Last week it was announced that a scientist in the USA had created the first synthetic, self replicating organism – the first time humans have created a life-form from scratch.
The media couldn’t resist and dubbed him God 2.0.
Interesting science, but what’s that got to do with CSR?
The self-avowed goal of this particular project is to replace fossil fuels with man-made biological creations and while that outcome is a few years away yet, this is an important step on that path.
New sources of energy are the poster child of this technology, though other medical and even food applications are being talked about.
Some companies in the UK and others abroad are actively pursuing research in this area, particularly with synthetic biofuels. Could this be one of the sustainability answers we have been searching for?
It is one of the more interesting and controversial possibilities certainly, but as you might expect, there are significant social, ethical, environmental and governance challenges associated with creating and using new life-forms.
Though currently most of the attention is focused on the scientists exploring synthetic biology in universities, this will also include the companies commercialising these technologies.
In addition, many organisations may soon have to consider if and how they use the applications developed using these new technologies in their own search for sustainability.
This is definitely an issue for the ‘Futures’ area of your CSR strategy, but there is a new ‘ology’ which is being used in products already on the market which may need to be moved up your priority list – ‘Nanotechnology’ or (‘nanotechnologies’ to be precise) – nano for short.
The term is used to describe the many ways that we can now work with the actual molecules and atoms that make up our world. It’s basically a way of making things.
Because materials created at the nanoscale sometimes behave differently than they do normally, there are new opportunities and may be new risks associated with their use.
(The nanoscale is basically between 1 and 100nanometers, or a millionth of a millimetre. A human hair is 80,000 nanometers long. I know, it’s mind boggling isn’t it!).
So for example sunscreens are see-through not white when the sunblock ingredient is used in nano form; nanoscale carbon can make things much stronger or lighter, useful for light frame bikes or tennis racquets; nano emulsions and other methods are used in many cosmetics and coatings of nanoscale materials are giving us anti-scratch films for specs, anti-cling paint for oil tankers and self-cleaning windows.
Many UK companies are either using or considering how the various nanotechnologies can enhance their existing lines or help them create new and innovative products.
There are a few hundred products at least on the market in the UK according to the voluntary Nano Consumer Products Inventory the US Woodrow Wilson Centre – with at least a thousand, and probably many more, across the world.
However, because of the different properties which are being exploited there may also be new risks and it is this area of safety for humans and the environment which is currently under most scrutiny from a CSR perspective.
So what are the expectations of companies in relation to their use of nano? A useful framework for this can be found in the Responsible Nano Code
There are seven principles of the Code, which focus attention on:
(a) Ensuring the benefit provided by the nano component is genuine and effective
(b) Ensuring the applications are safe for people and the environment
(c) Communicating up and down the supply chain to obtain the data to demonstrate this.
(d) Being transparent about the use of the material and the testing which has been done to assure its safety
All these areas are important, but the clincher for me is the one about transparency.
How are we to know if a product benefit is genuine, safety is assured and the supply chain is informed and participating if companies are not communicating with each other and with the rest of us – which pretty much they are not.
So despite business having earnestly vowed to ‘learn the lessons of GM’ most companies using nano in their products are keeping schtum for ‘fear of a backlash’.
Hello? Wasn’t the need for transparent and open communication about the use of such technologies one of the most important findings of the GM saga?
Surely we aren’t going to make the same mistake again?
Interesting what you say about nano sunscreens being the clear ones (also the ones that can be sprayed on). For years I sat in the shade to avoid burning because I’m just not good at applying lotions. And I waited to buy sunscreen till spray-on varieties became available for adults – because most of the spray-on sunscreens developed and marketed in North America initially were for children. While a dermatologist didn’t hesitate to recommend a spray-on brand, there was certainly no mention of nanomaterials on either the product itself or from the doctor. I’m seeing another dermatologist in July and will quiz him.
But I have to say I’m bemused at the fact products can get onto the market without thorough testing beforehand. Of course I have the opportunity to consult @2020science, but not everyone is so lucky.
Hi Ruth, I am not necessarily saying that products are brought onto the market without appropriate testing, though do hear some rather worrying stories about data sheets talking about testing of the bulk material and not the nano form, which may or may not be different. But that it is very difficult to know either way and that if companies wish to allay our fears on that score, it would be a good idea to find ways to share with us the safety testing they have done without losing their intellectual property and to add to the body of evidence about safety of nanomaterials.
Thanks Hilary for this.
I get the impression that, in a world that is rapidly becoming more interconnected and increasingly sophisticated, the rules for effective Corporate Social Responsibility are changing – yet corporations are naturally nervous about embracing the new. It’s easier sticking to the tried and tested ways of doing business (including giving out information on a “need to know” basis). Trouble is, tried and tested doesn’t work any more – which is leaving the corporate world vulnerable and scared.
All the more need for new partnerships (counseling services maybe?) that help businesses thrive and produce sustainable, responsible and socially beneficial products in this brave new world.
Understood, Hilary. It’s generally accepted in the English-speaking PR world that first nuclear generation technology, then GM foods were the two single biggest cases of companies/industries not handling the public education component of their communications well, and there was a certain inevitability of feeling a couple of years ago that nanotechnology would be the third in the series. I, however, think we’re talking about three very different kettles of fish as well as three very different eras of communication and societies. Nuclear, for instance, was very much a post WWII/1950s era of growth and wealth – both in material and population terms and espousing the ‘bigger is better’/Big Blue/IBM mentality. It would always have been a tough sell, but it was arrogantly and poorly ‘sold.’ GM foods were an even more glaring example of the same mentality at work – but launched at a time when enough public opinion had shifted in the 1960s and 1970s so it wasn’t going to work, compounded by a very aggressively litigious PR & sales campaign. Nanotech though has a very good chance to do its communications right (acknowledging there’ll never be 100% consensus and there’ll always be people who reject knowledge in favour of superstition). I feel more hopeful about nanotech now than I did two years ago, precisely because of people like you and Andrew and Tim Harper. Wish I could see more Americans and Canadians taking the lead, but if they’re out there I’m unaware of them.
It would be nice if it were so, but not so sure – thanks though!
It would be good if we had learned the lessons, even more so with synbio where I do see even more genuine attempts to engage early on, but it’s at the commercialisation end where it hits the fan and gets much trickier.
I would love to see some research on attitudes in Asia to safety etc where technology is much more accepted, I bet it isn’t as cut and dried as we hear with this unquestioning faith in technology, but would be interested to get behind what the real drivers are.