Electronic waste—a modern form of risk? On the consequences of the delay between the increasing generation of electronic waste and regulations to manage this increase

References

• Baldé CP, Wang F, Kuehr R, and Huisman J. 2015. The global e-waste monitor – 2014. Bonn: United Nations University, IAS – SCYCLE
   Google Scholar
• Beck U. 1992. Risk Society: Towards a new modernity. London, Nebury Park and New Delhi: Sage Publications
   Google Scholar
• Beck U. 2000. Risk society revisited: theory, politics and research programmes. In: Adam B, Beck U, and Van Loon J (eds), The Risk Society and Beyond, pp. 211–229. Sage, London
   Google Scholar
• Borthakur A. 2014. Generation and management of electronic waste in the city of Pune, India. Bull Sci Technol Soc 34:43–52
   Google Scholar
• Cranor CF. 2004. Toward understanding aspects of the Precautionary Principle. J Med Philos 29:259–279
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drew E. 2014. Introduction. How would you design nature? In: Endy D, Daisy Ginsberg A, Calvert J, Schyfter P and Elfick A (eds), Synthetic Aesthetics. Investigating Synthetic Biology's Designs on Nature. The MIT Press, Cambridge and London
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2003. Regulation concerning the traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms and the traceability of food and feed products produced from genetically modified organisms and amending Directive 2001/18/EC. Available. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri = celex:32003R1830 ( retrieved June 1, 2016)
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2004. Towards a European Strategy of Nanotechnology. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2004. Available at: https://cordis.europa.eu/pub/nanotechnology/docs/nano_com_en_new.pdf ( retrieved May 19, 2016)
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2005. Nanosciences and nanotechnologies: An action plan for Europe. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/research/industrial_technologies/pdf/policy/action_plan_brochure_en.pdf ( retrieved May 19, 2016)
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2008. Commission recommendation on a Code of conduct for responsible nanosciences and nanotechnologies research. Bruxellss, C (2008) 424, final. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/nanocode-apr09_en.pdf ( retrieved May 18, 2016)
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2015. Opinion on Synthetic Biology II. Risk assessment methodologies and safety aspects. The SCENIHR at their plenary on 29 April 2015, the SCHER and the SCCS by written procedure on 4 May 2015. European Union, 2015)
   Google Scholar
• Felt U and Wynne B. 2007. Taking European knowledge society seriously. Report of the expert group on science and governance to the science, economy and society directorate, directorate-general for research, European commission. Directorate-General for Research. Science, Economy and Society
   Google Scholar
• Fischer A and Frewer L. 2007. Public acceptance of new technologies in food products and production. In: Flynn R and Bellaby P (eds), Risk and the Public Acceptance of New Technologies, pp. 66–85. Palgrave MacMillan, Hampshire and New York
   Google Scholar
• Frow E. 2015. Rethorics and practices of democratization in synthetic biology. In: Wienroth M and Rodrigues E (eds), Knowing New Biotechnology. Social Aspects of Technology Convergence. Routledge, London and New York
   Google Scholar
• Giddens A. 1990. The Consequences of Modernity. Polity Press, Cambridge
   Google Scholar
• Grossman E. 2006. High-Tech Trash: Digital Devices, Hidden Toxics, and Human Health. Island Press/Shearwater Books, Washington, Covelo and London
   Google Scholar
• Hardy   and Maguire  . 2016. Organizing risk: Discourse, power, and “Riskification.” Acad Manage Rev 41:80–108
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heeks R, Submanian L, and Jones C. 2015. Understanding e-waste management in developing countries: Strategies, determinants and policy implications in the Indian ICT sector. Inf Technol Dev 21:653–667
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hilty LM. 2005. Editorial. Electronic waste—an emerging risk?. Environ Impact Assess Rev 25:431–435
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hird M, Lougheed S, Rowe KR, and Kuyvenhoven, C. 2014. Making waste management public (or falling back to sleep). Soc Stud Sci 44:441–465
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jasanoff S. 1995. Procedural choices in regulatory science. Technol Soc 17:279–293
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jasanoff S. 2007. Designs on Nature. Science and Democracy in Europe and The United States. Princeton University, Princeton, NJ
   Google Scholar
• Kuchinskaya O. 2012. Twice invisible: Formal representations of radiation danger. Soc Stud Sci 43:78–96
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Köhler A and Erdmann l. 2004. Expected environmental impacts of pervasive computing. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 10:831–852
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landström C, Hauxwell-Baldwin R, Lorenzoni I, and Rogers-Hayden T. 2015. The (mis)understanding of scientific uncertainty? How experts view policy-makers, the media and publics. Sci Cult 24:276–298
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lepawsky J and McNabb C. 2010. Mapping international flows of electronic waste. Can Geogr 54:177–195
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levidow, L. 2009. Making Europe unsafe for agbiotech. In: Atkinson P, Glasner, P and Lock M (eds), Handbook of Genetics and Society. Mapping the New Genomic Era, pp. 110–126. Routledge, London and New York
   Google Scholar
• Luhmann N. 1986. Oekologische Kommunikation. Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen
   Google Scholar
• Luhmann N. 1991. Soziologie des Risikos. Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin and New York
   Google Scholar
• Macfarlane A. 2003. Underlying Yucca Mountain: The interplay of geology and policy in nuclear waste disposal. Soc Stud Sci 33:783–807
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mali F. 2004. Recent dilemmas in the social and legal regulation of biotechnology in the European Union. Vest J Sci Technol Stud 17:39–60
   Google Scholar
• Mali F. 2009. Bringing converging technologies closer to civil society: The role of the precautionary principle. Innovation –Eur J Soc Sci Res 22:53–75
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mundada MN, Kumar S, and Shedkar AV. 2004. E-waste: A new challenge for waste management in India. Int J Environ Stud 61:265–279
   Google Scholar
• Murphy J, Levidow L, and Carr S. 2000. Regulatory standards for environmental risks: Understanding the US-European Union conflict over genetically modified crops. Soc Stud Sci 36:133–160
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olofsson J. 2015. “Are you fed up with your PC? Get a Mac.” Swedish popular media representations of digital technologies and the stockpiling behavior of consumers. Stud Media Commun 3:11–21
   Google Scholar
• Panambunan-Ferse M and Breiter A. 2013. Assessing the side-effects of ICT development: E-waste production and management. A case study about cell phone end-of-life in Manado, Indonesia. Technol Soc 35:223–231
   Google Scholar
• Roco MC and Bainbridge WS (eds). 2003. Converging Technologiesfor Improving Human Performance: Nanotechnology, Biotechnology, Information Technology and Cognitive Science. Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrecht
   Google Scholar
• Sander K, Schilling S, Tojo N, van Rossem C, Vernon J, and George C. 2007. The Producer Responsibility Principle of the WEEE Directive. Hamburg: Germany: DG ENV. Study Contract No. 07010401/2006/449269/MAR/G4
   Google Scholar
• Schettler T and Raffensperger C. 2004. Why is a precautionary approach needed? In: Martuzzi M and Tickner M (eds), The Precautionary Principle: Protecting Public Health, the Environment and the Future of Our Children. WHO Regional Office of Europé, Copenhagen
   Google Scholar
• Shackley S and Wynne B. 1996. Representing uncertainty in global climate change science and policy: Boundary-ordering devices and authority. Sci Technol Hum Values 21:275–302
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tallacchini M. 2009. Governing by values. EU ethics: Soft tool, hard effects. Minerva 47:281–306
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• von Schomberg R. 2013. A vision of responsible research and innovation. In: Owen R, Heintz M, and Bessant J (eds), Responsible Innovation. John Wiley, London
   Google Scholar
• Wäger PA, Eugster M, Hilty LM, and Som C. 2005. Smart labels in municipal solid waste—a case for the precautionary principle? Environ Impact Assess Rev 25:567–586
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wynne B. 1992. Uncertainty and environmental learning. Reconceiving science and policy in the preventive paradigm. Global Environ Change 2:111–127
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wynne B. 2002. Risk and environment as legitimatory discources of technology: Reflexivity inside out? Curr Sociol 50:459–477
   Google Scholar
• Wynne B. 2003. Seasick on the third wave? Subverting the hegemony of propositionalism. Response to Collins & Evans (2002). Soc Stud Sci 33:401–417
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wynne B. 2011. Lab work goes social, and vice versa: Strategising public engagement processes. Sci Eng Ethics 17:791–800
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar