Global Ethics and Nanotechnology: A Comparison of the Nanoethics Environments of the EU and China

The following article offers a brief overview of current nanotechnology policy, regulation and ethics in Europe and The People’s Republic of China with the intent of noting (dis)similarities in approach, before focusing on the involvement of the public in science and technology policy (i.e. participatory Technology Assessment). The conclusions of this article are, that (a) in terms of nanosafety as expressed through policy and regulation, China PR and the EU have similar approaches towards, and concerns about, nanotoxicity—the official debate on benefits and risks is not markedly different in the two regions; (b) that there is a similar economic drive behind both regions’ approach to nanodevelopment, the difference being the degree of public concern admitted; and (c) participation in decision-making is fundamentally different in the two regions. Thus in China PR, the focus is on the responsibility of the scientist; in the EU, it is about government accountability to the public. The formulation of a Code of Conduct for scientists in both regions (China PR’s predicted for 2012) reveals both similarity and difference in approach to nanotechnology development. This may change, since individual responsibility alone cannot guide S&T development, and as public participation is increasingly seen globally as integral to governmental decision-making

Transformative capacity and local action for urban sustainability.

There is a consensus about the strategic importance of cities and urban areas for achieving a global transformation towards sustainability. While there is mounting interest in the types of qualities that increase the capacity of urban systems to attain deep transformations, empirical evidence about the extent to which existing institutional and material systems exhibit transformative capacity is lacking. This paper thereby seeks to determine the extent to which sustainability initiatives led by local governments and their partners reflect the various components that the literature claims can influence the emergence of transformative capacity as a systemic property of urban settings. Using an evaluative framework consisting of ten components of transformative capacity and associated indicators, the specific objective is to identify patterns in these initiatives regarding the presence of individual components of transformative capacity and their interrelations with other components. The analysis of 400 sustainability initiatives reveals thin evidence of transformative capacity. When detected, evidence of transformative capacity tended to emerge in relation to wider processes of institutional- and social-learning and initiatives that linked outcomes to a city-wide vision of planning and development. However, instances of such initiatives were rare. This widespread lack of evidence for transformative capacity raises concerns that this set of attributes normalised in the literature is in fact rarely found in sustainability action on the ground

Strategic leadership in liminal space: Framing exploration of digital opportunities at hierarchical interfaces

Research Summary: We investigate how strategic leaders of an incumbent firm frame exploration of digital opportunities at the interfaces of organizational hierarchy. Digital technologies create an unbounded array of opportunities that may pose challenges to the strategic coherence of corporate entrepreneurship activity. Our analysis reveals that top management teams (TMTs) adopt a paradoxical framing of exploration, thereby creating a liminal space with unstable boundaries between exploration activities aligned with core resources (i.e., convergent) and those perceived as divergent. We show that middle managers (MMs) skillfully navigate this space by combining framing with substantive and symbolic actions to blur the boundaries of exploration. Drawing on our findings, we theorize the role of framing at the interfaces between the TMT and MMs in setting boundaries for exploration. Managerial Summary: The process of digital transformation can be overwhelming for established companies as managers encounter a myriad of new opportunities. Our study of a large telecommunications company found that both senior and MMs play important roles in guiding the development of new digital businesses. Senior managers encourage creative thinking and promote exploring multiple innovation opportunities. However, they also set boundaries to prevent innovation activities from becoming too risky by venturing into very distant domains. This contradictive requirement creates a “gray zone” for MMs to imaginatively use their skills to navigate restrictions without compromising exploration of new opportunities. This approach involves both top‐down and bottom‐up communication between senior and MMs that helps avoid short‐sightedness and overspending when it comes to innovating with digital technologies