Corporate social responsibility for nanotechnology oversight
- 384 Downloads
Growing public concern and uncertainties surrounding emerging technologies suggest the need for socially-responsible behavior of companies in the development and implementation of oversight systems for them. In this paper, we argue that corporate social responsibility (CSR) is an important aspect of nanotechnology oversight given the role of trust in shaping public attitudes about nanotechnology and the lack of data about the health and environmental risks of nanoproducts. We argue that CSR is strengthened by the adoption of stakeholder-driven models and attention to moral principles in policies and programs. In this context, we examine drivers of CSR, contextual and leadership factors that influence CSR, and strategies for CSR. To illustrate these concepts, we discuss existing cases of CSR-like behavior in nanotechnology companies, and then provide examples of how companies producing nanomedicines can exhibit morally-driven CSR behavior.
KeywordsNanotechnology Oversight Corporate social responsibility
The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the Institute on the Environment at the University of Minnesota for portions of this work.
- Bass, B.M. 1985. Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
- Bass, B.M. 1998. Transformational leadership: Industrial, military, and educational impact. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Biondi, V., M. Frey, F. Iraldo. 2000. Environmental management systems and SMEs: Motivations, opportunities, and barriers related to EMAS and ISO 14001 implementation. Greener Management International 29: 55–69.Google Scholar
- Bowen, H.R. 1953. Social responsibilities of the businessmen. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
- Bowles, S., and H. Gintis. 1985. Democracy and capitalism. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
- Carrol, A. 1991. The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons 34: 39–48.Google Scholar
- Crane, A., and D. Matten. 2007. Corporate social responsibility. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
- Daily Environment Report. 2008. As deadline nears, 16 firms to participate in nanoscale materials stewardship program. 134, p. A-1. The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. Available at http://www.bna.com.
- Davies, C. 2007. EPA and Nanotechnology: Oversight for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies.Google Scholar
- Donaldson, T. 1982. Corporations and morality. Engelwood Cliff, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
- Donaldson, T., and T.W. Dunfee. 1994. Towards a unified conception of business ethics: Integrative social contract theory. Academy of Management Review 19: 252–284.Google Scholar
- Donaldson, T., and T.W. Dunfee. 1999. Ties that bind: A social contract approach to business ethics. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
- DuPont. 2008. Corporate social responsibility statement. Retrieved 8 Aug 2008 from http://www.dupont.com.
- Dupont-ED (Environmental Defence). 2008. Nano risk framework. Dupont Co. and Environmental Defense. Retrieved on 8 Aug 2008 from http://www.nanoriskframework.com/page.cfm?tagID=1095.
- EC (European Comission). 2007. Corporate social responsibility—national public policies in the European Union. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
- EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2008. Nanoscale materials stewardship program. Available at http://epa.gov/oppt/nano/stewardship.htm.
- EPA. 2009. (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) External review draft nanomaterial case studies: nanoscale titanium dioxide in water treatment and in topical sunscreen. 31 July 2009. Available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=210206.
- FDA (Food and Drug Administration). 2007. Nanotechnology: A report of the US food and drug administration nanotechnology task force. Available at http://www.fda.gov/nanotechnology/taskforce/report2007.html.
- Freeman, R.E. 1984. Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.Google Scholar
- Frederick, W. 2008. Corporate social responsibility: Deep roots, flourishing growth, promising future. In The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility, ed. A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D. Matten, J. Moon, and D. Siegel. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Friedman, M. 1970. The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine, 13 September.Google Scholar
- Hamschmidt, J., and T. Dyllick. 2001. ISO 14001: Profitable? Yes! But is it eco-effective? Greener Management International 34: 43–54.Google Scholar
- Hart Research Associates. 2008. Awareness of and attitudes toward nanotechnology and synthetic biology: A report of findings. Conducted on behalf of project on emerging nanotechnologies, The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Available online at www.nanotechproject.org.
- Hess, D. 2006. Corporates faced to justice: The ‘Hard’ law. In Corporate social responsibility, ed. J. Allouche. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
- Holliday, C., and F. Krupp. 2005. Let’s get nanotech right. Wall Street Journal, 14 June, p. B2.Google Scholar
- Howel, J.M., and B.J. Avolio. 1992. The ethics of charismatic leadership: Submission or liberation? Academy of Management Executive 6: 43–54.Google Scholar
- ICTA (International Center for Technology Assessment). 2006. Petition requesting FDA amend its regulations for products composed of engineered nanoparticles generally and sunscreen drug products composed of engineered nanoparticles specifically. Available at http://www.icta.org/doc/Nano%20FDA%20petition%20final.pdf.
- ICTA (International Center for Technology Assessment). 2007. Principles for the oversight of nanotechnologies and nanomaterials. Accessed on 5 Aug 2007. http://www.icta.org/doc/Principles%20for%20the%20Oversight%20of%20Nanotechnologies%20and%20Nanomaterialsfinal.pdf.
- IRGC (International Risk Governance Council). 2006. Survey on nanotechnology governance: Volume B the role of industry. Zurich: International Risk Governance Council.Google Scholar
- Kalil, T., and N. Lane. 2005. The national nanotechnology initiative: Present at the creation. Issues in Science and Technology 24: 49–54.Google Scholar
- Kuzma, J. 2006. Nanotechnology oversight and regulation-just do it. Environmental Law Reporter 36: 10913–10923.Google Scholar
- Kuzma, J., Romanchek, J., and A. Kokotovich. 2008. Upstream oversight assessment for agrifood nanotechnology. Risk Analysis 28(4): 1081–1098.Google Scholar
- Macoubrie, J. 2005. Informed public perceptions of nanotechnology and trust in government. Washington, DC: Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies.Google Scholar
- Matten, D., and J. Moon. 2004. A conceptual framework for understanding CSR in Europe. In CSR across Europe, ed. A. Habisch, J. Jonker, M. Wegner, and R. Schmidpeter, 339–360. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
- Maynard, A. 2006. A research strategy for addressing risk. Washington, DC: Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies.Google Scholar
- NNI (National Nanotechnology Initiative). 2007. What is nanotechnology? Retrieved on 5 June 2007, from http://www.nano.gov/html/facts/whatIsNano.html.
- NRC (National Research Council). 1996. Understanding risk. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
- Paradise, J., M. Wolf, G. Ramachandran, E. Kokkoli, R. Hall, and J. Kuzma. 2008a. Developing oversight frameworks for nanobiotechnology. Minnesota Journal of Law Science and Technology 9(1): 399–416.Google Scholar
- Pedersen, E.R., and P. Neergaard. 2007. The bottom line of CSR: A different view. In Managing corporate social responsibility in action: Taking, doing and measuring, ed. F. Den Hond, G.A. De Bakker, and P. Neergard. Hampshire, England: Ashgate Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
- PEN (Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies). 2008. A nanotechnology consumer products inventory. Last accessed on 4 Aug 2010. http://www.nanotechproject.org/44/consumer-nanotechnology.
- PIFB (Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology). 2004. Issues in the regulation of the genetically engineered plants and animals. Retrieved 29 July 2008 from http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/News/Press_Releases/Food_and_Biotechnology/food_biotech_regulation_0404.pdf.
- Pidgeon, N. 2006. Opportunities and uncertainties: The British nanotechnologies report and the case for upstream societal dialogue. In: Conference paper: VALDOR. Stockholm, Sweden. Retrieved on 29 July 2008 from http://www.congrex.com/valdor2006/papers/53_Pidgeon.pdf.
- Pollack, A. 2007. Without rules, biotech food lacks investors. New York Times, 30 July. Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/washington/30animal.html?ei=.
- Rawls, J. 1971. A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
- Rousseau, J.J. 1791.Contract social, ou principles du droit politique. A Strasbourg, De l’Impr. De la Societe Typographique. Latest edition: Adamant Media Corporation, 2001.Google Scholar
- Royal Society. 2004. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties. London: The Royal Society.Google Scholar
- Sirsly, C.-A.T., and K. Lamertz. 2008. When does a corporate social responsibility initiative provide a first-mover advantage? Business and Society 43(3): 343–369.Google Scholar
- Taylor, M. 2006. Regulating the products of nanotechnology: Does FDA have the tools it needs? Washington DC: Project on Emerging Technologies.Google Scholar
- The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2008. Social contract theory. Retrieved on 1 Aug 2008 from http://www.iep.utm.edu/.
- Velasquez, M.G. 1983. Why corporations are not morally responsible for anything they do. Business and Professional Ethics Journal 2(4): 1–18.Google Scholar
- Werhane, P.H. 1985. Persons, rights, and corporations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
- Wilsdon, J., and R. Wills. 2004. See-through science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream. Demos: London. At www.demos.co.uk.
- Zadek, S. (2004). The path to corporate responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 82(12):125–132, 150.Google Scholar