digital responsibility essay

for Education

• Google Classroom
• Google Workspace Admin
• Google Cloud

Digital Responsibility

Parents and guardians want schools to help students develop healthy relationships with technology and be safe, confident explorers of the digital world. Research shows that including online safety within the school’s curriculum is key to helping children become safe and responsible users of technologies, especially if they are taught how to manage, rather than avoid, risks online.

• View Global Report

99% of UK teachers say that online safety should be part of the school’s curriculum.

Google, 2018

The average amount of time Americans under 8 years old spent with mobile devices each day tripled between 2013 and 2017.

Common Sense, 2017

59% of teachers in Mexico say that digital competence and responsible use is one of the main advantages of using technology in the classroom.

Blink Learning, 2018

Dive into education trends by country

From Australia to the United States to the Nordics, explore how education is evolving across the globe.

• View Report
• View in English
• View in Portuguese
• View in Spanish

Netherlands

New zealand.

• View in Catalan

Hear from the experts

A conversation with nastaran jafari.

Independent International Education Consultant

Within Victoria, Australia I feel that there are some key areas which will evolve over the next ten years within the digital responsibility space. For example, it is critical that safe, responsible and ethical use of digital responsibilities is taught as part of K-12 education. Students are increasingly exposed to digital technologies and learning, and with that comes the responsibility to utilise this in a safe and responsible manner including the consequences of their actions or bad behaviour.

Whilst, we do have a long way to go in this area, I do see digital responsibility evolving to connect learners from diverse backgrounds, and facilitating cultural, social and inclusive understanding. This will include the deepening and facilitation of issues including the environment, gender equality, virtues, values and how the concept of service to our communities, and helping others, can be undertaken through technologies.

Over the next 10 years I would also see access as an important part of digital responsibility. This means inclusive digital responsibility where by all learners regardless of socioeconomic status, gender, ability have access to digital technologies.

In developing countries I see this evolving over the next 10 years to support children and young people who are displaced and marginalised, and do not have access to an education - allowing reach and reducing barriers to access either through the same pedagogy (i.e. enabling children in war zones the ability to complete an international or their states K-12 education through technology) or utilising specific and relevant subjects including peace education, psycho-social support, and water and sanitation which are more relevant within humanitarian and/or developing settings.

Effective digital responsibility instruction to me looks like teachers being aware and trained in effective digital responsibility including the ethical use of digital technologies, and for its utilisation in a safe and responsible manner. This would also include teachers to ensure there are consequences to bad behaviour.

I firmly believe also that effective digital responsibility is an inclusive one, whereby no child or young person’s access is affected due to race, gender, sexuality or socio-economic status. That the digital responsibility instructions, when possible, mirror or integrate values and virtues learning whether within curriculum or how the curriculum is delivered i.e. incorporation of ethics, life-skills, practising kindness, peace education during classes, and supporting subjects were technologies facilitate service to the community and helping others. Teaching digital citizenship and in turn responsibility is also to help students think beyond themselves and to understand their responsibilities to others and how they can improve their communities.

Connecting one another as global citizens through ethical technology.

Learn more at the Teacher Center

Find online courses and resources to help teachers and students prepare for the future today.

Teach students online skills

Learn essential skills for targeted online searches and customizing your browsing experience.

Promote digital citizenship and positive online behavior

Learn best practices to protect your privacy and online identity.

Digital citizenship and safety

Teach students the fundamentals of online safety, savvy searching and protecting their reputation online.

Get Started

Explore emerging areas in classroom education

Learn about the key trends influencing education today and defining the educational experience of tomorrow.

You're now viewing content for a different region.

For content more relevant to your region, we suggest:

Sign up here for updates, insights, resources, and more.

June 29, 2024

Privacy Made Simple

The Importance of Responsible Digital Citizenship

Last updated on June 8, 2022

In today’s world, digital technology isn’t just a luxury; it’s a necessity. From entertainment to school and work, it’s almost impossible to exist in modern society without a connection to the online world. With more and more people becoming dependent on the internet for day-to-day activities, it’s become vital to protect your internet privacy and learn the proper tenets of digital citizenship. So who exactly is a digital citizen, and what principles govern responsible digital citizenship?

Who is a Digital Citizen?

A digital citizen is anyone who advocates and adheres to the responsible use of the technology we use every day, like:

•  The Internet
•  Computers
•  Smartphones
• Any Other Digital Devices

A good digital citizen will encourage positive and healthy interactions online, maintaining awareness of common online scams or toxic behavior. They will avoid cyberbullying on social media or other digital platforms, focusing on empathy when interacting with others online.

The 5 Principles of Responsible Digital Citizenship

There are a number of ways you can maintain responsible digital citizenship, with most centering on productive interaction, safe usage, and building a good base of online knowledge. Here are five principles you can use to ensure you remain a digital citizen in good standing.

1.     Understand How the Online World Works  

You wouldn’t step into a car without taking a driving test, yet new people access the internet every day without knowing how it works. On the most basic level, the internet is a series of servers connected by a network of both wired and wireless connections. It’s a miraculous piece of technology, deserving of the same respect we reserve for other modern marvels like air travel or space flight. Take some time to research how the internet works; that way, you can better understand how to conduct yourself while online.

2.     Be Respectful to Other Digital Citizens

Speaking of conduct, let’s talk about interacting with other digital citizens. Much like the real world, you should always practice empathy with anyone you meet online. It isn’t always to see the real person behind an avatar or screen name, which is what makes cyberbullying such a daunting issue. But understand that behind every post and picture is a living, breathing human just like you. If they treat you with respect, you should return the favor.

3.     Be Careful about What You Share  

Empathy is essential, but that doesn’t mean you should blindly trust anyone you meet online. Skepticism is especially important for students and other vulnerable members of society like the elderly. Don’t share your address, photos, or any personal information with someone you interact with on the internet unless you are 100% sure you know them. Otherwise, you may fall prey to one of the many scams that plague the digital world.

4.     Keep an Eye Out for Scams

There are numerous ways cybercriminals can scam someone online; luckily, many of these scams can be avoided with the right knowledge and tools. Here are three common scams you should look out for.

•   Phishing : one of the more common online threats, phishing involves a scammer impersonating someone you may trust and sending you a malicious link. Remember, always confirm what a link contains before you click, even if the person is a friend!
•   Fake Websites: Especially common with shopping websites, cybercriminals will create a fake site to require you to enter personal information . Always use trusted marketplaces , and check the URL closely before entering any credit card information.
• Tech Support Scams: One that has grown recently in popularity, fake tech support agents will often ask for login information or remote access to your computer. They will then ask for money to fix your computer; this is a red flag! A real tech support agent won’t usually ask for any payment.

5.     Protect Your Data and Identity

If you accidentally share personal information or reveal facts about your identity, don’t panic. There are free tools you can use, like an identity threat scan, to see whether your data has been compromised. If it has, you can see what has happened to your information and take the appropriate steps to stop any fraudulent activity. 

How to Spread Digital Literacy

Educating others, especially students, about the benefits of digital literacy will help us establish a better online space for all digital citizens. Lessons about how to be digitally literate should start early before a child begins using the internet. The earlier and more comprehensive this education is, the lower the chance that a student will fall prey to an internet scam. By facilitating safe exposure to digital technology and walking new users through a period of trial and error, we can ensure that the internet will become a safe and positive environment for growth.

The Digital Age is Upon Us

There is no denying it; the internet will only become more intertwined with our lives as time goes on. That’s why digital citizenship and internet privacy are more crucial than ever; we need to teach students early about the right way to engage with others online. By doing so, we can maintain their healthy well-being and show everyone how to interact safely in social, professional, and educational communities. 

About the author

David Lukić is an information privacy, security and compliance consultant at IDstrong.com . The passion to make cyber security accessible and interesting has led David to share all the knowledge he has.

Published in Online Privacy

Be First to Comment

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Digital Responsibility

A Multilevel Framework for Responsible Digitalization

• Open access
• Published: 05 July 2023
• Volume 65 , pages 463–474, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Matthias Trier 1 ,
• Dennis Kundisch 1 ,
• Daniel Beverungen 1 ,
• Oliver Müller 1 ,
• Guido Schryen 1 ,
• Milad Mirbabaie 1 &
• Simon Trang 1  

4999 Accesses

6 Citations

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 The Relevance of Digital Responsibility

The profound and transformative proliferation of digital technologies and processes reflects in the ongoing stream of research on digital transformation (Li et al. 2018 ; Markus and Rowe 2023 ). This transformation deeply permeates into everyday day life (Hess et al. 2014 ) and brings about novel questions and comprehensive challenges for individuals, organizations and societies: Actors such as consumers, employees, or citizens can benefit from new opportunities but also face risks. Digital markets, services, and technologies develop faster than their regulation. Enterprises and work contexts are changing fundamentally, political engagement and governmental institutions face novel situations. In this context, “technologies are not mere aids but are powerful forces acting to reshape human activity, create new cultures and new worlds” (Hassan et al. 2018 , p. 4). They are not neutral but laden with human, cultural and social values (Capurro 2009 ).

In order to avoid negative implications of these fast-paced changes, to respect relevant values and attain a higher life quality, information systems (IS) researchers have to understand the consequences of the digital transformation process comprehensively and contribute to its design in a responsible way. An illustrative example are artificial intelligence chatbots based on large language models that are offered by companies without fully understanding how they may negatively affect information transparency or information processing capabilities of users. Such normative challenges are articulated in the emerging discourse on the concept of “digital responsibility” (DR). Drawing on Thorun ( 2018 ) and Wade ( 2020 ), we define DR as efforts of stakeholders such as individuals, corporations or public institutions to contribute to a sustainable, more inclusive, fair, and value-based digital society (or digitalization in general) beyond the legal minimum.

DR is an important topic with the potential to mark a second wave of a more reflected digital transformation process that recognizes possible unintended long-term consequences or indirect stakeholders. As such, it differs in focus from the related Corporate Social Responsibility and its objective to mitigate negative impacts of corporate practices on socially and environmentally relevant issues (Maignan and Ralston 2002 ; Mihale-Wilson et al. 2021 ). DR is receiving increasing recognition by political parties, companies and business associations. For example, groups of companies in the German speaking countries are gathering to agree on organizational measures that ensure Corporate Digital Responsibility (CDR; z.B. https://www.bvdw.org/der-bvdw/gremien/digital-responsibility , also cf. Mueller 2022 ). Others are framing a joint agenda (charta-digitale-vernetzung.de) or are building task forces such as the German commission for data ethics ( https://datenethikkommission.de/en/ ). On an international level, the Coalition for Digital Environmental Sustainability (CODES) is focusing on advancing digital sustainability with a focus on environmentally and socially sustainable development. Scientific perspectives on DR can potentially complement the above initiatives so that science becomes a more visible contributor and guide for responsible design of the societal transformation, as a second-order objective of digital transformation. However, beyond conceptualizations of digital ethics (e.g., Jobin et al. 2019 ) or CDR (e.g., Lobschat et al. 2021; Mueller 2022 ), the core elements of DR still need to be integrated into a structured framework that can be systematically linked to IS research themes. It is further unspecified how individual, organizational or societal stakeholders relate to DR or have to take responsibility, e.g., in terms of governance efforts.

To contribute to a more systematic conceptualization, we first introduce eight key principles of DR that we have derived from the contributions of practitioners and academics to the emerging DR discourse. We then show how these principles are discussed in a broad range of IS research fields. Based on this systematic exploration, we provide an overview of existing contributions to attain DR in the IS discipline, discuss the role of responsibility at the individual, corporate and societal level, and finally address avenues for future research.

2 DR Principles

Political and organizational white papers as well as the emerging academic literature on corporate responsibility and digital ethics propose and discuss a series of norms and principles that should guide the design of information systems and the behavior of key stakeholders. This implies that such norms are also relevant for the researchers that explore user behavior and information systems. From a research philosophy perspective, the increasing emphasis on digital responsibility is thus also a call for increasing the attention on the axiological , value-related dimension of IS research (Hassan et al. 2018 ) that examines norms (which can be grounded in moral philosophy) in order to guide digital transformation efforts and the researchers studying them. Drawing on the emerging discussion of guiding principles for digital ethics (e.g., Jobin et al. 2019 ) and corporate digital responsibility (e.g., Cooper et al. 2015 ) and based on the abstract conceptualization of Wood ( 1991 ), we define a DR principle as a fundamental and value-based normative requirement that motivates actors to attain responsible digital transformation. Such a principle can serve as a normative proposition that guides behavior and governs evaluation efforts of practitioners but also of researchers. We discuss how the principles can be applied to IS research fields in the next section.

We examined more than 20 contributions to the emerging DR discourse and identified various norms and principles that researchers propose or discuss. Based on this rather incoherent set, we categorized a shortlist of eight normative DR principles with varying relevance and operationalization. For example, we integrated the concepts “exclusion” (Lobschat et al. 2019 ), “access”, “participation mechanisms” (Thorun 2018 ), “group discrimination” (Yeung 2018 ) and “civic engagement” (Jones and Mitchel 2018) into the DR principle of participation. While the resulting list specifies the main principles, we note that this process does not necessarily lead to an integration of existing concepts into a comprehensive moral philosophy of responsibility principles and their interdependencies. A tabular overview of relevant publications and our derivation of DR principles is provided in Table 1 . We now introduce the resulting eight fundamental DR principles as they appeared in the literature in more detail and provide key references as well as the related concepts used in the literature.

Sustainability Principle On the corporate level, a major aspect of sustainability relates to possible environmental requirements like the trade-off between power consumption and added value by new digital services, e.g., for adding artificial intelligence methods that require computational power (BVDW 2019 ). A related concept is sustainable automation (Orbik and Zozulakova 2019 ). Another aspect is the responsibility to ensure quality and security for critical systems (Advenica 2020 ). Planned or unplanned damage made to critical systems can cause irreversible damage to both environment and society. On the societal level, sustainability is often discussed in terms of political incentives to adopt appropriate technologies and processes.

Participation Principle On the level of personal and corporate digital responsibility, the principle of participation addresses the requirement of involving a broad and diverse range of individuals as relevant stakeholders in digital environments, e.g., as users in software engineering efforts, or as citizens in digital processes of democratic opinion forming (Janssen et al. 2012 ). On the societal level of DR, this principle relates to digital divide (Lythreatis et al. 2022 ) and inclusion (Jamil 2021 ). Further related concepts discussed in the literature include for example civic engagement (Jones and Mitchell 2016 ) or group discrimination (Yeung 2018 ).

Functionality Principle On the governmental level, it is not enough to regulate technical progress through legal restrictions. Additionally, legal or ethical frameworks guide the development of new technologies for the benefit of the general public (Advenica 2020 ; Whiting and Pritchard 2017 ). Correspondingly, on the corporate level, the functionality principle requires that companies accommodate articulated societal needs in their development of new or refined system functionalities , devised to meet DR requirements. Here, the requirement is to balance the unregulated development of such digital functionalities with DR needs (Advenica 2020 ). Concepts that relate to this principle include ethical design (BVDW 2020 ; Yeung 2018 ) or functionality contributions to wellbeing (The Internet Commission 2019 ).

Data Privacy Principle On the personal level, the principle of data privacy addresses the responsibility of and requirement for individuals to define public and private digital spaces in their digital participation and separate them (Whiting and Pritchard 2017 ). Users should carefully evaluate if a specific type of information should be considered private or public (Whiting and Pritchard 2017 ). Moreover, the digital age requires individuals to share certain data with the public for the good of a larger group of people, such as medical data to fight future diseases (BVDW 2019 ). On the corporate level, companies need to provide users with the option of informational self-determination . Individuals should be empowered to establish and manage a self-souvereign identity (Feulner et al. 2022 ). On the societal level, political institutions develop the appropriate legal context to preserve data privacy. Further related concepts that pertain to this DR principle include surveillance (Capurro 2009 ), non-maleficence (Jobin et al. 2019 ), safety or security (Thorun 2018 ; The Internet Commission 2019 ).

Transparency Principle On the individual DR level, users should be aware of the value of their data for society and share them (in anonymized form) with the appropriate institutions for the good of society, for scientific and technical progress as well as for public safety (BVDW 2019 ). On the corporate level, transparency is appreciated by users and helps to build trust in digital services, especially in services that utilize artificial intelligence (AI). To allow users to understand decisions made or the entire decision-making process , AI systems should be designed such that their output appears self-explaining as well as plausible , and can be easily understood (Feulner et al. 2022 ). While this may run counter to profit-maximization objectives, there seems to be a global consensus about the requirement of transparency in responsible digital systems (Jobin et al. 2019 ). Transparency might further oppose data privacy needs (PWC 2020 ; Advenica 2020 ). On the governmental level, the publication of data used for political decision-making can be retraced by committed digital citizens (Janssen et al. 2012 ). This might cause an increase in support for political leaders. Further underlying concepts that have been attributed to transparency include education and awareness (Thorun 2018 ).

Fairness Principle On the personal level, individuals need to respect intellectual property of others (Capurro 2009 ), honoring what The Internet Commission ( 2019 ) refers to as honesty . This principle requires respectful and fair treatment of other individual participants in the digital world, as a necessary basis for a strong digital society. Fairness at a corporate DR level includes, e.g., the pricing of services. Further, prices should be designed in such a way that certain groups in a society are not systematically excluded from participation (Cullen 2001 ). Furthermore, the services offered should themselves deliver fair results. Here, the data basis and the functionality of the algorithms used should be visible and comprehensible for the user (Jobin et al. 2019 ; PWC 2020 ). Especially regarding AI, there is ongoing public discussion about avoiding biases and discrimination in AI (Ferrer et al. 2021 ; Orbik and Zozulakova 2019 ). On the governmental level, fairness requires that people from all countries or social classes can equally participate in a digital society and are able to make themselves heard (Selwyn and Facer 2007 ). Further concepts that relate to this principle include customer empowerment, fair value exchange (Cooper et al. 2015 ) or justice (Jobin et al. 2019 ),

Norms & Values Principle On the corporate level, the norms & values principle requires that companies consider various human norms and values as an additional guidance on product development (cf. Spiekermann 2023 ). For example, trust of consumers constitutes a relevant value for individuals and thus a value-adding property (Thorun 2018 ; Orbik and Zuzulakova 2019 ) for companies. Another example is user autonomy and well-being . Honoring this principle will further ensure compliance with related ethical standards (Lobschat et al. 2019 ; Spiekermann et al. 2022 ). Such a process includes human value-oriented impact assessments before a digital service is created, as well as the continuous refinement of that technology (Whittle et al. 2019 ; Lobschat et al. 2019 ). On the governmental level, the consideration of digital norms and values allows the formation of a digital society beyond the borders of individual countries (Whiting and Pritchard 2017 ). To this end, a global consensus must be reached as to what such normative standards should look like (Jobin et al. 2019 ). These standards will then offer pioneers in the digital society (e.g., companies) an orientation to designing their own guidelines and actions even before the implementation of specific national laws (PWC 2020 ). The principle relates to further human value-related concepts such as autonomy (Jobin et al. 2019 ) or respect (Jones and Mitchell 2016 ).

Accountability Principle Finally, the accountability principle addresses the question of who looks after the implementation of DR. This need to govern responsibility for the careful planning and testing of digital products increases with people integrating digital services more and more into everyday life and becoming more dependent on them (Hamilton and Benjamin 2019 ). On the corporate level, firms should define roles, norms and governance processes and live up to digital responsibility beyond what is legally required (Yeung 2018 ; Jobin et al. 2019 ). On the governmental level, the creation of a legal framework makes it possible to assess liability in the event of failure of critical digital services (BVDW 2019 ). Furthermore, national and international organizations should be held responsible for ensuring that less privileged countries get the same chance to participate in a global digital world (Cullen 2001 ). Underlying concepts used in the literature involve stewardship (Cooper et al. 2015 ), governance (Thorun 2018 ) or data ownership (Orbik and Zozulakova 2019 ).

When analyzing the discussion of DR principles in the literature, we also noted that authors often address responsibility implicitly on three different levels. They explore the requirements, accountabilities, necessary tasks or risks for individuals, for companies, or for the society and policy making at large. Table 1 presents an overview and shows that even though some principles are not yet discussed from the perspective of individuals, most principles are already discussed at the three interdependent levels of Personal (PDR), Corporate (CDR) and Societal Digital Responsibility (SDR).

PDR, as the first level, describes relevant requirements and commitments for individual participants in digital life. For example, a digital society requires individuals to participate and debate online (Janssen et al. 2012 ), share knowledge (BVDW 2019 ), decide about contributing data or preserving privacy, or treat others with respect. PDR is essential for the digitalization of democratic processes such as open government (Janssen et al. 2012 ), providing user-generated market contributions such as data or reviews, or participation in digital markets.

CDR can be defined “as the set of shared values and norms guiding an organization's operations with respect to […] main processes related to digital technology and data.” (Lobschat et al. 2019 ). A firm’s compliance with CDR aims at more sustainable operations and a global competitive advantage, as customers have been found to appreciate and value (perceived) CDR compliance (Orbik and Zozulakova 2019 ). Most importantly, CDR encourages organizations to develop new and sustainable processes to grant users a fair, transparent, and inclusive chance to participate digitally. While the implementation of transformation processes towards CDR compliance poses several hurdles for companies, successful implementation comes along with business advantages as well. It increases the trust of customers in companies that are perceived to acknowledge responsibility principles – especially when handling personal data (Thorun 2018 ). This trust leads to increasing loyalty, which in turn is in the economic interest of the operating company. Finally, SDR denotes the political contribution of state and supra-state institutions to a sustainable digitalization beyond the compliance with existing regulations.

After outlining the eight main principles of DR and how DR comprises further interdependent levels beyond CDR, we now aim to link the general discussion of principles closer to the academic research fields in order to assess in more detail in which way DR principles are already considered by IS researchers and what relevant gaps can be noted.

3 DR Principles in Current IS Research

In the IS research field, there is an emerging academic discourse that discusses general theoretical frameworks and respective methodological standards for required contributions of companies to achieve sustainable corporate digital transformation (Lobschat et al. 2019 ; BVDW 2020 ; Mueller 2022 ). To complement these abstract conceptualizations, we now investigate to what extent the normative DR principles have explicitly or at least implicitly been addressed in a broad range of existing IS research themes. This overview points out principles that are broadly adopted as well as relevant gaps and thus outlines existing and potential academic advances towards more responsible digitalization.

It has to be noted that the IS field is very dynamic and evolves constantly. Various studies argue that it does not have a universally accepted canon of stable and coherently connected research subjects (Banville and Landry 1989 ; Bryant 2008 ; Khan and Trier 2019 ). Determining the subjects to which we apply the normative DR perspective is thus no objective or systematic categorization of existing IS themes, and topics may even partially overlap (e.g., responsible media practices and future work contexts). We derived our themes from different sources such as categorizations based on topic modeling (e.g., Goyal et al. 2018 ; Aghakhani and Asllani 2020 ) or the themes of long-standing tracks at the main conferences of the Association of Information Systems (AIS). To ensure sufficient competence in the analysis, we further involved co-authors with a long-standing engagement in different IS fields. While we aimed for broad coverage, the list may not be complete as further themes might exist or emerge. As a result, we consolidated seven broad IS research themes which we now analyze for existing contributions towards responsible digital transformation, as well as for apparent gaps in fields where no DR principle was comprehensively addressed yet.

Digital Competence Acquisition & Learning The acquisition of digital competences and digital learning processes by employees and the broader population is an important prerequisite for active participation, for digital citizenship and for mitigating unbalancing ‘digital divide’ effects (addressing the participation principle ). This requires a comprehensive understanding of user or consumer requirements (Jones and Mitchell 2016 ). The lack of digital technology skills correlates with negative attitudes towards IT (Cullen 2001 ) and exclusion (Selwyn and Facer 2007 ). Research on digital responsibility in the context of competence acquisition is linked to research subjects such as computer-supported cooperative work, knowledge management and e-learning.

Responsible Media Practices A responsible, fair and considerate use of digital media (without bullying, infringement of copyrights or data protection rules) by private and professional users is relevant for a constructive media discourse. In this context, digital citizenship is a community-oriented behavior, in which users show empathy for each other and experience meaningful interaction via digital technologies (Jones and Mitchell 2016 ). Media practices span multiple levels as organizations rely on their employees who engage in digital interaction with customers. Related research into the resulting implications for humans has a long tradition of addressing DR-related principles. Most salient are articles that discuss the DR principle of perceived privacy as a threatened value ( value and norms principle ) or even an illusion in social networking contexts (Zheleva and Getoor 2009 ). Scholars have revealed that personal information disclosed by job candidates on social media sites is sought and used by prospective employers to discriminate applicants (Acquisti and Fong 2020 ), demonstrating the importance of fairness in responsible human resource management. The principle of fairness has further been linked to the so-called Fairness Doctrine that the US government is considering in order to mitigate hate speech and disinformation (Napoli 2021 ) in order to establish a better environment for individuals. Related to that are studies of polarization processes in social media networks (e.g., Hillmann and Trier 2012 ). Not focusing on social media in particular but on the perceptions of individuals in organizational settings (and thus related to the digital work theme further below), Richter et al. ( 2020 ) implicitly relate to the participation principle as the necessity for defining software functionality that considers human values. The authors observe a prototype’s positive impact on the employees’ social connectedness by allowing for social appraisal and by improving their sense of sharing and involvement through media. The notion of technostress as an ethical concern is a frequent subject of research on social media and addresses to the norms and values principle. For instance, Salo et al. ( 2022 ) explored how social media's constant notifications and connection in social media (on smartphones) result in intensified use as a precursor of technostress. These examples of prior studies demonstrate that research on communication practices, e.g., in social media contexts, links to various DR principles and provides theoretical explanations of a series of individual and social implications that help us understand user behaviors.

Designing responsible Future Work Contexts Closely related to studies on media practices and competence acquisition, existing research on organizational digital work contexts addresses the DR principles of participation and fairness . Organizational environments (“future work”) create new social and psychological demands for employees and lead to changing conditions. For example, electronic monitoring systems, robots, teleconferencing, and wearable computing devices will lead to significant worker dislocation (Cascio and Montealegre 2016 ). Here, system design ( functionality principle ) needs to consider broader values such as responsibility, inclusivity, and explainability of the systems (Mercer 2019 ), relating to the DR principles accountability , participation and transparency . High ethical standards concerning data and a desire to be transparent about decision inputs are required to ensure confidence among employees (Mercer 2019 ). A related topic is the influence of algorithmic management (Moehlmann et al. 2021 ). Technostress is not only a concern in studies of media practices (as discussed above), but also matters for digital work settings and has been a core research element in IS research in recent years (Maier et al. 2019 ). In this context, user values such as autonomy (DR principle norms and values ) and the DR principle of participation may even create paradoxical situations where more autonomy on how to spend workdays leads to less autonomy and more technostress as people felt a need to demonstrate commitment and availability by means of higher responsiveness and reachability (Mazmanian et al. 2013 ; Richter 2020 ). A better understanding of digital detox mechanisms can also contribute to mitigate technostress in the context of future work. Well-being is an important DR-related value and a key element while designing the future of work. Research on digital responsibility in the context of future work contexts is linked to research subjects such as computer-supported cooperative work and knowledge management, social media use, decision making or information systems development.

Informational Privacy and Security Research on informational privacy and protection of private consumers addresses important concerns in the context of an increasing penetration of private life worlds with digital technologies (Advenica 2020 ; Whiting and Pritchard 2017 ). While we already alluded to privacy as a relevant topic of research on media practices, the eminent role of this DR principle in IS research is reflected in the emergence of a dedicated privacy research theme that directly adopts the privacy DR principle as its core construct. We already noted that privacy research is grounding in the view that companies need to consider customer norms and values as a point of departure for their product development (Spiekermann 2023 ; norms & values principle ). Connected to the topic of media practices, the concept of data markets, a business model where individuals can trade their personal data strategically, links privacy to self-determination and to the transparent awareness of the actual value of personal data and its potential ethical or social implications (Spiekermann et al. 2015 ). Such concepts also allude to a fair participation of sovereign end users ( participation principle ). At the same time, it is important to not overburden individuals with informational self-determination. Here, privacy needs are in a trade-off with the value that can be derived from voluntary and conscious disclosure. A fair balance has to be attained between individual freedom, marked-based rules (such as subsidies or taxes) and legal regulations. In this context, governmental regulation frameworks such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) illustrate the application of the functionality principle to specify how privacy-observing software and data handling need to be established to preserve user needs. A somewhat related discourse that we subsume under the theme of Informational Privacy and Security is research on Open Data Use. Here, the access to an increasing volume of data necessitates a discussion of responsible and fair use of such data (fairness principle) and the open provision of data or digital commons (Janssen et al. 2012 ; Ahlgren et al. 2016 ). Open data provision further makes it possible to counter digital divide effects (participation principle). Examples of other research areas that are linked to this topic are data privacy and service management.

Responsible use of algorithms and AI methods In recent years we have witnessed major breakthroughs in the development and application of machine learning and artificial intelligence (AI) technologies. As these technologies continue to advance, more high-stake decisions in sensitive domains like healthcare, finance, or law will be supported, or even created autonomously, e.g., as an extension for human cognitive systems (Hamilton and Benjamin 2019 ). This may result in unmanaged risks and unintended negative consequences (Nagboel et al. 2021 ; BVDW 2019 ). At the same time, the underlying algorithms are becoming increasingly complex. Modern deep neural networks consist of hundreds of millions of parameters that interact in non-linear ways. Hence, it is virtually impossible for users, and even data scientists, to comprehend these models and explain their outputs. Already more than two decades ago, IS researchers recognized the need for explaining the logic and outputs of intelligent black-box systems to users ( transparency principle ) in order to increase their acceptance and effective use (Gregor and Benbasat 1999 ). In 2018, the European Commission even include a “right to explanation” in the GDPR (alluding to the functionality principle ). Similar regulations with smaller scope exist in the United States (e.g., Equal Credit Opportunity Act). These developments sparked increased interest in research on explainable AI (XAI) in both computer science (e.g., Riberio et al. 2016 ; Lundberg and Lee 2017 ) and IS (e.g., Martens and Provost 2014 ; Kucklick and Mueller 2023 ). Correspondingly, there is a need for legislation to hold providers responsible for possible risks or violations (Yeung 2018 ), including malicious use (Jobin et al. 2019 ). The current lack of rules calls for the establishment of standard criteria for the development of methods that are traceable and explainable, to increase trust (as a DR value) and transparency (BVDW 2019 ; Jobin et al. 2019 ).

Intertwined with the black box issue is the observation that some machine learning models have been found to be unfairly biased against certain subpopulations ( fairness principle ), for example, particular genders or races (Barocas et al. 2022 ). Often, the models have learned these biases from tainted training data, which in turn were generated by humans. However, there are also more subtle sources of biases, sometimes caused by acting too economically during the model development process, such as, sample size disparities, skewed sampling procedures, or bad data quality (Barocas and Selbst 2016 ). Although cases of discrimination through algorithms often cause big headlines (e.g., Crawford 2016 ), the DR principle of fairness is relatively new on the agenda of IS researchers and CIOs (e.g., Teodorescu et al. 2021 ; von Zahn et al. 2021 ). A final example of the relevance of DR principles in the context of algorithms and AI is concerned with the environmental costs of large-scale machine learning-based systems ( sustainability principle ). For example, it has been estimated that training GPT-3, a large language model from OpenAI and predecessor of ChatGPT, produced 552 tons of CO2 emissions (Patterson et al. 2022 ), the equivalent of more than 500 economy class flights from Frankfurt to New York City. However, the latest generation of so-called foundation models have robust generalization capabilities and, hence, do not need to be retrained for every new task. Likewise, using these models for inference or prediction consumes just a fraction of the emissions compared to training. Nonetheless, data centers consume about three percent of the global electricity supply. Hence, we need innovations in algorithms and hardware (Green IT), but also business processes and working routines (Green IS), in order to be able to leverage intelligent algorithms and systems in more sustainable ways.

Digital Service Service refers to “the application of specialized competences (operant resources – knowledge and skills), through deeds, processes, and performances for the benefit of another entity or the entity itself” (Vargo and Lusch 2008 p. 26). IT has enabled new categories of service, including digital service that substantially builds on digital technologies as resources, as enablers of service processes, or as parts of value propositions – and smart service that is based on using physical devices that are digitally networked and used as boundary-objects in smart service systems (Beverungen et al. 2017 , 2019 ). Little has service science so far considered the increasingly important role of digital responsibility on this way, culminating in two illustrative observations. First, current service systems engineering methods still overemphasize the importance of economic profitability, while downplaying the role of ecological or social responsibility of service; for instance, the current industry standard DIN SPEC 33453 neither prescribes the consideration of work contexts imposed on service personnel ( accountability principle ), nor does it quantify or recognize the ecological footprint associated with new value propositions ( sustainability principle ) in a service engineering project. Second, the service literature evolved from regarding service providers and service customers as roles involved in value co-creation to considering actor-to-actor networks as a locus of service innovation (Lusch and Nambisan 2015 ). Still, the co-creation of value overemphasizes the economic roles of institutions as resource integrators rather than the social roles played by humans ( norms & value principle, functionality principle ). Considering DR principles more broadly motivates engineering service systems that are more inclusive, acknowledging groups of people beyond the goal of maximizing customer lifetime value for service providers. Putting human needs − not economic value − center-stage might also mean to identify and resolve restrictions (Becker et al. 2023 ) which inhibit value co-creation for disadvantaged people in particular. Levelling restrictions or regulating functionality requirements might help to reach new customers in addition to developing entirely new value propositions ( functionality, participation and accountability principle ). First discussions on how to integrate DR principles such as privacy or fairness into a service context have recently been emerging, with a focus on the role of data acquisition and data analytics in a service system (Wirtz et al. 2023 ). While firms still apply a “digital responsibility calculus” that levels costs and benefits of implementing DR principles, there are first calls to shift the attention from “an extreme profit orientation” to a more prominent role of DR (Wirtz et al. 2023 , pp. 182 and 186).

Business Models for Networked Customers The business model concept has reached global recognition during the last two decades. Business models are now clearly associated with securing and expanding competitive advantage in business practice and have become a mature, yet interdisciplinary field of research (as documented in recent review articles, e.g., Veit et al. 2014 ; Wirtz et al. 2016 ; Massa et al. 2017 ). The DR principle sustainability mandates that organizations integrate social and environmental issues in their digitalization strategies. There is an increasingly important line of enquiry in the literature that focuses on the concept of sustainable business models as well as on methods, languages, and tools to develop sustainable business models (e.g., Jablonski et al. 2020 ; Schoormann et al. 2021 ; Wit and Pylak 2020 ). They in turn would support the diffusion of sustainable offerings, namely offerings that include social and environmental value creation (e.g., Schaltegger et al. 2016 ). Sustainable business models differ from more economic- or profit-focused business models in at least three ways (Luedeke-Freund et al. 2016 ). (1) They conceive business as an engine of societal progress ( e.g., via their offerings, alluding to the functionality principle) (2) they include a broader notion of value ( norms & values principle ), and (3) they adopt a multi-stakeholder, system-level perspective on value creation ( participation principle ). Thus, sustainable business models and their systematic development challenge the traditional understanding to merely consider the notions of value, of value creation as well as of the main stakeholders. Interestingly, for the most part, digital transformation and sustainable transformation have been separately studied with respect to business models (i.e., either with a focus on digital business models or on sustainable business models) instead of explicitly taking an integrated view (recently also referred to as “twin transformation”). Notable exceptions include, for example, Riso and Morrone 2023 ; Estrada and Reyes Alvarez 2023 ; El Hilali et al. 2020 .

4 Research Framework for Responsible Digitalization

While the discussed list of IS research fields is not necessarily exhaustive (for the reasons noted above) and further DR-related academic contexts may be conceived, we have illustrated how a broad range of IS research themes already have addressed various DR principles. In particular research on informational privacy has a long-standing tradition that grounds in the values and norms principle, directly concentrates on the privacy principle and relates to regulated functionality or increased participation. Other principles such as transparency has recently gained impressive momentum in the context of research on explainable algorithms and AI. We also note that certain principles bridge multiple research themes. For example, the principle of responsible participation offers a link for research on media practices, competence acquisition, digital work and services. This demonstrates the need for a broader conceptual understanding of the participation principle as a fundamental part of media-based involvement of users in novel services. We also noted that the theme of digital service has untapped potential for a more comprehensive analysis of the influence of DR, as the various research calls suggests. In sum, we can state that the IS field contributes in important ways to our understanding of responsible digital transformation. Our analysis of research themes suggests that the concept of DR helps to bring together important current research efforts under one umbrella while pointing out several useful interrelations across themes.

With the principles, themes and levels we have now attained an overview of all required aspects that should guide information systems towards a more systematic consideration of and contribution to digital responsibility. In order to address the responsibility-related implications of digital transformation, academics can reflect on their adopted research strategy and identify relevant existing or novel contributions to attain the objective of a responsible digital transformation process. Research themes provide a useful starting point, as, for example, the analysis of the digital service theme demonstrates. Related research efforts that address DR principles on different layers are pointed out above, effectively creating a three-dimensional matrix that we refer to as the DR cube (Fig.  1 ). It draws together the eight DR principles, seven themes and three levels (representing three types of stakeholders or accountable entities). This indicates that the DR principles are examined on different levels and with regards to different research themes.

DR Cube − A framework of DR principles, research themes and levels of stakeholders

The DR cube can serve as a starting point for a more systematic and coherent discussion of certain principles and their application to research themes, e.g., by linking themes in which similar principles are discussed and uncovering their interdependencies or differences. The level dimension emphasizes that the discourse needs to advance beyond the prevalent company focus of CDR to include further levels and stakeholders. In particular, as far as regulating accountability and governance is concerned, the interplay of individuals (e.g., as users, employees or customers), corporations and governments (or societies) needs to be addressed. Here, the perspective of digital markets may offer an interesting nexus that can link participating individuals with organizations that may be regulated by public institutions to protect individual and societal interests. The interplay of the three levels is further supported by the observation that digital transformation requires a perspective between business, society, and technology (Van Veldhoven et al. 2022 ) and that digital transformation methodologies need to link issues occurring at the individual, corporate, and the societal level (Alt 2019 ). Similarly, this call also points to the importance of considering an ecosystems view (Stahl 2022 ) to study DR. This spans across the levels and emphasizes their connections, thus allowing for a better framing of important questions regarding responsible political participation, economic justice or appropriate human autonomy (Stahl 2022 ).

In conclusion, the discourse on DR amplifies a series of DR principles that shed light on comprehensive challenges on the personal, corporate and societal level that arise from the digital transformation process and are addressed in several existing IS research themes. While other norm systems or topic categorizations are conceivable and our analysis thus can only present a tentative synthesis, gathering the eight proposed DR principles and analyzing seven IS research themes illustrates that IS research already contributes to a more responsible digital transformation process from various perspectives. The fact that DR principles often bridge IS themes suggests that DR can facilitate the integration of various smaller discourses, also enabling a higher internal coherence of IS research (Khan and Trier 2019 ). Explicating the DR principles and integrating them into one framework in a transparent way may help future research to study the related implications of digitalization more systematically, link principles across themes, explore currently unaddressed DR principles as potential gaps and identify important answers, thus – through IS research contributions and engagement in practice – paving the way towards a more reflected and responsible second stage of digital transformation.

Acquisti A, Fong C (2020) An experiment in hiring discrimination via online social networks. Manag Sci 66(3):1005–1024

Article   Google Scholar  

Advenica (2020) Digital responsibility – the only viable way forward. https://www.advenica.com/digital-responsibility-only-viable-way-forward . Accessed 15 Dec 2020

Aghakhani N, Asllani A (2020) A text-mining approach to evaluate the importance of information systems research themes. Commun IIMA 18(1):3

Google Scholar  

Ahlgren B, Hidell M, Ngai ECH (2016) Internet of things for smart cities: interoperability and open data. IEEE Internet Comput 20(6):52–56

Allem JP, Ferrara E (2018) Could social bots pose a threat to public health? Am J Publ Health 108(8):1005

Alt R (2019) Electronic markets on digital transformation methodologies. Electron Mark 29:307–313

Banville C, Landry M (1989) Can the field of MIS be disciplined? Commun ACM 32(1):48–60

Barocas S, Hardt M, Narayanan A (2022) Fairness and machine learning: limitations and opportunities. https://fairmlbook.org/pdf/fairmlbook.pdf . Accessed 15 Dec 2020

Barocas S, Selbst A (2016) Big data’s disparate impact. Calif Law Rev 104:671–732

Becker J, Chasin F, Rosemann M, Beverungen D, Priefer J, vom Brocke J, Matzner M, del Rio OA, Resinas M, Santoro F, Di Ciccio C, Song M, Park K (2023) City 5.0: citizen involvement in the design of future cities. Electron Mark 33:10

Beverungen D, Matzner M, Janiesch C (2017) Information systems for smart services (Editorial). Inf Syst e-Bus Manag 15(4):781–787

Beverungen D, Mueller O, Matzner M, Mendling J, vom Brocke J (2019) Conceptualizing Smart Service Systems. Electron Mark 29(1):7–18

Bryant A (2008) The future of information systems – Thinking informatically. EJIS 17(6):695–698

BVDW (2019) Mensch, Moral, Maschine - Digitale Ethik, Algorithmen und kuenstliche Intelligenz. https://www.bvdw.org/fileadmin/bvdw/upload/dokumente/BVDW_Digitale_Ethik.pdf . Accessed 15 Dec 2020

BVDW (2020) CDR Building Bloxx - Das Framework fuer Strategie & Umsetzung der Corporate Digital Responsibility (CDR). https://www.bvdw.org/fileadmin/bvdw/upload/ publikationen/Digital_Responsibility/RZ_BVDW_LF_CDR_Framework_final.pdf. Accessed 15 Dec 2020

Capurro R (2009) Digital ethics. In: Proceedings of the Global Forum on Civilization and Peace. Seoul, pp 207–216

Cascio WF, Montealegre R (2016) How technology is changing work and organizations. Ann Rev Organ Psychol Organ Behav 3:349–375

Cooper T, Siu J, Wei K (2015) Corporate digital responsibility – doing well by doing good. https: // www.criticaleye.com/inspiring/insights-servfile.cfm?id=4431 Accessed 1 May 2023

Crawford K (2016) Artificial intelligence’s white guy problem. In: New York Times, 26 Jun 2016. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/26/opinion/sunday/artificial-intelligences-white-guy-problem.html . Accessed 15 Jan 2022

Cullen R (2001) Addressing the digital divide. In: Proceedings of the 67th IFLA Council and General Conference, Boston. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED459714.pdf . Accessed 15 Jan 2022

El Hilali W, El Manouar A, Idrissi MAJ (2020) Reaching sustainability during a digital transformation: a PLS approach. Int J Innov Sci 12(1):52–79

Estrada S, Reyes Álvarez J (2023) Digital and sustainable transformation: an outcoming response to the pandemic. In: Estrada S (ed) Digital and sustainable transformations in a post-COVID world. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, pp 3–41

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Ferrer X, van Nuenen T, Such JM, Coté M, Criado N (2021) Bias and discrimination in AI: a cross-disciplinary perspective. IEEE Technol Soc Mag 40(2):72–80

Feulner S, Sedlmeir J, Schlatt V, Urbach N (2022) Exploring the use of self-sovereign identity for event ticketing systems. Electron Mark 32(3):1759–1777

Franzke A, Bechmann A, Zimmer M, Ess C, and the Association of Internet Researchers (2020) Internet research: ethical guidelines 3.0. https://aoir.org/reports/ethics3.pdf Accessed 1 May 2023

Goyal S, Ahuja M, Guan J (2018) Information systems research themes: a seventeen-year data-driven temporal analysis. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 43(1):404–431

Gregor S, Benbasat I (1999) Explanations from intelligent systems: theoretical foundations and implications for practice. MIS Q 23(4):497–530

Hamilton KA, Benjamin AS (2019) The human-machine extended organism: new roles and responsibilities of human cognition in a digital ecology. J Appl Res Mem Cogn 8(1):40–45

Hassan NR, Mingers J, Stahl B (2018) Philosophy and information systems: where are we and where should we go? Eur J Inf Syst 27(3):263–277

Hess T, Legner C, Esswein W, Maaß W, Matt C, Oesterle H, Zarnekow R (2014) Digital life as a topic of business and information systems engineering? Bus Inf Syst Eng 6:247–253

Hillmann R, Trier M (2012) Sentiment polarization and balance among users in online social networks. In: AMCIS 2012 Proceedings. URL: https://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2012/proceedings/VirtualCommunities/10 . Accessed 15 Jan 2022

Jablonski M, Timmers P, Sarkis J (2020) Sustainability in business models in the network economy. Electron Mark 30:675–678

Jamil S (2021) From digital divide to digital inclusion: challenges for wide-ranging digitalization in Pakistan. Telecommun Policy 45(8):102206

Janssen M, Charalabidis Y, Zuiderwijk A (2012) Benefits, adoption barriers and myths of open data and open government. Inf Syst Manag 29(4):258–268

Jobin A, Ienca M, Vayena E (2019) The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nat Mach Intell 1(9):389–399

Jones LM, Mitchell KJ (2016) Defining and measuring youth digital citizenship. New Media Soc 18(9):2063–2079

Khan GF, Trier M (2019) Assessing the long-term fragmentation of information systems research with a longitudinal multi-network analysis. Eur J Inf Syst 28(4):370–393

Kucklick JP, Mueller O (2023) Tackling the accuracy-interpretability trade-off: interpretable deep learning models for satellite image-based real estate appraisal. ACM Trans Manag Inf Syst 14(1):1–24

Li L, Su F, Zhang W, Mao JY (2018) Digital transformation by SME entrepreneurs: a capability perspective. Inf Syst J 28(6):1129–1157

Lobschat L, Mueller B, Eggers F, Brandimarte L, Diefenbach S, Kroschke M, Wirtz J (2019) Corporate digital responsibility. J Bus Res 122:875–888

Luedeke-Freund F, Massa L, Bocken N, Brent A, Musango J (2016) Business models for shared value. Network for Business Sustainability: South Africa. https://nbs.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/NBS-SA_Main_Report-161128.pdf . Accessed 15 Jan 2022

Lundberg SM, Lee SI (2017) A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. In: Proceedings of Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30 (NIPS 17)

Lusch RF, Nambisan S (2015) Service Innovation. MIS Q 39(1):155–176

Lythreatis S, Singh SK, El-Kassar AN (2022) The digital divide: a review and future research agenda. Technol Forecast Soc Change 175:121359

Maier C, Laumer S, Wirth J, Weitzel T (2019) Technostress and the hierarchical levels of personality: a two-wave study with multiple data samples. Eur J Inf Syst 28(5):496–522

Maignan I, Ralston DA (2002) Corporate social responsibility in Europe and the US: insights from businesses’ self-presentations. J Int Bus Stud 33(3):497–514

Markus ML, Rowe F (2023) The digital transformation conundrum: labels, definitions, phenomena, and theories. J Assoc Inf Syst 24(2):328–335

Martens D, Provost F (2014) Explaining data-driven document classifications. MIS Q 38(1):73–100

Massa L, Tucci CL, Afuah A (2017) A critical assessment of business model research. Acad Manag Ann 11(1):73–104

Mazmanian M, Orlikowski WJ, Yates J (2013) The autonomy paradox: the implications of mobile email devices for knowledge professionals. Organ Sci 24(5):1337–1357

Mercer (2019) Global talent trends 2019 – connectivity in the human age. www.mercer.com/global-talent-trends . Accessed 15 Jan 2022

Mihale-Wilson CA, Zibuschka J, Carl KV, Hinz O (2021) Corporate digital responsibility – extended conceptualization and empirical assessment. In: ECIS Proceedings 2021, Research Papers. 80. https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2021_rp/80 Accessed 1 May 2023

Moehlmann M, Zalmanson L, Henfridsson O, Gregory RW (2021) Algorithmic management of work on online labor platforms: when matching meets control. MIS Q 45(4):1999–2022

Mueller B (2022) Corporate digital responsibility. Bus Inf Syst Eng 64(5):689–700

Nagboel PR, Mueller O, Krancher O (2021) Designing a risk assessment tool for artificial intelligence systems. In: 16th International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology, Kristiansand, pp 328–339

Napoli PM (2021) Back from the dead (again): the specter of the fairness doctrine and its lesson for social media regulation. Policy Internet 13(2):300–314

Orbik Z, Zozulakova V (2019) Corporate social and digital responsibility. Manag Syst Prod Eng 27(2):79–83

Patterson D, Gonzalez J, Hoelzle U et al (2022) The carbon footprint of machine learning training will plateau, then shrink. Comput 55(7):18–28

PWC (2020) Digital ethics – operation, values and attitudes for a digital world. https://www.pwc.de/en/consulting/42013_WP_Digital_Ethics_EN_neu_200401_SCREEN_GESCHUETZT%20(2).pdf . Accessed 15 Jan 2022

Ribeiro MT, Singh S, Guestrin C (2016) "Why should i trust you?" Explaining the predictions of any classifier. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, pp 1135–1144

Richter A (2020) Locked-down digital work. Int J Inf Manag 55:102157

Richter A, Leyer M, Steinhueser M (2020) Workers united: digitally enhancing social connectedness on the shop floor. Int J Inf Manag 52:102101

Riso T, Morrone C (2023) To align technological advancement and ethical conduct: an analysis of the relationship between digital technologies and sustainable decision-making processes. Sustain 15:1911

Royakkers L, Timmer J, Kool L, Van Est R (2018) Societal and ethical issues of digitization. Ethics Inf Technol 20:127–142

Salo M, Pirkkalainen H, Chua CEH, Koskelainen T (2022) Formation and mitigation of technostress in the personal use of IT. MIS Q 46(2):1073–1107

Schaltegger S, Hansen EG, Luedeke-Freund F (2016) Business models for sustainability: origins, present research, and future avenues. Organ Environ 29(1):3–10

Schoormann T, Stadtlaender M, Knackstedt R (2021) Designing business model development tools for sustainability – a design science study. Electron Mark 32:645–667

Selwyn N, Facer K (2007) Beyond the digital divide. Opening education reports. Futurelab, Bristol. http://www.futurelab.org.uk/resources/documents/ opening_education/Digital_Divide.pdf. Accessed 15 Dec 2020

Spiekermann S (2023) Value-based engineering: a guide to build ethical technology for humanity. De Gruyter

Book   Google Scholar  

Spiekermann S, Acquisti A, Boehme R (2015) The challenges of personal data markets and privacy. Electron Mark 25:161–167

Spiekermann S, Krasnova H, Hinz O, Baumann A, Benlian A, Gimpel H, Trenz M (2022) Values and ethics in information systems: a state-of-the-art analysis and avenues for future research. Bus Inf Syst Eng 64(2):247–264

Stahl BC (2022) From computer ethics and the ethics of AI towards an ethics of digital ecosystems. AI Ethics 2(1):65–77

Teodorescu MH, Morse L, Awwad Y, Kane GC (2021) Failures of fairness in automation require a deeper understanding of human-ML augmentation. MIS Q 45(3):1483–1499

The Internet Commission (2019) Digital responsibility. http://www.ictcoalition.eu/medias/uploads/source/Forum%2002072019/Internet%20Commission%2027–06–19%20ICTBRUSSELS%20%20-%20%20Read-Only.pdf . Accessed 15 Jan 2022

Thorun C (2018) Corporate Digital Responsibility: Unternehmerische Verantwortung in der digitalen Welt. Fallstudien zur Digitalen Transformation. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden, pp 173–191

Van Veldhoven Z, Vanthienen J (2022) Digital transformation as an interaction-driven perspective between business, society, and technology. Electron Mark 32:629–644

Vargo SL, Lusch RF (2008) Why ‘service’? J Acad Mark Sci 36(1):25–38

Veit D, Clemons E, Benlian A, Buxmann P, Hess T, Kundisch D, Leimeister JM, Loos P, Spann M (2014) Business models. Bus Inf Syst Eng 6(1):45–53

von Zahn M, Feuerriegel S, Kuehl N (2021) The cost of fairness in AI: evidence from e-commerce. Bus Inf Syst Eng 64:335–348

Wade M (2020) Corporate responsibility in the digital era. MIT Sloan Manag Rev 28

Whiting R, Pritchard K (2017) Digital ethics. In: Cassell C et al (eds) The Sage handbook of qualitative business and management research methods. Sage, London

Whittle J, Ferrario MA, Simm W, Hussain W (2019) A case for human values in software engineering. IEEE Softw 38(1):106–113

Wirtz BW, Pistoia A, Ullrich S, Goettel V (2016) Business models: origin, development and future research perspectives. Long Range Plan 49(1):36–54

Wirtz J, Kunz WH, Hartley N, Tarbit J (2023) Corporate digital responsibility in service firms and their ecosystems. J Service Res 26(2):173–190

Wit B, Pylak K (2020) Implementation of triple bottom line to a business model canvas in reverse logistics. Electron Mark 30:679–697

Wood DJ (1991) Corporate social performance revisited. Acad Manag Rev 16(4):691–718

Yeung K (2018) A study of the implications of advanced digital technologies (including AI systems) for the concept of responsibility within a human rights framework. MSI-AUT 2018(5). https://ssrn.com/abstract=3286027

Zheleva E, Getoor L (2009) To join or not to join: the illusion of privacy in social networks with mixed public and private user profiles. In: Proceedings of the 18th international conference on World Wide Web, pp 531–540

Download references

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Information Systems, Paderborn University, Warburger Strasse 100, Paderborn, Germany

Matthias Trier, Dennis Kundisch, Daniel Beverungen, Oliver Müller, Guido Schryen, Milad Mirbabaie & Simon Trang

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthias Trier .

Additional information

Accepted after one revision by Susanne Strahringer.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Trier, M., Kundisch, D., Beverungen, D. et al. Digital Responsibility. Bus Inf Syst Eng 65 , 463–474 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-023-00822-x

Download citation

Received : 07 March 2023

Accepted : 17 May 2023

Published : 05 July 2023

Issue Date : August 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-023-00822-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Digital transformation
• Digital responsibility
• IS research
• DR principles
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

The Orange Grove

Digital Responsibility Scholarship Guide: Securing Your Future in the Digital Age

In the digital age, scholarships are an essential resource for students seeking to further their education without the burden of financial strain. The concept of digital responsibility is becoming increasingly significant as technology continues to permeate all aspects of academic and personal life. Scholarships geared towards promoting digital responsibility aim to incentivize students to engage in critical thinking about the role technology plays in our society and the impact of their digital footprints.

The landscape of digital scholarships encompasses a vast array of opportunities designed to cater to the diverse interests and specializations of students in higher education. With the proliferation of technology, students are not only recipients of information but also active contributors to the digital ecosystem. By understanding the eligibility and application process for digital responsibility scholarships, students can capitalize on these opportunities to support their educational endeavors while also contributing to a more ethical digital environment.

Key Takeaways

• Scholarships focused on digital responsibility encourage ethical technology use and awareness.
• Insight into the application process helps students access educational funding and opportunities.
• Engagement with digital scholarships strengthens students’ roles in shaping a responsible digital future.

Understanding Digital Responsibility

Digital responsibility entails a comprehensive understanding of one’s online presence and the potential consequences that come with digital technology usage. It centers on the advocacy for ethical decisions and behavior when engaging with digital content and communities.

Defining Digital Responsibility

Digital Responsibility is the ethical and conscientious use of technology by an individual or organization. One critical aspect is digital privacy , which includes being aware of what personal information is shared online and how it can be safeguarded. This encompasses knowledge of data privacy laws and rights, and the use of practices and tools to protect personal information from unauthorized access or misuse.

The Importance of Being Digitally Responsible

Being digitally responsible is paramount in today’s technologically driven world, where numerous risks can stem from careless digital habits. There are negative effects linked to irresponsible technology use, such as security breaches, cyberbullying, and the spread of misinformation. These can have lasting impacts on an individual’s privacy and mental well-being. Digital responsibility urges individuals to recognize their role in preventing these outcomes by adopting safe and secure digital practices.

Digital Scholarships Overview

In a digital age, scholarships are adapting to address the responsibilities and challenges technology brings into our lives. These awards are not just financial aids; they serve as educational tools that prompt deeper thought on digital citizenship.

Types of Digital Scholarships

• Technology Addiction Awareness Scholarship : Aimed at creating awareness about the excessive use of technology and its negative effects.
• E-Waste Scholarship : Encourages understanding the impact of electronic waste and promotes actions to minimize it.
• Digital Privacy Scholarship : Focuses on the importance of privacy and the potential consequences of oversharing online.
• Don’t Text and Drive Scholarship : Highlights the dangers of texting while driving and promotes safer driving habits.

These scholarships often require applicants to submit essays or proposals on how to tackle the respective issues.

Benefits of Digital Scholarships

• Educational Impact : They educate the applicants and the community on vital issues concerning digital responsibility.
• Financial Assistance : Provide monetary support to students for their education-related expenses.

Digital scholarships encapsulate a dual benefit: enlightening individuals about digital concerns while aiding their academic journey.

Eligibility and Application Process

To secure a digital responsibility scholarship, candidates must understand the prerequisites and follow a structured application procedure. Attention to detail and a thorough presentation of personal interests and priorities are key.

Determining Eligibility

Applicants should first ensure they meet the eligibility criteria, which typically revolve around educational attainment, technology engagement, and career aspirations. Scholarships like the Technology Addiction Awareness Scholarship require applicants to be high school, college, or graduate students. They often focus on candidates demonstrating an interest in digital responsibility or related fields.

Navigating the Application Process

The application process generally begins with completing an application form . Following that, applicants may need to submit various documents, such as transcripts, letters of recommendation, and essays. For the E-waste Scholarship , the deadline is a critical point of attention, with submissions due no later than April 30, 2024.

• Complete the application form.
• Attach required documents.
• Submit before the deadline.

Crafting a Winning Application

To craft a winning application, it’s crucial to articulate clearly how one’s interests align with the theme of the scholarship. Persuasive essays that reflect a strong personal connection to the topic of digital responsibility stand out. In addition, detailing how the scholarship will support the applicant’s educational and career goals in technology or digital fields can be a compelling aspect of a successful application.

• Align interests with scholarship’s theme.
• Include a persuasive, personal essay.
• Outline educational and career benefits.

Responsible Use of Technology

In an age where technology permeates every aspect of life, it’s crucial to use it in a way that is beneficial and sustainable. The following subsections delve into key aspects of digital responsibility, focusing on balancing screen time, minimizing e-waste, and understanding privacy risks.

Balancing Screen Time

Excessive screen time has been linked to several negative health effects. It is recommended to set screen time limits to encourage a healthy lifestyle. For instance, the Technology Addiction Awareness Scholarship emphasizes understanding the repercussions of too much use of technology.

Minimizing E-waste

E-waste represents a growing environmental hazard, adding harmful chemicals and materials to ecosystems. To reduce e-waste , learning how to properly recycle electronics and opting for sustainable devices are key actions. Programs like the E-waste Scholarship aid in spreading awareness about the significance of e-waste reduction.

Understanding Privacy Risks

Privacy concerns in the digital realm are of utmost importance, as personal data can be vulnerable to unauthorized access and misuse. Individuals should be aware of privacy settings on their devices and platforms, understanding the content they share and who has access to it. Digital Responsibility aims to educate on privacy and the potential risks involved in sharing information online.

Practical Guidance for Students

In today’s digital landscape, students must cultivate a skill set that supports safe and responsible technology use. This guidance equips them with the necessary strategies to navigate the digital domain effectively.

Developing Relevant Skills

Students should prioritize learning how to analyze and responsibly contribute to the digital space. This means understanding the ethical implications of their online presence and the content they share. They must also learn more about their digital rights and how to maintain privacy. Educators and students can explore the Digital Privacy Scholarship to understand the importance of cautious posting on the internet, which aligns with these practices.

• Key Skills : Critical Thinking, Digital Literacy, Ethical Judgement
• Educate themselves on digital ethics and privacy laws.
• Participate in projects and activities that foster a responsible online presence.

Leveraging Online Tools

In terms of education and building on interests , students have a wealth of online tools at their disposal. These platforms and resources can augment their learning and help them efficiently manage study projects. They should be encouraged to utilize technology that helps organize their workload, conduct research, and collaborate with peers. Fairfax County Public Schools’ Digital Citizenship resources are an example of how students can find structured support in developing these competencies.

• Collaboration: Google Docs, Slack
• Organization: Trello, Evernote
• Use scheduling tools to plan and track assignments.
• Apply collaboration platforms for group studies and projects.

Fostering Digital Engagement and Research

In this digital age, libraries are evolving beyond their traditional roles, becoming dynamic hubs for digital scholarship. They facilitate a multifaceted approach to education, intertwining digital resources with research questions to foster deep engagement and propel research goals.

Role of Digital Libraries

Digital libraries play a crucial role in providing access to a vast array of documents and files, significantly expanding the scope of educational resources available to both educators and students. They serve as repositories of knowledge, allowing for the archival and retrieval of information which is essential in formulating and answering complex research questions. The goal is to create a digital environment where users can seamlessly navigate and utilize digital collections to support their educational endeavors.

• Vision: Digital libraries strive to democratize information, aligning with the vision of making scholarly resources more accessible and fostering a culture of continuous learning and knowledge sharing.
• Assessment: They also offer tools for the assessment and evaluation of research outputs, ensuring that scholarly activities meet academic standards and contribute to the field of study.

Applying Research in Digital Scholarship

Effective digital scholarship involves the application of research findings in educational settings, emphasizing the need for engagement and collaboration. Classrooms can integrate digital research results to develop comprehensive curricula that reflect current knowledge and technologies.

• Engagement: A key aspect is the active use of digital libraries in coursework and assignments, which encourages students to delve into digital scholarship as part of their learning process.
• Collaboration: Additionally, digital scholarship often requires interdisciplinary collaboration, promoting an environment where research questions are addressed through collective expertise.

By integrating digital libraries and research applications, digital scholarship provides a robust framework for education and research, emphasizing the importance of access to quality resources and the application of scholarly findings in real-world scenarios.

Frequently Asked Questions

This section answers some common inquiries about various Digital Responsibility scholarships, providing potential applicants with the necessary details to understand the eligibility, award amounts, application requirements, and selection processes.

What criteria must applicants meet to be eligible for the Technology Addiction Awareness Scholarship?

Individuals must demonstrate an understanding of the negative effects of excessive screen time. The Technology Addiction Awareness Scholarship specifies that applicants submit essays discussing their personal experiences.

How much funding is provided by the Digital Privacy Scholarship?

The specific amount of funding for the Digital Privacy Scholarship is not mentioned in the given search results. Applicants are encouraged to check the official scholarship page for the most accurate and up-to-date information regarding the award amount.

Can students from all educational backgrounds apply for the Digital Responsibility Scholarship?

The Digital Responsibility Scholarships are open to high school, college, and graduate students, suggesting they cater to a broad educational demographic.

What are the submission requirements for the ‘Don’t Text and Drive’ Scholarship?

To apply for the ‘Don’t Text and Drive’ Scholarship , students typically need to write an essay emphasizing the dangers of texting while driving.

Are there any reports of scholarships like the Rover Scholarship being fraudulent?

The search results provided do not mention the Rover Scholarship, thus there are no given reports or indications of fraudulent activity related to it within this list.

How are winners of the Technology Addiction Awareness Scholarship selected?

Winners are selected based on the quality of their submitted essays, which should effectively describe the impact of technology addiction and strategies to address it. Details can be found on the Digital Responsibility scholarships page .

Helpful Resources

Navigating the scholarship landscape can often be overwhelming, but there's no need to go through it alone. Scholarship Owl offers a supportive platform that can help simplify your search by matching you with scholarships suited to your unique situation. By consolidating numerous scholarship opportunities into one place, it provides a significant time-saving benefit, allowing you to focus more on your studies and less on the search. If you're looking to streamline the scholarship application process, Scholarship Owl may be a valuable tool in your educational journey.

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Infusing Digital Responsibility into Your Organization

• Tomoko Yokoi,
• Lazaros Goutas,
• Michael Wade,
• Nicolas Zahn,
• Niniane Paeffgen

Four strategies based on in-depth studies of 12 large European firms.

As societal expectations grow for the responsible use of digital technologies, firms that promote better practices will have a distinct advantage. Strengthening your organization’s digital responsibility can drive value creation, and brands regarded as more responsible will enjoy higher levels of stakeholder trust and loyalty. These businesses will sell more products and services, find it easier to recruit staff, and enjoy fruitful relationships with shareholders. Based on their ongoing research into digital transformations and in-depth studies of 12 large European firms who are active in digital responsibility, they share four best practices around digital responsibility to maximize business value and minimize resistance.

In 2018, Rick Smith, founder and CEO of Axon, the Scottsdale, Arizona-based manufacturer of Taser weapons and body cameras, became concerned that advances in technology were creating new and challenging ethical issues. So, he set up an independent AI ethics board made up of ethicists, AI experts, public policy specialists, and representatives of law enforcement to provide recommendations to Axon’s management. In 2019, the board recommended against adding facial recognition technology to the company’s line of body cameras, and in 2020, it provided guidelines regarding the use of automated license plate recognition technology. Axon’s management followed both recommendations.

• Lazaros Goutas   is a Research Fellow at the Global Center for Digital Business Transformation at IMD Business School. His research examines the impact of AI on decision making, and the ways in which digital sustainability capabilities drive organizational performance.
• Michael Wade is a professor of innovation and strategy and the director of IMD Business School’s Global Center for Digital Business Transformation. He is a coauthor of ALIEN Thinking: The Unconventional Path to Breakthrough Ideas (PublicAffairs, 2021).
• Nicolas Zahn is a digital trust expert and operations manager at the Swiss Digital Initiative (SDI).
• Niniane Paeffgen is former managing director of the Swiss Digital Initiative (SDI).

Partner Center

Corporate Digital Responsibility at the Dawn of the Digital Service Revolution

59 Pages Posted: 18 Mar 2021

Jochen Wirtz

National University of Singapore

Nicole Hartley

University of queensland, werner h. kunz.

University of Massachusetts

James Tarbit

Affiliation not provided to ssrn.

Date Written: March 17, 2021

Digitization, artificial intelligence (AI), and service robots will revolutionize virtually all service industries and have the potential to bring unprecedented improvements in customer experience, service quality, and productivity. However, these technological advances also carry serious ethical, fairness, and privacy risks. To explore these risks, this article builds on recent work on corporate digital responsibility (CDR). First, it uses a life-cycle stage perspective of data and technologies (i.e., their creation, operation, refinement, and retainment) as an organizing frame to better understand these risks. Second, to provide insights on where these risks originate, it examines an organization’s business model and its flows of money, service, data, insights, and technologies with customers at the front-end and the business partner ecosystem at the back-end. Third, this article identifies why CDR issues occur. It shows that trade-offs between good CDR practices and five organizational objectives and motivations are key underlying causes (e.g., incremental sales can be achieved with better data and analytics but carry a gamut of privacy, fairness, discrimination and psychological risks). Finally, this article proposes a set of strategies, tools and practices managers can use to address these trade-offs and build a CDR-strong service organization.

Keywords: corporate digital responsibility, artificial intelligence, data, ethics, fairness, privacy

Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation

National University of Singapore ( email )

15 Kent Ridge Drive Singapore, 119245 Singapore

St Lucia Brisbane, Queensland 4072 Australia

Werner H. Kunz (Contact Author)

University of massachusetts ( email ).

M-5-213 – 100 Morrissey Boulevard Boston, 02125 United States

University of Queensland ( email )

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on ssrn, paper statistics, related ejournals, marketing science ejournal.

Subscribe to this fee journal for more curated articles on this topic

Manufacturing, Service, & Supply Chain Operations eJournal

Other marketing ejournal.

Digital Citizenship Education (DCE)

• Rights and Responsibilities

Building a community that is just and fair

The digital environment has become a complex environment, especially in terms of rights and responsibilities of users. Digital citizens need to be aware and understand their own online rights and responsibilities in order to not infringe the rights and responsibilities of others.

Just as citizens in a society have certain rights and responsibilities, digital citizens in the online world also have certain rights and responsibilities. Digital citizens can enjoy rights of privacy, security, access and inclusion, freedom of expression and more. However, with those rights come certain responsibilities, such as ethics and empathy and other responsibilities to ensure a safe and responsible digital environment for all.

The internet can be a powerful tool for advancing ideas and communities, but it can also be a destructive weapon when users’ rights are impeded or if users are not given the opportunity to establish any rights whatsoever. Individual users, governments, industry and public institutions have an obligation to maintain the integrity of the internet community, whether it has local effects or international effects.

Devising just and fair participation mechanisms where users’ powers are distributed optimally will be the main challenge for the future. Inspiration can be drawn from existing and emerging good practices like Wikipedia and blockchain technology, which allow for the decentralisation of control and power, the advent of a “real” online direct democracy.  

Rights and responsibilities: the first step begins with you

How does it work?

You have the right to use any and all digital technologies, and you have the responsibility to use them in a safe and responsible manner. Taking this a step further, a right means that you have the freedom from interference by another user or institution, whereas a responsibility means that you have a duty to act in a certain way.

All democratic communities, wherever they are located, have placed emphasis on the just and fair: just and fair rules, just and fair opportunities, just and fair say. The digital community is no exception, and the European institutions have embodied concepts of fair and just in their fundamental documents.  

Educational value and citizenship value

Internet users need to understand what their rights are, as well as understanding what the procedures are in case their rights are violated. Users may also be called upon to report when other users’ rights are being violated online. Internet users of all ages should be aware of three major actions in the event of rights violations: ignoring the content, blocking the person who made the offensive remarks or reporting the person.  

Figure 16: Rights and responsibilities – Core digital citizenship competences

Stephen Hawking

• Access and Inclusion
• Learning and Creativity
• Media and Information Literacy
• Ethics and Empathy
• Health and Wellbeing
• ePresence and Communications
• Active Participation
• Privacy and Security
• Consumer Awareness

ChatGPT for Teachers

Trauma-informed practices in schools, teacher well-being, cultivating diversity, equity, & inclusion, integrating technology in the classroom, social-emotional development, covid-19 resources, invest in resilience: summer toolkit, civics & resilience, all toolkits, degree programs, trauma-informed professional development, teacher licensure & certification, how to become - career information, classroom management, instructional design, lifestyle & self-care, online higher ed teaching, current events, 5 responsibilities that come with digital citizenship.

The term “digital citizenship” has become the new catch phrase for identifying digital rights and responsibilities.

The focus of digital citizenship is how Internet users should manage online relationships, provide personal protection from online attacks and show accountability for posted online viewpoints and opinions.

Numerous other elements also fall under the umbrella of good digital citizenship. They include the process of combining government regulations, peer pressure, business regulators, moral police and personal codes into a working system of reasonable Internet behavior.

5 Personal Responsibilities of Digital Citizenship

Basic acceptable use policies define technology responsibility for users when on an organization’s property, but what happens when the user, the property and the associated equipment has no connections with an organization, school, agency or other group entity? Does this mean that personal responsibility for reasonable and acceptable Internet behavior becomes null and void?

Everyone has a right to use modern technology in a manner that fits their reasonable best interests. But the keyword is “reasonable.” Every Internet user has a personal accountability for how he or she applies technology to digital relationships, activities and personal goals.

What is at the core of digital citizenship? The following are five of the personal responsibilities that is associated with becoming a productive digital citizen:

1. Cyberbullying

The Internet provides an immense playground for social networking and social interaction. In many cases, proper supervision is nonexistent. Although most social sites do establish specific Terms of Use Agreements designed to prevent cyberbullying, predator activities, identify theft and all of the associated trappings, it is the users who must ultimately take care of policing the communications. You make the voice. You create the content. You are responsible for how you interact with other digital users. And you are responsible for protecting yourself against abusive relationships.

2. Internet safety

At times, the emotional and mental aspects of Internet communications spills over into the physical realm. Barter sites deal with local sales events. Adventure resources sometimes involve physical meetings for group activities. Almost every social site provides an abundance of opportunities for predators of every age and type. Sensibility must guide your digital relationships.

Personal safety should always remain foremost in your mind. Many Digital Citizens believe that Internet safety is all about children, cyber-bullying and sexual predators. But the issue spans a much broader gap. Resources made available by the National Criminal Justice Reference Service document a host of cyber crimes, cyber threats and youth related risks.

Internet communication involves various keyboard shortcuts, but at times the shortcuts hamper reasonable understanding and professional appearance. For example, typing in all caps is frowned upon as “SHOUTING.” As a model digital citizen, you are responsible for learning the Internet lingo and the times and places when that lingo should be applied.

Reporting Offenders

Safety is always important. Should you notice improper activities going on at your neighbor’s home, would you ignore the issue? If you witnessed a bully threatening another child, would you remain silent and neutral? A component of responsible Digital Citizenship demands that you respond to digital offenders in a manner that can end the offenses. This doesn’t entail a violent exchange of instant-messaging. It merely requires that you report the offender to the website management or, if necessary, to the proper legal authorities.

Digital Law

Learning to protect yourself goes far deeper than the visual aspects of digital communications. You must also learn the laws that govern Internet activities. For example:

• Do you know and understand digital copyright procedures?
• Are you familiar with websites that involve software pirating?
• How can you prevent someone from stealing your identity?
• How do you identify Internet scams?
• Can you prevent hackers from invading your system?

You may also like to read

• Digital Citizenship Safety - Teachers are in the Driver's Seat
• Education Technology: Are Digital Badges Better Than Letter Grades?
• 5 Easy Ways Teachers Can Stay Relevant in the Digital Age
• Digital Storytelling: Putting Students' Passion for Technology to Good Use
• Debating the Use of Digital Devices in the Classroom
• The Digital Promise Initiative and What it Means for Educators

Categorized as: Tips for Teachers and Classroom Resources

Tagged as: Educational Technology ,  Leadership and Administration

• Master's in Career and Technical Education
• PhD Programs for Education
• Integrating Technology in the Classroom: Tips...

DIGITAL RESPONSIBILITY E-WASTE SCHOLARSHIP

ESSAY CONTEST

Sponsoring Institution: Digital Responsibility

Type: Essay contest

Eligibility: U.S. citizens or legal residents attending high school, about to enroll, or enrolled in a college or graduate school of any level. Home schooled students are also eligible for this essay contest.

Application Deadline: This essay contest ends April 31st (Earth Day!)

Highlight: We’re guessing you’re concerned about the environment… and understand it’s with good reason. Each year, 20-50 million tons of electronic waste (E-Waste) is created in the world, harming the environment and people. Digital Responsibility is dedicated to raising awareness about the problems associated with E-Waste… as well as helping passionate youth (like yourself) through their E-Waste essay contest ! As you probably suspect— applying to this essay contest requires no harm to the environment. To enter, complete the application form, and quickly jot down a a short personal statement about e-waste (just like 140 words). If you’re one of ten finalists whose message wows Digital Responsibility, you’ll be asked to expand on your thoughts and write an essay about e-waste in 500-1000 words. The finalist with the winning essay wins $1,000!  Possibly bringing the rewards of caring about the environment to a whole different level?!

It is our anual free funding event for high schoolers from all over the world

• Advanced Search

Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing

New Citation Alert added!

This alert has been successfully added and will be sent to:

You will be notified whenever a record that you have chosen has been cited.

To manage your alert preferences, click on the button below.

New Citation Alert!

Please log in to your account

Information & Contributors

Bibliometrics & citations, recommendations, ubimob '05: proceedings of the 2nd french-speaking conference on mobility and ubiquity computing, ubimob '08: proceedings of the 4th french-speaking conference on mobility and ubiquity computing, eics '18: proceedings of the acm sigchi symposium on engineering interactive computing systems, information, published in.

Tel-Aviv University, Israel

• Proceedings Editor:

CISPA Helmholtz Center Inf. Sec., Germany

• Program Chair:

Reykjavik University, Iceland

• Workshop Chair:

Gran Sasso Science Institute, Italy

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Permissions, check for updates, acceptance rates.

Contributors

Other metrics, bibliometrics, article metrics.

• 25 Total Citations View Citations
• 5,200 Total Downloads
• Downloads (Last 12 months) 5,200
• Downloads (Last 6 weeks) 310

View Options

Login options.

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

View options.

View or Download as a PDF file.

View online with eReader .

Share this Publication link

Copying failed.

Share on social media

Affiliations, export citations.

• Please download or close your previous search result export first before starting a new bulk export. Preview is not available. By clicking download, a status dialog will open to start the export process. The process may take a few minutes but once it finishes a file will be downloadable from your browser. You may continue to browse the DL while the export process is in progress. Download
• Download citation
• Copy citation

We are preparing your search results for download ...

We will inform you here when the file is ready.

Your file of search results citations is now ready.

Your search export query has expired. Please try again.

By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies and similar tracking technologies described in our privacy policy .

Voice of the Discipline

News and publications.

Access AHA news and publications supporting the work of historians.

Stay up-to-date with the AHA

June 25, 2024

AHA Members Co-author Article on SCOTUS and Gun Control

AHA members Holly Brewer (Univ. of Maryland) and Laura F. Edwards (Princeton Univ.) have co-authored an article for Washington Monthly…

June 24, 2024

Action Alert Opposing Ohio SB 83

June 21, 2024

AHA Signs On to CIE Letter Urging HEA-Title VI Funding for FY 2025

June 18, 2024

Welcome to the AHA’s New Website

The American Historical Review is the flagship journal of the AHA and the journal of record for the historical discipline in the United States, bringing together scholarship from every major field of historical study.

Perspectives on History is the newsmagazine of the AHA and is the principal source for news and information about the discipline of history. Since 1962, Perspectives has promoted our work by publishing articles and commentary on all aspects of the historical discipline.

History in Focus Podcast

Environmental Crisis and Recovery

Collaborative history + revisiting marion thompson wright, aha booklets.

The AHA publishes booklets that address a diversity of topics to serve the needs of history students and historians in all professions. Our publications include career advice for history graduates, overviews and syntheses of current historical topics and fields, and guides to teaching and learning in history.

For the Press

The AHA is pleased to provide resources for journalists and press. If you are a member of the media and would like to submit a request for a referral or interview, please email [email protected] . Please provide any pertinent deadlines and we will do our best to accommodate your request. The AHA can find you a historian for any topic, and assists with dozens of inquiries each year.

The AHA encourages the reading of history with periodic reading challenges.

Permission to Use AHA Copyrighted Material

All material published by the American Historical Association in any medium is protected by copyright.

Join the AHA

The AHA brings together historians from all specializations and all work contexts, embracing the breadth and variety of activity in history today.