Perspective Chapter: Towards an Inclusive European Union – Societal Readiness and Responsible Innovation

1. Introduction

Building on the premise that the European Union’s future depends on its ability to align innovation with its core democratic values, this chapter is organised into four interconnected sections. The first examines the European context, tracing the evolution of values, policy frameworks, and persistent challenges related to equality, diversity, and inclusion (EDI). The second section analyses why EDI is essential for strengthening Europe’s innovation capacity and scientific excellence. The third introduces the concept of Societal Readiness Level (SRL) assessment as a tool for evaluating the social impact and acceptability of innovation within the EU, complementing, reinterpreting, and extending the concept of Technology Readiness Level (TRL). Finally, the concluding section reflects on how these elements together shape a vision of European identity grounded in social responsibility, inclusive growth, and democratic resilience.

Advertisement

2. The European context: Values, policy frameworks, and challenges

The principles of Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion (hereinafter EDI) encompass various dimensions, such as gender, disability, race/ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, age, and their intersections. EDI is becoming increasingly important in academia, where there is a growing belief that universities should create inclusive communities in which individuals can see their identities recognised, respected, and celebrated, and contribute more broadly to the transformation of society [1]. To this end, the key principles of accessibility and inclusiveness must permeate the university as a whole, affecting institutional and organisational culture as well as research, teaching, and learning [2]. While the importance of these aspects is increasingly recognised – as confirmed by the European Union’s push towards gender/EDI mainstreaming – the greatest challenge is the practical application of this transformative paradigm to academic institutions, which acknowledge that they are not as inclusive or accessible as they could be [2–4].

The challenge has been fully embraced by the European Union, which has positioned itself as a significant driver and accelerator of this change, undertaking various strategies and actions to encourage the adoption of an intersectional perspective and practices to facilitate accessibility in research organisations [5]. This approach is also evident in the programmatic documents adopted by the EU on these issues, which consistently devote particular attention to the research sector, starting with the Framework Programmes for research and innovation funding [6]. However, it is important to emphasise that the challenge remains open and that it is not sufficient to rely solely on formal requirements or legal provisions [7].

The author’s experience, based on more than 10 years of participation in European project design and implementation [8], is that European research and cooperation projects are a clear driver of social, scientific, cultural, and economic growth in the European Union and, at the same time, can be a concrete tool for inclusion, thanks to specific programmatic actions aimed at overcoming cultural gaps and biases in our societies, particularly regarding EDI, disability, and accessibility.

The public/private, international, and cross-sector dialogue that always develops in research projects contributes significantly to encouraging universities to come down from their ivory towers and engage with the wider world, finally addressing issues that have previously been neglected, such as EDI. This greatly strengthens both research and the transfer of its results, as well as the European Union, which, in this way, demonstrates its usefulness and its responsiveness to the needs of citizens.

All of the above affirms how European projects can be a powerful driver for change, facilitating cultural transformation in the communities and societies where they are implemented, but only if they succeed in forging strong links with citizens, non-experts, and those who are not already informed or active in research or scientific domains.

Furthermore, European projects represent important opportunities because: a) they increase networking opportunities; b) they amplify the visibility of individuals and organisations; c) they provide economic foundations for activities that our university may not be able or willing to invest in; d) they facilitate citizen engagement and citizen science; e) they make our universities more appealing; f) they spread the principles of Open Science.

From the millennial generation onwards, the EDI factor is becoming increasingly decisive in choosing both educational and career paths, and this should not be underestimated or overlooked [9–11].

Nor should we underestimate the importance of interdisciplinary research projects, which seek to draw on the strengths of different disciplines. The best results come from so-called atypical and innovative interdisciplinary projects that bring together different sectors, even diametrically opposed disciplines, people of different cultures, backgrounds, geographical origins, and education, distant countries, and varied national situations, thus reaching thousands of people.

In conclusion, there is still a long way to go to make our universities and institutions, in general, less ableist and more inclusive and accessible, but it is important to continue working towards institutions that are based on EDI principles in their daily activities, which will naturally enable them to attract more students if they prove themselves to be so. Times are changing, and the European Union must be a driving force for change, including through the consistent and lasting affirmation of EDI, which must not remain merely a formality.

In this context, EDI is not a peripheral concern but a structural pillar for the Union’s resilience and future competitiveness. Only by grounding innovation and policymaking in inclusive values can the EU consolidate its role as a democratic actor, reinforce its social contract, and respond effectively to the complex challenges shaping its trajectory.

This chapter will briefly discuss these points and how innovation can be technologically advanced, particularly when it includes a formal assessment of the degree of social acceptance.

Advertisement

3. Why EDI matters for European innovation capacity

This chapter provides brief answers to the following fundamental questions:

1. Is it necessary to introduce EDI into research, research projects, and scientific activity?

2. Can mainstreaming EDI contribute to scientific excellence?

3. If the answers to the above are yes, how do innovation and technology transfer in the EU landscape benefit from this?

Until the end of the last century and the beginning of the present one, EDI themes and their comprehensive application in Europe and in specific research projects received intermittent attention [12]. It has already been noted elsewhere [13, 14] that, in Europe, the most widespread and dominant approach to EDI has primarily focused on gender equality [15, 16]. In recent decades, the European Commission (EC) has emphasised gender mainstreaming at various stages [17, 18], at one point requiring the integration of a gender perspective into every funded project, to the extent of making a Gender Equality Plan (GEP) mandatory for public sector organisations seeking funding. In particular, from 2022 onwards, to access European funding under Horizon Europe, organisations must already have a formally approved GEP in place. A few years after the introduction of GEPs, there is now open debate about whether to retain them in the next European framework programme for research and innovation funding and across the entire range of European funds [19, 20].

Critical issues regarding the GEP requirement have emerged since its initial introduction [21, 22], and to date, there has been no further formal audit or verification by the EC of the actual implementation of GEPs in organisations that have adopted them. From the outset, doubts arose as to whether the presence of formally approved GEPs was simply a means of accessing European funding [23]. In many cases, especially in organisations without a historical culture of inclusion and equality, the approval of the GEP has remained an instrumental action, not followed by the implementation of concrete measures or genuine institutional and cultural change, thus preserving the resistance and status quo that previously existed. In other cases, this has provided an opportunity for the introduction of gender and EDI policies [8].

The broader theme of EDI, applied to scientific domains in European research and innovation projects, briefly discussed here, arises from a macro-level approach based on intersectionality and participation [24, 25]. Today, to achieve a more equitable and inclusive research environment, it is widely believed [26] that a balance must be struck between science itself and the values it represents. In this context, European research projects can serve as models to be applied across various scientific fields and in diverse geographical, socio-cultural, and anthropological settings [27].

Beyond being a central theme for achieving social and scientific justice [28], embedding EDI principles into research agendas at the European level is both a strategic and ethical imperative. Addressing structural inequalities in knowledge production and recognising diverse lived experiences not only advances fairness but also ensures that research outcomes are relevant, equitable, and socially legitimate. Furthermore, an EDI-driven approach enhances research excellence by widening participation, incorporating diverse perspectives, and reducing systemic biases that have historically excluded or marginalised certain groups or geographical areas. Thus, applying EDI to research is not merely a compliance exercise but serves as a mechanism for expanding Europe’s intellectual capacity, strengthening trust between institutions and citizens, and ensuring that innovation benefits society as a whole [29]. Beyond research, the benefits of mainstreaming EDI in all areas of European policy are outlined in Table 1 below. This table highlights the strategic importance of EDI as a key driver of Europe’s future. Beyond ethical considerations, EDI strengthens the EU’s innovation capacity [30], increases public trust in democratic institutions [31], and enhances its resilience and global competitiveness [32, 33]. By fostering socially cohesive environments and attracting diverse talent, Europe positions itself to lead in a rapidly changing global landscape [34].

Ultimately, the evidence leads to a clear conclusion: systematic integration of EDI into research and innovation is essential for securing Europe’s scientific excellence, societal cohesion, and global competitiveness in the coming decades. Therefore, the question is no longer whether EDI should be integrated into European research and innovation, but how effectively and consistently institutions will implement it to shape a more equitable, resilient, and future-proof European knowledge ecosystem.

Advertisement

4. Social impact of innovation and assessment of technological and societal readiness level

The experience with GEPs is particularly instructive here, as it demonstrates how well-intentioned policy tools can become formalistic, compliance-driven exercises when their underlying purpose is not fully understood or embraced. In contrast, the Societal Readiness Level (SRL) framework discussed below is not intended as a successor to GEPs or as a bureaucratic add-on, but as a broader, integrative approach that places societal engagement, inclusion, and responsibility at the heart of research and innovation processes. Unlike the checkbox dynamics that have sometimes undermined GEP implementation, SRL cannot be achieved through mere documentation: each level requires demonstrable societal interaction, iterative validation, and evidence of alignment between innovation and public values. For this reason, SRL should not be viewed as a burden or as a ‘task for sociologists’, but as a foundational component of high-quality innovation – one that concerns researchers, technologists, and institutions alike. Using the GEP experience as a point of comparison helps clarify the chapter’s central message: SRL moves European research and innovation beyond formal compliance towards a culture of meaningful societal readiness, relevance, and impact.

To complement existing technology-readiness and innovation-readiness frameworks measured by the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) scale [35], this chapter proposes adopting the SRL scale [36]. SRL assesses the extent to which research and innovation processes align with societal expectations, including equality, diversity, accessibility, inclusion, and participation in the innovation production and implementation process. Unlike TRL, which measures technological maturity, SRL evaluates public trust, inclusiveness, social legitimacy, and the cultural embeddedness of innovation. If accepted and extended, this framework will position societal participation not as an optional or additional dimension, but as a core criterion of European scientific and technological sovereignty [36].

TRL was first established by the American National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) towards the end of the 1990s [37] to measure the level of technology deployed in space [38, 39]. Later, this measurement was also adopted by governmental bodies in Australia for similar purposes and extended to defence domains.

The structure and progression of the original scale are shown in Figure 1, highlighting the staged evolution from early-stage research to full operational application.

In parallel, in Europe, the implementation of TRLs enabled the identification of distinct organisational configurations and investment models aligned with specific stages of technological progress within particular interest groups. Consequently, since 2012, TRL has been formally introduced by the EC to assess the maturity of technological innovation in the Key Enabling Technologies (KETs) [38].

While technology readiness has been assessed through indicators such as the TRL – currently used as a standard model in the European research and innovation domain – societal uptake follows a different logic and depends on cultural, social, and contextual variables operating at local and regional levels. SRL is, therefore, shaped by a constellation of micro- and meso-level factors that influence public acceptance, trust, and engagement throughout the innovation cycle. Recognising these contextual and environmental dimensions is essential for designing meaningful engagement strategies, communication pathways, and inclusion mechanisms that ensure innovations are not only technically viable but also socially welcomed and grounded.

Building on prior conceptual work in the field and drawing from Obrien et al. [35], Figure 2 presents the conceptual framework underpinning SRL and its multi-level determinants.

The proposed model as per the above figure identifies five interrelated dimensions that shape societal responses to innovation:

1. Community engagement and participation,

2. Public attitudes and perceptions of value and risk,

3. Cultural, historical, and behavioural norms,

4. Perceived impacts on wellbeing, the environment, and social cohesion,

5. Policy, governance, and regulatory frameworks.

Together, these elements reflect the social fabric within which innovation occurs and show that technological advancement alone does not ensure adoption [41]. Instead, the legitimacy, perceived usefulness, and societal compatibility of an innovation are crucial to its long-term success [42–44].

The SRL framework and its corresponding corollaries are presented in Table 2. The table outlines the SRL scale together with the interpretation of the concepts provided by the authors of this chapter, based on the literature [45] and direct field experience. In particular, an additional column was introduced in the final version, proposing specific qualitative and quantitative indicators, as well as criteria applicable within the European context and adaptable to individual national or regional settings.

The above table is based on the cited source and has been further revised and elaborated by the authors of this chapter. We have also introduced three corollaries to complement the Societal Readiness Levels. By ensuring that innovation not only reaches society but does so responsibly, inclusively, and sustainably, Corollary A establishes ethical, legal, and accessibility safeguards from the outset. Corollary B guarantees long-term institutional and societal embedding, while Corollary C ensures continuous accountability, adaptive governance, and sustained engagement with diverse communities. Corollary C also affirms that integrating the SRL assessment into innovation processes enhances societal trust, accelerates user adoption, and strengthens market fit.

Corollary E affirms that integrating societal readiness into innovation processes reduces the risk of product failure due to low acceptance by consumers or end users [32]. When SRL and TRL progress in dialogue, the development pipeline avoids the costly launch of technologies lacking legitimacy, usability, or perceived value in real communities. Instead, early-stage participation, co-design, and structured engagement with diverse stakeholders ensure that innovation addresses genuine needs, reflects social expectations, and incorporates ethical, diversity, and inclusion principles from the conceptual stage [43, 46, 47]. This alignment between technological maturity and societal endorsement enhances economic sustainability, accelerates adoption, and maximises the social and market return on public and private investment.

By embedding public acceptance, inclusiveness, and co-creation throughout the innovation lifecycle, new solutions gain higher legitimacy, reduced market friction, and greater economic sustainability. Together, these factors transform the SRL framework from a deployment model into a societal transformation model [48]. They recognise that innovation in Europe must be socially legitimate, democratically grounded, and continuously evaluated to remain aligned with collective values, public trust, and evolving societal needs. Increasing the acceptability of innovations significantly enhances the impact of technology transfer. Economically, there is an advantage linked not only to the technological but also to the societal impact of innovation, resulting in a better match with actual needs and greater acceptance of technology, innovation, and new products.

This aligns with the call for a shared path towards the ‘European growth model for a prosperous, responsible and resilient economy’, as advocated by European President Ursula von der Leyen in many official documents and policies, including her speech at the ‘Beyond Growth Conference’ in the European Parliament in May 2023.².

This approach is based on the coexistence and interpenetration of SRL and TRL and can be easily scaled and operationalised within the European innovation ecosystem. By integrating SRL alongside the established TRL scale, the European Union can complement assessments of technological maturity with a rigorous understanding of societal maturity. TRL primarily evaluates the technical progression of a solution towards market deployment – proof of concept, prototyping, demonstration, and testing phases – yet does not capture readiness in terms of social demand, community acceptance, accessibility, or alignment with European values. Embedding SRL within EU research and innovation programmes would enable institutions, policymakers, and innovators to pursue technological advancement and societal benefit in tandem, ultimately accelerating responsible market uptake and strengthening Europe’s competitive and ethical leadership in global innovation.

Advertisement

5. Operational alignment between SRL and EU treaty values

While the reasons for proposing the introduction of innovation assessment using the SRL method are clear, it is also evident that this approach does not impose any burden on the process of introducing innovation; rather, it facilitates it. The SRL supports innovation from its conception to its introduction to the market and, to varying degrees, affirms European Union values in the research and innovation sector, which cannot and must not be overlooked, as follows.

The proposed Societal Readiness Levels framework closely aligns with the foundational principles of the European Union as set out in the Treaty on European Union (TEU), particularly Articles 2, 3, and 10, which emphasise human dignity, equality, inclusiveness, social justice, participation, and democratic legitimacy.

The early SRL stages (1–3) operationalise Article 2 by ensuring that awareness of societal needs, alignment with EU values, and inclusive stakeholder dialogue underpin any innovation process. The mid-level stages (4–6), focused on co-design, participatory planning, and iterative feedback, reflect Article 10 TEU’s commitment to participatory democracy and citizen involvement in decision-making.

The advanced SRL stages (7–9), which emphasise trust-building, real-world implementation, and full societal integration, directly support Article 3 TEU by fostering social cohesion, sustainable development, and high-level protection and improvement of the quality of life across Member States.

The corollaries developed by the authors of this chapter, addressing ethics, institutionalisation, accountability, socio-economic value, and prevention of market failure, further reinforce this alignment by translating EU principles into operational safeguards. Together, the SRL framework and its corollaries provide a structured pathway to ensure that innovation is not only technologically viable but also democratically legitimate, socially inclusive, and fully consistent with the EU’s normative foundations.

Of course, we are discussing a proposal that differs from the status quo, so the establishment of the SRL system alongside the TRL should be tested and, if necessary, adapted to the political, cultural, and productive contexts present in the diverse European Union. What is certain is that the innovation process would be enhanced and improved, as participatory demands that increasingly reflect the actual needs of citizens and end users are gradually gaining ground throughout the EU and cannot be ignored. Moreover, ignoring these demands would not be economically viable.

On the other hand, the EU introduced TRL assessment several years ago, and there has been no resistance from either the research community or the manufacturing sector. This raises the question: why not be more daring?

Of course, the above is not intended to be exhaustive, nor does it seek to draw hasty conclusions. It will certainly be the subject of further publications and research.

Advertisement

6. Conclusions: EU identity, innovation and social responsibility

In this short chapter, we have presented some emerging ideas at both European and international levels regarding innovation, social acceptability, and European identity and values related to research and innovation. We have then addressed the three initial research questions and can, therefore, conclude that there is a genuine need to apply EDI to research and scientific activity in general, deepening and moving beyond the simple affirmation of gender equality or gender mainstreaming. Furthermore, EDI can contribute significantly to scientific excellence, which the EU is pursuing through various funding measures and the promotion of scientific cooperation at the European level. Ultimately, there are clear benefits to addressing EDI issues, which concern not only social justice but also holistically encompass the economic and political aspects of the EU as a whole and of the individual countries that comprise it.

The systematic application of SRL reveals the inherent trade-offs between rapid technological deployment and the need for inclusive, participatory, and socially attuned innovation processes. Accelerating the rollout of new technologies often prioritises efficiency, competitiveness, and market timing, but this speed can come at the cost of overlooking social expectations, excluding vulnerable groups, or neglecting long-term societal consequences. In contrast, a full SRL assessment requires early engagement, co-design, iterative testing with diverse communities, and careful alignment with ethical and cultural values – processes that may hypothetically slow deployment but ultimately strengthen legitimacy, trust, and sustained adoption. Thus, SRL functions as a balancing mechanism: it encourages innovation pathways that remain ambitious and timely while ensuring that technological progress does not compromise inclusion, fairness, or public confidence.

Advertisement

Acknowledgments

This work was partly funded by the Horizon Europe project STEP - STEM and Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion: an Open Dialogue for Research Enhancement in Portugal under Grant Agreement No. 101078933.

Advertisement

Author contributions

Cinzia Leone (CL) and Angela Celeste Taramasso (ACT) worked on conceptualisation; CL worked on methodology, investigation, and original draft preparation; CL handled resources, writing-review, and editing; ACT supervised. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.