RESPONSIBLE

INNOVATION
IN THE CONTEXT OF THE KARIM PROJECT

A Guiding Document for SME and Policy-Makers

Authors:
Victor Scholten (Delft University of Technology)
Xavier Pavie (ESSEC Business School)
Daphn Carthy (ESSEC Business School)
Simon ORafferty (EcoDesign Cardiff)
Contributors:
Merel Claes (EcoDesign Cardiff)
Michel Daigney (Centre Francilien de lInnovation)
Dap Hartmann (Delft University of Technology)
Gaelle Hin (Centre Francilien de lInnovation)
Frank OConnor (EcoDesign Cardiff)
Cees van Beers (Delft University of Technology)
Patrick van der Duin (Delft University of Technology)

More information on the KARIM project is available at: www.karimnetwork.com

Contents
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 5
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 5
1.1 Purpose of the Document ................................................................................................ 6
1.2 Methodology .................................................................................................................... 7
1.3 Research Context ............................................................................................................. 8
2. An Analysis of the Rising Concept of Responsible Innovation ............................................... 9
2.1 What is Innovation? ......................................................................................................... 9
2.2 What is Responsibility? .................................................................................................. 12
2.3 Responsible Innovation .................................................................................................. 18
2.4. An Evaluation of Responsible Innovation ..................................................................... 22
3. An Integration of Responsible Innovation ........................................................................... 34
3.1. Responsible Innovation within SMEs ............................................................................ 34
3.2. Implementing Responsible Innovation into Business Strategy ..................................... 38
3.3. Integrating Responsible Innovation into Organisational Process ................................. 39
4. Policy Case for Responsible Innovation ............................................................................... 53
4.1
Interaction
between
Regional
Academe
and
SMEs:
The Role of Knowledge Spill-Overs ...................................................................................... 56
4.2 Interaction between SMEs from Different Sectors. ....................................................... 56
4.3 Role of Transnational Interaction between SMEs and Technology Transfer Offices
Located at Universities. ........................................................................................................ 57
4.4 Key RI Policy Barriers ...................................................................................................... 58
5. Responsible Innovation within Research and Education ..................................................... 61
5.1 Research Grants ............................................................................................................. 61
5.2 Teaching Programmes .................................................................................................... 61
6. Conclusion and Recommendations ...................................................................................... 65
Appendix 1 - Definitions of Responsible Innovation ................................................................ 70
Appendix 2 - Overview of Key Grand Challenges ..................................................................... 72
Appendix 3................................................................................................................................ 74
Some Relevant Metrics, Projects and Reports. .................................................................... 74
Sample Research Groups and Centers ................................................................................. 75
Bibliography .76

Executive Summary
The sustainability agenda draws from the same reasoning provided by Gro Harlem Brundtland in
1987, when she defined sustainability as a development which satisfies the present needs without
compromising the ability of future generations to satisfy their own. In that respect, sustainability
addresses the impact of innovations on the Triple Bottom Line, which translates into social, economic
and environmental impacts. Various studies have identified that if the current lifestyle in developed
countries continues and emerging countries also start adopting these, the resources of about 2.5
planets will be required by the year 2050 to support the population. When applying this theory to a
business context, the message is clear: we need to keep innovating; however we need to do it
differently, that is: more responsibly.
The challenges provide significant opportunities for creating alternative products and services, new
business models and ways of working as well as more efficient approaches to resource exploitation
and energy consumption. The dominant logic, heuristics and current practices involved with todays
problem solving are not satisfactory since they tend not to break with the existing ones. Innovators
that search for a solution in landscapes more distant from existing ones are facing two major
challenges. The first challenge is the uncertainty surrounding the innovation context, making it
impossible to accurately predict impacts which innovations may have on the Triple Bottom Line. The
second challenge concerns the moral dilemmas which may ensue from recognising the impacts
caused by the innovation and balancing them.
The responsible innovation method is a strategy and process which guides organisations through
innovation by taking into account the real and potential impacts of the project as it is being
developed and once the finished product or service has been launched on the market. This is done
through the three axes of responsible innovation which question the solutions to develop in
response to consumer need; monitor and manage the direct impacts of the innovation on social,
economic and environmental factors and consider the indirect consequences of innovation. The
responsible innovation process is not designed to replace the innovation process, but rather to
complement it in order to deal with the uncertainties surrounding innovation.
This guiding document will begin by providing a detailed analysis of the responsible innovation
concept, starting by a dissection of the term, to clearly define what the terms innovation and
responsibility mean in their own respect. It will then progress to the practicalities of the concept
and suggest a method for integrating responsible innovation into a firms strategy and how it
translates into a process. This will include an analysis of the opportunities provided by the concept
for entrepreneurs, SMEs and technology-based start-ups. Furthermore, the discussions and
recommendations aim to provide entrepreneurs directions for increasing their competitive
advantage through responsible innovation, whose ultimate objective is to reconcile the firms need
for performance with the need to be accountable for its actions and innovations. Finally, implications
of these thoughts for policy makers at regional and national level will be discussed, including
directions on how to include the perspectives of responsible innovation at policy level and the
benefits of introducing the concept as part of curricula within third-level education programmes.

1. Introduction
1.1 Purpose of the Document
Responsible innovation is an emerging theme in innovation management and policy. It is a concept
which has been subject to varying opinions concerning its definition and the best way to implement
it into organisations. Being responsible has traditionally been perceived as potentially posing a threat
to organisational performance and putting pressure on business operations. However, the
application of the responsible innovation theory into an organisational context translates into a
strategy and process which combines the organisations need to create value through innovation on
the one hand, with the imperative of responsibility on the other hand, which involves accounting for
social, economic and environmental impacts of the innovation. Thus, responsible innovation
ultimately aims at providing a framework which will foster an organisations creative capacity for
innovation regardless of the industry it operates in while also setting it in a responsible frame.
This focus on innovation ensures that performance is not compromised by the need to account for
the organisations actions. This document will focus on the application of responsible innovation in
SMEs.
The KARIM program is an EU-supported initiative that aims to improve transnational support for
innovation and technology transfer for SME in North-Western Europe. The European Commission
[European Commission 2011] defined the responsibility of organisations which goes beyond
compliance with rules and regulations and requires an integral approach in business operations to
maximise value creation for owners/shareholders, stakeholders and society at large. Accordingly, the
KARIM programme will contribute to more rapid knowledge diffusion among universities and SMEs
and support the processes of responsible innovation. Common understanding of what responsible
innovation is and how it manifests in innovation processes within SMEs is the main subject of action
7 of the KARIM project. Therefore this document intends to guide organisations in acting more
responsible during their innovation activities rather than setting requirements or providing
normative rules. As such, it aims to clarify what responsible innovation is, help businesses and
organisations translate the principles into effective actions and share codes of best practice.
The objectives of this document are as follows:
1. to reflect the shared understanding among KARIM partners and external experts based on the
partner workshops, literature review and external public debates
2. to propose working definitions on responsible innovation
3. to propose a framework for implementing responsible innovation within SMEs
4. to inform KARIM actions about responsible innovation and to provide practical points of
reference in the form of case studies and media coverage
5. to discuss how responsible innovation creates opportunities and new business growth for SMEs
6. to explore the relevance and opportunity to include the conceptual thinking of responsible
innovation in innovation management and entrepreneurship courses
7. to discuss the importance of RI as a source for innovation opportunities on the agenda of policy
makers, such as regional and national policy makers and policy makers that are involved in
granting research programs and those that provide subsidy and credit for innovation projects
within SMEs
In essence the guiding document is a live document that will evolve over the course of the project
incorporating new insights and learning as the partnership strengthens its understanding of the
responsible innovation agenda.

1.2 Methodology
This guiding document was developed in collaboration with all KARIM partners in order to come
towards a shared understanding of responsible innovation (RI). This shared understanding is
important not only to bring the partnership towards a common purpose and commitment, but also
to bring a strong and coherent message to the transnational network of universities and SMEs. We
used various sources to develop our shared understanding, see Figure 1. First of all, we built on
literature discussions and debates in academic forums. We investigated the origin and recent
developments of corporate social responsibility and identified how responsible innovation is a
specific element within the scope of CSR. Subsequently, we reviewed the literature on innovation
management and its interaction with strategy. This helped us to provide an initial understanding of
what RI is in the context of SMEs. We further complemented these with recent developments and
discussions held at various conferences to fine-tune our thoughts and tap into a broader scope of
academic knowledge. Four conferences were central: the RI Conference in The Hague on 18-19th
April 2011, the Franco-British workshop on RI in London on 23-24th May 2011, the EuroScience Open
Forum in Dublin on 11-15th July 2012 and the RI Conference in The Hague, 13-14th December 2012.
Second, we had various discussions within the KARIM setting with project partners in order to share
the insights and discuss our definition and understanding of what responsible innovation is. This was
initiated by Lancaster in order to identify the range of different understandings of the term
responsible innovation within the network. This workshop was continued in Cardiff to explore the
organisational understanding of responsible innovation. A third plenary workshop with project
partners was held in Dublin to discuss the initial scope and definition of responsible innovation.
Following the plenary sessions with KARIM partners a number of visits between ECODesign Cardiff,
PRICE, ESSEC Business School and TU Delft during the Summer of 2012 helped to formulate the
understanding of responsible innovation in detail and discuss the guiding document. The third step
was aimed at making RI easier to understand by various people by means of providing case studies.
The case studies illustrate the meaning and concept of responsible innovation through examples and
presents the approach a typical company adopts in its innovation process to make it more
responsible.
Guiding Document

Broader academic
sources

Literature review

Figure 1. Methodology

Conferences

KARIM Workshops

-Lancaster/ Cardiff/ Dublin

- RI-KARIM meetings

Case studies

- SME level
- policy level
- multinalional
level

1.3 Research Context

Innovation is the cornerstone of national and transnational strategies for growth and
competitiveness. Recent policy discussions on innovation (European Commission, 2011) are
placing a greater emphasis on the innovation system both as a facilitator for generating the
creativity necessary for innovation but also as a key response to the grand challenges of
society. Some of these grand challenges include climate change, new domains of healthcare,
ageing population, global poverty, well-being, material security and resource efficiency.
Due to these challenges, the context within which the decisions that drive innovation are
made is more complex than ever before. The last decade alone has witnessed a combination
of transformations in economic, geopolitical, societal and technological and ecological
systems that have driven a greater level of economic and social interdependency. These
transformations are calling into question the process and impact of innovations. The relative
incremental, radical/disruptive or systemic nature of innovation is gaining interest at all
levels of society (public, business and policy). Incremental innovations are often defined as
technical innovations applied to existing products and services. Radical innovations are born
out of technological breakthroughs leading to the development of new modes of practice,
behaviour and business models. They infer a technological discontinuity whereas systemic
innovations require a greater degree of complementary innovations across the value chain,
innovation system or socio-technical infrastructure. In particular, for the radical/ disruptive
innovations the interdependencies between economic, social and environmental systems
increase the complexity of the governance of the innovation process. The uncertainty
surrounding innovation makes it difficult to foresee potential impacts which could turn
against the innovator and lower the likelihood of acceptance of the innovation in the
broader context. This calls for a governance approach to the innovation process that
includes early warning instruments that allow for signalling the repercussions of the
innovation in the broader context of relevant stakeholders.
Responsible leaders combine economic orientations with an extended stakeholder
orientation, they make decisions based on traditional morality and have strong concerns for
others over self-interest (Waldman & Galvin, 2008; Jones et al., 2007). Hence, the business
objective shifts to optimizing the different values across the triple bottom line and focus on
balancing sustainable value for business and society. However, Waldman and Siegel [2008:
119] stress that responsibility exists only if there is a clear and directly foreseeable return
on investment. The central problem remains that for the short term, strict cost-benefits
analyses are more accurate, but projections tend to become more difficult with respect to
responsibility in the long term [Pless, et al. 2012].
These deeper interdependencies have given rise to risks that are challenging existing
systems of governance (e.g. norms, standards, policies) and existing approaches to

innovation. In addition to that, the processes of globalisation and its related local impacts
require organisations to engage with a wider group of stakeholders than ever before. As a
consequence, the concept of RI has been making traction in the last number of years as a
more rounded framework for understanding innovation in this context. RI has a broad
history and builds on discussions from sustainability, corporate social responsibility, ethics
and issues related to responsible research.

2. An Analysis of the Rising Concept of Responsible Innovation

This part will initially focus on providing a common and accepted view of what innovation is.
This will serve as a stepping stone in discussing what responsible adds to the concept of
innovation. We will then discuss responsible innovation as a special part of an
organisations strategy in general and how it translates into a process to be integrated across
all levels of that organisation.

2.1 What is Innovation?

Common agreement is that innovation follows invention, where invention is the discovery of
something new. Myers and Marquis (1969) provide a definition on innovation which
perceives the concept of innovation not as a single action but rather as a total process of
interrelated sub processes1. Following this definition, innovation is concerned with
commercial and practical application and it covers a process in which intellectual thought is
brought into practice by means of various sub processes such as testing and prototyping,
reflection on its added value among customer groups. In his book Innovation Management,
Paul Trott (2012) follows this line of reasoning and states that innovation is equal to the
theoretical conception plus technical invention plus commercial exploitation. That is,
innovation rests upon the basic invention which needs to manifest in a commercial activity
and providing value (financial, social or environmental) to the organisation. Based on the
inclusion of these perspectives, Trott (2012) defines innovation as:
Innovation is the management of all the activities involved in the process of idea
generation, technology development, manufacturing of a new (or improved) product
of manufacturing process or equipment (Trott 2012).
Innovation, then, can manifest in various ways. Joseph Schumpeter (1912) was among the
first to provide a comprehensive view on the typology of innovation. He argued that
innovation is not only about physical change but can also manifest in terms of processes and
1

Myers and Marquis (1969) define innovation: Innovation is not a single action but a total process of
interrelated sub processes. It is not just the conception of a new idea, nor the invention of a new device, nor
the development of a new market. The process is all these things acting in an integrated fashion.

organisational forms. Therefore his concept of innovation covers the introduction of a new
good, a new method of production, the opening of a new market, the conquest of a new
source of supply of raw materials, and the introduction of a new organisation. Trott (2012)
builds on this typology and discusses the changes in various ways (Table 1).
Table 1. Types of Innovation (Trott, 2012)
TYPE OF INNOVATION
Product innovation
Process innovation
Organisational innovation
Management innovation
Production innovation
Commercial/ market
innovation
Service innovation

EXAMPLE
The development of a new or improved product
The development of a new manufacturing process
A new venture division; a new internal communication
system; introduction of a new accounting procedure
TQM (Total Quality Management)
Quality circles; Just-in-time manufacturing (JIT)
New financing arrangements; new sales approach
Internet-based financial services

These innovation typologies provide direction on how responsible innovation can manifest
as well. Indeed, it should be applicable to each type of innovation featured in Table 1.
However, an inherent characteristic of innovation, regardless of the type, is its uncertainty.
In fact, from the moment a new product, process, organisational structure, management
style, production system or market entry is envisaged, the organisation automatically enters
into a sort of realm of uncertainty. For the purpose of this guiding document, we will base
most of our arguments on product or service innovations. Since the latter can only be
considered successful once it is on the market and is attracting enough customers to become
significantly profitable (Schumpeter, 1939), the exact impacts of the innovation can only be
measured once the gap has been crossed. Moore (1991) referred to Crossing the Chasm
when describing the path that the innovation takes once it has gone past attracting the
innovators, technology enthusiasts and the early adopters, visionaries and manages to
attract the pragmatists and conservatives. This essentially represents the ultimate test in
terms of the organisations ability to keep supplying the same quality of product or service in
a responsible manner.

10

Figure 2. Crossing the Chasm (Moore, 1991)

Thus, in spite of the many surveys conducted by organisations which aim at minimising the
risk surrounding a new product or service launch, there is no way to predict or assess risk
accurately before launch. Indeed, the organisation is made up of a complex set of internal
and external dynamics, most of which are outside of the organisations control. These
include the leaders strategic vision, the management of policy and talents, the corporate
culture regarding innovation, technology, the evaluation of performance, the
communication and success and the timing of innovation and implied risks, as illustrated in
Figure 3.
Furthermore, most innovators do not consider the consequences of the innovation beyond
economic success, while innovations that create social and environmental pressures are
usually considered to fail. Yet, innovations uncertainty is the main element which gives rise
to the stakes of responsible innovation and justifies the need for responsibility in that
process.

11

Figure 3. Analytic Prism of Dynamic Innovation for Creating Value (Pavie 2012)
The time issue featured as one of the elements shaping the organisation and its innovation
process in Figure 3 is particularly critical and refers to the moment when an innovation is
launched at the most favourable time to be accepted by customers. Researchers have
referred to this as the problem of sinking and missing the boat (Mullins & Forlani, 2005;
Dickson & Giglierano, 1986). On the one hand, sinking the boat happens when the
innovator enters the market too early and various flaws such as technological robustness or
misunderstanding by the customer and stakeholders are detrimental to the innovations
success. On the other hand, missing the boat occurs when the innovator is too late and the
window of opportunity is closing. This may be caused by an overly precautious behaviour
which poses a risk to the innovation itself and therefore to the ultimate survival of the
organisation. It is this very trade-off between the fast market entry to gain short-term
benefits (such as market share and profits) and the responsibility to monitor impacts in the
long-term which responsible innovation deals with.

2.2 What is Responsibility?

Who is responsible for the innovation in terms of implementation? Whose responsibility is it
to monitor impacts which may arise once the innovation is on the market? In other words, as
the Latin etymology respondere suggests, who has to account for their decisions or
innovation? This question is crucial when analysing the development of autonomous
working groups, whose first consequence is the dilution of responsibility. This dilution
usually results in a careless assessment of consequences, since the feeling of concern
regarding the impact of innovation diminishes along with the definition of who in the
management makes the decisions. Indeed, responsibility can only be assumed by one who is
directly accountable for an entire item even a small one not just a part of it (Pavie, 2012).

12

Furthermore, the recent financial crisis has had a severe impact on making the notion of
responsibility less accurate. Communication and marketing directors have learned their
lesson: consumers are now better informed and want to buy responsible products and
services. As a consequence, we find ourselves bombarded, on a daily basis, by campaigns
boasting about their responsible products: from organic yoghurts to environmentallyfriendly shampoo and electric cars, to name but a few.
However, responsibility as a concept has a very specific definition depending on the context.
Jeff Ubois (2009) provides a useful framework that highlights these different perspectives
from different disciplines e.g. law, economics, engineering and design. Each of these
approaches sheds light on questions of responsibility.

In law, responsibility is framed in terms of liability, or proximate cause. A key

question would be, If innovation builds on the work of multiple actors, how is
responsibility shared among them, and who is ultimately responsible when
something goes wrong?
In economics, it is framed as externalization of costs, risks and moral hazard. To the
extent that innovation creates risks, how can they be measured and assigned,
particularly when there is potential for irreversible consequences?
Engineers and medical professionals may operate under codes of ethics or practices
that address responsibility.
Designers have searched for answers with user centred approaches, and argue that
responsibility can rest with the end user.
To other researchers and scientists, responsibility in innovation means avoiding
liability, protecting subjects of research and addressing issues of agency and
unintended consequences.

Adapted from Jeff Ubois (2009)

For the purpose of this document, we will address the meaning of responsibility in an
organisational context, more precisely with regards to innovation. Responsibilitys role in
business has been a subject of long-standing debate, ever since the first appearance of the
term in the 18th century. At the time, it was closely linked to the restructuration of the
schemes of civil responsibility, including the prevention of risks. However, as the notions of
fault and responsibility broke apart, the latter then became a tool for assessing risks more
than a regulative principle of behaviour. This then meant that actions were relieved of
responsibility (Ewald, 1996, p.86). As such, it was accepted from then on that both in the
instant before and after the act of making a decision: responsibility without fault led to the
weakening of responsibility (Engel, 1997, p.86). Before the action takes place, responsibility
without fault would function as an anaesthetic and numb the action, thereby producing a

13

feeling completely opposite to that of responsibility, since there is no questioning of the role
of the people being inquired. Moreover, since the faults which may have existed are not
analysed, this responsibility without fault kills the feeling of responsibility, since the
indemnifying person can openly declare this is not my fault (Engel, 1997, p.80). It becomes
clear that the substance of the subjects responsibility both for himself and for the others
has been lost. It is thus, as suggested by Gorgoni, the judiciary evolution of responsibility
which rocks its very essence (Gorgoni, 2006).
Responsibility has a consistent meaning as long as it is an application chosen by individuals
for individuals. However this meaning weakens as soon as it applies to executive organs
(Ewald, 1996). According to Franois Ewald, what makes us responsible is the fact that we
make decisions when we are responsible for others. This dimension cannot be seized by law
because law thinks responsibility in terms of norms and of breaking of those norms. Yet we
are not completely feeling responsible when we are submitted to norms. The experiment of
responsibility begins with making a decision in which norms had no part (Ewald, 1996,
p.11). This dimension was the one adopted by Pedersen when he underlined the space we
implement in responsibility between the do no harm and the do good (Pedersen, 2010).
The question of submission to norms thus differs from doing good; the latter is defined as
going positively beyond norms.
2.2.1 The Linguistic Term Responsibility
The term responsible innovation is no longer keeping pace with its meaning, too unclear
and trivialised. As well as having a passive and defensive coloration, it does not allow to
point out the particularities of its object precisely enough; it thus remaining of little use. The
issue which arises at this stage of our reasoning is the possible impact of lexical variety on
the difference of understanding. In fact, there are three English words that are associated
with the idea of responsibility: accountable, liable and responsible. The first one has an
accounting etymology; it expresses the duty to account for ones action, to tell about it if
asked. The second one has a legal etymology; it expresses the notion of a debt related to
ones actions and its consequences: if ones actions are damageable to someone or have
some negative outcomes, it is ones duty to compensate this. Last but not least, the word
responsibility comes from responder (to take the oath) and refers to authority, duty and
moral commitment. Responsible is much more used when talking about feeling
responsible, to express the being in charge of something. English people thus use an
expression which does not really take into account the dimension of accounting for which
yet best describes responsible innovation.
On the contrary, in French, the three dimensions above-mentioned are all implied by the
word responsable which makes the concept of innovation-responsable much richer but
also more vague than in English. Thus responsabilit indeed involves the notion of
accounting for ones action, but when used with innovation, it has an understood meaning

14

much nearer to the meaning of being in charge. In Dutch, the concept of responsibility
follows closely the meaning of accountable, liable and responsible accountable. These
differences and ambiguities of what responsibility means in various languages may lead to
misinterpretations when it is discussed among people of different nationalities and
languages. The words used are the same but may not fully reflect the vital dimensions of the
concept. Table 2 tries to bring together the various meanings of the word responsibility
among the languages of partners within the KARIM project.
Table 2. The Meaning of Responsibility in Various Languages
ENGLISH
Accountable He is in turn
directly
accountable to
the council for
the actions of
the officers.
You are liable
Liable
for the damage
caused by your
action.
are
Responsible They
responsible for
the
administration
of the council
tax.

FRENCH

DUTCH

Responsable,
redevable:
Who has to
give account
of and answer
for
ones
actions
or
those
of
people under
ones
authority.
Thoughtful,
serious, that
knows how to
balance pros
and cons.

Aansprakelijk:
Legal
responsibility,
who is responsible
for the damage.

GERMAN
Rechenschaftspflichtig:
Same definition as for
English.

Toerekenbaar:
Haftung:
you are liable for Same definition as for
the damage.
English.
Verantwoordelijk: Verantwortungsvoll:
responsibility, The Same definition as for
duty one has to English.
explain
his/her
actions.

2.2.2. Responsibility of Organisations

The discussion about the responsibility of organisations in society has a long history. It is
difficult to trace back who started the discussion, but in a noteworthy search, Archie Caroll
(1999) found evidence of publications dating back to the 1930s and 1940s, e.g. Chester
Barnards (1938) The Functions of the Executive, J. M. Clarks (1939) Social Control of
Business, and Theodore Kreps (1940) Measurement of the Social Performance of Business.
Since then, various authors have discussed the role of organisations in society and popular
management magaines such as Fortune committed an article to the subject in 1946 (Caroll,
1994). The contributions of various authors led to the conceptualisation of the social and
economic involvement of companies in 1970 (Wallich & McGowan, 1970). The basic
argument was that social responsibility is consistent with stakeholder's interests. This
perspective was followed by Caroll (1979) who provided the earliest widely recognised
theoretical conceptualisation, in a form of a three-dimensional structure combining business
responsibility, social issues, and corporate social responsiveness under one single model, the

15

CSP (Corporate Social Performance) (Carroll, 1979). The aim was to delineate and integrate
several conceptual threads, offering a framework by which a companys strategic reaction to
a social concern can be identified and evaluated (Figure 4). The model describes three
orientations: a philosophical, institutional and organisational orientation. Philosophical
orientation is based on principles of responsibility and has a normative direction on how
actors and agents should behave. The institutional orientation tries to discuss responsibility
in terms of how institutions can respond or provide incentives for new conditions in society.
The organisational orientation emphasises the policies to recognise and analyse
responsibility issues in order to minimise adverse effects.

16

Figure 4. The Corporate Social Performance Model (Caroll, 1979)

This model fuelled the debate on the role of organisations in a broader context. It was in the
interest of the corporate organisation and its shareholders to consider a wider scope of
stakeholders. Stakeholders could be determined in terms of those with economic interests,
such as the shareholders, employees, customers etc., but also stakeholders that were
affected in an indirect way by the operations of the organisations and the products and
services it brings to the market. The stakeholders in society and the preservation of
environmental resources and species were addressed as well. These discussions led to the
inclusion of sustainable and societal development.
As was discussed earlier, an organisations innovation process is composed of a complex set
of internal and external parameters, shaping its operating environment as well as inevitably
impacting its innovation. External parameters, which range from the consumers with their
needs by which they fuel the innovation; the market itself, where various innovators already

attempt to satisfy consumer needs; the partners, which make up the innovation ecosystem
and the environmental pressure, driven by shareholders, consumers, rules and regulations,
may also all question the organisations responsibility.

17

Figure 5. Analytic Prism of Dynamic Innovation for Creating Value (Pavie 2012)

2.2.3. Brundtlands Theory Regarding Sustainable Development

In 1987, Gro Harlem Brundtland, president of the World Commission on Environment and
Development at the time, presented her research outlining the required politics for
achieving sustainable development. These are now widely recognised and adopted by
organisations. The report defines the concept as follows:
Sustainable development is a development which satisfies the present needs without
compromising the ability of future generations to satisfy their own (Brundtland, 1987)
In her report Our Common Future (1987), Brundtland suggested that sustainable
development is made up of three pillars that are aimed at (1) satisfying the basic and
essential needs of people, in particular those of the poorest people in the world, (2) the
importance of economic growth to facilitate satisfying the needs and (3) the preservation of
natural diversity in our environment. The three main pillars of sustainable development
(social equality, economic growth and environmental protection) are presented in Figure 5.

Over the last decades, organisations have recognised the value of integrating socially
responsible practices in their strategic decisions and business models. Stakeholders are
increasingly more active in monitoring the companys operations and can influence the way
the company conducts its operations and eventually the progression of its goals (Donaldson
& Preston, 1995). This stakeholder involvement may introduce organisational corrections
and pressure which may be perceived as an organisational threat, however an effective
responsible innovation approach can guarantee improved performance in the long-run.

18

Figure 6. Three Principles of the Brundtland Report (Brundtland, 1987)

2.3 Responsible Innovation

The social, economic and environmental landscapes facing Brundtland at the time she
introduced the three principles for achieving sustainability differed widely from the ones we
face today. A series of factors, including political changes which transformed nations,
innovations which redefined social norms and limitless scientific progress to name but a few,
have contributed to the full re-shaping of markets and society as a whole. Brundtlands
theory naturally remains the basis for achieving sustainable development. However, in the
highly competitive modern day climate, where the innovative capability of a firm and its
integration of responsibility into its operations and innovations are fast becoming the
determining factor for its survival, new issues need to be addressed. We will therefore
analyse Brundtlands pillars of sustainable development in light of new current issues facing

society. This link will allow us to integrate a single all-encompassing concept into a firms
responsible innovation strategy.

2.3.1. Social Pillar

Brundtlands pillar concerning the society and the need to nurture the community and
satisfy all needs in terms of health, education, living conditions, employment and the
prevention of exclusion faces new, previously unforeseen issues in the current context.
Indeed, scientific research has made such progress that ways to satisfy individuals needs
which, in their own opinion, will contribute to improving their living conditions are limitless.
In the case of the baby girl who suffered from a rare genetic disease, should the parents
decision to have another baby a designer-baby created through IVF treatment, to ensure
that his cells would be compatible and able to cure his sisters disease have been granted?
Is it right to create and design a life in such a way as to save or improve another? (Pavie,
2012) It can be argued, that in this case, the familys need for improvement of their living
conditions was met, but where should the limit be set?
An individual will always have an insatiable desire to satisfy his or her every need. However,
pursuing that type of strategy would be wholly outside the concept of responsibility for an
organisation as the consumer is a continually dissatisfied being by nature. For this reason,
the focus should remain on creating wealth and improving living conditions but within the
sustainable parameter of responsibility.
2.3.2. Economic Pillar
Brundtlands economic pillar relates to the need to create wealth and improve material life
conditions. In this ever-increasingly consumption-driven economy, new needs are defined on
a daily basis as companies battle to win over new consumers, keep exceeding the
expectations of their existing ones. The battle for market share has never been so intense.
This was clearly illustrated by the financial crisis of 2008. Financial institutions stood under
increasing pressure to meet and even create new material needs for their consumers and
therefore launched a series of financial innovations, without taking into account the risks
presented by such products and services. Financial markets all over the world are still
bearing the consequences of the infamous upheaval that ensued. This necessity to question
the need to satisfy all consumer wants is intimately linked to the need to consider the
potential direct and indirect impacts of an innovation, should the initial consumer need be
met (Pavie, 2012). If satisfying a particular consumer need should have negative direct or
indirect impacts on various actors, the innovator should question whether to satisfy that
need.

2.3.3. Environmental Pillar

This pillar speaks for itself as it concerns the preservation of the diversity of species, energy
and natural resources and the environment in general. This point is very controversial in the

19

case of so-called green vehicles, eco-friendly light bulbs or solar panels for instance. Indeed,
these innovations, whose goal is to preserve the environment through a lower usage impact,
are actually more environmentally harmful in terms of their manufacturing process than
normal products. In fact, scientific research suggests that both the extraction and use of
rare earth minerals and toxic compounds in the production process have devastating
consequences on the environment and pose a serious health risk to workers and people
living nearby. In the case of solar panels for instance, a thorough analysis of the life cycle
conducted by a group of scientists showed that this particular innovation is the cause of the
same pollution in both the short and long term, which engaged citizens are fighting.
The Axes of Responsible Innovation
While Brundtlands theory naturally remains the basis for achieving sustainable
development, the evolution of DNA structures, the increasing presence of the Internet in our
everyday lives and the progress made in terms of manipulating nanotechnologies, are only a
few of the ongoing developments which could not have been foreseen in 1987. We are
indeed operating in an unrecognisable socio-economic and political context where new
issues need to be addressed and new questions need to be answered.
The Brundtland report was suited to the society at the time it was issued, however, it does
not include a specification of the final objectives of innovations nor does it take into account
the strategic aspects and consequences of the latter (Pavie, 2012). Both factors are critical
and can no longer be overlooked in the modern day climate. For instance, a social
networking site may fully respect the confidentiality and security of its users data and
actively support the insertion of all individuals in the workplace; but what happens when it
becomes a platform for human trafficking?
Our ability to develop new products, applications, concepts and services is being less and
less limited by the limits of human intelligence; the latter is constantly breaking down
scientific and technological barriers. The issue therefore no longer lies in our ability to
develop something, but rather in our responsibility to develop it or not, having considered
potential impacts. Moreover, as mentioned earlier, the uncertain nature of innovation is
such that Brundtlands theory is no longer keeping up with the development of innovations.
Thus, the latter needs to be assessed from an additional angle: responsibility.
Three axes contribute to the translation of the responsible innovation theory into an
organisational context (Bensaude-Vincent, 2009). These represent the immutable principles
of responsible innovation and reflect the critical role of the innovator and all parties involved
in the development of the innovation.
Axis 1: Question the solutions to develop in response to individual needs.

20

Should we always answer every single consumer need? In other words, the innovator should
question the solutions to develop in response to individual needs. The discovery of an unmet
consumer need does not automatically justify the reason for developing a solution to meet
it. The market is saturated with products to suit every single consumers wish. This is partly
illustrated by the succession of twenty generations of iPods launched by Apple in less than
ten years. There is, of course, a need for the dematerialisation of music, but does that
necessarily mean that the market should be flooded with so many different versions of what
essentially is the same product concept and within such a short space of time?
Axis 2: Monitor and manage the direct impacts of innovation.
Are we, as innovators, conscious of our inability to anticipate the entire consequences of our
innovations on our clients? In other words, what are the direct impacts of our innovations? If
we take a look at the issues which have gradually surfaced and hit the headlines throughout
its searing development, this issue appears to be particularly relevant for Facebook. The
limits of this innovation (currently representing a database of over one billion subscribers),
were already pointed out by critics at the launch, including among others, the possible use of
data for commercial purposes and the risk of intrusion into individuals privacy due to the
nature of questions asked and displayed on public profiles. A responsible behaviour would
involve protecting oneself against uncertainties. What would thus be the risks of a private
companys ownership of such a powerful database? By subscribing to Facebook, private
users are exposed to risks which are hardly measurable, since we simply cannot know the
exact consequences linked to a possible identity theft and exploitation, for instance.
However, not knowing does not justify ignoring such a situation. Hence, the idea is to create
a set of hypotheses representing possible risks.
Axis 3: Consider the indirect consequences of innovation.
The consequences of an innovation launched in a particular sector can have knock-on effects
in other sectors. This factor is rarely taken into account within innovation projects as it
requires a certain ability to look beyond the environment directly surrounding the
innovation. As innovators, are we able to consider the consequences of our innovations on
individual citizens lifestyles, who may not in fact be the direct users of our product? The
launch of a new, faster, more powerful aircraft which generates more noise should not
solely take into account the consequences on customers and on-board/on-ground staff. This
noise nuisance will also impact local residents and the entire ecosystem surrounding the
airport. The same applies to vehicles fitted with an air-conditioning system, which will
individually consume on average 15% more than a non-fitted vehicle. The CO emissions will
not only impact the driver, but also the individual who may be cycling alongside the vehicle.
The three axes of responsible innovation are essential in the understanding and the
integration of a strategy across the organisation. They must however remain linked to the
ultimate objective of a firm to create value.

21

Figure 7. Innovation, Responsibility and Society:

The Axes of Responsible Innovation (Pavie, 2011)

2.4. An Evaluation of Responsible Innovation

According to Brundtlands pillars, one could argue whether responsibility is reached if one
pillar of Brundtland is increased in value, or if two pillars of Brundtland are increasing in
value at the expense of the third pillar. This opens the questions whether we can attach
levels of responsible innovation to the product dimension.
The first level is that of negative responsible innovation where existing products are added
with small improvements (e.g. services, processes, organizations, business models,
management practices). These improvements do not significantly change the way the
product solve problems or the way in which they are used. The characteristic of the nil-level
RI is, for example, that it provides economic value at the expense of social or environmental
value.
The second level is about neutral or little responsible innovation. Here one of the values is
increased without diminishing the other two. It can be written as following:
- Social value increases while economic and environmental value remain equal;
- Environmental value increases while economic and social value remain equal;
- Economic value increases while social and environmental value remain equal.
In the latter some might argue that it has little to do with sustainability, however, if
economic welfare increases social welfare and solves poverty, it follows the values of
Brundtlands pillars.

22

The third level is about positive responsible innovation, where two or more values are
increased. A clear example here is that of security cameras in public spaces, the interplay
between privacy versus security, see Figure 8. Similar interrelations can also be found in
sustainability versus economy, etc.

Security

Privacy
Figure 8. Interplay Between Security and Privacy (Van den Hoven et al., 2012)
23
Line A is such that if security increases the level of privacy is decreasing, while if we try to
have higher levels of privacy, the security goes down. In such as a case, the innovator is
struggling with the problem that he may increase the level of security at the expense of
privacy, or vice versa, he can increase the privacy of people but it will be detrimental for the
security. This poses the problem of moral overload to the innovator (van den Hoven et al.,
2012). Overcoming the problem of moral overload requires innovating in the direction of
arrow X. For instance smart security cameras that activate only when certain criteria are
violated such as a specific sound or strange behaviour might be solution to maintain both
security and privacy at high levels. These types of innovations can be considered responsible
innovations at the product dimension, and the problem of moral overload becomes a source
for responsible innovation where technology is providing the opportunity to solve the
problem. In general we would argue that the third level of responsible innovation is reached
if:
- Increase of economic and social value with environmental value remaining equal
- Increase of economic and environmental value with social value remaining equal
- Increase of social and environmental value with economic value remaining equal
- Increase of all values simultaneously.
Balancing the social, economic and environmental values is highly multifaceted, inherently
global and grand in scope and scale. The multifaceted characteristic of these issues increases

the complexity and interdependencies and, as a result, it is often difficult or impossible to

solve certain issues because of incomplete, contradictory, and changing requirements. Due
to the changing requirements the likelihood of success and impact of a solution to solve a
specific challenge becomes highly uncertain and projections are difficult to make due to
unforeseen side effects. The term wicked is introduced in 1973 by Rittel and Weber to
address problems where the effort to solve one aspect of a wicked problem may reveal or
create other problems (Rittel and Weber, 1973). For the innovator this may lead to moral
dilemmas, because solving one problem may lead to another problem. For policy-makers
this means that the problems are often impossible to solve through single policies, rational
planning approaches or through single state agencies.
Interesting conceptual discussions are for instance the case where one of the values is
decreased while the other values are increased and the total of the three new values is more
than before, in other words:
(VEcon.t=1 +VSocialt=1 +VEnvironmentt=1) > (VEcon.t=0 +VSocialt=0 +VEnvironmentt=0)
Where Value-Econ.t=1 < Value-Econ.t=0; or
Value-Socialt=1 < Value-Socialt=0; or
Value-Environmentt=1 < Value-Environmentt=0;

2.4.1 Responsible Innovation: A Product and Process Dimension

In defining an issue as complex as RI it is useful to return to basic terminology. Central is the
concept of innovation as some form of novelty that leads to value creation within the
market. Similarly if we continue the discussion on responsibility we can conclude that
responsibility is aimed at balancing the triple bottom line of economic, social and
environmental value. However, since innovation is a process and comes with management
practices, various discussions have emerged and argue that responsible innovation has a
product dimensions which is reflected in the outcome of the innovation process and a
process dimension, which is about the posture and philosophy one has when conducting the
innovation process, see Table 3 (von Schomberg, 2010).
The product dimension deals with the outcome of the innovation itself. This product can be
either a feasible product or a service or a new business model, see the dimensions of
innovation. Various scholars have attached requirements that innovations should meet
before they can be considered responsible. First, the requirement is as in the definition of
innovation that it should be market ready and economically feasible to bring the product to
the market. But in addition to that, the innovation should be ethically acceptable, it should
be environmentally sustainable and socially desirable. These requirements follow the values
along the three pillars of Brundtland (1987).

24

The process dimension is addressing the governance of innovation. While conducting the
activities in the innovation process, the process can be considered responsible if it includes
the deployment of certain codes, standards, certification and accreditation, if the eventual
contribution of the innovation is aimed at the overall good including ethical issues and holds
moral and legal responsibility. In this dimension, the responsible innovation is associated
with various conceptual aspects of responsibility, such as moral, legal and role responsibility
which are principle concerns of ethics. In order to make these conceptualisations more
tangible, various researchers have addressed management practices to the innovation
process and if these are included, the innovation process is considered to be more
responsible and so its outcome will be according the Brundtland framework.
Table 3. Product and Process Dimensions of Responsible Innovation (von Schomberg, 2010)
PRODUCT DIMENSION

PROCESS DIMENSION

o
o
o
o
o

o Deployment of codes Accountability:

standards, certification, accreditation
o Ethics as a design factor
o Innovation is not seen as an aim in itself
but a contributing factor to the overall
good.
o Moral responsibility and legal responsibility

Market and economically viable

Ethically acceptable
Sustainable
Socially desirable
Environmental

The management practices should include elements of anticipatory, inclusive, responsive

and reflective (Stilgoe, 2012). Stakeholder engagement is one management practice to be
inclusive and anticipatory. It is a process by which an organisation involves people who may
be affected by the decisions it makes during the innovation process. These people can
support or oppose the decisions, be influential in the organisation or within the community
in which the company operates. As a result they may affect the success of an innovation in
the long term. The importance of engaging stakeholders is crucial, particularly when solving
multiple dilemmas.
A solution to increase the value of one pillar might have consequences, which are difficult to
foresee, in another pillar of the Brundtland framework. This is mainly due to the bounded
rationality of individuals (Simon, 1957). The argument is that individuals are only partly
rational in the decisions they make and in most of their decisions they are emotional and
even irrational. Individuals have limitations to formulating the problem, solve complex
models and processing (receiving, storing, retrieving, transforming) information. Individuals
tend to follow heuristics when searching for a solution. The heuristics is that they tend to
rely on experience-based techniques for problem solving, learning, and discovery. Following
a more rigorous and rational approach to solve the problem in order to find the optimal
solution requires the inclusion of various viewpoints and the analysis and comparison of all

25

possible solutions. However, individuals are limited in their time and financial resources
which puts pressure on their ability to process and compute the expected utility of every
alternative action, in particular in more complex situations. As a result individuals are
bounded rational and look for satisfying answers, which means that they deliberate only
long enough to come up with good enough course of actions. In various literature this is
discussed as neighbourhood or local search among the solutions close to the experience and
capabilities an organisation has. Incremental search is also related to this, because by taking
small steps the actions and consequences can be overseen and one can adapt to the new
knowledge.
The inclusion of stakeholders can prevent the company from following a certain path to find
a solution to a problem which may bring out other problems once introduced in the market.
A flexible approach to the innovation process is required to change its path of search for a
solution once stakeholders inform on potential problems in the future. Various
methodologies have been developed to help the company in this respect. Technology
assessment is often used to identify the effect certain new technologies have on society. The
main premise is that new technological developments affect the world at large rather than
just the customers being targeted, and as a result technological progress can never be free
of ethical implications. Although traditional Technology Assessment is at the level of society
and tries to identify the repercussions on society of a specific technology, recent
advancements such as Constructive Technology Assessment attempts to broaden the design
of new technology by including feedback of TA activities into the actual construction of
technology. Contrary to other forms of TA, CTA is not directed toward influencing regulatory
practices by assessing the impacts of technology. Instead, CTA wants to address social issues
around technology by influencing design practices (Schot and Rip, 1997). Also foresight
studies and future studies are methods to forecast the kinds of futures that will be the result
of new technologies and which technologies are needed in future. They help building the
scenarios, an early warning system (EWS), to determine which scenario is (or will be) the
dominant one and in which direction society might be moving (Botterhuis et al., 2010).
Solving the societys grand challenges and escaping moral dilemmas requires an approach
which is associated with thinking outside the box and including stakeholders to signal the
repercussions of an innovation in terms of social, ethical and environmentally desirable for
various people early on during the innovation process. Similarly it is important to remain
flexible throughout the innovation process in order to change the direction by which the
company tries to find a solution. Future studies and constructive technology assessment
which act as early warning systems can help companies to be responsive and anticipatory
during its innovation process and reflect on the technologies and applications they are about
to bring to the market. In this way, innovation management is inclusive in terms of
considering relevant stakeholders, anticipatory that it holds an eye watching on technical
and societal developments and responsive to change its direction of technology and product

26

development. Consequently we can consider that the company adopts a responsible posture
towards its innovation process.
The issues addressed by responsible innovation are especially relevant in the development
of future and emerging technologies. Indeed, the precise outcomes of these new products
and concepts are by definition wholly unknown. Moreover, customer feedback and
stakeholder involvement in the evaluation of potential risk factors is often minimal since
these new technologies have not yet been applied. This adds to the difficulty to predict the
consequences of these innovations and highlights the need to monitor impacts once the new
product has been launched. We will discuss this monitoring process in Chapter 3.
In the discussions on what responsible innovation is, there is common agreement that it is
mainly of concern when future and emerging technologies are being developed. For these
technologies the outcomes of the innovation process in terms of effect on the Three Pillars
of Brundtland are more unclear compared to existing technologies. Also because future and
emerging technologies have not been applied yet, customer feedback and stakeholder
involvement is often minimal, which makes it very difficult to predict how they will respond
on how the innovation impacts the Three Pillars. Hence, for the innovator it will be more
challenging to identify whether the technology will be considered responsible.
Following these discussions on responsible innovation we define2 the concept as:
Responsible innovation is an iterative process throughout which the projects impacts on
social, economic and environmental factors are, where possible, measured and otherwise
taken into account at each step of development of the project, thereby guaranteeing
control over, or at least awareness of, the innovations impacts throughout the entire
lifecycle. In the case of impacts which are not accurately measurable prior to the launch
but are considered to potentially become critical risk factors once the project is on the
market, a number of hypotheses should be formulated in order to be tested post-launch to
determine whether the product should be re-integrated into a previous step of the process
for amendment aiming to minimize negative impacts.
Pavie, X. and Carthy, D. (2013). Responsible-Innovation in Practice: How to Implement
Responsibility Acrosss an Organization, Cahier Innovation & Society.

2.4.2 Success of Responsible Innovation

Success of responsible innovation can be discussed in various ways. The first condition flows
from the general notion of innovation success. Thus, a successful responsible innovation is
first and foremost characterized by a successful market introduction, leading to the creation
2

In the Appendix 1 we have an overview of various definitions that are currently debated in literature and
conferences.

27

of value for the organization. Indeed, the main objective of a responsible innovation is to be
economically sustainable and to contribute positively to organizational performance, while
integrating in parallel the three axes of responsible innovation all along the innovation
process. This should also take place within an organization aiming to be responsible, through
the five stage process introduced earlier. A responsible innovation needs to ultimately add
value, once the organization has considered whether or not to answer to a particular
consumer need and is actively monitoring direct and indirect impacts related to the new
product or service. It becomes clear at this stage that the success of a responsible innovation
whose final objective is neither specifically social nor environmental, but rather consists in
providing added value while taking potential impacts into consideration cannot be
measured in terms of providing a set positive or negative answer. Rather, the
implementation of a responsible innovation strategy and process ensures that the
organizations performance objectives are fully accounted for through the innovation
process, while impacts are monitored and needed alterations are actively worked on in
order to minimize or eliminate the negative impacts on the society and ecosystem. The
success of a responsible innovation may therefore be measured in terms of its degree of
responsibility, once it has followed the required development process and attracted enough
customers to be profitable.
For instance, the General Motors (GM) EV-1, the worlds first mass-produced and purposedesigned electric vehicle, was taken from the market despite positive customer reaction to it.
According to GM, electric cars occupied an unprofitable niche of the automobile market, and
the manufacturer decided to take in return all automobiles and crush them regardless of
protesting customers. Had the EV-1 been profitable for GM, it could have been believed that
the EV-1 would be a successful responsible innovation, in terms of providing social and
economic value from the customers perspective. However, since the EV-1s first objective
was to provide a means of transport which aimed specifically at reducing its environmental
impact, the question should concern the impact of its production process. In this case, the
latter is subject to controversial debate due to the extracting and use of rare earth minerals.
Indeed, the launch of such green products, whose development process does not seem to
be taken into account with regards to its impact often results in green-washing.
A recent research in Denmark (Kramer et al., 2005) found that with regards to Corporate
Social Responsibility in general, many companies still cannot measure or track the costs and
benefitsor the competitive value associated with their CSR activities. The main concern
lies in the fact that these activities lacked the measurable economic rationale to indicate the
benefits of CSR initiatives. However, indicators of employee retention, job performance, use
of raw materials and energy use are considered to be all direct and inherent components of
SME cost structures and if CSR practices affect these, they can be linked directly to
competitiveness and productivity. Similarly for Responsible Innovation the effect of the
innovation outcome, the product or service, can be measured in terms of impact on each of
the three pillars, however it remains difficult to make statements in terms of success

28

regarding the time dimension (prospective versus retrospective). If we consider the case of
products composed of asbestos, we can see the clear need for the creation of hypotheses by
the company engaging in responsible innovation. At the time it was launched, innovators
could not have foreseen the exact impacts its product would have, in fact it was initially
praised for its sound absorption, its resistance to fire, heat, electrical and chemical damage,
and cost-efficiency, which made it compatible with Brundtlands three dimensions. However,
when the toxicity of the mineral was uncovered, manufacturers had not been prepared for
such a scenario, which had disastrous consequences. If organisations which were using
asbestos as part of their production processes had put in place a set of hypothesis to test for
toxicity of minerals used, it could have better prepared for the damage that followed (see
Asbestos Revisited by Alleman et al., 1997). This example shows that the creation of
hypotheses can assist companies in dealing with the temporal characteristic of innovation.

2.4.3 Key Challenges Associated with Responsible Innovation

The success of responsible innovation is to some extent subject to the temporal perceptions
people have about the repercussions an innovation has regarding the economic, social and
environmental values of the Brundtland framework. This therefore might vary throughout
the innovation development process, once the innovation is launched as well as long after its
introduction.
The innovation funnel, Figure 9, illustrates how opportunities, innovation ideas, technologies
and products emerge over time and interact with innovation teams inside the company and
with trends, ideas, technologies and product from innovation networks, partners and
alliances with which the company collaborates. In essence, the funnel begins (t=0) with
various opportunities and thoughts where many decisions have to be made. Here the main
discipline is sketching and at later stages to the end of the funnel, a more refined design can
be tested by building prototypes to test the usability of the ideas which was decided upon in
earlier stages. The further we get into the world of prototyping, the more time and
resources we have invested in the process, and the more focused our design becomes; this is
represented by the funnel in our illustration. Thus as the decisions are made and time
progresses the purpose and the characteristics of an innovation become clearer. The
innovation follows a certain path and with every decision made, the degrees of freedom
generally diminish. The funnel also shows that there is a significant time lag between the
opportunity and the eventual application of that invention in products and services. This
time lag and the decrease of degrees of freedom available in the decision making process is
the source to what von Collingridge (1980) refers to as the Collingridge dilemma, This
dilemma says that ethical problems can be easily addressed early on during the disciplines of
sketching and prototyping whereas in this initial stage the technological trajectory and how
it will be perceived by larger stakeholders groups once exploited in the market is difficult to
predict. At the same time once the social and ethical consequences become more clear at

29

later stages or after market introduction, the development of the technology is often far
advanced and its trajectory is difficult to change.

Trends, ideas, technologies and products from innovation networks, partners, alliances etc.
Outside the company
Inside the company

Opportunities

Ideas

Technologies

Products

Brainstorming, prior knowledge, experience within the company innovation teams

t=0

Figure 9. Innovation Funnel (Phillips, 2011)

2.4.5 Responsible Innovation and Corporate Social Responsibility

Although responsible innovation has its origin within the Corporate Social Responsibility
(CSR) thinking, the two concepts ultimately have differing objectives. We will briefly examine
the development of the CSR concept in order to highlight these differences more clearly.
Having originated in the United States partly due to the important presence of religion and
more precisely Protestantism in American society and its strong contribution to capitalism
the rise of CSR followed previous initiatives such as socially responsible investing (SRI). In
1953, the American economist Howard Bowen is the first one to suggest that organisations,
beyond their economic and financial responsibility towards their owners, might be subject to
a social responsibility on the basis of two principles: social and moral (Igalens and Benraiss,
2005). The social contract is linked to the idea that the organisations existence depends on
societys willingness to let it co-exist; its methods and ways of operating must therefore
respect the laws formulated by society. The moral contract has to do with the organisations
influence and decision power, which must be in line with the values of society. According to
Bowen, the businessman has more power than the average citizen and must therefore be
fully aware of the impacts of his actions on society. Social responsibility must therefore be
considered as a tool for steering the organisation towards achieving the goals which civil
society has set.
The evolution of CSR and its gradual separation from religion can be observed in Table 4.

30

Table 4. Conceptual Evolution of Corporate Social Responsibility according to Frederick

(Table reconstructed according to Frederick (1978, 1986 and 1998)).
CONCEPT
CSR 1: Social Responsibility
of Companies

TIME
PERIOD
1950-1960

CSR 2: Social Receptiveness

of Companies

1970-1980

CSR 3: Social Rectitude of

Companies

1980-2000

CSR
4:
Cosmos/Science/Religion

Beyond 2000

DESCRIPTION OF CONCEPT AND

UNDERLYING PROGRAMME
-Identification of a series of moral
obligations which companies ought to
adhere to.
-Relative difficulties due to the lack of a
structured normative platform on which to
base these moral obligations.
-Focus on companies instruments and
response processes with regards to
demands arising from the surrounding
environment.
-These methods, by rejecting any
normative dimension from the analysis,
effectively tend to ignore evidence and
legitimise corporate practices with no
critical distance.
-Reintegration of normative dimension into
the analysis.
-Development of a theoretical foundation
(Christian and Judeo-Christian philosophy,
Marxism, humanism, etc.).
-Separation between the concept of
corporate
social
performance
and
corporate moral crisis.
-Displacement of the notion of social
responsibility from one centered on the
business
world
to
one
where
corporate/society interaction has a
universalistic
normative
perspective
focused on humanity (from corporate to
cosmos; social sciences to all sciences and
responsibility towards religion).
-Religion (understood here as a search for
meaning) becomes the fundamental
principle of any analysis of the relationship
between companies and societies.

31

The following evolution is therefore depicted:

CSR 1: identified issues are related to the idea that the interaction between business and
society is in need of adjustments. The notion of accountability is introduced.
CSR 2: environmental issues are addressed for the first time.
CSR 3: stakeholders are considered for the first time: the individual, the company, society,
the environment, stockholders, workers, etc.
CSR 4: CSR becomes the acronym for Cosmos, Science and Religion. This is representative of
a shift beyond the limited corporate circle to take into account the global mechanisms of
humanity in a very wide sense, including genetic processes, astrophysics, biochemistry, etc.
The Cosmos becomes the reference point when dealing with questions of cloning, GMOs,
DNA manipulation, etc.
As such, CSR can be summarised as a practice which involves incorporating social
characteristics or features into products and manufacturing processes, adopting progressive
human resource management practices, achieving higher levels of environmental
performance through recycling and pollution abatement, and advancing the goals of
community organizations (Williams et al., 2006:1).
Responsible innovation, on the other hand, aims at reconciling the organisations need to
monitor its impacts on social, economic and environmental factors with its performance
imperative. Indeed, responsible innovation translates into a strategy centered on creating
value through innovation, while ensuring impacts are monitored through an integrated
process over the entire lifecycle. Innovation projects in a responsible organisation therefore
begin like any classic innovation project, where the point is not to stifle creativity by focusing
solely on impacts and addressing societal challenges.
Rather, that very creativity needs to be unleashed at the very beginning of the process, in
the ideation phase, in order to ensure that new ideas are flowing freely. In parallel,
responsible innovation also starts at the very beginning of the innovation process, including
and dealing with potential risks that may arise following the launch of the innovation and
thereby prevent these from having repercussions on organizational performance. Then, as
potential impacts are detected, the working groups creativity should be articulated around
shaping the new product or service in such a way as to minimise these negative impacts.
Since all impacts cannot be clearly avoided nor evaluated, the hypotheses related to risk
factors will be tested post-launch to accurately determine whether the new product or
service should be removed from the market and re-integrated into the development process
to be amended. Stakeholders active involvement therefore lies at the centre of a
responsible innovation strategy and process. In fact, they form an integral part of the
innovation process, to ensure that the resulting product or service will be at the service of all
members of societies and not the other way around.
To illustrate the difference between responsible innovation and Corporate Social
Responsibility we present the case of the Rotterdam Harbour in Box 3.

32

Box 3. Example of the Harbour Enlargement at Rotterdam Harbour

The Rotterdam Harbour is among the busiest harbours in the world and located near a
dense population. Over the last decades the government and private investors have
joined forces to increase the harbour size in the direction of open sea. Sand and other
material will be used to build a harbour and change the coastline. It will allow more and
larger vessels to enter the port and most of these vessels use heavy fuel oil. Consequently,
the larger harbour will put more pressure on the local communities and environment. A
common strategy is to compensate the local communities surrounding the harbour with
good infrastructure or a new shopping mall to make living nearby more attractive.
Although the compensation strategy is socially responsible, the innovation would be
responsible if the existing harbour could accommodate larger ships, have shorter turnover
time for handling ships and therefore did not require additional soil with all repercussion
in social and environmental terms. Similarly, the ships entering the port are still using their
main engines which burn heavy fuel and pollute the air close to where people. Even when
they switch off their main engine, they need electricity to run amenities such as heating,
ventilation, cooling and galley equipment. Currently the electricity is produced with
onboard diesel generators, which are a constant source of noise, vibrations, noxious
emissions and the accompanying unpleasant smell. Therefore, the Rotterdam Harbour
requires (Article 4.7) each ship turning off its engines and auxiliary equipment. The
Rotterdam Harbour has provided together with ABB shore-to-ship power solution helps to
reduce emissions by 98% and cut noise and vibrations in ports substantially by connecting
ships to the ports electricity grid via shore-to-ship power connection. Although the local
air will be better to breath, it can be argued to what extend the solution is responsible or
is more a temporal solution.

33

3. An Integration of Responsible Innovation

3.1. Responsible Innovation within SMEs
A key role for the KARIM network is boosting SME competitiveness through transnational
collaboration and drawing on the principles of responsible innovation. The main assumption
is that adopting a responsible innovation strategy and process will sharpen their competitive
edge.
As mentioned earlier, a responsible innovation strategy can be applied to any sector. While it
is understood that the energy efficiency, storage and infrastructure sectors have accrued
significant amounts of venture capital investment in recent years, sectors such as bio-based
products, sustainable chemistry, eco-system services and agriculture provide further
opportunities for entrepreneurs wishing to start businesses in promising markets. Proactive
companies focussed on long term competitiveness will emphasise the importance of using
environmental and social performance as a means to increase product quality or to focus on
high-end market niches (e.g. in the organic food sector). Another approach is to use higher
standards to drive innovation for the purpose of creating a better position in a technologydriven competitive landscape (e.g. renewable energies).
It is clear that the opportunities to create or preserve the most value and the impact of
being responsible on short-term costs will vary greatly among industries and sectors. For
example, a mining company could significantly reduce its short-term costs through
developing innovations that reduce energy and water usage. A clothing retail company could
improve resource efficiency through value chain innovations because their biggest impact
will be in the raw material and use stages of clothing. An energy company may have greater
opportunities to gain value from new products such as through the development and
investment in smart grids.
While many of these business considerations are general across all companies it is important
to address the opportunities from an SME perspective. SMEs are considered one of the
driving forces of modern economies due to their multifaceted contributions in terms of
employment, technological innovations and export promotion. While SMEs have great
potential, it is well understood that addressing RI and corporate social responsibility related
matters may not be systematically driving their agendas. However, while regulations about
sustainability may seem daunting and restrictive to the entrepreneurial spirit from an
outsiders perspective, responsible innovation specifically focuses on nurturing innovation
abilities while ensuring the organisation is aware of its responsibility in terms of impacts.
The grand challenges provide significant opportunities such as alternative products and
services, new business models and ways of working and more efficient approaches to
resource exploitation and energy consumption (Nidumolu et al., 2009). New emerging

34

technologies may be able to provide substance to pursue the opportunities and solve the
concerns of sustainability. However a more radical approach to innovation is required and
existing paradigms need to be overcome. Innovators that search for a solution in landscapes
more distant from existing ones may also face two other major challenges. One is that of
unforeseen developments and, the other, if recognised it may pose moral dilemmas with
regards to the implications of the innovation for the sustainable impacts. The problem of
unforeseen developments is known as the Collingridge dilemma (Collingridge, 1980).
According to the Collingridge dilemma, ethical, social or environmental problems can be
easily addressed early on during the innovation process where the focus is on the disciplines
of sketching and prototyping. However, during this initial stage of the technological
innovation process it will be difficult to have a clear vision on how the technology and its
application will be perceived by larger stakeholders groups once exploited in the market. At
the same time, once the social, environmental and ethical consequences become more clear
at later stages of the innovation process or after market introduction, the development of
the technology is often far advanced and the degrees of freedoms have decreased making it
difficult to change its trajectory. This requires technology assessment and foresight and
inclusion of stakeholders that might be involved once the application is on the market during
the early stages of the innovation process. But even if relevant stakeholders are included
and the possible consequences of the innovation are fully identified it may pose moral
dilemmas for the innovator. The sustainability impacts have a multifaceted characteristic
which increase in complexity and interdependencies and, as a result, a solution in one
direction, for instance, aimed at increasing the social benefits might be at the cost of
environmental impact. Therefore due to the complex nature and interdependencies among
the sustainability impacts the likelihood of success and impact of a solution to solve a
specific challenge becomes highly uncertain and projections are difficult to make due to
unforeseen side effects. The term wicked is introduced in 1973 by Rittel and Weber to
address problems where the effort to solve one aspect of a wicked problem may reveal or
create other problems. For the innovator this may lead to moral dilemmas, because solving
one problem in one direction may lead to another problem in another direction.
Emerging technologies, however, are considered to escape the problem of moral dilemmas.
New technological solutions may be able to increase the social and economic benefits an
innovation brings forward without being detrimental to environmental benefits. Emerging
technologies, however, require a different approach to problem solving which diverts
significantly from the way we think about solutions, technologies and application today. The
dominant logic, heuristics and current practices to problem solving are not satisfactory since
they tend not to break with the existing ones. Exploitation of emerging technologies through
established incumbents will put more pressure on the already existing challenge. Established
incumbents have existing decision making styles and reward and incentive systems that aim
at upholding the current market share and therefore they favour the existing paradigms and
states quo (Christensen, 1997). The search for solutions in landscapes which are more

35

distant to the established incumbent poses uncertainty and risk and requires new knowledge
which poses problems for established incumbents (Henderson & Clark, 1990). Small and new
entrepreneurial companies are not hampered by the large installed base, i.e. investments in
technologies, production and customers, like large incumbents are and thus are more
flexible and take less risk when exploiting emerging technologies. Small and new
entrepreneurial companies are also less restricted by formal procedures, existing decision
making styles and reward and incentive systems that aim at upholding the current market
shares and tend to favour the existing paradigms and states quo as in large established
organisations.
Although SMEs are generally unable to frame innovation debates or create significant
market opportunities through their own activities, it is worth noting that there are a number
of characteristics of SMEs and SME owner managers that provide significant opportunities
for RI. These characteristics include the:

Personal values and mind-set of the owner/manager;

Ability to adapt quickly, if resources allow;
Less hierarchical organisational structures;
Engagement in open innovation through supply chain or regional support;
SMEs can also easily address some niche markets less addressed or not addressed
and neglected by larger companies;
They have a proximity with users and other stakeholders that could be easily used to
identify opportunities.

SMEs are highly dependent on the skill level of their workforce and have less flexibility
regarding the regional supply of a skilled workforce. This is one area where universities can
support SMEs in terms of responsible innovation. Given their small resource base, policymakers can help firms to find the right partner or contact within the university or R&D
institute depending on the specific needs of the firm.
It is understood that innovation in SMEs involves interactive learning and that cooperation is
necessary for the competitiveness of SMEs. Because of this, many SMEs regularly innovate
through interaction with the wider innovation system. These interactions with other SMEs,
universities, research institutes and other intermediary organisations can occur on a
regional, national or even transnational level. A prerequisite for SMEs investing time, effort
and financial resources to these arrangements is that they recognise the added value. This
spatial dimension to SME innovation will depend on existing knowledge (of SME and
intermediaries) and specific competence needs. In this instance competence needs can
include technologies, skills or other business functions. This type of transnational innovation
process is seen more regularly in R&D intensive and sciencedriven (e.g. Nano and biotech)
SMEs. In summary, Table 5 identifies several benefits and barriers for SMEs engaging in RI.

36

Table 5. Responsible Innovation Benefits and Barriers for SMEs

KEY BENEFITS OF RI TO SMES

KEY BARRIERS TO RI FOR SMES

1. Improved potential to attract new business

2. Improved employee and customer attraction,
trust, loyalty and retention
3. Improved suppliers belief in the companys
integrity
4. Improved supply-chain engagement (e.g.
codes, monitoring)
5. Cost savings (e.g. eco-efficiency)
6. Proactive compliance with legislation
7. Enhanced relationships with investors who
pursue reduced risk investments
8. Improved relationships with government,
regulators and local communities
9. Improved alignment with the values of the
owner/manager

1. Absence of immediate incentives

2. RI direction/ definition for stakeholders unclear
3. Lack of collaboration with regional and transnational
research institutes /universities
4. Lack of resource (finance, capabilities, qualified staff)
within the enterprise
5. Insufficient or restricted access to existing subsidies
and fiscal incentives
6. Existing regulations and structures not incentivising RI
7. Transition and technological lock-ins (e.g. old
technologies and infrastructure)
8. Limited access to external information and knowledge
regarding RI
9. Limited access to well-developed RI support services

There are a wide variety of approaches to innovation and there is no standard approach or
innovation model suitable for all companies and all sectors. On the basis of the discussions
of the innovation process in section 3.2 and making reference to key related innovation tools
we provide a framework for SMEs when conducting Responsible Innovation, see Figure 8. It
must be noted that this framework is made for intermediary organisations and business
development managers to understand how they can scope out an RI project with SMEs. This
framework will be supported by a simplified code of practice for SMEs that includes all the
key issues they need to address. This RI code of practice will facilitate benchmarking and
continuous improvement on RI and builds on some characteristics which are specific to an
SMEs:

the sustainability benefits of new products, processes and services;

the sustainability impacts of existing products, processes and services;
customers' (latent or unmet) needs and the benefits their offering brings to
customers;
global and technological trends;
behaviour of the competition;
the intentions and needs of intermediaries (distributors and resellers);
risk management;
stakeholder needs / expectations;
acceptability of the innovation and whether it is reasonable for society.

37

3.2. Implementing Responsible Innovation into Business Strategy

In his book The Imperative of Responsibility, Hans Jonas questions whether humanity
should continue on existing. If the answer is yes, he argues that the human being should
then adopt a new attitude of concern and responsibility towards the world, thereby stating
that one should act in such a way that his or her actions are compatible with the
preservation of future human life (Jonas, 1979).
This principle ties in with the Kantian maxims concerned with the same issue, such as: Act
that your principle of action might safely be made a law for the whole world (Kant, 2006,
p.97), as well as: Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or
in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means
to an end (Kant, 2006, p.108). The first maxim highlights the obligation to consider potential
global consequences and the fact that individuals can share the same concerns
interdependently from other individuals. The latter maxim particularly emphasises the
principle of responsible innovation, concerned with the preservation of human life. These
attitudes should be the very essence of the innovators mind-set, as he essentially embodies
the pillar of responsibility towards the society as a whole. Through his ideas and innovations,
the innovator not only has great control over the world, but can also change it by integrating
the dimension of responsibility into his or her actions. This represents the cornerstone of
responsible innovation.
38
Figure 10 is a result of the convergence of Brundtlands theory, the axes of responsible
innovation and Jonas Imperative of Responsibility and provides a framework for integrating
a responsible innovation strategy. The Imperative of Responsibility provides the basis for the
model which combines the three pillars for sustainable development and the three axes of
responsible innovation aimed at addressing modern day issues.

Figure 10. Integration of Responsible Innovation into Organisational Strategy

(adapted from Jonas, 1979 and Brundtland, 1987) (Pavie, 2012; Pavie & Carthy, 2013)

3.3. Integrating Responsible Innovation into Organisational Process

The integration of responsible innovation begins with a commitment from top management
to be responsible. In other words, organisations must go through five distinct stages of
change in order to implement responsible practices at all levels without compromising on
performance. This may be facilitated by a smaller SME structure and even more in the case
of start-ups, which can be structured around a responsible innovation strategy from the
beginning. It is important to note that the integration of responsibility along the innovation
process requires a complementary procedure, which will be described at Stage 4.

STAGE 1: COMPLY WITH THE LAW

It comes as no surprise that legal compliance makes up the first step of the organisations
journey to responsibility. However, the recent series of ongoing lawsuits between Apple Inc
and Samsung Electronics regarding the design of smartphones and tablet computers have
shown that patent infringements can be quite easily committed, unintentionally. The central
challenge therefore lies in examining the existing legislation to detect any potential obstacles
to the development of innovation and the organisation as a whole.

39

In a similar scenario, Amazon was said to infringe on patents related streaming and routing
media with its Instant Video service as per Single Touch Systems claims. Amazon Instant
Video lets customers the ability to rent or purchase content from its film & TV catalogue,
which boasts 120,000 titles, of which thousands are available to Prime subscribers at no
additional cost. Single Touch R&D owns a portfolio of 18 issued and additional pending
patents related to mobile search, commerce, advertising and streaming media. Some of
these protected concepts are at stake in its dispute with Amazon.

STAGE 2: ANTICIPATE FUTURE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS

This second stage is about creating a competitive advantage by staying one step ahead of
legislation and using anticipated future legal requirements as opportunities for innovation.
Horizon scanning and risk analysis techniques should enable a more effective foresight in the
area of innovation for the organisation. By anticipating future legislations, the firm remains
the first to innovate on an aspect before it becomes mandatory for all market players,
therefore gaining a major competitive advantage. In the 1990s Hewlett Packard was aware
that the copper used in its electronic components was particularly toxic. Having anticipated
the potential introduction of a regulation to that effect, the R&D department dedicated
about ten years to developing a substitute combining silver, tin and copper. A European
Directive to this end was issued in July 2006 and HP already had a clear advantage over its
competitors.
Tools: A key process in developing the strategy is understanding the current situation and
developing a benchmark for the business. Common tools that are used here are the RI
Diagnostic tools, standard vision/strategy tools e.g. EPISTEL, STEER, PEST, SWOT based on
the first two levels of integration of sustainability in business strategy (Nidumolu et al.,
2009):
Level 0 : Greenwashing
Level 1 : Compliance as an opportunity (labels, certificates...)
Level 2 : Sustainable value chain (to reduce costs)
Level 3 : Reinvent products, and services
Level 4 : New "green" business models
Tools concerning market research are foresight and future studies, stakeholder dialogues
and trend analyses

STAGE 3: TREAT THE VALUE CHAIN AS AN ECOSYSTEM

At this stage, the organisation aims to improve efficiency at all levels of the value chain,
especially in terms of its suppliers. Through a thorough analysis of Porters Value Chain
(Porter, 1985), the aim is to ensure that all of the actors and organisations involved are
oriented towards responsibility. Natural resources and services that were previously not
taken into consideration should be evaluated and quantified at this stage from an economic

40

point of view. This would include redefining the operations to reduce water and electricity
consumption, emissions and waste. In 2008, Wal-Mart regained control over their supply
chain by demanding that their Chinese suppliers reduce their CO emissions by 5% before
2013 and increase the efficiency of their energy production by 25% over three years. In
order to ensure the correct application of these measures, Wal-Mart developed a closely
monitored 3-stage process, namely involving an initial assessment of the behaviours and
actions of suppliers; a verification of the commitments involved and finally an active
encouragement of suppliers to develop their commitments across other factories and
regions.

41
Figure 11. Using Porters Value Chain to Re-Define Operations
(Porter, 1985)
By using Porters Value Chain (1985) as a tool, see Figure 11, we can establish how to redesign primary business processes and support processes in order to integrate responsibility
along all of the firms individual activities.
Primary business processes are made up of all inbound and outbound logistics, operations,
marketing and sales and service activities. Regarding the degree of responsibility of its
inbound and outbound logistics activities, the firm could evaluate the impact of transport on
CO emissions and traffic congestion. It could then re-organise these activities to minimise
the negative impacts. In terms of operations, measures could be deployed to reduce energy
and water consumption in the production process while monitoring waste and carbon
emissions. Workers safety should be optimised while the use of dangerous substances if
necessary should be closely supervised to minimise any risks. Integrating the concept of
responsibility into the firms marketing and sales activities could involve ensuring that
consumer information and privacy is respected. Keeping the consumer in focus, it could also
mean eliminating price discrimination or introducing special rates for those consumers
considered to be financially unstable. Shifting the focus to the market as a whole and the
actors operating within it, it could also mean preventing anti-competitive pricing practices.
Integrating responsibility into after-sale service activities could involve an efficient

management system for all consumables such as engine oil or ink cartridges. Furthermore,
the firm could introduce a system of responsible elimination for all obsolete items.
In June 2011, IKEA UK announced an initiative to improve sustainability which involved
switching its entire company car fleet to low emission hybrids. The program follows steps
already taken by IKEA to reduce energy consumption, cut emissions and to source products
from sustainable suppliers IKEA has committed to reduce Co2 emissions worldwide by 9% by
2010. In the first phase of the hybrid vehicle initiative, IKEA UK announced that it would
purchase up to 50 Honda Civic Hybrid cars from the Japanese carmaker with further
deliveries later on. The Honda Civic Hybrid offers industry leading fuel consumption of more
than 60 miles per gallon and CO2 emissions of 109g/km, significantly below the Europe
Unions ambitious target of 120g/km. Honda was the first car manufacturer to bring a Hybrid
car to the mass market.
Tools: Key tools for investigating the value chain as an ecosystem are Porters Value
Chain Analyses, Life Cycle Analyses and Life Cycle Costing. Also to understand the
repercussion of an innovation in the broader context the future studies and stakeholders
dialogues are used.

STAGE 4: INNOVATE RESPONSIBLY

The fourth stage of the model is about creating, designing, developing and launching
responsible products onto the market while monitoring and managing the impacts of these
products on social, economic and environmental criteria throughout the entire lifecycle. This
analysis of the projects impact on individual factors at each step of the development
process is illustrated in Figure 12.
In order to develop a sustainable supply of raw materials or redefine the existing
procurement process to make it environmentally friendly, the firm first needs to assess what
products and services are most threatening to the environment. This involves applying the
concept of an industrial ecosystem to the current production process; one which would
facilitate the waste produced by one company to be used as resources by another. This type
of industrial ecology would promote the sustainable use of renewable resource and minimal
use of non-renewable ones. In order to achieve this stage, the organisation would also
naturally need managerial know-how to proportion the supply of green materials for
production. The importance of generating public support for the proposed sustainable
supply should not be under-estimated. Indeed, informing the consumer is key in convincing
them to change their habits and switch to responsible products.
An interesting innovation launched by Sodexo in Belgium offers a good example of how to
successfully produce and launch responsible products and services. In 2010 the company

42

introduced Eco-Pass cheques destined solely for the purchase of eco-citizen goods and
services ranging from food or household items to the installation of solar panels or even ecodriving classes. Any purchase is valid as long as the item has respected an eco-citizen
production process. This includes CO emissions, recycling practices, etc. This innovation is
particularly interesting as all impacts are taken into account from a macro and
microeconomics perspective to the ecological and societal factors.
The process of development of responsible products and services consists in an integration
of criteria linked to the projects impact on social, economic and environmental factors all
along the innovation process.
PHILOSOPHICAL
ISSUES

GUIDELINES

NORMS

1. IDEATION

2. FEASIBILITY

3. CAPABILITY

Adaptability for the

disabled/sick; Access to
service without
discrimination;
Contribution to social
dialogue; Responsible
Communication,
transparency;
Contribution to fight
against
exclusion/discrimination;
Solidarity,Fundamental
rights for all; impact on
client health

Enticement to other
responsible activities;
Apply principles of risk
precaution/prevention;
Solidarity economy;
Impacts on commercial
balance, employment level
and wealth distribution

Ecological footprint;
Impacts on the diversity of
habitats, individual
behaviour in terms of
respect of environment;
treatment of pollution.

Level of security for users,

personnel and nearby
residents; Impacts on HR
development; Impacts
healtth (prevention,
screening, treatment);
Service adaptibility

Degree of service
reliability and efficiency;
Transparency towards
clients regarding risk;
data and transaction
security; Impact on
competition level;
Economic and territorial
development; Profit vs.
Firm Attractivity

Considering existing
alternatives, does this
project guarantee the
continuity of energy
resources?; Impact on
individual behaviour
regarding respect of the
environment and
environmental health

Social
Factors

Level of security for users,

personnel and nearby
residents; Impact on
health (prevention,
screening, treatment);
Service accessibility
without discrimination;
Service adaptability for
the sick, etc.; Impact on
HR management and
working conditions
Safety of data &
transactions; Verification
of subcontractors; Impact
on employment level

Impact on waste
treatment, landscape
degradation, treatment of
pollution other related
nuisances, environmental
health and individual
behaviour regarding of
respect of environment;
ecological footprint

Economic
Factors

MEASURES

4. LAUNCH

Responsible
Communication,
Transparency

Economical and territorial

development; Risk
management; Risk
transparency towards
clients

5. POST-LAUNCH
Contribution to fight
against
exclusion/discrimination.
Solidarity, Fundamental
rights for all; Contribution
to social dialogue

Safety of data &

transactions: permanent
verification; Economic &
Territorial development;
Impact on competition
level in the long-term,
employment level, land
degradation; Level of
service reliability and
efficiency: permanent
verification

Measure of all concerned

environmental criteria
previously considered

Environmental
Factors

Figure 12. Monitoring Social, Economic and Environmental Impacts throughout the
Innovation Process (Pavie and Carthy, 2012)
In order to conduct this analysis of impacts effectively, a number of diagnostic tools should
be set up to rate the project in terms of its real and potential impacts. It is naturally
impossible to accurately measure all impacts before the innovation is launched, as
mentioned earlier, due to the Chasm. For this reason, potential risks should be formulated

43

into hypotheses to be tested once the product is on the market. Thus, a first set of
hypotheses should be created in the Idea phase, to be specified as the project becomes
clearer through the Capability phase. Finally, the full set of hypotheses should be tested in
Post-Launch, in order to monitor the impacts of the innovation and determine whether it
needs to be recalled from the market, as illustrated in Figure 13.
PHILOSOPHICAL
ISSUES

GUIDELINES

NORMS

1. IDEA

2. FEASIBILITY

3. CAPABILITY

Creation of
Hypotheses

MEASURES

4. LAUNCH

Specification of
hypotheses

Analyse the
necessity of
response to the
needs of
individuals

5. POST-LAUNCH
Testing of
Hypotheses:
Verify negative
impacts
Decide whether
to recall
product/service

Calculate, anticipate or forecast the direct impacts of the innovation

Consider the indirect impacts of the innovation

44

The Imperative of Responsibility (Jonas, 1979):

Act so that the effects of your action are compatible with the
permanence of genuine human life.

RESPONSIBLE - INNOVATION

Figure 13. A Process for Developing Responsible Products and Services

(Pavie and Carthy 2012)
The analysis of the projects impact on various social, economic and environmental factors
should be integrated throughout the following five steps:
Phase 1: Idea
The complexity involved with applying this technique in the idea phase should not be
under-estimated. Indeed, at this initial stage of the process, it is crucial to let the
innovators imagination and ideas flow freely without restriction. This is where the
traditionally conflicting notions of responsibility and innovation may first enter into
collision.
Within this first phase, relevant social factors to assess may include: the degree of
adaptability of the service or product to the disabled or the sick; the possibility of

access to the service for everybody regardless of age, sex or religion this factor
would then need to be re-assessed following the market launch to ensure it remains
accessible to all; the extent to which the new concept could contribute to social
dialogue and communication on responsibility, while encouraging transparency this
criteria would once again require reviewing in the post-launch phase; the projects
contribution to reducing exclusion and discrimination, and encouraging solidarity as
well as freedom of access to fundamental rights for all; the impact on the diversity of
habitats (eco-friendly constructions, green spaces, etc); its impact on wealth
distribution and consumer health.
Secondly, the economic factors to be assessed could include the products capability
to encourage and foster responsible and ethical business activities this would need
to be thoroughly reviewed throughout the process and post-launch as it complies
with the last stage of the model for achieving responsibility in an organisation as
mentioned previously (it becomes the responsible firms duty to educate to
responsibility); the extent to which the product or service facilitates a sustainable
and inclusive economy including its potential effect on trade balance and
employment rates as well as its impact on rural areas.
Thirdly, the environmental factors could determine the concepts impact on
individuals behaviour in terms of the environment; its effect on the treatment of
pollution and levels of nuisance with regard to the surrounding environment (air,
water and soil pollution, movement and storage of dangerous products and wastes);
an estimate of the products ecological footprint could also be calculated and
reviewed post-launch.
In parallel to the measurement of the projects impacts in this initial phase a set of
hypotheses relating to the impacts which may arise following the launch should be
formulated. These will be specified later on in the process to be tested post-launch
and will provide a more accurate indication of the projects impacts on social,
economic and environmental factors.
Phase 2: Feasibility
Social factors to be tested in this second phase of the process could include the level
of security for users, nearby residents and staff this should be tested again in the
following Capability Phase; the concepts impact on human resource development
this criteria would require a re-assessment following the launch; the impact on
health, including the level of disease prevention, screening methods and treatment
availability in the case of damage to health this factor would need to be strictly
reviewed following the launch to ensure the right procedures are put in place.
Economic factors required to be assessed could be the level of transparency towards
the client in relation to any risks involved when using a product or service this
would need to be re-assessed following post-launch; security levels and
confidentiality of data and transactions this factor would need to be re-assessed

45

following the launch of the product, along with its impact on competition levels and
its reliability; the concepts influence on economic and territorial development,
calculating the level of correlation between the service innovation and employment
level and/or economic activity in the short and long-term.
Environmental factors to be examined would include ensuring that having taken all
existing alternatives into account, the project guarantees the durability of energy
resources; estimating its impact on behaviour in terms of respecting the environment
and the impact on environmental health (noise, pollution, water and air quality).
Phase 3: Capability
As the product or service being created becomes clearer in the Capability phase, the
firm should test social factors such as its impact on life and working conditions (the
respect of the right of peaceful assembly and freedom of speech, working hours,
security and hygiene) it should also re-examine previous factors such as the level of
security for users, nearby residents and staff; the impact on health, with prevention,
screening and treatment methods; the possibility of access to the service regardless
of age, sex, religion, etc.; its adaptability for the disabled or the elderly and its impact
on human resource management.
Economic factors to be re-assessed should include the level of security and
confidentiality of data and transactions; the impact of the product or service on
employment levels and its impact on land degradation. One factor in need of being
newly assessed at this stage, would be the sub-contractors willingness to conform to
the firms procedures regarding responsibility.
A number of environmental factors would also need to be re-assessed at this stage
including the impact of the product or service on pollution and waste treatment,
environmental health, landscape degradation as well as re-calculating the projects
impact in terms of its ecological footprint.
The set of hypotheses should be specified in this stage of the process to ensure they
remain relevant with the product/service being developed and will appropriately test
the project for the correct impacts.
Phase 4: Launch
The number of factors which can be assessed at the Launch Phase is minimal as it is
too early to re-calculate all measurable impacts. However, economic factors can be
re-assessed, such as the level of correlation between the innovation and the
employment level and/or economic activity in the short and long-term; transparency
in terms of any risk to the consumer is crucial at this stage.
Social factors to be re-assessed include the contribution of the product or service to
social dialogue and the encouragement of responsible communication and
transparency.

46

Phase 5: Post-Launch
In this phase, the firm should ideally re-measure all previously estimated results and
impacts, however budget constraints may not allow for such a costly procedure. In
this case, it is essential for the firm to take into account the product or service being
launched and the market it operates in to establish which factors require reviewing
the most. For instance, factors which would typically need to be re-assessed for an
online company include data security, which should be reviewed on a permanent
basis to ensure optimum confidentiality and all data is kept securely. The impact of
the new product or service on economic and territorial development, employment
levels, as well as the degradation of rural areas should also be re-assessed. Social
factors to be re-assessed include the innovations impact on wealth distribution, its
contribution to the fight against exclusion, discrimination, solidarity and access to
fundamental rights for all. The firm should also ensure the product or service
becomes part of its communication strategy surrounding responsibility and
transparency.
The hypotheses which were formulated throughout the process should be tested at
this stage. They should help the company monitor the impacts of its innovation once
it is in circulation on the market. The results from these hypotheses should then
assist management in deciding whether or not to recall a product or service if its
impacts are considered too harmful on any one or all three of the dimensions
analysed.
In 2007, the Coca Cola Recycling initiative was founded as part of the firms CSR
policy to support the Coca-Cola systems goal of recovering our footprint, recycling a
bottle or can for every one we sell in North America. Coca-Cola Refreshments is a
huge consumer and producer of PET plastic bottle and aluminium cans that are highly
recyclable products. The initiative aims to incentivize consumers to recycle, provide
with recycling points, set up a transformation industry, reuse recycled materials. In
February 2009, Coca Cola opened the worlds largest PET bottle-to-bottle recycling
plant which can produce PET plastic for reuse each year equivalent to 2 billion 20ounce PET bottles.
Grn line was founded by Adidas in 2008. Grn translates as green in German. Grn
is a whole product line of eco-friendly shoes made of natural materials. Some shoes
are specifically reshaped to give them an eco-allure, designed from scratch. But some
are based on classic sneakers silhouettes, actually re-designed with new materials.
There are 3 product lines Made from (original Adidas silhouettes made from
environmentally friendly fibres in more colourful tones), Recycled (summery
apparel and footwear made from recycled and reused materials), Reground
(products made of environmentally friendly materials such as hemp, jute, bamboo,
crepe rubber, chrome-free leather and recycled rice husks). Grn corresponds to an

47

eco-apparel positioning, actually following entrepreneurial initiatives allying fashion

and responsibility.

STAGE 5: LEAD THE CHANGE

This final stage encourages the organisation to take a leadership role in its industry through
three optional activities which are all ultimately linked to education. This may translate into
campaigns aimed at educating customers on responsibility, creating an industry standard to
educate other market players or developing new responsible business models to educate
and raise awareness within the organisation itself and among all employees.
5.1. Communicate and educate to responsibility
This optional stage of the model involves developing a planning tool to guide
research dissemination regarding the characteristics of a responsible product. In
order to fully integrate responsible innovation across the organisation, the above
steps do not suffice as they only concern the product positioning relative to
competition. An organisations innovation activities are also responsible for
improving the sense of responsibility patterns of production and consumption on the
market as a whole.
An example of a company communicating and educating customers to act
responsibly is Sodexo. Sodexo encourages customers to make sustainable choices
and adopt healthy, active lifestyles by developing several campaigns to spread
awareness and information. Some of their initiatives are listed below:

Student survival smartphone 'app': In 2011, Sodexo launched a free smartphone

'app', designed for students, which includes advice on how to lead a healthy
lifestyle, cook balanced dishes, save energy and enhance their wellbeing.
'Be part of it' menu range: Former England rugby star, Celebrity Masterchef
winner, and now Sodexo ambassador for health and wellbeing, Matt Dawson,
launched the 'Be part of it' menu range in May 2011. Its main objective is to raise
awareness of health and wellbeing messages, encourage balanced diets and
promote the use of fresh ingredients.
Sustainability marques: In the spring of 2011, Sodexo launched a campaign
across all our restaurants to explain our work around supply chain certification
marques such as Fairtrade, the Marine Stewardship Council, RSPCA Freedom
Foods, Red Tractor and LEAF (Linking Environment and Farming). The campaign
included an information booklet for managers and large banners and posters to
display in restaurants. It helped raise awareness of the marques, their meanings
and their identifiable logos, giving customers the chance to better understand our
offer and consider the marques when doing their own shopping.

48

Healthy lifestyle booklet: As part of Healthworks offer, Sodexo provides

customers with advice on balanced nutrition to match energy needs while
exercising.
Dedicated website: The website Healthwise provides nutrition and health
education and coaching, including information on issues such as salt, fats, fluids
and regular exercise.
Nutritional information: Sodexo has developed a database of recipes with
nutritional characteristics for each menu option. Their restaurants can now
provide appropriate nutritional information depending on the audience, from
calorie labelling to full GDA (Guideline Daily Amount) information.
Nutrition game: They designed a board game called NVQ-qualified nutrition
champions have designed a new board game to teach 5 to 11-year-old children
about nutrition and healthy eating, which is available at primary schools served
by Sodexo Education.

McDonalds is another example of a company educating customers on responsibility.

McDonalds has created a store following green building standards to lead by
example and educate and encourage the customers in the matters of environmental
sustainability. The store has an Energy Efficiency Education Dashboard in its premises
which presents real-time energy efficiency data on the following:
Various sustainable initiatives operating at the premises.
It provides a link between the restaurant's solar photovoltaic array and the
display board to provide real-time energy data in a user-friendly manner.
The customers can interact with the 42-inch LCD touchscreen, to learn all about
the sustainable features incorporated in the interior and exterior parts of the
restaurant through a 3D tour.
The customers are also encouraged to see a demonstration of how the solar
photovoltaic system, LED lighting, solar hot water panels, Solartubes, porous
pavers and other energy saving systems work
The aim is to educate and inspire people to implement green ideas in their personal
lives.
Generali in its French market is also firmly involved in the communication and
education of responsibility. Following the creation of its new responsible generation
concept (www.generation-responsable.com), the group highlight their four
commitments in terms of responsibility (Generali, 2012):
1. Insure and Invest Protection of their clients and safeguard their interests;
2. Mobilise and Optimise Manage their activities by focusing on human beings,

optimise resources;

49

3. Stimulate and Anticipate Encourage virtuous eco-friendly behaviour to prepare the

future;
4. Observe and Reflect Analyse the great evolutions of todays modern society.

Generali openly support a whole range of responsible initiatives, featured on their

website, along with articles on various topics relating to responsibility including a
clarification of the meaning of greenwashing. In order to make it relevant and
therefore catch the attention of the recipients, a wide range of topics are published
from helping parents to choose responsible products for their childrens back-to-school
furniture to finding a responsible sporting activity (which even includes Responsible
Sport charter to measure the responsibility of a particular activity).
5.2. Create standard
This option would involve defining new norms and standards that address issues still
unknown by providing new solutions. In this case, the challenge facing the company
is to source the required knowledge or expertise in terms of production impacts. While
the organisation needs to mobilise the attention of public authorities it should also aim
to foster a genuine sense of interest, active reflection and involvement in current
environmental, societal and economic impacts of its products and services.
In the same way that somebody once wondered whether it could become possible for
humans to fly to the moon or dive deep down to explore the ocean floor, we must
question the status quo now more than ever, aiming to address the societal grand
challenges currently facing us (Nidumolu et al. 2009).
A case in point is LOreal. LOreal has used scientific advances like tissue engineering,
decoding the human genome, imaginary techniques to innovate responsibly. The use
of the new generation testing methods makes it possible to evaluate the safety of
ingredients without testing on animals. LOreal stopped testing finished products on
animals in 1989 and in the near future will be able to evaluate clinical effectiveness
without taking recourse to human tissue sampling. Its main objective is to stop in vivo
animal testing and replace it with in vitro testing on the biological tissues that have
been reconstructed in laboratories. LOreals Gerland Center produces 11 models of
different biological tissue (epidermis, dermis, cornea etc.). Reconstructed skin replaces
animal testing in 99% of studies.
5.3. Develop responsible business models
This type of innovation involves finding new ways to provide and capture value,
aiming to form a new basis for competition. In order to do this, the firm must focus
on understanding customer needs and identifying ways to meet these needs as well
as understand how business partners are able to add value to the offering. Three

50

focus areas need to be looked at by Chief Information Officers when expanding and
facilitating business model innovation efforts:
a. Deepen business understanding through componentisation;
b. Innovate the IT business model first;
c. Implement a flexible, responsive infrastructure.
The value chain needs to be looked at as a whole, with the aim of involving both
suppliers and customers simply interacting with a different form of consumption. In
2008, FedEx implemented the innovative organisational program Fuel Sense
designed to replace its fleet with Boeing 757, thus reducing jet fuel consumption by
nearly 36%, while increasing capacity by 20%. They further developed software to
optimise flight routes and in certain cases to use solar energy for its centres based in
California and Germany.

Tools: The key elements of the business model development are the Business
Model Canvas supported by additional activities such as on-market assessment, life
cycle assessment, carbon management, stakeholder dialogue and knowledge &
network management.

This 5-step model aims to serve as a guide for organisations wishing to implement
responsible innovation across their activities. While the stakes obviously vary according to
the size of the organisation, integrating responsible innovation is as relevant for SMEs as it is
for bigger structures. In fact, through their increased flexibility, SMEs may generally be at an
advantage and it may be easier to steer their smaller structure towards achieving
responsible innovation. Most of the examples used to illustrate the various stages of the RI
process were from large multinational organisations; however SMEs can draw inspiration
from such initiatives and implement them at their own level and within their own scale.
In order to position a firm as innovative and responsible a course of defined actions must be
strictly followed to ensure responsibility is implemented at all levels. Following these stages
rigorously ensures that the organisation tainted by a greenwashing image, while
guaranteeing that the firms responsible innovation strategy remains centred on generating
innovation, growth and performance.
Veja is an example of a small structure, which from top management is geared towards
innovation through responsible business practices, without solely aiming for social
innovation. Indeed, it is competing in the fashion and accessories market and differentiating
itself from competitors through its distinctively responsible business model and product
lifecycle. Through their products, the start-up aims to achieve high social, economic and
environmental standards by actively promoting eco-farming, campaigning against
deforestation, supporting workers rights and creating employment for poor families. Its

51

holistic approach reaches every part of the supply chain including transport, packaging and
head office carbon emissions. Vejas ethics have earned third party endorsement from the
IBD accreditation scheme. IBD works across South America to encourage humanistic
principles and the preservation of the environment. In all, 97% of the 320 cotton producers
contracted by Veja are now accredited operators.

52

Figure 13. A Process for Integrating Responsible Innovation

(Pavie and Carthy, 2013)

4. Policy Case for Responsible Innovation

Because innovation policy has a wide range of objectives, both economic (productivity
growth, employment and competitiveness) and non-economic ones (cultural, social,
environmental and military), governments often intervene in the innovation process to
ensure that public policy objectives will be achieved. Before a government intervenes there
needs to be a clear rationale for the intervention and an understanding that the intervention
will resolve the issue. To date, the primary reason why governments intervene in the
economy is market failure. Market failures can occur due to the existence of externalities,
spillovers, imperfect and asymmetric information, network failures and market power. In
terms of RI one of the most pressing market failures is the existence of externalities, both
positive and negative. These externalities are effects of production and consumption that
are not properly reflected in market signals. In terms of RI, a negative externality can be the
costs for mitigating pollution that are not incurred by the polluter or reflected in the price of
the product in the market. A positive externality can be through the public good benefits of
an innovation, e.g. flu vaccinations. System failures are linked to structural, institutional and
regulatory deficiencies, which effect innovation activities. The system failures argument
justifies interventions that address structural and institutional deficiencies. Although they
can be seen as complementary, economists differentiate between market failures and
system failures. The systems perspective emphasises the importance of interaction and
interactive learning among all actors in the system. In the case of systems failure, the
processes of intervention are similar in the case of market failure although the process is not
focussed on recreating market conditions or optimum economic efficiency. Some of the key
characteristics of systems failure interventions include increased collaboration and
interactivity, a focus on learning and tacit knowledge, innovation capacity building, flexible
and responsive policy frameworks and increased policy coherence.
It is important to note that both market failures and system failures drive policy
intervention. In the forthcoming Framework Programme Horizon 2020, the European
Commission will make RI a key topic. The vision of Horizon 2020 is to achieve smart,
sustainable and inclusive growth within the European. Aside from the regulatory and
adaptive governance role, policy will play a key role in raising awareness of the large number
of RI opportunities and create the necessary incentives to upscale current and future
markets. In the coming years, the association between regulation and RI will be strong and
positive. Although companies facing stringent regulation will most likely become engaged in
RI we would like to address the role policy can have in stimulating companies to become
more entrepreneurial and identify the opportunities related to RI. In particular we are
interested in the behavioural additionalities of policy instruments. Behavioural additionality
has received recent discussion as a benefit of investments for start-ups besides the
traditional input and output benefits of financial support. The concept of behavioural
additionality is discussed by Falk (2007) who argues that public support contributes to firms

53

by increasing their scope to acquire new knowledge. In general managers are bounded by
the high-pressure of daily activities (Fransman, 1990; Georghiou et al., 2003) and disregard
the value of new knowledge, unless it emerges from areas where the firm is currently
carrying out activities and funding. Public support may bring out behavioural additionalities
in terms of changes in the mind-set of people, posture of firms and changes in the firms
innovation processes.
With regards to the grand challenges of todays society, there is little debate about the need
of new technologies to solve the new problems we are facing. As a result, policy in general
should be aimed at providing incentives for companies to address the grand challenges.
Research in the use and application of emerging technologies is one important approach for
engaging in new ways of using and recycling rare resources and re-inventing business models
geared at achieving responsibility. Considering the fact that large established organisations
tend to focus on upholding their current market share on the basis of their installed-base,
we believe that SMEs and entrepreneurial start-ups are more likely the kind of companies
that will try and experiment the potential benefits of emerging technologies for societal
challenges. Once the opportunity is identified, SMEs and entrepreneurial start-ups may be
attractive candidates to be acquired by large established companies to be incorporated in
their mainstream business. Market dissemination of emerging technologies through large
established companies will be much quicker as it can build on the installed base of the
production capacity, distribution channels, marketing knowledge available within
established companies, see for example the illustration in Box 4.

54

Box4. Press Release: ABB acquires Epyon to expand offering in EV charging

infrastructure (http://www.epyonpower.com/pdf/ABB-acquires-Epyon-2011-07-01.pdf)
Rapid growth of electric vehicle (EV) fleet drives demand for fast-charging solutions

Zurich, Switzerland, June 30, 2011 - ABB, the leading power and automation
technology Group, announced today the acquisition of Epyon B.V., an early leader
in electric vehicle charging infrastructure solutions focusing on direct current (DC)
fast-charging stations and network charger software. The acquisition is in line with
ABB's strategy to expand its global offering of electric vehicle infrastructure
solutions.
This acquisition gives ABB access to competitive products, key network
management software, and a robust maintenance service business model, which
ideally complements our own offering, said Ulrich Spiesshofer, head of ABB's
Discrete Automation and Motion division. Founded in 2005, Epyon is
headquartered in Rijswijk, Netherlands, has an R&D center in Eindhoven and sales
resources across Europe. Epyon's 50 staff worldwide will join ABB when the
acquisition is completed.
ABB's brand recognition and strong global presence will accelerate the growth of
a combined Epyon - ABB offering, and provide access to key customers and
partners, said Hans Streng, Epyons CEO who led the company over the last year
and who will stay as an experienced industrial leader of the combined business.
Epyons existing business is complemented by ABBs strong power electronics
platform, global manufacturing footprint as well as its supply, marketing and
service network.

55

4.1 Policy Intervention

The role of SMEs and entrepreneurial start-ups in experimenting emerging technologies and
the importance of behavioural additionalities provide some directions on where policy
instruments can intervene to stimulate responsible innovation. Consequently, we will discuss
three areas for policy intervention where it is likely these considerations may materialise.
4.1.1 Interaction Between Regional Academe and SMEs
Firms are continually influenced by the characteristics of the learning environment in which
they operate. In this context, research of universities can be considered as extra-industry
sources of knowledge (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990). Research institutes and universities in
particular are sources of emerging technologies. However, they are, in general, not the kind
of organisations that focus on technology development or the exploitation of technology in
commercial markets. Large established companies have an interest in adopting scientific
findings in their products and markets if it provides immediate benefits for them. SMEs and
entrepreneurial start-ups are less likely than established companies to engage in contract or
participate in research consortia. These SMEs and entrepreneurial start-ups tend to operate
in niche markets and tend to use scientific findings which are not suitable for addressing
large amounts of customers in established and mature markets. Nevertheless, these niche
markets and emerging markets are the places where emerging technologies can be
experimented and once they seem to become attractive they can be disseminated to larger
markets with the help of large established companies. Policy instruments can help these
processes by providing support to increase the interaction between SMEs and
entrepreneurial start-ups with research institutes and universities. In addition, since
emerging technologies are highly uncertain with regards to the technical and market
feasibility it is important to keep the innovation process flexible and open. As such
opportunities identified in various areas can be addressed and the likelihood of the
technology providing benefit in the end will increase as compared to more narrow path of
innovation in a closed innovation model (Chesbrough, 2003). Policy interventions addressing
knowledge spill-overs and behavioural additionalities are important to identify
entrepreneurial opportunities based on emerging technologies. In that respect, policy
instruments could contribute to it by providing support for interaction between regional
SMEs and academe. The support could be based on funding of project between academe
and small companies, but the government could act as matchmaker or broker within the
regional network of companies and academe, and thereby bring together parties which
would not meet otherwise. The latter is aimed at increasing the behavioural additionalities
of support and stimulate companies to look beyond the current set of activities.

4.1.2 Interaction Between SMEs from Different Sectors

Following the first policy intervention, policy makers can also provide benefit to SMEs and
entrepreneurial start-ups by analysing the current set of projects and programs they are
involved in. Many times, public support is provided to a consortium of entrepreneurial start-

56

ups, SMEs, incumbents and research institutes in order to further develop a technology. This
technology might not only be of interest to the actors involved in the consortium but to
other actors as well. The actors in the consortium might not look for the exploitation of their
technology beyond the current market and actors of the consortium for various valid
reasons. One is that their main focus is on their current market and dissemination to other
companies could harm the competitive position they have built so carefully. However,
adoption of the technology in other related or even unrelated markets might not be
detrimental to the competitive position immediately. In contrast it may provide
opportunities to the consortium because they can learn from applying technology in a
broader set of applications. The second reason is that organisations inside the consortium
are focussing on meeting the project objectives and deadlines. They have little time to look
beyond the current application they are aiming at ad therefore overlook possibilities of the
technologies in other market sectors. The public agency responsible for the funding of
projects and the coordination of the project programs, has more information on the kinds of
technologies being developed and may signal similar developments in various sectors. By
providing support programs that link the companies together across sectors the
dissemination and adoption of emerging technologies might be helped.

4.1.3 Transnational Interaction Between SMEs and Technology Transfer Offices Located at
Universities
Both regional instruments to increase the interaction and knowledge spillovers between
academe and small companies and instruments to increase the brokerage between
companies across sectors can be raised to the level of transnational collaboration. Various
studies address the importance of external knowledge to the innovation process, especially
in terms of encouraging more radical ideas to emerge from searching in knowledge
landscapes which are more distant to their current ones.
For instance, interacting continuously with common acquaintances is not likely to provide
new knowledge. Indeed, it is very likely that potential ideas emerging from such
neighbourhood searches will be close to existing ones. As a result, the performance levels
may not deviate much from existing performance levels. More distant searches among
people operating in different knowledge landscapes are thus more likely to provide the
innovator with new and unique ideas.
In various clusters surrounding universities, we can identify communities of practice with
individuals that interact because of their shared interests and common practices, as well as
usage of the same tools and products (van Maanen & Barley 1984, Wellman et al. 1996).
However, the companies and people that are core members of the community can get
trapped in the prevailing operations of business within their current task environment
(Gargiulo & Benassi, 2000) and thus be averse to discard existing knowledge and practices
from other task environments. Therefore those core members tend to ignore the potential

57

contributions of new ideas from the outside (Schilling, 2005). Various studies have pointed
on the importance the transfer and sharing of knowledge between regions (cross-boundary)
in these university-industry linkages (Dahlander & Frederiksen, 2012; Tortoriello &
Krackhardt, 2010). Policy support, in particular that the EU level, could be aimed to increase
the transnational transfer and allow for smoother dissemination of knowledge being
generated at a university in one country and exploited within companies in another country.
While not part of this guiding document, it is important over the course of the KARIM project
to identify the sectors with regulatory hotspots that are likely to act as RI drivers.

4.2 Key Responsible Innovation Policy Barriers

The previous section has identified the importance of interaction between academe and
SMEs and entrepreneurial start-ups in order to allow for more emerging technologies to
flourish in various product markets and an intent to address the grand challenges of society.
The various policy instruments can increase the interaction between academe and SMEs and
entrepreneurial start-ups, however, it is as much as important to understand the limitations
and issues that are restricting the development of effective policies for RI. These include;
Supply side barriers
Inadequate levels of RI research (apart from a handful of leading universities)
Lack of structured coordination of existing research programs
Weak linkages between current RI research and market
Inadequate skills base at a policy level
Demand side barriers
Market prices currently disincentives RI in some sectors (externalities)
Demand side measures are too weak to drive RI, e.g. procurement
Lack of appropriate and credible information on the value of RI
Horizontal barriers
Governance problems related to RI (complexity)
Difficulty in providing and accessing RI finance
Unfavourable global conditions for RI (emerging market dynamics)
Unused potential for eco-innovation in developed and developing countries
Imbalance of RI capabilities across EU member states (and global supply chains)
The Lund Declaration (under the 2009 Swedish Presidency of the EU) combined and brought
clarity to several important aspects of how science, technology and innovation can address
these grand challenges. According to the Lund Declaration, European research must focus
on the Grand Challenges of our time moving beyond current rigid thematic approaches. This

58

calls for a new deal among European institutions and Member States, in which European and
national instruments are well aligned and cooperation builds transparency and trust.
Identifying and responding to Grand Challenges should involve stakeholders from both
public and private sectors in transparent processes taking into account the global
dimension.
Interestingly, the Lund Declaration outlines the need to address these challenges through
solutions. It suggests that the challenges must turn into sustainable solutions in areas such
as global warming, tightening supplies of energy, water and food, ageing societies, public
health, pandemics and security. It must tackle the overarching challenge of turning Europe
into an eco-efficient economy.
As mentioned earlier, trying to increase the value of one of Brundtlands pillars may affect
the value of another pillar and might be even detrimental to another dimension. Similarly, it
would be beneficial to investigate how to uphold RI not because of sanctioning but because
of positive incentive mechanisms. That is how to convert the mechanism of sanctioning into
incentives that invites companies to further investigate the potential of emerging
technologies and identify opportunities to solve the grand challenges. As such, it is directly
linked to the self-interest of the companies involved.
Another important consideration is the role of policy makers is to provide a regulatory
framework and infrastructure that allows an inclusion of the conceptualisation of
responsible innovation into various disciplinary areas. Some ideas that are mentioned to
include these are aimed at bringing professionals from diverse backgrounds together and
use their expertise to contribute to RI issues:

Raise awareness about RI among key actors

To be able to realise that RI are very context/dependent and need specific attention
of individuals with local knowledge and expertise.
Encourage reflexivity among the key actors
To establish a forum for stakeholder involvement where they exchange their
experience and ideas and express their views on future developments.
Provide a regulatory framework which will support RI and technological impact and
technological forecasting
Develop appropriate tools and methods to identify and address RI within the
innovation process. Communication of this is important for the successful
acknowledgement of responsibilities and the related sharing of good practice.
o That is to collect, develop and communicate methodological, procedural and
substantive aspects of RI
o Develop a platform for a publicly repository and dissemination of knowledge
concerning RI

59

o Provide examples and case studies

o To provide an early warning system for issues that may require legislation
To engage proactively in developing legal solutions to foreseeable problems that are
likely to arise from emerging technologies
Provide positive incentives to engage with issues of responsibility in innovation and
emerging technologies

60

5. Responsible Innovation within Research and Education

The preceding chapters have shown the importance of responsible innovation as a
management approach to the innovation process and the organisation as a whole, in order
to achieve positive results. These concern both the organisations performance, its impact
on society as a whole. In some cases, a successful responsible innovation strategy can also
contribute towards addressing some of the grand challenges of society. In order to
overcome the problems facing us today, a new approach and perspective is needed, which
goes beyond the existing frameworks. Emerging technologies and entrepreneurial behaviour
are critical factors for exploring potential solutions, while remaining aware of the direct and
indirect impacts which resulting innovations can have. It is important to communicate these
viewpoints not only to SME and entrepreneurial companies but also to policy-makers,
academic researchers and scholars.

5.1 Research Grants

A long-standing characteristic of the academic community is the importance placed upon the
number and impact of publications produced by researchers. As such, research incentives
are generally geared towards achieving a greater number of published material, aimed at
generating more impact. Research grants are very important to relieve researchers from
heavy teaching obligations and provide them with the data necessary for future publications.
Applications for research grants generally provide a section for explaining how the social
implications of the scientific work will be addressed. This may sometimes be accompanied
by an additional paragraph suggesting the potential ways in which the scientific findings can
be commercially exploited. However, this part is usually of minor importance to the
application as a whole. This could become an area for further improvement in future
application guidelines and requirements. For instance, a more detailed declaration of value
may be required, defining exactly what value is being provided and who is reaping the
benefits of the scientific finding. An additional feature of the application could be a
declaration of compliance detailing how to keep track of the normative scheme, outlining
the outcomes and the potential repercussions on the wider circle of stakeholders. This
would evidently require a more sophisticated method of evaluation as well as a more
detailed system for allocating research grants. Both universities and subsidy agents have
little experience in these matters for the moment, highlighting the need for exemplary cases
and experience to be collected and accumulated over the coming years.

5.2 Teaching Programmes

Responsible innovation should eventually replace the classic innovation courses being
taught at universities. The largest mechanism of knowledge transfer between universities
and the business environment is by far the teaching of students. The latter should be taught
that innovating and launching new products and services does not happen without any
consequences. As discussed previously, a responsible innovation strategy can be integrated

61

in large multinationals as well as SMEs. In fact, the smaller structures and potentially greater
flexibility of SME and start-ups may facilitate the integration of such a strategy for
sharpening their competitive edge and even dedicate a whole part of their innovation
activities at addressing societal grand challenges. Hence, the potential integration of
responsible innovation in teaching programmes is largely justified.
Teaching programmes on innovation management and entrepreneurship will greatly benefit
from the added dimension of responsibility, which provides added insights and
understandings regarding the value of innovation both within an organisation, as within
society. These teaching programmes should aim to draw from strategies to enhance the
capacity of researchers and students while encouraging them to consider the commercial
application of their research, its impacts and relevance in new and existing businesses. These
can also contribute to existing training programmes on responsible innovation.
Similarly, transnational collaboration between SMEs and universities across regional and
national boundaries should be encouraged through initiatives, such as course material and
student exchanges between universities. Co-designing and exchanging selected course
materials and case studies will help incorporate various perspectives on the topic of
responsible innovation. Including knowledge about emerging technologies and opportunities
for solving societal grand challenges into these courses will turn them into an invaluable
source of information for universities and members of the KARIM. The universities within
the KARIM program will be able to share transnational access to existing training, initially
allowing students and staff from each of the partner universities (and subsequently the
wider KARIM network) to have the opportunity to gain training in any of the member
institutions.

5.2.1. How to Concretely Integrate Responsible Innovation in Courses 3

The following section will describe an experimental and innovative course on responsible
innovation, designed and structured in such a way as to maximise student involvement and
active participation through an industrial-academic convergence. As such, the whole
experiment was structured around two trimesters and involved a total of 60 international
students who took part in an interactive course programme offering a critical analysis of the
existing theory linked to the topic and bringing in various external experts to present their
point of view.
A) Context
The academic year at ESSEC is built around three trimesters:
- T1: October December
- T2: January March

This section presents an experimental course on responsible innovation conducted by Dr. Xavier Pavie and
Daphn Carthy at ESSEC Business School in 2013.

62

- T3: April June

Each course in a trimester is made up of 10 class sessions, which are each three hours
long. Each class consists of a presentation and analysis of theoretical material with
regards to a particular topic, followed by an illustration by the assigned professor in
charge of the programme. Courses are generally assessed on the basis of a final test
and/or a group project to be submitted at the end of the trimester. These are marked
and the individual students comprehension of the topic is evaluated. Active class
participation may also be part of the final mark.
Educational institutions across the globe are faced with the following increasingly
recurrent issue:
In the light of the increasing standardisation of courses, how can students attention be
captured and maintained? How can they get more involved and motivated for a
particular course topic, in order to aid and benefit both their own learning experience and
that of their peers?
B) An Innovative Methodology
OBJECTIVES:
1. To explain the inherent concepts and theories of the course.
2. To confront industrial and academic actors various viewpoints and practices
with those of the students.
3. To create an orientation framework in order to enable students to fully
understand the theoretical models and apply them to their own case study
through the simultaneous development of a critical argument to support their
case.
2 TRIMESTERS
+
60 STUDENTS
+
18 GUEST SPEAKERS

+
1 TRANSNATIONAL WORKSHOP

PRODUCTION AND
PUBLICATION OF
CASE STUDIES
DEVELOPED BY THE
STUDENTS

+
1 COMPANY VISIT

+
1 EUROPEAN SPONSORSHIP

Figure 14. Pedagogical Approach:

A Strong, Demanding and Varied Environment

63

C) From Theory to Practice

This innovative pedagogical approach was tested over two trimesters with 60 students,
as part of the course Innovation, Globalisation & Responsibility which aims to clarify the
concept of responsible innovation and to present the varying perspectives and methods
for integrating responsibility in innovation processes.
CASE ANALYSIS PER SECTOR:

TOPICS ADDRESSED
Understand the roots of innovation and
the issues at stake for organisations.
Issues surrounding innovation.
Interpretation and comprehension of
terms. Introduction to the concept of
responsible innovation.
Characteristics
and
responsible innovation.

definition

of

-Manufacturing
- New technologies
-Traditional
-Services
- Traditional
- Online
-Health
-Research in life sciences, DNA, cloning
-Pharmaceutical company
-Food & Drinks

QUESTIONS RAISED:
-Answer all consumer
needs?
-Evaluate direct impacts.
-Consider indirect
consequences.

-Education

Issues linked to involving stakeholders in

responsible innovation.
Transhumanism: the case of a future
innovation. What responsibility?
Integrating responsibility as a source of
innovation and performance.
Responsible
Management.

Innovation

Process

64
Figure 15. Course Structure
The guest speakers invited to present their topic speciality with regards to responsibility and
Guest
Speakers
innovation management in an ever
increasingly
competitive landscape provided a wide
wide range of experiences
varied opinions
to illustrate
the theory
presented
in class
range ofA experiences
and variedand
opinions
to illustrate
the theory
presented
in class.
Marc Roux
Association Franaise Transhumaniste:
TechnoProg!

Marc Lapostolle
Finance Innovation

Gaelle Hin & Doris Kirschner

Centre Francilien de lInnovation

Stphane Lapujoulade
Veolia Transdev

Thomas Le Diouron
Impulse Partners

Victor Scholten
TU Delft

Olivier Dubigeon
Sustainway

Gabriel Dorthe
Universit de Lausanne

Ibo van de Poel

TU Delft

Dick Lantim
Sensorit

Figure 16. Guest Speakers

3 Perrier
Jean-Jacques
VivAgora

A Transnational Pedagogical Experience:

Responsible Innovation Workshop at TU Delft
PROGRAMME:
-Creativity session animated by
the Innovation Academy of
UCDublin and Trinity College
Dublin.
-Presentation of the TU Delft
incubator.
-Lecture and debate: The issues
at
stake
in
responsible
innovation.
-Lecture and debate: The role
of responsible innovation in
SME.

ESSEC Business School TU Delft - UCDublin

Figure 17. A Transnational Pedagogical Experience:
Responsible Innovation Workshop at TU Delft

R&D Lab Visit at 3M

Meeting with:
Terrence Ceulemans R&D Director
Bruno Colchico R&D Laboratory Manager
Frdric Biffaud Sustainability Manager

65

Figure 18. R&D Lab Visit at 3M

D) Results
AUTOMOBILE

HEALTH RESEARCH

Toyota: The automobile industry in

the face of the complexity of
responsible innovation.
The responsible innovation case
analysis of Audi.

Does the lab at the New York

Stem Cell Foundation sfollow a
responsible innovation process?
Oragnovo: Changing the Shape of
Medical Research and Practice

INTERNET
AirBnB: Does the sharing economy
apply to responsible innovation?
Spotify: The music market faced
with the emergence of online
services.

PHARMACEUTICALS
The pharmaceutical industry:
What needs? What issues at
stake?

Services, Internet, Social Networks:

Linked In.

Towards an innovation in
diseases? Good practices of the
pharmaceutical industry.

NEW TECHNOLOGIES

FOOD & DRINKS

Does
AdemTech
follow
responsible innovation process?

Study of the Responsible Innovation

Process of a Company: Movea

EDUCATION
The MITx project at Massachussetts
Institute
of
Technology,
a
responsible innovation?

Unilever and the Rainforest

Alliance: Responsible innovation
in the food & drinks sector
Responsible Innovation in the
Foodservice
Sector:
Case
McDonalds
Starbucks:
Responsible
Innovation in the Food &
Beverages Industry

Figure 19. An application of the responsible innovation theories to various sectors

Figure 20. Publication of the Cahier: Responsible-Innovation in Practice: How to

Implement Responsibility Across an Organization?

66

Thank you for your course this

trimester, I really enjoyed it!
(A.Deniau)

We had the opportunity to develop our

knowledge and ideas with regards to
responsible innovation and also discuss and
share opinions with our European peers. Its
very encouraging to see that other students
feel concerned with this particular topic.
(T. Trumbic)

We had the chance to really get insights into

how innovation is applied within firms and
where responsibility issues may arise. A very
suitable course for people interested in a
career embracing the theme of innovation.
(Anonymous comment from the course
evaluation)

67
The course had the character of a seminar
which I liked very much. Step by step, we learnt
about the responsible innovation process which
was related to the real business world (guest
speakers).
(Anonymous comment from the course evaluation)

I was able to use the concept learned outside of

class on several occasions I think thats the best
thing you can get from a class: concepts that
contribute to your daily life.
(Anonymous comment from the course evaluation)

Figure 21. Feedback from Students

6. Conclusion and Recommendations

As can be seen through this guiding document, responsible innovation is a multifaceted and
complex issue. The ambitions of responsible innovation and the opportunities for SMEs and
entrepreneurial start-ups are large. Responsible innovation addresses the grand societal
challenges we are facing today. The grand challenges provide significant opportunities such
as alternative products and services, new business models and ways of working and more
efficient approaches to resource exploitation and energy consumption. New emerging
technologies may be able to provide substance to pursue the opportunities and solve the
concerns of sustainability. However it requires a more radical approach to innovation, where
existing paradigms need to be overcome. SMEs, entrepreneurial start-ups and transnational
technology transfer are important to experiment with and eventually exploit emerging
technologies in the quest for solving the grand societal challenges.
The KARIM network can be at the forefront of a new understanding and application of
innovation for the improvement of the European society. To build on this guiding document
we make some preliminary recommendations for the KARIM network. These include the
need to:
1. Improve visibility of responsible innovation and disseminate good practices
a. Create multi-stakeholder platforms for responsible innovation
2. Improve levels of trust in business, research and technological innovations
a. Involve stakeholders in debate about role and potential of RI
b. Fight misleading marketing ("green-washing")
3. Provide understanding how SMEs and entrepreneurial start-ups can benefit from the
opportunities that responsible innovation provides in addressing the grand
challenges of society
4. Develop a code of good practice for SMEs to advance effectiveness of Responsible
Innovation
5. Address the relevance of SMEs, entrepreneurial start-ups among policy makers when
pursuing the emergent opportunities of the grand challenges and responsible
innovation
6. Provide recommendation on policy instruments to increase the role of and
interaction between of SMEs, entrepreneurial start-ups and academe both at
regional and transnational level
7. Discuss the opportunities for teaching responsible innovation amongst students at
technical universities and the relevance of including a responsible innovation
philosophy in the research projects of faculty
8. Enhance national and sub-national CSR policies
a. Inform national policy makers on the scope and possibilities of RI

68

These advancements of our knowledge on the relevance of responsible innovation will

increase the competitive edge of SMEs within the NorthWestern region of Europe.

69

Appendix 1 - Definitions of Responsible Innovation

Below we have an overview of various definitions that merged in literature and debates at
conferences/ workshops:
Ren von Schomberg (Prospects for Technology Assessment in a Framework of Responsible
Research and Innovation, 2011)
Responsible research and innovation is a transparent, interactive process by which societal
actors and innovators become mutually responsive to each other with a view on the ethical
acceptability, sustainability and social desirability of the innovation process sits marketable
products (in order to allow a proper embedding of scientific and technological advances in
our society).
Jack Stilgoe (ESOF Conference, Dublin 2012)
Responsible innovation is collective care for the future through the stewardship of
innovation in the present.
Definitions mentioned that emerged from the Responsible Research and Innovation
workshop held in Brussels, 16-17 May 2011.
(http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/responsibleresearch-and-innovation-workshop-newsletter_en.pdf)
A variety of definitions were discussed in the process of definition development among the
partners within KARIM. We wish to share these in order to get a better understanding of our
reasoning in arriving at the present definition suggested in this document.
Definition 1: Responsible research and innovation is about developing, in a transparent,
accountable and inclusive way, new ideas/ excellent research and incentives to serve and
benefit society and build upon the shared European values held by societal actors.
Definition 2: Responsible research and innovation becomes responsible by an iterative and
interdisciplinary impact assessment of outcomes to be discussed in a societal dialogue and
evaluated against political principals and purposes.
Definition 3: Responsible research and innovation is a process that is dynamic, inclusive and
interactive, engages all societal actors, is based on common EU values, serves and benefits
society, is accountable and transparent, is reflective and self-evaluating and is based on
scientific excellence and multidisciplinary.

70

Definition 4: Responsible research and innovation achieves societal goals and values in a way
that is safe, secure, ethical, sustainable, inclusive, competitive and is based on the principles
of fairness, understanding of impacts now and in the future, integrity, openness,
transparency, human dignity, multidisciplinary and based on scientific excellence. At all
levels, in society, for all actors.
Definition 5: Responsible Research and Innovation is committed to societal demands and
built on inclusion of the full pluralism of visions of the future, as well as the ethical, societal,
environmental & economic implications of research and innovation outcomes. It ensures
that research and innovation contributes appropriately to cultural and material
reproduction. It is based on accessible, inclusive, transparent, integrative and power
balanced interaction between societal actors.

71

Appendix 2
Overview of Key Grand Challenges
Key areas

Energy, resources,
and environment

Energy-related**
Industrial bio-nanotechnology related to energy and environment
Geo-diagnosis technology*
Space and ocean management technology (including
observations)**
Nuclear energy*
Renewable energy*
Fossil energy
Efficient power storage system
Energy saving
Agriculture, forestry, and fisheries resources
Water resources
Environment, recyclable resources, recycling, LCA
Hydrocarbon resources, mineral resources, and CCS
Life style and environment
Evaluation of and countermeasures to global warming
Technology for urban waste minimization / material circulation for
environmental conservation / resource- and energy- saving products
Pollution prevention for atmosphere, water and soil / circulative use
technology for water resources
Energy, resources, and environment**

Medical

Applied bio-nanotechnology
Medical treatment (exogenous factor, metabolic disease, and
psychiatric disease)
Medical treatment aiming at safety and security*
Creation of new medical technology*

72

Development of predictive and preventive medicine

Others

Socialization of information**
Cloud computing
New principle for information and communication
Space technologies (including space medicine)
Base materials for Nano-technology*
Output (device, systemization and applied technology)*
Globalization, value-adding and market creation
Unpopularity of science and engineering, human resource problem,
the declining birth rate and aging population
Management to prevent the decrease of competitiveness in the
international market, development of internationally competent
people, and cross-cultural cooperative management.
Service management, management in the education and research
field, environment business management, governmental institution
management
Framework for facilitation of social innovation and network building
Management of humans, creation, management, and transfer of
knowledge, education, and maintenance of education level by
standardization
Strategy toward sustainable infrastructure system*

73

Appendix 3
Some Relevant Metrics, Projects and Reports
CSR compass
Here small and medium-sized companies can find help to manage social and environmental
challenges in the supply chain and to comply with expectations from governments, industry
and NGOs.
http://www.csrcompass.com/
Global compact
The United Nations Global Compact is a strategic policy initiative for businesses that are
committed to aligning their operations and strategies with ten universally accepted
principles in the areas of human rights, labour, environment and anti-corruption.
http://www.unglobalcompact.org/AboutTheGC/TheTenPrinciples/index.html
Global Compact Self Assessment Tool
test your company's performance on all ten UN Global Compact principles covering Human
Rights,
Labour,
Environment
and
Anti-Corruption.
http://www.globalcompactselfassessment.org/
ISO 26000
The International Standard ISO 26000:2010 provides Guidance on social responsibility.
http://www.iso.org/iso/social_responsibility
GRI and Global Compact Index
http://www.report.basf.com/2010/en/overviews/griandglobalcompactindex/strategyandpro
file.html
Ethibel sustainability index
http://forumethibel.org/content/ethibel_sustainability_index_raadplegen.html
CSR scorecard
http://nbis.org/nbisresources/metrics/balanced_scorecard_and_csr.pdf
GlobalCSR.eu
portrays nine leading European corporations as they unfold and implement global CSR
strategies. You get the opportunity to learn from hands-on experiences of companies active
in developing regions. http://www.globalcsr.at/main.php

74

RESPONSE Understanding and Responding to Societal Demands on Corporate

Responsibility. http://www.insead.edu/v1/ibis/response_project/index.htm
Ideas Compass
The Ideas Compass is the place where small and medium-sized companies can find
inspiration to innovate and evolve. http://ideascompass.dk/en/
The Business Case for being a Responsible Business
http://www.bitc.org.uk/resources/publications/the_business_case.html
NORMAPME SME User Guide on ISO 26000
The aim of ISO 26000 is to offer guidance on social responsibility to all types and sizes of
organisations.
http://www.normapme.eu/public/uploads/files/csr%20user%20guide/User%20guide%20ISO
26000_version%20EN_final_18072011.pdf

Sample research groups and centers

The Corporate Social Responsibility and Business Ethics Research Group Website:
The Oxford-Achilles Working Group on Social Responsibility
3TU.Centre for Ethics and Technology
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Ethics
CSR and Development Group
Center for Social Innovation at Stanford University
International Center for Social Corporate Responsibility
MATTER for all
The Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

75

Bibliography
Acquier, A., Gond, J.-P. and Igalens, J. (2011). La religion dans les affaires: la RSE, Fondapol,
May 2011.
Barnard, C. I. (1938). The Functions of the Executive, Harvard University Press, Cambridge,
MA.
Bensaude-Vincent, B. (2009). Editorial at the Conference: Colloque innovation-responsable,
held at Collge de France, April 2009.
Botterhuis, L., van der Duin, P., de Ruijter, P., and van Wijck, P. (2010). Monitoring the
future. Building an early warning system for the Dutch Ministry of Justice. Futures 42:
454465
Brundtland, G. H. (1987). Our Common Future Report of the World Commission on
Environment and Development. United Nations General Assembly, New York.
Caroll, A. B. (1979). A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Social
Performance. Academy of Management Review, 4: 497-505.
Caroll, A. B. (1994). Social Issues in Management Research: Experts Views, Analysis and
Commentary. Business & Society, 33: 5-29.
Caroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate Social Responsibility. Business & Society, 38(3): 268-295.
Chesbrough, H.W. (2003). The Era of Open Innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review,
44(3): 34-41.
Clark, J. M. (1939). Social Control of Business, 2nd ed., New York: McGraw-Hill.
Cohen, W.M., & Levinthal, D.A. (1990). Absorptive Capacity. Absorptive Capacity: A New
Perspective On Learning And Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1): 128
152.
Collingridge, D. (1980). The Social Control of Technology, New York: St. Martin's Press;
London: Pinter.
CNW Marketing (2007). Dust to Dust: The Energy Cost of New Vehicles From Concept to
Disposal.
Dahlander, L. and Frederiksen, L. (2012). The Core and Cosmopolitans: A Relational View of
Innovation in User Communities, Organization Science, 23(4): 988-1007.
Dickson, P. R. and Giglierano, J. J. (1986). Missing the Boat and Sinking the Boat: A
Conceptual Model of Entrepreneurial Risk. Journal of Marketing, 50: 58-70.
Donaldson, T. and Preston, L. E. (1995). The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation:
Concepts, Evidence and Implications. The Academy of Management Review, 20(1): 6591.
Engel, L. (1997). Rguler les comportements, in T. Ferenczi (eds.), De quoi sommes-nous
responsables? Editions Le Monde, 11-36, 80-89.
European Commission (2011). Communication from the Commission to the European
Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Regions. WWW page.

76

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sustainablebusiness/ files/csr/newcsr/act_en.pdf, accessed 24.3.2012

Ewald, F. (1996). Histoire de lEtat-Providence, (Folio), p. 86.
Falk, R. (2007). Measuring the Effects of Public Support Schemes on Firms Innovation
Activities. Survey Evidence from Austria, Research Policy 36(5): 665-679.
Fransman, M. (1990). The Market and Beyond: Cooperation and Competition in Information
Technology Development in the Japanese System, Cambridge University Press.
Gargiulo, M. & Benassi, M. (2000). Trapped In Your Own Net? Network Cohesion, Structural
Holes, and the Adaptation of Social Capital. Organizational Science, 11: 183196.
Georghiou, L., et al. (2003). Raising EU R&D Intensity: Improving the Effectiveness of Public
Support Mechanisms for Private Sector Research and Development, Direct Measures
2003, EUR 20716.
Gorgoni, G. (2006). La responsabilit comme projet, in: Christophe Eberhard, Traduire nos
responsabilits plantaires. Recomposer nos paysages juridiques, (Bruxelles, Bruylant),
pp.131-46.
Greenwood, M. (2007). Stakeholder Engagement: Beyond the Myth of Corporate
Responsibility, Journal of Business Ethics, 74: 315327.
Igalens, J. and Benraiss, L. (2005). Aux fondements de laudit social: Howard R. Bowen et les
glises protestantes, Actes de la 23e Universit dt de lAudit social, 1er et 2
septembre 2005, IAE de Lille.
Jonas, H. (1979). Das Prinzip Verantwortung Versuch einer Ethik fr die technologische
Zivilisation, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main.
Jones T, Felps W, Bigley G. (2007). Ethical theory and stakeholder-related decisions: The role
of stakeholder culture. Academy of Management Review, 32: 137-155.
Kramer, M., Pfitzer, M., and Leeb, P. (2005). Competitive Social Responsibility: Uncovering
the Economic Rationale for Corporate Social Responsibility among Danish Small- and
Medium-Sized Enterprises. Foundation Strategy Group & Center for Business and
Government, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. [Online].
Available: http://www.eogs.dk/sw26505.asp. Accessed on 20 August 2009.
Kreps, T. (1940). Measurement of the Social Performance of Business. An Investigation of
Concentration of Economic Power for the Temporary National Economic Committee
(Monograph No.7). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
McWilliams, A., Siegel, D.S., and Wright, P.M. (2006). Guest Editors Introduction Corporate
Social Responsibility: Strategic Implications. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1):118
Moore, G. (1991). Crossing the Chasm. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.
Mullins, J. W. And Forlani, D. (2005). Missing the Boat or Sinking the Boat: A Study of New
Venture Decision Making. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(1): 47-69.
Myers, S. And Marquis, D. G. (1969). Successful Industrial Innovation: A Study of Factors
Underlying Innovation in Selected Firms, National Science Foundation, NSF 69-17,

77

Washington DC quoted in Trott, P. (2005). Innovation Management and New Product

Development, 3rd edition, Prentice Hall, Harlow, p. 15.
Nidumolu, R., Prahalad, C.K. and Rangaswami, M. R. (2009). Why Sustainability is Now the
Key Driver of Innovation. Harvard Business Review, September: 5764.
Pavie, X. (2012) (Updated September 2013). The Importance of Responsible-Innovation and
the Necessity of Innovation-Care, ESSEC Research Center Working Paper 1203.
Pavie, X. (2012). Innovation Responsable. Stratgie et levier de croissance pour les
organisations. Paris: Eyrolles.
Pavie, X . (dir.), De quoi linnovation-responsable est-elle le nom ?, Cahier Innovation &
Society, November 2011.
Pavie, X. (dir.), Innovation responsable: oxymore ou ralit, Cahier Innovation & Society,
June 2011.
Pavie, X. and Carthy, D. (2012). A Strategy and Process for Integrating ResponsibleInnovation into Organisations, Presented at the 2nd Conference on ResponsibleInnovation (Maatschappelijk Verantwoord Innoveren) on 13-14 December 2012.
Pavie, X. and Carthy, D. (2013). An Integration of Responsible Innovation in the Financial
Sector through Design Thinking, ESSEC Research Center Working Paper 1324.
Pavie, X. and Carthy, D. (dir.) (2013). Responsible-Innovation in Practice: How to Implement
Responsibility Acrosss an Organization, Cahier Innovation & Society N33.
Phillips, J. (2011). The evolution of the innovation funnel. Ovo Innovations Blog Site:
Innovate
on
Purpose.
Available
at:
http://innovateonpurpose.blogspot.fr/2011/03/evolution-of-innovation-funnel.html
Pless N., Maak T., Waldman D. (2012). Different Approaches Toward Doing the Right Thing:
Mapping the Responsibility Orientations of Leaders. Academy of Management
Perspectives. 26,(4): 51-65.
Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance,
New York: Free Press.
Raymond, J. (2003). La Ford Pinto: le contre-exemple amricain, Le Polyscope Le journal de
lEcole polytechnique de Montral, vol. 36.
Pedersen, E. R. (2010). Modelling CSR: How Managers Understand the Responsibilities on
Business Toward Society, Journal of Business Ethics, 91: 155-66.
Rittel, H. and Weber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4:
155-169.
Schilling, M. A. (2005). A Small-World Network Model of Cognitive Insight. Creativity
Research Journal. 17(23): 131154.
Schot, J. and Rip, A. (1997). The Past and Future of Constructive Technology Assessment,
Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 54: 251-268.
Schumpeter, J. (1912). Economic Doctrine and Method. New York: Oxford University Press,
1954, translated from the German 1912.
Schumpeter, J. (1934). The Theory of Economic Development, Boston: Harvard University
Press.

78

Schumpeter, J. (1939). Business Cycles: A Theoretical, Historical and Statistical Analysis of the
Capitalist Process, (New York McGraw-Hill), p. 105.
Shaw, W. H. and Barry, V. (1995). Moral Issues in Business, 6th Edition, Belmont, Wadsworth
Publishing Company.
Shane, S. (2002). Executive Forum: University technology transfer to entrepreneurial
companies. Journal of Business Venturing, 17: 537552.
Stevenson, H. H. and Gumpert, D. (1985). The Heart of Entrepreneurship, Harvard Business
Review, 85: 85-94.
Tortoriello, M. and Krackhardt, D. (2010). Activating Cross-Boundary Knowledge: The Role of
Simmelian Ties in the Generation of Innovations, Academic Management Journal
53(1): 167181.
Trott, P. (2012). Innovation Management and New Product Development, 5th edition,
Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Ubois, J. (2009). Conversations on Innovation, Power, and Responsibility. P. 52. Retrieved
from Internet: http://beyondradiation.blogs.com/mblog/2010/02/index.html,Febr.12,
2010
Van den Hoven, J., Lokhorst, G.-J. and van de Poel, I. (2012). Engineering and the Problem of
Moral Overload. Science and Engineering Ethics. 18(1):143-155.
Van Maanen, J. and Barley, S. (1984). Occupational Communities: Culture and Control in
Organizations. B. M. Staw, L. L. Cummings, eds. Research in Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 6. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, 287365.
Von Schomberg, R. (2011). Prospects for Technology Assessment in a Framework of
Responsible Research and Innovation in: Technikfolgen abschtzen lehren:
Bildungspotenziale transdisziplinrer Methode, P.39-61, Wiesbaden: Springer VS
Waldman, D. and Galvin, B. (2008). Alternative Perspectives of Responsible Leadership.
Organizational Dynamics, 37: 327-341.
Waldman, D. and Siegel, D. (2008). Theoretical and Practitioner Letters: Defining the Socially
Responsible Leader. Leadership Quarterly, 19: 117-131.
Wallich, H. C. and McGowan, J. J. (1970). Stockholder Interest and the Corporations Role in
Social Policy in Baumol, W. J. (ed.) A New Rationale for Corporate Social Policy. New
York: Committee for Economic Development.
Wellman, B., Salaff, J., Dimitrova, D., Garton, L., Gulia, M. and Haythornthwaite, C. (1996).
Computer networks as social networks: Collaborative Work, Telework, and Virtual
Community. Annual Review of Sociology, 22: 213238.

79