IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/teinso/v82y2025ics0160791x25001368.html

Contrasting directionalities in responsible innovation, lessons from the salmon farming industry in Chile and Norway

Author

Listed:
  • Hopp, Joaquin Zenteno

Abstract

•There are contrasting perceptions about the directionality of innovation with gene technology in the salmon faming industry.•We need to better understand why directionality varies globally due to actors operating at different levels and contexts.•Directionality can be studied by linking risk concepts and distinguishing actors valuating those generating knowledge.•Contrasting directionalities stem from how inclusion is done and how key gene tech risk concepts are related in their system.•Norway should depoliticize gene tech risks, while Chile should include more non-experts in the innovation system.

Suggested Citation

  • Hopp, Joaquin Zenteno, 2025. "Contrasting directionalities in responsible innovation, lessons from the salmon farming industry in Chile and Norway," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:82:y:2025:i:c:s0160791x25001368
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2025.102946
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160791X25001368
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techsoc.2025.102946?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jensen, Morten Berg & Johnson, Bjorn & Lorenz, Edward & Lundvall, Bengt Ake, 2007. "Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 680-693, June.
    2. K. Matthias Weber & Bernhard Truffer, 2017. "Moving innovation systems research to the next level: towards an integrative agenda," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 33(1), pages 101-121.
    3. Hugues Jeannerat & Le�la Kebir, 2016. "Knowledge, Resources and Markets: What Economic System of Valuation?," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(2), pages 274-288, February.
    4. Assunta Di Vaio & Anum Zaffar & Daniel Balsalobre-Lorente & Antonio Garofalo, 2023. "Decarbonization technology responsibility to gender equality in the shipping industry: a systematic literature review and new avenues ahead," Journal of Shipping and Trade, Springer, vol. 8(1), pages 1-20, December.
    5. Stilgoe, Jack & Owen, Richard & Macnaghten, Phil, 2013. "Developing a framework for responsible innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1568-1580.
    6. Binz, Christian & Truffer, Bernhard, 2017. "Global Innovation Systems—A conceptual framework for innovation dynamics in transnational contexts," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(7), pages 1284-1298.
    7. Richard Owen & Phil Macnaghten & Jack Stilgoe, 2012. "Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 39(6), pages 751-760, December.
    8. Mazhar Adli, 2018. "The CRISPR tool kit for genome editing and beyond," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 9(1), pages 1-13, December.
    9. Fitjar, Rune Dahl & Rodríguez-Pose, Andrés, 2013. "Firm collaboration and modes of innovation in Norway," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 128-138.
    10. Kate Chatfield & Elisabetta Borsella & Elvio Mantovani & Andrea Porcari & Bernd Carsten Stahl, 2017. "An Investigation into Risk Perception in the ICT Industry as a Core Component of Responsible Research and Innovation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-24, August.
    11. Marie-Valentine Florin, 2022. "Risk governance and 'responsible research and innovation' can be mutually supportive," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(8), pages 976-990, August.
    12. Elvira Uyarra & Barbara Ribeiro & Lisa Dale-Clough, 2019. "Exploring the normative turn in regional innovation policy: responsibility and the quest for public value," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(12), pages 2359-2375, December.
    13. Tomás Bril-Mascarenhas & Aldo Madariaga, 2019. "Business Power and the Minimal State: The Defeat of Industrial Policy in Chile," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 55(6), pages 1047-1066, June.
    14. Jonas Heiberg & Christian Binz & Bernhard Truffer, 2020. "The Geography of Technology Legitimation: How Multiscalar Institutional Dynamics Matter for Path Creation in Emerging Industries," Economic Geography, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 96(5), pages 470-498, October.
    15. Joaquin Zenteno Hopp & Sebastián Baeza-González & Svein Gunnar Sjøtun, 2025. "Identifying multiple configurations in global innovation system (GIS): lessons from the salmon farming industry," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(2), pages 226-244, February.
    16. Helka Kalliomäki & Johanna Kalliokoski & Thomas Woodson & Leena Kunttu & Jari Kuusisto, 2024. "Inclusion as a science, technology, and innovation policy objective in high-income countries: the decoupling dilemma," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 51(5), pages 795-807.
    17. Parrilli, Mario Davide & Alcalde Heras, Henar, 2016. "STI and DUI innovation modes: Scientific-technological and context-specific nuances," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(4), pages 747-756.
    18. Johan Christensen & Cathrine Holst, 2017. "Advisory commissions, academic expertise and democratic legitimacy: the case of Norway," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 44(6), pages 821-833.
    19. J. Gower & P. Legendre, 1986. "Metric and Euclidean properties of dissimilarity coefficients," Journal of Classification, Springer;The Classification Society, vol. 3(1), pages 5-48, March.
    20. Assunta Di Vaio & Rohail Hassan & Gabriella D’Amore & Riccardo Tiscini, 2024. "Responsible innovation and ethical corporate behavior in the Asian fashion industry: A systematic literature review and avenues ahead," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 1129-1173, September.
    21. Heiberg, Jonas & Truffer, Bernhard & Binz, Christian, 2022. "Assessing transitions through socio-technical configuration analysis – a methodological framework and a case study in the water sector," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Jonas Heiberg & Bernhard Truffer, 2021. "The emergence of a global innovation system – a case study from the water sector," GEIST - Geography of Innovation and Sustainability Transitions 2021(09), GEIST Working Paper Series.
    2. Jonas Heiberg & Bernhard Truffer, 2021. "Overcoming the harmony fallacy: How values shape the course of innovation systems," GEIST - Geography of Innovation and Sustainability Transitions 2021(03), GEIST Working Paper Series.
    3. Heiberg, Jonas & Truffer, Bernhard & Binz, Christian, 2022. "Assessing transitions through socio-technical configuration analysis – a methodological framework and a case study in the water sector," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    4. Nanditha Mathew & George Paily, 2022. "STI-DUI innovation modes and firm performance in the Indian capital goods industry: Do small firms differ from large ones?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 435-458, April.
    5. Calvo, Nuria & Fernández-López, Sara & Rodríguez-Gulías, María Jesús & Rodeiro-Pazos, David, 2022. "The effect of population size and technological collaboration on firms' innovation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    6. Mathew, Nanditha & Paily, George, 2020. "STI-DUI innovation modes and firm performance in the Indian capital goods industry: Do small firms differ from large ones?," MERIT Working Papers 2020-008, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    7. Parrilli, Mario Davide & Balavac, Merima & Radicic, Dragana, 2020. "Business innovation modes and their impact on innovation outputs: Regional variations and the nature of innovation across EU regions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(8).
    8. Paula Viviana Robayo-Acuña & Odette Chams-Anturi & Iván Ricardo Ruíz-Castro, 2025. "Service innovation in emerging economies: the impact of DUI and STI innovation modes on innovation performance," Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 1-19, December.
    9. Marko Lovec & Luka Juvančič, 2021. "The Role of Industrial Revival in Untapping the Bioeconomy’s Potential in Central and Eastern Europe," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-20, December.
    10. Hervás-Oliver, José-Luis & Parrilli, Mario Davide & Rodríguez-Pose, Andrés & Sempere-Ripoll, Francisca, 2021. "The drivers of SME innovation in the regions of the EU," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    11. Doloreux, David & Shearmur, Richard, 2023. "Does location matter? STI and DUI innovation modes in different geographic settings," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    12. David Doloreux & Richard Shearmur & Igone Porto‐Gomez & Jon Mikel Zabala‐Iturriagagoitia, 2020. "DUI and STI innovation modes in the Canadian wine industry: The geography of interaction modes," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(3), pages 890-909, September.
    13. Marzucchi, Alberto & Montresor, Sandro, 2017. "Forms of knowledge and eco-innovation modes: Evidence from Spanish manufacturing firms," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 208-221.
    14. Thanos Fragkandreas, 2023. "Case study research on innovation systems: paradox, dialectical analysis and resolution," Working Papers 65, Birkbeck Centre for Innovation Management Research, revised 15 May 2023.
    15. Bischoff, Thore Sören & Hipp, Ann & Runst, Petrik, 2023. "Firm innovation and generalized trust as a regional resource," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(8).
    16. Rodríguez-Pose, Andrés & Haus-Reve, Silje & Fitjar, Rune, 2019. "Does combining different types of collaboration always benefit firms? Collaboration, complementarity and product innovation in," CEPR Discussion Papers 13622, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    17. Alhusen, Harm & Bennat, Tatjana & Bizer, Kilian & Cantner, Uwe & Horstmann, Elaine & Kalthaus, Martin & Proeger, Till & Sternberg, Rolf & Töpfer, Stefan, 2021. "A New Measurement Conception for the ‘Doing-Using-Interacting’ Mode of Innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(4).
    18. Lee, Hsing-fen & Miozzo, Marcela, 2019. "Which types of knowledge-intensive business services firms collaborate with universities for innovation?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(7), pages 1633-1646.
    19. Binz, Christian & Truffer, Bernhard, 2017. "Global Innovation Systems—A conceptual framework for innovation dynamics in transnational contexts," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(7), pages 1284-1298.
    20. Trott, Paul & Simms, Chris, 2017. "An examination of product innovation in low- and medium-technology industries: Cases from the UK packaged food sector," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 605-623.

    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:82:y:2025:i:c:s0160791x25001368. 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.