IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/sustdv/v17y2009i6p391-399.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stakeholder perceptions and responses to GM crops and foods: the case of Taiwan

Author

Listed:
  • Mei-Fang Fan

    (Institute of Science, Technology and Society, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan)

Abstract

Many societies face the problem of how to cope adequately with new inventions and technologies. Many are now in the middle of debates about GM crops and foods. This paper examines how stakeholders in Taiwan perceive GM crops and foods and the implications of these perceptions for risk governance and sustainable development. The research utilizes documentary analysis, data gathered from in-depth interviews and focus group discussions. It shows civil groups' unease about unknown consequences, skepticism of the relations between politics and business, and criticisms of the failure by the government and the media to inform the public. It highlights Christian and Buddhist responses to GM issues, because elements of these religious groups have devoted themselves to public awaking for a sustainable society. It argues for the need to promote informed public deliberations and stakeholder debates on decisions about GM technology and the establishment of alliances for dealing with GM controversies and promoting sustainable development. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.

Suggested Citation

  • Mei-Fang Fan, 2009. "Stakeholder perceptions and responses to GM crops and foods: the case of Taiwan," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(6), pages 391-399.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:sustdv:v:17:y:2009:i:6:p:391-399
    DOI: 10.1002/sd.408
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1002/sd.408
    File Function: Link to full text; subscription required
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/sd.408?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. Andy Stirling, 2007. "Deliberate futures: precaution and progress in social choice of sustainable technology," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 286-295.
    2. Bill Hopwood & Mary Mellor & Geoff O'Brien, 2005. "Sustainable development: mapping different approaches," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(1), pages 38-52.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. P. Marijn Poortvliet & Anne Marike Lokhorst, 2016. "The Key Role of Experiential Uncertainty when Dealing with Risks: Its Relationships with Demand for Regulation and Institutional Trust," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1615-1629, August.
    2. Lisa Biber‐Freudenberger & Candan Ergeneman & Jan Janosch Förster & Thomas Dietz & Jan Börner, 2020. "Bioeconomy futures: Expectation patterns of scientists and practitioners on the sustainability of bio‐based transformation," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(5), pages 1220-1235, September.
    3. Daneshwar Sharma & Saumyaranjan Sahoo & Ashwani Kumar & Donald Huisingh & Dheeraj Sharma, 2023. "Corporate Nirvana: The Buddhist way to social sustainability and business innovation," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(8), pages 5289-5313, December.

    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. Pelai, Ricardo & Hagerman, Shannon M. & Kozak, Robert, 2020. "Biotechnologies in agriculture and forestry: Governance insights from a comparative systematic review of barriers and recommendations," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    2. Endl, Andreas & Tost, Michael & Hitch, Michael & Moser, Peter & Feiel, Susanne, 2021. "Europe's mining innovation trends and their contribution to the sustainable development goals: Blind spots and strong points," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    3. Chen, Shih-Chih & Hung, Chung-Wen, 2016. "Elucidating the factors influencing the acceptance of green products: An extension of theory of planned behavior," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 155-163.
    4. Mario Pansera & Fabien Martinez, 2017. "Innovation for development and poverty reduction: an integrative literature review," Post-Print hal-02887777, HAL.
    5. Dawid Szostek, 2019. "The Impact of the Quality of Interpersonal Relationships between Employees on Counterproductive Work Behavior: A Study of Employees in Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-33, October.
    6. Hametner, Markus, 2022. "Economics without ecology: How the SDGs fail to align socioeconomic development with environmental sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).
    7. Alpaslan Kelleci & Oğuz Yıldız, 2021. "A Guiding Framework for Levels of Sustainability in Marketing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-14, February.
    8. Witold Chmielarz & Marek Zborowski, 2022. "On the Assessment of e-Banking Websites Supporting Sustainable Development Goals," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-20, January.
    9. Bahadur Ali Soomro & Ikhtiar Ali Ghumro & Naimatullah Shah, 2020. "Green entrepreneurship inclination among the younger generation: An avenue towards a green economy," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(4), pages 585-594, July.
    10. Higgins, Colin & Walker, Robyn, 2012. "Ethos, logos, pathos: Strategies of persuasion in social/environmental reports," Accounting forum, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 194-208.
    11. Frame, Bob & Brown, Judy, 2008. "Developing post-normal technologies for sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 225-241, April.
    12. Shah, Sayed Kifayat & Zhongjun, Tang & Sattar, Abdul & XinHao, Zhou, 2021. "Consumer's intention to purchase 5G: Do environmental awareness, environmental knowledge and health consciousness attitude matter?," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    13. Gabriel Medina & Cassio Pereira & Joice Ferreira & Erika Berenguer & Jos Barlow, 2022. "Searching for Novel Sustainability Initiatives in Amazonia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-13, August.
    14. Tukker, Arnold & Ekins, Paul, 2019. "Concepts Fostering Resource Efficiency: A Trade-off Between Ambitions and Viability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 36-45.
    15. Jean Hugé & Nibedita Mukherjee & Camille Fertel & Jean-Philippe Waaub & Thomas Block & Tom Waas & Nico Koedam & Farid Dahdouh-Guebas, 2015. "Conceptualizing the Effectiveness of Sustainability Assessment in Development Cooperation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(5), pages 1-17, May.
    16. Aikaterini Koumoutsea & Paraskevi Boufounou & George Mergos, 2023. "Evaluating the Creative Economy Applying the Contingent Valuation Method: A Case Study on the Greek Cultural Heritage Festival," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(23), pages 1-19, November.
    17. Jinliu Chen & Paola Pellegrini & Haoqi Wang, 2022. "Comparative Residents’ Satisfaction Evaluation for Socially Sustainable Regeneration—The Case of Two High-Density Communities in Suzhou," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-16, September.
    18. Rachel Mazac & Hanna L. Tuomisto, 2020. "The Post-Anthropocene Diet: Navigating Future Diets for Sustainable Food Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-15, March.
    19. Beling, Adrián E. & Vanhulst, Julien & Demaria, Federico & Rabi, Violeta & Carballo, Ana E. & Pelenc, Jérôme, 2018. "Discursive Synergies for a ‘Great Transformation’ Towards Sustainability: Pragmatic Contributions to a Necessary Dialogue Between Human Development, Degrowth, and Buen Vivir," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 304-313.
    20. Pataki, György & Bajmócy, Zoltán & Málovics, György & Gébert, Judit, 2019. "Miről szól(hatna) a felelősségteljes kutatás és innováció?. Rendszerkonform versus transzformatív megközelítés [What is responsible research and innovation about? Contrasting the reform and transfo," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(3), pages 286-304.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:sustdv:v:17:y:2009:i:6:p:391-399. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1719 .

    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.