The Feb. 5, 2013 Nanowerk Spotlight article is given over to a description of a report on the European Union’s NanoCode Project and recommendations from NanoTrust, a project of the Austrian Academy of Sciences, from spotlight article (Note: Footnotes have been removed),

The [European] Commission recommendation for a code of conduct for responsible nanosciences and nanotechnologies research (code of conduct) dates from 2008. Nevertheless, it continues to be a subject of discussion.

Thus the 2012 final report on the NanoCode research project, which has been monitoring the development and implementation of the nanotechnology code over two years, recommends inter alia that the principles and guidelines of the code be extended to all new technologies and to science as a whole. The initiative for a Commission recommendation on “Responsible research and innovation”, launched by the EU Commission in March 2012 adopts the same approach: The principles and guidelines of the code of conduct should be extended to all technologies and also include production and application.

There are difficulties (implementation issues) associated with implementing the NanoCode, which should be obvious from a glance at the responsibilities/obligations, from the NanoTrust dossier no. 36en, December 2012, The EU code of conduct for nanosciences and nanotechnologies research PDF (4 pp),

“Obligations” on the basis of the code

Researchers

• Research in the public interest

• Consideration of fundamental ethical principles and fundamental rights

• Risk research as an element of all applications for funds

• Responsibility for the consequences of research

Research funding bodies

• Research priorities with respect to socially useful research, risk assessment, metrology and standardisation

• Uniformity of standardisation and metrology

• Accountability in the light of research priorities

• Publication of the cost-benefits assessment of funded projects

Member States

• Collaboration between Member States and the Commission

• Monitoring and control systems

• Dissemination

• Encouragement of research in accordance with the code

• Annual report on application and measures within the framework of the code

EU Commission

• Compliance with the code when granting research funding

• Collaboration with the Member States

• Review of the code every two years

• Dissemination (p. 3)

In addition to implementation, there are issues about authority, compatibility within various legal frameworks, and language, from the spotlight article,

The code is the subject matter of discussions in the legal world. Specifically, the discussion addresses (1) whether the Commission has any jurisdiction to issue such a recommendation; (2) in what manner it could take effect de facto and de jure; (3) whether the principles of the code are sufficiently specific; and (4) whether individual guidelines are compatible with the fundamental rights of the freedom of science.

…

There is also a need to construe the principal responsibility laid down under accountability. In the German version of the code, it is not clear whether this accountability (“Rechenschaftspflicht”) is a legal responsibility or is intended to encourage a “culture of responsibility” (4.1). The term “accountability” in the English version tends not to suggest a legal obligation to render accounts. [emphases mine]

While prospects for implementing the NanoCode are not good, this dossier from NanoTrust provides good insight into the complexities of arriving at agreements of any kind. Documents for the NanoCode project can be found here.