IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v38y2018i7p1321-1331.html

The Essential Elements of a Risk Governance Framework for Current and Future Nanotechnologies

Author

Listed:
  • Vicki Stone
  • Martin Führ
  • Peter H. Feindt
  • Hans Bouwmeester
  • Igor Linkov
  • Stefania Sabella
  • Finbarr Murphy
  • Kilian Bizer
  • Lang Tran
  • Marlene Ågerstrand
  • Carlos Fito
  • Torben Andersen
  • Diana Anderson
  • Enrico Bergamaschi
  • John W. Cherrie
  • Sue Cowan
  • Jean‐Francois Dalemcourt
  • Michael Faure
  • Silke Gabbert
  • Agnieszka Gajewicz
  • Teresa F. Fernandes
  • Danail Hristozov
  • Helinor J. Johnston
  • Terry C. Lansdown
  • Stefan Linder
  • Hans J. P. Marvin
  • Martin Mullins
  • Kai Purnhagen
  • Tomasz Puzyn
  • Araceli Sanchez Jimenez
  • Janeck J. Scott‐Fordsmand
  • George Streftaris
  • Martie van Tongeren
  • Nicolas H. Voelcker
  • George Voyiatzis
  • Spyros N. Yannopoulos
  • P. Marijn Poortvliet

Abstract

Societies worldwide are investing considerable resources into the safe development and use of nanomaterials. Although each of these protective efforts is crucial for governing the risks of nanomaterials, they are insufficient in isolation. What is missing is a more integrative governance approach that goes beyond legislation. Development of this approach must be evidence based and involve key stakeholders to ensure acceptance by end users. The challenge is to develop a framework that coordinates the variety of actors involved in nanotechnology and civil society to facilitate consideration of the complex issues that occur in this rapidly evolving research and development area. Here, we propose three sets of essential elements required to generate an effective risk governance framework for nanomaterials. (1) Advanced tools to facilitate risk‐based decision making, including an assessment of the needs of users regarding risk assessment, mitigation, and transfer. (2) An integrated model of predicted human behavior and decision making concerning nanomaterial risks. (3) Legal and other (nano‐specific and general) regulatory requirements to ensure compliance and to stimulate proactive approaches to safety. The implementation of such an approach should facilitate and motivate good practice for the various stakeholders to allow the safe and sustainable future development of nanotechnology.

Suggested Citation

  • Vicki Stone & Martin Führ & Peter H. Feindt & Hans Bouwmeester & Igor Linkov & Stefania Sabella & Finbarr Murphy & Kilian Bizer & Lang Tran & Marlene Ågerstrand & Carlos Fito & Torben Andersen & Diana, 2018. "The Essential Elements of a Risk Governance Framework for Current and Future Nanotechnologies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(7), pages 1321-1331, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:38:y:2018:i:7:p:1321-1331
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.12954
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12954
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.12954?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Trump, Benjamin D., 2017. "Synthetic biology regulation and governance: Lessons from TAPIC for the United States, European Union, and Singapore," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(11), pages 1139-1146.
    2. J. A. Shatkin & Kimberly J. Ong & Christian Beaudrie & Amy J. Clippinger & Christine Ogilvie Hendren & Lynne T. Haber & Myriam Hill & Patricia Holden & Alan J. Kennedy & Baram Kim & Margaret MacDonell, 2016. "Advancing Risk Analysis for Nanoscale Materials: Report from an International Workshop on the Role of Alternative Testing Strategies for Advancement," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1520-1537, August.
    3. P. Marijn Poortvliet & Anne Marike Lokhorst, 2016. "The Key Role of Experiential Uncertainty when Dealing with Risks: Its Relationships with Demand for Regulation and Institutional Trust," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1615-1629, August.
    4. Elinor Ostrom, 2010. "Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic Systems," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(3), pages 641-672, June.
    5. Nick Pidgeon & Barbara Harthorn & Terre Satterfield, 2011. "Nanotechnology Risk Perceptions and Communication: Emerging Technologies, Emerging Challenges," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(11), pages 1694-1700, November.
    6. Sheona A. K. Read & Gary S. Kass & Hilary R. Sutcliffe & Steven M. Hankin, 2016. "Foresight Study on the Risk Governance of New Technologies: The Case of Nanotechnology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(5), pages 1006-1024, May.
    7. Justo-Hanani, Ronit & Dayan, Tamar, 2015. "European risk governance of nanotechnology: Explaining the emerging regulatory policy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(8), pages 1527-1536.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alan Kennedy & Jonathon Brame & Taylor Rycroft & Matthew Wood & Valerie Zemba & Charles Weiss & Matthew Hull & Cary Hill & Charles Geraci & Igor Linkov, 2019. "A Definition and Categorization System for Advanced Materials: The Foundation for Risk‐Informed Environmental Health and Safety Testing," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(8), pages 1783-1795, August.
    2. Kamarulzaman, Nur Aizat & Lee, Khai Ern & Siow, Kim Shyong & Mokhtar, Mazlin, 2020. "Public benefit and risk perceptions of nanotechnology development: Psychological and sociological aspects," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    3. Popp, Thies R. & Feindt, Peter H. & Daedlow, Katrin, 2021. "Policy feedback and lock-in effects of new agricultural policy instruments: A qualitative comparative analysis of support for financial risk management tools in OECD countries," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mordue, Greig & Yeung, Anders & Wu, Fan, 2020. "The looming challenges of regulating high level autonomous vehicles," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 174-187.
    2. Yuwan Malakar & Justine Lacey & Paul M Bertsch, 2022. "Towards responsible science and technology: How nanotechnology research and development is shaping risk governance practices in Australia," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-14, December.
    3. Igor Linkov & Benjamin D. Trump & Elke Anklam & David Berube & Patrick Boisseasu & Christopher Cummings & Scott Ferson & Marie-Valentine Florin & Bernard Goldstein & Danail Hristozov & Keld Alstrup Je, 2018. "Comparative, collaborative, and integrative risk governance for emerging technologies," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 38(2), pages 170-176, June.
    4. McCloskey Deirdre Nansen, 2018. "The Two Movements in Economic Thought, 1700–2000: Empty Economic Boxes Revisited," Man and the Economy, De Gruyter, vol. 5(2), pages 1-20, December.
    5. Andy Gouldson & Rory Sullivan, 2014. "Understanding the Governance of Corporations: An Examination of the Factors Shaping UK Supermarket Strategies on Climate Change," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 46(12), pages 2972-2990, December.
    6. David Klenert & Franziska Funke & Linus Mattauch & Brian O’Callaghan, 2020. "Five Lessons from COVID-19 for Advancing Climate Change Mitigation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 76(4), pages 751-778, August.
    7. Michael Peneder & Spyros Arvanitis & Christian Rammer & Tobias Stucki & Martin Wörter, 2022. "Policy instruments and self-reported impacts of the adoption of energy saving technologies in the DACH region," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 49(2), pages 369-404, May.
    8. Meyer, Camille, 2020. "The commons: A model for understanding collective action and entrepreneurship in communities," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 35(5).
    9. Sophie King & Peter Kasaija, 2018. "State-movement partnership in Uganda: Co-producing an enabling environment for urban poverty reduction?," Global Development Institute Working Paper Series esid-098-18, GDI, The University of Manchester.
    10. Snower, Dennis J., 2019. "Toward global paradigm change: Beyond the crisis of the liberal world order," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy, vol. 13, pages 1-19.
    11. Nomfundo Sibiya & Mikateko Sithole & Lindelani Mudau & Mulala Danny Simatele, 2022. "Empowering the Voiceless: Securing the Participation of Marginalised Groups in Climate Change Governance in South Africa," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-20, June.
    12. repec:jpe:journl:1792 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Bachev, Hrabrin, 2025. "Governing of labor supply in Bulgarian farms - modes, factors, post-transition evolution," MPRA Paper 125325, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Silvia Scaramuzzi & Sara Gabellini & Giovanni Belletti & Andrea Marescotti, 2021. "Agrobiodiversity-Oriented Food Systems between Public Policies and Private Action: A Socio-Ecological Model for Sustainable Territorial Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-32, November.
    15. Sovacool, Benjamin K. & Martiskainen, Mari, 2020. "Hot transformations: Governing rapid and deep household heating transitions in China, Denmark, Finland and the United Kingdom," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    16. Silvia Sacchetti & Ermanno Tortia, 2012. "The internal and external governance of cooperatives: the effective membership and consistency of value," AICCON Working Papers 111-2012, Associazione Italiana per la Cultura della Cooperazione e del Non Profit.
    17. Holden, Stein T. & Tilahun, Mesfin, 2019. "How Do Social Preferences and Norms of Reciprocity affect Generalized and Particularized Trust?," CLTS Working Papers 8/19, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Centre for Land Tenure Studies, revised 10 Oct 2019.
    18. Elisabeth A. Shrimpton & Dexter Hunt & Chris D.F. Rogers, 2021. "Justice in (English) Water Infrastructure: A Systematic Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-18, March.
    19. Bigoni, Maria & Camera, Gabriele & Casari, Marco, 2020. "Money is more than memory," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 99-115.
    20. Giaime Berti, 2020. "Sustainable Agri-Food Economies: Re-Territorialising Farming Practices, Markets, Supply Chains, and Policies," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-9, March.
    21. Benoît, Jean-Pierre & Galbiati, Roberto & Henry, Emeric, 2017. "Investing to cooperate: Theory and experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 1-17.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:38:y:2018:i:7:p:1321-1331. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.