Veranstaltungsprogramm der VHB Tagung

Relevance and Problem Statement

Responsible Innovation (RI) has emerged as a guiding paradigm for aligning innovation processes with ethical considerations, societal values, and the needs of present and future generations. It emphasizes “taking care of the future through collective stewardship of science and innovation in the present” (Stilgoe et al., 2013, p. 1570) and involves “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” (von Schomberg, 2011, p. 9). Among others, RI addresses challenges such as environmental sustainability, social equity, and ethical dilemmas in emerging technologies like artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and energy systems (Scherer & Voegtlin 2020; Voegtlin & Scherer 2017; Voegtlin et al. 2022). The relevance of RI is evident in fields such as healthcare (e.g., designing equitable and accurate AI diagnostic tools), information technology (e.g., ensuring privacy-by-design in applications), energy (e.g., promoting renewable energy production and use), mobility (e.g., creating autonomous solutions that consider community needs), or food systems (e.g., addressing ethical and sustainability concerns of cultivated meat). However, despite progressive intentions, RI is inherently embedded in a landscape of tensions and contradictions. These tensions may arise between innovation and regulation, economic incentives and ethical commitments, or short-term efficiency and long-term responsibility (e.g., Fisher & Rip, 2013, Lehoux et al., 2021). Such tensions make the implementation of RI complex, often generating unintended consequences, such as due to conflicting stakeholder expectations.

Against the backdrop of ongoing polycrises, political conservatism, and nationalist shifts (Lawrence et al., 2024), RI may be put on hold or even incur significant backlash by individuals or collectives in organizations or society at large. Backlash is commonly described as a countermovement to intended or actual transformational change to regress to the status quo ante, often initiated by individuals or collectives who consider transitions having gone too far (Alter & Zürn, 2020). While society increasingly demands RI, various actors also push back against it, perceiving it as overly normative, politically motivated, or threatening to identity, autonomy, or former status quo. In other words, RI, while often societally desirable, can elicit backlash when it challenges entrenched power structures, dominant ideologies, or perceived cultural or economic interests. For example, while responsible (ethical) AI has gained traction as a strategic priority in recent years, many global tech firms discontinue responsible AI initiatives and related governance instruments in response to political backlash. Google restructured and downsized its RI group in 2024, prompting concerns that commercial imperatives are sidelining AI oversight. And the US Commerce Department removed references to “responsible AI” from the AI policy guidance, to “reduce ideological bias” and promote economic competitiveness and acceleration instead. Similar reactions by firms to changing societal and political environments can be observed in various sectors. For example, in the mobility sector, Porsche has reinforced classical, combustion-based concepts. In the energy sector, there has been a renaissance of LNG-based systems, and the diffusion of renewable energy has slowed down. In the drone sector, many companies have shifted from social applications such as environmental monitoring to defense applications.

Hence, backlash can manifest in various forms, including a stronger focus of organizations on short term and narrow economic benefits of innovations while neglecting environmental and social needs, consumer resistance to sustainable products, pushback against diversity and inclusion initiatives, strengthening internal and local organizational forms of innovations while restraining from open and global innovation, or even active undermining of RI efforts by external stakeholders (e.g., Chun & Giebelhausen, 2012). These dynamics and in particular the organizational and individual reactions and coping mechanisms remain underexplored in the literature on innovation and its management.

Backlash is distinct from resistance to innovation which has long been studied in contexts such as user adoption or organizational change (Heidenreich & Kraemer, 2016; Heidenreich, & Handrich, 2015; Kleijnen et al., 2009; Laukkanen et al., 2007; Mani & Chouk, 2018; Talke & Heidenreich, 2014). Resistance to change has frequently been depicted as an impediment to be surmounted, a pivotal form of feedback to be incorporated into the innovation process, and a construct that is collaboratively built through interaction (Ford, Ford & D’Amelio, 2008). Conversely, backlash differs from resistance in that it seeks to delegitimize or reverse RI efforts, not merely contest them. These efforts are often grounded in normative, identity-based, and politically mobilized opposition. Therefore, the backlash extends beyond opposition to RI by involving activities that alter the strategies, structures, and culture of organizations, as well as a stronger focus on irresponsible innovation oftentimes. Understanding this form of countermovement requires new conceptual lenses that go beyond rational decision making and address identity, values, emotions, and power.

Backlash against RI can occur at various levels. On the individual level, consumers or employees may reject RI when it challenges established norms and habits such as boycotting plant-based offerings or sustainability initiatives (Phelan & Rudman, 2010). Within organizations, leaders may push back against RI strategies that conflict with short-term financial or operational goals (Smith & Lewis, 2011). And recent suspensions of or cutbacks on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs including in Germany further highlight backlash in organizations. At the societal level, backlash may take the form of political and cultural resistance to technological shifts (e.g., anti-green sentiments or legislative rollbacks) (Staggenborg, 2025).

Yet, it is worth noting that backlash need not be entirely detrimental; it can also carry constructive implications for innovation. In some cases, pushback emerges as a corrective response to an overly one-sided focus on environmental and ethical objectives perceived to slow innovation speed and market responsiveness. Such counter-reactions can spur a rebalancing of innovation priorities, ensuring that economic viability and technological agility are not overshadowed by normative goals. From this perspective, backlash can serve as an expression of agile adaptation to changed market conditions, prompting organizations to quickly realign their innovation strategies with shifting consumer preferences, competitive pressures, or geopolitical realities. Rather than seeing all backlash as regressive, it may sometimes function as a feedback mechanism that highlights the need for more integrative approaches–ones that reconcile responsibility with efficiency and encourage dynamic adjustments in innovation processes. This reflective tension, akin to a paradox where competing values coexist, can potentially stimulate creative solutions that uphold core principles of RI while accelerating progress (Smith & Lewis, 2011).

In sum, backlash against responsible innovation is a multi-level phenomenon that can originate from individual actors, organizational decisions, or broader societal dynamics. It can arise endogenously, i.e., within companies or interest groups that defend themselves against perceived threats to their values, or exogenously, as a reaction to changing political and cultural conditions. Furthermore, backlash can act both as a reaction to the implementation of RI and as a driver for strategic realignments, thereby influencing the future direction of innovation. Understanding backlash therefore requires an integrated perspective that considers its causal ambiguity, its normative foundations, and its interactive dynamics at all levels of the innovation ecosystem.

Despite its significance, there is a lack of research that explicitly examines backlash to RI. Understanding the individual, social, organizational, political, and economic drivers of backlash–as well as its consequences for innovation at different levels–is crucial for successful implementation of RI. Factors such as personality traits, leadership behaviors, organizational structures and processes, and firm networks and innovation ecosystems may all influence how backlash unfolds and what impact it has, considering changing economic conditions, societal values, and political attitudes. Therefore, this session seeks to explore the phenomenon of backlash against RI, with the goal of advancing both conceptual clarity and practical relevance across diverse business contexts. In this way, we aim to stimulate more research and even interdisciplinary research collaboration in the field of backlash against RI. This integrative workshop (I-WK) brings together scholars from different research communities to develop a shared conceptual understanding of backlash, identify its diverse manifestations, and discuss strategies to effectively manage it.

Session Structure and Format

The I-WK “Backlash Against Responsible Innovation” will take the form of an interactive special session, combining short impulse talks, open idea pitches, and collaborative discussion. The 90 minutes session will be structured as follows. If intended by the organizers, also a 60 min session is possible. A workshop / seminar room with loose seating that allows interactive discussion would be helpful. No specific technical support is required.

1. Overview of the concept of backlash (8 min): Introduction of the topic, outlining the relevance of backlash phenomena for responsible innovation and the session’s intended outcomes.
2. Impulse talks from the applicants’ perspectives (12 min): Each of the three organizers will give a short impulse presentation, highlighting backlash phenomena in different domains: resistance to technological and sustainable innovation such as ethical AI or green technologies, organizational and employee group opposition to diversity and inclusion initiatives, and consumer or market reactions such as revenge consumption and resistance to sustainable consumption norms.
3. Open contributions and idea pitches (20 min): Prior to the session, approx. five invited researchers with relevant expertise will be asked to prepare short statements (approx. 3 min) outlining their perspectives, initial empirical findings, or open research questions. We intend to cover the perceptions of further WKs. The session will then also be open to additional participants from the audience who spontaneously wish to pitch ideas or emerging projects related to backlash and responsible innovation.
4. Joint discussion and outlook (50 min): A moderated discussion will focus on identifying (a) different manifestations and causes of backlash, (b) its implications for management and innovation research, and (c) possible strategies to address and mitigate backlash effects in organizations and society. The session will conclude with a call for collaboration and next steps for joint research development.

Intended Outcomes and Follow-up Activities

The Special Session serves as a starting point for a collaborative research agenda on backlash phenomena in the context of responsible innovation. Participants will be invited to continue the discussion at a follow-up workshop by the Kiel Institute of Responsible Innovation (KIRI) on July 2nd 4th, 2026 in Kiel, where ideas developed during the session will be further refined in a Paper Development Workshop format. This workshop will also serve as a preparatory event for a Special Issue on “Responsibility Contested: Tension and Dynamics in Responsible Innovation” to be published in the Journal of Product Innovation Management (submission deadline: September 2026). The Special Issue aims to consolidate insights and advance interdisciplinary understanding of backlash phenomena across management fields.