Skip to main content
Log in

Nanotechnology and Ethics: The Role of Regulation Versus Self-Commitment in Shaping Researchers’ Behavior

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

Abstract

The governance of nanotechnology seeks to limit its risks, without constraining opportunities. The literature on the effectiveness of approaches to governance has neglected approaches that impact directly on the behavior of a researcher. We analyze the effectiveness of legal regulations versus regulation via self-commitment. Then, we refine this model by analyzing competition and autonomy as key contingency factors. In the first step, qualitative interviews with nanotechnology researchers are conducted to reflect this model. In the second step, its empirical relevance is tested using a survey of 90 nanotech researchers. The results indicate that legal regulations, as well as self-commitment to an informal CoC reduce the scope of behavior. Finally, that competition and autonomy affect the relative strength of these governance factors.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adler, P. (2001). Market hierarchy, and trust: The knowledge economy and the future of capitalism. Organization Science, 12(2), 215–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, M. A., & Lattimore, R. G. (2004). Nanotechnology: Now is the time to assess risks. Occupational Hazards, 66(9), 68–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, F., Gevers, S., Siep, L., & Welting, K.-M. (2008). Ethical legal and social aspects of brain-implants using nano-scale materials and techniques. Nanoethics, 2, 241–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergeson, L. L., & Auerbach, B. (2004). Reading the small print (about nanotechnology). The Environmental Forum, 21(2), 30–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bormann, E. G. (1975). Discussion and group methods: Theory and practice. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowman, D. M., & Hodge, G. A. (2006). Nanotechnology: Mapping the wild regulatory frontier. Futures, 38, 1060–1073.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowman, D. M., & Hodge, G. A. (2007). Editorial—governing nanotechnology: More than a small matter? Nanoethics, 1, 239–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowman, D. M., & Hodge, G. A. (2008). A big regulatory tool-box for a small technology. Nanoethics, 2, 193–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, C. (1996). Ethics and corporate governance: The issues raised by the Cadbury report in the United Kingdom. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(2), 167–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breggin, L. K., & Carothers, L. (2006). Governing uncertainty: The nanotechnology environmental health, and safety challenge. Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, 31, 285–329.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brownsword, R. (2008). Regulating nanomedicine—the smallest of our concerns? Nanoethics, 2, 73–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, S. (2005). Future technologies dystopic futures and the precautionary principle. Ethics and Information Technology, 7, 121–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, S. (2007). Nanotechnologies—small scale big impact. Consumer Policy Review, 17(4), 99–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorbeck-Jung, B. (2007). What can prudent public regulators learn from the United Kingdom government’s nanotechnological regulatory activities? Nanoethics, 1, 257–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dubinsky, A. J., & Loken, B. (1989). Analyzing ethical decision making in marketing. Journal of Business Research, 19, 83–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dwyer, F. R., Schurr, H. P., & Oh, S. (1987). Developing buyer–seller relationships. Journal of Marketing, 51, 11–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferrell, B. J., & Fraedrich, J. (1994). Business ethics. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrell, O. C., & Gresham, L. B. (1985). A contingency framework for understanding ethical decision-making in marketing. Journal of Marketing, 49, 87–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferrell, O. C., LeClair, D. T., & Ferrell, L. (1998). The federal sentencing guidelines for organizations: A framework for ethical compliance. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(4), 353–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fink, M., Harms, R., & Kraus, S. (2008). Cooperative internationalization of SMEs: Self-commitment as a success factor for international entrepreneurship. European Management Journal, 26(6), 429–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fink, M., & Kessler, A. (2009). Cooperation trust and performance: Empirical results from three countries. British Journal of Management, 21(2), 469–483.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, E. (2007). Ethnographic invention: Probing the capacity of laboratory decisions. Nanoethics, 1, 155–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frankel, M. S. (1989). Professional codes: Why, how, and with what impact? Journal of Business Ethics, 8(2/3), 109–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fricker, R. D., & Schonlau, M. (2002). Advantages and disadvantages of internet research surveys: Evidence from the literature. Field Methods, 14(4), 347–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedell, E. (1983). Selbstanzeige. Essays ab 1919. Vienna: Loecker.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, L. M. (1975). The legal system: A social science perspective. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaumnitz, B. R., & Lere, J. C. (2002). Contents of codes of ethics of professional business organizations in the United States. Journal of Business Ethics, 35(1), 35–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, S. (2009). Nanotechnology may be tiny, but exposures could be huge. National Underwriter, Life and Health, 113(46), 21–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guerra, G. (2008). European regulatory issues in nanomedicine. Nanoethics, 2, 87–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haas, K. M. (2009). Nanotechnology: Risks and rewards. Best’s Review, 110(2), 92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haase, M. (2008). Customer integration and beyond. Towards a business economic–ethical theory of the firm. In D. Baur, F. Birke, J. Fehling, B. Hollstein, & M. Lee-Peuker (Eds.), European business and economic ethics (pp. 129–152). Mering : Zfuw.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hood, E. (2004). Nanotechnoloy: Looking as we leap. Environmental Health Perspective, 112(13), 740–749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyman, R. (1987). Strategy or structure? Capital, labour and control. Work, Employment & Society, 1(1), 25–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, J. V. (1987). Ethical tension points in whistleblowing. Journal of Business Ethics, 6(4), 321–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitcher, P. (2007). Scientific research—who should govern? Nanoethics, 1, 177–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knorr, K. (1977). ‘Producing and reproducing knowledge: Descriptive or constructive? Towards a model of research production. Social Science Information, 16(6), 669–696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knouse, S. B., Hill, V. D., & Hamilton, J. B. (2007). Curves in the high road: A historical analysis of the development of american business codes of ethics. Journal of Management History, 13(1), 94–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuzma, J., & Besley, J. C. (2008). Ethics of risk analysis and regulatory review: From bio- to nanotechnology. Nanoethics, 2, 149–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kyobe, M. (2009). Factors influencing SME compliance with government regulation on use of IT: The case of South Africa. Journal of Global Information Management, 17(2), 30–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langfred, C. W., & Moye, N. A. (2004). Effects of task autonomy on performance: An extended model considering motivational, informational, and structural mechanisms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 934–945.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, R., & Jose, P. D. (2008). Self-interest, self-restraint and corporate responsibility for nanotechnologies: Emerging dilemmas for modern managers. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 20(1), 113–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linstone, H. A. (2011). Three areas of technology foresight. Technovation, 31, 69–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linton, J., & Walsh, S. (2004). Integrating innovation and learning curve theory: An enabler for moving nanotechnologies and other emerging process technologies into production. R&D Management, 34(5), 517–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linton, J., & Walsh, S. (2008a). Acceleration and extension of opportunity recognition for nanotechnologies and other emerging technologies. International Small Business Journal, 26(1), 83–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linton, J., & Walsh, S. (2008b). A theory for innovation of process-based innovations such as nanotechnology. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 75(5), 583–594.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. (1988). Familiarity, confidence, trust: Problems and alternatives. In D. Gambetta (Ed.), Trust: Making and breaking co-operative relations (pp. 94–107). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luther, W. (2004). Industrial application of nanomaterials—chances and risks: Technology analysis. In W. Luther (Ed.), Future technologies (Vol. 54, pp. 1–119). Duesseldorf: Future Technologies Division of VDI Technologiezentrum GmbH.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maitland, I. (1985). The limits of business self-regulation. California Management Review, 27(3), 132–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manfreda, K. L., Bosniak, M., & Berzelak, J. (2008). Web surveys versus other survey modes—a meta-analysis comparing response rates. International Journal of Market Research, 50(1), 79–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayring, P. (2010). Qualitative inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und techniken. Weinheim: Beltz.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCoy, R. (2000). Science and biotechnology: The dark side. Malaysian Journal of Economic Studies, 37(1/2), 147–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, G., & Nijhof, A. (1999). Beyond codes of ethics: An integrated framework for stimulating morally responsible behaviour in organization. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 20(3), 133–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. (2006). The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1321–1339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrell, K. (2008). The narrative of ‘evidence based’ management: A polemic. Journal of Management Studies, 45(3), 613–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muris, T. J. (1981). Opportunistic behaviour and the law of contracts. Minnesota Law Review, 65(4), 521–590.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nijhof, A., Cludts, S., Fisscher, O., & Laan, A. (2003). Measuring the implementation of codes of conduct. An assessment method based on a process approach of the responsible organisation. Journal of Business Ethics, 45(1/2), 65–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nooteboom, B. (1996). Trust opportunism and governance: A process and control model. Organization Studies, 17, 985–1010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Driscoll, G. P., & Hoskins, L. (2006). The case for market-based regulation. Cato Journal, 26(3), 469–487.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, S. H., & Ungson, G. R. (2001). Interfirm rivalry and managerial complexity: A conceptual framework of alliance failure. Organization Science, 12(1), 37–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petersen, A., & Anderson, A. (2007). A question of balance or blind faith? Scientists’ and science policymakers’ representations of the benefits and risks of nanotechnology. Nanoethics, 1, 243–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Posner, R. A. (1997). Social norms and the law: An economic approach. The American Economic Review, 87(2), 365–369.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ring, P., & van den Ven, A. (1992). Structuring cooperative relationships between organizations. Strategic Management Journal, 13(7), 483–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roco, M. C., & Bainbridge, W. S. (2001). Nanotechnology goals. In M. C. Roco & W. S. Bainbridge (Eds.), Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology (pp. 3–12). Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roco, M. C., & Bainbridge, W. S. (2005). Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology: Maximizing human benefit. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 7, 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogelberg, S. G., & Stanton, J. M. (2007). Introduction: Understanding and dealing with organizational survey nonresponse. Organizational Research Methods, 10(2), 195–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romig, A. D., Jr, Baker, A. B., Johannes, J., Zipperian, Th., Eijkel, K., Kirchhoff, B., et al. (2007). An introduction to nanotechnology policy: Opportunities and constraints for emerging and established economies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 74(9), 1634–1642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schuetz, A. (1972). The phenomenology of the social world. London: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shafer, W. E., Fukukawa, K., & Lee, G. M. (2007). Values and the perceived importance of ethics and social responsibility: The US versus China. Journal of Business Ethics, 70, 265–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S. A. (2004). Academic entrepreneurship university spinoffs and wealth creation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist, M., Keller, C., Kastenholz, H., Frey, S., & Wiek, A. (2007). Laypeople’s and experts’ Perception of nanotechnology hazards. Risk Analysis, 27(1), 59–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silver, D. (2005). Corporate codes of conduct and the value of autonomy. Journal of Business Ethics, 59, 3–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thukral, I. S., Von Ehr, J., Walsh, S., Groen, A. J., van der Sijde, P., & Adham, K. A. (2008). Entrepreneurship emerging technologies, emerging markets. International Small Business Journal, 26, 101–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trevino, L. K. (1986). Ethical decision-making in organizations: A person–situation interactionist model. Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 601–617.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2005). Can businesses effectively regulate employee conduct? The antecedents of rule following in work settings. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 1143–1158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Calster, G. (2008). Risk regulation, EU law and emerging technologies: Smother or smooth? Nanoethics, 2, 61–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wernerfelt, B., & Montgomery, C. A. (1986). What is an attractive industry? Management Science, 32(10), 1223–1231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. E., & Craswell, R. (1993). Calculativeness trust and economic organization. Journal of Law and Economics, 36, 453–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wonglimipiyarat, J. (2005). The nano-revolution of Schumpeter’s Kontratieff cycle. Technovation, 15, 1349–1354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yanez, M., Khalil, T. M., & Walsh, S. T. (2010). IAMOT and education: Defining a technology and innovation management (TIM) body-of-knowledge (BoK) for graduate education (TIM BoK). Technovation, 30(7–8), 389–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rainer Harms.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fink, M., Harms, R. & Hatak, I. Nanotechnology and Ethics: The Role of Regulation Versus Self-Commitment in Shaping Researchers’ Behavior. J Bus Ethics 109, 569–581 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1431-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1431-2

Keywords

Navigation