TABLE OF CONTENT
Abstract
1. Introduction
1.1 Practical Relevance
1.2 Theoretical Relevance
2. Theoretical Foundation
2.1 Definitions
2.2 Characteristics of Responsible Innovation
2.3 Dimensions of Responsible Innovation
3. Literature Research Strategy
4. The Role of Different Actors in Responsible Innovation
4.1 Business Sector
4.1.1 Manager or Leader
4.1.2 Business Organizations
4.2 Research Sector
4.2.1 Universities
4.2.2 Scientists or Researchers as Innovators
4.3 Public and Civil Sector
4.3.1 Individuals as civil society and consumers
4.3.2 Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and Unions
4.3.3 Governments and Regulative Authorities
5. Discussion
5.1 Practical Evaluation
5.2 Theoretical Evaluation
6. Limitations and Future Research
7. Conclusion
References
Abstract
Since society is faced with grand challenges that include societal and environmental issues, responsible innovation represents a helpful solution to address these problems. As innovations and their development increase uncertainty regarding their impacts and will be more important in the future, integrating sustainability and responsibility in those processes will gain in relevance as well. This study synthesizes existing literature and provides a review concerning the role of different actors in responsible innovation. Additionally, their scope of action and possible ways of participating in responsible innovation are examined. Three groups of actors are analyzed, which are the business sector with Managers and Business Organizations, the research sector including Universities and Scientists and the public sector which comprises Individuals as Society, NGOs/Unions and Governments/Regulative Authorities. Finally, I will discuss the results on a practical and theoretical basis. Therefore, I will evaluate the power and influence of each actor, consider the possibilities of collaborations and provide a theoretical analysis of the literature used.
1. Introduction
1.1 Practical Relevance
Innovation is often seen as a panacea for all problems and key driver in creating a sustainable competitive advantage (Blok & Lemmens, 2015; de Hoop, Pols, & Romijn, 2016; Irwin, 1995). While advancements in innovation and research are fundamental in generating well-being in society (de Hoop et al., 2016), overall innovations exceed to a great extent sustainable ones (Pandza & Ellwood, 2013). Those advancements include genetical modification, geoengineering, nanotechnology or information and communication technologies (Guston, Fisher, Grunwald, Owen, Swierstra, & van der Burg, 2014; Sutcliffe, 2011). For several decades, economic growth and the improvement of shareholder value often was more important than sustainability and balancing different stakeholder’s interests. Consequences of these diverse concerns include poverty, climate change, food scares, and social or income inequalities which challenge not only organizations but also individuals or international institutions (Blok & Lemmens, 2015; Doh & Quigley, 2014; George, Baker, Tracey, & Joshi, 2019; van Oudheusden, 2014; Wright & Nyberg, 2019). As a result, the concept of responsibility in innovation gained significance over the past 20 years. The grand challenges mentioned above could be met through collective responsible behavior which again influences values, norms, principles or organizational structures (Blok & Lemmens, 2015; Pandza & Ellwood, 2013) and balances economic, societal and environmental needs (Blok & Lemmens, 2015; Orlitzky, Siegel, & Waldman, 2011; Stahl & de Luque, 2014).
Furthermore, technological innovations are changing our day-to-day routines. We rely on them and integrate them into our preferences, structures and lives (Guston et al., 2014; Irwin, 1995; Pavie, 2014). During the early phases of the process of innovation, it is difficult to foresee potential problems that might arise. Once societal and economic systems are dependent on technological innovations, consequences become apparent (Blok & Lemmens, 2015; Genus & Stirling, 2018; Pandza & Ellwood, 2013; von Schomberg, 2012). An example of this is the dependence on fossil fuels. Due to rapid advances in emerging markets and increasing globalization, especially developing countries have benefitted from the economic advantages of fossil fuels. Although there exists scientific evidence of the negative environmental impact of burning fossil fuels, industries have to rely on these natural resources until more efficient and environmental-friendly alternatives are found (Wright & Nyberg, 2019). This makes also clear that some innovations do not solely generate positive outputs (Pandza & Ellwood, 2013). As shown above, reversing the current stage of negative developments or following a different trajectory in innovation processes can be hard and expensive, and sometimes even impossible (Blok & Lemmens, 2015; Genus & Stirling, 2018). Through early and continuous discussions and a well-organized information exchange between different stakeholders regarding their diverse needs, such negative effects of innovations can be faster detected and additionally corrections can be facilitated (Brand & Blok, 2019; Genus & Stirling, 2018).
Furthermore, innovations, which can be seen as resources or sources of information, are only be beneficial to organizations or individuals if access is ensured (George et al., 2019; Voegtlin & Scherer, 2017). Especially those already disadvantaged should receive equal chances in order to grow or maintain their status (Irwin, 1995; Maak & Pless, 2006; Nidumolu, Prahalad, & Rangaswami, 2009). This is often not granted because globalization generates international value chains in which especially third world countries are disadvantaged (Scherer, Palazzo, & Baumann, 2006; Stahl & de Luque, 2014; Voegtlin & Scherer, 2017; Zouh & Shaw, 2019). The imbalance requests business organizations to develop a general social-responsible mentality in order to facilitate those countries and their citizens an equal status (George et al., 2019; Maak & Pless, 2006). Governments as well increasingly recognize the need for a more responsible mindset in innovation (von Schomberg, 2013). Prominent regulative frameworks include the European Union (EU) initiative Horizon 2020 or the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals from 2015 (Burget, Bardone, & Pedaste, 2017; Guston et al., 2014). For example, the Horizon 2020 research program aims at bringing science and society together (de Hoop et al., 2016) because research is important for securing innovation and therefore sustainable growth and inclusiveness (European Commission, 2019). The UN Development Goals include for example “No Poverty”, “Gender Equality”, “Good Health and Well-Being”, “Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure” or “Responsible Consumption and Production” (United Nations, 2019). In addition, there are cases in which society together with institutions can develop solutions to ensure responsible usage of innovations and to limit negative impacts when it is possible to use them in the wrong context or with wrong motivations (van de Poel & Sand, 2018). For example, the knowledge on nuclear power has led on the one hand to production of energy and on the other hand to the development of atomic weapons. Therefore, the United Nations established the Nonproliferation Treaty in 1969, which is a measure that obliges governments to exclusively use nuclear power for peaceful purposes (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987). All this shows how important responsible innovation is and will be in the future.
1.2 Theoretical Relevance
As mentioned above, the concept of responsible innovation gained in significance only most recently and consequentially is not very well elaborated so far. A lot of the literature (Genus & Stirling, 2018; Pandza & Ellwood, 2013; Stilgoe, Owen, & Macnaghten, 2013; von Schomberg, 2011, 2012; von Schomberg, 2013) only introduces the topic responsible innovation. They suggest that two evolving concepts are combined: sustainability and responsible actions on the one hand, and innovation on the other. As innovation is increasingly important for generating knowledge, developing strategic frameworks or creating value for stakeholders, dealing with it in a responsible way will increase in relevance as well. Merging the unpredictability of innovation outcomes with diverse interests of stakeholder groups, makes it necessary for researchers to understand not only the implications of innovations to society, but also the different paths of development in a changing environment. In addition, innovators can anticipate some of the effects their inventions can have on society (van de Poel & Sand, 2018). Therefore, they need academic literature and guidelines concerning responsible innovation so that they can choose the most responsible path for the innovation development.
Academics should define what is regarded as responsible and desirable innovation in order to build the necessary basis of knowledge for future innovation (Blok & Lemmens, 2015). This can prove difficult especially since global impact chains involve more and more stakeholders and balancing their diverse profits and needs is often complex. Moreover, research should clear the questions of accountability for past actions and unknown effects in the future (Blok & Lemmens, 2015; Genus & Stirling, 2018). Increasing attention is being paid to analyzing only the impacts of individual’s actions (Blok & Lemmens, 2015; Doh & Quigley, 2014). However, this overlooks that the actors are able to use their abilities and knowledge to react to negative consequences of innovations (Genus & Stirling, 2018). Furthermore, academics need to develop assessment methods in order to evaluate the quality and effectiveness of responsible actions (Genus & Stirling, 2018). Seen from different point of views, responsible innovation could be measured through evaluating only the consequences of actions or how well different actors and their contributions to the public good are integrated into the social context (Pandza & Ellwood, 2013). However, evaluation possibilities and ethical considerations appear in large numbers and go beyond the frame of researcher’s capabilities and this thesis.
There is a broad spectrum of diverse perspectives in responsible innovation which are mostly examined separately so far. As it is important to consider them as a whole, this thesis aims to include the following three points of view. Firstly, literature is divided in socio-ecological, ethical research on the one hand, and scientific-technological research on the other (Blok & Lemmens, 2015; von Schomberg, 2012; Zouh & Shaw, 2019). Secondly, research is distributed into the diverse stakeholder perspectives, which are the business sector, the public sector and civil society (George et al., 2019); I will further add the research sector. Current literature focuses primarily on analyzing the impacts one actor can exert on innovation processes and does thus not meet the challenges of a global, interconnected world where researchers should include as many relevant viewpoints and variables as possible. Finally, the opinions on responsibility in the different sectors are divided as well (Stahl & de Luque, 2014). For example, in business, companies are traditionally only responsible for generating profit and shareholder value. With a broader perspective, responsibility can be included and can also foster participation of the broader public. Therefore, firms should serve the common good.
This division and ambiguity in literature can cause practitioners to develop unclear strategies and may even cause conflicts of interest. In addition, evidence which is providing or supporting best practices is still scarce in spite of growing interest (Blok & Lemmens, 2015; Orlitzky et al., 2011; Voegtlin & Scherer, 2017). Frameworks should consequently develop managerial implications and participatory guidelines for scientists and society (Genus & Stirling, 2018; Maak, 2007), as well as possible responses to environmental, societal or economic problems (George et al., 2019).
I will continue my thesis with the theoretical foundation. This includes necessary definitions, characteristics and dimensions of responsible innovation. In the next section, I will explain how my literature research process was structured and how the most suitable and reliable research articles were selected. Afterwards I enter into my research question: Who are relevant actors in responsible innovation and to what extent can they influence responsible innovation processes? As results I will provide a review of the identified actors in responsible innovation and highlight their roles. Therefore, I will analyze and synthesize existing academic literature on responsibility and sustainability in different contextual environments, with a special focus on innovation. In the discussion section, I outline the limits of various actors and discuss both the advantages and drawbacks of solutions for responsible innovation provided by existing research.
2. Theoretical Foundation
2.1 Definitions
Innovation can be understood as the “effective commercialization of an invention” (Sutcliffe, 2011: 3) by means of production and marketing, while an invention implies only the creation of new products and processes through experiments (Sutcliffe, 2011). Innovation is a process of creating novel products, services or procedures and creates value for different stakeholder groups (Pavie, 2014). Stakeholders are actors with the ability to influence decision-making, and include as well groups who may be affected by the innovation process in the present and in the future (Taebi, Correljé, Cuppen, Dignum, & Pesch, 2014). Examples for these are governments, industries, the wider public and shareholders (Brand & Blok, 2019; Maak, 2007; Stahl & de Luque, 2014; Taebi et al., 2014; Waldman & Balven, 2015).
Responsible research and innovation is ”a transparent, interactive process by which societal actors and innovators become mutually responsive to each other with a view on the (ethical) acceptability, sustainability and societal desirability of the innovation process and its marketable products” (von Schomberg, 2011: 9). It also means meeting environmental or social challenges through a new or improved product (Halme & Korpela, 2014) and at the same time increasing the shareholder value (Herrera, 2016). By jointly orienting actions in science and innovation to the future (Stilgoe et al., 2013), social and technical components can be united in sustainability (Pandza & Ellwood, 2013). Sub-topics in responsible innovation include sustainable development, social and inclusive innovation or corporate social performance (Blanco, Guillamon-Saorin, & Guiral, 2013; George et al., 2019).
2.2 Characteristics of Responsible Innovation
Innovations should focus emphasis on social, ethical or environmental aspects and serve the public. They can face grand challenges and simultaneously secure prosperity (Blok & Lemmens, 2015; Burget et al., 2017; Sutcliffe, 2011). Responsible and sustainable innovation should not only meet current needs, but also maintain all possibilities for future generations to satisfy theirs (Irwin, 1995). Responsible innovation may also shift actions from controlling the risk and impacts rather to navigating the actual innovation and its developent trajectory (Stilgoe et al., 2013). As already mentioned above, not all impacts of innovation can be anticipated (Blok & Lemmens, 2015). Therefore, participation of different stakeholders from the beginning of the innovation process can prevent negative impacts through collective decision-making and a willingness to explore different sources for potential problems (Blok & Lemmens, 2015; Burget et al., 2017; Genus & Stirling, 2018; Irwin, 1995; Sutcliffe, 2011; Taebi et al., 2014). As the wider public should be informed and entitled to participate, transparency and openness are vital characteristics (Stilgoe et al., 2013). Further, it is important in responsible innovation to distribute the power and status equitably between the different actors or stakeholders (Maak & Pless, 2006).
2.3 Dimensions of Responsible Innovation
Stilgoe et al. (2013) developed four dimensions of responsible innovation. They comprise “Anticipation”, “Reflexivity”, “Inclusion” and “Responsiveness”. Firstly, anticipation means trying to foresee risks of innovations and integrate public concerns. Actors should educate themselves on what is already known and what are possible outcomes of innovations. Exercising scenarios and trying to anticipate future developments and dynamics is therefore an integral part of anticipation. Secondly, reflexivity is being aware of the role in society and responsibility of innovation. It stands for a self-critical attitude, especially about current practices and values, and an awareness of own limits or limits of current knowledge. Communication can be a tool for generating reflexivity and openness towards wider responsibilities. Thirdly, Inclusion encourages the integration of different stakeholders, thus incorporating various viewpoints and values. Inclusion further questions power structures so that the wider public is able to take part in the innovation process, and is not just co-developing policies and innovation-framing. Finally, since stakeholder’s needs can change and knowledge can evolve, responsible and responsive innovators should question how to potentially change direction and how to respond to changing circumstances. Important characteristics of responsiveness are diversity, reflexivity, openness and transparency. Burget et al. (2017) developed two further dimensions: Sustainability and Care. Sustainability can be understood as the efficient use of resources for technological and scientific innovations. Care refers to kind and careful decision-making as real human actors who are responsible for their and their representative’s actions (Burget et al., 2017; Pavie, 2014). In general, the dimensions of responsible innovation may reinforce one another or cause conflicts and tensions.
3. Literature Research Strategy
I commenced my literature research by reading the six articles given as starting papers. Hodgkinson and Ford (2014, 2015) developed an understanding for the basic requirements of a literature review. The other provided starting literature (Genus & Stirling, 2018; George et al., 2019; Guston et al., 2014; Pandza & Ellwood, 2013) created the base for my research strategy on the topic of responsible innovation. I proceeded with the Snowball Principle which allows to establish a broad literature selection in a short amount of time. While reading a journal article, I paid attention to relevant citations of other authors and further information concerning articles with similar content that I could possibly integrate in my thesis as well. Due to the large amount of publications found through this principle, I selected or discarded them quickly by skimming the abstract, conclusion and, if necessary, also the introduction. In order to reach a sufficient knowledge base for starting the process of writing my thesis, I found more literature through searching for specific fields of research. The keywords I looked up were responsible innovation, responsibility, actors and the specific actors mentioned below in my main part or responsible leadership. In total, my keyword research yielded approximately 30 articles which I added to the already existing selection of starting literature and connecting articles.
Throughout the literature research process, I gradually filled an Excel File with relevant material. The different columns of this list are the following: title and authors, a very small summary, the category of topic, publisher, the paper’s rating in the two lists VHB-JOURQUAL3 and ERIM Journals List, how the literature was found and a small notice if needed. The most commonly used journals for my thesis are the Journal of Responsible Innovation and the Journal of Business Ethics, of which the Journal of Business Ethics was, probably because of the longer publishing period, a richer source for my thesis.
While going through the selected Journals, I noted that two pieces were cited exceptionally often. The Definition of Responsible Innovation and Research from von Schomberg (2011) (Blok & Lemmens, 2015; Brand & Blok, 2019; Burget et al., 2017; de Hoop et al., 2016; Stilgoe et al., 2013; van de Poel & Sand, 2018; van Geenhuizen & Ye, 2014) and the dimensions of responsible innovation from Stilgoe et al. (2013) (Brand & Blok, 2019; Burget et al., 2017; de Hoop et al., 2016; Genus & Stirling, 2018; Häußermann & Schroth, 2019; van de Poel & Sand, 2018; van Oudheusden, 2014) seemed to build the basis for the research on the topic of responsible innovation. These two articles were also relevant for building my expertise.
As mentioned above, I selected the relevant literature mostly based on different journal lists in order to make sure that all references were published by reliable and scientific sources. Appropriate journals were listed with “A” and “B” in the VHB-JOURQUAL3 or with “STAR” and “P” in the ERIM Journals List (EJL) 2016-2021. Those ratings were also congruent with the ILO Journal List. However, some journals with a high degree of relevance, like the Journal of Responsible Innovation, have not been listed in the above indicated journal ratings. I reconciled with my supervisor in order to confirm that it fits in the academic context and is a reliable source. For other non-listed journals with suitable content, I critically considered the impact they would have on the scientific state of my research. I developed further selection criteria because my research article list does not only consist of journals. I created my selection of books by identifying them through the Snowball Principle. I evaluated the quality of the chosen books by finding the articles which the author has already published in academic journals. (selection criteria same as above). Reports or guidelines were only taken from official institutions, e.g. the Publications Office of the European Union.
4. The Role of Different Actors in Responsible Innovation
As mentioned above, various stakeholders can take part in responsible innovation. Although these actors are similar in the way that they are all affected by innovation developments (Taebi et al., 2014), they differ, sometimes greatly, in levels of control and power (Blok & Lemmens, 2015; World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987). When analyzing the accountability of those actors, van de Poel and Sand (2018) note that as simple as it is to hold a single person responsible for effects of their actions or decision-making during research and innovation, one person might not be solely responsible for negative consequences. Therefore, the question “who is responsible for what and toward whom” (Voegtlin, Patzer, & Scherer, 2012: 2) takes on significance. The next session will consider the relevant actors in responsible innovation and the possible ways in which they can influence the responsible innovation process.
4.1 Business Sector
4.1.1 Manager or Leader
Several authors (Doh & Quigley, 2014; Maak, 2007; Maak & Pless, 2006; Nidumolu et al., 2009; Orlitzky et al., 2011; Pearce, Wassenaar, & Manz, 2014; Stahl & de Luque, 2014; Voegtlin et al., 2012; Waldman & Balven, 2015) state that managers should practice responsible leadership as they play an important role in innovation. They are expected to include concerns of various stakeholders (Orlitzky et al., 2011) and in addition, they bear risks of innovations or their uncertain outcomes (Custódio, Ferreira, & Matos, 2019). Orlitzky et al. (2011) argue thus that leaders take an active role in balancing social, ecological and economic needs. When leaders focus on long-term goals and integration of stakeholder groups rather than short-term results, subordinates will then in turn make additional effort in ensuring responsible innovation. Consistent with Orlitzky et al. (2011), other research (Doh & Quigley, 2014; Maak & Pless, 2006; Pearce et al., 2014) concludes that leadership behavior influences the engagement of immediate subordinates in responsible actions. Herrera (2016) adds that through visible, responsible behavior leaders, as role models, can reinforce organizational culture which is the shared value system of employees. Therefore, some authors (Maak & Pless, 2006; Pearce et al., 2014; Pless, 2007) suggest that leaders should promote the vision and values so that the company as a whole acts responsibly. According to further research (Arenas, Lozano, & Albareda, 2009; Maak, 2007; Pless, 2007), managers implement the vision in and through stakeholder involvement by connecting and building trust with all affected parties. Maak and Pless (2006) give additional proposals for responsible leadership actions. Leaders should, for example, ensure transparent and accurate reporting on economic, social and ecological issues in order to improve or maintain shareholder relations. They can also train their employees to innovate responsibly or enable public participation through global projects or foundations. It might help to keep in mind the dimension of inclusion in order to lead an international workforce, enable actors to contribute their views and to solve stakeholder conflicts. This enables them to respond effectively and quickly to complex, global challenges.
Frequently asked questions
What is the main topic of the provided text?
The text is a language preview focusing on responsible innovation, including a table of contents, abstract, introduction, theoretical foundation, literature research strategy, the role of different actors, discussion, limitations, future research, and conclusion.
What is the practical relevance of responsible innovation discussed in the introduction?
The text highlights that innovation, while important for societal well-being, often prioritizes economic growth over sustainability. This leads to issues like climate change and inequality. Responsible innovation is presented as a way to balance economic, societal, and environmental needs, addressing grand challenges.
What is the theoretical relevance of responsible innovation according to the text?
The text argues that the concept of responsible innovation is relatively new and not well-defined. It emphasizes the need for academics to define responsible innovation, address accountability for past actions, develop assessment methods, and consider diverse perspectives, including socio-ecological, ethical, scientific-technological, and stakeholder viewpoints.
How is innovation defined in the provided text?
Innovation is defined as the "effective commercialization of an invention," creating value for various stakeholders. An invention is the creation of new products and processes through experiments.
What is the definition of responsible research and innovation?
Responsible research and innovation is defined as "a transparent, interactive process by which societal actors and innovators become mutually responsive to each other with a view on the (ethical) acceptability, sustainability and societal desirability of the innovation process and its marketable products."
What are the characteristics of responsible innovation?
The characteristics include a focus on social, ethical, and environmental aspects, serving the public, meeting current needs without compromising future generations, anticipating and preventing negative impacts, stakeholder participation, transparency, openness, and equitable distribution of power.
What are the dimensions of responsible innovation according to Stilgoe et al. (2013)?
The dimensions are Anticipation, Reflexivity, Inclusion, and Responsiveness. Burget et al. (2017) added Sustainability and Care.
How was the literature research strategy structured?
The strategy involved starting with provided papers, using the Snowball Principle, searching for specific research fields using keywords, maintaining an Excel file to organize information, and prioritizing literature from reliable and scientific sources listed in journal ratings like VHB-JOURQUAL3 and ERIM Journals List.
What role does the business sector play in responsible innovation?
The text emphasizes the role of managers or leaders in practicing responsible leadership. They need to balance social, ecological, and economic needs, integrate stakeholder concerns, and act as role models to reinforce an organizational culture of responsibility. Business organizations also need to develop a general social-responsible mentality.
What actors are identified as relevant in responsible innovation?
The text identifies actors in the business sector (managers/leaders and business organizations), the research sector (universities and scientists/researchers), and the public and civil sector (individuals as civil society and consumers, NGOs/Unions, and governments/regulative authorities).
- Arbeit zitieren
- Ute Mathesius-Wendt (Autor:in), 2000, Empfindungen Brentanos und Kleists vor einer Seelandschaft, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/98128
