Here it states:
(1) the development should not be at the expense of people’s essential rights (including their access to sufficient food and
water, health rights, work rights, and land entitlements;

(2)the development should be environmentally sustainable;

(3)the development should contribute to a net environmental benefit and should not exacerbate environmental degradation;

(4) products should be developed in accordance with trade principles that are fair and that recognise the rights of people to just reward (including labour rights and intellectual property rights); (5)the costs and benefits of a development should be distributed in an equitable way; and (6) if the first five principles are respected and if the development can play a crucial role in mitigating environmental and social harm, then depending on key market and economic considerations, there is a duty to undertake the development.

We have long debated the concept of responsibility but without ever looking for a definition, more looking to responsibilize a the innovation process. My personal opinion is that responsibility in innovation is a process, a way of acting more than a product or a thing that can be defined. Responsibility in innovation has a similar effect to anti corruption and transparency law. It leads to creating the contextual conditions that push the system into decision-making efficiency (and therefore the desirability or not of any particular choice, bearing in mind the many aspects that all of the definitions under debate propose).

Referring to the comments about irresponsibility we can easily pose the question of how much can an irresponsible choice cost society if the analysis of a scenario is insufficient? I question though whether the decision-making process itself was irresponsible, maybe it was ill informed or informed differently. Retrospection is a great thing.

One question to pose is the following: what kind of scenario should a person who makes a historically relevant choice envisage in the short and medium term?

Today in many institutional settings the principle of precaution has had to take note of the concept of reversibility, stating that “we have to avoid actions whose consequences cannot be seen, and could therefore be irreversible”. Maybe we should add reversibility to the list of ideas and goals to be included in our definition.

Acting through awareness raising via co-ordinated projects with both public and private institutions to achieve a more responsible innovation process is our chosen means to affecting the process. I don’t honestly believe that we will ever be able to look at a process and say that it was conducted according to a definition of responsible innovation because we don’t really know how to define the scenario and therefore the analysis to use. It is more of a pruning job than a prescription.

Jonny

Thanks for reminding me!

I would at some stage like to explore this definition in the context of non-science/technology centric innovation (e.g. design), social innovation and service innovation. I think this would be interesting in order to open up new perspectives but also understand the emerging innovation policy contexts e.g. around design/social innovation policy.

simon

Very interesting and pertinent discussion – thanks for stimulating it.

I’m still coming up to speed on the correspondence in between lectures, but here’s a context that might make things even more interesting:

In a few weeks I am introducing my Entrepreneurial Ethics class of 17 entrepreneurs to the concept of Responsible Innovation – how should I pitch it to them, remembering that they are looking at the world through the lens of creating value through establishing and growing ventures?

In my mind, this lens moves from the sociologically ideal to the socially achievable.

More later probably

THIS CAME LATER

My thoughts here are still very naive as I haven’t had time to go through the other comments and literature in depth. But I do get the sense that a number of perspectives on responsible innovation are driven by social ideals (this is what society should be like) rather than socioeconomic realities (this is how the world really works). From the perspective of entrepreneurs, who are often on the ground floor of innovation and development, where are the incentives for them – where is the value proposition of responsible innovation – or is this something that has to be developed and implemented from the top-down because the value proposition at the cutting edge of technology innovation is too diffuse?

I’d like to think that there is a very concrete value proposition here that makes as much sense to the individual entrepreneur who is desperately trying to bootstrap a young venture, as it does to bureaucrats sitting in government – but not sure I have seen a good articulation of this yet.

MY REPLIES:

Thanks Andrew. Look forward to further views.

Re your entrepreneurs:

A good starting point might be the views and expectations of key stakeholders? Our Building Confidence in Innovative Technologies report explored with investors, ngos, retail buyers and the public what their expectations were of business and how they may respond.

Here it is: http://www.matterforall.org/pdf/MATTER-building_confidence_in_innovative_tech.pdf

A bit of context from our ‘Primer for responsible innovation – why now, what is it etc here (from our doc for the European Commission):

http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/rri-report-hilary-sutcliffe_en.pdf

We have also produced a draft guidance document for SME businesses involved in Bioscience and food, those sorts of questions could be the starting point for a discussion about what is practical, sensible and useful in relation to their own businesses? The aim being to stimulate reflection, not to provide off the peg solutions that they have to tick the boxes of. Skip the first few pages, could have taken them out but want to be sure its clear this is a draft for discussion. I think it’s a bit pie in the sky and would welcome some hard nosed input!

MY REPLY RE IDEALIST NOTIONS!

Hmm, though am sympathetic with the ideals thing in that as the way the world works has been crap in many cases, we need to think of new ways. Sustainability is a new way, responsible innovation is a new way and part of the bigger picture.

In my experience SMEs are very much more attune to that than anyone else. I think the value proposition for them is clear and compelling, to find solutions to society’s big problems using new tech, & to do more with less. It doesn’t mean you can’t make a better skin cream for people like me or a better washing powder, or fabulous software to help us do something different, but social issues are at the heart of alot of these areas now. If you look at the way people like Unilever are now working the social and eco issues are embedded and that is the way of things to come. http://www.unilever.com/sustainable-living/ Of course there has to be a market, but as late lessons says, a market for something irresponsible isn’t going to fly anyway.

Also we are working on this ‘myth’ that precaution and sustainability are barriers to innovation. Late lessons says that’s not true. Take a look at James Dyson here, don’t know if you can see this programme over there. Here is the link to the Genuis of Innovation programme where Dyson says something along the lines of ‘how great to be here now, doing more with less is a great stimulus for innovation – we are at the start of what will be a glorious age’ (56 mins in to the broadcast). I liked also the ‘Frugal Innovation’ stuff from DEMOS, but again negative tone perhaps a bit off putting. I think it isn’t just about precaution, but about how constraints promote innovation?

I suppose it depends on your course. Do you want to help them develop and deliver their products responsibly and sustainably, or tell them more about risk science etc. Not sure what they think they are coming for?

Sorry, long winded answer, by the way, I am not disagreeing with you, I usually make that argument too, but also wanted to rehearse my answer! I think the world still penalises irresponsible innovation from start ups more than big companies, so it’w worth thinking about in advance. Then when they buy you for $$$$$mmmmmm they have less to worry about!

Why not join Hillary’s party?

A provocative topic, certainly germane to my not-really-new-anymore line of business, eco-innovation.

An alternative proposal that embodies my concern with (a) the absence of a reference to “values” – whatever they are – and (b) the our vs. others phrasing.

“Responsible innovation is innovation that aims at satisfying needs and fulfilling aspirations while respecting values and alternative options now and in the future.”

Shortcoming: It’s an impossibility theorem!

‘got to run!

Thanks Hil!
Phil

TO WHICH I REPLIED

Hey, it’s becoming quite an enjoyable party, thanks Philippe!

This has leaped to first place now for me, though feel there’s an improvement to be made on ‘alternative options’. Will ponder!

Perhaps we shouldn’t worry that it’s undeliverable. That’s not perhaps the point – so was Brundtland, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ‘I have a Dream’ and all the best stuff!

H

FURTHER COMMENT FROM PHILIPPE

By the way, my personal definition of innovation is “Innovation is the creation of value that society takes up and rewards.” It’s not published. So, if you find it useful and wish refer to it, please be so kind as to attribute it. Thanks.

To go back to your comment on “options”, a possible new wording:

“Responsible innovation is innovation that aims at satisfying needs and fulfilling aspirations while respecting values and preserving alternatives now and in the future.”