The term “innovation”, one of the key concepts of the modern economy, is rarely found in conjunction with the term “responsibility”. Economic or sociological theories of innovation aim to understand its dynamics and determining factors in order to influence actors in their decisions and to develop public policies to encourage innovation. However, in most cases, these research projects leave no place for normative reflections; innovation is rarely considered in terms of its effects on natural resources, the environment, health and social structures; moreover, the ethical meaning of innovation and the world visions that it promotes or invalidates are seldom thought through. Even in the realm of philosophy, innovation is merely a secondary object of study [MEN 11]. Work on ethics, applied to science and technology, has responded to some of the normative questions relating to innovation, for example ethics for biotechnologies, Information and Communication Technologies (ICT), medical ethics, security, geoengineering and synthetic biology. However, there is no “philosophy of innovation” as such, devoted specifically to the problems raised by a complex, interdisciplinary phenomenon, which combines technological and scientific development with economic constraints and determinants, social and political expectations and a normative element.

The emergence of the notion of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) in Europe in early 2010 marked a conceptual turning point in this context. First promoted by the European Commission within the specific framework of European scientific projects [OWE 13, GIA 16, PEL 16b, PELc], the idea of responsible innovation rapidly attracted growing interest in academic, scientific and political circles. An increasing number of publications [OWE 12, OWE 13a, OWE 13b, HEL 03, GUS 06, VON 11, VON 12, VON 13, STI 12, GRU 11, ROB 13, LEE 13, SYK 13, NOR 14, VAN 14, PAV 14a, PAV 14b, SCH 15, PEL 15, PEL 16a, PEL 16b, GIA 16] have considered the conditions of RRI, its determining factors and the best means of implementation. Building on a long tradition of analysis and recommendations in the field of applied ethics (for example the Ethical, Legal and Social Impacts (ELSI) or Ethical, Legal and Social Aspects (ELSA) approaches) and different forms of technological evaluation (participative, real time, etc.) [OWE 13, PEL 16b, PEL 16c], RRI has opened a critical space for reflection and discussion; while this space is not entirely new, it is unique in terms of its specific focus on innovation, research and responsibility rather than technology, science and ethics.

Very little of this work has concentrated specifically on innovation and responsibility from the perspective of economic actors (in contrast, notably, to that of researchers). With the exception of articles by Pavie [PAV 14b] and Blok and Lemmens [BLO 15], research and innovation has generally been analyzed from the basis of a shared framework. In a previous volume in this series, working alongside Bernard Reber, we examined possible developments of the ethical evaluations currently carried out by the European Commission when selecting research projects to receive funding, moving toward an evaluation process based on RRI principles. The focus of the work was on the way in which responsibility might be envisaged in the context of research.

The present volume may be considered as a counterpart to its predecessor, and is intended to explore specific points raised by innovation and economic activities when viewed from the perspective of responsibility. We shall consider whether or not innovation involves specific forms of responsibility, distinct from those analyzed in the context of research activities, and the nature of these forms of responsibility.

The first challenge in responding to these questions lies in the fact that the notion of “responsible innovation” can be subject to two different readings. In the first case, the terms may be seen to be mutually incompatible, in a situation where innovation is driven by the pursuit of economic success, profitability and growth, independent of ethical reflection [PAV 12]. In the second case [PAV 14, PEL 15, PEL 16b, PEL 16c], economic activities, and thus innovation, are not treated in isolation from the notion of responsibility. This approach is visible in the development of a dynamic field of study on corporate social responsibility (CSR) over the last 40 years, resulting in the creation of a body of institutionalized practice around international standards, including ISO 26000 and the global reporting initiative standards¹. Skeptical observers have remarked that CSR is often simply a discourse fabricated by companies to add a moral dimension to their practices, with no real deep-reaching effects on their actions or on their indifference to anything that does not generate profit. To paraphrase Ulrich Beck’s ironic interpretation (1992, p. 405) of the political and moral dimension of economic activities, CSR is simply a means of sprinkling “the demon of the economy” with “the holy water of public morality, and putting on a halo of concern for society and nature”.

From an even more radical perspective, according to which the hegemony of economic, political and cultural liberalism has broken down traditional networks of solidarity, exacerbated individualism, increased pressure on limited natural resources and magnified inequalities, the dynamics created by ideas such as sustainable development or CSR might be perceived as simple window dressing. These ideas might be considered to constitute a form of moral one-upmanship, barely concealing the dominance of private interests and the constant pursuit of profit.

Without ironing out the tensions brought to light by this critical approach, the “moralization of capitalism” – a term borrowed from Ariel Colonomos [COL 05]² – aims to regulate economic activities and to counteract their most damaging effects. The political and intellectual demise of communism and its avatars, along with the limited impact of alternative ideals such as degrowth³, has created a space for reformist projects such as CSR or sustainable development, which seek to amend the system from the inside instead of reorganizing production and distribution in a more revolutionary manner. The objective of these projects is to counteract the short-term perspectives of wealth production at the heart of capitalist organizations through the addition of goals linked to social progress formulated in terms of respect for the environment, human rights, or the improvement of working conditions, which cannot be attained solely by wealth accumulation.

By highlighting the idea of responsibility, CSR provides the means of dealing with the blind spots of economic organizational systems based on free enterprise: economic actors are invited to take account of the consequences of their actions on their environment, in the broadest sense of the term. It shifts the focus on interest onto all entities affected by their actions. CSR thus involves several levels of responsibility, including legal considerations, alongside a “social” dimension, essentially defined by the inclusion of “stakeholder” interests in the balance of decisions, i.e. the interests of individuals, institutions or non-human entities (such as the environment), which affect and are affected by the enterprise⁴. A considerable volume of work has been produced on CSR, stakeholder theory and business ethics, which aim to clarify these concepts, to provide empirical work and form a rich theoretical and practical foundation for an ethical vision of economic activities. How, in this case, can we support the idea that innovation and responsibility are mutually opposed?

However, the ways in which responsibility and innovation can work together still need to be defined. Moreover, responsibility does not necessarily take the same meaning in the case of economic activities forming part of a continual process, and in the case of innovation processes marked by ontological uncertainty. Contemporary technological and scientific progress, touted as an important factor for growth and for human progress, also constitutes a disruptive element, the dynamics and influence of which are hard to predict [SCH 34]⁵. Creation and innovation processes need to be considered in the light of a limited rationality, a notion introduced by Herbert Simon in his criticism of rational choice theory [SIM 55, SIM 79]. In cases where individuals are unable to fully predict all possible scenarios and all possible solutions, their decisions are based on routines, and on sets of tried-and-tested decisions that are not necessarily suitable when the context changes. We need to consider approaches to individual responsibility in cases where the possible effects of a technology on the environment, health and safety, social structures and interpersonal relationships are unpredictable, unknown or simply overlooked, in cases where decisions are made in a climate of uncertainty and ignorance. We also need to consider the extent to which individuals can be held responsible when a considerable part of their actions have effects outside of their field of rationality and outside of their control.

Considering these questions, Wynne [WYN 92] makes a distinction between the risk associated with a technology, corresponding to cases where several possible development trajectories may be envisaged and assessed in terms of probability, and uncertainty, in cases where the probability that certain events will occur is unknown. Even limited information relating to these events may be used as the basis for rational decision making. However, contemporary developments in science and technology also involve an element of ignorance, defined by Wynne as situations in which neither the course nor the probability of events are known. The success of social networks is a good example of this dual “unknown”: in 2004⁶, no one could have predicted or probabilized the way in which they have transformed many social practices (networking, recruitment, buying and selling practices, information diffusion and even political communications). The same goes for the many ethical and legal questions raised by these networks, for example in terms of privacy or the possibility of limiting the transmission (or sale) of content by certain parties in connection with practices recognized as morally reprehensible such as terrorism or pedophilia.

Ignorance and radical uncertainty have also shaken up models for decision making based on risk calculation [JON 79, BEC 92, CAL 01]. We must imagine ways to foster research and innovation in nanotechnology, biotechnology, geo-engineering, robotics etc., given that these areas have the capacity to radically transform social organization, but that the degree of disruption and their propensity to benefit society is unknown. Innovation increases uncertainty in day-to-day research practices and political decision making.

This phenomenon, known as the knowledge paradox, has its roots in the finitude of the human being, as explored, notably, by Hannah Arendt: human beings have limited knowledge and a limited capacity for action, a life that is bounded in both time and space, and decision-making capacities that may be impeded by contradicting values (pleasure, justice, efficiency, truth, etc.). Moreover, while scientific innovation and discovery may improve our knowledge and control of the world, they also defy human rationality and reduce the extent of our knowledge as a whole. The latest major discoveries in molecular biology and neuroscience, for example, and the possibilities offered by new techniques such as MRI scanning, have improved our knowledge of the human body and the brain in real terms. However, these tools have also highlighted the extent of areas that we have yet to understand, showing just how much work is still needed in order to understand complex structures such of the human brain. We are thus condemned to “[gamble] that what we know and control is enough for taking effective decisions and what we do not know and do not control is irrelevant” (PEL 04, p. 545, emphasis our own).

This situation is often described using another dilemma, highlighted by David Collingridge in 1980. The management and “control” of a new technology should take place at the outset of the development process in order to exercise the best possible influence. However, attempts at control are made more complex because, at this stage, we only have a limited knowledge of how technology will evolve and what effects it will have. This “pathology” of innovation, to use Jack Stilgoe’s term⁷, poses a threat to the decision process; there is a risk of intervening too early in the process, when insufficient knowledge is available, or too late, when it is no longer possible to modify the course of events in a meaningful way.

More generally, researchers in the field of philosophy and sociology of science and technology have long indicated the tensions between the wish for human development, built upon economic and technological forces, and the fear of irreversible damage, leading to what Beck [BEC 92] referred to as forms of “organized irresponsibility”, i.e. a short-circuiting of any attempt to curb the negative effects of technological progress through forms of reflexivity. On the one hand, there might be a growing awareness of technological risks and uncertainty among social actors. On the other hand, faith in technological progress and economic dynamics, conceptual dependence on models of rationality and the hegemony of a certain kind of expertise would lead to a dangerous denial of collective and individual responsibility.

Finally, scientific and technical progress also hinders the advancement of normative reflections. Faith in progress sometimes creates an illusory belief that the solutions to ecological and sanitary problems (exhaustion of natural resources, damage to human health and to the environment) must, necessarily, be of a technological nature, something that conceals the necessity for normative reflection and the establishment of standards (including legal measures). As Grinbaum and Groves have stated:

“We have come to rely on scientific knowledge to create the innovations that help us to transform the world, but we cannot expect it to also enable us to calculate the ethically relevant consequences of using it” [GRI 13, p. 125].

It is not necessary to suppose that evaluation is always conceived as a simple calculation of “ethically relevant consequences”: It may also include evaluations based on other normative theories (such as deontological approaches, or approaches based on virtue ethics), and, more generally, on an assessment of the value systems underpinning technologies and their associated worldviews. Yet, Grinbaum and Groves rightly indicate that the normative exercise remains essential and should not be subsumed by technoscientific development: it must retain its specific character.

The difficulties posed by innovation in terms of our capacities for anticipation and normative evaluation, alongside the current acceleration of the resulting rhythm of social, political and technological ruptures, create a need for conceptual forms of innovation. Responsible innovation, the latest in a long series of approaches to these questions, responds to this precise need.

In this context, our aim in this book is to analyze the different ways of envisaging responsibility in innovation, starting with the idea of CSR, which has been used surprisingly little, to date, by authors working on RRI⁸, despite the theoretical proximity of the ideas involved in both frameworks. We shall consider the essential elements provided by CSR in terms of approaching responsibility in innovation, and whether CSR provides a sufficient response to the challenges posed by innovation. If this response is not sufficient, what new elements may be brought by the notion of responsible innovation? The issue is not simply one of theoretical clarification, although this process is always useful. Work on CSR has centered on debates that strongly echo the questions raised by RI, including the forms of responsibility that may be involved in economic activity, the way in which the existence of responsibility itself can be justified, and the question of an ontological opposition (or, on the contrary, entanglement) of economic practices with responsibility. In the context of CSR, these questions are approached from a general perspective of “economic practices”, but they may be transposed directly to the specific domain of innovation. While the analytical framework provided by CSR needs to be modified in order to better account for the uncertainty and ignorance mentioned above, it provides something that may be lacking in the defense of RI. This takes the form of an attempt at normative justification of the connection between responsibility and innovation in the light of demands for more democratic governance of science and technology, something that has shaped technological development over the last few decades.

Chapter 1 offers an overview of the different dimensions of corporate responsibility as found in existing literature on CSR. While many authors have given precise definitions of these dimensions, notably in legal, moral and “social” terms, they are often subject to simple juxtaposition, with no in-depth consideration of their relational dynamics. We shall thus attempt to provide an articulation between the different meanings of responsibility, highlighting the tensions that exist. The specific role of “social” responsibility (in contrast with legal and economic aspects) will be stressed. We shall consider the different schools of thought encountered in CSR, the ways in which they approach different levels of responsibility, and the governance principles that can be deduced from these elements.

In Chapter 2, we shall analyze a question that is at the heart of literature on CSR, relating to the different means of justifying the existence of corporate responsibility (legal, social or economic) from a normative perspective. A first critical approach (as proposed by Friedman [FRI 72]) severely condemned any attempt to regulate economic activities from an ethical standpoint; however, many arguments have been put forward in CSR literature to provide foundations for the notion of responsibility. Some of these arguments are based on deontological approaches to morality, focusing on the duties of enterprises with regard to their environment. Others have made use of purely consequentialist arguments, aiming to demonstrate the existence of a positive correlation between economic performance and responsibility. These debates are critical for any interpretation of the different meanings of responsibility, as they cast light on its normative origins and the dynamic factors that may or may not incite individuals to give full consideration to the notion. Published literature provides a wide range of arguments for the interweaving of ethics and economic practices that may be extended to the field of innovation. However, in spite of their strengths, these justifications do not always provide a sufficient basis for understanding motivations for responsible conduct by actors. This question will be considered in the final two chapters of our work.

Chapter 3 provides an analysis of the different dimensions of innovation that may threaten or promote responsibility. We shall consider ideas and concepts drawn from CSR that may be used “as-is” to develop and promote responsible innovation, alongside the limitations of literature in this field in terms of decision making, evaluation and action in a complex environment with uncertain or unknown areas and implications. Finally, considering another aspect of the connection between responsibility and innovation, we shall examine certain recent developments in innovation practices, which combine ethical practices with innovation from the outset (although sometimes only at this stage) in order to identify elements that may be useful in the development of principles for responsible governance.

Our final chapter aims to offer perspectives for the promotion of responsible engagement by social actors, often motivated by interests other than ethical action. It focuses on a body of work built on a vision of RI and CSR in terms of virtue ethics and the ethics of care. Developed in a context somewhat distant from that of innovation, the ethics of virtue and care still offer a number of themes for reflection in defining and encouraging responsibility in innovation. We shall see how the ethics of care and interpretations of CSR in terms of virtues can be adapted, notably with regard to meaning and the importance of “needs” and “vulnerability”, to provide a rich normative basis for understanding and interpreting the idea of responsibility and developing governance principles for RI.