Abstract
AbstractThe European Union’s Green Deal and associated policies, aspiring to long-term environmental sustainability, now require economic activities to ‘do no significant harm’ to EU environmental objectives. The way the European Commission is enacting the do no significant harm principle relies on quantitative tools that try to identify harm and adjudicate its significance. A reliance on established technical approaches to assessing such questions ignores the high levels of imprecision, ambiguity, and uncertainty—levels often in flux—characterizing the social contexts in which harms emerge. Indeed, harm, and its significance, are relational, not absolute. A better approach would thus be to acknowledge the relational nature of harm and develop broad capabilities to engage and ‘stay with’ the harm. We use the case of European research and innovation activities to expose the relational nature of harm, and explore an alternative and potentially more productive approach that departs from attempts to unilaterally or uniformly claim to know or adjudicate what is or is not significantly harmful. In closing, we outline three ways research and innovation policy-makers might experiment with reconfiguring scientific and technological systems and practices to better address the significant harms borne by people, other-than-human beings, and ecosystems.
Funder
Horizon 2020 Framework Programme
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Ecology,Environmental Chemistry,Geography, Planning and Development,General Medicine
Reference57 articles.
1. Andersen, M.S., and I. Massa. 2000. Ecological modernization—Origins, dilemmas and future directions. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 2: 337–345.
2. BASE (The Federal Office for the Safety of Nuclear Waste Management). 2021. Expert response to the report by the EU Commission’s Joint Research Centre entitled “Technical assessment of nuclear energy with respect to the ‘Do No Significant Harm’ criteria in Regulation (EU) 2020/852, the ‘Taxonomy Regulation’”, 176. The Federal Office for the Safety of Nuclear Waste Management (BASE). https://www.base.bund.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/BASE/EN/reports/2021–06–30_base-expert-response-jrc-report.pdf.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=6.
3. Benessia, A., and S. Funtowicz. 2015. Sustainability and techno-science: What do we want to sustain and for whom? International Journal of Sustainable Development 18: 329–348.
4. Boucher, P., R.D.J. Smith, and K.M. Millar. 2014. Biofuels under the spotlight: The state of assessment and potential for integration. Science and Public Policy 41: 283–293.
5. Bozeman, B., and D. Sarewitz. 2011. Public value mapping and science policy evaluation. Minerva 49: 1–23.
Cited by
7 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献