theglobeandmail.com
Licence to Innovate: Securing Stakeholder Approval for Technological Advancements
Eric Tang, Porter Novelli's managing director for Canada, advocates for companies to secure a 'licence to innovate,' gaining explicit stakeholder approval for technological advancements, beyond regulatory compliance, exemplified by Apple's privacy focus and Microsoft's sustainability initiatives.
- What are the key steps companies must take to secure a 'licence to innovate' and mitigate the risks associated with rapid technological advancements?
- To secure a 'licence to innovate,' companies must gain explicit stakeholder approval, going beyond mere regulatory compliance. This approach, rooted in stakeholder management principles, addresses growing concerns over the societal and environmental costs of rapid technological advancements, particularly in AI.
- How do Apple and Microsoft's approaches to innovation exemplify the principles of securing a 'licence to innovate,' and what are their distinct strategies?
- The 'licence to innovate' framework, aligning with ESG reporting, necessitates proactive steps: articulating innovation commitments, defining impact covenants to mitigate disruptions, and establishing measurable accountability. This contrasts with past 'move-fast-and-break-things' approaches, which are now unsustainable.
- What are the potential long-term societal and economic implications of widespread adoption of the 'licence to innovate' framework, and how might it shape future innovation?
- Companies like Apple (privacy focus) and Microsoft (carbon-negative goals, AI ethics boards) exemplify the 'licence to innovate' framework's practical application. This proactive approach fosters stakeholder trust, ensures responsible innovation, and contributes to long-term business resilience in the face of regulatory scrutiny and public skepticism.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the 'license to innovate' concept very positively, highlighting its benefits and showcasing successful examples. While it acknowledges potential risks, the overall tone suggests that this framework is a solution to the problems of irresponsible innovation. The framing emphasizes proactive stakeholder engagement and responsible innovation as crucial for long-term success.
Language Bias
The language used is generally positive and persuasive, promoting the 'license to innovate' concept. Words like "proactive," "forward-thinking," and "responsible" are frequently used. While not overtly biased, the consistently positive language could subtly influence the reader's perception.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses on the 'license to innovate' concept and uses examples like Apple and Microsoft, but it omits discussion of potential counterarguments or criticisms of this approach. It doesn't explore potential downsides or limitations of the license to innovate framework, such as the potential for it to be used as a form of greenwashing or to stifle genuine innovation.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat simplistic eitheor framing: either companies secure a 'license to innovate' and act responsibly or they face backlash and regulatory hurdles. It doesn't fully explore the complexities and nuances of balancing innovation with societal concerns, and acknowledges some counterpoints only implicitly.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article emphasizes the need for companies to secure a "license to innovate" by considering the societal and environmental impacts of their innovations. This directly relates to Responsible Consumption and Production (SDG 12) by promoting sustainable consumption and production patterns and decoupling economic growth from environmental degradation. Examples cited, such as Apple prioritizing user privacy and Microsoft