IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/teinso/v79y2024ics0160791x24002574.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Responsible innovation for disruptive science and technology: The role of public trust and social expectations

Author

Listed:
  • McCrea, Rod
  • Coates, Rebecca
  • Hobman, Elizabeth V.
  • Bentley, Sarah
  • Lacey, Justine

Abstract

As the world increasingly faces intersecting and complex environmental, social, and economic challenges, there are rising demands on emerging science and technology to produce innovative and potentially disruptive solutions. However, these solutions may also introduce different problems, uncertainties, and risks. Responsible innovation (RI) offers a way to identify and mitigate the social and ethical risks associated with new science and technology developments while delivering socially desirable and responsible outcomes. But how does the public view RI? In this paper, we argue that those undertaking disruptive science and technology research need a better understanding of the drivers of public trust in the research and innovation sector, and broader societal expectations of what constitutes socially responsible outcomes arising from their work. Few studies have explored if and how RI, trust, and social expectations are interrelated in the eyes of the public. This research investigates public perceptions of RI relevant to the development of novel and potentially disruptive science and technology, and their relationships with two key social outcomes: (1) public trust in the research and innovation sector; and (2) public expectations that innovative and potentially disruptive research can deliver socially responsible outcomes. Through surveying 4080 Australians, this research identifies how these four elements of RI – (i) practices of scientists, (ii) institutional compliance with research ethics, (iii) risk management effectiveness, and (iv) governance arrangements – are associated with public trust and expectations of socially responsible outcomes. Our best fitting path model showed that these elements of RI explain a large proportion of variability in trust in scientists and research institutions undertaking disruptive science, and most of the variability in public expectations that such research can deliver socially responsible outcomes. Of the four elements of RI, practices of scientists are most important for explaining trust in the research and innovation sector, and risk management effectiveness is most important for expectations of socially responsible outcomes from disruptive science and technology.

Suggested Citation

  • McCrea, Rod & Coates, Rebecca & Hobman, Elizabeth V. & Bentley, Sarah & Lacey, Justine, 2024. "Responsible innovation for disruptive science and technology: The role of public trust and social expectations," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:79:y:2024:i:c:s0160791x24002574
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2024.102709
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160791X24002574
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techsoc.2024.102709?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kirsten Zickfeld & Deven Azevedo & Sabine Mathesius & H. Damon Matthews, 2021. "Asymmetry in the climate–carbon cycle response to positive and negative CO2 emissions," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 11(7), pages 613-617, July.
    2. Marie Delaplace & Hakim Kabouya, 2001. "Some considerations about interactions between regulation and technological innovation: the case of a sustainable technology, biodegradable materials in Germany," European Journal of Innovation Management, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 4(4), pages 179-185, December.
    3. Christian Voegtlin & Andreas Georg Scherer, 2017. "Responsible Innovation and the Innovation of Responsibility: Governing Sustainable Development in a Globalized World," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 143(2), pages 227-243, June.
    4. Amjad Naveed & Ghulam Shabbir, 2022. "Effect of Formal and Informal Institutional Indicators on Innovation Activities: An Empirical Analysis for a Global Sample," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 164(2), pages 665-691, November.
    5. Jesko Schulte & Sophie I. Hallstedt, 2018. "Company Risk Management in Light of the Sustainability Transition," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-25, November.
    6. Bart W. Terwel & Fieke Harinck & Naomi Ellemers & Dancker D. L. Daamen, 2009. "Competence‐Based and Integrity‐Based Trust as Predictors of Acceptance of Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage (CCS)," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(8), pages 1129-1140, August.
    7. Michael Siegrist, 2000. "The Influence of Trust and Perceptions of Risks and Benefits on the Acceptance of Gene Technology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(2), pages 195-204, April.
    8. Chong Li & Yingqi Li, 2023. "Factors Influencing Public Risk Perception of Emerging Technologies: A Meta-Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-37, February.
    9. David A. Fleming‐Muñoz & Lavinia Poruschi & Thomas Measham & Jacqui Meyers & Magnus Moglia, 2020. "Economic vulnerability and regional implications of a low carbon emissions future," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 64(3), pages 575-604, July.
    10. Beniamino Callegari & Olga Mikhailova, 2021. "RRI and Corporate Stakeholder Engagement: The Aquadvantage Salmon Case," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-18, February.
    11. Jilde Garst & Vincent Blok & Léon Jansen & Onno S. W. F. Omta, 2017. "Responsibility versus Profit: The Motives of Food Firms for Healthy Product Innovation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-29, December.
    12. Patrick Sturgis & Ian Brunton-Smith & Jonathan Jackson, 2021. "Trust in science, social consensus and vaccine confidence," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 5(11), pages 1528-1534, November.
    13. Fei Xie & Bohui Zhang & Wenrui Zhang, 2022. "Trust, Incomplete Contracting, and Corporate Innovation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(5), pages 3419-3443, May.
    14. Joan Fontrodona, 2013. "The Relation Between Ethics and Innovation," CSR, Sustainability, Ethics & Governance, in: Thomas Osburg & René Schmidpeter (ed.), Social Innovation, edition 127, pages 23-33, Springer.
    15. Fleming-Munoz, David A. & Poruschi, Lavinia & Measham, Thomas & Meyers, Jacqui & Moglia, Magnus, 2020. "Economic vulnerability and regional implications of a low carbon emissions future," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 64(3), July.
    16. Stilgoe, Jack & Owen, Richard & Macnaghten, Phil, 2013. "Developing a framework for responsible innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1568-1580.
    17. Harmon, Shawn H.E. & Kale, Dinar, 2015. "Regulating in developing countries: Multiple roles for medical research and products regulation in Argentina and India," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 10-22.
    18. Ronald William Eastburn & Alex Sharland, 2017. "Risk management and managerial mindset," Journal of Risk Finance, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 18(1), pages 21-47, January.
    19. Pereira, Diogo Santos & Marques, António Cardoso & Fuinhas, José Alberto, 2019. "Are renewables affecting income distribution and increasing the risk of household poverty?," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 170(C), pages 791-803.
    20. Greg Muttitt & Philip Gass, 2023. "How energy transition affects jobs," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 13(11), pages 1162-1163, November.
    21. Christian Voegtlin & Scherer Andreas Georg, 2017. "Responsible Innovation and the Innovation of Responsibility: Governing Sustainable Development in a Globalized World," Post-Print hal-01540972, HAL.
    22. Judy Jingwei Xie & Melissa Martin & Joeri Rogelj & Iain Staffell, 2023. "Distributional labour challenges and opportunities for decarbonizing the US power system," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 13(11), pages 1203-1212, November.
    23. Tapani Rinta-Kahila & Ida Someh & Nicole Gillespie & Marta Indulska & Shirley Gregor, 2022. "Algorithmic decision-making and system destructiveness: A case of automatic debt recovery," European Journal of Information Systems, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(3), pages 313-338, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Panizzon, Mateus & Janissek-Muniz, Raquel, 2025. "Theoretical dimensions for integrating research on anticipatory governance, scientific foresight and sustainable S&T public policy design," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Carbajo, Ruth & Cabeza, Luisa F., 2018. "Renewable energy research and technologies through responsible research and innovation looking glass: Reflexions, theoretical approaches and contemporary discourses," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 792-808.
    2. Buhmann, Alexander & Fieseler, Christian, 2021. "Towards a deliberative framework for responsible innovation in artificial intelligence," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    3. Shu, Ei (Emily), 2022. "Paradoxical framing and coping process on sustainable new product development," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    4. Annesi, Nora & Battaglia, Massimo & Sganzetta, Lorenza, 2023. "Mutual benefits of sustainability integration in the value chain: Responsible innovation by public utilities," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    5. Valentina Cillo & Antonio Messeni Petruzzelli & Lorenzo Ardito & Manlio Del Giudice, 2019. "Understanding sustainable innovation: A systematic literature review," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(5), pages 1012-1025, September.
    6. Wiarda, Martijn & van de Kaa, Geerten & Yaghmaei, Emad & Doorn, Neelke, 2021. "A comprehensive appraisal of responsible research and innovation: From roots to leaves," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    7. Memon, Khalid Rasheed & Ooi, Say Keat, 2023. "Identifying digital leadership's role in fostering competitive advantage through responsible innovation: A SEM-Neural Network approach," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    8. Carbajo, Ruth & Cabeza, Luisa F., 2022. "Researchers’ perspective within responsible implementation with socio-technical approaches. An example from solar energy research centre in Chile," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    9. Tetiana Ivanova & Iryna Manaienko & Marina Shkrobot & Yuriy Tadeyev, 2021. "Theoretical Frameworks of Responsible Innovations," Economic Studies journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 5, pages 143-157.
    10. Zhang, Stephen X. & Chen, Jiyao & He, Liangxing & Choudhury, Afreen, 2023. "Responsible Innovation: The development and validation of a scale," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    11. Madeleine Rauch & Shahzad (Shaz) Ansari, 2022. "From ‘Publish or Perish’ to Societal Impact: Organizational Repurposing Towards Responsible Innovation through Creating a Medical Platform," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(1), pages 61-91, January.
    12. Sophie Bacq & Ruth V. Aguilera, 2022. "Stakeholder Governance for Responsible Innovation: A Theory of Value Creation, Appropriation, and Distribution," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(1), pages 29-60, January.
    13. Lu Jiang & Jianxin You & Jiaojiao Yu & Tao Xu & Yixi Xue, 2025. "Driving Factors of Corporate Responsible Innovation: An Exploratory Multiple-Case Study of Technological Enterprises," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(10), pages 1-25, May.
    14. Emmanuelle Reuter, 2022. "Hybrid business models in the sharing economy: The role of business model design for managing the environmental paradox," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(2), pages 603-618, February.
    15. Tachia Chin & Francesco Caputo & Yi Shi & Mario Calabrese & Chiraz Aouina‐Mejri & Armando Papa, 2022. "Depicting the role of cross‐cultural legitimacy for responsible innovation in Asian‐Pacific business models: A dialectical systems view of Yin‐Yang harmony," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(6), pages 2083-2093, November.
    16. Simone Pizzi & Fabio Caputo & Andrea Venturelli, 2020. "Does it pay to be an honest entrepreneur? Addressing the relationship between sustainable development and bankruptcy risk," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 1478-1486, May.
    17. Narae Kim & Jeong-Nam Kim, 2024. "A COVID-19 Paradox of Communication, Ignorance, and Vaccination Intention," SAGE Open, , vol. 14(3), pages 21582440241, September.
    18. Agata Gurzawska & Markus Mäkinen & Philip Brey, 2017. "Implementation of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) Practices in Industry: Providing the Right Incentives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-26, September.
    19. Thais Assis de Souza & Rodrigo Marçal Gandia & Bruna Habib Cavazza & André Grützmann & Isabelle Nicolaï, 2020. "A Conceptual Proposal for Responsible Innovation," Post-Print hal-03014720, HAL.
    20. Shuang Meng & Pengxiang Wang & Jiajie Yu, 2022. "Going Abroad and Going Green: The Effects of Top Management Teams’ Overseas Experience on Green Innovation in the Digital Era," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(22), pages 1-20, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:79:y:2024:i:c:s0160791x24002574. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/technology-in-society .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.