The TRIPS Agreement Implementation in Mexico : Implications for Social Responsibility and Development

• Autorzy: Santiago González-Gomez , Arturo García-Santillán
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The relation between intellectual property vs international commerce can be either positive, or negative, favoring certain countries with better technological infrastructure or increasing their international commerce, but it might also represent a barrier to commerce in case of abuse with its implementation. It could also be an impediment for social responsibility, remarkably in case of developing nations. This research focuses on intellectual property rights in Mexico, its effects on international competitiveness, and analyzes the influence of the TRIPS1 Agreement on Mexico's technological upgrade, modernization and industrialization and the effects it has on the social responsibility aspects, such as human rights, poverty eradication and the relation between supply chain and sustainability. (original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Intellectual property; Competitiveness; International trade; Modernization; Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)

PL

Własność intelektualna; Konkurencyjność; Handel międzynarodowy; Modernizacja; Społeczna odpowiedzialność biznesu

• Czasopismo: Journal of International Studies
• Rocznik: 2019
• Tom: 12
• Numer: nr 2
• Strony: 46--65

Twórcy

autor

Santiago González-Gomez

• Universidad Panamericana, México

autor

Arturo García-Santillán

• Universidad Cristóbal Colón, México

Bibliografia

• Alcorta, L. & Peres, W. (1995). Innovation systems and technological specialization in Latin American and Caribbean Exports: Maastricht. UNU.
• Armstrong, M.B., Ketz, J. E. & Owsen, D. (2003). Ethics education in accounting: moving toward ethical motivation and ethical behavior. Journal of Accounting Education, 49(2), 1-16.
• Arrabal, P. (1991). Manual práctico de propiedad intelectual e industrial. Barcelona: Ediciones Gestión 2000.
• Atkinson, A. A., Waterhouse, J. H., & Wells, R.B. (1997). A stakeholder approach to strategic performance measurement. Sloan Management Review, 38(3), 25-37.
• Bampton, R., & Maclagan, P. (2005). Why teach ethics to accounting students? A response to the skeptics. Business Ethics: A European Review, 14(3), 290-300. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8608.2005.00410.x
• Bayard, T., & Elliott, K. (1994). Reciprocity and Retaliation in U.S. Trade Policy. Washington D.C Institute for International Economics.
• Bergel, S. D., & Battioli, E. (1993). En torno del abuso de derechos de propiedad intelectual y la competencia. Revista del Derecho Industrial, 43(15), 97-111.
• Block, W., & Cwik, P.F. (2007) Teaching business ethics: A classificationist approach, Business Ethics: A European Review, 16(2), 98-106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8608.2007.00480.x
• Bondía, F. (1998). Propiedad Intelectual, su significado en la sociedad de la información. Barcelona, Ediciones Trivium.
• Chasen R. J. & Wasserman, J. (1993). Trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights, Kluwer Law and Taxation. Deventer, Netherlands. Boston: Kluwer Law and Taxation.
• Clarkson, M., (1994). A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Performance. Academy of Management Review, 20, 92-117.
• Commission of the European Communities. (1987). Trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights in the Uruguay Round: approach and priorities of the European Community, III/D/236/87- Brussels, EN (rev.2).
• Cornelius, N., Wallace, J. & Tassabehji, R. (2007). An analysis of corporate social responsibility, corporate identity and ethics teaching in business schools. Journal of Business Ethics, 76(1), 117-135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9271-6
• Cornish, W. (1989), Intellectual property: patents, copyright, trademarks and allied rights. London: Sweet & Maxwell.
• Correa, C. (1993). Legal protection and innovation in the software industry. World Competition, 17(1).
• Correa, C. (1994). TRIPs Agreement: copyright and related rights. IIC, 4.
• Derry, R. (2012). Reclaiming Marginalized Stakeholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(2), 253-264.
• Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications. Academic Management Review, January 1, 20(1), 65-91.
• Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st. Century Business. Capstone.
• Foster, D., & Jonker, J. (2003). Third generation quality management: the role of stakeholders in integrating the business into society. Management Auditing Journal, (4), 323-328.
• Frederick, B. (2005). Vogel and Frederick, Together At Last! ... Well, Almost, A Review of David Vogel, The Market For Virtue: The Potential and Limits of Corporate Social Responsibility. Brookings Institution Press.
• Freeman, E., & Ginena, K. (2015). Rethinking the purpose of the corporation: Challenges from stakeholder theory, Article in Notizie di Politeia January
• Freeman, E.R. (1994). The Politics of Stakeholder Theory: Some Future Directions. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(4), 409-422.
• Freeman, E.R., Harrison, J. S., & Wicks, A. C. (2010). Stakeholder Theory, the State of the Art. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
• Freeman E.R. (1984). Strategic Management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman Publishing, Business, and Public Policy Series. Cambridge University Press.
• Freeman, R., & Reed, D. (1983). Stockholders and Stakeholders: a new perspective on corporate governance. California Management Review, 25, 88-106.
• Fugate, W. (1990). Foreign Commerce and the antitrust law, vol. II, Fourth Edition. Washington D.C.: Little, Brown, and Co.
• Gaa, J. C., & Thorne, L. (2004). An introduction to the special issue on professionalism and ethics in accounting education. Issues in Accounting Education, 19(1), 1-6.
• Gadbow, M., & Richards, T. (1988). Intellectual Property Rights. Global Consensus, Global Conflict? Colorado: Westview Press.
• GATT. (1987a). MTN.GNG.NG11/W/2, Statement of the United States at the meeting of 25 March 1987, April 3.
• GATT. (1987b). MTN.GNG/NG11/W/7, Submissions from participants on trade problems encountered in connection with intellectual property rights, May 29.
• GATT. (1987c). Compilación de comunicaciones escritas y declaraciones orales (Preparada por la Secretaría), MTN.GNG/NG11/W/12, August 11.
• GATT. (1987d). MTN.GNG/NG11/W/17, Suggestions by Japan for achieving the negotiating objective, November 23.
• Global Competitiveness Index. (2017). GCI. Retrieved August 21, 2017 from http://reports.weforum.org/global-competitiveness-report-2014-2015/rankings/ web page.
• González-Gómez, S., Erogul, M. S., & Barragan, S. (2016) Similarities and differences in teaching corporate social responsibility: evidence from Mexico and Canada. Journal on Efficiency and Responsibility in Education and Science, 9(3), 70-80, doi: 10.7160/eriesj.2016.090303.
• Graz, D. (1988). Propriété intellectuelle et libre circulation des marchandises. Suize: Université de Lausanne - Département de droit comparé.
• Greenwood, M. R., & Simmons, J. A. (2004). A stakeholder approach to ethical human resource management. Business and Professional Ethics Journal, 23(3), 3-23.
• INTAL/BID. (1987). Régimen jurídico de la propiedad industrial en los países de la ALADI, Buenos Aires.
• Jalife, M. (1994). Propiedad intelectual, Reseña El Economista. Editorial Sista, 1(30).
• Khor, M. (2001). TRIPS Agreement and the WTO's Crisis of Legitimacy. Stanford Journal of International Relations, March 30.
• Langtry, B. (1994). Stakeholders and the moral responsibilities of Business. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(4), 431-443
• Laplume, A. O., Sonpar, K., & Litz, R. A. (2008). Stakeholder theory: Reviewing a theory that moves us. Journal of Management, 34(6), 1152-1189.
• Levine, A., & Matheson, J. (1995/1996). The NII White Paper and US copyright reform. Managing Intellectual Property, December 1995/January 1996
• Lipszyc, D. (1993). Derechos de autor y derechos conexos. Buenos Aires: Ediciones UNESCO, CREALC
• Marens, R., & Wicks, A.C. (1999). Getting real: stakeholder theory, managerial practice and the general irrelevance of fiduciary duties owed to shareholders. Business Ethics Quarterly, 2(2), 273-293.
• OEA. (1973). Tratados y convenciones multilaterales sobre propiedad industrial en América. Washington D.C.
• OTA. (n.d.). (Office of Technology Assessment), Multinationals and the U.S technology.
• Pérez Miranda, R. (1994). Propiedad industrial y competencia en México. México D.F.: Ed. Porrúa.
• Pfeffer, J. & Fong, C.T. (2004). The business school "business": some lessons from the US experience. Journal of Management Studies, 41(8), 1501-1520. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2004.00484.x
• Phillips, R. (1997). Stakeholder Theory and a principle of fairness. Business Ethics Quarterly, 7(1), 51-66.
• Polonsky, M. J., & Scott, D. (2005). An empirical examination of the stakeholder strategy matrix. European Journal of Marketing, 39(9/10), 1199-1215.
• Porter, M., & Kramer, M. (2006). Strategy and Society: The Link between Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility, Harvard Business Review. (December) 21-38. Harvard. Post J.,
• Preston L. & Sachs S. (2002). Redefining the Corporation: Stakeholder Management and Organizational Wealth. Stanford University Press.
• Pulido, M. (2006). Tecnología en México. Decisión Empresarial, 9(1).
• Reed, D. (1999). Stakeholder management theory: a critical theory perspective. Business Ethics Quarterly, 9(3), 453-483.
• Reich Robert, B. (2007). Super capitalism: The Transformation of Business, Democracy and Everyday Life. Alfred A. Knopf. Vintage Book.
• Roffe, P. (1985). Transfer of technology: Unctad's draft international code of conduct. International Lawyer, 19(2).
• Samuelson, P., Davis, R., Kapor, M., & Reichman, J. (1994). A Manifesto concerning the legal protection of computer programs. Columbia Law Review, 94(8).
• Schneider, M. (2002). A Stakeholder Model of Organizational Leadership. Organization Science, 13(2), 209-220.
• SELA. (1995). Más allá de la Cumbre de las Américas. Situación y perspectivas del Libre Comercio en el Hemisferio Occidental. San Salvador, julio de 1995.
• Smith. P. (1995). International patent protection and United States exports: evidence in data. Lecture at "The international relations of intellectual property: challenges at the turn of the Century, 1, 1-5. Washington D.C.
• The New York Times (2017). Drug Goes From $13.50 a Tablet to $750, overnight. web page consulted August 22, 2017.
• Tricker, R.I. (2012). The Cultural Dependence of Corporate Governance. Keeping Good Companies, 64(1), 27-31.
• U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). (1988). Foreign protection of intellectual property rights and the effect on U.S. Industry and Trade (Report to the U.S. Trade Representative. Investigation No 332-245 under section 332 (g) of the Tariff Act of 1930). USITC Publ.2065, Washington UNESCO (1993), World Science Report 1993, París.
• United Nations Global Compact. (1999). The Ten Principles of the UN Global Compact, web page. Consulted on August 31, 2017. https://www.unglobalcompact.org/what-is-gc/mission/principles.
• Uruguay Round Agreements Act/Title V, Intellectual Property, United States Congress. (1994). web page, https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Uruguay_Round_Agreements_Act/Title_V
• Vogel David l. (2006). The Market for Virtue, the potential, and limits of corporate social responsibility. Brookings Institution Press.
• Waples, E. P., Antes, A. L., Murphy, S. T., Connelly, S. & Mumford, M. D. (2008) A meta-analytic investigation of business ethics instruction. Journal of Business Ethics, 87(1), 133-151. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008- 9875-0
• Watal, J. (2001). Intellectual property rights in the WTO and developing countries. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
• Wicks, A. (1996). Overcoming the separation thesis: The need for reconsideration of SIM research. Business and Society, 35(1), 89-118.
• Wicks, A.C., Gilbert, D.R., & Freeman, R.E. (1994). A feminist reinterpretation of the stakeholder concept. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4, 475-497.
• World Economic Forum, WEF, The Global Competitiveness Report 2016-2017, web page, http://reports.weforum.org/global-competitiveness-index/, consulted on September 12, 2017.
• Yusuf, A., & Moncayo von Hase, A. (1992). Intellectual property and international trade. Exhaustion of rights revisited. World Competition, 16(1).

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.14254/2071-8330.2019/12-2/3