Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 18, Issue 4, pp 719–739

Standardisation in the Field of Nanotechnology: Some Issues of Legitimacy



Nanotechnology will allegedly have a revolutionary impact in a wide range of fields, but has also created novel concerns about health, safety and the environment (HSE). Nanotechnology regulation has nevertheless lagged behind nanotechnology development. In 2004 the International Organization for Standardization established a technical committee for producing nanotechnology standards for terminology, measurements, HSE issues and product specifications. These standards are meant to play a role in nanotechnology development, as well as in national and international nanotechnology regulation, and will therefore have consequences for consumers, workers and the environment. This paper gives an overview of the work in the technical committee on nanotechnology and discusses some challenges with regard to legitimacy in such work. The paper focuses particularly on stakeholder involvement and the potential problems of scientific robustness when standardising in such early stages of the scientific development. The intention of the paper is to raise some important issues rather than to draw strong conclusions. However, the paper will be concluded with some suggestions for improving legitimacy in the TC 229 and a call for increased public awareness about standardisation in the field of nanotechnology.


Nanotechnology Voluntary standards Governance Legitimacy 


  1. Blind, K., & Gauch, S. (2009). Research and standardisation in nanotechnology: Evidence from Germany. Journal of Technology Transfer, 34, 320–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Conrad, J. (1982). Scientific expertise in technological controversies: The nuclear and the recombinant DNA debates. International Political Science Review, 3(3), 315–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Danmarks Naturfredningsforening. (2004). Green wishes to standardisation. Accessed 10 May 2010.
  4. Delamarle, A., & Throne-Holst, H. (2012). The role of standardisation in the shaping of a vision for nanotechnology. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management. Accepted.Google Scholar
  5. Ebbesen, M., Andersen, S., & Besenbacher, F. (2006). Ethics in nanotechnology: Starting from scratch? Bulletin of Science. Technology & Society, 26(6), 451–462.Google Scholar
  6. Fernandez, A., & Pilar, M. (2008). EU nanotechnology R&D in the field of health and environmental impact of nanoparticles. Accessed 21 September 2009.
  7. Franck, T. M. (1999). Democracy, legitimacy and the rule of law: Linkages. NYU Law School, Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper Series, Working Paper 2.Google Scholar
  8. Friends of the Earth Australia. (2008) Discussion paper on nanotechnology standardisation and nomenclature issues. Accessed 21 December 2009.
  9. Friends of the Earth Europe. (2006). REACH and nanotechnologybriefing. Accessed 22 January 2011.
  10. Hahn, R., & Weidtmann, C. (2010). The legitimacy of ISO 26000 as standard for social responsibility—assessing multi-stakeholder discourses on human rights and sustainable development. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Theory vs. Policy? Connecting Scholars and Practitioners, New Orleans. Accessed 01 September 2010.
  11. Hallström, K. T. (2004). Frivilligt för de starka—standardiseringsarbete i praktiken. In M. Boström, A. Forssell, K. Jacobsson, & K. T. Hallström (Eds.), Den organiserade frivilligheten. Stockholm: Liber.Google Scholar
  12. Hullmann, A. (2008). European activities in the field of ethical, legal and social aspects (ELSA) and governance of nanotechnology. European Commission, DG Research, Unit “Nano and Converging Sciences and Technologies”. Accessed 02 October 2009.
  13. ISO (2008a). ISO/TR 12885 Nanotechnologieshealth and safety practices in occupational settings relevant to nanotechnologies. Google Scholar
  14. ISO (2008b). Guide 64: 2008 (E) Guide for addressing environmental issues in product standards. Google Scholar
  15. ISO (2008c). My ISO Job. Accessed 24 January 2011.
  16. ISO (2010). ISO strategic plan 2011–2015.–2015.pdf. Accessed 02 February 2011.
  17. ISO/IEC/GEN (2001). ISO/IEC statement on consumer participation in standardization work. ISO/IEC/GEN 2001: 01. Accessed 04 February 2011.
  18. ISO/IEC/NIST/OECD (2008). ISO, IEC, NIST and OECD International workshop on documentary standards for measurement and characterization for nanotechnologies. Accessed 01 October 10.
  19. Jakobs, K. (2010). Shaping standards—people and voting rights and the case of IEEE 802.11. Proceedings of WebIST 2010, Institute for systems and technologies of information, control and communication.Google Scholar
  20. Johnson, S., & Solomons, D. (1984). Institutional legitimacy and the FASB. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 3, 165–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lee, R. P. (2009). Agri-food governance and expertise: The production of international food standards. Sociologica Ruralis, 49(4), 415–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886.Google Scholar
  23. Murashov, V., & Howard, J. (2008). The US must help set international standards for nanotechnology. Nature Nanotechnology, 3, 635–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Murphy, C.N., & Yates, J. (2009). The International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Raines, S. S. (2003). Environmental management standards: The impact of the participation gap. Global Environmental Politics., 3(3), 47–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rip, A., & te Kulve, H. (2008). Constructive technology assessment and socio-technical scenarios. Fisher, E., Selin, C., & J. M. Wetmore (Eds.), The yearbook of nanotechnology in society. 1, 49–70.Google Scholar
  27. Risse, T. (2004). Transnational governance and legitimacy. Accessed 01 September 10.
  28. Ruwet, C. (2009). Towards the democratization of standards development? ISO 26000 as an experiment of democratizing ISO. EGOS 2009 conference paper.Google Scholar
  29. Stern, S. T., & McNeil, S. E. (2008). Nanotechnology safety concerns revisited. Toxicological Sciences, 101(1), 4–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Stirling, A., Renn, O., & van Zwanenberg, P. (2006). A framework for the precautionary governance of food safety: integrating science and participation in the social appraisal of risk. In E. Fisher, J. Jones, & R. von Schomberg (Eds.), Implementing the precautionary principle. Perspectives and prospects. Aldershot: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  31. Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.Google Scholar
  32. Van den Berghe, F. (2006). Good coffee, bad governance? The legitimacy of FLO. Center for Human Rights and Global Justice Working Paper Number 12.Google Scholar
  33. Werle, R., & Iversen, E. J. (2006). Promoting legitimacy in technical standardization. Science, Technology & Innovation Studies, 2, 19–39.Google Scholar
  34. Wickson, F. (2009). What you should know about nano. The Australia Institute, Policy brief no 8.Google Scholar
  35. Wickson, F., Gillund, F., & Myhr, A. I. (2010). Treating nanoparticles with precaution: Recognising qualitative uncertainty in scientific risk assesment. In F. Wickson & K. Kjølberg (Eds.), Nano meets Macro. Societal perspectives on nanoscale sciences and technologies. Singapore: Pan Stanford Publishing.Google Scholar
  36. Wynne, B. (1992). Uncertainty and environmental learning—reconceiving science and policy in the preventive paradigm. Global Environmental Change, 2(2), 111–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Work Research InstituteOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations