IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v9y2017i8p1424-d107940.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Investigation into Risk Perception in the ICT Industry as a Core Component of Responsible Research and Innovation

Author

Listed:
  • Kate Chatfield

    (Centre for Professional Ethics, Faculty of Health and Wellbeing, University of Central Lancashire, Preston PR1 2HE, UK)

  • Elisabetta Borsella

    (Italian Association for Industrial Research (AIRI), Viale Gorizia 25/c, Roma 00198, Italy)

  • Elvio Mantovani

    (Italian Association for Industrial Research (AIRI), Viale Gorizia 25/c, Roma 00198, Italy)

  • Andrea Porcari

    (Italian Association for Industrial Research (AIRI), Viale Gorizia 25/c, Roma 00198, Italy)

  • Bernd Carsten Stahl

    (Centre for Computing and Social Responsibility, School of Computer Science and Informatics, De Montfort University, The Gateway, Leicester LE1 9BH, UK)

Abstract

This paper makes an original contribution to the responsible research and innovation (RRI) discourse, with an inquiry into the extent to which risk, risk assessment, or risk management, including ethical and social issues, is relevant to companies. As a core component of the higher or “meta-responsibility” of RRI, an investigation of practices and attitudes towards risks can provide us with a window into companies’ attitudes towards responsible innovation that is rooted in real-world experiences. Drawing upon data from 30 in-depth interviews and a large Delphi study, we reveal different underlying attitudes towards risk governance for individuals working in the information and communication technology (ICT) industry. For some companies, there is already an obvious degree of alignment with RRI values. For others, framing of the RRI discourse in terms of ethical and societal risks may help to promote understanding and uptake. Results from the interviews suggest that lack of awareness of the full extent of ethical and societal risks associated with research and innovation in the ICT industry may act as a barrier to engagement with RRI, and educational activities may be needed to rectify this situation. Results from the Delphi survey suggest that when presented with simple information about potential ethical and societal risks, industry personnel can easily recognise the main risks and provide clear opinions about how they should be addressed. The relationship between risk governance and RRI warrants further investigation as it is an essential facet of RRI.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:9:y:2017:i:8:p:1424-:d:107940
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/8/1424/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/8/1424/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Wright & Michael Friedewald, 2013. "Integrating privacy and ethical impact assessments," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 40(6), pages 755-766, December.
    2. Rob Lubberink & Vincent Blok & Johan Van Ophem & Onno Omta, 2017. "Lessons for Responsible Innovation in the Business Context: A Systematic Literature Review of Responsible, Social and Sustainable Innovation Practices," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-31, May.
    3. Cristiano Cagnin & Effie Amanatidou & Michael Keenan, 2012. "Orienting European innovation systems towards grand challenges and the roles that FTA can play," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 39(2), pages 140-152, March.
    4. Kerstin Cuhls, 2003. "From forecasting to foresight processes-new participative foresight activities in Germany," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(2-3), pages 93-111.
    5. 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.
    6. M. Lynne Markus & Kevin Mentzer, 2014. "Foresight for a responsible future with ICT," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 353-368, July.
    7. Kate Chatfield & Konstantinos Iatridis & Bernd C. Stahl & Nearchos Paspallis, 2017. "Innovating Responsibly in ICT for Ageing: Drivers, Obstacles and Implementation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-22, June.
    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. 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.
    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. Brielle Lillywhite & Gregor Wolbring, 2022. "Risk Narrative of Emergency and Disaster Management, Preparedness, and Planning (EDMPP): The Importance of the ‘Social’," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-36, December.
    4. André Martinuzzi & Vincent Blok & Alexander Brem & Bernd Stahl & Norma Schönherr, 2018. "Responsible Research and Innovation in Industry—Challenges, Insights and Perspectives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-9, March.
    5. Agata Gurzawska, 2021. "Responsible Innovation in Business: Perceptions, Evaluation Practices and Lessons Learnt," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-27, February.

    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. 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.
    2. Kate Chatfield & Konstantinos Iatridis & Bernd C. Stahl & Nearchos Paspallis, 2017. "Innovating Responsibly in ICT for Ageing: Drivers, Obstacles and Implementation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-22, June.
    3. Jiqing Liu & Gui Zhang & Xiaojing Lv & Jiayu Li, 2022. "Discovering the Landscape and Evolution of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI): Science Mapping Based on Bibliometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-32, July.
    4. Michael P. Schlaile & Sophie Urmetzer & Vincent Blok & Allan Dahl Andersen & Job Timmermans & Matthias Mueller & Jan Fagerberg & Andreas Pyka, 2017. "Innovation Systems for Transformations towards Sustainability? Taking the Normative Dimension Seriously," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-20, December.
    5. Carla Gonzales-Gemio & Claudio Cruz-Cázares & Mary Jane Parmentier, 2020. "Responsible Innovation in SMEs: A Systematic Literature Review for a Conceptual Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-27, December.
    6. Čeičytė Jolita & Petraitė Monika, 2017. "Self-Organisation Perspective to Responsible Innovation in Industry," Management of Organizations: Systematic Research, Sciendo, vol. 78(1), pages 21-32, December.
    7. Lehoux, P. & Miller, F.A. & Williams-Jones, B., 2020. "Anticipatory governance and moral imagination: Methodological insights from a scenario-based public deliberation study," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    8. Reichelt, Nicole & Nettle, Ruth, 2023. "Practice insights for the responsible adoption of smart farming technologies using a participatory technology assessment approach: The case of virtual herding technology in Australia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 206(C).
    9. Jolita Ceicyte & Monika Petraite, 2018. "Networked Responsibility Approach for Responsible Innovation: Perspective of the Firm," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-15, May.
    10. Sophie Lythreatis & Abdul-Nasser El-Kassar & Palie Smart & Alberto Ferraris, 2024. "Participative leadership, ethical climate and responsible innovation perceptions: evidence from South Korea," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 1285-1312, September.
    11. 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.
    12. Buhmann, Alexander & Fieseler, Christian, 2021. "Towards a deliberative framework for responsible innovation in artificial intelligence," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    13. Bernd Carsten Stahl & Job Timmermans & Catherine Flick, 2017. "Ethics of Emerging Information and Communication Technologies," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 44(3), pages 369-381.
    14. Behera, Rajat Kumar & Bala, Pradip Kumar & Rana, Nripendra P. & Irani, Zahir, 2023. "Responsible natural language processing: A principlist framework for social benefits," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Christine Chou, 2018. "Organizational Orientations, Industrial Category, and Responsible Innovation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-18, March.
    18. 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.
    19. Tatiana Iakovleva & John Bessant & Elin Oftedal & Luciana Maines da Silva, 2021. "Innovating Responsibly—Challenges and Future Research Agendas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-6, March.
    20. 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).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:gam:jsusta:v:9:y:2017:i:8:p:1424-:d:107940. 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.