Research and innovation processes revisited – networked responsibility in industry

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to explore how relationships between different actors are being shaped, in order to allow industry to come to acceptable and desirable uses of Research and Innovation (R&I) that address societal challenges. Design/methodology/approach-Building on existing notions of responsibility proposed in the literature, the paper develops a theoretical account of "networks of responsibility" which capture the interlinked nature of responsibility relationships. The usefulness of the approach is evaluated by exploring two cases of R&I in industry deploying a qualitative research approach that involves interviewing and document analysis. For this, a multinational company from Germany was involved, as well as a small and medium-sized company from Denmark. Findings-The study surfaced 68 responsibility relationships involving a range of different objects, subjects, authorities, and norms. By describing overlaps in objects, subjects, and other aspects across relationships, the theoretical model proved adequate in untangling and displaying interrelatedness of responsibilities. Furthermore, the analysis surfaced characteristics of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) that are already in place in the R&I processes of two innovative companies, such as anticipation, foresight, and stakeholder engagement. Not all aspects of responsibility outlined in the theoretical model could be extracted from the interview data for every responsibility relationship, pointing to the need for further research. Originality/value-The paper offers a novel theoretical approach to understanding and analysing responsibility allocations in R&I in industry. It demonstrates the reliability of this theoretical position empirically. It is practically important because it supports policy development on an organisational as well as societal level.

Meta-Responsibility in Corporate Research and Innovation: A Bioeconomic Case Study

“…Timmermans et al [7] were the first to apply meta-responsibility for inventorying responsibilities in an industrial R&I case study. The authors modelled networks of allocated responsibilities in two industrial R&I cases, between subjects (i.e., those who are responsible), objects (what the subjects are responsible for), norms (criteria to act responsibly), and authorities (overseeing responsibilities and attributing sanctions).…”

“…In a similar vein, a few studies remark that RRI's practical relevance remains fundamentally hampered as long as it remains unspecific about the core concept of responsibility [5][6][7]. This largely boils down to the absence of a systematic framework that would provide an inventory of different responsibilities within R&I.…”

“…In response, it has been proposed that RRI should be developed into a meta-responsibility approach, providing a systematic mapping of both existing and novel responsibilities that R&I functions hold in society [7,[9][10][11]. This airplane view can reveal gaps, dependencies, and conflicts among current and emerging demands and expectations faced by corporate R&I.…”

“…This airplane view can reveal gaps, dependencies, and conflicts among current and emerging demands and expectations faced by corporate R&I. Furthermore, meta-responsibility would provide a foundation for introducing and aligning novel responsibilities, e.g., for meeting particular societal goals and for formulating practical recommendations for R&I personnel for their implementation [7].…”

Innovation Systems for Transformations towards Sustainability? Taking the Normative Dimension Seriously

“…Finally, to address issues of responsibility in innovation processes, a relatively new strand of literature has been developed around the notion of responsible research and innovation or simply responsible innovation (RI) (e.g., [15,[34][35][36][37][38][39][40][215][216][217]. RI incorporates a normative outlook into multi-stakeholder innovation practices (e.g., [36,218]) and aims to achieve (ethically) acceptable, sustainable, and societally desirable outcomes of innovation processes and their marketable products [15,37].…”