Exploring the geographies of responsible innovation

Abstract

Innovation is a driving force of productivity and economic growth. However, it is simultaneously part of a techno-scientific paradigm (Benissa & Funtowicz 2015) in which innovation-fuelled economic growth also leads to increased risk and environmental degradation (Beck 1992; Giddens 1999). Recent research, such as that by Coad et al. (2021) and Biggi & Guiliani (2021), highlight these ‘dark sides of innovation’. A review by Biggi & Guiliani (2021) identifies five strands of extant research comprising varying aspects of the harmful implications of innovation: (1) work-related consequences of technology acceptance, (2) unsustainable transitions, (3) innovation and growth downside effects, (4) the risks of emerging technologies, and (5) open innovation’s dark side. Concomitant to the identification of the five strands extant research is the emergence of standardisation in contemporary innovation studies, policies, and practices. The ‘directionality’ of innovations and the methods by which mission-oriented policies aim to deal with ‘grand challenges’, such as the climate crisis and sustainable and inclusive growth (Mazzucato 2018), are prioritised. For example, innovation policies and practices, and their evolution have been categorised into three frames or phases (Schot & Steinmueller 2018). The first phase (dominant in the 1960s–1980s) focused on research and development (R&D), regulations and market failures; innovation processes were considered linear. The second phase (dominant from the 1990s and up to the present) designated innovation systems as an interaction between private, public, and R&D contributions and system failures, resulting in a dynamic and interactive focus on innovation. The third and current phase concentrates on normative innovation processes and policies and how they can induce ‘transformative change’. Therefore, ‘responsible research and innovation’ (RRI) has become an important framework towards increased sustainability or responsibility in the governance of science (Owen et al. 2012; Stilgoe et al. 2013; Stilgoe & Guston n.d.). RRI focuses on the methods by which processes and practices can improve the ethical, inclusive, and sustainable components of innovation through the emphasis on four factors: anticipation, reflexivity, inclusion, and responsiveness (Stilgoe et al. 2013). Despite the relevance of the RRI framework, RRI has been criticised by several authors (Jakobsen et al. 2019, Uyarra et al. 2019, L. Coenen & Morgan 2020) for having a narrow definition in terms of science and research, microscales, and instrumentality, as well as lacking clarity in relation to both theory and practice (Owen et al. 2013). Therefore, it is unclear whether, as a concept, RRI constitutes an ideal, strategy, discourse or discipline (Koops 2015). Moreover, the contextual underpinnings of RRI should be clarified, since it has mainly been applied to analyse ‘obvious’ controversial innovations and technologies, such as those of biotechnological and gene modifications, which often have a strong ‘top-down’ focus. A sharper focus on context can determine how RRI develops (e.g. technologically, economically, culturally, sociopolitically) in different geographies, the influences of different locations on RRI processes and outcomes, and the effects of RRI on these areas (Jakobsen et al. 2019). This leads to a wider conceptualisation of innovation processes through the ‘responsible innovation’ (RI) initiative (e.g. how responsibility should be practised or performed in real-world settings) (Jakobsen et al. 2019; Thapa et al. 2019; L. Coenen & Morgan 2020). The aims of this extended editorial are to explore the various geographies of responsible innovation and identify pathways for RI that would allow for a richer understanding of the concept in order to educate