Community Research and Development Information Service - CORDIS

Final Report Summary - RESPONSIBILITY (Global Model and Observatory for International Responsible Research and Innovation Coordination)

Executive Summary:
The RESPONSIBILITY project has addressed the task to create a network of stakeholders that would adopt, refine and diffuse the RRI concept and its multifaceted understanding between different actors in Europe and around the globe. Within the project a model and practical means have been developed in order to better structure national and international cooperation between society, research, policy and industry. As a result, a set of recommendations and tools is given to different groups of societal stakeholders, assisting them to take the necessary measures to nest responsible research and innovation into products and services from the very beginning of their development (“efficient RRI by design”).
The project’s core achievement has been the creation of a virtual RRI platform, comprising a Forum and an Observatory, which serve the multitude of RRI stakeholders as an organised virtual place, where practical and theoretical information will be easily assessable and usable. Through its multi-stakeholder approach, the platform fosters not only a common understanding but also the future diffusion of the RRI concept. The project managed to develop the Forum for RRI stakeholders’ engagement by running a focused set of workshops, where stakeholders themselves provided insights about necessary elements to be implemented. RESPONSIBILITY defined the need to co-ordinate a forum as a means to provide capacities to discuss and develop the RRI concept as such a distinctive approach that it pays attention to contexts of application and norms. In doing so, RESPONSIBILITY moved beyond a purely abstract approach to one that connects legitimation and application.
The second central outcome of the project, the Observatory, can be described as hub to the multitude of RRI and related content spread all over the internet. Its central feature is the collection and categorization of materials about RRI which makes it a comprehensive and useful resource repository for the entire global RRI community. In an open source fashion, the Observatory builds on both, active commitment and heterogeneous interests of an emergent network, which continuously uses, assesses and modifies the assembled materials. Resources about RRI are bundled into five RRI packages, four pre-compiled and one self-compiled package.
As a Coordination Action, RESPONSIBILITY set a special focus on the involvement of the related RRI Go4 projects (Great, Progress and ResAgora). The development of the RESPONSIBILITY platform implied active involvement of these projects in form of the platform’s assessment and population.
Besides the RESPONSIBILITY platform, further outcomes and reports have been generated by the project. RESPONSIBILITY managed to produce three lightweight policy reflections and one industrial reflection about highly disputed themes such as Drones and Cloud Computing. Furthermore, through the multidisciplinary nature of the consortium, the project manged to create 21 case reflexions based on projects the consortium members have actually worked on (the FEARLESS project) or are interested in (the Hopes project).
A further outcome of the project is the Theoretical Landscape Report, which addresses “the conceptual background of RRI” and “the context of emergence of RRI as a governance approach”. It critically explores not only the definition of RRI but also problematizes the conditions of its application. The Report demonstrates that the conceptualization of RRI is fraught with problems and discrepancies and thereby exposes RESPONSIBILITY as a procedural space.
During the second period of the project, RESPONSIBILITY has also managed to merge glossaries and terms that have been explained in footnotes of the deliverables from the all related RRI projects (Go4) to a joint document named “Common RRI Glossary”. This common glossary is an integral part of the deliverable D4.6 and can be also found online within the Observatory.
In order to guarantee the sustainability of the Observatory beyond the project’s duration, a concrete exploitation and sustainability plan has been considered right from the beginning of the project. In particular, RESPONSIBILITY started synergy actions with other RRI initiatives, namely GREAT, Res-Agora, PROGRESS and RRI-Industry, in terms of sustaining the project outcomes and the active involvement of the scientific community. Among this group of projects, the RRI-Tools project confirmed their commitment to integrate the RESPONSIBILITY platform (Observatory and Forum) into the RRI-Tools Toolkit. In addition, SAVOIR Consulting, a spinoff that emerged from our project partner “NAMUR University”, confirmed their commitment along with University of Siena to populate and increase the content of the RESPONSIBILITY platform. Over the whole project term, four major events and workshops have been organised by the project. The first one was held in Brussels and was related to the RESPONSIBILITY Forum Orientation with a group of stakeholders. The second one was the First Asia Pacific Responsible Business Innovation 2014 Workshop, in Malaysia. These workshops and the active Go4 participation in the ESOF 2014, Copenhagen (session “Building a governance framework for RRI”) aimed to open a constructive dialogue with business and other stakeholders in order to record and exchange views and positions. The RESPONSIBILITY project took these events as occasion to implement its strategy on the dissemination of RRI to an EU and international level. Finally, there had had been two major conferences during the 2nd period of the project. One conference took place in Santiago de Chile and has been related to Responsible Research and Innovation in Mining with a group of stakeholders from the mining industry and research. The second conference was the Go4 Joint Conference, which was held in Brussels and hosted by the European Economic and Social Committee. The RESPONSIBILITY project learned from the invited participants about business and innovation concerns, exchanged views and gained ideas on new proposals about RRI tools, engagement processes and societal values.

Project Context and Objectives:
The overall goal of RESPONSIBILITY project is to create a network of stakeholders that would adopt and diffuse a common understanding in Responsible Research and Innovation between different actors in Europe and around the globe. In doing so it will develop a model and provide a tool for international cooperation, the RESPONSIBILITY Observatory, involving the societal, policy and research stakeholders to these activities. It intends to provide practical means and structure a crucial interaction between society and research, providing a set of recommendations and tools to policy makers and active RRI stakeholders in order to take the necessary measures to nest responsible research and innovation into products and services from the very beginning (“efficient RRI by design”).

WP2: Network – Building Consensus
WP2 has two main outcomes: the theoretical landscape function and the case study comparison function. WP2 addresses and defines in detail the problem that both the research community and society are confronting. The outline of the problem starts with the determination and implementation of the conditions that allow the efficiency of RRI reflexivity and continuity inside the technical development (innovation process). In order to meet these objectives this WP of the coordinating action has set–up a crosspoint for existing networks and extracted the main issues for responsible research and innovation (network of networks). The stakeholders engagement has identified the pool of case studies and provided a critical feedback.
Main objectives for this period of the concept of the coordination of network of networks:
• definition of the subject mapping the existing networks of RRI, as well as the scientific and stakeholders community (task 2.1)
• definition of the network structure and coordination of the remote communication and face to face dialogue (task 2.2)
• coordination and determination of the analytical grid and its conditional application in RRI (task 2.3)
• coordination of the construction of a pool of case studies (task 2.4)

WP3: Forum
WP3 has two main functions: political function and implementation function. In order to create opportunities for interaction and deliberation between the main stakeholders affected by RRI (including business, policy makers, researchers and civil society), an online RRI Forum has been defined and set up through three major components: political, industrial and societal. The Forum is supposed to be a self-regulated, open and transparent space that allows for remote participation and mutual interaction among heterogeneous stakeholders.
Main objectives of this WP are:
• Definition of networking and educational tools (training material, experimental discussions, construction of the context etc.)
• Determination of guidelines and approaches to the RRI
• Concept of a Forum that will be described and implemented especially in the first period and officially launched in the second period:
• Specifying a “caucus” that allow to address a problem in specific field,
• Being an interface between politicians, society and industry, researchers and CSOs to construct a virtual meeting place (forum of discussion) for RRI stakeholders
• Creating a place of deliberation concerning RRI, at the same time as an issue and as an answer.

WP4: Observatory
The objective of WP4 is to specify (in the first reporting phase) and implement the Observatory of Responsible Research and Innovation (in the second reporting phase) and provide the necessary support to establish it as a permanent point of reference and actual fore-thinking regarding the current concept and developments in the field of RRI. RRI is fast changing with revolutionary technologies and attitudes towards them still developing (including, particularly, attitudes about what would constitute responsible innovation). The project will maintain relevance and impact over a longer period by producing and maintaining an Observatory of RRI. The specification (first reporting phase) will take into account that the Observatory will be a repository of findings from the project, but will also be designed to harness the involvement of the broader network of researchers and innovators to provide information on:
• Current and emerging technologies and the issues they are likely to raise for RRI
• Governance arrangements suitable for addressing RRI
• Case studies, examples of good practice and training materials in RRI
The latter, case studies and training materials are co-constructed with the contribution of all partners’ competence so research and innovation in one field can learn from good practice in another field. A snapshot will be taken of them at M26 and synthesised as a major input into the best practice guide.
The Observatory will be evaluated and seeded by the network and will then be opened up to the global RRI community (second reporting phase). It will be developed by extending an ICT Ethics observatory that is already being developed by DMU. It employs established and novel technologies, including some of collaborative “web 2.0” tools. The Observatory will allow researchers to identify areas in need of more detailed research and it will show where public engagement on particular issues may be relevant.

WP5: Assessment
WP5 is aiming in this period at validating the analytical grid defined in WP2 to assess the function of the forum and the observatory. For the Observatory an assessment of its different functions is foreseen.

WP6: Dissemination and Awareness Raising
WP6 is aiming at disseminating and exploiting the outcomes of the project and coordinate the bidirectional communication and high-level advisory work of the Advisory Board of the project. The consortium confirms that the online content management system will be an open source system (GNU, Joomla or Drupal CMS). The main objectives for this period is to specify the dissemination plan, prepare a policy brief for security and start with dissemination activities and collaboration with the other RRI projects.

Project Results:

D2.1 - Report on network of networks

This deliverable describes the methodological approach for the network and stakeholder selection for setting up an online network of networks for the Forum and Observatory. The names of the stakeholders are on a protected online registry and can only be accessed by project partners with permission. The report examines five main features of RRI networks: the main actors, the theoretical structures, the funding sources, the dissemination structures, and the possibility of expanding RRI beyond the European context. Six main actor groups in RRI networks are distinguished: national governments; regional governments; international governmental organisations; civil society actors; businesses, scientific research projects, and policy researchers. Besides the report there is also a dynamic Online Stakeholder Network list that can be only accessed with permission

D2.2 - Analytical Grid Report (RE) – Updated Version - with Annex: Glossary RRI Security, Automation

To facilitate a theoretically sound basis for the case study selection, RESPONSIBILITY is making use of a grid of analysis. In doing so, it is employing a mechanism that facilitates the bridging between theoretical reflection and practical action. Drawing on insights from previous projects that have used analytical grids, an initial grid of analysis was developed, which was then reviewed both within the project and by external focus groups held in settings that gave a good variety of insights. After the first round of focus groups at an international conference the grid was revised. It was then further developed as a result of the second round of focus groups.
The resultant grid structure shows the methodology for the themes “Ethical Issue, Identification and Specification, Governance arrangements, Ethical Approach, Means of expressing interests, Reflexivity, Implementation” based on questions like “Who, What, Why, How, When”.
D2.2 Annex: Glossary RRI Security, Automation
The Glossary consists of a selection of 69 terms out of the realm of Security and Automation Engineering. The selection and definition is based on a pool of scientific books, articles and pertinent websites.

D2.3 - RRI Pool of cases & their application Updated Version

This deliverable discusses and reflects on the case study approach to create a corpus of data which may be used, amongst other things, to provide the analytic grid with parameters of comparison and assessment of experience. This corpus of data contributes a set of empirical understandings of RRI to the project thereby avoiding a separation between a normative approach and the real situation. The portrayed cases serve various issue domains and key stakeholders (research, industry, civil society, political governance, etc.). Its focus is to provide a brief overview on issues, key challenges, potential target audience while also allowing for further in-depth investigation in an elaborate case portrayal. Taking into account time constraints of the three year funded span of the project the derivation of cases draws substantially on the expertise of the consortium partners and their respective field of work. The well-established practice of collecting and assessing case studies for insight into practice is used to investigate the empirical reality of RRI.
Following this, we reflect more upon how the body of 21 case studies (see Figure 6) were collected from within the consortium, and associated networks. We show how the expertise of the consortium provides for a breadth of case studies that are diverse in domain, and also location around the world. Drawing on this we place emphasis on the requirement of a case study template (drawn from our theoretical understanding) to shape entries, in regards to ensuring consistency and comparability between case studies. We reflect on the challenges of developing a template, and also on why we as a consortium also created what is termed a ‘case reflection template’, in a bid to ensure that as many stakeholders as possible are able to contribute their own cases if they wish to do so. This section gives a detailed insight into our method, as designed for the distinct requirements of case study collection for RESPONSIBILITY.

D2.4 - Theoretical landscape -Updated Version

NOTE: This updated version can be found in the attached material to the final Report
RESPONSIBILITY project aims to create a network of stakeholders that would adopt and diffuse a common understanding in Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) between different actors in Europe and around the globe. For that end it is to develop a model and provide a tool for international cooperation, involving the societal, policy and research stakeholders in those activities. The three pillar elements and loci of coordination in this endeavour are: a Network of networks, a Forum and an Observatory. However, in order to diffuse a common understanding on RRI, the establishment of those three instruments for coordination needs to be conceptually justified so that their functional architecture be derived from the mere problematization of RRI.
As specified in the Description of Work (DoW), the Theoretical Landscape needs to address “the conceptual background of RRI” and “the context of emergence of RRI as a governance approach”. The aim is to critically explore not only the definition of RRI but to problematize the conditions of its application. In the pursuit of that task the text makes an overview of the theoretical developments with regard to the notion of RRI, as a well as of its presence in the evolution of the European Framework Programmes. The goal is to demonstrate that those developments are fraught with problems and discrepancies and by doing so to justify RESPONSIBILITY as a procedural space where the latter could be addressed. The deliverable also explores the prospects of RRI in view of the notion of governance. This is very important, since the overall goal of the theoretical and implementation advancement of RRI is inextricably connected with the problem of the institutional arrangements that would create the conditions for its application (which constitutes the issue of governance).
Following this logic, the text starts with a chapter on the institutional and intellectual context that precipitated the emergence of RRI. It pays attention to the process of gradual opening up the realm of European research not only geographically but also with regard to various societal actors. It demonstrates that an underlying theme in that process, from the very beginning of the Framework Programmes, is economic expediency. The opening up has been primarily viewed in terms of bridging science with the market for the purposes of overall economic reinvigoration. It is pursued through closer connection with industry players (and bringing innovation dynamics into their respective realms of entrepreneurship), seeking for explicit economic impact of research (by contributing to the boost of figures of growth, employment, etc.) or even through stakeholders involvement and their perspectives (which does not exclude interest and advocacy groups). But the process of opening up does not stop there. The text traces some developments in the orientation of the European Framework Programmes towards a broader and deeper societal involvement in the governance of research and innovation, and the various modes of interaction sought for a meaningful science-society dialogue.
The emergence and the integration of the RRI framework is part of the overall direction of the EU efforts to elaborate an adequate mode of governance of the relations between the research community and the general public. The evolution of the European Framework Programmes for research and technological development shows a very important shift in the way the European Commission sees the interaction between them – from Public Understanding of Science to Public Engagement in Science. The “Science and Society” (FP6) mode of interaction aims at bridging the gap between the two parties by familiarizing the general public with the “esoteric” work of the researchers. The assumption is that better understanding on part of society will promote its trust in the scientific community. That is why better communication of scientific results is seen as crucial in that respect. The “Science in Society” (FP7) mode of interaction goes a step further by acknowledging that a meaningful dialogue is not only a matter of educational efforts intended for the general public, but that the concerns of the latter should also be taken into account. It is recognition for the need research and innovation to be “re-socialized”, i.e. aligned with greater societal needs and directed towards societally desirable ends. The “Science with and for Society” (Horizon 2020) gets another step further and emphasizes the importance of the actual engagement of societal actors in the research process. The responsibility of researchers is not exhausted with taking into account societal needs (for Society) but also suggests creating conditions for participation (with Society) through stakeholder involvement, civil society consultations, user-centred design, etc. It must be kept in mind, however, that although the evolution of the Framework Programmes points to the need for a more inclusive way of decision-making with regard to research and innovation, in the attempts for practical realization of this vision there is still a danger of reducing the idea of the engagement of the public in the elaboration of solution to engagement of the public in a communication process (where it could be instructed, consulted or just formally taken into account in a top-down interaction). What is at stake is its actual participation in the taking of decisions on the matter.
The emergence of RRI is yet another phase of a series of attempts to find the proper governance framework within which a much needed dialogue between science and society could take place. However, as such it introduces the problem of exploring the conditions of creating the adequate governance arrangements that would allow this multi-perspective and multi-level interaction not just to take place but actually to be fertile and effective. Transposed to the ambitions of RESPONSIBILITY, this means that the project (through the Forum and the Observatory) needs to attempt at creating the conditions to address the science-society issue beyond the miscommunication problem. In this sense neither the Observatory is only a repository for documents, nor is the Forum a simple opinion-gathering mechanism. What are the institutional arrangements that would allow meaningful multi-stakeholder deliberation which will lead to actual engagement of the various societal actors in constructing a shared normative horizon, is the crucial question underlying the efforts of the project. And this is a question pertaining to governance. Thus, for RESPONSIBILITY, as a coordination action project which is also concerned with seeking ways to implement the idea of responsible R&I, the utmost challenge is how to translate the promise of RRI (the norm) into concrete context-aware practices (the enactment of the norm and the conditions of its contextual application). More specifically, how to construct and manage the Forum and the Observatory so participants in them not only exchange information and endlessly discuss various emerging technologies and innovation matters but actually engage in the co-construction of solutions in a way that the question of the application of those solutions is addressed in the construction process itself.
This brings the text back to the question of governance and particularly the one of providing the conditions for public involvement in science. The issue of governance gained increasing attention in Europe and served to justify the need for alternative institutional arrangements for policy-making which aim at overcoming the traditional dominance of expert knowledge by opening the process for the involvement of variety of societal actors. In view of research and innovation governance, this actually means that the mode of interaction between the scientific community and the public can neither be exhausted with science education (communication efforts to “interpret” science in understandable for the public way) nor with consultation (listening to the concerns, fears and comments of the non-scientific community). The normative appeal of governance, as a novel horizontally-oriented approach towards policy-making, is for letting the public in a process of co-construction and joint knowledge-creation.
This is especially relevant for the RESPONSIBILITY project. Its goals go hand in hand with all the above-mentioned concerns for the science-society interaction and represent a concrete attempt to address the problem of governance with regard to the implementation of the concept of RRI. Thus the concept behind RESPONSIBILITY fits the intellectual context and is a product of all the programmatic shifts and developments in the European research policy field. It aims not only to contribute to bridging the communication gap between the two realms. It puts focus on the necessary efforts to restore and enrich the interaction between the research and the policy realms by promoting more visibility of scientific results and achievements so they could be incorporated in the decision-making process. Nevertheless, the real challenge for RESPONSIBILITY goes beyond that. It is not in constructing an electronic medium (by means of the Forum and Observatory) to reproduce the usual consultation mode of interaction. Behind the idea of the “network of networks” approach is not the attempt to construct a communication space for involved stakeholders in the science-society debate, but one where participation goes beyond the usual exchange of information – i.e. one which encourages deliberation so the process of reflexive governance of RRI could be initiated. That is why a recurrent theme in this deliverable is and will be the problematization of the participation – deliberation axis in existing modes of governance of the relations between science and society, including in the concept of RRI, in view of the construction of both the Forum and Observatory for international RRI coordination within the project.
Chapter 3 is devoted to the theoretical developments in the field of RRI. All of the overviewed accounts share some elements, which are at the heart of the appeal of RRI:
- Innovation as a co-constructive endeavour – involvement of users, stakeholders, citizens, policy-makers;
- Alignment of research and innovation with societal needs and values;
- Addressing the acceptability and acceptance of innovation products and processes;
- Transition from post-factum regulation (risk-assessment and compensation) to a continuing process of governance;
- Temporal re-adjustment of (research and) innovation governance (engagement with the process at the outset; iterative integration of ethical, societal, and legal considerations in an anticipatory manner throughout the innovation cycle).
- Avoiding problematic (contested, controversial, “irresponsible”) innovation and all its negative consequences (costly corrective measures, loss of legitimacy of public institutions, tarnished public image of corporate players, etc.);
- Prospective and collective aspects of responsibility in research and innovation;
- Do not exclude existing tools such as TA, Foresight, precautionary principle;
- Emphasis on making innovation responsible, i.e. the conceptual separation between innovation and responsibility and RRI as a bridging mechanism which would ensure the public uptake of innovation.
RRI accounts usually concentrate on the necessity to bridge innovation and responsibility (i.e. how to make innovation “responsible”). They all try to shed some light on what innovation needs to be responsive to (ethical concerns, societal needs, public expectations), how (e.g. by integrating participatory structures, deliberative mechanisms, value-sensitive design, social experimentation, etc.), by whom (who are the relevant actors/stakeholders/concerned parties) and for what reason (e.g. re-contextualizing science, avoiding problematic innovation, addressing democratic deficits in policy-making, etc.). Nevertheless, they say very little on the procedural aspects of their definition - how practically could those aspects of RRI be translated into a meaningful and efficient practice? This represents the main problem in all RRI accounts – what are the necessary and concrete institutional arrangements that would allow the transition from the idea of Responsible innovation governance to the actual process of responsible innovation governance.
It is evident that Responsible Research and Innovation is in a difficult situation in which the advantages it introduces present those committed with the notion with a series of difficulties concerning the procedural realization of the conditions for responsible governance of innovation. They introduce very serious challenges that need to be taken into account and addressed within the coordination efforts of the RESPONSIBILITY project:
• avoiding top-down understanding of normativity inscribed in the governance process. Simply put, this means that the mode of interaction between the participants in the governance process should not follow well-known models of interaction on the basis of privileged source of knowledge (e.g. as instruction/consultations from experts);
• addressing the cognitive framings of the participants and settling new normative horizons. This means that the mechanism needs to promote overcoming of the potential ideological stances, which in its turn requires achieving a certain level of/ capacity for reflexivity. What conditions need to be set so participants could be willing and able to question their own presuppositions, beliefs, ideological stances, and “truths”, and not only change their mind but collectively conceive norms that would incorporate the conditions of their application. There is a lack of problematization of the notions of context. Most RRI accounts presume the equivalence of context and external environment. What is left aside is the cognitive aspects, i.e. the fact that the externality and the features of the context are constructed. RRI scholarship will only benefit in its conceptual searches from the recognition and exploration of the cognitive framings which produce and somehow naturalize certain “images” of the context.
• to ensure that participation structures are not exploited only for legitimization purposes (e.g. public-private partnerships) but are effective governance mechanisms;
• to determine the scope/nature/quality/sustainability of the multi-actor involvement. Is a participatory structure allowing deliberation? What diversity of perspectives is reflected in the participatory structure? Is the participatory structure reproducing power asymmetries? Does the governance process ensure continuing engagement of the participants in the inception, application and renegotiation of the norm? How will those actors be defined? For example, the notion of “stakeholders” implies organized interest, thus high chance of reproducing a non-horizontal mechanism of participation, based on representation of interests.
• addressing the status of ethics. Common approaches place ethics as a complementary concern in the innovation process (post-factum ethical review, checking compliance with professional codes of conduct, adherence to the existing legal framing). Others try to integrate it through interdisciplinary consultations (ethics as specific expertise provided by the social sciences and humanities) or through attempts to take into account values held dear by the public into the innovation construction (value-sensitive design). What RRI approaches need to overcome is the perception that ethics is somehow independent, separate component (one pillar) and not a condition (implied throughout the process) of innovation governance. The other very difficult challenge is to change the perceptions on ethics as an innovation-averse censor of S&T development and establish its image and reality as inevitable and enriching condition of that same development.
It becomes clear that the problem of the implementation of RRI cannot be addressed without realizing the importance of the issue of governance (chapter 4). In the recent decades the term “governance” has become an inevitable part of the policy-making vocabulary to denote a change that has taken place/or need to take place in the way societies are being governed. This change is usually depicted in contradistinction to “government” as a vertical, hierarchical, command-and-control type of governing. Governance, on the other hand, is generally assumed to imply flexible, horizontal, beyond the traditional regulatory top-down approaches mode of governing. This shift is usually explained as a reaction to the diminishing capacities of the state to exert its governing powers efficiently and effectively in the context of globalization, increasing complexity and interdependence, growing uncertainty, and cultural and technological changes. It is through the crisis of the national state that new governance modes are being though upon, usually through pointing out the importance of new actors (e.g. NGOs) in the political process and new forms of interactions (within the notions of collaborative, participatory and deliberative democracy). The emergence of the governance narrative cannot be attributed solely to adaptation efforts to a changed reality. A very important aspect of this process is how all the changes in attitudes and practices go along with the introduction of interpretations on governance by the social sciences, to conceive new rationalities on governing, governance and government through conceptual exploration of new actors, new organizational structures, new policies, and new patterns of public authority.
In European context, during the 1990s the “governance” concept was used mainly in relation to the EU’s external affairs on developmental and third world countries issues within the notion of good governance. Later, when a new strategic direction was initiated by the Lisbon strategy and the need for economic reform recognized, the term “economic governance” gained relevance for denoting the necessary institutional restructuring in the EU framework so that economic performance is facilitated, especially in view of the EU enlargement. This is much in line with the neo-institutionalist approach on governance. In 2001 was issued the first significant document devoted on the problem of governance – the White paper on European Governance which borrowed established principles of “good governance” from the international economic organizations: openness, participation, accountability, effectiveness, and coherence, to be at the heart of the reform of governing of the EU.
But recognizing the need for novel governance models does not solve the problem of the actual implementation of RRI. As chapter 5 shows, the availability of an institutional framing and operationalization of RRI to six key aspects of implementation does not provide answers as to what would be the concrete procedural conditions that would allow the intended responsible governance of innovation.
In conclusion, the deliverable not only makes an overview of the theoretical developments with regard to the notion of RRI, identifies discrepancies and raises alerts. It also builds an argument for the need of a procedural space where all those could be addressed and demonstrates the potential of RESPONSIBILITY to provide it. This is the reason why the RRI problematic was put in the perspective of the problem of governance and the institutional arrangements that would create the conditions for RRI implementation.
RESPONSIBILITY has the opportunity to address the shortcomings of the “classical” proceduralism in innovation governance and open space to problematize the relation of the actors to their contexts by proposing a more reflexive stance in order to activate their learning capacities. It has the potential to become a means in advancing and further developing a fully-fledged procedural solution (comprehensive proceduralism) suggesting a rule or procedure for the construction of the norm, a reflexive stance to and co-construction of the context, and relevance to the value-systems of the individuals so that the binding force of the norm be promoted (it pertains to its application). This could be a good starting point for the organization of the interaction between the various societal actors in RESPONSIBILITY, in view of the variety of contexts and value-systems they relate to (the project represents a coordination effort with a global scope).
In sum, the Forum and the Observatory come as a response to all the theoretical and procedural gaps concerning the implementation of RRI (inherently addressing the norm justification-application issue). However, they also provide an opportunity to become a means for exploring the limits of the existing procedural approaches, and even to subject to proceduralist scrutiny proceduralism itself, in the elaboration of novel solutions for innovation governance.


D3.1 - Forum descriptive Report Extended version

NOTE: The extended version can be found in the attached material to the final Report
This deliverable provides an overall description of the Forum, based on the requirements specified in the description of work, on theoretical analysis of previous FP7 ethics projects, and on experiments in RRI governance carried out in other projects outside the scope of FP7.D3.1 main objective is the definition of the main components of the Forum platform. Furthermore, a document with the title “Forum-Implementation Report” has been issued by the Task force along the work process of T3.2 and MS4 which was an important assistance for the work group.

D3.2 - Forum-Implementation Report

The implementation of the Forum described in this report is based on the requirements specified in the DOW as well as on the more elaborated and refined requirements elaborated in the D3.1 Forum descriptive report. As they are extensively discussed that deliverable document they will be listed here only in brief. Generally speaking they could be divided into three groups that have been considered during implementation:
I. Organizational implementation requirements
Organizational requirements comprise the environmental as well as organisational constrains or necessary preconditions that need to be set in order for the system to work. The following requirements have been taken into account during implementation:
• Modality concept: (Which procedures will be used in the actual conduct of discussions?)
• Eligibility concept (Whether the Forum should be open or closed?)
• Governance concept(How to manage the forum and organize discussions)
• Funding concept (How to finance the forum in the long term?)
The organizational specification of the Forum has already been specified within D3.1. As the Responsibility project is a Coordination & Support Action the implementation focused on the technical aspects of those concepts in order to provide a prototype for any further development after the end of the project. All aspects which would require the implementation of actual organisational structures beyond the technical framework have been specified within D3.1 and would need further action and funding to be implemented in practice.
As the document at hand is focussing on the technical implementation of these organisational requirements many aspects of the concepts described in D3.1 will be found in the structure of the Forum and its modalities as well as in the concrete functionalities.

II. Technical implementation requirements
Technical requirements comprise the mechanics of a system as well as its components. They specify a certain outcome that needs a technical implementation and a definition of the input and output and the mechanics. According to the Forum descriptive report the Forum should be:
• a virtual meeting place (forum of discussion) for RRI stakeholders
• an interface between politicians, society and industry, researchers and CSOs
• a place of deliberation concerning RRI
• a proactive tool for implementing RRI in any project, by capacitating the actors to do so
The implementation of these requirements has been conducted as part of the implementation of the four modalities. As such the documentation found in chapter 3 and 4 includes both the given technical as well as the organizational requirements.

III. Contentwise implementation requirements
The contentwise requirements section comprises all issues that address the actual content and its presentation within the implementation of the Forum. The following content related issues addressed in the DOW have been considered during implementation:
• networking and educational tools
• determination of guidelines
• to determine approaches to the RRI
• to create “caucus” that allows to address big and currently relevant issues (“hot topics”) in specific field e.g. security, nanotechnology
• Preparation of political advisory statements
• Determination of guidelines for CSOs, for the political level and for the industry level
The implementation of the different types of content has been conducted as part of the Observatory implementation as both parts of the overall platform make use of them. As such most of the implementation documentation could be found in D 4.1 and D 4.2. An overview of the content types could be found in chapter 5 along with the specification of a number of further content types which are unique to the Forum.
The Forum homepage ( is the access point to all Forum based information and interaction. Based on their level of experience and involvement with the Forum, the homepage offers an equally useful user experience to every type of user. Thus it is necessary that it provides an overview of all the relevant information and functionality to the inexperienced user and easy access to the content for the occasional user and community members. Apart from that the homepage should convey the feeling that the reader has come to an inviting, vivid place where the users make the content.

D3.3 - Briefings Report

An important aspect of the RESPONSIBILITY project in being a coordination and support action is to engage with wider stakeholder communities. This is in particular relation to raising awareness of and providing recommendations regarding how RRI can be embedded into the practices, procedures and products in relation to research and innovation.
Through this deliverable, we detail the development of a tool that we see as important for bridging the gap between research evidence, and policy makers and industry. More specifically, we outline the development of reflection papers geared towards providing RRI-oriented recommendations to these stakeholder communities. We discuss how three policy reflection papers and one industry reflection paper were created. We then go on to present the papers themselves. Finally, we briefly outline how such papers can be embedded into the Observatory (developed through WP4), or even developed further to constitute policy or industrial briefing documents for formal release.

D3.4 - RRI package including guidelines

Since this is a Coordination and Support Action, the vast bulk of the content of RRI packages, necessarily, are materials generated externally which are then collected/compiled and in some cases adapted by the RESPONSIBILITY consortium. The collection of these materials has in the largest part been shared amongst consortium members. To ensure that there were plenty of documents within the Observatory so that packages had sufficient (and sufficiently widespread) content, we were able to find additional resource (in addition to that paid for by project funding) to upload and tag documents, freeing professionals within the consortium to select the content. In addition, where registered users of the system add and appropriately tag materials, they can become part of the packages. The result is that each of the pre-compiled packages comprises at least 400 items.
In technical terms, the RRI packages are implemented as an integral part of the functionality of the Observatory: thus while this deliverable comes under the ‘Forum’ Workpackage, the implementation fits more logically with the Observatory.
There are four key RRI packages provided directly from links towards the bottom of the Observatory Home page (, each described in more detail below.


D4.1 - Observatory descriptive Report

Deliverable 4.1 provides the specification for the “Observatory for International Responsible Research and Innovation Coordination”. Its purpose is to enable the implementation of the Observatory in task 4.2. Therefore the technical as well as procedural requirements and prerequisites for the Observatory have been defined in detail. As the Observatory is intended to harness the involvement of the broader network of researchers and innovators, their participation in the design of it should maximise the chances of it being a tool they take ownership of. Therefore the gathering of requirements was not only limited to the description of work but included the expertise of the participants of the Responsibility project and was extended by the integration of feedback from the other current EU RRI project members.

D4.2 - Recording Mechanism Report

This deliverable discusses the adopted techniques to implement Task 4.5 “Recording Mechanism” in the EU FP7 framework of RESPONSIBILITY project. The purpose of this activity is to collect, categorize and preserve expert’s knowledge by capturing and storing their Tacit Knowledge (TK). We cannot make TK completely explicit, but we can certainly acquire further information from experts (discovering partly their TK). These Observatory activities were more related to Forum tools that are the subject of this Deliverable. In order to fulfil the requirements, different tools have been built and embedded in Forum discussion. This deliverable provides theoretical background of these tools and the details of their implementation in Observatory/Forum platform. The structure of the deliverable is as follows.
We begin by introducing the definition of Tacit Knowledge in Section 1. Here we provide the basic understanding of the Tacit Knowledge concept from different perspectives.
In Section 2, the techniques to capture Tacit Knowledge are described, including “Interviewing Experts”, “Learning by Being Told”, and “Learning by Observation” techniques (Dalkir, 2005). This section presents guidelines on the strengths and drawbacks of each technique as a mean of helping select the best combination of these techniques for different situations.
In Section 3, we describe several technical tools for Tacit Knowledge that have already been implemented in practice. The Responsibility website has many features similar to the Export Trading Portal (as described in this section), such as:
a. Different spaces for different groups of people;
b. A forum where people can post comments and discuss by means of online meeting;
c. A repository where people can search for what they need. This section also provides some examples of ICT tools for managing TK in order to have some insights on how to implement and embed ICT tools for managing TK in Observatory/Forum platform.
Section 4 details two TK modules, which have been implemented in Observatory/Forum platform. In particular, we applied the “Questionnaires” and “Interviewing Experts” approaches (Dalkir, 2005) in the first module “Questionnaire for Tacit Knowledge and Interviews”. Questionnaires could be posed to participants of Responsibility Innovation Cafés to promote the provision of useful information in relation to the topics of Innovation Café (IC). Based on the answers to these questions, RRI Caucus Governors will decide if a further (virtual) meeting is needed to interview an expert in order to further make explicit the TK.
Moreover, we applied the “Learning from others” and the “Learning by Being Told” approaches (Dalkir, 2005) in our second module, “Expert Support”. A registered member of the Responsibility Website can pose his/her questions to experts to get deeper information about expert’s experience. Finally, in section 5, we describe the implementation of these new modules in the RESPONSIBILITY Forum.

D4.4 - Monitoring report

This deliverable deals with task 4.3 “Monitoring Activities”. The purpose of this task is to define findings and fine-tune the results of public consultations and experts’ discussions. In order to fulfil the requirements, different tools are built and embedded in Forum discussion. This deliverable provides theoretical background of these tools and the details of their implementation in Observatory/Forum platform. The structure of the deliverable is as follows. The deliverable also deals with Task4.4 Social Laboratory which is a result of a social laboratory where, the material has been prepared and tested in workshops in real environments. The training addresses the individual researcher and the university students (not experts in RRI). The first step was by creating awareness to these groups, as to give them a ground to think about critical issues for their work, not directly related to their everyday life. Training consisted of development of scenarios, educational awareness and developing skills in reflective thinking around RRI (RRI-Package).
In the first section we discuss the requirement and design goal of this task. In particular, three different tools are proposed, which are Public Questionnaire, Online Citizen Jury and Google Analytics. All the results from Public Questionnaire and Online Citizen Jury are collected in Discussion Dossier, which is sent to reviewers for feedback on the decisions made by the experts in the discussion. Based on the result from reviewers, RRI Government can restart the process with another discussion in Dynamic Coalition and Innovation Café to fine-tune the results.
The public Questionnaire is discussed in section 2. This online method has shown many advantages with respect to the conventional paper-like survey methods. It represents a useful and easy way to gather individuals’ opinions with less time and cost. It also has the capacity to access a large population, i.e. the Observatory/Forum platform users. In our implementation on Observatory/Forum platform, the questions in the questionnaire are made by participants and moderator of the Innovation Café and placed in the Suggestion Board so that all community members of RRI platform can access. The result is taken into account by the moderator and RRI Caucus Government and can be considered both as findings for a new discussion and fine-tuning the results of experts’ discussion in Innovation Café. On the other hand, section 3 presents Online Citizen Jury module, which is implemented with the purpose of fine-tuning the results of the innovation café? fine-tuning process. This module allows moderators of the Innovation Café to create a poll and permits a group of jurors to vote on a new RRI decision or policy after the discussion in an Innovation Café. The jurors are selected at random among all members of the RRI platform to prevent bias voting results. Thus, the Online Citizen Jury module can help RRI experts to gain insight on how people think about a new RRI decision or policy. The Google Analytics tool is described in section 4. This module is used to obtain statistics on the usage of RRI platform. These statistics can provide an overview on how RRI platform appeal to people, thus giving some insights for RRI Caucus Government to propose new issue and to improve the platform. A cookie module is also implemented in order to be compliant with EU cookie policy. In this module, an option for opting out of Google Analytics tracking is embedded. This option allows users to exclude themselves from being tracked by Google Analytics so that their activities on RRI platform will not be recorded. Finally, section 5 presents the training material generated by the social laboratory and the feedback of two workshops conducted on the bases of their material.

D4.5 - RRI Guidelines

The deliverable sets out specific guidelines that provide orientation for different actors to develop strategies for future RRI engagements. The formulated recommendations, instead of being rigid instructions, should be understood as practical impulses on how to foster and support Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) from different points of departure. Guidelines in this sense constitute a code of conduct for a multitude of RRI actors on how to orientate within an increasingly dense and complex jungle of ethical standards and codices using the RESPONSIBILITY Platform components Observatory and Forum as RRI-Tools.
Based on a reflection of articulated challenges, the present RESPONSIBILITY Guidelines have been developed in order to provide directions and hints for different RRI stakeholders, taking into account their specific potential, needs and experiences. They address a multitude of actors to support the further enactment of the RRI concept and its practical uptake. RESPONSIBILITY Guidelines are specifically targeted at the four primary RRI stakeholder groups, i.e. “Policy Makers”, “Research and Education Community”, “Business and Industry” and “Civil Society”. This supports the establishment of an RRI community, which through the RESPONSIBILITY online platform, could continue working towards a common understanding of RRI and could also further develop variety of forms and solutions for the practical implementation of RRI.
The deliverable introduces conceptual underpinnings of the RESPONSIBILITY platform (Forum and Observatory), before briefly outlining the platform’s design and functionalities, as developed within the project phase. A discussion of the main challenges that have been encountered with regard to the construction and design process reflects the preconditions and ambiguities of such an endeavour. The main body of the deliverable involves the formulation of specific stakeholder-centred guidelines as well as an illustration of corresponding features of the virtual platform that enable the implementation of those recommendations. Emphasis is put on the community aspect of an RRI platform that serves the multitude of stakeholders to integrate the RRI concept into their work and future projects. Hence, platform and guidelines are affiliated. The deliverable finally concludes with a wrap-up summarizing how the RESPONSIBILITY platform serves as a toolkit of features, supporting the very different types of actors to find individual access to a wide-ranging network of stakeholders.
The RESPONSIBILITY Platform for Policy Makers
Policy makers particularly benefit from using the platform as
• Knowledge base to find documents about governance arrangements, case studies and design- and assessment guidelines.
• Knowledge base to find Forum Discussion Dossiers that can be used as possible information to guide and direct further decision making processes.
• Contact Point to gain insights from those, policy makers finally take decisions for.
• Amplifier to announce current policy agendas and programs.
The RESPONSIBILITY Platform for Researchers
Researchers particularly benefit from using the platform as
• Knowledge base to find RRI reports embracing what sort of RRI problems researchers might be confronted with.
• Knowledge base to find RRI design guidelines about how to conduct research in a responsible way.
• Contact Point to introduce intermediate results and gain feedback.
• Contact Point to open up for pubic and to interact with politics more directly.
• Amplifier to introduce research to the broader society.
• Amplifier offering support in becoming an RRI trainer.
The RESPONSIBILITY Platform for Business and Industry
Business and industry particularly benefit from using the platform as
• Knowledge base to find case studies facilitating an understanding of how to increase trust and acceptance in future products and innovations.
• Knowledge base to find assessment guidelines analyzing current and emerging technologies regarding their potential impacts.
• Contact Point to increase citizen proximity.
• Contact Point to gain feedback and add further levels of iteration.
• Amplifier to demonstrate other actors in business and industry a responsible working culture.
The RESPONSIBILITY Platform for Civil Society
Civil society actors particularly benefits from using the platform as
• Knowledge base for mutual learning of current RRI approaches and practices.
• Knowledge base to find information on funding sources.
• Contact Point to increase their network and find future collaborators from business and industry, research and politics.
• Amplifier to highlight commonly under-represented topics and contents.
• Amplifier to initiate own ideas and projects.

D4.6 - Observatory Handbook

with Annex to the Observatory Handbook: Common Glossary
The Observatory of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) aims to be established as a permanent point of reference and actual fore-thinking regarding the current concept and developments in the field of RRI. This handbook helps a user to use the Observatory. The Annex to the Observatory Handbook is a common glossary between the Go4 projects. It contains 103 Terms, where the majority are defined extensively according the relevance to RRI and to the projects.


D5.1 - Requirements for assessment

Assessment helps ascertain the degree to which the design and development of the assessed product have achieved the aims and objectives. As such it enables quality assurance. It is also possible to assess the aims and objectives themselves (for example, whether the aims and objectives sufficiently reflect the needs of stakeholders). This was important and relevant because the original requirements were derived from an analysis of the description of work, the experiences and expertise of the members of the RESPONSIBILITY project and consultation with Go4 partner projects in the early stages of the project. Beyond this the requirements had not had input, at that stage, from stakeholders at the level that would be appropriate for Responsible Research and Innovation and it was indicated in the requirements for the Observatory (D4.1) that “during implementation and the prototypical use in subsequent tasks and work packages and especially during the assessment in work package 5 more specific and further requirements will be revealed”. Each new stakeholder will affect the requirements. The addition of new or altered requirements requires a new assessment to determine the success meeting earlier requirements and to evaluate the new requirements; an iterative assessment process. In particular, iterative assessment, as described below, allows for stakeholder input to ensure there would not be a mismatch between aims and objectives and those that were appropriate for the stakeholders, thus enabling the implementation of the technical facilities to be brought into line with the stakeholder role in Responsible Research and Innovation. Another key purpose of assessment is to support and promote reflection, and to assist in the identification of requirements and directions for future change. The procedures outlined in this document should allow for such benefits.
Assessment Methodology of the Technical Infrastructure
The assessment of the technical infrastructure was initiated after the technical Usability Indicators were defined, which consisted of the Content Management System (CMS) chosen to implement the platform, and the hosting hardware and software. Thereafter, the assessment was performed by an initial performance measurement carried out using an online service called RUXIT. The continuous performance measurement on the other hand was achieved by the integration of Google Analytics into the CMS itself, in order to monitor the performance along the life time of the platform.
Assessment Methodology of the Forum, and the Observatory
It is desirable for there to be iterative assessment, whereby the results of the rounds of assessment are used to inform further development and refinement of the systems and platform, which is then re-assessed. This sort of iterative assessment is academically credible and consistent with mainstream software development methodologies.
Because only a subset of users and requirements are identified at project onset, iterative assessment is required to evaluate and guide future requirements. Socio-technical, functional, and usability requirements change as new stakeholders are added to the system. The adequacy of the system design must be evaluated to be sure to accommodate the changes in stakeholders and their needs.
Recognising that the assessment is planned to be iterative; where relevant, assessments before the final assessment should be primarily related to internal working documents to derive indications about what functionality can be realistically expected at the time of assessment, and around whether what is planned for the future can reasonably be expected to be appropriate. Not all of the elements of the assessment need to be assessed at each iteration (for example security assessment, community appeal and sustainability become more relevant as the project progresses, while if there is a high degree of satisfaction with other elements, such as use cases, one assessment of that element may be sufficient, and assessment may not be needed on further iterations beyond the final assessment ensuring that things that worked in earlier versions are still working). Each assessment iteration includes at a minimum the assessment of newly satisfied requirements and newly identified features and plans.
The iterative assessments should also include recommendations about what needs to be done to have it do those things identified as in error, needing improvement, or missing. Such recommendations should provide as much specific detail as possible and should bear in mind management questions about the amount of budget and time needed to make these changes and if the function is valued enough to expend the time and money resources. This cost-benefit analysis should also include, if appropriate, recommendations about planned functionality that does not justify the resources needed to implement.
Usability is an important element of the assessment. Where assessment is looking at the platform, the forum or the observatory from the perspective of a (potential) user, it should, in so far as is practical, be conducted with a range of participants who simulate the target population for the use case, both in terms of competence, professional role (if any) and cultural diversity. However it may be appropriate to reduce the accuracy of the simulation and/or diversity of the simulation of the target population in order to increase the accuracy of the results achieved from the participants used (for example it might be that the best assessment technique at a particular time or for a particular element of the assessment is a face-to-face focus group, which makes a high degree of representativeness impractical).
Some aspects of this assessment require more effort than others, and different approaches are needed for the different aspects. For example, a multinational focus group of students and scientists may be appropriate to assess many socio-technical aspects, and to conduct functional and most usability assessments.

D5.2 - Assessment report

This deliverable reports on the assessment studies that were undertaken as part of WP5 of RESPONSIBILITY .
These included the assessment of the Analytic Grid (WP2), Forum (WP3) and Observatory (WP4). As detailed in Deliverable 5.1 Requirements for Assessment: the reasoning for an integral and iterative set of assessments through the development of each of these tools was to ensure that stakeholder perspectives could be taken into consideration and integrated into the ongoing design and development of each tool.
Such participatory approaches to the design and development of technology allow for the development of the tool and platforms to be less abstracted from the use context in which they will be embedded. Through this deliverable we outline the outcomes from each iteration of development for each tool. We begin by considering the assessment of the Analytic Grid, followed by the Forum, and finally consider the assessment of the Observatory.
Finally, we conclude the deliverable, reflecting also on future directions for the development of the Forum and Observatory as they are potentially moved into practical use by a wide range of global stakeholders.


D6.1 - Dissemination and exploitation strategy

The RESPONSIBILITY Dissemination and Awareness Raising elaborates the strategic approaches in disseminating and raising awareness related to Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) and RESPONSIBILITY project. In general, the WP6 Dissemination and Awareness Raising aims to formulate and devise relevant strategies for information dissemination and knowledge sharing targeted for RRI stakeholders and global audiences.

D6.2 - Policy Brief: RRI for Security Technologies

This policy paper presents and discusses the gaps (or problems) in the security domain where RRI can serve as a valuable tool to effectively address these gaps. As the RESPONSIBILITY project focuses on the context of RRI from a civil security technologies perspective, the intended Policy Brief (PB) aims to contribute to the on-going public discourse and development of security policies and recommendations. This policy paper highlights the urgency of the new, emerging and complex security issues, and elaborates the importance of engaging RRI as balancing instrument. In this context, RRI should be integrated in the process (particularly related to security research and innovation) to clarify and handle the on-going tension between formulating and implementing security measures and policies, and the issues related to privacy protection. Several pertinent key recommendations are further highlighted at the end of the paper for further consideration and deliberation.

D6.3 - Project Dissemination Dossier (Full)

NOTE: This deliverable will be uploaded as an attachment to this periodic and final report since the uploaded document in the deliverable list is only for the 1st Period
This document contains the most important dissemination material created during the project lifetime, such as project brochures, leaflets and folders. Furthermore, the project’s press release, as well as significant press articles/news which are also to be found in this document. The major outcomes and media material were published on the official website of the RESPONSIBILITY Project “”.

D6.4 - Dissemination and exploitation activities report

During the RESPONSIBILITY project implementation, activities were undertaken to promote the RESPONSIBILITY project identity, which was defined by the RESPONSIBILITY Forum and Observatory, at carefully planned and organised events at international level.
Exploitation activities have been conducted through the coordinating activities that RESPONSIBILITY performed to ensure synergy (e.g. adding the contents of the Go4 projects in the RESPONSIBILITY Observatory) and sustainability (e.g. adding the RESPONSIBILITY platform to the RRI-Tools Toolkit). As RESPONSIBILITY promoted and coordinated international cooperation, this approach was pragmatic to develop workable strategies to effectively deploy dissemination means that can bring significant impact in the context of building awareness and understanding about RRI and RESPONSIBILITY research works. The consortium members actively contributed to stimulate interest and encourage participation among the identified networks of RRI stakeholders as well as other societal actors or entities around the globe to participate in knowing more or doing more in the context of undertaking responsible research and innovation. The whole spectrum of the dissemination and exploitation activities implemented during the three years’ duration of the RESPONSIBILITY project are presented in this Deliverable 6.4.

D6.5 - Event Proceedings

During the RESPONSIBILITY project implementation, activities were undertaken to promote the RESPONSIBILITY project identity, which was defined by the RESPONSIBILITY Forum and Observatory, at carefully planned and organised events at international level. At these events, intensive efforts were made to engage directly with policymakers, researchers and CSOs. During the RESPONSIBILITY project implementation there were planned and organised five (5) workshops and one international Conference. It should be mentioned that the RESPONSIBILITY project organised common activities with other three (3) RRI projects; namely GREAT, PROGRESS and Res_Agora.
One of the tasks carried out during the whole project duration was the dissemination of its findings and conclusions to a broad audience of relevant stakeholders and key actors in the area of research. For this reason, the RESPONSIBILITY consortium has sought to create and monitor an extensive network, through specifically organised workshops and panel discussions, which had a high international profile on the topic of research and innovation policies. Furthermore, this has allowed the Consortium to promote its objectives and raise awareness of the issues to the research community, the policy makers and the civil society. The Consortium also engaged with policymakers and key stakeholders by participating in high profile international events on the topic of research and innovation policies.
Therefore, societal stakeholders, NGOs, researchers and public authorities, national and international funding bodies, research administration authorities and policymakers at EU and at national levels were approached before and during the Events, serving the Consortium’s objective to create a platform for discussion on the RRI concept and approaches and providing insight to RRI results from relevant projects by ensuring their wider promotion and future exploitation. D6.5 presents the actions undertaken in connection with the events organized and their results.

D6.6 - Exploitation & Sustainability Strategy

The plan of the exploitation and sustainability strategy aims to prepare and support the exploitation of the RESPONSIBILITY project results by the partners (internally) and by other interested bodies (externally), through their adoption and use of the RESPONSIBILITY Observatory and Forum. In parallel, the RESPONSIBILITY partners will focus identifying the most effective sustainability strategy to be followed for the RESPONSIBILITY Observatory to become a sustainable RRI Observatory beyond the project’s life time.
RESPONSIBILITY Consortium is consisted by a large number of partners who have the potential and the capabilities to ensure the project’s outcomes sustainability after its end. At a European level, all partners are well networked to communicate the project’s outcomes, and in parallel they could update the effective mechanism of the Observatory with new research results from their communities.
The exploitation strategy of the project will be consisted of the following three basic subject pillars:
• Subject 1: Retain the existing status of the RESPONSIBILITY Observatory, for five years after the end of the project
• Subject 2: Technical maintenance of the RESPONSIBILITY Observatory
• Subject 3: Update of the RESPONSIBILITY Observatory’s content

Potential Impact:
Main dissemination and co-ordination activities during the period
RESPONSIBILITY co-ordinated among other national and international activities mainly with these projects: Res-Agora, GREAT, Progress, RRI-Industry, FRRIICT, RRI-Tools, NERRI, ADIS, FEARLESS, InREAKT, ASSERT.
One of the major activities of the core team of RESPONSIBILITY with the coordinators of the initial RRI projects Res-Agora, GREAT, Progress, RRI-Industry, FRRIICT and RESPONSIBILITY and significant industry partners was the attempt to prepare and submit the proposal “RESPONSIVE” (Creating a training and dissemination toolkit RESPONSIVE to stakeholders' needs) which was a part of the sustainability concept of the Forum and Observatory as well as the training materials to make them available to the research community, industry and policy makers.
The co-ordination activities started actually during the negotiation process before the project started. In the joint meeting before the final negotiations with the coordinator of the four granted RRI projects (Res-Agora, GREAT, Progress, RESPONSIBILITY) 25th June 2012, in Brussels the fundaments for a common understanding and a joint development was agreed. The main joint results should be a common glossary, common templates for case studies, joint workshops and conference attendance, regularly exchange of information and publications in given cases joint publications and presentations.
Following up these agreements the coordinators and WP leaders of Go4 (Group of Four) were invited and attended the kickoff meetings of these projects. In these meetings interests groups have been established (Task Forces: Glossary, Case Studies, Websites, Dissemination). In a very early phase (February 2013) the joint participation with a RRI-governance session was initiated by the PO and the Go4 prepared a joint declaration as well as endeavor specific discussion panels. Also a joint cluster RRI-Workshop that was initiated by the PO of Go4 took place 12th September, 2013 in Brussels. There the fifth RRI Project, RRI-Industry was introduced, we were now G05.

The next joint workshop that was organized by RESPONSIBILITY was the Pre-Forum Workshop, 11th February 2014 in Brussels, where among the coordinators and main WP leaders of Go5 some other experts from the Commission and the Advisory Board of the project attended to discuss the structure and main themes of the Forum and the Observatory. Figure 20: RRI debate “World Café”,2013, September 12-13, RRI joint Workshop (Go5), Brussels.

The first Workshop with participants outside Europe took place in the venue of Malaysian partner, University of Sarawak, 19th February 2014 in Kuching, Malaysia: 1st Asia Pacific Responsible Business Innovation 2014.

The last joint presentation of Go5 with a large audience and moderated by a BBC professional was the session “Building a Governance Framework and Observatory for Responsible Research and Innovation” within the Euroscience Open Forum Conference (ESOF 2014), ‘Science Building Bridges’ in June 25, 2014, Copenhagen, where there was the floor for discussions with other scientists about RRI in general and within their competencies, activities and projects.

A Workshop at one of Responsibility’s consortium members “University of Sienna” was coupled with the 4th project meeting and contained 3 highly relevant keynotes and presentations:
• "Opinion Dynamics and Responsible Research and Innovation" - Agnes Allansdottir, Toscana Life Sciences (Project NERRI)
• "Complex Systems Approach to Sustainability"- Chiara Mocenni, DIISM - University of Siena
• "Social Robots for Supporting Autonomy and Well-Being of Elderly People" - Iolanda Iacono, DISPOC - UNISI

The Workshop on "Responsible Research and Innovation in Mining” in Santiago de Chile organised by the Responsibility Consortium under the lead of the Chilean pater Advanced Mining Technology Center, in Universidad de Chile. The workshop on “Responsible Research and Innovation in Mining” aimed to incorporate the concept of RRI into the mining industry. Hence, the workshop included the contributions on different aspects, particularly those that are dealing with social and environmental responsibility, as well as some case studies that explore the ethical responsibilities of mining industry along with the capability of mining exploitation to contribute in sustainable development.

After three years of intensive work, the Go4 projects presented key results of their work, at a joint final conference hosted by the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC), which will maximize the potential impact of their scientific output through the direct and open communication with researchers, policy-makers and a broad range of stakeholders.

List of Websites:
Dr. Zaharya Menevidis:
Mohamad Ajami:
Fraunhofer-Institute for Production Systems and Design Technology (IPK)
Pascalstrasse 8-9,
10587 Berlin

Related information


Walter Krause, (EU Projects Officer)
Tel.: +49 89 12052713
Fax: +49 89 12057534
Record Number: 187121 / Last updated on: 2016-07-20