Standardisation in the Field of Nanotechnology: Some Issues of Legitimacy

Abstract

Nanotechnology will allegedly have a revolutionary impact in a wide range of fields, but has also created novel concerns about health, safety and the environment (HSE). Nanotechnology regulation has nevertheless lagged behind nanotechnology development. In 2004 the International Organization for Standardization established a technical committee for producing nanotechnology standards for terminology, measurements, HSE issues and product specifications. These standards are meant to play a role in nanotechnology development, as well as in national and international nanotechnology regulation, and will therefore have consequences for consumers, workers and the environment. This paper gives an overview of the work in the technical committee on nanotechnology and discusses some challenges with regard to legitimacy in such work. The paper focuses particularly on stakeholder involvement and the potential problems of scientific robustness when standardising in such early stages of the scientific development. The intention of the paper is to raise some important issues rather than to draw strong conclusions. However, the paper will be concluded with some suggestions for improving legitimacy in the TC 229 and a call for increased public awareness about standardisation in the field of nanotechnology.

The legitimacy of transnational private governance arrangements related to nanotechnologies: the case of international organization for standardization

“…Benz and Papadopoulos, 2006;Black, 2008;Scott et al 2011;Papadopoulos, 2011;Hachez and Wouters, 2011). Furthermore, in the absence of the democratic institutions of the nation state and the global demos at the transnational level, many scholars have questioned, amongst others, the ability of TGAs to ensure the effective inclusion and representation of industrial, economic, regulatory and social interests at transnational level (see for example Buchanan and Keohane, 2006;Brühl, 2006;Curtin and Senden, 2011;Scott et al 2011;Papadopoulos, 2011;Forsberg, 2012;Quack, 2010). As such, TGAs often are considered to provide the "hard case" for legitimacy (Black, 2008: 138).…”

“…Abbot and Snidal, 2010;Barr and Miller, 2006;Dorbeck-Jung, 2008;Picciotto, 2011). EC, 2008b;EC, 2011;Breggin et al 2009;Forsberg, 2010Forsberg, & 2012Schepel, 2005;Murashov and Howard, 2011;Miles, 2007 (Picciotto, 2011). Both the TBT and SPS Agreements are aware of the differences between countries, and thus they encourage the promotion of international harmonization of trade through standards, as an opportunity to reduce the emergence of non-tariff barriers that may result by following various rules (Bell and Marrapese, 2011).…”

“…Abbott and Snidal, 2009;Bowman and Hodge, 2009;Bowman, 2014;Blind and Gauch, 2009;Breggin et al 2009;Falkner and Jaspers, 2012;Miles, 2007;Meili and Widmer, 2010;Marchant and Sylvester, 2006;Marchant et al 2012), little attention is paid to the issue of legitimacy (e.g. Abbott et al 2010Abbott et al & 2012Delemarle and Throne-Holst, 2012;Forsberg 2010Forsberg & 2012Thoreau, 2011). In particular, little attention is paid to the actors involved, the processes by which the outcomes of the nanotechnology TGAs are negotiated and developed, as well as the conditions under which these arrangements can gain the support of the relevant stakeholders in the field.…”

“…The perception of legitimacy matters because, in such a controversial, competitive and challenging regulatory and scientific environment in which nanotechnologies are developing, TC 229 can only thrive if it is viewed and accepted as legitimate by relevant stakeholders. In fact, as Forsberg (2012) argues, when speaking about ISO as a governance player in the field of nanotechnologies it is hard to avoid issues of legitimacy. ISO provides an excellent laboratory for "probing a host of issues related to concepts of concerns to political scientists [including those of] legitimacy" (Risse, 2004: 1;Forsberg, 2012).…”

“…In fact, as Forsberg (2012) argues, when speaking about ISO as a governance player in the field of nanotechnologies it is hard to avoid issues of legitimacy. ISO provides an excellent laboratory for "probing a host of issues related to concepts of concerns to political scientists [including those of] legitimacy" (Risse, 2004: 1;Forsberg, 2012).…”