ABSTRACT. Although there is ample literature on the quantified self, considerably less attention is given to how our relation with the other is being shaped by self-tracking technologies that allow data sharing (e.g. wearables or apps such as Strava or RunKeeper). This paper seeks to fill this gap by providing a conceptual framework for discussing ‘technologies of the self and other’, by showing that, in most cases, self-tracking also involves other-tracking. We elaborate on two cases and practical domains to illustrate and discuss this mutual process: first, the quantified workplace and, second, quantification by health apps and wearables in a non-clinical and self-initiated context. We argue that these shapings are never (morally) neutral and have ethical implications.

ABSTRACT. Abstract: The vision of robotics in the home is driven by increased convenience, comfort, companionship, and greater security for users. However, if robots are not being developed in a responsible manner, then the robot industry risks causing harm to users, being rejected by users, or being regulated in overly prescriptive ways. There is a need to create more socially responsible robotics and, in this paper, we explore some of the challenges and requirements for this, both conceptually and empirically. To do this, firstly, we explore the emergence of robots in the home, examining definitions of robotics and the current commercial state of the art. In particular, we consider emerging technological trends, such as smart homes, that are already embedding computational agents in the fabric of everyday life. By turning to human computer interaction, particularly notions of values in design, we unpack the importance of user centric design and the home as a deployment setting for domestic robotics.

Subsequently, we consider the nature of responsibility in robotics, examin-ing what it means and consider lessons from past home information technologies. In this paper, we look at a specific responsibility, namely that of roboticists to ensure they engage with user concerns, needs, and respond to them appropriately in design. In wider IT design, this often does not occur sufficiently, leading to technologies that are not fit for purpose and disrupt the social order of the home.

Working from this basis, we then present findings from an exploratory, qualitative survey we conducted to highlight concerns users have about domestic robots. The survey established a range of themes, but we focus on the form of robots, privacy concerns and many aspects of trust. To explore these in more depth, we then analyse relevant literature from across technology law, computer ethics and computer science, to reflect on how these con-cerns are discussed there. We conclude by drawing together both our empirical observa-tions and conceptual analysis, considering what is needed for the future of responsible domestic robotics: user centric design.

ABSTRACT. In 2016, Eugenia Kuyda built a chatbot trained on over 8,000 lines of text that she and other friends and family of Roman Mazurenko had recieved from him over the years. The resulting bot converses in a style that those who knew him reportedly find eerily convincing. For example, one friend writes,

“What really struck me is that the phrases he speaks are really his. You can tell that’s the way he would say it — even short answers to ‘Hey what’s up.’ He had this really specific style of texting. I said, ‘Who do you love the most?’ He replied, ‘Roman.’ That was so much of him. I was like, that is incredible.” (Newton 2016)

Predictive analytics draw from datasets of past inputs to generate predictions of future inputs in various contexts. For example, when I type "g" into my browser, it suggests the autocomplete "gmail.com", based on my past browsing history, and those of others. Given the volume of data generated by our social interactions, in some ways the idea of a chatbot that draws on this data to generate conversational responses the deceased would have been likely to utter seems almost inevitable - and inevitable to progress, as language processors and predictive analytics become more sophisticated.

Some find this unethical. The show Black Mirror devoted an entire episode, "Be Right Back", to exploring potential tragic consequences of devices that are almost but not quite real enough... that leave us mired in grief but drawn back in to the pseudo-relationship, unable to move on but unfulfilled by the facsimile of a loved one. (Harris 2013) Some of Roman Mazurenko's friends expressed concern that Kuyda had failed to take this warning to heart. But Kuyda views her work as more akin to a funeral memorial, or a photo album, a more sophisticated way to interact with our records of the deceased, to commemorate without attempting to replace them. And she is not alone. Mazurenko's mother has voiced her approval of the bot. (Newton 2016)

To draw well-founded conclusions about the ethics of this technology, we need to think carefully about grief, loss, death, and mourning. In this project I plan to bring together a number of different resources. Compared to the Western philosophical tradition, classical Chinese philosophers engaged in a rich and sophisticated discussion of the ethics of grieving, commemorating the dead, and responding appropriately to loss, a fact that may be unsurprising given a widespread practice of ancestor veneration. While many Daoists advocated for moderation of grief, including expenses and attention devoted to the deceased, (Wong 2006; Elder 2014; Olberding 2007) Confucians saw grieving as an appropriate response to the loss of a loved one, something worthy of investing considerable time and resources to. (Olberding 2004; Radice 2017) The resulting debate offers valuable theoretical resources for thinking about how and when to move on, and when to remain engaged with, those we have lost. (Olberding and Ivanhoe 2011)

In addition, contemporary work in clinical psychology suggests that grieving often involves thinking of oneself as sustaining a relationship with the deceased, by continued engagement with an internal representation of the loved one. This phenomenon quite long-lived, often extending (for example) well after remarriage and affecting the course of the new relationship. (Klass, Silverman, and Nickman 2014) In this sense, chatbots like Kuyda's merely externalize a robust pre-existing phenomenon, in which we imagine ourselves in conversation with loved ones, using our own extensive knowledge of their patterns of response to generate for ourselves answers like they would have given.

Of course, drawing on memories of loved ones is in some senses quite different from drawing on data generated by them. The ethics of digital artifacts of the dead, and whether or to what extent the dead deserve privacy when it comes to their digital data, has become a rich topic in its own right, (Nilsson, Sahlgren, and Karlgren 2016; Moreman and Lewis 2014; Leaver 2013) and one that needs to be considered in developing an ethics of such chatbots. But even assuming that a person explicitly gave consent for data to be used in this way (and by some accounts, Mazurenko might well have been the sort of person who would have), there remain questions about the impact of these technologies on the survivors. As this case shows, it is entirely possible for some survivors to greatly desire such a chatbot, and others to vehemently oppose it. How should such considerations be weighed? Given that most of us will be mourned by many, how are conflicting desires among the mourners to be arbitrated, and how can or should this be moderated by the wishes of the deceased? (Wisnewski 2009) And to what extent are these desires themselves the sort of things it would be good for those who hold them to be fulfilled? While grieving processes surely vary for each of us, it seems an open question whether our goal should be to move past the loss, or live with it, one confronted directly by the classical Chinese debates cited earlier. (Nussbaum 2008; O’Malley 2015)

My aim, then, is to develop, not a unilateral approval or disapproval of this technology, but an accounting of the ethical issues involved, in order to develop a framework for its development that can account for the many, intense but conflicting intuitions it brings up.

Bibliography

Elder, Alexis. 2014. “Zhuangzi on Friendship and Death.” The Southern Journal of Philosophy 52 (4):575–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjp.12086. Harris, Owen. 2013. “Be Right Back.” 1080i (HDTV) 16:9. Black Mirror. United Kingdom: Channel Four Television Corporation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Be_Right_Back. Klass, D., P.R. Silverman, and S. Nickman. 2014. Continuing Bonds: New Understandings of Grief. Death Education, Aging and Health Care. Taylor & Francis. https://books.google.com/books?id=u4COAwAAQBAJ. Leaver, Tama. 2013. “The Social Media Contradiction: Data Mining and Digital Death.” M/C - Media and Culture 16 (2). http://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/article/view/625. Moreman, Christopher M., and A. David Lewis, eds. 2014. Digital Death: Mortality and beyond in the Online Age. Santa Barbara: Praeger. Newton, Casey. 2016. “When Her Best Friend Died, She Used Artificial Intelligence to Keep Talking to Him.” The Verge, October 6, 2016. https://www.theverge.com/a/luka-artificial-intelligence-memorial-roman-mazurenko-bot. Nilsson, David, Magnus Sahlgren, and Jussi Karlgren. 2016. “Dead Man Tweeting.” In Workshop on Collecting and Generating Resources for Chatbots and Conversational Agents-Development and Evaluation, Portorož (Slovenia), May 28, 2016. Nussbaum, Martha C. 2008. “Who Is the Happy Warrior? Philosophy Poses Questions to Psychology.” The Journal of Legal Studies 37 (S2):S81–113. https://doi.org/10.1086/587438. Olberding, Amy. 2004. “The Consummation of Sorrow: An Analysis of Confucius’ Grief for Yan Hui.” Philosophy East and West 54 (3):279–301. https://doi.org/10.1353/pew.2004.0020. ———. 2007. “Sorrow and the Sage: Grief in the Zhuangzi.” Dao 6 (4):339–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11712-007-9020-2. Olberding, Amy, and P. J. Ivanhoe, eds. 2011. Mortality in Traditional Chinese Thought. Suny Series in Chinese Philosophy and Culture. Albany: State University of New York Press. O’Malley, Patrick. 2015. “Getting Grief Right.” Couch (blog). January 10, 2015. https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/10/getting-grief-right/. Radice, Thomas. 2017. “Method Mourning: Xunzi on Ritual Performance.” Philosophy East and West 67 (2):466–93. https://doi.org/10.1353/pew.2017.0035. Wisnewski, J. Jeremy. 2009. “What We Owe the Dead.” Journal of Applied Philosophy 26 (1):54–70. Wong, David B. 2006. “The Meaning of Detachment in Daoism, Buddhism, and Stoicism.” Dao 5 (2):207–219.

ABSTRACT. The ‘thematic elements’ of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) are well recognised and borne testimony to in multiple publications. The elements can be noted as promoting approaches to innovation that are underpinned by good governance and ethics; and are complemented by a further four calls for specific attention to wider engagement with societal actors; gender equality; science education and greater transparency. A useful guide to these is provided by Wilford et al (2016).

The context for such innovation lies in all sectors. If follows that the realisation of RRI objectives lies both in the minds of those who make or influence political and investment decisions; as well as in the knowledge of researchers, policy makers and practitioners who design products or configure services. The results of such innovation can be reflected, therefore, in the accessibility, usability and otherwise ‘fitness for purpose’ of a product; or in the manner by which a service is provided.

This paper looks at RRI in the context of what is known as the ‘Silver Economy’ i.e. that element of our commercial activity that involves or engages with older people. The perspective is not one that sees older people as a market for goods and services (regardless of whether these can be deemed as ‘innovative’). Rather, an approach is taken that recognises and appreciates the contribution of older people to the ‘Silver Economy’ – positioning them as equal to others in their roles as entrepreneurs, designers and employees as well as being consumers. There are, of course, ethical issues, relating to such positioning, that echo RRI elements, perhaps most notably in respect of wider engagement. But for the ‘Silver Economy’ and in respect of older people more generally, RRI generally overlooks these.

This is the perspective that underpins this paper. It affirms that the demographic change (reflected in growing numbers of older people) and its implications have not been given sufficient attention by RRI. The exception is in the area of ICT where the ‘Responsible Industry’ project specifically addressed RRI around ‘ICT for an Ageing Society’ (Porcari et al, 2015). But even in this project there is a fundamental ethical issue that relates to its focus on ICT ‘solutions’. To seek a solution, it is argued, implies that there is a problem. It is, therefore, a pejorative term that stands contra to the evidence regarding the generally active role of older people in economic and social life. The Responsible Industry project may, therefore, have fallen victim to a way of thinking that aligns older age with poor health and limited agency. To the credit of the Responsible Industry project, the ICT ‘solutions’ include ‘occupation and social interaction’ (though it is unclear if ‘occupation’ is meant in the sense of employment or entrepreneurship) as well as those relating to health and mobility, but it is affirmed by the project that ‘these ICT systems are typically [my emphasis] comprised of sensors to monitor ‘physiological parameters’ and ‘human-machine interface components and actuators’ associated with home automation. Little or no consideration is, it appears, given to the older people’s access to and usage of e.g. telephony devices, ATMs, online computing whether from their homes, in work or elsewhere.

If the Responsible Industry project is indicative, therefore, of ‘RRI thinking’ around older age and the ‘Silver Economy’ the question arises as to how well equipped it is, in its present form, to provide that ‘connection’ between ‘research and innovation with the futures in which they play a part’ (European Commission, 2013). After all, those ‘futures’ include most of us as older citizens. And we ignore the significance of the growth in number of older people at our peril – it being clear from Eurostat figures (for 2016) that older people (aged 65 and over) represent nearly 20% of the European Union's population; with this rising to near 30% by 2080.

Concerns regarding the general omission of ageing within RRI are addressed in this paper by reference to the work of the European Commission funded PROGRESSIVE project (www.progressivestandards.org). This (ongoing) project uses RRI as one of its ethical touchstones but finds its thematic elements as insufficient to ‘capture’ the range of issues and concerns that relate to older people and the ‘Silver Economy’ in particular. A wider range of ethical tenets are, therefore, put forward. These (drawing from the PROGRESSIVE project) include tenets that relate to ‘wider engagement’ (and arguably, therefore, embraced by RRI) and others pertaining to, for example, care, protection and support; autonomy and empowerment; accessibility and usability; privacy and interoperability. These are then considered in relation to RRI thematic elements such as those concerned with gender equality; science education and greater transparency. This simple analysis indicates seeming limitations in the purview of RRI in the ‘Silver Economy’ context.

Finally the paper explores the relevance of both the tenets from the PROGRESSIVE project and the thematic elements of RRI in the world of standards. Standards are, it can be noted, referenced in some RRI projects but, given the latter’s potential to influence the way in which products are developed and services provided, are arguably given insufficient attention. Given the strong commercial interests that are represented in the standards development process, however, this ‘semi-detached’ position of RRI is no longer tenable. The response should be a broadening of the scope of RRI (where appropriate taking account of the tenets identified in the PROGRESSIVE project). This, it is considered, would enable the ethical voice of RRI to be more readily heard in the world of standards. Given the dangers of rampant commercialism this would be especially welcomed for older people and the ‘Silver Economy’.

European Commission (2013) ‘Options for Strengthening Responsible Research and Innovation’ DG Research and Innovation Science in Society. Porcari A, Borsella E and Mantovani E (2015) ‘Responsible industry Executive Brief: Implementing Responsible Research and Innovation for an Ageing Society’, Italian Association for Industrial Research (AIRI), Rome. Wilford S, Fisk M and Stahl B (2016) ‘Guidelines for Responsible Research and Innovation’, De Montfort University, Leicester.

ABSTRACT. Cyber security is a growing industry - with the emphasis on security growing in a more uncertain technically-dependent world, cyber security is a natural growth area as well. Cyber security is a loosely defined sector encompassing many different types of security-related activities, from penetration testing and forensics to development of secure architectures and data and identity management. However, the nature of cyber security’s past is a somewhat “cowboy” culture, with its frontiers of technological crime prevention often a grey area, and white-, grey-, and black-hat hackers operating on both sides of the law to meet their goals. This, coupled with the complexity of the topic and subsequent lack of understanding of the issues at hand as well as poor representation of the field in movies and television shows, means that there is a significant lack of understanding of what it is that cyber security is, what its goals are, and how it works. This often translates to a lack of trust between end-users and security companies and their products.

Trust is a complex word that takes on a specific meaning within the computer security sector, splitting into “trusted” and “trustworthy” (Anderson, 2002). If a trusted system is compromised, it will breach security policy; a trustworthy system cannot be compromised (i.e. is completely secure) (Flick, 2004). The ideal, a trusted and trustworthy system, is one that is both completely secure, and which holds sensitive data. This is largely a technical issue, though a system might be trusted by humans for social reasons. Some systems are provably trustworthy (e.g. the seL4 microkernel[1] and other mathematically proved systems), but most are trustworthy until proven otherwise. Similarly, companies both ask to be trusted and (generally) try to be trustworthy. This is often a technically-enabled social relationship - the companies usually want your data, and you decide whether to give it to them (Erwin, 2017). You might look to see if they are trustworthy - have they had data breaches? How have they responded to attacks? (The obvious Humean induction problem here is outside the scope of this paper.) But often enough you will want their product or service and will trust them with the data they want.

How can a company prove its trustworthiness to everyday users who may not understand the technicalities, theoretical aspects, or even the user interfaces for cyber security? How can companies that have flown close to the wind in their cowboy past, or who have done questionable acts in their time ask to be trusted?

This paper seeks to argue that responsible research and innovation (RRI) practices are a way of improving trustworthiness through opening up the accountability, transparency, and responsibilities of companies so that the general public does not necessarily need to understand the technicalities of the operations or product of the company.

To do so, this paper takes four case studies of cyber security companies that were engaged as part of the European-funded COMPASS project and discusses the aspects of trust that prompted the companies to engage with responsible research and innovation in the first place, and how they situated their understanding of RRI within the goal to achieve trust in their user base and/or the general public.

The general method used to initially engage with cyber security companies was to come into their world, rather than ask them to come into an academic world. In attending their talks, their networking events and speaking at their conferences, and becoming trustworthy to them in our approach. Discussing confidential business information is relatively taboo in cyber security - they are by nature generally quite secretive. Thus, we also needed to be trusted as researchers, which meant significant focus on providing appropriate consent forms, signing non-disclosure agreements, and other trust-building mechanisms.

However, once the trustworthiness of our integrity and research approach was established, they then trusted us with significant amounts of useful information to further understand the opportunities, challenges, costs and barriers to implementing RRI practices in their business. This allowed unparalleled access to their processes, and also uncovered the significant influence of the need for trust in their engagement with the research process.

The findings of these workshops showed that trust was a main driver for all of the companies - they wanted their products and services to be trusted not just by their clients directly, but to build more general trust in the cyber security sector on the whole. The more they could prove their trustworthiness, the more people, companies, investors and governments were likely to invest in them, buy their products or services, or bring them into policy-making at a higher level. In engaging with research in RRI practices, they saw an opportunity to further make a claim to high levels of openness, transparency, honesty, and other reflective characteristics that tended to engender trust in the desired audience. The idea of RRI also resonated with these companies as they sell a somewhat nebulous concept of “security” - often a “grudge purchase” for companies and governments - and the nature of RRI practice is similarly nebulous in some ways, but also something that companies need to buy into and stick with for a while to see the benefits.

Thus, this paper also aims to argue for the concept of trust as a gateway into certain areas of industry to discuss RRI principles and practice. These areas tend to be more technically inclined, with difficult explanations to lay people. Artificial intelligence, blockchain technology, and other similarly complex sectors could also potentially benefit from this approach.

Anderson 2002 https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/Papers/tcpa.pdf Erwin 2017 https://blog.mozilla.org/netpolicy/2017/01/26/dpd-enabling-trust/ Flick 2004 http://liedra.net/misc/Controversy_Over_Trusted_Computing.pdf

 [1] https://sel4.systems/

ABSTRACT. Businesses are increasingly focused on innovation in order to improve their financial performance and market share. At the same time businesses, seek to improve their corporate social responsibility (CSR) strategies in order to gain greater social acceptance of their activities. However, surprisingly, they have no strategic model that integrates CSR and innovation. The disconnectedness of these two aspects of corporate activities may lead to avoidable financial losses for a company in the long run, as well as negative economic, environmental and social impacts with associated damage to the company’s reputation. Therefore, the challenge is to innovate in a responsible way. An effective strategic approach to responsible corporate innovation would have sustainable outcomes for both business and society. This paper proposes a new approach called strategic responsible innovation management (StRIM). The approach derives from, and broadens, the existing concepts of strategic CSR, the multi-stakeholder approach, CSR-driven innovation and innovation-driven CSR. The field of managing and shaping innovation has gained a lot of attention in recent years [1] among academics, policymakers, and business practitioners. Researchers ask how one can become a successful innovator or create an innovative organisation. However, the success of innovation is understood differently by different stakeholders involved. For companies, success is mainly equated with the generation of economic growth and competitiveness in the market. This involves the development of new products, innovative manufacturing processes or new business models. Innovation implies novelty, but history shows that new ideas do not automatically lead to profit. Therefore, businesses need something more to make an innovation profitable and hence successful. In the business world, success is measured by the overall profits (or losses) of a company over a specified period of time. Many companies that engage in innovation have separate research and development (R&D) divisions, which are often a driving force for their success. Having innovation strategies that focus on the development of new product-service combinations is ‘not an industry or size dependent phenomenon’[2]. Therefore, both large corporations and small (under 50 employees, turnover under €10 million) and medium-sized enterprises (under 250 employees, turnover under €50 million) [3] actively engage in R&D activities. At the same time, most large corporations nowadays have policies, officers and/or divisions for CSR. CSR policy is intended to function as a self-regulating mechanism for businesses, ensuring that they comply with both the letter and the spirit of the law, as well as with international norms and ethical standards. An important element of CSR is social accounting, which involves communicating the social and environmental effects of a company's actions to stakeholders and to society at large [4]. For companies that heavily prioritize innovation activities, CSR should consider the ethical aspects of such activities. Nevertheless, as various studies show they have only done so to a limited extent for their innovation processes [4][5]. There are significant challenges associated with implementing and promoting a culture of CSR within a company (for instance, as regards sustainability aspects), ensuring transparency, and collaborating and engaging with stakeholders [4]. Furthermore, there is an ongoing discussion about the real substance of what companies claim to do. Do CSR initiatives have any positive impact on society and the environment, or are they still mostly a marketing tool to promote a company as a responsible business and thereby generate higher profits? The challenge seems to be whether CSR can be linked to improved performance and achieving competitive advantage, in other words whether CSR, in fact, ‘‘pays off’’. The pioneers of connecting CSR and competitiveness, Porter and Kramer (2002)[6], Kramer (2001)[7], claim that companies can improve their long-term performance by connecting company’s financial and social goals. After decades of development, CSR has evolved and now we observe that CSR becomes integrated into companies’ core business operation enabling CSR to be an important part of corporate competitive strategy [8]. This concept is known as strategic CSR. One example of a company putting responsibility at the core of its business is Fairphone. This Dutch social enterprise engages in fairer electronics by developing a business model that puts ethical values first [9]. Fairphone produces phones made of conflict-free minerals (natural resources not extracted in a conflict zone and sold to perpetuate the fighting), manufactured with respect for workers’ rights and wellbeing, which are repairable and recyclable. The Fairphone community consists of sixty thousand owners of fair smartphones, over ninety-six thousand fans on Facebook and thousands of Twitter and Instagram followers [10]. Despite the popularity of both innovation management and CSR most companies do not necessary connect them and manage them strategically [11]. We lack a broader holistic perspective on the complex connection between innovation and CSR. In other words, we do not have a strategic and generalizable business model connecting innovation and CSR, through which innovation practices can create business value and positive social change. I argue that intertwining CSR and innovation may bring opportunities for both business and society. In order to bring sustainable economic, environmental and social outcomes, companies should have a strategic approach to their CSR and innovation management. This requires a broader, holistic perspective of a company’s responsibilities and understanding of innovation. Therefore, in my paper I perceive corporate responsibilities in a broad sense, including both internal and external responsibilities, as well as economic, social, and environmental responsibilities. Moreover, I apply a holistic understanding of innovation, where innovation should be perceived as a process that addresses interests and engages various stakeholders and society at large. Business may apply this approach through expanding the options for collaborations among large industries and SMEs, and cross-sectoral interactions (CSSI), also known as public-private partnerships (PPPs). Social responsibility may inspire and improve firms’ innovativeness and ultimately become a source of sustainable competitive advantage. In this paper, I connect innovation and CSR in order to foster the responsible development of products and services. First, I delineate the field by defining the concepts underpinning innovation and CSR. Second, I survey the ways in which companies currently approach these two concepts and I outline the current state-of-the-art, emphasizing that the confined character of companies’ social responsibility practices disconnects innovation from CSR. This analysis allows me to provide recommendations for ways in which companies can innovate responsibly, thereby contributing to financial, ecological and social sustainability. I do so by applying the concepts of strategic CSR, the multi-stakeholder approach, CSR-driven innovation and innovation-driven CSR. Both CSR and innovation should be perceived as a strategic tool and a goal. Therefore, companies should explore innovations that are accepted by civil society and address societal, ethical and environmental problems. I argue that the concept of CSR enriches innovation process by emphasizing the interdependence of business and society. At the same time, CSR activities tightly linked to innovation functions might ensure a competitive advantage and therefore be more profitable than those oriented toward public relations, marketing, human resource management [12]. In this regard, I explore the concept of CSR-driven innovation, as an example of a strategic approach to responsible corporate innovation. Moreover, I address a new trend in the development of CSR strategies on the basis of companies’ innovation activities: that trend is termed Innovation-driven CSR. I provide examples of companies and their responsible approach to innovation, demonstrating how that social responsibility inspires and improves firms’ innovativeness. Lastly, I propose a new approach called strategic responsible innovation management (StRIM) that is intertwined with companies’ social responsibility. This approach is intended to redefine companies’ perception of a “successful innovation” by shifting the focus from a company’s financial success to sustainable outcomes for both business and society. Inspired by the strategic CSR, I claim that linking CSR and innovation should be a strategic choice of a company. Following Mintzberg et al. (1998) this strategy should be developed as ‘a transformational process based on learning and growth, both of the informal (culture, vision, position, people) and formal (programs, products, structure, system) parts of an organization’ [13]. This business strategy should be integrated with core business objectives and embedded in day-to-day business culture and operations. Furthermore, it should encourage stakeholder dialogue and “social learning” (multi-stakeholder approach). Such an approach would foster the responsible development of products and services that are profitable for companies, accepted by civil society, and relevant to societal, ethical and environmental problems. My study builds on recent scholarship that investigates research and innovation (R&I) in connection with various disciplines, countries and actors [14].

References: [1] Conway, S., & Steward, F. (2009). Managing and shaping innovation. Oxford University Press. [2] Kinkel, S., Lay, G., & Wengel, J. (2005). Innovation: more than research and development. Growth opportunities on different innovation paths (No. 33e). Bulletins manufacturing innovation survey. [3] The Commission of the European Communities, COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises, 2003/361/EC. [4] Gurzawska, A.; Cardone, R.; Porcari, A.; Mantovani, E.; Brey, P. (2015), SATORI Deliverable 1.1: Ethical Assessment of R&I: A Comparative Analysis; Annex 3h: Ethics Assessment in Different Types of Organizations: Industry, SATORI Project. Available online: http://satoriproject.eu/media/3.h-Industry.pdf (accessed on 23 December 2017). [5] van de Poel, I., Asveld, L., Flipse, S., Klaassen, P., Scholten, V., & Yaghmaei, E. (2017). Company Strategies for Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI): A Conceptual Model. Sustainability, 9(11), 2045. [6] Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2002). The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy. Harvard business review, 80(12), 56-68. [7] Kramer, M. P. (2001). Strategy and society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard business review. [8] Gugler, P., & Shi, J. Y. (2009). Corporate social responsibility for developing country multinational corporations: lost war in pertaining global competitiveness?. Journal of Business Ethics, 87, 3-24. [9] Fairphone, https://www.fairphone.com/about/ (accessed on 23 December 2017). [10] Fairphone, https://www.facebook.com/Fairphone/?fref=ts; https://www.fairphone.com/we-are-fairphone/ (accessed on 23 December 2017). [11] Husted, B. W., & Allen, D. B. (2006). Corporate social responsibility in the multinational enterprise: Strategic and institutional approaches. Journal of international business studies, 37(6), 838-849. [12] Maxfield, S. (2008). Reconciling corporate citizenship and competitive strategy: Insights from economic theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 80(2), 367-377. [13] Mintzberg, H., B. Ahlstrand and J. Lampel (1998). Strategy Safari (Prentice Hall, London) in Hanke, T., & Stark, W. (2009). Strategy development: Conceptual framework on corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 507-516. [14] Specifically, I build on the SATORI (Stakeholders Acting Together on the ethical impact assessment of Research and Innovation) project, a five-million-euro initiative funded by the European Commission’s Seventh Framework Programme. The aim of SATORI is to develop a common European ethics assessment framework for research and innovation (see http://satoriproject.eu/).

ABSTRACT. Please find file attached

ABSTRACT. In the platform economy, a company (the orchestrator) opens its tech-nological platform for others—i.e. organisations and individuals (complement-ors)—to work with and offer their own products. This kind of an approach can be seen as a useful tool also in development aid. Here, a company, from a western industrialised country builds and offers a technological plat form for complement-ors from developing countries to work with. On the one hand, the spill-over effects from successful complementors would create economical well-being in their re-spective areas. On the other hand, this approach can be argued to be just modernised version of imperialism where rich western corporations are benefiting from cheap labour. In this article, we describe the aforementioned problem and present ethical discussion on the dilemma. Finally, this study calls for further work on understand-ing ethical issues of ecosystem and platform management.

ABSTRACT. Public healthcare is under pressure to become more efficient. Aging of population is assumed to decrease the funding but also to increase the demand of public healthcare services globally [2]. Governments all over the world are trying to solve this sustainability problem by means of technology. Since many countries have already adopted electronical patient information systems (PISs) to their public healthcare, the next trend seems to be a wider utilization of personal health records (PHRs). [3-5] PIS is here used as an umbrella term to various information systems handling patient information such as electronic medical records (EMR) etc. [6]. PHR has many different definitions that vary from paper charts to complex interconnected systems related to health information. PHRs can be seen as information systems that contain health data and information entered by individuals and provide information related to their healthcare, but they can also provide many functionalities [7]. In this case PHRs are also connected to PISs as well as other governmental information systems. Thus, these governmental PHRs contain also patient information as well as health information of an individual and can be seen as interconnected PHRs [8, 9] In Finland public healthcare has been using solely electronical PISs since 2011 [10]. However, these systems have not lead to the success that was expected, but created new challenges to healthcare [11-14]. Still, Finnish government has been and is seeking solutions to achieve more sustainable healthcare by means of new technologies and digitalization. The latest project is a part of the digitalization of public services and health, social services and regional government reform and is promoting wider utilization of PHRs as part of public healthcare [15, 16]. The government’s idea is that instead of using public healthcare, people would first use governmental PHRs as substitute to get advice about health and instructions to self-treatment. The idea is that instead of using healthcare services as much as now, people would use PHRs to store their health information, which would then be passed on to healthcare professionals, but also to other governmental institutes through the national service path. [8, 16]. Although, this transition from expert driven healthcare to more self-help based healthcare is troublesome in itself, we turn our focus solely to secondary use of information gathered about and from citizens. The national service path is going to connect national patient information database Kanta, information systems used by governmental institutes such as public hospitals and social services [16]. Thus, it is going to collect and distribute many forms of citizen’s personal information. In the full paper we are going to concentrate solely on public healthcare, since secondary use of information has been a governmental strategy on Finnish government for years [see 17]. With the secondary use the official language is quite unclear and there are situations where one could be left pondering whether the language is actually used to confuse the reader and used to intentionally make the discussion about the subject harder. As an example, the Finnish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health describes how the secondary use of patient information will be executed in the near future as follows [17, p.21]: ”The development and resourcing of the secondary use of the knowledge: The development and gathering of social- and healthcare (sote) action-knowledge is set a national and regional goals and a national plan for a new sote-infrastructure will be made according to executing and action-requirements. Knowledge gathering and analyzing will be transformed to match the needs of the requirements, accessibility, productisation, tracking and development. Social- and healthcare services are described by classifications and metrics (content of services and use, accessibility, service processes, quality, efficiency and effectiveness) will be unified and developed through knowledge architecture. Coordination responsibility: national. In nutshell the secondary use of data means that the primary use of gathering healthcare data – the improvement of patients’ health – is extended with possibilities to do research and otherwise utilise the use of this data. As for the research this leads some ethical questions from the field of research ethics on how to handle the data and that it is anonymized for the protection of the privacy of the patients. This topic however should be correctly handled by the research organisations and their ethics boards. The concept of secondary use leads to more intriguing questions yet unanswered, primarily who will get access to this data and what they can do with it? Even if we could trust the public healthcare and research organisations to not break the privacy of the citizens (intentionally), can we say the same about private sector? The information gathered is highly valuable in non-healthcare applications due the nature of the information in e.g. banking, insurance, and advertising sector and could cause serious harm for an individual if it ends up to “wrong hands”. This comes down to trust. The government proposes a supervisory official to grant permits to access the data to the private sector. In the justifications the economic interest of the nation to get more research, economic growth, and more jobs. [18-20] Therefore one could argue that the data is not theirs to give away. Kainu and Koskinen [21] introduce the concept of Datenherrschaft, the mastery over data, as following: “[Datenherrschaft is]the legal right to decide the uses of, and continuing existence of, in a database or another compilation, collection or other container or form of data, over a entry, data point or points or any other expression or form of information that an entity has, regardless of whether they possess said information, with the assumption that sufficient access to justice is implemented for a citizen to have this power upheld in a court of law” ([21], p. 54). While Koskinen [22] later admits that the concept cannot be absolute and Hakkala [23] states that there are situations where it can be overridden, it gives a good framework to analyse the right for a person to decide what is done with their data. As the concept of datenherrschaft clearly indicates the data is not “owned” by the target of the data, yet moreover “the mastery” over the data is upon the person. The mastery in this situation however is vanishing quickly. Yet the problem comes down to trust. Should one trust the organisations the government is selling the data and should one trust the government safety mechanisms? It is clear that if the information is safe if it is not gathered at all. Yet if it is mandatory to gather – for example to promote patients’ health and well-being – the information is safest when it is not redistributed to third parties at all. If none the less it is redistributed how one can – or how the government can – control the third party not to sell the information or to use it against the citizen? As the corporations nowadays are conglomerates acting on various different fields of business. Can these corporations use the “research data” combined with their “banking data” to offer insurances, whom to hire to a job, or just to promote advertising in yet another sector? How can an official monitor the use of this data? It is clear that even anonymised the medical data contains various things that can easily reveal the subject as many of the combination of dates, diseases and conditions, or relations to family are unique (e.g. birthday and the dates she gave birth, number of siblings and date of car accident where one of the siblings was injured etc.). Therefore even the argument of anonymising the data before selling it is somewhat “dodgy”. The data has been gathered to serve medical purposes, not to be anonymised in another situation. At minimum this kinds of projects should have an opt-out (like in the case of Iceland’s biobank, (see e.g. [1]). Then at least those who do not want to use the mastery over their data could save their privacy. Most of all the problem is a fine example of what Koskinen ([22], p. 33) discusses about social contract (see e.g. Locke, Kant, and Rawls) which is about to be “re-negotiated”. Whereas Koskinen addresses that the negotiating should be done with strong ethical justification, in this case it seems the ethical justification has suffered in the expense of economic interest. In full paper we will discuss more thoroughly about the secondary use possibilities, ownership of data, and the possible upsides and downsides with the process.