Skip to main content

Transnational Governance Arrangements: Legitimate Alternatives to Regulating Nanotechnologies?

NanoEthics volume 7, pages 69–82 (2013)Cite this article

Abstract

In recent years, the development and the use of engineered nanomaterials have generated many debates on whether these materials should be part of the new or existing regulatory frameworks. The uncertainty, lack of scientific knowledge and rapid expansion of products containing nanomaterials have added even more to the regulatory dilemma with policy makers and public/private actors contenting periods of both under and over regulation. Responding to these regulatory challenges, as well as to the global reach of nanotechnology research and industrial needs, governance arrangements beyond the state have addressed the challenge head-on. This article focuses on the governance arrangements of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), which has led to the development of numerous “horizontal anticipatory standards” with an important role in setting the foundation for science, technology and market development. During the course of its operation ISO has broadened its scope to address not only technical issues related to the concept and the size of nanomaterials but also broader aspects of the technology, including health, environment and safety issues. The increasing relevance of the ISO to regulate economic relations and achieve certain public policy goals has given rise to many concerns about its legitimacy. The important questions are whether these governance arrangements may be deemed as being legitimate and where this legitimacy is derived from? What are the main sources of legitimacy at the transnational level and how we can apply them to analyse nanotechnology standardization? This article provides concise answers to these questions. It focuses at the normative concepts of democratic and scientific legitimacy and explores the institutional structures and processes by which nanotechnology standards are established.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

£ 29.95

Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)

Notes

  1. It is also noteworthy that in 2012, New Zealand similarly amended its Cosmetic Products Group Standard 2006, pursuant to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996, so as to require the labelling of cosmetics containing nanomaterials. This requirement will go into force in 2015.

  2. The authors were present at the last ISO/TC229 meeting held in Stresa, Italy.

References

  1. Australian Government (2010) Adjustments to NICNAS new chemicals processes for industrial nanomaterials. Government Gazette 10:1–29

    Google Scholar 

  2. Azoulay D (2012) Just out of REACH. The Center for International Environmental Law, Geneva. Retrieved July 17, 2012, from http://www.ciel.org/Publications/Nano_Reach_Study_Feb2012.pdf

  3. Beisheim M, Dingwerth K (2008) Procedural legitimacy and private transnational governance: Are the good ones doing better? SFB-Governance Working Paper Series No 14:3–37

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bekkers V, Edwards A (2011) Legitimacy and democracy: A conceptual framework for assessing governance practices. In: Bekkers V, Dijkstra G, Arthur E, Fenger M (eds) Governance and the Democratic Deficit. Ashgate Publishing Company, UK, pp 35–60

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bernstein S (2004) Legitimacy in global environmental governance. J Intern Law & Internat Relat 1:139–166

    Google Scholar 

  6. Black J (2008) Constructing and contesting legitimacy and accountability in polycentric regulatory regimes. Regul Gov 2:137–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bowman MD, Calster VG, Friedrichs S (2009) Nanomaterials and the regulation of cosmetics. Nat Nanot 92

  8. Bowman MD, Hodge G (2009) Counting on codes: An examination of transnational codes as a regulatory governance mechanism for nanotechnologies. Regul Gov 3:145–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Botzem S, Dobusch L (2012) Standardization cycles: A process perspective on the formation and diffusion of transnational standards. Organ Stud 33:737–762

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Breggin L et al (2009) Securing the promise of nanotechnologies: Towards transatlantic regulatory cooperation-report. Chatham House, London

    Google Scholar 

  11. Brown S (2007) Nanotechnology environmental health and safety standards. The Magazine of the International Organization for Standardization 4:14–16

    Google Scholar 

  12. Brühl T (2006) The privatization of governance systems: On the legitimacy of international environmental policy. In: Benz A, Papadopoulos Y (eds) Governance and democracy: Comparing national, European and International experiences. Routledge, London, pp 228–251

    Google Scholar 

  13. Curtin D, Senden L (2011) Public accountability of transnational private regulation: Chimera or reality. J Law Soc 38:163–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Cutler AC (2010) The legitimacy of private transnational governance: experts and the transnational market for force. Soc-Econ Rev 8:157–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Chasek PS (2001) Earth negotiations: Analyzing thirty years of environmental diplomacy. United Nations University Press, Tokyo

    Google Scholar 

  16. Chaudhry Q et al (2006) Final report: a scoping study to identify gaps in environmental regulation for the products and applications of nanotechnologies. Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London

    Google Scholar 

  17. Davies, J. C. (2006). Managing the effects of nanotechnology, Retrieved May 8, 2012, from www.nanotechproject.org/process/assets/files/2708/30_pen2_mngeffects.pdf

  18. Dingwerth K (2007) Democratic legitimacy and new transnationalism. Palgrave MacMillan, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  19. Delemarle A, Throne-Holst H (2011) The role of standardisation in the shaping of a vision for nanotechnology. Paper presented at the Conference on Tentative Governance in Emerging Science and Technology, Enschede

    Google Scholar 

  20. European Commission (2008) Commission Mandate M/409 Addressed to CEN, CENELEC and ETSI. Report from CEN/TC 352 Nanotechnologies

  21. European Commission (2008) Regulatory aspects of nanomaterials—Summary of legislation in relation to health, safety and environment aspects of nanomaterials, regulatory research needs and related measures [SEC (2008) 2036] {COM (2008) 366 final}

  22. Ensor SD (2007) Update on ISO nanotechnology standards activities. Clean Rooms 12:12–13

    Google Scholar 

  23. Farquhar JB, Everhardus E, Ogilvie K (2006) Comparative study of consumer groups and environmental NGOs engaged in international standards work. Pollution Probe 7:1–48

    Google Scholar 

  24. Fiedler AF, Reynolds HG (1994) Legal problems of nanotechnology: An overview. Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal 3:593–629

    Google Scholar 

  25. Forsberg EM (2011) Standardisation in the field of nanotechnology: Some issues of legitimacy. Science and Engineering Ethics 1:1–21

    Google Scholar 

  26. Forsberg EM (2010) The role of ISO in the governance of nanotechnology. WRI Work Research Institute of Norway, 1–76

  27. French Ministry (2012) Décret n° 2012 du 17 février 2012 Relatif à la Déclaration Annuelle des Substances à L’état Nanoparticulaire Pris en Application de L’article L. 523–4 du code de L’environnement. Retrieved May, 2012,http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000025377246&dateTexte=&categorieLien=id

  28. Groves Ch, Stokes E, Lee R, Oriola T (2008) Nanotechnology and the regulatory environment: A synopsis. The Centre for Business Relationships, Accountability, Sustainability and Society, Working Paper Series No.48.

  29. Hachez N, Wouters J (2010) Scrutinizing the democratic legitimacy of private standards: The example of global G.A.P. Working Paper Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies

  30. Hallström TK (2004) Organizing international standardization: ISO and the IASC in quest of authority. Edward Elgar Publishing, UK

    Google Scholar 

  31. Hallström TK, Boström M (2010) Transnational multi-stakeholder standardization. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK

    Google Scholar 

  32. Hatto P (2009) Adding value to nanotechnology framework projects through standardization. (Presented at the EuroNanoForum 2009 Nanotechnology for Sustainable Economy, Prague)

  33. Hull SM (2010) Nanotechnology risk management and small business: A case study of the NanoSafe framework. In: Hull M, Bowman DM (eds) Nanotechnology environmental health and safety: Risks, regulation and management. Elsevier Inc, UK, pp 247–295

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  34. Holdren PJ, Sunstein RC, Siddiqui AI (2011) Policy principles for the U.S. decision-making concerning regulation and oversight of applications of nanotechnology and nanomaterials—Memorandum from the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies. Executive Office of the President

  35. Hodge G, Bowman MD, Ludlow K (eds) (2007) New global frontiers in regulation: The age of nanotechnology. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK

    Google Scholar 

  36. ISO (2008) My ISO job-guidance for delegates and experts. Retrieved April, 2012, from http://www.iso.org/iso/my_iso_job.pdf

  37. ISO (2012) About ISO: ISO TC/229 Business Plan. Retrieved 22 May, 2012, from http://www.iso.org/iso/about.html

  38. ISO/IEC (2011) Directives Part 1. Procedures for the Technical Work, Retrieved February, 2012, from http://www.iec.ch/members_experts/refdocs/iec/isoiecdir-1%7Bed8.0%7Den.pdf

  39. ISO/TR12885 (2008) Nanotechnologies-Health and Safety practices in occupational settings relevant to nanotechnologies, Retrieved July, 2012, from www.dtu.dk/upload/centre/nanet/nyheder/iso_tr_12885_2008[1]_sikkerhed_sundhed_ved_nano.pdf

  40. Kica E, Bowman MD (2012) Regulation by means of standardisation: Key legitimacy issues of health and safety nanotechnology standards. (Paper presented at the 4th Biennial ECPR Standing Group for Regulatory Governance Conference on “New Perspectives on Regulation, Governance and Learning, Exeter)

  41. Levi-Faur D, Comaneshter H (2007) The risks of regulation and the regulation of risks: The governance of nanotechnology. In: Hodge G, Bowman D, Ludlow K (eds) New global regulatory frontiers in regulation: The age of nanotechnology. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 149–165

    Google Scholar 

  42. Ludlow K, Bowman D, Hodge G (2007) A review of possible impacts of nanotechnology on Australia’s regulatory framework. Monash University Law

  43. Ludlow K, Bowman MD, Kirk DD (2009) Hitting the mark or falling short with nanotechnology regulation? Trends Biotechnol 27:615–620

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Maynard A, Bowman MD, Hodge G (2011) The problem of regulating sophisticated materials. Nat Mater 10:554–557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Maynard A (2006) Nanotechnology: The next big thing, or much ado about nothing? Ann Occup Hyg 51:1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Mantovani E, Porcari A, Morrison M, Geertsma R (2010) Developments in Nanotechnologies: Regulation and standards −2010. ObservatoryNano Project

  47. Mantovani E, Porcari A, Morrison M, Andrea P, Meili Ch, Widmer M (2009) Mapping study on regulation and governance of nanotechnologies. Retrieved February, 2012, from: http://www.framingnano.eu/images/stories/FramingNanoMappingStudyFinal.pdf

  48. Majone G (1999) The regulatory state and its legitimacy problems, IHS political science series No. 56, 1–22

  49. Malloy T (2012) Soft Law and nanotechnology: A functional perspective. Jurimetrics 52(3)

  50. Meili C, Widmer M (2010) Voluntary measures in nanotechnology risk governance: The difficulty of holding the wolf by the ears. In: Hodge G, Bowman D, Maynard A (eds) International handbook on regulating nanotechnologies. Elgar Publishing, USA, pp 446–461

    Google Scholar 

  51. Mörth U (2006) Soft regulation and global democracy. In: Djelic ML, Andersson KS (eds) Transnational governance: Institutional dynamics of regulation. Cambridge University Press, UK, pp 119–135

    Google Scholar 

  52. Murashov V, Howard J (2011) Nanotechnology standards. Springer Science Business Media, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  53. Miles J (2007) Metrology and standards for nanotechnology. In: Hodge G, Bowman DM, Ludlow K (eds) New global frontiers in regulation: The age of nanotechnology. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, UK, pp 333–352

    Google Scholar 

  54. Quack S (2010) Law, expertise and legitimacy in transnational economic governance: An introduction, 8 Socio. Econ Rev 8:3–16

    Google Scholar 

  55. Risse Th (2004) Transnational governance and legitimacy. Retrieved May, 2012, from: http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~atasp/texte/tn_governance_benz.pdf

  56. Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering (2004) Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties, Retrieved April, 2012, from http://www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.html

  57. Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution-27th Report (2008) Novel materials in the environment: The case of nanotechnology, Retrieved June 8, 2012, from http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm74/7468/7468.pdf

  58. Renn O, Roco M (2006) White paper on nanotechnology risk governance. International Risk Governance Council, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  59. Scharpf WF (1998) Interdependence and democratic legitimation. Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies Working Paper 98/2, Retrieved April, 2012, from http://www.mpifg.de/pu/workpap/wp98-2/wp98-2.html

  60. Scharpf WF (1999) Governing Europe: Effective and democratic. Oxford University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  61. Schepel H, Falke J (2000) Legal aspects of standardisation in the Member States of the EC and EFTA: Volume 1 Comparative Report. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg

    Google Scholar 

  62. Schunz S, Bruyninckx H (2011) The democratic legitimacy of the contemporary global climate governance architecture. Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies: Working Paper No.75

  63. Thatcher M, Sweet SA (2011) Delegation to non-majoritarian institutions. West European Politics, 1–22

  64. Versailles Project on Advanced Materials and Standards (VAMAS) (2002) Measurement needs for nano-scale materials and devices, Report of VAMAS/CENSTAR Workshop, VAMAS Bulleting No.25

  65. William R, Sho T, Thomas B, Hai-Yong K (2011) Towards safe and sustainable nanomaterials: Chemical information call-in to manufacturers of nanomaterials by California as a case study. European Journal of Law and Technology 3:1–11

    Google Scholar 

  66. Wynne B (2007) Public participation in science and technology: Performing and obscuring a political-conceptual category mistake. East Asian Science, Technology and Science: An International Journal, 99–110

  67. Zürn M (1998) The rise of international environmental politics: A review of current research. World Politics 50:617–640

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Public Administration, Faculty of Management and Governance, University of Twente, P.O. Box 217, NL-7500 AE, Enschede, The Netherlands

    Evisa Kica

  2. Risk Science Centre and Department of Health Management and Policy, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, 1420 Washington Heights, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-2029, USA

    Diana M. Bowman

Authors
  1. Evisa Kica
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Diana M. Bowman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Evisa Kica or Diana M. Bowman.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kica, E., Bowman, D.M. Transnational Governance Arrangements: Legitimate Alternatives to Regulating Nanotechnologies?. Nanoethics 7, 69–82 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-013-0166-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-013-0166-6

Keywords

  • International standards
  • Governance
  • Governance arrangements
  • Nanotechnology regulation
  • Legitimacy