This paper aims to contribute to the ongoing conceptual debate on responsible innovation, and provides innovation practices and processes that can help to implement responsible innovation in the business context. Based on a systematic literature review of 72 empirical scholarly articles, it was possible to identify, analyse and synthesise empirical findings reported in studies on social, sustainable and responsible innovation practices in the business context. The synthesis of the included articles resulted in a refined framework for responsible innovation in the business context. This framework includes an overview of innovation practices and processes that can enhance the dimensions of responsible innovation: anticipation, reflexivity, inclusion, deliberation, responsiveness and knowledge management. Additionally, knowledge gaps are identified and a research agenda for responsible innovation is proposed. This review can therefore serve as a next step in the theoretical and practical development of responsible innovation in general, and in the business context in particular.
Knowledge, skills, and attitudes to manage sustainable development have become significant components of different career paths. Previous research has explored which competencies are needed for future change agents in the field of sustainable development. Sustainable entrepreneurship can be seen as a promising work context in which these competencies are truly at the forefront and enacted. Several researchers have compiled frameworks of key competencies. However, their work is exploratory in nature and a more in-depth analysis of these frameworks is called for. In this study, an existing competence framework for sustainable entrepreneurship was tested in terms of construct validity, among 402 would-be entrepreneurs. The results suggest the inclusion of six competencies, which constitute a competence framework with a good model fit. Furthermore, a new combination of two existing competencies is proposed. This study has important implications for the debate on which competencies for sustainable entrepreneurship are essential on theoretical and empirical grounds.
In the open innovation management literature, it is widely acknowledged that individuals play a crucial role in collaborative knowledge creation processes. However, the literature tends not to explore the human side of open innovation teams. The present article therefore examines the competencies that professionals need for working in open innovation teams (specific but not necessarily unique to open innovation) and to cope with the challenges they face. A qualitative study consisting of explorative interviews and focus group discussions was conducted, resulting in a competence profile for open innovation professionals. The profile adds a new perspective to the field of open innovation management by focusing on how individuals involved in open innovation teams can enhance open innovation success. It reveals, among other things, how professionals can generate new knowledge, build trust, and deal with low reciprocal commitment in open innovation teams. Especially, brokering solutions and being socially competent seem to be important for open innovation professionals. Companies should focus on these competencies when supporting their professionals in open innovation teams.5 1Combine (c1) Employs integrative (win-win) negotiation strategies rather than distributive (win-lose) strategies. Brokers solutions or outcomes. Thinks in ways that differ from established lines of thought. Agrees to disagree (lose-lose). Considers common goal as most important. Adapts without violating own ideas.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.