IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/agecon/v49y2018i6p725-739.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Doing well by doing good: agricultural biotechnology in the fight against hunger

Author

Listed:
  • Konstantinos Giannakas
  • Amalia Yiannaka

Abstract

A recent FAO report estimates that more than 800 million people around the world have been facing malnutrition and hunger. This article develops a simple, empirically relevant multimarket framework of heterogeneous consumers and an imperfectly competitive innovating firm to analyze the profit‐maximizing strategies of innovating firms in hunger‐stricken areas of the world. The analysis shows that, when the association of the GM technology with malnutrition and hunger reduction in food insecure areas of the world decreases consumer aversion to the GM technology in the rest of the world, the innovating firm can find it economically optimal to reduce its price and increase consumer access to nutritious food in these hunger‐stricken areas. When the impact of hunger reduction on consumer attitudes toward the GM technology is relatively strong, the firm will find it optimal to offer its GM technology in the hunger‐stricken areas for free as its losses in these areas are more than compensated by its gains in the rest of the world. This result is in contrast with the standard assumption of innovators’ desire to exercise the market power conferred by their intellectual property rights and provides some analytical support to the strategic corporate social responsibility (CSR) hypothesis.

Suggested Citation

  • Konstantinos Giannakas & Amalia Yiannaka, 2018. "Doing well by doing good: agricultural biotechnology in the fight against hunger," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 49(6), pages 725-739, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:agecon:v:49:y:2018:i:6:p:725-739
    DOI: 10.1111/agec.12455
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.12455
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/agec.12455?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. Giannakas, Konstantinos & Fulton, Murray, 2002. "Consumption effects of genetic modification: what if consumers are right?," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 27(2), pages 97-109, August.
    2. Perloff,Jeffrey M. & Karp,Larry S. & Golan,Amos, 2007. "Estimating Market Power and Strategies," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521011143.
    3. Roland Bénabou & Jean Tirole, 2010. "Individual and Corporate Social Responsibility," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 77(305), pages 1-19, January.
    4. Matin Qaim & Alexander J. Stein & J. V. Meenakshi, 2007. "Economics of biofortification," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 37(s1), pages 119-133, December.
    5. Jean Tirole, 1988. "The Theory of Industrial Organization," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262200716, December.
    6. Forest L. Reinhardt & Robert N. Stavins & Richard H. K. Vietor, 2008. "Corporate Social Responsibility Through an Economic Lens," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 2(2), pages 219-239, Summer.
    7. Dan Ariely & Anat Bracha & Stephan Meier, 2009. "Doing Good or Doing Well? Image Motivation and Monetary Incentives in Behaving Prosocially," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(1), pages 544-555, March.
    8. Besley, Timothy & Ghatak, Maitreesh, 2007. "Retailing public goods: The economics of corporate social responsibility," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(9), pages 1645-1663, September.
    9. Geoffrey G. Parker & Marshall W. Van Alstyne, 2005. "Two-Sided Network Effects: A Theory of Information Product Design," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(10), pages 1494-1504, October.
    10. Piet Eichholtz & Nils Kok & John M. Quigley, 2010. "Doing Well by Doing Good? Green Office Buildings," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(5), pages 2492-2509, December.
    11. Joanna B. Upton & Jennifer Denno Cissé & Christopher B. Barrett, 2016. "Food security as resilience: reconciling definition and measurement," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 47(S1), pages 135-147, November.
    12. Matin Qaim, 2009. "The Economics of Genetically Modified Crops," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 1(1), pages 665-694, September.
    13. Tully, Stephanie M. & Winer, Russell S., 2014. "The Role of the Beneficiary in Willingness to Pay for Socially Responsible Products: A Meta-analysis," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 90(2), pages 255-274.
    14. Lusk, Jayson L. & Jamal, Mustafa & Kurlander, Lauren & Roucan, Maud & Taulman, Lesley, 2005. "A Meta-Analysis of Genetically Modified Food Valuation Studies," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 30(1), pages 1-17, April.
    15. Shiferaw T. Feleke & Richard L. Kilmer & Christina H. Gladwin, 2005. "Determinants of food security in Southern Ethiopia at the household level," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 33(3), pages 351-363, November.
    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. Foyuan Kuang & Jiatong Li & Jianjun Jin & Xin Qiu, 2023. "Do Green Production Technologies Improve Household Income? Evidence from Rice Farmers in China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-15, September.

    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. Michele Fioretti, 2022. "Caring or Pretending to Care? Social Impact, Firms' Objectives, and Welfare (former title: Social Responsibility and Firm's Objectives)," SciencePo Working papers hal-03393065, HAL.
    2. Markus Kitzmueller & Jay Shimshack, 2012. "Economic Perspectives on Corporate Social Responsibility," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 50(1), pages 51-84, March.
    3. Shantanu Banerjee & Swarnodeep Homroy & Aurelie Cecile Dominique Slechten, 2016. "Why don't all firms do 'good' equally?," Working Papers 115969339, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.
    4. Homroy, Swarnodeep, 2023. "GHG emissions and firm performance: The role of CEO gender socialization," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    5. Andreas Lange & Claudia Schwirplies, 2021. "Bargaining With Charitable Promises: True Preferences and Strategic Behavior," CESifo Working Paper Series 9129, CESifo.
    6. Roland Bénabou & Jean Tirole, 2010. "Individual and Corporate Social Responsibility," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 77(305), pages 1-19, January.
    7. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/7fsnj6af7v9ncrf76qn5p5on9e is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Etilé, Fabrice & Teyssier, Sabrina, 2013. "Corporate social responsibility and the economics of consumer social responsibility," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement (RAEStud), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 94(2).
    9. Doni, Nicola & Ricchiuti, Giorgio, 2013. "Market equilibrium in the presence of green consumers and responsible firms: A comparative statics analysis," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 380-395.
    10. Rachel Croson & Nicolas Treich, 2014. "Behavioral Environmental Economics: Promises and Challenges," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 58(3), pages 335-351, July.
    11. Newman, Carol & Rand, John & Tarp, Finn & Trifkovic, Neda, 2018. "The transmission of socially responsible behaviour through international trade," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 250-267.
    12. Michele Fioretti, 2020. "Social Responsibility and Firm's Objectives," Sciences Po Economics Discussion Papers 2020-01, Sciences Po Departement of Economics.
    13. repec:hal:wpspec:info:hdl:2441/7fsnj6af7v9ncrf76qn5p5on9e is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Yue Wu & Kaifu Zhang & Jinhong Xie, 2020. "Bad Greenwashing, Good Greenwashing: Corporate Social Responsibility and Information Transparency," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(7), pages 3095-3112, July.
    15. Maarten Pieter Schinkel & Leonard Treuren, 2021. "Corporate Social Responsibility by Joint Agreement," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 21-063/VII, Tinbergen Institute.
    16. Weber, Stefan, 2014. "Der Einfluss von Steuern auf Corporate Social Responsibility-Instrumente: Dargestellt am Beispiel von Spenden," arqus Discussion Papers in Quantitative Tax Research 159, arqus - Arbeitskreis Quantitative Steuerlehre.
    17. Patricia Crifo & Vanina D. Forget, 2015. "The Economics Of Corporate Social Responsibility: A Firm-Level Perspective Survey," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(1), pages 112-130, February.
    18. Patricia Crifo & Vanina Forget, 2012. "The Economics of Corporate Social Responsibility: A Survey," Working Papers hal-00720640, HAL.
    19. Aseem Kaul & Jiao Luo, 2018. "An economic case for CSR: The comparative efficiency of for‐profit firms in meeting consumer demand for social goods," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(6), pages 1650-1677, June.
    20. Luciano Fanti & Domenico Buccella, 2017. "Corporate social responsibility in a game-theoretic context," Economia e Politica Industriale: Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, Springer;Associazione Amici di Economia e Politica Industriale, vol. 44(3), pages 371-390, September.
    21. Jingze Jiang, 2016. "Peer Pressure in Voluntary Environmental Programs: a Case of the Bag Rewards Program," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 155-190, June.
    22. Hart, Oliver D. & Zingales, Luigi, 2017. "Companies Should Maximize Shareholder Welfare Not Market Value," Working Papers 267, The University of Chicago Booth School of Business, George J. Stigler Center for the Study of the Economy and the State.

    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:bla:agecon:v:49:y:2018:i:6:p:725-739. 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: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iaaeeea.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.