Abstract
In this chapter, we challenge the presupposed concept of innovation in the responsible innovation literature. As a first step, we raise several questions with regard to the possibility of ‘responsible’ innovation and point at several difficulties which undermine the supposedly responsible character of innovation processes, based on an analysis of the input, throughput and output of innovation processes. It becomes clear that the practical applicability of the concept of responsible innovation is highly problematic and that a more thorough inquiry of the concept is required. As a second step, we analyze the concept of innovation which is self-evidently presupposed in current literature on responsible innovation. It becomes clear that innovation is self-evidently seen as (1) technological innovation, (2) is primarily perceived from an economic perspective, (3) is inherently good and (4) presupposes a symmetry between moral agents and moral addressees. By challenging this narrow and uncritical concept of innovation, we contribute to a second round of theorizing about the concept and provide a research agenda for future research in order to enhance a less naïve concept of responsible innovation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
On the one hand, it is assumed that the reduction of information asymmetries among partners will increase performance; by leveraging their resources, knowledge and capabilities—saving resources, elimination or reduction of waste, improving productivity etc.—inter-organizational partnerships may contribute both to the cost efficiency and the competitive advantage of the allied partners over other firms (Gulati 2007). On the other hand, this competitive advantage of the allied partners over other firms is based on increased information asymmetries.
- 2.
In the final Code of Conduct for Responsible N&N Research, the formulation has been slightly nuanced: “Researchers and research organizations should remain accountable for the social, environmental and human health impacts of their work”. However, this reformulation of the Code doesn’t solve the underlying issue.
- 3.
For an effort to develop a concept of ethical oaths which imply actual ethical behaviour, see Blok (2013).
- 4.
For an attempt to deal with fundamental differences among multiple stakeholders during stakeholder dialogue, see Blok (2014).
References
Batie, S.S. 2008. Wicked problems and applied economics. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 5: 1176–1191.
Blok, V. 2013. The power of speech acts: reflections on a performative concept of ethical oaths in economics and business. Review of Social Economy 71(2): 187–208.
Blok, V. 2014. Look who’s talking: Responsible innovation, the paradox of dialogue and the voice of the other in communication and negotiation processes. Journal of Responsible Innovation 1(2): 171–190. doi:10.1080/23299460.2014.924239.
Blok, V., Hoffmans, L., and Wubben, E. 2015. Stakeholder engagement for responsible innovation in the private sector: Critical issues and management practices in the dutch food industry. Journal of Chain and Network Sciences.
Bos, J., V. Blok, and R. van Tulder. 2013. From confrontation to partnership. The role of a Dutch non-governmental organisation in co-creating a market to address the issue of animal welfare. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 16(A): 69–75.
Bryson, J.M., B.C. Crosby, and M. Middleton Stone. 2006. The design and implementation of cross-sector collaborations: Propositions from the literature. Public Management Review 66: 44–55.
Chesbrough, H.W. 2003. Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Collingridge, D. 1981. The social control of technology. Palgrave: Macmillan.
Correljé, A., E. Cuppen, M. Dignum, U. Pesch, and B. Taebi. 2015. Responsible innovation in energy projects: Values in the design of technologies, institutions and stakeholder interactions. In Responsible innovation, volume 2: Concepts, approaches, and applications, ed. B.J. Koops, I. Oosterlaken, J. van den Hoven, H.A. Romijn, and T.E. Swierstra. Dordrecht: Springer.
Davies, S.R., M. Horst. 2015. Responsible innovation in the US, UK and Denmark: governance landscapes. In Responsible innovation, volume 2: Concepts, approaches, and applications, ed. B.J. Koops, I. Oosterlaken, J. van den Hoven, H.A. Romijn, and T.E. Swierstra. Dordrecht: Springer.
Delgado, A., K.L. Kjølberg, and F. Wickson. 2010. Public engagement coming of age: From theory to practice in STS encounters with nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science 20(6): 826–845.
DeMartino, G.F. 2013. Professional ethics, codes and oaths: What’s appropriate for economics? Review of Social Economy 71(2): 166–186.
Dutta, D.K., and M.M. Crossan. 2005. The nature of entrepreneurial opportunities: Understanding the process using the 4I organizational learning framework. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 29: 425–449.
European Commission. 2008. Recommendation on ‘A code of conduct for responsible nanosciences and nanotechnologies research. Brussels.
European Commission. 2011. Horizon 2020—The framework programme for research and innovation. Brussels.
Eweje, G. 2007. Strategic partnerships between MNEs and civil society: The post Wssd perspectives. Sustainable Development 15(1): 15–27.
Flipse, S.M. 2012. Enhancing socially responsible innovation in industry. Practical use for considerations of social and ethical aspects in industrial life science & technology. Delft.
Godin, B. 2009. Innovation: The history of a category. Working paper.
Gulati, R. 2007. Managing network resources: Alliances, affiliations, and other relational assets. Oxford: Oxford UP.
Habermas, J. 1990. Moral consciousness and communicative action. Cambridge: MIT press.
Habermas, J. 1993. Justification and application remarks on discourse ethics. Cambridge: MIT press.
Hardy, C., T.B. Lawrence, and D. Grant. 2005. Discourse and collaboration: The role of conversations and collective identity. Academy of Management Review 30(1): 58–77.
Hemmati, M. 2002. Multi-stakeholder processes for governance and sustainability. Beyond deadlock and conflict. Earthscan: London.
Hens, L., and B. Nath. 2003. Managing to collaborate: The theory and practice of collaborative advantage. New York: Routledge.
Huesemann, M., and J. Hueseman. 2011. TechNoFix. Why technology won’t save us or the environment. Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers.
Ireland, R.D., M.A. Hitt, and D. Vadyanath. 2002. Alliance management as a source of competitive advantage. Journal of Management 28(3): 413–446.
Iyer, E. 2003. Theory of alliances: Partnership and partner characteristics. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing 11(1): 41–57.
Jackson, R., F. Barbagallo, and H. Haste. 2005. Strengths of public dialogue on science-related issues. Critical Review of International Social & Political Philosophy 8(3): 349–358.
Kaptein, M., and R. van Tulder. 2003. Toward effective stakeholder dialogue. Business and Society Review 108(2): 203–224.
Kirzner, I. 1973. Competition and entrepreneurship. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Koops, B.J. 2015. The concepts, approaches, and applications of responsible innovation; an introduction. In Responsible innovation, volume 2: Concepts, approaches, and applications, ed. B.J. Koops, I Oosterlaken, J van den Hoven, H.A. Romijn, and T.E. Swierstra. Dordrecht: Springer.
Kreuter, M.W., C. de Rosa, E.H. Howze, and G.T. Baldwin. 2004. Understanding wicked problems: A key to advancing environmental health promotion. Health, Education, and Behavior 31: 441–454.
Kroesen, J.O., R. Darson, D.J. Ndegwah. 2015. Capacities, development and responsible innovation. In Responsible innovation, volume 2: concepts, approaches, and applications, ed. B.J. Koops, I Oosterlaken, J van den Hoven, H.A. Romijn and T.E. Swierstra. Dordrecht: Springer.
Mackin, G. 2011. The aporia of practical reason: Reflections on what it means to pay due respect to others. Contemporary Political Theory 10(1): 58–77.
Macleod, C. 1988. Inventing the industrial revolution: The english patent system, 1660–1800. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Matter. 2011. A report on responsible research & innovation. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/rri-report-hilary-sutcliffe_en.pdf.
McMullen, J.S., and D.A. Shepard. 2006. Entrepreneurial action and the role of uncertainty in the theory of the entrepreneur. The Academy of Management Review 31(1): 132–152.
Millar, C., Y. Udalov, and H. Millar. 2012. The ethical dilemma of information asymmetry in innovation: Reputation, investors and noise in the innovation channel. Creativity and Innovation Management 21(2): 224–237.
Milne, G.R., E.S. Iyer, and S. Gooding-Williams. 1996. Environmental organization alliance relationships within and across nonprofit, business, and government sectors. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 15(2): 203–215.
Mortensen, D.A., J.F. Egan, B.D. Maxwell, M.R. Ryan, and R.G. Smith. 2012. Navigating a critical juncture for sustainable weed management. BioScience 62(1): 75–84.
Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO). 2012. Responsible innovation research program. Available at: http://www.responsible-innovation.nl/conference/conf11/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=24&Itemid=34.
Nowotny, H. 2008. Insatiable curiosity: Innovation in a fragile future. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Owen, D. 2012. The conundrum. New York: Riverhead Books.
Owen, R., and N. Goldberg. 2010. Responsible innovation: A pilot study with the U.K. engineering and physical sciences research council. Risk Analysis 30(11): 1699–1707.
Ozdemir, V., S.A. Faraj, and B.M. Knoppers. 2011. Steering vaccinomics innovations with anticipatory governance and participatory foresight. OMICS: A Journal of Integrative Biology 15(9): 637–646.
Penders, B., J.M.A. Verbakel, and A. Neis. 2009. The social study of corporate science: A research manifesto. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 29(6): 439–446.
Rammert, W. 1997. Innovation im Netz. Neue Zeiten für Innovation: heterogen verteilt und interaktiv vernetzt. Soziale Welt 48(4): 394–416.
Rittel, H.W.J., and M.M. Webber. 1973. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences 4: 155–169.
Roelofsen, A., W.P.C. Boon, R.R. Kloet, and J.E.W. Broerse. 2011. Stakeholder interaction within research consortia on emerging technologies: Learning how and what? Research Policy 40(3): 341–354.
Rogers-Hayden, T., and N. Pidgeon. 2007. Moving engagement upstream? Nanotechnologies and the royal society and royal academy of engineering’s inquiry. Public Understanding of Science 16(3): 345–364.
von Schomberg, R. 2013. A vision of responsible research and innovation. In Responsible innovation, ed. R. Owen, M. Heintz, and J. Bessant. London: Wiley.
Schumpeter, J.A. 1943. Capitalism, socialism & democracy. London/New York: Routledge.
Selsky, J.W., and B. Parker. 2005. Cross-sector partnerships to address social issues: Challenges to theory and practice. Journal of Management 31(6): 849–873.
Technology Strategy Board. 2012. Responsible innovation framework for commercialization of research findings. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130221185318/www.innovateuk.org/_assets/responsible_innovation.pdf.
Van Huijstee, M.M., M. Francken, and P. Leroy. 2007. Partnerships for sustainable development: A review of current literature. Environmental Sciences 4(2): 75–89.
Vanloqueren, G., and P.V. Baret. 2009. How agricultural research systems shape a technological regime that develops genetic engineering but locks out agroecological innovations. Research Policy 38(6): 971–983.
Yaziji, M., and J. Doh. 2009. NGOs and corporations: Conflict and collaboration. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Acknowledgments
This article owes much to the inspiring discussions about RRI that the authors were fortunate to have with Henk van den Belt.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Blok, V., Lemmens, P. (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: Koops, BJ., Oosterlaken, I., Romijn, H., Swierstra, T., van den Hoven, J. (eds) Responsible Innovation 2. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17308-5_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17308-5_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-17307-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-17308-5
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)