Modifying Consent Procedures to Collect Better Data: The Case of Stress-Monitoring Wearables in the Workplace

  • Stéphanie GauttierEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 353)


Smart wearables can be used in the workplace for organisations to monitor and decrease the stress levels of their employees so they can work better. Such technologies record personal data, which employees might not want to share. The GDPR makes it compulsory to get employees’ consent in such a scenario, but is seen as asking a yes/no question. We show that implementing this consent procedure is not enough to protect employees and make them adopt devices. Based on interviews, we argue that more control must be given to employees on which data is collected and why through an ongoing engagement and consent procedure. It could lead to higher technology adoption rates and data quality.


Consent Digital organisations Smart wearables Ethics Technology acceptance Human enhancement 



This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement No. 795536. The author also thanks colleagues from 4TU.Ethics Life Science and Healthcare Technology Taskforce and their input during the workshop on the limits of consent.


  1. 1.
    Amyx, S.: Privacy dangers of wearables and the internet of things. In: Identity Theft: Breakthroughs in Research and Practice, pp. 379–402. IGI Global (2017)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Asveld, L.: Informed consent in the fields of medical technological practice. Techne Res. Philos. Technol. 10(1), 16–29 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beauchamp, T.L., Childress, J.F.: Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 6th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    D’Arcy, J., Devaraj, S.: Employee misuse of information technology resources: Testing a contemporary deterrence model. Decis. Sci. 43(6), 1091–1124 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    DeSanctis, G., Poole, M.S.: Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: adaptive structuration theory. Organ. Sci. 5(2), 121–147 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Engelbart, D.C.: A research center for augmenting human intellect. In: Proceedings of the 9–11 December 1968, Fall Joint Computer Conference, Part I, AFIPS 1968 (Fall, Part I), pp. 395–410. ACM, New York (1962)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    European Commission. Smart Wearables: Reflection and Orientation Paper (2016)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Forsberg, E.-M., Shelley-Egan, C., Thorstensen, E., Landeweerd, L., Hofmann, B.: Evaluating Ethical Frameworks for the Assessment of Human Cognitive Enhancement Applications. SE. Springer, Cham (2017). Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gauttier, S.: I’ve got you under my skin’–The role of ethical consideration in the (non-) acceptance of insideables in the workplace. Technol. Soc. 56, 93–108 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jauréguiberry, F.: Retour sur les théories du non-usage des technologies de communication. In: Proulx, S., Klein, A. (eds.) Connexions: communication numérique et lieu social, pp. 335–350. Presses universitaires de Namur, Namur (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kiran, A.H., Oudshoorn, N., Verbeek, P.P.: Beyond checklists: toward an ethical-constructive technology assessment. J. Responsible Innov. 2(1), 5–19 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Locke, J.: Two Treatises of Government (1689)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mackay, H., Gillespie, G.: Extending the social shaping of technology approach: ideology and appropriation. Soc. Stud. Sci. 22(4), 685–716 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    More, M.: The philosophy of Transhumanism. In: More, M., Vita- More, N. (eds.) The Transhumanist Reader: Classical and Contemporary Essays on the Science, Technology, and Philosophy of the Human Future, 1 edn. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester (2013)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Muaremi, A., Arnrich, B., Tröster, G.: Towards measuring stress with smartphones and wearable devices during workday and sleep. BioNanoScience 3(2), 172–183 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    O’neill, O.: Autonomy and Trust in Bioethics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    O’Connor, S.: Wearables at work: the new frontier of employee surveillance. Financial Times (2015)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Parasuraman, R., Riley, V.: Humans and automation: use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Hum. Factors 39(2), 230–253 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Riemer, K., Johnston, R.B.: Place-making: a phenomenological theory of technology appropriation. In: ICIS Orlando (2012)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sandberg, A.: An overview of models of technological singularity. In: More, M., Vita-More, N. (eds.) The Transhumanist Reader: Classical and Contemporary Essays on the Science, Technology, and Philosophy of the Human Future, 1 edn. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester (2013)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sarasvathy, S.D.: Effectual reasoning in entrepreneurial decision making: existence and bounds. In: Academy of Management Proceedings, vol. 2001, no. 1, pp. D1–D6. Academy of Management, Briarcliff Manor, August 2001Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Solberg, B.: Biobank consent models—are we moving toward increased participant engagement in biobanking. J. Biorepository Sci. Appl. Med. 3, 23–33 (2015)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vijayasarathy, L.R.: Predicting consumer intentions to use on-line shopping: the case for an augmented technology acceptance model. Inf. Manage. 41(6), 747–762 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Weston, M.: Wearable surveillance–a step too far? Strateg. HR Rev. 14(6), 214–219 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Yang, H., Yu, J., Zo, H., Choi, M.: User acceptance of wearable devices: an extended perspective of perceived value. Telematics Inf. 33(2), 256–269 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations