Toward institutionalization of responsible research and innovation: insights from case studies of technological centers in Spain

ABSTRACT

The frameworks governing Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) are heterogeneous and constantly evolving and adapting. We build upon this adaptability to explore the potential development of RRI in Research and Technology Organizations. We explore these issues through a case study of nine Spanish technological centers to analyze the level of commitment to the RRI philosophy. We develop a process-maturity framework to evaluate and understand how these organizations engage with RRI principles. The development of the proposed framework has provided the centers involved with a learning experience as regards their developments and practices in this area. The findings allow us to obtain a holistic and comprehensive view of the responsible behavior of these centers in their innovative activity. Likewise, the results allow us to bridge the gap between theoretical concepts and organizational reality at a meso-level. This process maturity framework is intended to be used as an evaluation methodology and management system.

KEYWORDS:

• Responsible innovation
• responsible research and innovation
• institutionalization
• research and technology organizations
• technology institutes
• process-maturity framework

Introduction

In the last decade, the European Commission has developed the term Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI), not as a new concept but rather as a new approach and normative statement through which to develop new relationships between society, research, and innovation. RRI seeks to position social needs and values at the center of research and innovation (Owen, Von Schomberg, and Macnaghten 2021; Stilgoe, Owen, and Macnaghten 2013; Ulnicane 2022). It is a new governance model that involves all stakeholders and citizens from the early stages of research to align its outcomes with the values and expectations of society. By doing so, it aims to increase the possibilities of anticipating and discerning the potential benefits and disadvantages of research and its possible outcomes (Burget, Bardone, and Pedaste 2017; de Jong, Kupper, and Broerse 2016). In essence, it is an approach to and an ideal way of conducting science and innovation with and for society (Koops 2015; Stilgoe, Owen, and Macnaghten 2013).

Since then, numerous definitions, interpretations, and applications have been developed along these lines. Without delving into a debate over conceptualization and definition in this study,, we understand RRI as ‘a transparent and interactive process in which social actors and innovators mutually assume responsibility, aiming at the acceptability (ethics), sustainability, and social desirability of the research and innovation process and its marketable products (in order to enable the proper integration of scientific and technological advancements into our society)’ (von Schomberg 2012).

The implementation of RRI in organizations is not a straightforward process. As pointed out by Wittrock et al. (2021) and Tabarés et al. (2022), there are structural barriers (such as a lack of skills, resources, and incentives), cultural barriers (lack of specific training and organizational culture), and interchange barriers (due to the lack of clear mandates and strategies) that organizations faces when implementing an RRI policy.

In this paper, we aim to contribute to the existing literature and studies into the organizational institutionalization of RRI and we have a twofold objective. The first objective is to analyze the level of commitment of Research and Technology Organizations (RTOs) to the philosophy of RRI. RTOs are private, non-profit research organizations whose purpose is to support companies, especially SMEs (Small and Medium-sized Enterprises). RTOs offer the industry a broad catalog of R&D capabilities, laboratory tests, advanced services, and specialized training. In this sense, our objective is to develop a framework to evaluate and understand how RTOs engage with RRI principles. This evaluation will allow us to bridge the gap between theoretical concepts and organizational reality at a meso-level, which is a challenge according to the current literature on RRI (Owen, Von Schomberg, and Macnaghten 2021). This meso level, understood by us as the intermediate level between the macro innovation system (government and state agencies) and the micro level (SMEs companies). Therefore, it is the RTOs who act as mediators between the macro innovation system and the micro level. They serve as facilitators of technological activity, engaging in collaborative and mediating work with both levels. Thanks to this meso-level approach, RTOs facilitate the combination of resources, knowledge, and capabilities to address more complex technological challenges and promote innovation on a broader scale.

The second objective of our research is to comprehend and learn about the engagement of RRI in RTOs. Through the conducted evaluation, this study has provided the centers involved with a learning experience regarding their developments and practices in this area. We will approach RTOs as ‘learning organizations’ following Senge’s theory (1990 in Hansen, Jensen, and Nguyen 2020), which will enable us to understand the changes and reconfigurations within the RTOs in relation to this philosophy. The feedback loop with the RTOs throughout the process can facilitate the institutionalization of an organizational working style based on the philosophy of RRI.

To address these two objectives, we pose the following research question: What insights can we gain into the implementation of RRI and the learning requirements of organizations in RRI implementation by examining the distribution of practices across the respective RRI keys and RRI dimensions? This study is an empirical and theoretical contribution to the available literature and analyses regarding RRI as it will provide both theoretical and empirical data to further explore the implications of RRI in the scientific community.

RRI and its meaning

Within the framework of RRI, various approaches have emerged, such as the dimensions known as AIRR or AREA: Anticipation, Inclusion, Reflexibility, and Responsiveness (Stilgoe, Owen, and Macnaghten 2013). According to these authors, these dimensions should be taken into account when defining the context of research processes: in the organizations that undertake them, in the outcomes, and in their potential impacts.

Another approach to RRI has been through RRI keys. These keys, proposed by the EU, emerged as pathways for the operationalization of RRI and for the facilitation of dialogue with stakeholders; however, their discourse has become fragmented over the last few years (Forsberg and Wittrock 2022; Owen, Von Schomberg, and Macnaghten 2021). These keys are ethics, citizen participation, gender equality, science education, open science, and governance. Subsequently, two more areas were added: environmental sustainability and social justice (Claudia, Köppl, and Stagl 2014; Strand et al. 2015). The AIRR Framework addresses the ‘how’ of RRI implementation, providing guidance on the practical aspects and process, while the six keys emphasize the ‘what,’ focusing on the specific content and dimensions of RRI.

The existing literature on RRI is broad and varied, ranging from theoretical approaches and definitions (Forsberg and Wittrock 2022; Owen, Von Schomberg, and Macnaghten 2021) to the development of indicators and metrics (Strand et al. 2015; Zwart, Landeweerd, and van Rooij 2014), as well as the creation of toolkits (Klaassen et al. 2018). As regards the practical application of RRI, this has mainly taken place in universities and scientific organizations (Pansera et al. 2020) and in their underlying work, such as its implementation in research projects (Ulnicane 2022) or even in the analysis of scientific outputs, such as patents (Forsberg and Groenendijk 2019). In addition, studies have also been conducted in the private sector, evaluating the implementation of RRI in companies (Ahrweiler et al. 2019; Brand and Blok 2019; van de Poel et al. 2020), or in the industrial sector (Arnaldi and Neresini 2019; van de Poel et al. 2020).

Moreover, some concerns and opportunities are also identified in the RRI literature, of which it is possible to mention the types of innovation processes investigated. There is a need for a more localized and contextual approach to implementing responsibility in innovation, considering its connection not only with high-tech innovations but also with other forms, such as social innovation. Furthermore, few processes of RRI institutionalization have been studied, so more empirical insights are needed to understand organizational practices, capture the impacts of RRI interventions, and assess how scientists’ routines are changing; for example, in terms of how research agendas are set or research and innovation trajectories modulated (Jakobsen, Fløysand, and Overton 2019; Pansera et al. 2020; Stahl et al. 2017; Wiarda et al. 2021).

As we can see, the framework governing RRI, its concepts, elements, and studies is heterogeneous and constantly evolving. As Ulnicane (2022) argue, this constant rethinking of its definition and lack of specificity is a strength that allows for the adaptation of this philosophy to changing environments and attracts people and resources to its principles. In this study, we build upon this adaptability to different contexts to explore the potential development of RRI in specific organizations with unique characteristics, such as RTOs, which we will subsequently delve into.

In the complex and unique context of RTOs, scientific literature includes few studies into RRI . To our knowledge, only the work of Steen and Nauta (2020) analyzes the institutionalization of Responsible Innovation practices in RTOs, specifically focusing on a RRI key such as societal engagement. Through their case study, they propose tentative suggestions for implementing good practices in societal engagement within RTOs and identify the advantages and disadvantages of its implementation. It is precisely the study of this organization that gives the research a distinctive character, as it operates in a constantly changing environment that requires adaptation to various demands.

Research and technology organizations as learning organizations in the context of RRI

RTOs are organizations, whose aim is to assist in the support of local industry (Charles and Stancova 2015). Acting as intermediaries within regional and national innovation systems, connecting businesses, the industrial sector, research centers, and universities (European Association of Research and Technology Organisations [EARTO] n.d.). Their geographical positioning impacts their activities, collaborations, and socio-economic contributions to territorial development (Hecklau et al. 2020). However, this also poses challenges, as their activities do not have clearly defined boundaries and extend beyond organizational limits. This can become an advantage when examining how good practices established in RRI expand the boundaries of the organization itself.

RTOs are subject to competitive pressures from both the public and private spheres. On the one hand, despite being private entities, they depend heavily on public funding, which means operating in an increasingly competitive system, constantly evaluated, and influenced by the established priorities of funders. On the other hand, continuous contact with industries exposes them to market competitiveness and the industrial setting, which shapes and determines their development.

As drivers of their innovation ecosystems, RTOs activity must address socio-ethical issues and contribute to the advancement of RRI in their territory (Fitjar, Benneworth, and Asheim 2019). The principles and demands of RRI become an opportunity for differentiation and high performance in accordance with the characteristics of these organizations. According to Owen, Von Schomberg, and Macnaghten (2021), a continuous process of institutionalizing RRI in RTOs will gradually shape their leading role and enable them to adapt to new demands and challenges posed by emerging technologies.

Nevertheless, structural, cultural and interchangeable barriers can hinder RRI implementation (Wittrock et al. 2021). Specifically, Tabarés et al. (2022) point out that the most persistent factors limiting the implementation of RRI include concerning core beliefs, science cultures, economic objectives, and a lack of clarification about what RRI is and what it entails. For these reasons, it is necessary to examine the interplay of narratives, practices, rules, and incentives (Lowndes and Roberts 2013) and how they collectively favor specific R&I conduct, such as project proposals, over potentially more ethical and participatory activities, like teaching or community work.

To understand RTOs as organizations, the concept of ‘learning organization’ by Senge (1990) is adopted. Senge describes a learning organization as an organization that has the ability to continuously learn, adapt, and transform. A learning organization is characterized by an open and receptive attitude toward new ideas, willingness to challenge assumptions, and learning from mistakes. The adoption of models such as RRI requires this flexibility in organizations where an open attitude toward change and improvement is prioritized at all levels.

An important aspect highlighted by Senge (1990) is that these organizations emphasize their systemic nature, meaning they have the ability to understand the interconnections and relationships between different parts of the organization and its environment. This systemic view helps organizations to identify and address the complex challenges they face and to foster a culture of learning and innovation. A study by Hansen, Jensen, and Nguyen (2020) confirms that learning organization practices align with RRI principles, making them inherently supportive of RRI.

This study aims to understand whether RTOs can be considered a ‘learning organization’ and comprehend how they adopt the philosophy of RRI (Hansen, Jensen, and Nguyen 2020). Furthermore, in our study, we not only examine RRI from the perspective of the AIRR model but also consider the key areas, providing a comprehensive understanding of RRI within RTOs.

Research design

Research settings

We adopted a qualitative research design. The design of the study was based on the case study strategy (Eisenhardt 1989; Eisenhardt and Graebner 2007; Yin 2009). Case studies play a crucial role in identifying potential propositions, which, when further investigated through larger and more comprehensive studies, can lead to the development and testing of specific RRI theories (Wiarda et al. 2021). Therefore, the case studies were designed and selected based on some previous analyses that integrated RRI principles into practices in private contexts (Eastwood et al. 2019; Kwee, Yaghmaei, and Flipse 2021; Lehoux et al. 2020; van de Poel et al. 2020; Yaghmaei 2018).

Spanish RTOs were selected as case studies for the RRI evaluation. In Spain, regional level RTOs are identified as technology institutes or technological centers (Modrego-Rico, Barge-Gil, and Núñez-Sánchez 2005); hence, we shall hereafter refer to them as TCs.

A proposal for the evaluation of RRI challenges was developed and presented to nine TCs located in the same region in order to test specific RRI theories and reflect on RRI principles in less developed industrial contexts (Wiarda et al. 2021; Yaghmaei 2018). These TCs were committed to integrating RRI principles into their management system and governance, providing necessary resources for the evaluation, supporting its importance, and acting on the recommendations generated.

Data collection and analysis

For the qualitative analysis, we combined workshops, semi-structured interviews and document review (Figure 1). Once the nine TCs accepted to participate, a total amount of nine workshops, one per TC analyzed, with directors and middle managements (27 participants) were carried out to present the goal of the study, establish the main challenges and define the themes of analysis. The workshops were conducted in person by the facilitators (authors of this paper) between February and March 2021. Each workshop lasted approximately 2 h. After that, we conducted in each TC in-person interviews with TC directors and middle management between April and September 2021. A total of 54 interviews were conducted (36 women and 18 men). After obtaining the approval of the participants, the interviews were recorded and transcribed. Additionally, we collected secondary data from the TCs’ homepages, together with the documents and reports they provided. When necessary for the definition of key challenges, themes and the maturity grid, the results of each stage were presented to the TCs for their approval and feedback before proceeding to the next stage.

Figure 1. Data collection and analysis.

Methodology

Figure 2 illustrates the methodological approach, and the subsequent sections will provide a detailed description of each step.

Figure 2. Proposed methodology.

Context analysis

The selected TCs specialize in different productive sectors (food, energy, plastic, etc.) and are adapted to the industrial sector of the region in which they are located. This sector is composed mainly of SMEs and micro-SMEs, which are geographically dispersed and exhibit sectoral diversification. TCs are considered medium-sized organizations with between 85 and 190 employees.

Of the different services that a TC offers to the companies in its sector, we focus on research and innovation activities. The main purpose of these activities is to obtain developments and innovations with high Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs). In this sense, the principles of RRI are fundamental for the R&I activities of the selected TCs. They play a vital role in legitimizing the value and significance of innovation investments, ensuring that innovation projects are in line with societal challenges, and leveraging public funds for innovation to foster local sustainable development.

Definition of key challenges

To engage TCs with RRI principles, during the workshops, we first propose an exercise for the anticipation of and reflection on short and long-term internal, local and sectorial challenges, expectations and impacts, and the main threats for the R&I activities developed by each TC. RRI keys and RRI dimensions were also considered. The challenges identified were then unified by the work team so that they converged into common challenges regardless of their sector of activity. This was a condition proposed by the TCs themselves in order to generate a unified impact at the regional level and also to enable the methodology to be replicated in other RTOs.

Then, an agreement on the challenges to which they must respond most urgently was reached. Five challenges were defined (Table 1). Among the most critical challenges were ‘Environmentally sustainable growth’ and ‘Promoting of gender diversity’, given the increasingly common requirements that all TCs experience from international and local funders and regulators. ‘Engaging stakeholders’ and ‘Promoting inclusive industrialization and innovation’ were the most difficult challenges to define, given the nature of their work that some TCs considered them as less a priority in their activities (e.g. IT sector), while others considered them key (e.g. food industry). In this case, to reach an agreement, RRI priorities and funding policy guidelines were taken into account. Henceforth, the idea is to develop an evaluation framework that will make it possible to determine the status of each TC in relation to each of the established challenges in order to set a baseline for the institutionalization of RRI in their organization.

Table 1. TC challenges.

Challenge	Definition	Focus
Promoting gender diversity	Promoting engagement with strategies for gender diversity inside the organization	Presence of women Female leadership Research and innovation with gender perspective
Promoting environmentally sustainable growth	Promoting a model of R&I that is aligned with the main environmental challenges facing today's society	Environmental management Research and innovation for the environment
Engaging Stakeholders	Developing R&I characterized by a dialogue-based approach	Stakeholder engagement throughout Research and innovation
Learning opportunities for all	Contributing to the training of the current and future workers, researchers and innovators	Skills and knowledge of workers in productive sectors Interaction with the future generations
Promoting inclusive industrialization and innovation	Promoting innovation processes with organizations that are traditionally underrepresented	Social groups, territories or firms

Definition of the themes of analysis

The evaluation framework was designed through the nine workshops with the TCs. All of them actively participated in combining and designing items in a meaningful manner to capture different aspects that combine the requirements of the sector, and the regulations and interest of the TCs. The themes and items defined for the evaluation process are presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Themes and items of analysis.

Challenge	Themes	Definitions	Items	Source
Promoting gender diversity	Employment and recruitment	Decisions made concerning its workforce	Gender balance Measures to achieve work-life balance (reduced/ flexible working hours, etc.) Recruitment and promotion strategies promoting diversity (policy, explicit statement in job offers regarding the search for diverse profile) Transparent and flexible promotion systems	Strand et al. (2015); Bührer and Wroblewski (2019); EC (2019; 2021)
	Organization and governance	Comprises the organizational structure of the TC in terms of equality	The existence of a gender equality Plan, equality certifications, anti-harassment and discriminatory protocols Gender balance in the workforce, leadership positions and project teams Internal monitoring system Gender perspective in R&I
	Communication and training	Activities to showcase and disseminate the center's commitment to gender diversity	Internal training in equality and for women The use of inclusive language and images Internal communication channels
Promoting environmentally sustainable growth	Environmental management (EM)	The framework within which environmental management is understood and carried out	The existence of an environmental management system or action plan Environmental certification Motivations for its implementation Monitoring and evidence	IS0 14000 Strand et al. (2015). Matthews, Stamford, and Shapira 2019
	Management within the TCs	Actions carried out within the centers related to environmental management	Internal culture as regards the subject Specific actions carried out within the framework of the promotion of the environment Interest, projects and lines of research related to environmental issues Consumption, resources and waste considered and controlled in projects (process and outcomes) Environmental challenges identified
	Outward management	Activities for the improvement and promotion of environmental management in the sector	Promotion of environmental management in the sector Sector's environmental challenges Specific actions to address environmental challenges in the sector
	Waste, emissions and consumption	Use of resources and waste management	Energy, water and gas consumption Waste management Recycling policy Control and monitoring of emissions, including carbon footprint Energy generation
Engaging Stakeholders	Idea generation and planning	Stakeholder engagement from the early stages	Partners Users Other stakeholders: citizens, etc. Channels	Arrizabalaga et al. (2018); García-Melón et al. (2022); Goodman et al. (2020); Stahl et al. (2017); Steen and Nauta (2020)
	Execution and translation	Actions to involve stakeholders during execution, prototyping, validation and testing
	Approach	How to deal with the involvement of stakeholders
Learning opportunities for all	Training actions and programs	Internal training strategy	Training actions developed and target public Training plans	Usak et al. (2020); Adhikari and Shrestha (2023); Fraisl et al. (2020)
	Educational components in projects	Inclusion of training and educational components in projects	Educational actions included in projects
Promoting inclusive industrialization and innovation	SMEs in innovation activities	Strategies to encourage SMEs to participate in innovation projects	Initiatives undertaken to include small and micro enterprises in the center's activities List of SMEs in the region that have engaged with the center as clients or project partners	Gonzales-Gemio, Cruz-Cázares, and Parmentier (2020); Heeks, Foster, and Nugroho (2014); Balland et al. (2020)
	Third sector and public sector	Strategies to collaborate with organizations of a different nature, which aim to defend the common good	Efforts made towards the inclusion of socially disadvantaged groups
	Developing countries	Actions to contribute to technology transfer to less developed countries	Interaction with companies in developing countries	Halkos, de Alba, and Todorov (2021); Cheng and Cantore (2020)

Evaluation framework of the TCs based on the RRI challenges

The idea of the Maturity Model (MM) originated as an objective tool with which to assess government contractors’ processes for implementing software projects (Humphrey 1988). It proved to be a valuable tool for organizations in order to assess their current state, identify a cumulative set of’ key processes which ought to be completed at each maturity level and plan for future developments. The approach has been implemented, with some adaptations, in many areas of organizational development and knowledge (Čech and Januška 2020; Gökalp, Çalişkanbaş, and Koçyiğit 2023; Legenvre and Gualandris 2018; Lookman, Pujawan, and Nadlifatin 2022), including domains close to RRI (Bourne 2016; Calabrese et al. 2013).

Fraser, Moultrie, and Gregory (2002) propose three common elements in MMs: (i) three to six maturity levels, (ii) dimensions or process areas with criteria or activities at each level, and (iii) brief activity descriptions for each level. Mendes, José Eugênio, and Thomé (2016) classified MMs into three types: Maturity grids with textual descriptions, Likert scale-like questionnaires for ranking best practices, and comprehensive models including goals and practices for each level.

This study introduces a maturity grid model with four levels, adopting a combined top-down and bottom-up approach for its construction. As shown in Figure 1, during the workshops, the proposal of challenges and themes was bottom-up from the TCs, and afterwards, a top-down synthesis was developed by the work team (facilitators). Likewise, after the interviews and document review, the proposal of the maturity levels and the characteristics associated with each level were defined by the facilitators (top-down) based on the data collected and approved by the TCs (bottom-up). Characteristics of maturity were predefined and linked to each challenge, refined on the basis of detailed study and normative requirements.

It must be acknowledged that the allocation of each organization to specific level of maturity includes an element of interpretation and potential subjectivity, which is an inherent pitfall when using maturity grids. In order to address this limitation, we adopted a two pronged approach. First, for each dimension each TC had to provide some indicators that allowed researchers to triangulate some of the information collected qualitatively (Yin 2009). Second, our interview guideline was designed to assess as objectively as possible the approach that TCs adopted towards each challenge. We consider that with this approach our results are robust and verifiable.

Adapting prior proposals (Humphrey 1988; Stahl et al. 2017; Yaghmaei 2018), the study defines maturity levels and cumulative processes for integrating RRI keys and dimensions into the ‘organizational systems of the TCs. Unlike the previously proposed models, a fifth level is not considered, as none of the TCs have implemented an RRI policy; thus, none of them have a foundation for continuous improvement or process optimization (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Proposed maturity levels for assessing RRI challenges in TCs in each. Adapted from Humphrey (1988); Stahl et al. (2017); Yaghmaei (2018).

Results

In the following section, we analyze the maturity level defined for each of the challenges and the overall performance of the TCs. We focus on which items are more and less fulfilled and which actions are implemented in relation to each theme.

Promoting gender diversity

The maturity levels and items for the promotion of gender diversity area detailed in Table 3.

Table 3. Maturity levels for the gender diversity challenge.

Themes	Level 1. Unconscious	Level 2. Reactive	Level 3. Proactive	Level 4. Strategic
Employment and Recruitment	No actions identified	Explicit recruitment policy promoting diversity Reconciliation and co-responsibility measures (reduced working hours, flexible working hours, etc.).	Explicit statement in the job offer regarding the search for diverse profiles and the use of inclusive language. Transparent and flexible promotion systems.	Explicit strategies for the search for profiles to balance areas. Existence of an anti-harassment. committee/protocol and simple, anonymous channels of communication for reporting.
Organization and Governance		Equality Plan Equality certification or seal Gender balance in the workforce	Gender balance in project definition Gender balance in leadership positions	Internal monitoring system that tells you where you are in terms of equality. Gender mainstreaming in research/innovation content
Communication and Training		In-house equality training	Use of inclusive language and imagery in internal and external communications	Training of junior positions for women to take on leadership roles

Level 1 indicates no actions related to the considered themes. Three TCs demonstrated no actions related to the Employment and Recruitment theme and one TC demonstrated no actions regarding Communication and Training.

Level 2 suggests an absence of a clearly defined strategy to promote gender diversity, with gender activities incorporated due to external requirements, such as legislation or calls for proposals. However, gender is not embedded in the organizational culture or processes. Items at the Reactive level are the most fulfilled by the TCs. However, none of the TCs fulfill the item Gender balance in project definition.

Level 3 reflects the TCs becoming aware of the benefits of a gender perspective and seeking to integrate it into innovation processes and projects, particularly in recruitment and communication. TCs recognize the value of diverse profiles in work teams and the importance of neutral language for broader attraction. The Use of inclusive language and imagery in communications is common, while only one TC has introduced Explicit statement in job offers about the search for diverse profiles, and Transparent and flexible promotion systems. Gender balance in leadership positions or project definition remains unaddressed.

At level 4, the TCs fully embrace the gender perspective as part of their culture, incorporating it throughout research and innovation processes. Three of the items are fulfilled by the TCs: Explicit strategies for the search of profiles is the most common, applied by four of the TCs; Gender mainstreaming in research/innovation content is included in two of the centers; and only one has an anti-harassment committee/protocol and channels of communication for reporting. None of the TCs have an internal monitoring system for equality or provide training of junior positions for women to take on leadership roles.

In terms of themes, in the case of Employment and Recruitment, the driving force behind the actions should be to achieve better results, especially in those three TCs without demonstrated actions. Strategies for gender balance, including targeted recruitment, are crucial, given the current imbalance in certain disciplines. In this sense, some of the identified strategies are: the development of a clear strategy for gender equality; the use of social networks to search for profiles that can balance and diversify their workforces; and a commitment to achieving gender balance in workforces, positions of responsibility and management positions.

Organization and Governance lack proactive and strategic actions. While all the TCs have equality plans, the involvement in gender issues remains feminized. Another key point is the incorporation of strategies for integrating gender perspective into the different stages of the innovation or research process. In this sense, several approaches have been proposed (Bührer and Wroblewski 2019; EC 2019). Moreover, monitoring systems with gender-related indicators at organizational, operational and project levels are essential.

Communication and Training lack actions at the strategic level. Gender training should extend beyond equality committees and cover all the staff, especially women in junior positions. We also identified some training activities on how to communicate in an inclusive and non-discriminatory way; internal statutes have been rewritten using inclusive language; or the organization’s commitment to gender equality is included and open to the public in their CSR policy or Equality Plan. Moreover, in terms of communication, developing inclusive, neutral and non-discriminatory internal and external communication is a general concern in the TCs.

Environmentally sustainable growth

Along with the previous challenge, environmentally sustainable growth is what most concerns all the centers. This is also noted in the number of items included and in the internal-external perspective considered. The maturity levels and themes are detailed in Table 4.

Table 4. Maturity levels for the environmentally-sustainable growth challenge.

Themes	Level 1. Unconscious	Level 2. Reactive	Level 3. Proactive	Level 4. Strategic
Environmental Management System (EMS)	There is no action, strategy or activity that includes or promotes the management of environmental themes	Existence of EM activities in compliance with a regulation Some indicators related to EM	Existence of a controlled EMS motivated by funder requests or industry tendencies Indicators and other information available	Certified EMS EMS is part of the organizational strategic plan Internal monitoring system for the EMS
Internal actions		Specific measures for environmental protection enforced by top management or some internal areas Environment-related projects at the request of clients, partners or funders Impact of projects on the environment or on sustainable development when required by funders	Some actions taken to promote environmental protection, and consumption and waste reduction. Environmental components included in projects Internal environmental challenges identified	Internal culture of environmental stewardship among the employees Action plan to reduce the center's environmental impact and carbon footprint The inclusion of environmental issues is encouraged in all projects and in the sector. Specific environmental research lines All projects consider environmental components Life cycle analysis of projects before, during and after. Plans to address internal environmental challenges.
Outward management		Experience in environmental consulting or training Identification of environmental challenges imposed via legislation on the sector	Training and technical and legal advice to the sector on environmental issues Environmental challenges identified in the sector	Promotion and dissemination of projects and knowledge of environmental issues in the sector Plans aimed at responding to external environmental challenges, beyond their sector
Waste, emissions and consumption		Track of electricity and water consumption only when required Classified record of generated waste Recycling of generated waste	Control of electricity and water consumption Waste managed by external organizations Recycling waste beyond its activity Detailed record of recycling Calculation of atmospheric and acoustic emissions Plan for calculating carbon footprint	Different indicators to monitor electricity and water consumption Plan for waste reduction Carbon footprint calculation External recognition for management of carbon emissions (scopes 1 and 2) Generation of energy to be returned to the grid or self-consumption

In level 1, Unconscious, one center is characterized by not complying with many of the items analyzed: e.g. it does not have any internal control of indicators related to EM, emission, consumption or waste, there are no research lines or projects related to EM and it does not identify any environmental challenge for its sector. This is due to the nature of its sector. There are not many requirements in terms of environmental management, and the waste generated is not controlled. Additionally, the calculation of emissions is the least fulfilled item of the other TCs.

Level 2 indicates that environmental management is primarily driven by external mandates, such as sector rules or legislation, and specific calls for proposals. Reactive level items are fulfilled by most of the TCs. They have implemented measures for environmental protection, have experience in environmental consulting or training, and recycle generated waste. Moreover, eight TCs have EM indicators and identify environmental challenges imposed by legislation on their sectors.

At maturity level 3, proactive, each center is aware of the benefits of integrating environmental management into its activities and projects, promoting it within its sector. Commonly fulfilled items at this level include: having indicators and other information available for supporting decisions on environmental topics; carrying out actions to promote environmental protection, control and reduction of consumption and waste; inclusion of environmental components in projects closely related to sustainability; the identification of the internal environmental challenges; and technical and legal advice to the sector on environmental issues. However, detailed recycling records, the calculation of atmospheric and acoustic emissions, and carbon footprint emission plans are less commonly implemented.

Level 4, strategic, represents TCs that have adopted environmental management as a strategic activity, permeating innovation processes and sector promotion. Four TCs have EMS certifications, demonstrating a continuous improvement in terms of environmentally responsible activities and services. In addition, most of the TCs have an internal monitoring system for the EMS, carry out internal and external actions that demonstrate an internal cultural commitment to the environment, have research lines aiming to improve the environment and reduce impacts, recognize and support the challenges for the sector and promote projects and knowledge on environmental issues. Fewer actions were found in the following items: inclusion of life cycle analysis on projects, inclusion of environmental issues in all projects (regardless of area), control of carbon footprint emission, external recognition for the management of carbon emissions (scopes 1 and 2) and generation of energy.

As for the themes, EMS requirements have evolved with sector dynamics, legislation and market trends. Although not mandatory for some TCs, all of them show a commitment to environmental issues, but some consider that legislative compliance is sufficient. Environmental management is a mature topic for CTs, but monitoring systems integrated with organizational management systems need further development. Such systems should encompass indicators and measures for carbon footprint emissions, energy generation, water and energy consumption, raw material origin and usage, waste generation, and life cycle assessments, adhering to various standards.

For internal actions, all the centers have implemented actions to reduce the environmental impact ranging from simple actions to promote savings to concrete plans for carbon footprint reduction: e.g. internal training, handing out cups/bottles, increasing digitalization, programming the turning off of lights, purchasing more efficient equipment, optimizing the vehicle fleet, prioritizing purchases from local suppliers, photovoltaic plants, etc. The continual maintenance and updating of these actions by TCs are crucial. Additionally, centers planning to modernize their infrastructure should design spaces taking into account recent building certifications and standards.

One weakness of the centers is the inclusion and control of environmental aspects in projects in terms of processes and outcomes. Environmental impacts are often considered on the basis of long-term benefits and funders’ explicit requests. A few actions were identified as ex-ante measurements: the prioritization of nearby suppliers, the consideration of the origin of purchases, and the selection of more efficient materials. There is a growing body of relevant research-based knowledge that can facilitate the monitoring of environmental impacts and progress before and during project development.

For Outward management, most TCs actively promote environmental management among sector companies, offering technical and legal advice, promoting environmental projects among members, and disseminating knowledge through training, guides, sectoral studies, and audiovisual material. In addition, identifying sector-specific challenges is essential, with more than half of the centers clearly recognizing or defining such challenges, often driven by legislation. However, some centers may not see the significance of their role in environmental issues due to their nature and may lack awareness of sector-specific environmental challenges.

As for Waste, emissions, and consumption, the introduction of various indicators for the purposes of controlling annual waste generation and consumption per person, income, or area is recommended. One of the most significant issues for TCs is the calculation, measurement, and reduction of their carbon footprint.

Engaging stakeholders

The maturity levels defined for each theme evolve according to the stakeholders involved. Starting from working only with close partners, users, up to the active inclusion of other groups (Table 5).

Table 5. Maturity levels for the engaging of stakeholders’ challenge.

Themes	Level 1. Unconscious	Level 2. Reactive	Level 3. Proactive	Level 4. Strategic
Idea generation and planning	No approach or activities for stakeholder engagement	Projects are designed with partners	The center has stakeholder observatories	Stakeholders are involved in the early stages of projects. Co-creation and co-design with social actors
Execution and translation		Prototype testing with users when it is necessary	Channels to enable stakeholder participation in innovation processes Stakeholders involved in the validation of results or testing	Stakeholders involved in all R&I stages as part of internal policy
Approach		Market research with users when it is necessary for projects	Observatory data bases used to select stakeholders at some stages	Stakeholder mapping is frequently carried out by the center The center legitimizes the social value of its activities

In level 1, all the centers demonstrated stakeholder involvement activities. However, some of them show no actions related to the involvement of stakeholders in prototype testing.

In level 2, reactive, all the centers include and collaborate with other partners and actors in the design, execution and development of innovation processes due to the current scientific and research environment that is calling forth new research collaborations, and a new relationship between science and society (Chopyak and Levesque 2002; Riesch and Potter 2014). All the centers design their projects with partners and tend to include stakeholders in market research and the final stages of user analysis or prototyping.

At the proactive level, the centers consider involving stakeholders throughout the entire innovation process, but strategies for stakeholder engagement vary. We found significant differences between centers. Three TCs fulfilled all the items, while two TCs do not fulfill any. Stakeholder observatories and involving stakeholders in result validation or testing are commonly practiced, whereas it is less common to have channels for stakeholder participation.

At the strategic level, three TCs define stakeholders and integrate their concerns into innovation processes, using co-creation and co-design with social actors to enhance the social impact of the project. No center systematically maps stakeholders or legitimizes the social value of its activities.

In terms of themes, for Idea Generation and Planning, and Execution and Translation, the TCs should work at the strategic level to involve stakeholders in all the R&I stages as part of their internal policy, especially those that only work with partners. Efforts should focus on developing a culture of stakeholder integration and improving the general approach for stakeholder engagement.

None of the centers comply with systematic stakeholder mapping or the legitimization of the social value of their activities. To address this, stakeholder theory and more recently citizen science and public engagement have proposed many techniques and methodologies (Gardner, Rachlin, and Sweeny 1986; Riesch and Potter 2014) that can be implemented to establish specific strategies for capturing stakeholder interests and involvement. Channels for stakeholder participation, especially key players, should be prepared.

Maturity levels for this challenge focus on obtaining R&I products aligned with social needs and values. Beyond the items considered, the centers should adopt approaches which are more geared toward the co-construction of strategies and R&I policies, the co-creation of evaluation processes, and the design of methodologies and indicators for the assessment of outcomes and impacts (Pimponi and Viticoli 2020).

Learning opportunities for all

Table 6 defines the scale with the maturity levels for assessing the performance of the TCs regarding the Learning opportunities for all challenge.

Table 6. Maturity levels for the Learning opportunities for all challenge.

Themes	Level 1. Unconscious	Level 2. Reactive	Level 3. Proactive	Level 4. Strategic
Training and educational actions and programs	There is no action, strategy or activity that includes or promotes education in innovation processes	Internal training programs Training, courses or conferences organized for other companies’ requirement	The institute receives visits from educational institutions (schools and centers) The institute provides international training	Strategic plan to articulate internal/external training programs Vocational training supported with instructors The institute collaborates with or co-directs university master's programs Research markets consulted and survey conducted to find out training trends and demands.
Educational components in projects		Educational actions included in projects when it is required	Development/participation in external training projects or programs	Collaborations with institutional and/or company chairs

At Level 1, all the centers include training and educational actions and educational components in projects. In Level 2, all the TCs fulfill the items considered for this level.

At level 3, proactive, all the TCs, except one, provide international training and participate in external training projects or programs. The results suggest that the TCs are aware of the benefits of incorporating education into their activities, integrating it into their innovation processes and projects, and promoting it in their sector.

At Level 4, the TCs strategically adopt and demonstrate that training and education management is one of their core activities. Most TCs fulfill items are: Strategic plan to articulate internal/external training programs, supporting vocational training, and collaboration with university master's programs. Meanwhile, consulting research markets and conducting survey to find out training trends, demands, and collaborating with institutional and/or company chairs are less common practices.

The results show that all the themes are at a proactive or strategic maturity level, indicating a uniformly developed RRI challenge across all TCs. This is because the TCs have assumed training as a primary role for society since their inception, offering a wide variety of courses and adapting to online models.

For training and educational actions and programs, the periodic prospecting of sector needs and labor market trends is suggested for the purposes of adjusting the offer. Tools, such as CEDEFOP, can support the implementation of a prospecting system. Both the inclusion of transversal training offers that are useful in different sectors and the establishment of synergies with local and international educational agents, like universities or vocational training centers, are also recommended.

Beyond the items considered, additional recommendations are provided to further improve both themes. For Training and educational actions and programs, several suggestions are put forward in order to adjust what TCs offer; the periodic analyses of the internal training capacities, the following of good practices and the prospecting of sector needs and labor market trends. The tool created by the European Center for the Development of Vocational Training (CEDEFOP¹) can support the implementation of a prospecting system.

Additionally, what is recommended is the inclusion of transversal training offers that are useful in different sectors and the establishment of synergies with local and international educational agents, like universities or vocational training centers. It is necessary to consider education and training from a multi-actor and multi-level approach. For instance, the TCs that participate in international programs (i.e. the Erasmus Internship Program), state that they receive greater visibility in other European countries.

Lastly, taking advantage of the recent recognition and promotion of industrial doctorates, the TCs can include PhD students in their R&I processes. This has the dual advantage of having highly trained staff in contact with the world of cutting-edge research, and having access to universities and other public research bodies.

Promoting inclusive industrialization and innovation

Table 7 defines the main aspects that characterize the maturity levels for the challenge of inclusive innovation in the TCs.

Table 7. Maturity levels for the Inclusive industrialization and Innovation challenge.

Themes	Level 1. Unconscious	Level 2. Reactive	Level 3. Proactive	Level 4. Strategic
Participation of SMEs in innovation activities	No action geared toward interaction with SMEs, non-profit organizations or organizations located in developing countries	Interaction with SMEs as a requirement of projects	The center actively seeks new SMEs to collaborate in innovation and/or research projects	Management and monitoring system for the purposes of monitoring and increasing the interaction with SMEs
Collaboration with third sector and public sector		Interaction with third sector or public sector organizations as a requirement of projects	The center actively seeks to collaborate with third sector, public sector or other non-business organizations	Activities designed for interaction with third sector, public sector or other non-business organizations
Collaboration in developing countries		Interaction with companies, or other types of organizations, such as RTOs, located in developing countries when they hire its services or as a requirement of projects	The center actively seeks to increase its interactions with companies, or other types of organizations located in developing countries	Formal strategy or action plan to increase the interaction with companies, or other types of organizations, located in developing countries

All the centers have actions geared towards interacting with SMEs, non-profits, public organizations and those located in developing countries, meaning no theme or item is at Level 1. This is mainly due to the characteristics of the companies in the region and financing agencies’ requirements. Thus, all the TCs fulfill Level 2 items in response to funders’ demands.

At Level 3, proactive, the TCs actively incorporate collaboration with SMEs, non-profits, public organizations, or those in developing countries, into their operations. All the TCs actively seek new partnerships for innovation projects and activities. However, three TCs lack a proactive strategy by means of which to increase collaborations with organizations in developing countries, usually engaging only when the organizations approach them for services.

As regards level 4, only one TC fulfills all the items. This TC not only has a strategy for identifying new partners and clients but also implements a target-based monitoring system to ensure the achievement of its goals.

With respect to the themes, the first theme is vital for regional impact since SMEs represent over 95% of the economy. The second theme aligns with global innovation policies aiming to address environmental and social challenges. Political actors and some civil society organizations argue that public innovation policies should be able not only to increase business competitiveness, but also to contribute to solving environmental or social problems (Pesch 2014). The TCs need to collaborate with organizations of a different nature, which aim to defend the common good. Lastly, in the context of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, the TCs can contribute to the transfer of technology to low- and medium-performing countries.

While the TCs have integrated the key themes for inclusive innovation, there is still a lack of commitment at the strategic level to increase the participation of under-represented organizations in innovation processes. Adopting a management-by-objectives system, like the model used by one TC, could help strategically to target new innovation partners, set concrete objectives, and monitor impacts of collaborations. This transformation would enable the TCs to actively participate in the economic, social, and environmental development of their regions.

Moreover, collaboration challenges may be linked to the challenge of Engaging Stakeholders in R&I, as some SMEs and under-represented organizations might not value innovation or lack the capacity for collaboration. Overcoming this barrier could involve providing specific training in innovation process management in coordination with other TCs, universities, or training centers.

Discussion and conclusions

In this paper, we have presented a pioneering study into the level of RRI implementation in Spanish TCs. The evaluation from a RRI perspective provides a holistic and comprehensive view of the responsible behavior of these centers as regards their innovation activities. In general, the TCs performed well, with environmentally sustainable growth being the most developed challenge and inclusive innovation the least. Differences in challenge implementation can be attributed to sector-specific characteristics, but all the TCs have opportunities for improvement and to consider new challenges.

To avoid mere ‘box-ticking’ without meaningful transformations, the results should be utilized as part of an institutionalization process. The proposed process-maturity framework serves as an assessment methodology and management system. As an assessment methodology, it allows the TCs to identify the organization's specific maturity status. Once its position is defined, the TCs can focus on those elements that will enable it to advance to the next level.

As a management system, it identifies strengths and weaknesses for specific action plans to address areas for improvement and integrate new aspects of RRI. By defining the organization's specific maturity status, the TCs can focus on advancing to the next level and establish a structure for RRI implementation and continuous improvement and process optimization.

The proposed challenges can be associated with the proposed RRI keys and RRI dimensions. According to the RRI dimensions, most of the challenges are aligned with diversity and inclusion, reflection, responsiveness and openness to other actors. However, there is limited connection with anticipation and transparency. With respect to the key areas, there is a clear relationship with the areas of gender, citizen participation and science education. Open science has been approached only from the perspective of openness to new actors, but not from the perspective of openness to sharing methodologies, data or results. Likewise, there is a limited connection with the areas of ethics and governance.

Collective RRI assessment fosters collaboration and knowledge exchange between TCs. By comparing the results of the evaluations, the TCs that excel in the implementation of specific challenges and can serve as role models for others to follow can be identified. Since each center is aware of the results obtained by the others, this promotes the dissemination of knowledge and the exchange of successful experiences, which in turn contributes to continuous improvement in the application of RRI. This is key to the adoption of more symmetrical RRI, which facilitates the exchange of best practices (Kwee, Yaghmaei, and Flipse 2021).

At a regional level, the TCs must recognize their role as agents of development, contributing to economic, social, and environmental progress. Their assumption of this role not only implies thinking of the centers as suppliers of goods and services to industry, although this is already a very important contribution, but also means they must be considered as organizations capable of both offering policy makers a vision of how innovation can contribute to the development of the territory, as well as actively participating in the implementation of public strategies, such as the smart specialization strategy.

Moreover, the results demonstrate certain characteristics that are worth noting, one of which is the increasing emphasis on the impact of R&I on society. This may be partly due to internal goals, but it is certainly unavoidable due to political and governmental politics and regulations. The influence of the European context and SDGs is evident. Regulations also play a crucial role in shaping these criteria. For instance, there has been a shift at the European level from funding policies that focus on industrial competitiveness to financing those that target societal challenges.

RTOs in general are organizations constantly in need of adaptation to their environment due to the diverse nature of their work and the continuous demands from the agents involved in their R&I processes. Institutional theory suggests that in addition to and even more vital than changing their internal processes, the environment of the RTOs (i.e. the region, the sector in which they operate and the social context at large) must first change so the RTOs will not only strive to obtain resources and satisfy clients but also to obtain institutional legitimacy as well as political power (DiMaggio and Powell 1983). In this institutional perspective, the environment (the regions and social contexts of the RTOs) provides an approximate vision of how the organizations (RTOs) should behave to obtain social legitimacy (Meyer and Rowan 1977).

As regards the limitations of the study, it should be mentioned that the challenges and limitations to the maturity scales have been imposed by the centers themselves. Thus, they may be limited by their interests and by some expected standards. This connects to the next limitation: only the internal vision of the centers was considered. As proposed by some standards or RRI implementation proposals, a more holistic integration of other actors into the definition of challenges is recommended (CEN 2021). It also highlights the risk of treating the challenges separately, rather than adopting an integrated approach (Owen, Von Schomberg, and Macnaghten 2021).

Finally, we would argue that the framework used in this paper could be utilized as a pedagogical tool to encourage reflexivity and learning at the organizational level. Using the maturity grids as guidance, RTOs can be encouraged to reflect on how their internal practices could be improved in order to address each challenge. We would furthermore argue that this approach is more useful than the a priori identification of ‘best practices’, because there is a significant amount of diversity among RTOs in terms of their target economic sectors, technological specialization, workforce composition, and others. As such, the aim would be for each organization to reflect on how to move towards a strategic approach to each challenge, while considering their unique profile, with its specific set of strengths and weaknesses.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author, H.GU. The data are not publicly available because they contain information that could compromise the privacy of research participants and their organizations.

Additional information

Funding

Pedro Marques would like to acknowledge support from the grant PID2020-119096RB-I00 funded by MCIN and by «FEDER Una manera de hacer Europa». Hannia González-Urango. This work was partially supported by the European Union - Next generation EU [Ministerio de Universidades de España; Universitat de València; Margarita Salas grant] Carmen Corona-Sobrino. This work was partially supported by the European Union - Next generation EU [Ministerio de Universidades de España; Universitat de València; Margarita Salas grant].

Notes on contributors

Hannia Gonzalez-Urango

Hannia Gonzalez-Urango holds a PhD in Local Development (International Doctorate with Honours) from Universitat Politècnica de València (2020). She has a postdoctoral position at Universitat Politècnica de València. Her research interest lies in Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MDCM) processes applied to social challenges, the management of sustainability, Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI), sustainable innovation, and inclusive collaborations for technological development and Innovation.

Carmen Corona-Sobrino

Carmen Corona-Sobrino is a sociologist working as a lecturer at the Department of Sociology and Social Anthropology at the University of Valencia. She has a PhD in Social Science from the University of València. Her research interests focus on research evaluation systems and the gendered dimension of academic careers. Recently she has also been working in areas related to research and innovation policy.

Mónica García-Melón

Mónica García-Melón is full professor at the UPV at the UPV School of Industrial Engineering since 1998. She is senior researcher at the INGENIO research institute (CSIC-UPV). Her main line of research focuses on the application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Analytic Network Process (ANP) methodologies to create indicators that help evaluation and decision-making in participatory processes.

Pedro Marques

Pedro Marques is a research fellow at INGENIO, in Valencia (Spain). His research interests are in regional development, inequality, politics and development, and innovation. He has a PhD in Economic Geography from CURDS, Newcastle University, an MA from the same institution and a BA in Sociology from ISCTE-IUL, Lisbon. Previously he worked at Cardiff University, University of Kiel and Newcastle University.

Notes

1 https://www.cedefop.europa.eu/es/tools/resources-guidance/toolkit.