14-1190b-innovation-managing-risk-evidence
14-1190b-innovation-managing-risk-evidence
14-1190b-innovation-managing-risk-evidence
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
As experienced by the World Trade Organization in the field<br />
of GMOs, trade disputes concerning <strong>innovation</strong> in the field<br />
of agriculture and food will without any doubt be part of<br />
the potential obstacles for the conclusion of Transatlantic<br />
Trade and Investment Partnership agreements (TTIP<br />
between the EU and the USA, and CERA between the EU<br />
and Canada).<br />
Under the negotiations scheme, the Sustainability Impact<br />
Assessment (SIA), a mandatory mechanism, must be applied<br />
to each domain of the agreements (energy, food, agriculture,<br />
ICTs, mining, pharmaceuticals, materials and so on) and<br />
agreed before the agreement is concluded. When the US<br />
Congress voted in favor of opening negotiations with the<br />
EU on the TTIP (with the European Commission, which has<br />
an exclusive competence, the European Parliament being<br />
only consulted for advice), it expressed the will that the<br />
agreement should be founded upon a common set of values<br />
supporting the whole edifice. For a SIA, we are aware of the<br />
fact that the so-called ‘precautionary principle’ will not be<br />
shared as the “common set of values” called for by the US<br />
Congress. This means that the opportunities for <strong>innovation</strong><br />
in <strong>risk</strong>y domains will be missed if the agreements (TTIP and<br />
CERA) go into a deadlock.<br />
The stakes are about one trillion dollars in annual<br />
value added , according to the TTIP economic impact<br />
analysis prepared before the opening of the transatlantic<br />
negotiations. So what is left in terms of potential core<br />
values to be shared, in order to secure trust in <strong>innovation</strong>s<br />
perceived as <strong>risk</strong>y, and thereby characterized by a<br />
potential societal <strong>risk</strong> leading to a political rejection of the<br />
agreement?<br />
The European Commission has been working on the<br />
concept of Responsible Research and Innovation, and<br />
published in 2013 a report exploring the different options<br />
for its adoption and implementation at the European Union<br />
level. The European Commissioner Michel Barnier adds the<br />
concept of responsible investment, which includes long-term<br />
systemic effects, and the ability to finance those investments<br />
for purposes of general interest (the safety of food and<br />
energy supplies, for instance).<br />
So, with a reasonable expectation of success, we can<br />
forge the concept of responsible research, <strong>innovation</strong> and<br />
investment (R2I2), as the potential foundational shared<br />
value to be proposed as a trade-off for the SIA framework,<br />
in the event of difficulties (we are pretty confident those<br />
difficulties must not be denied but addressed properly as<br />
soon as reasonably possible, otherwise they will pop up at<br />
the worst moment of the negotiation agenda). Should the<br />
potential of this concept be understood in time, it would<br />
have a great positive impact.<br />
OPTIMISM OF THE WILL:<br />
IN DEFENCE OF A MODERN STOICISM<br />
Jesper Poulsen-Hansen (Co-Founder and Partner, Gemeinschaft consultancy)<br />
155<br />
From the fickle beginning of human existence we<br />
have found ways to explain and understand the<br />
uncertainty of our world. We have populated<br />
our collective imaginations with gods, sciences,<br />
superstitions, causalities, anxieties and rituals in order<br />
to impose a fleeting sense of stability on an otherwise<br />
volatile existence.<br />
But why do we combat this uncertainty so<br />
ardently? The answer is fear. We fear the things we<br />
can’t control or the things that we have difficulty<br />
understanding. This is also the main reason for our<br />
time’s fixation with transparency, which again takes<br />
the shape of increased levels of surveillance and<br />
much new public-management logic. In short, we fear<br />
ambiguity and uncertainty, despite uncertainty being<br />
the prime mover of the progress of our species.<br />
This has affected something of a shared pessimism<br />
when it comes to <strong>risk</strong> and <strong>innovation</strong>s. We seem<br />
to associate uncertainty almost entirely with the<br />
bad things that could happen. But we seem to have<br />
forgotten that uncertainty is not only the source of<br />
dire news. It can also produce wonderful <strong>innovation</strong>s<br />
and technological progress; indeed, historically it has.<br />
Perhaps it is time to revisit the motto coined by<br />
the Italian political theorist and philosopher Antonio<br />
Gramsci: “pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the<br />
will”. It was his way of describing these dual forces,<br />
which have always beleaguered mankind. Simply put, it<br />
means that we know things can go wrong but we have<br />
faith that it won’t.<br />
These dual forces of pessimism and optimism,<br />
intellect and will, are also the ground on which<br />
the relationship of <strong>risk</strong> and <strong>innovation</strong> is built. The<br />
pessimism suggested is not a bleak cynicism but<br />
rather a constructive scepticism. The optimism<br />
suggested (and much needed) is not a happy-go-lucky<br />
recklessness but rather a historically-founded faith<br />
in a modern humanism. What we need is a modern<br />
stoicism of the twenty-first century. Humanity is<br />
underrated!