Journal of Nanoparticle Research

, 14:749

Governance implications of nanomaterials companies’ inconsistent risk perceptions and safety practices

Authors

  • Cassandra D. Engeman
    • Department of SociologyUniversity of California, Santa Barbara
    • NSF Center for Nanotechnology and SocietyUniversity of California, Santa Barbara
    • UC Center for the Environmental Implications of Nanotechnology (UC CEIN), University of California, Santa Barbara
  • Lynn Baumgartner
    • UC Center for the Environmental Implications of Nanotechnology (UC CEIN), University of California, Santa Barbara
    • Donald Bren School of Environmental Science and ManagementUniversity of California, Santa Barbara
  • Benjamin M. Carr
    • UC Center for the Environmental Implications of Nanotechnology (UC CEIN), University of California, Santa Barbara
    • Donald Bren School of Environmental Science and ManagementUniversity of California, Santa Barbara
  • Allison M. Fish
    • UC Center for the Environmental Implications of Nanotechnology (UC CEIN), University of California, Santa Barbara
    • Donald Bren School of Environmental Science and ManagementUniversity of California, Santa Barbara
  • John D. Meyerhofer
    • UC Center for the Environmental Implications of Nanotechnology (UC CEIN), University of California, Santa Barbara
    • Donald Bren School of Environmental Science and ManagementUniversity of California, Santa Barbara
  • Terre A. Satterfield
    • NSF Center for Nanotechnology and SocietyUniversity of California, Santa Barbara
    • UC Center for the Environmental Implications of Nanotechnology (UC CEIN), University of California, Santa Barbara
    • Institute for Resources, the Environment, and SustainabilityUniversity of British Columbia
  • Patricia A. Holden
    • UC Center for the Environmental Implications of Nanotechnology (UC CEIN), University of California, Santa Barbara
    • Donald Bren School of Environmental Science and ManagementUniversity of California, Santa Barbara
    • NSF Center for Nanotechnology and SocietyUniversity of California, Santa Barbara
    • UC Center for the Environmental Implications of Nanotechnology (UC CEIN), University of California, Santa Barbara
    • Departments of Feminist Studies, Anthropology and SociologyUniversity of California, Santa Barbara
Perspectives

DOI: 10.1007/s11051-012-0749-0

Cite this article as:
Engeman, C.D., Baumgartner, L., Carr, B.M. et al. J Nanopart Res (2012) 14: 749. doi:10.1007/s11051-012-0749-0

Abstract

Current research on the nanotechnology industry indicates its downstream expansion at a rapid pace, while toxicological research and best practices for environmental health and safety are still being developed. Companies that use and/or produce engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) have enormous potential to influence safe-handling practices for ENMs across the product life cycle. Knowledge of both industry practices and leaders’ perceptions of risk is vital for understanding how companies will act to control potential environmental and health risks. This article reports results from a new international survey of nanomaterials companies in 14 countries. In this survey, company participants reported relatively high levels of uncertainty and/or perceived risk with regard to ENMs. However, these perspectives were not accompanied by expected risk-avoidant practices or preferences for regulatory oversight. A majority of companies indicated “lack of information” as a significant impediment to implementing nano-specific safety practices, but they also reported practices that were inconsistent with widely available guidance. Additionally, in the absence of safe-handling regulations, companies reported nano-specific health and safety programs that were narrow in scope. Taken together, these findings indicate that health and safety guidance is not reaching industry. While industry leaders’ reluctance toward regulation might be expected, their own reported unsafe practices and recognition of possible risks suggest a more top-down approach from regulators is needed to protect workers and the environment.

Keywords

Environmental health and safety (EH&S) practicesRisk perceptionRegulationGovernment guidanceWorker safety

Supplementary material

11051_2012_749_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (254 kb)
The table in Online Resource 1 displays results from an exploratory factor analysis of scaled responses to seven statements in the survey to determine underlying factors that influence participants’ responses. One underlying factor is participants’ preference for autonomy from regulatory agencies. (PDF 253 kb)
11051_2012_749_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (284 kb)
The table in Online Resource 2 demonstrates a significant relationship between use of a nano-specific health and safety program and a general health and safety program but little difference in responses (PDF 284 kb)
11051_2012_749_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (301 kb)
Table 1 in Online Resource 3 shows the significant relationship between reported use of nano-specific EH&S programs and reported use of two practices: 1) monitoring the workplace for nanoparticles, and 2) using respirators. Table 2 in Online Resource 3 shows the significant relationship between reported use of nano-specific waste programs and reported use of a nano-specific health and safety programs. Table 3 in Online Resource 3 shows the significant relationship between reports of three types of waste-handling practices and the use of nano-specific health and safety programs. (PDF 300 kb)

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012