Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Is There Room at the Bottom for CSR? Corporate Social Responsibility and Nanotechnology in the UK

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Adam, B. and Groves, C. 2007. Future Matters: Action, Knowledge, Ethics. Leiden: Brill.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aitken, R. et al. 2010. Engineered nanoparticles: review of health and environmental safety (ENRHES). Edinburgh: Edinburgh Napier University.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berube, D. 2006. Nanohype. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B. 1979. A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of Management Review 4, pp. 497-505.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaudhry, Q., et al.: 2008, ‘Applications and Implications of Nanotechnologies for the Food Sector’, Food Additives and Contaminants 25(3), 241–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson, M. E. 1995. A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review 20(1), pp. 92-117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, M. D. and J. Macoubrie: 2004, ‘Public Perceptions about Nanotechnology: Risks, Benefits, and Trust’, Journal of Nanoparticle Research 6(4), 395–405

    Google Scholar 

  • Collingridge, D. 1980. The social control of technology. New York: St Martins Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cormick, C.: 2009, ‘Why Do We Need to Know What the Public Thinks about Nanotechnology?’, Nanoethics 2(3), 167–173

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felt, U. and Wynne, B. 2007. Taking European knowledge society seriously. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gavelin, K. et al. 2007. Democratic technologies? The final report of the Nanotechnology Engagement Group (NEG). London: Involve.

    Google Scholar 

  • Global Reporting International 2006. Sustainability reporting guidelines. Amsterdam: GRI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groves, C. 2008. Whose Nanotechnology? Cardiff: BRASS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groves, C.: 2009, ‘Nanotechnology, Contingency and Finitude’, Nanoethics 3(1), 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grove-White, R. et al. 2000. Wising up: the public and new technologies. Lancaster: Centre for the Study of Environmental Change (Lancaster University).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunningham, N. 1995. Environment, self-regulation and the chemical industry: assessing Responsible Care. Law and Policy 17(1), pp. 57-109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunningham, N. A. et al. 2005. Motivating management: corporate compliance in environmental protection. Law and Policy 27(2), pp. 289-316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hennen, L. 1999. Participatory technology assessment: a response to technical modernity? Science and Public Policy 26, pp. 303-312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hockerts, K. et al. 2008. CSR-Driven Innovation: Towards the Social Purpose Business. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macoubrie, J. 2006. Nanotechnology: public concerns, reasoning and trust in government. Public Understanding of Science 15, pp. 221-241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nordmann, A. 2005. Noumenal technology: reflections on the incredible tininess of Nano. Techne 8(3), pp. 3-23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowotny, H. 2003. Democratising expertise and socially robust knowledge. Science and Public Policy 30, pp. 151-156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen, R. et al. 2009. Beyond Regulation: Risk Pricing and Responsible Innovation. Environmental Science & Technology 43(18), pp. 6902-6906.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perrini, F. et al. 2007. CSR Strategies of SMEs and large firms: evidence from Italy. Journal of Business Ethics 74, pp. 285-300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Power, M. 2004. The risk management of everything: rethinking the politics of uncertainty. London: Demos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C. K. and Hart, S. 2002. The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid. Strategy + Business 26, pp. 1-14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Preuss, L. and Perschke, J. 2010. Slipstreaming the larger boats: social responsibility in medium-sized businesses. Journal of Business Ethics 92, pp. 531-551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Priest, S. H. 2009. Risk communication for nanobiotechnology: to whom, about what, and why? Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics 37(4), pp. 759-769.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rashba, E. and D. Gamota: 2003, ‘Anticipatory Standards and the Commercialization of Nanotechnology’, Journal of Nanoparticle Research 5(3-4), 401–407.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ravetz, J. 2004. The post-normal science of precaution. Futures 36(3), pp. 347-357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renn, O. and Roco, M. C. 2006. Nanotechnology and the need for risk governance. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 8(2), pp. 153-191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution 2008. Novel materials in the environment: the case of nanotechnology. Norwich: The Stationery Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sparrow, R. 2008. Talkin’ ‘Bout a (Nanotechnological) Revolution. Ieee Technology and Society Magazine 27(2), pp. 37-43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tilt, C. A. 2007. The content and disclosure of Australian corporate environmental policies. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 14(2), pp. 190-212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uskokovic, V. 2007. Nanotechnologies: what we do not know. Technology in Society 29(1), pp. 43-61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wartick, S. L. and Cochran, P. L. 1985. The evolution of the corporate social performance model. Academy of Management Review 4, pp. 758-769.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilsdon, J. and Willis, R. 2004. See-through science: why public engagement needs to move upstream. London: Demos.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D. J. 1991. Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review 16, pp. 691-718.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wynne, B. 1991. Knowledges in context. Science, Technology and Human Values 16(1), pp. 111-121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ESRC Centre for Business Relationships, Accountability, Sustainability and Society (BRASS), 55 Park Place, Cardiff, CF10 3AT, U.K.

    Chris Groves, Lori Frater, Robert Lee & Elen Stokes

Authors
  1. Chris Groves
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lori Frater
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Robert Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Elen Stokes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chris Groves.

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0731-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation