Category: Uncategorised

On Friday 12 June 2026, doctoral students from the College of Business and Law at UWE Bristol and the Faculty of Business and Law at Taylor’s University came together for the annual CBL-UWE & FBL-Taylor’s University Doctoral Conference. Held across Bristol and Subang Jaya, with participants joining both in person and online, the conference provided a platform for students to share their research, exchange ideas and celebrate the strength of the doctoral community.

The conference showcased the breadth and diversity of research being undertaken across business, management, law, finance, economics and related disciplines. Throughout the day, presenters explored topics ranging from artificial intelligence and entrepreneurship to sustainability, workplace inclusion, healthcare innovation and marketing.

Highlights from the conference

The conference opened with welcome remarks from Professor Wendy Phillips, Dean for Research and Knowledge Exchange at CBL-UWE Bristol, and Professor Poon Wai Ching, Head of Doctoral Programmes in the Faculty of Business and Law at Taylor’s University.

Delegates were then joined by keynote speaker Professor Darren Reynolds, Pro Vice-Chancellor for Research and Knowledge Exchange at UWE Bristol. Drawing on more than three decades of experience, his keynote address, Life Beyond the Borders: 35 Years of Interdisciplinary Working – A Personal Perspective, reflected on the value of collaboration across disciplines and the role of research in creating meaningful change.

Ahead of the conference, doctoral students from both Universities also had the opportunity to participate in on-campus and online pre-conference workshops. Led by Steve Creffield of EvolveIntegral Ltd, “Seeing what you see: A workshop on bringing your research to life for a room/screen of your peers” helped participants develop their communication and presentation skills, providing valuable preparation for sharing their research with conference delegates.

Conference sessions explored a wide range of contemporary challenges and opportunities, including:

• The growing influence of artificial intelligence on organisations, entrepreneurship and decision-making.
• Emerging global trends in supply chains, real estate investment, manufacturing and infrastructure.
• Sustainability, ESG and climate-related challenges in business and law.
• Entrepreneurship in complex and rapidly changing environments.
• Innovation and adoption in healthcare and public services.
• Inclusion, identity and workforce change in contemporary workplaces.
• Consumer behaviour, social marketing and the evolving customer journey.

Conference programme highlighted the international nature of the doctoral community, bringing together PhD and DBA researchers from across the UK and around the world to share perspectives, experiences and emerging findings.

Celebrating research excellence

A highlight of the conference was the presentation of the annual awards, recognising outstanding contributions from doctoral researchers.

Huge congratulations to this year’s award winners:

• Best Paper Award – Thilaka Hewage Asanka Chamara for “Beyond the Veil: The Intersection of Ethnicity and Sexual Orientation in the Concealment of Gay and Bisexual Male Identities in the Workplace: A Cross-Cultural Comparative Study of Sri Lanka and the UK.”
• Delegates’ Choice Award – Bilal Abu Jafar for “Exporting Under Volatility: How Palestinian SMEs Respond to Export Barriers in a Conflict-Affected Economy.”

The conference once again demonstrated the quality, creativity and impact of doctoral research across both institutions. Beyond the presentations themselves, the event provided valuable opportunities for networking, feedback and collaboration, helping doctoral students build confidence, develop new connections and refine their ideas.

“Whether you joined us on-line or on campus, I hope you enjoyed the Conference and found it interesting and useful.

It was a day of celebration of research – the day for our doctoral students, by our doctoral students and about our doctoral students. I hope they will use it as a springboard to yet greater things in the near future.” Dr Pawel Capik

We look forward to seeing how the ideas presented at this year’s conference continue to develop and to welcoming the next iteration of papers at the Doctoral Conference next year.

By Noelle Quenivet and Sarah-Louise Weller

On 20 May 2026 colleagues from across the College of Business and Law (CBL) came together for a focused and practical training session exploring two foundational pillars of contemporary research practice: research governance and open research. The session was delivered by experts from the University to support researchers in navigating compliance requirements and evolving expectations regarding openness.

The session was delivered in two parts. The first part featured an introduction to research governance by Dr Mateja Celestina, Research Integrity Governance and Ethics Manager. This was followed by an exploration of open research led by Jennifer Crossley (Open Research Services Manager), and an overview of the research and data repositories by Charley Vaughton (Open Research Services Librarian).

Understanding the framework: Research governance in practice

The first part of the session introduced the principles and practicalities of research governance. Research governance was defined as the framework of policies, procedures and codes of practice that underpin the management of research and ensure compliance with relevant standards and legal requirements.

As Dr Celestina pointed out, research governance is integral to excellence, not separate from it. Indeed, it is not an administrative burden but a fundamental aspect of research quality. It ensures that research is conducted ethically, safely and with integrity, and that it complies with institutional and external requirements. It also applies universally: to all forms of research and to everyone involved in the research process.

Dr Celestina stressed that good research governance enhances ethical and scientific quality, boosts the reputation of researchers and the University, safeguards participants and protects researchers with a clear framework, minimises risks, promotes continuous improvement, and, crucially, has legal implications.

A significant emphasis was placed on research integrity. As highlighted in the session, excellence in research is inseparable from integrity. High-quality research processes contribute not only to robust outputs but also to public trust, which is essential for the long-term value and impact of research.

The session then moved to the practical application of governance in research planning. From the earliest stages of a project, researchers must consider whether ethical and governance approvals are required. This includes research involving human participants, personal data or biological material, as well as research involving animals. Beyond ethical approvals, the training highlighted a range of governance considerations that may arise depending on the nature of the research. These include projects involving the NHS or Ministry of Defence, studies requiring Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks, and compliance with export controls, the National Security and Investment Act, and foreign influence regulations. Researchers working with international collaborators must also undertake due diligence, while projects involving genetic material may need to comply with the Nagoya Protocol.

A key takeaway from this part of the session was the importance of the Research Governance Record. All projects, whether funded or not, and whether requiring formal ethical approval or not, must be recorded. This ensures institutional oversight and supports compliance across the research lifecycle.

Open research: Principles, practices and challenges

Mrs Jennifer Crossley then invited participants to reconsider how research is shared, accessed and re-used in an increasingly open scholarly landscape. The session began with a question: what does open research mean to you? The participants’ attitudes towards open research ranged from support to uncertainty and confusion about its implications. Open research was introduced as an approach grounded in transparency, openness and reproducibility across the entire research lifecycle.

Whilst open research is about making research and its outputs as accessible as possible, Mrs Crossley stressed that it is not limited to publication; it covers the entire process of knowledge production, from methodology and data to peer review. The aim is to enhance public value, research integrity, and opportunities for re-use and innovation. Mrs Crossley also explained that open research can be understood as a set of principles and practices that seek to make knowledge accessible, inclusive and sustainable. In this sense, it is about equity and participation.

Participants were then introduced to practical aspects of open research. Open access publishing is defined as the free and immediate online availability of research outputs, often governed by licences that allow reuse provided proper attribution is given. Different routes (e.g. “green” and “gold”) to open access were explained. A key message was that open access is increasingly expected rather than optional. It is necessary for compliance with funder requirements and for eligibility in research assessment exercises such as the REF. Researchers were reassured, however, that there are multiple ways to achieve this, including through institutional publisher agreements, rights retention policies, and repository deposits.

The training also addressed common concerns about open access, particularly around predatory publishing. Participants were encouraged to critically evaluate publishers, looking for warning signs and using tools such as the “Think. Check. Submit.” initiative to make informed decisions.

Another important aspect of open research covered in the session was research data management. Researchers are required to complete training and develop data management plans for their projects. While sharing data is encouraged, the session acknowledged that this can be challenging, particularly in disciplines where data is complex or sensitive.

Ms Charley Vaughton then introduced the UWE Research Repository and Data Repository as the key institutional resources that enable researchers to make their outputs discoverable and to deposit a wide range of materials (e.g. journal articles, book chapters, reports, videos and datasets).

Importantly, the session recognised that open research is not a one-size-fits-all model and that practices must be adapted to disciplinary contexts.

Concluding reflections

What emerged from the session is a clear sense that research governance and open research are interconnected. Governance provides the structure and safeguards that ensure research is conducted responsibly, while open research extends the reach and impact of that work by making it accessible and reusable.

For researchers in the College of Business and Law, the session offered clarity and reassurance. While the landscape of research policy and practice may seem complex, the tools, frameworks and support available within the University are designed to enable compliance while also supporting creativity and innovation.

This blog post was written with assistance from Co-Pilot and Grammarly to improve its structure and clarity.

By Noëlle Quénivet

On 24 February, supervisors from across the College of Business and Law (CBL) met for the first in a series of workshops titled Building the CBL Doctoral Supervisory Community. Facilitated by Professor Peter Case and Dr Pawel Capik, the College Director of Doctoral Research, the event marked the first step towards fostering a more connected and supportive supervisory community and strengthening supervisory practice within the College.

Why develop a supervisory community?

Doctoral supervision is central to sustaining a healthy and vibrant research culture. Yet many supervisors work in isolation, navigating evolving regulations and changing progression processes largely on their own. The workshop aimed to begin building a community of practice, one that encourages cross-disciplinary exchange, supports both PhD and DBA supervision and promotes consistency and confidence across supervisory teams.

The vision is to create a collegial space where supervisors can share experiences, discuss challenges and collectively enhance the doctoral journey for candidates and staff alike.

The emotional dimension of supervision

The workshop opened with reflections on the often invisible labour of supervision. As Dr Capik noted, while doctoral candidates’ success is celebrated, the contributions of supervisory teams and internal reviewers tend to remain in the background. In his words, “they are the unsung heroes”.

Supervisors undertake multiple roles, ranging from academic guide, gatekeeper, quality controller, motivator to pastoral supporter. All are responsibilities shaped by organisational changes within and beyond the University.

Next, with Professor Case facilitating the workshop, participants took part in a Triad Listening exercise. In groups of three, each person shared a supervisory challenge while colleagues alternated between reporting factual details and identifying the emotional content of the stories being told.

Initially, summarising a complex challenge in three minutes felt daunting. However, the activity quickly revealed valuable insights, particularly the difficulty of separating facts from emotions and the role emotional labour plays in supervision.

Colleagues highlighted issues including managing supervisory team dynamics, supporting students returning from suspension and responding to the emerging use of generative AI in doctoral work. Many participants found the exercise eye-opening. Supervisors often overlook the emotional side of their work, even though it has a significant impact on them, their colleagues and their students.

Shared challenges across disciplines

The second part of the workshop invited participants to discuss which supervisory issues were shaped by disciplinary norms and which were common across CBL. Some discipline-specific elements emerged, including defining “rigour”, setting methodological expectations and selecting appropriate external examiners.

However, most of the identified challenges were shared across disciplines. These included:

• Supervising colleagues and navigating role clarity and power dynamics
• Balancing support and independence, particularly avoiding undue influence over a student’s theoretical or methodological choices
• Clarifying the role of the independent reviewer, especially the balance between quality assurance and academic feedback
• Managing boundaries, including the extent of pastoral care and how far supervisors should push students who do not act on feedback
• Handling supervisory workloads, especially with multiple candidates at different stages
• Impostor syndrome, particularly among junior supervisors or those from practitioner backgrounds

Participants also discussed systemic challenges such as accommodating non-linear research pathways (for example fieldwork or illness) and distinguishing between the expectations of PhD and DBA programmes.

These cross-disciplinary conversations demonstrated that despite differences in methods and norms, supervisory teams share many common pressures, questions and aspirations.

Participants also emphasised the importance of recognising and celebrating what supervisors do well. While the workshop focused largely on challenges, colleagues agreed that future discussions should incorporate elements of “Appreciative Inquiry” to highlight effective practices and successful supervisory relationships.

Moving forward: building the community

The session concluded with proposed next steps for establishing a sustainable supervisory community. Suggestions included:

• Storytelling events for sharing supervisory experiences
• Developing guidance and resources on good supervisory practice, particularly in relation to supervising colleagues
• Discussions on recruitment, supervisory workload and team structures
• Exploring what makes the UWE doctoral experience distinctive
• Convening a stakeholder workshop to promote dialogue between the CBL supervisory community and representatives of the Doctoral Academy and College research executives

A strong foundation for future collaboration

The workshop was a great success, bringing colleagues together in a friendly and collaborative environment. It allowed participants to share challenges and reflect on the emotional aspects of supervision.

One of the key takeaways was the importance of creating regular opportunities for open dialogue. Most importantly, the workshop set the stage for developing a lasting supervisory community that will empower supervisors, enrich candidates’ journeys and invigorate the research culture of the College of Business and Law.

By Dr Issy Bray, Dr Moya Lerigo-Sampson and Dr Yvette Morey

As Australia introduced a “world-first” ban on social media for under-16s last month and political momentum in the UK is building to consider similar action. We ask will such a ban protect young people’s wellbeing or create new risks?

The burden of mental disorders in children and young people is increasing worldwide, a trend certainly worsened by the Covid pandemic. Research points to a range of contributing factors, including intergenerational inequality, climate pressure, insecure work and social media.

While we cannot stop the march of technological progress, the effects of constant exposure to social media during childhood and adolescence remain largely unknown. However many feel strongly that social media, and the use of electronic devices more generally, is detrimental to development and wellbeing for children and adolescents.

Against this backdrop, the Australian government introduced its “world-first” social media ban for under-16s on 10 December 2025. Affecting major platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok and YouTube, the ban prohibits new accounts and requires deactivation of existing ones.

What does the ban aim to do?

While Australia’s ban on under-16’s engagement with social media is unlikely to be popular with young people themselves, the establishment is clear that it does not wish to punish young people – the aim is to protect them.

It is the social media companies that are targeted by the new legislation, which imposes monetary penalties if they fail to take reasonable steps to prevent minors under 16 from having social media accounts in Australia.

However, the Australian Human Rights Commission has indicated that the legislation is potentially in breach of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the Digital Freedom Project, a civil liberties group, has announced that it will take legal action against the new laws, saying they violate the right to political communication.

The double-edged nature of social media

Most technological innovations have positive and negative implications. For example, during the Covid pandemic, social media was widely recognised to be a source of support and a way of connecting with others. At the same time as polarising heated debates around lockdown measures such as school closures and travel restrictions.

For many, unable to get out and enjoy their normal life, it encouraged social comparisons that led to dissatisfaction with their lockdown life and, for a minority, it fuelled body dissatisfaction leading to obsessive exercise regimes or disordered eating behaviours.

How will young people be affected?

The situation is not black and white. The balance between benefit and harm may well depend on who you are and where you live.

Approximately 90% of Australians live in urban centres (covering 0.22% of the land mass). The remaining 10% are dispersed in remote rural and coastal communities separated by huge distances.

For a teenager living in the outback, social media might be an important source of information, friendship and connection with the wider world.

As this ban is implemented it will be important to listen to the experiences of young people of different ages and living in different circumstances, to understand how social connection and loneliness are affected and to ensure that socio-economic inequalities are not increased.

How social media is used matters

More subtly, research suggests that the effects of social media depend on how it is used. For example for keeping in touch with loved ones (referred to as ‘active use’), or for viewing images of people we are less well acquainted with, such as social media influencers (‘passive use’), often with negative consequences such as comparing ourselves to others.

Certain sites are more conducive to passive than active use, but one problem with any attempt to research or regulate the use of social media is the speed at which individual platforms appear and then get overtaken. It is an ever-changing landscape, particularly where digital natives are concerned.

However, the Australian legislation allows the government to determine over time which social media platforms must ban age restricted users, meaning that in theory at least it can respond to the emergence of new platforms and data about who is using them and for what purpose. One possible hitch is that the companies themselves own this data.

Is Australia really a “world-first”?

Is the Australian government’s move as ground-breaking as it seems? In the UK and US, existing under-13 age limits already exist but are poorly enforced. In reality many under 13s have had access to social media (one survey estimated the figure to be 43%).

But as of 25 July 2025, the new Online Safety Act (2023/2025) requires platforms to use ‘age assurance’ methods such as ID checks or facial scans.

Politically, it will surely be easier to enforce existing legislation than to implement a new ban in the UK, but it is likely to require a cultural shift that so far been missing. And while the world watches Australia, we would do well to monitor the effects of this stricter enforcement of our own rules.

Protecting young people from harmful content

Critics argue that there is a less radical way to protect young people and that is to specifically protect them from harmful content.

Research carried out by NSPCC reported that more than one in four children had seen content on Facebook and YouTube that contained suicide, violence, bullying, sexual and other adult themes. Such issues have been highlighted recently by tragic suicides, in which young people have been influenced by online communities and exposed to content giving advice on methods of self-harm, and by conversations about pornography, in which dangerous practices such as choking are portrayed as ‘normal’. Prominent voices are calling for a total ban on such material.

The role of the Online Safety Act

In response to these concerns, the Online Safety Act also makes social media companies responsible for protecting under 18s from harmful content. It states that children must be prevented from accessing pornography or content that encourages, promotes or provides instructions for self-harm, eating disorders or suicide.

Ofcom is now the regulator of online safety and responsible for monitoring how effective companies are at protecting internet users from harm. As yet however, there is little information available about how successfully the Online Safety Act has been enforced.

Screen time, wellbeing and alternatives

A recent survey of 16-21 year olds carried out by Ofcom found that two-thirds spend more than two hours on social media every day.

The majority of respondents said they felt worse about themselves after spending time online and approximately half would prefer to be young in a world without the internet.

Protecting children from harmful online content tackles certain serious threats to young people’s wellbeing, but it will not materially alter the amount of time spent online (for over 13s at least).

There are many who argue that reducing screen time would improve young people’s wellbeing not only because of the content they see online, but because they hope it will encourage more time to be spent outdoors in nature, being physically active and interacting with others without the filter of a screen.

A ban on social media for under-16s is one way of doing that, but there are others. Banning use of phones in schools for example, as some schools have trialled in the UK, or introducing a social media curfew. Our government has so far stopped short of introducing these measures.

When we compare ourselves to Australia, will we begin to see a divergence in trends in mental health concerns of young people following the ban?

Learning from Australia

The acknowledgement that social media can be beneficial for wellbeing, and the insights that research offers into how it can be used more positively, suggest that there may be evidence-based alternatives to an outright ban. Such as education-based initiatives that support social media literacy in families.

Australia’s ban provides a natural experiment from which other governments, including our own, should be willing to learn from to make balanced policy decisions based on the evidence that emerges.

The authors have conducted extensive research on social media, including recent work showing that the lives of influencers are often more demanding than they appear (read more about the study).

Alumni Connect is a platform for UWE graduates to access an alumni directory and take part in mentoring. We’re sharing advice on mentoring; this article will cover how to start the conversation with a potential mentor

It can seem daunting to be the person that makes the first move – even when we’re talking about online mentoring.

Relax, you’ve already got at least one thing in common with the people who’ve volunteered to be mentors on Alumni Connect – UWE Bristol. But where do you go from there?

First impressions count online, and you want your potential mentor to want to help you. Here’s some tips on what to include in your opening gambit.

1. Introduce yourself

This is about writing a short summary that will help your mentor understand what you need. Tell them what you study/have studied and the main reason you’re looking for a mentor right now. You don’t have to send your CV straight away (or at all), and you might feel more comfortable doing this after someone has replied to your first question. Short and sweet will do just fine here.

2. Explain why you’ve picked them

Even mentors like to feel special! There’s a reason you’ve considered this mentor, so don’t be shy to let them know.

3. Ask a question that Google can’t answer

You don’t need to go in with a question straight away, but if you do make sure you don’t ask something could find on the first page of a search engine. Alumni Connect gives you the chance to make unique connections and learn from others’ experiences. So ask your potential mentor something only they can answer.

Example:

I’ve just graduated in Marketing Communications and I’m looking for someone to help me get my first job in Social Media Marketing.

I notice that you worked in Marketing for the Olympic Park, and I’d be really interested to know more about what that involved.

What do you love most about your job?

Or

I’m in my final year studying Graphic Design. It would be brilliant if you could take a look at my website and let me know if there are any areas I could work on to help me get work experience with your company.

I think your approach is really unique and I love the project you did for Santander.

What do you think was the most important factor in getting your job?

Once the conversation has started, it’s up to you and your mentor when it stops!

With the right introduction you can grab their attention and they’ll be able to see how they can help you. Explaining who you are, what help you need and why you think they might be the right mentor to assist you creates an instant confidence.

You might have just established a valuable connection and a helpful stepping stone in your career.

It’s competition time!

Are you ready to showcase your talent and creativity to the world? Then get ready to snap, click, and share your best shots because we’re launching an all new CBL photo competition.

Whether you’re an amateur with a passion for capturing moments or a seasoned pro with a keen eye for detail, this competition is your chance to shine and be recognized for your talent.

What’s at stake, you ask? Three lucky winners will be featured and credited on our Instagram page @uwebristolcbl for all to see, admire, and appreciate.

You can capture whatever you like, but we encourage entries to feature the College in some way, whether it’s a photograph of the building, or of students enjoying campus life.

The possibilities are endless when it comes to subjects for your photos. Use your creativity and unique perspective to capture moments that resonate with you and showcase the essence of the College of Business and Law.

📝 Here’s how to enter:

Once you’ve captured that perfect shot, submit it to the competition via DM to our Instagram with the message ‘photo competition entry’, or email us at cbl.engagement@uwe.ac.uk with the same subject line. Make sure to include your name, contact information, and a brief description of your photo to give us some insight into your creative process.

Deadline for submission has now been extended to 12pm Friday 22 March.

Good luck!

Ines Carter, LLM Alumni, Member of ELSRG

This research places itself in the urgency of the climate crisis and what it means for food security. This question hangs like a Damocles sword on governments. Indeed, the climate crisis destabilizes agricultural activities,[1] therefore, calling for urgent measures on all levels. Such calls include taking mitigation measures to reduce GHG emissions arising from the food systems.[2] One of the ways to do so is through food standards.

Starting from there, what cannot be missed is the consequent use of food standards and especially labels and certifications destined for the consumer. These demand-side measures appear as the favoured mode of action to mitigate GHG emissions. This is because labelling and certification processes can be voluntary or compulsory and contain provisions for compliance. The IPCC supports this idea by stating that the potential for mitigation in food standards is high.[3] However, there is a multiplicity of food standards designed by law-making bodies at the international, regional, and national levels and there are food standards recommended by the companies.

Indeed, the EU acts as the forerunner[4] of food standards that aim to mitigate climate change. Inside the EU, there are however difficulties encountered by the standards, such as the lack of scientific consensus on which some of these standards are based. This is the case for pesticides for instance, as glyphosate has recently been reauthorized[5] despite contradictory scientific opinion.[6] Secondly, most measures apply the cornerstone principle of the free movement of goods and are primarily acknowledged as commercial measures rather than climate mitigation efforts. This point also emphasises the predominant role of corporate actors in food standards. Third, many branches of EU law influence the food standards ranging from food law, environmental policies, the Common Agricultural Policy, competition law and food information law. This creates an additional layer of complexity in setting up food standards in the EU.

This context helps us to focus on consumer behaviour and diet changes. Indeed, such behaviour change can contribute to mitigating the effects of climate change on food systems. However, this approach is open to criticism as the aim is not so much on educating consumers but prioritising sustainable and responsible consumption. This can be viewed as unfair and unrealistic if inflation is taken into account.  

It is crucial to mention that the New Green Deal and the Farm to Fork strategy of the EU aims to reform consumer demand, food production, industry behaviour and trade policy.[7] The issue of trade policy is extremely important as the EU food standards influence climate change mitigation measures in third countries such as South Africa.   

Our research focuses on South Africa as it has a high level of development (IDH of 109)[8] and has a well-developed agricultural sector. The EU concluded an Economic Partnership Agreement in 2016 with South Africa: the SADC and Mozambique EU EPA.[9] EPAs allow for preferential treatment mainly using tariff reductions. The goal is to secure continued and improved market access in the EU as it represents the second-most important market for food for South Africa. However, it is also the most unequal country in the world[10] and still bears the stigmata of the apartheid. Therefore, the country presents a precarious socio-economic landscape that is also found in agriculture, as South Africa’s chief economist, Wandile Sihlobo, describes it best in the title of his most recent book: A Country of Two Agricultures. [11]

It is important to note that there is currently no general provision in EU law when it comes to sustainable requirements applicable to domestic or imported products.[12] Nevertheless, the EU has extended such compliance via multilateral, bilateral or autonomous instruments.[13] The existing food standards and the New Green Deal measures, mentioned earlier, have various impacts, both positive and negative, in South Africa. Wandile Sihlobo has assessed that the New Green Deal would involve higher compliance costs for smaller farmers in South Africa. It may also lead to the off-shoring of “bad production” to South Africa and the high-risk exclusion of smallholder farmers. However, there is also the opportunity to use those standards to direct the country’s agriculture towards more modernity, inclusivity, and sustainability.[14]

Our research acknowledges that hidden protectionism can arise from the EU food standards and explores several indirect impacts of these standards. First, the focus on EU-South Africa trade may lead to less regional trade and thus less regional integration in Africa. In the long run, this may hurt the continent, especially regarding development and environmental collaborations.[15] Second,  it is important to assess the land rights situation in South Africa which remains unequal, and recent legislation[16] has sparked debate about the certainty of land rights which could act as a deterrent for foreign investment.[17] On the positive side, there are also hopes of the EU standards acting as an ‘encouragement’ to push climate change mitigation measures in South Africa itself.

Our research on climate change mitigation and the food standards in the EU highlights two findings. First, mitigation measures, whether they are directed at governments or corporations, actually target the responsibility of the consumer. However, the importance of sustainability for consumers is strongly overestimated. Indeed, cost is the first and most important for EU consumers when buying food.[18] The primary focus should be on the food business actors whose actions can forcefully impact climate change mitigation.[19] Second, there are criticisms that the new Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is not ambitious enough in terms of climate change mitigation efforts.[20] Lastly, the entry into force of some texts from the New Green Deal has been delayed once more, this concerns the dispositions of sustainable food systems.[21]

Regarding the impacts of EU food standards in South Africa, two solutions are explored. First, we argue that a human-rights-based approach in EU-South Africa Trade relations may offer an efficient tool to prevent abuses such as the right to food, women’s rights, indigenous people’s rights, the right to health including the right to a healthy environment and more largely economic rights such as land access.

Second, we also argue that there is a need for better-coordinated policies as the mitigation policies linked with food standard policies are subject to legal fragmentation. There is a need for the establishment of a legal corpus on the subject which to be efficient must be the result of the cooperation between the scientific communities with environmental data, economic data like cost-benefit analysis, and policy-makers.

Our research demonstrated the adverse impacts that a policy taken at one level (e.g., EU) could have on another (national level within the EU and in a third country). In addition, the costs (human or economic) of climate change mitigation policies are immense and there is an urgent need to minimize those costs and maximize the efficiency of climate mitigation policies.

[This blog is based on the LLM Dissertation written by Ines Carter]

---

[1] IPCC, 2023: Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, H. Lee and J. Romero (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, pp. 35-115.

[2] UNEP, Climate Action – Mitigation <Mitigation | UNEP – UN Environment Programme> accessed 2nd May 2023.

[3] IPCC, 2023: Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, H. Lee and J. Romero (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, pp. 35-115.

[4] Bernd van der Meulen, “Impact of the Codex Alimentarius: The influence of the Joint FAO/WHP Food Standards Programme on EU Food Law” (2019) 1 EFFL 29-50, p 30.

[5] Geo, ‘L’autorisation du glyphosate sera renouvelée pour 10 ans, a décidé la Commission européenne’ (16 November 2023) < Sarantis Michalopoulos, ‘Les jeunes agriculteurs, une espèce en voie de disparition’ ( Euractiv 1 December 2015) < https://www.euractiv.fr/section/agriculture-alimentation/news/les-jeunes-agriculteurs-une-espece-en-voie-de-disparition/> accessed 27 July 2023>.

[6] The harmfulness of the substance has been largely decried including by the International Agency for Research on Cancer that classifies it as potential carcinogenic (WHO website, ‘IARC Monograph on Glyphosate’ (2018) < https://www.iarc.who.int/featured-news/media-centre-iarc-news-glyphosate/> last accessed 5^th December 2023 ; Chung-Sen Ma & others, ‘Climate warming promotes pesticides resistance through expanding overwintering range of a global pest’ (2021) 12 5352 Nature Communications; News European Parliament, ‘Pesticides : MEPs want a drastic cut in use of chemical pesticides’ 2023 < https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20231023IPR08130/pesticides-meps-want-a-drastic-cut-in-use-of-chemical-pesticides> accessed 16^th September 2023) while the European Food Safety Authority EFSA has said that the level of risk of the substance would not justify its prohibition (M Jacque, ‘Glyphosate : divisée, l’Union européenne repousse sa décision sur l’herbicide’, Les Echos (Oct 2023)< https://www.lesechos.fr/industrie-services/energie-environnement/glyphosate-lunion-europeenne-ne-sentend-pas-sur-une-prolongation-dautorisation-1986978 > accessed 2^nd November 2023).

[7] European Commission, ‘Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council – Application of EU health and environmental standards to imported agricultural and agri-food products’ COM (2022).

[8] N. Cowling, ‘Human development index score of South Africa from 2000 to 2021’ (Statista April 2023)  https://www.statista.com/statistics/1236017/human-development-index-of-south-africa/#:~:text=In%202021%2C%20South%20Africa%20scored,previous%20year%2C%20which%20was%200.73> accessed 25^th August 2023.

[9] European Commission website, Southern African Development Community (SADC) < EU trade relations with Southern African Development Community (SADC) (europa.eu)> accessed 19 May 2023.

[10] The World Bank website, ‘The World Bank in South Africa’ < https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/southafrica/overview#:~:text=South%20Africa%20remains%20a%20dual,coefficient%20of%200.67%20in%20201> accessed 7^th May 2023.

[11] W. Sihlobo, A Country of Two Agricultures (2023, Tracey McDonald Publishers).

[12] Commission, ‘Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council – Application of EU health and environmental standards to imported agricultural and agri-food products’ COM (2022), page 5.

[13] Ibid [7], page 5.

[14] Wandile Sihlobo and Tinashe Kapuya, ‘The EU Green Deal: how it will impact South African agricultural exports’ Polity South Africa (2021) https://www.polity.org.za/article/the-eu-green-deal-how-will-it-impact-south-african-agricultural-exports-2021-10-27 > accessed 15 May 2023; Wandile Sihlobo, Tinashe Kapuya & Econ 3X3, ‘The EU Green Deal: how will it impact South Africa agricultural exports?’ Polity South Africa.

[15] S Powell, ‘Economic Partnership Agreements: Building or Shattering African Regional Integration’, (2007) Eco News SEATINI Traidecraft.

[16] The Expropriation Bill [B23-2020].

[17] T. Fourie (S&P Global Market Intelligence), ‘South Africa expropriation risk’ (2018) <https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/mi/research-analysis/south-africa-expropriation-risk.html> accessed 9^th November 2023; OECD Website – Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation 2022: Reforming Agricultural Policies for Climate Change Mitigation.

[18] European Food Safety authority, ‘Cost a concern for EU consumers, with food safety close behind’ (28 September 2022)<  https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/news/cost-concern-eu-consumers-food-safety-close-behind > accessed 21 July 2023.

[19]IPCC, AR6 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2023, page 67.

[20] M. Bompart, ‘Europe: La nouvelle politique agricole est un désastre’ (Reporterre 19 Novembre 2021) <https://reporterre.net/Europe-la-nouvelle-politique-agricole-commune-est-un-desastre> accessed 27 July 2023; European Court of Auditors, Special report 16/2021: Common Agricultural Policy and climate: Half of EU climate spending but farm emissions are not decreasing (21 June 2021).

[21] F. Schmitt, ‘Produits chimiques, bien-être animal: l’UE confirme le report de plusieurs lois du Pacte vert’ (Les Echos 4 October 2023) < https://www.lesechos.fr/monde/europe/pesticides-bien-etre-animal-lue-confirme-le-report-de-plusieurs-lois-du-pacte-vert-1984505> accessed 3^rd January 2024.

Berrbizne Urzelai

On 22^nd of November 2023 UWE Bristol organized a Social Impact Hackathon, a business booster event where UWE students from various degrees and disciplines worked with refugee and migrant entrepreneurs associated with the Migrant Business Support (MBS) programme from the West of England Growth Hub and Ashley Community & Housing (ACH) to create networks and overcome barriers faced by Migrant-led businesses in the West of England.

This year, in its second edition, the event took place in the facilities that the West of England Combined Authority has in Redcliff, Bristol. It was led by Dr. Berrbizne Urzelai, Associate professor at UWE, in collaboration mainly with Julia Dixon-Barrow, Entrepreneurship & Engagement Manager at ACH and Scarlett Hagger, Project Support Officer at the West of England Combined Authority. We also had a couple of individuals from the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund observing the event.

The day started with a social breakfast where all participants got to know a bit about each other. The event included a presentation from Jehad Alrefaie on the role of the entrepreneurship support programs in responding to the challenges refugee entrepreneurs face, specifically focused on the case of Syrian refugee entrepreneurs in Turkey.

In the morning the teams, composed by UWE students and migrant entrepreneurs, worked together in understanding the background of the refugees and what kind of problems they were facing, and then in deciding which issue they wanted to focus on.

The students supported a variety of projects and ventures, from an industrial trading Ukrainian company producing construction and gardening materials from plastics, to dance and health related services, food and drink products or decoration companies, all at different stages of development.

The teams pitched their solutions to a panel that was formed by:

• Pawel Capik, Senior Lecturer at UWE
• Paul Ogbon, experienced Board Member with a background in general management, supply chain and manufacturing with significant international exposure.
• Asaad Bagheri, PhD researcher at UWE
• Mose-Issie Ebengho, social entreperneur
• Diana Lopes, TE graduate and entrepreneur

There was value and learning for everyone who attended. The migrant entrepreneurs mentioned:

Quotes from migrant entrepreneurs

I thoroughly enjoyed it. The event was very helpful & very supportive. It also showed me that the help & support was an eye opener for me which help me to think out the box where I could improve. I found the event very informative. I also learnt the importance of working with great teamwork and gaining good positive benefits.

The event was a success. This event involved the students in a new and unique way. It shows how one well-run event can create a watershed moment that results in explosive pushing for future business

The students got exposed to work in real case scenarios and got really inspired to be working with and for members of the community.

Quotes from students

It was very inspiring, I met many new people and created many new connections. Having to see how dedicated these business owners were to come here as seek help it shows that you can achieve anything if you really need or what it. I learned many skills and most of all I came out of my comfort zone: how to communicate well with good listening skills, how to present in-front if a large audience, how to create solutions for problems and many other entrepreneurial skills

Going on from this I am going to look at other ways to develop consultancy skills as the event was interesting to me. There is a possible collaboration further with myself and my refugee client

The partner organizations and members of the panel were also positive about the event, so we are hopeful that this collaboration will continue in the future.

Quotes from partner organisations and panelists

It was incredible hearing the ideas from university students in different subject areas and seeing how they apply their knowledge to real life situations. I will follow up with our clients and help them to apply what was recommended to them on the day

Partner Organisation

It was lovely to observe the teamwork and communication within each group and how they interact with their client. The presentation and pitching in front of the panel was exciting.

Panel Member

The event contributed to some of the actions identified as crucial to transform support for EMBs: to develop business support to help EMBs realize their growth potential, built trust-based relationships within their communities, and foster local network of support through partnerships.

The event was not a competition but a celebration of what we can do together. Everyone involved got a UWE digital badge and the support provided by UWE and its Bristol Community Fund was crucial for its success.