New technologies not only contribute greatly to society and the economy; they also involve fundamental societal shifts, challenging our values and ideas about ourselves and the world. With a view to aligning technological change and innovation with ethical values, the concept of responsible innovation advocates the inclusion of a variety of stakeholders, in particular from society. In shifting moral responsibility towards the producers of innovations, responsible innovation rejects the standard normative economic view that the ethical evaluation of innovations is a matter of individual consumers’ market-based choices. However, in this article we argue that responsible innovation should not abandon all normative consideration of the individual outright, to which end we present an alternative normative economic approach based on preference learning. We show how this approach can provide an enhanced understanding of responsible innovation by clarifying the redistribution of moral responsibility and casting individuals in the normative role of co-innovators, rather than mere consumers. We argue that responsible innovation should enable individuals to form preferences and evaluate innovations, so as to align innovation with ethical demands. Finally, we show how our proposed approach can be put into practice in so-called laboratories in real-world contexts, using methods from the field of design. In short, drawing on normative economics, this article aims to establish a new understanding of responsible innovation that is conceptually sound and can form the basis for novel innovation practices.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
By “ethical preferences”, we mean individual preferences with respect to the ethical and social implications of a given innovation. In other words, we do not use the term to draw a distinction between ethical and unethical preferences, but rather to refer to an individual’s stance, attitude or personal values in relation to a particular innovation. Any given innovation can thus be understood to have an ethical dimension, which is made visible and becomes a deciding factor as a result of people’s ethical preferences with respect to it.
Note that by “ethical preferences”, we mean individuals’ preferences with respect to the ethical and social dimensions of innovations (see footnote 1). Responsible innovation thus focusses on the ethical dimension of a given new technology when it seeks to evaluate whether or not, to what extent or in what form it might be “preferred”. Although our notion of ethical preferences could be contextualised within current debates about hierarchical preferences (cf. Lazar and Klein 2018; Schnellenbach 2019), doing so falls beyond the scope of this paper, as it would shift the focus to a theoretical discussion of behavioural economics. Nevertheless, the relationship between hierarchical or reflective preferences and the notion of ethical reflection in responsible innovation may be worth investigating in future research.
Binder, Martin, and Ulrich Witt. 2011. As Innovations Drive Economic Growth, Do They Also Raise Well-Being? Papers on Economics and Evolution 1105. http://hdl.handle.net/10419/57557. Accessed 01 Sept 2019
Blok, Vincent. 2018. Philosophy of innovation: A research agenda. Philosophy of Management 17 (1): 1–5 http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40926-017-0080-z. Accessed 01 Sept 2019.
Blok, Vincent, and Pieter Lemmens. 2015. The emerging concept of responsible innovation. Three reasons why it is questionable and calls for a radical transformation of the concept of innovation. In Responsible Innovation 2, 19–35. Cham: Springer International Publishing http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-319-17308-5_2. Accessed 01 Sept 2019.
Boenink, Marianne. 2013. The multiple practices of doing ‘ethics in the laboratory’: A mid-level perspective. In Ethics on the Laboratory Floor, ed. Simone Van der Burg and Tsjalling Swierstra, 57–78. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137002938_4.
Brand, Teunis, and Vincent Blok. 2019. Responsible innovation in business: A critical reflection on deliberative engagement as a central governance mechanism. Journal of Responsible Innovation 1 (313): 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2019.1575681.
Burget, Mirjam, Emanuele Bardone, and Margus Pedaste. 2017. Definitions and conceptual dimensions of responsible research and innovation: A literature review. Science and Engineering Ethics 23 (1): 1–19.
Callon, M. 2009. Civilizing markets: Carbon trading between in vitro and in vivo experiments. Accounting, Organizations and Society 34: 535–548.
Deci, Edward L., and Richard M. Ryan. 2000. The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and the Delf-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry 11 (4): 227–268.
Dold, Malte F., and Christian Schubert. 2018. Toward a behavioral Foundation of Normative Economics. Review of Behavioral Economics 5 (3–4): 221–241 http://www.nowpublishers.com/article/Details/RBE-0097. Accessed 01 Sept 2019.
Earl, Peter E., and Jason Potts. 2004. The market for preferences. Cambridge Journal of Economics 28: 619–633.
Elster, Jon. 1983. Sour grapes: Studies in the subversion of rationality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Floridi, Luciano. 2014. Technoscience and ethics foresight. Philosophy & Technology 27 (4): 499–501. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-014-0180-9.
Floridi, Luciano. 2018. Soft ethics and the governance of the digital. Philosophy & Technology: 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-018-0303-9.
Grunwald, Armin. 2011. Responsible innovation: Bringing together technology assessment, applied ethics, and STS research. Enterprise and Work Innovation Studies 7: 9–31 https://run.unl.pt/bitstream/10362/7944/1/Grunwald9-31.pdf. Accessed 01 Sept 2019.
Grunwald, Armin. 2014. Technology assessment for responsible innovation. In Responsible innovation 1: Innovative solutions for global issues, ed. Jeroen Van Den Hoven et al., 15–31. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
Gul, Faruk, and Wolfgang Pesendorfer. 2008. The case for mindless economics. In The foundations of positive and normative economics: A handbook, ed. A. Caplin and A. Schotter, 3–39. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hassan, Zaid. 2014. The social labs revolution: A new approach to solving our Most complex challenges. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Hausman, Daniel M. 1992. The inexact and separate science of economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hausman, Daniel M. 2012. Preference, value, choice, and welfare. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hausman, Daniel M., and Michael S. McPherson. 2009. Preference satisfaction and welfare economics. Economics and Philosophy 25 (1): 1–25.
Hausman, Daniel M., Michael S. McPherson, and Debra Satz. 2017. Economic analysis, moral philosophy, and public policy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Häußermann, Johann Jakob, and Marie Heidingsfelder. 2017. Offen, Verantwortlich Und Verantwortlich Offen. TATuP Zeitschrift für Technikfolgenabschätzung in Theorie und Praxis 26 (1–2): 31 http://www.tatup.de/?journal=tatup&page=article&op=view&path%5B%5D=23. Accessed 01 Sept 2019.
Heidingsfelder, Marie, Kora Kimpel, Kathinka Best, and Martina Schraudner. 2015. Shaping future — Adapting design know-how to reorient innovation towards public preferences. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 101: 291–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.03.009.
Heidingsfelder, Marie Lena, Florian Schütz, and Simone Kaiser. 2016. Expanding participation participatory Design in Technology Agenda-Setting. In Proceedings of the 14th Participatory Design Conference on Short Papers, Interactive Exhibitions, Workshops - PDC ‘16, 25–28. New York: ACM Press http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=2948076.2948087. Accessed 01 Sept 2019.
Infante, Gerardo, Guilhem Lecouteux, and Robert Sugden. 2016a. ‘On the econ within’: A reply to Daniel Hausman. Journal of Economic Methodology 23(1): 33–37 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1350178X.2015.1070526. Accessed 01 Sept 2019.
Infante, Gerardo, Guilhem Lecouteux, and Robert Sugden. 2016b. Preference purification and the inner rational agent: A critique of the conventional wisdom of Behavioural welfare economics. Journal of Economic Methodology 23 (1): 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2015.1070527.
Kahneman, Daniel. 1982. In Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases, ed. Paul Slovic and Amos Tversky. New York & Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kahneman, Daniel. 1996. Comment (on Plott). In The rational foundations of economic behaviour, ed. K. Arrow, E. Colombatto, M. Perlmann, and C. Schmidt, 251–254. Basingstoke.
Kahneman, Daniel. 2011. Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Kaiser, Simone, Hannah Glatte, Fabian Bitter, and Marie Heidingsfelder. 2019. Foresight as collaborative process - design-based scenarios as strategy tool in complex ecosystems. In Vorausschau Und Technologieplanung - 14. Symposium Für Vorausschau Und Technologieplanung, ed. Jürgen Gausemeier. Paderborn: Heinz Nixdorf Institut, Universität Paderborn.
Kieboom, Marlieke. 2014. Lab matters: Challenging the practice of social innovation laboratories. Amsterdam: Kennisland.
Lazar, Seth, and Colin Klein. 2018. Why we need more than just data to create ethical driverless cars. The Conversation. http://theconversation.com/why-we-need-more-than-just-data-to-create-ethical-driverless-cars-105650. Accessed 01 Sept 2018.
Lecouteux, Guilhem. 2015. Thèse, École Doctorale de L’École Polytechnique Reconciling Normative and Behavioural Economics. Paris.
Lubberink, Rob, Vincent Blok, Johan van Ophem, and Onno Omta. 2017. Lessons for responsible innovation in the business context: A systematic literature review of responsible, social and sustainable innovation practices. Sustainability 9 (5): 721 http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/5/721. Accessed 01 Sept 2019.
Lubberink, Rob, Vincent Blok, Johan van Ophem, and Onno Omta. 2019. Responsible innovation by social entrepreneurs: An exploratory study of values integration in innovations. Journal of Responsible Innovation 0 (0): 1–32 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23299460.2019.1572374. Accessed 01 Sept 2019.
Mas-Colell, Andreu, Michael D. Whinston, and Jerry R. Green. 1995. Microeconomic theory. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
McQuillin, Ben, and Robert Sugden. 2012. Reconciling normative and Behavioural economics: The problems to be solved. Social Choice and Welfare 38 (4): 553–567.
Mulgan, Geoff. 2016. Good and Bad Innovation: What Kind of Theory and Practice Do We Need to Distinguish Them? :1–8. http://www.nesta.org.uk/sites/default/files/good_and_bad_innovation_by_geoff_mulgan.pdf. Accessed 01 Sept 2019.
Overdevest, C., A. Bleicher, and M. Gross. 2010. The experimental turn in environmental sociology: Pragmatism and new forms of governance. In Environmental sociology, ed. M. Gross and H. Heinrichs, 279–294. Dordrecht: Springer.
Owen, R., P. Macnaghten, and J. Stilgoe. 2012. Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Science and Public Policy 39 (6): 751–760 http://spp.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/doi/10.1093/scipol/scs093. Accessed 01 Sept 2019.
Owen, Richard, et al. 2013. A framework for responsible innovation. In Responsible innovation. managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society, ed. Richard Owen, Maggy Heintz, and John Bessant, 27–50. Chichester: Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008.
Philbeck, Thomas, Nicholas Davis, and Anne Marie Engtoft Larsen. 2018. Values, ethics, and innovation. Rethinking Technological Development in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Geneva.
Reiss, Julian. 2013. Philosophy of economics: A contemporary introduction. New York and London: Routledge.
Ribeiro, Barbara E., Robert D.J. Smith, and Kate Millar. 2017. A Mobilising concept? Unpacking academic representations of responsible research and innovation. Science and Engineering Ethics 23 (1): 81–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9761-6.
Rip, Arie. 2014. The past and future of RRI. Life Sciences, Society and Policy 10 (1): 17 https://lsspjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40504-014-0017-4. Accessed 01 Sept 2019.
Rip, Arie. 2016. The clothes of the emperor. An essay on RRI in and around Brussels. Journal of Responsible Innovation 0 (0): 1–15 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23299460.2016.1255701. Accessed 01 Sept 2019.
Robbins, Lionel. 1932. An essay on the nature and Significane of economic science. London: Macmillan and Co., Ltd..
Schaer, Phillip. 2017. Living labs – An ethical challenge for researchers and platform operators. In In Internet research ethics for the social age, ed. Michael Zimmer and Katharina Kinder-Kurlanda, 167–176. Bern: Peter Lang. https://doi.org/10.3726/b11077.
Schäpke, Niko, et al. 2018. Labs in the real world: Advancing Transdisciplinary research and sustainability transformation: Mapping the field and emerging lines of inquiry. GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 27 (1): 8–11 http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/10.14512/gaia.27.S1.4. Accessed 01 Sept 2019.
Schlaile, Michael P., Matthias Mueller, Michael Schramm, and Andreas Pyka. 2018. Evolutionary economics, responsible innovation and demand: Making a case for the role of consumers. Philosophy of Management 17 (1): 7–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40926-017-0054-1.
Schnellenbach, Jan. 2019. Evolving hierarchical preferences and behavioral economic policies. Public Choice 178 (1–2): 31–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-018-0607-4.
Schroth, Fabian, and Johann Jakob Häußermann. 2018. Collaboration strategies in innovation ecosystems: An empirical study of the German microelectronics and photonics industries. Technology Innovation Management Review 8 (11): 4–12 https://timreview.ca/article/1195. Accessed 01 Sept 2019.
Schroth, Fabian, and Martina Schraudner. 2019. Harnessing and realizing social innovation for RTOs (accepted for publication). In Atlas of social innovation II: Social innovation and digital transformation, ed. Jürgen Howaldt. Dortmund.
Schroth, Fabian, Hannah Glatte, and Simone Kaiser. 2019. Integrating civil society into regional innovation systems. A social foresight lab approach. International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development.
Schubert, Christian. 2012. Is novelty always a good thing? Towards an evolutionary welfare economics. Journal of Evolutionary Economics 22 (3): 585–619 http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00191-011-0257-x. Accessed 01 Sept 2019.
Schubert, Christian. 2015a. Opportunity and preference learning. Economics and Philosophy 31 (2): 275–295 http://www.journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0266267115000139. Accessed 01 Sept 2019.
Schubert, Christian. 2015b. What do we mean when we say that innovation and entrepreneurship (policy) increase ‘welfare’? Journal of Economic Issues 49 (1): 1–22 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00213624.2015.1013859. Accessed 01 Sept 2019.
Stilgoe, Jack, Richard Owen, and Phil Macnaghten. 2013. Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy 42 (9): 1568–1580 http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0048733313000930. Accessed 01 Sept 2019.
Sugden, Robert. 2015a. Looking for a psychology for the inner rational agent. Social Theory and Practice 41 (4): 579–598.
Sugden, Robert. 2015b. Opportunity and preference learning: A reply to Christian Schubert. Economics and Philosophy 31 (2): 297–303 http://www.journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0266267115000140. Accessed 01 Sept 2019.
Sunstein, Cass R., and Richard H. Thaler. 2003. Libertarian paternalism is not an oxymoron. The University of Chicago Law Review 70 (4): 1159–1202 http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/1600573?origin=crossref. Accessed 01 Sept 2019.
Taddeo, Mariarosaria, and Luciano Floridi. 2018. How AI can be a force for good. Science 361 (6404): 751–752 http://www.sciencemag.org/lookup/doi/10.1126/science.aat5991. Accessed 01 Sept 2019.
Taebi, B., et al. 2014. Responsible innovation as an endorsement of public values: The need for interdisciplinary research. Journal of Responsible Innovation 1 (1): 118–124.
Thaler, Richard H., and Cass R. Sunstein. 2003. Libertarian Paternalism. The American Economic Review 93 (2): 175–179.
Timmermans, Job, and Vincent Blok. 2018. A critical hermeneutic reflection on the paradigm-level assumptions underlying responsible innovation. Synthese. http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11229-018-1839-z. Accessed 01 Sept 2019.
Tversky, Amos, and Daniel Kahneman. 1974. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science 185 (4157): 1124–1131 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17835457. Accessed 01 Sept 2019.
Von Schomberg, René. 2013. A vision of responsible research and innovation. In Responsible innovation. Managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society, ed. Richard Owen, John Bessant, and Maggy Heintz, 51–74. Chichester: Wiley http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/9781118551424.ch3. Accessed 01 Sept 2019.
Von Schomberg, René. 2014. The quest for the ‘right’ impacts of science and technology: A framework for responsible research and innovation. In Responsible Innovation 1: Innovative Solutions for Global Issues, ed. Jeroen van den Hoven et al., 33–50. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-94-017-8956-1_3. Accessed 01 Sept 2019.
Whitman, Douglas Glen, and Mario J. Rizzo. 2015. The problematic welfare standards of behavioral paternalism. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 6 (3): 409–425 http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s13164-015-0244-5. Accessed 01 Sept 2019.
Witt, Ulrich. 1996. Innovations, externalities and the problem of economic Progress. Public Choice 89: 113–130.
Witt, Ulrich. 2001. Learning to consume - a theory of wants and the growth of demand. Journal of Evolutionary Economics 11 (1): 23–36.
This paper was presented at the 13th Philosophy of Management conference, which took place in June 2018 in London. The authors wish to thank the organisers and participants of the conference, in particular the track chairs Vincent Blok and Job Timmermans, for valuable feedback.
Conflict of Interest
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Häußermann, J.J., Schroth, F. Aligning Innovation and Ethics: an Approach to Responsible Innovation Based on Preference Learning. Philosophy of Management 19, 349–364 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40926-019-00120-1
- Responsible innovation
- Normative economics
- Preference learning
- Laboratories in a real-world context