Importance and Necessity of Stakeholder Engagement

Abstract

This chapter addresses the importance and necessity of stakeholder engagement for ethics governance. It starts with a more general look at stakeholder engagement and describes how a comprehensive definition of the otherwise commonly used catch-all term of stakeholders is important for successful stakeholder engagement. This is followed by a description of the ETHNA System’s stakeholder engagement strategy. A step-by-step approach serves as a guide for stakeholder engagement in responsible research and innovation (RRI) activities. This chapter offers guidance on how to find answers to the questions of who relevant stakeholders are, why they should be involved, what their contribution can be and how they can be involved in the most effective way. It also explains how to identify stakeholders’ values, needs and expectations using different tools. Finally, lessons learned from implementing the stakeholder engagement strategy are discussed to make the ETHNA System more useful to others. Specific guidelines on stakeholder engagement are used as a reference in this text.

1 Towards Input and Output Legitimacy

Engaging a broad range of stakeholders is widely recognized as crucial to responsible research and innovation (RRI) activities and good research governance. However, existing concepts of stakeholder engagement offer only limited guidance on who relevant stakeholders are, why they should be engaged, what they can contribute, and how they can best be involved [1]. In this chapter, we bring together the scattered structures and outline how higher education, funding, and research centers (HEFRCs) and other organizations can find answers to the questions of the “who”, “why”, “what” and “how” [1,2,3].

Given that the ETHNA System can only be successful in influencing the innovation process and ensuring that its outcomes are legitimate, effective, and efficient, and that the resulting innovations avoid harm and do good for society and the planet [1] input and output legitimacy must be ensured. Therefore, this chapter discusses how the ETHNA System facilitates an inclusive and transparent participatory RRI process through stakeholder engagement, reflecting and embracing the goals as well as the means and social acceptability of innovations [1,2,3].

As an internal management and procedural system for RRI, the ETHNA System introduces a new formal organizational structure. Considering that RRI has its origins in the risk assessment of scientific innovations, the European Commission (EC) describes RRI as “[…] an ongoing process of aligning research and innovation with society’s values, needs and expectations” [4]. In this context, socially useful, meaningful, or desired outcomes and effects should be the guiding principles of research and research funding. To enable societal actors and innovators to respond to each other in terms of the (ethical) acceptability, sustainability and societal desirability of the innovation process and its outcomes, RRI processes need to be as transparent and interactive as possible [1, 5]. The responsibility associated with research and innovation (R&I) is thus expressed in involving society and responding to its needs. Where fundamental ethical dimensions and questions of social acceptance are left out or considered too late in the research process, irresponsible innovation can be the result. Thus, involving relevant stakeholders in deliberative participation processes at an early stage guarantees that societal values, needs, and expectations are effectively identified, discussed, and considered.

Ethical governance towards RRI is implemented in the ETHNA System through multi-stakeholder governance in participatory processes (to learn more about the ETHNA System in general, see [6]). Participatory processes can be understood as an effective means to gather perspectives on complex issues, to share relevant research findings and/or to reach an agreement or build consensus in cases where polarized views and conflicts of interest exist [7]. This can build trust between science and society and promote social acceptance of R&I, especially publicly funded research [8]. Input and output legitimacy thus revolves around the actors who aim to “make the innovation process socially desirable” and contribute to the operationalization of the normative ideals of inclusion and social legitimacy in R&I [1, 5].

2 Dealing with a Catch-all Term

Stakeholder engagement research that draws on stakeholder theory typically focuses on the conceptual and theoretical development and organizational and societal benefits of stakeholder engagement. Kujala et al. argue that stakeholder engagement is a widely used but nevertheless unspecific concept, as far as a mutual understanding of the essential elements of stakeholder engagement is lacking [9]. Yet the importance of stakeholder engagement in activities such as those related to R&I, strategic planning and decision-making, knowledge creation, or progress monitoring to report on RRI, all of which play a significant role in the implementation of an ETHNA System, is undisputed. Inclusiveness, participation, and engagement of a wide range of stakeholders are also key to RRI according to empirical studies [1, 10,11,12,13].

However, diverging definitions of stakeholder engagement make the endeavor challenging. While the currently most prominent definition describes stakeholder engagement primarily as a morally neutral practice that an organization undertakes to involve stakeholders in organizational activities [9, 14], there are other definitions that either elaborate a stronger focus on the moral, strategic, or pragmatic components of stakeholder engagement. The ETHNA System places the moral component at the center of stakeholder engagement by addressing ethical principles to suggest stakeholder-oriented responses to strategic ethical challenges in organizational governance (see [6]).

These may include issues related to expectations of legitimacy, trust and fairness in stakeholder relationships and the organizational structures, as well as morally desirable outcomes regarding institutional change, such as improved space and communication channels for expression, participation and dialogue or better orientation and compliance with ethics regulations.

Braun and Starkbaum criticize in this context that stakeholders are used in most RRI discourses as a catch-all term for societal actors without making clear who they are, why their participation is important, and what exactly they might contribute to the R&I process. Thus, in practice, it is often not clear why one and not the other stakeholder is invited and for what purpose [1, 15]. Aspects which are specified in the ETHNA System by means of concrete guidance for organizations, considering their institutional needs [16,17,18].

Thus, in the development of an ethics governance system, the nuanced understanding of the moral component means a discussion about the organizational needs under the premise of philosophical foundations for stakeholder engagement, such as discourse ethical principles. Discourse ethics is made strong in the ETHNA System by highlighting criteria for reflection, participation, and dialogue between various stakeholders. This approach is a major step towards understanding stakeholders in their full complexity. Twelve stakeholder inclusion principles, considering this philosophical tradition, are incorporated into the ETHNA System to support organizations in the implementation process.

Although normative stakeholder theory plays a significant role in the ETHNA System, the pragmatic and strategic components of stakeholder engagement are also relevant. Descriptive stakeholder theory assumes that a variety of different stakeholders represent different values, needs and expectations, arguing that these different viewpoints on potential societal impacts of R&I should be incorporated into deliberative RRI activities. This is not least with the aim of building and sustaining relationships for organizational and societal change through context- and time-related collaborative activities. Instrumental stakeholder theory, on the other hand, places a strong focus on strategic organizational challenges to better achieve organizational goals. This approach receives great attention in relation to management and strategy, making purpose- and goal-oriented aspects particularly strong. Thus, strategic activities are based on improving benefits and reducing risks, to foster understanding of the importance of implementing an ETHNA System, ensuring commitment and higher levels of achievement.

Since, the moral, pragmatic, and strategic components, all play a role in the implementation of an ETHNA System, a comprehensive definition of stakeholder engagement that refers to the goals, activities, and effects of stakeholder relationships in a moral, strategic, and pragmatic way, deserves special appreciation [9].

3 Guiding the Implementation in Practice

To put stakeholder engagement on solid theoretical and methodological grounds, the ETHNA System provides three guidelines that help HEFRCs and other organizations in the engagement process [16,17,18].

Before starting to engage stakeholders, their topology needs to be identified and analyzed. To ensure a diversified group of stakeholders, Schütz et al. recommend the quadruple helix model (QHM), which is also followed in the ETHNA System. By grouping stakeholders in different sectors, greater diversity is ensured. Schütz’s four identified sectors are: science, policy, industry, and society [19] and are adapted for the ETHNA System project to the objectives and needs of HEFRCs as follows:

• Research, innovation, funder community,

• Policy makers,

• Business and industry, and

• Civil society.

Thereby, the stakeholder groups are not fixed but rather fluent and depending on the context. The same stakeholder might be a business representative in one case and a member of civil society in another. When identifying and mapping stakeholders, it is also important to not just analyze them by sector but also by interest and by location [20]. To systematically engage relevant stakeholders for RRI activities, the ETHNA System recommends the following six steps:

• 1. identify,

• 2. analyze,

• 3. map,

• 4. prioritize

• 5. select, and

• 6. recruit relevant actors [16].

The first step in systematic stakeholder engagement is to identify relevant stakeholders. Starting with a brainstorming session within the organization or institution, different techniques can be used to create a diverse list of actors. Relevant stakeholders can be identified by reviewing address books, engaging one’s own or the institution’s network, or by reviewing relevant literature. Conferences, workshops, forums etc. might also reveal stakeholders that are or have already been working on related topics or show interest in engaging with RRI issues. Once initial stakeholders have been identified, they can also be asked to recommend further potentially interested people or use their own networks and contacts. In collaborating with an ever-expanding group, the stakeholder list might grow fast. However, when adding stakeholders to the list, some guiding questions should be considered:

• Who might be affected by the RRI activity?

• Who deals with the respective issue of the RRI activity and who qualifies because of position or influence?

• Who are hidden, invisible or indirect stakeholders?

The compiled stakeholder list can be considered as a living document that can change over time. Of course, requirements can vary during the implementation process, so the list can grow by adding stakeholders with a new perspective, or by removing stakeholders from the list that no longer fit the requirements. Nevertheless, the stakeholders already identified must be analyzed to examine their role in the RRI activity. Therefore, the ETHNA System project created a template to analyze, e.g., the willingness or influence of certain stakeholders (see Table 1).

Table 1. Stakeholder analysis example

After analyzing stakeholders, they can additionally be mapped, e.g., to visualize their expertise in comparison to their willingness to participate in the RRI activity. This ensures that an adequate overall representation of the stakeholders is created and that they can participate in activities that best suit their knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values, as well as their needs and expectations and at the same time correspond to the interests of the RRI activity. The overarching goal is, on the one hand, to benefit from the diverse knowledge and expertise of stakeholders and, on the other, to keep stakeholders motivated and engaged and let them see the outcome and impact from their contribution. Guiding questions to consider while mapping stakeholders, are e.g.:

• Are the stakeholders well networked and well known in their respective fields?

• Are there personal or business-related connections that can be used or revived?

• Are the actors familiar with relevant topics, such as research integrity (RI), gender perspective, open access (OA), or public engagement?

• Will they contribute to the implementation of an ETHNA System in a positive way?

According to Moan et al. “an ethics of involvement concerns, not the question of who should be involved in RRI processes and why, but the question of how the persons involved should be involved” [21]. In this sense, stakeholders should be categorized in terms of collaboration, involvement, consultation, and information [22]. This step allows prioritizing stakeholders according to the level of their potential engagement (as shown in Table 2).

Table 2. Stakeholder participation template [16]

This refers to a bigger theoretical discussion which was elaborated in more detail in the PE2020 project [23]. In short, a distinction is made between one-dimensional forms of public engagement, namely public communication, public consultation and public activism, and two-dimensional forms, public participation, and public deliberation. In one-dimensional communication, stakeholders are mainly educated and informed, while there is no mechanism for feedback. In a two-dimensional dialogue “the exchange is accompanied by a debate in which knowledge can be acquired and applied at the same time” [23]. With the latter approach, reflection and responsiveness are ensured and different perspectives are considered. Therefore, in areas where stakeholders are directly affected by the research, deliberative methods are recommended. This is firstly, to get the most out of the process so that the RRI activity can be successful, and secondly, to ensure that all stakeholders have a say and benefit from the process as much as the project or organization does. According to Rask et al. “there has been a shift of PE [public engagement] from traditional models of public communication and consultation, where dialogue between decision makers and the public is narrow and restricted, to public deliberation where such dialogue is intensive and influential” [24].

After stakeholders have been identified, analyzed, mapped, and prioritized, the next step is stakeholder selection and recruitment. All the information gathered in the previous steps can be summarized in a stakeholder list with columns on stakeholder group, contact details, level of involvement, link to relevant topics, such as research integrity, gender perspective, open access and public engagement. As mentioned before, this stakeholder list should be a living document that can be assessed regularly [25] and evolve over the course of the RRI activity [20]. Finally, the relevant stakeholders are contacted to engage them in the activity. This should be done by being as specific as possible, e.g., about the aims and expectations, the roles of the stakeholders, the impact their engagement can have, or the benefits of their participation.

Once stakeholders have been mapped and a stakeholder list has been compiled¹, it is necessary to involve them in the implementation process. For that purpose, the ETHNA System recommends twelve principles for deliberative participation that allow involving relevant stakeholders as effectively as possible and with consideration of fundamental ethical values²:

• 1. Intentions and expectations need to be clear right from the beginning. This means starting as early as possible to specify the RRI activity and share information with stakeholders. Also, the extent to which stakeholders might have an impact on outcomes must be clarified. In this way, the first step towards a culture of openness, transparency, and participation is promoted.

• 2. Sufficient resources in terms of time, skills, and funding for the engagement processes must be ensured. For this purpose, systematic planning and budgeting is important.

• 3. Persons and institutions must be mapped alike. Stakeholders can be either individuals or groups that might affect or be affected by the ethical governance system.

• 4. Diversity must be embraced so that stakeholders representing different interests and groups contribute a wide range of perspectives.

• 5. Directly and indirectly affected stakeholders should be part of the RRI activity.

• 6. Values, needs, expectations, interests, and concerns of stakeholders from the research, innovation and funding community, business and industry, politics and civil society should be covered and as many perspectives as possible should be included.

• 7. Local factors must be considered, and it should be reflected in whether the identified stakeholder is a national or international actor. E.g., a city, region, country, neighboring country, or international context can be assigned to them.

• 8. Different stakeholder groups, RRI key areas, levels of engagement or process dimensions for RRI should be spanned. This reveals answers to the questions of the “who”, “why”, “what”, and “how”.

• 9. Supporting stakeholders in engaging in a discourse is crucial. Collaboration, networking, broader participation, and co-operation in relation to engagement with RRI should be encouraged.

• 10. Engagement methods and techniques that are appropriate to the aims of the RRI activity should be employed and a variety of deliberative engagement techniques should be demonstrated to prevent stakeholder fatigue. To respond to different participants, the topics addressed should be oriented towards their knowledge, experience, skills, and controversy.

• 11. The six steps of the systematic stakeholder engagement process should be evaluated.

• 12. Academic freedom must be protected in the RRI activity, which is valuable and even a fundamental right in some communities.

By following these twelve principles and the six steps for systematic stakeholder engagement, the complex process of stakeholder engagement can be systematized and made easier to manage. To this end, organizations are encouraged to address the questions of the “who”, “why” “what” and “how” as a means of maximizing the effectiveness of engaging stakeholders. These aspects were tested and applied by implementing organizations during the ETHNA System project’s lifetime, reportedly leading to success stories and challenges discussed in the next section of this chapter.

When striving to align research with society’s values, needs and expectations, and following the European Commission RRI definition [4], it is important to know what society’s needs are. These can be determined in diverse ways. As a survey among a variety of European networks conducted during the project showed, and many other actors – research funding organizations (RFOs), political institutions and researchers – confirmed, research performing organizations (RPOs) themselves are responsible for responding “to societal needs when promoting R&I” [16]. Six pressing societal needs to which R&I might respond, emerged from the abovementioned survey in combination with a secondary desk research:

• 1. Sustainability/protecting land and oceans

• 2. Data Protection/privacy/protection of human rights

• 3. New Technologies/AI/robotics

• 4. Health (including mental health and well-being)

• 5. Food/farming

• 6. (Drinking) Water

To keep these needs in mind, compare or even expand them by incorporating stakeholder perspectives, the ETHNA System recommends HEFRCs and other organizations to use the following three techniques and resources:

• Eurobarometer

• Funding programs and calls

• Foresight approaches.

Eurobarometer surveys are long-term series of public opinion polls on a variety of subjects [17]. Insights into current trends and developments can be gained as the expectations of civil society of the European Union´s (EU) policies are gathered (https://www.europarl.europa.eu/at-your-service/en/be-heard/eurobarometer).

Moreover, it is possible to access the results and actively participate in improving them further. Another option is to review calls and projects that have recently been funded, e.g., by Horizon Europe, as the topics they deal with are most likely to respond to or at least reflect societal needs. A third method can be foresight approaches. They are “a systematic, participatory process for gathering knowledge about the future and creating visions” [16]. Again, it is possible to either visit the European Foresight Platform (http://foresight-platform.eu/) or to conduct one’s own foresight exercise with relevant stakeholders. How this can be done is explained in detail in the ETHNA System guide “Gauging the potential societal contributions of research and innovation” [17].

The stakeholder engagement strategy in the ETHNA System project can be resumed as follows: “Involving wider populations in participatory events offers opportunities to define recommendations for R&I. By considering different options for complex issues, better informed decisions can be made” [18]. It is also important to involve various stakeholders, experts and (international) networks to gather insights on the best ways to keep on track with (changing) societal needs and how to assess and address them.

4 Practical Advice and Lessons Learned

4.1 Addressing the Pitfalls

Publishing not only positive, but also negative results is at the heart of the scientific enterprise. However, the focus is on positive results, which is unfortunate as this means that a lot of highly useful information does not reach the public. Also, regarding the issue of stakeholder engagement, there is an overwhelmingly positive attitude towards the stakeholder engagement approach, with the result that the “dark side of stakeholder engagement” is overlooked [9]. This is evident through extensive literature on the goals and expectations on the organizational and stakeholder sides. Problematic aspects of engagement, on the other hand, are addressed by only a few authors.

As it is essential for RRI to ensure that resources are used as productively as possible and to learn from those who have already undertaken a similar path, the ETHNA System project shares experiences from the implementation process. This chapter presents several RRI activities where stakeholder engagement is embedded in the implementation of the ETHNA System and discusses the challenges and difficulties encountered in this process. This provides a better understanding of the challenges and lessons learned from the implementation process of the different organizations and institutions and helps future implementers of the ETHNA System to harmonize RRI activities and to identify and keep an eye on potential pitfalls early on. This should provide opportunities to address, e.g., challenges with prominent levels of participation and stakeholder fatigue, resistance from different stakeholders, lack of time, or the difficulty in bringing external stakeholders on board.

4.2 Stakeholder Engagement Experiences from the Implementing Process

The ETHNA System, “a system of ethical governance promoting RRI in organizations, thereby encouraging them to consider the consequences of their activities and incorporate society’s expectations into their work” [29] was implemented by six different organizations:

• UJI (University Jaume I), Spain, Higher Education

• NTNU (Norwegian University of Science and Technology), Norway, Higher Education

• ARC Fund (Applied Research and Communications Fund), Bulgaria, Research Centre

• Harno (Education and Youth Board of Estonia), Estonia, with competences as Research funding Organization

• UNINOVA-CTS (Instituto de Desenvolvimento de Novas Tecnologias – Center of Technology and Systems), Portugal, Innovation Ecosystem

• ESPAITEC (Parc Científic Tecnològic i Empresarial), Spain, Innovation Ecosystem

All implementing partners conducted participatory deliberative activities such as workshops, interviews or focus groups to engage with relevant stakeholders. Thereby, they were guided by three documents on stakeholder engagement: stakeholder mapping [16], potential societal contributions of research and innovation [17] and stakeholder involvement [18], developed during the ETHNA System project. These guides systematized the stakeholder engagement process and provided support on how to conduct workshops, use deliberative methods and keep track of societal needs. While implementing the stakeholder guidelines, organizations used different methods and had various experiences, outlined in more detail in the respective project outcomes [30, 31].

Considering diverse institutional needs, all HEFRCs implemented various aspects of the ETHNA System according to its building block system [29]. However, all appointed an RRI officer [30, 31], responsible for the implementation of the ETHNA System, develops the action plan and communicates it with the institution’s internal stakeholders as well as with external actors. This step serves as the foundation block of the implementation [29].

In general, there are strong similarities in the reports of stakeholder engagement experiences despite the differences between the implementing organizations, e.g., in terms of type of the institution, size and corresponding capacities and resources, location and prevailing research landscape, or the institutional regulations already in place, potentially facilitating the implementation of an ETHNA System. However, it is striking that the experiences of engagement at the internal and external levels are perceived very differently.

Whereas the engagement of internal stakeholders is largely described as positive, implementers’ reports on the involvement of external stakeholders are rather poor. Challenges were more apparent on the external level than on the internal, with difficulties in recruiting and actively involving external stakeholders, especially regarding smaller companies and start-ups, being mentioned by almost all implementing organizations. Specifically, ESPAITEC found the involvement of external stakeholders to be a barrier due to existing time and resource constraints [30]. Planning the participation process in terms of available time and resources can be a major task. However, if relevant stakeholders have been identified and are willing to engage, the use of deliberative methods that match their interests can turn the endeavor into a success [18]. Many deliberative techniques can be used to prevent stakeholder fatigue [28]. Harno, in turn, has conducted various RRI activities with internal and external stakeholders, such as interviews and workshops [30], and found that not being able to have the first meeting face-to-face, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, proves to be a barrier to further engagement. Introducing an ethics governance system that provides new tools, such as an ethical code, an ethics committee, or an ethics hotline, could only be sketched out in web conferences. A face-to-face exchange, on the other hand, is seen as a more effective way to bring the ETHNA System closer to stakeholders and to clarify open questions or stimulate an open discourse. Face-to-face encounters are more likely to build, maintain or renew trusting relationships and networks than online meetings. Technology might be an obstacle to addressing difficult topics and expressing one’s own perspective, or even concerns. Of course, non-verbal communication can also play a key role in this regard.

Interesting enough, feedback from implementing organizations differs from the reported experiences of internal and external stakeholders themselves. Internal stakeholders involved in RRI activities gave feedback that the process inspired them to develop further RRI key plans and make a stronger commitment to ethical governance. One stakeholder stated that this experience would lead to better implementation in the future [30]. External stakeholders’ impressions of their involvement were also positive. They considered both the ETHNA System and their involvement in the implementation process as an insightful experience from which they could learn [30]. Stakeholders, whether internal or external, once involved in the engagement process, perceive their engagement in a positive way. Thus, the challenges that implementing organizations face in stakeholder engagement differ from the perceptions of stakeholders who are involved in the process or might refer to activities that take place in the systematic six-step engagement phase (as described in the previous section), in which stakeholders are not themselves involved. Thus, stakeholder engagement cannot be assessed as a high-barrier process overall.

From the perspective of implementing organizations, the involvement of external stakeholders, e.g., in UNINOVA, is seen as a significant contribution to a more effective implementation process, although it is important to recognize that their involvement is not self-evident but must be considered a process that needs to be carefully planned and conducted. This includes highlighting the benefits of participation and what stakeholders can gain from their willingness to participate. ARC Fund notes in this regard, that internal stakeholders were very busy and faced time constraints but at the same time were very interested in sharing their ideas, suggestions, concerns, and perspectives on potential impacts and issues that might arise in the implementation of an ETHNA System - especially if there is no established process or forum yet for expressing their thoughts. ARC Fund concludes that engagement is a two-way process, where something must be offered to receive something.

To dive deeper into the stakeholder perspective and learn from their feedback on the engagement process they were involved in workshops conducted by the Danish Board of Technology (DBT) [30, 31].

4.3 Reluctance from the Top Management

This chapter already discussed the role of strategic stakeholder engagement in the ETHNA System project. In that regard, implementing organizations mentioned, e.g., reluctance from the top management as a major problem. UJI reports that the involvement of the top management is crucial for compliance and sustainable implementation. Therefore, everyone in the organization must be on board and willing to commit to the ETHNA System [30]. Top management support would mean, among other things, that the organization’s management understands the importance of implementing an ETHNA System and is personally committed to it. This would promote an environment in which the ETHNA System, even in existing hierarchical structures, is recognized and appreciated, so that higher levels of achievement can be realized. The support of the top management is thus a factor for strategic implementation that would help to drive the direction and sustain the project by creating the appropriate RRI culture which promotes openness, transparency, and participation. This support is a factor that implementing organizations cannot easily control themselves. However, the fact that the implementation process of the ETHNA System includes deliberative processes with relevant stakeholders indicates that also interactions with the top management should adopt this format. It is not enough to reject a specific argument only because of a powerful position in management. According to the discourse ethical tradition, arguments are requested, expressed with respect, heard by others, and further discussed.

4.4 Reluctance from Early-Career Researchers

Yet, it is not only top-down reluctance that can hinder implementation and pose a major challenge. Reluctance of early-career researchers can also leave implementers puzzled. While it may be assumed that it is senior researchers who want to stick to established structures, the experience of the implementing organizations shows that it is earlier-career researchers who are not willing to implement an ethics governance system. Have experienced researchers already identified gaps in existing structures or begun to see the need for improvement? Either way, it is important to have stakeholders from all career levels on board. Early-career researchers represent the future of the scientific community and are the ones who will pioneer the next set of research innovations. In fact, early career researchers are the ones who will be the next generation of leaders in senior positions and form the top management of the organization. Among them are new talents with valuable knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values for implementing and sustaining an ETHNA System, so their concerns should be considered in a respectful forum, and it should be strived for finding common ground.

4.5 Conflicting Interests

The fact that some ethical recommendations of the ETHNA System might not be in line with already existing organizational procedures is a particularly delicate issue and precedes the two previous barriers. This is because when there are conflicts of interest, they get in the way of the implementation process and may also prevent the engagement of stakeholders from whatever career stage. Establishing a set of basic principles and standards to be used as a practical framework for managing and resolving conflicts of interest in accordance with best practices might be valuable. Such elements might, e.g., be included in the Code of Ethics and Good Practice, to help identify and manage issues that (repeatedly) lead to conflicts.

Thanks to the flexible structure of the ETHNA System, institutions can pick certain aspects from the toolbox and start building their own ethics governance system [29]. As in the case of NTNU, it made more sense, especially regarding efficiency and effectiveness, to build on, adapt and reassemble already existing structures [30, 31]. It is important to remember that changes should be approached cautiously. Asking for too much at once may scare off relevant stakeholders by overwhelming them. If everyone speaks their mind during the implementation and articulates their needs and expectations, the results might be mutually beneficial and reveal insights that were not expected.

4.6 Reluctance to Adopt Ethical Principles

An important fact that implementers have learned from the engagement process is that the assumption that stakeholders are willing to adopt ethical principles is a false one [30]. The reason for existing reluctance could be that the idea of implementing an ethics governance system is accompanied by concerns about more work, more responsibility, more paperwork and so on. Even if it is a less pleasant insight, that stakeholders are rather reluctant to establish and adhere to ethical principles, it is important that they can express their concerns and worries. Therefore, it is crucial to establish an atmosphere of trust between the institution and stakeholders. In that way, they can be encouraged to exchange ideas and debates on various viewpoints and express their concerns. The ideal typical criteria for stakeholder dialogue developed during the project “can help to ensure that all stakeholders who might be affected by the RRI activity […] can accept the R&I process in a rational discourse” [16]. Besides the inclusion of all relevant stakeholders and the creation of a comfortable atmosphere, it is important to empower communication by involving “hidden”, “indirect”, and “invisible” stakeholders and keep in mind that minority groups are often ignored in participative approaches like these. It must be ensured that all stakeholders are heard right from the beginning and that communication is open and transparent. Therefore, a non-hierarchical dialogue can help to assess and address the reasons for hesitance in adapting ethical principles.

4.7 Lack of Awareness of Existing Regulations

Another hurdle, which follows on from the one mentioned above, is the lack of awareness and dissemination of ethical codes and other relevant regulations on an institutional level. A survey of various international networks shows that a code of ethics is key to greater accountability for R&I [17]. Accordingly, such documents provide a suitable framework for self-regulation in scientific and academic disciplines and for research environments facing new challenges. They are therefore a useful tool to support researchers and research institutions in conducting research at the highest level and help prevent misconduct by promoting best practices in R&I and providing practical guidance to the research community [17]. When developing a Code of Ethics and Good Practice, it is advised to involve stakeholders, e.g., in deliberative workshops or reviews of drafts, to include their views and make the documents useful for them.

5 Ways Ahead

By naming and acknowledging not only success stories but also challenges in participatory stakeholder activities, the first step has been taken to support those interested in implementing an ETHNA System and addressing RRI issues through systematic and well-planned stakeholder engagement [17, 18]. Taking seriously the difficulties experienced by any kind of stakeholder, be they internal or external, further steps can be taken to strengthen the awareness of importance and promotion of the implementation of responsible governance. In particular, the following actions are recommended:

• Training early-career researchers on RRI issues. In this regard the guidelines on potential societal contributions of research and innovation and stakeholder involvement in ethical governance of R&I can be of relevance.

• Awareness-raising on institutional documents through training and workshops. Here the guidelines on potential societal contributions of research and innovation, especially the part on the role of the Code of Ethics and Good Practice and how to communicate its contents in interactive workshops and other formats can help.

Conducting regular training programs and motivating stakeholders at all career levels to engage points to the issue of sustainability, which is of major relevance to projects such as the ETHNA System. The fact that implementing organizations report positively on the widening of their networks, initiated by the stakeholder engagement activities, especially the six steps of systematic stakeholder engagement, is deemed a success. As far as the sustainability and long-term implementation of the ETHNA System is concerned, the implementing organizations assume three main factors, all of which require the continuous involvement of relevant stakeholders. Firstly, a strong focus on communicating the content is needed, e.g., through training and other stakeholder activities, especially for early career researchers. In addition, in-depth knowledge of the organizational setting in which the ETHNA System is to be implemented is necessary, i.e., existing structures and conditions, values, needs and expectations of those directly or indirectly affected by the implementation, and the broader research environment. Finally, continuous updates and adjustments, particularly by incorporating feedback from implementers, are crucial to making stakeholder engagement a success [30].