CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 573Ethics and Social Impacts of AIEthics in Business and EducationCorporate Social Responsibility and Sustainability

Corporate digital responsibility

Open access
Lobschat, Lara, Mueller, Benjamin, Eggers, Felix, Brandimarte, Laura, Diefenbach, Sarah, Kroschke, Mirja, Wirtz, Jochen·2021·Journal of Business Research
DOI 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.10.006
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

We propose that digital technologies and related data become increasingly prevalent and that, consequently, ethical concerns arise. Looking at four principal stakeholders, we propose corporate digital responsibility (CDR) as a novel concept. We define CDR as the set of shared values and norms guiding an organization's operations with respect to four main processes related to digital technology and data. These processes are the creation of technology and data capture, operation and decision making, inspection and impact assessment, and refinement of technology and data. We expand our discussion by highlighting how to managerially effectuate CDR compliant behavior based on an organizational culture perspective. Our conceptualization unlocks future research opportunities, especially regarding pertinent antecedents and consequences. Managerially, we shed first light on how an organization's shared values and norms regarding CDR can get translated into actionable guidelines for users. This provides grounds for future discussions related to CDR readiness, implementation, and success.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.10.006

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Corporate Digital Responsibility (CDR) is a group of accepted principles and values that direct a company's major information technology and data procedures.

    “Lobschat et al. (2021) have developed the concept of Corporate Digital Responsibility (CDR), described as a group of accepted principles and values that direct a company's major information technology and data procedures.”

    From Exploring Human Resource Management Digital Transformation in the Digital Age (2024) · cites this paper as Lobschat et al. (2021)

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 87

  1. Acquisti, A., Brandimarte, L., & Loewenstein, G. (2015). Privacy and human behavior in the age of information. Science, 347(6221), 509-514.
  2. Acquisti, A., Friedman, A., & Telang, R. (2006). Is there a cost to privacy breaches? An event study. ICIS 2006 Proceedings, 94.
  3. Adjerid, I., Acquisti, A., Brandimarte, L., & Loewenstein, G. (2013). Sleights of privacy: Framing, disclosures, and the limits of transparency. Proceedings of the Ninth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (Article No. 9). ACM.
  4. Ashrafian, H. (2015). Intelligent robots must uphold human rights. Nature, Available at https://www.nature.com/news/intelligent-robots-must-uphold-human-rights-1. 17167 (Accessed: March 18, 2019).
  5. Ashworth, L., & Free, C. (2006). Marketing dataveillance and digital privacy: Using theories of justice to understand consumers' online privacy concerns. Journal of Business Ethics, 67(2), 107-123.
  6. Astley, W. G. (1984). Subjectivity, sophistry and symbolism in management science. Journal of Management Studies, 21(3), 259-272.
  7. Avgerou, C., & Madon, S. (2005). Information society and the digital divide problem in developing countries. In Perspectives and Policies on ICT in Society: An IFIP Tc9 (Computers and Society) Handbook, J. Berleur and C. Avgerou (eds.). Boston, MA: Springer US, 205-217.
  8. Beaudouin-Lafon, M. (2004). Designing interaction, not interfaces. AVI '04. Proceedings of the Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces (pp. 15-22). .
  9. Beke, F. T., Eggers, F., & Verhoef, P. C. (2018). Consumer informational privacy: Current knowledge and research directions. Foundations and Trends in Marketing, 11(1), 1-71.
  10. Bhattacharya, C. B., Korschun, D., & Sen, S. (2009). Strengthening stakeholder-company relationships through mutually beneficial corporate social responsibility initiatives. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(2), 257-272.
  11. Blevis, E. (2007). Sustainable interaction design: Invention & disposal, renewal & reuse. SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 503-512.
  12. Brandimarte, L., Acquisti, A., & Loewenstein, G. (2013). Misplaced confidences: Privacy and the control paradox. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4(3), 340-347.
  13. Brey, P. A. E. (2012). Anticipating ethical issue in emerging IT. Ethics and Information Technology, 14(4), 305-317.
  14. Bynum, T. W. (2001). Computer ethics: Its birth and its future. Ethics and Information Technology, 3(2), 109-112.
  15. Chahal, H., & Sharma, R. D. (2006). Implications of corporate social responsibility on marketing performance: A conceptual framework. Journal of Services Research, 6(1), 205-216.
  16. Chatterjee, S., Moody, G., Lowry, P. B., Chakraborty, S., & Hardin, A. (2015). Strategic relevance of organizational virtues enabled by information technology in organiza- tional innovation. Journal of Management Information Systems, 32(3), 158-196.
  17. Chatterjee, S., Sarker, S., & Fuller, M. A. (2009). A deontological approach to designing ethical collaboration. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 10(3), 138-169.
  18. Crawford, K., & Calo, R. (2016). There is a blind spot in AI research. Nature, October 13, Available at https://www.nature.com/news/there-is-a-blind-spot-in-ai-research-1. 20805 (Accessed: July 14, 2018).
  19. Culnan, M. J., & Bies, R. J. (2003). Consumer privacy: Balancing economic and justice considerations. Journal of Social Issues, 59(2), 323-342.
  20. Culnan, M. J., & Williams, C. C. (2009). How can ethics enhance organizational privacy: Lessons learned from the ChoicePoint and TJX data breaches. MIS Quarterly, 33(4), 673-687.
  21. D'Adderio, L. (2011). Artifacts at the centre of routines: Performing the material turn in routines theory. Journal of Institutional Economics, 7(2), 197-230.
  22. Deshpandé, R., & Webster, F. E. (1989). Organizational culture and marketing: Defining the research agenda. Journal of Marketing, 53(1), 3-15.
  23. Diefenbach, S., & Ullrich, D. (2018). Disrespectful technologies. Social norm conflicts in di- gital worlds. 9th International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics, Orlando, Florida, USA.
  24. Dinev, T., McConnell, A. R., & Smith, H. J. (2015). Research commentary-informing privacy research through information systems, psychology, and behavioral eco- nomics: Thinking outside the "APCO" box. Information Systems Research, 26(4), 639-655.
  25. Feldman, D. C. (1984). The development and enforcement of group norms. The Academy of Management Review, 9(1), 47-53.
  26. Finkelstein, S., & Hambrick, D. C. (1990). Top-management team tenure and organiza- tional outcomes: The moderating role of managerial discretion. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(3), 484-503.
  27. Ghose, A. (2017). Tap: Unlocking the mobile economy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  28. Godos-Díez, J.-L., Fernández-Gago, R., & Martínez-Campillo, A. (2011). How important are CEOs to CSR practices? An analysis of the mediating effect of the perceived role of ethics and social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 98(4), 531-548.
  29. Greenaway, K. E., Chan, Y. E., & Crossler, R. E. (2015). Firm information privacy or- ientation: A conceptual framework. Information Systems Journal, 25(6), 579-606.
  30. Hadasch, F., Li, Y., & Mueller, B. (2013). IS security policy enforcement with technolo- gical agents: A field experiment. 21. European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2013), Utrecht, The Netherlands.
  31. Hinds, P. J., Roberts, T. L., & Jones, H. (2004). Whose job is it anyway? A study of human- robot interaction in a collaborative task. Human-Computer Interaction, 19(1-2), 151-181.
  32. Holtrop, N., Wieringa, J. E., Gijsenberg, M. J., & Verhoef, P. C. (2017). No future without the past? Predicting churn in the face of customer privacy. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 34(1), 154-172.
  33. Homburg, C., & Pflesser, C. (2000). A multiple-layer model of market-oriented organi- zational culture: Measurement issues and performance outcomes. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(4), 449-462.
  34. Hoppner, J. J., & Vadakkepatt, G. G. (2019). Examining moral authority in the market- place: A conceptualization and framework. Journal of Business Research, 95(2), 417-427.
  35. Inman, J. J., & Nikolova, H. (2017). Shopper-facing retail technology: A retailer adoption decision framework incorporating shopper attitudes and privacy concerns. Journal of Retailing, 93(1), 7-28.
  36. Ihde, D. (1990). Technology and the lifeworld: From garden to earth. Bloomington, In: Indiana University Press.
  37. Intezari, A., Taskin, N., & Pauleen, D. J. (2017). Looking beyond knowledge sharing: An integrative approach to knowledge management culture. Journal of Knowledge Management, 21(2), 492-515.
  38. John, L. K., Acquisti, A., & Loewenstein, G. (2010). Strangers on a plane: Context-de- pendent willingness to divulge sensitive information. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(5), 858-873.
  39. Klopfer, P. H., & Rubenstein, D. I. (1977). The concept privacy and its biological basis. Journal of Social Issues, 33(3), 52-65.
  40. Lameijer, C.S., Mueller, B., & Hage, M.L. (2017). Towards rethinking the digital divide - Recognizing shades of grey in older adults' digital inclusion. 38. International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2017), Seoul, South Korea.
  41. Lee, D.-J., Ahn, J.-H., & Bang, Y. (2011). Managing consumer privacy in personalization: A strategic analysis of privacy protection. MIS Quarterly, 35(2), 423-444.
  42. Lee, J. E. R., & Nass, C. I. (2010). Trust in computers: The computers-are-social-actors (CASA) paradigm and trustworthiness perception in human-computer communica- tion. In D. Latusek, & A. Gerbasi (Eds.). Trust and Technology in a Ubiquitous Modern Environment: Theoretical and Methodological Perspectives (pp. 1-15). IGI Global: Hershey, PA.
  43. Lwin, M., Wirtz, J., & Stanaland, A. J. S. (2016). The privacy dyad: Antecedents of pro- motion-and prevention-focused online privacy behaviors and the mediating role of trust and privacy concern. Internet Research, 26(4), 919-941.
  44. Lwin, M., Wirtz, J., & Williams, J. D. (2007). Consumer online privacy concerns and responses: A power-responsibility equilibrium perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35(4), 572-585.
  45. Maignan, I., & Ferrell, O. C. (2004). Corporate social responsibility and marketing: An integrative framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(1), 3-19.
  46. Maignan, I., Ferrell, O. C., & Ferrell, L. (2005). A stakeholder model for implementing social responsibility in marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 39(9/10), 956-977.
  47. Malhotra, N. K., Kim, S. S., & Agarwal, J. (2004). Internet users' information privacy concerns (IUIPC): The construct, the scale, and a causal model. Information Systems Research, 15(4), 336-355.
  48. Marshall, K. P. (1999). Has technology introduced new ethical problems? Journal of Business Ethics, 19(1), 81-90.
  49. Mason, R. O. (1986). Four ethical issues of the information age. MIS Quarterly, 10(1), 5-12.
  50. McDonald, A. M., & Cranor, L. F. (2008). The cost of reading privacy policies. I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for the. Information Society, 4(3), 543-568.
  51. Milberg, S. J., Smith, H. J., & Burke, S. J. (2000). Information privacy: Corporate man- agement and national regulation. Organization Science, 11(1), 35-57.
  52. Milne, G. R., & Culnan, M. J. (2004). Strategies for reducing online privacy risks: Why consumers read (or don't read) online privacy notices. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(3), 15-29.
  53. Mingers, J., & Walsham, G. (2010). Toward ethical information systems: The contribution of discourse ethics. MIS Quarterly, 34(4), 833-854.
  54. Montag, C., & Diefenbach, S. (2018). Towards homo digitalis: Important research issues for psychology and the neurosciences at the dawn of the internet of things and the digital society. Sustainability, 10(2), 415.
  55. Moon, Y., & Nass, C. (1998). Are computers scapegoats? Attributions of responsibility in human-computer interaction. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 49(1), 79-94.
  56. Moor, J. H. (2006). The nature, importance, and difficulty of machine ethics. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 21(4), 18-21.
  57. Moore, B. (1984). Privacy: Studies in social and cultural history. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. Moore, G. E. (1965). Cramming more components onto integrated circuits. Electronics, 38(8), 114-117.
  58. Murali, V., Qi, L., Chaudhuri, S., & Jermaine, C. (2018). Neural sketch learning for conditional program generation. 6. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR 2018), Vancouver, Canada.
  59. Nambisan, S., Lyytinen, K., Majchrzak, A., & Song, M. (2017). Digital innovation man- agement: Reinventing innovation management research in a digital world. MIS Quarterly, 41(1), 223-238.
  60. Olerup, A. (1989). Socio-technical design of computer-assisted work: A discussion of the ethics and Tavistock approaches. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 1, 43-71.
  61. Oz, E. (1992). Ethical standards for information systems professionals: A case for a unified code. MIS Quarterly, 16(4), 423-433.
  62. Pentland, B. T., & Feldman, M. S. (2005). Organizational routines as a unit of analysis. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(5), 793-815.
  63. Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy & society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 78-92.
  64. Saeidi, S. P., Sofian, S., Saeidi, P., Saeidi, S. P., & Saaeidi, S. A. (2015). How does cor- porate social responsibility contribute to firm financial performance? The mediating role of competitive advantage, reputation, and customer satisfaction. Journal of Business Research, 68(2), 341-350.
  65. Sarathy, R., & Robertson, C. J. (2003). Strategic and ethical considerations in managing digital privacy. Journal of Business Ethics, 46(2), 111-126.
  66. Schumann, J. H., Von Wangenheim, F., & Groene, N. (2014). Targeted online advertising: Using reciprocity appeals to increase acceptance among users of free web services. Journal of Marketing, 78(1), 59-75.
  67. Schwartz, M., & Carroll, A. B. (2003). Corporate social responsibility: A three domain approach. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4), 503-530.
  68. Smith, H. J., Dinev, T., & Xu, H. (2011). Information privacy research: An inter- disciplinary review. MIS Quarterly, 35(4), 989-1016.
  69. Son, J. Y., & Kim, S. S. (2008). Internet users' information privacy-protective responses: A taxonomy and a nomological model. MIS Quarterly, 32(3), 503-529.
  70. Stahl, B. C., Eden, G., Jirotka, M., & Coeckelbergh, M. (2014). From computer ethics to responsible research and innovation in ICT: The transition of reference discourses informing ethics-related research in information systems. Information & Management, 51(6), 810-818.
  71. Stanaland, A. J. S., Lwin, M. O., & Murphy, P. E. (2011). Consumer perceptions of the antecedents and consequences of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(1), 47-55.
  72. Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., & Geyskens, I. (2006). How country characteristics affect the perceived value of web sites. Journal of Marketing, 70(3), 136-150.
  73. Stone, E. F., & Stone, D. L. (1990). Privacy in organizations: Theoretical issues, research findings, and protection mechanisms. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 8(3), 349-411.
  74. Tucker, C. E. (2012). The economics of advertising and privacy. International Journal of Industrial organization, 30(3), 326-329.
  75. Ullrich, D., & Diefenbach, S. (2017). Truly social robots. Understanding human-robot interaction from the perspective of social psychology. Proceedings of the 12th International Joint Conference on Computer Vision, Imaging and Computer Graphics Theory and Applications (VISIGRAPP 2017), 39-45.
  76. Ullrich, D., Butz, A., & Diefenbach, S. (2018). Who do you follow?: Social robots' impact on human judgment. HRI '18 Companion of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 265-266.
  77. Van den Hoven, J., Doorn, N., Swierstra, T., Koops, B.-J., & Romijn, H. (eds.). (2014). Responsible Innovation 1 -Innovative Solutions for Global Issues. Dordrecht, the Netherlands, et al.: Springer.
  78. Van den Hoven, J., & Lokhorst, G.-J. (2002). Deontic logic and computer-supported computer ethics. Metaphilosophy, 33(3), 376-386.
  79. Van Doorn, J., Mende, M., Noble, S. M., Hulland, J., Ostrom, A. L., Grewal, D., et al. (2017). Domo Arigato Mr. Roboto: Emergence of automated social presence in or- ganizational frontlines and customers' service experiences. Journal of Service Research, 20(1), 43-58.
  80. Verbeek, P. P., & Kockelkoren, P. (1998). The things that matter. Design. Issues, 14(3), 28-42.
  81. Versteeg, M.J.J.M. (2013). Ethics & gamification design: a moral framework for taking responsibility. Thesis, Faculty of Humanities.
  82. Walsham, G. (1996). Ethical theory, codes of ethics and IS practice. Information Systems Journal, 6(1), 69-81.
  83. Wieringa, J., Kannan, P. K., Ma, X., Reutterer, T., Risselada, H., Roodbergen, K. J., et al. (2019). Data analytics in a privacy-concerned world. Journal of Business Research forthcoming.
  84. Wirtz, J., & Lwin, M. O. (2009). Regulatory focus theory, trust and privacy concern. Journal of Service Research, 12(2), 190-207.
  85. Wirtz, J., Patterson, P., Kunz, W., Gruber, T., Lu, V. N., Paluch, S., et al. (2018). Brave new world: Service robots in the frontline. Journal of Service Management, 29(5), 907-931.
  86. Wright, D. (2011). A framework for the ethical impact assessment of information tech- nology. Ethics and Information Technology, 13(3), 199-226.
  87. Yang, Xiaohua, & Rivers, Cherly (2009). Antecedents of CSR practices in MNCs' sub- sidiaries: A stakeholder and institutional perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 86(2), 155-169.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lobschat, L., Mueller, B., Eggers, F., Brandimarte, L., Diefenbach, S., Kroschke, M., & Wirtz, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Münster (DE)
  • Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (DE)
  • University of Groningen (NL)
  • University of Arizona (US)
  • Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (DE)
  • National University of Singapore (SG)
Corresponding author
Lobschat, Lara
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Business Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-01
Volume
122
Pages
875-888
ISSN
0148-2963 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.10.006
OpenAlex
W2981899967
Cited by
573
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 128 · 2025: 146 · 2024: 101 · 2023: 91 · 2022: 52 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 1
FWCI
46.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Business Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Repository KITopen (Karlsruhe Institute of Technology) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • UA Campus Repository (The University of Arizona) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • National University of Singapore (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • KITopen (cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Ethics in Business and Education
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainability
Keywords
corporate digital responsibility, data ethics, organizational values and norms, organizational culture, stakeholder concerns, impact assessment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review