Purpose This study aims to investigate how ethics is incorporated in responsible innovation frameworks, explore conceptual and operational convergence across assessment tools and consider their alignment with environmental, social and governance (ESG) principles, acknowledging variation in how ethical practices are operationalised across organisations. Design/methodology/approach A comparative analysis of five responsible innovation assessment tools was conducted using qualitative content analysis. This study identifies first-order themes, higher-level themes and aggregate dimensions, with a focus on ethical deliberation, ethical governance and ethical reflection. While the analysis allows a structured comparison, this study is limited by the selection of frameworks, reliance on published documentation rather than primary organisational data and interpretive subjectivity inherent in qualitative coding. Findings Results show ethics as a central element in responsible innovation, shaping strategic and operational practices. Frameworks align conceptually on values, stakeholders and learning, but operational approaches vary. Furthermore, ethical principles guide ESG dimensions, with stakeholder engagement and iterative learning enabling organisations to translate ethics into practice. Originality/value This study contributes by offering a structured comparative perspective on the role of ethics across multiple responsible innovation frameworks. It clarifies how ethical principles are operationalised in practice within the scope of the selected frameworks and situates these findings in relation to ESG objectives. While the study does not provide definitive prescriptions for practice, it highlights variations across frameworks and identifies areas for potential integration and refinement, offering insights for researchers and practitioners seeking to better understand ethical dimensions of innovation management.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Almeida et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: