Skip to main content
Log in

Nanotechnology, voluntary oversight, and corporate social performance: does company size matter?

  • Special focus: Governance of Nanobiotechnology
  • Published:
Journal of Nanoparticle Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this article, we examine voluntary oversight programs for nanotechnology in the context of corporate social performance (CSP) in order to better understand the drivers, barriers, and forms of company participation in such programs. At the theoretical level, we use the management framework of CSP to understand the voluntary behavior of companies. At the empirical level, we investigate nanotech industry participation in the Environmental Protection Agency’s Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program (NMSP) as an example of CSP, in order to examine the effects of company characteristics on CSP outcomes. The analysis demonstrates that, on the average, older and larger companies for which nanotech is one of the many business activities demonstrate greater CSP as judged by company actions, declarations, and self-evaluations. Such companies tended to submit more of the requested information to the NMSP, including specific information about health and safety, and to claim fewer of the submitted items as confidential business information. They were also more likely to have on-line statements of generic and nano-specific corporate social responsibility principles, policies, and achievements. The article suggests a need to encourage smaller and younger companies to participate in voluntary oversight programs for nanotechnology and presents options for better design of these programs.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Some companies provided more information than was requested by the EPA.

References

  • Australian Department of Health and Ageing (2006) National industrial chemicals notification and assessment scheme. http://www.nicnas.gov.au/. Accessed 28 June 2010

  • Bowman DM, Hodge GA (2006) Nanotechnology: mapping the wild regulatory frontier. Futures 38:1060J–1073J

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowman DM, Hodge GA (2007) A small matter of regulation: an international review of nanotechnology regulations. Columbia Sci Technol Law Rev 8:1–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Breggin LK, Carothers L (2006) Governing uncertainty: the nanotechnology environmental, health, and safety challenge. Columbia J Env Law 31:285–329

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies JC (2007) EPA and nanotechnology: oversight for the 21st century. Project on emerging nanotechnologies, Washington. http://www.nanotechproject.org/process/assets/files/2698/197_nanoepa_pen9.pdf. Accessed 28 June 2010

  • Davies JC (2008) Nanotechnology oversight: an agenda for the next administration. Project on emerging nanotechnologies, Washington. http://207.58.186.238/process/assets/files/6709/pen13.pdf. Accessed 28 June 2010

  • Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2006) Nanoscale materials stewardship program. http://www.epa.gov/oppt/nano/stewardship.htm. Accessed 28 June 2010

  • Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2008a) Toxic substances control act inventory status of carbon nanotubes, vol 73, No 212. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2004-0122; FRL-8386-6

  • Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2008b) Petition for rulemaking requesting EPA regulate nanoscale silver products as pesticides. EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0650; FRL-8386-4

  • Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2008c) Nanoscale materials stewardship program. Interim report. http://www.epa.gov/oppt/nano/nmsp-interim-report-final.pdf. Accessed 28 June 2010

  • European Commission (2008) Recommendation on a code of conduct for responsible nanosciences and nanotechnologies research. ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/fp7/docs/nanocode-recommendation.pdf. Accessed 28 June 2010

  • Fiedler F, Reynolds G (1994) Legal problems of nanotechnology: an overview. S Calif Interdiscip Law J 3:593–629

    Google Scholar 

  • Forrest D (1989) Regulating nanotechnology development. Foresight Nanotech Institute, Palo Alto. http://www.foresight.org/nano/Forrest1989.html. Accessed 28 July 2010

  • Frederick W (2008) Corporate social responsibility: deep roots, flourishing growth, promising future. In: Crane A, McWilliams A, Matten D, Moon J, Siegel D (eds) The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Groves C, Frater L, Lee R, Jenkins H, Yakovleva N (2009) An examination of the nature and application among the nanotechnologies industries of corporate social responsibility in the context of safeguarding the environment and human health. The Center for Business Relationships, Accountability, Sustainability, and Society. Report for the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Completed=0&ProjectID=16262. Accessed 28 July 2010

  • Kuzma J (2006) Nanotechnology oversight: just do it. Env Law Rep 36:10913–10920

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuzma J (2007) Moving forward responsibly: oversight for the nanotechnology–biology interface. J Nanopart Res 9:165–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuzma J, Besley J (2008) Ethics of risk analysis and regulatory review: from bio- to nanotechnology. Nanoethics 2:149–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuzma J, Larson J, Najmaie P (2009) Evaluating oversight systems for emerging technologies: a case study of genetically engineered organisms. J Law Med Ethics 37:546–586

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee R, Jose PD (2008) Self-interest, self-restraint and corporate responsibility for nanotechnologies: emerging dilemmas for modern managers. Technol Anal Strat Man 20:113–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin AC (2007) Size matters: regulating nanotechnology. Harvard Environ Law Rev 31:349

    Google Scholar 

  • Macoubrie J (2005) Informed public perceptions of nanotechnology and trust in government. Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Washington. http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Nanotechnologies/Nanotech_0905.pdf. Accessed 29 Nov 2010

  • Macoubrie J (2006) Nanotechnology: public concerns, reasoning and trust in government. Public Understand Sci 15:221–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marchant GE, Sylvester DJ, Abbott KW (2008) Risk management principles for nanotechnology. Nanoethics 2:43–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marchant G, Sylvester, DJ, Abbott KW (2009) A new soft-law approach to nanotechnology oversight: a voluntary product certification scheme. UCLA J Environ Law Policy 2010. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1483910

  • Maynard A (2006) Nanotechnology: a research strategy for addressing risk. Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Washington. http://www.nanotechproject.org/publications/archive/nanotechnology_research_strategy_for/. Accessed 28 July 2010

  • National Research Council (NRC) (2000) Genetically modified pest-protected plants: science and regulation. National Academy Press, Washginton

    Google Scholar 

  • Paddock L (2006) Keeping pace with nanotechnology: a proposal for a new approach to environmental accountability. ELR News Anal 36:10943–10952

    Google Scholar 

  • Paddock L (2009) An integrated approach to nanotechnology governance. In: Working conference on nanotech regulatory policy, 17 April 2009. California Nanosystems Institute/UCLA School of Law/UC Center for Environmental Implications of Nanotechnology, Los Angeles. http://www.cnsi.ucla.edu/NanoRegulatoryPolicy/pdfs/paddock.pdf. Accessed 28 June 2010

  • Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN) (2009) Putting nano on the map. http://www.nanotechproject.org/process/assets/files/8262/map_methodology_2009_update.pdf. Accessed 31 Aug 2010

  • Ramachandran G, Wolf SM, Paradise J, Kuzma J, Hall R, Kokkoli E, Fatehi L (2010) Recommendations for oversight of nanobiotechnology: dynamic oversight for complex and convergent technologies (cite to publication in this volume)

  • Responsible NanoCode (2008) Information on the responsible nanocode initiative. http://www.responsiblenanocode.org/documents/InformationonTheResponsibleNanoCode.pdf. Accessed 28 June 2010

  • Reynolds GH (2003) Nanotechnology and regulatory policy: three futures. Harvard J Law Technol 17:179–209

    Google Scholar 

  • Satterfield T, Kandlikar M, Beaudrie CEH, Conti J, Harthorn BH (2009) Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies. Nat Nanotechnol 4:752–758

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Segal S (2004) Environmental regulation of nanotechnology: avoiding big mistakes for small machines. Nanotech Law Bus 1:290–303

    Google Scholar 

  • Sethi SP (2002) Standards for corporate conduct in the international arena: challenges and opportunities for multinational corporations. Bus Soc Rev 107:20–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sylvester DJ, Marchant GE, Abbott, KW (2009) Not again! Public perception, regulation, and nanotechnology. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1309743. Accessed 28 June 2010

  • UK Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2006) UK voluntary reporting scheme for engineered nanoscale materials, London. http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/nanotech/documents/vrs-nanoscale.pdf. Accessed 28 June 2010

  • Wejnert J (2004) Regulatory mechanisms for molecular nanotechnology. Jurimetrics J 44:323–350

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson RF (2006) Nanotechnology: the challenge of regulating known unknowns. J Law Med Ethics 34:704–713

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood D (1991) Corporate social performance revisited. Acad Manag Rev 16:691–718

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Preparation of this article was supported by National Science Foundation (NSF) grant #0608791, “NIRT: Evaluating Oversight Models for Active Nanostructures and Nanosystems: Learning from Past Technologies in a Societal Context” (Principal Investigator: S. M. Wolf; Co-PIs: E. Kokkoli, J. Kuzma, J. Paradise, and G. Ramachandran) and the Institute on the Environment at the University of Minnesota. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of NSF or the Institute on the Environment.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jennifer Kuzma.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kuzma, J., Kuzhabekova, A. Nanotechnology, voluntary oversight, and corporate social performance: does company size matter?. J Nanopart Res 13, 1499–1512 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-011-0235-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-011-0235-0

Keywords

Navigation