Peter Seele

Building on Ovid’s classification scheme of the four ages unfolding from the Golden Age to finally the last, the Iron Age, this experimental essay re-evaluates the proclaimed Golden Age of the present day as put forward by the current president of the USA. The essay does so by identifying systemic institutional infrastructures and the overall theme of dehumanization, especially by financial organizations and managers. The novelty of the essay is to understand not only humans as human beings, but also in their role as consumers as dehumanized and exploited in certain unethical practices. Taken together, this approach can be described as a modular allegory when combining the unrelated institutional infrastructures by sequential reading. The essay is intended as a poetic critique of current practices undermining ethics and humanistic principles. In closing, the essay proposes what a Golden Age in the Ovidian sense would look like, as Ovid’s classification was not about material ‘gold’ but virtuous people and societies.

The aim of this article is to discuss quantitative content analysis as established in communication sciences as a method for research in business ethics. We argue that communication sciences and business ethics are neighboring disciplines, which allow the transfer of quantitative content analysis from communication sciences to business ethics. Technically, quantitative content analysis can be applied through human as well as software coding. Examples for both applications are provided and discussed. We make reference to the software solutions ‘Leximancer’, ‘Crawdad’, and ‘Wordle’, and examine their suitability and limitations with regard to ethical questions for researching business ethics. We recommend a mixed‐method approach, combining human and software coding. Furthermore, we propose a three‐step process that discusses quantitative content analysis as a method for business ethics, including an ethical research objective, and most importantly, concluding with ethical reasoning and interpretation of the quantitative results.

This paper provides, from a business ethics perspective, a basic clustering of the morally (a) favorable, (b) unfavorable, and (c) ambivalent dimensions of blockchain technology and its various emergent applications. Instead of proffering specific assessments on particular aspects of blockchain‐based business models, we aim to offer an initial overview that charters the territory so that future research can bring about such moral assessments in an informed and orderly fashion. The main contribution of this paper lies in identifying several morally ambivalent dimensions of blockchain technology, which we finally link to two strands of business ethics research: ethical and legal aspects of legislation as well as a link to Habermasian corporate social responsibility theory arguing for transparent data production and consumption on the blockchain. We conclude that future research is necessary for moral assessment of the ambivalent cases, since their ethical evaluation changes depending on whether one analyzes them through the lenses of utilitarianism, contractarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics, respectively.

Dehumanization by algorithms raises important issues for business and society. Yet, these issues remain poorly understood due to the fragmented nature of the evolving dehumanization literature across disciplines, originating from colonialism, industrialization, post-colonialism studies, contemporary ethics, and technology studies. This article systematically reviews the literature on algorithms and dehumanization (n = 180 articles) and maps existing knowledge across several clusters that reveal its underlying characteristics. Based on the review, we find that algorithmic dehumanization is particularly problematic for human resource management and the future of work, managerial decision-making, consumer ethics, hard- and soft-law regulation, and basic values, including privacy and consumer rights. From the literature synthesis, we also derive the following definition of algorithmic dehumanization: the act of using algorithms and data in a way that results in the intentional or unintentional treatment of individuals and/or groups as less than fully human, thereby violating human rights, including liberty, equality, and dignity. Ultimately, we present a dehumanization avoidance model that serves as a structured research agenda and practical guide to address the challenges raised by algorithmic dehumanization. Thus, the model indicates promising pathways for future research at the intersection of AI and society and facilitates reflection on organizational processes that support improving corporate capabilities and managerial decision-making to avoid algorithmic dehumanization.

The recent proliferation of AI scandals led private and public organisations to implement new ethics guidelines, introduce AI ethics boards, and list ethical principles. Nevertheless, some of these efforts remained a façade not backed by any substantive action. Such behaviour made the public question the legitimacy of the AI industry and prompted scholars to accuse the sector of ethicswashing, machinewashing, and ethics trivialisation—criticisms that spilt over to institutional AI ethics boards. To counter this widespread issue, contributions in the literature have proposed fixes that do not consider its systemic character and are based on a top-down, expert-centric governance. To fill this gap, we propose to make use of qualified informed lotteries: a two-step model that transposes the documented benefits of the ancient practice of sortition into the selection of AI ethics boards’ members and combines them with the advantages of a stakeholder-driven, participative, and deliberative bottom-up process typical of Citizens’ Assemblies. The model permits increasing the public’s legitimacy and participation in the decision-making process and its deliverables, curbing the industry’s over-influence and lobbying, and diminishing the instrumentalisation of ethics boards. We suggest that this sortition-based approach may provide a sound base for both public and private organisations in smart societies for constructing a decentralised, bottom-up, participative digital democracy.

The complex relationships between humans and AI-empowered machines have created and inspired new products and services as well as controversial debates, fiction and entertainment, and last but not least, a striving and vital field of research. The convergence between the two categories of entities has created stimulating concepts and theories in the past, such as the uncanny valley, machinization of humans through datafication, or humanization of machines, known as anthropomorphization. In this article, we identify a new gap in the relational interaction between humans and AI triggered by commercial interests, making use of AI through advertisement, marketing, and corporate communications. Our scope is to broaden the field of AI and society by adding the business-society-nexus. Thus, we build on existing research streams of machinewashing and the analogous phenomenon of greenwashing to theorize about the humanwashing of AI-enabled machines as a specific anthropomorphization notion. In this way, the article offers a contribution to the anthropomorphization literature conceptualizing humanwashing as a deceptive use of AI-enabled machines aimed at intentionally or unintentionally misleading organizational stakeholders and the broader public about the true capabilities that AIEMs possess.

Purpose This paper aims to outline how destructive communication exemplified by ransomware cyberattacks destroys the process of organization, causes a “state of exception,” and thus constitutes organization. The authors build on Agamben's state of exception and translate it into communicative constitution of organization (CCO) theory. Design/methodology/approach A significant increase of cyberattacks have impacted organizations in recent times and laid organizations under siege. This conceptual research builds on illustrative cases chosen by positive deviance case selection (PDCS) of ransomware attacks. Findings CCO theory focuses mainly on ordering characteristics of communication. The authors aim to complement this view with a perspective on destructive communication that destroys the process of organization. Based on illustrative cases, the authors conceptualize a process model of destructive CCO. Practical implications The authors expand thoughts about a digital “corporate immune system” to question current offensive cybersecurity strategies of deterrence and promote resilience approaches instead. Originality/value Informed by destructive communication of cyberattacks, this theory advancement supports arguments to include notions of disorder into CCO theory. Furthermore, the paper explains where disruptions like cyberattacks may trigger sensemaking and change to preserve stability. Finally, a novel definition of ‘destructive CCO’ is provided: Destructive Communication Constitutes Organization by disrupting and destroying its site and surface while triggering sensemaking and becoming part of sensemaking itself.

Mit der Digitalisierung geht ein fundamentaler, herausfordernder Wandel einher. Durch eine Begriffsbestimmung und Operationalisierung wird in diesem Beitrag der digitale Wandel aus wirtschaftsphilosophischer Sicht vorgestellt. Zunächst werden wirtschaftsphilosophische Grundlagen der Digitalisierung wie die Informationsethik erläutert, gefolgt von einer Diskussion der digitalen Wertschöpfung, die auf Überwachung aufbaut und von einer Überwachungskultur gespeist wird. Schließlich werden Zukunftsperspektiven zum Internet der Dinge, Pricing, Privatheit und der Digitalen Demokratie skizziert.

Recent developments in global business gave rise to innovative forms of digital-exchange, facilitated by a new big data-based infrastructure – the sharing economy platform. SEPs are rapidly expanding, challenging the political-economic order and the classical division of work in society. Against the background of the current sustainability crisis, we discuss the increasingly momentous role of SEPs as a potential driver toward a more sustainable economy and society. Drawing on the theoretical lens of political CSR theory, we first outline how SEPs are applying institutional strategies to gain a competitive advantage, thereby shaping contexts in their favor and triggering an erosion of foundations of social sustainability. However, SEPs also strive for legitimacy by taking over novel social responsibilities via profound digital capacities. Thus SEPs carry the potential to contribute to a more sustainable future economy. Our chapter considers future pathways of platform CSR regimes and a democratization of SEPs building on political CSR theory.

This article proposes a conceptual mapping to outline salient properties and relations that allow for a knowledge transfer from the well-established greenwashing phenomenon to the more recent machinewashing. We account for relevant dissimilarities, indicating where conceptual boundaries may be drawn. Guided by a “reasoning by analogy” approach, the article addresses the structural analogy and machinewashing idiosyncrasies leading to a novel and theoretically informed model of machinewashing. Consequently, machinewashing is defined as a strategy that organizations adopt to engage in misleading behavior about ethical Artificial Intelligence /algorithmic systems. Machinewashing involves misleading information about ethical AI communicated or omitted via words, visuals, or the underlying algorithm of AI itself. Furthermore, and going beyond greenwashing, machinewashing may be used for symbolic actions such as lobbying and prevention of stricter regulation. By outlining diverse theoretical foundations of the established greenwashing domain and their relation to specific research questions, the article proposes a machinewashing model and a set of theory-related research questions on the macro, meso, and micro-level for future machinewashing research. We conclude by stressing limitations and by outlining practical implications for organizations and policymakers.

EM Forster’s short story “The Machine Stops” from 1909 is widely reread and discussed again for some ten years as it portrays a science-fiction world resting on similar technological advancements as today in the digital era. Also management literature reviewed the short story with regard to centralized decision making, rationality and totalitarianism. I argue instead, that the main theme of the short story is – in Forster’s own words – the closing of a civilization in times of transition and facing major challenges. I built the argument by original quotes from Forster and by portraying the years 1906–9, when Forster developed the short story. This era before the Great War starting in 1914 was characterized by euphoric ‘futurism’ based on groundbreaking innovations like ‘long distance messaging’, ‘penny post’, ‘animated films’, Ford’s assembly line, ‘Olivetti typewriter’, ‘feature film’, ‘large ships’ and ‘air transportation’ – the ingredients of the short story as I argue. At the same time these acquitted years were characterized by increasing disintegration, instability, rebellions and a financial crisis with bailout programs. Based on the analogy and as part of speculative philosophy I reconstruct the current great challenges with Forster’ shadow of fatalism and arrive at the urgency to put more effort in addressing and researching pathways out of the crisis and towards stabilization of business and society.

Fast jeder hat Erfahrungen mit Siri, Alexa oder anderen Chatbots. Doch was geschieht, wenn ein Mensch einen Chatbot in einen Dialog über Philosophie verwickelt? Kann man mit künstlichen Intelligenzen (KI) überhaupt über Bewusstsein, Erinnerung und philosophische Theorien der Zeit diskutieren? Ja, man kann – zumindest der Form nach. Und das gleich zweimal: Mit den beiden für den Loebner-Preis für KI dekorierten Chatbots Rose und Mitsuku. Ob das geistreich ist? Das muss jeder für sich entscheiden. Ob das unterhaltsam ist? Ja – allerdings eher unfreiwillig. Im systematischen Teil des Essays werden die Dialoge ausgewertet. Dabei wird der gegenwärtige Hype um KI als maßlose Übertreibung sichtbar, ein Goldrausch der KI gewissermaßen, übrigens von Menschen und ihren allzu menschlichen Interessen veranlasst. Die Begriffe rund um das Thema KI werden im Buch weggeholt von der Behauptung der Singularität, der Disruption oder der versteckten Science Fiction – zurück auf den Boden der funktionalen Tatsachen einer gleichwohl beachtlichen Innovationsspirale: Automatisierung, Standardisierung und maschinelles Verarbeiten von großen Echtzeit-Daten sind aktuell die sachgemäßen Beschreibungen des gegenwärtigen KI-Rauschs. Doch eigentlich geht es beim KI-Rausch um etwas anderes: Die Maschinisierung des Menschen durch Standardisierung, Automatisierung und verbesserte Kontrolle zur fortschreitenden Ökonomisierung aller Lebensbereiche, ermöglicht durch Algorithmen, Datafizierung und digitale Technologie in bisher ungeahnter Wirkmächtigkeit. Der Essay enthält dazu fünf Thesen: These 1: Maschinen werden immer effizienter im Automatisieren – oder: die Automatisierung der Automatisierung These 2: Trotz Automatisierung der Automatisierung: Maschinen sind nicht geistreich intelligent These 3: Menschen werden als Datenhaufen ausgemessen – und damit zu Datenhaufen gemacht These 4: Datenhaufen quo vadis? Von der Präferenz-Erfassung zum „hackable animal“ These 5: Synthese = Die Maschinisierung der Menschen – zur Bahnung der KI Fazit: Mit den künstlichen Intelligenzen verhält es sich wie mit künstlichen Tränen: Sie erfüllen einen instrumentellen Zweck, der aber in keiner Weise mit jenen schillernden Gefühlen verbunden ist, die wir in Freude oder Trauer empfinden – und die uns zum Menschen machen. Alles andere ist Budenzauber oder Desinformation. STIMMEN ZUM BUCH “Wir sollten die Ethik und Nachhaltigkeit der Digitalisierung noch viel ausführlicher erforschen. Dieses Buch ist ein provokativer Beitrag dazu.” Dr. Matthias Stürmer, Leiter Forschungsstelle Digitale Nachhaltigkeit am Institut für Informatik der Universität Bern

In the following, I concentrate on the nefarious, harmful and unethical dimensions emerging only slowly as the rather new phenomenon of cryptocurrencies and blockchain at large become visible only gradually. For the positive and pro-social use of cryptocurrencies please refer to the article of Claus Dierksmeier in this issue of HMJ. As there are many different dimensions still unknown, I concentrate on the ethical issues emerging from the secretive nature of cryptocurrencies, less on the environmental carbon footprint or economic implications of volatility also discussed in the literature. Among the most critical issues are black market transactions of weapons used in terrorist attacks, drugs, or childpornography. Additionally, cryptocurrencies are more and more found in blackmailing people and as payment for ransom-ware and other computer viruses. Money laundering also is on the rise via cryptocurrencies. I argue that the nefarious use of cryptocurrencies threatens the prosocial potential of cryptocurrencies and in general makes criminal activity easier for criminals and less likely to track down by legal authorities. In closing, I discuss current debates about emerging regulation presenting an overview of some jurisdictions and the option of regulated central bank issues cryptocurrencies.

Addressing the critique that communication activities with regard to CSR are often merely instrumental marketing or public relation tools, this paper develops a toolbox of CSR communication that takes into account a deliberative notion. We derive this toolbox classification from the political approach of CSR that is based on Habermasian discourse ethics and show that it has a communicative core. Therefore, we embed CSR communication within political CSR theory and extend it by Habermasian communication theory, particularly the four validity claims of communication. Given this communicative basis, we localize CSR communication as a main means to receive moral legitimacy within political CSR theory. A typology of CSR communication tools is advanced and substantiated by a review of case studies supporting the categories. Thus, we differentiate between instrumental and deliberative, as well as published and unpublished tools. Practical examples for the literature-derived tool categories are provided and their limitations are discussed

In this paper, we compare the two Global Reporting Initiative reporting standards, G3.1, and the most current version G4.0. We do this through the lens of political corporate social responsibility theory, which describes the broadened understanding of corporate responsibility in a globalized world building on Habermas’ notion of deliberative democracy and ethical discourse. As the regulatory power of nation states is fading, regulatory gaps occur as side effects of transnational business. As a result, corporations are also understood to play a “political role” to fill regulatory gaps and contribute to a global governance system by voluntarily engaging in self-regulation. Such corporate political action, however, is not always legitimate as it suffers from a democratic deficit. Consistent with scholars in the field of political CSR, this paper argues that only by means of communication and discourse can this drawback be avoided. That is why CSR reporting and guidelines for standardizing the disclosed CSR information is key for political CSR. By comparing the GRI standards from a political CSR perspective, one can see whether these often-used reporting guidelines fulfill the communicative requirements and whether they are adequate tools to face the challenges of the twenty-first century. We present results from a theory-derived and criteria-driven comparison of the two guidelines. Indication of the effectiveness of voluntary self-regulation is, for example, important considering the 2014 directive of the European Union to make CSR reporting mandatory. We offer a guideline-based view on current CSR theory as well as CSR reporting practice. We discuss implications for CSR theory, particularly the appropriateness of deliberation in the Habermasian sense, which is the basis of political CSR theory. We do so by introducing the notion of “uncommitted deliberation” with regard to the refined concept of materiality in GRI 4.0, which induces subjectivity and reduces data-driven comparability. Finally, we address the limitations of this research as well as research questions for future studies.

This article discusses the transition that business ethics has undergone since its start essentially as a philosophical sub-discipline of applied ethics. Today, business ethics—as demonstrated by four examples of gatekeepers—is a well-established field in general management, and increasingly business scholars without a “formal” background in philosophy are entering the scene. I take this transition to examine an updated positioning of business ethics and offer a proposal to redefine what makes a business ethicist. I suggest taking critical thinking as the common denominator of all business ethics activities beyond the academic silos of various disciplines. In conclusion, by borrowing from the post-colonial theorist Edward Said, this article offers a definition of what makes a business ethicist in the broadest possible sense. Implications are discussed, including the consequences suggesting that if critical thinking is the common denominator, business ethics-as-business-case logic is not considered a part of business ethics publications, but should be addressed within more instrumental publication outlets of business.