A model of social responsibility for start-ups: developing a cross-fertilisation of responsible innovation, the lean start-up approach, and the quadruple helix approach

Figures & data

Table 1. Outline of models that stem from stakeholder theory.

Reference	Outline of the Position
(Porter and Kramer 2006)	Porter and Kramer for developing a ‘shared value’ approach to CSR, where businesses identify social and environmental issues that intersect with their business objectives and develop initiatives that address these issues whilst enhancing their competitive advantage
(Waddock and Bodwell 2007)	The approach proposed by Waddock and Bodwell that emphasizes that businesses should adopt a ‘mainstream’ view of social and environmental responsibility, that goes beyond mere compliance with regulations, and integrates responsibility into all aspects of business operations
(Oertwig 2017)	This framework is based on the tenet that sustainability can be a driver for innovation and competitive advantage, and that it should be integrated into all aspects of an organisation
(Baumgartner 2014)	This framework integrates CSR into business management practices though three key elements – values, strategies, and instruments – where values align with a company’s mission/vision and shape strategies, whilst instruments measure progress towards strategic targets
(McWilliams and Siegel 2001)	This model proposed in for determining CSR investment depending on firm size and other factors such the level of diversification, research and development, advertising, government sales, consumer income, and labor market conditions

Table 2. RI's four processual requirements (Owen et al. 2013).

Process Requirement	Description
Anticipation	Asking questions about the future, taking into consideration not just what is known and fairly certain but also what is not known, what is likely, what is plausible and what is possible. This forward-looking thinking is not only aimed at preventing negative consequences but also improving the embedding of technology in social innovation imagining ‘new venture ideas’ (Davidsson 2015)
Reflexivity	Thinking and being critical about the innovation process and being aware that perspectives, cultures, paradigms, frames of reference and other parameters might play a role in framing that issue such that no universal viewpoint is valid at all times.
Inclusion	Engaging various stakeholders to participate from the start in science and innovation such that societal values are absorbed in the process of bringing new technologies to the market. This aspect involves setting up deliberative structures that empower stakeholders to defend their values in a dialogue with the experts involved in innovation.
Responsiveness	Responsiveness refers to the practice of responding and modifying ways of thinking and behaviours. It asks scientists, companies, and industries to change their research and innovation practices if their stakeholders or the public deem their practices ethically unacceptable or contrary to the needs of society. It is responding to changing perspectives, knowledge, and values within society.

Table 3. Processual requirements conceptualised in Lubberink et al. (2017).

Processual requirement	Key activities
Anticipation	Determining desired impacts and outcomes of innovation Preventing or mitigating negative impacts Development of roadmaps for impact
Reflexivity	Actions and responsibilities Values and motivations Knowledge and perceived realities
Inclusion	Involvement of stakeholders at different stages (who and when) Provision of resources and capital (how) Raised commitment and contribution (how)
Responsiveness	Making sure that one can respond to changes in the environment Actual response to changing environments Addressing grand challenges Mutual responsiveness

Table 4. Innovation as value-creation along four helices.

Helix	Values	Definition	Prototypical Behavior	Prototypical outputs
Industry	Business Value	Direct or indirect monetary worth	Starting a business, investing in a business, mergers and acquisitions, managing a business.	Return on investment, market share etc.
Policy	Political Value	Contributing to a fair and just system.	Campaigning (arguing) for or against a policy, a programme or an individual.	Votes (for a party or policy)
Research	Research and education Value	Producing new knowledge contributing to the development of a disciplinary field or science in general	Researching, publishing and presenting scientific work.	Publications, patents, books, academic and honorary titles, citations
Civil society	Societal Value	The contribution of an act to the protection and implementation of civil, political and social rights.	Protests, petitions, lobbying, starting and managing an NGO.	Rights and artefacts that answer societal needs.

Figure 1. Value gain (Y-axis) distributed unequally in time (X-axis) along four helices (Popa, Blok, and Wesselink 2020b).

Table 5. Implementing SRSM with the four RI process requirements and four helices.

Iterative Processes in SRSM
RRI Requirements	Market Value	Political Value	Research Value	Societal Value
Anticipation	Identify the work to be done to anticipate something relevant for the achievement of industry values. Involve industry experts to identify possible issues to initiate positive social change, act responsibly, avoid harm, and ensure the economic success of the start-up.	Identify the work to be done to anticipate something relevant for the achievement of political values. Involve policymakers in identifying possible issues to initiate positive social change, act responsibly, avoid harm, and ensure the economic success of the start-up.	Identify the work to be done to anticipate something relevant for the achievement of research values. Involve researchers in identifying possible issues to initiate positive social change, act responsibly, avoid harm, and ensure the economic success of the start-up.	Identify the work to be done to anticipate something relevant for the achievement of civil society values. Involve civil society to identify possible issues to initiate positive social change, act responsibly, avoid harm, and ensure the economic success of the start-up.
Reflexivity	Think and be critical about the innovation process of the start-up and its impact on business success.	Think and be critical that the start-up is abiding by policy and is in line with the standards of the countries it operates.	Think and be critical of research and constantly ensure that the start-up is aware of changing perspectives and findings in research.	Think and be critical about the impact of the start-up and its products on cultures, groups, and society as a whole.
Inclusion	Engage industry stakeholders and employees in the science and innovation of the start-up. Give power to employees to incorporate their values within the start-up.	Engage with policymakers in the science and innovation of the start-up. Absorb these standards and rules within the dynamics and processes of the start-up.	Engage researchers (internal and external) in the latest science and innovation relevant to the start-up. Give power to these views and ensure they are incorporated within the processes and knowledge of the start-up.	Engage civil society stakeholders and include these values and concerns into the entire life-cycle of the start-up. Give power to civil society and ensure they are included in the processes and developments of the start-up.
Responsiveness	Respond and modify innovation and business practices in response to the changing dynamics of the industry and the needs of the start-up.	Respond and modify innovation and business practices in response to the changing policies, regulations, and social norms of the society in which the start-up is operating.	Respond and modify innovation and business practices in response to changes in research and available information relevant to the start-up and its product(s).	Respond and modify innovation and business practices in response to the changing dynamics in society, the needs of the public, and what is acceptable or needed in society.

Figure 2. The four RI processes and four QH in an iterative LSA.

Porter, M. E., and M. R. Kramer. 2006. “Strategy & Society: The Link Between Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility.” Harvard Bus Rev 84: 78–85.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Waddock, S., and C. Bodwell. 2017. Total Responsibility Management: The Manual. 1st ed. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351280402

 Google Scholar

Oertwig, N., et al. 2017. “Integration of Sustainability Into the Corporate Strategy.” In Sustainable Manufacturing. Sustainable Production, Life Cycle Engineering and Management, edited by R. Stark, G. Seliger, and J. Bonvoisin, 175–200. Cham.: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48514-0_12

 Google Scholar

Baumgartner, R. J. 2014. “Managing Corporate Sustainability and CSR: A Conceptual Framework Combining Values, Strategies and Instruments Contributing to Sustainable Development.” Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 21 (5): 258–271.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

McWilliams, A., and D. Siegel. 2001. “Corporate Social Responsibility: A Theory of the Firm Perspective.” The Academy of Management Review 26 (1): 117–127. doi:10.2307/259398.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Owen, R., J. Stilgoe, P. Macnaghten, M. Gorman, E. Fisher, and D. H. Guston. 2013. “A Framework for Responsible Innovation.” In Responsible Innovation, edited by R. Owen, J. Bessant, and M. Heintz, 27–51. London, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

 Google Scholar

Davidsson, Per. 2015. “Entrepreneurial Opportunities and the Entrepreneurship Nexus: A Re-Conceptualization.” Journal of Business Venturing 30 (5): 674–695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2015.01.002.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lubberink, R., V. Blok, J. Van Ophem, and O. Omta. 2017. “Lessons for Responsible Innovation in the Business Context: A Systematic Literature Review of Responsible, Social and Sustainable Innovation Practices.” Sustainability 9 (5): 721. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9050721.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Popa, E. O., V. Blok, and R. Wesselink. 2020b. “A Processual Approach to Friction in Quadruple Helix Collaborations.” Science and Public Policy 47: 876–889. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scaa054.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar