Literature review on risk governance at the company level

This literature review on Risk Governance is part of a TNO research programme on the safety of innovative substances and technologies in the workplace. The purpose of this review is to investigate how risk governance can be applied in the workplace when dealing with uncertainties regarding the (health) risks of these technologies, and with the related responsibilities. The review gives an overview of the current state of affairs of risk governance as a concept, and more specifically examines what is taking place in (workplace) practice. The review focuses more specifically on the relationship between risk governance and working with nanotechnologies. The review will be used as input and (scientific) background for future case studies to see if, and how, risk governance can be applied in workplace settings. From the state of the art of (international) research into the concept of risk governance we can conclude that the concept is best known and most often referred to as the framework of risk governance presented by the International Risk Governance Council (IRGC) in 2005. This concept was developed and is used to analyse risks at the macro level, for example to analyse the BSE crisis or Hurricane Katrina. At the company level, risk governance is not yet explicitly addressed, for example as part of policies on occupational health & safety (OHS), despite the international and national process of deregulating responsibilities. However, some elements of a risk governance approach can be found in some (larger) companies. Current company practices, especially in the field of working with new, emerging technologies and substances (e.g. nanotechnology) can be seen at leading companies, such as the Nano Risk Framework of DuPont and the BASF Dialogue Forum Nano 2009/2010. Other measures taken at the company level to direct working safely with nanotechnology include the Nanosafety Guidelines of the Delft University of Technology, Stoffenmanager Nano and Handleiding Nano. A Swiss risk assessment matrix and a French Control Banding Tool are being used in other EU Member States. We have also noticed that leading companies like DSM, BASF and DuPont are starting to implement in-company codes of conduct or (parts of) the EU Code of Conduct on Responsible Nanotechnology Research & Development. Lots of ad-hoc measures are being taken in a fragmented way, and the precautionary principle is too often incorrectly understood as the equivalent of putting a moratorium in place. Altogether, the application of a wider approach to risks is still absent. Companies seem to be sticking to risk assessment and management in a rather traditional manner, and are disregarding the need to include concern assessment and concern management. The result is that barriers are thrown up that hinder the introduction of innovative technologies (e.g. The study of the literature implies that dealing with uncertainties (how can we govern our risks) will have to be given a more central place in society – not only at the macro level, but especially at the company and organisational level where national regulation and legislation (enforcement) can no longer be the guiding principle for the management of uncertain risks. In the case of nanotechnologies it has been estimated that the collection of all the scientific data needed to enable the traditional classical risk approach to be fully effective might take up to several decades, if it even proves possible at all. This demonstrates that we need to develop alternative approaches for dealing with uncertain, complex and ambiguous risks. As central elements of this approach, uncertainties will have to be explicitly addressed and discussed, and the (meaning of the) precautionary principle will have to be further elaborated and agreed upon. Moreover, when risks are increasingly uncertain and ambiguous, the active involvement of an even wider group of experts and stakeholders will be necessary. It is recommended to stress and communicate the need for companies to adopt a wider approach to risk assessment and management which includes concern assessment and management as well, in order to reach a balance between the opportunities and risks of innovative technologies. Some practical recommendations at the company level are, firstly, to re-frame the concept of risk governance at the company level, together with the companies: what does dealing with uncertainties mean in terms of company policy. Secondly, to look more closely – together with companies – at the phases as presented in the IRGC Framework: Pre-assessment, Risk Appraisal and Risk Management at several company levels (internal, external and with stakeholders in the company supply chain). Thirdly, to design (together with companies) a more explicit role forcommunication as positioned in the current risk governance model, in order to draw up guidelines and recommendations on how to implement risk governance. Fourthly, the implementation of the EU Code of Conduct on Responsible Nanotechnology Research & Development is an interesting first step and starting point for developing risk management (OHS) guidelines for risk governance together with companies in order to enable companies to deal with uncertainties and responsibilities. A further aim is to identify at the company level how and where the concept of risk governance can be linked to other company policies, such as corporate social responsibility, resilient engineering and sustainability. And finally, to develop practical tools and guidelines that complement current risk assessment and management tools for substances (e.g. Stoffenmanager and Stoffenmanager Nano), by adding elements of concern assessment (e.g. stakeholder involvement) and concern management (e.g. risk communication). All these efforts will support companies in implementing a wider approach to the management of uncertain risks, thus preventing barriers to innovation.