Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Changing Me Softly: Making Sense of Soft Regulation and Compliance in the Italian Nanotechnology Sector

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
NanoEthics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Soft regulation has increased its importance in science and technology governance. Despite such indisputable significance, the literature on technology policy and regulation so far seems to have dedicated only a limited attention to a systematic understanding of the factors affecting compliance with these soft rules. This article addresses this limitation. By way of a literature scoping exercise, we propose a taxonomy of the mechanisms affecting compliance with soft regulation. We subsequently apply the taxonomy as a guide to examine the opinions of a small group of scientists and company managers in the Italian nanotechnology sector. The case study does not assess compliance in a direct way, i.e., observing how organizations comply with regulation, but it explores the opinions on what the factors affecting compliance are (and why they work).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. ECSIN is now part of EcamRicert srl, a company specialized in laboratory testing and analysis.

  2. The literature on classifications, typologies and taxonomies is vast and its analysis is beyond the scope of this article. The taxonomy presented in this article is an example of “intensional classification”, as proposed by Marradi [43]. Intensional classifications “may be seen as a process of conceptual elaboration (...). The concept whose intension is articulated in one of its aspects is “explicated” or “unpacked”, hence enriched and clarified (...). Concepts corresponding to individual classes are either formed or clarified by the definition of their boundaries with contiguous concepts. Different terms or expressions are univocally allocated to each class concept, and the concept-term ties are fastened (...) by the implicitly oppositive nature of any systematic allocation” ([43], 132). The result of our classification operation is a taxonomy, as it is obtained “when fundamenta [the aspects according to which the classes are distinguished] are considered in succession” ([43], 143). This definition of taxonomy is not universally used. For instance, Bailey [44] defines taxonomies as empirically based, inductive classifications. From this perspective, taxonomies are opposite to typologies, which are instead theoretically based, deductive classifications. As the reader can see, our taxonomy is instead a deductive, theoretical exercise.

  3. The advantage of this taxonomic classification is that complex notions like legitimacy [22] or solution process [7] can be considered as constructs based on the combination of different, simpler properties. Eventually, this classification differs from part of the literature as it treats the targets of norms more properly as objects/dimensions (actors) rather than properties (targets, as objects, are distinguishable because of their properties, and their performance in compliance is different because of the properties that distinguish them) [12].

  4. In their analysis of PVC and paper industries in Europe, the Authors dispute however that NGO mobilization has a direct sizeable impact on the emergence of sectoral voluntary standards [41].

  5. As the literature affirms [22], trust is reinforced also by the specific features of the regulatory process. To this extent, the notes in the corresponding sections complement this short discussion of trust as a characteristic of actors.

References

  1. Bressers H, De Bruijn T, Lulofs K, O’Toole LJ (2011) Negotiation-based policy instruments and performance: Dutch covenants and environmental policy outcomes. Journal of Public Policy 31(2):187–208. doi:10.1017/S0143814X11000079

  2. European Commission (2004) La nanotecnologia. Innovazione per il mondo di domani. ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/nanotechnology/docs/nano_brochure_it.pdf.

  3. NSTC - National Science and Technology Council (1999) Nanotechnology. Shaping the world atom by atom. http://www.wtec.org/loyola/nano/IWGN.Public.Brochure/.

  4. European Commission (2008) Commission Recommendation of 07/02/2008 on a code of conduct for responsible nanosciences and nanotechnologies research. EC, Brussels

  5. Dorbeck-Jung BR, Shelley-Egan C (2013) Meta-regulation and nanotechnologies: the challenge of responsibilisation within the European Commission’s code of conduct for responsible nanosciences and nanotechnologies research. NanoEthics 7(1):55–68

  6. Héritier A, Lehmkuhl D (2008) The shadow of hierarchy and new modes of governance. Journal of Public Policy 28(1):1-17. doi:10.1017/S0143814X08000755

  7. Raustiala K, Slaughter A-M (2002) International law, international relations and compliance. In: Carlsnaes W, Risse T, Simmons BA (eds) Handbook of international relations. Sage, London, pp 538–558

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Arnaldi S (2014) ¿Qué tan suave debería ser la regulación nano? Identidades sociales y opiniones de los stakeholders italianos. Mundo Nano. Revista Interdisciplinaria en Nanociencia y Nanotecnología 7(13), np

  9. Arnaldi S, Gorgoni G, Pariotti E (2016) RRI as a governance paradigm: what is new? In: Lindner R, Kuhlmann S, Randles S, Bedsted B, Gorgoni G, Griessler E, Loconto A, Mejlgaard N (eds) Navigating towards shared responsibility. Fraunhofer ISI, Karlsruhe, pp 22–29

    Google Scholar 

  10. Fredriksson M, Blomqvist P, Winblad U (2012) Conflict and compliance in Swedish health care governance: soft law in the “shadow of hierarchy”. Scandinavian Political Studies 35(1):48–70

  11. Skjærseth JB, Stokke OS, Wettestad J (2006) Effective implementation of international environmental norms. Global Environmental Politics 6(3):104–120

  12. Shaffer G, Pollack MA (2012) Hard and soft law: what have we learned? In: Dunoff JL, Pollack MA (eds) International law and international relations: insights from interdisciplinary scholarship. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 197–222

  13. Koutalakis C, Buzogany A, Börzel TA (2010) When soft regulation is not enough: the integrated pollution prevention and control directive of the European Union. Regulation & Governance 4(3):329–344

  14. Ferrarese MR (2000) Le istituzioni della globalizzazione. Il Mulino, Bologna

    Google Scholar 

  15. Falkner R, Jaspers N (2012) Regulating nanotechnologies: risk, uncertainty and the global governance gap. Global Environmental Politics 12(1):30–55

  16. Pariotti E (2011) Normatività giuridica e governance delle tecnologie emergenti. In: Guerra G, Muratorio A, Pariotti E et al (eds) Forme di responsabilità, regolazione e nanotecnologie. Il Mulino, Bologna, pp 509–549

    Google Scholar 

  17. Garsten C, Jacobsson K (2012) Post-political regulation: soft power and post-political visions in global governance. Crit Sociol 39(3):421–438

  18. Scott J, Trubeck DM (2002) Mind the gap: law and new approaches to governance in the European Union. European Law Journal 8:1–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Heyvaert V (2009) Levelling down, levelling up, and governing across: three responses to hybridization in international law. The European Journal of International Law 20(3):647–674

  20. Hickey GM, Innes JL, Kozak RA et al (2006) Monitoring and information reporting for sustainable forest management: an inter-jurisdictional comparison of soft law standards. Forest Policy Econ 9(4):297–315

  21. Bowman DM, Hodge GA (2007) Governing nanotechnology without government? Sci Public Policy 35(7):475–487

  22. Kica E, Bowman DM (2012) Regulation by means of standardization: key legitimacy issues of health and safety nanotechnology standards. Jurimetrics 53(1):11–56

  23. Marchant GE, Abbott KW (2013) International harmonization of nanotechnology governance through “soft law” approaches. Nanotechnology Law and Business 9(4):393–410

  24. DEFRA - Department of Environment F, Affairs R (2008a) The Voluntary Reporting Scheme. http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/nanotech/documents/.

  25. DEFRA - Department of Environment F, Affairs R (2008) A supplementary guide for the UK Voluntary Reporting Scheme. http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/nanotech/documents/nano-hazards.pdf.

  26. EPA - Environmental Protection Agency (n.d.,) Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program. http://epa.gov/oppt/nano/stewardship.htm.

  27. NIA - Nanotechnology Industries Association (n.d.,) Responsible Nano-Code. http://www.nanotechia.org/activities/responsible-nano-code.

  28. BASF (n.d.) Nanotechnology code of conduct. http://www.basf.com/group/corporate/nanotechnology/en/microsites/nanotechnology/safety/code-of-conduct.

  29. ISO - International Organization for Standardization (n.d.) ISO/TC 229 Nanotechnologies. http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_technical_committee.

  30. ICCA - International Council of Chemical Associations (2006) Responsible Care® Global Charter in English. http://www.icca-chem.org/ICCADocs/09_RCGC_EN_Feb2006.pdf.

  31. Maynard A, Rejeski D (2009) Too small to overlook. Nature 460(7252):174

  32. Stokes E (2013) Demand for command: responding to technological risks and scientific uncertainties. Medical Law Review 21(1):11–38

  33. ETUC - European Trade Unions Confederation (2008) ETUC resolution on nanotechnologies and nanomaterials.

  34. ETUC - European Trade Unions Confederation (2010) ETUC 2nd resolution on nanotechnologies and nanomaterials.

  35. Ruggiu D (2013) Temporal perspectives of the nanotechnological challenge to regulation: how human rights can contribute to the present and future of nanotechnologies. NanoEthics 7(3):201–215

  36. EPA - Environmental Protection Agency (n.d.,) Control of nanoscale materials under the Toxic Substances Control Act. http://www.epa.gov/oppt/nano/.

  37. Reichow A, Dorbeck-Jung BR (2013) Discovering specific conditions for compliance with soft regulation related to work with nanomaterials. NanoEthics 7(1):83–92

  38. Weaver RK (2014) Compliance regimes and barriers to behavioural change, governance. Governance 27(2):243–265

  39. Hey C, Jacob K, Volkery A (2007) Better regulation by new governance hybrids? Governance models and the reform of European chemicals policy. J Clean Prod 15(18):1859–1874. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.11.001

  40. Dorbeck-Jung BR, Oude Vrielink MJ, Gosselt JF et al (2010) Contested hybridization of regulation: failure of the Dutch regulatory system to protect minors from harmful media. Regulation & Governance 4(2):154–174. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-5991.2010.01079.x

  41. Héritier A, Eckert S (2008) New modes of governance in the shadow of hierarchy: self-regulation by industry in Europe. Journal of Public Policy 28(1):113-138. doi:10.1017/S0143814X08000809

  42. Peters A, Pagotto I (2006)  Soft law as a new mode of governance: a legal perspective. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm. Accessed 10 Jul 2015

  43. Marradi A (1990) Classification, typology, taxonomy. Qual Quant 24(2):127–159

  44. Bailey KD (1994) Typologies and taxonomies: an introduction to classification techniques. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks

  45. De Nevers R (2010) The effectiveness of self-regulation by the private military and security industry. Journal of Public Policy 30(2):219–240. doi:10.1017/S0143814X10000036

  46. Toffel MW, Short JL, Ouellet M (2015) Codes in context: how states, markets, and civil society shape adherence to global labor standards. Regulation & Governance 9(3):205–223. doi:10.1111/rego.12076

  47. Baccaro L, Mele V (2012) Pathology of path dependency? The ILO and the challenge of new governance. Industrial and Labour Relations Review 65(2):195–224. doi:10.1177/001979391206500201

  48. Hooghiemstra R, van Ees H (2011) Uniformity as response to soft law: evidence from compliance and non-compliance with the Dutch corporate governance code. Regulation & Governance 5(4):480–498. doi:10.1111/j.1748-5991.2011.01118.x

  49. Cho JY, Lee E-H (2014) Reducing confusion about grounded theory and qualitative content analysis: similarities and differences. Qual Rep 19(32):1–20

  50. Gilgun JF (2013) Grounded theory, deductive qualitative analysis, and social work research. In: Fortune AE, Reid WJ, Miller R (eds) Qualitative research in social work. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 107–135

    Google Scholar 

  51. Yin RK (2003) Case study research: design and methods, 3rd edn. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks

  52. Howells J (2006) Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Res Policy 35(5):715–728. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2006.03.005

Download references

Acknowledgements

Part of this research was funded by the Res-AgorA Project (Responsible Research and Innovation in a Distributed Anticipatory Governance Frame. A Constructive Socionormative Approach). Res-AgorA is receiving funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Program for research, technological development, and demonstration under grant agreement no. 321427. The interviews were administered by the author and by Alessia Muratorio, whose precious help is here acknowledged. The author would like to thank Federico Benetti, Stefano Crabu, and two anonymous reviewers for their precious comments on earlier drafts of this paper. Any remaining errors, omissions, and mistakes remain the sole responsibility of the author.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Environmental, Ethical, Legal and Social Decisions on Emerging Technologies (CIGA), University of Padua, Via del Santo 28, 35123, Padua, Italy

    Simone Arnaldi

Authors
  1. Simone Arnaldi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Simone Arnaldi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Arnaldi, S. Changing Me Softly: Making Sense of Soft Regulation and Compliance in the Italian Nanotechnology Sector. Nanoethics 11, 3–16 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-017-0286-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-017-0286-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation