The risk/no-risk rhetoric of environmental impact assessments (EIA): the case of offshore wind farms in Sweden

Corvellec, Hervé; Boholm, Åsa

doi:10.1080/13549830802260142

Cited by 18 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 33 publications

(26 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The standpoints of the controversy examined here concern the evaluation of antibacterial silver as a "good" or "bad" thing, which in turn motivates consumer and regulatory action. Inspired by the argumentative schemes of association and dissociation suggested by Perelman andOlbrechts-Tyteca (1958/1969) and applied to risk communication by Corvellec and Boholm (2008), we suggest that a verbal argumentative controversy centered on incompatible evaluations of a certain phenomenon x, for example, antibacterial silver, can be analyzed in terms of a set of basic theoretical elements. These elements are: (1) evaluations, i.e.…”

Section: Analytical Conceptsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Controversy over antibacterial silver: implications for environmental and sustainability assessments

Boholm

Arvidsson

2014

Journal of Cleaner Production

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tThe potential risks and benefits of using silver, especially nanosilver, as an antibacterial agent in consumer and healthcare products are under debate globally. Using content analysis of texts from newspaper and TV, government agencies, municipalities, government and parliament, non-governmental organizations, and companies, we analyze the argumentation in the Swedish public controversy over antibacterial silver and relate the findings to environmental and sustainability assessments. We conclude that silver is regarded as either beneficial or harmful in relation to four main values: the environment, health, sewage treatment, and product effectiveness. Various arguments are used to support positive and negative evaluations of silver, revealing several contradictory reasons for considering silver beneficial or harmful. Current environmental and sustainability assessments (i.e. substance flow analysis, risk analysis, multi-criteria analysis, and lifecycle assessment) cover many of the concerns raised in the public controversy over antibacterial silver and can therefore inform the debate regarding its toxicity, emissions, and environmental impact. However, not all concerns raised in the public controversy are covered by current environmental and sustainability assessments, most notably, concerns over public health and bacterial resistance issues are not paid full attention. For future environmental and sustainability assessments to make an even more significant societal contribution and to inform consumers and decision-makers about concerns articulated in the public debate, a wider range of issues concerning antibacterial silver needs to be considered through a unified framework.

show abstract

Section: Analytical Conceptsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Controversy over antibacterial silver: implications for environmental and sustainability assessments

Boholm

Arvidsson

2014

Journal of Cleaner Production

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As can be seen in Table 1 , several graphene researchers and innovation advisors largely adopted a risk/no-risk rhetoric [ 60 ] regarding graphene risks. They often expressed that there might be risks, but for various reasons consider these to be nonexistent (e.g., “[graphene] seems to be safe”) or manageable (e.g., “[…]don’t insert it into the body”).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition to associations between graphene and risk, we are interested in the arguments that support such risk claims and we therefore identify the rationales communicated [ 59 ]. Some responses by the respondents were found to follow a risk/no-risk rhetoric as described by Corvellec and Boholm [ 60 ] and therefore categorized accordingly. Corvellec and Boholm [ 60 ] noted that risks described in environmental impact assessment reports of offshore wind power farms were often first associated with risk, but later on disconnected and dissociated from risk, claiming risks to be nonexistent, negligible, or manageable.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“Just Carbon”: Ideas About Graphene Risks by Graphene Researchers and Innovation Advisors

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Graphene is a nanomaterial with many promising and innovative applications, yet early studies indicate that graphene may pose risks to humans and the environment. According to ideas of responsible research and innovation, all relevant actors should strive to reduce risks related to technological innovations. Through semi-structured interviews, we investigated the idea of graphene as a risk (or not) held by two types of key actors: graphene researchers and innovation advisors at universities, where the latter are facilitating the movement of graphene from the laboratory to the marketplace. The most common idea found is that graphene is not a risk due to, e.g., low toxicity, low amounts produced/used, and its similarity to harmless materials (being “just carbon”). However, some researchers and advisors also say that graphene is a risk, e.g., under certain conditions or due to a lack of risk-related information. We explain the co-existence of these seemingly contradictory ideas through (1) the semantic ambiguity of the word risk and (2) a risk/no-risk rhetoric, where risks are mentioned rhetorically only to be disregarded as manageable or negligible. We suggest that some of the ideas held by the researchers and innovation advisors constitute a challenge to responsible research and innovation regarding graphene. At the same time, we acknowledge the dilemma that the discourse of responsible innovation creates for the actors: denying graphene risks makes them irresponsible due to a lack of risk awareness, while affirming graphene risks makes them irresponsible due to their everyday engagement in graphene development. We therefore recommend more research into what researchers and innovation advisors should do in practice in order to qualify as responsible.

show abstract

“…But these risks outweigh many benefits, including the opportunity to develop criteria relevant to site selection and to establish trust and transparency [14]. The consideration of alternatives, particularly the ''null'' alternative, refutes the idea that EIA strives to combine two opposite positions-namely that a project contains risk, yet is also risk free [50]. To be credible, elicit trust of participants, and to avoid being simply a rhetorical exercises, the possibility that risk will be too great for the environment to bear must be considered with adequate assessment of the impacts of such an alternative.…”

Section: Alternatives Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Involving the public in the impact assessment of offshore renewable energy facilities

Portman

2009

Marine Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The risk/no-risk rhetoric of environmental impact assessments (EIA): the case of offshore wind farms in Sweden

Cited by 18 publications

References 33 publications

Controversy over antibacterial silver: implications for environmental and sustainability assessments

Controversy over antibacterial silver: implications for environmental and sustainability assessments

“Just Carbon”: Ideas About Graphene Risks by Graphene Researchers and Innovation Advisors

Involving the public in the impact assessment of offshore renewable energy facilities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About