https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8084-7524
How would Responsible Innovation (RI) develop if it could be uncoupled from its aim to drive economic growth? Could such a conceptual development be conceived as Responsible Stagnation (RS)?
The authors argue for the opening of such a conceptual space, not (only) as a critique of current RI developments, but in order to develop a complementary approach that they feel would lead to just and more efficient innovation, better equipped to achieve the goal of improving planetary health and the global living experience.
The publication is meant as a starting point on such a path. The chapters are individually authored, but as they represent personal perspectives on a group discussion, I refer to the authors as a unit in this review. In the preface, the result work is compared to a form of jazz, sometimes ‘discordant’ but always paying reference to the melody and underlying chord sequence.
The consequences of the paradigm shift that are laid out seem immense, politically as well as economically, but as Miles Davies noted, ‘Jazz is the big brother of Revolution. Revolution follows it around’.
Jazz can only develop if all of those involved share an understanding of, and a shared relationship to the standards upon which to build. This piece opens with an exploration into the relationship between RI and growth as measured by GDP as a standard, in terms of its promotion and positioning within the EU funding system (Part 1).
The responsible innovation model described resembles that of RRI as interpreted by the EU, the authors highlighting that its development is embedded in a policy aimed at promoting growth. Alongside raising the questions that I opened this review with, the authors also raise the paradoxical question of whether an innovation can be responsible within this framework if it does not (at least) aim at growth creation.
As any afficionado knows, jazz is based on innovation that moves in relation to the standard. The authors move on to envisaging a model for a new approach that could supplement and improve current RI approaches by reconstructing its aims and practices from a perspective that is growth agnostic (a-growth).
Three main questions are raised: How do we innovate responsibly in secularly stagnant economies? Is it possible to take an a-growth approach to innovation? Under what circumstances might this constitute a crucial part of the RI matrix?
Part 2 is dedicated to the question ‘what is wrong with innovation and growth?’
The tension between improvization and adherence to the core is ever present in jazz, it is what drives the music. In this piece, tension is constructed through the interplay of innovation practices and growth, both of which lead to the exclusion of voices within the creative process: The scientization of innovation leads to the exclusion of non-experts, while the coupling to economic growth leads to the exclusion of a broad range of voices and considerations.
An analysis follows of problems with market-based approaches, including arguments that a free market approach will erode the equality that it requires to function properly, and the statement that markets and growth should serve society, rather than vice versa.
The authors then move on to aim and purpose. Is the jazz musician’s aim to entertain, to make a living, to push the boundaries of the field or can it be all three?
Part 3 is related to such questions, dedicated to responsible stagnation and the real world. The lead-in proposes an investigation into the underlying values of RS, described as based upon care and slower reasoning. The authors call for critical attention to be paid to the why’s who’s and how’s of participation and to negating the confrontation between innovation and responsibility that is fed through its relationship to economic growth.
The progression to the broad topic of Innovation for Social Needs is seamless, with the criticism raised that some well-known forms of social-needs innovation (such as frugal innovation) are also framed within a profitmaking context, leading to the non-addressing of real political shortcomings regarding poverty, merely offering technical fixes rather than system change. Possible advantages and drawbacks of various forms of social innovation (including society in control innovation) are described and discussed.
Addressing the plurality of technology and innovation in the global south, the authors focus on 3 main points for discussion:
Innovation discourse and political dimensions between south and north;
as the concept of RRI is shaped on western history, how exportable is it in its current form?;
the importance of highlighting the need to reformulate ideas of responsibility to incorporate cultural diversity, because what is seen as responsible differs locally.
Part 3 closes with a focus on challenges facing willing firms, introducing CSR and the shareholder / stakeholder dichotomy within larger corporate enterprises (after the book’s previous focus on smaller scale businesses).
There are always those who refuse to ‘sell out’. They participate to create, or to experiment, not only to make a living. The Benefit Corporation model is described, with several examples offered of companies that follow something that looks similar to an RS approach, including Ben & Jerry’s ice cream and Patagonia.
The discussion in part 3 highlights practices that are growth-agnostic and responsible, some of which may lead to de-growth but others not, sliding into part 4 (the conclusion) which is dedicated to Responsibility in the 4th quadrant of the responsibility figure described in chapter 1 (that of Responsible Stagnation), offering a further discussion of the scope of RS with a succinct summary of the question that drives the book; ‘how can we balance a necessary reduction in material consumption with a world in which we can all afford to live and prosper?’
The book is refreshing as it is very easy to read, has a great feel and is tight. It is aimed at a broad audience base, is not overladen with references or jargon and doesn’t require specialized knowledge to follow.
The political implications of the argument are not hidden, as to accept the proposal for RS as presented here implies acceptance that current innovation governance practices need to be overhauled if they are to move towards responsibility and away from GDP creation as their primary goal. Or at very least accept that the current approach might be missing something fundamental. The current (GDP based) aims lead the entire system into a form of ‘moral overload’ and self-conflict, while entire thought and innovation processes are excluded.
The concept of RI has come to be dominated and guided by the EU promoted RRI model, systematized and standardized in aims and processes, and I sometimes had the impression that the authors were describing this conception as opposed to the broader interpretation of possibilities that seemed to prevail a decade ago (and which survive today in the form of de-facto RI, poiesis-intensive RI and others). But this interpretation does suit their argument. If we take this widely accepted form of RRI as our starting point however, the book draws me into asking an uncomfortable question that recurs through the text like a refrain: Could the RI model adopted by the European Union in its RRI form also be seen as an attempted technical fix, based on standards that don’t suit its style?
Bravi. Encore.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Jonathan Hankins
Jonathan Hankins is Foreign Scientific Correspondent at the Bassetti Foundation. He is author of Responsible Innovation, A Narrative Approach (University of Bergamo, 2020) and co-editor of the International Handbook on Responsible Innovation (Edward Elgar, 2019).