The role of civil society organisations in European responsible research and innovation

Figures & data

Table 1. Project coordinators responding by the type of organisation in which they were employed.

	Number of respondents	%
University (including e.g. Hautes Écoles, Grandes Écoles, Fachhochschulen)	8	14
Research organisation or network (e.g. CNRS France, Fraunhofer Germany, CSIC Spain)	5	9
Large enterprise (250 or more employees)	9	16
Small and medium enterprise (less than 250 employees)	11	19
Governmental organisation (e.g. ministry, regional or local government)	12	21
Public/semi-public corporate body (e.g. hospitals, museums, regional or communal health organisations)	6	11
Civil society organisation (e.g. Special interest groups, NGOs, regional interest groups)	3	5
Other	3	5
Total	57	100%

Table 2. Number of CSOs included in project consortia.

Number of CSOs	Number of Projects	%
None	27	47
One	0	0
Two	11	19
Three or more	19	33

Table 3. Interviewees (incl. seven project coordinators) by the type of organisation in which they were employed.

	Number of interviewees
University (including e.g. Hautes Écoles, Grandes Écoles, Fachhochschulen)	1
Large enterprise (250 or more employees)	2
Small and medium enterprise (less than 250 employees)	2
Governmental organisation (e.g. ministry, regional or local government)	3
Civil society organisation (e.g. Special interest groups, NGOs, regional interest groups)	2
Total	10

Table 4. Anticipation mechanisms prior to project start.

Instrument	Number of Projects	%
Yes, we did foresight analysis – an intelligence-gathering, vision-building process aimed at enabling present-day decisions.	13	23
Yes, we did technology assessment – an interactive process that aims to form opinion on societal aspects of science and technology.	19	33
Yes, we did scenario analysis – a process of analysing possible future events by considering alternative possible outcomes.	18	32
Yes, we conducted a Participatory Impact Pathways Analysis (PIPA)	0	0
Yes, we used Social Impact Assessment Methods through the study of Productive Interactions between science and society (SIAMPI)	1	2
Yes, we were using the following methodology for assessing societal aspects of the project’s outcomes	2	4
No, we did not analyse any societal outcomes before doing the project	21	37

Table 5. Reflection mechanisms during the project (Figures may sum to more than 100% since multiple boxes could be checked).

Mechanisms in place to reflect upon	Count	% of projects
Ethical issues	12	21
Political issues	17	30
Societal issues	25	44
Environmental issues	14	25
There were no boards, committees or dedicated groups in place considering ethical, political or societal issues.	19	33

Table 6. Deployment of reflection mechanisms during the project (Percentages are calculated per issue category).

	Ethical Issues		Political Issues		Societal Issues		Environmental Issues
Project phase	Count	% of 12 projects	Count	% of 17 projects	Count	% of 25 projects	Count	% of 14 projects
Proposal preparation	8	67	12	71	15	60	10	71
Before or at mid-term review	7	58	9	53	18	72	8	57
Before or at final review	5	42	8	47	9	36	2	14

Table 7. Implementation of deliberation mechanisms in the projects.

	Ethical committee		Project management committee		Work packages		External stakeholders		Individual experts		Advisory board
How did it help?	Count	%	Count	%	Count	%	Count	%	Count	%	Count	%
Was in place and helped	7	12	45	79	45	79	33	58	27	47	21	37
Was in place but did not help	3	5	9	16	10	18	10	18	5	9	7	12
Was not in place	47	82	3	5	2	4	14	25	25	44	29	51

Table 8. Implementation of responsiveness in the projects.

	Ethical issues		Legal framework		Government policy		Social values
Dimension of change	Count	%	Count	%	Count	%	Count	%
Large change (amendment to contract, change of partner)	2	4	4	7	2	4	0	0
Medium change (e.g. change of timeline, work packages)	1	2	7	12	7	12	2	4
Small change (e.g. change of wording)	2	4	4	7	1	2	1	2
Change of outcome (e.g deliverable, prototype)	2	4	12	21	5	9	3	5
Changes regarding this issue were needed, but not possible any more	1	2	1	2	1	2	0	0
No, changes were not necessary due to this	49	86	29	51	41	72	51	89

Table 9. Motivations to include partner types in consortia (Figures sum to more than 100% since multiple boxes could be checked. Percentages show the proportion of projects for which the coordinator said that that type of actor was included in the consortium for the given reason. The base for percentages is the total number of projects per column,).

	Government (in any form)		Customers end-users		Experts		CSOs		Industry		Other stakeholders or interested groups
Motivation	Count	%	Count	%	Count	%	Count	%	Count	%	Count	%
Professional/Scientific excellence	7	21	7	18	27	77	9	56	23	64	1	25
Provision of data	17	50	22	56	7	20	5	31	9	25	2	50
Access to infrastructure	15	44	5	13	1	3	1	6	8	22	0	0
Formal requirement	4	12	6	15	2	6	1	6	4	11	0	0
To help the project reflecting upon societal needs and ethical issues	21	62	15	38	7	20	3	19	5	14	1	25
Other	6	18	8	21	2	6	3	19	8	22	2	50
Total	70		63		46		22		57		6

Table 10. Formal roles in consortia, from Q4.2. Percentages are calculated per column (see N for the total number of participations in projects per organisation type in each column), because not every organisation type was represented in every project.

	Government (in any form)		Customers end-users		Experts		CSOs		Industry		Other stakeholders or interested groups
Role in project	Count	%	Count	%	Count	%	Count	%	Count	%	Count	%
As partners/beneficiaries	25	74	18	46	14	40	8	50	24	67	2	50
As members of an advisory board/committee	1	3	5	13	12	34	2	12	3	8	0	0
As associated partners	1	3	1	3	1	3	2	12	4	11	0	0
As sub-contractors	0	0	0	0	2	6	1	6	0	0	0	0
Other	7	21	15	38	6	17	3	19	5	14	2	50
N	(34)		(39)		(35)		(16)		(36)		(4)

Table 11. Overall perceived influence of actor groups in projects.

	Government (in any form)		Customers / end-users		Experts		CSOs		Industry		Other stakeholders or interested groups
Overall influence	Count	%	Count	%	Count	%	Count	%	Count	%	Count	%
None	2	6	2	5	0	0	1	6	1	3	0	0
Small	9	26	11	28	17	49	4	25	13	36	1	25
Large	23	68	26	67	18	51	11	69	22	61	3	75

Table 12. Phases of main involvement of actor groups in projects.

	Government (in any form)		Customers / end-users		Experts		CSOs		Industry		Other stakeholders or interested groups
Overall influence	Count	%	Count	%	Count	%	Count	%	Count	%	Count	%
Prior to the project	3	9	1	3	2	6	2	12	3	8	0	0
More at the beginning of the project	1	3	7	18	9	26	1	6	1	3	0	0
More at the end of the project	8	24	18	46	7	20	3	19	10	28	2	50
After the project	2	6	3	8	1	3	2	12	4	11	0	0
The involvement was about the same in all phases	23	68	17	44	19	54	9	56	22	61	2	50

Table 13. Influence and contribution of CSOs in projects.

	CSOs had a big overall influence on the project		CSOs contributed unique expertise to the project
Agreement	Count	%	Count	%
Strongly agree	9	16	6	11
Somewhat agree	11	19	16	28
Somewhat disagree	17	30	13	23
Strongly disagree	20	35	22	39

Table 14. Most active actor groups promoting RRI elements. Percentages are calculated per column (see N for the total number of projects in each column), because not every RRI element was in place in every project.

	Anticipation	Reflexivity	Responsiveness	Participation
	%	%	%	%
University	21	19	8	8
Research organisation	12	6	10	10
Large enterprise	12	6	16	16
Small and medium enterprise	25	25	33	33
Governmental organisation	12	25	14	14
Public/semipublic corporate body	12	10	6	6
CSO	6	4	4	4
Other	2	4	8	8
N	(53)	(48)	(49)	(49)