IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/porgrv/v17y2017i3d10.1007_s11115-016-0347-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effective Regulation and Support to Economic Growth: Are These Aims Mutually Exclusive in the Regulation of the UK’s Nuclear Industry?

Author

Listed:
  • Barry Pemberton

Abstract

This paper is a reflection on the UK governments’ latest regulatory intervention affecting all non-financial institutions, including the Office of Nuclear Regulation (ONR). The intervention forms part of the government’s response to the economic downturn experienced in the UK and requires regulators to take into account not only their responsibilities for maintaining safety, but also the impact of their actions on economic growth. While this may be a valid proposition for some organisations, the paper suggests that the unique characteristics of the nuclear industry should exempt its regulator from these government provisions. The paper identifies existing and historic regulatory and governance weaknesses that would suggest regulatory intervention should be reviewed but not from a need to enhance economic growth. Rather a need exists to redesign the regulatory process so that the industry’s hazards and risks arising are mitigated. An inherent conflict of interest is also identified that compounds historic governance problems where publicly-funded, government-appointed regulators attempt to regulate publicly-funded, government-appointed third-party organisations. While in neoliberal terms this may not be seen as an issue, I examine notable, generic, regulatory incidents where managerial and regulatory action failed to resolve resource allocation issues between the need to improve levels of economic growth or safety.

Suggested Citation

  • Barry Pemberton, 2017. "Effective Regulation and Support to Economic Growth: Are These Aims Mutually Exclusive in the Regulation of the UK’s Nuclear Industry?," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 429-450, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:porgrv:v:17:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s11115-016-0347-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s11115-016-0347-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11115-016-0347-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11115-016-0347-1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wolff, Jonathan, 2006. "Risk, Fear, Blame, Shame And The Regulation Of Public Safety," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(3), pages 409-427, November.
    2. Peter Weingart, 1999. "Scientific expertise and political accountability: paradoxes of science in politics," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 26(3), pages 151-161, June.
    3. Freeman, R. Edward, 1994. "The Politics of Stakeholder Theory: Some Future Directions1," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(4), pages 409-421, October.
    4. Castle, Pamela, 1995. "Environmental issues and the nuclear industry," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 139-147, February.
    5. Ogus, Anthony, 2001. "Regulatory Institutions and Structures," Centre on Regulation and Competition (CRC) Working papers 30704, University of Manchester, Institute for Development Policy and Management (IDPM).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ruben Burga & Davar Rezania, 2016. "Stakeholder theory in social entrepreneurship: a descriptive case study," Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, Springer;UNESCO Chair in Entrepreneurship, vol. 6(1), pages 1-15, December.
    2. Wei Peng & Baogui Xin & Yekyung Kwon, 2019. "Optimal Strategies of Product Price, Quality, and Corporate Environmental Responsibility," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(23), pages 1-24, November.
    3. Kazadi, Kande & Lievens, Annouk & Mahr, Dominik, 2016. "Stakeholder co-creation during the innovation process: Identifying capabilities for knowledge creation among multiple stakeholders," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 525-540.
    4. Kate Dooley & Aarti Gupta, 2017. "Governing by expertise: the contested politics of (accounting for) land-based mitigation in a new climate agreement," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 483-500, August.
    5. WANG Jifu & GUPTA Vipin & LYBOLT Liza & WANG Xiuli, 2022. "Corrected Game Model In Csr: Mnc Strategies And Chinese Practice," Studies in Business and Economics, Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, Faculty of Economic Sciences, vol. 17(3), pages 269-287, December.
    6. Müllner, Jakob & Puck, Jonas, 2018. "Towards a holistic framework of MNE–state bargaining: A formal model and case-based analysis," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 15-26.
    7. Vincenzo Formisano & Bernardino Quattrociocchi & Maria Fedele & Mario Calabrese, 2018. "From Viability to Sustainability: The Contribution of the Viable Systems Approach (VSA)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-17, March.
    8. Michaela Haase & Emmanuel Raufflet, 2017. "Ideologies in Markets, Organizations, and Business Ethics: Drafting a Map: Introduction to the Special Issue," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 142(4), pages 629-639, June.
    9. Yuxuan Li & Xin Miao & Dequan Zheng & Yanhong Tang, 2019. "Corporate Public Transparency on Financial Performance: The Moderating Role of Political Embeddedness," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-17, October.
    10. Jill Brown & William Forster, 2013. "CSR and Stakeholder Theory: A Tale of Adam Smith," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 112(2), pages 301-312, January.
    11. Sandra Waddock, 2019. "Shaping the Shift: Shamanic Leadership, Memes, and Transformation," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 155(4), pages 931-939, April.
    12. Jesús Mauricio Flórez Parra, 2016. "El gobierno corporativo en el ámbito del sector público: un estudio bibliométrico en las revistas ubicadas en el área de Administración Pública," Revista Facultad de Ciencias Económicas, Universidad Militar Nueva Granada, vol. 25(1), pages 161-175, December.
    13. Muhamad Azrin Nazri & Nor Asiah Omar & Aini Aman & Abu Hanifah Ayob & Nur Ainna Ramli, 2020. "Corporate Social Responsibility and Business Performance in Takaful Agencies: The Moderating Role of Objective Environment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-18, October.
    14. M. Tina Dacin & Jeffrey S. Harrison & David Hess & Sheila Killian & Julia Roloff, 2022. "Business Versus Ethics? Thoughts on the Future of Business Ethics," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 180(3), pages 863-877, October.
    15. Nina Evans & Janet Sawyer, 2010. "CSR and stakeholders of small businesses in regional South Australia," Social Responsibility Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 6(3), pages 433-451, August.
    16. Tomina Saveanu & Daniel Badulescu & Sorana Saveanu & Maria-Madela Abrudan & Alina Badulescu, 2021. "The Role of Owner-Managers in Shaping CSR Activity of Romanian SMEs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-19, October.
    17. Ante Glavas & Jenny Mish, 2015. "Resources and Capabilities of Triple Bottom Line Firms: Going Over Old or Breaking New Ground?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 127(3), pages 623-642, March.
    18. Cheng, Kuo-Tai & Hebenton, Bill, 2008. "Regulatory governance of telecommunications liberalisation in Taiwan," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 16(4), pages 292-306, December.
    19. Amy A. Quark & Rachel Lienesch, 2017. "Scientific boundary work and food regime transitions: the double movement and the science of food safety regulation," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 34(3), pages 645-661, September.
    20. Michelle Harbour & Veronika Kisfalvi, 2014. "In the Eye of the Beholder: An Exploration of Managerial Courage," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 119(4), pages 493-515, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:porgrv:v:17:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s11115-016-0347-1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.