Organisational Risk Management of Nanomaterials Using SUNDS: The Contribution of CENARIOS®

  • Tobias Widler
  • Christoph Meili
  • Elena Semenzin
  • Vrishali Subramanian
  • Alex Zabeo
  • Danail Hristozov
  • Antonio Marcomini
Part of the Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management book series (ITKM)


The CENARIOS®-Standard is the first certifiable risk management system (RMS) and monitoring system designed specifically for the needs of companies concerned with nanomaterials. The rapidly evolving field of nanotechnology is characterised by a high level of uncertainty in environmental health and safety research, economic and social impacts, as well as the risk perception of the technology. Companies dealing with nanotechnology can better address this uncertainty by embedding practices like risk monitoring, risk analysis, risk communication, and crisis management into their organisational culture. Monitoring developments in the fields of toxicology, occupational safety and health, as well as societal and perception risk constitute a fundamental part of the CENARIOS® RMS. As part of the project SUN (Sustainable Nanotechnologies), a questionnaire based on the CENARIOS® Certification Standard is being implemented as a stand-alone module and is linked to the SUN Decision Support System (SUNDS). As risk management in SUNDS Tier 2 is quantitatively linked to risk assessment results, organisational risk management—an essential component in addressing complex and uncertain risks that cannot be evaluated quantitatively—is assessed using a separate web-based questionnaire. The module covers a representative selection of the specific requirements stipulated in the certification standard and thereby enables interested enterprises to assess their level of fulfilment (in terms of the exigencies of the certification standard) in an independent and inexpensive manner. The stand-alone module provides a simple and low-threshold means to evaluate the status of a company’s organisational risk management for nanomaterials. Existing gaps that need to be addressed in order to comply with the CENARIOS® certification standard are highlighted. If corresponding action is taken, the CENARIOS® stand-alone module may thus contribute to enhancing the safety of facilities and firms producing, processing, or handling nanomaterials.


Risk Management Risk Communication Quality Management System Certification Standard Control Band 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Bergamaschi, E., Murphy, F., Poland, C. A., Mullins, M., Costa, A., McAlea, E., … Tofail, S. (2015). Impact and effectiveness of risk remediation strategies on the insurability of nanomaterial production: Evidences from industrial case studies. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Nanomedicine and Nanobiotechnology, 7(6), 839–855.Google Scholar
  2. Bhushan, B. (2010). Springer handbook of nanotechnology. Berlin, Germany: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bowman, D. M., & Hodge, G. A. (2009). Counting on codes: An examination of transnational codes as a regulatory governance mechanism for nanotechnologies. Regulation and Governance, 3(2), 145–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Colvin, V. L. (2003). The potential environmental impact of engineered nanomaterials. Nature Biotechnology, 21(10), 1166–1170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Edelstein, A. S., & Cammaratra, R. C. (Eds.). (1998). Nanomaterials: Synthesis, properties and applications. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  6. EPA. (2015). Chemical substances when manufactured or processed as nanoscale materials: TSCA reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Proposed rule. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0572-0001.Google Scholar
  7. European Commission. (2012a). Types and uses of nanomaterials, including safety aspects. Accompanying the communication from the commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee on the Second Regulatory Review on Nanomaterials. SWD (2012) 288 final.Google Scholar
  8. European Commission. (2012b). Second regulatory review on nanomaterials. COM (2012) 572 final.Google Scholar
  9. Groso, A., Petri-Fink, A., Magrez, A., Riediker, M., & Meyer, T. (2010). Management of nanomaterials safety in research environment. Particle and Fibre Toxicology, 7, 40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hansen, S. F., & Tickner, J. A. (2007). The challenges of adopting voluntary health, safety and environment measures for manufactured nanomaterials: Lessons from the past for more effective adoption in the future. Nanotechnology Law & Business, 4(3), 341.Google Scholar
  11. Höck, J., Epprecht, T., Furrer, E., Gautschi, M., Hofmann, H., Höhener, K., … Wick, P. Guidelines on the precautionary matrix for synthetic nanomaterials. Federal Office of Public Health and Federal Office for the Environment, Berne 2013, Version 3.0.Google Scholar
  12. Hristozov, D. R., Gottardo, S., Cinelli, M., Isigonis, P., Zabeo, A., Critto, A., … Marcomini, A. (2014a). Application of a quantitative weight of evidence approach for ranking and prioritising occupational exposure scenarios for titanium dioxide and carbon nanomaterials. Nanotoxicology, 8(2), 117–131.Google Scholar
  13. Hristozov, D., Jensen, K. A., Stone, V., Scott-Fordsmand, J., Nowack, B., Costa, A., … Friesl, J. (2014b). SUN: Paving sustainable nanoinnovation. In The 4th World Sustainability Forum. Basel, Switzerland: Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute.Google Scholar
  14. Hristozov, D., Gottardo, S., Semenzin, E., Oomen, A., Bos, P., Peijnenburg, W., … Marcomini, A. (2016). Frameworks and tools for risk assessment and management of manufactured nanomaterials. Environment International.Google Scholar
  15. ISO 31000:2009. Risk management—Principles and guidelines.Google Scholar
  16. ISO/TS 12901-2:2014. Nanotechnologies—Occupational risk management applied to engineered nanomaterials—Part 2: Use of the control banding approach.Google Scholar
  17. Krug, H. F. (2014). Nanosafety research—Are we on the right track? Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 53(46), 12304–12319.Google Scholar
  18. Lynch, I., Weiss, C., & Valsami-Jones, E. (2014). A strategy for grouping of nanomaterials based on key physico-chemical descriptors as a basis for safer-by-design NMs. Nano Today, 9(3), 266–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Malsch, I., Subramanian, V., Semenzin, E., Hristozov, D., & Marcomini, A. (2015). Supporting decision-making for sustainable nanotechnology. Environment Systems and Decisions, 35(1), 54–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Marchant, G. E., Sylvester, D. J., & Abbott, K. W. (2008). Risk management principles for nanotechnology. Nanoethics, 2(1), 43–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Maynard, A. D., Aitken, R. J., Butz, T., Colvin, V., Donaldson, K., Oberdörster, G., … Warheit, D. B. (2006). Safe handling of nanotechnology. Nature, 444(7117), 267–269Google Scholar
  22. McAlea, E. M., Mullins, M., Murphy, F., Tofail, S. A., & Carroll, A. G. (2014). Engineered nanomaterials: Risk perception, regulation and insurance. Journal of Risk Research, (ahead-of-print), 1–17.Google Scholar
  23. Meili, C., & Klein, G. (2008). Nanotechnologie—Vom Umgang mit unbekannten Risiken. Phi, 2008(1), 12–23.Google Scholar
  24. Meili, C., & Widmer, M. (2010). Voluntary measures in nanotechnology risk governance: The difficulty of holding the wolf by the ears (Chapter 20). In G. A. Hodge, D. M. Bowman, & A. D. Maynard (Eds.), International handbook on regulating nanotechnologies (pp. 446–461). Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  25. Mullins, M., Murphy, F., Baublyte, L., McAlea, E. M., & Tofail, S. A. (2013). The insurability of nanomaterial production risk. Nature Nanotechnology, 8(4), 222–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. National Nanotechnology Initiative. (2000). Leading to the next industrial revolution a report by the Interagency Working Group on nanoscience, engineering and technology. Washington, DC: Committee on Technology, National Science and Technology Council.Google Scholar
  27. National Nanotechnology Initiative. (2015). Stakeholder perspectives on perception, assessment, and management of the potential risks of nanotechnology. Report of the National Nanotechnology Initiative Workshop, September 10-11, 2013, Washington, DC. Retrieved September 3, 2015, from
  28. Oksel, C., Subramanian, V., Semenzin, E., Ma, C. Y., Hristozov, D., Wang, X., … Marcomini, A. (2016). Risk management along the lifecycle of nano-enabled products. Environmental Science: Nano.Google Scholar
  29. ONR 49000. Risk management for organizations and systems—Terms and basics—Practical use of ISO/DIS 31000; 2008-06-01.Google Scholar
  30. ONR 49002-1. Risk management for organizations and systems—Part 1: Guidelines for embedding the risk management in the management system—Practical use of ISO/DIS 31000; 2008-06-01.Google Scholar
  31. ONR 49002-3. Risk management for organizations and systems—Part 3: Guidelines for emergency, crisis and business continuity management—Practical use of ISO/DIS 31000; 2008-06-01.Google Scholar
  32. ONR 49003. Risk management for organizations and systems—Requirements for the qualifications of the risk manager—Practical use of ISO/DIS 31000; 2008-06-01.Google Scholar
  33. Poland, C. A., Duffin, R., Kinloch, I., Maynard, A., Wallace, W. A., Seaton, A., … Donaldson, K. (2008). Carbon nanotubes introduced into the abdominal cavity of mice show asbestos-like pathogenicity in a pilot study. Nature Nanotechnology, 3(7), 423–428.Google Scholar
  34. Savolainen, K., Pylkkänen, L., Norppa, H., Falck, G., Lindberg, H., Tuomi, T., … Seipenbusch, M. (2010). Nanotechnologies, engineered nanomaterials and occupational health and safety—A review. Safety Science, 48(8), 957–963.Google Scholar
  35. Siegrist, M., Keller, C., Kastenholz, H., Frey, S., & Wiek, A. (2007). Laypeople’s and experts’ perception of nanotechnology hazards. Risk Analysis, 27(1), 59–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Subramanian, V., Semenzin, E., Hristozov, D., Marcomini, A., & Linkov, I. (2014). Sustainable nanotechnology: Defining, measuring and teaching. Nano Today, 9(1), 6–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Subramanian, V., Semenzin, E., Hristozov, D., Zabeo, A., Malsch, I., Murphy, F., … Marcomini, A. (2016). Sustainable Nanotechnology Decision Support System (SUNDS): Bridging risk management, sustainable innovation and risk governance. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 18(4), 1–13.Google Scholar
  38. TÜV SÜD Industrie Service GmbH. (2008). Certification standard CENARIOS. Retrieved July 28, 2015, from
  39. Widler, T., Meili, M., & Wieczorek, R. (2015). Unbekanntes Terrain erkunden—Die systematische Auseinandersetzung mit Nanomaterialien hilft Versicherern bei der Risikoanalyse’. Versicherungswirtschaft, 5(2015), 26–28.Google Scholar
  40. Wiesner, M. R., Lowry, G. V., Alvarez, P., Dionysiou, D., & Biswas, P. (2006). Assessing the risks of manufactured nanomaterials. Environmental Science & Technology, 40(14), 4336–4345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wohlleben, W., Kuhlbusch, T. A., Schnekenburger, J., & Lehr, C. M. (Eds.). (2014). Safety of nanomaterials along their lifecycle: Release, exposure, and human hazards. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tobias Widler
    • 1
  • Christoph Meili
    • 1
  • Elena Semenzin
    • 2
  • Vrishali Subramanian
    • 2
  • Alex Zabeo
    • 2
  • Danail Hristozov
    • 2
  • Antonio Marcomini
    • 2
  1. 1.The Innovation SocietySt. GallenSwitzerland
  2. 2.Department of Environmental Sciences, Informatics and StatisticsUniversity Ca’ Foscari VeniceVeneziaItaly

Personalised recommendations