Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
The participants would go beyond the “usual suspects,” namely regula-
tory agencies, industry, technical experts, environmentalists, and public
health, consumer and civil society advocates. They would also include
the insurance industry and various members of the financial sector who
have not so far been part of the debate but who have great stakes in its
outcome.
This inclusive multi-stakeholder process would certainly lead to new
ideas and new perspectives on the issue of agricultural GMOs. As illus-
trated by the story of the Mining Supplement in the Appendix, it would
have a good chance of accomplishing an important goal, mobilizing the
key stakeholders to discuss, in a nonadversarial environment, their con-
cerns. Because the process bypasses any discussion on what constitutes
socially acceptable performance, it could produce an agreement on the
agenda for a social discourse about the impact of the GMO industry.
In time, it might contribute to a societal consensus about what consti-
tutes acceptable norms of behavior with regard to the development of
specific types of agricultural GMOs and the mode of their application
into commerce. It might also contribute to the development of formal
policies.
This type of participation and democratic deliberation over the tra-
jectory of technological development is not a new idea. In the 1980s,
it received considerable attention under the umbrella of “Constructive
Technology Assessment” (CTA).
51
CTA aimed to mitigate unforeseen
and socially undesirable effects of new technologies by increased stake-
holder participation in the process of technology development. What is
new here is the proposal to employ the process for encouraging cor-
porate accountability - namely, sustainability reporting as defined by
the GRI - to create an instrument for implementing such technology
assessments.
51
Managing Technology in Society: The Approach of Constructive Technology Assess-
ment
, (A. Rip et al. eds., Pinter 1995).
