While most innovations are developed in organizations, there is a wide-spread consensus that the organizational institutionalization of Responsible (Research and) Innovation is limited. This may partly be the case because we lack an understanding of what factors drive or impede the institutionalization of such responsibility-related changes and how they interact. In this paper, we draw from various institutional entrepreneurs’ experiences, who worked within eight organizational change labs, to explore the dynamic institutionalization of Responsible (Research and) Innovation. Our study identifies 29 factors highlighting some of the intricate, dynamic, and ‘messy’ complexities found in organizations. We conclude by offering some reflections on the role of institutional entrepreneurship for Responsible (Research and) Innovation.

In all OECD countries, discussions abate around the question of how to best regulate artificial intelligence (AI) to exploit the economic and social potential of this technology, while minimising risks. The article asks the question of how to govern AI and what role the state might take in it, with respect to questions of regulation and utilization of AI in its own ranks. Case studies for comparison are Austria and Australia, two democratic high-income countries with differences in geographic location, political system, and economic structure. While both countries aim for a balance of innovation, ethics, and regulation in their AI strategy, the chosen elements for obtaining this balance vary remarkably regarding structures, processes, and tools.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have the potential to support the civil service. They can be used to automate tasks such as document classification, summarisation, and translation, among others. However, there are also risks and challenges associated with their use.

Given the numerous opportunities provided by rapidly evolving digital innovations, we need to address and assess the social and political risks that come with naively applying AI algorithms, especially in high-risk sectors. We argue that though the existing guidelines and regulations are a good starting point, we still need to implement effective solutions that can be integrated into the current workflow of developing ethical AI applications. We introduce the idea of AI Ethics Labs as institutionalised "spaces for doubt" providing platforms for a frequent and intensive collaboration between developers and social scientists, thus reducing the potential risks of developed algorithms.

Wie können Städte bei der Transformation in Richtung nachhaltiges Leben unterstützt werden? Im Rahmen eines transdisziplinären Stadtentwicklungsprozesses in der niederösterreichischen Stadt Amstetten wurde ein Planungstool für transformative Governance entwickelt. Das Instrument berücksichtigt die Zielvorstellungen unterschiedlicher Stakeholder(innen) und ermöglicht eine strukturierte Entscheidungsfindung.Cities are key players in the transformation of our society towards a sustainable way of life, but are facing massive challenges. We want to support cities by providing a planning tool for transformative governance, whereby the experiences gained may also be relevant for regions and countries. The planning tool serves as a reference framework for decision-makers and users to collaboratively learn through these processes. For this purpose, we have developed additional instruments from the economy for the common good, and integrated fields of action and target systems from urban planning into a matrix. We then determined the planning objectives of the Lower Austrian city of Amstetten through a participatory foresight process, which we entered in the planning tool. The goals were associated with indicators to be used for the measurement of goal achievement. The planning tool was tested and further developed in workshops with the stakeholder groups involved.

Cities are key players in the transformation of our society towards a sustainable way of life, but are facing massive challenges. We want to support cities by providing a planning tool for transformative gover?? nance, whereby the experiences gained may also be relevant for regions and countries. The planning tool serves as a reference framework for decision ??makers and users to collaboratively learn through these processes. For this purpose, we have developed additional instruments from the economy for the common good, and integrated fields of action and target systems from urban planning into a matrix. We then determined the planning objectives of the Lower Austrian city of Amstetten through a participatory foresight process, which we entered in the planning tool. The goals were associated with indicators to be used for the measurement of goal achievement. The planning tool was tested and further developed in workshops with the stakeholder groups involved.

Konzept, Definition, Operationalisierung Mit der Beschleunigung des technologischen Wandels und der verstarkten Ausrichtung auf gesellschaftliche Herausforderungen ist die F&I-Politik gefordert agiler zu handeln. Das betrifft sowohl die strategische Ebene der F&I-politischen Begrundung und Prioritatensetzung als auch die operativen Ebene der Politikumsetzung. Unter Ruckgriff auf relevante sozial- und wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Konzepte wird im vorliegende Projektbericht das Konzept einer agilen F&I-Politik samt zugehoriger Agilitatsdimensionen und -kriterien entwickelt. Anhand von aktuellen Pilotanwendungen und Fallstudien wird das Konzept fur die Politikanalyse herangezogen, um Bestimmungsfaktoren fur die Agilitat F&I-politischer Praktiken herauszuarbeiten. Neben den drei deutschen Pilotanwendungen (KMU Innovationsforderung, nachfrageseitigen F&I Politik fur den Strommarkt in der Energiewende, Antworten der F&I-Politik auf die Corona Krise) werden zehn internationale Fallbeispiele agilen F&I politischen Handelns herangezogen, um Hinweise und neue Impulse fur die Agilitatsdebatte in Deutschland auf strategischer und operativer Ebene zu geben.

Discussions on the energy transition preceded the question of how to solve conflicts on the construction of the corresponding infrastructure. These conflicts regularly turn into wicked problems. To see how such conflicts might be solved in a participatory, democratic and sustainable fashion, we analysed six cases on wind power projects in the region of Lower Austria for their participatory qualities. Most of them turned out not to have met criteria of contemporary democratic theory. Our conclusion is that in order to live up to these demands, discussion processes have to be much more open, inclusive and discursive than they are.

Innovation agencies, that is organizations with the primary focus of funding applied research and technological development, evaluate project proposals to select the most promising proposals for funding. At the moment, there is only little verified knowledge available on project evaluation and selection processes of innovation agencies. We want to show how projects are evaluated and selected in these organizations. We want to also make a contribution for better understanding the variety of the utilized processes by pointing out the reasoning behind some of the most important practices. This article therefore focuses on the following questions: How are projects selected in innovation agencies? What are the employed procedures and practices? Are there differences in procedures and practices and what would be the reason for these differences? The basis for answering these questions is a study produced for the European Association of National Innovation Agencies, Taftie. There we have analysed the project selection procedures of 18 programmes run by 12 European innovation agencies. To do so, we have produced an overview of existing selection procedures of the innovation agencies, analysed, and compared the procedures along the stages of a typical selection process. The key points of interest were role of evaluators, selection criteria, ranking procedures, and general process issues.

In recent years, mission-oriented approaches have received growing interest in science, technology and innovation (STI) policies against the background of two developments. First, while so-called “horizontal” or “generic” approaches to research, technology and innovation policies have largely been successful in improving the general innovation performance or the rate of innovation, there are perceived limitations in terms of insufficiently addressing the direction of technological change and innovation. Second, “grand societal challenges” emerged on policy agendas, such as climate change, security, food and energy supply or ageing populations, which call for thematic orientation and the targeting of research and innovation efforts. In addition, the apparent success of some mission-oriented initiatives in countries like China, South Korea, and the United States in boosting technological development for purposes of strengthening competitiveness contributed to boosting the interest in targeted and directional government interventions in STI. Against the backdrop of this renewed interest in mission-oriented STI policy, the OECD has addressed the growing importance of this topic and launched a project looking into current experiences with Mission-Oriented Innovation Policy (MOIP). The present study on MOIP in Austria was commissioned by the Austrian Federal Ministry for Climate Action, Energy, Mobility, Environment, Innovation and Technologiy (BMK) and comprises the Austrian contributions to this OECD project. The study aims at contributing Austrian experiences to the international debate and to stimulate a national debate on MOIP.

Dieses Papier verfolgt den Prozess und die Argumente, die zum Vorschlag des 9. Europaischen Rahmenprogramms fur Forschung und Innovation „Horizon Europe“ gefuhrt haben. Wir interessieren uns insbesondere fur die Rolle und den Einfluss der Mitgliedstaaten, insbesondere fur ihr Zusammenspiel mit der Europaischen Kommission, auf die tatsachliche Form des RP9-Vorschlags sowie fur wichtige Beitrage zu dieser noch andauernden Debatte wie der Zwischenbewertung von H2020 und fur verschiedene Expertengruppen. Das Papier konzentriert sich auf zwei der neuartigen Elemente von Horizon Europe, namlich das Konzept von „Missionen“ als Ansatz zur Verbesserung der gesellschaftlichen Auswirkungen von „Horizon Europe“ und den Vorschlag zur Einrichtung eines Europaischen Innovationsrates.