Once the rockets are up, who should care where they come down? The problem of responsibility ascription for the negative consequences of biofuel innovations

Responsible Innovation (RI) is often heralded in EU policy circles as a means to achieve ethically acceptable, sustainable innovations. Yet, conceptual questions on the specific notion of ‘responsibility’ and to what extent an innovation can be ‘responsible’ are only partly addressed. In this chapter the question of responsibility for the indirect negative effects of biofuel innovations is explored. While initially hailed as one of the much needed solutions in the global struggle against climate change, the use of biofuels has become increasingly criticised. It is argued that the increased production of biofuels has put smallholder farmers out of business, has given rise to increased food prices, sparking food riots in several countries, while also contributing to further environmental degradation as the demand for new biofuels requires the development of new croplands at the cost of forests and peat lands. In the current market-based system it is customary to disburden researchers and business companies from any responsibility for the more remote consequences of their actions. When harmful consequences are brought about through the mediation of (perhaps a long series of) market transactions, they are often considered inevitable and excusable and not an appropriate occasion for invoking anybody’s responsibility. But how broad is the scope of responsibility when it comes to the above mentioned social and ecological problems? By invoking the sacred duty to “innovate”, the business company could perhaps be exculpated. In our age, innovation is often so much celebrated that many negative impacts are duly accepted as the inevitable price of progress. By approaching responsibility from a perspective that takes into account the economic and ecological interconnectedness of the world, we show how the debate on Responsible Innovation in biofuels becomes tied in with global debates on economic justice and bioscarcity. In conclusion we argue that if we—assuming this interconnectedness—take the current requirements of “Responsible” Innovation seriously, it would result in a demanding practice that calls for a substantial departure from business as usual, which prompts the question to what extent it is reasonable to incorporate what are actually demands for global justice in programs for innovation.</p

Exploring Ethical Decision Making in Responsible Innovation: The case of innovations for healthy food

In order to strengthen RI in the private sector, it is imperative to understand how companies organise this process, where it takes place (throughout the entire company or on specific levels), and what considerations and motivations are central in the innovation process. In this chapter, the questions of whether and where normative considerations play a role in the innovation process, and whether dimensions of RI are present in the innovation process, are addressed. In order answer these research questions, a theoretical framework is developed based on Jones’s theory of ethical decision making and Cooper’s stagegate model of innovation management. In order to answer the research questions, a specific case of innovations that contribute to public health is explored, namely, that of food companies that participate in a Front-of-Pack (FoP) logo for healthier food.As the use of healthy food logos does not necessarily have a positive impact on sales and profits (Jansen LAM, De Vos S, Blok V. Motives of retailers for healthy food innovation and communication about healthy food choices. Conference paper at the MVI conference, 25–26 August 2015, The Hague, 2015), it is expected that in the decision-making process, as part of their innovation process, companies make several trade-offs between economic, technical and moral factors (Jahromi MJ, Manteghi N, Procedia Technol 1:490–495, 2012). As the social-ethical values at stake in corporate innovation processes have remained to a large extent unexplored in research on innovation management, the aim of this chapter is to identify the motivations and barriers for companies embracing and continuing a FoP logo for healthier food, and to assess whether ethical considerations play a role in this innovation process. From the findings in this research, it will become clear that although the studied companies participated in a programme for healthy food and thus are responsive to the needs of society, and although the companies feel (partially) responsible for public health, ethical considerations do not play a central role in the operational innovation process. Instead, technical and economic considerations seem to prevail in the operational innovation process. Furthermore, none of the procedural dimensions of RI seems to be present at this level in the innovation trajectory. It is argued that this may be an indication that the ethical decision-making process for RI is not located at the level of the operational innovation process itself, but is something that might be located on a higher strategic level in the company. It is at this level that the moral decision is taken to adopt the FoP logo and to engage in the RI process. The findings cast a new light on the discourse on RI in general, and in the private sector in particular

Societal impacts of regenerative medicine: reflections on the views of orthopedic professionals

As the amount of clinical studies in orthopedic regenerative medicine (RM) is increasing, it is time to take into account its impact on society. A total of 36 biomedical professionals working at the front row of orthopedic RM were interviewed to explore their attitudes, opinions and expectations regarding the societal impacts of RM. Professionals mainly recognized the societal impacts of counteraction of aging, prevention of disease and social justice. The 'soft' sides of these impacts were hardly mentioned. Whereas they did not perceive themselves in the position to mitigate these impacts, professionals should take up their role as actor and become involved in the societal debate. This is important as they can co-shape the societal impacts during the developmental process of technologies and thereby stimulate responsible innovation