building confidence in innovative technologies … confidence in innovative technologies what’s...

Building confidence in innovative technologies

What stakeholders expect and how companies can respond

What’s fair to ask? What’s fair to share?

Report By Hilary Sutcliffe and Mike King

Building confidence in innovative technologies........................................................................3

About MATTER ..............................................................................................................................3

About this project .........................................................................................................................3

Methodology.................................................................................................................................. 4

Introducing the concept of Responsible Innovation ...............................................................5

What do we mean by Stakeholder Participation? ....................................................................7

Some of the tools used for each aspect ..............................................................................8

Who to involve? ............................................................................................................................ 9

What to engage about? ...........................................................................................................10

How do stakeholders expect companies to engage with society? .................................. 11

What the public wants to know about innovative technologies ............................... 11

What do investors want to know? ........................................................................................ 12

What do Civil Society Groups want to know? ................................................................. 14

What do buying departments of retailers want to know? .......................................... 16

How companies can respond to communications expectations? .................................... 18

How companies can respond to stakeholder expectations ............................................... 19

Next Steps for this project ............................................................................................................. 23

Bibliography .........................................................................................................................................24

Table of contents


2



About this project

This project focuses on a key area of the debate about innovative technologies

– the importance of transparency and stakeholder participation as an integral component

of product development. The public appears to have a significant amount of confidence in

the products of innovation1, but they, like the investors2, NGOs3, and retailers4 we spoke to

want to see more transparency from companies to reassure them of their safety, efficacy

and appropriateness.

However, there are some important competitiveness issues which come with greater

transparency for companies – will their competitors simply use this information to their

own advantage? Are there liabilities associated with more openness, particular where

stakeholders are asking for more information about uncertainties and company systems?

This project was created to explore what’s fair to ask of companies, given these constraints,

and what’s fair to expect them to share, to build confidence in the innovative technologies

which may be the key to their and our future prosperity.

About MATTER

Innovative technologies, like nanotech, biotech or synthetic biology, may help us solve

some of the greatest problems of our age - providing new solutions to energy challenges,

more effective medicines, or simply enhance consumer products and gadgets to help

us have more fun, look better, or make our lives easier. MATTER is a UK based think tank

which brings stakeholders together to understand what needs to be done to use these

new technologies to enrich our lives and ensure they deliver products which are safe and

effective for people and the environment.

To see more about our work, our multi-stakeholder steering group or the people who work

with us, visit our website on www.matterforall.org.


3

MATTER is a UK based think tank which brings stakeholders together to understand what needs to be done to use these new technologies to enrich our lives and ensure they deliver products which are safe and effective for people and the environment.


Methodology. The project was implemented in two parts:

Part One What stakeholders expect?

Output


The funding for this project was contributed

by the seven members of the MATTER

Business Group who wished to know

more about the expectations of their key

stakeholders and understand how they

could achieve this balance of openness

and competitiveness.

The companies were AstraZeneca, College

Hill (communications), GlaxoSmithKline,

Leatherhead Food Research,

Marks & Spencer, Nestlé and Unilever.

A participant from the Nanotechnology

Knowledge Transfer network, focusing

on the interests of small businesses also

attended without making a financial

contribution.

Each Business Group Member contributed

£5k, of which £10k of the total was allocated

to the ongoing running of MATTER and

£25k to this particular project.

To understand what the public and other stakeholders want to see from companies at

what stages of the innovation process and how they themselves might wish to participate.

Our intent here was to consider what was fair and reasonable to ask of companies to allow

an appropriate balance between transparency and competitive advantage.

A Prezi presentation, with voice over, of this initial project which looked at

What the general public wants to know about company innovation is available

here on YouTube and the report itself available here. Our discussions with investors,

professional stakeholders and retailers are outlined later in the report.

Part Two How companies can respond?

In consultation with stakeholders and MATTER’s Business Group we have developed

practical ideas on how companies can best respond to these expectations for

transparency and stakeholder participation. This takes the form of questions directed at

different parts of the innovation chain and different departments in companies.

The output of this project is this report, together with a Prezi presentation of the full project

with voice over by author Hilary Sutcliffe, available here on YouTube.

Project Funding

4

1 To innovate more effectively

It is increasingly recognised that innovation happens as a clunky, messy process, where

ideas collide, new connections are made and new solutions are found often by accident5.

Connecting better with a more diverse group of stakeholders, through engagement,

listening and even co-creation, can bring superior results. This is particularly true as the

pressure increases to develop products that are sustainable, socially beneficial and where

risks and hazards are thought through in advance.

2 Understanding and mitigating social, ethical and environmental risks

New technologies may also provide solutions we badly need to some of the intractable

problems of our age; but they may potentially pose new hazards and risks and even

lingering uncertainties. One of the greatest challenges for companies is to find ways to

think through both the possible risks and the potential for negative social or environmental

impacts and design them out at source, or put safeguards, stage-gates and early

warning systems in place. This means looking outwards to explore wider implications and

perspectives, and looking inward to take responsibility for the products put on the market

and the impacts of their use and disposal. Stakeholder engagement along the innovation

pathway helps organisations gain a richer picture of risk and track early warnings of

potential issues on the horizon.

Here are five reasons for companies to take the lead on transparency and encourage

stakeholder participation as part of the process of innovation, particularly when

concerning potentially disruptive technologies:

Why is Responsible Innovation important?

Introducing the concept of Responsible Innovation


1. The deliberate focus of research and the products of innovation to achieve a

social or environmental benefit.

2. The consistent, ongoing involvement of society, from beginning to end of the

innovation process, including the public & non-governmental groups, who are

themselves mindful of the public good.

3. Which assessing, and effectively prioritising social, ethical and environmental

impacts, risks and opportunities, both now and in the future, alongside the

technical and commercial.

4. Where oversight mechanisms are better able to anticipate and manage

problems and opportunities and which are also able to adapt and respond

quickly to changing knowledge and circumstances.

5. Where openness and transparency are an integral component of the

entire research and innovation process.

The term is new, so definitions are evolving. This is our view of how it may be described1234:

What is Responsible Research and Innovation?


“Responsible research and innovation means taking collective care for the future, through the stewardship of innovation in the present”Stilgoe, Owen and MacNaghten,

2012, Taking Care of the Future

- A Framewrk for Responsible In-

novation, Report for EPSRC/ESRC,

in press

5

3 To add to the body of evidence

Government & research funding is being restricted because of cost, at the same time as

new and more complex technologies are moving from lab to shelf with increasing speed.

There is therefore limited data available to help companies, scientists and governments

understand and evaluate the value and impact of these new technologies. There is also

a growing expectation that companies will share that data with competent authorities

(potentially moving to a mandatory basis) and communicate more effectively with

customers and the public to reassure them about product safety and system

effectiveness. In addition technology translation to new and useful areas, where it is not

hampered by overly constraining IP regimes, may be restricted by lack of evidence of

efficacy or toxicology.

4 Because engagement builds trust

We believe that the more open and authentic an organisation is about its products and

processes and the more innovative it is in the way it involves stakeholders, the greater will

be its ‘social capital’ – the trust of those who influence its success. The more trust it has ‘in

the bank’, the more freedom it has to innovate and the more its products resonate with its

customers (in both business-to-business and consumer-focused companies).

5 Getting it wrong is potentially very costly

The cost of getting it wrong in innovation can be huge. Whether ‘wrong’ means causing

harm to people or the environment; misjudging consumer appetite and public mood;

underestimating social antagonism to a specific product area or social or ethical issue – or

failing to grasp an opportunity at the right moment. Costs can be loss of sales, investor

confidence, law suits, insurance or capital costs, or a negative ‘rub-off’ on existing successful

products. Innovative stakeholder engagement helps keep an organisation attune to shifts

and close to changes in impact or attitude and able to respond quickly and effectively if

unforeseen problems arise.

6 Excessive caution can be costly too

Many companies feel that they will let others take the risk on new technologies and join in

later when acceptance is more certain. This is a successful strategy, but often ‘first mover

advantage’ also pays off. With some of the important societal problems we face, excessive

caution may also be costly to both business and society. At our recent meeting, socially

responsible investors asked companies to communicate better with them about their use

of new technologies, in part so that they could see they were grasping opportunities, and

in part to allow them to understand about how they were managing risks.



“When we change the way we communicate, we change society”Clay Shirley

Here comes everything

“Innovation is society in the making”

Pieree-Benoît Joly

Senior Research Fellow

INRA/SenS and IFRIS. Paris

“in every act of creation and innovation there exists the potential, also, for our undoing.”

Lord Robert Winston Bad Ideas;

an arresting history of our

inventions

6

Co-createWork together with

others as equals

What do we mean by Stakeholder Participation?


Stakeholder participation can mean different things to different people. We have drawn on two useful initiatives to develop our approach:

1 The MATTER Stakeholder Engagement Framework

Adapted from the Public Engagement Triangle,

(See right) developed in the UK by Lindsey

Colbourne for ScienceWise.

This makes useful distinctions about the type of

engagement organisations may use for different

purposes. We have adapted it to include a

fourth hugely important area, Cogitate, which

illustrates the internal debate and discussion

which is how the organisation considers the

issues associated with innovation and its

response to stakeholder expectations.

We have used this framework to segment the

type of engagement an organisation may do

with different stakeholders at specific points

in the innovation chain.

2 AA1000 Stakeholder Engagement Standard

This open-source framework from the international

governance organisation Accountability aims to

provide a framework to understand the quality

of an organisation’s engagement. The AA1000

Stakeholder Engagement Standard was

developed through a consultative process over a

number of years and was launched in November

2011. We have used this to understand and help

define the quality of engagement companies

may undertake.


The MATTER Stakeholder

Engagement Framework

7

CommunicateInform, educate, inspire, motivate,

demonstrate transparency

CogitateThink deeply about

complex issues & develop responses

ListenResearch other

views & concerns, understand broader

issues


Communication:• Company website – consider how your organisation

uses its website to demonstrate transparency about

the products enhanced by new technologies and your

systems of oversight. Does it explain about your work in

new technologies, what you hope that can achieve and

how it is managed? Are you failing to capitalise on its

role as a vehicle for demonstrating you are fulfilling your

responsibilities? How could you open up more about the

work you are doing in innovation, HSE, the systems and

processes which support your innovation?

• Open source publishing – consider how your organisation

may use open source media to make available research

(both positive and negative) to add to the body of

evidence on the subject of the science, safety, materials,

and processes which support the development of your

products. These may include codes of conduct, open

source websites, voluntary reporting schemes etc

• Social/Annual report – does your social report

consider your approach to innovation, science and

new technologies? How does it treat social, ethical and

environmental issues and transparency in this area?

Does it explore your stakeholder engagement and

stakeholder opinion, positive and negative?

• Marketing initiatives – is there a possibility of using your

marketing initiatives, such as media relations, events,

cause marketing, to demonstrate your responsible

approach to innovative technologies in your products?

• Joint venture communications – is there an opportunity

to work with a suppliers, customers, retailers, academics or

ngos to engage with stakeholders in a more effective way?

Listen

• Company website – is your website geared to listen

as well as to talk? Are there on-line engagement

approaches which could help you engage with

your customers around key issues, understand their

perspectives and give them the opportunity to give

feedback to you?

• Research – do you know what your stakeholders think

about your current and future innovations or about

issues which may arise from their use? Focus groups,

advisory panels, citizen’s juries, seminars, workshops,

facilitated dialogues and on-line initiatives, can all

generate knowledge to enrich your understanding of the

key social, ethical and environmental issues associated

with your use of new technologies and of the views of

your key stakeholders, including the public.

• Data Mining – understanding the views of stakeholders

from their own communication may also add to the

body of knowledge about key social, ethical and

environmental issues and perceptions and concerns.

Access reports, events and social media interactions to

better understand their concerns.

• Joint venture communications – is there an opportunity

to work with a suppliers, customers, retailers, academics or

ngos to engage with stakeholders in a more effective way?

Co-create• Partnerships and joint venture initiatives –

with key stakeholders, competitors, academic

partnerships to create new products, services or

accountability mechanisms together as equals -

eg DuPont EDF Nano Risk Framework6, BASF

Dialogueforum Nano7, Unilever & Practical Action

• Crowd-sourcing – innovative participation of the public

and other stakeholders to co-create products, services

or knowledge exchange initiatives together, eg through

brainstorms, joint venture projects, on-line initiatives.

Cogitate

• Internal consideration, analysis, evaluation –

essential for strategy development, consideration

of issues, responsiveness to external views or data;

generating thinking within teams, departments and

particularly through cross-departmental meetings,

events and on-line initiatives.


Some of the tools used for each aspect

8

Who to involve?


Figure from The Stakeholder

Engagement Manual Volume 2

The Practitioner’s Handbook on

Stakeholder Engagement.

Accountability 2005 Thomas

Krick, Maya Forstater, Philip

Monaghan, Maria Sillanpää.

Each individual business needs to

determine who it is important and

appropriate, (or ‘material’ to take a phrase

from AA1000 Stakeholder Engagement

Standard), to involve at what stage in the

innovation process. Organisations will

prepare a ‘Stakeholder Map’ and begin an

internal Cogitation process of considering

the purpose and type of engagement and

focusing priorities. A chemical company

will have a different stakeholder map than,

for example, a cosmetics company; a textile

company from a food company.

Below is a basic stakeholder listing from a

pharmaceutical company. Following this

first step, they will then go on to expand

those groups to catalogue specific people

and organisations, then perhaps cluster

those according to issues, activities,

relationships, or other variables, and

consider how to engage for what purpose.

Stakeholder consultation may be necessary

to begin to generate this list. The MATTER

Framework of Listen, Communicate,

Co-create helps understand what types

of engagement are important for what

purpose and the internal cogitation is

central to developing that process.


Stakeholder

Category

Employee

Investors

Customers

Suppliers

Subgroups

Board and executive team

Management

Staff

Trade Unions

New recruits

Potential recruits

Employees who have left the company

Institutional investors

Pension funds

Fund managers and analylsts

Rating agencies

Socially responsible investment movement

National Health Service Trusts

Doctors

Patients

Private clinics

Hospitals

Pharmacists

Wholesalers

Prescription influences (eg. nurses,

social workers, teachers, psychologists)

internal clients

Suppliers of materials and ingredients

Contract manufacturers

Doctors (as R&D consultants)

Clinical trial centres

Volunteers and patients intrials

Service providers and infrastructure

products

Stakeholder Category

Competitors

Government

and Regulators

Business Partners

Local Communities

Academia and

Scientific Community

Media

NGO’s and Pressure Groups

Sub-groups

Pharmaceutical companies

Biotech companies

Department of Health

Pharmaceutical regulatory authorities

Food and Drug Administration (US)

World Health organization (UN)

Licensees

R&D Partners

Other pharmaceutical companies

Clinics/universities

Neighbours

Local authorities/ Planning Department

Charities and voluntary organisations

Environmental groups

University centres

Researchers

Students

TV and Radio

Medical/scientific publications

National/local newspapers

Financial newspapers

Patient organisations

Human rights organisations

Animal welfare organisations

Environmental organisations

Alternative medicine associations

This is a high level stakeholder map developed by a uk pharmaceutical company

9

The MATTER Framework of Listen, Communicate, Co-create helps understand what types of engagement are important for what purpose

What to engage about?

Prioritising stakeholders, issues and activities – being open about trade offs


Different companies will engage with their

stakeholders about different things at

different times.

The various components of the Responsible

Innovation agenda may be just one of a

number. Some companies have hundreds

of ‘material issues’ that they engage with

their stakeholders about in various ways.

For those who follow the Global Reporting

Initiative this issues mapping is essential.

For example, the figure below from the

Vodafone 2010 Social Report shows how

they classify their main issues and prioritise

their activities. Stakeholder engagement

programmes will be created for most, if not

all, of those issues.

Internal cogitation and processes to create

understanding, such as those mapped

in the above diagramme, are essential to

understanding stakeholder priorities and so

delivering strategic company engagement.

However, one of the purposes of listening

to stakeholders is to be able to better

understand their own priorities so that

the organisation can respond effectively.

Sometimes stakeholder participation is a

chicken and egg sort of thing!

Transparency about the process of

prioritising issues and allocating time and

funding, often part of social reporting

process is in itself a demonstration of

Responsible Innovation. Companies will

have a number of important issues to

address, sometimes where stakeholder

views conflict with each other. Stakeholders

on the whole understand that companies

have to prioritise and it is openness about

the process of making that choice and

the trade offs it engenders which helps

demonstrate responsibility.

Low Medium High

Influence on business success

Imp

ort

an

ce t

o s

takeh

old

ers

Lo

w

Me

diu

m

Hig

h

So

urc

e: V

od

afo

ne 2

010

Su

stain

ab

ility R

ep

ort


10

For those who follow the Global Reporting Initiative issues mapping is essential.


One of the first questions asked in dialogues is ‘why are you doing it?’ The public want

to see that the use of a new technology is ‘worth it’. That there is a benefit to them or the

environment, and it is not just used to increate profit for the company; and they want to

see a much richer picture of that than a few paragraphs of sales patter. For example, how

it improves on what went before; that it has a social or environmental benefit; and that

the benefit doesn’t cause other problems. They want to see that a company has thought

through this rationale properly and not simply used technology for technology’s sake.

People basically trust products. But the more unusual a technology used, the more

transparency is felt to be appropriate, particularly if there are considered by other actors

to be uncertainties and even risks about the use of the technology. Nanotechnology, for

example, may have some controversial applications, so there is a growing expectation

that companies must be more open about the way in which it is used to enhance their

products, even about applications where there is no concern currently expressed about

hazards or uncertainties.

To try to understand what the public wanted to know from companies about their use of

science and technology we evaluated 14 major public dialogues in the UK and Europe, and

10 synthesis or analysis documents, particularly those conducted about nanotechnologies,

synthetic biology and stem cell research.

Our intent here was to help us consider what was fair and reasonable to ask of companies

to disclose to build public confidence in such products whilst also allowing an appropriate

balance of transparency and competitive advantage.

Outline findings are:

How do stakeholders expect companies to engage with society?

What the public wants to know about innovative technologies

• The public wants to know when a new technology is being used

• Tell me why it’s worth it? A much richer picture about benefit is needed


11

The public want to see that the use of a new technology is ‘worth it’.

But people know that things will go wrong sometimes and appear surprisingly pragmatic

about it. What they want to know is that companies have effective systems and processes

in place to ensure the products are safe enough; that they have thought carefully about

risks; and where there are issues for safe use that these are made clear to those who need

to know. When it does go wrong, they expect it to be clear who is liable and how it gets

put right. They also expect that the potential for harm be thought about in advance

and contingency plans made to respond effectively to problems which arise.

Information and communication from companies is important for reasons of

transparency and to provide information on specific products, but it is perceived to be

biased. Though there is a desire for direct communication between companies and the

public, people also know they do not necessarily have the time, the expertise or the

motivation to read the scientific papers or track the safety issues. They want reassurance

from independent and impartial sources about oversight of safety, veracity on claimed

benefits, robustness of liability regimes and provision of information. In many dialogues

the need for independent ‘technology assessment’ style bodies was raised and also the

importance of consumer groups or ngos emphasised.

Our Prezi presentation, with voice over which gives more detail about this project is

available here on YouTube and the report here on our website.


• What’s the system for managing risks?

• A desire for trustworthy and independent sources of reassurance

MATTER and UKSIF – the Sustainable Investment and Finance Association, held a meeting

on Responsible Innovation for investors on Tuesday 25th October 2011. The meeting

explored some of the issues associated with Responsible Innovation and innovative

technologies (particularly nanotech) and discussed investor views about the way

companies interact with them in this area. This was a snapshot in time, from 17 leading

Socially Responsible Investors and Rating Agencies, not a thorough research project, but

we felt it raised some interesting questions for companies.

Sacha Sadan, Director of Corporate Governance at Legal & General Investment

Management, who hosted the meeting, explained “We perceive a critical lack of ambition

in long term R&D and also a fear of talking about their ground-breaking research

from major companies – in terms of opportunity or risk. Investors need to ask more of

companies about the long term technological changes that could effect them and what

they are doing to combat/embrace these changes. We hope that companies respond

with a more open and strategic approach.”

What do investors want to know?


12

What they want to know is that companies have effective systems and processes in place to ensure the products are safe enough


The unanimous view among the attendees was that companies were surprisingly poor

at communicating about their innovation to their investors. The focus on short term

results and nervousness about speaking about their future activities, particularly, though

not exclusively involving new technologies, means that investors fail to get the strategic

overview they want, especially from the large companies. “I think they are scared to talk

about it, because they are worried we will react badly,” explained one. “But it could

provide the key to some of the future value for the company, so we really want to

know how these technologies can help them.”

Attendees at the meeting highlighted the following areas:

• Companies don’t communicate well about innovation.

In addition, they were unable to gauge the risks the companies were taking in this area, as

again companies failed to communicate about the systems of oversight they had in place

to manage and mitigate these risks. Another suggested “They all probably have it under

control, but we don’t know what they are doing, so can’t factor either confidence or

risk into our analysis.”

• …nor about how they are managing risk

The narrow focus of Investor Relations departments was seen as a particular barrier to this

type of communication, though the investors themselves admitted that they also didn’t

really know what questions to ask to enrich their analysis. Investor Relations departments

we later spoke to also explain that they don’t mention it because they never, ever get asked!

• But investors also don’t know the questions to ask

However a focus on incremental improvements and lack of ambition about innovation

may be the biggest problem holding companies back in terms of their own innovation

and growth. This poverty of aspiration, they felt, may also be limiting progress on finding

solutions to some of the most pressing problems we all face. These investors want to see

companies being more ambitious, more innovative and unafraid to communicate about

what they are doing.

• Lack of ambition is a real concern


However, MATTER also pointed out that investor attitudes to risk, focus on short-term

results and unwillingness to provide the enough of the right type of funding

for companies involved in new technologies have made a significant contribution to

this problem!

• Investors should share some of the blame!

13

“We perceive a critical lack of ambition in long term R&D and also a fear of talking about their ground-breaking research from major companies”



Again our funding did not permit an extensive research programme, but we held a

workshop to explore our ideas for this report with individuals from three key UK civil

society groups (Which? Greenpeace and ChemicalWatch) on December 5th 2011.

We have also kept in touch with many of the major campaigns and articles from NGOs

around Emerging Technologies in recent years, notably Friends of the Earth, ETC Group,

Practical Action, Greenpeace, Which?, Chemical Watch & As you Sow. Greenpeace and

Practical Action are also members of the MATTER Steering Group and we have listened

to their views via that process also.

This work seems to indicate that NGOs have similar concerns to the public and other

groups, though their positions can vary considerably and their focus has been more

specific. Areas of concern include:

The need for greater transparency about when and how new technologies are used

in consumer products

The need for better understanding and information about the health, safety and

environmental testing done by companies on their products prior to bringing them

to market.

Concerns about exactly how much information on HSE should be done and should be

disclosed before products can be safely brought to market

The need for restrictions or moratoria until the appropriate information is forthcoming.

What do Civil Society Groups want to know?

The main bone of contention appeared to be the nexus between research and

commercialisation. Companies are concerned about disclosing sensitive competitive

information in the research phase in particular. NGOs are concerned about about a

lack of information about risks and uncertainties.

Civil society groups were sympathetic in part to concerns about competitiveness

and considered that where research was undertaken in a closed process, in company

labs there was no particular need for information to be disclosed more widely –

though worker safety procedures were expected to be bespoke for the technology

(specific guidance available for nanomaterials for example). However this need for

transparency changed under certain circumstances:

• Where the public or the environment are exposed – through field trials, or open

testing outside the lab for example.

• Where public funds are used – when the recommendation is for the opening up of

concepts at a much earlier stage.

The nexus of research and commercialisation

Transparency in the Research phase of innovation

This work seems to indicate that NGOs have similar concerns to the public and other groups, though their positions can vary considerably and their focus has been more specific.

14



It was generally agreed that when research became a product to go on sale, this marks the

step change in the need for information. When products became available to the public

then stakeholders expected the following:

Usage – Openness about the use of a specific technology – eg nanomaterials enhancing

a product, food irradiation used as a process. This may be on a website and in a

social report or on packaging. Information on packaging was considered important

particularly where there is considered by wider society to be uncertainties about safety,

though it was acknowledged unlikely to happen without legislation. Stakeholders are

not united about the effectiveness or detail of what should be labelled and how.

• Where these developments are likely to have significant social, ethical or

environmental implications or impacts and on which the views of the public and other

stakeholders should reasonably be sought

• Where allowing research, trials or applications to go ahead would require a significant

change in, or likely have a significant influence on, public policy

The MATTER Stakeholder Participation Framework (see page7) also proposes that

co-creation and listening initiatives would be useful in the case of many applications

during the research phase. A distinction is made between these more discrete initiatives

and full transparency on websites or public fora. This would potentially allow concerns to

be raised and issues could be uncovered early enough to design out problems at source

or change the direction of research to respond to unforeseen issues

Transparency about innovative technologies in products for sale to the public

Handling - Ensuring quality information available on HSE to all constituents in the

supply chain from worker safety through to recycling.

Benefit - A richer picture of the use of the technology and its benefit over other

solutions

Uncertainty and risk - The most difficult area to resolve was the expectation of

transparency around uncertainties and risks. Issues raised at the meeting included:

• The importance of knowing what had not been tested for, but which may be material to

risk and the reasonableness of expectations of disclosure.

• The importance of communicating about HSE aspects throughout the lifecycle where

issues, perhaps of recycling or reuse, may remained uncertain

• The need for clarification on actual and potential risks of using or misusing products at

all points in the cycle of development, use and disposal.

• The potential for legal liability where uncertainties, though unlikely, were openly

acknowledged.

15

It was generally agreed that the point that research became a product to go on sale marks the step change in the need for information.



BASF Dialogueforum Nano

In addition we have drawn our conclusions using the findings of the BASF Dialogueforum

Nano, a project initiated by the German chemical company BASF and facilitated by the

independent Risk Dialogue Foundation in St Galen, Switzerland.

The Risk Dialogue Foundation brought together NGOs, unions and other key stakeholders

with relevant departments of BASF to co-create detailed guidance for companies and

NGOs about the appropriate information and transparency required along the product

lifecycle of nanomaterials.

This could be equally relevant for other innovative technologies and is a useful document.

• This led to a discussion about the potential for independent organisations, such as

Technology Assessment institutes, which could pose these questions and undertake

analysis on behalf of society in partnership with companies or separately on behalf of

the public.

• It was also agreed that retailers could play a powerful role here in specifying clarity on

such issues in advance of stocking products using new technologies.

As the link between products and the public, they can act as a catalyst for good

practice in others

They need to insist on good quality information for customer safety

..and insist on good quality information for their own risk management

They also need to weigh up innovative responses for their own stretch targets on

innovation, energy, waste etc

We discussed this with the British Retail Consortium Chemicals Working Group

(who had invited MATTER in to speak to them about ‘Responsible Innovation and the

Role of Retailers’). We construed from their answers that many of the leading companies

didn’t appear to shy away from this responsibility, however, it was clear that there were

some things getting in the way of them doing that as effectively as they might:

What do buying departments of retailers want to know?

Civil Society stakeholders (see previous section) feel that retailers have an unique

position in the supply chain and that as gatekeepers and often information providers

on behalf of the consumer they play an important role:

16

Civil Society stakeholders feel that retailers have an unique position in the supply chain



Retailers have policies on new technologies, nanotech was discussed in particular,

requesting companies to disclose how it is used in advance. But this rarely comes up,

except with sunscreens. Retailers don’t see any products using nanotech brought to

them. However, they don’t know where to go to find out if this is a matter of inadequate

disclosure, or just that nano is not much used in consumer products at the moment.

‘To be honest, we think there isn’t much nano out there, because if it was, someone

would have tried to sell it to us. We just don’t see it and from what we know about

nano, it looks more likely that it is not that it is being hidden, so much as not being

used. People seem to be being precautionary in this area.”

The difficulties of obtaining information on risks was also seen as a problem.

‘The public asks us some very unusual things and sometimes it is very hard to get

information to respond to them properly. When we can find it, most of it seems to be in

subscription only journals and often very difficult to translate for the public,’ explained

one. These retailers have thousands of products and thousands of ‘material issues’ of

concern to different types of stakeholder. They are not able to subscribe to all of the

arcane journals pertaining to all of their products or the ingredients contained in them.

Companies, trade associations and scientists need to communicate their findings better

to enrich the information available to enable effective purchasing decisions to be made.

Need for better quality information on technology usage

In anticipation of concern or risk to the public some retailers have undertaken their

own research with their customers and of the potential risks for use of nanotechnology

in products. Specific exclusions are then put in place – nano silver being the one

mentioned at the meeting. Nano silver is excluded by some, not for direct health and

safety reasons, but because of concerns about anti-bacterial resistance. Retailers ask for

better quality information from suppliers about the research they have done to ensure

product safety and to enable them to respond to any social or ethical implications their

customers may have.

All the retailers we spoke to appeal to manufacturers “Please don’t bring us pointless

products using a technology for the sake of it, which doesn’t bring a benefit and where

you clearly haven’t thought through the risks. But do use new technologies to solve

some of the big problems we all face in a way which offers real benefits and is safe to

use – we are desperate for those.”

Anticipating negative impacts - better information on safety research

Please don’t give us pointless products!

17

The difficulties of obtaining information on risks was also seen as a problem.


How can companies respond to communications expectations

Using the feedback from stakeholders we have identified some key areas where companies

can Communicate, Listen and Co-create with their stakeholders along the innovation

pathway. In addition, we have begun to explore where internal Cogitation can be used to

embed the participation of stakeholders into the innovation process.

Our approach has also been informed by our work developing The Responsible Nano Code

for business, a multi-stakeholder initiative to provide a framework for the responsible

use of nanotechnologies. We draw on its guidance documentation and a benchmarking

evaluation framework which was produced, but which was not subsequently made widely

available. Please email [email protected] if you would like to see this evaluation

framework.

To make this ‘user friendly’ for companies we have taken a function by function approach

to this, to explore with different departments in a company why they should engage at

what stages in the development process. We have tried to use generic terms for these

departments, but obviously companies structure their operations in different ways and

may call these functions by other names.

These functions are:

The Board and/or Board sub-Committee - dealing with Technology, Innovation

and/or CSR

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) - is often where responsibility for Responsible

Innovation and particularly stakeholder engagement strategy resides.

Research and Development (R&D) - the home of the company science and research,

including joint venture initiatives with external partners, suppliers and customers.

Health and Safety (HSE) - those in charge of oversight of all health, safety and

environmental processes throughout the lifecycle

Buying - particularly with retailers and product manufacturers, those who source

products, materials or ingredients.

Investor Relations - who facilitate the dialogue between senior management

and investors.

Communications and Marketing - those involved with the external engagement of

the company, particularly with customers, but also including the public, investors, civil

society groups and government.

How companies can respond to communications expectations?

18


Type Activity

Listen Consider wider ‘intelligence’ than simply competitive & market analysis in strategy development.

Are there social & ethical implications of your innovation or technology strategy,

what are stakeholder expectations/concerns which need to be incorporated into this strategy?

Cogitate/co-create Explore vision & implications of strategy with internal audiences

Communicate Senior management articulates commitments to RRI – eg internally, in investor & stakeholder

mtgs, annual reporting, social reporting, website

The Board/Tech Sub Committee

What different departments can do?

How companies can respond to stakeholder expectations


Here we outline some ways in which companies can respond to stakeholder expectations

department by department. The simplest way to view this is through our Prezi presentation

with voice-over on YouTube which is available here.

Below are a series of tables which give ideas for how companies can Cogitate, Listen,

Communicate and Co-create with stakeholders about their use of innovative technologies.

19

Type Activity

Cogitate How does your company approach science and technology innovation in terms of your CSR

agenda? How can you engage cross-departmental input?

Listen Are there social & ethical implications of your use of science & technology you need to know

about? How can you facilitate the participation of stakeholders and the public in issues and

solutions? What are stakeholder expectations and concerns? How can your organisation respond?

Co-create How can direct external stakeholder participation enhance your company use of

innovative technologies?

Communicate What needs to be made transparent and how does your company need to communicate in order to

demonstrate you responsible approach to innovative technologies? How will your website and your

social report reflect your approach?

Corporate Responsibility or strategy owner



20

Type Activity

Cogitate What new systems of HSE & oversight for workers, users & disposal, may be needed when a new

technology is used? How could external stakeholder input enhance your research? What information

may be needed up the supply chain?

Listen What social, ethical or environmental issues or concerns may arise from your new research pathways?

What are the expectations of company HSE performance and transparency in this new area?

Co-create What potential social, ethical, environmental concerns can be envisaged and can they be designed

out at source? How can appropriate systems of oversight be developed to alleviate stakeholder

concern (including insurance issues)?

Communicate What aspects is it responsible to communicate? EG: consider open source and voluntary reporting

aspects, transparency on toxicology to add to the body of evidence on safety.

What information is important to communicate about your research processes & findings

for customers & other stakeholders?

Research

Type Activity

Cogitate What new HSE systems for workers, users & the environment for may be required for this new area?

What may be the social, ethical or environmental issues associated with the development, use and

recycling of this new product?

Listen What social, ethical or environmental issues or concerns do stakeholders consider important arising

from these new products? How do they expect your organisation to respond? What are the

expectations of company HSE performance and transparency in this new area?

Co-create What kind of potential social, ethical, environmental concerns can be envisaged, can these be designed

out at source? How can appropriate systems of oversight be developed to deliver safe products and

alleviate stakeholder concern?

Communicate What is important to appear on Safety Data Sheets & technical information on materials/handling/

benefit & risk assessment systems & findings across the supply chain, including disposal?

(See detailed expectations for nanotechnologies in BASF report DialogueForum Nano).

What new training requirements are desirable? What is important to be disclosed in the public domain?

What is acceptable to disclose in response, what is essential to be kept confidential?

Health & safety



21

Type Activity

Cogitate What information is required from the supplier on materials/products/use/recycling and how this

may be obtained? What information should be made available to the user & for disposal/recycling?

What social, ethical and environmental implications are associated with the product and how this

may have an impact on your company? What is important and useful for your customers to know?

Listen What social, ethical or environmental issues or concerns do stakeholders consider important

arising from these new products or materials? How do they expect your organisation to respond?

What information do you need from others to comply?

Co-create How can your organisation work with suppliers and end customers to ensure that potential HSE

problems are designed out at source? How can you work together with stakeholders to respond to

HSE and social, ethical or environmental issues or uncertainties?

Communicate How can you effectively communicate your approach and the steps you have taken to ensure safety

and efficacy to customers and for disposal and recycling? How can you communicate and engage

around the social, ethical or environmental issues or uncertainties around the product, material or

process? How can you help the public connect with information they may need or want to know?

Buying

Type Activity

Cogitate What information do investors seek, or would be useful for them to know, about your innovation

research and your use of innovative technologies? What social, ethical or environmental issues may

arise which may be of concern to investors.

Listen What issues are other stakeholders concerned about in relation to your technology innovation which

investors may be concerned about? What information do investors want from you and how do they

want it?

Co-create Investors have said they need better quality information about your innovation, what might that

look like and how might you communicate that to enhance your reputation with investors and

without compromising competitiveness?

Communicate How can you communicate more effectively with investors about these areas through direct

one-to-one meetings, reporting or industry events, media?

Investor relations



22

Type Activity

Cogitate Consider with all departments what areas of innovation are importance to stakeholders and how the

company may respond through its website, marketing and communications programmes.

Listen What areas are stakeholders particularly concerned about and what is their expectation of your

communications and transparency in this area. Take a look here at MATTER’s evaluation of the public

dialogues undertaken in this area and public expectations of how companies should communicate

about their science and innovations.

Co-create Consider how stakeholders, competitors and trade associations may participate with your

organisation to develop good practice in transparency and communications.

Communicate How is your website, reporting and marketing best used to respond to expectations about

transparency and communication? How can stakeholders and the general public obtain information

and engage effectively with you? How can your website be opened up more effectively to

other parts of the company to communicate about their work in this area and involve society

more effectively?

Communications/Marketing


Next Steps for this project

Next steps for this project

MATTER will seek to take forward this work by stimulating companies to open up their

processes and Communicate, Listen, Co-create and Cogitate more effectively about their

science and technology innovation. We have four priorities, dependent on funding:

1. To Cogitate, Listen, Co-create and Communicate ourselves with businesses to

understand the barriers and concerns arising from this approach and to motivate and

inspire them to be more open.

2. To prepare a fresh, intuitive, interactive website for companies with fora, case studies

and further ideas to bring these ideas to life and showcase good practice in this area.

3. To prepare an analysis of company websites, and potentially social reports, to highlight

and incentivise good practice.

4. To develop an international award scheme, with other partners, to reward and showcase

good practice.

If you would like to participate in the MATTER Business Group to explore this work further

or contribute funding to further projects, please contact [email protected].

ENDS

The Building concept was created by the Together Agency and the report designed by

Tracey Gill.

Bibliography

1. Franco-British workshop on responsible innovation: From concepts to practice 23-24 May 2011

– various. obtainable through the internet http://www.ambafrance-uk.org/Videos-and-presentations-from-the, 19118

Our report wws

2. Von Schomberg (2011) ‘ Prospects for Technology Assessment in a framework of responsible research and innovation

‘ in: M. Dusseldorp and R. Beecroft (eds). Technikfolgen abschätzen lehren: Bildungspotenziale transdisziplinärer

Methoden,Wiesbaden: Vs Verlag, in print

3. Speeches various MATTER Emerging Technologies Governance Brainstorm Dec 2010 obtained through the internet

http://www.matterforall.org/events/

4. Matter report for the European Commission Responsible Research and Innovation. October 2011

http://www.matterforall.org/pdf/RRI-Report.pdf

5. Stephen B Johnson, Where good ideas come from, the natural history of innovation. Penguin books 2010.

6. Nano Risk Framework from DuPont and EDF Energy http://www.nanoriskframework.com/

7. BASF Dialogue Forumnano, an initiative with stakeholders to understand appropriate communications requirements

across the supply chain of products using nanotechnologies. http://www.risiko-dialog.ch/images/RD-Media/PDF/

Themen/Nanotechnologie/basf_dialogueforum_nano_2010_en.pdf

Bibliography from MATTER’s ‘What the Public wants to know‘ research project - below

23

The following sources were considered when preparing these observations:

1. BASF Dialogueforum Nano 2009/2010: Information and Transparency along the Product Life Cycle of Nanomaterials - Final

Report

http://www.basf.com/group/corporate/en/sustainability/dialogue/in-dialogue-with-politics/nanotechnology/stakeholder-

engagement

2. Nanotechnology & Food: FSA Citizen’s Forum; TNA-BMRB Report 2011

http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/publication/fsacfnanotechnologyfood.pdf

3. Stem Cell Public Dialogue - Stakeholder workshop

Report for the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research

Council and the Medical Research Council. Office for Public Management July 2007.

http://www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk/cms/stem-cell-dialogue-2/

4. Synthetic Biology Public Dialogue, BBSRC/EPSRC

http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/web/FILES/Reviews/synbio_summary-report.pdf

5. Synthetic Biology Dialogue - Evaluation Reports, Laura Grant Associates

http://www.lauragrantassociates.co.uk/ReportsAndResources.aspx

6. NanoDialogues, Experiments with Public Engagement with Science - DEMOS 2007

http://www.demos.co.uk/files/Nanodialogues%20-%20%20web.pdf?1240939425

7. Small Talk: Discussing Nanotechnologies Final Report. Melanie Smallman Adam Nieman November 2006.

http://www.smalltalk.org.uk/page41g.html

8. Nano Jury UK – Provisional Recommendations, Greenpeace 2005

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/media/reports/nano-jury-uk-prov...

9. Experiment Earth – Report on the Public Dialogue on Geoengineering, Ipsos Moris 2010.

http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/consult/geoengineering.asp

10. Nanologue - European Union Framework 6 Programme on the Social and Ethical Implications of Nanotechnologies.

http://www.nanologue.net/index.php?seite=4

11. Which Citizen’s Panel on Nanotechnologies – Opinion Leader 2008.

http://www.which.co.uk/about-which/press/press-releases/campaign-press-releases/consumer-markets/2

12. Nano & Me Consultation Analysis – Prepared by Hilary Sutcliffe and Craig Freer on behalf of the Responsible Nano Forum –

2009. Available on request from [email protected]

13. An Evidence Review of Public Attitudes to Emerging Food Technologies – Executive Summary, Brook Lyndhurst 2009.

http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/emergingfoodteches.pd..

14. Science & Trust Expert Group Report: Starting a National Conversation about Good Science, Department of Business, Innovation

& Skills, 2010.

http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/trust/2010/03/08/new-science-and-trust-expert-group-report-starting-a-

national-conversation-about-good-science/


Bibliography

24

15. Science & the Media Expert Group Report: Securing the Future, Department of Business, Innovation & Skills, 2010.

http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/media/2010/01/21/comment-on-the-final-report/

16. An uncertain business: the technical, social and commercial challenges presented by nanotechnology, an acona briefing paper

by Hilary Sutcliffe, Simon Hodgson 2006.

http://www.acona.co.uk/reports/Acona+-+Nano+Tech+-+reprint+4+29Mar07.pdf

17. Nanotechnology & Public Opinion by Dietram A.Scheufele pub by NanoWerk 2011

http://www.nanowerk.com/spotlight/spotid=19819.php?sms_ss=email&at_xt=4d49671cef2ee795,0

18. International Comparison of Public Dialogue on Science and Technology, Sciencewise Expert Resource Centre, 2010

http://www.sciencewise- erc.org.uk/cms/assets/Uploads/Publications/International-Comparison-of-Public-Dialogue.pdf

19. What the Public Say, Simon Burrell and Thea Shahrokh for the Sciencewise Expert Resource Centre, 2010.

http://www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk/cms/assets/Uploads/What-the-public-say-report-FINAL-v4.pdf

20. The Public Value of Science, Or how to ensure that science really matters; James Wilsdon, Brian Wynne, Jack Stilgoe;

Demos 2005

21. When it pays to ask the public; Richard Jones, Published in Nature Nanotechnology 2008.

http://www.nature.com/nnano/journal/v3/n10/full/nnano.2008.288.html

22. Dilemmas of public engagement with nanotechnology; Arie Rip (University of Twente) OECD Workshop on public engagement

with nanotechnology, Delft, 30 October 2008

23. Deepen Project - Reconfiguring Responsibility - Deepening Debate on Nanotechnology; a research report from FP7 Funded

Deepen project, Prof Phil McNaughten, Durham University and others

http://www.geography.dur.ac.uk/Projects/Portals/88/Publications/Reconfiguring%20Responsibility%20September%202009.pdf

ENDS


Bibliography

25

building confidence in innovative technologies … confidence in innovative technologies what’s...

Documents