RRI as the inheritor of deliberative democracy and the precautionary principle

Reber, Bernard

doi:10.1080/23299460.2017.1331097

Cited by 30 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Studying the relationship between ethical, responsible and sustainable research and innovation and companies' socially responsible practices leads to a question on the business approach to RRI [1,18,[21][22][23]. RRI is often discussed in relation to the more widely known notion of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implementation of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) Practices in Industry: Providing the Right Incentives

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) is a term used by policy-makers and academics to refer to research and innovation that is ethically acceptable and socially desirable. Despite the fact that the vast majority of research and innovation (R&I) is funded and produced by industry, companies tend to have no awareness or recognition of this concept. This is unfortunate, as the RRI paradigm could be mutually beneficial for both business and society: it could help businesses realise competitive opportunities while also leading to positive economic, societal and environmental impacts. This paper investigates how industry can be incentivised to engage in research and innovation following the approach of RRI. We propose a matrix of incentives for stimulating the adoption of RRI. We categorise incentives according to three dichotomies: external and internal, instrumental and non-instrumental, direct and indirect. The incentives are formalised in a causal loop diagram, which can be used to demonstrate the sound character of investing in RRI from a business perspective. We discuss examples of incentives, including corporate reputation and critical consumerism, certification, employee engagement, and governance. Lastly, to ensure effective implementation of RRI, we outline factors for the realisation of successful incentives for RRI in industry.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implementation of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) Practices in Industry: Providing the Right Incentives

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…4 The first cluster of virtues is associated with the Responsible-side of RI, whereas the second is associated with the Innovation-side of RI. This overview is based on a review of relevant literature, e.g., of articles that appeared in the Journal of Business Ethics (Whetstone 2001, Bastons 2008, Bertland 2009, McPherson 2013, Wang et al 2016, Grant et al 2018, Sand 2018b, Steyn and Sewchurran 2019, the Journal of Responsible Innovation (Nordmann 2014, Di Giulio et al 2016, Pellé 2016, Bergen 2017, Reber 2018) and in Science and Engineering Ethics (Pritchard 2001, Crawford-Brown 1997, Harris 2008, Frey 2010, Stovall 2011, Steen 2013, Schmidt 2014, Chen 2015, Han 2015, Pennock and O'Rourke 2017. Our overview resembles Vallor's (2016) list of "technomoral" virtues-virtues that people (in general) need to cultivate in order to flourish in the twenty-first century: honesty, self-control, humility, justice, courage, empathy, care, civility, flexibility, perspective, magnanimity and wisdom.…”

Section: Virtues In Responsible Innovationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…. technologies impact the basic rights, dignity, or welfare of individuals and groups" (Vallor 2016: 128); • anticipation, one of the four key dimensions of RI (Stilgoe et al 2013, Nordmann 2014), i.e., an early assessment of a project's potential impacts, especially its unintended or unwanted impacts; or precaution (Reber 2018), e.g., as understood by Hans Jonas in his book Imperative of Responsibility (1984); • perspective, "a reliable disposition to attend to, discern, and understand moral phenomena as meaningful parts of a moral whole" (Vallor 2016: 149), or "technosocial sensitivity" and "awareness of the social context" (Harris 2008); • humility, "a recognition of the real limits of our technosocial knowledge and ability" (Vallor 2016: 126); • honesty (Vallor 2016, Pritchard 2001, "an exemplary respect for truth, along with the practical expertise to express that respect appropriately in technomoral contexts" (Vallor 2016: 122), or the "formation of justified belief" (Crawford-Brown 1997); • civility, "a sincere disposition to live well with one's fellow citizens . .…”

Section: Virtues In Responsible Innovationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Virtue Ethics for Responsible Innovation

Steen¹,

Sand

Poel

2021

Business and Professional Ethics Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Governments and companies are increasingly promoting and organizing Responsible Innovation. It is, however, unclear how the seemingly incompatible demands for responsibility, which is associated with care and caution, can be harmonized with demands for innovation, which is associated with risk-taking and speed. We turn to the tradition of virtue ethics and argue that it can be a strong accomplice to Responsible Innovation by focussing on the agential side of innovation. Virtue ethics offers an adequate response to the epistemic and moral complexity in innovation and encourages moral behaviour. We enumerate a number of virtues that people involved in Responsible Innovation would need to cultivate both related to responsibility, such as justice, anticipation, civility and inclusion, and virtues related to innovation, such as courage, dedication, curiosity and creativity. We put forward practical wisdom (phronesis) as a key virtue to regulate relevant virtues and to deal with the tension between responsibility and innovation. Practical wisdom helps an agent to find an appropriate mean in exercising and expressing the other virtues—where the mean is relative to the specific context of action and the role and abilities of the agent.

show abstract

“…Responsible innovation and accompanying engagements with various publics become further complicated when situated within state-wide socio-technical imaginaries and political imaginations (Jasanoff and Kim 2013) that either tacitly or explicitly drive development of socio-technical systems. If deliberative engagements are to be considered a prerequisite for RI (Reber 2018), the question remains: how do such interventions manifest across diverse governance frameworks, power inequities, and opposing perspectives of what consists of 'good technology' or 'good knowledge' (Jasanoff 2016)?…”

Section: Thematic Summaries Of Contributionsmentioning

confidence: 99%