The benefits and challenges associated with cell-based meat (CBM) influence actors’ perspectives on the importance of its development and production. We build on Boltanski and Thévenot’s framework to analyse the values that start-ups and investors address to a responsible innovation (RI). In an uncertain and complex context, interactions among actors shape innovative enterprises. Our research question is as follows: In what ways do the justifications employed by start-ups and investors converge (or not) in order to foster investment in the CBM industry? By identifying the prioritised values by start-ups and investors concerning the importance of developing and producing CBM, we demonstrate how two key groups are providing justifications, shifting from conflicting interests and towards the observance of the common good. Twenty-two start-ups were analysed alongside ninety-four investors. The analysed justifications were obtained from start-ups and investors’ official websites and interviews. Moreover, this study aims to provide an interdisciplinary study of a RI phenomenon, insomuch as there is insufficient research on this topic.
AhujaG., & LampertC. M. (2001). Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: A longitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6–7), 521–543.
2.
ArtsI., BuijsA. E., & VerschoorG. (2018). Regimes of justification: Competing arguments and the construction of legitimacy in Dutch nature conservation practices. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 61(5–6), 1070–1084. http://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2017.1319346
3.
BhatZ. F., KumarS., & FayazH. (2015). In vitro meat production: Challenges and benefits over conventional meat production. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 14(2), 241–248. 10.1016/S2095-3119(14)60887-X
4.
BiggartN. W., & BeamishT. D. (2003). The economic sociology of conventions: Habit, custom, practice, and routine in market order. Annual Review of Sociology, 29(1), 443–464. 10.1146/annurev.soc.29.010202.100051
5.
BoltanskiL., & ThévenotL. (2006). On justification: Economies of worth (Translation, Cat). Princeton University Press.
6.
BrestP., & BornK. (2013). When can impact investing create real impact? With responses from Audrey Choi, Sterling K. Speirn, Alvaro Rodriguez Arregui and Michael Chu, Nancy E. Pfund, and Nick O’Donohoe. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 11(4), 22–31.
7.
BrettelM., MauerR., & AppelhoffD. (2013). The entrepreneur’s perception in the entrepreneur–VCF relationship: The impact of conflict types on investor value. Venture Capital, 15(3), 173–197.
8.
BryantC., & BarnettJ. (2018). Consumer acceptance of cultured meat: A systematic review. Meat Science, 143, 8–17. 10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.04.008
9.
BryantC., SzejdaK., ParekhN., DesphandeV., & TseB. (2019a). A survey of consumer perceptions of plant-based and clean meat in the USA, India and China. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 3. 10.3389/fsufs.2019.00011
10.
BryantC. J., & BarnettJ. C. (2019). What’s in a name? Consumer perceptions of in vitro meat under different names. Appetite, 137, 104–113. 10.1016/j.appet.2019.02.021
11.
BryantC. J., GasteratosK., AndersonJ. E., AsherK. E., & GreenC. (2019b). Strategies for overcoming aversion to unnaturalness: The case of clean meat. Meat Science, 154, 37–45. 10.1016/j.meatsci.2019.04.004
12.
CameronB., O’NeillS., SpechtL., DerbesE., & SzejdaK. (2019). State of the industry report: Cell-based meat.
13.
ChilesR. M. (2013). Intertwined ambiguities: Meat, in vitro meat, and the ideological construction of the marketplace. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 12(6), 472–482. 10.1002/cb.1447
14.
ColomboM. G., von KroghG., Rossi-LamastraC., & StephanP. E. (2017). Organizing for radical innovation: Exploring novel insights. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 34(4), 394–405.
15.
DahlinK. B., & BehrensD. M. (2005). When is an invention really radical? Defining and measuring technological radicalness. Research Policy, 34(5), 717–737.
16.
DalleJ.-M., den BestenM., & MenonC. (2017). Using Crunchbase for economic and managerial research. OECD.
17.
ForgrieveJ. (2020, December1). JUST egg maker wins OK to sell cell-based chicken in Singapore. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/janetforgrieve/2020/12/01/just-egg-maker-wins-ok-to-sell-cell-based-chicken-in-singapore/?sh=2f7e0cdb6e36
18.
FroggattA., & WellesleyL. (2019). Meat analogues: Considerations for the EU. Energy, Environment and Resources Department, The Royal Institute of International Affairs Chatham House. https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/2019-02-18MeatAnalogues3.pdf.
19.
GarcésL. (2020). COVID-19 exposes animal agriculture’s vulnerability. Agriculture and Human Values, 37, 671–672. 10.1007/s10460-020-10099-5
GenusA., & StirlingA. (2018). Collingridge and the dilemma of control: Towards responsible and accountable innovation. Research Policy, 47(1), 61–69.
22.
GiulianottiR., & LangsethT. (2016). Justifying the civic interest in sport: Boltanski and Thévenot, the six worlds of justification, and hosting the Olympic games. European Journal for Sport and Society, 13(2), 133–153.
23.
GladarevB., & LonkilaM. (2013). Justifying civic activism in Russia and Finland. Journal of Civil Society, 9(4), 375–390. 10.1080/17448689.2013.844450
24.
GodfrayH. C. J., AveyardP., GarnettT., HallJ. W., KeyT. J., LorimerJ., PierrehumbertR. T., ScarboroughP., SpringmannM., & JebbS. A. (2018). Meat consumption, health, and the environment. Science (New York, N.Y.), 361(6399). 10.1126/science.aam5324
25.
GompersP., KovnerA., LernerJ., & ScharfsteinD. (2006). Skill vs. luck in entrepreneurship and venture capital: Evidence from serial entrepreneurs (Working Paper 12592). National Bureau of Economic Research. http://www.nber.org/papers/w12592
26.
GompersP., & LernerJ. (2001). The venture capital revolution. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15(2), 145–168.
27.
GoodwinJ. N., & ShouldersC. W. (2013). The future of meat: A qualitative analysis of cultured meat media coverage. Meat Science, 95(3), 445–450. 10.1016/j.meatsci.2013.05.027
28.
HenkeS. (2018). Cellular meat, perspectives on a growing industry.
29.
IgnatiusS., DelaneyA., & HaapasaariP. (2019). Socio-cultural values as a dimension of fisheries governance: The cases of Baltic salmon and herring. Environmental Science and Policy, 94, 1–8. 10.1016/j.envsci.2018.12.024
30.
IgnatiusS., & HaapasaariP. (2018). Justification theory for the analysis of the socio-cultural value of fish and fisheries: The case of Baltic salmon. Marine Policy, 88, 167–173. 10.1016/j.marpol.2017.11.007
31.
JonesJ. J. (2020). How identity influences the investor-entrepreneur relationship: The case of impact investing (Doctoral dissertation). University of Colorado at Boulder.
32.
KarakayaE., HidalgoA., & NuurC. (2014). Diffusion of eco-innovations: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 33, 392–399. 10.1016/j.rser.2014.01.083
33.
ManziniE. (2014). Making things happen: Social innovation and design. Design Issues30(1), 57–66. 10.1162/DESI_a_00248
MohorčichJ., & ReeseJ. (2019). Cell-cultured meat: Lessons from GMO adoption and resistance. Appetite, 143. 10.1016/j.appet.2019.104408
36.
MurmannJ. P., & FrenkenK. (2006). Toward a systematic framework for research on dominant designs, technological innovations, and industrial change. Research Policy, 35(7), 925–952.
37.
OwenR., & GoldbergN. (2010). Responsible innovation: A pilot study with the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. Risk analysis: An International Journal, 30(11), 1699–1707.
38.
OwenR., & PanseraM. (2019). Responsible innovation and responsible research and innovation. In SimonD., KuhlmannS., StammJ., and CanzlerW. (Eds.), Handbook on science and public policy. Edward Elgar Publishing.
39.
PatriottaG., GondJ.-P., & SchultzF. (2011). Maintaining legitimacy: Controversies, orders of worth, and public justifications. Journal of Management Studies, 48(8), 1804–1836. 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00990.x
40.
PolzinF., SandersM., & StavlötU. (2018). Do investors and entrepreneurs match?–Evidence from the Netherlands and Sweden. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 127, 112–126. 10.1016/j.techfore.2017.07.016
41.
PonteS., & GibbonP. (2005). Quality standards, conventions and the governance of global value chains. Economy and Society, 34(1), 1–31. 10.1080/0308514042000329315
42.
PostM. J. (2012). Cultured meat from stem cells: Challenges and prospects. Meat Science, 92(3), 297–301. 10.1016/j.meatsci.2012.04.008
43.
PostM. J. (2014). Cultured beef: Medical technology to produce food. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 94(6), 1039–1041.
44.
ReisG. G., HeidemannM. S., BoriniF. M., & MolentoC. F. M. (2020). Livestock value chain in transition: Cultivated (cell-based) meat and the need for breakthrough capabilities. Technology in Society, 62. 10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101286
45.
SaavossM. (2019). How might cellular agriculture impact the livestock, dairy, and poultry industries?Choices, 34(1), 1–6.
46.
SchneiderC., & VeugelersR. (2010). On young highly innovative companies: Why they matter and how (not) to policy support them. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(4), 969–1007.
47.
ScollanN. D., GreenwoodP. L., NewboldC. J., RuizD. R. Y., ShingfieldK. J., WallaceR. J., & HocquetteJ. F. (2011). Future research priorities for animal production in a changing world. Animal Production Science, 51(1), 1–5.
48.
SextonA. E., GarnettT., & LorimerJ. (2019). Framing the future of food: The contested promises of alternative proteins. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space, 2(1), 47–72. 10.1177/2514848619827009
49.
StephensN., Di SilvioL., DunsfordI., EllisM., GlencrossA., & SextonA. (2018a). Bringing cultured meat to market: Technical, socio-political, and regulatory challenges in cellular agriculture. Trends in Food Science and Technology, 78, 155–166. 10.1016/j.tifs.2018.04.010
50.
StephensN., KingE., & LyallC. (2018b). Blood, meat, and upscaling tissue engineering: Promises, anticipated markets, and performativity in the biomedical and agri-food sectors. BioSocieties, 13(2), 368–388.
51.
StephensN., SextonA. E., & DriessenC. (2019). Making sense of making meat: Key moments in the first 20 years of tissue engineering muscle to make food. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 3(45). 10.3389/fsufs.2019.00045
52.
StilgoeJ., OwenR., & MacnaghtenP. (2013). Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy, 42(9), 1568–1580.
53.
ThévenotL. (2002). Conventions of co-ordination and the framing of uncertainty. In FullbrookE. (Ed.), Intersubjectivity in economics: Agents and structures (pp. 181–197). Routledge.
54.
ThévenotL., MoodyM., & LafayeC. (2000). Political practice and culture in French and American environmental disputes. In ThévenotL., LamountM., and SeidmanS. (Eds.), Rethinking comparative cultural sociology: Repertoires of évaluation in France and the United States (pp. 229–272). Cambridge University Press.
55.
TuomistoH. L., & de MattosM. J. T. (2011). Environmental impacts of cultured meat production. Environmental Science and Technology, 45(14), 6117–6123. 10.1021/es200130u
56.
van den BornR. J. G., ArtsB., AdmiraalJ., BeringerA., KnightsP., MolinarioE., HorvatK. P., Porras-GomezC., SmrekarA., SoetheN., Vivero-PolJ. L., GanzevoortV., BonaiutoM., KnippenbergL., & De GrootW. T. (2018). The missing pillar: Eudemonic values in the justification of nature conservation. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 61(5–6), 841–856. 10.1080/09640568.2017.1342612
57.
VergantiR. (2011). Radical design and technology epiphanies: A new focus for research on design management. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28(3), 384–388.
58.
VitalA. C. P., KempinskiE. M. B. C., de Moraes PintoL. A., NascimentoK. F., AlexandreS., & do PradoI. N. (2017). In vitro meat production: New reality of modern society. PUBVET, 11(6), 840–847.
59.
WEF. (2019). Meat: The future series: Alternative proteins. World Economic Forum. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_White_Paper_Alternative_Proteins.pdf
60.
WeinrichR., StrackM., & NeugebauerF. (2019). Consumer acceptance of cultured meat in Germany. Meat Science, 162. 10.1016/j.meatsci.2019.107924
