Digital responsibility as responsible organizing

Digital responsibility has become a managerial and societal imperative as digital technologies increasingly function as infrastructures of decision-making that shape access to work, welfare, information, and safety. Although ethical principles for digitalization have largely converged, many organizations struggle to translate values into operational routines, allocate accountability, and learn from emergent harms. Consequently, we argue that digital responsibility is best studied and enacted as responsible organizing, i.e. the (inter-)organizational capability to govern digital systems across their lifecycle in ways that are auditable, contestable, and adaptive. This article develops three distinct arguments to support this direction. First, responsibility becomes consequential only when embedded in situated governance through roles, decision rights, artifacts, and escalation routines. Second, accountability is distributed across supply chains and platforms, requiring boundary-spanning governance mechanisms that can travel across organizational interfaces. Third, responsibility depends on measurement and learning loops that connect ethical intent to observed outcomes.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
BFH: ARBOR
Published
2026-01-22
DOI
https://doi.org/10.24451/arbor.13035
Primary Topic
Digital Transformation in Industry
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Digital responsibility as responsible organizing

George Grispos, Nikolaus Obwegeser, Marie Pešková, Margeret Hall
BFH: ARBOR
Digital Transformation in Industry
article

Digital responsibility as responsible organizing

George Grispos, Nikolaus Obwegeser, Marie Pešková, Margeret Hall
article en

Abstract

Digital responsibility has become a managerial and societal imperative as digital technologies increasingly function as infrastructures of decision-making that shape access to work, welfare, information, and safety. Although ethical principles for digitalization have largely converged, many organizations struggle to translate values into operational routines, allocate accountability, and learn from emergent harms. Consequently, we argue that digital responsibility is best studied and enacted as responsible organizing, i.e. the (inter-)organizational capability to govern digital systems across their lifecycle in ways that are auditable, contestable, and adaptive. This article develops three distinct arguments to support this direction. First, responsibility becomes consequential only when embedded in situated governance through roles, decision rights, artifacts, and escalation routines. Second, accountability is distributed across supply chains and platforms, requiring boundary-spanning governance mechanisms that can travel across organizational interfaces. Third, responsibility depends on measurement and learning loops that connect ethical intent to observed outcomes.

BFH: ARBOR
Openalex Percentile: Top 61%
Digital Transformation in Industry
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Digital responsibility as responsible organizing — George Grispos, Nikolaus Obwegeser, et al. · BFH: ARBOR (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS