Resumo

Responsible innovation evokes a collective duty of care: a commitment to rethink the purposes and impacts of innovation, as well as reflection on how to make its pathways sensitive to uncertainty (Mejlgaard & Bloch, 2012). This responsibility suggests, first of all, to rethink what one wants from innovation and then how to make it sensitive facing uncertainty. In recognizing the role of innovation in the collective future, it is necessary to evaluate what kind of future is sought (Owen, Macnaghten, Stilgoe, 2012).

The constant development of innovations has as main objective the generation and maintenance of competitive advantage (Barney, 1991; Teece, Pisano,& Shuen, 1997). Dynamic capabilities are shaped by the co-evolution of learning mechanisms, defined as routine activities geared towards the development and adaptation of operational routines. This paper aims to identify the microfoundations of dynamic capabilities developed by companies when including external stakeholders during the innovation process.

In considering innovation as a process, RI denotes a guideline for anticipation, inclusion, responsiveness, and reflexivity (Van Oudheusden, 2014). These four dimensions imply a collective and continuous commitment to be anticipatory, reflexive, inclusive and responsive (Stilgoe, Owen, & Macnaghten, 2013). The term coined by Teece, Pisano, and Shuen (1997) concerns organizational capabilities and can be conceptualized as the "ability to integrate, build and reconfigure internal and external skills to cope with rapidly changing environments" (Teece et al., 1997, p. 516).

Analyzing empirical papers that described the inclusion of external stakeholders, we did a search in articles that related the terms DC and RI did not identify articles describing the process of inclusion of stakeholders during the innovation process, it was necessary to seek to identify this process through the DC lens. In this sense, other relationships were researched, such as open innovation, co-creation, development of new products, among others. Despite this new lens, we did not identify any article that fully describes the inclusion of stakeholders during the innovation process.

The result of inclusion is reported mainly in cases where few interactions are performed, such as through workshops. Knowledge from these activities is then absorbed. However, there is a lack of studies that describe the whole process, in a systematic way.

Mejlgaard, N., Bloch, C., Degn, L., Nielsen, M. W., & Ravn, T. (2012). Locating science in society across Europe: Clusters and consequences. Science and Public Policy, 39(6), 741-750. Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., & Macnaghten, P. (2013). Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy, 42(9), 1568-1580. Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic management journal, 28(13), 1319-1350. Van Oudheusden, M. (2014). Where are the politics in responsible innovation? European governance, tech