A report of TRUSTNET on risk governance--lessons learned

Dubreuil, Gilles Hériard; Bengtsson, Gunnar; Bourrelier, Paul‐Henri; Foster, Roger; Gadbois, Sue; Kelly, Grace

doi:10.1080/13669870110039916

Cited by 17 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In this context, risk governance is to be conceived in more inclusive terms than the usual dichotomy risk assessment/risk management (Hériard Dubreuil et al, 2002). In this context, risk governance is to be conceived in more inclusive terms than the usual dichotomy risk assessment/risk management (Hériard Dubreuil et al, 2002).…”

Section: In Search Of New Pathsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Public participation and risk governance

Marchi

2003

Sci. and Pub. Pol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Risk governance' is by now a widely used expression, combining two concepts that are apparently separate, but belong instead to spheres of investigation and practical interest that are strictly intertwined and partially overlapping. Many discussions about technological innovation or development occur nowadays in the public arena and are broadly framed, including considerations about health, safety, environment, distributional and ethical issues, thus touching on the interests and values of many stakeholders. Many opportunities are emerging for incorporating societal concerns as well as 'non-standard' knowledge in the governance of risks. Yet the full realisation of a kind of participative governance is enormously difficult: it requires a shift of mentality, broad changes in professional and institutional practices, and the design and implementation of new instruments and procedures.

show abstract

Section: In Search Of New Pathsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Seminal work has been done within the TRUSTNET Concerted Action (HériardDubreuil et al, 2002). The expression "risk governance" is now largely used in the risk literature as well as in EU official documents.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Public participation and risk governance

Marchi

2003

Sci. and Pub. Pol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Boholm et al (2012) propose trust, legitimacy, a personal network and a sense of responsibility as key attributes of successful governance. Dubreuil et al (2002) also mention the need for trust and responsibility assumed by the involved actors as well as the need for informal and formal networks to facilitate the interactions between actors.…”

Section: Governance Mechanismsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Supply Chain Risk Governance: Towards a Conceptual Multi-Level Framework

Ahlqvist

Norrman

Jahre

2020

OSCM: An Int. Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) is currently putting high pressure on most countries' critical infrastructures (not only health care), creating huge uncertainties in supply and demand, and disrupting global supply chains. The global crisis will demonstrate the extent to which different parties (countries, public authorities, private companies etc.) can work together and take holistic decisions in such situations. A core question in supply chain management asks how independent decision-makers at many levels can work together and how this joint work can be governed. Supply chain risk management (SCRM), however, has focused mostly on how focal private companies apply SCRM processes to identify, analyse and mitigate risk related to upstream and downstream flows in their supply networks. At the same time, interorganisational collaboration to handle diverse risks is always needed. A risk that hits one organisation often affects other, interconnected organisations. This study aims to develop the term supply chain risk governance with an associated conceptual framework that embraces various types of supply chains and actors. In a cross-disciplinary literature study, we dissect, compare and combine risk governance with interorganisational aspects of SCRM and find that the mechanisms suggested in the risk governance literature coincide with many of those in SCRM. We suggest a combination of these to govern risk processes at an inter-organisational level, regardless of the type of organisation included in the supply chain. This would be suitable for critical infrastructures that often contain a mixture of private and public actors. The scope of the literature employed is limited, and some articles have played a larger role in the framework development. The paper explores new territory through this cross-disciplinary study, extends existing multi-level frameworks with inter-organisational governance mechanisms and proposes new governance mechanisms to the field. This study could support the understanding of how critical infrastructures in our society are governed so as to increase their resilience to both smaller and larger disruptions.

show abstract

“…Towards a remedy, a governance process needs to address the fundamental sources of conflict. Later the Table will serve as a heuristic tool to analyse participatory exercises-tensions among contending ideal-normative aims, as well as Levidow and Marris (2001) by drawing on concepts in Dubreuil et al (2002) andTrustnet Secretariat (2000). tensions between them and actual practices.…”

Section: Governing Technology As a 'Risk' Issuementioning

confidence: 99%

European Public Participation as Risk Governance: Enhancing Democratic Accountability for Agbiotech Policy?

Levidow

2007

East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Jo

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

European decision-making on techno-scientific issues has encountered public suspicion and legitimacy problems. These have resulted from government policies promoting specific technologies as if they were objective imperatives. The consequent difficulties have been diagnosed according to various 'deficit' models, which in turn inform efforts at governing the societal conflict. Anticipating or responding to European public concerns over agricultural biotechnology (agbiotech) in particular, state bodies have sponsored participatory exercises. Some participants sought to open up technological decisions vis à vis alternative futures and normative choices, but such efforts were marginalised. Questions about agbiotech as control were displaced and channelled into regulatory issues and control measures. Despite aspirations to democratise technological choices, the exercises tended to biotechnologise democracy. To some extent, participatory technology assessment (TA) exercises anticipated, stimulated or reinforced policy changes which enhance the state's accountability for regulatory frameworks-but not for its commitment to a specific innovation trajectory. Pervasive tensions have arisen between discussing a 'common' problem (e.g. how to make agbiotech safe or acceptable) versus containing conflicts around how to define the problem. These tensions have taken the form of contested boundaries-between policy versus scientific issues, between social versus technical ones, as well as between lay versus expert roles-thus performing different models of the public. These dynamics can be analysed by linking critical theories of technology, deliberative democracy, performative interactions and neoliberal governance.

show abstract

A report of TRUSTNET on risk governance--lessons learned

Cited by 17 publications

References 0 publications

Public participation and risk governance

Public participation and risk governance

Supply Chain Risk Governance: Towards a Conceptual Multi-Level Framework

European Public Participation as Risk Governance: Enhancing Democratic Accountability for Agbiotech Policy?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About