Not Free to Roam: Misleading Food Credence Claims, the ACCC and the Need for Corporate Social Responsibility

Sharne Hobill, Jay Sanderson
{"title":"Not Free to Roam: Misleading Food Credence Claims, the ACCC and the Need for Corporate Social Responsibility","authors":"Sharne Hobill, Jay Sanderson","doi":"10.26180/5DB80871F4039","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article explores misleading food credence claims. The article commences by drawing attention to a concomitant increase in differentiated foods (eg locally sourced, free-range or ‘healthy’) and information asymmetry (ie where food businesses possess more accurate and useful information than consumers). The article then examines attempts by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (‘ACCC’) to deter misleading food credence claims and identifies a taxonomy of misleading food credence claims including those made about a food’s: (i) provenance; (ii) manufacture or production; and (iii) qualities or characteristics. The article then situates the ACCC’s efforts within the dialectic of Corporate Social Irresponsibility (‘CSI’) and Corporate Social Responsibility (‘CSR’), and in so doing, within regulatory theory that espouses a mix of deterrence and cooperation. We argue that while the ACCC plays a crucial role in deterring misleading food credence claims its focus is on CSI: meaning that more needs to be done to encourage CSR in relation to accurate and unbiased food credence claims. By treating food credence claims as a matter of CSR, food businesses can support informed decision-making and perhaps even contribute to better health outcomes. Indeed, conceptualising food credence claims as CSR is an important and necessary step in ensuring that honest and accurate food credence claims become the norm, not just the law.","PeriodicalId":44672,"journal":{"name":"Monash University Law Review","volume":"43 1","pages":"113-147"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Monash University Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26180/5DB80871F4039","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article explores misleading food credence claims. The article commences by drawing attention to a concomitant increase in differentiated foods (eg locally sourced, free-range or ‘healthy’) and information asymmetry (ie where food businesses possess more accurate and useful information than consumers). The article then examines attempts by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (‘ACCC’) to deter misleading food credence claims and identifies a taxonomy of misleading food credence claims including those made about a food’s: (i) provenance; (ii) manufacture or production; and (iii) qualities or characteristics. The article then situates the ACCC’s efforts within the dialectic of Corporate Social Irresponsibility (‘CSI’) and Corporate Social Responsibility (‘CSR’), and in so doing, within regulatory theory that espouses a mix of deterrence and cooperation. We argue that while the ACCC plays a crucial role in deterring misleading food credence claims its focus is on CSI: meaning that more needs to be done to encourage CSR in relation to accurate and unbiased food credence claims. By treating food credence claims as a matter of CSR, food businesses can support informed decision-making and perhaps even contribute to better health outcomes. Indeed, conceptualising food credence claims as CSR is an important and necessary step in ensuring that honest and accurate food credence claims become the norm, not just the law.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
不能自由漫游:误导食品信誉声明,ACCC和企业社会责任的必要性
这篇文章探讨了误导性的食品信任声明。文章首先提请注意差异化食品(如本地采购、散养或“健康”食品)和信息不对称(即食品企业比消费者拥有更准确和有用的信息)的增加。然后,本文考察了澳大利亚竞争与消费者委员会(ACCC)为阻止误导性食品凭证声明所做的努力,并确定了误导性食品凭证声明的分类,包括关于食品的分类:(i)来源;(二)制造或生产;(三)品质或特征。然后,文章将ACCC的努力置于企业社会不负责任(“CSI”)和企业社会责任(“CSR”)的辩证关系中,并在支持威慑与合作混合的监管理论中这样做。我们认为,尽管ACCC在阻止误导性食品信誉声明方面发挥着至关重要的作用,但其重点是CSI:这意味着需要做更多的工作来鼓励与准确和公正的食品信誉声明相关的企业社会责任。通过将食品信用声明视为企业社会责任,食品企业可以支持明智的决策,甚至可能有助于改善健康状况。事实上,将食品信用声明概念化为企业社会责任是确保诚实和准确的食品信用声明成为规范而不仅仅是法律的重要和必要步骤。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
期刊最新文献
Revisiting Section 32(1) of the Victorian Charter: strained constructions and legislative intention Peoplehood Obscured? The Normative Status of Self-Determination after the Chagos Advisory Opinion (Advance) Is the Wisdom of a Person's Decision Relevant to Their Capacity to Make That Decision? Not Black and White?: Disciplinary Regulation of Doctors Convicted of Child Pornography Offences in Australia Reconceptualising the Law of the Dead by Expanding the Interests of the Living
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1