Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Case Study of R-1234yf Refrigerant: Implications for the Framework for Responsible Innovation

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Safety and care for the natural environment are two of the most important values that drive scientific enterprise in twentieth century. Researchers and innovators often develop new technologies aimed at pollution reduction, and therefore satisfy the strive for fulfilment of these values. This work is often incentivized by policy makers. According to EU directive 2006/40/EC on mobile air conditioning since 2013 all newly approved vehicles have to be filled with refrigerant with low global warming potential (GWP). Extensive and expensive research financed by leading car manufacturers led to invention of R-1234yf refrigerant with GWP < 1, which was huge improvement. For the proper understanding of this case it will be useful to refer it to the idea of responsible innovation (RI), which is now being developed and quickly attracts attention. I proceed in the following order. Firstly, I present the relevant properties of R-1234yf and discuss the controversy associated with its marketing. Secondly, I examine framework for responsible innovation. In greater detail I discuss the notions of care for future generations and collective responsibility. Thirdly, I apply the offered framework to the case study at hand. Finally, I draw some conclusions which go in two directions: one is to make some suggestions for improving the framework of RI, and the second is to identify missed opportunities for developing truly responsible refrigerant.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. By implementation I understand here the legal, political and business processes associated with the marketing the new product leading to its widespread use by individuals. The other sense of implementation would be: to make the new refrigerant compatible with the existing MAC systems, which had to be modified slightly.

  2. Annex A lists: Carbon dioxide (CO2), Methane (CH4), Nitrous oxide (N2O), Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), Perfluorocarbons (PFCs), Sulphur hexafluoride (SF6).

  3. The original date of 2011, mentioned in the quote above, was changed due to limited manufacturing capabilities and the flammability issues mentioned above. Introduction of the measure was postponed till 2013.

  4. The description of Daimler’s tests can be found in their original press release. However, their way of performing the tests raises some doubts, formulated by Lepisto: “What Daimler did in their test video is inject a pre-heated, perfect mixture of air and R1234yf into the hottest engine compartment to optimize the risk of ignition in an almost closed engine compartment” (2013). In other words Daimler’s tests were not crash-test scenarios.

  5. The presence of this gas has been reported in later studies, cf. (Feller et al. 2014). Both gasses are well known break-down products of R-1234yf.

  6. Formerly known as Society of Automotive Engineers. “SAE International is a global association of more than 138,000 engineers and related technical experts in the aerospace, automotive and commercial-vehicle industries. SAE International's core competencies are life-long learning and voluntary consensus standards development.” cf. SAE webpage (http://www.sae.org). Other institutions that declared R-1234yf only as slightly flammable were American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers, cf. (Brown 2009); and Verband der Automobilindustrie (VDA 2012).

  7. Chrysler Group, Fiat, Ford Motor Co., General Motors, Honda Motor Co., Hyundai Motor Co., Jaguar Land Rover, Mazda, PSA Peugeot Citroen, Renault and Toyota Motor Corporation. Three companies (Daimler, BMW and Audi) withdrew from the tests after initial cooperation (Lewandowski 2013).

  8. Alternatively one could speak of being inclusive (Stilgoe et al. 2013).

  9. Traditionally innovations were sought in order to gain competitive advantage and win as many market shares as possible.

  10. Kristine Bruland and David Mowery provide a very nice overview of how innovation process has changed its nature through centuries (Bruland and Mowery 2006).

  11. The reason why this responsibility is even bigger now than before is technological development achieved by our society. This idea comes from Jonas.

  12. For an interesting overview of the discussion see (Smiley 2011). Among sceptics of collective responsibility we find e.g. Max Weber, Hywel D. Lewis or Mark Reiff, and among the supporters there are e.g. Margaret Gilbert, Michael Bratman, Raimo Tuomela, Larry May, and Seumas Miller. However, their particular views differ sometimes quite significantly.

  13. There is common agreement that at least some groups are able to hold collective responsibility (Miller 2011, Smiley 2011).

  14. For his more general views on collective responsibility see (Miller 2006).

  15. In Miller’s terms, collective institutional responsibility (Miller 2006).

  16. Van de Poel et al. (2012) agree with the idea that the collective agreement about the goal is a necessary condition for speaking about collective responsibility for the natural environment. However, authors of this paper argue that the issue of climate change is an exemplary case of the problem of many hands, and therefore it might be difficult to ascribe any responsibility to anyone whatsoever.

  17. These conditions do not apply to simpler cases of collective responsibility, e.g. three people beating someone. In simple cases accepting common goal and acting accordingly is enough.

  18. Jessica Fahlquist also defends the claim about institutional responsibility for environmental changes (2009). She draws this conclusion mainly by considering greater resources and stating that institutions have to tackle the environmental issues directly and provide means for individual citizens indirectly, allowing them to be more eco-friendly on their own.

  19. Published since 1990. The 5th edition is being successively published in parts since November 2013.

  20. At least a decade (Owen et al. 2013a, b, 39). This time lag would expand drastically if we would include the preceding research in STS, TA etc.

  21. The issue of the MAC systems’ influence on global warming was brought up in March 2000, cf. Major Milestones in the Development of HFO-1234yf (http://www.1234facts.com).

  22. Most of the news from newspapers and magazines have had a rather dramatic tone. The media harassed the project instead of familiarizing themselves and the public with the data—e.g. quite easily accessible from Honeywell and DuPont webpages. The most emotional titles informed about “killer refrigerant” being introduced into the market, cf. www.autobild.de or www.suddeutsche.de articles.

  23. One of the mistakes repeated all over the media is that EU enforced to use R-1234yf, but that is not the case. The directive specifies only GWP value, and does not mention any particular refrigerant.

  24. E.g. Merck (German pharmaceutical company) with Mectizan—drug used for treating and preventing river blindness, which the company decided to donate to everyone who is in need and by this line of action contributed to saving millions of lives, cf. Merck Mectizan Donation Program (www.merckresponsibility.com).

  25. As for January 2014, Daimler announced that in mid-2014 the tests of prototype cars with MACs filled with CO2 would already be on their way and the standardised system would be developed with their suppliers. Volkswagen (the biggest car manufacturer in Europe) is also very fond of the idea, but claims that it will not be possible to convert their whole fleet into CO2 by 2017, although their prototypes are expected in 2016 (Skacnova 2014).

  26. GWP of the mixture is 143.9 = 90 % × 1 + 10 % × 1,430 = 0.9 + 143. This way of counting the GWP of mixtures can be found in the 2006 directive’s annex.

References

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author would like to express his thanks for all the comments received while doing this research. Some of the results were presented at the “Modes of Technoscientific Knowledge” winter school held in Manigod (France) in January 2014 and during the “Responsible Innovation: Values and Valorisation” conference held in The Hague (The Netherlands) in May 2014. Further comments were provided by the staff of the Values, Technology and Innovation Department at Delft University of Technology for which I am cordially grateful.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Philosophy, John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Al. Racławickie 14, 20-950, Lublin, Poland

    Rafał Wodzisz

Authors
  1. Rafał Wodzisz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rafał Wodzisz.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wodzisz, R. Case Study of R-1234yf Refrigerant: Implications for the Framework for Responsible Innovation. Sci Eng Ethics 21, 1413–1433 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9612-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9612-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation