Skip to main content Skip to page footer
elni logo elni logo

Law and innovation in the context of nanomaterials: Barriers to sustainable development? Results of an empirical study

Julian Schenten and Martin Führ

elni Review 2012, Issue 2,  pp. 83-91. https://doi.org/10.46850/elni.2012.014

According to Art. 3(3) of the Treaty on the European Union, the Community is working towards the sustainable development of Europe – this constitutes the overriding long-term goal of the European Union. The guiding principle of sustainable development aspires towards the reduced exploitation of natural resources aimed at their long-term preservation and a reduced pollutant burden for protected natural resources. The target for 2020 is that "chemicals are used and produced in ways that lead to the minimization of significant adverse effects on human health and the environment" (’Johannesburg goals’). In addition, the guiding principle pursues the safeguarding of the basis for survival and economic production in order to maintain an adequate quality of life. These aims can only be achieved by far-reaching changes to the economic and social structures and also to patterns of consumption and production – consequently innovations are required. This requires specific regulatory strategies – particularly for product or process innovations – in order to create adequate incentives so that actors from trade and industry get innovations for sustainability off the ground. In connection with this the question arises as to how nanomaterials are to be regulated so that the innovation processes linked to these substances are aligned with the guiding principle of sustainable development.
Nanomaterials are substances in terms of the REACH Regulation and therefore fall within its scope. However, REACH does not contain any provisions directed specifically at nanomaterials. The regulatory omissions arising from this – no definition for nanomaterials; tonnage quantity thresholds may be inappropriate for nanoscale substances; transitional periods for existing substances (phase-in substances, Art. 23) also apply to certain nanomaterials; test procedures are not designed to nanomaterial specifications, etc. – are discussed in depth in the literature.
This article takes a different perspective. It examines to what degree REACH promotes innovations for sustainability through nanomaterials. The question of how the regulation affects the manufacturers' approach to nanomaterials was the subject of a survey sent to companies which manufacture and/or use nanomaterials. The survey questioned 37 companies based in Germany. Besides the issues of registering for REACH and carrying out safety assessments, the main focus of interest was on the relationships between substance risks and innovation and between REACH and innovation. The findings obtained from the survey were augmented by telephone interviews on this subject and by the results of a workshop held in Darmstadt, Germany, in December 2011 with representatives from companies and industry associations and experts on the regulation of nanomaterials. Finally, this contribution refers to the results of a study carried out for the European Commission on the innovative effects of REACH on emerging technologies. This document summarises the most important results from the empirical data and, where the data permits, draws some preliminary conclusions for a possible adaptation of the legal framework for nanomaterials.

Access full article

References

  1. Schenten 2012, Recht und Innovation bei Nanomaterialien: Zwischenergebnisse einer juristisch-empirischen Untersuchung, StoffR 2, p. 79 – 87.
  2. European Commission 2009, Mainstreaming sustainable development into EU policies: 2009 Review of the European Union Strategy for Sustainable Development, COM(2009) 400 final.
  3. Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), OJ 2012 C 226/47.
  4. European Commission 2001, A Sustainable Europe for a Better World: A European Union Strategy for Sustainable Development, COM(2001) 264 final.
  5. Von Hauff/Kleine 2009: Nachhaltige Entwicklung. Grundlagen und Umsetzung. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1524/9783486850949.
  6. United Nations 2002, Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development, A/CONF.199/20, Johannesburg.
  7. European Commission, n.d., Sustainable Development.
  8. United Nations 1987, Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future (‘Brundtland Report’).
  9. Rennings 1998, Towards a Theory and Policy of Eco-Innovation – Neoclassical and (Co-)Evolutionary Perspectives, ZEW Discussion Papers, No. 98-24, p. 8 et seq.
  10. ‘Responsive Steuerung von Innovationsverhalten für Nachhaltigkeit’ – ReSINa, which is being carried out on behalf of the Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (German Federal Ministry for Education and Research) (BMBF) (FKZ 01UN1014B).
  11. Lövestam et al. 2010, Considerations on a Definition of Nanomaterial for Regulatory Purposes, JRC Reference Reports, EUR 24403 EN.
  12. European Commission 2011, Commission Recommendation 2011/696/EU of 18 October 2011 on the definition of nanomaterial, OJ 2011 L 275/38.
  13. Steinfeldt/von Gleich et al. 2010, Environmental Relief Effects through Nanotechnological Processes and Products.
  14. Ellenbecker/Tsai 2011, Engineered nanoparticles: safer substitutes for toxic materials, or a new hazard? JOCP 19, pp 483-487. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.11.004.
  15. Greßler/Nentwich 2011, Nano und Umwelt – Teil I: Entlastungspotenziale und Nachhaltigkeitseffekte, NanoTrust-Dossier Nr. 026, November, edited by Institut für Technikfolgen-Abschätzung (ITA), Wien.
  16. Aitken et al. 2009, Engineered Nanoparticles: Review of Health and Environmental Safety (ENRHES).
  17. EASAC/JRC 2011, Impact of Engineered Nanomaterials on Health: Considerations for Benefit-Risk-Assessment.
  18. SCENIHR 2007, The appropriateness of the risk assessment methodology in accordance with the Technical Guidance Documents for new and existing substances for assessing the risks of nanomaterials.
  19. Aitken et al. 2011, Specific Advice on Exposure Assessment and Hazard/Risk Characterisation for Nanomaterials under REACH (RIP-oN 3).
  20. SCENIHR 2009, Risk Assessment of Products of Nanotechnologies.
  21. Krug/Wick 2011, Nanotoxicology: An Interdisciplinary Challenge, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed., p. 2 et seq.
  22. Regulation (EC) no 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC, OJ 2006 L 396/1.
  23. Führ/Bizer 2007, REACh as a paradigm shift in chemical policy – responsive regulation and behavioural models, JOCP 15, pp 327-334. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.10.003.
  24. Polly/Lach 2012, Das neue Produktsicherheitsgesetz – was Wirtschaftsakteure beachten sollten, Betriebs-Berater 2.
  25. German Advisory Council on the Environment (SRU) 2011, Vorsorgestrategien für Nanomaterialien.
  26. Führ et al. 2007, Legal appraisal of nano technologies. Existing legal framework, the need for regulation and regulative options at a European and national level. Final report.
  27. Franco et al. 2007, Limits and prospects of the ‘‘incremental approach’’ and the European legislation on the management of risks related to nanomaterials, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 48, pp 171-83. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2007.03.007.
  28. Pronk et al. 2009, Nanomaterials under REACH. Nanosilver as a case study, RIVM report 60178000.
  29. European Commission, 2012, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee, Second Regulatory Review on Nanomaterials COM(2012) 572 final.
  30. European Commission, 2012, Commission Staff Working Paper, Types and uses of nanomaterials, including safety aspects SWD(2012) 288 final.
  31. Environment Directorate, Joint Meeting of the Chemical Committee and the Working Party on Chemicals, Pesticides and Biotechnology, 2010, Series on the Safety and Manufactured Nanomaterials, List of Manufactured Nanomaterials and List of Endpoints for Phase One of the Sponsorship Programme for the Testing of Manufactured Nanomaterials: Revision, ENV/JM/MONO(2010)46
  32. ISO/TR 13121:2011 (Nanotechnologies - Nanomaterial risk evaluation).
  33. Bizer/Führ 2009, Innovationen entlang der Wertschöpfungskette: Impulse aus der REACh-Verordnung, in: Eifert/Hoffmann-Riem, Innovationsfördernde Regulierung.
  34. Führ/Bizer 2009, Zuordnung der Innovations-Verantwortlichkeiten im Risikoverwaltungsrecht – Das Beispiel der REACh-Verordnung, in: Eifert/Hoffmann-Riem, Innovationsverantwortung. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3790/978-3-428-53151-6.
  35. Perenius 2009, How to handle transparency. Cefic’s view, Lecture as part of the event NanoImpactNet on 27 March.
  36. Gilbert et al. 2011, Study on REACH contribution to the development of emerging technologies.
  37. ECHA 2012, Press Release ECHA/NA/12/16 from 30 April.