IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v200y2024ics0040162523008831.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How should we govern digital innovation? A venture capital perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Salgado-Criado, Jesús
  • Mataix-Aldeanueva, Carlos
  • Nardini, Santiago
  • López-Pablos, Cecilia
  • Balestrini, Mara
  • Rosales-Torres, César Said

Abstract

Ethical and governance issues regarding digital innovations developments like Artificial Intelligence have attracted abundant debate and research. Many perspectives – societal, engineering, research, management and policymaking – have been extensively analysed in an attempt to understand the role of the different stakeholders in minimising risks and amplifying opportunities. Interestingly, however, the investment community has been scarcely studied, despite the critical role of financing in technology innovation. This paper attempts to characterize investors' perceptions around the concept of digital innovation governance. We present insights derived from qualitative research using constructivist grounded theory, based on a series of interviews to 23 venture capital investment managers. Analysis of the data collected suggests several categories of important factors regarding how venture capital managers engage in Digital Innovation Governance (DIG): legitimacy of involvement, opportunity of conducting and capability to lead DIG initiatives in the invested startups. We offer a structured inventory of venture capital manager insights and perceptions on innovation governance. According to our research, venture capital managers, and investors in general, find themselves capable of and see opportunities and relevance in effectively fostering a digital innovation governance that takes into account the potential risks of Artificial Intelligence and identifies business and societal opportunities.

Suggested Citation

  • Salgado-Criado, Jesús & Mataix-Aldeanueva, Carlos & Nardini, Santiago & López-Pablos, Cecilia & Balestrini, Mara & Rosales-Torres, César Said, 2024. "How should we govern digital innovation? A venture capital perspective," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:200:y:2024:i:c:s0040162523008831
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2023.123198
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162523008831
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.123198?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hemphill, Thomas A., 2020. "“The innovation governance dilemma: Alternatives to the precautionary principle”," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    2. Fama, Eugene F & Jensen, Michael C, 1983. "Separation of Ownership and Control," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 26(2), pages 301-325, June.
    3. Stilgoe, Jack & Owen, Richard & Macnaghten, Phil, 2013. "Developing a framework for responsible innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1568-1580.
    4. Genus, Audley & Stirling, Andy, 2018. "Collingridge and the dilemma of control: Towards responsible and accountable innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 61-69.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lehoux, P. & Miller, F.A. & Williams-Jones, B., 2020. "Anticipatory governance and moral imagination: Methodological insights from a scenario-based public deliberation study," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    2. Kok, Kristiaan P.W. & Klerkx, Laurens, 2023. "Addressing the politics of mission-oriented agricultural innovation systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 211(C).
    3. Fisher, Erik, 2019. "Governing with ambivalence: The tentative origins of socio-technical integration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(5), pages 1138-1149.
    4. Kenny, Ursula & Regan, Áine & Hearne, Dave & O'Meara, Christine, 2021. "Empathising, defining and ideating with the farming community to develop a geotagged photo app for smart devices: A design thinking approach," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 194(C).
    5. Hemesath, Sebastian & Tepe, Markus, 2023. "Framing the approval to test self-driving cars on public roads. The effect of safety and competitiveness on citizens' agreement," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    6. Wiarda, Martijn & van de Kaa, Geerten & Yaghmaei, Emad & Doorn, Neelke, 2021. "A comprehensive appraisal of responsible research and innovation: From roots to leaves," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    7. Olin, Janne J. & Mladenović, Miloš N., 2024. "Unpacking the cultural aspects of transport automation governance in Finland: An interview study," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    8. Wang, Yanyu & You, Qinghua & Qiao, Yuanbo, 2022. "Political genes drive innovation: Political endorsements and low-quality innovation," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 407-417.
    9. Wettstein, Florian & Giuliani, Elisa & Santangelo, Grazia D. & Stahl, Günter K., 2019. "International business and human rights: A research agenda," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 54-65.
    10. Hasan, Iftekhar & Lozano-Vivas, Ana, 2002. "Organizational Form and Expense Preference: Spanish Experience," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(2), pages 135-150, April.
    11. Benkraiem, Ramzi & Boubaker, Sabri & Brinette, Souad & Khemiri, Sabrina, 2021. "Board feminization and innovation through corporate venture capital investments: The moderating effects of independence and management skills," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    12. Shaikh, Ibrahim A. & O'Brien, Jonathan Paul & Peters, Lois, 2018. "Inside directors and the underinvestment of financial slack towards R&D-intensity in high-technology firms," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 192-201.
    13. Anup Banerjee & Mattias Nordqvist & Karin Hellerstedt, 2020. "The role of the board chair—A literature review and suggestions for future research," Corporate Governance: An International Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(6), pages 372-405, November.
    14. Tarek Roshdy Gebba & Mohamed Gamal Aboelmaged, 2016. "Corporate Governance of UAE Financial Institutions: A Comparative Study between Conventional and Islamic Banks," Journal of Applied Finance & Banking, SCIENPRESS Ltd, vol. 6(5), pages 1-7.
    15. Gad Jacek, 2020. "The association between disclosures on control system over financial reporting and mechanisms of corporate governance: Empirical evidence from Germany and Poland," International Journal of Management and Economics, Warsaw School of Economics, Collegium of World Economy, vol. 56(4), pages 351-369, December.
    16. Ilya Ivaninskiy & Irina Ivashkovskaya & Joseph A. McCahery, 2023. "Does digitalization mitigate or intensify the principal-agent conflict in a firm?," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 27(3), pages 695-725, September.
    17. Evans, Lewis & Meade, Richard, 2005. "The Role and Significance of Cooperatives in New Zealand Agriculture, A Comparative Institutional Analysis," Working Paper Series 3847, Victoria University of Wellington, The New Zealand Institute for the Study of Competition and Regulation.
    18. Eric Haye, 2015. "Hedge Fund Ownership, Board Composition and Dividend Policy in the Telecommunications Industry," International Journal of Financial Research, International Journal of Financial Research, Sciedu Press, vol. 6(1), pages 111-118, January.
    19. Massimo Colombo & Annalisa Croce & Samuele Murtinu, 2014. "Ownership structure, horizontal agency costs and the performance of high-tech entrepreneurial firms," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 265-282, February.
    20. Seog S. Hun, 2006. "Limited Competition, Information Asymmetry, and Organizational Forms," Asia-Pacific Journal of Risk and Insurance, De Gruyter, vol. 1(2), pages 1-14, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:200:y:2024:i:c:s0040162523008831. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.