Abstract
Nanotechnologies are enabling technologies which rely on the manipulation of matter on the scale of billionths of a metre. It has been argued that scientific uncertainties surrounding nanotechnologies and the inability of regulatory agencies to keep up with industry developments mean that voluntary regulation will play a part in the development of nanotechnologies. The development of technological applications based on nanoscale science is now increasingly seen as a potential test case for new models of regulation based on future-oriented responsibility, lifecycle risk management, and upstream public engagement. This article outlines findings from a project undertaken in 2008–2009 for the UK Government’s Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) by BRASS at Cardiff University, involving an in-depth survey both of current corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting in the UK nanotechnologies industry, and of attitudes to particular stakeholder issues within the industry. The article analyses the results to give an account of the nature of corporate social performance (CSP) within the industry, together with the particular model of CSR operating therein (‘do no harm’ versus ‘positive social force’). It is argued that the nature of emerging technologies requires businesses to adopt particular visions of CSR in order to address stakeholder issues, and that the nanotechnologies industry presents specific obstacles and opportunities in this regard.
Article PDF
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Adam, B. and Groves, C. 2007. Future Matters: Action, Knowledge, Ethics. Leiden: Brill.
Adams, C. A. 2002. Internal organizational factors influencing corporate social and ethical reporting: beyond current theorising. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 15(2), pp. 223-250.
Aitken, R. et al. 2010. Engineered nanoparticles: review of health and environmental safety (ENRHES). Edinburgh: Edinburgh Napier University.
Alario, M. and Freudenburg, W. 2003. The Paradoxes of Modernity: Scientific Advances, Environmental Problems, and Risks to the Social Fabric? Sociological Forum 18(2), pp. 193-214.
Australian National Nanotechnology Strategic Taskforce (ANNST) 2005. Survey of Nanoscience Research Groups: Issues Affecting Nanoscience in Australia. Canberra: Department of Industry Tourism and Resources, Government of Australia.
Baker, M.: 2003, ‘Doing it small’, Ethical Corporation Magazine 20 Aug.
Barben, D., et al.: 2007, ‘Anticipatory Governance of Nanotechnology: Foresight, Engagement and Integration’, in E. J. Hackett et al. (ed.), The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, 3rd Edition (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA), pp. 979–1000
Bauer, C., et al.: 2008, ‘Towards as Framework for Life Cycle Thinking in the Assessment of Nanotechnology’, Journal of Cleaner Production 16(8-9), 910–926.
Berube, D. 2006. Nanohype. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Brown, N. and M. Michael: 2003, ‘A Sociology of Expectations: Retrospecting Prospects and Prospecting Retrospects’, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 15(1), 3–18.
Buchholz, R. and Rosenthal, S. 2005. Toward a Contemporary Conceptual Framework for Stakeholder Theory. Journal of Business Ethics 58(1), pp. 137-148.
Burningham, K. et al. 2007. Industrial constructions of publics and public knowledge: a qualitative investigation of practice in the UK chemicals industry. Public Understanding of Science 16(1), pp. 23-43.
Carpenter, G. and White, P. 2004. Sustainable Development: Finding the real business case. Corporate Environmental Strategy: International Journal for Sustainable Business 11(2), pp. 2-51.
Carroll, A. B. 1979. A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of Management Review 4, pp. 497-505.
Chatterji, A. and Levine, D. 2006. Breaking Down the Wall of Codes: evaluating non-financial performance measurement California Management Review 48(2), pp. 29-51.
Chaudhry, Q., et al.: 2008, ‘Applications and Implications of Nanotechnologies for the Food Sector’, Food Additives and Contaminants 25(3), 241–258.
Clarkson, M. E. 1995. A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review 20(1), pp. 92-117.
Cobb, M. D. and J. Macoubrie: 2004, ‘Public Perceptions about Nanotechnology: Risks, Benefits, and Trust’, Journal of Nanoparticle Research 6(4), 395–405
Collingridge, D. 1980. The social control of technology. New York: St Martins Press.
Conti, J. A. et al. 2008. Health and Safety Practices in the Nanomaterials Workplace: Results from an International Survey. Environmental Science & Technology 42(9), pp. 3155-3162.
Cormick, C.: 2009, ‘Why Do We Need to Know What the Public Thinks about Nanotechnology?’, Nanoethics 2(3), 167–173
Council for Science and Technology 2007. Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies: A Review of Government’s Progress on its Policy Commitments. London: Council for Science and Technology.
Davey, C. L.: 2005, ‘Design for the Surreal World?: A New Model of Socially Responsible Design’, European Academy of Design Conference, Bremen, Germany, March 29–31 2005.
Donaldson, T. and Preston, L. 1995. The stakeholder theory of the corporation: concepts, evidence and implications. Academy of Management Review 20(1), pp. 65-91.
Environmental Defense Fund – DuPont Nano Partnership: 2007, Nano risk framework, EDF/Dupont.
Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (Germany) 2006. BfR Consumer Conference on Nanotechnology in Foods, Cosmetics and Textiles. Berlin: BfR.
Felt, U. and Wynne, B. 2007. Taking European knowledge society seriously. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
Fogelberg, H. and Sandén, B. A. 2008. Understanding reflexive systems of innovation: An analysis of Swedish nanotechnology discourse and organization. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 20(1), pp. 65-81.
Frater, L., et al.: 2006, An Overview of the Framework of Current Regulation Affecting the Development and Marketing of Nanomaterials (BRASS, Cardiff).
Funtowicz, S. O. and Ravetz, J. R. 1990. Uncertainty and Quality in Science for Policy. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Gamo, M. and Kishimoto, A. 2006. Current Practices of Risk Management for Nanomaterials by Companies in Japan. Tokyo: National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology.
Gavelin, K. et al. 2007. Democratic technologies? The final report of the Nanotechnology Engagement Group (NEG). London: Involve.
Global Reporting International 2006. Sustainability reporting guidelines. Amsterdam: GRI.
Groves, C. 2008. Whose Nanotechnology? Cardiff: BRASS.
Groves, C.: 2009, ‘Nanotechnology, Contingency and Finitude’, Nanoethics 3(1), 1–16.
Grove-White, R. et al. 2000. Wising up: the public and new technologies. Lancaster: Centre for the Study of Environmental Change (Lancaster University).
Gunningham, N. 1995. Environment, self-regulation and the chemical industry: assessing Responsible Care. Law and Policy 17(1), pp. 57-109.
Gunningham, N. A. et al. 2005. Motivating management: corporate compliance in environmental protection. Law and Policy 27(2), pp. 289-316.
Halliday, J.: 2007, Consumers Against Nanotech in Food, Say BfR, [Online]. Available at: http://www.foodnavigator.com/Science-Nutrition/Consumers-against-nanotech-in-food-says-BfR.
Helland, A. et al. 2008. Risk assessment of engineered nanomaterials: A survey of industrial approaches. Environmental Science & Technology 42(2), pp. 640-646.
Hennen, L. 1999. Participatory technology assessment: a response to technical modernity? Science and Public Policy 26, pp. 303-312.
Hockerts, K. et al. 2008. CSR-Driven Innovation: Towards the Social Purpose Business. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School.
House of Lords: 2000, Science and Technology – Third Report: Science in Society (HMSO, London).
Jenkins, H. 2004. A critique of conventional CSR theory: an SME perspective. Journal of General Management 29(4), pp. 37-57.
Joly, P.-B. and Kaufmann, A. 2008. Lost in Translation? The Need for ‘Upstream Engagement’ with Nanotechnology on Trial. Science as Culture 17(3), pp. 225 - 247.
Jonas, H.: 1984, The Imperative of Responsibility : In Search of An Ethics for the Technological Age (University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London), p. xii, 255 p.
Jones, R., et al.: 2006, Evidence to the CST Review of Government Actions on Nanotechnologies (Nanotechnology Engagement Group (NEG)).
Kearnes, M. and Rip, A. 2009. The emerging governance landscape of nanotechnology. In: Gammel, S. et al. eds. Jenseits von Regulierung: Zum politischen Umgang mit der Nanotechnologie. Heidelberg: AKA Verlag, pp. 97-121.
Kearnes, M. and B. Wynne: 2007, ‘On Nanotechnology and Ambivalence: The Politics of Enthusiasm’, Nanoethics 1, 131–142
Kearnes, M. et al. 2006. Governing at the nanoscale: people, policies and emerging technologies. London: Demos.
Kearnes, M., et al.: 2006a, Governing at the Nanoscale: People, Policies and Emerging Technologies (Demos, London).
Kearnes, M., et al.: 2006b, ‘From Bio to Nano: Learning Lessons from the UK Agricultural Biotechnology Controversy’, Science as Culture 15(4), 291–307
Kjølberg, K. et al. 2008. Models of governance for converging technologies. Technological Analysis and Strategic Management 20(1), pp. 83-97.
Lee, R. and Jose, D. 2008. Self-interest, self-restraint and corporate responsibility for nanotechnologies: Emerging dilemmas for modern managers. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 20, pp. 113-125.
Lepoutre, J. and Heene, A. 2006. Investigating the impact of firm size on small business social responsibility: a critical review. Journal of Business Ethics 67(3), pp. 251-273.
Lösch, A., et al.: 2009, ‘Observe-Probe-Regulate: Embedding Nanotechnological Developments in Society’, in A. Lösch et al. (eds.), Jenseits von Regulierung: Zum politischen Umgang mit Nanotechnologie (AKA Verlag, Heidelberg), 3–15
Ludlow, K., et al.: 2007, A Review of Possible Impacts of Nanotechnology on Australia's Regulatory Framework (Monash University.s, Melbourne)
MacCallum, D. 2008. Participatory planning and means-ends rationality: a translation problem. Planning Theory and Practice 9(3), pp. 325-343.
Macoubrie, J. 2006. Nanotechnology: public concerns, reasoning and trust in government. Public Understanding of Science 15, pp. 221-241.
Meyer, D. E. et al. 2008. An Examination of Existing Data for the Industrial Manufacture and Use of Nanocomponents and Their Role in the Life Cycle Impact of Nanoproducts. Environmental Science and Technology 43(5), pp. 1256-1263.
Nordmann, A. 2005. Noumenal technology: reflections on the incredible tininess of Nano. Techne 8(3), pp. 3-23.
Nowotny, H. 2003. Democratising expertise and socially robust knowledge. Science and Public Policy 30, pp. 151-156.
Orlitzsky, M. and Benjamin, J. D. 2001. Corporate Social Responsibility and Firm Risk: A Meta-analytic Review. Business and Society 40(4), pp. 369–396.
Owen, R. et al. 2009. Beyond Regulation: Risk Pricing and Responsible Innovation. Environmental Science & Technology 43(18), pp. 6902-6906.
Pavelin, S. and Porter, L. A. 2008. The Corporate Social Performance Content of Innovation in the U.K. Journal of Business Ethics 80, pp. 711-725.
Perrini, F. et al. 2007. CSR Strategies of SMEs and large firms: evidence from Italy. Journal of Business Ethics 74, pp. 285-300.
Porter, M. E. and Kramer, M. R. 2006. Strategy & Society: The Link Between Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility. Harvard Business Review 84(12), pp. 78-92.
Power, M. 2004. The risk management of everything: rethinking the politics of uncertainty. London: Demos.
Prahalad, C. K. and Hart, S. 2002. The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid. Strategy + Business 26, pp. 1-14.
Preuss, L. and Perschke, J. 2010. Slipstreaming the larger boats: social responsibility in medium-sized businesses. Journal of Business Ethics 92, pp. 531-551.
Priest, S. H. 2009. Risk communication for nanobiotechnology: to whom, about what, and why? Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics 37(4), pp. 759-769.
Rashba, E. and D. Gamota: 2003, ‘Anticipatory Standards and the Commercialization of Nanotechnology’, Journal of Nanoparticle Research 5(3-4), 401–407.
Ravetz, J. 2004. The post-normal science of precaution. Futures 36(3), pp. 347-357.
Renn, O. and Roco, M. C. 2006. Nanotechnology and the need for risk governance. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 8(2), pp. 153-191.
Rip, A. 2006. The tension between fiction and precaution in nanotechnology. In: Fisher, E. et al. eds. Implementing the Precautionary Principle: Perspectives and Prospects. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 270-283.
Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution 2008. Novel materials in the environment: the case of nanotechnology. Norwich: The Stationery Office.
Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering (RS/RAEng): 2004, Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties (Royal Society, London)
Russo, A. and Perrini, F. 2010. Investigating Stakeholder Theory and Social Capital: CSR in Large Firms and SMEs. Journal of Business Ethics 91(2), pp. 207-221.
Schomborg, R. v. and Davies, A. eds. 2010. Understanding Public Debate on Nanotechnologies: Options for Framing Public Policy. Brussels: European Commission Directorate-General for Research.
Seaton, A., et al.: 2009, ‘Nanoparticles, Human Health Hazard and Regulation’, Journal of the Royal Society Interface.
Shrader-Frechette, K. 2007. Nanotoxicology and Ethical Conditions for Informed Consent. Nanoethics 1, pp. 47-56.
Sparrow, R. 2008. Talkin’ ‘Bout a (Nanotechnological) Revolution. Ieee Technology and Society Magazine 27(2), pp. 37-43.
Spence, L. J. et al. 2000. Small business and the environment in the UK and the Netherlands: toward stakeholder cooperation. Business Ethics Quarterly 10(4), pp. 945-965.
Tilt, C. A. 2007. The content and disclosure of Australian corporate environmental policies. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 14(2), pp. 190-212.
Uskokovic, V. 2007. Nanotechnologies: what we do not know. Technology in Society 29(1), pp. 43-61.
Vig, N. J. and Paschen, H. eds. 2000. Parliaments and Technology: The Development of Technology Assessment in Europe. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Wakefield, G. et al. 2008. Envirox™ fuel-borne catalyst: developing and launching a nano-fuel additive. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 20(1), pp. 127-136.
Wartick, S. L. and Cochran, P. L. 1985. The evolution of the corporate social performance model. Academy of Management Review 4, pp. 758-769.
Wilsdon, J. and Willis, R. 2004. See-through science: why public engagement needs to move upstream. London: Demos.
Winner, L. 1995. Citizen virtues in a technological order. In: Feenberg, A. and Hannay, A. eds. Technology and the politics of knowledge. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, pp. 65-84.
Wood, D. J. 1991. Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review 16, pp. 691-718.
Wynne, B. 1991. Knowledges in context. Science, Technology and Human Values 16(1), pp. 111-121.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Groves, C., Frater, L., Lee, R. et al. Is There Room at the Bottom for CSR? Corporate Social Responsibility and Nanotechnology in the UK. J Bus Ethics 101, 525–552 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0731-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0731-7