Next Article in Journal
Safety as a Sustainable Trust Mechanism: The Lingering Emotional Impact of the Pandemic and Digital Safety Communication in the Restaurant Industry
Previous Article in Journal
The Effect of Female Executive Representation on ESG Investment Efficiency
Previous Article in Special Issue
Enhancing Education for Sustainability Using Video Feedback and Playful Learning: A Case Study of North Cyprus Schools
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 12
10.3390/su17125656
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Advancing Marine Sustainability Capacity in the Black Sea—Insights from Open Responsible Research and Innovation (ORRI)

by
Elena Bisinicu
1,
Luminita Lazar
2,*,
Mihaela Mirea Candea
3 and
Elena Garcia Serra
3
1
Ecology and Marine Biology Department, National Institute for Marine Research and Development “Grigore Antipa”, 300 Mamaia Blvd., 900581 Constanta, Romania
2
Chemical Oceanography and Marine Pollution Department, National Institute for Marine Research and Development “Grigore Antipa”, 300 Mamaia Blvd., 900581 Constanta, Romania
3
LOMARTOV S.L, Carrer de Alfareria, 3, 4610 Burjassot, València, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(12), 5656; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17125656
Submission received: 7 May 2025 / Revised: 4 June 2025 / Accepted: 19 June 2025 / Published: 19 June 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainability Education across the Lifespan)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Open Responsible Research and Innovation (ORRI) promotes ethical, inclusive, and transparent research aligned with sustainability goals and societal values. This systematic review examines the implementation of ORRI principles in marine research across the Black Sea region—a geopolitically fragmented and under-resourced context—and explores their implications for the broader Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) discourse. Using PRISMA methodology and bibliometric mapping, we analyzed the peer-reviewed literature and project deliverables from 2014 to 2024, focusing on six ORRI pillars: public engagement, science education, open access, gender equality, ethics, and governance. The findings indicate consistent progress in public engagement and science education, particularly through citizen science and stakeholder training. However, ethics, gender equity, and governance remain weakly institutionalized, with most ORRI practices driven by short-term, externally funded projects. To contextualize these results, we introduce a comparative framework contrasting the Black Sea’s scaffolded model of ORRI with structurally embedded models in Northern and Western Europe. This framework highlights disparities in capacity, funding, and institutional maturity that shape regional implementation. Conceptually, the study contributes to RRI theory by proposing a flexible, context-sensitive model for under-resourced regions. It supports SDGs 4, 5, 14, 16, and 17 and emphasizes the need for durable, inclusive approaches to responsible research and sustainability education.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Sustainability challenges such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution require more than technological solutions; they demand inclusive, transparent, and ethically grounded research processes. In response, the concept of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) has emerged as a governance framework to align science and innovation with societal values, needs, and expectations [1,2]. Its core dimensions—anticipation, inclusion, reflexivity, and responsiveness—aim to embed ethical and democratic principles into research systems [1]. While RRI has gained traction in high-capacity contexts, its application in geopolitically complex and underfunded regions remains underexplored [3].
Open Responsible Research and Innovation (ORRI) extends the RRI framework by emphasizing openness, co-creation, and sustainability, particularly in environmental governance [4]. ORRI promotes inclusive collaboration among researchers, policymakers, civil society, and industry actors, ensuring that research outcomes are not only scientifically rigorous but also socially equitable and ecologically responsible [1,2,5].
Rooted in the European Union’s Horizon 2020 program [6], ORRI is structured around six pillars: public engagement, science education, open access, gender equality, ethics, and governance [1,6,7]. Together, these pillars aim to foster innovation that is transparent, inclusive, and aligned with global sustainability goals [2,5].
The six key principles that underpin ORRI (Figure 1) are designed to support innovation that is not only scientifically rigorous but also socially responsible and aligned with broader societal values [4,8]. Public engagement facilitates the inclusion of diverse stakeholder perspectives, ensuring that research outcomes address societal needs. Open access promotes the dissemination of research findings, enhancing transparency and empowering collaborative knowledge sharing. Gender equality ensures diverse representation within research teams, enhancing creativity and inclusivity. Science education cultivates a scientifically literate public, empowering informed decision-making. Ethics upholds the integrity of research by adhering to moral standards, and governance structures ensure transparency, accountability, and alignment with societal priorities. Collectively, these principles aim to support innovation that is both scientifically sound and socially beneficial.
The Black Sea region presents a critical testbed for ORRI implementation. It is a semi-enclosed basin (Figure 2) bordered by six countries—Ukraine, Russia, Georgia, Turkey, Bulgaria, and Romania—with diverse institutional capacities and political systems [9]. This strategic location establishes it as a pivotal hub for international trade, maritime transport, and geopolitical interactions [10].
The region is ecologically significant, supporting unique brackish-water ecosystems and endemic species [9,11,12], while also providing vital ecosystem services, including fisheries, nutrient cycling, and tourism [13,14,15,16,17]. However, the Black Sea faces escalating pressures from pollution, eutrophication, biodiversity loss, and the impacts of climate change, including sea-level rise and marine habitat degradation [18,19,20,21,22,23,24]. These environmental issues are further complicated by geopolitical tensions and uneven socio-economic development, which hinder coordinated responses [25,26].
Thus, the Black Sea region, marked by geopolitical complexity, institutional fragmentation, and limited research funding, presents a particularly challenging context for adopting ORRI. By focusing on this region, our study aims to assess how ORRI can enhance research transparency, stakeholder engagement, and sustainable governance in the context of complex marine ecosystem dynamics.
The multifaceted challenges facing the Black Sea necessitate the adoption of responsible and sustainable research approaches, with ORRI providing a robust framework for addressing these complexities through socially accountable and environmentally sustainable strategies.
Despite its growing prominence in Europe [2,5], the adoption of ORRI in the Black Sea region remains limited and inconsistent. While some research projects have integrated ORRI principles, widespread implementation is hindered by several factors. A primary obstacle is the absence of standardized frameworks and policies to support ORRI adoption [27,28]. Regional research often prioritizes scientific or economic goals over social and environmental considerations. The complex geopolitical landscape, characterized by diverse political, economic, and institutional contexts, further complicates efforts to establish a unified approach [28].
Additionally, limited institutional support and underdeveloped research infrastructures, particularly in some countries, impede stakeholder engagement and inclusive governance. The focus on short-term economic gains frequently overshadows the pursuit of long-term sustainability, restricting the integration of responsible research practices.
This study addresses these gaps by systematically evaluating how ORRI principles have been implemented in marine research across the Black Sea region. We employ a mixed-methods approach combining a PRISMA-based systematic review [29] and bibliometric mapping to analyze academic publications and project outputs between 2014 and 2024. Our review focuses on the six ORRI pillars and how they are operationalized in the region.
In addition to providing empirical insights, the study contributes to RRI scholarship by proposing a comparative framework that distinguishes between two models of ORRI institutionalization: the “Scaffolded Adaptation Model”, observed in the Black Sea, and the “Structurally Embedded Model”, typical of Northern and Western Europe [1,30]. This conceptual distinction captures the varying degrees of institutional maturity, funding availability, and policy coherence that influence how ORRI is adopted in different regions.
While most RRI literature focuses on well-funded, high-capacity systems, our analysis foregrounds the importance of regional, political, and institutional contexts. By examining ORRI integration in a geopolitically fragmented and ecologically vulnerable setting, this paper expands the territorial scope of RRI scholarship and addresses the practical challenges of applying responsible research principles beyond Western Europe.
This review is motivated by the need to better understand how ORRI principles are being applied in complex and underfunded contexts such as the Black Sea region. Although several regional projects engage ORRI-related goals, systematic analysis is lacking. This paper addresses that gap by assessing the integration of ORRI across recent marine initiatives in the region. Specifically, it aims to identify areas of strong implementation, reveal where key principles are missing or weakly institutionalized, and propose practical steps for enhancing responsible, inclusive, and ethical research aligned with both regional priorities and the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
The main objective of this study is to assess the extent and nature of ORRI adoption in the Black Sea and its implications for marine sustainability, stakeholder inclusion, and science–policy integration. In doing so, the paper contributes empirically, conceptually, and methodologically to the study of responsible innovation. It also aligns with global sustainability efforts by supporting SDGs 4 (quality education), 5 (gender equality), 14 (life below water), 16 (peace, justice, and strong institutions), and 17 (partnerships for the goals) [31,32,33].

2. Materials and Methods

This review adheres to the PRISMA methodology, a widely recognized framework designed to ensure rigor, consistency, and transparency in the systematic review process [29]. PRISMA facilitates the selection of studies based on defined criteria and ensures sound data extraction and synthesis. By applying this approach, this review provides a comprehensive and transparent assessment of ORRI principles in Black Sea marine research. It aims to offer an evidence-based understanding of ORRI adoption, identify challenges and gaps, and propose recommendations for advancing responsible and sustainable research practices.
All methodological procedures implemented in this study were comprehensively delineated in the schematic representation (Figure 3), which provides a structured and systematic visualization of the research workflow and analytical framework.

2.1. Literature Search Strategy

The literature search for this review was conducted across leading academic databases, including Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Scopus, to ensure a comprehensive synthesis of peer-reviewed articles, conference proceedings, and book chapters. Additionally, project deliverables from key international initiatives, such as DOORS, ANEMONE, and BRIDGE-BS, were reviewed for their relevance to Black Sea marine research and ORRI principles.
To ensure inclusivity, broad search terms were used, incorporating keywords such as “Responsible Research and Innovation”, “RRI”, “Black Sea”, and each ORRI principle (“public engagement”, “open access”, “gender equality”, “science education”, “ethics”, and “governance”). This strategy captured a diverse range of studies, from specific applications of ORRI in marine research to broader theoretical and practical implications.

2.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

The inclusion criteria for this review were designed to ensure relevance to ORRI and marine research in the Black Sea. Only peer-reviewed articles, project reports, and conference proceedings published between 2014 and 2024 were considered, capturing recent developments. The review focuses on the period 2014–2024 to align with the timeframe in which ORRI became explicitly integrated into European research and innovation policy. While the broader concept of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) began gaining traction around 2012 through Horizon 2020, ORRI—as an operational framework emphasizing openness, inclusivity, and sustainability—was concretely adopted in EU-funded marine and environmental research projects starting in the mid-2010s. Consequently, the selected time window ensures that the studies and project deliverables reflect the formal implementation of ORRI principles in marine science, particularly in the Black Sea context. Earlier initiatives prior to this period were not included, as they typically did not use ORRI terminology or framework alignment in a systematic or policy-driven way.
Studies had to explicitly address the six ORRI principles in the context of Black Sea marine research. Publications unrelated to ORRI, marine research, or the Black Sea were excluded.

2.3. Selection Process

The selection process was carried out in two phases to ensure a thorough review:
  • Phase 1—Title and Abstract Screening
Studies were initially screened based on titles and abstracts. Publications clearly outside the scope of ORRI or the Black Sea region were excluded, allowing for a preliminary relevance assessment.
  • Phase 2—Full-Text Review
The full texts of the remaining studies were reviewed in detail. Studies were assessed to ensure they explicitly addressed ORRI principles and focused on Black Sea marine research. Irrelevant studies were excluded, ensuring only the most relevant and high-quality sources were included in the final analysis.

2.4. Data Extraction and Synthesis

A structured data extraction template was used to ensure consistency in capturing key details from selected studies. The extracted information included:
  • Study attributes: Citation details (authors, year, title).
  • ORRI principles addressed: Identification of relevant ORRI principles (public engagement, open access, gender equality, science education, ethics, and governance).
  • Research focus: Brief description of objectives, methodologies, and geographical scope, focusing on Black Sea marine research.
  • Key findings: Summary of results, conclusions, and implications for ORRI practices.
Following the extraction, the findings were synthesized using quantitative and qualitative methods:
(1)
Quantitative synthesis: Identified trends in the adoption of ORRI principles, such as their frequency of application and integration in Black Sea research.
(2)
Qualitative synthesis: Analyzed specific practices, challenges, and successes, providing insight into how ORRI principles were implemented in the region, and identifying the best practices and lessons learned.
The findings were also categorized according to the six core principles of ORRI: public engagement, open access, gender equality, science education, ethics, and governance.
A co-occurrence network of keywords was generated using VOSviewer [34]. The software applies a natural language processing (NLP) algorithm to detect and cluster frequently occurring terms in the dataset. Nodes in the network represent keywords, while links between nodes indicate co-occurrence relationships. The thickness of the links reflects the strength of these connections. Additionally, a temporal overlay visualization was applied, where colors indicate the average year of occurrence for each term, ranging from 2014 (blue) to 2024 (red). A density visualization was generated using VOSviewer [34] to highlight the most frequently occurring terms and organizations. The heatmap represents the prominence of different entities, where red areas indicate high-frequency terms, transitioning through yellow and green to blue areas, which indicate lower frequency or relevance. Nodes represent key projects and initiatives, such as DOORS Black Sea, SRIA, and the ANEMONE Project, which are interconnected within the research landscape.
In addition to the primary systematic review focused on the Black Sea region, this study includes a targeted secondary review of the literature concerning the implementation of RRI and ORRI principles in Northern and Western European contexts. This comparative component was informed by existing scholarly analyses, policy reports, and EU project documentation cited throughout the discussion section. The purpose of this comparative framing is to contextualize the findings from the Black Sea region within broader patterns of ORRI adoption across Europe and to support the development of a regionally adapted conceptual model.

3. Results

The systematic review process involved the identification, screening, and inclusion of relevant studies, as illustrated in Figure 4. A total of 285 records were retrieved from scientific databases. Additionally, five records were identified through other sources, specifically from project websites, which contributed further insights into the implementation of ORRI in the region. After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 285 records from databases underwent screening. This process led to the exclusion of 275 records due to a lack of relevance to ORRI. Following a detailed eligibility assessment, 10 scientific papers from the databases were included in the final review. The 5 additional records identified via other methods (websites) resulted in 21 reports being assessed for eligibility. Of these, 16 reports, corresponding to projects reports and deliverables, were included in the review (Figure 4).

3.1. ORRI in Black Sea

In analyzing the application of ORRI in the Black Sea region, several studies provide valuable case studies for understanding how different elements of ORRI are being operationalized. These papers collectively highlight how ORRI is integrated into marine research in the region. Each study presents distinct aspects of RRI that contribute to a comprehensive approach to responsible innovation.
Gheorghe et al. (2017) [35] highlighted the importance of public engagement, a central ORRI principle, within the Black Sea region. Their study emphasizes participatory research methods, such as workshops and consultations, demonstrating how local communities can shape research outcomes. This participatory approach embodies ORRI’s principle of inclusivity and societal alignment, ensuring that research is not only scientifically rigorous but also responsive to the concerns of local stakeholders. By integrating public input into the research process, this study strengthens the social impact and acceptance of scientific outcomes.
The study by Albayrak (2021) [36] addresses cooperation and collective action, another key ORRI principle, by focusing on cross-border collaboration in the Black Sea region. This study demonstrates how transnational research initiatives can facilitate the sustainable management of shared marine resources. Collaboration between countries embodies ORRI’s focus on governance and regional cooperation. By emphasizing collective responsibility for environmental challenges, this research fosters mutual trust and supports long-term, inclusive solutions that are aligned with ORRI goals.
The Ethical Recommendations for Ocean Observation (2018) [37] study underscores the ORRI principle of ethics and transparency. By promoting open data sharing, transparency, and stakeholder engagement, the study aligns with ORRI’s commitment to conducting research in a socially accountable manner. This study emphasizes the need for anticipatory governance and ethical research practices that respect stakeholder rights and promote fairness. In doing so, it ensures that marine research is ethically responsible and inclusive, directly supporting ORRI’s ethical framework.
The study Navigating Ocean Literacy in Europe: 10 Years of History and Future Perspectives (2022) [38] focuses on science education and public engagement, core elements of ORRI. By advocating for ocean literacy, the study promotes informed decision-making and encourages responsible behavior toward marine conservation. This approach is consistent with ORRI’s emphasis on empowering the public through education, which increases societal relevance and impact. By fostering a deeper understanding of ocean environments, the study aligns with ORRI’s goal of supporting responsible innovation through public knowledge and engagement.
These studies, while focused on different aspects of marine research, collectively underscore the relevance of ORRI in the Black Sea context by providing concrete examples of how ORRI can be operationalized in a complex and transnational setting, illustrating the multifaceted approach needed to address environmental challenges.
The VOSviewer 1.6.20 analysis, based on data from the four key research papers reviewed, identified frequently co-occurring terms related to ORRI implementation in marine research. As illustrated in Figure 5, the most prominent themes were ocean observation, sustainable development, use, and cross-border cooperation. While the limited number of input studies naturally restricts the breadth of the visualization, the network still reveals some meaningful patterns. Earlier publications (visualized in blue-green tones) emphasized ocean observation, reflecting a focus on monitoring and data collection technologies. The green-shaded cluster around sustainable development indicates that this theme has been consistently present throughout the timeline. More recent works (highlighted in yellow) emphasize cross-border cooperation, underscoring a growing focus on transnational collaboration. The term use appeared centrally in the network, indicating its role as a connecting concept across time and themes. This is likely linked to discussions about the practical application of research findings and stakeholder involvement—key aspects of ORRI. The VOSviewer output should be interpreted as exploratory, offering a preliminary view of how ORRI-related terms co-occur in the literature focused on the Black Sea.
The results provided a detailed examination of the integration of each ORRI principle within marine research (Figure 6), reflecting the varying levels of progress and implementation across different projects in the region. It was shown that numerous papers discussing ORRI principles concentrated on science education (n = 8) and public engagement (n = 8), highlighting a strong focus on educating and involving society in research activities. Open access (n = 6) was also a key area, reflecting efforts to ensure accessibility and transparency in research. In contrast, governance and ethics had lower representation, suggesting these aspects were either integrated into other topics or received less attention. Gender equality was either absent or too small to be visible, indicating it was the least addressed RRI principle in the analyzed papers.

3.2. Black Sea Key Projects and Their Contributions to ORRI

Despite the limited academic literature explicitly addressing ORRI in the Black Sea region, several key initiatives have operationalized ORRI principles to address critical environmental and socio-economic challenges. These projects emphasize interdisciplinary collaboration, stakeholder participation, and evidence-based policymaking as contributors to sustainable marine governance.
The bibliometric analysis (Figure 7) reveals an interconnected network of initiatives prioritizing the implementation of “good practices”, reflecting a regional commitment to transparency, inclusivity, and responsible innovation in marine research.
As a result of the systematic review, several major research and innovation projects were identified as central to advancing ORRI principles in the Black Sea region. These projects, funded primarily through EU and regional cooperation frameworks, demonstrate varying degrees of alignment with the six ORRI pillars. To provide a clear and comparative overview, Table 1 summarizes the specific ORRI principles addressed by each project and highlights notable practices, tools, or deliverables that reflect responsible research and innovation in practice.
The results indicate that public engagement, science education, and open access are the most addressed dimensions, often through participatory workshops, stakeholder training, and accessible digital platforms. Notably, citizen science emerged as a recurring method within several projects, such as ANEMONE and MARINA, providing a practical mechanism for involving local communities in environmental monitoring, data collection, and mutual learning. These initiatives reflect the operationalization of ORRI principles through inclusive, community-based scientific engagement. In contrast, governance and ethics are less frequently emphasized, while gender equality remains the least represented pillar across the initiatives.

4. Discussion

This review situates the findings within broader Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) scholarship, emphasizing how regional contexts shape the application of Open Responsible Research and Innovation (ORRI) principles. While most RRI literature centers on high-capacity systems in Northern and Western Europe, this study highlights how geopolitical fragmentation, limited funding, and institutional gaps in the Black Sea region constrain ORRI’s long-term integration. These challenges support existing critiques of standardized, universal RRI frameworks and reinforce the need for context-sensitive, flexible approaches. The Black Sea case demonstrates how ORRI remains scaffolded and project-bound unless supported by policy alignment, institutional commitment, and sustained investment.
The review reveals uneven ORRI adoption across the region. Public engagement and science education show the strongest implementation, often through citizen science and participatory programs funded by the EU. These initiatives strengthen research–society links and build local capacity. However, other pillars—governance, ethics, gender equality, and open access—remain inconsistently applied, lacking policy support and institutional anchoring. This fragmentation undermines ORRI’s transformative potential and raises concerns about sustainability after project lifecycles end.
Public engagement emerged as one of the most consistently integrated ORRI principles across the reviewed studies. There is a growing recognition among marine researchers and policymakers in the Black Sea region of the need to engage local communities, particularly through participatory mechanisms such as citizen science [46,47]. The reviewed projects, such as ANEMONE [44], demonstrate the practical benefits of incorporating community members into scientific processes, from data collection to environmental monitoring. In parallel with public engagement, science education initiatives have gained traction as a vital component of capacity-building efforts within the Black Sea region. Programs such as BRIDGE-BS [41] have successfully integrated marine science into formal and informal education systems, targeting not only students but also educators, fishermen, and policymakers. These initiatives aim to cultivate a scientifically literate population capable of making informed decisions regarding marine conservation and sustainable resource use [48,49].
Public engagement and science education were often implemented through citizen science initiatives, which provided inclusive, low-cost platforms for integrating local knowledge into research and policymaking. These approaches fostered mutual learning and strengthened the social relevance of marine research.
Open access represents another important pillar of ORRI implementation that has gained moderate traction in the Black Sea region. The reviewed studies highlight a growing awareness of the need to make research output freely available to a wide array of stakeholders, including policymakers, industry representatives, and the public. Open access not only enhances the transparency and credibility of scientific research but also facilitates cross-border collaboration, which is particularly crucial in a transboundary ecosystem like the Black Sea [50,51,52,53,54,55]. Initiatives such as DOORS [39] have set a positive precedent by making their data and findings openly accessible, thereby supporting evidence-based policy formulation and fostering a shared understanding of regional environmental challenges.
Ethical considerations, although less prominently featured in the reviewed literature, remain a critical aspect of responsible marine research. The absence of standardized ethical guidelines across projects points to a systemic gap that could undermine stakeholder trust and the societal legitimacy of research activities [56,57]. Ethical frameworks are essential for safeguarding the rights and interests of affected communities, ensuring that research activities do not inadvertently harm vulnerable populations or sensitive ecosystems [58,59,60].
One of the most conspicuous gaps identified in this review relates to gender equality. Despite its centrality within the broader ORRI framework, gender considerations were largely absent from the reviewed marine research initiatives [61,62,63]. This omission reflects a missed opportunity to harness the diverse perspectives and experiences that gender-balanced research teams can offer [64,65]. Gender equality is not merely a matter of social justice; it is a pragmatic approach to enhancing the quality and relevance of scientific research [65,66,67].
Governance structures underpin the successful implementation of ORRI principles, yet they remain underdeveloped in the Black Sea region. Only a handful of initiatives have addressed governance mechanisms for coordinating and monitoring ORRI activities [68]. The absence of clear governance frameworks results in fragmented efforts and inconsistent application of responsible research practices [68]. Effective governance is essential for fostering accountability, ensuring stakeholder inclusivity, and aligning research activities with broader sustainability goals [69,70,71,72]. In regions characterized by complex political dynamics and varying levels of commitment to environmental protection, such as the Black Sea, governance frameworks must be designed to facilitate cross-border collaboration and harmonize national policies with regional priorities [73,74].
As revealed by this review, the fragmented landscape of ORRI adoption in the Black Sea region can be attributed to several systemic challenges. Resource constraints, both financial and institutional, hinder the ability of research organizations to fully integrate ORRI principles into their projects [75]. Many institutions lack the capacity and infrastructure necessary to support inclusive, transparent, and ethically sound research practices [76,77]. In addition, variations in political will and regulatory environments across Black Sea countries complicate efforts to develop cohesive regional strategies for responsible research and innovation [57,78,79,80]. Addressing these challenges requires a multi-faceted approach that includes increased investment in capacity building, targeted funding for ORRI-aligned projects, and the establishment of regional platforms for knowledge exchange and policy coordination.

4.1. Advancing RRI Theory Through Regional Analysis: Lessons from ORRI in the Black Sea

The findings of this review contribute not only to the empirical understanding of ORRI in the Black Sea but also offer significant theoretical insights for the broader Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) scholarly community. They underscore the importance of situating RRI within specific regional contexts, where political, economic, and institutional factors profoundly shape its meaning and implementation.
Firstly, the results reinforce existing critiques of universalistic or prescriptive models of RRI [1,2], highlighting the limitations of applying a one-size-fits-all framework. Our analysis supports emerging calls for a more contextualized and reflexive approach to RRI [81], one that recognizes how responsible innovation is co-constructed through local practices, governance cultures, and historical trajectories. The uneven implementation of ORRI pillars—particularly in governance, gender equality, and ethics—suggests that normative assumptions embedded in the RRI agenda must be re-evaluated when transferred to regions marked by institutional asymmetries and limited science–policy integration.
Secondly, this review reveals that regional efforts often favor the performative dimensions of RRI, such as participatory workshops, public engagement events, or science education activities, while deeper structural changes remain elusive. This finding aligns with critiques that RRI is at risk of becoming a symbolic rather than transformative agenda [1,2,82,83]. The dependence on externally funded EU projects for ORRI activities in the Black Sea underscores concerns about sustainability, local ownership, and long-term commitment. In many cases, RRI is implemented as a project deliverable rather than as an embedded institutional practice, raising questions about its durability beyond the lifespan of individual initiatives.
Thirdly, this review contributes methodologically to RRI scholarship by combining a PRISMA-based systematic review with bibliometric mapping. This mixed-methods approach not only identifies empirical trends and gaps but also brings to light conceptual silence in how ORRI is framed and discussed in the literature. For example, while participation and education are frequently emphasized, less attention is given to the complexities of ethical governance or intersectional gender equity in marine research contexts. Our approach demonstrates the value of reflexive and critical methodologies that attend to both visible practices and marginalized dimensions of responsible innovation.
In summary, this regionally grounded analysis reveals how ORRI principles are interpreted and enacted within the complex sociopolitical realities of the Black Sea. It shows that under conditions of fragmentation and resource constraints, the governance, ethics, and gender dimensions of ORRI remain particularly vulnerable. These findings suggest the need to recalibrate the RRI framework from a normative template toward a more flexible, context-sensitive model that can better accommodate diverse regional and sectoral realities.
Moreover, the methodological contribution, through the integration of PRISMA and bibliometric analysis, provides a replicable and transparent toolset for evaluating ORRI practices across geographies and disciplines. Together, these insights argue for a reconceptualization of RRI: from a static model of compliance to a dynamic, iterative practice that is both responsive and regionally attuned.
These findings underscore the need for differentiated approaches to RRI implementation, grounded in the specific structural, institutional, and political contexts of each region. While Section 4.2 outlined the theoretical necessity of contextualization, the following section develops this argument further by offering a comparative model of ORRI institutionalization. This model contrasts the scaffolded dynamics observed in the Black Sea with structurally embedded practices in Northern and Western Europe, providing a conceptual tool for both analysis and policy design.

4.2. A Comparative Framework for ORRI Institutionalization

The integration of Open Responsible Research and Innovation (ORRI) principles in the Black Sea region remains limited, facing challenges in funding, governance, and institutional capacity. Unlike Northern and Western Europe, where ORRI is supported by robust governance structures, substantial funding, and established national policies [4,53,55,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94], the Black Sea region struggles with fragmented implementation. Public engagement and science education show some progress, but other key pillars, such as governance, open access, and gender equality, remain weakly institutionalized.
In Northern and Western Europe, countries like Sweden, Germany, and the Netherlands benefit from mature ORRI frameworks backed by national funding, strong public engagement strategies, and open science policies [6,8,53,70,73,89,90,92,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105]. In contrast, the Black Sea region relies heavily on short-term, externally funded projects, which often fail to ensure long-term sustainability or integration of ORRI practices.
Funding limitations are a primary barrier in the Black Sea, with national budgets too small to support large-scale ORRI projects. Institutions face difficulties in competing for EU funds due to limited expertise in proposal writing and project management. Governance mechanisms are underdeveloped, often lacking transparency and stakeholder engagement, while ethical standards and gender equality are seldom addressed.
The preceding findings illustrate that the implementation of Open Responsible Research and Innovation (ORRI) in the Black Sea region is shaped by contextual constraints that differ significantly from those observed in Northern and Western Europe. To clarify this distinction and enhance the paper’s theoretical contribution, we propose a comparative conceptual framework that distinguishes between two institutionalization pathways: the Scaffolded Adaptation Model and the Structurally Embedded Model [1,30].
The Scaffolded Adaptation Model, observed in the Black Sea, is characterized by externally supported, project-based implementation of ORRI principles, particularly in areas such as public engagement and science education. These pillars are often activated through short-term, EU-funded projects with limited integration into national strategies or institutional policy. By contrast, pillars such as gender equality, ethics, open access, and governance remain underdeveloped or inconsistently applied due to institutional fragmentation, insufficient funding, and weak regulatory structures. ORRI practices in this model tend to be compliance-oriented, with limited sustainability beyond the lifespan of individual projects.
In contrast, the Structurally Embedded Model, prevalent in Northern and Western Europe, reflects mature integration of ORRI principles within national research strategies and institutional practices. Countries such as Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany, and the UK have adopted comprehensive frameworks that mandate open access, support inclusive governance, and embed ethical review mechanisms [55,58,60,84,86,88,95,101,102,103,106,107,108,109]. Gender equality and public engagement are systematically addressed through both legal mandates and cultural norms [61,62,63,64,66,110,111]. In these contexts, ORRI is not externally scaffolded but internally sustained through national funding systems, policy continuity, and institutional learning.
This comparative framework, summarized in Table 2, has several implications. First, it reinforces the importance of contextualizing RRI theory by recognizing that implementation varies depending on the availability of resources, institutional maturity, and political will. Second, it challenges the assumption that all regions can achieve similar levels of ORRI integration by following a uniform framework. Instead, differentiated policy instruments and support mechanisms are needed to accommodate regions operating within scaffolded models. Finally, it highlights the value of cross-regional collaboration, where structurally embedded systems can provide mentoring, knowledge transfer, and co-creation opportunities for scaffolded regions.
Recognizing these differences enables more realistic and responsive strategies for promoting responsible research. Rather than promoting a static checklist of ORRI practices, funders, institutions, and policymakers should consider adaptive pathways that reflect the realities of each context. The model also serves as a diagnostic tool for identifying which pillars are active, which are latent, and what forms of support are necessary for deeper institutionalization.
Based on this comparative framework, several recommendations emerge for adapting ORRI implementation in scaffolded systems like the Black Sea region. First, national and regional authorities should invest in building institutional capacity by integrating ORRI principles—particularly ethics, governance, and gender equality—into long-term research policies and academic standards. Second, funding agencies, including the European Commission, could strengthen sustainability by requiring and supporting post-project embedding of ORRI practices within host institutions. Third, regional platforms should be developed to promote knowledge exchange, mutual learning, and coordination among Black Sea states, helping to overcome policy fragmentation and duplication of effort. Fourth, local ownership must be prioritized by co-developing ORRI agendas with stakeholders, including early-career researchers, civil society, and marginalized groups. Finally, monitoring and evaluation mechanisms should be introduced to assess ORRI impact beyond participation metrics, focusing on structural change, inclusivity, and long-term scientific and societal outcomes. These adaptations are essential for shifting from externally scaffolded, compliance-driven practices to resilient, inclusive, and contextually embedded responsible research systems.

5. Conclusions

The Black Sea region provides a valuable case for examining the challenges of implementing Open Responsible Research and Innovation (ORRI) in complex, under-resourced, and geopolitically sensitive settings. While progress has been made in public engagement and science education—primarily through EU-funded projects—other ORRI pillars such as ethics, gender equality, governance, and open access remain unevenly integrated and weakly institutionalized.
This review reveals that ORRI in the region follows a project-based, externally driven model that often lacks sustainability beyond funding cycles. Unlike the more embedded systems seen in Northern and Western Europe, the Black Sea lacks consistent policy support and institutional maturity. This underscores the need for more flexible, context-sensitive approaches to RRI that reflect regional disparities.
Strengthening ORRI in the Black Sea requires building institutional commitment, embedding ethics, promoting gender equity, expanding open access, and ensuring meaningful public participation. Advancing these efforts is essential not only for marine sustainability but also for aligning research with key Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs 4, 5, 14, 16, and 17.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.B. and L.L.; methodology, E.B.; software, E.B. and L.L.; validation, E.B., L.L., M.M.C. and E.G.S.; formal analysis, E.B. and L.L.; investigation, E.B. and L.L. resources, E.B. and L.L.; data curation, E.B., L.L., M.M.C. and E.G.S.; writing—original draft preparation, E.B. and L.L.; writing—review and editing, E.B., L.L., M.M.C. and E.G.S.; visualization, E.B. and L.L.; supervision, E.B. and L.L.; project administration, E.B., L.L., M.M.C. and E.G.S.; funding acquisition, E.B., L.L., M.M.C. and E.G.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The research and APC were funded by the REINFORSEA Project, Agreement Number: REINFORCING-I1_5, under REINFORCING-Responsible tErritories and Institutions eNable and Foster Open Research and inClusive Innovation for traNsitions Governance, funded by the European Union.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors on request.

Conflicts of Interest

Authors Mihaela Mirea Candea and Elena Garcia Serra were employed by the company LOMARTOV S.L. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
RRIResponsible Research and Innovation
ORRIOpen Responsible Research and Innovation
PRISMAPreferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
ANEMONEAssessing the vulnerability of the Black Sea marine ecosystem to human pressures
DOORSDeveloping Optimal and Open Research Support for the Black Sea
BRIDGE-BSAdvancing knowledge, delivering research, empowering citizens for sustainable and climate-neutral Black Sea
SoSSystem of systems
BGABlue Growth Accelerator
SRIAStrategic Research and Innovation Agenda
MARLITERImproved online public access to environmental monitoring data and data tools for the Black Sea Basin supporting cooperation in the reduction of marine litter
MARINAMarine Knowledge Sharing Platform for Federating Responsible Research and Innovation Communities

References

  1. Owen, R.; Macnaghten, P.; Stilgoe, J. Responsible Research and Innovation: From Science in Society to Science for Society, with Society. Sci. Public Policy 2012, 39, 751–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. von Schomberg, R. A Vision of Responsible Research and Innovation. In Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society; Owen, R., Bessant, J., Heintz, M., Eds.; Wiley: Chichester, UK, 2013; pp. 51–74. [Google Scholar]
  3. Völker, T.; Mazzonetto, M.; Slaattelid, R.; Strand, R. Translating Tools and Indicators in Territorial RRI. Front. Res. Metr. Anal. 2023, 7, 1038970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Nazarko, L. Responsible Research and Innovation in Enterprises: Benefits, Barriers and the Problem of Assessment. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2020, 6, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Jakobsen, S.-E.; Fløysand, A.; Overton, J. Expanding the Field of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI)—From Responsible Research to Responsible Innovation. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2019, 27, 2329–2343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. European Commission. Directorate-General for Research and Innovation Responsible Research and Innovation—Europe’s Ability to Respond to Societal Challenges; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2012.
  7. Gerber, A.; Forsberg, E.-M.; Shelley-Egan, C.; Arias, R.; Daimer, S.; Dalton, G.; Cristóbal, A.B.; Dreyer, M.; Griessler, E.; Lindner, R.; et al. Joint Declaration on Mainstreaming RRI across Horizon Europe. J. Responsible Innov. 2020, 7, 708–711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Hecker, S.; Haklay, M.; Bowser, A.; Makuch, Z.; Vogel, J.; Bonn, A. Citizen Science and Responsible Research and Innovation. In Citizen Science: Innovation in Open Science, Society and Policy; Hecker, S., Haklay, M., Bowser, A., Makuch, Z., Vogel, J., Bonn, A., Eds.; UCL Press: London, UK, 2018; ISBN 9781787352339. [Google Scholar]
  9. Sorokin, Y.I. The Black Sea: Ecology and Oceanography; Biology of Inland Waters Series; Backhuys Publishers: Leiden, The Netherlands, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  10. Bakan, G.; Büyükgüngör, H. The Black Sea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2000, 41, 24–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Zaitsev, Y.P.; Alexandrov, B.G.; Berlinsky, N.A.; Zenetos, A. Seas Around Europe: The Black Sea: An Oxygen-Poor Sea. Europe’s Biodiversity: Biogeographical Regions and Seas; European Environment Agency: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  12. Miladinova, S.; Stips, A.; Moy, D.M.; Garcia-Gorriz, E. Pathways and Mixing of the North Western River Waters in the Black Sea. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 2020, 236, 106630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Cîndescu, A.-C.; Petrișoaia, S.; Marin, D.; Buga, L.; Sirbu, G.; Spinu, A. The Variability of the Beach Morphology and the Evolution of the Shoreline in the Strongly Anthropized Sector of Eforie North, the Romanian Coast of the Black Sea. Cercet. Mar.-Rech. Mar. 2024, 53, 6–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Turp, M.T.; An, N.; Bilgin, B.; Şimşir, G.; Orgen, B.; Kurnaz, M.L. Projected Summer Tourism Potential of the Black Sea Region. Sustainability 2023, 16, 377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Afanasyev, A.A.; Kalognomos, S.; Lappo, A.D.; Danilova, L.V.; Konovalov, A.M. The Blue Economy and the Black Sea: Research Trends and Prospects for Scientific Cooperation in the Black Sea Region. In Innovative Trends in International Business and Sustainable Management; Springer: Singapore, 2023; pp. 519–528. [Google Scholar]
  16. Cozzi, S.; Ibáñez, C.; Lazar, L.; Raimbault, P.; Giani, M. Flow Regime and Nutrient-Loading Trends from the Largest South European Watersheds: Implications for the Productivity of Mediterranean and Black Sea’s Coastal Areas. Water 2019, 11, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Massa, F.; Onofri, L.; Fezzardi, D. Aquaculture in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea: A Blue Growth Perspective. In Handbook on the Economics and Management of Sustainable Oceans; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  18. Ristea, E.; Bisinicu, E.; Lavric, V.; Parvulescu, O.C.; Lazar, L. A Long-Term Perspective of Seasonal Shifts in Nutrient Dynamics and Eutrophication in the Romanian Black Sea Coast. Sustainability 2025, 17, 1090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Lazar, L.; Vlas, O.; Pantea, E.; Boicenco, L.; Marin, O.; Abaza, V.; Filimon, A.; Bisinicu, E. Black Sea Eutrophication Comparative Analysis of Intensity between Coastal and Offshore Waters. Sustainability 2024, 16, 5146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Bisinicu, E.; Abaza, V.; Boicenco, L.; Adrian, F.; Harcota, G.-E.; Marin, O.; Oros, A.; Pantea, E.; Spinu, A.; Timofte, F.; et al. Spatial Cumulative Assessment of Impact Risk-Implementing Ecosystem-Based Management for Enhanced Sustainability and Biodiversity in the Black Sea. Sustainability 2024, 16, 4449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Lazar, L.; Spanu, A.; Boicenco, L.; Oros, A.; Damir, N.; Bisinicu, E.; Abaza, V.; Filimon, A.; Harcota, G.; Marin, O.; et al. Methodology for Prioritizing Marine Environmental Pressures under Various Management Scenarios in the Black Sea. Front. Mar. Sci. 2024, 11, 1388877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Lazar, L.; Boicenco, L.; Pantea, E.; Timofte, F.; Vlas, O.; Bișinicu, E. Modeling Dynamic Processes in the Black Sea Pelagic Habitat—Causal Connections Between Abiotic and Biotic Factors in Two Climate Change Scenarios. Sustainability 2024, 16, 1849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Oros, A.; Coatu, V.; Damir, N.; Danilov, D.; Ristea, E. Recent Findings on the Pollution Levels in the Romanian Black Sea Ecosystem: Implications for Achieving Good Environmental Status (GES) Under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (Directive 2008/56/EC). Sustainability 2024, 16, 9785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ristea, E.; Pârvulescu, O.C.; Lavric, V.; Oros, A. Assessment of Heavy Metal Contamination of Seawater and Sediments Along the Romanian Black Sea Coast: Spatial Distribution and Environmental Implications. Sustainability 2025, 17, 2586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Childs, N. The Black Sea in the Shadow of War. Survival 2023, 65, 25–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Renolafitri, H.; Yolandika, C. Impact of the Russia-Ukraine War on the Environmental, Social and Economic Conditions of the Black Sea. Econ. Manag. Soc. Sci. J. 2022, 1, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Lesser, I.O. Global Trends, Regional Consequences: Wider Strategic Influences on the Black Sea; Xenophon Paper No. 4; International Centre for Black Sea Studies (ICBSS): Athens, Greece, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  28. Pădureanu, M.-A.; Oneașcă, I. From Synergy to Strategy in the Black Sea Region: Assessing Opportunities and Challenges; EIR Working Papers Series; Econstor: Hamburg, Germany, 2024; p. 51. [Google Scholar]
  29. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Stilgoe, J.; Owen, R.; Macnaghten, P. Developing a Framework for Responsible Innovation. Res. Policy 2013, 42, 1568–1580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. International Federation of Social Workers. Available online: https://www.ifsw.Org/New-Policy-Paper-Social-Work-and-the-United-Nations-Sustainable-Development-Goals-Sdgs/ (accessed on 6 June 2025).
  32. Georgeson, L.; Maslin, M. Putting the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals into Practice: A Review of Implementation, Monitoring, and Finance. Geo Geogr. Environ. 2018, 5, e00049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Sorooshian, S. The Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations: A Comparative Midterm Research Review. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 453, 142272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Jan van Eck, N.; Waltman, L. VOSviewer Manual; Univeristeit Leiden: Leiden, The Netherlands, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  35. Gheorghe, A.M.; Paiu, A.; Mirea-Cândea, M.; Paiu, R.M. Public Engagement-A Step Towards Responsible Research and Innovation. Rev. Cercet. Mar.-Rev. Rech. Mar.-Mar. Res. J. 2017, 47, 267–272. [Google Scholar]
  36. Albayrak, T. Cross Border Cooperation for Sustainable Environment Protection. Sci. Bull. Nav. Acad. 2021, XXIV, 60–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Barbier, M.; Reitz, A.; Pabortsava, K.; Wölfl, A.-C.; Hahn, T.; Whoriskey, F. Ethical Recommendations for Ocean Observation. Adv. Geosci. 2018, 45, 343–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Mokos, M.; De-Bastos, E.; Realdon, G.; Wojcieszek, D.; Papathanasiou, M.; Tuddenham, P. Navigating Ocean Literacy in Europe: 10 Years of History and Future Perspectives. Mediterr. Mar. Sci. 2022, 23, 277–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. DOORS Project. Developing Optimal and Open Research Support for the Black Sea. Available online: https://www.doorsblacksea.eu/ (accessed on 10 May 2025).
  40. Black Sea CONNECT. Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda for the Black Sea (SRIA). Available online: http://connect2blacksea.org/the-sria (accessed on 10 May 2025).
  41. BRIDGE-BS Project. Bridging Science, Innovation, and Policy for the Black Sea. Available online: https://bridgeblacksea.org/ (accessed on 10 May 2025).
  42. LitOUTer Project. Raising Public Awareness and Reducing Marine Litter for Protection of the Black Sea Ecosystem. Available online: https://litouterproject.eu/ (accessed on 10 May 2025).
  43. MARLITER Project. Improved Online Public Access to Environmental Monitoring Data and Data Tools for the Black Sea Basin Supporting Cooperation in the Reduction of Marine Litter. Available online: https://marliter.bsnn.org/ (accessed on 10 May 2025).
  44. ANEMONE Project. Assessing the Vulnerability of the Black Sea Marine Ecosystem to Human Pressures. Available online: https://www.rmri.ro/Home/Programmes.InternationalProjects.html?lang=en (accessed on 10 May 2025).
  45. MARINA Project. Marine Knowledge Sharing Platform for Federating Responsible Research and Innovation Communities. Available online: https://www.marina-platform.eu (accessed on 10 May 2025).
  46. Gheorghe, A.-M.; Lungu, B.; Mihailov, P.; Yordanova, D.; Alkan, A.O.; Marin, M.C.; Alexandrov, P.A.; Palazov, A.I.; Mihailescu, M.P.; Kolarov, S.; et al. From Public Engagement to Citizen Science—Black Sea Model; Ed. Cd Press: Constanța, Romania, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  47. Gheorghe, A.-M.; Boicenco, L.; Panayotova, M.; Denga, Y.; Atabay, H.; Ozturk, A.A.; Cândea, M.; Paiu, A.; Ionașcu, A.; Paiu, M.; et al. Marine Litter Status on Black Sea Shore Through Citizen Science; CD Press: București, Romania, 2021; ISBN 9786065285613. [Google Scholar]
  48. Fauville, G.; Strang, C.; Cannady, M.A.; Chen, Y.-F. Development of the International Ocean Literacy Survey: Measuring Knowledge across the World. Environ. Educ. Res. 2019, 25, 238–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Lothian, S.; Haas, B. The Outliers: Stories of Success in Implementing Sustainable Development Goal 14. Ocean Soc. 2024, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Kanteler, D.; Bakouros, I. Enhancing Cross-Border Disaster Management in the Balkans: A Framework for Collaboration Part I. J. Innov. Entrep. 2024, 13, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Lim, M. Governance Criteria for Effective Transboundary Biodiversity Conservation. Int. Environ. Agreem. Politics Law Econ. 2016, 16, 797–813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Mpofu, E.; Radinger-Peer, V.; Musakwa, W.; Penker, M.; Gugerell, K. Discourses on Landscape Governance and Transfrontier Conservation Areas: Converging, Diverging and Evolving Discourses with Geographic Contextual Nuances. Biodivers. Conserv. 2023, 32, 4597–4626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Thibault, R.T.; Amaral, O.B.; Argolo, F.; Bandrowski, A.E.; Davidson, A.R.; Drude, N.I. Open Science 2.0: Towards a Truly Collaborative Research Ecosystem. PLoS Biol. 2023, 21, e3002362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Latour, M.; van Laerhoven, F. A New Perspective on the Work of Boundary Organisations: Bridging Knowledge between Marine Conservation Actors in Pacific Small Island Developing States. Environ. Sci. Policy 2024, 162, 103903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Pinfield, S. Achieving Global Open Access: The Need for Scientific, Epistemic and Participatory Openness; Taylor and Francis: Abingdon, UK, 2024; ISBN 9781040100578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Kujala, J.; Sachs, S.; Leinonen, H.; Heikkinen, A.; Laude, D. Stakeholder Engagement: Past, Present, and Future. Bus. Soc. 2022, 61, 1136–1196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Aydin, M.; Triantaphyllou, D. A 2020 Vision for the Black Sea Region: The Commission on the Black Sea Proposes. Southeast Eur. Black Sea Stud. 2010, 10, 373–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Ombaka, B.; Muturi, M. Importance of Ethics in Safeguarding and Ensuring High Quality Research. J. Afr. Interdiscip. Stud. 2024, 8, 89–100. Available online: https://kenyasocialscienceforum.wordpress.com/2024/06/13/ombaka-b-muturi-m-2024-importance-of-ethics-in-safeguarding-and-ensuring-high-quality-research-journal-of-african-interdisciplinary-studies-86-89-100/ (accessed on 10 May 2025).
  59. Qassimi, N.M. Ensuring Ethical Research Practices: A Comprehensive Examination of Actions Aligned with Ethical Principles. Zenodo 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Miteu, G.D. Ethics in Scientific Research: A Lens into Its Importance, History, and Future. Ann. Med. Surg. 2024, 86, 2395–2398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Garcia-Campa, S.; Sanahuja, R. Gender Mainstreaming and RRI: The Double Challenge. In Ethics and Responsible Research and Innovation in Practice: The ETHNA System Project; González-Esteban, E., Feenstra, R.A., Camarinha-Matos, L.M., Eds.; Lecture Notes in Computer Science; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; Volume 13875, pp. 188–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Bührer, S.; Wroblewski, A. The Practice and Perceptions of RRI—A Gender Perspective. Eval. Program Plan. 2019, 77, 101717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Hunt, L.; Nielsen, M.W.; Schiebinger, L. A Framework for Sex, Gender, and Diversity Analysis in Research. Science 2022, 377, 1492–1495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Rai, M.; Paul, S. Exploring Gender Justice for Attaining Equality. In Gender Equality; Leal Filho, W., Azul, A.M., Brandli, L., Lange Salvia, A., Özuyar, P.G., Wall, T., Eds.; Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 266–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Kamala, K.; Kamalakar, G. Gender Equality and Human Rights: A Contemporary Analysis. Int. J. Political Sci. 2024, 10, 31–35. Available online: https://rfppl.co.in/subscription/upload_pdf/31-35-ijops-1721638418.pdf (accessed on 10 May 2025).
  66. Clavero, S.; Galligan, Y. Delivering Gender Justice in Academia through Gender Equality Plans? Normative and Practical Challenges. Gend. Work. Organ. 2021, 28, 1115–1132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Unterhalter, E. Global Inequality, Capabilities, Social Justice: The Millennium Development Goal for Gender Equality in Education. Int. J. Educ. Dev. 2005, 25, 111–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Paredes-Frigolett, H.; Pyka, A.; Leoneti, A.B.; Nachar-Calderón, P. Governance of Responsible Research and Innovation: A Social Welfare, Psychologically Grounded Multicriteria Decision Analysis Approach. Heliyon 2025, 11, e40863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Brinkerhoff, D.W. Accountability and Good Governance: Concepts and Issues. In International Development Governance; Huque, A.S., Zafarullah, H., Eds.; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2017; pp. 269–287. [Google Scholar]
  70. Chanda, C.T.; Madoda, D.; Sain, Z.H.; Chisebe, S.; Chansa, C.T.; Sylvester, C. Good Governance: A Pillar to National Development. Int. J. Res. Publ. Rev. 2024, 5, 6215–6223. [Google Scholar]
  71. Azeem, H.M.; Sheer, A.; Umar, M. Unveiling the Power of the Right to Information: Promoting Transparency, Accountability, and Effective Governance. Al-Kashaf Res. J. Soc. Sci. 2023, 3, 1–15. [Google Scholar]
  72. Glass, L.-M.; Newig, J. Governance for Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals: How Important Are Participation, Policy Coherence, Reflexivity, Adaptation and Democratic Institutions? Earth Syst. Gov. 2019, 2, 100031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Krickovic, A. “All Politics Is Regional”: Emerging Powers and the Regionalization of Global Governance. Glob. Gov. Rev. Multilater. Int. Organ. 2015, 21, 557–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. European Commission. Indicators for Promoting and Monitoring Responsible Research and Innovation: Report from the Expert Group on Policy Indicators for Responsible Research and Innovation; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2015.
  75. Aidinlis, S. The ‘Urgencies’ of Implementing an RRI Approach in EU-Funded Law Enforcement Technology Development: Between Frameworks and Practice. J. Responsible Innov. 2025, 12, 2390198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Foster, C.; Heeks, R. Policies to Support Inclusive Innovation; Centre for Development Informatics, Institute for Development Policy and Management, SEED: Manchester, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Bäckstrand, K.; Koliev, F.; Mert, A. Governing SDG Partnerships: The Role of Institutional Capacity, Inclusion, and Transparency. In Partnerships and the Sustainable Development Goals; Murphy, E., Banerjee, A., Walsh, P.P., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 41–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Velikova, V.; Oral, N. Governance of the Protection of the Black Sea: A Model for Regional Cooperation. In Environmental Security in Watersheds: The Sea of Azov; Lagutov, V., Ed.; NATO Science for Peace and Security Series C: Environmental Security; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2011; pp. 159–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Acikmese, S.A.; Triantaphyllou, D. The Black Sea Region: The Neighbourhood Too Close to, yet Still Far from the European Union. J. Balk. Near East. Stud. 2014, 16, 279–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Triantaphyllou, D. The ‘Security Paradoxes’ of the Black Sea Region. Southeast Eur. Black Sea Stud. 2009, 9, 225–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Fisher, L.; Gross, T.; Hillebrand, H.; Sandberg, A.; Sayama, H. Sustainability: We Need to Focus on Overall System Outcomes Rather than Simplistic Targets. People Nat. 2024, 6, 391–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Monsonís-Payá, I.; Iñigo, E.A.; Blok, V. Participation in Monitoring and Evaluation for RRI: A Review of Procedural Approaches Developing Monitoring and Evaluation Mechanisms. J. Responsible Innov. 2023, 10, 2233234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Schuijff, M.; Dijkstra, A.M. Practices of Responsible Research and Innovation: A Review. Sci. Eng. Ethics 2020, 26, 533–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Kwon, D. Open-Access Publishing Fees Deter Researchers in the Global South. Nature 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Khalil, A.T.; Shinwari, Z.K.; Islam, A. Fostering Openness in Open Science: An Ethical Discussion of Risks and Benefits. Front. Political Sci. 2022, 4, 930574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Clark, A.D.; Myers, T.C.; Steury, T.D.; Krzton, A.; Yanes, J.; Barber, A.; Barry, J.; Barua, S.; Eaton, K.; Gosavi, D.; et al. Does It Pay to Pay? A Comparison of the Benefits of Open-Access Publishing across Various Sub-Fields in Biology. PeerJ 2024, 12, e16824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Armeni, K.; Brinkman, L.; Carlsson, R.; Eerland, A.; Fijten, R.; Fondberg, R.; Heininga, V.E.; Heunis, S.; Koh, W.Q.; Masselink, M.; et al. Towards Wide-Scale Adoption of Open Science Practices: The Role of Open Science Communities. Sci. Public Policy 2021, 48, 605–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Simard, M.-A.; Ghiasi, G.; Mongeon, P.; Larivière, V. National Differences in Dissemination and Use of Open Access Literature. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0272730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Pampel, H. Promoting Open Access in Research-Performing Organizations: Spheres of Activity, Challenges, and Future Action Areas. Publications 2023, 11, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. van ’t Veer, A. Fostering a National Community-Led Network to Accelerate Open Science Practices: Foster OSC-NL. In ResearchEquals; Liberate Science GmbH: Berlin, Germany, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  91. Ng, J.Y.; Wieland, L.S.; Lee, M.S.; Liu, J.; Witt, C.M.; Moher, D.; Cramer, H. Open Science Practices in Traditional, Complementary, and Integrative Medicine Research: A Path to Enhanced Transparency and Collaboration. Integr. Med. Res. 2024, 13, 101047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Jensen, E.A. Linking Policy and Practice in Monitoring Socially Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI): A Conceptual Framework to Evaluate Progress through the UNESCO-Led Recommendation on Science and Scientific Researchers. Open Res. Eur. 2023, 2, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Farrugia, D.M.; Vilches, S.L.; Gerber, A. Effective Inter-Organisational Networks for Responsible Research and Innovation and Global Sustainability: A Scoping Review. Open Res. Eur. 2022, 1, 144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Lola, M.S.; Ramlee, M.N.A.; Isa, H.; Abdullah, M.I.; Hussin, M.F.; Zainuddin, N.H.; Rahman, M.N. Forecasting towards Planning and Sustainable Development Based on a System Dynamic Approach: A Case Study of the Setiu District, State of Terengganu, Malaysia. Open J. Stat. 2016, 6, 931–950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Maddi, A.; Lardreau, E.; Sapinho, D. Open Access in Europe: A National and Regional Comparison. Scientometrics 2021, 126, 3131–3152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Cavalheiro, E.A.; Oliveira, I.R.; Leandro, D.; Kontz, L.B. Governance, Development, and Environment: Pathways to a Sustainable Future. Sustain. Futures 2025, 100813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Haas, B.; Mackay, M.; Novaglio, C.; Fullbrook, L.; Murunga, M.; Sbrocchi, C.; McDonald, J.; McCormack, P.C.; Alexander, K.; Fudge, M.; et al. The Future of Ocean Governance. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 2022, 32, 253–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Young, O.R.; Osherenko, G.; Ekstrom, J.; Crowder, L.B.; Ogden, J.; Wilson, J.A.; Day, J.C.; Douvere, F.; Ehler, C.N.; McLeod, K.L.; et al. Solving the Crisis in Ocean Governance: Place-Based Management of Marine Ecosystems. Environ. Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev. 2007, 49, 20–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. DiMento, J.F.; Hickman, A.J. Environmental Governance of the Great Seas: Law and Effect; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  100. Torfing, J.; Sørensen, E. The European Debate on Governance Networks: Towards a New and Viable Paradigm? Policy Soc. 2014, 33, 329–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Kelly, R.; Evans, K.; Alexander, K.; Bettiol, S.; Corney, S.; Cullen-Knox, C.; Cvitanovic, C.; de Salas, K.; Emad, G.R.; Fullbrook, L.; et al. Connecting to the Oceans: Supporting Ocean Literacy and Public Engagement. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 2022, 32, 123–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Skarlatidou, A.; Haklay, M. Citizen Science Impact Pathways for a Positive Contribution to Public Participation in Science. J. Sci. Commun. 2021, 20, A02. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Bidstrup, M.V.; Gabova, S.; Kilintzis, P.; Samara, E.; Kouskoura, A.; Bakouros, Y.; Roth, F. The RRI Citizen Review Panel: A Public Engagement Method for Supporting Responsible Territorial Policymaking. J. Innov. Entrep. 2024, 13, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Schimmelfennig, F.; Leuffen, D.; De Vries, C.E. Differentiated Integration in the European Union: Institutional Effects, Public Opinion, and Alternative Flexibility Arrangements. Eur. Union Politics 2023, 24, 3–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Galiè, A.; McLeod, A.; Campbell, Z.A.; Ngwili, N.; Terfa, Z.G.; Thomas, L.F. Gender Considerations in One Health: A Framework for Researchers. Front. Public Health 2024, 12, 1345273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Islam, M.R. Ethics in Social Science Research: Challenges and Future Directions. In Ethics in Social Science Research; Springer Nature: Singapore, 2024; pp. 243–263. [Google Scholar]
  107. Correia, M.I.T.D. Ethics in Research. Clin. Nutr. Open Sci. 2023, 47, 121–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Cappelletto, M.; Giuffredi, R.; Kastanidi, E.; Vassilopoulou, V.; L’Astorina, A. Grounding Ocean Ethics While Sharing Knowledge and Promoting Environmental Responsibility: Empowering Young Ambassadors as Agents of Change. Front. Mar. Sci. 2021, 8, 717789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Hügel, S.; Davies, A.R. Public Participation, Engagement, and Climate Change Adaptation: A Review of the Research Literature. WIREs Clim. Change 2020, 11, e645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Cederroth, C.R.; Earp, B.D.; Gómez Prada, H.C.; Jarach, C.M.; Lir, S.A.; Norris, C.M.; Pilote, L.; Raparelli, V.; Rochon, P.; Sahraoui, N.; et al. Integrating Gender Analysis into Research: Reflections from the Gender-Net Plus Workshop. EClinicalMedicine 2024, 74, 102728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Palmén, R.; Arroyo, L.; Müller, J.; Reidl, S.; Caprile, M.; Unger, M. Integrating the Gender Dimension in Teaching, Research Content & Knowledge and Technology Transfer: Validating the EFFORTI Evaluation Framework Through Three Case Studies in Europe. Eval. Program Plan. 2020, 79, 101751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 17 05656 g001
Figure 1. Open Responsible Research and Innovation (ORRI) principles.
Figure 1. Open Responsible Research and Innovation (ORRI) principles.
Sustainability 17 05656 g001
Sustainability 17 05656 g002
Figure 2. Geographical map of the Black Sea region.
Figure 2. Geographical map of the Black Sea region.
Sustainability 17 05656 g002
Sustainability 17 05656 g003
Figure 3. Schematic representation of the methodological framework employed in this study.
Figure 3. Schematic representation of the methodological framework employed in this study.
Sustainability 17 05656 g003
Sustainability 17 05656 g004
Figure 4. PRISMA flow diagram illustrating the systematic selection of studies.
Figure 4. PRISMA flow diagram illustrating the systematic selection of studies.
Sustainability 17 05656 g004
Sustainability 17 05656 g005
Figure 5. Bibliometric analysis of key concepts related to ORRI principles in the Black Sea region.
Figure 5. Bibliometric analysis of key concepts related to ORRI principles in the Black Sea region.
Sustainability 17 05656 g005
Sustainability 17 05656 g006
Figure 6. Distribution of ORRI principles across the selected studies in the systematic review (based on a number of studies addressing each principle).
Figure 6. Distribution of ORRI principles across the selected studies in the systematic review (based on a number of studies addressing each principle).
Sustainability 17 05656 g006
Sustainability 17 05656 g007
Figure 7. Bibliometric mapping of ORRI-related initiatives in the Black Sea.
Figure 7. Bibliometric mapping of ORRI-related initiatives in the Black Sea.
Sustainability 17 05656 g007
Table 1. Summary of ORRI Contributions by Project.
Table 1. Summary of ORRI Contributions by Project.
ProjectKey ORRI Principles AddressedNotable Practices/Outputs
DOORS [39]Open Access, Governance, Science Education, Public Engagement, EthicsSystem of Systems for data sharing; Knowledge Transfer & Training (KTT) framework; Blue Growth Accelerator (BGA); inclusive decision-making tools.
Black Sea
CONNECT [40] 		Governance, Public Engagement, Open Science, EthicsStrategic Research and Innovation Agenda (SRIA); Black Sea Young Ambassadors promoting ORRI values across the region.
BRIDGE-BS [41]Ethics, Open Access, Public Engagement, Science Education, GovernanceOpen-access models; participatory governance; D7.1 (Accelerator Platform Guidelines); D9.1 (Good Practices for Training); co-creation; informal education.
LitOUTer [42] Public Engagement, Science Education, Open Access, ResponsivenessMarine litter modelling; stakeholder involvement; decision-support tools; transboundary collaboration.
MARLITER [43]Open Access, Science Education, Ethics, Gender EqualityWeb-based monitoring tool; youth training programs, Guidebook on Marine Litter Reduction with circular economy and ethics components.
ANEMONE [44]Public Engagement, Science EducationCitizen science activities (D4.1–D4.3); cetacean monitoring; community participation in marine data collection and education.
MARINA [45]Public Engagement, Science Education, Governance45 Multi-Stakeholder Mobilization & Mutual Learning (MML) workshops; dialogue across sectors; use of citizen science for awareness and knowledge co-production.
Table 2. Comparative models of ORRI institutionalization in Europe.
Table 2. Comparative models of ORRI institutionalization in Europe.
ORRI PillarBlack Sea Region (Scaffolded Adaptation Model)Northern/Western Europe (Structurally Embedded Model)
Public EngagementProject-driven, often externally initiated (EU-funded)Integrated into national strategies and supported by long-term funding
Science EducationDelivered through workshops, summer schools, and project-based outreachPart of the formal and informal education systems, supports lifelong learning
Open AccessLimited institutional policies, low infrastructure supportNational mandates and policies ensure open access to research outputs
Gender EqualityLargely absent from research design and leadership structuresMandated and monitored; supported by gender action plans and inclusion policies
EthicsFragmented or ad hoc, rarely institutionally formalizedWell-developed ethical review systems with institutional and national oversight
GovernanceDisconnected, low coordination across institutions and bordersStrong governance mechanisms; inclusive, cross-sectoral, and policy-aligned
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Bisinicu, E.; Lazar, L.; Candea, M.M.; Serra, E.G. Advancing Marine Sustainability Capacity in the Black Sea—Insights from Open Responsible Research and Innovation (ORRI). Sustainability 2025, 17, 5656. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17125656

AMA Style

Bisinicu E, Lazar L, Candea MM, Serra EG. Advancing Marine Sustainability Capacity in the Black Sea—Insights from Open Responsible Research and Innovation (ORRI). Sustainability. 2025; 17(12):5656. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17125656

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bisinicu, Elena, Luminita Lazar, Mihaela Mirea Candea, and Elena Garcia Serra. 2025. "Advancing Marine Sustainability Capacity in the Black Sea—Insights from Open Responsible Research and Innovation (ORRI)" Sustainability 17, no. 12: 5656. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17125656

APA Style

Bisinicu, E., Lazar, L., Candea, M. M., & Serra, E. G. (2025). Advancing Marine Sustainability Capacity in the Black Sea—Insights from Open Responsible Research and Innovation (ORRI). Sustainability, 17(12), 5656. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17125656

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop