Regulating the invisible: interaction between the EU and Norway in managing nano-risks

  • Steinar Andresen
  • G. Kristin RosendalEmail author
  • Jon Birger Skjærseth
Original Paper


Over the last decade, the need for governance of human health and environmental safety risks of nanotechnology (NT) has received increased attention at international, national and EU levels. There were early calls for increased funding of independent research, risk analysis and voluntary or mandatory regulation, but currently overall regulatory efforts have not materialised. One possible explanation is that research has revealed little need to regulate environmental and health safety risks of NT. Alternatively, there is a gap between politics and governance and the evolving state of knowledge. Such a gap can be caused by various factors including change in interests, saliency and organisation. Organisational challenges related to the science–policy interface at national, international and the EU can affect how new knowledge is channelled into decision-making processes. Decrease in public saliency is another possibility. Finally, opposition to regulation among affected producers may have increased and in turn stalled regulation through lobbying. The two explanations are analysed in a multi-level governance context. Norway is chosen as an interesting case: Highly profiled as a frontrunner i.a. in regulating gene technology, but currently awaiting regulations in the EU due to the European Economic Area agreement.


Nanotechnology Governance Science–policy Organisation Management design 


  1. Andresen, S., Rosendal, G. K., & Skjærseth, J. B. (2012). Why negotiate a legally binding mercury convention? International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Published Online, 27(11), 2012.Google Scholar
  2. Andresen, S., Skodvin, T., Underdal, A., & Wettestad, J. (2000). Science and politics in international environmental regimes. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Arbeidstilsynet. (2014). Nanoteknologi og arbeidsmiljø. Informasjon om regelverk for nanomaterialer. Oslo: Arbeidstilsynets publikasjoner, no.608.Google Scholar
  4. Asare, N., Nur, D., Slagsvold, H. H., Lindeman, B., Olsen, A. K., Gromadzka-Ostrowska, J., et al. (2016). Genotoxicity and gene expression modulation of silver and titanium dioxide nanoparticles in mice. Nanotoxicology, 10(3), 312–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Aune, A. (2015). HMS-utfordringer med nanomaterialer i arbeidsmiljøet, Master thesis, Department of Industrial Economics and Technology Management (IØT), NTNU, Trondheim, Norway.Google Scholar
  6. Biermann, F., Pattberg, P., van Asselt, H., & Zelli, F. (2009). The fragmentation of global governance architectures: A framework for analysis. Global Environmental Politics, 9(4), 14–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clark, R., Meidinger, E., & et al. (1998). Integrating science and policy in natural resource management: Lessons and opportunities from North America, USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report. Accessed October 23, 2015.
  8. CST. (2007). UK Council for Science and Technology. Nanosciences and nanotechnologies: A review of government’s progress on its policy commitments, 2007. Available at Accessed September 11, 2014.
  9. European Commission. (2008). Commission recommendation on a code of conduct for responsible nanosciences and nanotechnologies research COM (2008) 424 final. Brussels. European Commission (2015). Accessed October 23, 2015.Google Scholar
  10. Faulkner, R., & Jaspers, N. (2012). Regulating nanotechnologies: Risk, uncertainty and the global governance gap. Global Environmental Politics, 12(1), 30–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Haas, Peter M. (1990). Saving the mediterranean: The politics of international environmental cooperation. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Hviid Nielsen, T., Jelsøe, E., & Öhman, S. (2002). Traditional blue and modern green resistance: on the complexity of scepticism towards modern biotechnology. In M. W. Bauer (Eds.), Biotechnology: The making of a global controversy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Justo-Hanani, R., & Daylan, T. (2016). Explaining transatlantic policy divergence: The role of domestic politics and policy styles in nanotechnology risk regulation. Global Environmental Politics, 16, 1. Scholar
  14. March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1989). Rediscovering institutions: The organizational basis of politics. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  15. Miles, E. L., Underdal, A., Andresen, S., Wettestad, J., Skjærseth, J. B., & Carlin, E. M. (2002). Environmental regime effectiveness: Confronting theory with evidence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. Miller, G., & Wickson, F. (2015). Risk analysis of nanomaterials: Exposing nanotechnology’s naked emperor. Review of Policy Research, 32(4), 485–512. Scholar
  17. Myhr, A. I., & Rosendal, G. K. (2009). GMO assessment in Norway as compared to EU procedures: Societal utility and sustainable development. EMBO Reports, 10, 939–940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Owen, R., et al. (2013). A framework for responsible innovation. In R. Owen, J. Bessant (Eds.), Responsible innovation. Chichester: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ponce Del Castillo, A. M. (2013). The European and member states’ approaches to regulating nanomaterials: Two levels of governance. Nanoethics, 7, 189–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. RCN (Research Council of Norway). (2005). Nanotechnology and new materials: Health, environment, ethics and society. Oslo: RCN.Google Scholar
  21. RCN (Research Council of Norway). (2006). National strategy for nano-science and nano-technology. Oslo: RCN.Google Scholar
  22. Rosendal, G. K. (2005). Governing GMOs in the EU: A deviant case of environmental policy-making?’. Global Environmental Politics, 5(1), 82–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rosendal, G. K. (2007). Norway in UN environmental policies: Ambitions and influence. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 7(4), 439–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rosness, A. K. L. (2010). De ukjente farer: Risikovurdering i en nanoverden. (Unknown dangers: risk evaluation in a nano-world). Masters thesis, TIK Centre, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
  25. Sandberg, K., Andresen, S., & Bjune, G. (2010). A new approach to global health institutions? A case study of new vaccine introduction and the formation of the GAVI Alliance. Social Science and Medicine, 71, 1349–1356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schomberg, R. von (2012). Prospects for technology assessment in a framework of responsible research and innovation. In M. Dusseldorp, & R. Beecroft, (Eds.), Technikfolgen abschãtzen lehren, pp. 39–61.
  27. Strandbakken, P., Throne-Holst, H., & Stø, E. (2009). Nanoprodukter og forbrukerrettigheter. In K. Asdal (Eds.), Forbrukerens ansvar. Oslo: Cappelen Akademisk.Google Scholar
  28. Teknologirådet. (2008). Nanomaterialer, risiko og regulering, Report no. 2/2008.
  29. Throne-Holst, H., & Stø, E. (2007). Føre var-prinsippet innen nanoteknologi: Hvem skal være føre var? (The Precautionary Principle in NT: Who should be precautionary?) Sluttrapport fra Nano-governance-prosjektet. Oslo: National Institute for Consumer Research (SIFO).Google Scholar
  30. Underdal, A. (2000). Science and politics: The anatomy of an uneasy partnership. In S. Andresen, T. Skodvin, A. Underdal (Eds.), Science and politics in international environmental regimes. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  31. White Paper. (2010). Et Norge uten miljøgifter. Hvordan utslipp av miljøgifter som utgjør en trussel mot helse eller miljø kan stanses. Oslo: NOU 9:2010.Google Scholar
  32. White Paper. (2012). The government’s R&D strategy for nanotechnology 2012–2021. Oslo: Ministry of Trade and Industry.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fridtjof Nansen InstituteLysakerNorway

Personalised recommendations