Principles for Responsible Innovation. Building trust and trustworthiness in business innova3on. Consulta)on Dra-

Transcription

1 Principles for Responsible Innovation Building trust and trustworthiness in business innova3on Consulta)on Dra- July 2015

2 1

3 Summary 2 What are the Principles for Responsible Innovation for? New technologies and innova)ons poten)ally provide great opportuni)es to help solve some of the big problems of our age and may also bring with them new challenges. How to s)mulate the good and minimise the bad is an ongoing debate. With these Principles we would like to help s)mulate a race to the top mentality to inspire companies to think in more transforma)ve ways about the ways they innovate whilst also considering more carefully the posi)ve and nega)ve impacts of the fruits of their labours. Our aims 1. Generate positive momentum for transformative innovation for social good Provide a framework to help businesses explore how to use innova)on in a more transforma)ve way for social and commercial good. Working with stakeholders in this process can help s)mulate new thinking and make new connec)ons whilst also helping quan)fy risks and understand concerns in advance. Where disagreements remain, perhaps on benefit, impacts or the emphasis of HSE ac)vity or regula)on, then a process is clear from which companies underpin their claims of trustworthiness. 2. Create shared expectations to help build trustworthiness & confidence To help generate a shared expecta)on and understanding among businesses and their stakeholders about desirable outputs, outcomes and behaviours. In later documents we will highlight useful tools companies can use to help them with this transforma)on and highlight more real world examples of good prac)ce. But the responsibility for Responsible innova)on does not begin and end with companies. We hope also to develop these Principles further, to be applied to the work of other organisa)ons - par)cularly governments, researchers and their ins)tu)ons and NGOs. What does Responsible Innovation mean? The term is new, so defini)ons are evolving. We have decided not to make a one- line defini)on, but consider what it might encompass instead. We propose that it includes the following - a descrip)on which is relevant for all stakeholders: 1. The deliberate focus of research & the products of innova7on to achieve a social or environmental benefit. 2. Which assesses and effec7vely priori7ses the social, ethical and environmental impacts, risks and opportuni7es, both now and in the future, alongside the technical and commercial. 3. Involves the consistent, ongoing involvement of society, from beginning to end of the innova7on process, including the public & non- governmental groups, who are themselves mindful of the public good. 4. Where oversight mechanisms are befer able to an7cipate and manage problems and opportuni7es and which are also able to adapt and respond effec7vely to changing knowledge and circumstances. 5. Where openness and transparency are an integral component of the research and innova7on process.

4 3 Responsible Innovation? Why now? Innovation as the critical driver of future prosperity Virtually all business sectors cite innova)on as a primary route to their future prosperity - ⅔ of companies in a recent EU Innova)on Barometer survey have introduced at least one innova)on in the last 3 years. Governments too see innova)on as providing the route to improved growth and prosperity, with most countries having plans to s)mulate innova)on in both companies and the public sector. For Europe as a whole, the Innova)on Union project ( an ac)on packed ini)a)ve for an innova)on - friendly Europe ) trumpets innova)on as our best op)on to get the European Economy back on track. An Innova)on Union Scoreboard tracks a broad range of innova)on indicators including R&D expenditure, patents, business innova)on and educa)onal standards and aim at helping countries work out their strengths and weakness to promote future growth direc)ons. but it s complicated Competitiveness has many strands The World Economic Forum Global Compe))veness Report of 2014 cites Technology Readiness (the agility of the society to adopt technology to enhance produc)vity) and Innova)on (the ability to realise R&D gains) as key pillars of a country s compe))veness, though they also cite the importance of the interconnec)on of these metrics. A focus on just one aspect of innova)on is not enough, a more rounded approach is needed.. For example, a strong innova)on capacity (pillar 12) will be very difficult to achieve without a healthy, well- educated and trained workforce (pillars 4 and 5) that is adept at absorbing new technologies (pillar 9), and without sufficient financing (pillar 8) for R&D or an efficient goods market that makes it possible to take new innova)ons to market (pillar 6). WEF Global Compe33veness Report 2014 New risks provide new problems & new opportunities The direc)on of innova)on is also s)mulated not just by perceived commercial or social opportuni)es, but by the need to an)cipate and respond to threats and risks, both to business and to society. The World Economic Forum Global Risks Report catalogues annually the 10 key areas which are of most concern to leaders of business, government and civil society globally. In 2015 the risks in terms of likelihood are: 1 Interstate conflict 6 Natural catastrophes 2 Extreme weather events 7 Failure of climate-change adaptation 3 Failure of national governance 8 Water crises 4 State collapse crisis 9 Data fraud or theft 5 Unemployment or underemployment 10 Cyber attacks Business increasingly plays a greater part in both crea)ng and solving these problems with stakeholders of all types expec)ng a more proac)ve responsibility for impacts and development of solu)ons.

5 4 Balancing the risks and rewards of Emerging Technologies is a par)cular focus of the report, with Synthe)c Biology, Ar)ficial Intelligence and Gene)c Drives highlighted. From new technologies, such as the networked medical devices to the Internet of Things, from drought resistant Internet or emerging innovations will crops to bionic prosthe7cs, emerging technologies promise to revolu7onize a not bear fruit if regulatory wide range of sectors and transform tradi7onal rela7onships. Their impacts mechanisms at the international and will range from the economic to the societal, cultural, environmental and national levels cannot be agreed geopoli7cal. But concern about the risks of undesirable impacts and upon. WEF 2015 Risk Report - forward Dr conflic)ng views on their contribu)on, benefit and governance make their Klaus Schwab. deployment far from assured. Business is now more complicated Globalisa)on is increasing compe))on for players of all sizes. Even rela)vely small companies are seeing a need to cater for varying preferences and value sets; offer a variety of op)ons, sizes, which is dicta)ng a need for flexibility which adds another dimension of complexity to the picture. Rather than thinking of a primary na7onal market broken into three to five value segments, tomorrow s strategist must comprehend a world where offerings may vary by city within a country, as well as by distribu7on channel and demographic segment, with ageing and income inequality necessita7ng increasingly diverse approaches. 1 Society is more assertive, less forgiving Add to the picture the increasing erosion of trust between society and ins)tu)ons, with quite pronounced varia)ons in expecta)on and trust in business worldwide 2 and European countries the least trus)ng of their own governments and business 3 - and the job of an innovator is made s)ll more complicated. Our own analysis of recent public dialogues 4, together with the most recent Edelman Trust Barometer 2015 special report on Trust and Innova)on in Business 5 shows that ci)zens feel that the pace of development and change in business is too fast by a 2-1 margin. But also that stakeholders and the public are o-en scep)cal about the mo)va)ons of all groups - for example (our text) - governments are they so busy trying to curry favour with business they ll let profit trump safety? ; businesses - are they just trying to part me from my money - where s the benefit to society? ; it is even true of scien)sts, who are among the most trusted - are they doing it for the accolades, just to prove they can? The visibility of this societal distrust in all ins)tu)ons is now amplified by the prolifera)on of social media outlets and mainstream media alen)on making today s concerns more present to policy makers and business and escala)ng concerns among ci)zens themselves. 1 2 McKinsey Quarterly 50th Anniversary Edition, Management Intuition for the next 50 years ResAgora Case Studies Edelman trust Barometer 2015 Inc special report on Trust in Innovation intellectual-property/2015-edelman-trust-barometer/trust-around-world/ 4 MATTER What does the Public Expect from companies using innovative technologies

6 5 The fall- out from technology- focused crises - conflicts about responses to climate change, nuclear disasters, oil spills and the global financial crisis among other concerns appear to show a growing asser)veness among the ci)zens of many countries. Where societal dissent previously had to be expressed by direct ac)ons, it was therefore easier to ignore those naturally smaller numbers. The old school approach to policy, where the public was told that science or government had all the right answers is by no means gone, but ac)vists in academia, NGOs and media are pushing hard for a less patronising, more inclusive approach to business and policy and highligh)ng poli)cal and business shortcomings for all to see. The influence of society is increasing all the )me, from the impact of public disapproval - such as the varied reac)ons in different countries to fracking, GM plants, nuclear power - to the impact of their approval - the adop)on of mobile phones, the rise of organics, science in cosme)cs, the medicalisa)on of food and the growing public involvement in many countries in the shaping and delivery of public services. Values clashes, conflicting priorities and trade offs are here to stay One of the defining characteris)cs of this more vola)le innova)on landscape is this diversity of views, which may o-en be irreconcilable. Though many don t care either way, for some a certain technological solu)on is a great breakthrough and a sign of progress, for others it is an affront to their values and the things they hold dear - the gene)c modifica)on of plants is the classic case. The rising influence of the NGO or civil society organisa)on, o-en helps to amplify one perspec)ve over another, while industry silence and the confronta)onal approach of some poli)cians does lille to inspire trust. What is galling to many is that the very innova)ons that some consider irresponsible 6 e.g. biofuels 7, palm oil, GM, nuclear power o-en started their life as someone s view of a responsible solu)on to a difficult problem. They become viewed as irresponsible because of unforeseen (perhaps only by some) or unknowable consequences which are only subsequently iden)fied. Similarly conflicts in priori)es may result in an unpopular trade off - such as balancing low energy bills, sustainable supply and decarbonisa)on which may be behind decisions on renewables vs fracking or nuclear power. Or disagreement about impacts, effec)veness, risk or governance drive both posi)ve and nega)ve responses - eg ICT, organics, food irradia)on, nanotechnology, synthe)c biology and robo)cs. These fast moving issues, o-en with no clear right thing to do adds a layer of complexity to doing business which is rela)vely new. We believe that alen)on to the processes and behaviours outlined in these Principles is the best way companies have of underpinning their innova)on processes to build the trustworthiness of their approach and the confidence of stakeholders in their innova)ve products and services. 6 MATTER blog on Irresponsible Innovation 7 ResAgora Case Study When responsible becomes irresponsible : biofuels in the USA and Brazil

7 6 Transformative innovations have impacts - who decides which? As Professor Robert Winston s book Bad Ideas, an arres7ng history of our inven7ons 8 illustrates so compellingly, innova)ons have consequences, some nega)ve some posi)ve. Some)mes a nega)ve impact for some is a very posi)ve impact for others. Some)mes these are an unfortunate but necessary by- product of progress; some)mes they are undesirable and preventable. It could be that other less innova)ve, simpler or even more complex non- technological solu)ons may be more effec)ve - or not. Decisions about who decides on the priori)es and how stakeholders are involved is not an exact science. Growing alen)on is being paid to the disparity of innova)on in pro- poor solu)ons, and the focus of technology innova)on for first world problems of the rich. This is o-en where the money is, but innova)ve funders, like Gates Founda)on and others, Social Entrepreneurs and many businesses large and small are exploring ways to help address this imbalance and s)ll make money. Responsible innova)on also seeks to open up decision making into technology pathways, involving society, in the form of different stakeholders and the general public, more closely in decision making. But if everyone has a say, about strategic direc)ons or innova)on pathways how does policy maker, a research funder proceed or a business choose who s views count most? Opinions may differ drama)cally on which decisions should be made to catalyse certain types of innova)on and not others; and there will also be diverse views about who s opinion counts most and why. So then what? Responsible Innova)on has no answers to these issues at the moment, and probably never will, but it does seek to open up this debate to have a fairer and more transparent approach than the current way which favours who shouts loudest or who has the most power. It brings more voices into the decision making process and seeks to understand fairness in more detail. Time and again stakeholders, and the public, have demonstrated understanding that some)mes unpalatable decisions have to be made, but that lack of transparency and the perceived unfairness of the system erode their confidence in the decision making process. Responsible Innova)on aims to help make this process fairer, more open and more accountable. It s tough in the spotlight - but default to silence doesn t help As social media amplifies public scru)ny it puts poli)cians and business leaders right in the spotlight. Expecta)ons about increased transparency mean many are unused to and unprepared for this level of scru)ny about their use of technology and R&D ac)vi)es. They find it tough to respond effec)vely to the increasing cacophony of different, some)mes conflic)ng, voices focused on them and their policies, organisa)ons or products. It s genuinely difficult to make decisions in this context, with few clear paths to consensus and seemingly always disappoin)ng at least one vocal group of important stakeholders who make their concerns abundantly clear to the world. However, the current default to silence approach 9 to the use of many emerging technologies may have worked in the past but increasingly seems to be the very least helpful strategy. Not simply because it fails to answer the ques)ons of those with concerns, but because it makes business to business customers nervous, governments and NGOs suspicious, and reduces confidence in a technology. 8 Robert Winston, Bad Ideas, an arresting history of our inventions. Transworld Publishers Consultation by MATTER for CEFIC Foresight Study on Governance of New Technologies publication 2015

8 7 Whilst the end consumer may or many not know or care, those that do have very lille to go on to help allay their fears and put their concerns to rest. Company websites, social reports or other communica)ons vehicles say very lille or nothing about innova)on or the use of new technologies, except for marke)ng messages. Our business- led project Building Confidence in New Technologies - what stakeholders expect and how companies can respond explores the informa)on and communica)ons expecta)ons of investors, NGOs, retail buyers and the public. Though ini)ally there was much concern about the disclosure of compe))veness issues the project found that there was much common ground about expecta)ons, with a focus on veracity of health, safety and environmental impacts and a focus on social, not just commercial benefit. Trust matters to the bottom line Trusted companies benefit from their efforts with 80% of people ac)vely choosing to buy products from trusted companies and 63% ac)vely choosing to refuse to buy products from those they distrust. Our work and the Edelman survey concur that distrust is accompanied by a vocal desire for more openness from companies and valida)on of their approach to innova)on by clear evidence of benefit both personal and societal, evidence of safety tes)ng, and valida)on of their approach through partnerships with NGOs, academics and governments. How could these Principles for Responsible Innovation help? Bringing together existing learning across technologies There have been a number of ini)a)ves which have sought to bring business and other stakeholders together to codify expecta)ons and behaviours, under the umbrella of Responsible Research and Innova)on. Most have been focused on the academic research community 10 and the research agenda of the European Commission s Horizon2020 programme. Some member states, like the UK, Netherlands, Denmark and Germany are leading the way in the development of consulta)on ini)a)ves or frameworks for Responsible Research and Innova)on for their own publicly funded research. Many, such as the US, Australia, France, Brazil and others are taking innova)ve steps in many direc)ons which may not be officially called Responsible Innova)on, but explore similar issues. But there is lille in these programmes which focuses on the innova)on end of the Responsible Research and Innova)on specturm. Nothing to help business and society come to a common understanding on the direc)on and delivery of innova)on and the expecta)ons on business. One of the few to focus on RI in business was the Responsible Nano Code, developed by a mul)- stakeholder working group for the responsible development and use of nanotechnologies. This was funded and developed under the auspices of the UK Royal Society, socially responsible investors Insight and the Knowledge Transfer Network of the )me. As our involvement in RI in rela)on to other technologies evolved (in areas such as Synbio, Industrial Biotech, Food Irradia)on, 3d Prin)ng, Cultured Meat, Future Foods & AI) it became clear that the Principles of the Nano Code were in fact equally applicable to both technologies and applica)ons in probably all areas innova)on - but par)cularly those with significant poten)al societal impacts or those in controversial areas See our Introduction to Responsible Innovation prepared for the EC. ResAgora case studies have some useful links. EPSRC Responsible Innovation Framework 11 Our journey to this conclusion is considered in a blog here

9 8 Principle One - Innovation for social benefit The organisation designs its innovations to deliver social, ethical and environmental benefits, in addition to commercial goals Principle Two Board leadership The Board takes a leadership role in championing Responsible Innovation and has accountability for developing & managing its innovation strategy & associated responsibilities Principle Three Consideration of social, ethical & environmental impacts The organisation considers and is responsive to the wider social, ethical and environmental implications and impacts of its innovations - working alone or with others where appropriate Principle Four Excellent public health, safety & environmental risk management The organisation carries out thorough, technology specific, risk assessment & minimises any potential public health, safety or environmental risks relating to its products. It also considers the public health, safety & environmental risks throughout the product lifecycle Principle Five Excellent worker health and safety The organisation ensures high standards of technology-specific occupational health & safety. It also considers occupational health & safety issues for workers at others stages in the product lifecycle. Principle Six Involving commercial partners The organisation engages proactively, openly & co-operatively with business partners up & down the supply chain to provide appropriate information & safety data throughout the supply chain. Principle Seven Stakeholder involvement The organisation identifies its innovation stakeholders, including the general public, proactively engages with them, involving them in the innovation process & is responsive to their views & concerns Principle Eight Radical Transparency and disclosure The organisation is innovative and daring in its approach to transparency and openness. In particular it is open about its involvement with & management of specific technologies or areas of innovation

10 9 Principle One Innovation for social benefit The organisation designs its innovations to deliver social, ethical and environmental benefits to society, in addition to commercial goals innovation is society in the making. Why are you doing this? Who will benefit? Is it worth it? Public views expressed in Food Standards Agency Citizen s Forums on Nanotechnology & Food Pierre-Benoît JOLY Senior Research Fellow INRA/SenS and IFRIS, Paris We need a much richer picture of the benefit over other options - not just sales patter Civil Society Group What are the benefits? Is it just about profit? Or the fun of new science? Concerns expressed in various public consultations on new technologies I m fed up of fighting my way through impenetrable science from companies to find the benefit to my customer Retail technology specialist 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. Retailer

11 10 Some questions to consider about benefit NB: Very ouen it is the technical benefit, not the social, environmental or economic benefit which is promoted What problem exists in rela)on to the world s social and environmental problems which our company, our sector, our products or our approach can contribute to more posi)vely? Are our innova)on goals, strategy and incen)ves geared to this new approach to innova)on? What would be involved in moving to this approach? What are the barriers? What needs to change? Who would we need to involve internally and externally to help us? What problem might my innova)on solve? How is it superior to what has gone before, or to other current or proposed solu)ons? What evidence is there of this? What are the social, environmental and commercial benefits of my innova)on? The materials used and the end product? Not just my immediate customer, but their customer, the general public and the environment? Do others agree with the problem and the solu)on? Will all stakeholders consider this a benefit - or may others disagree? What is the robust science or evidence behind these benefit claims? How have we substan)ated benefit and effec)veness claims? How can we make this available to stakeholders? Examples of how an organisation can demonstrate it is applying Principle One may include: The innova)on process is demonstrably geared to providing social and environmental benefits Stated innova)on ambi)ons and goals don t just focus on commercial return, but consider wider environmental and social problem solving. Leaders are ambi)ous and consider transforma)ve direc)ons. The strategic focus of the innova)on process & its incen)ve structure is designed to s)mulate and deliver benefits other than simply the financial Benefit Assessment processes are used to generate a deeper understanding of the benefit of the proposed innova)on in rela)on to current or alterna)ve solu)ons, seeking evidence to support this view from inside and outside the organisa)on. Processes which involve wider groups of stakeholders are undertaken to explore their views of what they consider to be beneficial in this area and any concerns they may have about the innova)on at all parts of the product lifecycle. Benefit and effec)veness claims are supported by clear evidence

12 11 Principle Two Board leadership The Board takes a leadership role in championing Responsible Innova3on and has accountability for developing & managing its innova3on strategy & associated responsibili3es 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. Investor at MATTER event There is a critical lack of ambition in long term R&D. What are companies doing to find more innovative solutions to pressing problems? Institutional investor Is the Board taking the lead? Most companies call it innovation when they make product extensions, modifications, upgrades and tweaks. We need some breakthrough, game-changing, bolder productinnovation initiatives in the development pipeline. Prof Philip Kotler, Northwestern University Kellogg Graduate School of Management in Chicago. Speech May (Adapted from Robert Cooper, The Innova)on Dilemma: How to Innovate When the Market is Mature. Journal of Product Innova)on Management, 2011) How great to be here, now. Doing more with less is a great s3mulus for innova3on we are at the start of what will be a glorious age James Dyson, entrepreneur

13 12 Some questions to consider about Board leadership: NB: Many boards don t concern themselves with innova7on & are not knowledgeable about the areas of science or technology the company may use. This is considered by some, both inside and outside businesses, to be a barrier to successful innova7on. Greater scien7fic & more nuanced understanding of societal perspec7ves is seen as of significant strategic importance. Does our Board drive the company innova)on strategy? Does it understand the approach to considering social, environmental and economic benefit for the company? Do Board members understand our approach to innova)on, the technologies used and the ra)onale for their use? When should we be ambi)ous and when cau)ous in our social, environmental and financial innova)on goals? Why? Is there a clear vision and accountability for innova)on throughout the company? How does our innova)on strategy and applica)ons fit into our Board risk assessment metrics? Are we open and accessible enough as an organisa)on to encourage nega)ve and posi)ve feedback about risks and opportuni)es we may be missing at the highest level? Have we helped our Board members have sufficient grasp of the scien)fic, technical and societal implica)ons of our innova)on strategy and applica)ons? How do we ensure that they are equipped with this knowledge to help them make informed judgement? Examples of how an organisation can demonstrate it is applying Principle Two may include: Leadership and accountability for innova)on strategy clearly lies with the board and its approach is demonstrably in line with these Principles. Board members demonstrate they have a grasp of the scien)fic and technical aspects and societal implica)ons of the innova)ons - it is not le- to just one expert. Training for board members is evident. Accountability for the detail of innova)on delivery is assigned to an appropriate senior level execu)ve or sub- commilee repor)ng to the board. By clearly ar)cula)ng and communica)ng throughout the organisa)on how responsibility for specific innova)ons are allocated. Explicitly incorpora)ng considera)on of innova)on- related opportuni)es and risks into its regular strategic business risk assessment processes. Establishing or adap)ng and publicising mechanisms through which staff, or external stakeholders, may bring concerns to the Board or governing body rela)ng to any social, ethical, environmental, health or safety issues and concerns. Publishing its commitment to the responsible management of its innova)ons, through its website, annual and social repor)ng mechanisms. Openly suppor)ng the development of effec)ve and appropriate regulatory frameworks, and

14 13 Principle Three Consider social, ethical, environmental and economic Impacts The organisation considers and is responsive to the wider social, ethical and environmental implications and impacts of its innovations - working alone or with others where appropriate 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 No-one expects individual companies to necessarily do it alone. But potential problems need thinking about together with competitors, retailers and other potentially other industries Retail technology specialist Are their wider social, ethical, environmental or economic impacts? We want to hear about how they are thinking about the wider implications of what they do Institutional investor If we don t factor in the politics we have nothing. This goes to the heart of governance Policy maker MATTER consultation What about the social impacts - who will it affect? Who will it advantage or disadvantage? Civil Society Group

15 14 Some questions to consider about the wider social, ethical and environmental impacts: NB: In some areas of innova)on a single organisa)on will not be able to address some of these key issues alone. The responsibility to consider and address these may lie with all stakeholders, including companies, governments, shareholders, NGOs, consumer groups, academics, business associa)ons, media and the general public. The aim of this principle is to s)mulate companies to consider what part they may play and how they may engage with others to develop appropriate responses to important issues. What do we do to understand the wider social, ethical, environmental & economic impacts and influences of our innova)ons? Who do we need to involve, and how, to get a clear picture? Are there marke)ng condi)ons, poli)cal issues and social or cultural issues which need to be explored, (eg effec)veness, cost, accessibility, impact on daily life, communi)es, cultural values or technological concerns) Do we ask what it replaces, and what will be the nega)ve and posi)ve impacts of that? Who will be advantaged and who will be disadvantaged by this product or sector, in what way, with what impact in each case? How can the advantage to society be maximised? Are their implica)ons for labour standards, human health or environmental impacts, ethical issues or other concerns at any part of the development and use of these innova)ons? What do we do to understand what part we play in terms of responsibility for minimising nega)ve and maximising posi)ve impacts? What if the poten)al impacts are not clear cut or may or may not happen? What do we do if some people don t support or agree with our assessment of benefit, risk and impact and our understanding of our responsibility and incumbent ac)ons? How do we mi)gate what is our responsibility and ini)ate or par)cipate in issues which need broader input? How is this knowledge we now have factored in to our R&D processes and the design of our final products? Examples of how an organisation can demonstrate it is applying Principle Three may include: It takes steps to understand the wider social, environmental, health and ethical implica)ons and impacts of its innova)ons and its poten)al contribu)on to developing solu)ons. These may include: Becoming involved in research, collabora)ve ini)a)ves, partnerships and community or charitable projects that help to develop an understanding of, and address issues arising from, its involvement with a specific area of innova)on, a technology Disclosing the results of any assessments it undertakes on the social, environmental, health and ethical issues and impacts rela)ng to the area of innova)on or its applica)on, and the ac)vi)es it undertakes in response. Being open about its priori)es and decision making in this regard

16 15 Principle Four Excellent public health, safety & environmental risk management The organisation carries out thorough risk assessment and minimises any potential public health, safety or environmental risks relating to its innovations, throughout the product lifecycle. Will profit trump safety? What s the system for managing risks? Concern expressed by members of the public in dialogues When it goes wrong - who is responsible? Concern expressed by members of the public in dialogues We need to see that they have thought through and mitigated potential risks, but no-one even talks about it Retail technology specialist I want to hear about what keeps the CEO awake at night, not get a huge long list key risks Institutional investor What are the risks? We want to know companies have anticipated risks. Acting as if they don t exist is unhelpful. Institutional investor Because of the debate about nanotechnology being framed in such broad terms we missed the opportunity to get understanding and control over the areas that really needed it early enough Civil society organisation - MATTER consultation We need a better understanding about the HSE testing companies do - or don t do - before bringing products to the market Civil Society Group

17 16 Some questions to consider about excellent public health, safety & environmental risk management What hazards accompany our development or use of this innova)on? Are there any new ones which we have not encountered before? What exposure does everyone in the supply chain have? What risks may be manifest at different parts of the supply chain because of this? What do we have to do to mi)gate these? Who do we need to involve to help us understand risks and substan)ate our understanding and our approach? What assump)ons are we making to reach this understanding? Are we missing something? How can we substan)ate our assurances and risk management protocols? What is going on in our industry which we could contribute to or which may help us with this? What regula)on is in place already? If there are gaps how are we going to move forward? What are the implica)ons for these gaps? What standards, protocols & processes are needed assure safety across the supply chain? What early warning mechanisms are we pusng in place in case we are wrong? How do we communicate this appropriately to all who need to know? Examples of how an organisation can demonstrate it is applying Principle Four may include: Pusng processes in place to iden)fy, evaluate and minimise any risks to the general public, users or the environment from the development, manufacture, distribu)on, use, disposal or recycling of the proposed innova)on. In par)cular, there is no default assump)on that the risks associated with the innova)on are the same as those involved with exis)ng solu)ons. Highligh)ng to other organisa)ons in the supply chain any risks they might need to be aware of or address. Disclosing publicly the standards and protocols used to assess product safety and the ac)ons taken, par)cularly in the absence of appropriate standards, protocols or relevant legisla)on. Disclosing how it iden)fies, assesses, manages and mi)gates any public health, safety and environmental risks iden)fied as rela)ng to its products. Marke)ng products only a-er ensuring that the safety has been substan)ated. Sharing informa)on on risk assessment and mi)ga)on methodologies, and assessment results, with government agencies, regulators and other organisa)ons in order to enhance global understanding and the development of appropriate risk assessment methodologies. Contribu)ng construc)vely to the development of appropriate regula)ons and standards in all markets. Proac)vely support government and independent research ini)a)ves to bridge informa)on or research gaps that hinder the responsible development of the technology, innova)on, system or process. Developing and implemen)ng procedures to iden)fy and respond posi)vely to early warnings of any poten)al nega)ve social, environmental or ethical impacts of the innova)on.

18 17 Principle Five Excellent worker health and safety The organisation ensures high standards of occupational health & safety for its workers. It also considers occupational health & safety issues for workers at others stages in the product lifecycle. Some questions to consider about excellent worker health and safety What worker specific hazards accompany our development or use of this innova)on? What exposure do workers across the supply chain have to this hazard? What risks may be manifest to workers at different parts of the supply chain because of this What do we have to do to mi)gate these risks to workers? What assump)ons are we making to reach this understanding? Are we missing something? Who do we need to involve to help us understand risks and substan)ate our understanding and our approach to worker health and safety? How can we substan)ate our assurances and risk management protocols? What regula)on is in place already? If there are gaps how are we going to move forward? What are the implica)ons for these gaps? What standards, protocols and processes need to be in place to assure safety for workers across the supply chain? How do we communicate this appropriately to all who need to know? Examples of how an organisation can demonstrate it is applying Principle Five may include: Developing or revising policies, procedures and tests that provide high standards of protec)on for those working in the development, manufacture, distribu)on, use, disposal and recycling of the innova)on. In par)cular, there shall be no default assump)on that the risks associated with the innova)on are the same as those involved with exis)ng solu)ons. Disclosing publicly the relevant standards and protocols that it uses and the steps it has taken which are specific to the innova)on. Providing clear and appropriate informa)on on safe handling to onward users throughout the product lifecycle in all appropriate languages. Disclosing any breaches of safety guidelines or regula)ons rela)ng to workers, their impact, and the ac)ons taken in response, to the relevant authori)es. Sharing informa)on and good prac)ce on worker safety through appropriate forums eg trade associa)ons, unions, think tanks and government ini)a)ves.

19 18 Principle Six Involving commercial partners The organisation engages proactively, openly & co-operatively with its business partners up and down the supply chain to provide appropriate risk and safety data throughout the supply chain Some questions to consider about involving commercial partners How can we work with our commercial partners appropriately throughout the process of research and development of the innova)on to assess the opportunity or problem to be solved; the issues, concerns, HSE protocols & material issues required to develop the most appropriate approach for their needs. Are we giving people the informa)on they need to ensure the safe processing, usage, transporta)on, storage, disposal, recycling or reuse of the innova)on? What traceability protocols do we have in place should they be required? How are we maintaining our rela)onship with our commercial partners to ensure we are recep)ve to their changing requirements or issues arising from the use of the innova)on? Examples of how an organisation can demonstrate it is applying Principle Six may include: Showing they engage co- opera)vely and proac)vely with partners (including research partners & academics, suppliers, customers and commercial partnerships) the to communicate the social, ethical, environmental and commercial issues which may be material to the further development or use of the innova)on. Provide clarity about any issues and concerns, HSE guidelines and necessary processes and standards required for the further development or use of the innova)on. Providing appropriate informa)on and guidance for customers and onward users on the safe processing, usage, transporta)on, storage, disposal or recycling or reuse - specific to the innova)on. Procedures which demonstrate that it can iden)fy and trace products in its supply chain.

20 19 Principle Seven Involvement of stakeholders The organisation identifies and involves innovation stakeholders, including the public, NGOs, government, competitors, customers, suppliers & other groups - and is responsive to their views and concerns Investors need to ask more of companies about the long term technological changes that could affect them and what they are doing to combat/embrace these changes. We hope companies respond with a more open and strategic approach Institutional investor The vision for the project and its intended outcomes shi-. The limita)ons of narrow thinking and pet assump)ons may be challenged or revealed. The improvement work to be done will be on a beler track and people involved more confident in the benefits. 7 things involving pa3ents brings (in developing solu3ons) - David Gilbert Communication and stakeholder involvement We really need good quality information about benefits and potential negative impacts to help us respond to our customers who come to us first with questions and concerns. Retailer Pa)ents o-en have the guts, insight, imagina)on and freedom from ins)tu)onally limited thinking to ask what if? They also widen the array of op)ons for improvement and change. 7 things involving pa3ents brings (in developing solu3ons) - David Gilbert 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. Investor

21 Some questions to consider about stakeholder involvement 20 Who are our stakeholders? Why involve stakeholders at all? What s the point? What s the benefit to us and to them? Take a look at our Prezi presenta)on - Involving Stakeholders in Innova)on which gives a lille more detail on the why and the how. Click HERE to take you there. You may also involve different stakeholders at different stages in the process for different purposes. Some)mes you need to listen, some)mes communicate and other )mes involve them in the process of decision making and development. Ini)al stakeholder consulta)on and issues mapping about poten)al issues, risks, opportuni)es or concerns will help you get a beler idea of when to involve which stakeholders for which purpose. However the most important component of this - we have called here Cogita)on - is your purpose and inten)on and how you subsequently respond to that stakeholder input.

22 further questions to consider about stakeholder involvement 21 Considering the milestone stages of product development - how could different perspec)ves help us create beler, more useful, sustainable innova)ons? How can we think crea)vely about who might be involved in that process? What about our cri)cs, like NGOs; investors, customers, the public, retailers, trade unions, consumer groups, suppliers, business partners, academics, ar)sts, compe)tors? How will we create trustworthy processes to build the confidence of stakeholders that we aren t just paying lip- service to their issues and concerns? How will we respond to their input? How will we let them know how it has influence our process or not and in what ways? How will our stakeholders know we are innova)ng responsibly? What are we sharing about our ways of working to demonstrate the trustworthiness of our processes? How can our website, social media & other programmes be harness to listen and co- create, not just communicate with all stakeholders? Our report Building Confidence in Innova)ve Technologies - what stakeholders expect and how companies can respond showcases some good prac)ce case studies and ideas about how to do that for the main departments in a company. What do stakeholders want to know about us and our products and processes? What informa)on do our customers, the end consumer, regulators, investors, retailers, civil society groups and media want to know? (Some may not care, others want lots. Don t just assume, get evidence and work with them) How can we help others up and down the supply chain engage beler with their stakeholders? What informa)on from us would help? How best should we involve them? NB: Ensure to communicate what they want to know in their language not yours. How can you avoid jargon, technical terms, patronising phrases or sales language? Examples of how an organisation can demonstrate it is applying Principle Seven may include: Iden)fying and mapping the stakeholders on whom the innova)on may have an influence or impact, or who conversely may influence the development, effec)veness or acceptance of the innova)on.taking the ini)a)ve to involve these stakeholders including those whose views they may not agree with. Demonstra)ng by example - e.g. co- crea)on of governance ini)a)ves, contribu)ons to programmes run by other organisa)ons, joint venture R & D partnerships with academics & stakeholders, ci)zen s forums, stakeholder panels, individual mee)ngs with stakeholder groups, focus groups, supplier engagement and training, consulta)ons, or web forums etc. Demonstra)ng and communica)ng how stakeholder views have been considered and taken into account, or explaining why they have not, if it is felt they are not appropriate - referred to in the MATTER Stakeholder Involvement Framework as to Cogitate.

23 22 Principle Eight Radical Transparency and disclosure The organisation is innovative and daring in its approach to transparency and openness. In particular it is open about its involvement with & management of specific technologies or areas of innovation We are sympathetic with worries about competitiveness, but how can we trust unsubstantiated assertions we can t verify? Civil Society Group Don t force it on us, we want to have a choice Concern expressed by members of the public in dialogues Radical Transparency? No information opens up a vacuum which can easily be filled by misinformation. How can companies preempt that? Communications expert Show your workings - it s like Year 5 Maths - it s not enough just to come up with the answer, you need to show how you got there to give us confidence that you know what you are doing! Corporate Transparency & Year 5 Maths Blog post Hilary Sutcliffe To come further quotes on how expecta)ons of what stakeholders are not very far away from what companies are happy to comply with. Eg Solazyme dialogue, our Building Confidence project.

24 23 Some questions to consider about Radical Transparency & disclosure NB: Companies are par)cularly concerned about the impact on compe))veness of transparency ini)a)ves. Our consulta)on among stakeholders exploring What s fair to ask, what s fair to share found that though there were differences in expecta)on the gap in expecta)ons of stakeholders and willingness of companies to share informa)on was not as wide as many expected. In addi)on anecdotal evidence talking to all types of organisa)on shows that a more daring approach to innova)on has paid off for them in terms of reputa)onal effect and trust of stakeholders, including policy makers. How can we be more innova)ve in our approach to transparency? What do we think may be barriers, which in fact may not? How may it benefit the organisa)on? What evidence is there of that the barriers and risks are real? How can they be overcome? Consider the expecta)ons outlined in these Examples of Good Prac)ce - how are they aligned to our current communica)ons and engagement planning? What do our stakeholders say they want to know more about? (You may be surprised about the responses). What do we, and our stakeholders think would demonstrate the trustworthiness of our organisa)on and our processes? Eg sharing nega)ve and posi)ve research findings, Open Access to research findings, transparency about safety tes)ng, transparency about issues around regula)on and lobbying, back up of benefit and effec)veness claims with evidence etc? Examples of how an organisation can demonstrate it is applying Principle Eight may include: NB: Transparency and disclosure is at the heart of all the Principles for Responsible Innova)on and is a core element of each organisa)on s approach to implemen)ng its commitments. We believe that a bold and daring approach to transparency will benefit organisa)ons of all types and build the confidence of stakeholders in innova)on. Demonstra)ng a bold and daring approach to transparency. Taking a proac)ve approach to involving stakeholders in the development processes and delivery of innova)on and be open about this process, their views and your responses and how they have influenced your opera)ons, or not & why. Being innova)ve in its openness about its analysis of benefits and risks, its health, safety and environmental procedures and the poten)al posi)ve or nega)ve impacts of its products. Substan)ate product benefit and effec)veness claims with sound and specific scien)fic or social science research and make this available. Nega)ve and posi)ve research findings are relevant and useful to add to the body of knowledge. Adopt a policy or adapt an exis)ng policy to specify its accountability to honesty and openness in sales, adver)sing, public rela)ons and promo)on of the innova)on. Communica)ng its progress in adop)ng these Principles. This may be achieved through its website, annual reports, corporate responsibility report or similar, in appropriate printed materials, through par)cipa)on in voluntary public disclosure schemes, public product databases, product labelling, seminars, conferences etc. Where principles are not relevant or have not been adhered to, the reasons will be acknowledged and explained.