Megaproject responsible innovation: Concept, framework, and governance

Abstract

The reliability and sustainability of innovation in megaprojects are of critical importance with complex stakeholders and substantial resource investments. In that respect, responsible innovation management is the key to the sustainable development of megaprojects. This paper proposes the concept of megaproject responsible innovation (MRI) and develops a holistic framework for MRI with four dimensions: (1) anticipation across the megaproject life cycle, (2) inclusion of various parties in a relationship of symbiosis, competition, and cooperation, (3) reflexivity of social responsibility, and (4) responsiveness to social expectations. Based on an ecosystem approach to megaproject innovation, we propose an ecological governance strategy for MIR. Moreover, different approaches are needed in innovation organizations which are part of specific ecological niches for effective and efficient governance.

Graphical abstract

Keywords

megaproject innovation / responsible innovation / framework / governance

1 Introduction

Megaprojects are large public projects that offer fundamental public services for economic growth, social development, and residential life, including transport, water, communication, and energy projects (Gil and Beckman, 2009; Flyvbjerg, 2014; Lin et al., 2017). Megaprojects entail long lifespans, huge investments, and involve a great number of stakeholders; hence, they are often considered the backbone of societies (Levitt, 2007; Lin et al., 2018). They have a colossal impact on national competitiveness, modeling a country’s image, and contribute about 8% of global GDP and are likely to grow to 24% within a decade (Dalin et al., 2014; Zhao et al., 2015).

Regardless of their vital role, there are overwhelming difficulties faced by innovation in major megaprojects (Chen et al., 2020a). These challenges include the need for precise goal specifications, technological complexity, communication failures, and short-term thinking (He et al., 2015; Brockmann et al., 2016; Ozorhon and Oral, 2017; Chen et al., 2018). Moreover, the uncertainty, potential crises, and negative externalities of megaproject innovation often lead to social issues that go beyond the construction phase. These challenges can hinder the sustainable development of megaprojects, as well as broader economic and societal progress (Ma et al., 2017; Mok et al., 2017; Lin et al., 2018). A large number of megaprojects have been widely criticized for their inadequate social responsibility (Zeng et al., 2015). For instance, although the Three Gorges Dam is trumpeted as a mark of technological advancement, its ecological consequence and social aftermath have been under attack (Wu et al., 2003; Xie et al., 2003; Stone, 2008). In this regard, it is important that any innovation in a mega-project not forget social responsibility for sustainable development. Yet, the current underpinning megaproject innovation approaches fail to adequately address these challenges due to a lack of integrated frameworks that consider social responsibility and technological advancement issues. This highlights a critical knowledge gap in the development of holistic adaptive frameworks of megaproject innovation. A socially responsible perspective will be important to take forward conventional innovation management approaches. Such a shift will drive the need for ethical standards, societal expectation, technological advancement, and economic development to guide megaproject innovation. The concept of responsible innovation has, therefore, emerged through a re-think of goals and governance patterns in an effort to drive sustainable progress of megaprojects that offer benefits to individuals, society, and the environment (Levitt, 2007; Guikema, 2009). There is a dire need to address how responsible innovation should be integrated into megaproject innovation.

This paper contributes to extant knowledge by the development of the concept of megaproject responsible innovation (MRI) and what it means in an attempt to address the lapse in the literature. Our main contribution is to develop a comprehensive framework for MRI, including the following four dimensions: 1) fostering mutualism and coopetition among the concerned stakeholders; 2) making decisions considering the whole life cycle of megaprojects; 3) being aware of social responsibility and reflecting it in project plans; 4) responding to shifting social expectations. In addition, good governance significantly acts as a driver for responsible innovation; it sets the rules, rights, and responsibilities which are to be exercised for proper management. This study also deals with how ecological governance contributes to the reform of the MRI. It is hoped that our can shed light on the sustainable development of megaprojects.

2 Literature review

2.1 Megaproject innovation

Innovation management is traditionally seen as a comprehensive and integrated process (Adams et al., 2006; Adner, 2006; Nambisan et al., 2017) for the effective adoption and deployment of new technologies, equipment, materials, and procedures in the organizational setting (Tidd, 2001; Schiederig et al., 2012). Its main objective is to profit from both the organizational and institutional innovations for the further creation and delivery of innovative products and services. Megaproject innovation, on the other hand, is the process in which innovators address the technical challenges arising during the entire lifecycle of a project systematically and effectively (Davies et al., 2009; Brockmann et al., 2016; Locatelli et al., 2021). Current research has examined multiple strategies for fostering megaproject innovation. For example, Chen et al. (2021) identify and prioritize factors motivating stakeholders while providing practical guidelines on how large project innovations should be managed. Brunet and Cohendet (2022) propose a hierarchical governance model with integrated decentralized decision-making and an innovative-friendly environment. Other scholars, such as Locatelli et al. (2021), utilize an individual-level analysis in order to explore approaches that enable open innovation within megaprojects. Innovation in a megaproject is demand-driven and target-oriented, different from general technological innovation (Chen et al., 2018), focusing on integrated systems of either engineering products, equipment, construction technology, or engineering in its entirety (Davies et al., 2014). Its organizational form usually takes the shape of a temporary mixed organization and is more heterogeneous and dynamic. According to Chen et al. (2020a), it is more heterogeneous and dynamic. In addition, industries involved in megaproject innovation have extended from traditional ones that focus on construction methods to those focusing on building materials, equipment manufacturing, energy conservation, environmental protection, and finance. As identified by Larsson et al. (2014), all these characteristics make megaproject innovation management very complicated and challenging.

The growing complexity of megaprojects (Brockmann et al., 2016), along with rapid technological changes (Ozorhon and Oral, 2017; Woodhead et al., 2018) and diverse stakeholder demands (Flyvbjerg, 2014; Ma et al., 2017), calls for increased innovation. Innovation in megaprojects improves efficiency, sustainability, and resilience (Jin et al., 2022a; Ma et al., 2017) and helps address challenges like cost overruns, delays, and environmental impacts (Flyvbjerg et al., 2004; Love et al., 2012). For example, the application of innovative materials and digital technologies in construction will contribute more significantly to the efficiency of construction, reduction of environmental pollution, and improvement in the quality of projects (Davies et al., 2014; Ma et al., 2017). The new technologies of the main terminal construction for the Beijing Daxing International Airport project are developed by contractors and their partners (Li et al., 2022). In addition, innovation can attract private investment and thus lighten the burden on public finances (Davies et al., 2019; Whyte, 2019). Therefore, megaproject innovations are of core importance for both economic and social development.

As the need for innovation in megaprojects grows, researchers are increasingly focusing on managing large-scale engineering innovations (Davies et al., 2014). In the early 21st century, both academics and industry professionals have paid more attention to megaproject innovation due to its key role in development (Brockmann et al., 2016; Sergeeva and Zanello, 2018; Worsnop et al., 2016). Many scholars have conducted comprehensive theoretical studies and practical tests on megaproject innovation, referring to many aspects: innovation activities (Ercan, 2019), drivers and deterrents (Brockmann et al., 2016), technology proliferation (Dou et al., 2020), innovation elements (Davies et al. 2014; Lin et al., 2020), and paradigms (Locatelli et al., 2021; Worsnop et al., 2016). In recent years, megaprojects have focused not only on fast economic growth but also on pursuing high-quality and sustainable development (Aarseth et al., 2017; Lin et al., 2017; Lou et al., 2024). Despite the increasing coverage in the studies of megaproject innovation on its response to social expectations, which has been conducted, for instance, by He et al. (2019), such studies are still limited.

Responsibility is an important concept that should be taken into consideration in megaproject innovation. Impacts of such innovations are far-reaching, impinging as they do on many life cycle stages and a gamut of technical needs. On the one hand, innovation can tackle strategic technological problems in equipment, material, and basic component industries which will promote regional economic development. On the other hand, it may also cause a series of negative consequences when the responsibility is misplaced and the value conflicts arise during the innovation process (Guikema, 2009; Zheng and Kahn, 2013; Arslan and Tarakci, 2022). Ethical, environmental protection, social values, and sustainable development considerations are often missing concerning innovation in megaprojects. Thus, new innovative management frameworks that meet the demand of engineering technology feasibility and advancement become an urgent need. The new innovative management frameworks should also facilitate efficiency and economic growth by incorporating into their framework ethical responsibility and social values through the integration of technology and society. It is out of this demand that responsible innovation has emerged in the discipline of megaproject innovation.

2.2 Responsible innovation

New technological development and scientific and technological revolution urged great reflection upon the double nature of technological innovation. Free science, being one of the basic principles for the meeting of social needs and the upholding of social values, has promoted increasing debates on the boundary between science and society and also evoked concerns on scientific social responsibility. Social responsibility has been considered one of those duties that organizations are to be responsible for, alongside growth and financial gains (De Saille, 2015). Social responsibility regarding innovation, therefore, deals with the search not only for economic benefit but also includes consideration for social consequences and distribution and use of innovation results (Asongu, 2007; Dong et al., 2024; Severo et al., 2018; Zhu et al., 2019). The objective and non-objective influences of new technologies have brought forward the issue of responsibility in innovation. Hence, responsible innovation has been developed. Traditional innovation management combines responsible innovation with elements such as uncertainty, objectives, motivation, and development trajectory (Stilgoe et al., 2013; Owen et al., 2021). It provides an institutional process in which a large number of stakeholders can participate and allows innovation to be pursued in an ethical, sustainable, and socially satisfactory manner. Innovation involves anticipation, inclusion, reflexivity, and responsiveness (Stilgoe et al., 2013). Anticipation concerns the designing of flexible and adaptive systems so that innovation aligns with the values of society. This leads to anticipatory governance. Inclusion is supposed to enable the participation of stakeholders into open innovation activities where there is understanding of the various needs of groups, hence facilitating technological openness (Irwin, 2006). Reflexivity dictates involvement constantly in the life cycles of the megaprojects, inviting novelty and ensuring that there is conformation to what the public expect. Responsiveness considers newly emerging knowledge, insights, and normative direction or perspectives brought forth by changes in societal expectations (Stilgoe et al., 2013).

Responsible innovation has become a key topic in innovation management. Scholars have explored it from different angles: intrinsic attributes, the innovation process, and evaluating innovation results. The intrinsic perspective looks at how responsibility is embedded in innovation. The process and management perspective focuses on openness, sharing, and stakeholder participation (Stilgoe et al., 2013; Davis and Laas K, 2014; Spruit et al., 2016). The result evaluation perspective examines technological progress, economic benefits, and alignment with social expectations (Owen et al., 2012). The intrinsic attributes will discuss the newly emerging paradigm of responsible innovation and addresses its integration with the responsibility. The innovation process and management perspective underlines openness, sharing, and multi-stakeholder participation. The innovation results evaluation perspective looks at technological advancement, feasibility, economic benefits, and societal expectations attributed to responsible innovation results. However, most of the studies so far have focused on responsible innovation at the enterprise level, with little insight provided into responsible innovation in megaprojects.

3 Megaproject responsible innovation

3.1 Definition of MRI

The study of responsible innovation could not be complete without its application in a megaproject. The ethics of engineering are complex. Traditional engineering ethics theory comes in conflict with the practice observed in real life and, with the advancement of technology, often results in a conflict of interest by various stakeholders (Herring and Roy, 2007). Besides, the fluidity in technology, the inherent dangers that come with it (Owen et al., 2013), and the flattened social networks have magnified such clashes. In response, responsible innovation offers moral, sustainable, and productive returns that align with societal expectations (Halme and Korpela, 2014; Macnaghten et al., 2014; Scherer and Voegtlin, 2020).

MRI is a subcategory of responsible innovation within innovation processes in megaprojects for further sustainability. To successfully fulfill this goal, MRI needs to be anticipatory, inclusive, reflexive, and responsive (Stilgoe et al., 2013). One wants to underline the difference in focus and application from responsible innovation to MRI. While MRI focuses particularly on innovation activities of megaprojects, and this may imply that special consideration of the specific elements of megaprojects is needed while still meeting innovation responsibilities, responsible innovation as such is a more general concept and has also been related to, for example, technology, health care, and education. Based on the above concepts and characteristics, MRI may be defined as follows:

MRI refers to the continuous process of developing and integrating responsible practices during the entire life cycle of the megaprojects, including prospective assessments of goals against a multi-stakeholder involvement and collaboration with a view to continuously reflecting responsible practices and proactive adaptation to changes in societal expectations. MRI addresses carrying out target-oriented technology innovation activities with regard for the specific needs and challenges of megaprojects.

3.2 Dimensions of MRI

The unique dimensions of MRI are different from the responsible innovation of general enterprises (Fig.1).

3.2.1 Anticipation across the megaproject life cycle

Different from general technological innovations in enterprises, subjects of innovation in megaprojects evolve in the whole project life cycle (Brockmann et al., 2016; Chen et al., 2018). This evolution suggests that different emphases of innovation in the development life cycle reflect the dynamic and complex nature of managing and executing the project. In general, a life cycle is inclusive of an initialization or an inception phase, which includes conception, feasibility, and identification; followed by planning and design phases, a construction phase, and an operational phase (Munns and Bjeirmi, 1996; Miller and Hobbs, 2005). In the innovation of subjects in MRI ecosystems, engineering and social needs must be met, but the consideration of social responsibility should span the whole megaproject life cycle (Davies et al., 2009; Chen et al., 2020b).

Since the nature of the subject of innovation keeps changing and large projects are also complex in nature, it is possible that technological innovation may not immediately impact society adversely, but might prove to have adverse impacts in the near or far future. These are delayed effects that are in conflict with the criteria of sustainable development; therefore, anticipation of the impacts that will take place in the future should be made prospectively in the early stages of innovation. Innovation activity apart from meeting existing engineering needs should be driven by principles of crisis management, ethical acceptability, and social satisfaction. This approach ensures that the negative effects of science and uncertainties of innovation remain within the fold of social development.

The direction of existing research and innovation was taken by researchers for their work with the vision provided by responsible innovation theory. It talks about prediction and assessment impacts that can be political, economic, social, and technological, coupled with benefit and risk assessments in consultation and involvement of all stakeholders. Discussion will develop a flexible and adaptive system that describes and analyzes expected impacts, probable unexpected impacts, and be able to handle the unforeseen outcomes of research and innovation that include social, environmental, and ethical factors in their approach. It hence develops innovative “forward-looking governance” of keeping innovation in step with values.

The large-scale project’s life cycle subjects of innovative development need to be combined with the principles of responsible innovation to make an anticipatory system. It is possible, because of communication between the subjects at different stages, to predict and analyze at an early stage what impacts technological innovations might have in the future. This system, seen in Fig.2, tries to find problems in innovative activity as early as possible with a view to avoiding and correcting them, in order to provide forward-looking governance and include innovation in social crisis management.

3.2.2 Inclusion of various parties in a relationship of symbiosis, competition, and cooperation

In megaproject innovation ecosystems, relationships among key players are defined by symbiosis, competition, and cooperation (Hannan and Freeman, 1977; Baum and Singh, 1994; Sergeeva and Zanello, 2018). Symbiosis means that innovation participants are interdependent, working together to solve technical challenges and drive advancements. In a competitive relationship, participants compete by leveraging their strengths to innovate. Meanwhile, cooperation involves sharing technology, knowledge, and information through alliances or collaborations to achieve common goals in megaproject innovations.

Improving or integrating the existing technologies to meet both the engineering and societal demands is often beyond reach. It is, therefore, highly important for the participants to undertake collaborative innovation across organizational, departmental and industry boundaries. There is a good chance of development and implementation of megaproject innovations by properly managing these relationships.

For example, in the development of Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge, companies of Japan and China even though competitors, presented two different plans for the construction of the artificial island. As a result of the prolonged discussion, the Chinese scheme for circular steel tubes was adopted, and that led to the success of the project. Conversely, in the immersed tube tunnels installation, satellite communication companies along with China Communications Construction Enterprise were involved in the installations. Cooperation between them, marked by spread of knowledge facilitated them to overcome the quicksand problem during the installation. Symbiosis also took place in the project. The innovations of China Railway Shanhaiguan Bridge Group were necessary, and high standards of the bridge rely on these innovations, particularly in the production of steel box girders. Most importantly, their symbiotic relation is nicely expressed by their mutual dependence. Balanced competition, cooperation, and symbiosis of participants decided about the success of the project.

Inclusion theory of responsible innovation supports the co-existence of participants in these relations and helps them to collaborate on ethical and social problems at megaprojects. Responsible innovation views innovation as a collaborative and forward-thinking activity (Stilgoe et al., 2013). Inclusion, a key element of this theory, seeks to involve a broad range of stakeholders in innovation activities. It encourages participation beyond scientists, inviting various stakeholders to discuss roles, authority, division of labor, and interdisciplinary collaboration (Stilgoe et al., 2013). Inclusion allows different participants to voice their needs (Irwin, 2006), promoting openness in innovation. MRI participants can be classified into three groups (Stilgoe et al., 2013): experts (e.g., contractors, scientific research units), the public (e.g., owners, communities), policy makers (e.g., government departments, scientific and technological committees). Fig.3 shows how these groups interact through symbiosis, competition, and cooperation in MRI. Rooted in democratic values, inclusion enhances creativity, drives innovation, and generates synergies (Pansera and Owen, 2018). It is crucial for aligning the innovation results of megaprojects with social expectations (Owen et al., 2012; Guston, 2014).

3.2.3 Reflexivity of social responsibility

Unlike general corporate social responsibility, megaproject social responsibility (MSR) refers to “the policies and practices of stakeholders throughout the project life cycle, reflecting responsibility for the welfare of the wider society” (Zeng et al., 2015, p. 540). In particular, ensuring that megaproject innovations are ethically sound and aligned with the expectations of society requires introducing reflexivity into the process.

Innovation without reflexivity could further create such problems as delays of warnings in the early stages, loss of control, systemic risks, accidents, lock-in of technology, and complicated repairs. Reflexivity involves recognizing the gaps in knowledge and the limitations in understanding the development and impact of innovation activities (Wynne, 1993). The innovators must realize that there is no standard path for innovation and must reflect on progress throughout the life cycle so their advancements are aligned not only with project objectives but also with society’s needs.

Reflexivity can be regarded as compliant with the ethical underpinning of science in general and, therefore, highlighting the need for embedding work by innovators into larger social roles. They are also expected to consider recent developments of this field of science, to re-evaluate principles, and to insert ethical and moral reflections into the practice of innovation. The innovation experts in megaprojects should view themselves as a part of society. They should be able to know how their activities of research and development have consequences for social development in times and places and maintain predictive and innovative activities accordingly (Glerup and Horst, 2014).

The theory of responsible innovation highlights the importance of stakeholders’ self-reflection and cognitive awareness. An early warning system is part of this approach in order to help the stakeholders analyze issues in innovation and handle false claims. Reflexivity on social responsibility is an attribute that acts like an umbrella characterizing responsible innovation in megaprojects as a “meta-responsibility.” Fig.4 shows that responsible innovation in megaprojects means continuous reflection about assumptions, requirements, goals, execution processes, and results of innovation. Its goal is the alignment of new research with the process of innovation, the responsibilities of stakeholders, and the values of society at large.

3.2.4 Responsiveness to social expectations

Responsiveness of MRI bears the significance of acknowledging changing social expectations in new knowledge, visions, opinions, and normative criteria over the period leading from the building and construction (Stilgoe et al., 2013). How responsiveness bears this megaproject innovation is highlighted in Fig.5. The responsiveness needs to be timely as it helps attain real-time adjustments and corrections to innovative activities. Responsible innovation in the context of megaprojects ought to address uncertainty through vigilance and prompt action on the changes taking place within society to address the social needs of these projects (Owen et al., 2012). This will ensure that innovation practices align with changing social values and that institutions provide an enabling environment that accommodates such innovation activities with ease.

The work of embedding technological innovation within a social attribute context was first addressed by Gilfillan (1952). This indeed has been confirmed in subsequent research where technological innovation is said to respond to social environment and pressure with often cumulative effects. As a systemic response and organizational procedure, technological innovation adapts to, adjusts, and builds from previous technologies and knowledge. To be able to meet the full expectations set by society, dynamic capabilities should be developed through proper management of the responses in megaproject innovation. It is also necessary to integrate and institutionalize the available mechanisms of anticipation, inclusion, and reflexivity to establish the institutional coupling of innovation processes and their outcomes compatible with the social values (Owen et al., 2012).

The Collingridge Dilemma describes a situation where the social consequences of a technology are hard to predict during its early life cycle. By the time these negative repercussions emerge, the technology has already been embedded so deeply in the economic and social structure that it is very hard to regulate or shift. However, such dilemmas can be effectively managed through responsive governance mechanisms in the social governance of technological innovation. For example, interdisciplinary research methodologies provide a recursive approach to responsible innovation; these may consider problems and situations from many different angles of view (Wickson et al., 2006). In addition, responsible innovation in megaprojects also requires the ability to make quick changes in direction through dynamic values of the stakeholder and public or dynamic environments. This nurtures novelty that is tuned to anticipation, inclusion, and reflexivity (Stilgoe et al., 2013), thus bringing into light the role played by responsibility to the social expectations.

3.3 Value of MRI

MRI activities play an important role in the development of stakeholder relationships, which plays a very core role in fostering scientific robustness as well as realizing better decisions and increasing the project’s resilience to risk. From the anticipatory perspective, it would be important that MRI is able to assess in detail the probable risks and management of potential risks (Zeng et al., 2015), to ensure reasonable protection of the interests of all parties (Lin et al., 2014). The risks and benefits accruable would have evoked trust and dependence to stakeholders, since any missteps or withdrawals from either party are bound to highly affect overall interests.

The inclusion involved in MRI is further characterized by very frequent communication and collaboration across the stakeholders, including stakeholder understanding of each other’s needs and concerns (Stilgoe et al., 2013). Cases illustrate that effective interaction limits misunderstandings and builds mutual understanding, trust, and support. Long-term, stable partnerships arise from ongoing cooperation in responsible innovation activities, accumulating experience and resources, and thereby improving project success and efficiency.

Social and environmental impacts, among others, are taken into consideration in MRI together with the economic benefits. The stakeholders of this corporation work together for such causes. It, therefore includes social responsibility and sustainability. Thus, there is a development of closer moral and emotional connections. Responsiveness refers to the convergence of the different stakeholders with one common goal or at least a shared vision. Their points of conflict are minimized as reflected by the closer coordination.

Overall, MRI can generally establish better relations with stakeholders based on shared common goals, risks, and benefits; it promotes communication and cooperation as well as social responsibility. All the motives further stimulate close cooperation and guarantee successful implementation of projects.

4 Governance

Compared to normal projects, megaprojects require more organizational complexity. Therefore, responsible innovation is more difficult in the case of a megaproject (Adam et al., 2017; Hueskes et al., 2017; Ma et al., 2020). Often, there are different, sometimes conflicting motives of various stakeholders in megaprojects (Ma et al., 2017). The stakeholders have to align their core ideas and principles in order to build common sustainable value. Effective coordination of the decisions and actions of stakeholders is also basically important in achieving ethical compliance as well as in the resolution of social conflicts in megaprojects (Ma et al., 2017). To that effect, good linkages and collaboration among the different stakeholders must be developed. Here, proper governance solutions for MRI must be developed. From this perspective, the governance of MRI has become increasingly complicated and difficult. New solutions in terms of governance are needed. Traditional regulatory-based governance frameworks cannot cope with such project demands any longer. In this regard, an alternative theoretical framing, termed “ecological governance,” is suggested here-a development from earlier work of Xiao and Li (2019). This new approach aims to provide today-suited governance.

4.1 Ecological governance

In the context of dealing with the sophisticated technical requirements of megaprojects (Newig and Fritsch, 2009; Zeng et al., 2019), many innovation entities need to cooperate and integrate with each other in order to create an innovation ecosystem. It thus requires governance at levels from attention to the members’ individual responsibilities, their interactions (Brondizio et al., 2009; Jin et al., 2022b), up to a systemic and holistic approach to responsible governance at the level of the ecology as a whole. Ecological governance would therefore fit very well in addressing the governance needs of MRI. Broadly speaking, ecological governance has been referred to as “a range of interactions between actors, networks, organizations, and institutions emerging in pursuit of a desired state for social-ecological systems” (Chaffin et al., 2014, p. 56). It also aims at governing issues arising during the course of developmental processes that are characterized by features found in natural ecosystems (Folke et al., 2005).

The basic idea of MRI ecological governance is based on the symbiotic relationship among its members in the mega-project ecosystem (Xiao and Li, 2019). The so-called symbiotic relationship refers to the interaction among different species in an ecosystem, which shows interdependence and can evolve together. Interdependence among different participants is a common phenomenon in the mega-project innovation activities (Bodin, 2017). For example, since megaprojects usually have highly complex technical demands, a single participant cannot solve the problems with his own technology; therefore, he has to cooperate with other participants who can provide professional technical services (Lebel et al., 2006). When one participant undertakes innovation activities in a megaproject, he generally requires others to support him in the task and industrial chains (Chaffin et al., 2014).

Ecological governance in MRI refers to the identification and differentiation of roles and functions of the members within this megaproject ecosystem (Chaffin et al., 2016), emphasizing diversity in symbiosis within different ecological niches. Interaction and shared governance across different ecological niches (Paavola, 2007) lead to the formation of a more complex, multi-layered co-governance network. Ecosystem members generally include key niche members and extended niche members (Moore, 1993). In the megaproject innovation ecosystem, key members are owners, designers, and contractors, while extended members include governments, research institutions, regulatory agencies, and other social organizations. Key niche members often dominate the ecosystem (Albitar et al., 2023). In the MRI ecosystem, they drive innovation through their frequent involvement and strong connections to engineering projects. The extended niche members include the external supportive or constraining groups in the innovation ecosystem and turn the interactions between these outside groups and key niche members into internal ecosystem interactions. For instance, the government guides social responsibility, gives institutional support in the extended niche, whereas civil society organizations act as supervisors, collaborators, and facilitators of responsible innovation behaviors.

Interdependence and the mutual governance of the interactions among niche members are significant in determining roles and functions that interactions play in MRI governance. The nature and intensity of symbiotic relationships therefore define the way different members of a niche interact and influence the roles, which each member plays in MRI governance. Symbiotic relationships among niche members could thus be categorized based on the frequency of interactions, either obligate or facultative (Schultz et al., 2015). In natural ecosystems, some organisms exist because of symbiotic relationship with other organisms, a condition referred to as obligate symbiosis. Examples include the banyan tree and the fig wasp. In contrast, facultative symbiosis represents a condition whereby organisms gain improved survival probability but is not essential for their survival (e.g., beneficial mites and plants).

The owners, designers, and contractors are also highly interdependent as the leading players responsible for innovation in megaprojects. The owner of the project comes up with various activities such as determination of construction goals, carrying out preliminary research, preparation of the bidding documents, and formulation of technical standards. These provide the direction and framework based on which designers and contractors base their innovation efforts. Designers’ contribution to the development of innovative plans for a project owner entails professional research, development of design plans, preparation of technical documents, and consultation. These become the basis upon which contractors apply their innovations. While contractors enhance the technology, it is always communicated to the owners and designers who then develop and implement an innovation plan, which is appropriate for engineering practice. The interdependence in this case shows an obligate symbiotic relationship as no one of these entities can solely create a solution of technological innovation.

Besides, support needs to be drawn from other members of the niche rather than the key ones. Research institutes provide professional technical support, and the supervisory organs review and assessment. Government departments support innovation resources and provide guidance, although there are also other organizations and individuals that provide professional knowledge and innovative ideas. Without such entities, the key entities would find it virtually impossible to complete major technological research and create effective system innovations solutions. Therefore, from their perspective, this type of symbiotic relationship remains obligated.

Participating in innovation activities in the extended niche may improve necessary elements for innovation, and thus its own innovation capabilities. The former is not required to perform any necessity necessary for developing the latter. As such, it falls into the facultative symbiotic relationship seen in Fig.6.

More specifically, obligate symbiosis involves a greater frequency of interaction and solid organizational linkage than facultative symbiosis does (Garmestani and Benson, 2013). Accordingly, the interaction over responsibility for and mutual governance of members of the niche in an obligate symbiotic relationship is much stronger. Hence, strong methods of governance are often applied in obligate symbiotic relationships, and weak methods of governance are suitable for facultative symbiotic relationships.

It is important to note that the various levels of responsibility interaction and governance among members from different ecological niches create multiple, interconnected innovation responsibilities in megaprojects. These form a three-dimensional governance network, as shown in Fig.7, with a symbiotic relationship between members from different niches. Consequently, with the governance of a niche member, other members of the niche may give out a network of shared governance upon this member through mutual linkage, collaboration, and restriction, which consequently means that two members’ interactions and mutual governance behavior will be under the effect and regulation of other members of the niche.

4.2 Ecological governance model for MRI

As MRI is complicated, the community of responsible innovation ecosystem cannot be dependent on “natural selection” and “random arrangement” (Ludwig and Macnaghten, 2020). Instead, it requires the construction of specific rules or systems tailored to the unique dimensions of MRI. Furthermore, the symbiotic relationships discussed above have enriched our knowledge about the MRI ecosystem and have also scientifically paved the way for its governance design. Hence, based on these insights that are gained from both existing theories as well as practical experiences, we come up with an MRI ecological governance strategy (Fig.8).

4.2.1 Governance in obligate symbiotic relationships

Governance regarding the main ecological niche in the MRI ecosystem involves owners, designers, and contractors. This megaproject platform ecosystem has a central system operating through obligate symbiotic relationships. Self-organization is an important characteristic of both the platform and the ecosystem. MRI governance of the main ecological niche could therefore employ the self-organizing capabilities of the platform ecosystem. If a mechanism of self-organization in governance for the MRI were firmly set up, then ecological governance of obligate symbiotic relationships would be able to self-develop in its evolution.

Forward-looking Management: Among owners, designers, and contractors, the main business ecosystem members of the platform are owners, designers, and contractors. They lead in implementing social responsibility behavior into the ecosystem (Chen et al., 2020a). Each has to establish a mechanism of social responsibility management that corresponds to the demands placed by ecological governance. Forward-looking management is a key part of this mechanism. It involves early identification and research on innovative technologies, analysis and anticipation of their role and uncertainty, and predicting and monitoring the challenges posed by technological innovation (Bozanic et al., 2018).

Decision-making Transformation: A transformation to collaborative governance in decision-making and implementation regarding the inclusion aspect of MRI should be made by involving experts, stakeholders, and citizens (Irwin, 2006). Owners, designers, and contractors should change their autocratic decision-making to open collaborative governance. However, there is a paradox in platform openness and governance: the more open it gets, the more innovative it becomes, but at the same time, management becomes more competitive and complex to handle. This again echoes back to Boudreau (2010). Therefore, the paradox also echoes in MRI governance. Extended niche members have to be screened and filtered as a control mechanism in the MRI ecological governance.

Mutual supervision: The reflexivity dimension of MRI recognizes the bounded rationality of individuals and organizations (Wynne, 1993). To mitigate adverse implications of such constraints, mutual supervision mechanisms among the dominant ecological niches are necessary. The concept of supervision itself varies between countries (Serpell and Ferrada, 2007). For example, the level of stakeholder involvement differs: some countries promote collaborative regulation that involves participation from a range of stakeholders, while others depend on top-downregulation. This first type is more adapted to the governance among lead niche members because no one of them can govern MRI alone Too and Weaver (2014).

In the context of megaproject platforms, MRI governance provides coordination in managing and punishing owners, designers, and contractors. Cross-niche mutual governance and networked co-governance provide new approaches (Berkes, 2009). In supervising and punishing the main members of the ecological niche, joint governance can be instituted by members of the extended ecological niche and other main members of the same ecological niche.

Dynamic Management: Governance of MRI is inherently dynamic (Zeng et al., 2015), given that it is driven by ever-changing social expectations. Taking responsibility for innovating in megaprojects requires dynamic management models to actively embed new reflections and knowledge in the governing structures for MRI. A continuous framework in which all members, obligate or facultative symbiosis, through active cognition, integrate new reflections and knowledge into the MRI management structure. Such dynamic adjustments mean that MRI governance continuously responds and addresses societal needs to ensure the pursuit of sustainable and innovative results from a megaproject. In this respect, active participation in such an ongoing process keeps MRI governance relevant and effective within the ever-increasing dynamism.

4.2.2 Governance in facultative symbiotic relationships

Facultative symbiosis is an important feature of the MRI system and thus needs good governance practice. In line with the discussion above, we want to propose two soft governance practices which are very suitable in nature for MRI. First, we want to underline the importance of multidisciplinary collaboration. Resources from different disciplines can produce a better understanding of the problem being faced. This would enable the extended niche members to consider more factors when developing predictive models, increasing the accuracy of the forecast results. Besides, interdisciplinary collaboration diversifies the insights, fostering overall understanding and further improving the predictability of the models. Hence, when it comes to the megaproject life cycle development anticipation, interdisciplinary integration and collaboration mean a lot in technological innovation. Based on this consideration, the reputation mechanism is what we suggest. Reputation may nurture implicit incentives to maintain extended niches that meet the reflexive needs of the latter. The innovative process within a mega-project requires a full-range reputation system, including both professional capability and social responsibility. According to the evaluation result of the reputation, responsibility elements shall be brought into the credit rating system, and one national-level platform shall be established. Evaluation by such a platform would be a reference for the major entities involved in megaprojects. For the latter, the reputation mechanism requires the platform to link reputation with management, rewards, and punishments. In other words, it is necessary to grade different treatment levels according to the level of reputation and then activate it to effectively stimulate and restrain responsible behavior. For example, the reputation information in the process of project bidding can be used in scoring the bidders, which weighs a lot in the bidding outcome.

5 Discussion and Conclusions

Innovation in megaproject practices is one of the most important ways to enhance national competitiveness, especially under the backdrop of increasing global attention to the issue. Due to the fact that technological innovation of megaprojects and entailed social problems are becoming increasingly complicated, new and innovative management frameworks that can handle both engineering feasibility and social sustainability are urgently needed.

This study extends previous research on megaproject innovation by filling the gap in the existing literature. Although many existing studies focus on drivers that determine megaproject innovation, they all lack presenting a combined insight into the integration of social responsibility. Our study proposes the concept of MRI and proposing an integrative framework that links responsible innovation and megaproject innovation. More importantly, from the perspective of the megaproject innovation ecosystem (Chen et al., 2021), this study suggests that ecological governance has the potential to reinforce the concept of MRI. This is a new attempt to provide solutions regarding how to embed the notion of responsible innovation into megaproject contexts. The primary contributions of this article are as follows:

First, the study contributes to innovation research in traditional megaprojects from the perspective of responsible innovation by providing certain clues. The megaproject innovation has long been an important driving force for economic growth and social development, and it has always received a high degree of attention in theoretical research. While studying the development rationale instigated by the innovation of megaprojects, there is a lack of reflection on the negative impact of science and technology. MRI provides a critical reflection and reconsideration of the positive logic of traditional megaproject innovation paradigm. The paper proposes the concept of responsible megaproject innovation as an evolving process throughout the entire life cycle of a megaproject. This includes goal foresight, multi-stakeholder competition and cooperation, reflective responsibility practices, and proactive responses to changing societal expectations within technology-driven innovation activities. It combines key aspects of both megaproject innovation and responsible innovation.

Second, we use the context of megaproject innovation to develop a four-dimensional framework. This framework includes anticipating the life cycle evolution of the megaproject, reflecting social responsibility among multiple stakeholders (involving symbiosis, competition, and cooperation), and responding to societal expectations. This framework would overcome the fragmented and non-systemic defects of traditional research with a new standpoint on responsible innovation.

Third, responsible innovation should be governed in a way that will increase innovation efficiency. In this context, ecological governance is proposed based on the attributes of the megaproject ecosystem (Chen et al., 2021). Ecological governance is a systemic and holistic method that fits very well with the basic principles of responsible innovation. Based on these functions, the paper classifies the subjects of responsible innovation into key niche members and extended niche members in the megaproject innovation ecosystem. Considering different needs that these subjects have due to the type of symbiotic relationships with megaprojects, two categories can be distinguished for those relationships: obligate symbiosis and facultative symbiosis. Based on this ground in terms of symbiotic relationship, different governing ideas on the four dimensions of responsible innovation are put forward.

The pragmatic significance of the conclusions drawn in this research is in the leadership and administration of innovation in megaprojects. In this work, responsible innovation is concerned with how to incorporate, concepts and a framework into ecological governance that could stretch further and offer insights in practice. For instance, the dynamic management framework would enable the managers to open up the continual processes and change the strategies in accordance to the complexities of the megaprojects caused by new societal expectations. Thus, this study offers the theoretical framework that the policy makers and regulators may employ to develop policies that enhance comprehensive and contingency activities and mechanisms without negating accountability and professional ethical standards. These may allow practitioners to determine how megaprojects can become more efficient and less risky and help them tackle struggling issues as well as concerns related to innovation and governance.

However, the study is conceptual; therefore, there is the need for the conduct of further empirical research. First of all, the very idea of registry is relatively recent and therefore the process of systematic characterization and explication of MRI should be performed with continuous methodical cases. How to instantiate and test the latter empirically is a question best answered in future studies. In the future study, the kinds of the methods that can be included in the case study research can be used together with theoretical research. For instance, the researchers also can select one or several mega-projects as research subjects following the longitudinal single case study or the cross-case study. It would greatly assist in the elaboration of a more comprehensive outlook concerning the principal foundations and processes concerning the governance of MRI. By analyzing the main structure and implementation paths of reel one, one will be able to provide more elaborate answers to the questions of discussion. This would at the same time facilitate the provision of a research perspective and key conclusions offered in this article.

References

[1] Aarseth W, Ahola T, Aaltonen K, Økland A, Andersen B, (2017). Project sustainability strategies: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Project Management, 35( 6): 1071–1083

[2] Adam A, Josephson P, Lindahl G, (2017). Aggregation of factors causing cost overruns and time delays in large public construction projects. Engineering, Construction, and Architectural Management, 24( 3): 393–406

[3] Adams R, Bessant J, Phelps R, (2006). Innovation management measurement: A review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8( 1): 21–47

[4] Adner R, (2006). Match your innovation strategy to your innovation ecosystem. Harvard Business Review, 84( 4): 98–107

[5] Albitar K, Al-Shaer H, Liu Y S, (2023). Corporate commitment to climate change: The effect of eco-innovation and climate governance. Research Policy, 52( 2): 104697

[6] Arslan B, Tarakci M, (2022). Negative spillovers across partnerships for responsible innovation: Evidence from the 2014 Ebola outbreak. Journal of Management Studies, 59( 1): 126–162

[7] Asongu J J, (2007). Innovation as an argument for corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business and Public Policy, 1( 3): 1–21

[8] Baum J A, Singh J V, (1994). Organizational niches and the dynamics of organizational founding. Organization Science, 5( 4): 483–501

[9] Berkes F, (2009). Evolution of co-management: Role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. Journal of Environmental Management, 90( 5): 1692–1702

[10] Bodin Ö (2017). Collaborative environmental governance: Achieving collective action in social-ecological systems. Science, 357( 6352): eaan1114

[11] Boudreau K, (2010). Open platform strategies and innovation: Granting access vs. devolving control. Management Science, 56( 10): 1849–1872

[12] Bozanic Z, Roulstone D, Van Buskirk A, (2018). Management earnings forecasts and other forward-looking statements. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 65( 1): 1–20

[13] Brockmann C, Brezinski H, Erbe A, (2016). Innovation in construction megaprojects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 142( 11): 04016059

[14] Brondizio E, Ostrom E, Young O, (2009). Connectivity and the governance of multilevel social-ecological systems: The role of social capital. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 34( 1): 253–278

[15] Brunet M, Cohendet P, (2022). Transforming construction: heterarchical megaproject ecologies and the management of innovation. Construction Management and Economics, 40( 11–12): 973–986

[16] Chaffin B C, Gosnell H, Cosens B A, (2014). A decade of adaptive governance scholarship: Synthesis and future directions. Ecology and Society, 19( 3): art56–68

[17] Chaffin B C, Garmestani A S, Gunderson L H, Benson M H, Angeler D G, Arnold C A T, Cosens B, Craig R K, Ruhl J B, Allen C R, (2016). Transformative environmental governance. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 41( 1): 399–423

[18] Chen H, Jin Z, Su Q, Yue G, (2020a). The roles of captains in mega-project innovation ecosystems: The case of the Hong Kong–Zhuhai–Macao Bridge. Engineering, Construction, and Architectural Management, 28( 3): 662–680

[19] Chen H, Su Q, Zeng S, Sun D, Shi J J, (2018). Avoiding the innovation island in infrastructure mega-project. Frontiers of Engineering Management, 5( 1): 109–124

[20] Chen H, Zeng S, Yu B, Xue H, (2020b). Complementarity in open innovation and corporate strategy: the moderating effect of ownership and location strategies. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 67( 3): 754–768

[21] Chen X, He Q, Zhang X, Cao T, Liu Y, (2021). What motivates stakeholders to engage in collaborative innovation in the infrastructure megaprojects. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 27( 8): 579–594

[22] Dalin C, Hanasaki N, Qiu H, Mauzerall D L, Rodriguez-Iturbe I, (2014). Water resources transfers through Chinese interprovincial and foreign food trade. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111( 27): 9774–9779

[23] Davies A, Gann D, Douglas T, (2009). Innovation in megaprojects: systems integration at London Heathrow Terminal 5. California Management Review, 51( 2): 101–125

[24] Davies A, MacAulay S, Brady T, (2019). Delivery model innovation: Insights from infrastructure projects. Project Management Journal, 50( 2): 119–127

[25] Davies A, MacAulay S, DeBarro T, Thurston M, (2014). Making innovation happen in a megaproject: London’s crossrail suburban railway system. Project Management Journal, 45( 6): 25–37

[26] Davis M, Laas K, (2014). “Broader impacts” or “responsible research and innovation”? A comparison of two criteria for funding research in science and engineering. Science and Engineering Ethics, 20( 4): 963–983

[27] de Saille S, (2015). Innovating innovation policy: The emergence of ‘Responsible Research and Innovation’. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 2( 2): 152–168

[28] Dong J, Tian J, Lin H, Suo X, Wu H, Zeng R, (2024). Can corporate digital innovation speed up climate change mitigation? Evidence from China. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 71: 7797–7814

[29] Dou Y, Xue X, Wu C, Luo X, Wang Y, (2020). Inter-organizational diffusion of prefabricated construction technology: Two-stage evolution framework. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 146( 9): 04020114

[30] Ercan T, (2019). New three-part model of innovation activity in construction companies. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 145( 5): 04019022

[31] Flyvbjerg B, (2014). What you should know about megaprojects and why: An overview. Project Management Journal, 45( 2): 6–19

[32] Flyvbjerg B, Skamris Holm M K, Buhl S L, (2004). What causes cost overrun in transport infrastructure projects. Transport Reviews, 24( 1): 3–18

[33] Folke C, Hahn T, Olsson P, Norberg J, (2005). Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30( 1): 441–473

[34] Garmestani A S, Benson M H, (2013). A framework for resilience-based governance of social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 18( 1): art9–19

[35] Gil N, Beckman S, (2009). Infrastructure meets business: Building new bridges, mending old ones. California Management Review, 51( 2): 6–29

[36] Gilfillan S C, (1952). The prediction of technical change. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 34( 4): 368–385

[37] Glerup C, Horst M, (2014). Mapping ‘social responsibility’ in science. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 1( 1): 31–50

[38] Guikema S D, (2009). Infrastructure design issues in disaster-prone regions. Science, 323( 5919): 1302–1303

[39] Guston D H, (2014). Understanding ‘anticipatory governance’. Social Studies of Science, 44( 2): 218–242

[40] Guston D H, Sarewitz D, (2002). Real-time technology assessment. Technology in Society, 24( 1–2): 93–109

[41] Halme M, Korpela M, (2014). Responsible innovation toward sustainable development in small and medium-sized enterprises: A resource perspective. Business Strategy and the Environment, 23( 8): 547–566

[42] Hannan M T, Freeman J, (1977). The population ecology of organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 82( 5): 929–964

[43] He Q, Chen X, Wang G, Zhu J, Yang D, Liu X, Li Y, (2019). Managing social responsibility for sustainability in megaprojects: An innovation transitions perspective on success. Journal of Cleaner Production, 241: 118395

[44] He Q, Luo L, Hu Y, Chan A P, (2015). Measuring the complexity of mega construction projects in China—A fuzzy analytic network process analysis. International Journal of Project Management, 33( 3): 549–563

[45] Herring H, Roy R, (2007). Technological innovation, energy efficient design and the rebound effect. Technovation, 27( 4): 194–203

[46] Hueskes M, Verhoest K, Block T, (2017). Governing public-private partnerships for sustainability. International Journal of Project Management, 35( 6): 1184–1195

[47] Irwin A, (2006). The politics of talk coming to terms with the ‘new’ scientific governance. Social Studies of Science, 36( 2): 299–320

[48] Jin Z, Zeng S, Chen H, Shi J J, (2022a). Explaining the expansion performance in technological capability of participants in megaprojects: A configurational approach. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 181: 121747

[49] Jin Z, Zeng S, Chen H, Shi J J, (2022b). Creating value from diverse knowledge in megaproject innovation ecosystems. International Journal of Project Management, 40( 6): 646–657

[50] Larsson J, Eriksson P E, Olofsson T, Simonsson P, (2014). Industrialized construction in the Swedish infrastructure sector: Core elements and barriers. Construction Management and Economics, 32( 1–2): 83–96

[51] Lebel L, Anderies J M, Campbell B, Folke C, Hatfield-Dodds S, Hughes T P, Wilson J, (2006). Governance and the capacity to manage resilience in regional social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 11( 1): art19–39

[52] Levitt R E, (2007). CEM research for the next 50 years: Maximizing economic, environmental, and societal value of the built environment. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 133( 9): 619–628

[53] Li J, Duan X, Liu H, Lei S, Zhang Z, Li Z, (2022). Key technological innovations in the construction of the main terminal of Beijing Daxing International Airport. Frontiers of Engineering Management, 9( 4): 689–694

[54] Lin H, Sui Y, Ma H Y, Wang L, Zeng S, (2018). CEO narcissism, public concern, and megaproject social responsibility: Moderated mediating examination. Journal of Management Engineering, 34( 4): 04018018

[55] Lin H, Zeng S X, Liu H J, Li C, (2020). Bridging the gaps or fecklessness? A moderated mediating examination of intermediaries’ effects on corporate innovation. Technovation, 94–95: 102018

[56] Lin H, Zeng S X, Ma H Y, Qi G Y, Tam V W, (2014). Can political capital drive corporate green innovation? Lessons from China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 64: 63–72

[57] Lin H, Zeng S X, Ma H Y, Zeng R, Tam V W, (2017). An indicator system for evaluating megaproject social responsibility. International Journal of Project Management, 35( 7): 1415–1426

[58] Locatelli G, Greco M, Invernizzi D C, Grimaldi M, Malizia S, (2021). What about the people? Micro-foundations of open innovation in megaprojects. International Journal of Project Management, 39( 2): 115–127

[59] Lou N, Guo R, Lin H, Yu M, Han Y, Wu H, (2024). Exploring the solow paradox: Evidence from a quasi-natural experiment in China on smart city pilots and corporate total factor productivity. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 150( 4): 04024041

[60] Love P E D, Edwards D J, Irani Z, (2012). Moving beyond optimism bias and strategic misrepresentation: An explanation for social infrastructure project cost overruns. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 59( 4): 560–571

[61] Ludwig D, Macnaghten P, (2020). Traditional ecological knowledge in innovation governance: A framework for responsible and just innovation. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 7( 1): 26–44

[62] Ma H, Liu Z, Zeng S, Lin H, Tam V W, (2020). Does megaproject social responsibility improve the sustainability of the construction industry. Engineering, Construction, and Architectural Management, 27( 4): 975–996

[63] Ma H, Zeng S, Lin H, Chen H, Shi J J, (2017). The societal governance of megaproject social responsibility. International Journal of Project Management, 35( 7): 1365–1377

[64] Macnaghten P, Owen R, Stilgoe J, Wynne B, Azevedo A, de Campos A, Chilvers J, Dagnino R, di Giulio G, Frow E, Garvey B, Groves C, Hartley S, Knobel M, Kobayashi E, Lehtonen M, Lezaun J, Mello L, Monteiro M, Pamplona da Costa J, Rigolin C, Rondani B, Staykova M, Taddei R, Till C, Tyfield D, Wilford S, Velho L, (2014). Responsible innovation across borders: Tensions, paradoxes and possibilities. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 1( 2): 191–199

[65] Miller R, Hobbs B, (2005). Governance regimes for large complex projects. Project Management Journal, 36( 3): 42–50

[66] Mok K Y, Shen G Q, Yang R J, Li C Z, (2017). Investigating key challenges in major public engineering projects by a network-theory based analysis of stakeholder concerns. International Journal of Project Management, 35( 1): 78–94

[67] Moore J, (1993). Predators and prey: A new ecology of competition. Harvard Business Review, 71( 3): 75–86

[68] Munns A K, Bjeirmi B F, (1996). The role of project management in achieving project success. International Journal of Project Management, 14( 2): 81–87

[69] Nambisan S, Lyytinen K, Majchrzak A, Song M, (2017). Digital innovation management. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 41( 1): 223–238

[70] Newig J, Fritsch O, (2009). Environmental governance: Participatory, multi-level-and effective. Environmental Policy and Governance, 19( 3): 197–214

[71] Owen R, Bessant J, Heintz M, (2013). Responsible innovation: Managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society. Journal of Research Administration, 44( 10): 1513–1514

[72] Owen R, Macnaghten P, Stilgoe J, (2012). Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Science & Public Policy, 39( 6): 751–760

[73] Owen R, Pansera M, Macnaghten P, Randles S, (2021). Organisational institutionalisation of responsible innovation. Research Policy, 50( 1): 104–132

[74] Ozorhon B, Oral K, (2017). Drivers of innovation in construction projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 143( 4): 04016118

[75] Paavola J, (2007). Institutions and environmental governance: A reconceptualization. Ecological Economics, 63( 1): 93–103

[76] Pansera M, Owen R, (2018). Framing inclusive innovation within the discourse of development: Insights from case studies in India. Research Policy, 47( 1): 23–34

[77] Scherer A G, Voegtlin C, (2020). Corporate governance for responsible innovation: Approaches to corporate governance and their implications for sustainable development. Academy of Management Perspectives, 34( 2): 182–208

[78] Schiederig T, Tietze F, Herstatt C, (2012). Green innovation in technology and innovation management-an exploratory literature review. R & D Management, 42( 2): 180–192

[79] Schultz L, Folke C, Österblom H, Olsson P, (2015). Adaptive governance, ecosystem management, and natural capital. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112( 24): 7369–7374

[80] Sergeeva N, Zanello C, (2018). Championing and promoting innovation in UK megaprojects. International Journal of Project Management, 36( 8): 1068–1081

[81] Serpell A, Ferrada X, (2007). A competency-based model for construction supervisors in developing countries. Personnel Review, 36( 4): 585–602

[82] Severo E A, de Guimarães J C F, Henri Dorion E C, (2018). Cleaner production, social responsibility and eco-innovation: Generations’ perception for a sustainable future. Journal of Cleaner Production, 186: 91–103

[83] Spruit S L, Hoople G D, Rolfe D A, (2016). Just a cog in the machine? The individual responsibility of researchers in nanotechnology is a duty to collectivize. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22( 3): 871–887

[84] Stilgoe J, Owen R, Macnaghten P, (2013). Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy, 42( 9): 1568–1580

[85] Stone R, (2008). Three Gorges Dam: into the unknown. Science, 321( 5889): 628–632

[86] Tidd J, (2001). Innovation management in context: environment, organization and performance. International Journal of Management Reviews, 3( 3): 169–183

[87] Too E G, Weaver P, (2014). The management of project management: A conceptual framework for project governance. International Journal of Project Management, 32( 8): 1382–1394

[88] Whyte J, (2019). How digital information transforms project delivery models. Project Management Journal, 50( 2): 177–194

[89] Wickson F, Carew A L, Russell A W, (2006). Transdisciplinary research: characteristics, quandaries and quality. Futures, 38( 9): 1046–1059

[90] Woodhead R, Stephenson P, Morrey D, (2018). Digital construction: From point solutions to IoT ecosystem. Automation in Construction, 93: 35–46

[91] Worsnop T, Miraglia S, Davies A, (2016). Balancing open and closed innovation in megaprojects: Insights from Crossrail. Project Management Journal, 47( 4): 79–94

[92] Wu J, Huang J, Han X, Xie Z, Gao X, (2003). Three-Gorges Dam: Experiment in habitat fragmentation. Science, 300( 5623): 1239–1240

[93] Wynne B, (1993). Public uptake of science: A case for institutional reflexivity. Public Understanding of Science, 2( 4): 321

[94] Xiao H, Li P, (2019). Ecological governance of platform enterprises’ CSR. Management World, 35( 4): 120–144+196 (in Chinese)

[95] Xie P, Wu J, Huang J, Han X, (2003). Three-Gorges Dam: Risk to ancient fish. Science, 302( 5648): 1149–1151

[96] Zeng S, Chen H, Jin Z, Su Q, (2019). The evolution of megaproject innovation ecosystem and enhancement of innovative capability. Management World, 35( 4): 28–38 (in Chinese)

[97] Zeng S, Ma H, Lin H, Zeng R C, Tam V W, (2015). Social responsibility of major infrastructure projects in China. International Journal of Project Management, 33( 3): 537–548

[98] Zhao X, Liu J, Liu Q, Tillotson M R, Guan D, Hubacek K, (2015). Physical and virtual water transfers for regional water stress alleviation in China. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112( 4): 1031–1035

[99] Zheng S, Kahn M E, (2013). China’s bullet trains facilitate market integration and mitigate the cost of megacity growth. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110( 14): 1248–1253

[100] Zhu Q, Zou F, Zhang P, (2019). The role of innovation for performance improvement through corporate social responsibility practices among small and medium-sized suppliers in China. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26( 2): 341–350

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

The Author(s). This article is published with open access at link.springer.com and journal.hep.com.cn