More than 300 foreign fishing ships, almost all Chinese, have been sitting in international waters surrounding the Galapagos Islands since late July. The islands, nearly 1,000 km from the coast of Ecuador, are best-known for their unique wildlife.
As these vessels are in international waters, their presence is technically lawful. They are reportedly fishing for squid and have been coming to this location for four years. However, the ecological reality is that fish do not recognise state boundaries and therefore fishing at this scale so close to the Galapagos Marine Reserve implies a serious risk for endangered, migratory species found within the protected area such as whale sharks and hammerhead sharks.
The news has led to an outcry in Galapagos. Locals there still clearly remember the 2017 capture of a Chinese fishing ship that was found inside the marine reserve with thousands of sharks onboard, including endangered species.
Back then, I was working at the Charles Darwin Research Station on the Galapagos Islands. I’ve since moved into academia, where I research the laws around marine protection. Based on my work in the area, I think strengthening the region’s existing legal frameworks could be a solution.
This latest incident is a stark reminder of the incongruous nature of the law of the sea, which recognises that the ocean is an interrelated whole yet takes a zonal approach to regulation that results in a mismatch between law and natural ecosystems. International waters, or the “high seas”, make up 61% of the ocean but a fragmented legal framework allows only weak regulation of human activities.
Overfishing is one of the key drivers of biodiversity loss in the oceans. With no overarching legal framework in place for designating marine protected areas on the high seas, just 1% of international waters are protected.
These failings prompted the international community to begin negotiations in September 2018 to create a new legal instrument governing the conservation and sustainable use of marine life on the high seas. This is a promising development, though its scope is limited to four specific issues, one of which deals with creating specially protected area
However it is still not clear whether high seas fishing, currently managed on a regional basis by organisations of relevant countries, will be included in the negotiations. Furthermore, the final round of talks has been postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. For cases such as the Galapagos, it may be more practical to simply strengthen existing regional cooperation and ocean governance.
An existing framework
Ecuador is a member of the United Nations Regional Seas Programme for the South East Pacific. This deals with protection of the seas around the member states in this region, but in the adjacent high seas it has only a narrow mandate restricted to pollution. However it is looking to expand its interests in the high seas where it currently has no authority to create protected areas.
The Regional Seas Program has a lot of support as a coordinating mechanism. For example, it has signed agreements with regional fisheries management organisations, which have the power to establish temporary fishing closures in the high seas. Given that fishing is a key socio-economic activity in the region, this type of cooperation between an environmental protection agency and fisheries management bodies is an important step in the right direction. However, empowering this body with a mandate to establish its own protected areas would be a better way to protect a wider spectrum of marine life.
Given the lack of a strong ocean governance regime in the region, four states decided to come up with their own solution to better protect their surrounding waters. Back in 2004, Ecuador along with Costa Rica, Panama and Colombia established the Eastern Tropical Pacific Marine Corridor (CMAR). The overall goal of CMAR is to jointly conserve the rich marine biodiversity in this region, with Galapagos and other marine reserves eventually forming the first transboundary network of marine protected areas in Latin America.
The ‘marine corridor’ links Galapagos and other islands in the Eastern Pacific.CMAR
The proposed map of the marine corridor includes the high seas between the Galapagos Islands and Ecuador mainland. However without a legal framework for protected areas on the high seas, the eventual corridor will only be able to encompass areas within the jurisdiction of the participating states. There are still significant legal barriers, even when the political will is there.
The CMAR marine corridor is within an area of immense ecological value, recently listed as a “hope spot” which are special places deemed critical to the health of the ocean. As a political initiative, it offers the possibility of harmonising the region’s marine law. Public outrage over fishing near the Galapagos may propel states to finalise the marine corridor and perhaps drive increased cooperation in the region.
A coherent regional position with regard to common threats such as overfishing would carry more weight at the international level. This could make a big difference diplomatically, especially when dealing with large fishing fleets flying the flag of a global superpower.
Oceans and Human Health (OHH) is a meta-discipline exploring the complex and inextricable links between the health of the ocean and that of humans. It is our vision that OHH will be recognized as a core component of the Planetary Health concept, with OHH awareness spreading through all relevant field sand communities. This will help build the required OHH research capacity to understand the links between ocean health and human health, in order to optimize the outcomes for both.
This Strategic Research Agenda (SRA) presents the necessary OHH research that will enable fundamental questions to be answered, evidence to be provided to policy, and OHH literacy to be increased in Europe and beyond.
This SRA focuses on three main target action areas (see Figure 1): Sustainable seafood and healthy people; Blue spaces, tourism and well-being; and Marine biodiversity, biotechnology and medicine. It also outlines policy, relevant research needs, public and stakeholder attitudes, and capacity and training requirements in relation to these three areas, as well as OHH more generally. We believe that an initial focus on these three key topics will cement OHH as a metadiscipline in Europe.
Sustainable seafood and healthy people: Our vision for food from the oceans is for fish and seafood to be healthy, nutritious, safe and accessible to all, while ensuring sustainability of fisheries and aquaculture.
Blue spaces, tourism and well-being: Our vision is for improved individual and community physical and mental health and well-being through enhanced interactions with healthy blue spaces that are sustainably managed.
Marine biodiversity, medicine and biotechnology: Our vision is a more targeted approach to explore, identify and obtain what marine biodiversity can provide to biotechnology, medicine and disease prevention, while demonstrating the critical importance of marine biodiversity and its protection
Overall recommendations
In addition to providing resources to explore these three main target areas, the following main priorities and overarching recommendations emerge from this Strategic Research Agenda:
A formal transdisciplinary forum and/or platform should be established to encourage collaboration between researchers from all OHH-relevant fields, building on the community established within this project.
The research community should develop best practice guidance on collaboration with stakeholders and citizens in relation to OHH research.
Systematic reviews and longitudinal studies should be conducted to better understand the state-ofthe-art in OHH research, and to identify gaps in understanding linkages.The benefits of designated marine protected areas (MPAs), to human as well as ocean health, should be demonstrated.
Inter- and transdisciplinary training and education programmes should be developed at different academic levels to support the development of OHH research.
Appropriate mechanisms for youth contribution and engagement should be established.
Advice should be provided to policymakers regarding the additional data collection and monitoring needs for both marine and health parameters to support the understanding of interactions and to develop a body of evidence to demonstrate these interactions. This should also consider issues of accessibility and usability of existing data and monitoring systems, and propose relevant indicators and indices
We will know that we have achieved our vision of recognition when we have:
Best practice guidelines for collaboration and engagement of stakeholders in OHH research;
A set of OHH-specific indicators that Member States are required to monitor and report on, supported by cross-policy coordination;
Development of a dedicated OHH community platform that can be used to initiate contacts and launch collaborations, as well as provide access to data sources and products;
Organization of a dedicated interdisciplinary conference series and/or similar forum to present and discuss this research;
Research calls and subsequent jointly-funded interdisciplinary and international projects which require participation from several relevant backgrounds including at least marine science, medicine and/or public health; and
An interdisciplinary OHH-specific module(s) offered to all graduates on marine and health-related university courses, either in-house or as a massive open online course (MOOC).
Read the full report taken from the SOPHIE Strategic Research Agenda by clicking on the following link
Responsible Research and Innovation is European Union’s approach for good governance research and innovation. This means respecting the highest ethical values and teaching everyone on science and research. Research should be accessible to everyone so everyone could engage and be informed. Responsible Research and Innovation ensures equal participation of women and men and integrates the gender topic into the content of research and innovation, as coping with challenges ahead is not an easy task
„We want sustainability and safety. We want privacy and security, economic growth and sustainability. We want all of those things at the same time.“ as stated by Jeroen van den Hoven, professor of Ethics and Technology, at the Delft University of Technology.
Such high standards are already leaving mark on how people are investing money. We need business to engage
„Socially responsible investing is one of the biggest change investing is faced with today. Its crucial we answer the question how we can deliver positive impact on real economy.“ As stated by Erik Breen, Manager SRI, Triodos Investment Management
We need all societal actors to engage
„Of course it will change the functioning and probably alter the way of understanding problems and discussing problems. If we want to go to whats a knowledge society this is what it is about. Use the knowledge that is widely there in society and not only restrain us to scientific knowledge.“ As stated by Claudia Neubauer, General Delegate of the Foundation pur le progres de l’homme
To make RRI a true success we need citizens to change
„I think we need to pull all the resources together. I think if more people ave the access to the data the more ideas will come out of it and the better results we will get in the end.“ Henriikka Hakkala, Magazine editor
Click on the link below to see the full video prepared by the European Comission
Research and innovation are essential to finding solutions to the pressing challenges we face. It requires opening up the research and innovation system to the participation and collective intelligence of society, embedding high integrity and ethics standards, raising interest in science, and supporting Europe’s brightest minds engage in scientific careers. Put simply, Europe cannot thrive without ensuring the best possible match between the immense potential achievements science has to offer and the needs, values and aspirations of citizens.
The objective of this report is to convey the achievements of the Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) projects funded under the Science with and for Society (hereinafter referred to as SwafS) part of Horizon 2020. Its purpose is to serve as input for the preparation of the Horizon Europe programme implementation.
Overview of SwafS Implementation in Horizon 2020
A budget of EUR 462 million was earmarked for SwafS in Horizon 2020. Close to 2,000 proposals submitted in response to the annual calls for proposals, conveys strong interest in SwafS matters.
The annual evaluations are deemed to be highly robust. So far, they resulted in 150 funded projects and close to 50 more projects are expected to stem from the final calls under Horizon 2020. Since the start of this Framework Programme, REA Unit B.5 manages the projects. SwafS projects are typically composed of large consortia with an average of 11 partners and tend to run for around 3 years.
Institutional Changes towards Responsible Research and Innovation
The Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) approach supported by the European Commission since 2011 encourages societal actors to work together during the whole research and innovation (R&I) process to better align R&I and its outcomes with the values, needs and expectations of society. RRI topics have been geared towards establishing institutional changes in higher education institutes, research funding and performing organisations, industry, SMEs, as well as local and regional authorities, opening them up to closer co-operation with citizens and civil society. After analysing where organisations stand in terms of existing RRI practices, projects drafted action plans to support the implementation of institutional changes intended to last beyond the lifetime of project funding.
Projects focused on implementing institutional changes in research funding and performing organisations, higher education institutions, as well as research and technology organisations in terms of their governance systems related, for instance, to ethics, open science, citizen engagement and gender equality. Industry-focused projects produced practical tools and highlighted promising practices to enable the development of innovative products and services that directly address societal needs while contributing to environmental and economic sustainability. The territorial portfolio of projects supports around 10 per cent of all EU regions to develop more open and collaborative approaches to society by taking a Responsible Research and Innovation approach. Many of the projects from across this portfolio have taken disciplinary or sectoral approaches (e.g. focused on marine research institutes, the biosciences, or deindustrialising regions), suggesting that drawing on common links can foster productive environments for conceptualisation and implementation of institutional changes.
Furthermore, RRI projects produced an array of invaluable resources for organisations intending to implement RRI practices. Embedding RRI and implementing structural changes in the European R&I landscape requires building a strong evidence base, disseminating tools and practices, supporting networks of practitioners, and effectively monitoring progress towards goals. For instance, FP7’s MoRRI project implemented the first RRI monitoring system in Europe and its successor Supper_MoRRI, supported byđ SwafS, builds on this work. The portfolio of RRI projects as a whole is marked by a high level of global collaboration, helping influence the development of policies at national level and raising the EU’s profile as a global R&I actor. The ‘Pathways declaration’ emerging from one of the projects, signed by more than 13 projects, called for RRI to remain a central objective in EU R&I and for the EU to continue to pursue its leading role.
Concluding remarks
Since 2014, the projects funded under ‘Science with and for Society’ contributed to its primary aims set out in the EU Regulation establishing Horizon 2020, notably to effectively build cooperation between science and society, recruit new talent for science and pair scientific excellence with social awareness and responsibility. One of the key ways of working towards these three SwafS objectives, and ensuring impact, is the implementation of institutional changes in beneficiaries reflected in the SwafS Key Performance Indicator: ‘Percentage of research organisations funded implementing actions to promote Responsible Research and Innovation, and number of institutional change measures adopted as a result’.
The results of a sample of twelve RRI projects revealed that almost 250 individual institutional change actions are implemented or in the process of being implemented by this part of the SwafS portfolio. Added to this, is the pioneer of institutional changes, the Gender Equality Plans (GEPs), with 130 institutions (78%) having implemented or in the process of implementing a GEP.
SwafS will well and truly surpass its target of 100 institutional changes in beneficiaries by the end of Horizon 2020. Consequently, SwafS stakeholders are in an excellent position to take a leading role in supporting other entities envisaging institutional transformation. In conclusion, inclusiveness on all levels underpins SwafS. RRI dimensions (gender, open access, science education, ethics and public engagement), must be part of how research and innovation is realised in all domains as well as its implications for governance. Horizon Europe needs to leverage SwafS know-how and tap into the vast potential citizens and society have to offer and continue to ensure effective cooperation between science and society.
To overview and download the full report of “Achievements in Horizon 2020 and recommendations on the way forward” prepared by the European Comission click on the link below which will lead you to the document published by the Publications Office of the European Union. Follow the link to get on the Publications Office of the European Union
In GRRIP, as discussed in D3.2., the idea of the fourth helix being the “enduser” is used expansively, but the “end-user” of the services produced in GRRIP can be from any one of the four helices including researchers at academic institution. In the GRRIP project and according to SoA D3.2. QH partners/stakeholders/members (Academia, Industry, Public authorities and Civil society) are defined as those who were invited to join the GRRIP project after its inception – external stakeholders. These in-coming partners are external in two ways;
Firstly, in relation to the five marine and maritime organisations (i.e. not in their paid employment);
Secondly in relation to the GRRIP consortium (i.e. not partners from the start of the GRRIP project).
Contractors and subcontractors (of GRRIP) can also be defined as external stakeholders if they were not partners but were engaged for some aspect of the implementation of the project activities.
The presented guidelines are part of WP4 GRRIP work and are drawn from literature review and D3.1., D3.2., T4.2.1. and T4.2.3 reports. They are intended for demo sites and any other institutions who consider to engage with different QH categories. Main objectives of the guidelines are:
To provide clear set of guidelines for demo sites for the process of QH engagement
To indicate specific benefits for each QH category in the process of engagement with demo sites
To identify QH expectations and to include QH feedback in the process of responsible research and innovation practices
To ensure meaningful engagement between demo sites and QH facilitating creation of strong relationships that will last beyond the project duration
From the perspective of the D3.2. stakeholders or the QH types, a working QH typology is;
Public authorities (Policy officers or makers, governmental organisations,
Industry (SME or companies),
Ademia (RPO/RFO),
Citizen (Public/civil society, NGO, CSO, other societal actors)
Over the past couple of weeks we have been publishing the 6 steps which were related to the topic on “How to engage with QH” and we tried to answer the questions that were most frequently asked on how to approach and deal with your stakeholders on the right way. To download the brochure which includes all of the previous steps click on the link below
Stakeholder engagement is a highly relevant activity, an ongoing process, that builds relationships between parties enabling information exchange. This process allows stakeholder affected by decisions of organisation in question to contribute to the decision-making process.
The process of stakeholder engagement is voluntary, open and active dialog, that identifies current position of all parties included, outlines objectives and outcomes, and identifies how to achieve them. Parties that are included in the engagement can change but the process of engagement is continues.
For stakeholder engagement to be effective there are some requirements: willingness and motivation of stakeholders to participate (Gunton et al., 2010); inclusivity of all possible interests (Reed, 2008); equal access to information and knowledge (Gunton et al., 2010; Gopnik et al., 2017). Some barriers in the process of engagement can be identified as well such as: the participation is more tokenistic (cosmetic) rather than active (Pomeroy and Douvere, 2008; Echler et al., 2009; Gopnik et al., 2017; Flannery et al., 2018); unfamiliarity with the processes and activities of the organisation in question (Water, 2018); public can have deeply rooted value and belief system (local fisherman for e.g.) affecting the trust level in organisation in question (Jentoft and Knol, 2013).
The main value of engagement with stakeholders lies in understanding of dialogue dynamics and enabled participation (Luoma-Aho, 2015). Generally, engagement is referred as interaction between stakeholders and organisation where interaction influences stakeholder thoughts, actions and emotions toward organisation (Broodie et al., 2011). The benefits of quadruple helix stakeholder engagement by development of collaborative network are evident through access to knowledge, development of scientific competence, obtaining competitive advantage through acceleration of ideas, but significant challenges still remain: how to manage such relationships.
Stakeholder engagement – role of QH in GRRIP
Quadruple helix stakeholders for GRRIP project represent a group of all stakeholders in one place with function of reflecting societal needs. They are expected to participate in development (co-create) action plan for RRI interventions within demo sites. They will serve as a reflection group where sites will demonstrate openness with QH. Through mutual learning and interaction QH will support demo sites in development of sustainable inclusion of QH involvement. Role of QH in GRRIP project is to co and includes several points.
Throughout QH engagement this reflexive working group will support institutionalising RRI and ensure that it is reflective to societal needs throughout the process.
Step 5: Respond and implement
The fifth step of meaningful stakeholder engagement is to respond and implement. After the organisation is completed the consultation with stakeholders, analysis of obtained date should be completed. What suggestions were presented, any concerns raised and what are the priorities that need to be addressed. In order to manage identified issues, you should follow simple steps:
Initial outline of measures to manage issue
Assess measures to manage issue: time; cost; capacity; effectiveness
Consult with stakeholders and organisation department re-measures
Monitor and evaluate progress and adjust necessary
Step 6: Monitor, evaluate and document
The final stage of stakeholder engagement is monitoring, evaluation and documentation. There are various international standards available to be used as a reference point, this should be done by case study working group (broker), some of possible steps are represented in Box 2. Lessons learned will drive future engagement and are a critical aspect of stakeholder engagement process.
This process of evaluation and feedback by stakeholders will be used for adaptation of action plans developed by site and also to tailor the RRI interventions.
Monitoring and evaluation is an ongoing process, and documenting, reporting and clear record keeping will enable strengthening of stakeholder relationships with the organisation. Appropriate feedback to stakeholders is necessary in order to keep the interested into organisation and also to ensure fair relationship with stakeholders. The quality of relationship with stakeholders can vary over time and it is important to regularly review the state of relationships and level of their satisfaction. There should be at list a yearly survey by independent party including baseline data and standard questions to allow benchmarking. Through the survey organisation can evaluate satisfaction level of engaged stakeholders and adjust their engagement process if necessary.
To read the rest of the 6 steps recommended by the GRRIP Project follow the links below:
Stakeholder engagement is a highly relevant activity, an ongoing process, that builds relationships between parties enabling information exchange. This process allows stakeholder affected by decisions of organisation in question to contribute to the decision-making process.
The process of stakeholder engagement is voluntary, open and active dialog, that identifies current position of all parties included, outlines objectives and outcomes, and identifies how to achieve them. Parties that are included in the engagement can change but the process of engagement is continues.
For stakeholder engagement to be effective there are some requirements: willingness and motivation of stakeholders to participate (Gunton et al., 2010); inclusivity of all possible interests (Reed, 2008); equal access to information and knowledge (Gunton et al., 2010; Gopnik et al., 2017). Some barriers in the process of engagement can be identified as well such as: the participation is more tokenistic (cosmetic) rather than active (Pomeroy and Douvere, 2008; Echler et al., 2009; Gopnik et al., 2017; Flannery et al., 2018); unfamiliarity with the processes and activities of the organisation in question (Water, 2018); public can have deeply rooted value and belief system (local fisherman for e.g.) affecting the trust level in organisation in question (Jentoft and Knol, 2013).
The main value of engagement with stakeholders lies in understanding of dialogue dynamics and enabled participation (Luoma-Aho, 2015). Generally, engagement is referred as interaction between stakeholders and organisation where interaction influences stakeholder thoughts, actions and emotions toward organisation (Broodie et al., 2011). The benefits of quadruple helix stakeholder engagement by development of collaborative network are evident through access to knowledge, development of scientific competence, obtaining competitive advantage through acceleration of ideas, but significant challenges still remain: how to manage such relationships.
Stakeholder engagement – role of QH in GRRIP
Quadruple helix stakeholders for GRRIP project represent a group of all stakeholders in one place with function of reflecting societal needs. They are expected to participate in development (co-create) action plan for RRI interventions within demo sites. They will serve as a reflection group where sites will demonstrate openness with QH. Through mutual learning and interaction QH will support demo sites in development of sustainable inclusion of QH involvement. Role of QH in GRRIP project is to co and includes several points.
Throughout QH engagement this reflexive working group will support institutionalising RRI and ensure that it is reflective to societal needs throughout the process
Step 3: Build trust
Third step of stakeholder engagement is trust building process as a fundamental part of this process. In order to build trust, you need to consider different aspects of QH platform such as inequity of the relationship, differential power of different stakeholders, language and cultural barriers (in QH platforms that include international stakeholders), ways of operating etc. To build trust, information must be shared both ways followed by willingness of both parties to understand others’ viewpoint (Jeffery, 2009).
The crucial part of trust building is good alignment of the interests and objectives of your organisation with stakeholders that you intend to engage. For the trust building process you need to consider common obstacles (consult previous step), identify the ones that you anticipate to encounter when engaging with your QH stakeholders and work on gaining trust of stakeholders by addressing the identified obstacles/issues.
Step 4: Co-creation
Communication with your stakeholder is a first level of engagement aiming to raise awareness by allowing participating stakeholders to explore, transform and build their opinions and perspective (Fung, 2006; Akhmouch and Clavreul, 2016). Process of consultation with stakeholders should be (Jeffery, 2009):
Representative – QH list of stakeholders comprised of full range of stakeholders affected by organisation. Do not think only on big, vocal and sympathetic stakeholders, consider also small stakeholders, they can be a valuable asset in stakeholder engagement. Pay attention to inclusive representation: When choosing stakeholders, it is important to include all four types of stakeholders in the cohort.
Responsive – by doing work in preparation phase you should be able to present information, proposals, ideas to stakeholders that correspond to their expectations and interests. Previous steps should provide inputs for responsive consultations.
Context focused – stakeholders need to get detailed and complete picture of organisations motivation. It is important to keep QH interested and motivated work within the step two should provide information how to keep motivated different QH for the QH engagement process and RRI.
Complete – appropriate background information, provided by internal knowledge management system (stakeholder management group) will allow stakeholders to form conclusions. For engagement to be complete in preparatory work in step 2 will provide you with QH specific data to tailor approaches for each QH category.
Realistic – in consultation with stakeholders there is expected percentage of trade off of expectations, needs and objectives, which can be positive and strengthening the process of trust building. It is very important to accurately present your intentions and expectations.
Organisation needs to know expectations of QH stakeholders and communication with QH is the key. A structured approach built upon your understanding about importance and expectations of your stakeholders will result in effective communication (Bourne, 2010). Several techniques can be used in process of consultation with stakeholders (Jeffery, 2009):
Personal interviews
Workshops
Focus groups
Public or “town hall” meetings
Surveys
Participatory tools
Stakeholder panels
Online tools
Prior to consultation organisation must decide which stakeholder to consult and the appropriate mechanism that will be utilised having in mind local conditions and characteristics of the stakeholder. This could mean that different techniques will be used for different stakeholders. GRRIP chose to trail workshops as a method of engagement, but due to COVID-19 online tools are also valid option for the engagement. Further we will discuss how different stakeholders can be engaged using workshops and how can on line tools be used for inclusive interactive engagement of all QH types.
Considering current feedback, during Planning for Change workshop in June (2020), from the case study demo sites, physical meetings supplemented with online tools are the preferred way of engagement.
Workshops
Industry stakeholders can require development of industry specific tools for top management commitment and leadership, context analysis, materiality analysis, experiment and engagement, validation and AP design/implementation and monitoring/evaluation. Also as indicated industry is oriented toward their commercial objectives and can be difficult to engage them without establishing a sort of „paid relationship“. For GRRIP industry stakeholders could be engaged through workshops.
Workshops are main envisioned engagement tool for QH stakeholder engagement. For industry to be meaningfully engaged it is necessary to develop workshop theme in correspondence with industry goals and objectives. As stated, one way of making RRI exciting for industry stakeholders is connecting specific RRI keys to ISO and CEN standards regarding management systems in the areas of social responsibility, sustainability, innovation, quality and risks- such as ISO 26000, ISO 31000, ISO 9001 and ISO 56000 (trust building). When designing the workshop time could be one of the crucial determining factors weather QH stakeholder will engage, bear in mind the availability of the stakeholder and deliver clear timelines for the workshop. Short agenda with clear indication of expected contribution will facilitate the trust building. Facilitator will be the main moving force of the workshop, make sure that they are well trained and have the skills to initiate fruitful discussion
For the policy makers key aspect of meaningful engagement within GRRIP project can be aligning demo site RRI processes with policy instruments. One way to do this is to choose RRI keys that can align with their interest, e.g. concerning funding policies, RRI assessment and indicators as a pre-requisite for national calls participation, etc. Similarly, in interaction with Academia by selecting RRI researcher specific pillars (Ethics, Open Access, gender) you can ensure their participation.
Best practices from other projects analysed in indicated that having a Citizen’s office: a series of citizens’ meeting in which social needs can be put forth to science, can be useful for engagement with this stakeholder. Second tool was a public debate with actors from academia and civil society on a topic of high public attention. The citizen´s office and debates were considered as very effective by the project officer
If we are organising a workshop for all stakeholders together, specific interests but also a common interest should be identified and interactive engagement should be facilitated. Since COVID-19 enforced virtual meetings inclusion of interactive tools (e.g. mentimeter) that could be used in physical, virtual and even hybrid type of meetings (physical and virtual) should be considered.
Online tools
Recent events with Covid-19 have proved that a society is very adaptable and there is a huge increase of online interaction driven by “virtual by necessity”. Online stakeholder engagement can now be seen as a crucial mechanism for long-term dynamic stakeholder relationships. The most important lesson learned from past few month is that web can overcome limitations of time and distance and it can be a good tool in allowing anonymity to encourage greater stakeholder involvement (Jeffery, 2009).
By switching to online, organisation is no longer restricted to mass communication campaigns, presented information if organised well in easily searchable format can be appealing to large number of individual stakeholders in different times. On-line communities can serve for members to share information and a way of engaging with external stakeholders (Barrett et al., 2016; Wilkin et al., 2018).
Organisations can have multi-stakeholder dialog using online tools such as engagement hubs or portals. Recent example is the Waveney Pathfinder project, led by Waveney District Council in partnership with Suffolk County Council and the Suffolk Coastal Futures project, focusing on coastal frontages at Corton and Easton Bavents. The Coastal Change Hub is an important tool used in the project to engage with local communities in managing the effects of coastal erosion. The hub works as a focal point for the provision of information such as fact sheets, video clips and technical reports, communication from the project team and feedback from local communities through forums and online surveys. The outputs of the project will be the production of reports identifying short- to long-term options for how coastal change can be managed. While offline stakeholder engagement in such a project is important, online communication tools enhance the effectiveness of offline two-way dialogue with multiple stakeholders.
Social media can provide new opportunity for societal actors to be informed, they can easily use such platforms to identify common interests and express their opinions and in this way internet can be powerful tool in stakeholder engagement (Lutz and Hoffmann, 2013).
Using online tools organisation can engage much wider group of stakeholders with no limitations of geographic location, travel options, time and resource consuming issues associated to offline engagement. Online toolkits can be an effective in minimisation of risks associated with consumer rejection, help building trust in an organisation and improve the quality of decision making process.
To read the first two steps recommended by the GRRIP Project follow the links below:
Stakeholder engagement is a highly relevant activity, an ongoing process, that builds relationships between parties enabling information exchange. This process allows stakeholder affected by decisions of organisation in question to contribute to the decision-making process.
The process of stakeholder engagement is voluntary, open and active dialog, that identifies current position of all parties included, outlines objectives and outcomes, and identifies how to achieve them. Parties that are included in the engagement can change but the process of engagement is continues.
For stakeholder engagement to be effective there are some requirements: willingness and motivation of stakeholders to participate (Gunton et al., 2010); inclusivity of all possible interests (Reed, 2008); equal access to information and knowledge (Gunton et al., 2010; Gopnik et al., 2017). Some barriers in the process of engagement can be identified as well such as: the participation is more tokenistic (cosmetic) rather than active (Pomeroy and Douvere, 2008; Echler et al., 2009; Gopnik et al., 2017; Flannery et al., 2018); unfamiliarity with the processes and activities of the organisation in question (Water, 2018); public can have deeply rooted value and belief system (local fisherman for e.g.) affecting the trust level in organisation in question (Jentoft and Knol, 2013).
The main value of engagement with stakeholders lies in understanding of dialogue dynamics and enabled participation (Luoma-Aho, 2015). Generally, engagement is referred as interaction between stakeholders and organisation where interaction influences stakeholder thoughts, actions and emotions toward organisation (Broodie et al., 2011). The benefits of quadruple helix stakeholder engagement by development of collaborative network are evident through access to knowledge, development of scientific competence, obtaining competitive advantage through acceleration of ideas, but significant challenges still remain: how to manage such relationships.
Stakeholder engagement – role of QH in GRRIP
Quadruple helix stakeholders for GRRIP project represent a group of all stakeholders in one place with function of reflecting societal needs. They are expected to participate in development (co-create) action plan for RRI interventions within demo sites. They will serve as a reflection group where sites will demonstrate openness with QH. Through mutual learning and interaction QH will support demo sites in development of sustainable inclusion of QH involvement. Role of QH in GRRIP project is to co and includes several points.
Throughout QH engagement this reflexive working group will support institutionalising RRI and ensure that it is reflective to societal needs throughout the process
Step 2: Internal preparation and alignment
Next stage of engagement includes internal alignment with stakeholders, recognition of commonalities between you and stakeholders. The success of engagement with stakeholders is much dependent on ability to align the interests and objectives of your organisation with stakeholders. This does not mean that your objectives and interests must be identical. For coordinated approach some good practices indicate involvement of internal stakeholder management team to support coordination with stakeholder platform, regular communication and feedback and to connect stakeholder engagement process to processes within the company (Jeffery, 2009). At least one person from case study demo sites should be included in coordination/support of QH stakeholder engagement in order to maintain regular communication and collect feedback from QH. Coordinator/stakeholder management team would serve as a broker/mediator bringing across expectations/reflections of stakeholders/societal needs back to site and vice versa.
When you identify who are your key players and who you want to engage with, it is important to motivate your stakeholder to participate. The motivation of QH can be achieved firstly through training, providing necessary information regarding RRI as a concept and making RRI terminology understandable and familiar to different QH categories. It is noted by the survey and indicated in the 4.2.3. document that over 50% of respondents to the survey that they have low familiarity with RRI. Having this in mind each demo site should consider if adaptation of the terminology to the local context/language is necessary as indicated in T4.2.3. QH stakeholder perspective document.
One of the barriers identified by the SoA (3.2. and 4.2.1.) is lack of time and resources, by motivating your stakeholder you are emphasising that benefits from the engagement will be worth “sacrificed” time and resources.
Industry
Most common barriers to RRI industrial uptake that can be extrapolated to resistance of industry in engaging with GRRIP sites in RRI-embedding processes. These include lack of RRI expertise, limited resources, the challenges of fulfilling all RRI functions (pillars) within the company and the project partners and value chain actors, unclear added value of RRI approaches and the lack of long-term vision among others.
Examples from other projects suggest some lessons learned in overcoming these barriers
Link RRI with ISO and CEN standards regarding management systems in the areas of social responsibility, sustainability, innovation, quality and risks- such as ISO 26000, ISO 31000, ISO 9001 and ISO 56000
RRI provides a complementary approach compared to existing Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) practices, adding a specific focus on the R&I process and based on three key actions:
Integrate analysis of ethical, legal and social impacts from the early stages of product development (reflection and anticipation)
Perform stakeholder engagement to inform all phases of product development (inclusiveness)
Integrate monitoring, learning and adaptive mechanisms to address public and social values and normative principles in product development (responsiveness)
There is need to provide specific industry tools for top management commitment and leadership, context analysis, materiality analysis, experiment and engagement, validation and AP design/implementation and monitoring/evaluation
Use good practices and case study dissemination to raise RRI awareness in industry
Develop systems and processes to protect key intellectual property rights, data and personnel
Assess the obstacles that result in academia working at a slower pace than industry.
All these lessons learned should be considered while aligning the interests and objectives of your organisation with industry stakeholders. Aligning interests with SDGs could also be useful way to bridge conversation across many sectors
Academia
Type of stakeholder can be very bureaucratic and opposing general resistance to change, RRI aspects shall be of direct interest to its researchers: mutual learning, access to know how on tools (i.e. JERRI self-assessment toolkit on ethical aspects), processes (interdisciplinary by nature) and the imperative requirement to adapt for a better and more responsible way of doing science as to better serve societal needs.
In engaging with academia, GRRIP sites are generally advised to use RRI most attractive specific RRI keys for researchers: ethics, Open access, gender and diversity to open a more holistic discussion on how to strengthen RPOs social role in the site territory of action. Ethics and Open Access is something that most researchers are very familiar with. By including these pillars when engaging with academia, discussions will be more easily facilitated due to researcher’s familiarity with specific RRI pillar. Even such approach has its benefits, we need to consider the benefits of more holistic approach to embedding RRI. By sticking to specific “more familiar” RRI keys we are retaining “status quo” with no chance of growth, by including other RRI keys through more holistic approach we are offering a way QH to grow. Considering other, not so “attractive”, RRI keys we offer openness and inclusiveness and a way to facilitate dialogue between different QH categories rather than choosing exclusively one RRI key that could be interesting to one QH category.
Reflection workshops with focus groups can be organised to reflect on joint challenges/lessons/processes and create trust for sustained alliances with other RPOs, university and multi-spheres institutions. Identify regional and national champions to be brought forward and benchmarking on science quality as gender equality, transdisciplinary or open access. GRRIP sites can propose to join forces among themselves as i.e establish a new role (i.e. Ethics adviser) co-founded and serving a network of institutions or organise joint training courses
Policy makers
The close involvement of policy makers at different levels in the site RRI process, can help in identifying explicit (i.e. migration policies, work permits, statistics laws, etc.) and implicit policy instruments (i.e. funding programs, tax incentives, RRI assessment and indicators as a pre-requisite for national calls participation, etc.) that need to be strengthened or redefine to support the sites- use as pilots – for RRI structural change.
The involvement of policy makers at national level is important and sites can attract their participation by justifying their need of data and experiences/expertise to support the monitoring of the UNESCO RS/SR recommendation on a 4-year basis, and in particular the gender equality issues that has a special organisational structure and priority in many European Member states. The promotion of success stories, at the national and local level, can also inspire change in other stakeholders and shall be done in cooperation with policy-makers covering the different territorial levels. Policymakers can participate in special focus groups discussion or/and be part of the Advisory board for the project/sites.
Civil society
QH platforms can facilitate engagement and openness to QH. Case study demo sites should identify value areas and actions that might be of mutual benefit; consider:
How institution supports community in area of innovation;
Be careful of hidden stakeholders (e.g. fishermen and their wives; wives doing a lot of administration for fishermen);
Finding opportunities for inclusion of QH around community and innovation.
GRRIP institutions cannot be expected to produce stakeholder engagement solely through their specific efforts, but depend also on the existence of a broader engagement ecosystem that reduces transaction costs and stabilises expectations across categories of stakeholders.
Stakeholder engagement is a highly relevant activity, an ongoing process, that builds relationships between parties enabling information exchange. This process allows stakeholder affected by decisions of organisation in question to contribute to the decision-making process.
The process of stakeholder engagement is voluntary, open and active dialog, that identifies current position of all parties included, outlines objectives and outcomes, and identifies how to achieve them. Parties that are included in the engagement can change but the process of engagement is continues.
For stakeholder engagement to be effective there are some requirements: willingness and motivation of stakeholders to participate (Gunton et al., 2010); inclusivity of all possible interests (Reed, 2008); equal access to information and knowledge (Gunton et al., 2010; Gopnik et al., 2017). Some barriers in the process of engagement can be identified as well such as: the participation is more tokenistic (cosmetic) rather than active (Pomeroy and Douvere, 2008; Echler et al., 2009; Gopnik et al., 2017; Flannery et al., 2018); unfamiliarity with the processes and activities of the organisation in question (Water, 2018); public can have deeply rooted value and belief system (local fisherman for e.g.) affecting the trust level in organisation in question (Jentoft and Knol, 2013).
The main value of engagement with stakeholders lies in understanding of dialogue dynamics and enabled participation (Luoma-Aho, 2015). Generally, engagement is referred as interaction between stakeholders and organisation where interaction influences stakeholder thoughts, actions and emotions toward organisation (Broodie et al., 2011). The benefits of quadruple helix stakeholder engagement by development of collaborative network are evident through access to knowledge, development of scientific competence, obtaining competitive advantage through acceleration of ideas, but significant challenges still remain: how to manage such relationships.
Stakeholder engagement – role of QH in GRRIP
Quadruple helix stakeholders for GRRIP project represent a group of all stakeholders in one place with function of reflecting societal needs. They are expected to participate in development (co-create) action plan for RRI interventions within demo sites. They will serve as a reflection group where sites will demonstrate openness with QH. Through mutual learning and interaction QH will support demo sites in development of sustainable inclusion of QH involvement. Role of QH in GRRIP project is to co and includes several points.
Throughout QH engagement this reflexive working group will support institutionalising RRI and ensure that it is reflective to societal needs throughout the process
Step 1: Identify, plan and understand
First step to effectively engage with stakeholders is to identify who they are (Akhmouch and Clavreul, 2016). Identification of stakeholders includes several activities. Firstly, you need to develop a list of stakeholders, categorise them according to mutuality (how important is the stakeholder to the project) and what they expect. You need to document each stakeholder’s influence and relationship to the organisation (Bourne, 2010).
In order to establish meaningful relationship with stakeholders you need to identify basic objectives that you as an organisation want to achieve, issues you want to address and stakeholders that you want to engage. In order to understand your stakeholders, you have to “dig deeper” to understand their decision making process, their expectation from you, what objectives are they seeking and how did they influenced you previously (Jeffery, 2009).
As a first step toward QH stakeholder engagement you need to define your stakeholders within all QH categories, the mapping of QH should be based on current and ideal collaborations. (Figure 1.)
During the mapping of stakeholders for the QH platform all four stakeholder groups should be included. The stakeholders will engage in defining of future stakeholder engagement strategy and action plan creation for RRI “interventions” within site. Table 1 gives an overview of the perceived contribution of different QH categories in the engagement with demo sites. Throughout consultation process why and how QH contributes can be refined remaining fluidity of the engagement process.
Stakeholder engagement is a highly relevant activity, an ongoing process, that builds relationships between parties enabling information exchange. This process allows stakeholder affected by decisions of organisation in question to contribute to the decision-making process.
The process of stakeholder engagement is voluntary, open and active dialog, that identifies current position of all parties included, outlines objectives and outcomes, and identifies how to achieve them. Parties that are included in the engagement can change but the process of engagement is continues. The process of stakeholder engagement is multi-faceted process including (APGA Guideline for stakeholder engagement, 2015):
Providing information;
Capacity building to equip communities and stakeholders to effectively engage;
Listening and responding to community and stakeholder concerns;
Including communities and stakeholders in relevant decision making-processes;
Developing goodwill and an understanding of objectives and priorities which will lead to confidence in decisions;
Establishing a realistic understanding of potential outcomes; and
Building an understanding of the decision-making process.
For stakeholder engagement to be effective there are some requirements: willingness and motivation of stakeholders to participate (Gunton et al., 2010); inclusivity of all possible interests (Reed, 2008); equal access to information and knowledge (Gunton et al., 2010; Gopnik et al., 2017). Some barriers in the process of engagement can be identified as well such as: the participation is more tokenistic (cosmetic) rather than active (Pomeroy and Douvere, 2008; Echler et al., 2009; Gopnik et al., 2017; Flannery et al., 2018); unfamiliarity with the processes and activities of the organisation in question (Water, 2018); public can have deeply rooted value and belief system (local fisherman for e.g.) affecting the trust level in organisation in question (Jentoft and Knol, 2013).
The main value of engagement with stakeholders lies in understanding of dialogue dynamics and enabled participation (Luoma-Aho, 2015). Generally, engagement is referred as interaction between stakeholders and organisation where interaction influences stakeholder thoughts, actions and emotions toward organisation (Broodie et al., 2011). The benefits of quadruple helix stakeholder engagement by development of collaborative network are evident through access to knowledge, development of scientific competence, obtaining competitive advantage through acceleration of ideas, but significant challenges still remain: how to manage such relationships.
Engagement of stakeholders could be summarised as a six step process (adaptation of Jeffery, 2009; Figure 1.1.)
Stakeholder engagement – role of QH in GRRIP
Quadruple helix stakeholders for GRRIP project represent a group of all stakeholders in one place with function of reflecting societal needs. They are expected to participate in development (co-create) action plan for RRI interventions within demo sites. They will serve as a reflection group where sites will demonstrate openness with QH. Through mutual learning and interaction QH will support demo sites in development of sustainable inclusion of QH involvement. Role of QH in GRRIP project is to co and includes several points.
Throughout QH engagement this reflexive working group will support institutionalising RRI and ensure that it is reflective to societal needs throughout the process
This process of evaluation and feedback by stakeholders will be used for adaptation of action plans developed by site and also to tailor the RRI interventions.
