NanoEthics

, Volume 12, Issue 1, pp 39–54 | Cite as

Decision Support for International Agreements Regulating Nanomaterials

  • Ineke Malsch
  • Martin Mullins
  • Elena Semenzin
  • Alex Zabeo
  • Danail Hristozov
  • Antonio Marcomini
Original Paper

Abstract

Nanomaterials are handled in global value chains for many different products, albeit not always recognisable as nanoproducts. The global market for nanomaterials faces an uncertain future, as the international dialogue on regulating nanomaterials is still ongoing and risk assessment data are being collected. At the same time, regulators and civil society organisations complain about a lack of transparency about the presence of nanomaterials on the market. In the project on Sustainable Nanotechnologies (SUN, www.sun-fp7.eu ), a Decision Support System (SUNDS) has been developed, primarily for confidential use by risk and sustainability managers inside a company or consortium. In this article, we formulate a scenario concerning a potential role for an open access decision support system in negotiations on international agreements regulating trade in nanomaterials. The scenario includes design rules for decision support systems as well as procedures for use of such a system in stakeholder dialogue and policy-making on governance of these and other emerging technologies. This article incorporates analysis of results of stakeholder engagement on nanomaterials as well as literature and internet sources suggested by these stakeholders.

Keywords

Nanomaterials Decision support Sustainable development Nanosafety Global governance 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the contributions of the participants during the stakeholder workshop analysed here, and constructive comments by three anonymous reviewers.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflicts of Interest

The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme [FP7/2007–2013] under EC-GA No. 604305 ‘SUN’. This publication reflects the views only of the authors, and the European Commission cannot be held responsible for any use, which may be made of the information contained therein.

Human Participants and/or Animals, and Informed Consent

The research has not involved animals. The participants in the workshop have been asked to give their informed consent to publication of results in anonymised form, and have been given the chance to comment on the draft summary report in the annex before publication.

References

  1. 1.
    McLeod R, Schell GP (2007) Management information systems, 10th edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Miller K, Mansingh G (2017) OptiPres: a distributed mobile agent decision support system for optimal patient drug prescription. Inf Syst Front 19(1):129–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cebi S, Akyuz E, Sahin Y (2017) Developing web based decision support system for evaluation occupational risks at shipyards. Brodogradnja 68(1):17–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bohanec M, Boshkoska BM, Prins TW, Kok EJ (2017) SIGMO: a decision support system for identification of genetically modified food or feed products. Food Control 71:168–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gibson FL, Rogers AA, Smith AD, Roberts A, Possingham H, McCarthy M, Pannell DJ (2017) Factors influencing the use of decision support tools in the development and design of conservation policy. Environ Sci Pol 70:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kumar A, Sah B, Singh AR, Deng Y, He X, Kumar P, Bansal RC (2017) A review of multi criteria decision making (MCDM) towards sustainable renewable energy development. Renew Sust Energ Rev 69:596–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Marinakis V, Doukas H, Xidonas P, Zopounidis C (2017) Multicriteria decision support in local energy planning: an evaluation of alternative scenarios for the sustainable energy action plan. Omega 69:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    van Harmelen T, Zondervan-van den Beuken EK, Brouwer DH, Kuijpers E, Fransman W, Buist HB, Ligthart TN, Hincapie I, Hischier R, Linkov I, Nowack B, Studer J, Hilty L, Som C (2016) LICARA nanoSCAN - a tool for the self-assessment of benefits and risks of nanoproducts. Environ Int 91:150–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Subramanian V, Semenzin E, Hristozov D, Zabeo A, Malsch I, McAlea E, Murphy F, Mullins M, van Harmelen T, Ligthart T, Linkov I, Marcomini A (2016) Sustainable nanotechnology decision support system: bridging risk management, sustainable innovation and risk governance. J Nanopart Res 18:89.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-016-3375-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Som C, Zondervan-van den Beuken E, Van Harmelen T, Güttinger J, Bodmer M, Brouwer D, Buist HE, Carroll R, Coll C, Fransman W, Hartmanis A, Hincapie I, Hischier R, Karachalios T, Kouravelou K, Kuijpers E, Ligthart T, Notter D, Nowack B, Seibold U, Schneider G (2014) LICARA guidelines for the sustainable competitiveness of nanoproducts. Dübendorf, St. Gallen, ZeistGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    TŰV SŰD Industrie Service (2013) Certification Standard CENARIOS™. Available at http://www.tuevsued.de/uploads/images/1219824286015340810363/CENARIOS_Zertifiziergrundlage_e.pdf
  12. 12.
    Widler T, Meili C, Semenzin E, Subramanian V, Zabeo A, Hristozov D, Marcomini A (2016) Organisational risk management of nanomaterials using SUNDS: the contribution of CENARIOS™. In: Murphy F, McAlea E, Mullins M (eds) Managing risk in nanotechnology. Topics in governance, assurance and transfer. Springer International Publishing Switzerland, pp 2-19-235Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Subramanian V, Semenzin E, Hristozov D, Zabeo Z, Malsch I, Saling P, van Harmelen T, Ligthart T, Marcomini A (2016) Integrating the social impacts into risk governance of nanotechnology. In: Murphy F, McAlea E, Mullins M (eds) Managing risk in nanotechnology. Topics in governance, assurance and transfer. Springer International Publishing Switzerland, pp 51–70Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Subramanian V, Semenzin E, Zabeo A, Sailing P, Ligthart T, van Harmelen T, Malsch I, Hristozov D, Marcomini A (2018) Assessing the social impacts of nano-enabled products through the life cycle: the case of nano-enabled anti-microbial paint.. Int J Life Cycle Assess.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1324-9
  15. 15.
    Malsch I, Subramanian V, Semenzin E, Hristozov D, Marcomini A (2014) Collective decision making on risk management and sustainable manufacturing of nanomaterials and the role of decision support tools. In Proceedings 5th STS Italia conference a matter of design: making society through science and technology. Milan, http://www.stsitalia.org/?p=1548&lang=en; pp 12–14
  16. 16.
    Malsch I, Subramanian V, Semenzin E, Hristozov D, Marcomini A (2015) Supporting decision making for sustainable nanotechnology. Environ Syst Dec 35(1):54–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Malsch I, Subramanian V, Semenzin E, Zabeo A, Hristozov D, Mullins M, Murphy F, Linkov I, Marcomini A (2017) Comparing mental models of prospective users of the sustainable nanotechnology decision support system. Environ Syst Dec 37(4):465–483Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Malsch I, Subramanian V, Semenzin E, Hristozov D, Marcomini A, Mullins M, Hester K, McAlea E, Murphy F, Tofail SAM (2015) Empowering citizens in international governance of nanotechnologies. J Nanopart Res 17:215.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-015-3019-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Widmer M, Meili C, Mantovani E, Porcari A (2010) The FramingNano Governance Platform: a new integrated approach to the responsible development of nanotechnologies, http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/89673_en.html
  20. 20.
    Jasanoff S (ed) (2011) Reframing rights. Bioconstitutionalism in the genetic age. MIT Press, Cambridge/MAGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    European Commission (2016) Handbook for trade sustainability impact assessment, 2nd edn. European Commission, Brussels http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/policy-making/analysis/sustainability-impactassessments/ Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Development Solutions (2016) Trade sustainability impact assessment on the environmental goods agreement. Final Report. European Commission, Brussels http://www.egatradesia.com/
  23. 23.
    Haas PM (1992) Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination. Int Organ 46(1):1–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Klaessig FG (2014) Developing official practices for nanoEHS data compilation, curation and compliance. In: Coenen C, Dijkstra A, Fautz C, Guivant J, Konrad K, Milburn C, van Lente H (eds) Innovation and responsibility: engaging with new and emerging technologies, S.NET 005. IOS Press and AKA, Heidelberg, pp 121–133Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    SAICM (2015) Emerging policy issue update on nanotechnologies and manufactured nanomaterials. International Conference on Chemicals Management, 4th session, Geneva, 28 September–2 October 2015, Item 5 (b) (iii) d of the provisional agenda, http://www.saicm.org/
  26. 26.
    Kica E, Wessels RA (2017) Transnational arrangements in the governance of emerging technologies: the case of nanotechnologies. In: Bowman D, Stokes E, Rip A (eds) Embedding new technologies into society. A regulatory, ethical and societal perspective. Pan Stanford, Singapore, pp 219–258Google Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Malsch TechnoValuationUtrechtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Accounting and Finance, Kemmy Business SchoolUniversity of LimerickLimerickIreland
  3. 3.Department of Environmental Sciences, Informatics and StatisticsCa’ Foscari University of VeniceMestre-VeneziaItaly

Personalised recommendations