Advertisement

Sustainable Behavioral Governance: Responsive Regulation for Innovation

  • Kilian BizerEmail author
  • Martin Führ

Abstract

In a democratic society the transition towards sustainable development is not a question of “command and control” policy, rather it depends on the mobilization of proactive contributions from a broad range of different actors. Thus, the regulatory concept has to be designed as “responsive regulation”, based on an inclusive perspective on behavior to cover all relevant aspects in the context of regulation and innovation.

The article offers as a methodological approach to the regulatory choice problem the homo oeconomicus institutionalis and describes its function in the context of sustainable development. The application is highlighted in a case study of risk communication in the field of nanomaterials and chemical substances. Responsive regulation as behavioral governance aims to support regulators and the public at large in addressing the regulatory choice problems related to challenges on the path to sustainable development.

Keywords

Institutional analysis Sustainability policy Behavioral economics Innovation Responsive regulation 

References

  1. Ayres I, Braithwaite J (1992) Responsive regulation—transcending the deregulation debate. Oxford University Press, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  2. Bizer K, Führ M (2014) Kompaktleitfaden: Praktisches Vorgehen in der interdisziplinären Institutionenanalyse. Sofia-Diskussionsbeiträge, DarmstadtGoogle Scholar
  3. Bizer K, Gubaydullina Z (2007) Das Verhaltensmodell der interdisziplinären Institutionenanalyse in der Gesetzesfolgenabschätzung. In: Führ M, Bizer K, Feindt PH (Hrsg.) Menschenbilder und Verhaltensmodelle in der wissenschaftlichen Politikberatung. Interdisziplinäre Studien zu Recht und Staat. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 37–51Google Scholar
  4. Bizer K, Lechner S, Führ M (eds) (2010) The European impact assessment and the environment. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  5. Eggert Y (2014b) Introduction. In: Joint submission and data sharing in the registration process of the European Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH), Cumulative dissertation, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, forthcoming, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  6. Eggert Y (2014c) The mandatory role of ‘the lead registrant: volunteer’s dilemma or dilemma with the volunteers? In: Joint submission and data sharing in the registration process of the European Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH), Cumulative dissertation, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, forthcoming, pp 8–19Google Scholar
  7. Eggert Y (2014d) Proving or abusing the cost of data access? Unintended side-effects of the legal obligation to share data. In: Joint submission and data sharing in the registration process of the European Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH), Cumulative dissertation, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, forthcoming, pp 20–30Google Scholar
  8. Eggert Y, Bizer K (2014) Pretending to be generous without the real act of giving: explicit deception and expressive behavior in ultimatum games. In: Joint submission and data sharing in the registration process of the European Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH), Cumulative dissertation, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, forthcoming, pp 31–47Google Scholar
  9. Environmental Defense Fund (1997) (Authors: Roe/Pease/Florini/Silbergeld): Toxic ignorance: the continuing absence of basic health testing for top-selling chemicals in the United States. https://www.edf.org/health/reports/toxic-ignorance
  10. Estabrook T, Tickner J (2000) Facing our toxic ignorance, Massachusetts Precautionary Principle Project. http://www.sustainableproduction.org/precaution/back.brie.faci.html
  11. European Chemicals Agency (2011) The operation of REACH and CLP, Helsinki. http://www.echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13634/operation_reach_clp_2011_en.pdf
  12. European Commission (2011) EU sustainable development strategy. http://www.ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/
  13. European Commission (2012) Second regulatory review on nanomaterials, Communication from the Commission, COM(2012) 572 finalGoogle Scholar
  14. Fischbacher U (2007) z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Exp Econ 10(2):171–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Franco A et al (2007) Limits and prospects of the “incremental approach” and the European legislation on the management of risks related to nanomaterials. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 48:171 et seqCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Führ M (2004) Institutional framework for sustainable material flows. Presentation at the OECD workshop “Sustainable Chemistry—Integrated Management of Chemicals, Products and Processes”, Dessau, Germany, 27–29 Jan 2004. http://www.sofia-darmstadt.de/90.0.html
  17. Führ M (ed) (2011) Praxishandbuch REACH. Heymans, KölnGoogle Scholar
  18. Führ M (2014a) Technikrecht und Standardisierung. In: Wegener BW (ed) Enzyklopädie Europarecht [EnzEuR], vol 8, Europäische Querschnittpolitiken, §4. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 207–304Google Scholar
  19. Führ M (2014b) Boxenstopp für die REACH-Verordnung. Zeitschrift für Umweltrecht (ZUR), pp 270–280Google Scholar
  20. Führ M (2014c) REACH als lernendes System—Wissensgenerierung und Perspektivenpluralismus durch Stakeholder Involvement. In: Bora A, Henkel A, Reinhardt C (Hrsg.) Wissensregulierung und Regulierungswissen. Detmold 2014 (i.E.)Google Scholar
  21. Führ M, Bizer K (2007) REACH as a paradigm shift in chemical policy—responsive regulation and behavioral models. JOCP 15, p 327 et seqGoogle Scholar
  22. Führ M, Krieger N (2006) Risk management under REACH—Requirements of technical and organisational guidance for producers, importers and downstream users, ELNI-review 2006, pp 7–15Google Scholar
  23. Führ M et al (2007) Legal appraisal of nano technologies. Existing legal framework, the need for regulation and regulative options at a European and national level. Final report, p 18 et seq. http://www.umweltdaten.de/publikationen/fpdf-l/3198.pdf. Accessed 26 May 2012
  24. Greiner B (2004) The online recruitment system ORSEE: a guide for the organization of experiments in economics. Papers on Strategic Interaction 2003-10, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction GroupGoogle Scholar
  25. Hensel S, Bizer K, Führ M, Lange J (Hrsg.) (2010) Gesetzesfolgenabschätzung in der Anwendung—Perspektiven und Entwicklungstendenzen. Interdisziplinäre Studien zu Recht und Staat. Bd. 48. Nomos, Baden-BadenGoogle Scholar
  26. Heyvaert V (2008) The EU chemicals policy: towards inclusive governance? LSE Law, Society and Economy Working Papers 7/2008, London. http://www.ssrn.com/abstract=1111968
  27. Lahl U, Tickner J (2004) Chemicals legislation—a cross-Atlantic comparison. Zeitschrift für Stoffrecht, p 156Google Scholar
  28. Levitt SD, List JA (2007) What do laboratory experiments measuring social preferences reveal about the real world? J Econ Perspect 21(2):153–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Möller K, Bizer K, Krüger L, Kubach M (2014) Prospects of sustainability-oriented innovation assessment. Int J Sustain Econ 6(1):64–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. OECD (2005) Oslo manual: guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data, 3rd edn. http://www.oecd.org/sti/oslomanual
  31. Perenius L (2009) How to handle transparency—Cefic’s view. Presentation at the NanoImpactNet. http://www.nanoimpactnet.eu/uploads/file/Lausanne%20conference%202009/Perenius.pdf. Accessed 27 March 2009
  32. Pronk MEJ et al (2009) Nanomaterials under REACH. Nanosilver as a case study. RIVM report 601780003, p 25 et seq. http://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/601780003.pdf
  33. Raz J (1986) Morality of freedom. University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  34. Rennings K (1998) Towards a theory and policy of eco-innovation—neoclassical and (Co-)Evolutionary perspectives. ZEW discussion papers, No. 98-24, p 8 et seq. http://www.hdl.handle.net/10419/24575. Accessed 16 May 2014
  35. Schenten J, Führ M (2012) Law and innovation in the context of nanomaterials: barriers to sustainable development? Results of an empirical study. ELNI Rev 2012:83–91Google Scholar
  36. Senge P (1990) The fifth discipline—the art and practice of the learning organization. Currency Doubleday, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  37. United Nations (1987) Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: our common future (‘Brundtland Report’), New YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. Voss J-P, Bauknecht D, René K (2006) Reflexive governance for sustainable development (Google eBook). Elgar, CheltenhamCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Economic SciencesGeorg-August-Universität Göttingen, Research Group Interdisciplinary Institutional Analysis (sofia)GöttingenGermany
  2. 2.Department of Social and Cultural SciencesUniversity of Applied Sciences Darmstadt, Research Group Interdisciplinary Institutional Analysis (sofia)DarmstadtGermany

Personalised recommendations