The concept of precaution has great relevance in environmental regulation in the European Union. A significant part of the literature on the subject highlights the need for regulatory frameworks for the operational implementation of the precautionary principle in public decision-making. Concepts and management procedures appropriate to the nature of environmental risks need to be clarified. Much has been published on the interpretation and practical implementation of the precautionary principle. The scientific community and policy makers do not differ essentially in the identification of the main issues to consider when implementing precaution in practice, namely the duty to act in advance to protect the environment and public health when dealing with suspected risks, especially if they are potentially serious or irreversible, the demand for more and better scientific information and knowledge for the assessment of hazards and risks and the analysis and assessment of costs and benefits of policy alternatives. Scientific and technological innovations proceed often on trajectories that exacerbate risks and threats. Governments tend to use structures and methods from the past to monitor the potential hazards of future technologies, rather than implementing more advanced, flexible and relevant approaches. Crucially, governance systems also need to better recognise the value conflicts that are underpinning all societal and environmental issues. A challenge for the governance of innovation is to arrive at a more responsive, adaptive and integrated process with an approach involving stakeholders and other interested parties that may lead to
an inclusive innovation process whereby technical innovators become responsive to societal needs and societal actors become jointly responsible for the innovation process (EEA, 2013). The field of public engagement on risks, hazards and innovations is large (Wynne, 2007; Stirling, 2010; Hoppe, 2012). However, further grounds for boosting public and corporate engagement in responsible innovation are needed. Case studies have illustrated the need for wider use of the precautionary principle both as a justification for timely actions on early warnings and as a trigger for broader debates about technological pathways to the future. The potential of the precautionary principle to trigger or facilitate debates that go well beyond the issue of risks and into the area of responsible and socially relevant innovation is great. For the assessment of collective risks and the implementation of precautionary measures a regulatory framework is required, which is coherent, proportionate and efficient, and also suited to the nature of the potential dangers, with common procedures that organize research, expertise and public information and debate. Some frameworks for the practical implementation of the precautionary principle have been developed in some fields, such as radiological exposure, food safety, biotechnology, nanotechnology and chemicals. Their most important elements are the potential severity of impacts on the environment or on health, the level of evidence and the degree of precaution required, and the proportionality of precautionary measures to deal with the potential consequences and with risk. This paper is meant to further the reflection on risk management frameworks associated with innovation processes. It is structured as follows. The first section introduces the concept and the main elements of the precautionary principle. The second section presents a brief description of the most relevant management frameworks for the implementation of this principle and of their limitations. Finally, in the third section a contribution for the development of a general, adaptive and integrated approach that may be applied to
 innovation processes in fields involving threats of serious or irreversible damage on the environment is presented.

--