Search results

This study aims to investigate whether the learning organization, as envisioned by Peter Senge in The Fifth Discipline (1990), facilitates responsible innovation.

The authors analyze the component characteristics of the learning organization as defined by Senge (1990) to identify any conceptual or causal connections to responsible research and innovation (RRI). To define RRI, the authors make use of a commonly cited framework from the academic literature that is consistent with the vision of RRI promoted in European Union policy.

The authors find significant complementarities between being a learning organization and practicing responsible innovation. Some of the practices and characteristics of a learning organization in the sense of Senge (1990) do not merely facilitate RRI, they are RRI by definition. One important caveat is that to qualify as a responsible innovator according to the proposed framework, an organization must involve external stakeholders in the innovation process, a requirement that has no parallel in The Fifth Discipline. The authors conclude that there is at most a small step from being a learning organization to becoming a responsibly innovating learning organization.

The authors propose a reconsideration of the scope of applicability of Senge’s theory, opening new possibilities for drawing inspiration from The Fifth Discipline 30 years after the book was first published. The authors conclude that there may be significant non-economic advantages to being a learning organization, and that The Fifth Discipline may be more valuable for its ethical perspectives on the organization than as a prescription for how to achieve business success.

Responsible innovation assessment tools (RIATs) are key instruments that can help organizations, associations and individuals measure responsible innovation. Accordingly, this study aims to review the current status of research on responsible innovation and, in particular, of studies that either present the relevance of RIATs or provide empirical evidence of their adoption.

A systematic literature review is conducted to identify and review how RIATs are being addressed in academic research and the applications that are proposed. A systematic process is implemented using the Web of Science and Scopus bibliographic databases, aiming not only to summarize existing studies, but also to include a perspective on gaps and future research.

A total of 119 publications were identified and included in the review process. The study identifies that RIATs have attracted growing interest from the scientific community, with a greater predominance of studies involving qualitative and mixed methods. A well-balanced mix of conceptual and exploratory studies is also registered, with a greater predominance of analysis of RIATs application domains in the past years, with greater incidence in the finance, water, energy, construction, manufacturing and health sectors.

This study is pioneering in identifying 16 dimensions and 60 sub-dimensions for measuring responsible innovation. It also suggests the need to include multidimensional perspectives and individuals with interdisciplinary competencies in this process.

This paper aims to examine the collaboration of livestock farming business with other three groups of actors and explore the gap between expectations and reality concerning biogas production as collaborative innovation for the socially responsible development of rural regions in Lithuania.

This paper is based on the concept of the Quadruple Helix, which focusses on innovation, viewed as a process involving increasingly closer interactions and coordination among the following four groups of actors of the helix: government, academia, industry and civil society. Scientific literature analysis and generalization, expert interview and focus group methods were used to generate data for analysis. Data were collected during the period of July-November 2018 in Lithuania.

The research results reveal that the greatest gap among expectations and the actual situation in collaboration for socially responsible innovation, biogas production – is observed among non‐governmental organizations as representatives of civil society and all other questioned Quadruple Helix actors, whereas the government had been recognized as a most isolated part of the collaboration for innovation in biogas in Lithuania.

This paper presents empirical findings, based on qualitative data, collected in one EU new member state, i.e. Lithuania. International comparative perspectives are given in other related papers. Research findings are promising for further research in the field of socially responsible development of rural regions using the Quadruple Helix approach to foster collaboration for modern circular economy innovation both from theoretical and empirical points of view.

The methodology might be used for practitioners to research collaboration excellence/gaps in any field of activity.

The research takes into account the public interest from a very broad point of view – how to develop rural regions in a socially responsible way by using already established innovations in biogas in livestock farms by giving another dimension of socially responsible collaboration for innovation.

The paper proposes using the original Quadruple Helix approach to foster the socially responsible development of rural regions, thus enlarging the scope of the theory of corporate social responsibility (CSR) with the newly emerged discourse in the field. Socially responsible development of rural regions with the use of collaboration for circular innovations has been absent from theoretical to empirical CSR research.

Policy-oriented responsibility initiatives are institutional attempts to make innovations more responsible. One such initiative is offered by the European Commission’s responsible research and innovation (RRI) keys (public engagement, gender equality, science education, open access and ethics). This study is conducted in the context of an EU Horizon 2020 project and focuses on the introduction of RRI keys to innovation projects of the additive manufacturing (AM) industry. This study aims to understand how these RRI keys are perceived and adopted by industry project partners.

The authors use an ethnographic study based on “participant observation”, supported by interviews and workshops with AM industry experts. In particular, the analysis covers two specific innovation use cases – one in the medical field, and second in the automotive field, in the context of the EU project. The analysis, based on ethnographic data, is inductive and interpretative.

The authors take a critical approach towards the implementation of RRI policy keys as measurable indicators, and argue that they are not easy tools to implement. The authors portray how RRI keys were understood and welcomed by industrial organisations, and how their implementation raised controversies. The authors also found that RRI keys are difficult to understand. They are not easy to measure and report, and this contrasts with earlier proposals of how RRI keys should be governed or implemented. The governance, meaning the dialogue between stakeholders both internal and external to the organisation, was time-consuming and required constant organisational learning.

Due to the insightful ethnographic methodology, the authors could well underline the faults and difficulties of the application of policy-oriented responsibility in innovation. The findings illustrate the difficulty of implementing RRI in an industry that mainly operates business-to-business. This can help future policymakers to find more successful ways of pushing industry and innovators to be more responsible. It can also suggest better ways of reaching higher organisational learning for the purpose of more responsible innovations.

The purpose of this paper is to give an up-to-date assessment of key topics and methods discussed in the current literature on responsible entrepreneurship. In the past years, sustainable development itself has become a more popular and important topic in the academic literature and hence the field of sustainable entrepreneurship has become a greater topic of interest and opportunity for solution. Therefore, a systematic literature review is conducted to assess new contributions to the field and its potential for the future of sustainable development, with a focus on responsible innovation.

Systematic, evidence-informed literature review following Tranfield et al. (2003).

Based on a conceptual literature review, five streams of research that responsible entrepreneurs distinguish from purely for-profit entrepreneurs are identified and discussed: walking the line between profit creation and value creation for society; business models of responsible entrepreneurs; their role in transforming society; getting ready to innovate responsibly; and the role of market incentives to foster sustainable business practices.

The structured literature review allows to identify future research paths. In detail, ideas as regards the management of upcoming tensions when trying to combine profit creation and value creation for society, and finally, the way innovation processes need to be rethought when innovating responsibly are discussed and outlined.

This paper aims to investigate the intersection between crowdfunding (CF), open innovation (OI) and responsible innovation (RI) and identify the emerging trends and gaps in research and new paths for CF research in the future. In addition, this paper proposes a conceptual framework and propositions.

This paper is structured in line with the systematic literature review protocol. After reading all the titles, keywords and abstracts, 172 papers focused on OI and RI were selected for this research. Finally, 27 papers that are based on dimensions related to responsible OI were selected for the study.

Due to CF's multidisciplinary nature, the scientific literature on the role of CF in endorsing responsible OI for shared value co-creation appears fragmented and redundant. Several emerging trends and gaps of research and new paths for CF research in the future arise regarding research methodology and theoretical perspective.

To the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first study investigating the intersection between CF OI and RI.

The purpose of this paper is to highlight the potentials offered by New Product Committees for the development of responsible innovation in the financial services industry; and to provide grounds for policy recommendations.

The paper takes the form of collective, interdisciplinary reflection and experience within the industry.

New Product Committees can serve a practical approach to responsible innovation in finance.

The paper fills a gap in the empirical consideration of New Product Committees in the financial services industry and proposes original directions for policy orientations within organizations and at a regulatory level.

This paper aims to develop a model of collective innovation, with respect to innovation strategy, structure and culture in heterarchies. The enabling of collective innovation in heterarchies is conceptualised as “responsible exposure”.

A study adopting cross-case analysis was undertaken with five organisations perceived to have heterarchical characteristics. These included one small company, two medium-sized companies and two larger companies, all were European. Data from semi-structured interviews, a survey of staff and other sources provide evidence of collective innovation practices.

The cross-case analysis suggests that the management of collective innovation is different from “classic” innovation management. It is more about enabling “responsible exposure” than the management of “shelter” for collective innovation.

The strength of cross-case analysis and conceptual framework validation is limited by the cases being all from the European region.

What strategy, structure and culture for “responsible exposure” may mean can be described. Heterarchies will always be relatively rare, though lessons from how they enable collective innovation can be more widely learned. Lessons for the wider population of organisation that combine hierarchical and heterarchical characteristics and seek greater innovation are identified.

Collective innovation, which requires “responsible exposure” has implications for the capabilities of managers and professionals concerned with innovation.

The cross-case analysis of innovation in heterarchies is original, leading to the description of a model of “responsible exposure” for collective innovation.

This paper aims to explore various routes through firms can meet needs of the Bottom of the Pyramid (BoP) consumers in a socially responsible manner.

This is viewpoint paper based on evidences from archival sources.

The authors list possible and divergent answers to the following question: how to make innovations meaningful at BOP so that they can be acclaimed socially responsible for the BoP consumers.

Responsible innovation is yet unexplored part of business strategy especially in emerging markets. The authors throw light on this aspect.

This study aims to discuss science governance in Europe and the network of associated nonprofit institutions. The authors posit that this network, which comprises both (partial) learning organizations and non-learning organizations, has been observed to postpone taking up “responsibility” as an issue in science governance and funding decisions.

This paper discusses the challenge of learning and policy implementation within the European science governance system. By exploring how learning on responsible innovation (RI) in this governance system can be provoked, it addresses the question how Senge’s insights in organizational learning can clarify discourses on and practices of RI and responsibility in research. This study explores the potential of a new organizational form, that of Social Labs, to support learning on Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) in standing governance organizations.

This study concludes that Social Labs are a suitable format for enacting the five disciplines as identified by Senge, and a Social Lab may turn into a learning organization, be it a temporary one. Responsibility in research and innovation is conducive for learning in the setting of a Social Lab, and Social Labs act as intermediary organizations, which not merely pass on information among actors but also actively give substantive shape to what they convey from a practice-informed, normative orientation.

This empirical work on RRI-oriented Social Labs therefore suggests that Social Lab–oriented temporary, intermediary learning organizations present a promising form for implementing complex normative policies in a networked, nonhierarchical governance setting.

Based on this research funding and governance organizations in research, policy-makers in other domains may take up and create such intermediary organizations to aid learning in (science) governance.

This research suggests that RRI-oriented Social Labs present a promising form for implementing complex normative policies, thus integrate learning on and by responsible practices in various governance settings.

European science governance is characterized by a network of partial Learning Organization (LOs) and Non-Learning Organization (nLOs) who postpone decision-making on topics around “responsibility” and “solving societal challenges” or delegate authority to reviewers and individual actors, filtering possibilities for collaborative transformation toward RRI. social lab (SLs) are spaces that can address social problems or social challenges in an open, action-oriented and creative manner. As such, they may function as temporary, intermediary LOs bringing together diverse actors from a specific context to work on and learn about issues of science and society where standing organizations avoid doing so. Taken together, SLs may offer temporary organizational structures and spaces to move beyond top-down exercise of power or lack of real change to more open, deliberative and creative forms of sociopolitical coordination between multiple actors cutting across realms of state, practitioners of research and innovation and civil society. By taking the role of temporary LOs, they may support existing research and innovation organizations and research governance to become more flexible and adaptive.