The meaning of responsible innovation: theses, antitheses, synthesis

On 24 October 2023, 42 American states joined together to file a complaint against Meta (formerly Facebook) on the grounds that their various services, particularly Instagram, were damaging the mental and physical health of their youngest users. This massive nationwide action is not unprecedented, however, as Meta has been in the sights of the regulatory authorities for the past ten years, who have criticised the company's strategy. Meta is alleged to be responsible for a number of societal harms, ranging from a failure to protect personal data to a negative impact on mental health and even the polarisation of society.

The innovation brought about by Facebook, as one of the first platforms to create a global community of sharing and exchange, was initially perceived as extremely beneficial, as it was accessible to everyone, worldwide, without any condition of resource or technological aptitude, thus giving birth to a new information age. However, more than ever, this same innovation is now being decried for all its consequences. This other side of the coin, or the discovery of the hidden face of Meta, is a clear example of the change in our relationship to innovation.

So while innovation has long been seen as necessarily positive (or at least taken as a whole), it is increasingly criticised these days, with some going so far as to call for less innovation, or even no innovation at all. The most recent international call for a moratorium on the development of artificial intelligence is a particularly striking example.

But where do these harmful effects of innovation come from? While it is true that the positive or negative effects of an innovation only become known once it has been widely adopted, which makes these effects inherently unpredictable, can we say that these harmful aspects are intrinsic to the innovation itself? Or do they stem, at least in part, from the strategic choices made by innovators? In this respect, we can note a form of temporal inconsistency (Malherbe et al., 2023) between the innovators' original objectives (such as Google's famous “don't be evil”) and the strategies, which often have adverse effects, that they adopt once their innovation has spread. This inconsistency also affects the users of the innovation, whose ‘myopic’ and individualistic behaviour is a source of ‘rebound effects’ that can annihilate the efforts made to reduce the harm caused by the innovation.

It is against this backdrop of growing doubt and disillusionment with innovation that a stream of research into responsible innovation (RI) has emerged since the early 2010s, driven both by academic research and by public institutions such as the European Commission. While there have been differences between these two currents, they have now largely converged around a common vision of RI. Noting that it is generally impossible, ex ante, to define precisely what responsible innovation is, or even to determine whether a particular innovation is responsible, this research emphasises the procedural and non-substantive nature of responsible innovation. Such a process requires not only that stakeholders in the broadest sense (including society as a whole) be taken into account in the innovation process, but also that ‘desirable’ futures be invented to guide the trajectory of the innovation ex ante, in an essentially uncertain environment.

Although hundreds of articles on RI have been published in academic journals over the last decade, with a sharp acceleration in recent years, a bibliometric analysis of this work reveals a much more mixed and complex situation (Barlatier et al., 2024).

First of all, there is a real risk that this research will become ‘niche’, as a large number of these articles are published in a very small number of journals, in particular the Journal of Responsible Innovation. In addition, the striking contrast between the large number of articles published on this subject in specialist journals and the very small number of articles on the same subject published in the most reputable academic journals tends to indicate a chronic inability of this field to fit into the mainstream of research. Finally, this bibliometric analysis also reveals a fragmented image and the existence within the RI research stream itself of different communities of researchers who coexist but rarely engage in dialogue with each other. Research into RI is essentially divided into two currents that are currently impermeable, one originating in innovation research and the other in ethics research.

How can these trends be explained?

We put forward two complementary proposals. Firstly, there is a general lack of engagement with the dominant theories, but also a general lack of theoretical approach. Articles on RI tend to extend the applicability of the concept as widely as possible, but without linking it to existing or new theories.

A second pitfall is that the literature on RI often adopts a particularly optimistic and simplified approach to issues that are nonetheless considerably complex: cooperation and consensus between stakeholders are often taken for granted and the validity of the RI concept, its feasibility and its limits are only very quickly questioned.

All this tends to marginalise the literature on RI. To get out of this, IR needs to be embedded in robust theoretical frameworks, whether these are existing frameworks or new theoretical frameworks. This would not only reduce the fragmentation of IR research, as these theoretical frameworks would enable a dialogue between the different IR communities, but would also create bridges with other research streams and thus break the relative isolation in which this field of research finds itself, enabling it to gain much greater acceptance and thus propagate this concept beyond the niche in which it finds itself. In order to gain this broad acceptance, it is also probably necessary to adopt a more critical and nuanced approach to RI, to show its darker sides, and not to deny the complexity of its implementation.

To this end, we propose four research perspectives that will both help to integrate the literature on RI and enable it to be integrated into broader research fields:

Integrating sustainable development into innovation processes

This area of research focuses on the integration of sustainable development objectives into innovation processes, particularly within technology start-ups, and highlights the need to strike a balance between economic viability and social and environmental responsibility.

Governance and public policy for responsible innovation

The aim of this area is to explore the role played by governance structures and public policies in redirecting innovation towards more responsible and ethical practices.

Transformative and disruptive innovation driven by collaborative knowledge and innovation dynamics

This area of research focuses on the need to address the ‘big challenges’ through transformative and disruptive innovations that go well beyond simple incremental changes and are based on collective and non-linear approaches to innovation.

Empowering future innovators

This last area focuses on the pivotal role played by educational institutions in developing the next generation of entrepreneurs so that they adopt responsible innovation and entrepreneurship practices that promote sustainable development.

These perspectives encourage an enriched and substantial integration of responsible innovation into the field of innovation research. This approach gives it the recognition and relevance it truly deserves, while highlighting its essential role in building a sustainable future.

References

Barlatier, P.-J., Georget, V., Pénin, J., & Rayna, T. (n.d.). The Origin, Robustness, and Future of Responsible Innovation. Journal of Innovation Economics & Management, 43(2024/1). https://doi.org/10.3917/jie.043.0001

Malherbe, M., Peng, H., Simon, F., & Tellier, A. (2023). Éditorial. Le management de l’innovation à l’épreuve de la temporalité. Innovations, 71(2), 5–30. https://doi.org/10.3917/inno.071.0005

Responsible Innovation - Theoretical Debates and Facts Trends. Journal of Innovation Economics & Management, 43(2024/1). https://www.cairn.info/revue-journal-of-innovation-economics-2024-1.htm

Photo by ThisIsEngineering