BAM 2004 Conference
University of St-Andrews
Workshop:
CASCADING ARENAS: A MULTILEVEL PERSPECTIVE ON THE RESOLUTION OF
GENETIC MODIFICATION ISSUES
*
Jennifer J. Griffin
The George Washington University
2115 G Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20052
USA
001-202-994-2536 phone
001-202-994-8113 fax
jgriffin@gwu.edu
Pursey P. M. A. R. Heugens*
Utrecht School of Economics
Utrecht University
Vredenburg 138
3511 BG Utrecht
The Netherlands
0031-30-253-7108 phone
0031-30-253-7373 fax
p.heugens@econ.uu.nl
John F. Mahon
Maine Business School
University of Maine
5723 Corbett Business Building
Orono, ME 04469-5723
USA
001-207-581-1976 phone
001-207-581-1956 fax
mahon@maine.edu
Richard A. McGowan
Boston College
Fulton Hall 252
Chestnut Hill, MA
USA
001-617-552-3474 phone
001-617-552-0433 fax
mcgowan@bc.edu
Steven L. Wartick
College of Business Administration
University of Northern Iowa
Cedar Falls, IA 50614-0125
USA
001-319-273-7225 phone
steve.wartick@uni.edu
Stephanie Welcomer
Maine Business School
University of Maine
5723 Corbett Business Building
Orono, ME 04469-5723
USA
001-207-581 3474 phone
001-207-581-1956 fax
mwelcomer@maine.edu
Corresponding author
1
CASCADING ARENAS: A MULTILEVEL PERSPECTIVE ON THE RESOLUTION OF
GENETIC MODIFICATION ISSUES
Synopsis:
In this workshop a new conceptual framework is developed for the analysis of societal
and political issues with corporate implications. A key observation is that issues are
often simultaneously discussed, debated, and debunked in what we will call cascading
arenas: multiple interrelated socio-political fields of resolution. We use the cascading
arena perspective to structure and analyze an international case study of the
introduction and reception of genetically modified foods, based on data collected in
the United States and the European Union.
Presentation 1:
Towards a new framework for issue analysis and resolution: Cascading arenas
Issues management is a well-developed concept in the field of business and society
(Bigelow et al., 1993; Mahon et al., 2004; Wartick & Mahon, 1994). Issues are raised
by the firm or other actors that demand some sort of action and response. As an issue
forms, stakeholders gather around the issue. They may have multiple motivations for
involvement—ideology, revenge, substance—or be dragged into the issue by others.
What is often neglected in such analyses, however, is the context in which issue
contests take place. We call such contexts arenas, and define them as socially
recognized “places” where issues are resolved. These “places” include the legislature,
courts, arbitrators, mediators, and “the court of public opinion.” Scholars have begun
to investigate how organizations and stakeholders select arenas for issue resolution
(Cobb & Elder, 1972; Edelman, 1988; Mahon & McGowan, 1996, 1998). Their
tentative conclusion is that arena selection is driven by an assessment as to where the
stakeholder believes it has an advantage. What is missing in issue analysis is the
movement across transnational and arena borders. In this first presentation we will
propose a theoretical model of cascading arenas, addressing specifically three
different arenas: local level (country level in EU, state level in US), regional level
(EU & US), and transborder international issues (across trading NAFTA and EU). We
note the broad characteristics of these arenas and address the processes by which
issues migrate up and down and across such arenas over time, using the genetically
modified organisms debate as an illustrative example of this process. We also offer
insights for managers of organizations and public interest groups regarding strategies
with regard to cascading arena use—addressing how issues migrate across arenas,
tactics to block such migration, and how to deal with issues being debated
simultaneously in multiple arenas.
Presentation 2:
Cascading arenas and genetic modification: The European case
This second presentation addresses how the issue of genetic modification is perceived
in four European arenas – Nordic, Germanic, Anglo, and Latin Europe. Each arena is
characterized by a unique set of (a) stakeholders, (b) stakeholder interests, (c) issue
resolution resources, and (d) sentiments with respect to issue resolution. Finland,
Norway, Sweden, and Denmark constitute the Nordic block. Scandinavian people are
relatively knowledgeable about biotechnology, and more likely than most to read
articles/watch television programs on the topic (Eurobarometer, 2000). The dominant
theme here is organic farming, where elements like “naturalness” of food production
and knowledge of the origin of foods play important roles. Switzerland, Austria, and
2
Germany comprise Germanic Europe. Unlike other European regions, the Germanic
people interpret genetic modification first as a political (rather than moral or
technological) phenomenon. Germanic Europeans are more likely than most to sign a
petition against modern biotechnology (Eurobarometer, 2000). In Europe’s Anglo
block (United Kingdom and Ireland), there is controversy between the state and the
public concerning the desirability of genetic modification. The UK’s New Labour
government strongly supports modern biotechnology, mostly because it fits with the
party’s pro-globalization rhetoric and represents a prime example of an of Industry
that could be crucial to Britain’s economic future (Barry, 1999). France, Spain,
Portugal, Italy, and Belgium belong to Latin Europe. Typically, European Latinos
know fairly little about biotechnology, and most will readily admit that they have
never discussed modern biotechnology with anyone (Eurobarometer, 2000).
Presentation 3:
Cascading arenas and genetic modification: The U.S. case
In the US, four constituencies color the debate on genetic modification: business,
environment, consumers, and government. Understanding the debate within these four
dimensions provides a snapshot of the biotechnology issue. In the 1990’s,
biotechnology began to cross industries and included chemicals, pharmaceuticals,
agriculture, and biotechnology firms. Companies combined these businesses into “life
sciences” (e.g. Monsanto, Novartis). Competitive advantage was sought through
genetically engineered foods delivering health benefits, and lessening the use of
pesticides in production. Profits largely depend on international trade regulations
regarding biotechnology. European resistance has an impact on American growers
who use modified crops and export to Europe. Selling modified crops does not end
with access via trade arrangements, however. Consumer attitudes are also central. In
the U.S., consumer attitudes are characterized as accepting or unaware. In either case,
U.S markets have largely accepted the presence of modified food ingredients with
little public outcry. Yet, consumers have registered concern about the presence of
potentially dangerous allergens in foods not commonly associated with the food, with
unknown risks, with containment of altered genes, and with risks to other species.
Presentation 4:
Cascading arenas of resolution: Managerial implications
Within the portfolio of issues embedded in the biotechnology debate (Heugens,
Mahon & Wartick, 2004), a wide range of arenas of resolution and targeted audiences
exist. With multiple interests, varying levels of motivation, and differing resources to
advance their positions, decision-makers have developed a complex calculus of issue
definitions, issue arenas, and targeted audiences (Mahon & McGowan, 1996). In this
closing presentation we examine the complex algorithm of costs and benefits
including issue definition, timeliness, and information networks managers have
created to support their offensive and defensive strategies across arenas of resolution.
Implications for management are tied to the issue definitions, interests represented,
and timing of resolution within each arena. Time sensitivity, issue life cycle,
institutional audience, desire for resolution, information asymmetry, venue shopping,
and broad vs. narrow positioning are each examined as important considerations in
strategically managing transnational issues in cascading arenas of resolution.
3
REFERENCES
Barry, J. 1998. GM food, biotechnology, risk and democracy in the UK: A sceptical
green perspective. Keele University Working Paper.
Bigelow, B., Fahey, L. and Mahon, J. 1993. A typology of issue evolution. Business
& Society, 32: 18-29.
Cobb, R. W., and Elder, C. D., 1973. Participation in American Politics: The
Dynamics of Agenda Building. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Edelman, M. 1988. Constructing the Public Spectacle. Chicago and London:
University of Chicago Press.
Eurobarometer. 2000. The Europeans and Biotechnology. Brussels: DirectorateGeneral for Research of the European Union.
Heugens, P.P.M.A.R., Mahon, J. F. and Wartick, S. 2004. A portfolio approach to
issue adoption. Presented at the 15th annual International Association for
Business and Society conference, March 2004.
Mahon, J. F., Heugens, P. M. A. R., and Lamertz, K., 2004. Social Networks and
Nonmarket Strategy. Journal of Public Affairs, 4(2): forthcoming.
Mahon, J. F., and McGowan, R. A., 1996. Industry as a player in the political and
social arena: defining the competitive environment. Westport, CT: Quorum
Books.
Mahon, J. F., and McGowan, R. A., 1998. Modeling industry political dynamics.
Business and Society, 37, (4), December, 1998: 390 – 413.
Wartick, S. L., and Mahon, J. F., 1994. Toward a substantive definition of the corporate
issue construct: A review and synthesis of the literature. Business and Society,
33(3): 293–311.
4