Corporate social responsibility for nanotechnology oversight

Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy

Volumn 14, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 407-419

  Kuzma, Jennifer ^a   Kuzhabekova, Aliya ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

Corporate social responsibility; Nanotechnology; Oversight

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; ENVIRONMENT; ETHICS; HUMAN; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; INSTITUTIONAL ETHICS; NANOTECHNOLOGY; OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; POLICY; SAFETY; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; STANDARD;

ENVIRONMENT; ETHICS, INSTITUTIONAL; HUMANS; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; NANOTECHNOLOGY; OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH; ORGANIZATIONAL POLICY; SAFETY MANAGEMENT; SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 80053920526     PISSN: 13867423     EISSN: 15728633     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11019-011-9330-3     Document Type: Article

References (92)

1. Bass, B. M. 1985. Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
2. Bass, B. M. 1997. Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist 52: 130-139.
3. Bass, B. M. 1998. Transformational leadership: Industrial, military, and educational impact. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
4. Bass, B. M., and P. Steidlmeier. 1999. Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership behavior. The Leadership Quarterly 10: 307-330.
5. Biondi, V., M. Frey, F. Iraldo. 2000. Environmental management systems and SMEs: Motivations, opportunities, and barriers related to EMAS and ISO 14001 implementation. Greener Management International 29: 55-69.
6. Bowen, H. R. 1953. Social responsibilities of the businessmen. New York: Harper and Row.
7. Bowles, S., and H. Gintis. 1985. Democracy and capitalism. New York: Basic Books.
8. Bozeman, B., and D. Sarewitz. 2005. Public values and public failure in US science polic. Science and Public Policy 32: 119-136.
9. Burke, L., and J. Logsdon. 1996. How corporate social responsibility pays off. Long Range Planning 29(4): 495-502.
10. Carrol, A. 1991. The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons 34: 39-48.
11. Choi, J.-Y., and G. Ramachandran. 2009. Review of the OSHA framework for oversight of occupational environments. The Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 37: 633-650.
12. Cobb, M. D., and J. Macoubrie. 2004. Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits and trust. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 6: 395-405.
13. Crane, A., and D. Matten. 2007. Corporate social responsibility. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.
14. Daily Environment Report. 2008. As deadline nears, 16 firms to participate in nanoscale materials stewardship program. 134, p. A-1. The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. Available at http://www. bna. com.
15. Davies, C. 2007. EPA and Nanotechnology: Oversight for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies.
16. Donaldson, T. 1982. Corporations and morality. Engelwood Cliff, NJ: Prentice Hall.
17. Donaldson, T., and T. W. Dunfee. 1994. Towards a unified conception of business ethics: Integrative social contract theory. Academy of Management Review 19: 252-284.
18. Donaldson, T., and T. W. Dunfee. 1999. Ties that bind: A social contract approach to business ethics. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
19. DuPont. 2008. Corporate social responsibility statement. Retrieved 8 Aug 2008 from http://www. dupont. com.
20. Dupont-ED (Environmental Defence). 2008. Nano risk framework. Dupont Co. and Environmental Defense. Retrieved on 8 Aug 2008 from http://www. nanoriskframework. com/page. cfm?tagID=1095.
21. Eastman, Q. 2003. UK probes public opposition to GM crops. Science 300: 1637-1638.
22. EC (European Comission). 2007. Corporate social responsibility-national public policies in the European Union. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
23. EPA (U. S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2008. Nanoscale materials stewardship program. Available at http://epa. gov/oppt/nano/stewardship. htm.
24. EPA. 2009. (U. S. Environmental Protection Agency) External review draft nanomaterial case studies: nanoscale titanium dioxide in water treatment and in topical sunscreen. 31 July 2009. Available at http://cfpub. epa. gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay. cfm?deid=210206.
25. FDA (Food and Drug Administration). 2007. Nanotechnology: A report of the US food and drug administration nanotechnology task force. Available at http://www. fda. gov/nanotechnology/taskforce/report2007. html.
26. Freeman, R. E. 1984. Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.
27. Frederick, W. 2008. Corporate social responsibility: Deep roots, flourishing growth, promising future. In The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility, ed. A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D. Matten, J. Moon, and D. Siegel. New York: Oxford University Press.
28. Friedman, M. 1970. The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine, 13 September.
29. Garriga, E., and D. Mele. 2004. Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics 53(1-2): 51-71.
30. Guston, D. H., and D. Sarewitz. 2002. Real-time technology assessment. Technology in Society 23: 93-109.
31. Hamschmidt, J., and T. Dyllick. 2001. ISO 14001: Profitable? Yes! But is it eco-effective? Greener Management International 34: 43-54.
32. Hart Research Associates. 2008. Awareness of and attitudes toward nanotechnology and synthetic biology: A report of findings. Conducted on behalf of project on emerging nanotechnologies, The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Available online at www. nanotechproject. org.
33. Hess, D. 2006. Corporates faced to justice: The 'Hard' law. In Corporate social responsibility, ed. J. Allouche. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
34. Holliday, C., and F. Krupp. 2005. Let's get nanotech right. Wall Street Journal, 14 June, p. B2.
35. Howel, J. M., and B. J. Avolio. 1992. The ethics of charismatic leadership: Submission or liberation? Academy of Management Executive 6: 43-54.
36. ICTA (International Center for Technology Assessment). 2006. Petition requesting FDA amend its regulations for products composed of engineered nanoparticles generally and sunscreen drug products composed of engineered nanoparticles specifically. Available at http://www. icta. org/doc/Nano%20FDA%20petition%20final. pdf.
37. ICTA (International Center for Technology Assessment). 2007. Principles for the oversight of nanotechnologies and nanomaterials. Accessed on 5 Aug 2007. http://www. icta. org/doc/Principles%20for%20the%20Oversight%20of%20Nanotechnologies%20and%20Nanomaterialsfinal. pdf.
38. IRGC (International Risk Governance Council). 2006. Survey on nanotechnology governance: Volume B the role of industry. Zurich: International Risk Governance Council.
39. Jones, M. T. 1999. The institutional determinants of social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics 20(2): 163-179.
40. Kalil, T., and N. Lane. 2005. The national nanotechnology initiative: Present at the creation. Issues in Science and Technology 24: 49-54.
41. Kanungo, R. N. 2001. Ethical values of transactional and transformational leaders. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences 18: 257-265.
42. Kaptein, M., and R. van Tulder. 2003. Toward effective stakeholder dialogue. Business and Society Review 108(2): 203-224.
43. Kuzma, J. 2006. Nanotechnology oversight and regulation-just do it. Environmental Law Reporter 36: 10913-10923.
44. Kuzma, J. 2007. Moving forward responsibly: Oversight at the nanotechnology-biology interface. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 9: 165-182.
45. Kuzma, J., and J. C. Besley. 2008. Ethics of risk analysis and regulatory review: From bio- to nanotechnology. Nanoethics 2(2): 149-162.
46. Kuzma, J., J. Paradise, G. Ramachandran, J.-A. Kim, A. Kokotovich, and S. M. Wolf. 2008. An integrated approach to oversight assessment for emerging technologies. Risk Analysis 28(5): 1179-1195.
47. Kuzma, J., Romanchek, J., and A. Kokotovich. 2008. Upstream oversight assessment for agrifood nanotechnology. Risk Analysis 28(4): 1081-1098.
48. Kuzma, J., J. Larson, and P. Najmaie. 2009. Evaluating oversight systems for emerging technologies: A case study of genetically engineered organisms. Journal of Law Medicine and Ethics 37(4): 546-586.
49. Lee, R., and P. D. Jose. 2008. Self-interest, self-restraint and corporate responsibility for nanotechnologies: Emerging dillemas for modern managers. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 20(1): 113-125.
50. Lenk, C., and N. Biller-Adorno. 2007. Nanomedicine-emerging or re-emerging ethical issues? A discussion of four ethical themes. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 10: 173-184.
51. Lieberman, M. B., and D. B. Montgomery. 1988. First-mover advantages. Strategic Management Journal 9: 41-58.
52. Macoubrie, J. 2005. Informed public perceptions of nanotechnology and trust in government. Washington, DC: Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies.
53. Macoubrie, J. 2006. Nanotechnology: Public concerns, reasoning and trust in government. Public Understanding of Science 15: 221-241.
54. Matten, D., and J. Moon. 2004. A conceptual framework for understanding CSR in Europe. In CSR across Europe, ed. A. Habisch, J. Jonker, M. Wegner, and R. Schmidpeter, 339-360. Berlin: Springer.
55. Maynard, A. 2006. A research strategy for addressing risk. Washington, DC: Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies.
56. Mcnaughten, P., M. B. Kearnes, and B. Wynne. 2005. Nanotechnology, governance, a nd public deliberation: What role for the social sciences? Science Communication 27(2): 268-291.
57. Mendonca, M. 2001. Preparing for ethical leadership in organizations. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences 18: 266-276.
58. Morgan, K. 2005. Development of a preliminary framework for informing the risk analysis and risk management of nanoparticles. Risk Analysis 25(6): 1621-1635.
59. NNI (National Nanotechnology Initiative). 2007. What is nanotechnology? Retrieved on 5 June 2007, from http://www. nano. gov/html/facts/whatIsNano. html.
60. NRC (National Research Council). 1996. Understanding risk. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
61. Paradise, J., M. Wolf, G. Ramachandran, E. Kokkoli, R. Hall, and J. Kuzma. 2008a. Developing oversight frameworks for nanobiotechnology. Minnesota Journal of Law Science and Technology 9(1): 399-416.
62. Paradise, J., G. M. Diliberto, A. W. Tisdale, and E. Kokkoli. 2008b. Exploring emerging nanobiotechnology drugs and medical devices. Food and Drug Law Journal 63(2): 407-420.
63. Pedersen, E. R., and P. Neergaard. 2006. Caveat emptor. Let the buyer beware! Environmental labeling and the limitations of 'green consumerism'. Business Strategy and the Environment 15(1): 15-29.
64. Pedersen, E. R., and P. Neergaard. 2007. The bottom line of CSR: A different view. In Managing corporate social responsibility in action: Taking, doing and measuring, ed. F. Den Hond, G. A. De Bakker, and P. Neergard. Hampshire, England: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
65. PEN (Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies). 2008. A nanotechnology consumer products inventory. Last accessed on 4 Aug 2010. http://www. nanotechproject. org/44/consumer-nanotechnology.
66. PIFB (Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology). 2004. Issues in the regulation of the genetically engineered plants and animals. Retrieved 29 July 2008 from http://www. pewtrusts. org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/News/Press_Releases/Food_and_Biotechnology/food_biotech_regulation_0404. pdf.
67. Pidgeon, N. 2006. Opportunities and uncertainties: The British nanotechnologies report and the case for upstream societal dialogue. In: Conference paper: VALDOR. Stockholm, Sweden. Retrieved on 29 July 2008 from http://www. congrex. com/valdor2006/papers/53_Pidgeon. pdf.
68. Pidgeon, N., and T. Rogers-Hayden. 2007. Opening up nanotechnology dialogue with the public: Risk communication or 'upstream engagement'? Health Risk and Society 9(2): 191-210.
69. Poksinska, B., J. J. Dahlgaard, and J. Eklund. 2003. Implementing ISO 14000 in Sweden: Motives, benefits and comparisons with ISO 9000. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management 20(5): 585-606.
70. Pollack, A. 2007. Without rules, biotech food lacks investors. New York Times, 30 July. Available at http://www. nytimes. com/2007/07/30/washington/30animal. html?ei=.
71. Porter, M. E. 1991. America's green strategy. Scientific American 264: 268.
72. Rabino, I. 1994. How European and US genetic engineering scientists view the impact of public attention on their field: A comparison. Science, Technology and Human Values 19: 23-46.
73. Rawls, J. 1971. A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
74. Rousseau, J. J. 1791. Contract social, ou principles du droit politique. A Strasbourg, De l'Impr. De la Societe Typographique. Latest edition: Adamant Media Corporation, 2001.
75. Royal Society. 2004. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties. London: The Royal Society.
76. Sacconi, L. 2006. A social contract account for CSR as extended model of corporate governance (I): Rational bargaining and justification. Journal of Business Ethics 68(3): 259-281.
77. Satterfield, T., et al. 2009. Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies. Nature Nanotechnology 4: 752-758.
78. Shrader-Frechete, K. 2007. Nanotoxicology and ethical considerations for informed consent. Nanoethics 1: 47-56.
79. Sethi, S. P. 2002. Standards for corporate conduct in the international arena: Challenges and opportunities for multinational corporations. Business and Society Review 107(1): 20-40.
80. Shamir, B., R. J. House, and M. B. Arthur. 1993. The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science 4: 577-594.
81. Siegrist, M. 2000. The influence of trust and perceptions of risk and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis 20: 195-204.
82. Sinclair, D. 1997. Self-regulation versus command and control? Beyond false dichotomies. Law and Policy 19(4): 529-559.
83. Sirsly, C.-A. T., and K. Lamertz. 2008. When does a corporate social responsibility initiative provide a first-mover advantage? Business and Society 43(3): 343-369.
84. Song, Y., et al. 2009. Exposure to nanoparticles is related to pleural effusion, pulmonary fibrosis and granuloma. European Respiratory Journal 34: 559-567.
85. Taylor, M. 2006. Regulating the products of nanotechnology: Does FDA have the tools it needs? Washington DC: Project on Emerging Technologies.
86. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2008. Social contract theory. Retrieved on 1 Aug 2008 from http://www. iep. utm. edu/.
87. Velasquez, M. G. 1983. Why corporations are not morally responsible for anything they do. Business and Professional Ethics Journal 2(4): 1-18.
88. Werhane, P. H. 1985. Persons, rights, and corporations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
89. Wilsdon, J., and R. Wills. 2004. See-through science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream. Demos: London. At www. demos. co. uk.
90. Wolf, S. M., R. Gupta, and P. Kohlhepp. 2009. Gene therapy oversight: Lessons for nanobiotechnology. The Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 37: 659-684.
91. Zadek, S. (2004). The path to corporate responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 82(12): 125-132, 150.
92. Zutshi, A., and A. Sohal. 2004. Environmental management system adoption by Australasian organizations. Part 1: Relations, benefits and impediments. Technovation 24(4): 335-357.