Abstract
In this article, we examine voluntary oversight programs for nanotechnology in the context of corporate social performance (CSP) in order to better understand the drivers, barriers, and forms of company participation in such programs. At the theoretical level, we use the management framework of CSP to understand the voluntary behavior of companies. At the empirical level, we investigate nanotech industry participation in the Environmental Protection Agency’s Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program (NMSP) as an example of CSP, in order to examine the effects of company characteristics on CSP outcomes. The analysis demonstrates that, on the average, older and larger companies for which nanotech is one of the many business activities demonstrate greater CSP as judged by company actions, declarations, and self-evaluations. Such companies tended to submit more of the requested information to the NMSP, including specific information about health and safety, and to claim fewer of the submitted items as confidential business information. They were also more likely to have on-line statements of generic and nano-specific corporate social responsibility principles, policies, and achievements. The article suggests a need to encourage smaller and younger companies to participate in voluntary oversight programs for nanotechnology and presents options for better design of these programs.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Some companies provided more information than was requested by the EPA.
References
Australian Department of Health and Ageing (2006) National industrial chemicals notification and assessment scheme. http://www.nicnas.gov.au/. Accessed 28 June 2010
Bowman DM, Hodge GA (2006) Nanotechnology: mapping the wild regulatory frontier. Futures 38:1060J–1073J
Bowman DM, Hodge GA (2007) A small matter of regulation: an international review of nanotechnology regulations. Columbia Sci Technol Law Rev 8:1–36
Breggin LK, Carothers L (2006) Governing uncertainty: the nanotechnology environmental, health, and safety challenge. Columbia J Env Law 31:285–329
Davies JC (2007) EPA and nanotechnology: oversight for the 21st century. Project on emerging nanotechnologies, Washington. http://www.nanotechproject.org/process/assets/files/2698/197_nanoepa_pen9.pdf. Accessed 28 June 2010
Davies JC (2008) Nanotechnology oversight: an agenda for the next administration. Project on emerging nanotechnologies, Washington. http://207.58.186.238/process/assets/files/6709/pen13.pdf. Accessed 28 June 2010
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2006) Nanoscale materials stewardship program. http://www.epa.gov/oppt/nano/stewardship.htm. Accessed 28 June 2010
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2008a) Toxic substances control act inventory status of carbon nanotubes, vol 73, No 212. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2004-0122; FRL-8386-6
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2008b) Petition for rulemaking requesting EPA regulate nanoscale silver products as pesticides. EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0650; FRL-8386-4
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2008c) Nanoscale materials stewardship program. Interim report. http://www.epa.gov/oppt/nano/nmsp-interim-report-final.pdf. Accessed 28 June 2010
European Commission (2008) Recommendation on a code of conduct for responsible nanosciences and nanotechnologies research. ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/fp7/docs/nanocode-recommendation.pdf. Accessed 28 June 2010
Fiedler F, Reynolds G (1994) Legal problems of nanotechnology: an overview. S Calif Interdiscip Law J 3:593–629
Forrest D (1989) Regulating nanotechnology development. Foresight Nanotech Institute, Palo Alto. http://www.foresight.org/nano/Forrest1989.html. Accessed 28 July 2010
Frederick W (2008) Corporate social responsibility: deep roots, flourishing growth, promising future. In: Crane A, McWilliams A, Matten D, Moon J, Siegel D (eds) The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility. Oxford University Press, New York
Groves C, Frater L, Lee R, Jenkins H, Yakovleva N (2009) An examination of the nature and application among the nanotechnologies industries of corporate social responsibility in the context of safeguarding the environment and human health. The Center for Business Relationships, Accountability, Sustainability, and Society. Report for the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Completed=0&ProjectID=16262. Accessed 28 July 2010
Kuzma J (2006) Nanotechnology oversight: just do it. Env Law Rep 36:10913–10920
Kuzma J (2007) Moving forward responsibly: oversight for the nanotechnology–biology interface. J Nanopart Res 9:165–182
Kuzma J, Besley J (2008) Ethics of risk analysis and regulatory review: from bio- to nanotechnology. Nanoethics 2:149–162
Kuzma J, Larson J, Najmaie P (2009) Evaluating oversight systems for emerging technologies: a case study of genetically engineered organisms. J Law Med Ethics 37:546–586
Lee R, Jose PD (2008) Self-interest, self-restraint and corporate responsibility for nanotechnologies: emerging dilemmas for modern managers. Technol Anal Strat Man 20:113–125
Lin AC (2007) Size matters: regulating nanotechnology. Harvard Environ Law Rev 31:349
Macoubrie J (2005) Informed public perceptions of nanotechnology and trust in government. Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Washington. http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Nanotechnologies/Nanotech_0905.pdf. Accessed 29 Nov 2010
Macoubrie J (2006) Nanotechnology: public concerns, reasoning and trust in government. Public Understand Sci 15:221–241
Marchant GE, Sylvester DJ, Abbott KW (2008) Risk management principles for nanotechnology. Nanoethics 2:43–60
Marchant G, Sylvester, DJ, Abbott KW (2009) A new soft-law approach to nanotechnology oversight: a voluntary product certification scheme. UCLA J Environ Law Policy 2010. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1483910
Maynard A (2006) Nanotechnology: a research strategy for addressing risk. Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Washington. http://www.nanotechproject.org/publications/archive/nanotechnology_research_strategy_for/. Accessed 28 July 2010
National Research Council (NRC) (2000) Genetically modified pest-protected plants: science and regulation. National Academy Press, Washginton
Paddock L (2006) Keeping pace with nanotechnology: a proposal for a new approach to environmental accountability. ELR News Anal 36:10943–10952
Paddock L (2009) An integrated approach to nanotechnology governance. In: Working conference on nanotech regulatory policy, 17 April 2009. California Nanosystems Institute/UCLA School of Law/UC Center for Environmental Implications of Nanotechnology, Los Angeles. http://www.cnsi.ucla.edu/NanoRegulatoryPolicy/pdfs/paddock.pdf. Accessed 28 June 2010
Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN) (2009) Putting nano on the map. http://www.nanotechproject.org/process/assets/files/8262/map_methodology_2009_update.pdf. Accessed 31 Aug 2010
Ramachandran G, Wolf SM, Paradise J, Kuzma J, Hall R, Kokkoli E, Fatehi L (2010) Recommendations for oversight of nanobiotechnology: dynamic oversight for complex and convergent technologies (cite to publication in this volume)
Responsible NanoCode (2008) Information on the responsible nanocode initiative. http://www.responsiblenanocode.org/documents/InformationonTheResponsibleNanoCode.pdf. Accessed 28 June 2010
Reynolds GH (2003) Nanotechnology and regulatory policy: three futures. Harvard J Law Technol 17:179–209
Satterfield T, Kandlikar M, Beaudrie CEH, Conti J, Harthorn BH (2009) Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies. Nat Nanotechnol 4:752–758
Segal S (2004) Environmental regulation of nanotechnology: avoiding big mistakes for small machines. Nanotech Law Bus 1:290–303
Sethi SP (2002) Standards for corporate conduct in the international arena: challenges and opportunities for multinational corporations. Bus Soc Rev 107:20–40
Sylvester DJ, Marchant GE, Abbott, KW (2009) Not again! Public perception, regulation, and nanotechnology. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1309743. Accessed 28 June 2010
UK Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2006) UK voluntary reporting scheme for engineered nanoscale materials, London. http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/nanotech/documents/vrs-nanoscale.pdf. Accessed 28 June 2010
Wejnert J (2004) Regulatory mechanisms for molecular nanotechnology. Jurimetrics J 44:323–350
Wilson RF (2006) Nanotechnology: the challenge of regulating known unknowns. J Law Med Ethics 34:704–713
Wood D (1991) Corporate social performance revisited. Acad Manag Rev 16:691–718
Acknowledgments
Preparation of this article was supported by National Science Foundation (NSF) grant #0608791, “NIRT: Evaluating Oversight Models for Active Nanostructures and Nanosystems: Learning from Past Technologies in a Societal Context” (Principal Investigator: S. M. Wolf; Co-PIs: E. Kokkoli, J. Kuzma, J. Paradise, and G. Ramachandran) and the Institute on the Environment at the University of Minnesota. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of NSF or the Institute on the Environment.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kuzma, J., Kuzhabekova, A. Nanotechnology, voluntary oversight, and corporate social performance: does company size matter?. J Nanopart Res 13, 1499–1512 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-011-0235-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-011-0235-0