Many innovative businesses have discovered an added value in collaborating with experts, users or other stakeholders in developing innovative products or services. Not all collaboration with stakeholders, however, corresponds to the criteria for opening up an innovation process to the needs of societal actors under the terms of responsible innovation. The question of what makes collaboration meaningful in the sense of responsible innovation was presented and discussed in a 75 min workshop at the European Science Open Forum (ESOF) in Toulouse, France in June 2018. Identified success factors and challenges for making a collaboration process meaningful for the collaborating parties highlight the importance of competent process preparation and facilitation, investment of time and effort to enable mutual understanding and the development of trustful relationships as well as the collaborating partners' willingness to implement changes that result from the collaboration process. ARTICLE HISTORY

Purpose While corporate social responsibility (CSR) standards are amongst the most widely adopted instruments for supporting firms in becoming more accountable, firms who adopt them frequently fail to comply. In this context, the purpose of this study is to explore to what extent CSR standards are designed for accountability. In the analysis, this paper investigates design characteristics related to accountability across different standard types, namely, principle-based, reporting, certification and process standards. Design/methodology/approach This study reviews the design characteristics of 50 CSR standards in a systematic and comparative fashion. This paper combines qualitative deductive coding with exploratory quantitative analyses methods to elucidate structural variance and patterns of accountability-related design characteristics across the sample. Findings This study finds that the prevalence of design characteristics aimed at fostering accountability varies significantly between different types of standards. This paper identifies three factors related to the specific purpose of any given standard that explain this structural variation in design characteristics, namely, implementability, comparability and measurability. Practical implications Non-compliance limits the effectiveness and legitimacy of CSR standards. The systematic exploration of patterns and structural variation in design characteristics that promote accountability may provide valuable clues for the design of more effective CSR standards in the future. Social implications Better understanding the role of design characteristics of CSR standards is critical to ensure they contribute to greater corporate accountability. Originality/value This study strives to expand the current understanding of the design characteristics of CSR standards beyond individual cases through a systematic exploration of accountability-related design characteristics across a larger sample.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract