LMOs), other species might be affected causing loss to the environment. So as to ensure safe use of LMOs and GMOs, the Cartagena Protocol and the SPS Agreement were, respectively, made. The purpose of this paper is to critically examine both the legal instruments and to explore ways to make them co‐existent, so that human, animal, plant life and health, and the environment are protected without affecting the international trade in LMOs and GMOs.

This paper undertakes a critical examination of the issues surrounding GMOs and LMOs.

The Cartagena Protocol and the SPS Agreement serve two different purposes. It is for this reason that some of their provisions are not co‐extensive. But the conflict in them can be resolved. It is suggested that the provisions pertaining to the precautionary principle of the SPS Agreement should be brought in line with that of the Cartagena Protocol. It is also suggested that importing countries should conduct their own risk assessment preferably by following the CODEX procedure. In no case, risk assessment done by producing companies should be taken as conclusive.

If suggestions offered by the paper are followed, the two will then protect the human, animal and plant health and the environment in the best possible way.

For achieving its object, the paper presents a comparative assessment of the cases decided under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the World Trade Organization (WTO).

This study explores the levels of and trends in corporate environmental disclosure (CED) among a sample of Sri Lankan listed companies from 2015 to 2019. Furthermore, this article examines the firm-level determinants of CED, including corporate governance (CG) mechanisms, in Sri Lanka from a multi-theoretical perspective.

Using a sample of 205 firm-year observations, this paper distinctively applies a panel quantile regression (PQR) model to examine the determinants of CED in Sri Lanka. This method was supported by estimating a two-step generalized method of moment (GMM) model to tackle any possible existence of endogeneity concerns.

The authors’ findings indicate an increasing trend in CED practice among the sampled companies (i.e. 41 firms, the only adopters of the GRI framework) in Sri Lanka from 2015 to 2019. However, it is still considered at an early stage compared with other developed counterparts. Furthermore, this study suggests that board size, board independence, board meetings, industry type, profitability and firm size are positively associated with CED level. In contrast, and consistent with our expectation, CEO duality is negatively attributed to the disclosed amount of environmental information in the Sri Lankan context.

The authors’ empirical evidence reiterates the crucial need to propagate and promote further substantive CG reforms, mandating CED in Sri Lanka.

The authors’ findings provide much-needed insights for indigenous companies, operating across similar emerging economies, to understand how CED can be incorporated into their reporting process based on the GRI framework in order to enhance their firm value, reduce legitimacy gaps and mitigate other operational risks.

This study sets out to assess public awareness and perception of genetically modified (GM) foods in Trinidad, West Indies.

Respondents (113) were interviewed by structured questionnaire on demographics, awareness, perceived risks, perceived benefits, labelling, availability of GM foods and responsibility for information.

Some respondents (31.0 per cent) had not heard of GM foods. Most (64.6 per cent) respondents were willing (“very” or “somewhat”) to purchase GM foods, if considered healthier than conventionally‐produced foods or to purchase GM foods if they were safe (47.8 per cent). Food labels were important for warnings (31.4 per cent), information (30.4 per cent) and advertising (15.3 per cent). Some major perceived risks of GM foods were the toxic effects on health (41.6 per cent) and allergenic effects (28.3 per cent). Some benefits of GM were for increased productivity of crops and food availability (43.8 per cent), improved health and in disease control (27.9 per cent), economics (21 per cent), pest resistance (18.8 per cent) and improved nutrition (16 per cent). Most respondents (41.1 per cent) felt that the Government was responsible for giving information on GM foods. The public was indifferent (p>0.05) as to whether GM foods should be grown in Trinidad and Tobago. The level of education and gender were not (p>0.05) influential factors on responses.

Although the sample size was small, the findings could be used to target effective public education and bio‐safety policies.

Transgenic crops have been increasingly adopted, produced and commercialized throughout the world. Correspondingly, the management of intellectual property rights concerning transgenic crops has gained importance. In this context, it is necessary to understand the status quo of transgenic crop production, especially in developing countries. The purpose of this paper is to provide a general scenario of transgenic crops and their growth around the world, especially in Latin America.

A literature review was carried out to determine the status of intellectual property protection, production and commercialization of transgenic crops.

Opinions concerning the risks and benefits of adopting transgenics are markedly divided. Its presence in the agricultural sector has undoubtedly taken a firm hold in different parts of the world. Nevertheless, there are some areas of the international transgenics industry that need further and ongoing discussion and assessment, such as biosafety, intellectual property, regulation and legislation, among others. Additionally, in developing countries, and especially in the case of Latin America, other relevant issues to be addressed are associated with the conservation of local plant varieties and the preservation of cultural values, as well as the development of endogenous technology to solve local problems and the integration of farmers and the society at large and their interests into the discussion.

The most significant limitation of the present study was the lack of available data. Future studies using larger data sets will allow for more robust statistical analyses. Additionally, country-specific studies focused on the most important crops, those that each country grows intensively, are necessary for a better insight into the global dynamics of the sector; these studies must stress the intellectual property mechanisms used and address biosafety and regulatory issues, among other areas.

The present study represents a starting point for establishing schemes to facilitate the proper development and management of transgenic technology based on regional interests and the guiding principles of ethics and biosecurity.

Modern new biotechnology has the potential to provide major economic and other benefits, but at the same time it poses potential hazards for human health, the environment, the “natural” biological order, and can have adverse socio‐economic consequences. The application of such technology frequently violates traditional ethical, moral and religious values. This paper, after outlining possible benefits of modern new biotechnologies, discusses the type of biosafety risks which they pose, their possible adverse consequences for the sustainability of biodiversity and agriculture and their potential impacts on socioeconomic welfare and traditional cultures. Particular concern is expressed about the possible consequences of such technologies for developing countries and the practice in some developed countries of issuing patents conferring very broad rights over the use of genetically engineered material. Because these rights are so broad, in some cases they have the potential to establish powerful multinational monopolies in the hands of private companies. Global debate about these issues suggests that more emphasis should be given globally to the socio‐economic consequences of such technology than in the past. The need for this is highlighted by the North‐South divide. Developing countries lag considerably in this new technological field, are placed in a dependent position and have weak institutional structures to control the application of such technology.

There is no single undertaking regulating food assistance at the international level. International food assistance is regulated by a patchwork of rules emanating from different institutions and normative arrangements. This study aims to explore how international law shapes international food assistance. How is international law regulating food assistance, considering this patchwork of institutions and norms? What dominant narratives enshrined in legal agreements shape the evolution of international food assistance?

The author uses the concept of “regime complex”, which allows analyzing partially overlapping and nonhierarchical regimes governing a particular issue, shedding light on the narratives and institutional arrangements that lead to the consolidation of international rules. The author identifies two main regimes that govern international food assistance: the food assistance regime and the food trade regime.

The author shows that using the “regime complex” concept clarifies the evolution of international food assistance, highlighting that international law is a crucial element in shaping international food assistance and showing that the two main institutional regimes governing it interact and shape rules along three main themes: the centrality of donor States’ self-interests, the relationship between international food assistance and trade liberalization and the goal of achieving food security for the beneficiaries.

Using the regime complex concept, the author brings new light on the broader institutional and legal framework influencing the governance of international food assistance, showing that different regimes take part in its shaping.

The authors aim to draw lessons for research and policy from an exception(nal) case of a firm's international expansion in the seed market: Grupo Don Mario, a company originally from Argentina that supplies 20% of the soybean varieties used in the world. The authors describe the processes of expansion of the company, identify key features of its internationalisation, marketing and technological strategy and capabilities, and discuss implications for research and policy and questions for future research.

This is a case study. The paper uses quantitative and qualitative information collected from existing datasets and documents and new information from open ended interviews. This study method is exploratory.

First, new entrants from emerging economies should and can adopt an unique technological and marketing approach that distinguish them from incumbents to be able to overcome entry barriers in global concentrated markets. Second, technological capacities need to be complemented with regulatory and political to succeed in highly dynamic, uncertain and regulated sectors like seeds.

Policies oriented to support business from emerging countries in highly dynamic sectors need to consider technological alternatives.

Grupo Don Mario is a case of great interest since it expanded in a period in which the global seed market concentrated massively through an unprecedented process of mergers and acquisitions, which involved the disappearance of hundreds of independent seed companies.

Seeks to answer the question “whose interests are being served by the laws of purporting to regulate genetically modified organisms?“ Considers the interests of the seed/chemical multinational companies, trade and investment for the countries in which these companies operate and the innovation of science and technology. Covers the European interests with regards to the single internal market and the conflict this can cause between economic and environmental/health interests. Looks at the issues from the US perspective and world trade. Continues by covering nature and the environment followed by health and safety and the rights of consumers. Assesses the regulations of the European community in order to find what protection is available.

The purpose of the paper is to problematize the resistance role played by international environmental non-governmental organizations (IENGOs) in the governance debate over genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to sustain that some of them are important actors in global environmental governance due to their resistance to transnational corporations.

The paper presents a reflection on the literature review focused on civil society and IENGOs. Accordingly, the political role of IENGOs in GMO governance is highlighted grounded on the negotiation process of the Cartagena Protocol. At the end, the authors stress that some IENGOs act as resistance actors to corporations’ practices.

The investigation of the political role played by the IENGOs in the negotiation process of the Cartagena Protocol highlighted that these actors use information to influence decision-makers and power holders, often providing know-how and material resources to local activists and social movement organizations at the domestic level. As a result, the political role played by IENGOs in GMO governance places these international actors as highly influential on the international business (IB) domain.

This paper highlights the importance of IENGOs as resistant actors in what regards corporations’ practices. The authors also sustain that the relationships between states, corporations and civil society actors at the governance level should be part of IB’s research agenda to advance the understanding of how civil society mobilizes, articulates and produces consent and coercion in the international domain. Therefore, the paper contributes to foster actors and voices from the margins as a relevant IB research topic.