It takes two to tango: toward a political concept of responsible innovation

ABSTRACT

This paper proposes a political concept of Responsible Innovation (RI). As a first step, we diagnose the RI discourse with a conceptual ambiguity, struggling to accommodate both private and public interests. To address this ambiguity, we distinguish between weak RI, which seeks to govern a techno-economic concept of innovation; and strong RI, which seeks to conceive a political concept of innovation beyond techno-economic ideology and practice. Secondly, we consult The Human Condition, in which Hannah Arendt articulates a threefold distinction between the activities of labor, work, and action. Although Arendt does not explicitly address the topic of innovation, her equation of politics with the human capacity to “begin the unexpected” inspires a political concept of RI which fundamentally empowers the public sphere and drives radical novelty. Finally, we account for how this political concept of RI can be operationalized, advocating for its integration at both substantive and procedural level.

KEYWORDS:

• Responsible innovation
• Philosophy of technology
• Hannah Arendt
• Innovation governance
• Science and technology studies

Disclosure statement

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

Notes

1 We use the term RI throughout the paper, while acknowledging the use of the terms Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) by the European Commission. See Owen and Pansera (2019) for a discussion about the overlap and differences in these terms.

2 Notably, in a recent workshop on the challenges of RI, held in Leiden University (2019), speakers discussed ‘the mainstream challenge of RI’ in which the discourse must decide whether to continue business-as-usual or to take a radical stance against it. In this respect, they pointed to both the conservative force and revolutionary potential of RI. For a summary report of the workshop see: https://app.box.com/s/z1uzybq083u1c3bs18iun7wi5r019maq.

3 An important nuance to highlight is that the private sphere is not homogenously driven by profit, as evidenced by the emergence of movements like Benefit Corporations and social enterprises. In this respect, we recognize that weak RI can still offer responsible and meaningful innovations. However, this should be distinguished from strong RI, which centers around constituting a fundamentally political concept of innovation.

4 To be sure, Arendt argues that the distinction between labor and work corresponds to a distinction between two types of human beings: the homo laborans, or the worker, who is engaged in the activity of labor, and the homo faber, or the maker, who is engaged in the activity of work. According to Arendt, the homo laborans is not motivated by self-interest, but rather by the need to sustain life and support those dependent on them. The homo faber, on the other hand, is motivated by the desire to create and produce things that serve some other purpose or goal and may be motivated by self-interest to some extent. Even so, homo laborans may still be considered to constitute the private sphere and clearly distinguishes from zoon politikon which refers to the human being as a political animal constituting the public sphere.

5 It is important to note that certain elements from nature can also contribute to our worldliness. For example, a meadow may not be a direct human-made construction like a building or a bridge, but it can still form part of the relationship with human activities, such as recreation, farming, and ecological conservation. For a more comprehensive exploration of the interplay between the earth and the world, see Blok (2023) who argues that the former in fact constitutes the ground for the latter.

6 In the literature on innovation management, the innovation matrix provides a framework for categorizing different types of innovation (Trott 2017). One classification is incremental innovation, which involves continuously improving existing products or services to enhance value for the current market (e.g. Iphone 8 making place for Iphone X). Another classification is architectural innovation, which occurs when new products or services utilize existing technology to create new markets or reach new consumers (e.g. the smartwatch, which repackages smartphone technology into a wearable device). Disruptive innovation, on the other hand, occurs when a new product or service enters the existing market with novel technology (e.g. the iPad disrupted the market for traditional laptops). Lastly, radical innovation involves the development of new products or services that utilize new technology to open entirely new markets (e.g. the airplane). While the innovation matrix primarily explores the relationship between technology and the market, in our discussion we seek to emphasize a political dimension of innovation and how it serves the public sphere.

7 Note that, contrary to our analysis and that of Reijers (2020), a more general reading of Arendt suggests that action is by and in itself the diferentia specifica of the human condition and must be considered in opposition to labor and work altogether (Passerin 2019).

8 https://europa.eu/new-european-bauhaus/index_en

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap: [Grant Number 024.004.031].

Notes on contributors

Lucien von Schomberg

Lucien von Schomberg is a Senior Lecturer in Creativity and Innovation at the University of Greenwich. As a scholar in the field of responsible innovation, Lucien leads several research projects and workstreams, and establishes partnerships with organizations across the world. He also plays an active role in a variety of EU-funded projects with a cumulative net worth of £12 million, while driving transformative change through pioneering research and innovative initiatives. His work is published in philosophy journals including Synthese and Philosophy & Technology and further disseminated through a range of book chapters, conference papers, project reports, whitepapers, webinars, blogs, and podcasts. In addition, he is editorial board member of academic journals Philosophy of Management and NOvation, and guest editor of a special issue at the Journal of Responsible Innovation.

Vincent Blok

Vincent Blok is Associate Professor at the Philosophy Group, Wageningen University (Netherlands). From 2002 to 2006, he held various management functions in the health care sector. In 2006, he became director of the Louis Bolk Institute, an international research institute in the field of organic and sustainable agriculture, nutrition, and health care. Since 2010, he teaches in the fields of Philosophy of Technology, Responsible Innovation, Business Ethics. He published three monographs with Routledge and over 100 articles in both philosophy journals (Business Ethics Quarterly, Environmental Values, Philosophy and Technology, Synthese, etc.) and interdisciplinary journals (Science, Journal of Cleaner Production, Public Understanding of Science, etc.)