Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Collaborative Voluntary Programs: Lessons from Environmental Law

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Growing Gap Between Emerging Technologies and Legal-Ethical Oversight

Part of the book series: The International Library of Ethics, Law and Technology ((ELTE,volume 7))

  • 3183 Accesses

Abstract

Voluntary and collaborative programs are potentially useful in addressing the pacing problem by expediting oversight mechanisms for new problems as well as minimizing outdated regulations. Because they can usually be negotiated or implemented more quickly than traditional regulations, as well as modified more easily in response to changing technologies and circumstances, voluntary agreements provide a degree of flexibility and adaptiveness that may be useful for managing rapidly emerging technologies. Yet, such voluntary programs also raise concerns, such as the lack of enforceability, and the limitations for participation of non-governmental organizations in some such programs. The environmental field offers a rich empirical set of examples in which the pros and cons of voluntary programs can be evaluated. Voluntary programs have had a mixed record of success in this field, but the lessons learned suggest that voluntary programs can provide a useful contribution to oversight when they are carefully designed to provide clarity, flexibility and appropriate incentives.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Alberini, Anna and Kathleen Segerson. 2002. Assessing voluntary programs to improve environmental quality. Environmental and Resource Economics 22: 157–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ASTM International Nanotechnology Standards available at http://www.astm.org/Standards/nanotechnology-standards.html; ISO Standards developed by the ISO’s Technical Committee 229 on Nanotechnologies is available at http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_tc_browse.htm?commid=381983&includesc=true&published=on&development=on.

  • Borck, Jonathan C., Cary Coglianese, and Jennifer Nash. 2008. Environmental leadership programs: Toward an empirical assessment of their performance. Ecology Law Quartely 35: 711–833.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breggin, L.K., and L. Carothers. 2006. Governing uncertainty: The nanotechnology environmental, health, and safety challenge. Columbia Journal of Environmental Law 31: 285–329.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caballero, Thomas E. 1998. Project XL: Making it legal, making it work. Stanford Environmental Law Journal 17: 399–471.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caldart Charles C., and Nicholas A. Ashford. 1999. Negotiation as a means of developing and implementing environmental and occupational health and safety policy. Harvard Environmental Law Review 23: 141–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coglianese, Cary, and Jennifer Nash. 2008. Government clubs: Theory and evidence from voluntary environmental programs. University of Pennsylvania Law School, 6–7. Public law and legal theory research paper series, research paper no. #08–49, available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1311340.

  • Commission of the European Communities (CEC). 2008. Commission recommendation on a code of conduct for responsible nanosciences and nanotechnologies research, dated 7/2/2008, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/nanotechnology/pdf/nanocode-rec_pe0894c_en.pdf.

  • Davies, Terry, and Jan Mazurek. 1996. Industry incentives for environmental improvement: Evaluation of U. S. federal initiatives. Washington, DC: Global Environmental Management Initiative.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiorino, Daniel J. 1996. Toward a new system of environmental regulation: The case for an industry sector approach. Environmental Law 26: 457–488.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunningham, Neil. 2009a. Environmental law, regulation and governance: Shifting architectures. Journal of Environmental Law 21: 179–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunningham, Neil. 2009b. The new collaborative environmental governance: The localization of regulation. Journal of Law and Society 36: 145–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harjula, Henrik. 1998. Extended producer responsibility, phase 2, case study on the Dutch packaging covenant. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 15 May 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch, Dennis D. 2006. Protecting the inner environment: What privacy regulation can learn from environmental law. Georgia Law Review 41: 1–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch, Dennis D. 2001a. Second generation policy and the new economy. Capital University Law Review 29: 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch, Dennis D. 2001b. Project XL and the special case: The EPA’s untold success story. Columbia Journal of Environmental Law 26: 219–257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Innes, Robert, and Abdoul G. Sam. 2008. Voluntary pollution reductions and the enforcement of environmental law: An empirical study of the 33/50 program. Journal of Law and Economics 51: 271–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isenberg, Howard. 1995. The second industrial revolution: The impact of the information explosion. Industrial Engineering 27: 15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, Stephen M. 2001. Economics v. equity II: The European experience. Washington and Lee Law Review 58: 417–486.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karkkainen, Bradley C. 2006. Information-forcing environmental regulation. Florida State University Law Review 33: 861–902.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, Greiner, Anderson, and April, Inc. 1999. Analysis and evaluation of the EPA’s common sense initiative, http://www.epa.gov/evaluate/pdf/pubs_finalcsi.pdf.

  • Kerret, Dorit, and Alon, Tal. 2005. Greenwash or green gain? Predicting the success and evaluating the effectiveness of environmental voluntary agreements. Penn State Environmental Law Review 14: 31–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Litan, Robert E. 2001. Law and policy in the age of the internet. Duke Law Journal 50: 1045–1085.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lund, Lisa C. 2000. Project XL: Good for the environment, good for business, good for communities. Environmental Law Review 30: 10140–10152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marchant, Gary E., Douglas S. Sylvester, and Kenneth W. Abbott. 2008. Risk management principles for nanotechnology. NanoEthics 2: 43–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Occupational Safety & Health Administration. 2007. All about VPP, available at http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/vpp/sitebysic.html

  • Office of Inspector General, EPA. 2007. Evaluation report: Performance Track could improve program design and management to ensure value, available at http://www.epa/gov/oig/reports/2007/2007/20070329-2007-P-00013.pdf.

  • Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 2002. Regulating policies in OECD countries: From interventionism to regulating governance – Annex II, OECD Reviews of Regulatory Reform: Regulatory Policies in OECD Countries.

    Google Scholar 

  • Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 2000. Voluntary approaches for environmental policy: An assessment. Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, Eric. 2002. Environmental and Natural Resources Law. Albany, NY: LexisNexis Matthew Bender, 2d ed.

    Google Scholar 

  • President’s Council on Sustainable Development, New National Opportunities Task Force. 1997. Lessons learned from collaborative approaches, available at http://clinton2.nara.gov/PCSD/Publications/Lessons_Learned.html.

  • Sousa, David J. and Christopher McGrory Klyza. 2007. New directions in environmental policy making: An emerging collaborative regime or reinventing interest group liberalism? Natural Resources Journal 47: 377–444.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strasser, Kurt A. 2008. Do voluntary corporate efforts improve environmental performance?: The empirical literature. Boston College Environmetal Affairs Law Review 35: 533–555.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. National Environmental Performance Track, memorandum from EPA administrator Lisa P. Jackson dated 16 March 2009. Next steps for the national environmental Performance Track program and the future of environmental leadership programs, available at http://epa.gov/performancetrack/downloads/PerformanceTrackNextStepsMemoExternal-text.pdf.

  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1999. 33/50 program: The final record. EPA-745-R-99-004, available at http://www.epa.gov/oppt/3350/3350-fnl.pdf.

  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1998. Intel XL project fact sheet, available at http://www.epa.gov/ProjectXL/intel/09998.html.

  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. EPA partnership programs: List of programs, available at http://www.epa.gov/partners/programs/index.htm.

  • Wyeth, George B. 2006. “Standard” and “Alternative” environmental protection: The changing role of environmental agencies. William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review 31: 5–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zinn, Matthew D. 2002. Policing environmental regulatory enforcement: Cooperation, capture, and citizen suits. Stanford Environmental Law Journal 21: 81–174.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA

    Kathleen Waugh & Gary E. Marchant

Authors
  1. Kathleen Waugh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gary E. Marchant
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kathleen Waugh .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. College of Law, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA

    Gary E. Marchant

  2. , Department of Civil and Environmental En, Ira A. Fulton School of Engineering, PO Box 875306, Tempe, 85287, USA

    Braden R. Allenby

  3. , School of Letters and Sciences, Arizona State University, Santa Catalina Hall 250 D, Mesa, 85212, USA

    Joseph R. Herkert

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Waugh, K., Marchant, G.E. (2011). Collaborative Voluntary Programs: Lessons from Environmental Law. In: Marchant, G., Allenby, B., Herkert, J. (eds) The Growing Gap Between Emerging Technologies and Legal-Ethical Oversight. The International Library of Ethics, Law and Technology, vol 7. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1356-7_12

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation