Engagement in Innovation Management: Perceptions and Interests in the GM Debate¹

Abstract

The development of a technology and the innovations based on that technology usually affect stakeholders who have different perceptions and interests. Key issues in the company's engagement with these stakeholders are information and negotiation. Engagement is an ongoing process during which perceptions as well as interests may change. In this article it is argued that knowing the nature of interests and perceptions of the involved parties at a certain critical point leads to possible ways of engagement which in turn may help creating a satisfying outcome of the innovation process. First, information is necessary to change perceptions, and second, negotiation is necessary to accommodate interests. Two examples from the biotechnology industries (genetically modified (GM) crops) are used to demonstrate that perceptions and interests are the key factors in driving the engagement process between a company and its stakeholders, and communication in the engagement process should emphasize giving information and/or negotiation, depending on the nature of perceptions and interests.

Innovation Enablers for Innovation Teams - A Review

“…However, employees need to be trained and educated before they can have a positive impact on the innovation process (Smith et al, 2008), but there is also a need for competence in the hiring of qualified personnel to participate in innovative projects (Francois et al, 2002) and use knowledge in an appropriate way, as knowledge itself does not generate any value (Hung et al, 2010). One practical way of using knowledge is to focus on the different stakeholders' changing interests during an innovation project, since knowing the nature of the interests and perceptions of the involved parties at a certain critical point leads to possible ways of engaging, which in turn may help to create a satisfying outcome from the innovation process (Weisenfeld, 2003). Another way of using knowledge is to bridge the diverse knowledge of members in a multifunctional team so knowledge gaps that are too large do not open (Jablokow and Booth, 2006).…”

Corporate Social Responsibility in Innovation: Insights from two Cases of Syngenta's Activities in Genetically Modified Organisms

“…In what follows, two examples will be described and analysed to illustrate the importance and the difficulty of managing collective responsibility. The cases ‘Golden Rice’ and ‘Terminator Technology’ have been chosen because they involve well‐known examples of publicly discussed GMO (e.g., Weisenfeld, 2003), they represent very different motivations (Golden Rice as a humanitarian project, Terminator Technology as a means to ensure property rights), and for both cases the role of Syngenta as one of the companies involved can be discussed. Both examples involve intellectual property rights issues: (1) for the Golden Rice project, companies renounced licence fees for humanitarian purposes, (2) the Gene Use Restriction Technology (GURT) gives companies control over plant characteristics, and in particular the Terminator patent provides the possibility to prohibit farmers from saving and reusing seeds.…”

Exploring Networks of Activism on Corporate Social Responsibility: Suggestions for a Research Agenda

“…Although their work combines insights on social movements and institutional theory, their propositions do not look into activist organizations. Examining the applicability of their propositions in this specific context, rather than in one of alliances and joint ventures, would be a useful next step for this area of business and society research and could also be useful for the field of innovation management, given the potential impact of activist organizations on innovations, and in particular disruptive innovation (see Weisenfeld, 2003; Hall & Martin, 2005).…”

“…Firms need to find new ways of coping with a variety of different stakeholder demands. The notion of CSR has received considerable attention over the past decade, both in the professional and the academic management literatures (e.g., Fisscher, Nijhof & Steensma, 2003; Burchell, 2008), while it has also been addressed in the area of innovation management, often focusing on issues of sustainability (e.g., Rodriguez, Ricart & Sanchez, 2002; Benn & Baker, 2009; Bos‐Brouwers, 2010), or on innovation in controversial areas such as genetic modification (Weisenfeld, 2003). Numerous studies have been published on CSR and its definition, application or measurement (for reviews, see de Bakker, Groenewegen & den Hond, 2005 or Lee, 2008).…”