IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v169y2021ics0040162521002778.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Can radical innovation mitigate environmental and animal welfare misconduct in global value chains? The case of cell-based tuna

Author

Listed:
  • Reis, G.G.
  • Heidemann, M.S.
  • Goes, H.A.A.
  • Molento, C.F.M.

Abstract

Organizational misconduct, defined as illegal, unethical or irresponsible organizational behavior, concerning the environment can lead to resource depletion, threats to biodiversity, animal suffering and environmental damage. Some chains have been scrutinized due to the massive depletion of environmental resources caused by illegal exploitation, such as the tuna chain. In search for solutions, regulations and product traceability have been used. Despite the urgency of the subject, less attention has been given to how radical innovations may lead to preventing animal welfare and environmental misconduct. Technological radical innovations are characterized by their uniqueness, novelty, and potential to promote significant transformations in a chain. Thus, we adopted an exploratory approach to analyze the case of a radical technological innovation – cell-based meat – which can substantially transform the meat value chain and, more specifically, mitigate overwhelming environmental and animal welfare misconduct in the tuna global chain. The case illustrates how radical innovation can significantly change global value chain's activities and redefine its geographic scope; it may also represent a shift from natural resource-intensive to technology-intensive activities. More importantly, by substituting animal-based inputs, severe environmental and animal welfare issues will be mitigated.

Suggested Citation

  • Reis, G.G. & Heidemann, M.S. & Goes, H.A.A. & Molento, C.F.M., 2021. "Can radical innovation mitigate environmental and animal welfare misconduct in global value chains? The case of cell-based tuna," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:169:y:2021:i:c:s0040162521002778
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120845
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162521002778
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120845?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brent Meyer & Emil Mihaylov & Steven J. Davis & Nicholas Parker & David Altig & Jose Maria Barrero & Nicholas Bloom, 2020. "Pandemic-Era Uncertainty on Main Street and Wall Street," Working Papers 2020-189, Becker Friedman Institute for Research In Economics.
    2. Gilman, Eric L., 2011. "Bycatch governance and best practice mitigation technology in global tuna fisheries," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 590-609, September.
    3. Marc Bourreau & Michel Gensollen & François Moreau, 2012. "The Impact of a Radical Innovation on Business Models: Incremental Adjustments or Big Bang?," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(5), pages 415-435, July.
    4. Stafford, Richard & Jones, Peter JS Dr, 2019. "Viewpoint – Ocean Plastic Pollution: a convenient but distracting truth?," MarXiv fu5dp, Center for Open Science.
    5. Valentina De Marchi & Eleonora Di Maria & Stefano Micelli, 2013. "Environmental Strategies, Upgrading and Competitive Advantage in Global Value Chains," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(1), pages 62-72, January.
    6. Pasi Heikkurinen & Sari Forsman‐Hugg, 2011. "Strategic Corporate Responsibility in the Food Chain," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(5), pages 306-316, September.
    7. Michael Maloni & Michael Brown, 2006. "Corporate Social Responsibility in the Supply Chain: An Application in the Food Industry," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 68(1), pages 35-52, September.
    8. Germano Glufke Reis & Carla Forte Maiolino Molento, 2020. "Emerging Market Multinationals and International Corporate Social Responsibility Standards: Bringing Animals to the Fore," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 166(2), pages 351-368, October.
    9. Alexia Cummins, 2004. "The Marine Stewardship Council: A multi‐stakeholder approach to sustainable fishing," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(2), pages 85-94, June.
    10. Dahlin, Kristina B. & Behrens, Dean M., 2005. "When is an invention really radical?: Defining and measuring technological radicalness," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 717-737, June.
    11. Reis, Germano Glufke & Heidemann, Marina Sucha & Borini, Felipe Mendes & Molento, Carla Forte Maiolino, 2020. "Livestock value chain in transition: Cultivated (cell-based) meat and the need for breakthrough capabilities," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    12. Dimpho Malebogo Matlhola & Ruishan Chen, 2020. "Telecoupling of the Trade of Donkey-Hides between Botswana and China: Challenges and Opportunities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-10, February.
    13. Simon R. Swaffield & Robert C. Corry & Paul Opdam & Wendy McWilliam & Jørgen Primdahl, 2019. "Connecting business with the agricultural landscape: business strategies for sustainable rural development," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(7), pages 1357-1369, November.
    14. Assunção, Juliano & Rocha, Romero, 2019. "Getting greener by going black: the effect of blacklisting municipalities on Amazon deforestation," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 24(2), pages 115-137, April.
    15. Kristina Dahlin & Deans M. Behrens, 2005. "When is an invention really radical? Defining and measuring technological radicalness," Post-Print hal-00480416, HAL.
    16. Marc Bourreau & Michel Gensollen & François Moreau, 2012. "The Impact of a Radical Innovation on Business Models: Incremental Adjustments or Big Bang?," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(5), pages 415-435, July.
    17. Ransom A. Myers & Boris Worm, 2003. "Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish communities," Nature, Nature, vol. 423(6937), pages 280-283, May.
    18. Khalid Nadvi, 2008. "Global standards, global governance and the organization of global value chains," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 8(3), pages 323-343, May.
    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. Rodrigo Luiz Morais-da-Silva & Eduardo Guedes Villar & Germano Glufke Reis & Hermes Sanctorum & Carla Forte Maiolino Molento, 2022. "The expected impact of cultivated and plant-based meats on jobs: the views of experts from Brazil, the United States and Europe," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-14, December.
    2. Reis, Germano Glufke & Villar, Eduardo Guedes & Prado Gimenez, Fernando Antonio & Maiolino Molento, Carla Forte & Ferri, Priscila, 2022. "The interplay of entrepreneurial ecosystems and global value chains: Insights from the cultivated meat entrepreneurial ecosystem of Singapore," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    3. Räty, Niko & Tuomisto, Hanna L. & Ryynänen, Toni, 2023. "On what basis is it agriculture?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).

    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. Germano Glufke Reis & Marina Sucha Heidemann & Katherine Helena Oliveira de Matos & Carla Forte Maiolino Molento, 2020. "Cell-Based Meat and Firms’ Environmental Strategies: New Rationales as per Available Literature," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-16, November.
    2. Avimanyu Datta, 2016. "Antecedents To Radical Innovations: A Longitudinal Look At Firms In The Information Technology Industry By Aggregation Of Patents," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(07), pages 1-31, October.
    3. Kathryn Rudie Harrigan & Maria Chiara Guardo & Bo Cowgill, 2017. "Multiplicative-innovation synergies: tests in technological acquisitions," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(5), pages 1212-1233, October.
    4. Verhoeven, Dennis & Bakker, Jurriën & Veugelers, Reinhilde, 2016. "Measuring technological novelty with patent-based indicators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 707-723.
    5. Mark Knell & Simone Vannuccini, 2022. "Tools and concepts for understanding disruptive technological change after Schumpeter," Jena Economics Research Papers 2022-005, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    6. Mary J. Benner, 2010. "Securities Analysts and Incumbent Response to Radical Technological Change: Evidence from Digital Photography and Internet Telephony," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(1), pages 42-62, February.
    7. Andrea, Bastianin & Paolo, Castelnuovo & Massimo, Florio & Anna, Giunta, 2019. "Technological Learning and Innovation Gestation Lags at the Frontier of Science: from CERN Procurement to Patents," Working Papers 405, University of Milano-Bicocca, Department of Economics, revised Apr 2019.
    8. Maxim Kotsemir & Alexander Abroskin & Dirk Meissner, 2013. "Innovation concepts and typology – an evolutionary discussion," HSE Working papers WP BRP 05/STI/2013, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    9. Manuel Acosta & Daniel Coronado & Esther Ferrándiz & Manuel Jiménez, 2022. "Effects of knowledge spillovers between competitors on patent quality: what patent citations reveal about a global duopoly," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(5), pages 1451-1487, October.
    10. KANG Byeongwoo & MOTOHASHI Kazuyuki, 2020. "Local Industry Influence on Commercialization of University Research by University Startups," Discussion papers 20086, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    11. Beerepoot, Milou & Beerepoot, Niels, 2007. "Government regulation as an impetus for innovation: Evidence from energy performance regulation in the Dutch residential building sector," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 4812-4825, October.
    12. Dirk Fornahl & Nils Grashof & Alexander Kopka, 2021. "Do not neglect the periphery?! - the emergence and diffusion of radical innovations," Bremen Papers on Economics & Innovation 2102, University of Bremen, Faculty of Business Studies and Economics.
    13. Mazzanti, Massimiliano & Mancinelli, Susanna, 2007. "SME Performance, Innovation and Networking Evidence on Complementarities for a Local Economic System," Knowledge, Technology, Human Capital Working Papers 9554, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    14. Germano Glufke Reis & Carla Forte Maiolino Molento, 2020. "Emerging Market Multinationals and International Corporate Social Responsibility Standards: Bringing Animals to the Fore," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 166(2), pages 351-368, October.
    15. Mariia Shkolnykova & Muhamed Kudic, 2022. "Who benefits from SMEs’ radical innovations?—empirical evidence from German biotechnology," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 58(2), pages 1157-1185, February.
    16. Ancillai, Chiara & Sabatini, Andrea & Gatti, Marco & Perna, Andrea, 2023. "Digital technology and business model innovation: A systematic literature review and future research agenda," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    17. Jan M. Gerken & Martin G. Moehrle, 2012. "A new instrument for technology monitoring: novelty in patents measured by semantic patent analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(3), pages 645-670, June.
    18. Carolina Castaldi & Bart Los, 2008. "The identification of important innovations using tail estimators," Innovation Studies Utrecht (ISU) working paper series 08-07, Utrecht University, Department of Innovation Studies, revised Feb 2008.
    19. Massimo Colombo & Liliana Doganova & Evila Piva & Diego D’Adda & Philippe Mustar, 2015. "Hybrid alliances and radical innovation: the performance implications of integrating exploration and exploitation," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 40(4), pages 696-722, August.
    20. Michaela Sprenger & Tobias Mettler & Robert Winter, 0. "A viability theory for digital businesses: Exploring the evolutionary changes of revenue mechanisms to support managerial decisions," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-24.

    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:eee:tefoso:v:169:y:2021:i:c:s0040162521002778. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625 .

    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.