A Proposal for a Standard With Innovation Management System

Nanotechnologies and Eco-Innovation: Creating a
Regulatory Framework for Sustainable Markets
Aurelie Delemarle 1,3 and Claire Auplat 2
1
LATTS/IFRIS, ESIEE Paris, Université Paris Est, Noisy-le-Grand, France
2
Novancia, Paris
3
Department of Business and Politics, Copenhagen Business School,
Frederiksberg, Denmark
a.delemarle@esiee.fr
clauplat@novancia.fr
Abstract: The eco-innovation as a field of research is often ascribed to Fussler and James 1996). OECD and
Eurostat (1999) defined eco-activities as ‘activities that produce goods and services to measure, prevent, limit,
minimise or correct environmental damage to water, air and soil, as well as problems related to waste, noise and
eco-systems’. Within this framework, Rennings (2000) argues that eco-innovations are distinctive by three
elements: “the double externality problem, the regulatory push/pull effect and the increasing importance of social
and institutional innovation” (2000:319). In this contribution, we aim at illustrating the strategies that
entrepreneurs can develop to face these challenges. The case that illustrates this is the nanotechnology one,
which possesses all three characteristics. Building on the current literature in entrepreneurship (Shane (2003),
Casson (2005), OECD (2009)), we argue that entrepreneurs are not only discoverers and inventors but that they
are also evaluators and exploiters of opportunities. In this sense, they may also contribute to the transformation
or elaboration of market structures in order to enable innovations to find their place. Doing so, they take the role
of institutional entrepreneurs: they mobilize resources to modify the institutional context in which they operate in
order to suit their interest (Auplat 2009, Delemarle 2007, DiMaggio 1988). Using Callon’s concept of framing and
overflowing (1998) to better understand market structure, we argue that some elements in nanotechnologies
cannot be handled by the existing structure of the market. They are externalities that overflow. These
externalities that are linked to sustainable development issues give opportunities to entrepreneurs to act
strategically, to act as institutional entrepreneurs by organizing new frameworks or reorganizing old ones to favor
the development of a sustainable market. We argue that two types of strategies are possible for them: (1)
Developing new frameworks to face the overflowing. The cases of code of conducts or voluntary standards are
examples of such strategies; (2) Mobilizing elements of existing but unconnected structures and rearrange them
into a coherent normative structure which can be recognized by all stakeholders as that in which the market can
develop. Indeed the overflowing might have already handled by another industry framework. Our paper is
organized in the following manner: we first review specificities of radical innovations and introduce Callon’s
concept. We then point to the specificities of nanosciences and technologies and present existing frameworks.
We then discuss them and present our argument.
Keywords: nanotechnology, nanosciences, market shaping, entrepreneur, sustainable market, regulation
1. Introduction
Nanotechnology is defined as “the design, characterization, production and application of structures,
devices and systems by controlling shape and size of the nanostructued components” (ISO, 2007). It
is actually an umbrella term that encompass science and technologies at the “size range [of] typically
between 1nm and 100nm” (ISO, 2007). At the atomic level, matter is said to have specific properties
which today scientists start to control to produce enhanced products and create new ones. The
societal benefits expected like providing renewable energy, clean water, and improving the
environment or human longevity and health led to a period of hype. The global market for
nanotechnology products is expecting to reach 3 trillion USD in 2015 (OECD, 2009, Lux Research
Inc., 2007). Today, some products are already on the market such self-cleaning glass or textiles,
reinforced tires or bumpers, cements or paints with particular properties, cosmetics and healthcare
products, food, beverages, electronic components etc. However, after the withdrawal of
nanotechnology based products from the market, firms have been reluctant to put on the market new
products using the properties of the matter at the nanoscale. We argue that markets are not yet
framed for these new types of products and that markets need to be organized. One may argue that
some products encapsulating nanomaterials are already on the market (the Wilson Woodrow Centre
inventories in 2011 1317 products). However, we argue that these products do not question the
boundaries of existing markets: On the contrary, other products could not prove on the long term the
non-toxicity of the nanomaterials on the environment or on human health. They are in Abernathy and
Clark’s definition (1985), architectural products: they are disruptive both in terms of technologies used
for the producers and in terms of acceptability and use for the consumers. Such examples show that
140