CC BY
34
Шилина М.Г.
Стратегическая коммуникация в парадигме инноваций: комплексный методологический подход
Шилина Марина Григорьевна — доктор философских наук, профессор, РЭУ им. Г.В. Плеханова, Москва, РФ. E-mail: marina. shilina@gmail.com SPIN-код РИНЦ: 4953-4002
Аннотация
В статье исследуется феномен социально ответственных инноваций в структуре стратегической коммуникации. Ответственные инновации (ОИ) могут быть мета-основой современной стратегической коммуникации, в первую очередь корпоративной. Концепция ответственных инноваций является основной темой Восьмой рамочной программы Европейского Союза по развитию научных исследований и технологий (Horizon 2020). В ЕС и России практики и исследователи только начинают осваивать ответственные инновации как часть стратегической коммуникации. Парадигма инноваций обусловливает субъект-субъектную трансформацию модели стратегической коммуникации, и это изменение определяет потенциал радикального сдвига базовых параметров и перспектив развития стратегической коммуникации.
Ключевые слова
Стратегическая коммуникация, корпорация, ответственная инновация, ЕС, Россия, трансформация парадигмы, мета-коммуникация.
Introduction
Since 2010, strategic communication has become a widespread phenomenon in business and politics. Nowadays, strategic communication is no longer limited to a specific context or discipline, it is becoming more and more evaluated across fields. According to Hallahan, Holtzhausen, van Ruler, Vercic and Shriramesh, the essence of strategic communication is to involve the organization, defined in its broadest sense, in purposeful communication to advance its mission by engaging people in deliberate communication practices on behalf of organizations, causes, and social movements1. The term "strategic", first used in organization theory in the 1950s, implies that organizations may have economic goals2. Nowadays, it concerns primarily the idea of influencing different audiences, and is central to the concept of organization strategy. The term "strategy" has become synonymous with the term "strategic communication". In the 21st century, it is important to grasp how an organization presents itself in society both in relation to the creation of public culture and within the broader discussion of societal issues3, as modern organizations have become important social actors and have transformed the ways of
1 Hallahan K., Holtzhausen D., van Ruler B., Vercic D., Sriramesh K. Defining Strategic Communication // International Journal of Strategic Communication. 2007. No 1 (1). P. 4.
2 Deetz S. Conceptual Foundations // The New Handbook of Organizational Communication: Advances in Theory, Research, and Methods / Eds.: F.M. Jablin, L.L. Putman. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2001. P. 9.
3 Hallahan K., Holtzhausen D., van Ruler B., Vercic D., Sriramesh K. Op. cit. P. 27.
communication in society4. In 2017, strategic communication is driven by an expected attitudinal, behavioral, persuasive or knowledge-related outcomes5.
In the latest official EU documents6, strategic communication is used as an umbrella term, based on a Chatham House Report where strategic communication is described as a systematic series of sustained and coherent activities, conducted across strategic, operational and tactical levels, that enables understanding of target audiences and identifies effective conduits to promote and sustain particular types of behavior7.
In Russia, strategic communication is first of all a political issue because corporate communication can be described as a process involving marketing, rather than a social one8. According to Gavra, strategic communication generally ensures the development and implementation of the strategy of a social subject through their special communication resources and tools. The spheres of application of strategic communication are business, the social and cultural space, states' domestic and foreign policy, military affairs, and international relations9. According to Pashentsev, strategic communication is the state's projection of certain strategic values, interests and goals into the conscience of domestic and foreign audiences. It is effectuated by means of adequate synchronization of multifaceted activities in all the domains of social life with professional communication support. It is clear that such synchronization takes place in Russia today, reflecting the dynamics of the unique national symbiosis of the old and the new, of the local and the adopted aspects of administration and methods of influencing public consciousness10.
Experts of the European Union Institute for Security Studies (EUISS) stress that, in relation to external audiences, Russia's strategic communications are complex, with regard both to ideas and institutions. Carried out directly and through proxies, they shape people's perceptions of the EU — be it inside Russia, the EU, or in other countries. In light of the goals it intends to achieve, Russia's messaging has proven quite effective, while often crude and
4 Habermas J. Communication and the Evolution of Society. Boston: Beacon Press, 1979.
5 Strategic Communication: New Agendas in Communication / Eds.: A. Dudo, L.A. Kahlor. New York; London: Taylor & Francis, 2017.
6 EU Strategic Communications with a View to Counteracting Propaganda: In-depth Analysis / European Parliament. May 2016. URL: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2016/578008/EXPO IDA(2016 )578008 EN.pdf (accessed: 20.10.2017).
7 Cornish P., Lindley-French J., Yorke C. Strategic Communications and National Strategy / Chatham House Report. September 2011. London: Chatham House, 2011.
8 Шилина М.Г. Рынок PR-услуг в России в период кризиса: смена маркетинговой парадигмы? // Медиаскоп. 2016. Вып. 2. URL: http://www.mediascope.ru/?q=node/2119(,rara обращения: 20.10.2017).
9 Гавра Д.П. Категория стратегической коммуникации: современное понимание и базовые характеристики // Век информации. 2015. № 3 (4). С. 229-233.
10 Пашенцев Е.Н. Коммуникационный менеджмент и стратегическая коммуникация: современные технологии глобального влияния и управления. М.: МЦСПИК, 2014.
deceitful in terms of content, its delivery is sophisticated, targeted and tailored to different audiences, and even capable of exploiting the EU's weaknesses11.
According to EUISS' experts, in terms of method and style, the EU's communication has often been technocratic, unemotional, and reliant on the expectation that facts will speak for themselves. This has started to change lately, with a greater emphasis placed on story-telling and the use of "real people". Perceptions are no less important, and they can be shaped — as the cases of Russia and the ISIL abundantly prove12.
Thus, the role of strategic communication in society is increasing both on the level of state and that of organizations, and its model has to be emotional, human-centered, two-way, peer-to-peer and interactive.
What are the new challenges in strategies of communication in and between Russia and the EU? In a turbulent and uncertain political, economic and ecological environment, communication between organizations or states, as a subject of communication, and its audiences (both internal and external: authorities, stakeholders, society, etc.), social influence and impact is becoming more and more a reason why companies are inventing innovative technologies, services and products.
Nowadays, innovation is viewed in a different light. The concept of innovation demonstrates dynamics, ranging from the strategic stimulus for economic development13 to its specificity as an instrument of entrepreneurship which endows resources with a new capacity to create wealth14. It is mostly conceptualized as technical, economically profitable and inherently good15.
Since 2010, innovation is a widespread practice and is both social and responsible16. In this article, we shall analyze innovation as a part of corporate strategic communication. If previously corporate innovation focused on productivity, quality and strategy, experts of the first global innovation corporate ranking from "Bluefin Solutions" added new skills to the latter list. According to the experts of "Bluefin Solutions", a new entity of innovation is "complex and
11 EU Strategic Communications with a View to Counteracting Propaganda: In-depth Analysis. P. 6.
12 Ibid. P. 30.
13 Schumpeter J. Business Cycles. New York: McGraw Hill, 1939.
14 Drucker P. Innovation and Entrepreneurship. New York: Harper & Row, 1985.
15 Blok V., Lemmens P. The Emerging Concept of Responsible Innovation. Three Reasons Why It Is Questionable and Calls for a Radical Transformation of the Concept of Innovation // Responsible Innovation 2: Concepts, Approaches, and Applications / Eds.: B.J. Koops, I. Oosterlaken, H. Romijn, T. Swierstra, J. van den Hoven. Dordrecht: Springer, 2015. P. 19-35.
16 Deetz S., Kuhn T.R. Critical Theory and Corporate Social Responsibility: Can/Should We Get Beyond Cynical Reasoning? // The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility / Eds.: A. Crane, D. Matten, A. McWilliams, J. Moon, D.S. Siegel. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
elastic", and based on a platform of innovation architecture and strategic options planning, different ecosystems and resource attraction17. Innovation is computational (developer-driven, solution, APIs and apps, big data and analytics-based) and well-designed (from reverse / frontier and software / interface to products and services). Also, innovation has become social-driven and peer-to-peer inspired by open collaboration with audiences, customer product management and even by social media.
Companies have started to build their strategies in such an innovative "elastic" mode and present it as their contribution to sustainable development. As an outcome, the innovative products (services or technologies) bring not only profit but enhance also the organisation's reputation. So, the innovative company can be labeled as socially responsible. And such a feature as "responsible" has been attached to innovation and is used by innovation-driven companies and corporate strategic communicators. In other words, responsible innovation (RI) is founded on the idea that societal needs and values are as important for a company as the technology itself. To summarize, within the innovation paradigm, corporate strategies and strategic communication can be socially responsible and strategic.
Responsible innovation has distinctive features that can help channel it toward notions of collective responsibility and stewardship beyond existing commitments and ideological lines18, especially in a post-truth period19. First, responsible innovation is not an elite endeavor, but a widespread phenomenon in society20, and it is vital to achieve the goals and "grand challenges" that motivate people to invest in science and innovation21. Secondly, RI is meant to operate at the grass-roots level, not only on an institutional level (engineers, investors, users, entrepreneurs, etc.) in order to procure people's involvement and support22. Finally, RI is
17 The Bluefin Solutions Elastic Innovation Index, 2014: Global top 50 most innovative companies // Bluefin [Website]. URL: http://www.bluefinsolutions.com/Bluefin/media/Bluefin/PDFS/Bluefin-Solutions-Elastic-Innovation-Index-2014-Global-top-50-most-innovative-companies-%282%29.pdf (accessed: 20.10.2017).
18 Fisher E. Entangled Futures and Responsibilities in Technology Assessment // Journal of Responsible Innovation. 2017. Vol. 4. No 2. P. 83-84.
19 Fisher E. Responsible Innovation in a Post-truth Moment // Journal of Responsible Innovation. 2017. Vol. 4. Issue 1. P. 1-4.
20 Owen R., Macnaghten P., Stilgoe J. Responsible Research and Innovation: From Science in Society to Science for Society, with Society // Science and Public Policy. 2012. Vol. 39. No 6. P. 751-760. doi: 10.1093/scipol/scs093.
21 Guston, D. H. Forget Politicizing Science. Let's Democratize Science! // Issues in Science and Technology. 2004. No 21 (1). P. 25-28; Delgado A., Kj0lberg K.L., Wickson F. Public Engagement Coming of Age: From Theory to Practice in STS Encounters with Nanotechnology // Public Understanding of Science. 2011. Vol. 20. No 6. P. 826845. doi: 10.1177/0963662510363054.
22 Fisher E., O'Rourke M., Evans R., Kennedy E.B., Gorman M.E., Seager T.P. Mapping the Integrative Field: Taking Stock of Socio-technical Collaborations // Journal of Responsible Innovation. 2015. No 2 (1). P. 39-61. doi: 10.1080/23299460.2014.1001671.
forward looking and seeks to cultivate an ethos of care and creativity23. According to Stilgoe, Owen, and Macnaghten, the characteristics of RI are anticipation, reflexivity, inclusiveness and responsiveness24. According to the first Russian research25 of global responsible innovation, the characteristics of an innovative company, from a communication and reputation point of view, and with the exception of bravery, are transparency, connectivity and consistency.
In this study, I argue that within the field of strategic communication an innovative and responsible innovation paradigm is a rather new direction and that it could become a new means of fruitful communication between the EU and Russia because of common humanitarian values. Our theoretical objective is to conceptualize responsible innovation as the relevant part of strategic communication, which might change its mode and model. The practical objective is to explain how this theoretical approach can be operationalized in European and Russian top companies. In order to achieve these goals a comparative analysis, survey and interviews with the experts (researchers and practitioners) are used.
The article is structured as follows. Further, we discuss the RI concept in the theoretical framework of strategic communication. Then we focus on strategic communication and RI in corporate Russian context. Finally, some relevant concluding remarks are made.
Strategic Communication and Responsible Innovations: Mobilis in Mobili
Responsible innovation is a rather young but rapidly growing field of praxis and research. In the European Union, it is one of the main objectives of the Horizon 2020 research program, as well as part of the mission of the Directorate-General for research and innovation of the European Commission.
Responsible innovation has broad connotations, challenging the research engaged with theorizing the concept. For instance, it lacks a clear definition, and there is a wide range of research frameworks. Responsible innovation is described as a "concept", a "discourse" or a "strategy" (and as a "discipline or field of study" as well)26. The theoretical approach to RI deals
23 Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society / Eds. : R. Owen, J. Bessant, M. Heintz. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, 2013. P. 51-74.
24 Stilgoe J., Owen R., Macnaghten P. Developing a Framework for Responsible Innovation // Research Policy. 2013. No 42 (9). P. 1568-1580. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008.
25 Kazantseva M. Social Foundations of Corporate Communications for Innovation. Moscow: HSE, 2014.
26 Koops B.J. The Concepts, Approaches, and Applications of Responsible Innovation // Responsible Innovation 2: Concepts, Approaches, and Applications / Eds.: B.J. Koops, I. Oosterlaken, H. Romijn, T. Swierstra, J. van den Hoven. Dordrecht: Springer, 2015. P. 1-15.
with issues, such as inclusion and responsiveness, and the role of an organization in society27, so from this point of view, it might be a part of strategic communication. Despite the growing scholarship on the topic in the last decade, there is a research gap concerning the latter problem. According to de Hoop, Pols and Romijn, who have described the limits to responsible innovation, the literature on RI overlaps first of all with approaches such as participatory design, rather than with innovation, in the broadest sense of the word, and with issues of responsiveness to RI28. From a communication point of view, the authors focus on the management of innovation29, innovators, target groups and power structures' consolidation30, and socio-technical collaboration31. There is no relevant research concerning responsible innovation as a constituent part of strategic communication, neither in the EU nor in Russia.
How do the processes of innovation and communication activity correlate with each other from a strategic corporate communication perspective?
Given the lack of a single definition of RI, and the rapid development of the concept, it is useful to describe the main characteristics and analyze them from a strategic communication point of view.
The expert Group of the EU's Directorate General for Research and Innovation noted that Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) refers to the comprehensive approach of proceeding in research and innovation in ways that allow all stakeholders that are involved in the processes of research and innovation at an early stage (A) to obtain relevant knowledge on the consequences of the outcomes of their actions and on the range of options open to them and (B) to effectively evaluate both outcomes and options in terms of societal needs and moral values and (C) to use these considerations (under A and B) as functional requirements for design and development of new research, products and services32.
27 Thorstensen E., Forsberg E.M. Social Life Cycle Assessment as a Resource for Responsible Research and Innovation // Journal of Responsible Innovation. 2016. Vol. 3. No 1. P. 50-72. doi: 10.1080/23299460.2016.1181295.
28 De Hoop E., Pols A., Romijn H. Limits to Responsible Innovation // Journal of Responsible Innovation. 2016. Vol. 3. No 2. P. 110-134.
29 Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society. P. 51-74.
30 Pols A.J.K., Spahn A. Biofuels: Ethical Issues // Encyclopedia of Food and Agricultural Ethics / Eds.: P.B. Thompson, D.M. Kaplan. Dordrecht: Springer, 2014. P. 211-217.
31 Fisher E., O'Rourke M., Evans R., Kennedy E.B., Gorman M.E., Seager T.P. Op. cit.
32 Options for Strengthening: Responsible Research and Innovation / European Commission. EUR25766. 2013. URL: http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document library/pdf 06/options-for-strengthening en.pdf (accessed: 20.10.2017).
The RRI approach has to be a key part of the research and innovation process and should be established as a collective, inclusive and system-wide approach33.
The EU's innovation program Horizon 2020 considers the development of responsible innovation one of its fundamental objectives. According to the European Commission, responsible innovation is an approach that anticipates and assesses potential implications and societal expectations with regard to research and innovation with the aim to foster and to design inclusive and sustainable research and innovation. RI is a "cross-cutting issue" in Horizon 2020, which will be promoted throughout the Horizon 2020 objectives. In many cases, inter- and transdisciplinary solutions will have to be developed.
De facto, all of the most cited definitions in the academic literature in different national scientific schools and from various countries are linked to European policy processes and values34.
One of the most complex working definitions of RRI is provided by von Schomberg. This European proponent of innovation defines responsible research and innovation as a transparent, interactive process by which societal actors and innovators become mutually responsive to each other with a view to the (ethical) acceptability, sustainability and societal desirability of the innovation process and its marketable products (in order to allow a proper embedding of scientific and technological advances in our society)35.
The framing components can be summarized as follows: the aim of RRI is to render innovation more ethically acceptable, sustainable, and socially desirable and RI is an interactive process that actively solicits society's opinion.
This concept involves many stakeholders but the main one is society. In other words, the concept of RRI is a strategic one not only for corporations, but also for states and the wider global community.
In order to keep a transparent dialogue with society and to develop relevant strategic communication between the state, corporations, and civil society, the European Commission formulated six key components of RI:
33 Sutcliffe H. A Report on Responsible Research and Innovation / European Commission. 2011. URL: http://ec.eur opa.eu/research/science-society/document library/pdf 06/rri-report-hilary-sutcliffe en.pdf (accessed: 20.10.2017).
34 Hellstrom T. Systemic Innovation and Risk: Technology Assessment and the Challenge of Responsible Innovation // Technology in Society. 2003. No 25 (3). P. 369-384; Owen R., Goldberg N. Responsible Innovation: A Pilot Study with the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council // Risk Analysis. 2010. No 30 (11). P. 1699-1707. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01517.x; Stilgoe J., Owen R., Macnaghten P. Op. cit.; ШилинаМ.Г. Responsible Innovation, ответственные инновации как фактор социальной ответственности корпорации: формируя концептуальную рамку исследования // Медиаскоп. 2017. Вып. 2. URL: http ://www. mediascope.ru/2 313 (даат обращения: 20.10.2017).
35 Von Schomberg R. A Vision of Responsible Research and Innovation // Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society / Eds.: R. Owen, J. Bessant, M. Heintz. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, 2013. P. 40.
- Public Engagement: joint participation of all societal actors — researchers, industry, policymakers and civil society - to have a discussion on societal challenges;
- Open Access: ensure transparency and accessibility. The results of publicly funded research should be accessed without charge;
- Gender Equality: the gender dimension should be integrated in the research and innovation content;
- Science Education: better equip future researchers and other stakeholders with the necessary knowledge and tools to fully participate and take responsibility in the innovation process;
- Ethics: research and innovation respects fundamental rights and the highest ethical standards in order to ensure increased societal relevance and acceptability of outcomes;
- Governance: the responsibility of policymakers to prevent harmful or unethical developments in research and innovation. As we may notice, this is a fundamental basis for the development of the rest of the areas.
Responsible innovation influences strategic communication and here the concept of "social innovation" applies. Social innovation means the implementation of new ideas about how people should organize interpersonal activities or social interactions to meet one or more common goals36. This complex process requires the engagement of different players such as research institutions, companies, independent organizations, etc. Common global challenges make people realize that it is time to work together to find new solutions and move towards a sustainable society. Nowadays, it is one of the main features within the development of strategic communication.
Innovation-driven corporate strategies change rapidly. In the 2000s, innovation was still viewed as a competitive advantage and a way to get profit. Since 2010 however, companies have to innovate and present innovation as a part of their corporate strategy and social responsibility program.
One problem however, is that companies sometimes use fashionable rhetoric and present corporate social responsibility and responsible innovation as their contribution to society's sustainable development instead of demonstrating real social and economic purpose of research and innovation processes.
Nowadays in the EU, scientific and innovative research organisations are included into state programs of development (e.g. the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research, the
36 Valdivia W.D., Guston D.H. Responsible Innovation: A Primer for Policymakers / Center for Technology Innovation at Brookings. May 2015. URL: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Valdivia-Guston Responsible-Innovation v9.pdf (accessed: 20.10.2017).
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council in the UK, or in Russia, the innovation clusters all over the country, e.g. Skolkovo, etc.).
How could RI change corporate strategic communication? During the last decade, first in the context of the last global economic crisis of 2008-2009, and afterwards more generally, a paradigm shift occurred in strategic communications. According to Mahoney, the role of strategic communication in building and re-building corporate reputations, promoting organisational values, and in employee communication during structural changes, could be consolidated in a new way. This means that economic recovery presents an opportunity for a paradigm shift which explicitly would re-align strategic communication, not with the senior management level, but with the second and third management levels, in order to consolidate its value to dominant coalitions37.
This decade, the role of RI in the "re-aligning" of strategic communication means that innovation is making strategic communication particularly "future-driven" and has become an obvious part of all types of strategies. As a part of corporate strategy, innovation makes strategic communication social-driven. A social-driven and responsible model of communication should be two-way, and peer-to-peer based. This model of communication is rather new to strategic and innovation communication but is unique in making such a communication effective. Thus, it might be the next paradigm shift in internal and external corporate communication strategies.
Responsible Innovation as a Corporate Strategy?
Innovation has become a part of corporate strategies and might be social and responsible, in the framework of corporate social responsibility (CSR). Although CSR has quite a number of different labels, nowadays all big corporations apply a CSR policy. Practitioners have started to reevaluate the correlation between corporate governance and CSR, highlighting the evolution of the concept from philanthropy to the innovation paradigm. Researchers have listed innovation as one of the key components of corporate strategies and leadership in corporate communication, prioritizing it over other elements of corporate social responsibility38.
According to Valdivia and Guston, CSR must be extended to innovation in emerging technologies in order for responsible innovation to influence both new entrants and incumbent firms working at the forefront of innovation. Corporate citizenship as an alternative managerial
37 Mahoney J. Horizons in Strategic Communication: Theorising a Paradigm Shift // International Journal of Strategic Communication. 2011. Vol. 5. Issue 3. P. 143-153.
38 Mulgan G. The Process of Social Innovation // Innovations. 2006. Vol. 1. No 2. P. 145-162; Zerfass A. Unternehenskommunikation und Kommunications Management: Handbuch Unternehenskommunikation, Wiesbaden: Gabler Verlag, 2007. P. 21-70.
framework is proposed to incorporate the concept of social responsibility into the organizational structure of the corporation and it is reflective of the ISO 26000 voluntary international standard on social responsibility39.
Development and forms of corporate strategic communication differ from country to country. In Russia, not just theory but similarly the practice of CSR as a part of corporate strategic communication, are still in their initial stages.
Leading companies in contemporary Russia have started to work on the development of a legal background for corporate social responsibility in the middle of the 1990s. The main drivers of this process are large state-owned companies and local branches of global international corporations. However, it was only in 2004 that the first social charter for Russian business by the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs was issued (currently, more than 250 companies have signed the charter).
In Russia, corporate strategic communication is focused on such stakeholders as the state, the owners and employees of companies. Audiences are not active elements of the innovation communication model40. Civil society in Russia has no significant impact on business.
The formation of CSR to meet contemporary principles in doing and communicating business is only in its initial stage. Within Russian scholarship, attention to CSR has only been paid in the last few years. That is the reason why only very few Russian studies are being compared with earlier published material from around the world. Our review of the academic research and the discussion on the topic of CSR in Russia41 shows that it is still not viewed as an effective element in a system of corporate strategic communication.
Practitioners describe innovations as a part of governmental strategies and a promising field for public relations42. In Russia, corporate communication was only recently described as non-marketing oriented, but rather strategic in nature43. The growth of strategic specializations,
39 Valdivia W.D., Guston D.H. Op. cit.
40 Шилина М.Г. Текстогенные трансформации инфосферы. Методологический эскиз становления Интернета. М.: РИЦ Северо-Восток; НИУ ВШЭ, 2012.
41 Safiullin L.N, Bagautdinova N.G., Safiullin N.Z., Ismagilova G.N. et al. Development of Welfare Theory in Conditions of Changes in the Quality of Goods and Services // World Applied Sciences Journal. 2012. No 18 (Special Issue of Economics). P. 144-149; Перегудов С.П., Семененко И.С. Корпоративное гражданство как новая форма отношений бизнеса, общества и власти. М.: ИМЭМО РАН, 2006; Тульчинский Г.Л., Терентьева В.И. Бренд-ориентированный менеджмент: каждый сотрудник в ответе за бренд. M.: Вершина, 2007.
42 Кузнецов Е., Лапшов А. Коммуникации в сфере инноваций. К вопросу концептуализации мировой и российской практики // Медиаскоп. 2011. № 1. URL: http://www.mediascope.ru/?q=node/719 (дата обращения: 20.10.2017).
43 Корпоративные коммуникации в России. Анализ рынка по результатам исследования TOP-COMM 2014 / Под ред. И.В. Игнатьева. М.:АКМР, 2015.
appropriated in the developed industries, such as external relations and GR, financial communications and investor relations, and branding of territories is recorded44.
Regardless of the worldwide recognition of RI initiatives, there are no studies concerning this theme. There is only a small amount of research on the topic of corporate innovation. According to academic research on corporate innovation discourse, companies' communication models are not peer-to-peer or subject-to-subject and audience oriented, and more relevant models are not widely used45.
According to the results of our survey (2016), devoted to RI in Russia's CSR framework (sample: Russian PR practitioners (n=15) and researchers (n=20), 26 respondents describe the level of CSR in Russia as "rather low" and "low", and 25 of them have no information about practices of RI in Russia. Almost 80% of PR executives regard innovation as a competitive necessity for their companies because, as they, explained that innovative companies have more investor confidence, and stressed, that reputation for innovation is a competitive advantage. The EU researchers and practitioners (sample: n=10, 2016) are not "familiar" with this concept either.
Our analyses of the Russian companies leading in national strategic communications rankings (2014-2016, sample: n=100, we analysed the websites of 100 top companies from Top Comm rating of 250 companies, made by the Association of Communication Managers of Russia, ACMR, by the six main criteria of RI, formulated by the EU Commission, mentioned above: engagement; gender equality; science education; open access; ethics; governance) showed that all companies have a wide range of CSR activities, involve employees and audiences in different corporate projects. The tasks set by companies are stated more specifically every year. But they don't create, use and communicate innovations as the relevant tool of corporate strategy (e.g. Russian companies that were first to adopt the digital transformation, such as telecoms (MTS) have built robust service platforms that help manage a broad ecosystem of partners and audiences; they have also externalized key processes such as design, product development, and innovation).
In the leading European companies and in the EU branches of global companies the situation is similar (sample: n=100, top 100 most reputable companies, according to The Global RepTrak® 100, 2017, made by The Reputation Institute46).
44 Шилина М.Г. Рынок PR-услуг в России в период кризиса: смена маркетинговой парадигмы?
45 Шилина М.Г. Текстогенные трансформации инфосферы. Методологический эскиз становления Интернета.
46 The Global RepTrak® 100, 2017 / The Reputation Institute. 2017. URL: https://www.csreurope.org/18-csr-europe-member-companies-top-100-most-reputable-companies#.WggQBpTEeUk (accessed: 20.10.2017).
Both in the EU and in Russia, leading companies that useinnovation communication as a part of their corporate social responsibility activities still have no relevant practice and do not promote innovation using a corporate social responsibility framework.
The results of the analysis indicate that despite the governmental support, the trends of implementing RI in a corporate strategic communication framework both in the EU and in Russia are specific. The majority of companies, even innovative and socially responsible, have not given enough attention to the compiling of actual strategic communication trends. In other words, they communicate innovations, and the next step could be to implement responsible innovation as an essential element in corporate strategies and daily practice.
Concluding Remarks
This study explained the main features the phenomenon of responsible innovation and the trend of its inclusion into strategic communication.
The study of strategic communication in the innovation paradigm is complicated by varied understanding, different theoretical approaches and practices of strategic communication and RI both in Europe and in Russia. In today's Russia, the level of strategic communication is poorly valued by society. The ideas of RI are not well-known. Russian companies should learn to manage their innovation reputations: a good performance would improve stock price performance and social impact. Although, the EU's official strategies present the concept of RI as a cross-cutting issue organizations don't create, use and communicate innovations as a most relevant tool of corporate strategy.
Responsible innovation is considering innovation to be a new driver of strategic communication, which adds values to the corporation's reputation in the public sphere. Nowadays, it is impossible to communicate innovation without addressing the audiences. And innovation concerns not only new technologies or products in a classic strategic communication and production model, but also determines a paradigm shift to an "elastic" peer-to-peer communication model. It changes the traditional model and classical paradigm of strategic communication.
In politics, even states with different political modes such as Russia and the EU face similar external ecological and technological challenges and have a chance to co-operate within a RI framework.
Thus, nowadays responsible innovation should be a constituent part of strategic communication, and strategic communication which becomes permanently innovative has a chance to become the meta-communication of society.
References:
1. ГавраД.П. Категория стратегической коммуникации: современное понимание и базовые характеристики // Век информации. 2015. № 3 (4). С. 229-233.
2. Корпоративные коммуникации в России. Анализ рынка по результатам исследования TOP-COMM 2014 / Под ред. И.В. Игнатьева. М.: АКМР, 2015.
3. Кузнецов Е., Лапшов А. Коммуникации в сфере инноваций. К вопросу концептуализации мировой и российской практики // Медиаскоп. 2011. № 1. URL: http://www.mediascope.ru/?q=node/719 (дата обращения: 20.10.2017).
4. Пашенцев Е.Н. Коммуникационный менеджмент и стратегическая коммуникация: современные технологии глобального влияния и управления. М.: МЦСПИК, 2014.
5. Перегудов С.П., Семененко И.С. Корпоративное гражданство как новая форма отношений бизнеса, общества и власти. М.: ИМЭМО РАН, 2006.
6. Тульчинский Г.Л., Терентьева В.И. Бренд-ориентированный менеджмент: каждый сотрудник в ответе за бренд. M.: Вершина, 2007.
7. Шилина М.Г. Рынок PR-услуг в России в период кризиса: смена маркетинговой парадигмы? // Медиаскоп. 2016. Вып. 2. URL: http://www.mediascope.ru/?q=node/2119(дата обращения: 20.10.2017).
8. Шилина М.Г. Текстогенные трансформации инфосферы. Методологический эскиз становления Интернета. М.: РИЦ Северо-Восток; НИУ ВШЭ, 2012.
9. Шилина М.Г. Responsible Innovation, ответственные инновации как фактор социальной ответственности корпорации: формируя концептуальную рамку исследования // Медиаскоп. 2017. Вып. 2. URL: http://www.mediascope.ru/2313 (даат обращения: 20.10.2017).
10. Blok V., Lemmens P. The Emerging Concept of Responsible Innovation. Three Reasons Why It Is Questionable and Calls for a Radical Transformation of the Concept of Innovation // Responsible Innovation 2: Concepts, Approaches, and Applications / Eds.: B.J. Koops, I. Oosterlaken, H. Romijn, T. Swierstra, J. van den Hoven. Dordrecht: Springer, 2015. P. 19-35.
11. Cornish P., Lindley-French J., Yorke C. Strategic Communications and National Strategy / Chatham House Report. September 2011. London: Chatham House, 2011.
12. Deetz S. Conceptual Foundations // The New Handbook of Organizational Communication: Advances in Theory, Research, and Methods / Eds.: F.M. Jablin, L.L. Putman. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2001. P. 3-46.
13. Deetz S., Kuhn T.R. Critical Theory and Corporate Social Responsibility: Can/Should We Get Beyond Cynical Reasoning? // The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility / Eds.: A. Crane, D. Matten, A. McWilliams, J. Moon, D.S. Siegel. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
14. De Hoop E., Pols A., Romijn H. Limits to Responsible Innovation // Journal of Responsible Innovation. 2016. Vol. 3. No 2. P. 110-134.
15. Delgado A., Kj0lbergK.L., Wickson F. Public Engagement Coming of Age: From Theory to Practice in STS Encounters with Nanotechnology // Public Understanding of Science. 2011. Vol. 20. No 6. P. 826-845. doi: 10.1177/0963662510363054.
16. Drucker P. Innovation and Entrepreneurship. New York: Harper & Row, 1985.
17. EU Strategic Communications with a View to Counteracting Propaganda: In-depth Analysis / European Parliament. May 2016. URL: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etude s/IDAN/2016/578008/EXP0 IDA(2016)578008 EN.pdf (accessed: 20.10.2017).
18. Fisher E. Entangled Futures and Responsibilities in Technology Assessment // Journal of Responsible Innovation. 2017. Vol. 4. No 2. P. 83-84.
19. Fisher E. Responsible Innovation in a Post-truth Moment // Journal of Responsible Innovation. 2017. Vol. 4. Issue 1. P. 1-4.
20. Fisher E., O'Rourke M., Evans R., Kennedy E.B., GormanM.E., Seager T.P. Mapping the Integrative Field: Taking Stock of Socio-technical Collaborations // Journal of Responsible Innovation. 2015. No 2 (1). P. 39-61. doi: 10.1080/23299460.2014.1001671.
21. Guston, D. H. Forget Politicizing Science. Let's Democratize Science! // Issues in Science and Technology. 2004. No 21 (1). P. 25-28.
22. Habermas J. Communication and the Evolution of Society. Boston: Beacon Press, 1979.
23. Hallahan K., Holtzhausen D., van Ruler B., Vercic D., Sriramesh K. Defining Strategic Communication // International Journal of Strategic Communication. 2007. No 1 (1). P. 3-35.
24. Hellstrom T. Systemic Innovation and Risk: Technology Assessment and the Challenge of Responsible Innovation // Technology in Society. 2003. No 25 (3). P. 369-384.
25. Kazantseva M. Social Foundations of Corporate Communications for Innovation. Moscow: HSE, 2014.
26. Koops B.J. The Concepts, Approaches, and Applications of Responsible Innovation // Responsible Innovation 2: Concepts, Approaches, and Applications / Eds.: B.J. Koops, I. Oosterlaken, H. Romijn, T. Swierstra, J. van den Hoven. Dordrecht: Springer, 2015. P. 1-15.
27. Mahoney /.Horizons in Strategic Communication: Theorising a Paradigm Shift // International Journal of Strategic Communication. 2011. Vol. 5. Issue 3. P. 143-153.
28. Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society / Eds.: R. Owen, J. Bessant, M. Heintz. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, 2013.
29. Mulgan G. The Process of Social Innovation // Innovations. 2006. Vol. 1. No 2. P. 145-162.
30. Options for Strengthening: Responsible Research and Innovation / European Commission. EUR25766. 2013. URL: http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-
society/document library/pdf 06/options-for-strengthening en.pdf (accessed: 20.10.2017).
31. Owen R., Goldberg N. Responsible Innovation: A Pilot Study with the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council // Risk Analysis. 2010. No 30 (11). P. 1699-1707. doi: 10.1111/j .1539-6924.2010.01517.x.
32. Owen R., Macnaghten P., Stilgoe J. Responsible Research and Innovation: From Science in Society to Science for Society, with Society // Science and Public Policy. 2012. Vol. 39. No 6. P. 751-760. doi: 10.1093/scipol/scs093.
33. PolsA.J.K., Spahn A. Biofuels: Ethical Issues // Encyclopedia of Food and Agricultural Ethics / Eds.: P.B. Thompson, D M. Kaplan. Dordrecht: Springer, 2014. P. 211-217.
34. Safiullin L.N, Bagautdinova N.G., Safiullin N.Z., Ismagilova G.N. et al. Development of Welfare Theory in Conditions of Changes in the Quality of Goods and Services // World Applied Sciences Journal. 2012. No 18 (Special Issue of Economics). P. 144-149.
35. Schumpeter J. Business Cycles. New York: McGraw Hill, 1939.
36. Stilgoe J., Owen R., Macnaghten P. Developing a Framework for Responsible Innovation // Research Policy. 2013. No 42 (9). P. 1568-1580. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008.
37. Strategic Communication: New Agendas in Communication / Eds.: A. Dudo, L.A. Kahlor. New York; London: Taylor & Francis, 2017.
38. Sutcliffe H. A Report on Responsible Research and Innovation / European Commission. 2011. URL: http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/rri-report-hilary-sutcliffe en.pdf (accessed: 20.10.2017).
39. The Bluefin Solutions Elastic Innovation Index, 2014: Global top 50 most innovative companies // Bluefin [Website]. URL: http://www.bluefinsolutions.com/Bluefin/media/Bluefin/P DFS/Bluefin-Solutions-Elastic-Innovation-Index-2014-Global-top-50-most-innovative-companies-%282%29.pdf (accessed: 20.10.2017).
40. The Global RepTrak® 100, 2017 / The Reputation Institute. 2017. URL: https://www.csreurope.org/18-csr-europe-member-companies-top-100-most-reputable-companies#.WggOBpTEeUk (accessed: 20.10.2017).
41. Thorstensen E., Forsberg E.M. Social Life Cycle Assessment as a Resource for Responsible Research and Innovation // Journal of Responsible Innovation. 2016. Vol. 3. No 1. P. 50-72. doi: 10.1080/23299460.2016.1181295.
42. Valdivia W.D., Guston D.H. Responsible Innovation: A Primer for Policymakers / Center for Technology Innovation at Brookings. May 2015. URL: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Valdivia-Guston Responsible-Innovation v9.pdf (accessed: 20.10.2017).
43. Von SchombergR A Vision of Responsible Research and Innovation // Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society / Eds.: R. Owen, J. Bessant, M. Heintz. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, 2013. P. 51-74.
44. Zerfass A. Unternehenskommunikation und Kommunications Management: Handbuch Unternehenskommunikation, Wiesbaden: Gabler Verlag, 2007. P. 21-70.
Shilina M.G.
Innovation Driven Strategic Communication: Towards a Holistic Approach
Marina G. Shilina — D.Sc., Professor, Plekhanov Moscow University of Economics, Moscow,
Russian Federation.
E-mail: marina.shilina@gmail.com
Annotation
This paper explains the concept of socially responsible innovation from the perspective of strategic communication. Responsible innovation could be a meta-issue of contemporary strategic communication, particularly within the context of corporations. In the European Union, this concept is the main subject of the Horizon 2020 program. In the EU and Russia, practitioners and researchers have just begun to practice and investigate responsible innovation as a part of strategic communication. This new characteristic of strategic communication enriches companies' communication with innovation, changes its mode and model of communication toward a social-driven, peer-to-peer one.
Keywords
Strategic communication, corporation, responsible innovation, EU, Russia, paradigm shift, meta-communication.
