The Ethics of Smart Stadia: A Stakeholder Analysis of the Croke Park Project

  • Fiachra O’BrolcháinEmail author
  • Simone de Colle
  • Bert Gordijn
Original Paper


The development of “smart stadia”, i.e. the use of “smart technologies” in the way sports stadia are designed and managed, promises to enhance the experience of attending a live match through innovative and improved services for the audience, as well as for the players, vendors and other stadium stakeholders. These developments offer us a timely opportunity to reflect on the ethical implications of the use of smart technologies and the emerging Internet of Things (IoT). The IoT has the potential to radically transform society and is representative of the ways that novel technologies will alter human life. We use Dublin’s Croke Park stadium smart project as a case study for examining the development of smart stadia.


Ethics Internet-of-Things Smart stadia Privacy Autonomy Stakeholder theory Business ethics Virtue Surveillance 



We would like to offer our sincere thanks to Professor Noel O’Connor and Dr. Suzanne Little of the Insight Centre for Data Analytics, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland for their extremely helpful reviews and comments on this paper.


Funding was provided by ASU-DCU Catalyst Fund.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.


  1. Ahmadi, A., Richter, C., O’Connor, N., & Moran, K. (2015). Automatic detection, extraction and analysis of unrestrained gait using a wearable sensor system. Presented at the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, Milan.Google Scholar
  2. Allen, A. (1988). Uneasy access: Privacy for women in a free society. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  3. Allen, A. (2011). Privacy and medicine. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2011). Retrieved from
  4. Ariel, B., Farrar, W. A., & Sutherland, A. (2015). The effect of police body-worn cameras on use of force and citizens’ complaints against the police: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 31(3), 509–535. Scholar
  5. Aristotle, (349 BC/1985 AD). Nicomachean Ethics. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  6. Ashworth, L., & Free, C. (2006). Marketing dataveillance and digital privacy: Using theories of justice to understand consumers’ online privacy concerns. Journal of Business Ethics, 67(2), 107–123. Scholar
  7. Bailey, J., & Kerr, I. R. (2007). Seizing control? The experience capture experiments of Ringley & Mann. Ethics and Information Technology, 9(2), 129–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baldini, G., Botterman, M., Neisse, R., & Tallacchini, M. (2016). Ethical design in the Internet of Things. Science and Engineering Ethics. Scholar
  9. Baraniuk, C. (2017). Police to test app that assesses suspects. BBC News. Retrieved from
  10. BBC News. (2015). Paris attacks: What happened on the night. BBC News. Retrieved from
  11. BBC News. (2017). Manchester attack: What we know so far. BBC News. Retrieved from
  12. Bentham, J. (1995). The panopticon writings. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  13. Bianchini, D., & Avila, I. (2014). Smart cities and their smart decisions: Ethical considerations. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 33(1), 34–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Burrus, D. (2014). The Internet of Things is far bigger than anyone realizes. Retrieved June 15, 2015, from
  15. Council of Europe. (1950). European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by Protocols Nos. 11 and 14. Council of Europe. Retrieved from
  16. D’Orazio, T., & Guaragnella, C. (2014). A survey of automatic event detection in multi-camera third generation surveillance systems. International Journal of Pattern Recognition and Artificial Intelligence, 29(01), 1555001. Scholar
  17. DCU. (2014). Building smart cities technology in a smart stadium. Retrieved from
  18. Deegan. (2013). Life is suite as Croke Park firm’s profits double. Retrieved June 8, 2015, from
  19. Dew, N., & Sarasvathy, S. D. (2007). Innovations, Stakeholders & Entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics, 74(3), 267–283. Scholar
  20. Dodge, M., & Kitchin, R. (2007). Outlines of a world coming into existence’: Pervasive computing and the ethics of forgetting. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 34(3), 431–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dong, J., Wang, G., Yan, H., Xu, J., & Zhang, X. (2015). A survey of smart water quality monitoring system. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 22(7), 4893–4906. Scholar
  22. European Commission. (2016). General Data Protection Regulation {Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC}. Retrieved from
  23. Eyal, N. (2012). Informed consent. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2012). Retrieved from
  24. Franssen, M., Lokhorst, G.-J., & van de Poel, I. (2015). Philosophy of technology. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2015). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved from
  25. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder perspective. Boston: Pitman.Google Scholar
  26. Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Parmar, B. L., & de Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder Theory: The state of the art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. GAA. (2016). Retrieved January 22, 2016, from
  28. International Telecommunication Union. (2005). The Internet of Things. International Telecommunication Union. Retrieved from
  29. Jargalsaikhan, I., Little, S., Trichet, R., & O’Connor, N. (2015). Action recognition in video using a spatial-temporal graph-based feature representation. Presented at the 12th IEEE international conference on advanced video and signal based surveillance (AVSS2015), Karlsruhe, Germany.
  30. Johnson, D. (2015). Technology with no human responsibility? Journal of Business Ethics, 127(4), 707–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kapela, R., Świetlicka, A., Rybarczyk, A., Kolanowski, K., & O’Connor, N. (2015). Real-time event classification in field sport videos. Signal Processing: Image Communication, 35, 35–45.Google Scholar
  32. Linaza, M. T., Moran, K., & O’Connor, N. (2013). Traditional sports and games: A new opportunity for personalized access to cultural heritage. Presented at the 6th international workshop on personalized access to cultural heritage (PATCH 2013), Rome.Google Scholar
  33. Ludwig, C. J. H., & Gilchrist, I. D. (2002). Stimulus-driven and goal-driven control over visual selection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28(4), 902–912.Google Scholar
  34. MacIntyre, A. (1981). After virtue: A study in moral theory (Third). London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  35. Martin, K. (2015). Understanding privacy online: Development of a social contract approach to privacy. Journal of Business Ethics. Scholar
  36. Martín-Ruíz, M. L., Fernández-Aller, C., Portillo, E., Malagón, J., & del Barrio, C. (2017). Developing a system for processing health data of children using digitalized toys: Ethical and privacy concerns for the Internet of Things paradigm. Science and Engineering Ethics. Scholar
  37. Matthias, A. (2004). The responsibility gap: Ascribing responsibility for the actions of learning automata. Ethics and Information Technology, 6(3), 175–183. Scholar
  38. Mill, J. S. (1859). On liberty. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  39. Miller, S., & Weckert, J. (2000). Privacy, the workplace and the internet. Journal of Business Ethics, 28(3), 255–265. Scholar
  40. Moore, A. D. (2000). Employee monitoring and computer technology: evaluative surveillance v. privacy. Business Ethics Quarterly, 10(3), 697–709. Scholar
  41. Moore, A. D. (2003). Privacy: Its meaning and value. American Philosophical Quarterly, 40(3), 215–227.Google Scholar
  42. Nissenbaum, H. (2004). Privacy as contextual integrity. Washington Law Review, 79(1), 101–139.Google Scholar
  43. Palm, E. (2009). Securing privacy at work: The importance of contextualized consent. Ethics and Information Technology, 11(4), 233–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Panchanathan, S., Chakraborty, S., McDaniel, T., Tadayon, R., Fakhri, B., O’Connor, N. E., et al. (2017). Enriching the fan experience in a smart stadium using Internet of Things technologies. International Journal of Semantic Computing, 11(02), 137–170. Scholar
  45. Parent, W. A. (1983). Privacy, morality, and the law. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 12(4), 269–288.Google Scholar
  46. Patton, J. W. (2000). Protecting privacy in public? Surveillance technologies and the value of public places. Ethics and Information Technology, 2(3), 181–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Persson, A. J., & Hansson, S. O. (2003). Privacy at work—Ethical criteria. Journal of Business Ethics, 42(1), 59–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Phillips, R. (1997). Stakeholder theory and a principle of fairness. Business Ethics Quarterly, 7, 51–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Phillips, R. (2003). Stakeholder Legitimacy. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(01), 25–41. Scholar
  50. Phillips, R., Freeman, R. E., & Wicks, A. C. (2003). What Stakeholder Theory Is Not. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4), 479–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Radder, H. (2009). Science and technology: Positivism and critique. In J. K. B. Olsen, S. A. Pedersen, & V. F. Hendricks (Eds.), A companion to the philosophy of technology (pp. 61–65). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Scholar
  52. Roman, R., Zhou, J., & Lopez, J. (2013). On the features and challenges of security and privacy in distributed internet of things. Computer Networks, 57(10), 2266–2279. Scholar
  53. RTE. (2015). All-Ireland final was most watch programme in 2015 [Articles]. Retrieved 4 May 2016, from
  54. Sandler, R. (2017). Environmental virtue ethics. In S. M. Gardiner & A. Thompson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of environmental ethics (pp. 223–233). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from
  55. Solove, D. (2013). Privacy self-management and the consent dilemma. Harvard Law Review, 126. Retrieved from
  56. Sonvilla-Weiss, S. (2008). (IN)VISIBLE: Learning to act in the metaverse. Vienna: Springer.Google Scholar
  57. Sullins, J. (2014). Information technology and moral values. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2014). Retrieved from
  58. Tavani, H. T. (2007). Philosophical theories of privacy: Implications for an adequate online privacy policy. Metaphilosophy, 38. Retrieved from
  59. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (1948). Retrieved September 20, 2015, from
  60. Thompson, D. F. (1980). Moral responsibility of public officials: The problem of many hands. The American Political Science Review, 74(4), 905–916. Scholar
  61. van der Vleuten, E. (2009). Large technical systems. In J. K. B. Olsen, S. A. Pedersen, & V. F. Hendricks (Eds.), A companion to the philosophy of technology (pp. 218–223). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Zhang, D., Sullivan, T., Briciu Burghina, C. C., Murphy, K., McGuinness, K., O’Connor, N. E., et al. (2014). Detection and classification of anomalous events in water quality datasets within a smart city-smart bay project. International Journal on Advances in Intelligent Systems, 7(1 & 2), 167–178.Google Scholar
  63. Zhou, W., & Piramuthu, S. (2015). Information relevance model of customized privacy for IoT. Journal of Business Ethics, 131(1), 19–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Ethics, School of Theology, Philosophy and MusicDublin City UniversityDublinIreland
  2. 2.IESEG School of ManagementLEM-CNRSParisFrance

Personalised recommendations