Ethics and Information Technology

, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp 17–26 | Cite as

An ethical framework in information systems decision making using normative theories of business ethics

Original Paper

Abstract

As business environments become more complex and reliant on information systems, the decisions made by managers affect a growing number of stakeholders. This paper proposes a framework based on the application of normative theories in business ethics to facilitate the evaluation of IS related ethical dilemmas and arrive at fair and consistent decisions. The framework is applied in the context of an information privacy dilemma to demonstrate the decision making process. The ethical dilemma is analyzed using each one of the three normative theories—the stockholder theory, stakeholder theory, and social contract theory. The challenges associated with the application of these theories are also discussed.

Keywords

Ethical decision making Normative theories of business ethics Information systems Information privacy 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I thank Dr. Deepak Datta at the University of Texas at Arlington, USA for his assistance with editing the manuscript. I also extend my thanks to the reviewers, and specially reviewer #3 for the detailed comments that greatly helped in improving the clarity of the article.

References

  1. Bishop, J.D. (2000). A framework for discussing normative theories of business ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 563–591.Google Scholar
  2. Bowie, N. F., & Freeman, R. E. (1992). Ethics and agency theory: An introduction. In N. E. Bowie & R. B. Freeman (Eds.), Ethics and agency theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bucciarelli, L. L. (2008). Ethics and engineering education. European Journal of Engineering Education, 33(2), 141–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burk, D. L. (2005). Legal and technical standards in digital rights management technology. Fordham Law Review, 74(2), 537–574.Google Scholar
  5. Cavanagh, G. F., Moberg, D. J., & Velasquez, M. (1995). Making business ethics practical. Business Ethics Quarterly, 5(3), 399–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Council of Europe. (2010). Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms amended as on June 1 2010. Available at: http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/treaties/html/005.htm.
  7. Donaldson, T. J. (1982). Corporations and morality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  8. Donaldson, T. S. (1989). The ethics of international business. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. W. (1994). Toward a unified conception of business ethics: Integrative social contracts theory. The Academy of Management Review, 19(2), 252–284.Google Scholar
  10. Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. W. (1999). The social contract for business. Ties that bind: A social contracts approach to business ethics. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.Google Scholar
  11. Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. K. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 65–91.Google Scholar
  12. European Parliament and Council. (1995). Directive 95/46/EC of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data on the free movement of such data. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/privacy/docs/95-46-ce/dir1995-46_part1_en.pdf.
  13. European Union. (2000). Charter of fundamental rights of the European union, 7 December 2000. Official Journal of the European Communities, 18 December 2000 (2000/C 364/01). Available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b3b70.html.
  14. Evan, W. M., & Freeman, R. E. (1988). A stakeholder theory of the modern corporation: Kantian capitalism. In T. L. Beauchamp & N. E. Bowie (Eds.), Ethical theory and business (3rd ed., pp. 97–106). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Ball.Google Scholar
  15. Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  16. Friedman, M. (2007). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. Corporate Ethics and Corporate Governance, 173–178.Google Scholar
  17. Hasnas, J. (1998). The normative theories of business ethics: A guide for the perplexed. Business Ethics Quarterly, 8(1), 19–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hinduja, S. (2007). Neutralization theory and online software piracy: An empirical analysis. Ethics and Information Technology, 9(3), 187–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kant, I. (1785/1959). Foundations of the metaphysics of morals (trans: Beck, L. W.). New York: Liberal Arts Press.Google Scholar
  20. Konstantakis, N. I., Palaigeorgioub, G. E., Siozosa, P. D., & Tsoukalasa, I. A. (2010). What do computer science students think about software piracy? Behaviour & Information Technology, 29(3), 277–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kultgen, J. (1985). Donaldson’s social contract for business. Business and Professional Ethics Journal, 5, 28–39.Google Scholar
  22. Laczniak, G. R., & Murphy, P. E. (2008). Distributive justice: Pressing questions, emerging directions, and the promise of Rawlsian analysis. Journal of Macromarketing, 28(1), 5–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Laudon, K. C., & Laudon, J. P. (2009). Management information systems: Managing the digital firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  24. Litzky, B. E., & Oz, E. (2008). Ethical issues in information technology: Does education make a difference? International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 4(2), 67–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Loch, K. D., & Conger, S. (1996). Evaluating ethical decision making and computer use. Communications of’ the ACM, 39(7), 74–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mason, R. O., Mason, F. M., & Culnan, M. J. (1995). Ethics of information management. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Matchett, N. J. (2008). Ethics across the Curriculum. New Directions for Higher Education, 142, 14.Google Scholar
  28. Mill, J. S. (1965). In J. B. Schneewind (Ed.), Mill’s ethical writings. New York: Collier Books.Google Scholar
  29. Orlikowski, W., & Iacono, S. (2001). Research commentary: Desperately Seeking the ‘IT’ in IT research–a call to theorizing the IT artifact. Information Systems Research, 12(2), 121–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Quinn, D. P., & Jones, T. M. (1995). An agent morality view of’ business policy. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 22–42.Google Scholar
  31. Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Reynolds, G. (2009). Ethics in information technology. Stamford, USA: Course Technology.Google Scholar
  33. Smith, H. J. (1994). Managing privacy: Information technology and corporate America. Chapel Hill, USA: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  34. Stahl, B. C. (2008). The ethical nature of critical research in information systems. Information Systems Journal, 18(2), 137–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stevens, B. (2008). Corporate ethical codes: Effective instruments for influencing behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 78(4), 601–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. van den Hoven, J., & Weckert, J. (2008). Information technology and moral philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Velasquez, M. G. (2006). Business ethics: Concepts and cases. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  38. Verbeek, P. P. (2009). The moral relevance of technological artifacts. In P. Sollie & M. Duwell (Eds.), Evaluating new technologies: Methodological problems for the ethical assessment of technology developments (pp. 63–79). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  39. Wright, D. (2010). A framework for the ethical impact assessment of information technology. Ethics and Information Technology. doi: 10.1007/s10676-010-9242-6.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Finance, Accounting, and Computer Information Systems DepartmentUniversity of Houston DowntownHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations