Choosing between precautions for nanoparticles in the workplace: complementing the precautionary principle with caring

Abstract

Workers who develop and use nanoparticles are on the front line of exposure to the purported risks of nanoparticles. Employers have a legal duty to protect their employees against any work-related harm. However, it is difficult to perform the required risk assessment and management when dealing with uncertainty. Risk ethicists have therefore argued for using the precautionary principle to guide such decisions on uncertain risks. In this paper, I argue that if we want to make use of innovative products, such as nanomaterials, but lack the knowledge and shared standards for choosing between protective measures, the precautionary principle is underdetermined. For the use of nanoparticles in working environments, there are several guidelines that suggest different precautionary strategies for dealing with their purported risks, but choosing between these guidelines proves difficult in the absence of a clear, scientific, decision principle. I therefore explore the ethics of care to develop a complementary decision criterion for the precautionary principle. From this perspective, the caring qualities of working relationships are key in comparing precautions with each other. I propose three conditions for assessing risk management strategies based on (1) the existence of a mutual concern for employee health and safety, (2) the connectedness and continuity of the relationships between employer and employee, and (3) the responsiveness of employers to employee needs. Using these criteria will support choosing between precautions, by shifting attention from the acceptability of imposing a risk to creating a social context in which the imposition of the residual risks can be considered acceptable.

Keywords:

• ethics of care
• nanoparticles
• uncertain risks
• precautionary principle
• occupational health and safety
• duty of care

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the respondents I interviewed for this study for their insights as well as feedback on the text of this paper, and Professor Wiebe Bijker for his help finding these respondents. I also want to thank an anonymous reviewer and Neelke Doorn for their helpful critique.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. Original text: ‘De werkgever is verplicht de lokalen, werktuigen en gereedschappen waarin of waarmee hij de arbeid doet verrichten, op zodanige wijze in te richten en te onderhouden alsmede voor het verrichten van de arbeid zodanige maatregelen te treffen en aanwijzingen te verstrekken als redelijkerwijs nodig is om te voorkomen dat de werknemer in de uitoefening van zijn werkzaamheden schade lijdt’ (BW 7: 658, clause 1).

2. For instance, Cussen argues that in popular formulations of the precautionary principle, there is little consideration of the utility of innovation or any other risky activities (2009).

3. Cosanta B.V., a spin-off of company of TNO and Arbo Unie, is working on developing a new version of Stoffenmanager Nano.

4. At the time of writing (fall 2014), one of the respondents indicated that many uncertainties about the effectiveness of protective measures, such as facemasks, have largely been resolved.

5. The KIR-nano is a working group within the RIVM primarily aiming at informing and advising the government on the risks of nanotechnology.

6. The OHS strategy (in Dutch: Arbeidshygienische Strategie) is a legally established risk minimization strategy, which aims to first remove exposure at the source, then at a collective level, and only as a last resort count on individual protective measures (this order is legally mandated in Arbowet, article 3, sub clause 1b).

7. Note that there was no obligation to choose one of the guidelines; drawing up a new safety strategy was also an option.

8. Indeed, workers are also often in some way responsible for creating risks; for instance, their cleaning behavior may very much influence the spread of nanoparticles through working spaces.

9. Because nanoparticles are not formally classed as dangerous materials, products containing nanoparticles do not have to be labeled as such. Workplace labeling is mandatory when supplying and handling ‘regular’ dangerous substances; for instance, warning labels are placed on the packaging of products and materials. This means that in some instances people may not even know that they are working with nanoparticles, which makes it harder to pick up on any nanoparticle-related health effects.

10. This guideline provides limited suggestions on how to actually organize and feed the experiences of employees back into risk management practices on the work floor. However, the absence of specification in the guidelines does not imply that there is no opportunity for employees to communicate their needs.

11. One may even argue that if exposure to uncertain risks takes place after taking precautions and within caring relationships (thus, in work settings or in other kinds of innovative practices that can be genuinely considered caring), harm that would occur as a result of workplace exposure to uncertain risks is not necessarily irresponsible or a breach of the duty of care, but rather a tragic consequence of unforeseeableness and risk of working with new materials and technologies.