This doctoral thesis investigates the concept of responsibility in the setting of industrial research and innovation (R&I). Companies have multiple responsibilities in society: profit generation for shareowners, legal and contractual liabilities, as well as socially and morally binding obligations beyond legal compliance. These responsibilities coexist in R&I, and at times, stand in conflict with each other. Moreover, the radical uncertainty of innovation activity raises dilemmas with regard to responsibility. For instance, can R&I practitioners be held responsible for those future impacts of their innovation that still remain unknown at the time of R&I? Furthermore, how should such responsibility be distributed between developers (R&I), enablers (funders, regulators) and appliers (users) of the innovation? To address such questions, the broad notion of responsibility first needs to be opened up, to distinguish between its different meanings and elements. This thesis develops a framework that supports identification and coordination of various responsibilities in the inherently uncertain R&I settings. The main research question of the thesis is: How do different elements of responsibility become identified and carried out in R&I? As outcome, this thesis will present a meta-responsibility map: A tool for industrial R&I teams and consortia to reflect on their responsibilities, in situations such as goalsetting, problem-solving, decision-making, and stakeholder interaction. @en

The term "responsibility" embodies many meanings, also in the context of corporate research and innovation (R&I). The approach of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) has emerged as a promoter for responsible conduct of innovation but so far lacks a systematic framework for describing, inventorying, and eventually managing different responsibilities that R&I units hold in companies and further in society. In this paper we take forward the idea of developing RRI into a "meta-responsibility" approach, for orchestrating responsibilities in corporate R&I. First, we introduce a frame for defining responsibility, which is inclusive of four elements (care, liability, accountability, and responsiveness), and is attentive to the intrinsic uncertainty of the R&I setting. Drawing on empirical data from interviews, we then examine how these responsibility elements become operationalised in an actual R&I project. As a result, we develop a meta-responsibility map for corporate R&I, bringing various and sometimes contradicting principles, expectations and obligations under the common terminology of responsibility. We suggest that such integrative outlook on responsibilities increases theoretical solidity and practical applicability of RRI as an innovation management approach. Regarding R&I practices, we conclude that the meta-responsibility map can support R&I units in exploring their co-existing and sometimes conflicting responsibilities, and in managing those responsibilities in the highly uncertain R&I setting. In particular, meta-responsibility shows applicability in (i) balancing risk and precaution, (ii) exposing and addressing concerns about the goals and impacts of innovation, and (iii) accelerating sectoral transition whilst securing one's own competitive advantage in it.

@en

The concept of mutual responsiveness is currently based on little empirical data in the literature of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI). This paper explores RRI’s idea of mutual responsiveness in the light of recent RRI case studies on private sector research and development (R&D). In RRI, responsible innovation is understood as a joint endeavour of innovators and societal stakeholders, who become mutually responsive to each other in defining the ‘right impacts’ of the innovation in society, and in steering the innovation towards realising those impacts. Yet, the case studies identified several reasons for why the idea of mutual responsiveness does not always appear feasible or desirable in actual R&D situations. Inspired by the discrepancies between theory and practice, we suggest three further elaborations for the concept of responsiveness in RRI. Process-responsiveness is suggested for identifying situations that require stakeholder involvement specifically during R&D. Product-responsiveness is suggested for mobilising the potential of innovation products to be adaptable according to diverse stakeholder needs. Presponsiveness is suggested as responsiveness towards stakeholders that are not (yet) reachable at a given time of R&D. Our aim is to contribute to a more tangible understanding of responsiveness in RRI, and suggest directions for further analysis in upcoming RRI case studies.

@en