Componentes del modelo de negocio de Osterwalder et al

Given that the literature is indicative of the relationship between counterfeiting and OCGs being manifestly at the centre of a serious crime problem it might

reasonably be hypothesised that it would also be a feature of criminological and

criminal justice research. However, and has been previously noted in this review, those who have previously considered the body of work relating to counterfeiting have

suggested that these are disciplines whose academic contribution to the subject has been noticeable by its near absence. Heinonen et al. (2012), for example, have gone as far as to suggest that there is no clear understanding of product counterfeiting from a criminological perspective. This lack of engagement may be indicative of the

methodological problems associated with researching organised crime. As Abadinsky (1981) has noted such criminal activities are concealed from public view and that much of what we learn is gleaned from indirect sources. What is perhaps much more

surprising is that those researchers who consider the victim’s perspective (victimology) have similarly failed to engage with this subject, even though material might be more

35

accessible. That said there is a significant body of victim centred comment on the economic, environmental and human cost of the trade in counterfeit goods, albeit not within the criminological canon.

The likely scale of the worldwide counterfeiting problem and its cost to the world economy has been a matter of continuing concern to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). In 2008 this major international economic organisation published a wide ranging report into the global problem, within which it was estimated that the international trade in counterfeit goods could was worth as much as USD 200 billion in 2005 (OECD, 2008). Subsequent reports, building on this original analysis, have confirmed that this trade has grown rapidly over recent years with one specialist industry study estimating that it will be worth between USD 770 billion and USD 960 billion by 2015 (Frontier Economics Ltd, 2011, p.5). However, whilst such macro-data is probably useful for estimating the broader economy-wide consequences of the trade, and they certainly give an indication of the growing scale of associated worldwide criminal activity, it does not illuminate how this problem is

experienced by individual manufacturing companies. From such all-encompassing estimates it cannot be appreciated, as the original OECD report recognised, that there are multiple impacts including upon sales volume, prices, and brand value (OECD, 2008). Moreover these figures do not give any meaningful indication of the more tangible consequences of this trade, for example the environmental damage that it is believed to cause.

The criminologist Professor Michael Levi (2014), when considering perceptions of organised crime in a discussion piece for the Royal United Services Institute,

recognised that the harms caused by the activities of organised crime groups are likely to far exceed the benefits to the offenders. Levi cites the dumping of toxic waste as a good example of an inevitable consequence of many counterfeiting activities. Moreover

36

the use of the finished counterfeit item can have equally serious environmental consequences. It is worth considering the example given by Kenaway in his

comprehensive analysis of the impact of counterfeit goods in Egypt where he notes documented cases of counterfeit fertilizers causing much damage to the environment (Kenaway, 2013). Beyond the obvious long term implications of such environmental damage there is of course a much shorter term, and very direct, threat to the wellbeing of people exposed to counterfeit goods.

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) have been very vocal in highlighting the direct health threat posed by fake goods. In a WIPO press release which coincided with a subject specific congress hosted by Interpol they claimed that the transnational organised crime groups behind the world trade in counterfeit goods commit these crimes with no thought for the potentially deadly effect of their products (World Intellectual Property Organization, 2009). There would seemingly be evidence to support this claim, in particular relating to the counterfeiting experience of the

pharmaceutical industry which is often cited as an example (see for example Catizone, 2006). It is not surprising given its inherent scientific leaning that this particular industry also has a much greater body of sector specific academic writing on the counterfeiting problem than any other, a significant proportion of which extends beyond the

efficaciousness or toxicological properties of counterfeit products. Indeed there is a body of journal published work which considers technical means to counter the counterfeiter (see for example Catizone, 2006; Deus, 2006; Kontnik, 2006) as well as industry specific reports concerning the link between counterfeit medicines and

organised criminality (International Institute of Research Against Counterfeit Medicines, 2013). In terms of other coverage the review recognises the widespread reporting of some of the tragic human aspects of the counterfeit pharmaceutical problem. This is typified by media reporting of the devastating impact of non-genuine malaria treatments

37

in East Africa where it is believed that as many as a third of administered drugs are fake or sub-standard with the consequential loss of many lives (see for example McLaughlin, 2012).

2.3.5 Summary

By taking a broad approach to writing concerning the worldwide counterfeiting problem the review has demonstrated a number of core themes which dominate both academic and popular writing on the subject. Foremost amongst these are the

collective agreement that China is the source of the majority of counterfeit product, that there are variety of factors that generate consumer demand for such goods, and that there is invariably an organised crime link to any significant counterfeiting problem. It is also recognised that the true cost of the problem extends beyond simple economics to include environmental damage and harm to people. These themes are certainly useful in developing a broad understanding of the subject but, with the notable exception of the pharmaceutical industry, they collectively support the Staake et al. (2009)

conclusion that the literature lacks sector specific focus. To that end this review will continue by considering the robustness of material relating counterfeit pesticides and if it is indicative of there being a substantive UK problem.