Governance of new product development and perceptions of responsible innovation in the financial sector: insights from an ethnographic case study (original) (raw)

Towards a practical approach to responsible innovation in finance

Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance, 2012

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to highlight the potentials offered by New Product Committees for the development of responsible innovation in the financial services industry; and to provide grounds for policy recommendations.Design/methodology/approachThe paper takes the form of collective, interdisciplinary reflection and experience within the industry.FindingsNew Product Committees can serve a practical approach to responsible innovation in finance.Originality/valueThe paper fills a gap in the empirical consideration of New Product Committees in the financial services industry and proposes original directions for policy orientations within organizations and at a regulatory level.

Responsible Financial Innovation in Banks: Committees of New Products

Visión de Futuro, 2015

Organizations adapt to the environment using new management tools as part of the evolution process. Additionally, if complexity is incorporated, the theory helps to understand behaviour of agents within an organization. This paper analyses the notions of governance and corporate social responsibility, which are articulated in the new European concept of responsible innovation. This work is particularly interested in studying this problem in the banking sector, raising the notion of responsible financial innovation. One of the proposals in this new framework is called New Products Committee. This structure ensures that the innovative processes in the bank is responsible and are developed for and with society.

Understanding and Managing Responsible Innovation

Philosophy of Management, 2020

As a relational concept, responsible innovation can be made more tangible by asking innovation of what and responsibility of whom for what? Arranging the scattered field of responsible innovation comprehensively, starting from an anthropological point of view, into five fields of tension and five categories of spearheads, may be theoretically and practically helpful while offering suggestions for both research and management. Keywords Responsible innovation. Innovation themes. Moral aspects of innovation. Spearheads of innovation theory and practice-Quidquid agis, prudenter agas et respice finem

Voice from the Beehive: structuring and recording responsible innovation for novel technologies

Journal of Responsible Innovation, 2024

Societal trust in research and innovation is predicated on factors such as governance, safety, and responsible development. These are often thought of as regulatory matters, but regulation may be ill-adapted for many novel technologies. Anticipatory governance, potentially in the form of responsible innovation (RI), can help to provide this adaptivity and granularity. However, RI remains new to many fields, and can be difficult to apply. This paper analyses the literature to identify challenges for RI and lessons from other domain frameworks, synthesising this with empirical evidence to develop a Framework. The Beehive Framework is a straightforward to use, translatable scaffold, with accompanying guidance for mapping and recording RI within projects of various scales and types. Its iterative process model approach to RI contains elements of project management methodology, and captures information gathered during the processes of RI. It records these processes for further iteration, and comparison between projects.

Navigating responsible innovation

Journal of Responsible Innovation, 2016

Welcome, reader, to the third volume of the Journal of Responsible Innovation. As the new Editor-in-Chief, it is a remarkable time to be taking on this role. With efforts proliferating locally, nationally, and internationally to make good on coreif still contested concepts associated with responsible innovation, the academic community is in a position not only to debate but also to influence their development and application. To that end, and as promised in its inaugural editorial, the Journal of Responsible Innovation has during its first two years provided a platform for this community to articulate and discuss many of the pressing questions surrounding responsible innovation (Guston et al. 2014). Constructing this platform, however, has required dedication and hard work on the part of the journal's authors, its reviewers, and its editorial staff. Above all, foundingand now emeritus-Editor-in-Chief, David H. Guston, deserves recognition for his tireless work in charting a stable and productive course for the journal. Happily, Guston will remain engaged in efforts aimed at responsible innovation, especially as he sees into its second year a major university undertaking in that area (see International Innovation 2015). Of course, responsible innovation holds implications not only for how universities operate and are structured, but also for actors and institutions within industry, civil society, and public policy. As readers of this journal will know, national and regional funding organizations, councils, commissions, committees, and even legislatures have recommended and prescribed activities for responsible innovation (Fisher et al.

Financial innovation and its governance: Cases of two major innovations in the financial sector

Financial Innovation, 2017

The power of financial innovations to affect societies on global and intergenerational levels compels us to ask how we can ensure their responsible emergence in society. This requires an understanding of how innovation occurs and how it is governed in practice. Despite this, there is little research on the process and governance of financial innovation. The few studies conducted in this area have focused on the 'backend' of the innovation process. Therefore, using data from secondary sources, this study investigates how two major financial innovations occurred and were governed, and it discusses the findings in relation to those in the literature. This approach revealed that innovation processes fall within a continuum ranging from structured to unstructured. Moreover, lead times are potentially longer for innovations that are significantly disruptive, new to the market, and technological in nature. Finally, innovation processes can involve multiple stakeholders who use both statutory regulation and self-regulation for innovation governance. This paper concludes that innovation processes and their governance can vary significantly according to different areas of the financial landscape and associated innovation contexts. Thus, there is a need for more empirical work to understand such variability and practices in the sector as a whole.