Supply chains are an indispensable element of any global economy. At the same time such supply chains create a societal and environmental burden. Drastic actions are required to mitigate these effects. Supply chains should become responsible and sustainable (where responsibility and sustainability are understood in a broad sense) addressing economic, political, societal, legal, human rights, ethical and environmental concerns. This research shifts from the question of why companies should implement responsibility and sustainability into supply chains, to how they should do so effectively. Illustrated by a case study of Sedex, a collaborative platform for buyers and suppliers, this paper proposes three solutions for responsible and sustainable supply chain management (SCM). Firstly, supply chains have to be supported by research and innovation (R&I). Secondly, supply chains should be based on multi-stakeholder efforts of industry, governmental and non-governmental organisations. Thirdly, the responsibility should lie not only with an individual company and its employees, but also with organisations of companies (supra-agency). As a result, responsible and sustainable supply chains require technological, political and ethical solutions involving the development of sound, multi-stakeholder business and governance models. These models should be based on the equal consideration of all three dimensions of sustainability (economic, environmental and social), the cooperation of the partners in the chain, strengthening long-term relationships and legitimate requirements of the stakeholders of a supply chain.

: Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) is a term used by policy-makers and academics to refer to research and innovation that is ethically acceptable and socially desirable. Despite the fact that the vast majority of research and innovation (R&I) is funded and produced by industry, companies tend to have no awareness or recognition of this concept. This is unfortunate, as the RRI paradigm could be mutually beneficial for both business and society: it could help businesses realise competitive opportunities while also leading to positive economic, societal and environmental impacts. This paper investigates how industry can be incentivised to engage in research and innovation following the approach of RRI. We propose a matrix of incentives for stimulating the adoption of RRI. We categorise incentives according to three dichotomies: external and internal, instrumental and non-instrumental, direct and indirect. The incentives are formalised in a causal loop diagram, which can be used to demonstrate the sound character of investing in RRI from a business perspective. We discuss examples of incentives, including corporate reputation and critical consumerism, certification, employee engagement, and governance. Lastly, to ensure effective implementation of RRI, we outline factors for the realisation of successful incentives for RRI in industry.

Dental clinics were suspected to be a hotspot for nosocomial transmission of coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19), yet there has been no clear recommendation about emergency dental care and appropriate personal protective equipment during pandemics. In this paper, we aim to summarize recommendations for (i) patient risk assessment, (ii) patient triage, and (iii) measures to prevent infection of health professionals and nosocomial transmission in dental clinics. The available evidence was collected by performing searches on PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases. We reviewed papers on COVID-19, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), influenza, and related respiratory viral diseases. Legal and ethical frameworks, as well as international (e.g., World Health Organization (WHO)) and national (e.g., public health institutes, dental associations) guidelines were screened to summarize recommendations related to dental emergency care. To assess the patient risk, a questionnaire was developed to classify patients at unknown, high, and very high risk. Patient triage recommendations were summarized in a flow chart that graded the emergency level of treatments (i.e., urgent, as soon as possible, and postpone). Measures to prevent disease transmission based on current evidence were grouped for dental health professionals, dental clinics, and patients. The present recommendations may support health professionals implement preventative measures during the pandemic.

Trust in science post-Covid appears to be a complex matter. On the one hand, the COVID-19 pandemic added value to the epistemic trustworthiness of scientific opinion and its potential to drive evidence-based policies, while it also spurred scientific distrust and societal polarization (e.g., vaccines), especially on social media. In this work we sought to understand the ways in which trust in science might be bolstered by adopting a multistakeholder perspective. This objective was achieved by considering stakeholders’ views on (a) how perceived key actors affect trust in science, and (b) what proposed actions can be taken by each actor identified. Data were collected using 16 focus groups and 10 individual interviews across different European contexts with general public (n = 66), journalists (n = 23) and scientists (n = 35), and were analysed using thematic analysis. Regarding how perceived key actors affect trust in science, participants viewed policymakers, media, scientific and social media actors as occupying a dual function (facilitators and hinderers of trust in science), and pointed to the value of multi-actor collaboration. Regarding what actions should be taken for enhancing trust in science, participants indicated the value of enhancing understanding of scientific integrity and practices, through science literacy and science communication, and also pointed to social media platform regulation. Implications stemming from the data are discussed, considering how multiple identified stewards of trust can contribute to an ecosystem of trust.

This chapter uses a systems thinking approach to conceptualise the Ecosystem of Trust in Science as a dynamic and evolving system shaped by changing research and innovation environments. Contemporary science is increasingly internationalised, oriented toward addressing grand societal challenges, and driven by rapid technological advances. As a result, the Ecosystem of Trust has expanded beyond individual researchers to include a diverse and distributed set of actors. The chapter maps Stewards of Trust and key stakeholders within this ecosystem, taking into account diversity within both Stewards of Trust and the publics whose trust is at stake. While existing research has examined mediators of trust between science and society, it has largely overlooked the relational and systemic dynamics through which trust is constructed, negotiated, enhanced or reduced. This chapter addresses this gap by providing a framework that captures interdependencies among Stewards of Trust within a complex and evolving Ecosystem of Trust.