Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Ethics and Information Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, T. K. (2006). Digital rights management and the process of fair use. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 20(1), 49–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ars Technica. (2009a). Pirate Bay: A guilty verdict is an attack on the internet. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/03/pirate-bay-a-guilty-verdict-is-an-attack-on-the-internet.ars .

  • Ars Technica. (2009b). Apple quits chamber of commerce, praised for green efforts. http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2009/10/apple-quits-chamber-of-commerce-praised-for-green-efforts.ars.

  • Badshah, A., Khan, S., & Garrido, M. (Ed.) (2005). Connected for development: information kiosks and sustainability, United Nations ICT task force series, Download: www.unicttaskforce.org/perl/documents.pl?do=download;id=927.

  • Baier, K. (1958). Moral point of view: Rational basis for ethics. Ithaca, London: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benkler, Y. (2001). The battle over the institutional ecosystem in the digital environment. Communications of the ACM, 44(2), 84–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benkler, Y. (2002). Coase’s Penguin or Linux and ‘The nature of the firm’. The Yale Law Journal, 112(3), 369–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benkler, Y. (2003). The political economy of the commons. Upgrade, 4(3), 6–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benkler, Y. (2004b). Commons-based strategies and the problem of patents. Science, 305, 1110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carrier, M. A. (2002). Unraveling the patent-antitrust paradox. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 150(3), 761–854.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2003). Corporate citizenship: Towards an extended theoretical conceptualization, ICCSR research paper series, 04-2003, Nottingham, Download: www.nottingham.ac.uk/business/ICCSR/04-2003.PDF.

  • Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2004). Business ethics: A European perspective. Managing corporate citizenship and sustainability in the age of globalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creative Commons. (2010). www.creativecommons.org.

  • Dany, C. (2006). The impact of participation: How civil society organisations contribute to the democratic quality of the world summit on the information society. TransState working paper no. 43, Sfb597: Staatlichkeit im Wandel, Bremen, Download: www.staatlichkeit.uni-bremen.de/pages/pubApBeschreibung.php?SPRACHE=de&ID=50 .

  • Dasgupta, S., Lall, S., & Wheeler, D. (2005). Policy reform, economic growth and the digital divide. Oxford Development Studies, 33(2), 229–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (2004). The stakeholder approach revisited. Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Unternehmensethik, 5(3), 228–241.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Gates, B. (1976). Open letter to hobbyists, Download: www.blinkenlights.com/classiccmp/gateswhine.html.

  • Ghosh, R. A. (2006). Cooking-pot markets revisited, presentation held at Wizards of OS 4, 14.09.2006, Berlin, http://ia360611.us.archive.org/2/items/WOS4_04_20h_InformationFreedomRules/04_20h_InformationFreedomRules.ogg.

  • Grassmuck, V. (2004). Freie Software—zwischen Privat- und Gemeineigentum [Free software. Between private and common property], 2. Auflage, Schriftenreihe der Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, Band 458, Bonn, Download: http://freie-software.bpb.de/Grassmuck.pdf.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hess, C., & Ostrom, E. (Eds.). (2007). Understanding knowledge as a commons. From theory to practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hippel, von E. (2001). Innovation by user communities: Learning from open-source software. Sloan Management Review, 42(4), 82–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hippel, von E. (2005). Democratizing innovation. Cambridge, MA/London, Download: http://web.mit.edu/evhippel/www/books/DI/DemocInn.pdf.

  • Illich, I. (1973). Tools for conviviality, New York. Full text online: http://www.preservenet.com/theory/Illich/IllichTools.html.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lutterbeck, B., Bärwolff, M., & Gehring, R. A. (Eds.) (2008).Open Source Jahrbuch 2008. Berlin.

  • Luyt, B. (2004). Who benefits from the digital divide? First Monday, 9 (8) www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue9_8/luyt/.

  • MacKinnor, R. (2010a). In search of “Internet freedom”. 20 May 2010. http://rconversation.blogs.com/rconversation/2010/05/in-search-of-internet-freedom.html.

  • MacKinnor, R. (2010b). More problems in Facebookistan. 29 May 2010. http://rconversation.blogs.com/rconversation/2010/05/more-problems-in-facebookistan.html.

  • Mariscal, J. (2005). Digital divide in a developing country. Telecommunications Policy, 29(5/6), 409–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Microsoft. (2010). Corporate citizenship, http://www.microsoft.com/about/corporatecitizenship/en-us/.

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Okpaku, J. O. (2003). Information and communication technologies for African development: An assessment of progress and challenges ahead, UN department of economic and social affairs, UN ICT task force series. 2, New York, Download: www.unicttaskforce.org/perl/documents.pl?do=download;id=925.

  • One Laptop Per Child. (2010). http://laptop.org.

  • H Online (2010). Study: Linux kernel R&D worth over 1 billion euros. http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Study-Linux-kernel-R-D-worth-over-1-billion-euros-940817.html.

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Project VRM. (2010). http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/vrm/about/.

  • Pyati, A. K. (2005). WSIS: Whose vision of an information society? First Monday, 10(5), www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue10_5/pyati/.

  • Read, R. & Soopramanien, D. (2003). Bridging the digital divide: The growth implications of e-commerce for small & developing states, working paper 2003/029, Lancaster University Management School, Download: www.lums.lancs.ac.uk/publications/viewpdf/000170/.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, G. (2008). Digital emancipation and local development in Brazil. Paper presented at the Media@LSE 5th Anniversary Conference, 21–23.09.2008, London. Download: http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/media@lse/Conference/Conference_Papers_Keep_them_here/Medi@LSE_Schwartz_2008_Draft_01.pdf.

  • Sciadas, G. (Ed.) (2005). From the digital divide to digital opportunities: Measuring info states for development. Geneva, Download: www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/publications/dd/material/index_ict_opp.pdf.

  • Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. New York: Knopf.

  • Stallman, R. (1999). Free software and beyond. Paper presented at the conference ‘Wizards of OS 1’, 16./17.07.1999, Berlin, www.wizards-of-os.org/archiv/wos_1/proceedings/panels/10_intellectual_property_and_public_domain/richard_stallman/skript.html.

  • Steinberger, K. (2006). Die Kiste der Offenbarungen [The Box of Revelation], In: Süddeutsche Zeitung, 21.01.2006 (p. 3).

  • Stiglitz, J. E. (2005). Intellectual property rights and wrongs, In: Daily times, 16.08.2005, www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_16-8-2005_pg5_12.

  • Sun Foundation. (2010). Bridging the digital divide. www.sun.com/aboutsun/comm_invest/giving/foundation.html.

  • The New York Times. (2010). Microsoft profit jumps 35 Pct but investors shrug. http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/04/23/business/AP-US-Earns-Microsoft.html?_r=1&scp=5&sq=microsoft%20earnings&st=cse.

  • 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. (2003). Measuring the information society. ICT indicators for development, Geneva, http://measuring-ict.unctad.org.

  • UNCTAD. (2004). E-commerce and development report 2004, New York/Geneva.

  • UN General Assembly. (2006). Resolution 60/252: World summit on the information society, Document A/RES/60/252, New York, Download: http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N05/502/72/PDF/N0550272.pdf?OpenElement.

  • United Nations Global Compact. (2010). http://www.unglobalcompact.org/.

  • Varian, H. (2006). Information freedom rules. Keynote, Wizards of OS 4 conference, 14 Sept 2006, Berlin, http://ia360611.us.archive.org/2/items/WOS4_04_20h_InformationFreedomRules/04_20h_InformationFreedomRules.mp4.

  • 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.

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their patience, benevolence, and highly useful comments which helped turn a rough draft into a much better article. Moreover, the author would like to thank Tamara Shepherd (Concordia University, Montréal) for sharing her expertise and providing excellent feedback on the first draft.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Business Ethics (IWE-HSG), Tannenstrasse 19, 9010, St. Gallen, Switzerland

    Thorsten Busch

Authors
  1. Thorsten Busch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thorsten Busch.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Busch, T. Capabilities in, capabilities out: overcoming digital divides by promoting corporate citizenship and fair ICT. Ethics Inf Technol 13, 339–353 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-010-9261-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-010-9261-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation