Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Role of Ethics in the Commercialization of Indigenous Knowledge

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Much has been written about indigenous knowledge and intellectual property rights (IPRs) in fields like anthropology and law. However, it remains an under-examined topic in business and management literature. In this article, we review the emerging contentious discourse, definitional issues and underlying assumptions of the western IPR and indigenous knowledge management systems. We highlight the similarities and differences between the two approaches. We argue that adopting a view that law is socially constructed with ethical underpinnings helps sort out the thorny issues related to indigenous knowledge ‘expropriation’. To do this, we draw on the role of ethical norms in the historical evolution of IPRs regimes. Finally, grounded in Stakeholder Theory, we conclude with a discussion of managerial implications.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Argandona, A. (1998). The stakeholder theory and the common good. Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 1093–1102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audet M (2000) Native American tribal names as Monikers and Logos: Will these registrations withstand cancellation under Lanham Act § 2(b) after the trademark study on Official Insignia of Native American Tribes? Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property 2.

  • Banerjee, S. B. (2003). Who sustains whose development? Sustainable development and the reinvention of nature. Organization Studies, 24(1), 143–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, A. (2001). In Africa the Hoodia cactus keeps men alive. Now secret is “stolen” to make us thin. The Observer.

  • Bird, R. C. (2008). Pathways of legal strategy. Stanford Journal of Law, Business and Finance, 14, 1–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bird, R. C. (2009). Moral rights: Diagnosis and rehabilitation. American Business Law Journal, 46, 407–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bratspies, R. M. (2007). The new discovery doctrine: Some thoughts on property rights and traditional knowledge. American Indian Law Review, 31.

  • Dean, A., & Kretschmer, M. (2007). Can ideas be capital? Factors of production in the postindustrial economy: A review and critique. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 573–594.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson, T. Q. (1999). Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, Official Insignia of Native American Tribes, Statutorily Required Study. Report to Congress, pursuant to Title III of Public Law 105–330, 28. http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/notices/insgstdy.pdf.

  • Dutfield, G. (2000). The public and private domains: Intellectual property rights in traditional knowledge. Science Communication, 21(3), 274–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dzinkowski, R. (2000). The measurement and management of intellectual capital: An introduction. Management Accounting, 78(2), 32–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edvinsson, L., & Maloney, M. (1997). Intellectual capital: Realizing your company’s true value by finding its hidden brain power. New York, NY: Harper Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehrenfeld, J. (2000). Industrial ecology: Paradigm shift or normal science? American Behavioral Scientist, 44(2), 229–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feinman, J. (2000). Law 101. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, Y., & Nadler, J. (2006). The law and norms of file sharing. San Diego Law Review, 43, 577.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA: Pitman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E., Wicks, A. C., & Parmar, B. (2004). Stakeholder theory and the corporate objective revisited. Organization Science, 15(3), 364–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, K. (2000). The moral basis of stakeholder theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 26, 245–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, J. S., Hall, B. H., Harhoff, D., & Mowery D.C. (2002). Post-issue patent ‘quality control’: A comparative study of US patent re-examinations and European Patent oppositions. NBER working Paper W8807.

  • Grant, R. M. (1996). The knowledge-based view of the firm. In C. W. Choo & N. Bontis (Eds.), The strategic management of intellectual capital and organizational knowledge (pp. 133–148). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, S. (1992). Ritual as intellectual property. Man, 27(2), 225–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hendry, J. (2001). Economic contracts versus social relationships as a foundation for normative stakeholder theory. In business ethics: An European review. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.

  • Hill, C. W. L., & Jones, T. M. (1992). Stakeholder-agency theory. Journal of Management Studies, 29(2), 131–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Labor Organization Convention Concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries: 1989 (referred to as Convention 169).

  • Jonker, J., & Marberg, A. (2007). Corporate social responsibility Quo Vadis? A critical inquiry into a discursive struggle. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 27, 107–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kagan, R. A., Gunningham, N., & Thornton, D. (2003). Explaining corporate environmental performance: How does regulation matter? Law and Society Review, 37, 51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kate, K. T., & Laird, S. A. (2004). Bioprospecting agreements and benefits sharing with local communities. In J. M. Finger & P. Schuler (Eds.), Poor people’s knowledge—promoting intellectual property in developing countries (pp. 133–158). Washington, DC: World Bank and Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3), 383–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korhonen, J. (2002). The dominant economics paradigm and corporate social responsibility. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 9, 67–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laszlo, C. (2008). Sustainable value. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehman, J. A. (2006). Intellectual property rights and Chinese tradition section: Philosophical foundations. Journal of Business Ethics, 69, 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lury, A. A. (1999). Official Insignia, culture, and native Americans: An analysis of whether current United States Trademark Law should be changed to prevent the registration of Official Tribal Insignia. Journal of Intellectual Property, 1.

  • Mahop, M. T., & Mayet, M. (2007). En route to biopiracy? Ethnobotanical research on ant-diabetic medicinal plants in the Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. African Journal of Biotechnology, 6, 13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matten, D., Crane, A., & Chapple, W. (2003). Behind the mask: Revealing the true face of corporate citizenship. Journal of Business Ethics, 45, 109–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melé, D., & Guillén, M. (2006). The intellectual evolution of strategic management and its relationship with ethics and social responsibility. Working Paper No. 658, p. 14. Barcelona: IESE Business School.

  • Mellahi, K., & Woods, G. (2003). The role and potential of stakeholders in ‘hollow participation’: Conventional stakeholder theory and institutional alternatives. Business and Society Review, 108(2), 183–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merges, R. (2004). From medieval guilds to open source software: Informal norms, appropriabability, institutions and innovations. In: Conference on the Legal History of Intellectual Property, University of Wisconsin, Madison.

  • Miller, A., & Davis, M. (2000). Intellectual property: Patents, trademarks, and copyright. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mugabe, J. (1999). Intellectual property protection and traditional knowledge: An exploration in international policy discourse. http://www.wipo.int/tk/en/hr/paneldiscussion/papers/pdf/mugabe.pdf.

  • Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norchi, C. H. (2003). Indigenous knowledge as intellectual property. Policy Sciences, 33, 387–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Odek, J. O. (1994). Biopiracy: Creating proprietary rights in plant genetic resources. Journal of Intellectual Property Law, 2, 141–181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oguamanam, C. (2004). Localizing intellectual property in the globalization epoch: The integration of indigenous knowledge. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 11, 135–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orozco, D. (2009). Rational design rights ignorance. The American Business Law Journal, 46(4), 580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pena-Neira, S. (2003). Equitably sharing benefits arising from natural genetic resources in Costa Rica and India: Comparative analysis on the interpretation at the national level of Article 15.7 of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Paper presented at the Institute of Advanced Studies in the United Nations University in Tokyo, Japan. http://ssrn.com/abstract=429383.

  • Pisano, G. (2006). Profiting from innovation and the intellectual property revolution. Research Policy, 35(8), 1122–1130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poonamallee, L. (2011). Corporate citizenship: Panacea or problem? The complicated case of Hindustan Unilever. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 2011, 9–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, D. B. (2003). A pluralistic account of intellectual property. Journal of Business Ethics, 46(4), 319–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rifkin, J. (1999). The biotech century. New York, NY: Penguin Putnam Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roht-Arriaza, N. (1996). Of seeds and shamans: The appropriation of the scientific and technical knowledge of indigenous and local communities. Michigan Journal of International Law, 17, 919–965.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuler, P. (2003). Biopiracy and commercialization of ethnobotanical knowledge. In J. M. Finger & P. Schuler (Eds.), Poor people’s knowledge—promoting intellectual property in developing countries (pp. 159–183). Washington, DC: World Bank and Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shiva, V. (2000). Public communication through Listserv. http://www.gene.ch/genet/2000/Jun/msg00032.html.

  • Soleri, D., Cleveland, D., Bowannie, F, Jr, Laahty, A., & Zuni Community Members. (1994). Gifts from the creator: Intellectual property rights and folk crop varieties. In T. Greaves (Ed.), Intellectual property rights for indigenous peoples: A source book. Oklahoma City, OK: Society for Applied Anthropology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, E. (1996). The defects of stakeholder theory. Governance Quarterly (HK), 2(1), 4–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, T. A. (1997). Intellectual capital: The new wealth of organizations. New York, NY: Currency Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Subbiah, S. (2004). Reaping what they sow: The basmati rice controversy and strategies for protecting traditional knowledge. Boston College International & Comparative Law Review, 529, 531–532.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. (2000). Managing intellectual capital. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8.

  • Waddock, S. (2004). Parallel universes: Companies, academics, and the progress of corporate citizenship. Business and Society Review, 109(1), 5–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whiteman, G., & Cooper, H. W. (2000). Ecological embeddedness. Academy of Management Journal, 43(6), 1265–1282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whittaker, E. (1994). Public discourse on sacredness: The transfer of Ayers Rock to aboriginal ownership. American Ethnologist, 21(2), 310–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Intellectual Property Organization, Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore—12th Session. (2007). Accessed March 31, 2008, from http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/tk/en/wipo_grtkf_ic_12/wipo_grtkf_ic_12_5_b.doc.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Business, Florida State University, 821 Academic Way, Tallahassee, FL, 32306, USA

    David Orozco

  2. Michigan Technological University, 1400 Townsend Drive, Houghton, MI, 49931-1295, USA

    Latha Poonamallee

Authors
  1. David Orozco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Latha Poonamallee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Orozco.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Orozco, D., Poonamallee, L. The Role of Ethics in the Commercialization of Indigenous Knowledge. J Bus Ethics 119, 275–286 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1640-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1640-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation