sh.sePublications
Change search
Refine search result
1 - 36 of 36
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Rows per page
  • 5
  • 10
  • 20
  • 50
  • 100
  • 250
Sort
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
Select
The maximal number of hits you can export is 250. When you want to export more records please use the 'Create feeds' function.
  • 1.
    Boström, Magnus
    et al.
    Södertörn University, School of Life Sciences, Environmental science.
    Börjeson, Natasja
    Södertörn University, School of Life Sciences, Environmental science.
    Gilek, Michael
    Södertörn University, School of Life Sciences, Environmental science.
    Jönsson, Anna Maria
    Södertörn University, School of Culture and Communication, Media and Communication Studies.
    Karlsson, Mikael
    Södertörn University, School of Life Sciences, Environmental science.
    Responsible procurement and complex product chains: the case of chemical risks in textiles2012In: Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, ISSN 0964-0568, E-ISSN 1360-0559, Vol. 55, no 1, p. 95-111Article in journal (Refereed)
  • 2.
    Boström, Magnus
    et al.
    Södertörn University, School of Life Sciences, Environmental science.
    Börjeson, Natasja
    Södertörn University, School of Life Sciences, Environmental science.
    Gilek, Michael
    Södertörn University, School of Life Sciences, Environmental science.
    Jönsson, Anna Maria
    Södertörn University, School of Culture and Communication, Media and Communication Studies.
    Karlsson, Mikael
    Södertörn University, School of Life Sciences, Environmental science.
    Towards responsible procurement in relation to chemical risks in textiles?: Findings from an interview study2011Report (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    In the present study, we ask whether and how different organizations work with sustainable procurement and how this work relates to the complexity of the product chain. We have chosen to focus on chemical risks in relation to textiles – an issue that increasingly is becoming part of the public discourse and a target for journalists. In the case of textiles, the product chain from raw material to consumption often involves a great number of production steps, sub-contractors and users, often on a global scale. Sustainable management of the supply chain would improve health, quality of life, and labour conditions, for instance in the areas and factories in developing countries where production and processing often take place. However, such management faces great difficulties and challenges in terms of capabilities, knowledge, communication, and policy instruments. These difficulties are related to high uncertainties and other problems that in turn are related to the high complexity of global product chains. The objective of the present report is to gain insights into the opportunities and challenges that private and public organizations face regarding the development of responsible procurement in relation to a complex and uncertain issue. The report focuses on chemicals in textiles and uses a qualitative methodology with semi-structured interviews. Key elements of a pro-active, responsible procurement strategy are defined in the report and include criteria such as using a preventive, systematic, responsive, integrative, and reflective approach. The analysis includes the following topics: (i) priorities and knowledge, (ii) communicative strategies, (iii) policy instruments, (iv) monitoring and trust in relation to suppliers. The results show a fairly modest level of organizational responsibility, although it is possible to observe an initial positive development among the cases investigated. The report ends by suggesting a number of topics that require further investigation.

  • 3.
    Boström, Magnus
    et al.
    Södertörn University, School of Natural Sciences, Technology and Environmental Studies, Environmental Science. Örebro universitet.
    Gilek, Michael
    Södertörn University, Centre for Baltic and East European Studies (CBEES).
    Jönsson, Anna Maria
    Södertörn University, School of Culture and Education, Media and Communication Studies.
    Karlsson, Mikael
    Södertörn University, School of Natural Sciences, Technology and Environmental Studies, Environmental Science.
    IKEA and the Responsible Governance of Supply Chains: IKEA’s work on chemicals in textiles2013Report (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    This report focuses on IKEA’s management and communication surrounding sustainability in general and chemical risks specifically. IKEA’s work is analysed in relation to theoretical concepts around responsibility, supply chain, and governance . The report focuses on IKEA’s visions and organizational structures, its policy instruments to deal with chemical risks, supplier-relations and communication and learning. The study is based on previous scholarly literature, analyses of relevant documents, a field visit at a few of IKEA’s suppliers in southern India, as well as interviews with staff working at IKEA in Sweden. The report focuses on IKEA’s systems and processes for dealing with chemical risks, and not on the implementation of such measures in quantitative terms.

  • 4.
    Börjeson, Natasja
    et al.
    Södertörn University, School of Natural Sciences, Technology and Environmental Studies, Environmental Science.
    Gilek, Michael
    Södertörn University, School of Natural Sciences, Technology and Environmental Studies, Environmental Science.
    Karlsson, Mikael
    Södertörn University, School of Natural Sciences, Technology and Environmental Studies, Environmental Science.
    Knowledge challenges for responsible supply chain management of chemicals in textiles - as experienced by procuring organisations2015In: Journal of Cleaner Production, ISSN 0959-6526, E-ISSN 1879-1786, Vol. 107, p. 130-136Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    A great number of chemicals - many of which are hazardous to human health and the environment - are used along the complex supply chains of textiles. These complexities and hazards make knowledge for understanding chemical properties and management practices at multiple nodes central to the responsible management of textile supply chains. This study investigates the knowledge requirements of, and the knowledge strategies used by, textile procuring organisations in response to both external stakeholders and internal pressure. Based on a qualitative study of small and medium-sized Swedish textile procuring organisations, the paper describes these knowledge challenges and analyses how efforts to meet them relate to expressed commitments and capabilities for responsible supply chain management (RSCM), as well as to organisational characteristics (i.e. whether the organisation is private or public, small or large, and whether textiles is a core or peripheral activity). It was found that several textile procuring organisations expressed commitment towards achieving RSCM. However, most organisations felt that they lacked capacity to rise to the challenge. There was a poor state of knowledge regarding many chemical substances and inherent difficulties in gaining knowledge of chemical risks and how to manage these. Moreover, the input of knowledge was limited and based on only a few key sources. Such factors proved to be obstacles for procuring organisations when attempting to facilitate responsible management upstream in complex supply chains.

  • 5.
    Börjeson, Natasja
    et al.
    Södertörn University, School of Natural Sciences, Technology and Environmental Studies, Environmental Science.
    Karlsson, Mikael
    KTH.
    Green Chemistry, the REACH Regulation and Textile CompaniesManuscript (preprint) (Other academic)
  • 6.
    Eriksson, Johan
    et al.
    Södertörn University, School of Social Sciences, Political science.
    Karlsson, Mikael
    Södertörn University, School of Life Sciences, Environmental science.
    Reuter, Marta
    Scientific Committees and EU Policy: The Case of SCHER2010In: Regulating chemical risks: European and global challenges / [ed] Johan Eriksson, Michael Gilek, Christina Rudén, Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 2010, p. 301-317Chapter in book (Other academic)
  • 7.
    Eriksson, Johan
    et al.
    Södertörn University, School of Social Sciences, Political science.
    Karlsson, Mikael
    Södertörn University, School of Life Sciences, Environmental science.
    Reuter, Marta
    Stockholm University.
    Technocracy, Politicization and Non-Involvement: Politics of Expertise in the European Regulation of Chemicals2010In: Review of Policy Research, ISSN 1541-132X, E-ISSN 1541-1338, Vol. 27, no 2, p. 167-185Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    This article addresses the relationship between scientific expertise and policy in European chemicals regulation. We argue that the role of scientific expertise in the European regulation of chemicals varies across decision-making levels, countries, and stages of the policy process. Our case study of the role of scientific expertise in the regulation of brominated flame retardants illustrates considerably different manifestations of this interconnected process across regulatory arenas, even though this case concerns a single group of substances. On the European Union level, we find a mix of technocracy and politicization; in Sweden, a clear-cut politicization; and in Poland, noninvolvement. Such differences can be explained by a combination of factors, in particular frame dominance, and mobilization of advocacy coalitions.

  • 8.
    Gilek, Michael
    et al.
    Södertörn University, School of Life Sciences, Environmental science.
    Hassler, BjörnSödertörn University, School of Life Sciences, Environmental science.Jönsson, Anna MariaSödertörn University, School of Culture and Communication, Media and Communication Studies.Karlsson, MikaelSödertörn University, School of Life Sciences, Environmental science.
    AMBIO Special Issue: Coping with Complexity in Baltic Sea Risk Governance2011Collection (editor) (Other academic)
  • 9.
    Gilek, Michael
    et al.
    Södertörn University, School of Life Sciences, Environmental science.
    Hassler, Björn
    Södertörn University, School of Life Sciences, Environmental science.
    Jönsson, Anna Maria
    Södertörn University, School of Culture and Communication, Media and Communication Studies.
    Karlsson, Mikael
    Södertörn University, School of Life Sciences, Environmental science.
    Coping with complexity in baltic sea risk governance: Introduction2011In: Ambio, ISSN 0044-7447, E-ISSN 1654-7209, Vol. 40, no 2, p. 109-110Article in journal (Refereed)
  • 10.
    Gilek, Michael
    et al.
    Södertörn University, School of Natural Sciences, Technology and Environmental Studies, Environmental Science.
    Karlsson, Mikael
    Södertörn University, School of Natural Sciences, Technology and Environmental Studies, Environmental Science.
    Seeking Pathways Towards Improved Environmental Governance of the Baltic Sea2016In: Environmental Governance of the Baltic Sea / [ed] Michael Gilek, Mikael Karlsson, Sebastian Linke, Katarzyna Smolarz, Springer, 2016, 1, p. 229-246Chapter in book (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Governing marine environments is a highly complex and challenging enterprise. This applies particularly to the heavily exploited Baltic Sea for which despite extensive governance arrangements and a substantial scientific knowledge base, it is unlikely that the policy objective of ‘good environmental status’ is reached. Based on a review of governance arrangements linked to five large-scale environmental issues (eutrophication, overfishing, invasive alien species, chemical pollution and oil spills from shipping), this chapter aims to identify pathways and concrete ideas for institutional reform that may improve goal fulfilment. The results show that governance challenges differ substantially between environmental issues, implying a need for case-specific management reforms. For example, coping with extreme uncertainty is a key challenge in the chemical pollution case, whereas it seems more pertinent in the eutrophication case to address the complexity of nutrient pollution sources by adapting objectives and measures amongst sectoral policies to be in line with environmental ones. Furthermore, cross-case comparisons reveal a set of common vital functions (i.e. coordination, integration, interdisciplinarity, precaution, deliberation, communication and adaptability) that are needed in order to facilitate effective and efficient environmental governance in the long term. To promote these functions in Baltic Sea environmental governance, the chapter suggests pathways and institutional reforms aimed at improving multilevel and multisectoral integration, science-policy interactions and stakeholder participation. To further develop these ideas, it is proposed amongst other things that priority is given to setting up an international ‘Baltic Sea Policy Review Mechanism’, formed by cross-body and cross-stakeholder participation.

  • 11.
    Gilek, Michael
    et al.
    Södertörn University, School of Natural Sciences, Technology and Environmental Studies, Environmental Science.
    Karlsson, Mikael
    Södertörn University, School of Natural Sciences, Technology and Environmental Studies, Environmental Science.
    Linke, Sebastian
    Göteborgs Universitet.
    Smolarz, Katarzyna
    Gdansk University, Poland.
    Environmental Governance of the Baltic Sea2016 (ed. 1)Book (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    This edited volume presents a comprehensive and coherent interdisciplinary analysis of

    challenges and possibilities for sustainable governance of the Baltic Sea ecosystem by

    combining knowledge and approaches from natural and social sciences. Focusing on

    the Ecosystem Approach to Management (EAM) and associated multi-level, multi-sector

    and multi-actor challenges, the book provides up-to-date descriptions and analyses of

    environmental governance structures and processes at the macro-regional Baltic Sea

    level. Organised in two parts, Part 1 presents in-depth case studies of environmental

    governance practices and challenges linked to five key environmental problems -

    eutrophication, chemical pollution, overfishing, oil discharges and invasive species.

    Part 2 analyses and compares governance challenges and opportunities across the five

    case studies, focusing on governance structures and EAM implementation, knowledge

    integration and science support, as well as stakeholder communication and participation.

    Based on these cross-case comparisons, this book also draws a set of general conclusions

    on possible ways of improving the governance of the Baltic Sea by promoting what are

    identified as vital functions of environmental governance: coordination, integration,

    interdisciplinarity, precaution, deliberation, communication and adaptability.

  • 12.
    Gilek, Michael
    et al.
    Södertörn University, School of Natural Sciences, Technology and Environmental Studies, Environmental Science.
    Karlsson, Mikael
    Södertörn University, School of Natural Sciences, Technology and Environmental Studies, Environmental Science.
    Linke, Sebastian
    Göteborgs Universitet.
    Smolarz, Katarzyna
    Gdansk University, Poland.
    Environmental Governance of the Baltic Sea: Identifying Key Challenges, Research Topics and Analytical Approaches2016In: Environmental Governance of the Baltic Sea / [ed] Michael Gilek, Mikael Karlsson, Sebastian Linke, Katarzyna Smolarz, Springer, 2016, 1, p. 1-17Chapter in book (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The Baltic Sea ecosystem is subject to a wide array of societal pressures and associated environmental risks (e.g. eutrophication, oil discharges, chemical pollution, overfishing and invasive alien species). Despite several years of substantial efforts by state and non-state actors, it is still highly unlikely that the regionally agreed environmental objectives of reaching “good environmental status” by 2021 in the HELCOM BSAP (Baltic Sea Action Plan) and by 2020 in the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) will be met. This chapter identifies key research topics, as well as presents analytical perspectives for analysing the gap between knowledge and action in Baltic Sea environmental governance. It does so by outlining important trends and key challenges associated with Baltic Sea environmental governance, as well as by summarising the scope and results of individual chapters of this interdisciplinary volume. The analysis reveals the development of increasingly complex governance arrangements and the ongoing implementation of the holistic Ecosystem Approach to Management, as two general trends that together contribute to three key challenges associated with (1) regional and cross - sectoral coordination and collaboration, (2) coping with complexity and uncertainty in science-policy interactions and (3) developing communication and knowledge sharing among stakeholder groups. Furthermore, to facilitate analysis of environmental governance opportunities and obstacles both within and across specific environmental issues, this chapter reviews the scientific literature to pinpoint key research issues and questions linked to the identified governance challenges.

  • 13.
    Gilek, Michael
    et al.
    Södertörn University, School of Natural Sciences, Technology and Environmental Studies, Environmental Science.
    Karlsson, Mikael
    Södertörn University, School of Natural Sciences, Technology and Environmental Studies, Environmental Science.
    Udovyk, Oksana
    Södertörn University, School of Natural Sciences, Technology and Environmental Studies, Environmental Science.
    Linke, Sebastian
    Göteborgs universitet.
    Science and Policy in the Governance of Europe’s Marine Environment: The Impact of Europeanization, Regionalization and the Ecosystem Approach to Management2015In: Governing Europe’s Marine Environment: Europeanization of Regional Seas or Regionalization of EU Policies? / [ed] Michael Gilek and Kristine Kern, Farnham: Ashgate, 2015, p. 141-160Chapter in book (Refereed)
  • 14.
    Gilek, Michael
    et al.
    Södertörn University, School of Life Sciences, Environmental science.
    Linke, Sebastian
    Södertörn University, School of Life Sciences, Environmental science.
    Udovyk, Oksana
    Södertörn University, School of Life Sciences, Environmental science.
    Karlsson, Mikael
    Södertörn University, School of Life Sciences, Environmental science.
    Lundberg, Cecilia
    Åbo Akademi, Finland.
    Smolarz, Katarzyna
    Södertörn University, Centre for Baltic and East European Studies (CBEES).
    Lemke, Paulina
    Gdansk University, Poland.
    Interactions between risk assessment and risk management for environmental risks in the Baltic Sea: RISKGOV Deliverable 92011Report (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    This report has been produced within the interdisciplinary RISKGOV project with the overall aim of comparing risk assessment – risk management interactions connected with five severe Baltic Sea environmental risks (eutrophication, overfishing, invasive species, chemical pollution and oil discharges linked to marine transports).

    Specifically, we compare three major aspects connected with assessment  – management interactions and, based on this analysis, suggest possible routes for improving interaction between science-based advice and environmental (risk) management:

    1. Organisational structure of the risk assessment activities and the generation, selection and implementation of management options.
    2. The management of scientific uncertainties and disagreements.
    3. Implementation of the ecosystem approach to management (EAM) and modes of ‘good governance’.

    In order to understand these aspects we started by describing and analysing the characteristics of the five risk cases. This revealed substantial differences in terms of sources, effects and complexities (in terms of scientific uncertainty and socio-political ambiguity). For example, chemical risks are associated with great uncertainty and oil spill with much lower; fisheries relate to very high socio-political ambiguity, whereas invasive species show the opposite nature and oil spill fit with more traditional risk parameters. Our analysis also revealed a great variation in the societal risk responses, which far from always seems rational in relation to the risk characteristics.

    When it comes to the organisational structures, we can conclude that different forms of institutions and institutional arrangements and relations have evolved over time in the various cases, for instance relatively well-formalised in the overfishing case, and rather informal for combating eutrophication. Similarly, we see different forms of expert dependencies. In the overfishing case there are institutionalised formal links between e.g. ICES and the EU Commission and the historic path-dependency is quite strong, thereby causing institutional inertia, even though the development of Regional Advisory Councils (RACs) such as the Baltic RAC are gradually changing the picture. In relation to many other environmental risk cases (e.g. eutrophication and chemicals) HELCOM provides a regional basis for assessment and management (although implementation of management recommendations have often proved complex). Still, assessment-management interactions seem more developed and better organised in the overfishing case, even though it is obvious that the last link, the political decision-making on quotas, has deviated substantially from the science-based advice, thereby opening for continued overfishing. Similarly, well-developed institutions seem to allow for improved deliberative processes for fisheries, including improved analysis of socio-economic dimensions, which we cannot find to the same extent for e.g. chemicals, eutrophication and invasive species.

    The assessment and management responses we see to the studied risks do not seem to be based on any thorough analysis of the specific risk characteristics, or on the suitability of different overall strategies (e.g. traditional science-based assessment, precautionary, deliberative). Instead, all studied assessment-management interactions can be classified as being built primarily on traditional science-based assessment of risks. Of course, we see elements of for example precaution in e.g. the chemicals case, and deliberation in the fish case, and the inclusion of the EAM as a starting point for assessment exercises and management decisions is becoming more common, but overall this happens only partially and infrequently.

    Thus, to summarise, we conclude that there are substantial differences among environmental risks in relation to, for example, complexity, uncertainty and ambiguity, and we argue that it is important to maintain a balance between ideals of holistic approaches such as EAM and context dependent requirements of various management objectives, environmental risks and sectors. For example, high levels of uncertainty (e.g. chemical pollution) and ambiguity (e.g. overfishing) can be assumed to require assessment-management approaches focussed on precaution and participatory deliberation, respectively.

    Furthermore, our analysis identifies six key issues and challenges that, if adequately addressed, may improve assessment-management interactions and facilitate the implementation of the ecosystem approach to management.

    1. We see a need to further develop the regional and ecosystem basis of assessment-management interactions in terms of addressing prioritised knowledge gaps, as well as developing regional knowledge management and monitoring to strengthen regionally-based scientific advice.

    2. Integration of various forms of scientific knowledge is currently rather undeveloped in assessment and scientific advice, which reduces possibilities of addressing also the social dimension of sustainable development as well as possibilities of identifying and reducing ‘blind spots’.

    3. Stakeholder participation requires more consideration since incorporation of practitioner and local knowledge in risk assessments as well as stakeholder deliberation in risk management often are vital for the successful implementation of the ecosystem approach to management.

    4. We identify substantial room for improvements linked to coping with scientific uncertainty and disagreement in both risk assessment and risk management. We conclude that there in fact are examples of science-based precautionary approaches and methods, but that a comprehensive and coherent strategy for addressing uncertainty is often lacking.

    5. Interdependencies among environmental risk issues need to be more specifically addressed than today. Climate change will, for example, influence both the outcome of risk assessments as well as the possibilities for successful management in all the studied environmental risk cases.

    6. Despite a commonly expressed idea of a clear separation between assessment and management, the studied science-policy interactions are in general rather diffuse and politicised. This lack of transparency about how these interactions evolve and are constructed may mislead political decision makers and the public and thus potentially hamper management progress.

  • 15. Karlsson, Mikael
    Biosafety principles for GMOs in the context of sustainable development2003In: International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, ISSN 1350-4509, E-ISSN 1745-2627, Vol. 10, no 1, p. 15-26Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    If genetically modified organisms are to contribute to welfare they must be considered in the context of sustainable development. Biosafety implies considering the environmental, economic and social dimensions of sustainable development. These dimensions can be interpreted through the principles of precaution, polluter pays and public participation. In this article, these key biosafety principles are operationalised and ways of implementing them in society are discussed. A comparison is made between the principles and the present EU law for deliberate release of GMOs. It is concluded that several improvements in EU policy are necessary to ensure sustainable development really is promoted.

  • 16. Karlsson, Mikael
    Ethics of sustainable development - a study of Swedish regulations for genetically modified organisms2003In: Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, ISSN 1187-7863, E-ISSN 1573-322X, Vol. 16, no 1, p. 51-62Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    In spite of stricter provisions in the new EU directive on deliberate release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), critics still advocate a moratorium on permits for cultivation of GMOs. However, in an attempt to meet concerns raised by the public, the directive explicitly gives Member States the possibility to take into consideration ethical aspects of GMOs in the decision-making. This article investigates the potential effects of such formulation by means of an empirical analysis of experiences gained the last years from similar Swedish regulations for GMOs, aiming at promoting sustainable development. The faulty implementation shown in the Swedish case indicates that legal stipulations for ethics as such have limited importance. It is suggested that public participation is an important factor for successful implementation of the ethics of sustainable development.

  • 17. Karlsson, Mikael
    Genmodifiering av skogsträd i perspektivet hållbar utveckling2004In: Inte bara träd: hållbart mångbruk av skogslandskapet / [ed] Gunilla Almered Olsson, Gabriel Bladh, Bengt Månsson, Lars Nyberg, Stockholm: Carlsson , 2004Chapter in book (Other (popular science, discussion, etc.))
  • 18. Karlsson, Mikael
    Konflikthantering för hållbar utveckling: om människor och skyddade skogar i Tanzania2004In: Inte bara träd: hållbart mångbruk av skogslandskapet / [ed] Gunilla Almered Olsson, Gabriel Bladh, Bengt Månsson, Lars Nyberg, Stockholm: Carlsson , 2004Chapter in book (Other (popular science, discussion, etc.))
  • 19.
    Karlsson, Mikael
    Karlstads universitet.
    Managing complex environmental risks for sustainable development: policies for hazardous chemicals and genetically modified organisms2005Doctoral thesis, comprehensive summary (Other academic)
  • 20. Karlsson, Mikael
    Regulatory frameworks for sustainable control of genetically modified organisms2000In: Third International Conference of the European Society for Ecological Economics on transitions towards a sustainable Europe: ecology, economy, policy : Vienna, May 3 to 6, 2000, Vienna, 2000Conference paper (Other academic)
  • 21. Karlsson, Mikael
    Science and norms in policies for sustainable development: Assessing and managing risks of chemical substances and genetically modified organisms in the European Union2006In: Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology, ISSN 0273-2300, E-ISSN 1096-0295, Vol. 44, no 1, p. 49-56Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Use of chemical substances and genetically modified organisms cause complex problems characterised by scientific uncertainty and controversies. Aiming at sustainable development, policies for assessment, and management of risks in the two areas are under development in the European Union. The article points out that both science and norms play a central role in risk assessment as well as risk management and Suggests that the precautionary principle, the principle of public participation, and the polluter pays principle, all adopted in the European Union, offer a way to operationalise the concept of sustainable development. It is shown, however, that a number of steps ought to be taken to better implement the principles through different policy measures. In doing so, and by recognising the role of both science and norms, the decision-making on risks related to the use of chemicals or genetically modified organisms can be improved to better promote Sustainable development.

  • 22.
    Karlsson, Mikael
    Södertörn University, School of Life Sciences, Environmental science.
    The precautionary principle in EU and US chemicals policy: A comparison of industrial chemicals legislation2010In: Regulating chemical risks: European and global challenges / [ed] Johan Eriksson, Michael Gilek, Christina Rudén, Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 2010, p. 239-265Chapter in book (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    In this chapter, the precautionary principle will be considered as the starting point for decision-making on chemicals in cases of scientific uncertainty. The principle will serve as the reference point for an analysis and a comparison of chemicals- policies and, in particular, of legislation for industrial chemicals in the European Union and the United States of America. In the second section, the precautionary principle will be described on a general level and operationalised with respect to chemicals management. The third section will focus on EU precautionary and chemicals policy and, in particular, on the recently adopted REACH regulation. A similar analysis will be made of US policies in the fourth section, with a focus on the Toxic Substances Control Act. In the fifth and concluding section, the results from the analyses will be compared and discussed with the aim to identify measures that could improve the management of chemicals under uncertainty.

  • 23. Karlsson, Mikael
    The precautionary principle, Swedish chemicals policy and sustainable development2006In: Journal of Risk Research, ISSN 1366-9877, E-ISSN 1466-4461, Vol. 9, no 4, p. 337-360Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The "precautionary principle" is one of the most contested principles in the debate on the new EU chemicals legislation. The purpose of this paper is to operationalise the principle and to investigate the consequences of its application. Five core elements of precautionary management of chemicals are derived and traced in Swedish policy and legislation through history. It is shown that precautionary measures were required as early as the eighteenth century. The conclusion is drawn that these measures in Sweden seem to have promoted sustainable development from both an environmental and a socio-economic point of view.

  • 24. Karlsson, Mikael
    Theories on Risk, and the Management of Genetically Modified Organisms: a Stakeholders AnalysisManuscript (preprint) (Other academic)
  • 25.
    Karlsson, Mikael
    et al.
    Södertörn University, School of Natural Sciences, Technology and Environmental Studies, Environmental Science.
    Gilek, Michael
    Södertörn University, School of Natural Sciences, Technology and Environmental Studies, Environmental Science.
    Governance of Chemicals in the Baltic Sea Region: A Study of Three Generations of Hazardous Substances2016In: Environmental Governance of the Baltic Sea / [ed] Michael Gilek, Mikael Karlsson, Sebastian Linke, Katarzyna Smolarz, Springer, 2016, 1, p. 97-123Chapter in book (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    This study zooms in on public governance in the Baltic Sea region of three generations of notorious hazardous substances, namely, PCBs, PBDEs and PFOS/PFOA. Following regulation, PCB concentrations in the Baltic Sea have decreased substantially although they are still above pre-industrial levels. PBDE levels have also decreased in some places, but they too are well above targeted levels, whereas the situation for PFOS and in particular for PFOA has hardly improved at all. In the case of PCBs, while comprehensive measures took long to implement, initial preventive measures were taken early based on the precautionary principle. This contrasts with the cases of PBDEs, PFOS and PFOA, where the burden of proof on policy-makers has been high and hence caused severe delays in policymaking. There has, however, generally been a positive interplay in all three cases between the EU, which has legislated, and HELCOM, which has taken the role of concept and agenda setting. While environment-oriented policies, such as the Ecosystem Approach to Management under MSFD and BSAP, have grown in importance over time, polluter-oriented chemical legislation has been more important when it comes to final decision-making. Nevertheless, the general response has been reactive rather than proactive, and there is no indication that society responds faster today than in the past, at least not given the fact that awareness, experience and knowledge are greater today than a few decades back. Based on that insight, the article discusses various options for improving governance.

  • 26.
    Karlsson, Mikael
    et al.
    Södertörn University, School of Natural Sciences, Technology and Environmental Studies, Environmental Science.
    Gilek, Michael
    Södertörn University, School of Natural Sciences, Technology and Environmental Studies, Environmental Science.
    Vägar till en friskare Östersjö2015In: HavsUtsikt, ISSN 1104-0513, no 1, p. 8-9Article, review/survey (Other (popular science, discussion, etc.))
    Abstract [sv]

    Gapet är stort mellan miljömål och miljötillstånd i Östersjön. De omfattande insatser som görs av offentliga institutioner, näringsliv och allmänhet räcker inte. Samtidigt finns ett stort och växande engagemang från många politiker, företagare och enskilda för att stärka havsmiljöarbetet. När vi nu summerar ett större treårigt forskningsprojekt finner vi viktiga ledtrådar till vägar som kan leda till en förbättrad situation.

  • 27.
    Karlsson, Mikael
    et al.
    Södertörn University, School of Natural Sciences, Technology and Environmental Studies, Environmental Science.
    Gilek, Michael
    Södertörn University, School of Natural Sciences, Technology and Environmental Studies, Environmental Science.
    Lundberg, Cecilia
    Åbo Akademi, Finland.
    Eutrophication and the Ecosystem Approach to Management: A Case Study of Baltic Sea Environmental Governance2016In: Environmental Governance of the Baltic Sea / [ed] Michael Gilek, Mikael Karlsson, Sebastian Linke, Katarzyna Smolarz, Springer, 2016, 1, p. 21-44Chapter in book (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    This study investigates if and how present institutional structures and interactions between scientific assessment and environmental management are sufficient for implementing the ecosystem approach to management (EAM) in the case of Baltic Sea eutrophication. Concerning governance structures, a number of institutions and policies focus on issues relating to eutrophication. In many cases, the policies are mutually supportive rather than contradictory, as seen, for example, in the case of the mutually supportive BSAP and MSFD. The opposite is true, however, when it comes to the linkages with some other policy areas, in particular regarding agricultural policy, where the EU CAP subsidises intensive agriculture with at best minor consideration of environmental objectives, thereby undermining EAM. Enhanced policy coherence and stricter policies on concrete measures to combat eutrophication seem well needed in order to reach stated environmental objectives.  When it comes to assessment-management interactions, the science- policy interface has worked well in periods, but the more specific that policies have become, for example, in the BSAP case, the more question marks have been raised about science by affected stakeholders. At present, outright controversies exist, and EAM is far from realised in eutrophication policy in the Baltic Sea region. Besides coping with remaining uncertainties by improving the knowledge on problems and solutions– not least in terms of the socio-economic impacts of eutrophication – it may therefore be valuable to develop venues for improved stakeholder participation.

  • 28.
    Karlsson, Mikael
    et al.
    Södertörn University, School of Life Sciences, Environmental science.
    Gilek, Michael
    Södertörn University, School of Life Sciences, Environmental science.
    Udovyk, Oksana
    Governance of Complex Socio-Environmental Risks: The Case of Hazardous Chemicals in the Baltic Sea2011In: Ambio, ISSN 0044-7447, E-ISSN 1654-7209, Vol. 40, no 2, p. 144-157Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Complex socio-environmental risks challenge society. In response to scientific uncertainty and socio-political controversies, environmental governance, precaution, and the ecosystem approach to management are held forward as complements to governmental risk-based sector-restricted regulation. We analyze this development for hazardous substances in the Baltic Sea. Based on interviews and policy analysis, we study informal governance and, in particular, four central EU and international policies, and investigate how present governance relates to risks and objectives at hand. While showing emergence of broader governance approaches, we conclude that central objectives will not likely be met. Furthermore, we question the quest for broad environmental governance and emphasize the value of command and control regulation, if it implements precaution. These findings contribute to the theorizing on environmental (risk) governance. Finally, we provide some ideas that could help development and implementation of risk policies for hazardous chemicals in the Baltic Sea as well as other complex risks.

  • 29. Karlsson, Mikael
    et al.
    Karlsson, Hanna
    Beyond the limits: On Violated Environmental Quality Standards and Health Effects from Particles in Sweden2006In: Science for sustainable development: starting points and critical reflections : proceedings of the 1st VHU Conference on Science for Sustainable Development, Västerås, Sweden, 14-16 April 2005 / [ed] Björn Frostell, Uppsala: Föreningen Vetenskap för Hållbar Utveckling , 2006, p. 170-178Conference paper (Other academic)
  • 30. Karlsson, Mikael
    et al.
    Ljung, M
    Understanding Sustainable Development: A Systemic View for Successful Realisation2001In: 2001 international sustainable development research conference, Shipley: ERP Environment , 2001Conference paper (Other academic)
  • 31. Karlsson, Mikael
    et al.
    Swahn, Johan
    Nuclear Waste, Risks andSustainable Development2006In: VALDOR 2006: values in decisions on risk : proceedings / [ed] Kjell Andersson, Stockholm: Statensk kärnkraftsinspektion , 2006, p. 257-330Conference paper (Other academic)
  • 32.
    Linke, Sebastian
    et al.
    Göteborgs Universitet.
    Gilek, Michael
    Södertörn University, School of Natural Sciences, Technology and Environmental Studies, Environmental Science.
    Karlsson, Mikael
    Södertörn University, School of Natural Sciences, Technology and Environmental Studies, Environmental Science.
    Science-Policy Interfaces in Baltic Sea Environmental Governance: Towards Regional Cooperation and Management of Uncertainty?2016In: Environmental Governance of the Baltic Sea / [ed] Gilek et al., Springer, 2016, 1, p. 173-203Chapter in book (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    This chapter investigates and compares the interactions between science and policy (risk assessments and risk management) in five cases of environmental governance of the Baltic Sea: eutrophication, fisheries, invasive alien species, chemical pollution and oil discharges. An efficient interplay between science and policy is important for successful environmental governance, which applies particularly to the Baltic Sea where all five risks pose serious threats to environmental, social and economic aspects of sustainability. We use science-policy theory and an analytical framework based on a categorisation of relevant management responses linked to different states of incomplete knowledge (risk, uncertainty, ambiguity, ignorance) to investigate two main characteristics of science-policy interfaces: (1) organisational structures and (2) procedural aspects of managing scientific uncertainties and stakeholder disagreements. The analyses reveal differences and similarities in institutional and organisational designs of the respective assessment-management interactions, as well as in terms of how scientific uncertainties, stakeholder disagreements and socio-political ambiguities are addressed. All the five science-policy interfaces expose science-based management approaches that commonly are not able to cope sufficiently well with the complexities, uncertainties and ambiguities at hand. Based on our cross-case analyses, we conclude by recommending five key aspects that need to be addressed to improve science-policy interactions in Baltic Sea environmental governance: (1) more adaptive organisational structures in terms of time, context and place dependency, (2) increased knowledge integrations, (3) a more careful consideration of stakeholder participation and deliberation, (4) better management of uncertainty and disagreements and (5) increased transparency and reflection in the communication of science-policy processes.

  • 33.
    Linke, Sebastian
    et al.
    University of Gothenburg.
    Gilek, Michael
    Södertörn University, School of Natural Sciences, Technology and Environmental Studies, Environmental Science.
    Karlsson, Mikael
    Södertörn University, School of Natural Sciences, Technology and Environmental Studies, Environmental Science.
    Udovyk, Oksana
    Södertörn University, School of Natural Sciences, Technology and Environmental Studies, Environmental Science.
    Unravelling science-policy interactions in environmental risk governance of the Baltic Sea: Comparing fisheries and eutrophication2014In: Journal of Risk Research, ISSN 1366-9877, E-ISSN 1466-4461, Vol. 17, no 4, p. 505-523Article in journal (Other academic)
  • 34.
    Udovyk, Oksana
    et al.
    Södertörn University, School of Life Sciences, Environmental science.
    Rabilloud, Louise
    Södertörn University, School of Life Sciences, Environmental science.
    Gilek, Michael
    Södertörn University, School of Life Sciences, Environmental science.
    Karlsson, Mikael
    Södertörn University, School of Life Sciences, Environmental science.
    Hazardous substances: a case study of environmental risk governance in the Baltic Sea region2010Report (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    This report aims to describe and analyse the structures and processes that shape risk governance of hazardous chemicals in the Baltic Sea area and, based on this, discuss conditions and opportunities that could improve chemical risk governance. With this purpose in mind we have analysed the risk governance of hazardous chemicals along three dimensions and Work Packages (WP): governance structures (WP 1), risk assessment-risk management interactions (WP 2) and stakeholder communication (WP 3). The report is an initial outcome of the RISKGOV project, in which risk governance in various areas eventually will be compared in order to gain new insights on environmental risk governance and to extract policy-relevant advise on how to better deal with environmental risks in the Baltic Sea context.

     

    The report is based on a study of key documents treating policies and risks, 22 semi-structured in-depth interviews with stakeholders conducted in the period February–October 2010, as well as participatory observations at scientific conferences and stakeholder meetings.

    WP 1 identifies the most important risk governance structures, and maps actors and regulations. In particular, it is concluded that development at the EU and HELCOM level are of main importance for the management of chemicals in the Baltic Sea region. Thus, actors within the EU and HELCOM, as well as regulations within EU – most notably the Water Framework Directive (WFD), the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), and the REACH regulation – and regulations and recommendations dealt with by HELCOM – in particular the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) – were identified as crucial for further analyses in WP 2 and WP 3. Although we recognise the importance and the substantial improvements that have been made in chemical regulation within the EU and HELCOM, these developments are not sufficient in order to meet key objective at hand, nor do they adequately manage relations with Russia. WP 1 concludes that, although there are numerous of national and international regulations creating a massive web of regulations, existing chemical regulation and informal governance structures are very far from covering all existing chemical risks (especially new chemicals and mixtures of chemicals) and to allow for a sufficient extent of safety. Care must be taken in the development of new regulations to promote synergies and data exchange rather than causing further barriers, overlaps and conflicts that could reduce the efficiency. Innovative policy developments, as well as improved international collaboration, are therefore needed, which will be placed in focus in further studies within the RISKGOV project.

    WP 2 focuses on an in-depth understanding of the interactions between risk assessment and risk management of chemicals. The main assessment and management activities in the Baltic Sea region are identified and analysed. It is concluded that assessments commonly are based on a rather technocratic separation of assessment and management activities (with often unclear strategies for bringing these activities together in decision-making). Assessments also generally suffer from lack of data, insufficient harmonisation of methodology, as well as unclear strategies for assessing uncertainties and adjusted communication of assessment results. Consequently, assessments would benefit greatly from more harmonised assessment methodologies, not least for chemical mixtures, ecological effects as well as methods for integrating various lines of evidence. Both assessment and management might benefit from increased stakeholder participation. Furthermore, we have analysed risk assessment and management interactions through the prisms of uncertainty and the Ecosystem Approach to Management (EAM). These aspects have become top challenges for the assessment and management of chemical risks as well as for coping with science-policy interactions connected with the governance of chemical risks. We conclude that the enormous knowledge gap (for most chemicals, for the risks of chemical mixtures, for ecosystem-specific risks etc) need to be addressed by combining increased efforts on data and knowledge production with better ways of assessing, communicating and managing uncertainty. Hence, a main question is how much evidence is needed for motivating decision-making on risk reduction. This is a policy-related issue, not a scientific one. However, science does need to develop and implement improved methodology for assessing and communicating uncertainty to relevant stakeholders. On the management side, the precautionary principle is increasingly stipulated for coping with uncertainty. In spite of that, there is no consensus on the exact implementation of the principle in practice, and regulations such as REACH, the WFD, the MSFD and the BSAP ought to be developed on this point. Risk reduction is needed and motivated even, or even particularly, under uncertainty. Looking at the EAM, the approach is clearly receiving increase attention (e.g. in the BSAP and the MSFD), but only partially in the field of chemical regulation and concrete measures. So far, it is therefore not certain that the EAM will substantially improve risk management in cases of high uncertainty. On the contrary, requirements on implementation of the EAM may stall measures and increase complexity. These initial insights will be further developed in coming RISKGOV publications.

    WP 3 describes and analyses how risks of hazardous chemicals are framed by key actors and stakeholders in the Baltic Sea region, such as governments, agencies, regionally inter-governmental agencies such as HELCOM, economic actors, academia, and civil society. It is shown that different actors have different ways of framing the risk of chemicals in the Baltic Sea. For example, differences were observed along a gradient spanning from framing chemicals and chemical products as basically useful for society, to framing chemicals as substantial threats to the environment and human health. Most interviewed stakeholders could be placed somewhere in the middle of this gradient between benefit and cost. This is reflected in the dominant opinions expressed on required general management approaches, which do not fundamentally question abundant production of chemicals, but rather suggest a focus on managing chemicals with proven hazardous properties, thus tilting towards a market rather than an environmental starting point. This view on chemical risk management is rather surprising given the major uncertainties and lack of data described in WP 2. In light of this we propose that the management of chemicals might benefit from a shift towards seeing quality of life as based on sufficiency of chemicals rather than on (over)-abundance of them. Many of the interviewed stakeholders (e.g. politicians, journalists and NGO staff) also expressed a surprising lack of interest in the environmental risks of hazardous chemicals in the Baltic Sea region. If concern mostly expressed was health risks of chemicals. It is also clear that besides some NGOs and other stakeholders, quite few have a primary focus on taking initiatives for improving the management of chemicals, something that is a problem given the common political ambitions to increase participation in connection with implementation of the EAM. WP 3 also analyses existing institutional arrangements for and procedures of risk communication at the regional Baltic Sea level. Clearly, communication between the EU and Russia is still in need of improvement, as is two-way communications and cooperation between stakeholders, as well as between actors connected with risk assessment and risk management and the general public. For example, in those (rare) cases when scientific information about chemicals does exist, it is not well communicated among knowledge producers and stakeholders, and current scientific assessment activities seldom relate directly to concerns of stakeholders or the public.

     

    In conclusion our initial analysis and conclusions show that risks of chemicals are rather dealt with by traditional risk-based governmental strategies, than by broad environmental governance, based on precaution and the ecosystem approach to management. Furthermore, there are no clear strategies or guidelines on how to cope with uncertainty in assessment and management. As a result, even though there is a growing scientific capacity to develop new chemicals, there is at present no well functioning system for their safe management. We will address these challenges further in future RISKGOV publications.

  • 35. Wikström, Fredrik
    et al.
    Karlsson, Mikael
    Hållbar utveckling i skogslandskapet: med energi i fokus2004In: Inte bara träd: hållbart mångbruk av skogslandskapet / [ed] Front Cover Gunilla Almerad, Gabriel Bladh, Bengt Månsson, Bengt Nyberg, Stockholm: Carlsson , 2004Chapter in book (Other (popular science, discussion, etc.))
  • 36. Wikström, Fredrik
    et al.
    Karlsson, Mikael
    Hållbar utveckling i Värmland: strategier för lokal och regional hållbar utveckling av energisystem i ett femtioårsperspektiv2002Report (Other academic)
1 - 36 of 36
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf