IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v9y2017i12p2168-d120223.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Indicators for Responsible Research and Innovation: A Methodological Proposal for Context-Based Weighting

Author

Listed:
  • Irene Monsonís-Payá

    (INGENIO (CSIC-UPV) Universitat Politècnica de València, Cámino de Vera s/n, València 46022, Spain)

  • Mónica García-Melón

    (INGENIO (CSIC-UPV) Universitat Politècnica de València, Cámino de Vera s/n, València 46022, Spain)

  • José-Félix Lozano

    (INGENIO (CSIC-UPV) Universitat Politècnica de València, Cámino de Vera s/n, València 46022, Spain)

Abstract

In the last decade, the term Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) has rapidly attracted the attention of policy-makers and researchers of Europe, mainly due to its promotion by the European Commission (EC). The concretion of this framework of RRI has been articulated by the EC around six key areas: governance, public engagement, gender equality, science education, open access, and open science and ethics. The indicators to measure these dimensions have been proposed recently. In our opinion the set of indicators available so far has two weaknesses: a lack of context-based indicators and a need for hierarchical ordering. Our aim is to provide tools for policy- and decision-makers that might need to identify the more important indicators in a specific context. In this work, we explored how the multicriteria analysis technique Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP) can be used to prioritize indicators for RRI by involving experts in the specific context. The AHP method allowed weighting indicators according to experts in the different areas and producing four different options to select indicators. The method of AHP can be an appropriated instrument to select the most suitable indicators for RRI policies and initiatives.

Suggested Citation

  • Irene Monsonís-Payá & Mónica García-Melón & José-Félix Lozano, 2017. "Indicators for Responsible Research and Innovation: A Methodological Proposal for Context-Based Weighting," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-29, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:9:y:2017:i:12:p:2168-:d:120223
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/12/2168/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/12/2168/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bernd Carsten Stahl & Michael Obach & Emad Yaghmaei & Veikko Ikonen & Kate Chatfield & Alexander Brem, 2017. "The Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) Maturity Model: Linking Theory and Practice," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-19, June.
    2. World Commission on Environment and Development,, 1987. "Our Common Future," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780192820808.
    3. 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.
    4. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    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. Mónica García-Melón & Tomás Gómez-Navarro & Hannia Gonzalez-Urango & Carmen Corona-Sobrino, 2022. "Adapting RRI public engagement indicators to the Spanish scientific and innovation context: a participatory methodology based on AHP and content analysis," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 30(4), pages 1483-1512, December.
    2. Paula Otero-Hermida & Mónica García-Melón, 2018. "Gender Equality Indicators for Research and Innovation from a Responsible Perspective: The Case of Spain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-20, August.
    3. Irene Monsonís-Payá & Tomás Gómez-Navarro & Mónica García-Melón, 2020. "Anticipating Environmental Burdens in Research and Innovation Projects—Application to the Case of Active and Healthy Ageing," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(10), pages 1-20, May.
    4. Manuel Sousa & Maria Fatima Almeida & Rodrigo Calili, 2021. "Multiple Criteria Decision Making for the Achievement of the UN Sustainable Development Goals: A Systematic Literature Review and a Research Agenda," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-37, April.

    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. Pishchulov, Grigory & Trautrims, Alexander & Chesney, Thomas & Gold, Stefan & Schwab, Leila, 2019. "The Voting Analytic Hierarchy Process revisited: A revised method with application to sustainable supplier selection," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 166-179.
    2. 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.
    3. Shen, Yung-Chi & Chou, Chiyang James & Lin, Grace T.R., 2011. "The portfolio of renewable energy sources for achieving the three E policy goals," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 2589-2598.
    4. Lanndon A. Ocampo, 2019. "Decision Modeling for Manufacturing Sustainability with Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process," Global Business Review, International Management Institute, vol. 20(1), pages 25-41, February.
    5. Paracchini, Maria Luisa & Bulgheroni, Claudia & Borreani, Giorgio & Tabacco, Ernesto & Banterle, Alessandro & Bertoni, Danilo & Rossi, Graziano & Parolo, Gilberto & Origgi, Roberto & De Paola, Claudio, 2015. "A diagnostic system to assess sustainability at a farm level: The SOSTARE model," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 35-53.
    6. Baskaran, Venkatesan & Nachiappan, Subramanian & Rahman, Shams, 2012. "Indian textile suppliers' sustainability evaluation using the grey approach," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(2), pages 647-658.
    7. Tatiana Iakovleva & Elin Oftedal & John Bessant, 2021. "Changing Role of Users—Innovating Responsibly in Digital Health," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-17, February.
    8. Flick, Catherine & Zamani, Efpraxia D. & Stahl, Bernd Carsten & Brem, Alexander, 2020. "The future of ICT for health and ageing: Unveiling ethical and social issues through horizon scanning foresight," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    9. Yağmur Kara & Aylin Çiğdem Köne, 2015. "Measuring Social Sustainability of NUTS-1 Level Regions in Turkey," EY International Congress on Economics II (EYC2015), November 5-6, 2015, Ankara, Turkey 235, Ekonomik Yaklasim Association.
    10. An, Da & Yang, Yu & Chai, Xilong & Xi, Beidou & Dong, Lichun & Ren, Jingzheng, 2015. "Mitigating pollution of hazardous materials from WEEE of China: Portfolio selection for a sustainable future based on multi-criteria decision making," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 105(PA), pages 198-210.
    11. Ibo Van de Poel & Lotte Asveld & Steven Flipse & Pim Klaassen & Victor Scholten & Emad Yaghmaei, 2017. "Company Strategies for Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI): A Conceptual Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-18, November.
    12. 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).
    13. Janda, Karel & Tan, Tianhao, 2017. "Integrated Multi-Attribute Value and Analytic Hierarchy Process Model of Sustainable Energy Development in Central Europe and East Asia," MPRA Paper 76716, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. 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).
    15. Nainsi Gupta & Gunjan Soni, 2021. "A Decision-Making Framework for Sustainable Supply Chain Finance in Post-COVID Era," International Journal of Global Business and Competitiveness, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 29-38, December.
    16. Zhang, Stephen X. & Chen, Jiyao & He, Liangxing & Choudhury, Afreen, 2023. "Responsible Innovation: The development and validation of a scale," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    17. Çağlar Kıvanç Kaymaz & Salih Birinci & Yusuf Kızılkan, 2022. "Sustainable development goals assessment of Erzurum province with SWOT-AHP analysis," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 2986-3012, March.
    18. Lin, Sheng-Hau & Zhao, Xiaofeng & Wu, Jiuxing & Liang, Fachao & Li, Jia-Hsuan & Lai, Ren-Ji & Hsieh, Jing-Chzi & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2021. "An evaluation framework for developing green infrastructure by using a new hybrid multiple attribute decision-making model for promoting environmental sustainability," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    19. Ester Guijarro & Cristina Santadreu-Mascarell & Beatriz Blasco-Gallego & Lourdes Canós-Darós & Eugenia Babiloni, 2021. "On the Identification of the Key Factors for a Successful Use of Twitter as a Medium from a Social Marketing Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-15, June.
    20. Lin, Sheng-Hau & Huang, Xianjin & Fu, Guole & Chen, Jia-Tsong & Zhao, Xiaofeng & Li, Jia-Hsuan & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2021. "Evaluating the sustainability of urban renewal projects based on a model of hybrid multiple-attribute decision-making," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).

    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:gam:jsusta:v:9:y:2017:i:12:p:2168-:d:120223. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.