“Corporate Digital Responsibility”

Herden, Christina J. et al. Article — Published Version “Corporate Digital Responsibility” Sustainability Management Forum Provided in Cooperation with: Springer Nature Suggested Citation: Herden, Christina J. et al. (2021) : “Corporate Digital Responsibility”, Sustainability Management Forum, ISSN 2522-5995, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, Vol. 29, Iss. 1, pp. 13-29, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00550-020-00509-x This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/286791 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ORIGINALBEITRAG / ORIGINAL ARTICLE https://doi.org/10.1007/s00550-020-00509-x NachhaltigkeitsManagementForum (2021) 29:13–29 “Corporate Digital Responsibility” New corporate responsibilities in the digital age Christina J. Herden1· Ervin Alliu1·AndréCakici 1·ThibautCormier 1· Catherine Deguelle1·SahilGambhir 1· Caleb Griffiths1· Shrishti Gupta1·SahilR.Kamani 1·Yonca-SeldaKiratli 1·MátéKispataki 1· Greta Lange1·LeandroMolesdeMatos 1· Laura Tripero Moreno1· Hector Alain Betancourt Nunez1· Venkata Pilla1·BaireshRaj 1·JamesRoe 1·MarkusSkoda 1·YouyeSong 1· Praveen Kumar Ummadi1· Laura Marie Edinger-Schons2 Received: 3 September 2019 / Revised: 30 June 2020 / Accepted: 17 December 2020 / Published online: 1 February 2021 © The Author(s) 2021 Abstract Digitalization is leading to profound changes in our private and work lives. New technologies are pervasive and create opportunities for new business models and lifestyles. Recently, the term “Corporate Digital Responsibility” has been coined to summarize the emerging responsibilities of corporations relating to their digitalization-related impacts, risks, challenges, and opportunities. The paper at hand reviews the topic of CDR using a multi-step approach. First, results from an opinion poll of 509 US-based respondents are reported which illustrate the perceived opportunities and threats associated with the topic of digitalization, underlining the need for a strategic approach to CDR implementation. Second, existing uses and definitions of the CDR terminology are summarized and a definition of CDR is derived. Third, twenty important topics related to CDR are identified, summarized and categorized into three categories using the ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) framework. Finally, results are discussed with regards to their theoretical and managerial contributions and a hands-on guide which companies can use to implement a suitable CDR strategy is presented. Keywords Corporate Digital Responsibility · Digitalization · Sustainability · Digital transformation · Digital age 1Introduction Digitalization is leading to profound changes in our private and working lives by creating opportunities for innovative business models and lifestyles (Loebbecke and Picot 2015). As a consequence, many individuals and corporations have embraced the digital transformation (Hess et al. 2016). However, as with any massive disruption, the digital transformation involves both opportunities and threats. New technologies can enhance as well as impede energy efficiency and environmental impact (Herring and Roy 2007). Further, although technical innovations can lead to inclusion of many disadvantaged societal groups, unequal access to Laura Marie Edinger-Schons [email protected]-mannheim.de Extended author information available on the last page of the article the digital world is already a reality (Bélanger and Carter 2009). Moreover, other examples of potentially negative consequences of the digital transformation include unemployment caused by automation and robotics or the danger of data breaches and cyber-attacks (Vial 2019). As a result, innovative technology brings with it new social issues and heightened responsibilities, especially for corporations (Vial 2019). These new responsibilities have recently been coined “Corporate Digital Responsibility” (CDR) (Thorun 2018). CDR will likely become a differentiator for organizations, allowing them to gain and maintain stakeholder trust and competitive advantage (Koch and Windsperger 2017). Thus, it is high time for organizations to develop and implement a CDR strategy. The goal of such a strategy should be not only to prevent the potential negative consequences outlined above, but to also leverage the advantages of information communication technologies (ICTs) for the common good. Companies could, for example, engage in digital soK 14 NachhaltigkeitsManagementForum (2021) 29:13–29 cial innovation (DSI), which involves the development and implementation of innovative products, services, processes, business models and other innovative activities (in which digital technology plays a central role) that seek to address social or environmental problems (Digital Social Innovation 2015). Despite the growing number of digital solutions that aim to address a variety of social and environmental issues, existing DSI’s still do not provide the necessary solutions to tackle challenges related to the climate crisis, global water scarcity, species extinction, or global pandemics like Covid19 (Digital Social Innovation 2015). Currently, there are relatively few and widely differing definitions for the term “Corporate Digital Responsibility”. Chap. 3 provides an overview of existing definitions, conceptualizations, and uses of the term. They can broadly be summarized as a company’s emerging responsibilities related to their digitalization-related impacts, risks, challenges, and opportunities. The topic of CDR has very recently been addressed by Lobschat and colleagues (Lobschatetal.2019) who argue that CDR should be considered separately from Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and propose that the basic conceptual constituents of CDR include four stakeholders (i.e., organizations, individual actors, institutional/governmental/legal actors, and artificial/ technological actors) and four life cycle stages (i.e., the creation, operation, impact assessment, and refinement of technology) linked to digital technology and data. They further introduce a CDR framework that focuses on an organization’s CDR culture. While we appreciate their seminal conceptual work on the topic, the perspective of our current paper is different in that we regard CDR as an extension of Fig. 1 Perceived opportunities of digitalization 5.54 5.53 5.41 5.38 5.31 5.25 5.17 4.86 4.78 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 Better services Reduction of strenuous or repetitive work Better information dissemination and transparency More efficient cross-border exchange and trade Increase in societal productivity Reduction of transaction costs Better understanding across cultures Effective digital democracy Fairness and equality I think digitalization will provide many benefits, such as… Agreement on a 7-point rating scale CSR, comprising all levels of corporate responsibilities as defined in Carroll’s (1991) CSR pyramid and all domains of the Environmental, Social, Governance (ESG) framework. We review the topic of CDR using a multi-step approach. First, we present results from an opinion poll of 509 US-based respondents that illustrate the thoughts and fears associated with the topic of digitalization. Second, we summarize existing uses and definitions of the CDR terminology and derive a practice-oriented definition of CDR. Third, we categorize important topics of CDR using the ESG framework. Fourth, we discuss our results with regard to their theoretical and managerial contributions and provide a hands-on implementation guide that companies can use to successfully develop and execute a CDR strategy. 2 Perceived opportunities and threats of digitalization The past technological transformations (e.g., industrialization) have had a major influence on shaping human societies (Kemp 2013). These new technologies resulted in several positive developments such as improvements in quality of life of citizens (Nelson and Lorence 1985)butwere also accompanied by negative impacts such as environmental degradation (Cherniwchan 2012) or social inequalities (Stearns 2013). The emergence of the new digital era confronts today’s societies with a similar fate, presenting several opportunities as well as threats. To gain a deeper understanding of the prevailing public perceptions of opportunities and threats of digitalizaK NachhaltigkeitsManagementForum (2021) 29:13–29 15 Fig. 2 Perceived threats of digitalization 5.57 5.52 5.39 5.35 4.99 4.99 4.70 4.52 4.50 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 Cyber crime Threats to data security Problems with data ownership and privacy Manipulation of the public opinion (e.g., through fake news) Labor market disruptions (e.g., jobs lost due to automation, artificial intelligence, and robotics) Exclusion of certain groups in society (e.g., those with lower digital literacy) Discrimination through biased artificial intelligence Unreliability of digital systems Higher environmental impact though energy consumption and digital waste I think digitalization will confront us with many challenges, such as… Agreement on a 7-point rating scale Fig. 3 Feelings regarding preparedness for digitalization 5.11 5.42 5.38 5.08 3.70 3.08 3.19 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 I feel wellprepared for the digital transformation. I feel comfortable using innovative technological solutions and applications. I quickly adopt new technologies. I actively seek information about new technologies. I am scared of being left behind. I do not feel competent enough to use new technologies. I am scared that I could lose my job due to lack of digital skills. How do you feel about digitalization? Agreement on a 7-point rating scale tion and to provide an initial overview of relevant topics that need to be addressed by corporations in their CDR strategy, an online survey was conducted amongst 509 USbased respondents.1Based on the existing literature, a list of potential opportunities and threats was drafted and partici1A detailed description of the methodology is provided in the appendix. pants were asked to rate their agreement to the statements on 7-point Likert scales (ranging from 1=I do not agree at all, to 7= I fully agree). Figs. 1and 2summarize the mean responses to these items. The potential opportunities of digitalization that received the most agreement by respondents included “better services”, “reduction of strenuous or repetitive work for humans”, and “better information dissemination and transK 16 NachhaltigkeitsManagementForum (2021) 29:13–29 Table 1 Opportunities and Threats of Digitalization Potential Opportunities Social Inclusion The rate of information dissemination in today’s digital era has enabled more efficient and comprehensive interactions between people (Tsatsou 2011) and has allowed for faster exchange of culture and knowledge between those from different backgrounds and paradigms (Andrade and Doolin 2016) Efficiency in public service delivery Open technologies are impacting the design and delivery of public utilities and systems (Kirov 2017)—channels of public service delivery are becoming faster, cheaper and more efficient through digitalization, and interactions between citizens and governments are enhanced through e-government initiatives (Kirov 2017) Operational efficiency and ease of knowledge acquisition Through automation of business operations, transaction costs are significantly reduced, and, combined with the ease at which people can acquire new information, has led to an increase in societal productivity (UNCTAD 2017,2018, 2019) Business opportunities and employment generation Digitalization enables alternative financing opportunities for entrepreneurs such as crowdfunding and reduces barriers of expansion, leading to a more efficient cross-border exchange of goods and services (Bouncken et al. 2015). Digital technologies such as cloud solutions and peer-to-peer collaboration allow companies to shift supporting business processes to other parts of the world with cheaper labor supply (Kahl et al. 2017) Potential Threats Workforce disruption Digitalization has led to a decrease in demand for low level repetitive jobs that have been automated by digital technologies, and the emergence of collaborate business models is also redefining new skill requirements for the labor market and the educational curriculum (McKinsey Global Institute 2017) Cybercrimes Digitalization has increased the vulnerability of individuals and business to malicious attacks (Marcum and Higgins 2019), which also target online communities that may consists of millions of individuals (Marcum and Higgins 2019) Data privacy issues The ease of access to personal information has created a new set of privacy issues which were not prominent before the digital era (Elahi 2009), resulting in an evolution of policies that govern data privacy concerns of individuals (Elahi 2009) Social engineering and media manipulation The susceptibility to influence and manipulation has increased in size and breadth as a result of digitalization and new capabilities now enable basic human behaviors to easily be exploited remotely by malicious attackers to achieve an economic or political agenda (Marwick and Lewis 2017) Table 2 Existing definitions, conceptualizations, and uses of the term CDR Definition Source “The set of shared values and norms guiding an organization’s operations with respect to the creation and operation of digital technology and data.” Lobschat et al. (2019) “Expanding the remit of CSR to address the impact of the digital tools and environments that businesses operate in.” Ampofo (2016) “CDR is about recognizing that the organizations driving forward the advancement of technology, and those that leverage technology to engage and provide services to the citizen, have a responsibility to do so in a manner that is fundamentally leading us toward a positive future.” “A CSR strategy that spans the breadth of technology’s impact on society.” Joynson (2018) “Corporate Digital Responsibility is about protecting people’s rights around data (in line with regulation), about ensuring that trust is maintained because they see that products and services save them personal time, help them with their health and ageing, and protect them from less acceptable or threatening uses of those same technologies.” Price (2018) “Corporate Digital Responsibility (CDR) refers to corporate responsibility in the digital society.” CSR News (2018) “Corporate Digital Responsibility is an understanding of corporate responsibility in and for a digital society. It involves a regulated and a voluntary level: on the one hand, the observance of relevant laws or directives, on the other hand, the exercise of a voluntary responsibility in shaping the digital society.” politik digital e.V. (2018) “A Corporate Digital Responsibility (CDR) complements corporate responsibility and partially re-thinks it as companies need to think about the societal impact of digital products and services as they evolve and ensure that they are compatible with our value standards.” Andersen (2018) “Corporate digital responsibility is a voluntary commitment. It starts with the need to conform to legal requirements and standards—for handling customer data, confidential, intellectual property and so on—but it also extends to wider ethical considerations and the fundamental values that an organization operates by.” Driesens (2017) parency”. In contrast, the opportunities that respondents agreed with the least (even though the mean values for these items were still above the scale midpoint) included “fairness and equality”, “effective digital democracy” and “better understanding across cultures”. Regarding the potential threats of digitalization, the items that received the highest agreement among respondents included “cyber-crime”, “threats to data security”, and “problems with data ownership and privacy”. The items that received the least agreement (but were still above the scale midpoint) included “higher environmental impact through energy consumption and digital K NachhaltigkeitsManagementForum (2021) 29:13–29 17 waste”, “unreliability of digital systems”, and “discrimination through biased artificial intelligence”. In addition, we also included items that addressed whether respondents felt well-prepared for digitalization. Fig. 3summarizes these responses. It is interesting to note that 30% of respondents rather agreed, agreed, or even strongly agreed to the item “I am scared that I could lose my job due to lack of digital skills”. Furthermore, when asked whether respondents felt that their employer is wellprepared for digitalization, 45.5% of respondents disagreed, 17.1% neither agreed nor disagreed, and 37.3% agreed to the statement “Our company has failed to embrace the digital transformation”. These preliminary findings reveal an opportunity for companies to tackle the threats and embrace the opportunities of digitalization in the corporate setting by implementing a CDR strategy. The data generated by the survey also provided comprehensive insights through answers in open text boxes which we utilized to source topics relating to CDR. Table 1summarizes the most important opportunities and threats mentioned in the survey responses which we juxtaposed and complemented with insights from existing literature. Economic responsibilities: Be profitable (Required by society) Legal responsibilities: Obey laws & regulations (Required by society) Ethical responsibilities: Do what is just and fair, avoid harm (Expected by society) Philanthropic responsibilities: Be a good corporate citizen (Desired by society) Classical understanding of corporate responsibilities Emerging corporate responsibilities in the digital age Example: Committing to sharing knowledge and using data and new technologies in ways that enable sustainable development; funding digital social innovation. Example: Pursuing ethical digital practices, as, e.g., responsible AI or sustainable disposal of electronic waste, and behaving in an upstanding, just and fair manner, beyond legal frameworks and governance. Example: Abiding by existing laws and regulations concerning digital technologies and data security (e.g., the General Data Protection Regulation in the EU (GDPR)). Example: Anticipating and developing innovative business models which secure the company’s survival given new competitive pressures in a digital world. Fig. 4 The CDR pyramid 3 Defining corporate digital responsibility There is currently not yet a consensus about the definition of the term, “Corporate Digital Responsibility”. Consequently, the term CDR is often used in a variety of different ways. Table 2summarizes some existing definitions, conceptualizations, and uses of this term. Based on our review of existing definitions of CDR listed above and our own conceptual work on the topic, we propose the following definition of CDR: Corporate Digital Responsibility is an extension of a firm’s responsibilities which takes into account the ethical opportunities and challenges of digitalization. Similar to the responsibilities proposed in the CSR pyramid developed by Carroll in the 1990s (Carroll 1991), we propose that corporate digital responsibilities also encompass four different levels (i.e., economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary). First, at the economic level, it is important for firms to find innovative business models which secure their competitive advantage given new competitive pressures in a digital world (Koch and Windsperger 2017). Second, at the legal level, it is mandatory for companies to abide by existing laws and regulations concerning digital technologies and data security (e.g., the General Data Protection RegulaK 18 NachhaltigkeitsManagementForum (2021) 29:13–29 tion in the EU (GDPR)) (Voigt and Busche 2017). Companies may not be able to manage this on their own and may need support from the government, academics, or consultancies (Sadiq and Governatori 2014). Microsoft, for example, is working together with government authorities to better grapple with the legal issues surrounding advancing face recognition technology (Smith 2018). On the third level, ethical responsibilities, meaning avoiding harm and providing benefits for stakeholders by using digital technologies, it is becoming increasingly important for companies to pursue ethical practices, and behave in an upstanding, just and fair manner, beyond legal frameworks and governance, thereby fulfilling their stakeholders’ heightened expectations (Carroll 1991). In fact, some firms, such as SAP, have assembled ethical advisory panels for topics related to artificial intelligence (AI) (SAP 2018). Finally, at the fourth level, discretionary responsibility, firms may include philanthropic efforts that are beneficial to society by, for instance, committing to sharing knowledge and using data and new technologies in ways that enable sustainable development (Stempeck 2014). They may also decide to contribute to society by supporting funding schemes for digital social innovation, such as ones in the social entrepreneurship sector (Hackenberg and Empter 2011). Fig. 4provides an illustration of the classical understanding of corporate responsibilities and examples of the emerging new topics in the digital age on the four levels proposed by Carroll (1991). 4 Relevant topics for CDR A first step in better understanding the concept of CDR is to establish which topics fall under its scope and to determine how these topics can be classified in a meaningful Table 3 CDR topics categorized according to the ESG framework Environmental Social Governance 1. Energy and carbon footprint 1. Digital cohesion 1. Reliability of system 2. Digital waste 2. Digital influence 2. Data transparency 3. Digital wellbeing 3. Data collection and storage 4. Digital empowerment 4. Data ownership and privacy 5. Socially compatible automation 5. Data responsibility and stewardship 6. Unbiased AI 6. Data security 7. Digital self 7. Data usage and accessibility 8. Digital inclusion 8. Robot ethics 9. Digital surveillance 10. Digital freedom way. A well-established framework that is most commonly used to categorize topics related to CSR is the ESG model (Kocmanová and Šimberová 2014). Thereby, the ESG criteria represent the three main factors related to a firm’s ethical impacts and sustainable practices that offer an investor potential long-term performance advantages (Friede et al. 2015). We propose that the ESG framework is suitable to categorize topics related to CDR. Considering the complex and evolving field of CDR, topics within categories may overlap and be interlinked when such a framework is applied (Hayat and Orsagh 2015). What follows is a list of the currently most relevant topics related to CDR categorized according the ESG domains (see also Table 3). The list is the culmination of a workshop on CDR in which we engaged in an intensive search of academic and non-academic sources on the topic. It was created by a comprehensive review of existing literature and by applying relevant CSR-related principles and concepts to the increasingly important use cases in the current and future digital landscape. This list is by no means exhaustive and may likely evolve in the future, especially given the rapidly changing nature of the digital age. 4.1 Environmental CDR 4.1.1 Energy and carbon footprint The use of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in society is growing continuously driven by the development of new products and solutions (Malmodin et al. 2014). Hilty and Bieser (2017) classify environmental effects of ICT into direct and indirect effects. The emission of greenhouse gases (carbon footprint) is a direct environmental effect and encompasses carbon footprint changes of the entire life cycle of ICT hardware starting from the production (e.g. mining of resources, energy consumption), the operation (e.g. energy consumption), to the disposal (e.g. recycling) of ICT devices and infrastructure. Indirect effects account for greenhouse gas changes of other sectors applying ICT technology. Based on research by Hilty and Bieser (2017) with a focus on Switzerland, the environmental footprint is strongly caused by the production of ICT hardware. The Information and Communication Technology (ICT) sector was estimated to represent between 5–9% of total electricity consumption in 2018 and it is expected to rise to 20% in 2030 (Enerdata 2018). This percentage will likely keep growing due to the greater accessibility of digital platforms to the world population and the increase in individual use of digital technologies, for instance during the recent global Covid-19 pandemic (Global e-Sustainability Initiative GeSI 2019; Beech 2020). On the other hand, ICT carK NachhaltigkeitsManagementForum (2021) 29:13–29 19 bon emissions as a percentage of global emissions are expected to decrease to 1.97% in 2030, compared to 2.3% in 2020 (Global e-Sustainability Initiative GeSI 2019). Over the last years, ICT companies have had a greater commitment to power their infrastructure (e.g., data centers and communication networks) with renewable energy sources, mainly because of the increasing cost competitiveness of renewable energy, the customers’ rising interest in having their digital structure powered by clean energy, and the associated goal of ICT companies to improve their brand identity (Ahmed et al. 2017). 4.1.2 Digital waste The corporate sector has been the earliest consumer of ICT and currently holds a sizable share of total installed ICT equipment (Baldé et al. 2017). The installment of new operating systems or better performing applications makes electrical and electronic equipment obsolete which is consequently passed on to dismantlers or recyclers (United Nations Environmental Programme 2007). The European Commission has recently adopted a new Circular Economy Action Plan that aims to reduce the EU’s consumption footprint and double its use rate of circular material by working together with businesses to create a basis for sustainable products (European Commission 2020). As a result, some companies are becoming increasingly more vigilant regarding the replenishment and recycling of their ICT equipment. Most of the materials contained in this equipment are recyclable and reusable, and may even include precious metals such as gold, platinum, or rare elements (i.e., tantalum, lanthanum, or neodymium) (Manhart et al. 2016). For example, there is 50 times more gold in a ton of electro-technical cards than in one ton of ore (Manhart et al. 2016). Other materials are dangerous for the environment and human health (i.e., lead, bromine, arsenic, chlorine, mercury, cadmium, etc.) and must be treated (Manhart et al. 2016). In many industrialized countries, improved dismantling can contribute to increased material recovery. Unfortunately, most industrialized and developing countries still lack the capacity for environmentally sound recycling (Chi et al. 2011). As a consequence, large amounts of digital waste enter informal recycling processes with severe environmental and social consequences. In order to help tackle the electronic waste issue, it is recommended that corporations implement and enforce responsible recycling practices, refrain from selling waste to developing countries, and support projects that allow customers to send back their old devices. For instance, Europe’s largest non-profit IT company, AfB, employs workers with disabilities to refurbish and resell IT and mobile equipment from large companies and public institutions (AfB 2019). 4.2 Social CDR 4.2.1 Digital cohesion The world is crossing into the phase of digital disruption, an era of new technologies and business models that changed user expectations and the value proposition of existing goods and services (Zaki 2019). As users grow accustomed to digital products and services that reduce the complexity of daily lives, their expectations that technology should adapt to their daily needs and behaviors will likely grow. Such growth in user expectations and latest advancements in technology will change the way in which humans interact with technology (Cascio and Montealegre 2016). This phase is called digital cohesion, an era in which multiple applications connect and self-assemble to provide autonomous systems and deliver predictive services that continually adapt to personal behaviors, improving human lives (Singh Batth et al. 2018). For example, such services can be important in healthcare—wearable biosensor technology can provide accurate and reliable real-time sensing of physiological information that can help improve the daily lives of patients (Kim et al. 2019). To make digital cohesion a reality, an ecosystem has to be formed, with technology as the backbone, in which technology companies, industry alliances, government regulations and AI come together to deliver high performing interoperable services. 4.2.2 Digital influence Digital influence refers to the power to effect a change in opinion or behaviors of other online users in a measurable way. This ability is usually multiplied through social networks or other online platforms (Anderson 2017;Hayta 2013; Valenzuela 2013). People that possess the power to exert digital influence have been coined influencers (Kiss and Martin 2008; Uzuno˘ glu and Misci Kip 2014). Though this term most commonly refers to people with a large group of followers who receive payment for promoting a product, influencers may also be real-life friends or online reviewers who lead a consumer to purchase a certain product through positive reviews (Jiménez and Mendoza 2013). Digital influence is measured in reach (i.e., more popular topics will reach more people), relevance (i.e., the alignment of the influence to current public interests) and resonance (i.e., the duration of time for which a thread or its ripple effect remains present) (Robinson 2017). As most influencers likely have varied understandings of their responsibility in exerting influence, it is important that the operators of online platforms exercise responsible oversight. This can be done by preventing misuse of unconsented data, providing clarification on and raising awareness of the power of their platform, and creating clear and transparent rules for K 20 NachhaltigkeitsManagementForum (2021) 29:13–29 freedom of speech, leading to increased transparency and governance over influencers’ content. 4.2.3 Digital well-being Digital well-being refers to a mature and appropriate handling of digital media, as well as an increased awareness of the potential addictions that can result from usage and the connection between digital behavior and mental disorders (Scott et al. 2017). The more tasks and aspects of everyday life move online to web and smartphone apps, the more time is spent looking at screens. This results in a heightened urge or even a reflex to continuously check cell phones and online profiles for updates and news, which can ultimately lead to addictive behaviors and the overuse of screen time (De-Sola Gutierrez et al. 2016). This increasing digitalization can lead to disconnection and isolation from the real world and may affect mental health (Hayes et al. 2016). Therefore, it is of utmost importance that corporations support their users in finding a right balance for their usage of digital products by encouraging responsible use and ensuring that technology enables users to stay connected to the real world. 4.2.4 Digital empowerment Digital Empowerment can range from an increased number of economic opportunities to enabling more social contact for otherwise isolated individuals (Mäkinen 2006). This is especially relevant during times of quarantine and social distancing experienced during the global Covid-19 crisis (Wilder-Smith and Friedman 2020). A digital presence can not only allow individuals to work from home, but also allow companies to expand the reach of their offerings and enable the establishment of a business at a much lower capital investment than with a brick-and-mortar office. For older adults, the connection to the online world provides the opportunity to increase social contact and decrease loneliness (Cotten et al. 2013). With the increase in online participation, companies and individuals alike need to develop a way to cope with the responsibility of having access to a wealth of data and information. Additionally, “the ever-evolving nature of technology [also] means that individuals need ever increasing levels of digital literacy to maintain their sense of inclusion” (Hill et al. 2015, p. 415), which can be especially difficult for those individuals who could benefit the most from increased social interaction online. Corporations could help address this by becoming more democratic and asking for the opinions of their employees with the help of digital tools (Burnett and Lisk 2019). They could also build platforms that encourage social exchange and allow for flexible working hours while ensuring that work-life balance is maintained (Kossek et al. 2014). In addition, digital empowerment can be nurtured by raising awareness and providing education. Creating well-educated digital citizens will lead to a more ethical, safe, and responsible digital environment (Heick 2018). 4.2.5 Socially compatible automation With the rise of automated systems, some jobs might be automated leaving humans who were previously responsible for these jobs unemployed (Arntz et al. 2017). Preparing more students and workers for careers in wellpaying new-collar jobs using modernized education systems will encourage them to acquire sought-after skills and competencies rather than pursue specific academic degrees (Chamorro-Premuzic and Frankiewicz 2019). Publishing such policies on retraining and redeploying employees that are subject to automation systems will ensure productivity, economic growth, and job creation. Organizations should ensure that new roles are created with new emerging technologies and that humans retain value in the future. It can be seen as their responsibility to make employees prepared in advance for such business shifts and technological changes (Bean 2017). 4.2.6 Unbiased AI Today, the term artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly used to describe machines that can mimic human functions such as learning and problem solving (Rastogi 2017). As society debates the implications of AI systems, corporates must ensure AI systems treat everyone of all abilities and disabilities fair and without discrimination so that they reflect the diversity of the world in which we live (Dignum 2018). They must also ensure that people understand the algorithms used in development of AI and how it came to a given conclusion or recommendation, thus empowering people through digital inclusion. In addition, corporations must constantly monitor the self-learning AI tools and be accountable for any misbehavior. They must also work with policymakers, governments, and clients to prepare the workforce with the skills needed to work effectively in partnership with AI systems (Dignum 2018). One example of a recent AI ethics initiative is the CDR Initiative of the Federal Ministry of Justice in Germany which, together with Telefónica Deutschland and other well-known German companies, set up a process for the development of CDR guidelines (BMJV 2019). In this context, Telefónica Deutschland has published ethical principles for the responsible and morally legitimate use of AI, which is crucial in its daily business (Telefónica Deutschland 2019). K NachhaltigkeitsManagementForum (2021) 29:13–29 27 cross-sectional analysis. J Med Internet Res 15(e39):2. https://doi. org/10.2196/jmir.2306 CSR News (2018) Corporate digital responsibility. https://csr-news. net/news/2018/06/20/corporate-digital-responsibility/ (Created 20 June 2018). Accessed 19 Apr 2020 De-Sola Gutierrez J, Rodríguez de Fonseca F, Rubio G (2016) Cellphone addiction: a review. Front Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10. 3389/fpsyt.2016.00175 Digital Social Innovation (2015) Digital social innovation, a relatively new concept. https://digitalsocial.eu/blog/5/digital-socialinnovation-a-relatively-new-concept (Created 16 June 2015). Accessed 30 Mar 2020 Dignum V (2018) Ethics in artificial intelligence: introduction to the special issue. Ethics Inf Technol 20:1–3. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10676-018-9450-z Dolan J (2018) Digital inclusion and a trusted internet—the role of the international development community in balancing internet access and cybersecurity. https://www.dai.com/cda-cybersecurity. pdf. Accessed 27 Mar 2020 Driesens H (2017) The rise of corporate digital responsibility. https:// www.i-cio.com/management/best-practice/item/the-rise-of-corp orate-digital-responsibility (Created 10.2017). Accessed 2 Apr 2020 Elahi S (2009) Privacy and consent in the digital era. Inf Secur Tech Rep 14(3):113–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istr.2009.10.004 encyclopedia.com (2020) data transparency. https://www.encyclopedia. com/computing/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-pressreleases/data-transparency (Created 30 Mar 2020). Accessed 17 Apr 2020 Enerdata (2018) Between 10 and 20% of electricity consumption from the ICT* sector in 2030? https://www.enerdata.net/publications/ executive-briefing/expected-world-energy-consumption-increasefrom-digitalization.html (Created 9 Aug 2018). Accessed 18 Feb 2020 European Commission (2019) Digital inclusion for a better EU society. https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/digital-inclusionbetter-eu-society (Created 19 June 2019). Accessed 17 Apr 2020 European Commission (2020) Circular economy action plan: for a cleaner and more competitive europe. https://ec.europa.eu/ environment/circular-economy/pdf/new_circular_economy_ac tion_plan.pdf (Created 11 Mar 2020). Accessed 15 Apr 2020 Friede G, Busch T, Bassen A (2015) ESG and financial performance: aggregated evidence from more than 2000 empirical studies. J Sustain Finance Invest 5(4):210–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 20430795.2015.1118917 GeSI (2019) SMARTer 2030. http://smarter2030.gesi.org/downloads/ Full_report.pdf. Accessed 20 Mar 2020 Global Network Initiative (2017) The GNI principles. https://globalnet workinitiative.org/gni-principles/ (Created 05.2017). Accessed 17 Apr 2020 Hackenberg H, Empter S (2011) Social Entrepreneurship – Social Business: Für die Gesellschaft unternehmen. VS, Wiesbaden https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-92806-7 Hayat U, Orsagh M (2015) Environmental, social, and governance issues in investing: a guide for investment professionals. CFA Institute, Charlottesville, VA, USA. https://doi.org/10.2469/ccb. v2015.n11.1 Hayes JF, Maughan DL, Grant-Peterkin H (2016) Interconnected or disconnected? Promotion of mental health and prevention of mental disorder in the digital age. Br J Psychiatry 208(3):205–207. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.114.161067 Hayta A (2013) A study on the of effects of social media on young consumers’ buying behaviors. Eur J Res Educ. Special Issue: Human Resource Management: 65–74 Heick T (2018) The definition of digital citizenship. https://teachthou ght.com/the-future-of-learning/the-definition-of-digital-citzenship/ (Created 17 Dec 2018). Accessed 17 Apr 2020 Herring H, Roy R (2007) Technological innovation, energy efficient design and the rebound effect. Technovation 27(4):194–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2006.11.004 Hess T, Matt C, Wiesböck F (2016) Options for formulating a digital transformation strategy. MISQE. https://doi.org/10.7892/boris. 105447 Hill J (2014) The growth of data localization post-Snowden: analysis and recommendations for U.S. policymakers and business leaders. Conference on the Future of Cyber Governance, 2014. The Hague Institute for Global Justice, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.2139/ ssrn.2430275 Hill R, Betts LR, Gardner SE (2015) Older adults’ experiences and perceptions of digital technology: (dis)empowerment, wellbeing, and inclusion. Comput Human Behav 48:415–423. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.chb.2015.01.062 Hilty L, Bieser J (2017) Opportunities and risks of digitalization for climate protection in Switzerland. University of Zurich, Zurich https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-141128 Hofheinz P, Osimo D (2017) Making Europe a data economy: a new framework for free movement of data in the digital age. Lisbon Council, Lisbon Hon W (2017) Data localization laws and policy: the EU data protection international transfers restriction through a cloud computing lens. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, Northhampton Isaak J, Hanna MJ (2018) User data privacy: Facebook, cambridge analytica, and privacy protection. Computer. https://doi.org/10.1109/ MC.2018.3191268 ITU (2019) Digital inclusion of all. https://www.itu.int/en/mediacentre/ backgrounders/Pages/digital-inclusion-of-all.aspx (Created 11. 2019). Accessed 17 Apr 2020 Jiménez FR, Mendoza NA (2013) Too popular to ignore: the influence of online reviews on purchase intentions of search and experience products. J Interact Mark 27(3):226–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.intmar.2013.04.004 Joynson C (2018) Corporate digital responsibility: principles to guide progress. https://atos.net/en/blog/corporate-digital-responsibilityprinciples-guide-progress (Created 11 July 2018). Accessed 17 Mar 2020 Kahl S, Urbach N, Gschwendtner M, Zimmer A (2017) IT-Outsourcing im Zeitalter der Digitalisierung. Wirtschaftsinformatik Manag 9:48–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s35764-017-0132-0 Kemp T (2013) Industrialization in nineteenth-century Europe. Routledge, London, New York Kim J, Campbell AS, Esteban-Fernández de Ávila B, Wang J (2019) Wearable biosensors for healthcare monitoring. Nat Biotechnol 37:389–406. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-019-0045-y Kirov V (2017) Digitalization of public services in europe: policy challenges for the European trade union movement. In: Meil P, Kirov V (eds) Policy implications of virtual work. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, pp 251–272 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3319-52057-5 Kiss C, Martin B (2008) Identification of influencers: measuring influence in customer networks. Decis Support Syst 46(1):233–253 Koch T, Windsperger J (2017) Seeing through the network: competitive advantage in the digital economy. J Organ Des. https://doi.org/10. 1186/s41469-017-0016-z Kocmanová A, Šimberová I (2014) Determination of environmental, social and corporate governance indicators: framework in the measurement of sustainable performance. J Bus Econ Manag 15(5):1017–1033. https://doi.org/10.3846/16111699. 2013.791637 Kossek EE, Valcour M, Lirio P (2014) The sustainable workforce. In: Cooper CL (ed) Wellbeing https://doi.org/10.1002/978111853941 5.wbwell030 Lal Bhasin M (2006) Guarding privacy on the internet. Glob Bus Rev. https://doi.org/10.1177/097215090500700109 K 28 NachhaltigkeitsManagementForum (2021) 29:13–29 Lin P, Bekey G, Abney K (2009) Robots in war: issues of risks and ethics. In: Capurro R, Nagenborg M (eds) Ethics and robotics. AKA, Heidelberg, pp 49–67 Lin S-P, Chan Y-H, Tsai M-C (2009) A transformation function corresponding to IPA and gap analysis. Total Qual Manag Bus Excell 20(8):829–846. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783360903128272 Lobschat L, Mueller B, Eggers F, Brandimarte L, Diefenbach S, Kroschke M, Wirtz J (2019) Corporate digital responsibility. JBusRes.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.10.006 Loebbecke C, Picot A (2015) Reflections on societal and business model transformation arising from digitization and big data analytics: a research agenda. J Strateg Inf Syst 24(3):149–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2015.08.002 Lyon D (2007) Surveillance studies: an overview. Polity Press, Cambridge Mainzer K (2019) Künstliche Intelligenz – Wann übernehmen die Maschinen? Springer, Heidelberg, Berlin https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-662-58046-2 Mäkinen M (2006) Digital empowerment as a process for enhancing citizens’ participation. E-learning Digit Media 3(3):381–395. https://doi.org/10.2304/elea.2006.3.3.381 Malmodin J, Lundén D, Moberg Å, Andersson G, Nilsson M (2014) Life cycle assessment of ICT. J Ind Ecol 18(6):829–845. https:// doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12145 Manhart A, Blepp M, Fischer C, Graulich K, Prakash S, Priess R et al (2016) Resource efficiency in the ICT sector. https://www. oeko.de/fileadmin/oekodoc/Resource_Efficiency_ICT_LV.pdf. Accessed 16 March 2020 Marcum C, Higgins G (2019) Cybercrime. In: Krohn M, Hendrix N, Penly Hall G, Lizotte A (eds) Handbook on crime and deviance. Springer, Cham, pp 459–475 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-03020779-3_23 Marr B (2019) The 4 Ds of robotisation: dull, dirty, dangerous and dear. https://www.bernardmarr.com/default.asp?contentID=1195. Accessed 23 Mar 2020 Marwick A, Lewis R (2017) Media manipulation and disinformation online. https://datasociety.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/ DataAndSociety_MediaManipulationAndDisinformationOnline1.pdf. Accessed 12 Apr 2020 McKinsey Global Institute (2017) Jobs lost, jobs gained: What the future of work will mean for jobs, skills, and wages. https://www. mckinsey.com/featured-insights/future-of-work/jobs-lost-jobsgained-what-the-future-of-work-will-mean-for-jobs-skills-andwages. Accessed 15 Mar 2020 Moorhead P (2018) Datacenter storage matters more than ever in 2018. https://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmoorhead/2018/01/ 28/datacenter-storage-matters-more-than-ever-in-2018/#53b85c 4a468e (Created 28 Jan 2018). Accessed 19 Apr 2020 Murphy R, Woods D (2009) Beyond Asimov: the three laws of responsible robotics. Intell Syst Ieee. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIS.2009. 69 Nelson J, Lorence J (1985) Industrialization and income change: rural-urban comparisons in a decade of affluence. Sociol Perspect 28(1):71–86. https://doi.org/10.2307/1389075 Northern Illinois University (2005) Responsible conduct in data management. https://ori.hhs.gov/education/products/n_illinois_ u/datamanagement/dctopic.html. Accessed 12 Apr 2020 politik digital e.V. (2018) Corporate Digital Responsibility: Vertrauen schaffen, doch was heißt das eigentlich? https://politik-digital.de/ news/corporate-digital-responsibility-154798/ (Created 22 June 2018). Accessed 19 Feb 2020 Price R (2018) Closing the digital divide through corporate digital responsibility. https://atos.net/en/blog/closing-the-digital-dividethrough-corporate-digital-responsibility (Created 4 June 2018). Accessed 15 Feb 2020 Rastogi A (2017) Artificial intelligence—human augmentation is what’s here and now. https://medium.com/reflections-by-ngp/ artificial-intelligence-human-augmentation-is-whats-here-andnow-c5286978ace0 (Created 12 Jan 2017). Accessed 17 Apr 2020 Report Linker (2020) Data center market—global outlook and forecast 2020–2025. https://www.reportlinker.com/p05398686/DataCenter-Construction-Market-Global-Outlook-and-Forecast.html? utm_source=GNW. Accessed 18 Apr 2020 Robinson P (2017) The digital influence phenomenon. https://www. meltwater.com/uk/blog/digital-influence-phenomenon/ (Created 27 Jan 2017). Accessed 16 Apr 2020 Sadiq S, Governatori G (2014) Managing regulatory compliance in business processes. In: vom Brocke J, Rosemann M (eds) Handbook on business process management 2. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 265–288 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-451034_11 SAP (2018) SAP becomes first European tech company to create ethics advisory panel for artificial intelligence. https://news.sap.com/ 2018/09/sap-first-european-tech-company-ai-ethics-advisorypanel/ (Created 18 Sept 2018). Accessed 26 Mar 2020 Scott DA, Valley B, Simecka BA (2017) Mental health concerns in the digital age. Int J Ment Health Addiction 15:604–613. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11469-016-9684-0 Sharkey A, Sharkey N (2012) Granny and the robots: ethical issues in robot care for the elderly. Ethics Inf Technol 14:27–40. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10676-010-9234-6 Singh Batth R, Nayyar A, Nagpal A (2018) Internet of robotic things: driving intelligent robotics of future—concept, architecture, applications and technologies. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCS. 2018.00033 Smith B (2018) Facial recognition: It’s time for action. https://blogs. microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2018/12/06/facial-recognition-itstime-for-action/ (Created 6 Dec 2018). Accessed 27 Mar 2020 Spiekermann S, Acquisti A, Böhme R, Hui K-L (2015) The challenges of personal data markets and privacy. Electron Markets 25:161–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-015-0191-0 Stallmann R (2010) Is digital inclusion a good thing? How can we make sure it is? IEEE Commun Mag 48(2):112–118. https://doi. org/10.1109/MCOM.2010.5402673 Stearns P (2013) The industrial revolution in world history. Routledge, New York https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429494475 Stempeck M (2014) Sharing data is a form of corporate philanthropy. https://hbr.org/2014/07/sharing-data-is-a-form-of-corporatephilanthropy (Created 24 July 2014). Accessed 24 Mar 2020 Telefónica Deutschland (2019) Corporate digital responsibility (CDR). https://www.telefonica.de/verantwortung/corporate-digital-respon sibility-cdr.html. Accessed 17 Apr 2020 Thorun C (2018) Corporate Digital Responsibility: Unternehmerische Verantwortung in der digitalen Welt. In: Gärtner C, Heinrich C (eds) Fallstudien zur Digitalen Transformation. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden, pp 173–191 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-65818745-3_9 Tsatsou P (2011) Digital divides revisited: what is new about divides and their research? Media Cult Soc 33(2):317–331. https://doi. org/10.1177/0163443710393865 UNCTAD (2017) Information economy report 2017: digitalization, trade and development. https://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/ ier2017_en.pdf. Accessed 20 Feb 2020 UNCTAD (2018) Technology and innovation report 2018: harnessing frontier technologies for sustainable development. https:// unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/tir2018_en.pdf. Accessed 15 Apr 2020 UNCTAD (2019) Digital development: opportunities and challenges. https://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/tdb66_d5_ en.pdf. Accessed 21 Feb 2020 United Nations Environmental Programme (2007) E-waste—volume II: E-waste management manual. http://wedocs.unep.org/bitstre am/handle/20.500.11822/9801/EWasteManual_Vol2.pdf?sequence =3&isAllowed=y. Accessed 13 May 2019 K NachhaltigkeitsManagementForum (2021) 29:13–29 29 Uzuno˘ glu E, Misci Kip S (2014) Brand communication through digital influencers: leveraging blogger engagement. Int J Inf Manage 34(5):592–602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2014.04.007 Valenzuela S (2013) Unpacking the use of social media for protest behavior: the roles of information, opinion expression, and activism. Am Behav Sci 57(7):920–942. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0002764213479375 Venkatesan V, Iliadis I (2012) A general reliability model for data storage systems. In: 2012 ninth international conference on quantitative evaluation of systems London, pp 209–219 https://doi.org/10. 1109/QEST.2012.32 Vial G (2019) Understanding digital transformation: a review and a research agenda. J Strateg Inf Syst 28(2):118–144. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jsis.2019.01.003 Voigt P, Busche A (2017) The EU general data protection regulation (GDPR): a practical guide. Springer, Cham https://doi.org/10. 1007/978-3-319-57959-7 Affiliations Christina J. Herden1·ErvinAlliu 1·AndréCakici 1·ThibautCormier 1· Catherine Deguelle1·SahilGambhir 1· Caleb Griffiths1· Shrishti Gupta1·SahilR.Kamani 1·Yonca-SeldaKiratli 1·MátéKispataki 1· Greta Lange1·LeandroMolesdeMatos 1· Laura Tripero Moreno1· Hector Alain Betancourt Nunez1· Venkata Pilla1·BaireshRaj 1·JamesRoe 1·MarkusSkoda 1·YouyeSong 1· Praveen Kumar Ummadi1· Laura Marie Edinger-Schons2 Wang C, Wang Q, Ren K, Lou W (2010) Privacy-preserving public auditing for data storage security in cloud computing. In: 2010 proceedings IEEE INFOCOM. IEEE, San Diego, pp 1–9 Wilder-Smith A, Friedman D (2020) Isolation, quarantine, social distancing and community containment: pivotal role for old-style public health measures in the novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. J Travel Med. https://doi.org/10.1093/jtm/taaa020 World Bank Group (2004) Who cares wins—connecting financial markets to a changing world. http://documents.worldbank.org/ curated/en/280911488968799581/pdf/113237-WP-WhoCares Wins-2004.pdf. Accessed 5 May 2019 Zaki M (2019) Digital transformation: harnessing digital technologies for the next generation of services. J Serv Mark 33(4):429–435. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-01-2019-0034 Zuboff S (2018) The age of surveillance capitalism: the fight for a human future at the newfrontier of power. PublicAffairs, New York Christina J. Herden [email protected] Ervin Alliu [email protected] André Cakici [email protected] Thibaut Cormier tcormi[email protected]on Catherine Deguelle cdegue[email protected]ducation Sahil Gambhir sahilgambhirma[email protected]om Caleb Griffiths [email protected] Shrishti Gupta [email protected] Sahil R. Kamani [email protected] Yonca-Selda Kiratli [email protected] Máté Kispataki [email protected] Greta Lange [email protected] Leandro Moles de Matos [email protected] Laura Tripero Moreno [email protected] Hector Alain Betancourt Nunez [email protected] Venkata Pilla [email protected] Bairesh Raj [email protected]ion James Roe [email protected]ion Markus Skoda [email protected] Youye Song [email protected]ion Praveen Kumar Ummadi [email protected] 1Mannheim Business School, Mannheim, Germany 2Chair of Corporate Social Responsibility, University of Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany K