Advertisement

Corporate social responsibility for nanotechnology oversight

  • Jennifer KuzmaEmail author
  • Aliya Kuzhabekova
Scientific Contribution

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Nanotechnology Oversight Corporate social responsibility 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the Institute on the Environment at the University of Minnesota for portions of this work.

References

  1. Bass, B.M. 1985. Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bass, B.M. 1997. Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist 52: 130–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bass, B.M. 1998. Transformational leadership: Industrial, military, and educational impact. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  4. Bass, B.M., and P. Steidlmeier. 1999. Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership behavior. The Leadership Quarterly 10: 307–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Bowen, H.R. 1953. Social responsibilities of the businessmen. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  7. Bowles, S., and H. Gintis. 1985. Democracy and capitalism. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  8. Bozeman, B., and D. Sarewitz. 2005. Public values and public failure in US science polic. Science and Public Policy 32: 119–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burke, L., and J. Logsdon. 1996. How corporate social responsibility pays off. Long Range Planning 29(4): 495–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carrol, A. 1991. The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons 34: 39–48.Google Scholar
  11. Choi, J.-Y., and G. Ramachandran. 2009. Review of the OSHA framework for oversight of occupational environments. The Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 37: 633–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cobb, M.D., and J. Macoubrie. 2004. Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits and trust. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 6: 395–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Crane, A., and D. Matten. 2007. Corporate social responsibility. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  14. 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.
  15. Davies, C. 2007. EPA and Nanotechnology: Oversight for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies.Google Scholar
  16. Donaldson, T. 1982. Corporations and morality. Engelwood Cliff, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  17. 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
  18. Donaldson, T., and T.W. Dunfee. 1999. Ties that bind: A social contract approach to business ethics. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  19. DuPont. 2008. Corporate social responsibility statement. Retrieved 8 Aug 2008 from http://www.dupont.com.
  20. 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.
  21. Eastman, Q. 2003. UK probes public opposition to GM crops. Science 300: 1637–1638.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2008. Nanoscale materials stewardship program. Available at http://epa.gov/oppt/nano/stewardship.htm.
  24. 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.
  25. 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.
  26. Freeman, R.E. 1984. Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.Google Scholar
  27. 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
  28. Friedman, M. 1970. The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine, 13 September.Google Scholar
  29. Garriga, E., and D. Mele. 2004. Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics 53(1–2): 51–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Guston, D.H., and D. Sarewitz. 2002. Real-time technology assessment. Technology in Society 23: 93–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hamschmidt, J., and T. Dyllick. 2001. ISO 14001: Profitable? Yes! But is it eco-effective? Greener Management International 34: 43–54.Google Scholar
  32. 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.
  33. Hess, D. 2006. Corporates faced to justice: The ‘Hard’ law. In Corporate social responsibility, ed. J. Allouche. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  34. Holliday, C., and F. Krupp. 2005. Let’s get nanotech right. Wall Street Journal, 14 June, p. B2.Google Scholar
  35. 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
  36. 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.
  37. 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.
  38. IRGC (International Risk Governance Council). 2006. Survey on nanotechnology governance: Volume B the role of industry. Zurich: International Risk Governance Council.Google Scholar
  39. Jones, M.T. 1999. The institutional determinants of social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics 20(2): 163–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kalil, T., and N. Lane. 2005. The national nanotechnology initiative: Present at the creation. Issues in Science and Technology 24: 49–54.Google Scholar
  41. Kanungo, R.N. 2001. Ethical values of transactional and transformational leaders. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences 18: 257–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kaptein, M., and R. Van Tulder. 2003. Toward effective stakeholder dialogue. Business and Society Review 108(2): 203–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kuzma, J. 2006. Nanotechnology oversight and regulation-just do it. Environmental Law Reporter 36: 10913–10923.Google Scholar
  44. Kuzma, J. 2007. Moving forward responsibly: Oversight at the nanotechnology–biology interface. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 9: 165–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kuzma, J., and J.C. Besley. 2008. Ethics of risk analysis and regulatory review: From bio- to nanotechnology. Nanoethics 2(2): 149–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kuzma, J., J. Paradise, G. Ramachandran, J.-A. Kim, A. Kokotovich, and S.M. Wolf. 2008. An integrated approach to oversight assessment for emerging technologies. Risk Analysis 28(5): 1179–1195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kuzma, J., Romanchek, J., and A. Kokotovich. 2008. Upstream oversight assessment for agrifood nanotechnology. Risk Analysis 28(4): 1081–1098.Google Scholar
  48. Kuzma, J., J. Larson, and P. Najmaie. 2009. Evaluating oversight systems for emerging technologies: A case study of genetically engineered organisms. Journal of Law Medicine and Ethics 37(4): 546–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lee, R., and P.D. Jose. 2008. Self-interest, self-restraint and corporate responsibility for nanotechnologies: Emerging dillemas for modern managers. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 20(1): 113–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lenk, C., and N. Biller-Adorno. 2007. Nanomedicine—emerging or re-emerging ethical issues? A discussion of four ethical themes. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 10: 173–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lieberman, M.B., and D.B. Montgomery. 1988. First-mover advantages. Strategic Management Journal 9: 41–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Macoubrie, J. 2005. Informed public perceptions of nanotechnology and trust in government. Washington, DC: Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies.Google Scholar
  53. Macoubrie, J. 2006. Nanotechnology: Public concerns, reasoning and trust in government. Public Understanding of Science 15: 221–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 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
  55. Maynard, A. 2006. A research strategy for addressing risk. Washington, DC: Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies.Google Scholar
  56. Mcnaughten, P., M.B. Kearnes, and B. Wynne. 2005. Nanotechnology, governance, a nd public deliberation: What role for the social sciences? Science Communication 27(2): 268–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Mendonca, M. 2001. Preparing for ethical leadership in organizations. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences 18: 266–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Morgan, K. 2005. Development of a preliminary framework for informing the risk analysis and risk management of nanoparticles. Risk Analysis 25(6): 1621–1635.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. NNI (National Nanotechnology Initiative). 2007. What is nanotechnology? Retrieved on 5 June 2007, from http://www.nano.gov/html/facts/whatIsNano.html.
  60. NRC (National Research Council). 1996. Understanding risk. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  61. 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
  62. Paradise, J., G.M. Diliberto, A.W. Tisdale, and E. Kokkoli. 2008b. Exploring emerging nanobiotechnology drugs and medical devices. Food and Drug Law Journal 63(2): 407–420.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Pedersen, E.R., and P. Neergaard. 2006. Caveat emptor. Let the buyer beware! Environmental labeling and the limitations of ‘green consumerism’. Business Strategy and the Environment 15(1): 15–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 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
  65. PEN (Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies). 2008. A nanotechnology consumer products inventory. Last accessed on 4 Aug 2010. http://www.nanotechproject.org/44/consumer-nanotechnology.
  66. 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.
  67. 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.
  68. Pidgeon, N., and T. Rogers-Hayden. 2007. Opening up nanotechnology dialogue with the public: Risk communication or ‘upstream engagement’? Health Risk and Society 9(2): 191–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Poksinska, B., J.J. Dahlgaard, and J. Eklund. 2003. Implementing ISO 14000 in Sweden: Motives, benefits and comparisons with ISO 9000. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management 20(5): 585–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 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=.
  71. Porter, M.E. 1991. America’s green strategy. Scientific American 264: 268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Rabino, I. 1994. How European and US genetic engineering scientists view the impact of public attention on their field: A comparison. Science, Technology and Human Values 19: 23–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Rawls, J. 1971. A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
  74. 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
  75. Royal Society. 2004. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties. London: The Royal Society.Google Scholar
  76. Sacconi, L. 2006. A social contract account for CSR as extended model of corporate governance (I): Rational bargaining and justification. Journal of Business Ethics 68(3): 259–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Satterfield, T., et al. 2009. Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies. Nature Nanotechnology 4: 752–758.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Shrader-Frechete, K. 2007. Nanotoxicology and ethical considerations for informed consent. Nanoethics 1: 47–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Sethi, S.P. 2002. Standards for corporate conduct in the international arena: Challenges and opportunities for multinational corporations. Business and Society Review 107(1): 20–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Shamir, B., R.J. House, and M.B. Arthur. 1993. The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science 4: 577–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Siegrist, M. 2000. The influence of trust and perceptions of risk and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis 20: 195–204.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Sinclair, D. 1997. Self-regulation versus command and control? Beyond false dichotomies. Law and Policy 19(4): 529–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 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
  84. Song, Y., et al. 2009. Exposure to nanoparticles is related to pleural effusion, pulmonary fibrosis and granuloma. European Respiratory Journal 34: 559–567.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Taylor, M. 2006. Regulating the products of nanotechnology: Does FDA have the tools it needs? Washington DC: Project on Emerging Technologies.Google Scholar
  86. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2008. Social contract theory. Retrieved on 1 Aug 2008 from http://www.iep.utm.edu/.
  87. 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
  88. Werhane, P.H. 1985. Persons, rights, and corporations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  89. Wilsdon, J., and R. Wills. 2004. See-through science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream. Demos: London. At www.demos.co.uk.
  90. Wolf, S.M., R. Gupta, and P. Kohlhepp. 2009. Gene therapy oversight: Lessons for nanobiotechnology. The Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 37: 659–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Zadek, S. (2004). The path to corporate responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 82(12):125–132, 150.Google Scholar
  92. Zutshi, A., and A. Sohal. 2004. Environmental management system adoption by Australasian organizations. Part 1: Relations, benefits and impediments. Technovation 24(4): 335–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hubert H. Humphrey InstituteUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA
  2. 2.Center for Science, Technology, and Public Policy, Humphrey Institute and Educational Policy and AdministrationUniversity of MinnesotaMinnesotaUSA

Personalised recommendations