Creative tensions: mutual responsiveness adapted to private sector research and development

Abstract

The concept of mutual responsiveness is currently based on little empirical data in the literature of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI). This paper explores RRI’s idea of mutual responsiveness in the light of recent RRI case studies on private sector research and development (R&D). In RRI, responsible innovation is understood as a joint endeavour of innovators and societal stakeholders, who become mutually responsive to each other in defining the ‘right impacts’ of the innovation in society, and in steering the innovation towards realising those impacts. Yet, the case studies identified several reasons for why the idea of mutual responsiveness does not always appear feasible or desirable in actual R&D situations. Inspired by the discrepancies between theory and practice, we suggest three further elaborations for the concept of responsiveness in RRI. Process-responsiveness is suggested for identifying situations that require stakeholder involvement specifically during R&D. Product-responsiveness is suggested for mobilising the potential of innovation products to be adaptable according to diverse stakeholder needs. Presponsiveness is suggested as responsiveness towards stakeholders that are not (yet) reachable at a given time of R&D. Our aim is to contribute to a more tangible understanding of responsiveness in RRI, and suggest directions for further analysis in upcoming RRI case studies.

Responsible Innovation and Climate Engineering. A Step Back to Technology Assessment

“…Furthermore, it allows for the assessment of technologies at an early development stage by anticipating and reflecting societal and ethical aspects of the innovation. RRI has been described as a framework to address societal dimensions of science and technology, understood as a ‘forward-looking responsibility’ responding to new emerging knowledge and acknowledging the uncertainty and limited control inherent to innovations (Sonck et al 2017 ). It combines “(ethical) acceptability, sustainability and societal desirability of the innovation process and its marketable products” (Von Schomberg 2013 , 63).…”

“…Especially in situations of high ambiguous uncertainty existing normative guidelines may not adequately represent stakeholder perspectives and capture societal concerns. For new and emerging technologies broader and more inclusive reflection on the guiding norms could therefore become vital for the acceptability and overall success of the innovation (Sonck et al 2017 ).…”

Societal and Ethical Issues in Industrial Biotechnology

“…According to RRI such inclusion should go beyond the formulation of criteria and extend to the actual design choices that are being made when developing a new technology. There are of course many practical and institutional barriers to actually implement a wide variety of perspectives into the R&D phase of innovation, such as confidentiality issues, a balanced division of responsibility [47] and stakeholders who might not be willing to get involved [48] or are unable to get involved due to geographical or time-management reasons [49].…”

“…The cases described above can, for instance, serve as guide for the kind of societal concerns that might affect comparable industrial biotechnology products [16]. Also, stakeholders that are at a given time unavailable might be represented by other parties that are available such as academic experts or NGOs [49].…”

“…The last dimension of RRI is that of responsiveness and this might be seen as an overarching attitude for which the other three strategies are essential conditions. Responsiveness is the action that is taken after innovators have anticipated possible effects of their innovation, have been reflective and have included a wide variety of perspectives [32,49].…”