Overcoming Nanomaterial Uncertainties: A Responsive Governance Framework

  • Julian Schenten
  • Martin Führ
  • Kilian Bizer
Part of the Economic Analysis of Law in European Legal Scholarship book series (EALELS, volume 4)


The UN Sustainable Development Goals aim to minimize the adverse impacts of chemicals on human health and the environment by 2020. It is up to legislators to provide the appropriate framework conditions for such developments. In the case of nanomaterials, this task is however quite challenging, as risks of these substances to human health and the environment are to a great extent uncertain. In situations of such regulatory complexity, legislators can benefit from responsive governance approaches that take into account the actual incentive and impediment situation of the relevant actors to facilitate innovation behaviour that is directed at sustainable development. To this end, this article suggests an integrative governance perspective, based on institutional analysis, taking into account all relevant external framework conditions as well as behavioural settings of actors along the supply chain of nanomaterials.


Supply Chain Sustainable Development Goal Governance Framework Normative Objective Safety Data Sheet 
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. Andersson, Anne-Sofie. 2015. Speech of ChemSec Director at the World Economic Forum, (4.2.2016).
  2. Anses. 2015. Éléments issus des déclarations des substances à l’état nanoparticulaire – exercice 2015, rapport d’étude, (18.4.2016).
  3. Ashford, Nicholas A. 2000. An Innovation-Based Strategy for a Sustainable Environment. In Innovation-Oriented Environmental Regulation: Theoretical Approach and Empirical Analysis, ed. Jens Hemmelskamp, Klaus Rennings, and Fabio Leone, 67–107. Heidelberg/New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Auffan, Mélanie, Jérôme Rose, Jean-Yves Bottero, et al. 2009. Towards a Definition of Inorganic Nanoparticles from an Environmental, Health and Safety Perspective. Nature Nanotech 4: 634–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ayres, Ian, and John Braithwaite. 1992. Responsive Regulation. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bizer, Kilian, and Martin Führ. 2015. Compact Guidelines: Practical Procedure in Interdisciplinary Institutional Analysis, sofia-Diskussionsbeiträge zur Institutionenanalyse Nr. 15–4, Darmstadt, (29.2.2016).
  7. ———. 2016. Sustainable Behavioral Governance: Responsive Regulation for Innovation. In New Perspectives for Environmental Policies Through Behavioral Economics, ed. Frank Beckenbach and Walter Kahlenborn, 277–300. Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  8. Bizer, Kilian, Führ, Martin and Christoph Hüttig (eds.). 2002. Responsive Regulierung. Beiträge zur interdisziplinären Institutionenanalyse und Gesetzesfolgenabschätzung. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
  9. Blaunstein, Robert, Ben Trump, Igor Linkov. 2014. Nanotechnology Risk Management: An Insurance Industry Perspective. In Nanotechnology Environmental Health and Safety (2nd ed.). Risks, Regulation, and Management, eds. Matthew S. Hull and Diana M. Bowman. Amsterdam/Boston, Heidelberg et al.: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  10. Calliess, Cristian, and Matthias Ruffert. 2011. EUV/AEUV. Das Verfassungsrecht der Europäischen Union mit Europäischer Grundrechtecharta. Beck: Munich.Google Scholar
  11. CIEL, ECOS, Öko-Institut. 2015. Revision of REACH Annexes for Nanomaterials – Position Paper, (29.2.2016).
  12. Dupuy, Jean-Pierre. 2004. Complexity and Uncertainty. In A Prudential Approach to Nanotechnology, A Contribution to the Work in Progress of the “Foresighting the New Technology Wave” HighLevel Expert Group. European Commission: Brussels.Google Scholar
  13. ECHA. 2012. Information Requirements and Chemical Safety Assessment, Chapter R.19: Uncertainty analysis, Vers. 1.1, Helsinki, (22.5.2015).
  14. EEA. 2001. Late Lessons from Early Warnings: The Precautionary Principle 1896–2000, Environmental Issue Report No 22, Copenhagen, (22.5.2015).
  15. European Commission. 2000. Communication on the Precautionary principle, COM(2000)1, Brussels.Google Scholar
  16. ———. 2008. Follow-up to the 6th Meeting of the REACH Competent Authorities for the implementation of Regulation (EC) 1907/2006 (REACH), Nanomaterials in REACH, CA/59/2008 rev. 1, (25.5.2015).
  17. ———. 2009. Classification, labelling and packaging of nanomaterials in REACH and CLP, Doc.CA/90/2009, (25.5.2015)
  18. ———. 2012. SWD(2012) 288 final, Commission Staff Working Paper, Types and uses of nanomaterials, including safety aspects. Accompanying the Communication from the Com-mission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee on the Second Regulatory Review on Nanomaterials {COM(2012) 572 final}, Brussels.Google Scholar
  19. ———. 2014. HORIZON 2020 in brief. The EU Framework Programme for Research & Innovation, Luxembourg, (29.2.2016).
  20. ———. 2015. SWD(2015) 111 Final. Better Regulation Guidelines, Strasbourg: Commission Staff Working Document.Google Scholar
  21. Führ, Martin. 2014. §4 Technikrecht. In Europäische Querschnittspolitiken, Enzyklopädie Europarecht, ed. Bernhard W. Wegener, Vol. 8. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  22. Führ, Martin, and Julian Schenten et al. 2015. Enhancement of the REACH requirements for (imported) articles. Options for improvement of the chemicals regulation, ed. Umweltbundesamt (German Environment Agency). Dessau-Roßlau, (29.2.2016).
  23. Führ, Martin, and Kilian Bizer. 2007. REACh as a Paradigm Shift in Chemical Policy – Responsive Regulation and Behavioural Models. Journal of Cleaner Production 15(4): 327–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Führ, Martin, and Merenyi, Stefanie et al. 2005. Interface Problems between EC Chemicals Law and Sector-Specific Environmental legislation (IPPC/WFD), ed. Umweltbundesamt (German Environment Agency). Dessau, (29.2.2016).
  25. Führ, Martin, and Andreas Hermann, Stefanie Merenyi et al. 2007. Legal appraisal of nano technologies. Existing legal framework, the need for regulation and regulative options at a European and a national level, ed. Umweltbundesamt (German Environment Agency). Dessau, (29.2.2016).
  26. Gaia. 2012. Study on REACH contribution to the development of emerging technologies, Final Report, (21.5.2015).
  27. Ganzleben, Catherine, and Florent Pelsy, Steffen F. Hansen et al., 2011: Review of Environmental Legislation for the Regulatory Control of Nanomaterials, (25.5.2015).
  28. Grieger, Khara D., Steffen F. Hansen, and Anders Baun. 2009. The Known Unknowns of Nanomaterials: Describing and Characterizing Uncertainty Within Environmental, Health and Safety Risks. Nanotoxicology 3(3): 222–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gubbels, Ineke, Jacques Pelkmans, and Lorna Schrefler. 2013. REACH: A killer whale for SMEs? CEPS Policy Briefs No. 307.Google Scholar
  30. Hett, Annabelle, and Daniela Herold. 2005. Die Nanotechnologie im Blick der Versicherungswirtschaft. GAIA 14(1): 24–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. High-Level Group on Key Enabling Technologies. 2011. Final Report, ed. European Commission, (21.5.2015).
  32. Howells, Geraint. 2009. Product Liability for Nanotechnology. J Consum Policy 32: 381–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hussein, Ahmed Kadhim. 2015. Applications of Nanotechnology in Renewable Energies—A Comprehensive Overview and Understanding. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 42: 460–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ivec, Mary, and Braithwaite, Valerie. 2015. Applications of Responsive Regulatory Theory in Australia and Overseas: Update (March 2015). RegNet Occasional Paper 23; RegNet Research Paper No. 2015/72.Google Scholar
  35. Krug, Harald, Peter Wick, Bernd Nowack et al. 2013. Human- und Ökotoxizität synthetischer Nanomaterialien. Erste Erkenntnisse für die Störfallvorsorge. Bundesamt für Umwelt, Bern. Umwelt-Wissen Nr. 1301: p. 43.Google Scholar
  36. Lach, Sebastian, and Markus Burckhardt. 2013. Steigende strafrechtliche Haftungsrisiken für Chemieunternehmen und einzelne Verantwortliche in Europa – ein Überblick. StoffR 6: 253–257.Google Scholar
  37. Lobanov, Alexey. 2012. Current Trends in Prudential Regulation of Market Risk: From Basel I to Basel III. In Market Risk and Financial Markets Modelling, ed. Didier Sornette, Sergey Ivliev, and Hilary Woodard, 129–139. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Meili, Christoph. 2010. Sind Nanotechnologien versicherbar? Versicherungswirtschaft 17: 1187–1188.Google Scholar
  39. Mullins, Martin, Finbarr Murphy, Lijana Baublyte, et al. 2013. The Insurability of Nanomaterial Production Risk. Nature Nanotech 8: 222–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nell, Andre, Tian Xia, and Huan Meng. 2013. Nanomaterial Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: Use of a Predictive Toxicological Approach and High-Throughput Screening. Accounts of Chemical Research 46(3): 607–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. North, Douglass C. 1991. Institutions. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 5: 97–112.Google Scholar
  42. NRC 1983: Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process, Washington, (22.5.2015).
  43. Pfister, Jan A. 2009. Managing Organizational Culture for Effective Internal Control, Contributions to Management Science. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pronk M.E.J., S.W.P. Wijnhoven, E.A.J. Bleeker et al. 2009. Nanomaterials Under REACH. Nanosilver as a Case Study, RIVM Report 601780003, Bilthoven.Google Scholar
  45. Purnhagen, K., and Peter H. Feindt. 2015. Better Regulatory Impact Assessment. Making Behavioural Insights Work for the Commission's New Better Regulation Strategy. European Journal of Risk Regulation 3: 361–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rossi, Mark. 2014. The Business Case for Knowing Chemicals in Products and Supply Chains. A publication in support of the SAICM emerging policy issue of Chemicals in Products, (29.2.2016).
  47. Savolainen, Kai, Ulrika Backman, Derk Brouwer et al. 2013: Nanosafety in Europe 2015–2025: Towards Safe and Sustainable Nanomaterials and Nanotechnology Innovations, Helsinki, (21.5.2015).
  48. Schenten, Julian. 2011. Nanomaterials and European Novel Food Law: The Uncertain Path to Reasonable Regulation. elni Review 1: 8–14.Google Scholar
  49. ———. 2016. Novellierung der Stoffidentifizierung von Nanomaterialien in REACH – Analyse und Bewertung des „Non-Papers“ der Europäischen Kommission Zeitschrift für Stoffrecht 1: pp. 15–22.Google Scholar
  50. Schenten, Julian, and Martin Führ. 2011. Sorgfaltspflichten der Unternehmensleitung (chapter 28). In Praxishandbuch REACH, ed. Martin Führ. Carl Heymanns: Cologne.Google Scholar
  51. ———. 2012. Law and Innovation in the Context of Nanomaterials: Barriers to Sustainable Development? Results of an empirical study. elni Review 2: 83–91.Google Scholar
  52. Schmidt-Salzer, Joachim. 1990. Strafrechtliche Produktverantwortung. Das Lederspray-Urteil des BGH. NJW 47: 2966–2972.Google Scholar
  53. SRU (German Advisory Council on the Environment). Vorsorgestrategien für Nanomaterialien, Sondergutachten, Berlin.Google Scholar
  54. Steinfeldt, Michael, Arnim v. Gleich, Ulrich Petschow, et al. 2010. Environmental Relief Effects through Nanotechnological Processes and Products, ed. Dessau-Roßlau: Umweltbundesamt (German Environment Agency).Google Scholar
  55. Stone, Vicky, Martin Führ, Kilian Bizer et al. 2016. The Essential Elements of a Risk Governance Framework for Current and Future Nanotechnologies (submitted).Google Scholar
  56. SwissRe. 2004. Nanotechnology. Small Matter, Many Unknowns. Risk Perception series. Zurich, (25.5.2015).
  57. TNS Political & Social. 2013: Flash Eurobarometer 361. Chemicals, (22.5.2015).
  58. van Leeuwen, Cornelius J. 2007. General Introduction. In Risk Assessment of Chemicals. An Introduction, ed. id./Theo G. Vermeire. Pp. 1–36. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  59. Wehling, Peter. 2011. Vom Risikokalkül zur Governance des Nichtwissens. Öffentliche Wahrnehmung und soziologische Deutung von Umweltgefährdungen. In Handbuch Umweltsoziologie, ed. Matthis Groß, 529–548. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. WHO. 2013. Nanotechnology and human health: Scientific evidence and risk governance. Report of the WHO expert meeting 10–11 December 2012, Bonn, Germany, WHO Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen, (21.5.2015).

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Society for Institutional AnalysisUniversity of Applied Sciences DarmstadtDarmstadtGermany
  2. 2.Department for Social and Cultural StudiesUniversity of Applied Sciences DarmstadtDarmstadtGermany
  3. 3.Department of EconomicsGeorg August Universität GöttingenGöttingenGermany

Personalised recommendations