IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/polpwa/195790.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Corporate Social Responsibility in the agri-food sector: the case of GMOs

Author

Listed:
  • Heyder, Matthias
  • Theuvsen, Ludwig

Abstract

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are handled differently in different countries. Whereas global acreage of GMOs jumped to 134 million hectares in 2009 [Cultivation... 2010], in many European countries opposition to GMOs is still strong, and their acreage is very small. This situation poses a difficult situation for many companies and their corporate social responsibility [CSR] strategies. Against this background, we conducted an online survey of 170 agribusiness firms in order to shed some light on how companies handle the conflict between, on the one hand, the growing use of GMOs worldwide and, on the other, the rejection of GMOs by European consumers. The empirical results show that many agribusiness firms perceive the use of GMOs as a highly relevant management issue that shapes their CSR strategies. All in all, agribusiness firms apply a wide spectrum of CSR activities; furthermore, CSR is considered a top management responsibility. GMOs are of above- average relevance in firms that have been criticized for their attitudes towards and use of GMOs. The empirical results have interesting implications for the management of CSR and legitimacy in the agribusiness sector.

Suggested Citation

  • Heyder, Matthias & Theuvsen, Ludwig, 2010. "Corporate Social Responsibility in the agri-food sector: the case of GMOs," Problems of World Agriculture / Problemy Rolnictwa Światowego, Warsaw University of Life Sciences, vol. 10(25), pages 1-18, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:polpwa:195790
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.195790
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/195790/files/2010_3_2.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.195790?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. William W. Wilson & Bruce L. Dahl, 2005. "Costs and Risks of Testing and Segregating Genetically Modified Wheat," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 27(2), pages 212-228.
    2. Blake E. Ashforth & Barrie W. Gibbs, 1990. "The Double-Edge of Organizational Legitimation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 1(2), pages 177-194, May.
    3. Gawron, J.-C. & Theuvsen, L., 2008. "Kosten der Verarbeitung gentechnisch veränderter Organismen: Eine Analyse am Beispiel der Raps- und Maisverarbeitung," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 43, March.
    4. William W. Wilson & Bruce L. Dahl, 2005. "Costs and Risks of Testing and Segregating Genetically Modified Wheat," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 27(2), pages 212-228.
    5. Guido Palazzo & Andreas Scherer, 2006. "Corporate Legitimacy as Deliberation: A Communicative Framework," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 66(1), pages 71-88, June.
    6. Heyder, Matthias & Theuvsen, Ludwig, 2008. "Legitimating Business Activities Using Corporate Social Responsibility: Is there a Need for CSR in Agribusiness?," 110th Seminar, February 18-22, 2008, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 49851, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Matthias Heyder & Ludwig Theuvsen, 2009. "Der Einsatz von GVO: Empirische Ergebnisse zum Legitimierungsdruck und zur Corporate Social Responsibility im Agribusiness," Journal of Socio-Economics in Agriculture (Until 2015: Yearbook of Socioeconomics in Agriculture), Swiss Society for Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, vol. 2(1), pages 143-176.
    2. Heyder, M. & Theuvsen, L., 2009. "Corporate Social Responsibility in the Agribusiness: A Research Framework," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 44, March.
    3. Heyder, Matthias & Theuvsen, Ludwig, 2008. "Legitimating Business Activities Using Corporate Social Responsibility: Is there a Need for CSR in Agribusiness?," 110th Seminar, February 18-22, 2008, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 49851, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. Matthew Rousu & Wallace E. Huffman & Jason F. Shogren & Abebayehu Tegene, 2007. "Effects And Value Of Verifiable Information In A Controversial Market: Evidence From Lab Auctions Of Genetically Modified Food," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 45(3), pages 409-432, July.
    5. Jon Reast & François Maon & Adam Lindgreen & Joëlle Vanhamme, 2013. "Legitimacy-Seeking Organizational Strategies in Controversial Industries: A Case Study Analysis and a Bidimensional Model," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 118(1), pages 139-153, November.
    6. Gagalyuk, Taras & Chatalova, Lioudmila & Kalyuzhnyy, Oleksandr & Ostapchuk, Igor, 2021. "Broadening the scope of instrumental motivations for CSR disclosure: An illustration for agroholdings in transition economies," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 24(4), pages 717-737.
    7. Jiyoung Hwang, 2019. "Managing the innovation legitimacy of the sharing economy," International Journal of Quality Innovation, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 1-21, December.
    8. Huffman, Wallace E., 2010. "Consumer acceptance of genetically modified foods: traits, labels and diverse information," ISU General Staff Papers 201008270700001120, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    9. Maria Joutsenvirta, 2013. "Executive Pay and Legitimacy: Changing Discursive Battles Over the Morality of Excessive Manager Compensation," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 116(3), pages 459-477, September.
    10. Giorgia Miotto & Marc Polo López & Josep Rom Rodríguez, 2019. "Gender Equality and UN Sustainable Development Goals: Priorities and Correlations in the Top Business Schools’ Communication and Legitimation Strategies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-18, January.
    11. Johnson, D. Demcey & Lin, William & Vocke, Gary, 2005. "Economic and welfare impacts of commercializing a herbicide-tolerant, biotech wheat," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 162-184, April.
    12. Gawron, Jana-Christina & Theuvsen, Ludwig, 2007. "Costs of Processing Genetically Modified Organisms: Analysis of the Rapeseed and Corn Industries," 47th Annual Conference, Weihenstephan, Germany, September 26-28, 2007 7601, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    13. Gordon Liu & Wai Wai Ko, 2014. "An integrated model of cause-related marketing strategy development," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 4(3), pages 78-95, December.
    14. Itziar Castelló & Michael Etter & Finn Årup Nielsen, 2016. "Strategies of Legitimacy Through Social Media: The Networked Strategy," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(3), pages 402-432, May.
    15. Leon Windscheid & Lynn Bowes-Sperry & Karsten Jonsen & Michèle Morner, 2018. "Managing Organizational Gender Diversity Images: A Content Analysis of German Corporate Websites," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 152(4), pages 997-1013, November.
    16. Chelsea L. Woods, 2018. "“Are Your Tanks Filled with Orca Tears?”: Crisis Frames and Message Convergence in SeaWorld’s Tanked Twitter Campaign," Corporate Reputation Review, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 21(1), pages 9-21, February.
    17. Gagalyuk, Taras & Chatalova, Lioudmila & Kalyuzhnyy Oleksandr, 2021. "Broadening the scope of instrumental motivations for CSR disclosure: an illustration for agroholdings in transition economies," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 24(4), May.
    18. Eshani Beddewela & Jenny Fairbrass, 2016. "Seeking Legitimacy Through CSR: Institutional Pressures and Corporate Responses of Multinationals in Sri Lanka," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 136(3), pages 503-522, July.
    19. Crowe, Bronwyn & Pluske, Johanna M., 2006. "Is it Cost Effective to Segregate Canola in WA?," Australasian Agribusiness Review, University of Melbourne, Department of Agriculture and Food Systems, vol. 14.
    20. Marjo Siltaoja & Meri Vehkaperä, 2010. "Constructing Illegitimacy? Cartels and Cartel Agreements in Finnish Business Media from Critical Discursive Perspective," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 92(4), pages 493-511, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:polpwa:195790. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/wesggpl.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.