Abstract
Literature on the risk governance of nanotechnology places significant emphasis on the potential social impacts of nano-enabled products. However, there is limited information on which social impacts are relevant for nano-enabled products, and a methodology to monitor them to support risk governance is lacking. This chapter proposes a quantitative methodology based on Social Life Cycle Assessment (s-LCA) and Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) to assess the social impacts of nano-enabled products through their life cycle. The s-LCA conceptual scheme (i.e. impacts and indicators for different stakeholders) is developed through an appraisal of literature on social impacts of products and Ethical, Legal and Social Impacts (ELSI) of nanotechnology, which is used to select suitable indicators in statistical databases. Five indicators associated with impacts of nano-enabled products, with two impacts in Worker category (professional training and non-fatal accidents) and three impacts in Community category (education, employment, research and development expenditure), were identified as relevant to compare nano-enabled products with similar functionality or nano-enabled product with their conventional counterpart. The indicators are organized within a conceptual scheme comprising benefits (education, employment and professional training) and costs (research and development expenditure and non-fatal accidents). A quantitative MCDA methodology is proposed and applied to a case study according to benefit-cost conceptual scheme. The gaps to be addressed to expand the future development of methodologies to assess social impacts of nano-enabled products are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsBibliography
Benoit-Norris, C., Cavan, D. A., & Norris, G. (2012). Identifying social impacts in product supply chains: Overview and application of the social hotspot database. Sustainability, 4(9), 1946–1965. doi:10.3390/su4091946.
Cozzens, S., Cortes, R., Soumonni, O., & Woodson, T. (2013). Nanotechnology and the millennium development goals: Water, energy, and agri-food. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 15(11), 1–14. doi:10.1007/s11051-013-2001-y.
EC. (2009). Impact assessment guidelines SEC(2009). Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/impact/commission_guidelines/docs/iag_2009_en.pdf
ECHA. (2011). Guidance on socio-economic analysis. Retrieved from http://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13643/sea_authorisation_en.pdf
Giove, S., Brancia, A., Satterstrom, F. K., & Linkov, I. (2009). Decision support systems and environment: Role of MCDA. In A. Marcomini, G. W. Suter-II, & A. Critto (Eds.), Decision support systems for risk-based management of contaminated sites. New York, NY: Springer.
GRI. (2014). How to use the GRI G4 guidelines and ISO 26000 in conjunction. Retrieved from http://www.iso.org/iso/iso-gri-26000_2014-01-28.pdf
Grieger, K., Laurent, A., Miseljic, M., Christensen, F., Baun, A., & Olsen, S. (2012). Analysis of current research addressing complementary use of life-cycle assessment and risk assessment for engineered nanomaterials: Have lessons been learned from previous experience with chemicals? Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 14(7), 1–23. doi:10.1007/s11051-012-0958-6.
IRGC. (2006). White paper on nanotechnology risk governance. Retrieved from http://www.irgc.org/IMG/pdf/IRGC_white_paper_2_PDF_final_version-2.pdf
ISO. (2010). Social responsibility-N196 result of ballot ISOFDIS 26000. Retrieved from www.iso.org/wgsr
Kuiken, T. (2011). Nanomedicine and ethics: Is there anything new or unique? Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Nanomedicine and Nanobiotechnology, 3(2), 111–118. doi:10.1002/wnan.90.
Macnaghten, P. (2014). Nanotechnology, risk and public perceptions. In B. Gordijn & M. Cutter (Eds.), Pursuit of nanoethics (pp. 167–181). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Malsch, I. (2014). Nano-education from a European perspective: Nano-training for non-R&D jobs. Nanotechnology Reviews, 3(2), 211–221.
NIA. (2009). Information on the responsible nanocode initiative. Retrieved from http://www.nanoandme.org/downloads/The%20Responsible%20Nano%20Code.pdf
NNI. (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. Retrieved from http://www.nano.gov/node/1348
Renn, O., & Roco, M. C. (2006). Nanotechnology and the need for risk governance. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 8(2), 153–191. doi:10.1007/s11051-006-9092-7.
Roco, M., Harthorn, B., Guston, D., & Shapira, P. (2011). Innovative and responsible governance of nanotechnology for societal development. In M. C. Roco, M. C. Hersam, & C. A. Mirkin (Eds.), Nanotechnology research directions for societal needs in 2020 (Vol. 1, pp. 561–617). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
The round table for social metrics. (2014). Product social impact assessment handbook, version 2.0. Available at http://product-social-impact-assessment.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/15-012-Handbook-for-Product-Social-Impact-Assessment-2016-2.pdf.
Salamanca-Buentello, F., Persad, D. L., Court, E. B., Martin, D. K., Daar, A. S., & Singer, P. A. (2005). Nanotechnology and the developing world. PLoS Medicine, 2(5), e97. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020097.
Schmidt, I., Meurer, M., Saling, P., Kicherer, A., Reuter, W., & Gensch, C. O. (2004). SEEBalance: Managing sustainability of products and processes with the socio-eco-efficiency analysis by BASF. Greener Management International, 45, 78–94.
Seear, K., Peterson, A., & Bowman, D. (2009). The social and economic impacts of nanotechnologies: A literature review. Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research (Australia).
Shatkin, J. A. (2008). Informing environmental decision making by combining life cycle assessment and risk analysis. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 12(3), 278–281. doi:10.1111/j.1530-9290.2008.00031.x.
Barrett, B. (2003). Health and safety. In B. Towers (Ed.), The handbook of employment relations, law & practice (pp. 191–213). London: Kogan Page. ISBN 074943340x.
Som, C., Berges, M., Chaudhry, Q., Dusinska, M., Fernandes, T. F., Olsen, S. I., & Nowack, B. (2010). The importance of life cycle concepts for the development of safe nanoproducts. Toxicology, 269(2), 160–169.
Som, C., Zondervan-van-den-Beuken, E., Güttinger, J., van-Harmelen, T., Hartmanis, A., Bodmer, M., … Carroll, R. (2014). LICARA Guidelines for the sustainable competitiveness of nanoproducts. Dübendorf, St. Gallen, Zeist.
Spagnolo, A. G., & Daloiso, V. (2009). Outlining ethical issues in nanotechnologies. Bioethics, 23, 394–402.
Subramanian, V., Semenzin, E., Hristozov, D., Marcomini, A., & Linkov, I. (2014). Sustainable nanotechnology: Defining, measuring and teaching. Nano Today, 9(1), 6–9. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nantod.2014.01.001
Subramanian, V., Semenzin, E., Zabeo, A., Hristozov, D., Malsch, I., McAlea, E., et al. (2016). Sustainable nanotechnology decision support system: Bridging risk management, sustainable innovation and risk governance. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 18, 89.
Sweet, L., & Strohm, B. (2006). Nanotechnology—Life-cycle risk management. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 12(3), 528–551. doi:10.1080/10807030600561691.
UNEP. (2009). Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. (C. Benoît & B. Mazijn Eds.). Paris, France: United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
Acknowledgements
This study was funded in part by the European Union Seventh Framework Programme [FP7/2007-2013] under ECGA No. 604305 “SUN”. This publication reflects the views only of the authors, and the European Commission and other sponsors cannot be held responsible for any use, which may be made of the information contained therein.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Subramanian, V. et al. (2016). Integrating the Social Impacts into Risk Governance of Nanotechnology. In: Murphy, F., McAlea, E., Mullins, M. (eds) Managing Risk in Nanotechnology. Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32392-3_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32392-3_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-32390-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-32392-3
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)