Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Emerging Concept of Responsible Innovation. Three Reasons Why It Is Questionable and Calls for a Radical Transformation of the Concept of Innovation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Responsible Innovation 2

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 to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 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. 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. 3.

    For an effort to develop a concept of ethical oaths which imply actual ethical behaviour, see Blok (2013).

  4. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H.W. 2003. Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collingridge, D. 1981. The social control of technology. Palgrave: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeMartino, G.F. 2013. Professional ethics, codes and oaths: What’s appropriate for economics? Review of Social Economy 71(2): 166–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. 2008. Recommendation on ‘A code of conduct for responsible nanosciences and nanotechnologies research. Brussels.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. 2011. Horizon 2020—The framework programme for research and innovation. Brussels.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eweje, G. 2007. Strategic partnerships between MNEs and civil society: The post Wssd perspectives. Sustainable Development 15(1): 15–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Godin, B. 2009. Innovation: The history of a category. Working paper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gulati, R. 2007. Managing network resources: Alliances, affiliations, and other relational assets. Oxford: Oxford UP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. 1990. Moral consciousness and communicative action. Cambridge: MIT press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. 1993. Justification and application remarks on discourse ethics. Cambridge: MIT press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hemmati, M. 2002. Multi-stakeholder processes for governance and sustainability. Beyond deadlock and conflict. Earthscan: London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hens, L., and B. Nath. 2003. Managing to collaborate: The theory and practice of collaborative advantage. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huesemann, M., and J. Hueseman. 2011. TechNoFix. Why technology won’t save us or the environment. Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iyer, E. 2003. Theory of alliances: Partnership and partner characteristics. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing 11(1): 41–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaptein, M., and R. van Tulder. 2003. Toward effective stakeholder dialogue. Business and Society Review 108(2): 203–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirzner, I. 1973. Competition and entrepreneurship. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macleod, C. 1988. Inventing the industrial revolution: The english patent system, 1660–1800. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen, D. 2012. The conundrum. New York: Riverhead Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rammert, W. 1997. Innovation im Netz. Neue Zeiten für Innovation: heterogen verteilt und interaktiv vernetzt. Soziale Welt 48(4): 394–416.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rittel, H.W.J., and M.M. Webber. 1973. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences 4: 155–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Schomberg, R. 2013. A vision of responsible research and innovation. In Responsible innovation, ed. R. Owen, M. Heintz, and J. Bessant. London: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J.A. 1943. Capitalism, socialism & democracy. London/New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yaziji, M., and J. Doh. 2009. NGOs and corporations: Conflict and collaboration. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

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

  1. Management Studies Group, School of Social Sciences, Wageningen University, Hollandseweg 1, 6707 KN, Wageningen, The Netherlands

    Vincent Blok

  2. Department of Philosophy and Science Studies, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Pieter Lemmens

Authors
  1. Vincent Blok
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pieter Lemmens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pieter Lemmens .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Tilburg Law School, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands

    Bert-Jaap Koops

  2. Philosophy section, Faculty of TPM, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

    Ilse Oosterlaken

  3. Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

    Henny Romijn

  4. Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, University of Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands

    Tsjalling Swierstra

  5. Philosophy Section, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

    Jeroen van den Hoven

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation