Periodic Reporting for period 3 - NANORIGO (Establishing a Nanotechnology Risk Governance Framework)
Período documentado: 2022-03-01 hasta 2023-02-28
Environmental issues such as a pollution, urban stress, waste production, loss of biodiversity, and more, are a serious concern for European society. Reaching the targets of the European Green deal, including the zero-pollution target, requires a risk governance which ensures the safety and sustainability of advanced(nano-)materials.
The main goal of NANORIGO (NANOtechnology RIsk GOvernance) is, in collaboration with stakeholders, to outline a transparent and transdisciplinary Risk Governance Framework which considers the data, tools, framework, and organisational forms that supports this. Such a coherent frame will enable a faster implementation of the Green Deals targets, whilst safeguard societal acceptance.
The main goal of NANORIGO (NANOtechnology RIsk GOvernance) is, in collaboration with stakeholders, to outline a transparent and transdisciplinary Risk Governance Framework which considers the data, tools, framework, and organisational forms that supports this. Such a coherent frame will enable a faster implementation of the Green Deals targets, whilst safeguard societal acceptance.
During the NANORIGO project we developed a holistic framework where we included state-of-the-art data- and testing-tools. We showed how different organizational forms can support the implementation of this framework in a general governance.
•For data, we developed an overview of the available databases, identify data and knowledge needs, evaluate how to make data quality assessment, fining alternative data, and look at the mutually accepted approaches.
•For tools, we identified the state of art tools and developing novel tools to support the risk governance of nanomaterials. The work included discussion the usability of the tools with stakeholders. To make the tools universally available the work included developing a common portal, where stakeholders can search for tools.
•For framework, we developed a novel more holistic risk governance framework that enabled inclusion of novel data, tools and considered social science aspect. The work also included outlining a communication platform to support the framework,
•For organisational forms, we outlined the conditions for a sustainable risk governance organisational form. Focussing on what different forms could provide and their condition for success. The work also included how to make such organisations work in a transparent way and a way accepted by stakeholders.
•To supporting the above activities, especially testing critical elements of the risk governance framework, we performed seven case-studies. Covering diverse cases such as in-house risk management, industrial aspects, specific nanomaterials, and real-life products. These case studies showed the usefulness of the framework for stakeholders.
•We also performed intense dissemination activities, with the purpose of interacting with as many stakeholders as possible and to cover all stakeholder groups. We also were in dialogue with global stakeholders, to raise awareness and learn from experiences in other parts of the world.
The project has throughout its lifetime had an intense collaboration and co-creation with two other projects (Gov4Nano and RISKGONE).
•For data, we developed an overview of the available databases, identify data and knowledge needs, evaluate how to make data quality assessment, fining alternative data, and look at the mutually accepted approaches.
•For tools, we identified the state of art tools and developing novel tools to support the risk governance of nanomaterials. The work included discussion the usability of the tools with stakeholders. To make the tools universally available the work included developing a common portal, where stakeholders can search for tools.
•For framework, we developed a novel more holistic risk governance framework that enabled inclusion of novel data, tools and considered social science aspect. The work also included outlining a communication platform to support the framework,
•For organisational forms, we outlined the conditions for a sustainable risk governance organisational form. Focussing on what different forms could provide and their condition for success. The work also included how to make such organisations work in a transparent way and a way accepted by stakeholders.
•To supporting the above activities, especially testing critical elements of the risk governance framework, we performed seven case-studies. Covering diverse cases such as in-house risk management, industrial aspects, specific nanomaterials, and real-life products. These case studies showed the usefulness of the framework for stakeholders.
•We also performed intense dissemination activities, with the purpose of interacting with as many stakeholders as possible and to cover all stakeholder groups. We also were in dialogue with global stakeholders, to raise awareness and learn from experiences in other parts of the world.
The project has throughout its lifetime had an intense collaboration and co-creation with two other projects (Gov4Nano and RISKGONE).
The project progress beyond the state of art at all levels:
• For data, the project provided catalogues of databases, list of data and knowledge needs, proposals for data quality assessment, alternative data, and mutually accepted approaches. This for example resulted in a KaRL (knowledge, information, and data-resources) readiness levels approach. This output improves the state of art knowledge regarding data and knowledge management in relation to risk governance.
• For tools, the project identified and evaluated existing Risk Governance tools, gave recommendations for the refinement tools, developed novel multicriteria-, predictive- and risk management-tools for underwriters. The tools were by stakeholders and in using case-studies. We developed a common portal which functioned as a ‘single-entry’ point for different stakeholders. This output provides a significant beyond state of art tools set for risk governance, and a first of its kind single-entry point where tools from different projects are available.
• For framework, the project developed a novel risk governance framework that was based on high-quality data and data guidance (see above). This we integrated into the framework together with the appropriate tools (see above). The output was related to the organisational forms (see below). We developed an outline demonstrating the structure for a supporting risk communication platform, the functions it needs to fulfil, and expertise needed to cover all the respective functions. This framework is a huge improvement of the state of art framework for risk governance, which also considers the stakeholder views.
• For organisational forms, the project established the conditions for a sustainable European nanotechnology risk governance Organisational Forms, with different forms outlined as published in a blueprint. It considers how to deal with stakeholder and societal risk perception and acceptance. It establishes conditions that ensure that the work and outcome of the organisational form are transparent and accepted globally by regulatory, academic, industrial, and insurance organisations and stakeholders. This comprehensive output, which is beyond state of art provide the foundation to developing effective organisational forms for emerging areas such as advanced materials.
• For data, the project provided catalogues of databases, list of data and knowledge needs, proposals for data quality assessment, alternative data, and mutually accepted approaches. This for example resulted in a KaRL (knowledge, information, and data-resources) readiness levels approach. This output improves the state of art knowledge regarding data and knowledge management in relation to risk governance.
• For tools, the project identified and evaluated existing Risk Governance tools, gave recommendations for the refinement tools, developed novel multicriteria-, predictive- and risk management-tools for underwriters. The tools were by stakeholders and in using case-studies. We developed a common portal which functioned as a ‘single-entry’ point for different stakeholders. This output provides a significant beyond state of art tools set for risk governance, and a first of its kind single-entry point where tools from different projects are available.
• For framework, the project developed a novel risk governance framework that was based on high-quality data and data guidance (see above). This we integrated into the framework together with the appropriate tools (see above). The output was related to the organisational forms (see below). We developed an outline demonstrating the structure for a supporting risk communication platform, the functions it needs to fulfil, and expertise needed to cover all the respective functions. This framework is a huge improvement of the state of art framework for risk governance, which also considers the stakeholder views.
• For organisational forms, the project established the conditions for a sustainable European nanotechnology risk governance Organisational Forms, with different forms outlined as published in a blueprint. It considers how to deal with stakeholder and societal risk perception and acceptance. It establishes conditions that ensure that the work and outcome of the organisational form are transparent and accepted globally by regulatory, academic, industrial, and insurance organisations and stakeholders. This comprehensive output, which is beyond state of art provide the foundation to developing effective organisational forms for emerging areas such as advanced materials.