Risk of public disclosure in environmental farm plan programs: Characteristics and mitigating legal and policy strategies
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 13 (1):101-120 (2000)
| Abstract | Although various studies have shown thatfarmers believe there is the need for a producer-ledinitiative to address the environmental problems fromagriculture, farmers in several Canadian provinceshave been reluctant to widely participate inEnvironmental Farm Plan (EFP) programs. Few studieshave examined the key issues associated with adoptingEFP programs based on farmers', as opposed to policymakers', perspectives on why producers are reluctantto participate in the program. A study adapting VanRaaij's (1981) conceptual model of the decision-makingenvironment of the firm, and prospect theory on valuefunctions associated with the gains and losses fromrisky choices can be used to characterize how farmersperceive potential risks in environmental farmplanning. This framework can be used to assert thatfarmers are concerned about risks of public disclosureof potentially incriminating environmental informationfrom farms because the EFP program requirements foridentification and extensive documentation of farminformation is perceived by farmers as facilitatingthe accessibility of environmental information to thepublic, and public investigative efforts. Although theEFP program does not explicitly generate informationabout the environmental conditions of a farm nor thedisclosure of such information to the public, itcreates the possibility of generating and divulgingpotentially incriminating information that the farmermay want to treat as confidential. Yet, alone, theserisks of public disclosure concerns should not preventfarmers from participating in the EFP. Awareness ofand participation in environmental farm planning canbe increased if farmers and policy makers understandwhat the risks are, and how they arise. Aspects of theEFP process that have the potential to generate riskof public disclosure concerns relate to farm reviews,documentation and record keeping, and correctiveaction plans. There are legal and policy instrumentsthat can offer various forms of protection and helpminimize such risks, and these need to be assessed. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,875 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesBen A. Minteer & Robert E. Manning (1999). Pragmatism in Environmental Ethics: Democracy, Pluralism, and the Management of Nature. Environmental Ethics 21 (2):191-207.
Charles H. Cho, Dennis M. Patten & Robin W. Roberts (2006). Corporate Political Strategy: An Examination of the Relation Between Political Expenditures, Environmental Performance, and Environmental Disclosure. Journal of Business Ethics 67 (2):139 - 154.
Angus Dawson (2005). Risk Perceptions and Ethical Public Health Policy: MMR Vaccination in the UK. Poiesis and Praxis 3 (4):229-241.
M. J. Goss & D. A. J. Barry (1995). Groundwater Quality: Responsible Agriculture and Public Perceptions. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 8 (1).
Robert E. Manning (1999). Pragmatism in Environmental Ethics. Environmental Ethics 21 (2):191-207.
Cheng-Li Huang & Fan-Hua Kung (forthcoming). Drivers of Environmental Disclosure and Stakeholder Expectation: Evidence From Taiwan. Journal of Business Ethics.
Charles Y. Deknatel (1980). Questions About Environmental Ethics? Toward a Research Agenda with a Focus on Public Policy. Environmental Ethics 2 (4):353-362.
Sarika Cardoso & Harvey James Jr (2012). Ethical Frameworks and Farmer Participation in Controversial Farming Practices. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 25 (3):377-404.
Glen C. Filson (1993). Comparative Differences in Ontario Farmers' Environmental Attitudes. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 6 (2).
Stefan Mann (2005). Ethological Farm Programs and the “Market” for Animal Welfare. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 18 (4).
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads3 ( #203,804 of 556,837 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #64,847 of 556,837 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
