Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T09:29:23.614Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Risk, Uncertainty, and Learning in Nanomaterials Regulation: An Analytical Framework

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Aline Reichow
Aline Reichow*
Affiliation:
Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (BAuA), Dortmund, Germany
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The regulation of nanomaterials is still surrounded by scientific uncertainty regarding their potential human health risks. It is therefore useful to consider learning approaches in the process of regulation. Effective regulation is conceptualised with regard to collaborative activities of state and non-state actors that enable mutual learning regarding the health risks of nanomaterials. A theoretical framework is offered for studying learning processes in the area of occupational safety and health. Drawing on the network governance literature, three learning types (namely substantive, strategic, and institutional learning) are distinguished. Analytical conditions are proposed and applied to the case of nanomaterials in Germany, thereby offering insights into learning processes in industry-initiated collaborative activities. It is concluded that the development of trust among network collaborators is decisive for learning processes. Accordingly, a proposal for research into specific stages of trust development is made.

Type
Special Issue on Regulating New and Emerging Technologies
Information
European Journal of Risk Regulation , Volume 7 , Issue 3 , September 2016 , pp. 502 - 516
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
© Aline Reichow 2016 This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016

References

1 Reichow, Aline and Bowman, Diana M., “Roles of Non-Governmental Organizations in the Governance of Nanomaterials”, in Bowman, Diana M. et al. (eds), Practices of Innovation and Responsibility: Insights from Methods, Governance and Action (Berlin: AKA, 2015) pp. 69–83.Google Scholar

2 Aline Reichow, Effective Regulation under Conditions of Scientific Uncertainty. How Collaborative Networks Contribute to Occupational Health and Safety Regulation for Nanomaterials (PhD thesis on file at the University of Enschede, 2015).

3 Reichow and Bowman, Roles of Non-Governmental Organizations, supra, note 1.

4 Thomas, Gebel and Landsiel, Roland, “Inhalte der Sicherheitsforschung: Langzeitwirkungen biobeständiger Nanostäube”, 10 Gefahrstoffe Reinhaltung der Luft (2013), pp. 414–427 Google Scholar.

5 Donaldson, Ken and Poland, Craig A., “Nanotoxicity: challenging the myth of nano-specific toxicity”, 24(4) Current Opinion in Biotechnology (2013), pp. 724–734 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

6 Gebel, Thomas et al., “Manufactured nanomaterials: categorization and approaches to hazard assessment”, 88 Archives of Toxicology (2014), pp. 2191–2211 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

7 Ibid.

8 Hazard and exposure data are required in order to conduct a risk assessment.

9 Fibrous particles with a specific geometry and a high aspect ratio (so-called WHO fibres with length >5 μm, diameter <3 μm, aspect ratio >3:1).

10 Gebel et al., Manufactured nanomaterials, supra, note 6.

11 Grosse, Yann et al., “Carcinogenicity of fluoro-edenite, silicon carbide fibres and whiskers, and carbon nanotubes”, 15(13) The Lancet Oncology (2014), pp. 1427–1428 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

12 NIOSH, “Nanotechnology”, 2015, available on the internet at: <http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/nanotech/> (last accessed on 09 October 2015).

13 Kai Savolainen, Ulrika Backman, Derk Brouwer, Bengt Fadeel, Teresa Fernandes, Thomas Kuhlbusch, RobertLandsiedel, Iseult Lynch and Lea Pylkkänen, “Nanosafety in Europe 2015-2025: Towards Safe and Sustainable Nanomaterials and Nanotechnology Innovations”, 2013, available on the internet at: <http://www.ttl.fi/en/publications/Electronic_publications/Nanosafety_in_europe_2015-2025/Documents/nanosafety_2015-2025.pdf> (last accessed on 27 June 2013).

14 Detailed information regarding the selection of interviewees, the analysis of the empirical data, and the collaborative activities analysed is available online; see Reichow, Effective Regulation, supra, note 2.

15 Framework Directive 89/391/EEC on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work, section ll, article 9(1), OJ 1989 L 183/1.

16 Council Directive 98/24/EC on the protection of the health and safety of workers from the risks related tochemical agents at work, OJ 1998 L 131/11.

17 Commission Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), articles 6 and 14, OJ 2006 L 136/3.

18 Ibid.

19 Kai Savolainen et al., “Nanosafety”, supra, note 13.

20 Dorbeck-Jung, Bärbel R., “How can hybrid nanomedical products regulation cope with wicked governability problems”, in Goodwin, Morag, Koops, Bert-Jaap and Leenes, Ronald (eds), Dimensions of Technology Regulation (Nijmegen: Wolf Publishers, 2010), pp. 63–84 Google Scholar.

21 Hodge, Graeme A., Bowman, Diana M. and Maynard, Andrew D. (eds), International Handbook on Regulating Nanotechnologies (Massachusetts, US: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 Abbot, Carolyn, “Bridging the Gap – Non-state Actors and the Challenges of Regulating New Technology”, 39(3) Journal of Law and Society (2012), pp. 329–358 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23 Coglianese, Cary, “Business Interest and Information in Environmental Rulemaking”, in Kraft, Michael E. and Kamienieki, Sheldon (eds), Business and Environmental Policy (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2007), pp. 185–210.Google Scholar

24 Opschoor, Hans and Turner, Kerry, Economic Incentives and Environmental Policies: Principles and Practice (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25 Koppenjan, Johannes F.M. and Klijn, Erik-Hans, Managing Uncertainties in Networks. A network approach to problem solving and decision making (London: Routledge, 2004)Google Scholar.

26 Scharpf, Fritz W., Games real actors play; actor-centered institutionalism in policy research (Boulder, US: Westview Press, 1997)Google Scholar.

27 Reichow, Effective Regulation, supra, note 2.

28 Scharpf, Fritz W., “Interorganizational policy studies: issues, concepts and perspectives”, in Hanf, Kenneth and Scharpf, Fritz W. (eds), Interorganizational Policy Making; Limits to Coordination and Central Control (London: Sage, 1978)Google Scholar.

29 Koppenjan and Klijn, Managing Uncertainties, supra, note 24.

30 Reichow, Aline and Dorbeck-Jung, Bärbel, “Discovering specific conditions for compliance with soft regulation related to work with nanomaterials”, 7(1) NanoEthics (2013), pp. 83–92 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

31 Teisman, Geert R., Complex decision-making, a pluricentric view, 3rd ed. (The Hague: Vuga, 1998)Google Scholar.

32 Koppenjan and Klijn, Managing Uncertainties, supra, note 24.

33 Ibid.

34 Ibid.

35 Ibid.

36 Ostrom, Elinor, Governing the Commons. The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

37 Koppenjan and Klijn, Managing Uncertainties, supra, note 24.

38 Instead of using the original term “cognitive learning” used by Koppenjan and Klijn, we use the term “substantive learning” for reasons of clarity.

39 Koppenjan and Klijn, Managing Uncertainties, supra, note 24.

40 For detailed information on the collaborative activities of the VCI network, see Reichow, Effective Regulation, supra, note 2. All case-related data in this article is based on Reichow.

41 Koppenjan and Klijn, Managing Uncertainties, supra, note 24.

42 Riet, Odette van de, Policy Analysis in Multi-actor Policy Settings (Delft: Eburon, 2003)Google Scholar.

43 Scharpf, Interorganizational policy, supra, note 27.

44 Koppenjan and Klijn, Managing Uncertainties, supra, note 24.

45 Ibid.

46 Lewicki, Roy J., Tomlinson, Edward C. and Gillespie, Nicole, “Models of Interpersonal Trust Development: Theoretical Approaches, Empirical Evidence, and Future Directions”, 32(6) Journal of Management (2006), p. 992 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

47 E.g. Lewicki, Roy J. and Bunker, Barbara B., “Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships”, in Kramer, Roderick M. and Tyler, Tom R. (eds), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (Thousand Oaks: Sage, 1996), pp. 114–139 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Shapiro, Debra L., Sheppard, Blair H. and Cheraskin, Lisa, “Business on a handshake”, 8(4) Negotiation Journal (1996), pp. 365–377 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

48 E.g. Kramer, Roderick M., “The sinister attribution error: Paranoid cognition and collective distrust in organizations”, 18(2) Motivation and Emotion (1994), pp. 199–230 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

49 Sako, Mari, “Does trust improve business performance?”, in Lane, Christel and Bachmann, Reinhard (eds), Trust within and between organizations: Conceptual issues and empirical applications (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1998), pp. 88–117 Google Scholar.

50 Deakin, Simon and Wilkinson, Frank, “Contract law and the economics of interorganizational trust”, in Lane, Christel and Bachmann, Reinhard (eds), Trust within and between organizations: Conceptual issues and empirical applications (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1998), pp. 146–172 Google Scholar.

51 Nooteboom, Bart, Trust: Forms, Foundations, Functions, Failures and Figures (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

52 Nooteboom, Bart, Management van Partnerships (Schoonhoven: Academic Service, 2000)Google Scholar.

53 Nooteboom, Bart, Trust and innovation (Tilburg: Tilburg University, 2010)Google Scholar.

54 Edelbos, Jurian and Klijn, Erik-Hans, “Trust in complex decisionmaking networks. A theoretical and empirical exploration”, 39(1) Administration & Society (2007), pp. 25–50 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

55 Droege, Scott B., Anderson, Jonathan R. and Bowler, Matthew, “Trust and organizational information flow”, 9(1) Journal of Business and Management 9(1), pp. 45–59 Google Scholar.

56 Axelrod, Robert, The evolution of cooperation (New York: Basic Books, 1984).Google Scholar

57 McKnight, D. Harrison and Chervany, Norman L., “Reflections on an initial trust-building model”, in Zaheer, Reinhard Bachmann Akbar (eds), Handbook of Trust Research (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2006), pp. 29–51 Google Scholar.

58 Gulati, Ranjay, “Does Familiarity Breed Trust? The Implications of Repeated Ties for Contractual Choice in Alliances”, 38(1) Academy of Management Journal (1995), pp. 85–112 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

59 Gabarro, John J., “The development of trust. Influence and expectations”, in Athos, Anthony G. and Gabarro, John J. (eds), Interpersonal behavior: communication and understanding in relationships (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1978), pp. 290–303 Google Scholar.

60 Ibid.

61 Klijn, Erik-Hans, Edelbos, Jurian and Steijn, Bram, “Trust in Governance Networks: Its Impacts on Outcomes”, 42(2) Administration & Society (2010), pp. 193–221 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

62 Woolthuis, Rosalinde Klein, Hillebrand, Bas and Nooteboom, Bart, “Trust, contract and relationship development”, 26(6) Organization Studies (2005), pp. 813–840 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

63 Nooteboom, Trust and innovation, supra, note 52.

64 Koppenjan and Klijn, Managing Uncertainties, supra, note 24.

65 Ibid.

66 Ostrom, Governing the Commons, supra, note 35.

67 Edelbos and Klijn, Trust, supra, note 53.

68 Govier, Trudy, “Is it a Jungle out there? Trust, distrust, and the construction of social reality”, 33 Dialogue (1994), pp. 237–252 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

69 Kramer, Roderick M., “Trust and distrust in organizations: emerging perspectives, enduring questions” 50 Annual Review of Psychology (1999), pp. 569–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

70 Lewicki et al., Models of Interpersonal Trust, supra, note 45.

71 Shapiro, Susan, “Policing trust”, in Shearing, Clifford D. and Stenning, Philip (eds), Private Policing (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1987 Google Scholar.

72 The concept of capture was originally coined by Stigler (1971).

73 Reichow, Effective Regulation, supra, note 2.

74 Ayres, Ian and Braithwaite, John, “Tripartism: Regulatory Capture and Empowerment”, 16(3) Law & Social Inquiry (1991), pp. 435–496 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

75 Axelrod, The evolution of cooperation, supra, note 55.

76 Zucker, Lynne G., “Production of trust: institutional sources of economic structure, 1840-1920”, 8(1) Research in Organisational Behavior (1986), pp. 53–111.Google Scholar

77 Edelbos and Klijn, Trust, supra, note 53.

78 Lewicki et al., Models of Interpersonal Trust, supra, note 45.

79 Koppenjan and Klijn, Managing Uncertainties, supra, note 24.

80 Koppenjan and Klijn (2004) do not use the terms “process-oriented” and “problem-oriented” rules, nor do they make this distinction between rules.

81 Senden, Linda, Soft Law in European Community Law (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2004)Google Scholar.

82 Reichow, Aline and Dorbeck-Jung, Barbel, “How can we characterize nano-specific soft regulation? Lessons from occupational health and safety governance”, in Konrad, Kornelia et al. (eds), Shaping Emerging Technologies: Governance, Innovation, Discourse (Berlin: AKA, 2013), pp. 83–102 Google Scholar.

83 Bourdieu, Pierre, “The Force of Law: Toward a Sociology of the Juridical Field”, 38 The Hastings Law Journal (1987), pp. 805–853 Google Scholar.

84 Pound, Roscoe, “Law in Books and Law in Action”, 44 American Law Review (1910), pp. 12–36 Google Scholar.

85 Bowman, Diana M. and Hodge, Graeme A., “Counting on codes: An examination of transnational codes as a regulatory governance mechanism for nanotechnologies”, 3 Regulation & Governance (2009), pp. 145–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

86 Koppenjan and Klijn, Managing Uncertainties, supra, note 24.

87 Hood, Christopher and Jackson, Michael, Administrative Argument (Dartmouth: Aldershot, 1991)Google Scholar.

88 Barendrecht, Maurits et al. Trendreport Rulejungling. When lawmaking goes private, international, and informal (The Hague: HiiL, 2012)Google Scholar.

89 Klijn, Erik-Hans, “Rules as Institutional Context for Decision Making in Networks: The Approach to Post-war Housing Districts in Two Cities”, 33(3) Administration and Society (2001), pp. 133–164 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

90 Scharpf, Games real actors play, supra, note 25.

91 Friend, John K., Power, John M. and Yewlett, Chris J.L., Public Planning: The Inter-corporate Dimension (London: Tavistock, 1974)Google Scholar.

92 Scharpf, Interorganizational policy, supra, note 27.

93 McGuire, Michael, “Collaborative Public Management: Assessing What We Know and How We Know It”, 66 Public Administration Review (2006), pp. 33–43 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.