Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Ethics and Information Technology
Published in: Ethics and Information Technology 4/2011

01-12-2011 | Original Paper

Capabilities in, capabilities out: overcoming digital divides by promoting corporate citizenship and fair ICT

Author: Thorsten Busch

Published in: Ethics and Information Technology | Issue 4/2011

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

This conceptual article discusses strategies of corporations in the information and communication technologies (ICT) sector and their role in the conflict over access to knowledge in the digital environment. Its main hypothesis is that ICT corporations are very capable actors when it comes to bridging digital divides in both developed and developing countries—maybe even the most capable actors. Therefore, it is argued that ICT corporations could use their capabilities to help citizens gain sustainable access to knowledge in order to enable them to lead self-sufficient lives. In a nutshell, capabilities are presented as both the input (capabilities of ICT corporations) as well as the output (capability building for empowering citizens) of corporate strategy-making focusing on fair ICT. Corporate citizenship is put forth as the theoretical concept bridging corporate strategies and access to knowledge: If ICT corporations act in accordance with their self-understanding of being ‘good corporate citizens’, they could be crucial partners in lessening digital divides and helping citizens gain access to knowledge. From the perspective of ‘integrative economic ethics’ (Ulrich 2008), it is argued that ICT corporations have good reason to actively empower citizens in both developed and developing countries by pursuing ‘inclusive’ strategies in many fields, such as open-source software development. That way, ICT corporations could enable, support and provide citizens with capabilities enabling them to help themselves. In order to make inclusive business models work, the rules and regulations companies find themselves in today must enable them to act responsibly without getting penalized by more ruthless competitors. This article explores several cases from the ICT field to illustrate the interplay between a responsible business model and the rules and regulations of the industry. From a capabilities perspective, the most desirable mix of corporate strategies and industry regulation is one that results in the highest level of generativity (Zittrain 2008). Thus, ICT should not be closed systems only driven by the company behind them. Instead, they need to be open for the highest possible level of third-party innovation.
previous article Returning students’ right to access, choice and notice: a proposed code of ethics for instructors using Turnitin
next article Ethics in e-trust and e-trustworthiness: the case of direct computer-patient interfaces

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now
Literature
Ahuja-Cogny, S. (2004). Interrogations on a passion-filled debate on open-source software and the digital divide. Information Technologies and International Development, 1(3–4), 60–63.CrossRef
Armstrong, T. K. (2006). Digital rights management and the process of fair use. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 20(1), 49–121.
Baier, K. (1958). Moral point of view: Rational basis for ethics. Ithaca, London: Cornell University Press.
Benkler, Y. (2001). The battle over the institutional ecosystem in the digital environment. Communications of the ACM, 44(2), 84–90.CrossRef
Benkler, Y. (2002). Coase’s Penguin or Linux and ‘The nature of the firm’. The Yale Law Journal, 112(3), 369–446.CrossRef
Benkler, Y. (2003). The political economy of the commons. Upgrade, 4(3), 6–9.
Benkler, Y. (2004a). From consumers to users: Shifting the deeper structures of regulation toward sustainable commons and user access. Federal Communications Law Journal, 52, 561–579.
Benkler, Y. (2004b). Commons-based strategies and the problem of patents. Science, 305, 1110.CrossRef
Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks. How social production transforms markets and freedom. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Busch, T. (2007). Freie Software als Entwicklungshelfer? [Free software as development aid?], Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag.
Busch, T. (2008). Open Source und Nachhaltigkeit [Open source and sustainability]. Lutterbeck/Bärwolff/Gehring 2008 (pp. 111–122).
Busch, T. (2009). Fortschrittsperspektive digitale Allmende? Der digital divide und corporate citizenship in der IT-branche [Progress by digital commons? The digital divide and corporate citizenship in the IT industry], Berichte des Instituts für Wirtschaftsethik Nr. 113, St. Gallen.
Canellopoulou-Bottis, M. (2004). A different kind of war: Internet databases and legal protection or how the strict intellectual property laws of the west threaten the developing countries’ information commons. International Journal of Information Ethics, 1(2), 1–16.
Carrier, M. A. (2002). Unraveling the patent-antitrust paradox. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 150(3), 761–854.CrossRef
Chinn, M. D., & Fairlie, R. W. (2004). The determinants of the global digital divide: A cross-country analysis of computer and internet penetration. National bureau of economic research working paper No. 10686, Cambridge, Mass.
Cohen, D. (Ed.) (2004). The ICT revolution: Productivity differences and the digital divide, Oxford.
Compaine, B. M. (Ed.). (2001). The digital divide. Facing a crisis or creating a myth? MA: Cambridge.
Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2004). Business ethics: A European perspective. Managing corporate citizenship and sustainability in the age of globalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dasgupta, S., Lall, S., & Wheeler, D. (2005). Policy reform, economic growth and the digital divide. Oxford Development Studies, 33(2), 229–243.CrossRef
De George, R. T. (2003). The ethics of information technology and business, Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA: Pitman.
Freeman, R. E. (1994). The politics of stakeholder theory: Some future directions. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4, 401–421.CrossRef
Freeman, R. E. (2004). The stakeholder approach revisited. Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Unternehmensethik, 5(3), 228–241.MathSciNet
Freeman, R. E. & Gilbert, D. R. (1988). Corporate strategy and the search for ethics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Gasser, U. (2004). iTunes. How copyright, contract, and technology shape the business of digital media–A case study. Berkman Publication Series 2004–07. Boston, MA.
Gasser, U. (2006). Legal frameworks and technological protection of digital content: Moving forward towards a best practice model. Berkman Center Research Publication 2006–04. Boston, MA.
Gasser, U. (2007). Responsibility for human rights violations, acts or omissions, within the ‘sphere of influence’ of companies. Berkman Center Research Publication 2007–12. Boston, MA.
Gasser, U. et al. (2005) Content and control: Assessing the impact of policy choices on potential online business models in the music and film industries. Berkman Center Publication Series. Boston, MA.
Greve, G. (2004). Preface. Grassmuck 2004, 13–15.
Hammond, A., & Kramer, W. (2005). Innovations to close the digital divide. Badshah/Khan/Garrido 2005 (pp. 113–116).
Heeks, R. (2008). ICT4D 2.0: The next phase of applying ICT for international development. Computer, 41, 26–33.CrossRef
Hess, C., & Ostrom, E. (Eds.). (2007). Understanding knowledge as a commons. From theory to practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hippel, von E. (2001). Innovation by user communities: Learning from open-source software. Sloan Management Review, 42(4), 82–86.
International Telecommunication Union (ITU). (2009). Measuring the information society. The ICT development index. Geneva.
Kagami, M. (Ed.) (2004). Information technology policy and the digital divide: Lessons for developing countries. Cheltenham etc.
Kanungo, S. (2004). On the emancipatory role of rural information systems. Information Technology & People, 17(4), 407–422.CrossRef
Kleinwächter, W. (2004). Macht und Geld im Cyberspace: Wie der Weltgipfel zur Informationsgesellschaft (WSIS) die Weichen für die Zukunft stellt [Power and money in cyberspace: How the WSIS shapes the future]. Hannover.
Kuhlen, R. (2004). Informationsethik. Umgang mit Wissen und Information in elektronischen Räumen [Information Ethics. Knowledge and information in electronic spaces]. Konstanz.
Kumar, R. (2004). eChoupals: A study on the financial sustainability of village internet centers in rural Madhya Pradesh. Information Technologies and International Development, 2(1), 45–73.CrossRef
Lessig, L. (1999). Code and other laws of cyberspace, New York.
Lessig, L. (2001). The future of ideas: The fate of the commons in a connected world. New York.
Lessig, L. (2004). Free culture: How big media uses technology and the law to lock down culture and control creativity. New York: Penguin Press.
Lessig, L. (2008). Remix: Making art and commerce thrive in the hybrid economy. New York: Penguin Press.
Lio, M., & Liu, M. (2006). ICT and agricultural productivity: Evidence from cross-country data. Agricultural Economics, 34(3), 221–228.CrossRef
Lutterbeck, B., Bärwolff, M., & Gehring, R. A. (Eds.) (2008).Open Source Jahrbuch 2008. Berlin.
Mariscal, J. (2005). Digital divide in a developing country. Telecommunications Policy, 29(5/6), 409–428.CrossRef
Murthy, N. R. N. (2003). Bridging the digital divide: The need of the hour in India. Indian Journal of Economics & Business, 2(2), 145–148.
Norris, P. (2001). Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty, and the internet worldwide, Cambridge.
Nuscheler, F. (2005). Entwicklungspolitik [Development policy], 5. Auflage, Schriftenreihe der Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, Band 488, Bonn.
Otter, A. (2006). Digitale Möglichkeiten für Afrika [Digital opportunities for Africa], In: Bärwolff/Gehring/Lutterbeck 2006 (pp. 381–387).
Palfrey, J. & Gasser, U. (2008). Born digital. Understanding the first generation of digital natives, New York: Basic Books.
Patry, W. (2009). Moral panics and the copyright wars. New York: Oxford University Press.
Prahalad, C. K. (2006). The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid. NJ: Upper Saddle River.
Richter, M. (2006). Fair Code. Freie/open-source-software und der Digital Divide, In: Bärwolff/Gehring/Lutterbeck 2006, 371–380.
Rifkin, J. (2000). The age of access. New York: J.P.Tarcher/Putnam.
Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. (2007). Toward a political conception of corporate responsibility: Business and society seen from a Habermasian perspective. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1096–1120.CrossRef
Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. New York: Knopf.
Steinberger, K. (2006). Die Kiste der Offenbarungen [The Box of Revelation], In: Süddeutsche Zeitung, 21.01.2006 (p. 3).
Ulrich, P. (1977). Die Grossunternehmung als quasi-öffentliche Institution. Eine politische Theorie der Unternehmung [The corporation as quasi-governmental institution. A political theory of the corporation], Stuttgart.
Ulrich, P. (2004): Was ist „gute” sozioökonomische Entwicklung? [What is ‘good’ socio-economic development?], In: Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Unternehmensethik, 5(1) 8–22.
Ulrich, P. (2008). Integrative economic ethics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
UNCTAD. (2004). E-commerce and development report 2004, New York/Geneva.
Wettstein, F. (2009). Multinational corporations and global justice. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Zittrain, J. L. (2008). The future of the internet—And how to stop it. New Haven, London: Yale University Press.
Metadata
Title
Capabilities in, capabilities out: overcoming digital divides by promoting corporate citizenship and fair ICT
Author
Thorsten Busch
Publication date
01-12-2011
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
Ethics and Information Technology / Issue 4/2011
Print ISSN: 1388-1957
Electronic ISSN: 1572-8439
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-010-9261-3

Other articles of this Issue 4/2011

Ethics and Information Technology 4/2011 Go to the issue

Original Paper

Ethical frontiers of ICT and older users: cultural, pragmatic and ethical issues

OriginalPaper

The incorrigible social meaning of video game imagery

Original Paper

Returning students’ right to access, choice and notice: a proposed code of ethics for instructors using Turnitin

Original Paper

Ethics in e-trust and e-trustworthiness: the case of direct computer-patient interfaces

Original Paper

Contextual gaps: privacy issues on Facebook

Premium Partner

    Image Credits