building confidence in innovative technologies … confidence in innovative technologies what’s...
TRANSCRIPT
Building confidence in innovative technologies
What stakeholders expect and how companies can respond
What’s fair to ask? What’s fair to share?
Report By Hilary Sutcliffe and Mike King
Building confidence in innovative technologies........................................................................3
About MATTER ..............................................................................................................................3
About this project .........................................................................................................................3
Methodology.................................................................................................................................. 4
Introducing the concept of Responsible Innovation ...............................................................5
What do we mean by Stakeholder Participation? ....................................................................7
Some of the tools used for each aspect ..............................................................................8
Who to involve? ............................................................................................................................ 9
What to engage about? ...........................................................................................................10
How do stakeholders expect companies to engage with society? .................................. 11
What the public wants to know about innovative technologies ............................... 11
What do investors want to know? ........................................................................................ 12
What do Civil Society Groups want to know? ................................................................. 14
What do buying departments of retailers want to know? .......................................... 16
How companies can respond to communications expectations? .................................... 18
How companies can respond to stakeholder expectations ............................................... 19
Next Steps for this project ............................................................................................................. 23
Bibliography .........................................................................................................................................24
Table of contents
What’s fair to ask? What’s fair to share?
2
Building confidence in innovative technologies
What’s fair to ask? What’s fair to share?
About this project
This project focuses on a key area of the debate about innovative technologies
– the importance of transparency and stakeholder participation as an integral component
of product development. The public appears to have a significant amount of confidence in
the products of innovation1, but they, like the investors2, NGOs3, and retailers4 we spoke to
want to see more transparency from companies to reassure them of their safety, efficacy
and appropriateness.
However, there are some important competitiveness issues which come with greater
transparency for companies – will their competitors simply use this information to their
own advantage? Are there liabilities associated with more openness, particular where
stakeholders are asking for more information about uncertainties and company systems?
This project was created to explore what’s fair to ask of companies, given these constraints,
and what’s fair to expect them to share, to build confidence in the innovative technologies
which may be the key to their and our future prosperity.
About MATTER
Innovative technologies, like nanotech, biotech or synthetic biology, may help us solve
some of the greatest problems of our age - providing new solutions to energy challenges,
more effective medicines, or simply enhance consumer products and gadgets to help
us have more fun, look better, or make our lives easier. MATTER is a UK based think tank
which brings stakeholders together to understand what needs to be done to use these
new technologies to enrich our lives and ensure they deliver products which are safe and
effective for people and the environment.
To see more about our work, our multi-stakeholder steering group or the people who work
with us, visit our website on www.matterforall.org.
Building confidence in innovative technologies
3
MATTER is a UK based think tank which brings stakeholders together to understand what needs to be done to use these new technologies to enrich our lives and ensure they deliver products which are safe and effective for people and the environment.
What’s fair to ask? What’s fair to share?
Methodology. The project was implemented in two parts:
Part One What stakeholders expect?
Output
Building confidence in innovative technologies
The funding for this project was contributed
by the seven members of the MATTER
Business Group who wished to know
more about the expectations of their key
stakeholders and understand how they
could achieve this balance of openness
and competitiveness.
The companies were AstraZeneca, College
Hill (communications), GlaxoSmithKline,
Leatherhead Food Research,
Marks & Spencer, Nestlé and Unilever.
A participant from the Nanotechnology
Knowledge Transfer network, focusing
on the interests of small businesses also
attended without making a financial
contribution.
Each Business Group Member contributed
£5k, of which £10k of the total was allocated
to the ongoing running of MATTER and
£25k to this particular project.
To understand what the public and other stakeholders want to see from companies at
what stages of the innovation process and how they themselves might wish to participate.
Our intent here was to consider what was fair and reasonable to ask of companies to allow
an appropriate balance between transparency and competitive advantage.
A Prezi presentation, with voice over, of this initial project which looked at
What the general public wants to know about company innovation is available
here on YouTube and the report itself available here. Our discussions with investors,
professional stakeholders and retailers are outlined later in the report.
Part Two How companies can respond?
In consultation with stakeholders and MATTER’s Business Group we have developed
practical ideas on how companies can best respond to these expectations for
transparency and stakeholder participation. This takes the form of questions directed at
different parts of the innovation chain and different departments in companies.
The output of this project is this report, together with a Prezi presentation of the full project
with voice over by author Hilary Sutcliffe, available here on YouTube.
Project Funding
4
1 To innovate more effectively
It is increasingly recognised that innovation happens as a clunky, messy process, where
ideas collide, new connections are made and new solutions are found often by accident5.
Connecting better with a more diverse group of stakeholders, through engagement,
listening and even co-creation, can bring superior results. This is particularly true as the
pressure increases to develop products that are sustainable, socially beneficial and where
risks and hazards are thought through in advance.
2 Understanding and mitigating social, ethical and environmental risks
New technologies may also provide solutions we badly need to some of the intractable
problems of our age; but they may potentially pose new hazards and risks and even
lingering uncertainties. One of the greatest challenges for companies is to find ways to
think through both the possible risks and the potential for negative social or environmental
impacts and design them out at source, or put safeguards, stage-gates and early
warning systems in place. This means looking outwards to explore wider implications and
perspectives, and looking inward to take responsibility for the products put on the market
and the impacts of their use and disposal. Stakeholder engagement along the innovation
pathway helps organisations gain a richer picture of risk and track early warnings of
potential issues on the horizon.
Here are five reasons for companies to take the lead on transparency and encourage
stakeholder participation as part of the process of innovation, particularly when
concerning potentially disruptive technologies:
Why is Responsible Innovation important?
Introducing the concept of Responsible Innovation
What’s fair to ask? What’s fair to share?
1. The deliberate focus of research and the products of innovation to achieve a
social or environmental benefit.
2. The consistent, ongoing involvement of society, from beginning to end of the
innovation process, including the public & non-governmental groups, who are
themselves mindful of the public good.
3. Which assessing, and effectively prioritising social, ethical and environmental
impacts, risks and opportunities, both now and in the future, alongside the
technical and commercial.
4. Where oversight mechanisms are better able to anticipate and manage
problems and opportunities and which are also able to adapt and respond
quickly to changing knowledge and circumstances.
5. Where openness and transparency are an integral component of the
entire research and innovation process.
The term is new, so definitions are evolving. This is our view of how it may be described1234:
What is Responsible Research and Innovation?
Introducing the concept of Responsible Innovation
“Responsible research and innovation means taking collective care for the future, through the stewardship of innovation in the present”Stilgoe, Owen and MacNaghten,
2012, Taking Care of the Future
- A Framewrk for Responsible In-
novation, Report for EPSRC/ESRC,
in press
5
3 To add to the body of evidence
Government & research funding is being restricted because of cost, at the same time as
new and more complex technologies are moving from lab to shelf with increasing speed.
There is therefore limited data available to help companies, scientists and governments
understand and evaluate the value and impact of these new technologies. There is also
a growing expectation that companies will share that data with competent authorities
(potentially moving to a mandatory basis) and communicate more effectively with
customers and the public to reassure them about product safety and system
effectiveness. In addition technology translation to new and useful areas, where it is not
hampered by overly constraining IP regimes, may be restricted by lack of evidence of
efficacy or toxicology.
4 Because engagement builds trust
We believe that the more open and authentic an organisation is about its products and
processes and the more innovative it is in the way it involves stakeholders, the greater will
be its ‘social capital’ – the trust of those who influence its success. The more trust it has ‘in
the bank’, the more freedom it has to innovate and the more its products resonate with its
customers (in both business-to-business and consumer-focused companies).
5 Getting it wrong is potentially very costly
The cost of getting it wrong in innovation can be huge. Whether ‘wrong’ means causing
harm to people or the environment; misjudging consumer appetite and public mood;
underestimating social antagonism to a specific product area or social or ethical issue – or
failing to grasp an opportunity at the right moment. Costs can be loss of sales, investor
confidence, law suits, insurance or capital costs, or a negative ‘rub-off’ on existing successful
products. Innovative stakeholder engagement helps keep an organisation attune to shifts
and close to changes in impact or attitude and able to respond quickly and effectively if
unforeseen problems arise.
6 Excessive caution can be costly too
Many companies feel that they will let others take the risk on new technologies and join in
later when acceptance is more certain. This is a successful strategy, but often ‘first mover
advantage’ also pays off. With some of the important societal problems we face, excessive
caution may also be costly to both business and society. At our recent meeting, socially
responsible investors asked companies to communicate better with them about their use
of new technologies, in part so that they could see they were grasping opportunities, and
in part to allow them to understand about how they were managing risks.
What’s fair to ask? What’s fair to share?
Introducing the concept of Responsible Innovation
“When we change the way we communicate, we change society”Clay Shirley
Here comes everything
“Innovation is society in the making”
Pieree-Benoît Joly
Senior Research Fellow
INRA/SenS and IFRIS. Paris
“in every act of creation and innovation there exists the potential, also, for our undoing.”
Lord Robert Winston Bad Ideas;
an arresting history of our
inventions
6
Co-createWork together with
others as equals
What do we mean by Stakeholder Participation?
What’s fair to ask? What’s fair to share?
Stakeholder participation can mean different things to different people. We have drawn on two useful initiatives to develop our approach:
1 The MATTER Stakeholder Engagement Framework
Adapted from the Public Engagement Triangle,
(See right) developed in the UK by Lindsey
Colbourne for ScienceWise.
This makes useful distinctions about the type of
engagement organisations may use for different
purposes. We have adapted it to include a
fourth hugely important area, Cogitate, which
illustrates the internal debate and discussion
which is how the organisation considers the
issues associated with innovation and its
response to stakeholder expectations.
We have used this framework to segment the
type of engagement an organisation may do
with different stakeholders at specific points
in the innovation chain.
2 AA1000 Stakeholder Engagement Standard
This open-source framework from the international
governance organisation Accountability aims to
provide a framework to understand the quality
of an organisation’s engagement. The AA1000
Stakeholder Engagement Standard was
developed through a consultative process over a
number of years and was launched in November
2011. We have used this to understand and help
define the quality of engagement companies
may undertake.
What do we mean by Stakeholder Participation?
The MATTER Stakeholder
Engagement Framework
7
CommunicateInform, educate, inspire, motivate,
demonstrate transparency
CogitateThink deeply about
complex issues & develop responses
ListenResearch other
views & concerns, understand broader
issues
What’s fair to ask? What’s fair to share?
Communication:• Company website – consider how your organisation
uses its website to demonstrate transparency about
the products enhanced by new technologies and your
systems of oversight. Does it explain about your work in
new technologies, what you hope that can achieve and
how it is managed? Are you failing to capitalise on its
role as a vehicle for demonstrating you are fulfilling your
responsibilities? How could you open up more about the
work you are doing in innovation, HSE, the systems and
processes which support your innovation?
• Open source publishing – consider how your organisation
may use open source media to make available research
(both positive and negative) to add to the body of
evidence on the subject of the science, safety, materials,
and processes which support the development of your
products. These may include codes of conduct, open
source websites, voluntary reporting schemes etc
• Social/Annual report – does your social report
consider your approach to innovation, science and
new technologies? How does it treat social, ethical and
environmental issues and transparency in this area?
Does it explore your stakeholder engagement and
stakeholder opinion, positive and negative?
• Marketing initiatives – is there a possibility of using your
marketing initiatives, such as media relations, events,
cause marketing, to demonstrate your responsible
approach to innovative technologies in your products?
• Joint venture communications – is there an opportunity
to work with a suppliers, customers, retailers, academics or
ngos to engage with stakeholders in a more effective way?
Listen
• Company website – is your website geared to listen
as well as to talk? Are there on-line engagement
approaches which could help you engage with
your customers around key issues, understand their
perspectives and give them the opportunity to give
feedback to you?
• Research – do you know what your stakeholders think
about your current and future innovations or about
issues which may arise from their use? Focus groups,
advisory panels, citizen’s juries, seminars, workshops,
facilitated dialogues and on-line initiatives, can all
generate knowledge to enrich your understanding of the
key social, ethical and environmental issues associated
with your use of new technologies and of the views of
your key stakeholders, including the public.
• Data Mining – understanding the views of stakeholders
from their own communication may also add to the
body of knowledge about key social, ethical and
environmental issues and perceptions and concerns.
Access reports, events and social media interactions to
better understand their concerns.
• Joint venture communications – is there an opportunity
to work with a suppliers, customers, retailers, academics or
ngos to engage with stakeholders in a more effective way?
Co-create• Partnerships and joint venture initiatives –
with key stakeholders, competitors, academic
partnerships to create new products, services or
accountability mechanisms together as equals -
eg DuPont EDF Nano Risk Framework6, BASF
Dialogueforum Nano7, Unilever & Practical Action
• Crowd-sourcing – innovative participation of the public
and other stakeholders to co-create products, services
or knowledge exchange initiatives together, eg through
brainstorms, joint venture projects, on-line initiatives.
Cogitate
• Internal consideration, analysis, evaluation –
essential for strategy development, consideration
of issues, responsiveness to external views or data;
generating thinking within teams, departments and
particularly through cross-departmental meetings,
events and on-line initiatives.
What do we mean by Stakeholder Participation?
Some of the tools used for each aspect
8
Who to involve?
What’s fair to ask? What’s fair to share?
Figure from The Stakeholder
Engagement Manual Volume 2
The Practitioner’s Handbook on
Stakeholder Engagement.
Accountability 2005 Thomas
Krick, Maya Forstater, Philip
Monaghan, Maria Sillanpää.
Each individual business needs to
determine who it is important and
appropriate, (or ‘material’ to take a phrase
from AA1000 Stakeholder Engagement
Standard), to involve at what stage in the
innovation process. Organisations will
prepare a ‘Stakeholder Map’ and begin an
internal Cogitation process of considering
the purpose and type of engagement and
focusing priorities. A chemical company
will have a different stakeholder map than,
for example, a cosmetics company; a textile
company from a food company.
Below is a basic stakeholder listing from a
pharmaceutical company. Following this
first step, they will then go on to expand
those groups to catalogue specific people
and organisations, then perhaps cluster
those according to issues, activities,
relationships, or other variables, and
consider how to engage for what purpose.
Stakeholder consultation may be necessary
to begin to generate this list. The MATTER
Framework of Listen, Communicate,
Co-create helps understand what types
of engagement are important for what
purpose and the internal cogitation is
central to developing that process.
What do we mean by Stakeholder Participation?
Stakeholder
Category
Employee
Investors
Customers
Suppliers
Subgroups
Board and executive team
Management
Staff
Trade Unions
New recruits
Potential recruits
Employees who have left the company
Institutional investors
Pension funds
Fund managers and analylsts
Rating agencies
Socially responsible investment movement
National Health Service Trusts
Doctors
Patients
Private clinics
Hospitals
Pharmacists
Wholesalers
Prescription influences (eg. nurses,
social workers, teachers, psychologists)
internal clients
Suppliers of materials and ingredients
Contract manufacturers
Doctors (as R&D consultants)
Clinical trial centres
Volunteers and patients intrials
Service providers and infrastructure
products
Stakeholder Category
Competitors
Government
and Regulators
Business Partners
Local Communities
Academia and
Scientific Community
Media
NGO’s and Pressure Groups
Sub-groups
Pharmaceutical companies
Biotech companies
Department of Health
Pharmaceutical regulatory authorities
Food and Drug Administration (US)
World Health organization (UN)
Licensees
R&D Partners
Other pharmaceutical companies
Clinics/universities
Neighbours
Local authorities/ Planning Department
Charities and voluntary organisations
Environmental groups
University centres
Researchers
Students
TV and Radio
Medical/scientific publications
National/local newspapers
Financial newspapers
Patient organisations
Human rights organisations
Animal welfare organisations
Environmental organisations
Alternative medicine associations
This is a high level stakeholder map developed by a uk pharmaceutical company
9
The MATTER Framework of Listen, Communicate, Co-create helps understand what types of engagement are important for what purpose
What to engage about?
Prioritising stakeholders, issues and activities – being open about trade offs
What’s fair to ask? What’s fair to share?
Different companies will engage with their
stakeholders about different things at
different times.
The various components of the Responsible
Innovation agenda may be just one of a
number. Some companies have hundreds
of ‘material issues’ that they engage with
their stakeholders about in various ways.
For those who follow the Global Reporting
Initiative this issues mapping is essential.
For example, the figure below from the
Vodafone 2010 Social Report shows how
they classify their main issues and prioritise
their activities. Stakeholder engagement
programmes will be created for most, if not
all, of those issues.
Internal cogitation and processes to create
understanding, such as those mapped
in the above diagramme, are essential to
understanding stakeholder priorities and so
delivering strategic company engagement.
However, one of the purposes of listening
to stakeholders is to be able to better
understand their own priorities so that
the organisation can respond effectively.
Sometimes stakeholder participation is a
chicken and egg sort of thing!
Transparency about the process of
prioritising issues and allocating time and
funding, often part of social reporting
process is in itself a demonstration of
Responsible Innovation. Companies will
have a number of important issues to
address, sometimes where stakeholder
views conflict with each other. Stakeholders
on the whole understand that companies
have to prioritise and it is openness about
the process of making that choice and
the trade offs it engenders which helps
demonstrate responsibility.
Low Medium High
Influence on business success
Imp
ort
an
ce t
o s
takeh
old
ers
Lo
w
Me
diu
m
Hig
h
So
urc
e: V
od
afo
ne 2
010
Su
stain
ab
ility R
ep
ort
What do we mean by Stakeholder Participation?
10
For those who follow the Global Reporting Initiative issues mapping is essential.
What’s fair to ask? What’s fair to share?
One of the first questions asked in dialogues is ‘why are you doing it?’ The public want
to see that the use of a new technology is ‘worth it’. That there is a benefit to them or the
environment, and it is not just used to increate profit for the company; and they want to
see a much richer picture of that than a few paragraphs of sales patter. For example, how
it improves on what went before; that it has a social or environmental benefit; and that
the benefit doesn’t cause other problems. They want to see that a company has thought
through this rationale properly and not simply used technology for technology’s sake.
People basically trust products. But the more unusual a technology used, the more
transparency is felt to be appropriate, particularly if there are considered by other actors
to be uncertainties and even risks about the use of the technology. Nanotechnology, for
example, may have some controversial applications, so there is a growing expectation
that companies must be more open about the way in which it is used to enhance their
products, even about applications where there is no concern currently expressed about
hazards or uncertainties.
To try to understand what the public wanted to know from companies about their use of
science and technology we evaluated 14 major public dialogues in the UK and Europe, and
10 synthesis or analysis documents, particularly those conducted about nanotechnologies,
synthetic biology and stem cell research.
Our intent here was to help us consider what was fair and reasonable to ask of companies
to disclose to build public confidence in such products whilst also allowing an appropriate
balance of transparency and competitive advantage.
Outline findings are:
How do stakeholders expect companies to engage with society?
What the public wants to know about innovative technologies
• The public wants to know when a new technology is being used
• Tell me why it’s worth it? A much richer picture about benefit is needed
How do stakeholders expect companies to engage with society?
11
The public want to see that the use of a new technology is ‘worth it’.
But people know that things will go wrong sometimes and appear surprisingly pragmatic
about it. What they want to know is that companies have effective systems and processes
in place to ensure the products are safe enough; that they have thought carefully about
risks; and where there are issues for safe use that these are made clear to those who need
to know. When it does go wrong, they expect it to be clear who is liable and how it gets
put right. They also expect that the potential for harm be thought about in advance
and contingency plans made to respond effectively to problems which arise.
Information and communication from companies is important for reasons of
transparency and to provide information on specific products, but it is perceived to be
biased. Though there is a desire for direct communication between companies and the
public, people also know they do not necessarily have the time, the expertise or the
motivation to read the scientific papers or track the safety issues. They want reassurance
from independent and impartial sources about oversight of safety, veracity on claimed
benefits, robustness of liability regimes and provision of information. In many dialogues
the need for independent ‘technology assessment’ style bodies was raised and also the
importance of consumer groups or ngos emphasised.
Our Prezi presentation, with voice over which gives more detail about this project is
available here on YouTube and the report here on our website.
What’s fair to ask? What’s fair to share?
• What’s the system for managing risks?
• A desire for trustworthy and independent sources of reassurance
MATTER and UKSIF – the Sustainable Investment and Finance Association, held a meeting
on Responsible Innovation for investors on Tuesday 25th October 2011. The meeting
explored some of the issues associated with Responsible Innovation and innovative
technologies (particularly nanotech) and discussed investor views about the way
companies interact with them in this area. This was a snapshot in time, from 17 leading
Socially Responsible Investors and Rating Agencies, not a thorough research project, but
we felt it raised some interesting questions for companies.
Sacha Sadan, Director of Corporate Governance at Legal & General Investment
Management, who hosted the meeting, explained “We perceive a critical lack of ambition
in long term R&D and also a fear of talking about their ground-breaking research
from major companies – in terms of opportunity or risk. Investors need to ask more of
companies about the long term technological changes that could effect them and what
they are doing to combat/embrace these changes. We hope that companies respond
with a more open and strategic approach.”
What do investors want to know?
How do stakeholders expect companies to engage with society?
12
What they want to know is that companies have effective systems and processes in place to ensure the products are safe enough
What’s fair to ask? What’s fair to share?
The unanimous view among the attendees was that companies were surprisingly poor
at communicating about their innovation to their investors. The focus on short term
results and nervousness about speaking about their future activities, particularly, though
not exclusively involving new technologies, means that investors fail to get the strategic
overview they want, especially from the large companies. “I think they are scared to talk
about it, because they are worried we will react badly,” explained one. “But it could
provide the key to some of the future value for the company, so we really want to
know how these technologies can help them.”
Attendees at the meeting highlighted the following areas:
• Companies don’t communicate well about innovation.
In addition, they were unable to gauge the risks the companies were taking in this area, as
again companies failed to communicate about the systems of oversight they had in place
to manage and mitigate these risks. Another suggested “They all probably have it under
control, but we don’t know what they are doing, so can’t factor either confidence or
risk into our analysis.”
• …nor about how they are managing risk
The narrow focus of Investor Relations departments was seen as a particular barrier to this
type of communication, though the investors themselves admitted that they also didn’t
really know what questions to ask to enrich their analysis. Investor Relations departments
we later spoke to also explain that they don’t mention it because they never, ever get asked!
• But investors also don’t know the questions to ask
However a focus on incremental improvements and lack of ambition about innovation
may be the biggest problem holding companies back in terms of their own innovation
and growth. This poverty of aspiration, they felt, may also be limiting progress on finding
solutions to some of the most pressing problems we all face. These investors want to see
companies being more ambitious, more innovative and unafraid to communicate about
what they are doing.
• Lack of ambition is a real concern
How do stakeholders expect companies to engage with society?
However, MATTER also pointed out that investor attitudes to risk, focus on short-term
results and unwillingness to provide the enough of the right type of funding
for companies involved in new technologies have made a significant contribution to
this problem!
• Investors should share some of the blame!
13
“We perceive a critical lack of ambition in long term R&D and also a fear of talking about their ground-breaking research from major companies”
What’s fair to ask? What’s fair to share?
How do stakeholders expect companies to engage with society?
Again our funding did not permit an extensive research programme, but we held a
workshop to explore our ideas for this report with individuals from three key UK civil
society groups (Which? Greenpeace and ChemicalWatch) on December 5th 2011.
We have also kept in touch with many of the major campaigns and articles from NGOs
around Emerging Technologies in recent years, notably Friends of the Earth, ETC Group,
Practical Action, Greenpeace, Which?, Chemical Watch & As you Sow. Greenpeace and
Practical Action are also members of the MATTER Steering Group and we have listened
to their views via that process also.
This work seems to indicate that NGOs have similar concerns to the public and other
groups, though their positions can vary considerably and their focus has been more
specific. Areas of concern include:
The need for greater transparency about when and how new technologies are used
in consumer products
The need for better understanding and information about the health, safety and
environmental testing done by companies on their products prior to bringing them
to market.
Concerns about exactly how much information on HSE should be done and should be
disclosed before products can be safely brought to market
The need for restrictions or moratoria until the appropriate information is forthcoming.
What do Civil Society Groups want to know?
The main bone of contention appeared to be the nexus between research and
commercialisation. Companies are concerned about disclosing sensitive competitive
information in the research phase in particular. NGOs are concerned about about a
lack of information about risks and uncertainties.
Civil society groups were sympathetic in part to concerns about competitiveness
and considered that where research was undertaken in a closed process, in company
labs there was no particular need for information to be disclosed more widely –
though worker safety procedures were expected to be bespoke for the technology
(specific guidance available for nanomaterials for example). However this need for
transparency changed under certain circumstances:
• Where the public or the environment are exposed – through field trials, or open
testing outside the lab for example.
• Where public funds are used – when the recommendation is for the opening up of
concepts at a much earlier stage.
The nexus of research and commercialisation
Transparency in the Research phase of innovation
This work seems to indicate that NGOs have similar concerns to the public and other groups, though their positions can vary considerably and their focus has been more specific.
14
What’s fair to ask? What’s fair to share?
How do stakeholders expect companies to engage with society?
It was generally agreed that when research became a product to go on sale, this marks the
step change in the need for information. When products became available to the public
then stakeholders expected the following:
Usage – Openness about the use of a specific technology – eg nanomaterials enhancing
a product, food irradiation used as a process. This may be on a website and in a
social report or on packaging. Information on packaging was considered important
particularly where there is considered by wider society to be uncertainties about safety,
though it was acknowledged unlikely to happen without legislation. Stakeholders are
not united about the effectiveness or detail of what should be labelled and how.
• Where these developments are likely to have significant social, ethical or
environmental implications or impacts and on which the views of the public and other
stakeholders should reasonably be sought
• Where allowing research, trials or applications to go ahead would require a significant
change in, or likely have a significant influence on, public policy
The MATTER Stakeholder Participation Framework (see page7) also proposes that
co-creation and listening initiatives would be useful in the case of many applications
during the research phase. A distinction is made between these more discrete initiatives
and full transparency on websites or public fora. This would potentially allow concerns to
be raised and issues could be uncovered early enough to design out problems at source
or change the direction of research to respond to unforeseen issues
Transparency about innovative technologies in products for sale to the public
Handling - Ensuring quality information available on HSE to all constituents in the
supply chain from worker safety through to recycling.
Benefit - A richer picture of the use of the technology and its benefit over other
solutions
Uncertainty and risk - The most difficult area to resolve was the expectation of
transparency around uncertainties and risks. Issues raised at the meeting included:
• The importance of knowing what had not been tested for, but which may be material to
risk and the reasonableness of expectations of disclosure.
• The importance of communicating about HSE aspects throughout the lifecycle where
issues, perhaps of recycling or reuse, may remained uncertain
• The need for clarification on actual and potential risks of using or misusing products at
all points in the cycle of development, use and disposal.
• The potential for legal liability where uncertainties, though unlikely, were openly
acknowledged.
15
It was generally agreed that the point that research became a product to go on sale marks the step change in the need for information.
What’s fair to ask? What’s fair to share?
How do stakeholders expect companies to engage with society?
BASF Dialogueforum Nano
In addition we have drawn our conclusions using the findings of the BASF Dialogueforum
Nano, a project initiated by the German chemical company BASF and facilitated by the
independent Risk Dialogue Foundation in St Galen, Switzerland.
The Risk Dialogue Foundation brought together NGOs, unions and other key stakeholders
with relevant departments of BASF to co-create detailed guidance for companies and
NGOs about the appropriate information and transparency required along the product
lifecycle of nanomaterials.
This could be equally relevant for other innovative technologies and is a useful document.
• This led to a discussion about the potential for independent organisations, such as
Technology Assessment institutes, which could pose these questions and undertake
analysis on behalf of society in partnership with companies or separately on behalf of
the public.
• It was also agreed that retailers could play a powerful role here in specifying clarity on
such issues in advance of stocking products using new technologies.
As the link between products and the public, they can act as a catalyst for good
practice in others
They need to insist on good quality information for customer safety
..and insist on good quality information for their own risk management
They also need to weigh up innovative responses for their own stretch targets on
innovation, energy, waste etc
We discussed this with the British Retail Consortium Chemicals Working Group
(who had invited MATTER in to speak to them about ‘Responsible Innovation and the
Role of Retailers’). We construed from their answers that many of the leading companies
didn’t appear to shy away from this responsibility, however, it was clear that there were
some things getting in the way of them doing that as effectively as they might:
What do buying departments of retailers want to know?
Civil Society stakeholders (see previous section) feel that retailers have an unique
position in the supply chain and that as gatekeepers and often information providers
on behalf of the consumer they play an important role:
16
Civil Society stakeholders feel that retailers have an unique position in the supply chain
What’s fair to ask? What’s fair to share?
How do stakeholders expect companies to engage with society?
Retailers have policies on new technologies, nanotech was discussed in particular,
requesting companies to disclose how it is used in advance. But this rarely comes up,
except with sunscreens. Retailers don’t see any products using nanotech brought to
them. However, they don’t know where to go to find out if this is a matter of inadequate
disclosure, or just that nano is not much used in consumer products at the moment.
‘To be honest, we think there isn’t much nano out there, because if it was, someone
would have tried to sell it to us. We just don’t see it and from what we know about
nano, it looks more likely that it is not that it is being hidden, so much as not being
used. People seem to be being precautionary in this area.”
The difficulties of obtaining information on risks was also seen as a problem.
‘The public asks us some very unusual things and sometimes it is very hard to get
information to respond to them properly. When we can find it, most of it seems to be in
subscription only journals and often very difficult to translate for the public,’ explained
one. These retailers have thousands of products and thousands of ‘material issues’ of
concern to different types of stakeholder. They are not able to subscribe to all of the
arcane journals pertaining to all of their products or the ingredients contained in them.
Companies, trade associations and scientists need to communicate their findings better
to enrich the information available to enable effective purchasing decisions to be made.
Need for better quality information on technology usage
In anticipation of concern or risk to the public some retailers have undertaken their
own research with their customers and of the potential risks for use of nanotechnology
in products. Specific exclusions are then put in place – nano silver being the one
mentioned at the meeting. Nano silver is excluded by some, not for direct health and
safety reasons, but because of concerns about anti-bacterial resistance. Retailers ask for
better quality information from suppliers about the research they have done to ensure
product safety and to enable them to respond to any social or ethical implications their
customers may have.
All the retailers we spoke to appeal to manufacturers “Please don’t bring us pointless
products using a technology for the sake of it, which doesn’t bring a benefit and where
you clearly haven’t thought through the risks. But do use new technologies to solve
some of the big problems we all face in a way which offers real benefits and is safe to
use – we are desperate for those.”
Anticipating negative impacts - better information on safety research
Please don’t give us pointless products!
17
The difficulties of obtaining information on risks was also seen as a problem.
What’s fair to ask? What’s fair to share?
How can companies respond to communications expectations
Using the feedback from stakeholders we have identified some key areas where companies
can Communicate, Listen and Co-create with their stakeholders along the innovation
pathway. In addition, we have begun to explore where internal Cogitation can be used to
embed the participation of stakeholders into the innovation process.
Our approach has also been informed by our work developing The Responsible Nano Code
for business, a multi-stakeholder initiative to provide a framework for the responsible
use of nanotechnologies. We draw on its guidance documentation and a benchmarking
evaluation framework which was produced, but which was not subsequently made widely
available. Please email [email protected] if you would like to see this evaluation
framework.
To make this ‘user friendly’ for companies we have taken a function by function approach
to this, to explore with different departments in a company why they should engage at
what stages in the development process. We have tried to use generic terms for these
departments, but obviously companies structure their operations in different ways and
may call these functions by other names.
These functions are:
The Board and/or Board sub-Committee - dealing with Technology, Innovation
and/or CSR
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) - is often where responsibility for Responsible
Innovation and particularly stakeholder engagement strategy resides.
Research and Development (R&D) - the home of the company science and research,
including joint venture initiatives with external partners, suppliers and customers.
Health and Safety (HSE) - those in charge of oversight of all health, safety and
environmental processes throughout the lifecycle
Buying - particularly with retailers and product manufacturers, those who source
products, materials or ingredients.
Investor Relations - who facilitate the dialogue between senior management
and investors.
Communications and Marketing - those involved with the external engagement of
the company, particularly with customers, but also including the public, investors, civil
society groups and government.
How companies can respond to communications expectations?
18
What’s fair to ask? What’s fair to share?
Type Activity
Listen Consider wider ‘intelligence’ than simply competitive & market analysis in strategy development.
Are there social & ethical implications of your innovation or technology strategy,
what are stakeholder expectations/concerns which need to be incorporated into this strategy?
Cogitate/co-create Explore vision & implications of strategy with internal audiences
Communicate Senior management articulates commitments to RRI – eg internally, in investor & stakeholder
mtgs, annual reporting, social reporting, website
The Board/Tech Sub Committee
What different departments can do?
How companies can respond to stakeholder expectations
How companies can respond to stakeholder expectations
Here we outline some ways in which companies can respond to stakeholder expectations
department by department. The simplest way to view this is through our Prezi presentation
with voice-over on YouTube which is available here.
Below are a series of tables which give ideas for how companies can Cogitate, Listen,
Communicate and Co-create with stakeholders about their use of innovative technologies.
19
Type Activity
Cogitate How does your company approach science and technology innovation in terms of your CSR
agenda? How can you engage cross-departmental input?
Listen Are there social & ethical implications of your use of science & technology you need to know
about? How can you facilitate the participation of stakeholders and the public in issues and
solutions? What are stakeholder expectations and concerns? How can your organisation respond?
Co-create How can direct external stakeholder participation enhance your company use of
innovative technologies?
Communicate What needs to be made transparent and how does your company need to communicate in order to
demonstrate you responsible approach to innovative technologies? How will your website and your
social report reflect your approach?
Corporate Responsibility or strategy owner
What’s fair to ask? What’s fair to share?
How companies can respond to stakeholder expectations
20
Type Activity
Cogitate What new systems of HSE & oversight for workers, users & disposal, may be needed when a new
technology is used? How could external stakeholder input enhance your research? What information
may be needed up the supply chain?
Listen What social, ethical or environmental issues or concerns may arise from your new research pathways?
What are the expectations of company HSE performance and transparency in this new area?
Co-create What potential social, ethical, environmental concerns can be envisaged and can they be designed
out at source? How can appropriate systems of oversight be developed to alleviate stakeholder
concern (including insurance issues)?
Communicate What aspects is it responsible to communicate? EG: consider open source and voluntary reporting
aspects, transparency on toxicology to add to the body of evidence on safety.
What information is important to communicate about your research processes & findings
for customers & other stakeholders?
Research
Type Activity
Cogitate What new HSE systems for workers, users & the environment for may be required for this new area?
What may be the social, ethical or environmental issues associated with the development, use and
recycling of this new product?
Listen What social, ethical or environmental issues or concerns do stakeholders consider important arising
from these new products? How do they expect your organisation to respond? What are the
expectations of company HSE performance and transparency in this new area?
Co-create What kind of potential social, ethical, environmental concerns can be envisaged, can these be designed
out at source? How can appropriate systems of oversight be developed to deliver safe products and
alleviate stakeholder concern?
Communicate What is important to appear on Safety Data Sheets & technical information on materials/handling/
benefit & risk assessment systems & findings across the supply chain, including disposal?
(See detailed expectations for nanotechnologies in BASF report DialogueForum Nano).
What new training requirements are desirable? What is important to be disclosed in the public domain?
What is acceptable to disclose in response, what is essential to be kept confidential?
Health & safety
What’s fair to ask? What’s fair to share?
How companies can respond to stakeholder expectations
21
Type Activity
Cogitate What information is required from the supplier on materials/products/use/recycling and how this
may be obtained? What information should be made available to the user & for disposal/recycling?
What social, ethical and environmental implications are associated with the product and how this
may have an impact on your company? What is important and useful for your customers to know?
Listen What social, ethical or environmental issues or concerns do stakeholders consider important
arising from these new products or materials? How do they expect your organisation to respond?
What information do you need from others to comply?
Co-create How can your organisation work with suppliers and end customers to ensure that potential HSE
problems are designed out at source? How can you work together with stakeholders to respond to
HSE and social, ethical or environmental issues or uncertainties?
Communicate How can you effectively communicate your approach and the steps you have taken to ensure safety
and efficacy to customers and for disposal and recycling? How can you communicate and engage
around the social, ethical or environmental issues or uncertainties around the product, material or
process? How can you help the public connect with information they may need or want to know?
Buying
Type Activity
Cogitate What information do investors seek, or would be useful for them to know, about your innovation
research and your use of innovative technologies? What social, ethical or environmental issues may
arise which may be of concern to investors.
Listen What issues are other stakeholders concerned about in relation to your technology innovation which
investors may be concerned about? What information do investors want from you and how do they
want it?
Co-create Investors have said they need better quality information about your innovation, what might that
look like and how might you communicate that to enhance your reputation with investors and
without compromising competitiveness?
Communicate How can you communicate more effectively with investors about these areas through direct
one-to-one meetings, reporting or industry events, media?
Investor relations
What’s fair to ask? What’s fair to share?
How companies can respond to stakeholder expectations
22
Type Activity
Cogitate Consider with all departments what areas of innovation are importance to stakeholders and how the
company may respond through its website, marketing and communications programmes.
Listen What areas are stakeholders particularly concerned about and what is their expectation of your
communications and transparency in this area. Take a look here at MATTER’s evaluation of the public
dialogues undertaken in this area and public expectations of how companies should communicate
about their science and innovations.
Co-create Consider how stakeholders, competitors and trade associations may participate with your
organisation to develop good practice in transparency and communications.
Communicate How is your website, reporting and marketing best used to respond to expectations about
transparency and communication? How can stakeholders and the general public obtain information
and engage effectively with you? How can your website be opened up more effectively to
other parts of the company to communicate about their work in this area and involve society
more effectively?
Communications/Marketing
What’s fair to ask? What’s fair to share?
Next Steps for this project
Next steps for this project
MATTER will seek to take forward this work by stimulating companies to open up their
processes and Communicate, Listen, Co-create and Cogitate more effectively about their
science and technology innovation. We have four priorities, dependent on funding:
1. To Cogitate, Listen, Co-create and Communicate ourselves with businesses to
understand the barriers and concerns arising from this approach and to motivate and
inspire them to be more open.
2. To prepare a fresh, intuitive, interactive website for companies with fora, case studies
and further ideas to bring these ideas to life and showcase good practice in this area.
3. To prepare an analysis of company websites, and potentially social reports, to highlight
and incentivise good practice.
4. To develop an international award scheme, with other partners, to reward and showcase
good practice.
If you would like to participate in the MATTER Business Group to explore this work further
or contribute funding to further projects, please contact [email protected].
ENDS
The Building concept was created by the Together Agency and the report designed by
Tracey Gill.
Bibliography
1. Franco-British workshop on responsible innovation: From concepts to practice 23-24 May 2011
– various. obtainable through the internet http://www.ambafrance-uk.org/Videos-and-presentations-from-the, 19118
Our report wws
2. Von Schomberg (2011) ‘ Prospects for Technology Assessment in a framework of responsible research and innovation
‘ in: M. Dusseldorp and R. Beecroft (eds). Technikfolgen abschätzen lehren: Bildungspotenziale transdisziplinärer
Methoden,Wiesbaden: Vs Verlag, in print
3. Speeches various MATTER Emerging Technologies Governance Brainstorm Dec 2010 obtained through the internet
http://www.matterforall.org/events/
4. Matter report for the European Commission Responsible Research and Innovation. October 2011
http://www.matterforall.org/pdf/RRI-Report.pdf
5. Stephen B Johnson, Where good ideas come from, the natural history of innovation. Penguin books 2010.
6. Nano Risk Framework from DuPont and EDF Energy http://www.nanoriskframework.com/
7. BASF Dialogue Forumnano, an initiative with stakeholders to understand appropriate communications requirements
across the supply chain of products using nanotechnologies. http://www.risiko-dialog.ch/images/RD-Media/PDF/
Themen/Nanotechnologie/basf_dialogueforum_nano_2010_en.pdf
Bibliography from MATTER’s ‘What the Public wants to know‘ research project - below
23
The following sources were considered when preparing these observations:
1. BASF Dialogueforum Nano 2009/2010: Information and Transparency along the Product Life Cycle of Nanomaterials - Final
Report
http://www.basf.com/group/corporate/en/sustainability/dialogue/in-dialogue-with-politics/nanotechnology/stakeholder-
engagement
2. Nanotechnology & Food: FSA Citizen’s Forum; TNA-BMRB Report 2011
http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/publication/fsacfnanotechnologyfood.pdf
3. Stem Cell Public Dialogue - Stakeholder workshop
Report for the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research
Council and the Medical Research Council. Office for Public Management July 2007.
http://www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk/cms/stem-cell-dialogue-2/
4. Synthetic Biology Public Dialogue, BBSRC/EPSRC
http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/web/FILES/Reviews/synbio_summary-report.pdf
5. Synthetic Biology Dialogue - Evaluation Reports, Laura Grant Associates
http://www.lauragrantassociates.co.uk/ReportsAndResources.aspx
6. NanoDialogues, Experiments with Public Engagement with Science - DEMOS 2007
http://www.demos.co.uk/files/Nanodialogues%20-%20%20web.pdf?1240939425
7. Small Talk: Discussing Nanotechnologies Final Report. Melanie Smallman Adam Nieman November 2006.
http://www.smalltalk.org.uk/page41g.html
8. Nano Jury UK – Provisional Recommendations, Greenpeace 2005
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/media/reports/nano-jury-uk-prov...
9. Experiment Earth – Report on the Public Dialogue on Geoengineering, Ipsos Moris 2010.
http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/consult/geoengineering.asp
10. Nanologue - European Union Framework 6 Programme on the Social and Ethical Implications of Nanotechnologies.
http://www.nanologue.net/index.php?seite=4
11. Which Citizen’s Panel on Nanotechnologies – Opinion Leader 2008.
http://www.which.co.uk/about-which/press/press-releases/campaign-press-releases/consumer-markets/2
12. Nano & Me Consultation Analysis – Prepared by Hilary Sutcliffe and Craig Freer on behalf of the Responsible Nano Forum –
2009. Available on request from [email protected]
13. An Evidence Review of Public Attitudes to Emerging Food Technologies – Executive Summary, Brook Lyndhurst 2009.
http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/emergingfoodteches.pd..
14. Science & Trust Expert Group Report: Starting a National Conversation about Good Science, Department of Business, Innovation
& Skills, 2010.
http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/trust/2010/03/08/new-science-and-trust-expert-group-report-starting-a-
national-conversation-about-good-science/
What’s fair to ask? What’s fair to share?
Bibliography
24
15. Science & the Media Expert Group Report: Securing the Future, Department of Business, Innovation & Skills, 2010.
http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/media/2010/01/21/comment-on-the-final-report/
16. An uncertain business: the technical, social and commercial challenges presented by nanotechnology, an acona briefing paper
by Hilary Sutcliffe, Simon Hodgson 2006.
http://www.acona.co.uk/reports/Acona+-+Nano+Tech+-+reprint+4+29Mar07.pdf
17. Nanotechnology & Public Opinion by Dietram A.Scheufele pub by NanoWerk 2011
http://www.nanowerk.com/spotlight/spotid=19819.php?sms_ss=email&at_xt=4d49671cef2ee795,0
18. International Comparison of Public Dialogue on Science and Technology, Sciencewise Expert Resource Centre, 2010
http://www.sciencewise- erc.org.uk/cms/assets/Uploads/Publications/International-Comparison-of-Public-Dialogue.pdf
19. What the Public Say, Simon Burrell and Thea Shahrokh for the Sciencewise Expert Resource Centre, 2010.
http://www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk/cms/assets/Uploads/What-the-public-say-report-FINAL-v4.pdf
20. The Public Value of Science, Or how to ensure that science really matters; James Wilsdon, Brian Wynne, Jack Stilgoe;
Demos 2005
21. When it pays to ask the public; Richard Jones, Published in Nature Nanotechnology 2008.
http://www.nature.com/nnano/journal/v3/n10/full/nnano.2008.288.html
22. Dilemmas of public engagement with nanotechnology; Arie Rip (University of Twente) OECD Workshop on public engagement
with nanotechnology, Delft, 30 October 2008
23. Deepen Project - Reconfiguring Responsibility - Deepening Debate on Nanotechnology; a research report from FP7 Funded
Deepen project, Prof Phil McNaughten, Durham University and others
http://www.geography.dur.ac.uk/Projects/Portals/88/Publications/Reconfiguring%20Responsibility%20September%202009.pdf
ENDS
What’s fair to ask? What’s fair to share?
Bibliography
25