Search results

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This study aims to investigate how living lab (LL) activities align with responsible research and innovation (RRI) principles, particularly in artificial intelligence (AI)-driven digital transformation (DT) processes. The study seeks to define a framework termed “responsible living lab” (RLL), emphasizing transparency, stakeholder engagement, ethics and sustainability. This emerging issue paper also proposes several directions for future researchers in the field.

The research methodology involved a literature review complemented by insights from a workshop on defining RLLs. The literature review followed a concept-centric approach, searching key journals and conferences, yielding 32 relevant articles. Backward and forward citation analysis added 19 more articles. The workshop, conducted in the context of UrbanTestbeds.JR and SynAir-G projects, used a reverse brainstorming approach to explore potential ethical and responsible issues in LL activities. In total, 13 experts engaged in collaborative discussions, highlighting insights into AI’s role in promoting RRI within LL activities. The workshop facilitated knowledge sharing and a deeper understanding of RLL, particularly in the context of DT and AI.

This emerging issue paper highlights ethical considerations in LL activities, emphasizing user voluntariness, user interests and unintended participation. AI in DT introduces challenges like bias, transparency and digital divide, necessitating responsible practices. Workshop insights underscore challenges: AI bias, data privacy and transparency; opportunities: inclusive decision-making and efficient innovation. The synthesis defines RLLs as frameworks ensuring transparency, stakeholder engagement, ethical considerations and sustainability in AI-driven DT within LLs. RLLs aim to align DT with ethical values, fostering inclusivity, responsible resource use and human rights protection.

The proposed definition of RLL introduces a framework prioritizing transparency, stakeholder engagement, ethics and sustainability in LL activities, particularly those involving AI for DT. This definition aligns LL practices with RRI, addressing ethical implications of AI. The value of RLL lies in promoting inclusive and sustainable innovation, prioritizing stakeholder needs, fostering collaboration and ensuring environmental and social responsibility throughout LL activities. This concept serves as a foundational step toward a more responsible and sustainable LL approach in the era of AI-driven technologies.

Responsible research and innovation (RRI) is taking a role in assisting all types of stakeholders, including industry members, in moving their research and innovation (R&I) initiatives to tackle grand challenges. The literature on RRI, however, focuses little on how industry can implement RRI principles. To solve this gap, the purpose of this study is to construct a conceptual framework for managing and assessing RRI principles in the industry.

Qualitative research was used to build the RRI key performance indicator list; 30 interviews were conducted to design a framework which was pilot tested in a company to identify how to align technology outcomes to the values, needs and expectations of the society.

This study depicts five successive RRI implementation levels and exhibits RRI key performance indicators. Drawing on extant models, this study develops RRI levels and indicators to discuss why industry should become engaged in RRI, how it can embed RRI principles into R&I processes and how RRI indicators can be managed systematically.

The connection between RRI key performance indicators and RRI levels determines how industry can integrate principles and methodologies of RRI into R&I processes. The model in the study shows how companies move from one RRI stage to another and this study aims to exhibit an ideal stage of RRI for industry.

Responsible innovation (RI) and social innovation (SI) are two fields of innovation study experiencing burgeoning policy, practice and research interest. Despite this rapid rise in popularity, the scholarly literature in these two related areas of innovation study remains quite separate, stymieing the growth of shared research insights. The purpose of this paper is to propose a pragmatic, process-based framework that lends itself to advancing systematic research in both fields while retaining their distinct identities.

This conceptual paper outlines an analogy-inspired framework that builds on the logical thinking put forward by Philosopher Willard Van Orman Quine in 1962. It focusses on key processes that cross-cut both fields.

Reflexivity, collaboration and design are identified as three broad core processes that span both the RI and SI fields and form the basis of an integrative framework that highlights the scope for cross-field research pollination.

The literature that draws these two fields together is virtually non-existent. The paper uses analogy to facilitate awareness of the parallels between these two areas of innovation study. The integrative framework put forward in the paper is of value for advancing cumulative research in innovation fields of critical importance to the society.

The purpose of this study is to analyze reported good institutional responsible research and innovation (RRI) practices from an organizational and learning perspective to discuss the usefulness of RRI as a broad umbrella concept.

This study connects neo-institutional and translation accounts of diffusion to different modes of learning and discusses reported best practices from 12 reports, including in total 23 organizations in the research system worldwide, in light of this theoretical framework. This study categorizes the good practices identified in the reports and discusses how the nature of the practices influences the potential learning from them. The authors then apply the results from the discussion of this study to current policy developments on RRI.

The two most often mentioned good practices overall are organizational policies and the establishment of organizational units, but the type of good practices recommended differs across the various aspects of the RRI umbrella concept. This diversity within the RRI construct is a practical argument against the effectiveness of RRI as an umbrella concept.

This study is novel in the fact that the authors, building on Wæraas (2020), systematically relate types of good practice to neo-institutional theory and translation perspectives explicitly combined with learning approaches and apply this approach in the field of research organizations. The policy implications from the empirical and theoretical analyses are novel and timely in these early phases of the EU funding framework programme Horizon Europe and can also be relevant for the increasingly important umbrella concept of Open Science.