Advertisement

Exploring Ethical Decision Making in Responsible Innovation: The Case of Innovations for Healthy Food

  • Vincent BlokEmail author
  • Tjidde Tempels
  • Edwin Pietersma
  • Léon Jansen
Chapter

Abstract

In order to strengthen RI in the private sector, it is imperative to understand how companies organise this process, where it takes place (throughout the entire company or on specific levels), and what considerations and motivations are central in the innovation process. In this chapter, the questions of whether and where normative considerations play a role in the innovation process, and whether dimensions of RI are present in the innovation process, are addressed. In order answer these research questions, a theoretical framework is developed based on Jones’s theory of ethical decision making and Cooper’s stagegate model of innovation management. In order to answer the research questions, a specific case of innovations that contribute to public health is explored, namely, that of food companies that participate in a Front-of-Pack (FoP) logo for healthier food.

As the use of healthy food logos does not necessarily have a positive impact on sales and profits (Jansen LAM, De Vos S, Blok V. Motives of retailers for healthy food innovation and communication about healthy food choices. Conference paper at the MVI conference, 25–26 August 2015, The Hague, 2015), it is expected that in the decision-making process, as part of their innovation process, companies make several trade-offs between economic, technical and moral factors (Jahromi MJ, Manteghi N, Procedia Technol 1:490–495, 2012). As the social-ethical values at stake in corporate innovation processes have remained to a large extent unexplored in research on innovation management, the aim of this chapter is to identify the motivations and barriers for companies embracing and continuing a FoP logo for healthier food, and to assess whether ethical considerations play a role in this innovation process. From the findings in this research, it will become clear that although the studied companies participated in a programme for healthy food and thus are responsive to the needs of society, and although the companies feel (partially) responsible for public health, ethical considerations do not play a central role in the operational innovation process. Instead, technical and economic considerations seem to prevail in the operational innovation process. Furthermore, none of the procedural dimensions of RI seems to be present at this level in the innovation trajectory. It is argued that this may be an indication that the ethical decision-making process for RI is not located at the level of the operational innovation process itself, but is something that might be located on a higher strategic level in the company. It is at this level that the moral decision is taken to adopt the FoP logo and to engage in the RI process. The findings cast a new light on the discourse on RI in general, and in the private sector in particular.

Keywords

Responsible Innovation (RI) Operational Innovation Process Ethical Decision-making Process Procedural Dimension Ethical-social Values 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Conflicts of Interest Statement

Leon Jansen is secretary of the Dutch Choices Foundation, which is responsible for the Dutch food logo. He was not involved in the data collection and primary analysis, but only in the further reflection on the findings.

References

  1. Blok, V., and P. Lemmens. 2015. The emerging concepts of responsible innovation. Three reasons why it is questionable and calls for a radical transoformation of the concept of innovation. In Responsible innovation 2: Concepts, approaches, and applications, ed. B. Koops, I. Oosterlaken, J. van den Hoven, H. Romijn, and T. Swierstra, 19–35. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Blok, V., L. Hoffmans, and E. Wubben. 2015. Stakeholder engagement for responsible innovation in the private sector: Critical issues and management practices. Journal of Chain and Network Science 15 (2): 147–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blok, V., Lubberink, R., Van den Belt, H., Ritzer, S., Van der Kruk, H. and Danen, G. 2017. Challenging the ideal of transparency as a process and as an output variable of responsible innovation: The case of ‘The Circle’. In Responsible research and innovation. concepts and practices, ed. R. Gianni, Pearson, J., B. Reber (forthcoming). Routledge: New York.Google Scholar
  4. Boeije, H. 2010. Analysis in qualitative research. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  5. Cooper, R. 1990. Stage-gate systems: A new tool for managing new products. Business Horizons 33 (3): 44–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. ———. 2008. Perspective: The Stage-Gate® idea-to-launch process—Update, what's new, and nexgen systems. The Journal of Product Innovation Management 25: 213–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crane, A., and D. Matten. 2010. Business ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Jahromi, M.J., and N. Manteghi. 2012. Innovation process in decision making model to choose an appropriate power system. Procedia Technology 1: 490–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jansen, L.A.M., and A. Roodenburg. 2015. The use of food composition data in the choices international programme. Food Chemistry 193: 196–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jansen, L.A.M., S. De Vos, and V. Blok. 2015. Motives of retailers for healthy food innovation and communication about healthy food choices. Conference paper at the MVI conference, 25–26 August 2015, The Hague.Google Scholar
  11. Jones, T. 1991. Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model. Academy of Management Review 16 (2): 366–395.Google Scholar
  12. Macnaghten, P., and R. Owen. 2011. Environmental science: Good governance for geoengineering. Nature 479 (7373): 293–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Nathan, G. 2015. Innovation process and ethics in technology: An approach to ethical (responsible) innovation governance. Journal on Chain and Network Science 15 (2): 119–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Owen, R., J. Stilgoe, P. Macnaghten, M. Gorman, E. Fisher, and D. Gustion. 2013. A Framework for responsible innovation. In Responsible innovation, ed. R. Owen, J. Bessant, and M. Heintz, 27–50. London: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Pelle, S., and B. Reber. 2015. Responsible innovation in the light of moral responsibility. Journal on Chain and Network Science 15: 107–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Roodenburg, A., B. Popkin, and J. Seidell. 2011. Development of international criteria for a front of package food labelling system: The international choices programme. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 65: 1190–1200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Stilgoe, J., R. Owen, and P. Macnaghten. 2013. Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy 42: 1568–1580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Van Loo, E.J., V. Caputo, R.M. Nayga Jr., and W. Verbeke. 2014. Consumers’ valuation of sustainability labels on meat. Food Policy 49: 137–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Von Schomberg, R. 2013. A vision of responsible research and innovation. In Responsible innovation, ed. R. Owen, J. Bessant, and M. Heintz, 51–74. London: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vincent Blok
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Tjidde Tempels
    • 2
  • Edwin Pietersma
    • 1
  • Léon Jansen
    • 3
  1. 1.Management Studies Group, School of Social SciencesWageningen UniversityWageningenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Philosophy Group, School of Social SciencesWageningen UniversityWageningenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Dutch Choices FoundationWageningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations