Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
NanoEthics
Erschienen in: NanoEthics 1/2013

01.04.2013 | Original Paper

Discovering Specific Conditions for Compliance with Soft Regulation Related to Work with Nanomaterials

Erschienen in: NanoEthics | Ausgabe 1/2013

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

At workplaces where nanomaterials are produced or used, risk assessment and risk management are extremely difficult tasks since there is still limited evidence about the risks of nanomaterials. Measurement methods for nanoparticles are contested and safety standards have not yet been developed properly. To support compliance with the legal obligation of the employer to care for safe workplaces a large number of ‘soft’ regulatory tools have been proposed (e.g. codes of conduct, benchmarks, standards). However, it is not clear whether and under which conditions soft regulation is complied with. This article discusses the potential advantages and drawbacks of soft regulation. It explores compliance issues when exposure measurement devices and other technology-related factors are involved. The exploration of three examples of soft regulation on occupational health and safety (a ministerial recommendation on preliminary exposure benchmarks, a nano-specific guidance of a chemical company and a public–private OHS guideline) shows that the capacity of the regulated parties to comply depends on the availability of appropriate technological devices and methods, technical expertise and other resources. When technological prerequisites are met, compliance is likely to increase.
Vorheriger Artikel Transnational Governance Arrangements: Legitimate Alternatives to Regulating Nanotechnologies?

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Fußnoten
1
Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work; Council Directive 98/24/EC of 7 April on the protection of the health and safety of workers from the risks related to chemical agents at work; and Directive 2004/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to carcinogens or mutagens at work.
 
2
Council Directive 89/391/EEC, section ll, article 9(1).
 
3
Directive 98/24/EC; and Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH).
 
4
See, for instance, Articles 3 and 5 Dutch Labour Conditions Act; Articles 3–6 German Occupational Health and Safety Act and the Laws on hazardous substances.
 
5
Directive 98/24/EC; and REACH Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006.
 
6
Various scientists even claim that definite answers on the risks of nanomaterials might be years away, only emerging on a case-by-case basis (e.g. [67, p. 4343]).
 
7
See note 2. By ‘regulation’ we understand sustainable rules of conduct which serve to achieve certain policy goals, and which are based on certain (private or public) regulatory authority. Regulation refers to the activities of standard-setting, implementation, monitoring and enforcement [21, p. 156; 57, p. 60].
 
8
Examples of private ‘soft’ regulation are: codes of conduct, guidelines of private organizations etc. Public regulators are also competent to set non-legally binding regulations. Examples are: recommendations, communications and guidelines.
 
9
Since soft regulation is prominent in risk assessment and risk management the focus lies on soft OHS instruments. The compliance conditions that are discussed in the next section generally apply to soft and hard regulation.
 
10
These examples of soft regulation were selected because compliance relies on different technical devices and because they cover a variety of regulators (public, private and public/private). The Dutch Recommendation on Nano Reference Values is an interesting example of soft regulation because the NRVs are part of a current discussion of international relevance on the topic of exposure values for working with nanomaterials (e.g. by the British Standards Institute [16] or the German Institute for Occupational Safety and Health of the German Social Accident Insurance [8]). The BASF guideline is particular interesting because BASF is a worldwide leading company in the chemical industry, which is involved in various private and public projects on the safety of nanomaterials. The Baua and VCI Guidance for Handling and Use of Nanomaterials at the Workplace [9] is very informative. It is co-regulated with the German Chemical Industry Association.
 
11
Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment, Letter from 10 August 2010 (G&VW/GW/2010/14925).
 
12
The NRVs have been developed by analogy with other substances such as asbestos or fine-dust particles and they are considered benchmarks, that is ‘warning levels’. They are a provisional alternative for health-based recommended occupational exposure limits (HBR-OELs) or derived no-effect levels (DNELs), based on a precautionary approach. When these levels are exceeded measures are required to identify the source and if possible minimize exposure [19, p. 17].
 
13
The first principle refers to the manufacture of new products containing nanoscale materials of enhanced properties, the second principle deals with identifying potential environmental and health risks of nanotechnologies. The third principle addresses the future usage of nanotechnology by BASF and, lastly, the company commits to engage in open dialogue with society related to activities with nanotechnology. For details concerning the four principles of the BASF Code [6].
 
14
This sum was mentioned in the interviews that were held in the Dutch Pilot NRV (see, [17]).
 
15
The same critique has been made on the NanoTracer [62, p. 62].
 
16
British Standard on a Guide to safe handling and disposal of manufactured nanomaterials [16].
 
17
The BASF guideline which advocates the GRIMM SMPS + C’s detection system relies on this method.
 
Literatur
1.
Aalders M, Wilthagen T (1997) Moving beyond command-and-control: reflexivity in the regulation of occupational safety and health and the environment. Law Policy 19:415–443CrossRef
2.
Abbott LC, Maynard AD (2010) Exposure assessment approaches for engineered nanomaterials. Risk Anal 30:1634–1644CrossRef
3.
Abbott KW, Snidal D (2000) Hard and soft law in international governance. Int Organ 54(3):421–456CrossRef
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Baldwin R, Black J (2008) Really responsive regulation. Mod Law Rev 71:59–94CrossRef
11.
Black J (2002) Critical reflections on regulation. Centre for Analysis of Risk and Regulation, London School of Economics, London
12.
Bowman DM, Hodge GA (2009) Counting on codes: an examination of transnational codes as a regulatory governance mechanism for nanotechnologies. Regul Gov 3:145–164CrossRef
13.
Braithwaite J, Fisse B (1987) Self-regulation and the control of corporate crime. In: Shearing CD, Stenning PC (eds) Private policing. Sage, Newbury Park, pp 221–246
14.
Braithwaite V (1995) Games of engagement: postures within the regulatory community. Law Policy 17(3):225–255CrossRef
15.
Braithwaite V, Braithwaite J, Gibson D, Makkai T (1994) Regulatory styles, motivational postures and nursing home compliance. Law Policy 16(4):363–394CrossRef
16.
British Standards Institute (2007) BSI published document 6699–2:2007, nanotechnologies – part 2: guide to safe handling and disposal of manufactured nanomaterials. BSI, London
17.
Broekhuizen P van, Dorbeck-Jung BR (2012) Exposure limit values for nanomaterials—capacity and willingness of users to apply a precautionary approach, forthcoming
18.
Coglianese C, Mendelson E (2010) Meta-regulation and self-regulation. In: Baldwin R, Cave M, Lodge M (eds) The Oxford handbook of regulation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 146–168
19.
20.
Dorbeck-Jung BR, van Amerom M (2008) The hardness of soft law in the United Kingdom: state and non-state regulatory conceptions related to nanotechnological development. In: Verschuren J, Schooten-van der Meer H (eds) The state legislature and non-state law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 129–150
21.
Dorbeck-Jung BR, Oude Vrielink MJ, Gosselt J, van Hof J, de Jong DT (2010) Contested hybridization of regulation: failure of the Dutch regulatory system to protect minors from harmful media. Regul Gov 4:154–174CrossRef
22.
Dorbeck-Jung BR (2011) Soft regulation and responsible nanotechnological development in the European Union: regulating occupational health and safety in the Netherlands. Eur J Law Technol 2(3):1–14
23.
24.
25.
European Commission, Communication from the Commission on the precautionary principle COM (2000) 1 final
26.
Griffiths J (1999) Legal knowledge and the social working of law: the case of euthanasia. In: van Schooten H (ed) Semiotics and legislation. Deborah Charles, Liverpool, pp 81–108
27.
Griffiths J (2003) The social working of legal rules. J Leg Plur 48:1–84
28.
29.
Gunningham N (2010) Enforcement and compliance strategies. In: Baldwin R, Cave M, Lodge M (eds) The Oxford handbook of regulation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 120–145
30.
Gunningham N, Kagan R, Thornton D (2002) Social license and environmental protection: why business go beyond compliance. University of California, Berkeley
31.
Halpern S (2008) Hybrid design, systemic rigidity: institutional dynamics in human research oversight. Regul Gov 2:85–102CrossRef
32.
Havinga T (2006) Private regulation of food safety by supermarkets. Law Policy 28(4):515–533CrossRef
33.
Hodge GA, Bowman DM, Maynard AD (eds) (2010) International handbook on regulating nanotechnologies. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham
34.
Hutter BM (1997) Compliance: regulation and environment. Clarendon Press Oxford, Oxford
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
Kagan RA, Scholz JT (1984) The criminology of the cooperation and regulatory enforcement strategies. In: Hawkins K, Thomas JM (eds) Enforcing regulation. Kluwer/Nijhof Publishing, Boston
40.
Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen SI, Vihma A (2009) Comparing the legitimacy and effectiveness of global hard and soft law: an analytical framework. Regul Gov 3:400–420CrossRef
41.
Kloepfer M (2002) Technik und Recht im wechselseitigen Werden: Kommunikationsrecht in der Technikgeschichte, Schriften zum Technikrecht 4. Duncker & Humbolt, Berlin
42.
43.
Koutalakis C, Buzogany A, Börzel TA (2010) When soft regulation is not enough: the integrated pollution prevention and control directive of the European Union. Regul Gov 4:329–344CrossRef
44.
Meili C, Widmer M (2010) Voluntary measures in nanotechnology risk governance: the difficulty of holding the wolf by the ears. In: Hodge GA, Bowman DM, Maynard AD (eds) International handbook on regulating nanotechnologies. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
45.
NanoCode (2010) Synthesis Report on Codes of Conduct, Voluntary Measures and Practices Towards a Responsible Development of N&N. Retrieved on May 5, 2012 from http://​www.​nanocode.​eu
46.
47.
48.
Nash J, Ehrenfeld J (1997) Codes of environmental management practice: assessing their potential as a tool of change. Ann Rev Energy Environ 22:487–535CrossRef
49.
National Institute for Occupational Health and Safety (NIOSH) (2009) Approaches to safe nanotechnology. NIOSH, Atlanta
50.
National Academy of Sciences (NRC) (1983) Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing Process. Committee on the Institutional Means for Assessment of Risks to Public Health, Commission on Life Sciences, National Research Council. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
51.
Nel A, Xia T, Mädler L, Li N (2006) Toxic potential of materials at the nanolevel. Science 311:622–627CrossRef
52.
Oberdörster G, Stone V, Donaldson K (2007) Toxicology of nanoparticles: a historical perspective. Nanotoxicology 1(1):2–25CrossRef
53.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2012) Important issues on risk assessment of manufactured nanomaterials. Series on the safety of manufactured nanomaterials No. 33. Environmental Directorate OECD, Paris
54.
55.
56.
Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) (2006) The European Commission’s Scientific Committee on emerging and newly identified health risks opinion on the appropriateness of existing methodologies to assess the potential risks associated with engineered and adventitious products of nanotechnologies. European Commission, Brussels
57.
Scott C (2002) Private regulation of the public sector: a neglected facet of contemporary governance. J Law Soc 29(1):56–76CrossRef
58.
Senden L (2004) Soft law in European Community law. Hart Publishing, Oxford
59.
Sethi SP, Emelianova O (2006) A failed strategy of using voluntary codes of conduct by the global mining industry. Corp Gov 6(3):226–238CrossRef
60.
Sinclair D (1997) Self-regulation versus command and control? Beyond false dichotomies. Law Policy 19:529–559CrossRef
61.
62.
TNO (2011) TNO-rapport V9300. Vervaardiging en gebruik van nano-eindproducten in Nederland. TNO, Zeist
63.
Trubek LG, Cottrell P, Nance N (2006) Soft law, hard law and EU integration. In: de Burca G, Scott J (eds) Law and new governance in the EU and the US. Hart, Portland
64.
Vogel D (2009) The private regulation of global corporate conduct. In: Mattli W, Woods N (eds) The politics of global regulation. Princeton University Press, Princeton
65.
Warmerdam J et al (1993) Arbozorg in Het Midden- en Kleinbedrijf. Ministerie van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid, The Hague
66.
Webb K (2004) Understanding the voluntary code phenomenon. In: Webb K (ed) Voluntary codes: private governance, the public interest, and innovation. Carleton University, Ottawa, pp 3–32
67.
Wiesner MR, Lowry GV, Alvarez D, Dionysiou D, Biswas P (2006) Assessing the risks of manufactured nanomaterials. Environ Sci Technol 15:4337–4345
Metadaten
Titel
Discovering Specific Conditions for Compliance with Soft Regulation Related to Work with Nanomaterials
Publikationsdatum
01.04.2013
Erschienen in
NanoEthics / Ausgabe 1/2013
Print ISSN: 1871-4757
Elektronische ISSN: 1871-4765
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-013-0165-7

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2013

NanoEthics 1/2013 Zur Ausgabe

Original Paper

Bridging the Gap Between Innovation and ELSA: The TA Program in the Dutch Nano-R&D Program NanoNed

Original Paper

Wide Reflective Equilibrium as a Normative Model for Responsible Governance

Original Paper

Meta-Regulation and Nanotechnologies: The Challenge of Responsibilisation Within the European Commission’s Code of Conduct for Responsible Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies Research

Introduction

Anticipating the Societal Challenges of Nanotechnologies

Original Paper

Context Matters: Promises and Concerns Regarding Nanotechnologies for Water and Food Applications

Original Paper

Transnational Governance Arrangements: Legitimate Alternatives to Regulating Nanotechnologies?