This study explores the definition of the industrial use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), factors that affect it, and how it influences a firm’s economic performance to understand who drives market access for GMOs and GM products, considering the two premises related to sustainable development: 1) the continuing use of GMOs is one of the most prominent driving forces behind a bio-based economy’s growth, and 2) social system members seek protection from the potential risks of GMOs. The results show compelling evidence of a structural relationship between sociopolitical/economic pressures and economic performance. Additionally, these pressures vary by industry, and activities to secure both social and economic legitimacy due to these pressures have a positive impact on overall firm performance.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbdelalR., & RuggieJ. G. (2009). Principles of embedded liberalism: Social legitimacy and global capitalism. In MossD. & CisterninoJ. (Eds), New perspectives on regulation (pp. 151–162). Cambridge: The Tobin Project.
2.
AerniP., & BernauerY. (2006). Stakeholder attitudes toward GMOs in the Philippines, Mexico, and South Africa: The issues of public trust. World Development, 34(3), 557–575.
3.
ArundelA. (2003). Biotechnology indicators and public policy (OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers 2003/5). Paris: OECD.
4.
BensonJ. (2015, January26). GMO found growing in South Korea despite national ban. Natural News. Retrieved from http://www.naturalnews.com/048631_GMOs_genetic_pollution_South_Korea.html
5.
BrookesG. (2012). Economic impacts of the biosafety law and implementing regulations in Turkey on the Turkish importing and user sectors. Briefing document. Dorset, UK: PG Economics Ltd.
6.
BruceD. M. (2002). A social contract for biotechnology: Shared visions for risky technologies?Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 15(3), 279–289.
7.
CavusgilS. T., & ZouS. (1994). Marketing strategy-performance relationship: An investigation of the empirical link in export market ventures. Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 1–21.
8.
Céspedes-LorenteJ., De Burgos-JiménezJ., & Álvarez-GilM. J. (2003). Stakeholders’ environmental influence. An empirical analysis in the Spanish hotel industry. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 19(3), 333–358.
9.
ChoiS. J. (2015, July23). South Korea’s imports of GMO food at an all time high. The Hankyoreh. Retrieved from http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_national/674976.html
10.
CliftonD., & AmranA. (2011). The stakeholder approach: A sustainability perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 98(1), 121–136.
11.
COGEM. (2009). Socio-economic aspects of GMOs: Building blocks for an EU sustainability assessment of genetically modified crops (090929-01). Report CGM/090929-01.
12.
CohenS. C., ChangA. C. Y., BoyerH. W., & HellingR. B. (1973). Construction of biologically functional bacterial plasmids in vitro. Proceedings National Academy of Science USA, 70(11), 3240–3244.
13.
ConnorM., & SiegristM. (2010). Factors influencing people’s acceptance of gene technologies: The role of knowledge, health expectations, naturalness and social trust. Science Communication, 32(4), 514–538.
14.
ConwayJ. M., & LanceC. E. (2010). What reviewers should expect from authors regarding common method bias in organization research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(3), 325–334.
15.
CovaleskiM. A., & DirsmithM. W. (1988). An institutional perspective on the rise, social transformation, and fall of a university budget category. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33(4), 562–587.
16.
CraigheadC. W., KetchenD. J., DunnK. S., & HultG. G. (2011). Addressing common method variance: Guidelines for survey research on information technology, operations, and supply chain management. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 58(3), 578–588.
17.
CuiA. S., GriffithD., & CavusgilS. T. (2005). The influence of competitive intensity and market dynamism on knowledge management capabilities of multinational corporation subsidiaries. Journal of International Marketing, 13(3), 32–53.
18.
DavidsonK. (2014). A typology to categorize the ideologies for actors in the sustainable development debate. Sustainable Development, 22(1), 1–14.
DeeganC. (2002). Introduction: The legitimizing effect of social and environmental disclosures—A theoretical foundation. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(3), 281–311.
21.
DietzS., & NeumayerE. (2007). Weak and strong sustainability in the SEEA: Concepts and measurement. Ecological Economics, 62(4), 617–626.
22.
DiMaggioP. J., & PowellW. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational field. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.
23.
DohJ. P., & TeegenH. (2002). Nongovernmental organizations as institutional actors in international business: Theory and implications. International Business Review, 11(6), 665–684.
24.
DowlingJ., & PfefferJ. (1975). Organizational legitimacy: Social values and organizational behavior. Pacific Sociological Review, 18(1), 122–136.
25.
DurantR. F., & LeggeJ. S. (2005). Public opinion, risk perception, and genetically modified food regulatory policy reassessing the calculus of dissent among European citizens. European Union Politics, 6(2), 181–200.
26.
EU. (2012). Opinion of the European Economic Social Committee on ‘GMOs in the EU’ (additional opinion) (C 68/11). Report Official Journal of the European Union (OJEC) 2012/C 68/11.
27.
EvansE. A., & BallenF. H. (2013). A synopsis of US consumer perception of genetically modified (biotech) crops (EDIS document FE934). University of Florida, Gainesville: Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS).
28.
FornellC., & LarckerD. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
29.
FreemanR. E. (1998). A stakeholder theory of the modern corporation. In PincusL. B. (Ed.), Perspectives in business ethics (pp. 171–181). Singapore: McGraw-Hill.
30.
FrewerL., LassenB., ScholdererJ., BeekmanV., & BerdalK. G. (2004). Societal aspects of genetically modified foods. Food Chem. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 42(7), 1181–1193.
31.
GallopínG. (2003). A systems approach to sustainability and sustainable development. Santiago, Chile: United Nations.
GraffG. D., HochmanD., & ZilbermanD. (2009). The political economy of agricultural biotechnology policies. AgBioForum, 12(1), 34–46.
34.
HairJ. F., AndersonR. L., & TathamW. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis with reading. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
35.
HarmanH. H. (1967). Modern factor analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
36.
HarmanH. H. (1976). Modern factor analysis (3rd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
37.
HarrisonJ. A., RouseP., & De VilliersC. J. (2012). Accountability and performance measurement: A stakeholder perspective. JCC: The Business and Economics Research Journal, 5(2), 243–258.
38.
HawnO., ChatterjiA., & MitchellW. (2011). Two coins in one purse? How market legitimacy affects the financial impact of changes in social legitimacy: Addition and deletion by the Dow Jones Sustainability Index (Working Paper No. 2418300). Durham, NC: Duke University.
39.
HeyderM., & TheuvsenL. (2010). Corporate Social Responsibility in the agri-food sector: The case of GMOs. Problems of World Agriculture, 10(3), 15–32.
40.
HobanT. J. (2000). Biotechnology: Addressing today’s core issues for better food and industry growth. Forum, Fourth Quarter, 95–105. Retrieved from http://www.agbioworld.org/pdf/Forum-BT.pdf
41.
HoyleR. H. (1995). Structuring equation modeling: Concepts, issues and applications. London: SAGE Publications.
42.
HullC. E., & LuxmoreS. R. (2007). Influence the acceptance on innovation: A tale of two perspectives on genetically-modified organisms. International Journal of Business strategy, 7(2), 12–17.
43.
HullandJ. (1999). Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: A review off our recent studies. Strategic Management Journal, 20(2), 195–204.
44.
InghelbrechtL., DesseinJ., & Van HuylenbroeckG. (2015). Explaining the present GM business strategy on the EU food market: The gatekeepers’ perspective. New Biotechnology, 32(1), 65–77.
45.
IsaacG. E., & KerrW. A. (2003). Genetically modified organisms at the world trade organization: A harvest of trouble. Journal of World Trade, 37(6), 1083–1095.
46.
KissingerM., WilliamE. R., & TimmerV. (2011). Interregional sustainability: Governance and policy in an ecologically interdependent world. Environmental Science & Policy, 14(8), 965–976.
47.
Korea Research Institute of Bioscience and Biotechnology (KRIBB). (2015). Biosafety white paper 2015. Seoul: Moohan Publishing.
48.
LeeC. J., ScheuffleD. A., & LewensteinB. V. (2005). Public attitudes toward emerging technologies. Science Communication, 27(2), 240–267.
49.
LeggeJ. S., & DurantR. F. (2010). Public opinion, risk assessment, and biotechnology: Lessons from attitudes toward genetically modified foods in the European Union. Review of Policy Research, 27(1), 59–76.
50.
LockieS., LawrenceG., LyonsK., & GriceJ. (2005). Factors underlying support or opposition to biotechnology among Australian food consumers and implications for retailer-led food regulation. Food Policy, 30(4), 399–418.
51.
LuxmoreS. R., & HullC. E. (2010). Externalities and the six facets model of technology management: Genetically modified organisms in agribusiness. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 7(1), 19–36.
52.
LuxmoreS. R., & HullC. E. (2011). Innovation and NGOs. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 12(1), 17–27.
53.
Maeil Business Newspaper. (2013). Annual Corporation Reports 2014. Seoul: Maeil Business Publishing Co.
54.
MutambaraJ. (2013). A preliminary review of regulatory constraints affecting pig industry in Zimbabwe. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 25(3), 205–208.
55.
NavarroM. J. (2015). Voices and view: Why biotech? (ISAAA Briefs No. 50). Ithaca, NY: The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Application (ISAAA).
56.
NijhofA., De BruijnT., & HondersH. (2008). Partnerships for corporate social responsibility: A review of concepts and strategic options. Management Decision, 46(1), 152–167.
57.
NunnallyI. C., & BernsteinI. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). NY: McGraw-Hill.
58.
OECD. (2009). The bioeconomy to 2030: Designing a policy agenda–main findings and policy conclusions. Paris: OECD.
59.
OliverC. (1997). The influence of institutional and task environment relationships on organizational performance: The Canadian construction industry. Journal of Management Studies, 34(1), 99–124.
60.
ParsonsT. (1956). Suggestions for a sociological approach to the theory of organizations I. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1(1), 63–85.
61.
PfefferJ., & SalancikR. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row Publishers.
62.
PodsakoffP. M., MacKenzieS. B., LeeJ. Y., & PodsakoffN. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
63.
PriestS. H., BonfadelliH., & RusanenM. (2003). The ‘trust gap’ hypothesis: Predicting support for biotechnology across national cultures as functions of trust in actors. Risk Analysis, 23, 751–766.
64.
RichardsonB. (2010). From a fossil fuel to a bio-based economy? Reframing the third wave of biotechnology. IPEG Papers in Global Political Economy No. 45. International Political Economy Group (IPEG).
65.
SalamonL. M., & AnheierH. K. (1994). The emerging sector: The non-profit sector in comparative perspective—An overview. Baltimore: Institute for Policy Studies, The Johns Hopkins University.
66.
SharfmanM., EllingtonR. T., & MeoM. (1997). The next step in becoming ‘Green’: Life-cycle oriented environmental management. Business Horizons, 40(3), 12–22.
67.
SnellK. (2009). Social responsibility in developing new biotechnology: Interpretations of responsibility in the governance of Finnish biotechnology (PhD Thesis). Retrieved from Department of Sociology, Research Reports 258. University of Helsinki.
68.
SouleE. (2003). Corporate strategy, government regulatory policy and NGO activism: The case of genetically modified crops. In DohJ. & TeegenH. (Eds.), Globalization and NGOs: Transforming business, government and society (pp. 130–156). Westport, CT: Praeger.
69.
SuchmanM. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic approaches and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.
70.
SungB., & HwangK. (2013). Firms’ intentions to use genetically modified organisms industrially: The influence of sociopolitical-economic forces and managerial interpretations in the Korean context. Technol. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(7), 1387–1394.
71.
SungB., & JangH. (2008). How external political-economic forces affect firms’ attitudes towards the industrial use of genetically modified organisms: An analysis in the South Korean context. AgBioForum, 11(2), 114–122.
72.
TanT., ShenJ., ReedM., SaghaianS., & ChenC. (2013). The impact of GMO safety regulation on Chinese soybean exports. Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research, 3(3), 162–171.
73.
TwardowskiT. (2012). Social and legal determinants for the marketing of GM products in Poland. New Biotechnology, 29(3), 249–253.
74.
Van der LaanS. (2009). The role of theory in explaining motivation for corporate social disclosures: Voluntary disclosures vs ‘solicited’ disclosures. Australasian Accounting Business and Finance Journal, 3(4), 13–25.
75.
VergragtP. J., & BrownH. S. (2008). Genetic engineering in agriculture: New approaches for risk management through sustainability reporting. Technological Forecasting and Social Chang, 75(6), 783–798.
76.
Von GeiblerJ., LiedtkeC., WallbaumH., & SchallerS. (2006). Accounting for the social dimension of sustainability: Experiences form the biotechnology industry. Business Strategy and the Environment, 15(5), 334–346.
77.
WoodD. J. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16(4), 691–718.
