Responsible Innovation in Energy Projects: Values in the Design of Technologies, Institutions and Stakeholder Interactions

  • Aad Correljé
  • Eefje Cuppen
  • Marloes Dignum
  • Udo Pesch
  • Behnam Taebi


Projects that deal with unconventional ways to produce, store, or transport energy often give rise to resistance by local communities. The value-laden basis of such resistance is often ignored by decision makers. This chapter operationalizes the concept of Responsible Innovation by using and adapting the approach of value sensitive design. This approach holds that the variety of stakeholders’ values might be taken as a point of departure for the (re)design of a technological system in such a way that divergent values can be accommodated. The scope of value sensitive design can be extended beyond the technology, however. Values are also embedded in the institutional context and in the processes of interaction between stakeholders. Hence, the prevention of controversies over conflicting values may be pursued by redesigning the institutional context, and by taking the dynamics of stakeholder interaction explicitly into account.


Value sensitive design Energy projects Stakeholder engagement Values Institutional design 



The work for this article has been funded by NWO (the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research) [grant number 313 99 007].


  1. Beierle, T.C., and D.M. Konisky. 2000. Values, conflict, and trust in participatory environmental planning. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 19: 587–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bell, D., T. Gray, and C. Haggett. 2005. The ‘social gap’ in wind farm siting decisions: Explanations and policy responses. Environmental Politics 14: 460–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Broekhans, B., A. Correljé, and J. Van Ast. 2010. Allemaal op de bok. Kijk op waterveiligheid, 123.Google Scholar
  4. Coase, R.H. 1960. The problem of social cost. Journal of Law and Economics 3: 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Commons, J.R. 1936. Institutional economics. The American Economic Review 26: 237–249.Google Scholar
  6. Correljé, A., and B. Broekhans. 2013. Floodrisk management in the Netherlands after the 1953 flood: A competition between the public value(s) of water. Journal of Flood Risk Management.Google Scholar
  7. Correlje, A.F., and J.P. Groenewegen. 2009. Public values in the energy sector: Economic perspectives. International Journal of Public Policy 4: 395–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Devine-Wright, P. 2012. Renewable energy and the public: From NIMBY to Participation: London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Eden, C. 1996. The stakeholder/collaborator strategy workshop. In Creating collaborative advantage, 44–56. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. Ellis, G., J. Barry, and C. Robinson. 2007. Many ways to say ‘no’, different ways to say ‘yes’: Applying Q-methodology to understand public acceptance of wind farm proposals. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 50: 517–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Feenstra, C., T. Mikunda, and Brunsting, S. 2012. What happened in Barendrecht?! Case study on the planned onshore carbon dioxide storage in Barendrecht, the Netherlands. Policy Studies, 2011, 2010.Google Scholar
  12. Friedman, B. and P.H. Kahn Jr. 2000. New directions: A value-sensitive design approach to augmented reality. In Proceedings of DARE 2000 on designing augmented reality environments, 163–164. New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  13. Friedman, B. and Peter H. Kahn Jr. 2000. New directions: A value-sensitive design approach to augmented reality. In Proceedings of DARE 2000 on designing augmented reality environments, 163–164. Elsinore, Denmark: ACM.Google Scholar
  14. Friedman, B. and P.H. Kahn Jr. 2002. Human values, ethics, and designed. The human-computer interaction handbook, 1177–1201. New Jersey: L. Erlbaum Associates Inc.Google Scholar
  15. Manders-Huits, N. 2011. What values in design? The challenge of incorporating moral values into design. Science and Engineering Ethics 17: 271–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nissenbaum, H. 2005. Values in technical design. In Encyclopedia of science, technology and society, ed. C. Mitcham. MacMillan: New York.Google Scholar
  17. Oudshoorn, N., A.R. Saetnan, and M. Lie. 2002. On gender and things: Reflections on an exhibition on gendered artifacts. Women’s Studies International Forum 25: 471–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Persson, M. 2012. Bodem-oorlog De Volkskrant, 7 January 2012.Google Scholar
  19. Roeser, S. 2011. Nuclear energy, risk, and emotions. Philosophy and Technology 24: 197–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Taebi, B., and J.L. Kloosterman. 2014. Design for values in nuclear technology. In Handbook of ethics, values, and technological design: Sources, Theory, Values and Application Domains, ed. J. Van den Hoven, P. Vermaas and I. Van de Poel. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  21. Taebi, B., A. Correljé, E. Cuppen, M. Dignum, and U. Pesch. 2014. Responsible innovation as an endorsement of public values: The need for interdisciplinary research. Journal of Responsible Innovation 1: 118–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Van De Poel, I.R. 2009a. De Oosterscheldekering. Een voorbeeld van waardenbewust ontwerpen. In De politiek der dingen, ed. F. Bolkestein, J.M. Van Den Hoven, I.R. Van Den Poel, and I. Oosterlaken, 63–78. Budel: Damon.Google Scholar
  23. Van De Poel, I.R. 2009b. Values in engineering design. In Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences, ed. A. Meijer, 973–1006. Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Van De Poel, I. 2014. Translating values into design requirements. In Philosophy and Engineering: Reflections on practice, principles and process, ed. D. Mitchfelder, N. Mccarty and D.E. Goldberg, 253–266. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. Van Den Hoven, J. 2005. Design for values and values for design. Information Age 4: 4–7.Google Scholar
  26. Van Den Hoven, J. 2007. ICT and value sensitive design. In The information society: Innovation, legitimacy, ethics and democracy in honor of Professor Jacques Berleur sj, ed. P. Goujon, S. Lavelle, P. Duquenoy, K. Kimppa and V. Laurent, 67–72. Boston: Springer.Google Scholar
  27. Van Den Hoven, J. 2008. Moral methodology and information technology. In The handbook of information and computer ethics, ed. K.E. Himma and H.T. Tavani, 49–68. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  28. Van Den Hoven, J., P. Vermaas, and I. Van de Poel. 2014. Handbook of ethics and values in technological design. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  29. Veenman, S., D. Liefferink, and B. Arts. 2009. A short history of Dutch forest policy: The ‘de-institutionalisation’of a policy arrangement. Forest Policy and Economics 11: 202–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Verbeek, P.P. 2006. Materializing morality design ethics and technological mediation. Science, Technology and Human Values 31: 361–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Walker, G., N. Cass, K. Burningham, and J. Barnett. 2010. Renewable energy and sociotechnical change: Imagined subjectivities of ‘the public’ and their implications. Environment and Planning A 42: 931–947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Walker, G., Devine-Wright, P., Barnett, J., Burningham, K., Cass, N., Devine-Wright, H., Speller, G., Barton, J., Evans, B. and Heath, Y. 2011. Symmetries, expectations, dynamics, and contexts: A framework for understanding public engagement with renewable energy projects. Renewable Energy and the Public. From NIMBY to Participation, 1–14.Google Scholar
  33. Winner, L. 1980. Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus 109: 121–136.Google Scholar
  34. Wolsink, M. 2000. Wind power and the NIMBY-myth: institutional capacity and the limited significance of public support. Renewable Energy 21: 49–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wolsink, M. 2006. Invalid theory impedes our understanding: A critique on the persistence of the language of NIMBY. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 31: 85–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wüstenhagen, R., M. Wolsink, and M.J. Bürer. 2007. Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept. Energy Policy 35: 2683–2691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wynne, B. 1992. Misunderstood misunderstanding: Social identities and public uptake of science. Public Understanding of Science 1: 281–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wynne, B. 1993. Public uptake of science: A case for institutional reflexivity. Public Understanding of Science 2: 321–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wynne, B. 2001. Creating public alienation: Expert cultures of risk and ethics on GMOs. Science as Culture 10: 445–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wynne, B. and Irwin, A. 1996. Misunderstanding science. The Public Reconstruction of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aad Correljé
    • 1
  • Eefje Cuppen
    • 1
  • Marloes Dignum
    • 1
  • Udo Pesch
    • 1
  • Behnam Taebi
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of Technology Policy and ManagementUniversity of Technology DelftDelftThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard UniversityCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations