Introduction and Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to study research on unintended undesirable consequences of innovation. It isinspired by the innovation diffusion literature review by Rogers (1983), which twenty years ago identified only0.2 % of innovation articles to be on the consequences of innovation, most of them undesirable. Our aim is tosee how much of “innovation research” today captures undesirable effects of innovations.Innovation must be one of the most commonly mentioned concepts in social science. Preliminary searchesin databases, such as ISI Web of Knowledge, Google Scholar, EBSCO and ABI, reveal that although“innovation” hits reach hundreds of thousands, refining searches into ‘negative or undesirable consequences’decrease the hits down to a few hundreds. EBSCO Host, our database of choice for this paper, contained1,995,405 peer-reviewed articles on April 3rd 2009, thereof 190,133 (9.5%) articles mentioning “innovati*” inthe text.Our main research question is:
What unintended undesirable consequences of innovation have been found, and- who are mostly affected by those?
We also suggest a tentative answer on the question:
Why are so few authors, writing about innovation, interested in the undesirable consequences?
To answer our research questions, we conducted two studies: a review of articles in peer-reviewed journals withinnovation or NPD in the title plus a survey of corresponding authors. The term ‘undesirable consequences’ isfor the purpose of article search operationalised as relevant combinations of indirect, negative, unexpected,unintended, unanticipated, effects, side effects, results and consequences.First, however, a presentation of our analytical framework.
Unintended Consequences and Innovation
Contributions from four theories have inspired this paper: Economic theory, communication theory (Diffusionof Innovation), Merton’s sociological theory and stakeholder theory. Unintended consequences have been afundamental element in economic theory since Adam Smith’s work in the 18th century. According to Smith,prosperity for society as a whole is generated by individuals, who are led “by an invisible hand to promote anend which was no part of his intention” (Smith 1789).The economist Joseph Schumpeter (1939) sees “innovation, together with all their effects, and the responseto them by the economic system” as the primary generator of growth in the economy. Innovation is “theoutstanding fact in the economic history of capitalist society … and it is largely responsible for what we at firstsight attribute to other factors” such as industrial processes (ibid p.86). In the Schumpeterian economic theoryinnovations cause “disruptions” in the economy, which become the main cause of both the growth of newindustries and companies and the demise of old ones. For some direct and indirect consequences will bedesirable, others will suffer; such cycles are part and parcel of the capitalist economic system.Schumpeter’s theory has been widely criticized, and the role of innovation as the primary generator of growth has been reduced somewhat in later economic theory. Yet his definition of innovation as “the setting upof a new production function” (ibid.1939:87), in which he distinguishes between product and processinnovation still forms the basis of later definitions. Hayek, e.g. argues the unintended consequences of individuals’ actions create the “spontaneous order”, which characterises the capitalist market economy (seeBarry, 1982).In the research field of innovation the study of consequences is mainly conducted within the diffusion of innovation stream, based on the concept of diffusion as defined by the communications scholar Rogers (1983,1-7): “Diffusion is the process by which an innovation is communicated through certain channels over timeamong the members of a social system”. While Schumpeter defines innovation from the innovator’sperspective, diffusion scholars define it from the adopters’ perspective. The innovator’s representatives,financers and change agents are regarded as driving forces with the intention to spread or increase the usage of the innovation among adopters. The theory is commonly used to analyse effects of marketing methods (Rogers1976, Lowrey 1991) and to analyse introduction of new processes in organisations, (Feller & Menzel 1977,