Ethics and Information Technology

, Volume 13, Issue 4, pp 339–353 | Cite as

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

  • Thorsten BuschEmail author
Original Paper


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.


Business ethics Strategic management Corporate citizenship Corporate social responsibility ICT Digital divides Intellectual property Digital sustainability 



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.


  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Armstrong, T. K. (2006). Digital rights management and the process of fair use. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 20(1), 49–121.Google Scholar
  3. Ars Technica. (2009a). Pirate Bay: A guilty verdict is an attack on the internet. .
  4. Ars Technica. (2009b). Apple quits chamber of commerce, praised for green efforts.
  5. Badshah, A., Khan, S., & Garrido, M. (Ed.) (2005). Connected for development: information kiosks and sustainability, United Nations ICT task force series, Download:;id=927.
  6. Baier, K. (1958). Moral point of view: Rational basis for ethics. Ithaca, London: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Benkler, Y. (2001). The battle over the institutional ecosystem in the digital environment. Communications of the ACM, 44(2), 84–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Benkler, Y. (2002). Coase’s Penguin or Linux and ‘The nature of the firm’. The Yale Law Journal, 112(3), 369–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Benkler, Y. (2003). The political economy of the commons. Upgrade, 4(3), 6–9.Google Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Benkler, Y. (2004b). Commons-based strategies and the problem of patents. Science, 305, 1110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks. How social production transforms markets and freedom. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Busch, T. (2007). Freie Software als Entwicklungshelfer? [Free software as development aid?], Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag.Google Scholar
  14. Busch, T. (2008). Open Source und Nachhaltigkeit [Open source and sustainability]. Lutterbeck/Bärwolff/Gehring 2008 (pp. 111–122).Google Scholar
  15. 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.Google Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Carrier, M. A. (2002). Unraveling the patent-antitrust paradox. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 150(3), 761–854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.Google Scholar
  19. Cohen, D. (Ed.) (2004). The ICT revolution: Productivity differences and the digital divide, Oxford.Google Scholar
  20. Compaine, B. M. (Ed.). (2001). The digital divide. Facing a crisis or creating a myth? MA: Cambridge.Google Scholar
  21. Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2003). Corporate citizenship: Towards an extended theoretical conceptualization, ICCSR research paper series, 04-2003, Nottingham, Download:
  22. 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
  23. Creative Commons. (2010).
  24. 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: .
  25. Dasgupta, S., Lall, S., & Wheeler, D. (2005). Policy reform, economic growth and the digital divide. Oxford Development Studies, 33(2), 229–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. De George, R. T. (2003). The ethics of information technology and business, Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  27. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA: Pitman.Google Scholar
  28. Freeman, R. E. (1994). The politics of stakeholder theory: Some future directions. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4, 401–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Freeman, R. E. (2004). The stakeholder approach revisited. Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Unternehmensethik, 5(3), 228–241.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  30. Freeman, R. E. & Gilbert, D. R. (1988). Corporate strategy and the search for ethics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  31. Gasser, U. (2004). iTunes. How copyright, contract, and technology shape the business of digital mediaA case study. Berkman Publication Series 2004–07. Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  32. 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.Google Scholar
  33. 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.Google Scholar
  34. 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.Google Scholar
  35. Gates, B. (1976). Open letter to hobbyists, Download:
  36. Ghosh, R. A. (2006). Cooking-pot markets revisited, presentation held at Wizards of OS 4, 14.09.2006, Berlin,
  37. Grassmuck, V. (2004). Freie Softwarezwischen Privat- und Gemeineigentum [Free software. Between private and common property], 2. Auflage, Schriftenreihe der Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, Band 458, Bonn, Download:
  38. Greve, G. (2004). Preface. Grassmuck 2004, 13–15.Google Scholar
  39. Hammond, A., & Kramer, W. (2005). Innovations to close the digital divide. Badshah/Khan/Garrido 2005 (pp. 113–116).Google Scholar
  40. Heeks, R. (2008). ICT4D 2.0: The next phase of applying ICT for international development. Computer, 41, 26–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hess, C., & Ostrom, E. (Eds.). (2007). Understanding knowledge as a commons. From theory to practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  42. Hippel, von E. (2001). Innovation by user communities: Learning from open-source software. Sloan Management Review, 42(4), 82–86.Google Scholar
  43. Hippel, von E. (2005). Democratizing innovation. Cambridge, MA/London, Download:
  44. Illich, I. (1973). Tools for conviviality, New York. Full text online:
  45. International Telecommunication Union (ITU). (2009). Measuring the information society. The ICT development index. Geneva.Google Scholar
  46. Kagami, M. (Ed.) (2004). Information technology policy and the digital divide: Lessons for developing countries. Cheltenham etc.Google Scholar
  47. Kanungo, S. (2004). On the emancipatory role of rural information systems. Information Technology & People, 17(4), 407–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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.Google Scholar
  49. Kuhlen, R. (2004). Informationsethik. Umgang mit Wissen und Information in elektronischen Räumen [Information Ethics. Knowledge and information in electronic spaces]. Konstanz.Google Scholar
  50. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lessig, L. (1999). Code and other laws of cyberspace, New York.Google Scholar
  52. Lessig, L. (2001). The future of ideas: The fate of the commons in a connected world. New York.Google Scholar
  53. Lessig, L. (2004). Free culture: How big media uses technology and the law to lock down culture and control creativity. New York: Penguin Press.Google Scholar
  54. Lessig, L. (2008). Remix: Making art and commerce thrive in the hybrid economy. New York: Penguin Press.Google Scholar
  55. Lio, M., & Liu, M. (2006). ICT and agricultural productivity: Evidence from cross-country data. Agricultural Economics, 34(3), 221–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lutterbeck, B., Bärwolff, M., & Gehring, R. A. (Eds.) (2008).Open Source Jahrbuch 2008. Berlin.Google Scholar
  57. Luyt, B. (2004). Who benefits from the digital divide? First Monday, 9 (8)
  58. MacKinnor, R. (2010a). In search of “Internet freedom”. 20 May 2010.
  59. MacKinnor, R. (2010b). More problems in Facebookistan. 29 May 2010.
  60. Mariscal, J. (2005). Digital divide in a developing country. Telecommunications Policy, 29(5/6), 409–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Microsoft. (2010). Corporate citizenship,
  62. 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
  63. Norris, P. (2001). Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty, and the internet worldwide, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  64. Nuscheler, F. (2005). Entwicklungspolitik [Development policy], 5. Auflage, Schriftenreihe der Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, Band 488, Bonn.Google Scholar
  65. 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:;id=925.
  66. One Laptop Per Child. (2010).
  67. H Online (2010). Study: Linux kernel R&D worth over 1 billion euros.
  68. Otter, A. (2006). Digitale Möglichkeiten für Afrika [Digital opportunities for Africa], In: Bärwolff/Gehring/Lutterbeck 2006 (pp. 381–387).Google Scholar
  69. Palfrey, J. & Gasser, U. (2008). Born digital. Understanding the first generation of digital natives, New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  70. Patry, W. (2009). Moral panics and the copyright wars. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Prahalad, C. K. (2006). The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid. NJ: Upper Saddle River.Google Scholar
  72. Pyati, A. K. (2005). WSIS: Whose vision of an information society? First Monday, 10(5),
  73. 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:
  74. Richter, M. (2006). Fair Code. Freie/open-source-software und der Digital Divide, In: Bärwolff/Gehring/Lutterbeck 2006, 371–380.Google Scholar
  75. Rifkin, J. (2000). The age of access. New York: J.P.Tarcher/Putnam.Google Scholar
  76. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 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:
  78. Sciadas, G. (Ed.) (2005). From the digital divide to digital opportunities: Measuring info states for development. Geneva, Download:
  79. Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  80. Stallman, R. (1999). Free software and beyond. Paper presented at the conference ‘Wizards of OS 1’, 16./17.07.1999, Berlin,
  81. Steinberger, K. (2006). Die Kiste der Offenbarungen [The Box of Revelation], In: Süddeutsche Zeitung, 21.01.2006 (p. 3).Google Scholar
  82. Stiglitz, J. E. (2005). Intellectual property rights and wrongs, In: Daily times, 16.08.2005,
  83. Sun Foundation. (2010). Bridging the digital divide.
  84. The New York Times. (2010). Microsoft profit jumps 35 Pct but investors shrug.
  85. 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.Google Scholar
  86. Ulrich, P. (2004): Was ist „gute” sozioökonomische Entwicklung? [What is ‘good’ socio-economic development?], In: Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Unternehmensethik, 5(1) 8–22.Google Scholar
  87. Ulrich, P. (2008). Integrative economic ethics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  88. UNCTAD. (2003). Measuring the information society. ICT indicators for development, Geneva,
  89. UNCTAD. (2004). E-commerce and development report 2004, New York/Geneva.Google Scholar
  90. UN General Assembly. (2006). Resolution 60/252: World summit on the information society, Document A/RES/60/252, New York, Download:
  91. United Nations Global Compact. (2010).
  92. Varian, H. (2006). Information freedom rules. Keynote, Wizards of OS 4 conference, 14 Sept 2006, Berlin,
  93. Wettstein, F. (2009). Multinational corporations and global justice. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  94. Zittrain, J. L. (2008). The future of the internetAnd how to stop it. New Haven, London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Business Ethics (IWE-HSG)St. GallenSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations