IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/ausman/v44y2019i4p534-550.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Managing the grand challenge of biological threats to food production: The importance of institutional logics for managing Australian biosecurity

Author

Listed:
  • Melanie Bryant

    (Tasmanian School of Business & Economics, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia)

  • Vaughan Higgins

    (School of Social Sciences, University of Tasmania, Launceston, TAS, Australia)

Abstract

This article argues that an institutional logics framework is critical for developing a shared responsibility approach to managing the grand challenge of biosecurity in Australian agriculture. We identify the dominant logics evident in the Australian biosecurity context. In doing so, we draw attention to how a shared responsibility approach is compromised by tensions created by multiple logics, such as varying interpretations of biosecurity roles and responsibilities that different actors hold. However, in reframing such tensions from an institutional ambidexterity framework, we argue that a shared responsibility approach is achievable and, through examples from the Australian context, highlight the sites and spaces through which it may be fostered. We argue that identifying these sites and spaces requires that scholars conceptualise logics as blended rather than as discrete modes of operation. JEL Classification: M19

Suggested Citation

  • Melanie Bryant & Vaughan Higgins, 2019. "Managing the grand challenge of biological threats to food production: The importance of institutional logics for managing Australian biosecurity," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 44(4), pages 534-550, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:ausman:v:44:y:2019:i:4:p:534-550
    DOI: 10.1177/0312896219867997
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0312896219867997
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0312896219867997?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. Candace Jones & Eva Boxenbaum & Callen Anthony, 2013. "The immateriality of material practices in institutional logics," Post-Print hal-00870440, HAL.
    2. Michael Lounsbury & Eva Boxenbaum, 2013. "Institutional Logics in Action," Post-Print hal-01487932, HAL.
    3. David C. Cook & Shuang Liu & Brendan Murphy & W. Mark Lonsdale, 2010. "Adaptive Approaches to Biosecurity Governance," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(9), pages 1303-1314, September.
    4. Sabatier, Valerie & Craig-Kennard, Adrienne & Mangematin, Vincent, 2012. "When technological discontinuities and disruptive business models challenge dominant industry logics: Insights from the drugs industry," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 79(5), pages 949-962.
    5. Michael Lounsbury & Eva Boxenbaum, 2013. "Institutional Logics in Action," Post-Print hal-00826521, HAL.
    6. Valérie Sabatier & Adrienne Kennard & Vincent Mangematin, 2012. "When technological discontinuities and disruptive business models challenge dominant industry logics: insights from the drugs industry," Grenoble Ecole de Management (Post-Print) hal-00658727, HAL.
    7. Valérie Sabatier & Adrienne Kennard & Vincent Mangematin, 2012. "When technological discontinuities and disruptive business models challenge dominant industry logics: insights from the drugs industry," Post-Print hal-00658727, HAL.
    8. Paul Tracey & Nelson Phillips & Owen Jarvis, 2011. "Bridging Institutional Entrepreneurship and the Creation of New Organizational Forms: A Multilevel Model," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(1), pages 60-80, February.
    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. Stephen Brammer & Layla Branicki & Martina Linnenluecke & Tom Smith, 2019. "Grand challenges in management research: Attributes, achievements, and advancement," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 44(4), pages 517-533, November.

    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. Hafsi, Taïeb & Hu, Hao, 2016. "Sectoral innovation through competing logics: The case of antidepressants in traditional Chinese medicine," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 80-89.
    2. Swen Nadkarni & Reinhard Prügl, 2021. "Digital transformation: a review, synthesis and opportunities for future research," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 71(2), pages 233-341, April.
    3. David A Brown & Nelson Ma & Jin Sug Yang & Nicole Sutton & Gillian McAllister & Deborah Parker & Olivia Rawlings-Way & Rachael L Lewis, 2023. "The impact of business model workforce configurations on value creation and value appropriation in the Australian aged care sector," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 48(3), pages 495-523, August.
    4. Lehoux, P. & Daudelin, G. & Williams-Jones, B. & Denis, J.-L. & Longo, C., 2014. "How do business model and health technology design influence each other? Insights from a longitudinal case study of three academic spin-offs," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(6), pages 1025-1038.
    5. Kajikawa, Yuya & Mejia, Cristian & Wu, Mengjia & Zhang, Yi, 2022. "Academic landscape of Technological Forecasting and Social Change through citation network and topic analyses," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    6. Engwall, Mats & Kaulio, Matti & Karakaya, Emrah & Miterev, Maxim & Berlin, Daniel, 2021. "Experimental networks for business model innovation: A way for incumbents to navigate sustainability transitions?," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    7. Taewon Suh & Omar J. Khan & Benedikt Schnellbächer & Sven Heidenreich, 2019. "Strategic Accord And Tension For Business Model Innovation: Examining Different Tacit Knowledge Types And Open Action Strategies," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 24(04), pages 1-29, July.
    8. Betz, Ulrich A.K. & Betz, Frederick & Kim, Rachel & Monks, Brendan & Phillips, Fred, 2019. "Surveying the future of science, technology and business – A 35 year perspective," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 137-147.
    9. Jin, Byoungho Ellie & Shin, Daeun Chloe, 2020. "Changing the game to compete: Innovations in the fashion retail industry from the disruptive business model," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 63(3), pages 301-311.
    10. Isabelle Leroux & Paul Muller & Béatrice Plottu & Caroline Widehem, 2014. "Evolution of business models in French ?Pôles de compétitivité?: the role of intermediaries in horticultural varietal creation," ERSA conference papers ersa14p693, European Regional Science Association.
    11. Rayna, Thierry & Striukova, Ludmila, 2016. "From rapid prototyping to home fabrication: How 3D printing is changing business model innovation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 214-224.
    12. Moses, Aditya & Sharma, Amalesh, 2020. "What drives human resource acquisition and retention in social enterprises? An empirical investigation in the healthcare industry in an emerging market," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 76-88.
    13. Belussi, Fiorenza & Orsi, Luigi & Savarese, Maria, 2019. "Mapping Business Model Research: A Document Bibliometric Analysis," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 35(3).
    14. Pronker, Esther & Weenen, Tamar & Commandeur, Harry & Claassen, E. & Osterhaus, A.D.M.E., 2015. "Scratching the surface: Exploratory analysis of key opinion leaders on rate limiting factors in novel adjuvanted-vaccine development," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 90(PB), pages 420-432.
    15. Modell, Sven & Vinnari, Eija & Lukka, Kari, 2017. "On the virtues and vices of combining theories: The case of institutional and actor-network theories in accounting research," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 62-78.
    16. Vadim Grinevich & Franz Huber & Mine Karataş-Özkan & Çağla Yavuz, 2019. "Green entrepreneurship in the sharing economy: utilising multiplicity of institutional logics," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 52(4), pages 859-876, April.
    17. Lauto, Giancarlo & Valentin, Finn, 2016. "The knowledge production model of the New Sciences: The case of Translational Medicine," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 12-21.
    18. Qingfeng Tian & Shuo Zhang & Huimin Yu & Guangming Cao, 2019. "Exploring the Factors Influencing Business Model Innovation Using Grounded Theory: The Case of a Chinese High-End Equipment Manufacturer," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-16, March.
    19. Shrutika Mishra & A. R. Tripathi, 2020. "Literature review on business prototypes for digital platform," Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 1-19, December.
    20. Raphaël Maucuer & Alexandre Renaud, 2019. "Business Model Research: A Bibliometric Analysis of Origins and Trends," Post-Print hal-01918188, HAL.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Australian agriculture; biosecurity; grand challenges; institutional logics; shared responsibility;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • M19 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Business Administration - - - Other

    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:sae:ausman:v:44:y:2019:i:4:p:534-550. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.agsm.edu.au .

    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.