Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence as Continuous Proportionalization: Fashion Image Generation at OTTO

Inhaltsverzeichnis

Bibliographische Infos

Cover der Ausgabe: Swiss Journal of Business Jahrgang 80 (2026), Heft 1
Open Access Vollzugriff

Swiss Journal of Business

Jahrgang 80 (2026), Heft 1

Autor:innen:
Verlag
Nomos, Baden-Baden
Copyrightjahr
2026
ISSN-Online
2944-3741
ISSN-Print
2944-3741

Kapitelinformationen

Open Access Vollzugriff

Jahrgang 80 (2026), Heft 1

Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence as Continuous Proportionalization: Fashion Image Generation at OTTO

Autor:innen:
ISSN-Print
2944-3741
ISSN-Online
2944-3741
Kapitelvorschau:

Die inhärente Ambivalenz und die zunehmende Nutzung künstlicher Intelligenz (KI) werfen drängende normative Fragen auf. Die Literatur ist sich einig, dass verantwortungsvolle KI-Nutzung Governance auf der organisationalen Ebene erfordert. Uneinigkeit besteht jedoch darüber, was verantwortungsvolle KI-Nutzung ist und wie sie entsteht. Dieser Artikel betrachtet verantwortungsvolle KI-Nutzung als Prozess und Ergebnis sozialer Evaluation. Er entwickelt ein konzeptionelles Modell („kontinuierliche Proportionalisierung“), das erklärt, wie Organisationen kollektive Interpretationen verantwortungsvoller KI-Nutzung entlang der Dimensionen Legitimität, Geeignetheit, Notwendigkeit und Verhältnismässigkeit konstruieren. Zur Veranschaulichung wird das Modell auf KI-basierte Fashion-Bildgenerierung bei Deutschlands führendem E-Commerce-Unternehmen OTTO angewendet.

Literaturverzeichnis

  1. Kranzberg, M. (1986). Technology and History: ‘Kranzberg’s Laws.’Technology and Culture 27(3): 544–560. https://doi.org/10.2307/3105385. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-1
  2. Bach, T. A., Kaarstad, M., Solberg, E., & Babic, A. (2025). Insights into suggested Responsible AI (RAI) practices in real-world settings: a systematic literature review. AI and Ethics, 5(3), 3185–3232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-024-00648-7 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  3. Bitektine, A., & Haack, P. (2015). The “macro” and the “micro” of legitimacy: Toward a multilevel theory of the legitimacy process. Academy of Management Review, 40(1), 49–75. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2013.0318 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  4. Bughin, J. (2025a). Doing versus saying: responsible AI among large firms. AI & Society, 40(4), 2751–2763. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-024-02014-x Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  5. Bughin, J. (2025b). The role of AI assets and capabilities in shaping responsible AI deepening: a random forest machine learning view. AI and Ethics, 5(6), 6313–6327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-025-00802-9 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  6. Christophersen, T., & Pärn, J. (2021). Data Science bei OTTO. In P. Buxmann & H. Schmidt (Eds.), Künstliche Intelligenz (pp. 101–115). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-61794-6_6 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  7. Cihon, P., Schuett, J., & Baum, S. D. (2021). Corporate governance of artificial intelligence in the public interest. Information (Basel), 12(7), 275. https://doi.org/10.3390/info12070275 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  8. Coeckelbergh, M. (2020). AI Ethics. MIT Press. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  9. Coeckelbergh, M. (2024). Artificial intelligence, the common good, and the democratic deficit in AI governance. AI and Ethics, 5(2), 1491–1497. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-024-00492-9 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  10. Cohen-Eliya, M., & Porat, I. (2010). American balancing and German proportionality: The historical origins. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 8(2), 263–286. https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/moq004 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  11. de-Lima-Santos, M.-F., Yeung, W. N., & Dodds, T. (2025). Guiding the way: a comprehensive examination of AI guidelines in global media. AI & Society, 40(4), 2585–2603. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-024-01973-5 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  12. Elia, M., Ziethmann, P., Krumme, J., Schlögl-Flierl, K., & Bauer, B. (2025). Responsible AI, ethics, and the AI lifecycle: how to consider the human influence? AI and Ethics, 5(4), 4011–4028. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-025-00666-z Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  13. Floridi, L., Cowls, J., Beltrametti, M., Chatila, R., Chazerand, P., Dignum, V., Luetge, C., Madelin, R., Pagallo, U., Rossi, F., Schafer, B., Valcke, P., & Vayena, E. (2018). AI4People-An Ethical Framework for a Good AI Society: Opportunities, Risks, Principles, and Recommendations. Minds and Machines, 28(4), 689–707. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-018-9482-5 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  14. Garibay, O. O., Winslow, B., Andolina, S., Antona, M., Bodenschatz, A., Coursaris, C., Falco, G., Fiore, S. M., Garibay, I., Grieman, K., Havens, J. C., Jirotka, M., Kacorri, H., Karwowski, W., Kider, J., Konstan, J., Koon, S., Lopez-Gonzalez, M., Maifeld-Carucci, I., … Xu, W. (2023). Six Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence Grand Challenges. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 39(3), 391–437. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2022.2153320 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  15. Gerken, T. (2024, December 11). Chatbot “encouraged teen to kill parents over screen time limit.” BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd605e48q1vo Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  16. Gogoll, J., Zuber, N., Kacianka, S., Greger, T., Pretschner, A., & Nida-Rümelin, J. (2021). Ethics in the Software Development Process: from Codes of Conduct to Ethical Deliberation. Philosophy & Technology, 34(4), 1085–1108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-021-00451-w Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  17. Hagendorff, T. (2022). A virtue-based framework to support putting AI ethics into practice. Philosophy & Technology, 35(3), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-022-00553-z Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  18. Heger, A. K., Passi, S., Dhanorkar, S., Kahn, Z., Wang, R., & Vorvoreanu, M. (2025). Towards a Responsible AI Organizational Maturity model. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 9(7), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1145/3757514 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  19. Horneber, D. (2025). Understanding the implementation of responsible artificial intelligence in organizations: A Neo-institutional theory perspective. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 57, 8. https://doi.org/10.17705/1cais.05708 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  20. Jobin, A., Ienca, M., & Vayena, E. (2019). The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(9), 389–399. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  21. Kallina, E., & Singh, J. (2024). Stakeholder involvement for responsible AI development: A process framework. Proceedings of the 4th ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3689904.3694698 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  22. Karliuk, M. (2023). Proportionality principle for the ethics of artificial intelligence. AI and Ethics, 3(3), 985–990. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-022-00220-1 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  23. Katirai, A., Garcia, N., Ide, K., Nakashima, Y., & Kishimoto, A. (2024). Situating the social issues of image generation models in the model life cycle: a sociotechnical approach. AI and Ethics, 5(2), 1769–1786. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-024-00517-3 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  24. Krijger, J., Thuis, T., de Ruiter, M., Ligthart, E., & Broekman, I. (2023). The AI ethics maturity model: a holistic approach to advancing ethical data science in organizations. AI and Ethics, 3(2), 355–367. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-022-00228-7 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  25. Kuznia, R., Gordon, A., & Lavandera, E. (2025, November 6). “You”re not rushing. You’re just ready:’ Parents say ChatGPT encouraged son to kill himself. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/06/us/openai-chatgpt-suicide-lawsuit-invs-vis Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  26. Mikalef, P., Conboy, K., Lundström, J. E., & Popovič, A. (2022). Thinking responsibly about responsible AI and “the dark side” of AI. European Journal of Information Systems: An Official Journal of the Operational Research Society, 31(3), 257–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085x.2022.2026621 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  27. Minkkinen, M., Zimmer, M. P., & Mäntymäki, M. (2023). Co-shaping an ecosystem for responsible AI: Five types of expectation work in response to a technological frame. Information Systems Frontiers: A Journal of Research and Innovation, 25(1), 103–121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-022-10269-2 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  28. Mittelstadt, B. (2019). Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(11), 501–507. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0114-4 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  29. Otto. (2021, September 16). Ethik vs. Wirtschaftlichkeit, können wir KI vertrauen? | MAIN Session – OTTO [Ethics vs. economics, can we trust AI?]. Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiay2hfDiOg Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  30. Polanyi, M. (1962). The Republic of science: Its political and economic theory. Minerva, 1(1), 54–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01101453 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  31. Radford, A., Kim, J. W., Xu, T., Brockman, G., McLeavey, C., & Sutskever, I. (2022). Robust Speech Recognition via Large-Scale Weak Supervision. In arXiv [eess.AS]. arXiv. http://arxiv.org/abs/2212.04356 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  32. Rufo, Y. (2025, July 27). What Guess’s AI model in Vogue means for beauty standards. BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgeqe084nn4o Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  33. Ryan, M., & Stahl, B. C. (2021). Artificial intelligence ethics guidelines for developers and users: clarifying their content and normative implications. Journal of Information Communication and Ethics in Society, 19(1), 61–86. https://doi.org/10.1108/jices-12-2019-0138 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  34. Saharia, C., Chan, W., Saxena, S., Li, L., Whang, J., Denton, E. L., Ghasemipour, S. K. S., Ayan, B. K., Mahdavi, S. S., Lopes, R. G., Salimans, T., Ho, J., Fleet, D. J., & Norouzi, M. (2022). Photorealistic text-to-image diffusion models with deep language understanding. Neural Information Processing Systems, abs/2205.11487, 36479–36494. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2205.11487 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  35. Sobek, T., & Montag, J. (2018). Proportionality Test. In Encyclopedia of Law and Economics (pp. 1–5). Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7883-6_721-1 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  36. Stahl, B. C. (2012). Responsible research and innovation in information systems. European Journal of Information Systems: An Official Journal of the Operational Research Society, 21(3), 207–211. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2012.19 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  37. Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571. https://doi.org/10.2307/258788 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  38. Suddaby, R., Bitektine, A., & Haack, P. (2017). Legitimacy. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 451–478. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2015.0101 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  39. Taddeo, M., & Floridi, L. (2018). How AI can be a force for good. Science, 361(6404), 751–752. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat5991 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  40. Watson, D. S., Mökander, J., & Floridi, L. (2025). Competing narratives in AI ethics: a defense of sociotechnical pragmatism. AI & Society, 40(5), 3163–3185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-024-02128-2 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  41. Yilma, K. (2025). From principles to process: the principlist approach to AI ethics and lessons from Internet bills of rights. AI and Ethics, 5(4), 4279–4291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-025-00719-3 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  42. Yin, R. K. (1981). The Case Study Crisis: Some Answers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(1), 58–65. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392599 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  43. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. SAGE Publications. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  44. Zhang, Z., & Wang, J. (2024). Can AI replace psychotherapists? Exploring the future of mental health care. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 15, 1444382. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1444382 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  45. Acemoglu, D., & Restrepo, P. (2020). Robots and jobs: Evidence from US labor markets. Journal of political economy, 128(6), 2188-2244. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-30
  46. AI Champions. (2025). Stop the Clock: Open Letter Calling for an EU AI Act Pause. Available online at: https://aichampions.eu (Call 16.01.2026) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-30
  47. Beckmann, M., & Pies, I. (2016). The constitution of responsibility: Toward an ordonomic framework for interpreting (corporate social) responsibility in different social settings. In Order ethics: An ethical framework for the social market economy (pp. 221-250). Cham: Springer International Publishing. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-30
  48. Bijker, W. E. (1997). Of bicycles, bakelites, and bulbs: Toward a theory of sociotechnical change. MIT press. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-30
  49. Binns, R. (2018). Fairness in Machine Learning: Lessons from Political Philosophy. Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAT), 149–159. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-30
  50. Buchanan, J. M. (2000). Reason of Rules—Constitutional Political Economy. Liberty Fund Incorporated, us. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-30
  51. Burrell, J. (2016). How the machine ‘thinks’: Understanding opacity in machine learning algorithms. Big data & society, 3(1), 2053951715622512. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-30
  52. Eucken, W. (1952/1990). Grundsätze der Wirtschaftspolitik. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-30
  53. Floridi, L. & Cowls, J. (2019). A Unified Framework of Five Principles for AI in Society. Philosophy & Technology, 32(4), 685–703. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-30
  54. Friedman, B. & Hendry, D. (2019). Value Sensitive Design: Shaping Technology with Moral Imagination. MIT Press. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-30
  55. Future of Life Institute. (2023). Pause Giant AI Experiments: An Open Letter. Available online at: (https://futureoflife.org/open-letter/pause-giant-ai-experiments/ ) (Call 16.01.2026) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-30
  56. Gebru, T., Morgenstern, J., Vecchione, B., Vaughan, J. W., Wallach, H., Iii, H. D., & Crawford, K. (2021). Datasheets for datasets. Communications of the ACM, 64(12), 86-92. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-30
  57. Hedfeld, P. (2025a). Implicit decision voting made by humans as normative and implementable rules with the help of language models. In R. Buchkremer, O. Koch & A. Lischka (Hrsg.), ifid Schriftenreihe: Beiträge zu IT-Management & Digitalisierung (Bd. 3). FOM-Hochschule für Oekonomie & Management. ISBN 978-3-89275-395-7. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-30
  58. Hedfeld, P. (2025b). Essay: Mit der Langfristigkeit im Herzen–Nachhaltigkeit und Generationengerechtigkeit, eine interdisziplinäre Perspektive zwischen Sozialpädagogik und Wirtschaftsethik. Zeitschrift für Sozialpädagogik, (1). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-30
  59. Homann, K. (2002). Vorteile und Anreize: Zur Grundlegung einer Ethik der Zukunft. Mohr Siebeck. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-30
  60. Homann, K., & Pies, I. (2000). Wirtschaftsethik und Ordnungspolitik–Die Rolle wissenschaftlicher Aufklärung. Ordnungstheorie und Ordnungspolitik–Konzeptionen und Entwicklungsperspektiven, Stuttgart, 329-346. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-30
  61. Jobin, A., Ienca, M. & Vayena, E. (2019). The Global Landscape of AI Ethics Guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(9), 389–399. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-30
  62. Minnameier, G. (2016). Rationalität und Moralität: Zum systematischen Ort der Moral im Kontext von Präferenzen und Restriktionen. Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts-und Unternehmensethik, 17(2), 259. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-30
  63. Minnameier, G. (2025). Ordonomik und Bildung: Verantwortung für die moderne Gesellschaft (p. 372). wbv Media. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-30
  64. Mitchell, M. (2019). Artificial Intelligence: A Guide for Thinking Humans. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-30
  65. Mitchell, M., Wu, S., Zaldivar, A., et al. (2019). Model Cards for Model Reporting. Proceedings of FAT 2019, 220–229. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-30
  66. OECD. (2019). OECD Principles on Artificial Intelligence. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/ai-principles.html (Call 16.01.2026) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-30
  67. Pies, I. (2000). Ordnungspolitik in der Demokratie: Ein ökonomischer Ansatz diskursiver Politikberatung. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. ISBN 3-16-147507-0. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-30
  68. Pies, I. (2017a). Ordonomik als Methode zur Generierung von Überbietungsargumenten: Eine Illustration anhand der Flüchtlings (politik) debatte (No. 2017-03). Diskussionspapier. https://doi.org/10.5771/1439-880X-2017-2-171 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-30
  69. Pies, I. (2017b). The ordonomic approach to business ethics. Available at SSRN 2973614. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-30
  70. Pies, I. (2022). Kapitalismus und das Moralparadoxon der Moderne. Berlin: wvb Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Berlin. ISBN 978-3-96138-310-8 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-30
  71. Pies, I. (2025). The interplay of incentives and ideas: An intellectual journey from order economics through order ethics to ordonomics (No. 2025-08). Diskussionspapier. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/325828/1/1936155664.pdf (Call 16.01.2025) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-30
  72. Raghavan, M., Barocas, S., Kleinberg, J. & Levy, K. (2020). Mitigating Bias in Algorithmic Hiring: Evaluating Claims and Practices. Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT), 469–481. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-30
  73. Raji, I. D., Smart, A., White, R. N., Mitchell, M., Gebru, T., Hutchinson, B., ... & Barnes, P. (2020, January). Closing the AI accountability gap: Defining an end-to-end framework for internal algorithmic auditing. In Proceedings of the 2020 conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency (pp. 33-44). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-30
  74. Selbst, A. D., Boyd, D., Friedler, S. A., Venkatasubramanian, S., & Vertesi, J. (2019, January). Fairness and abstraction in sociotechnical systems. In Proceedings of the conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency (pp. 59-68). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-30
  75. Seufert, S., & Meier, C. (2023). Hybrid Intelligence: Collaboration with AI Systems for Knowledge Work. HMD Praxis der Wirtschaftsinformatik, 60(6), 1194-1209. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-30
  76. Stilgoe, J., Owen, R. & Macnaghten, P. (2013). Developing a Framework for Responsible Innovation. Research Policy, 42(9), 1568–1580. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-30
  77. Suchman, L. (2007). Human-Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Actions. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-30
  78. UNESCO. (2021). Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. Paris: UNESCO. https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/recommendation-ethics-artificial-intelligence (Call 16.01.2026) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-30
  79. Voss, J. P., Bauknecht, D., & Kemp, R. (Eds.). (2006). Reflexive governance for sustainable development. Edward Elgar Publishing. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-30
  80. Williamson, B., & Piattoeva, N. (2022). Education governance and datafication. Education and Information Technologies, 27, 3515-3531. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-30
  81. Agarwal, A., & Nene, M. J. (2025). A five-layer framework for AI governance: Integrating regulation, standards, and certification. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 19(3), 535–555. https://doi.org/10.1108/TG-03-2025-0065 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-50
  82. Alanoca, S., Gur-Arieh, S., Zick, T., & Klyman, K. (2025). Comparing Apples to Oranges: A Taxonomy for Navigating the Global Landscape of AI Regulation. Proceedings of the 2025 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 914–937. https://doi.org/10.1145/3715275.3732059 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-50
  83. Attard-Frost, B., & Walters, D. R. (o. J.). The Ethics of AI Business Practices: A Review of 47 AI Ethics Guidelines. AI Ethics 3, 389–406 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-022-00156-6 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-50
  84. Bankins, S., & Formosa, P. (2023). The Ethical Implications of Artificial Intelligence (AI) For Meaningful Work. Journal of Business Ethics, 185(4), 725–740. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-023-05339-7 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-50
  85. Batool, A., Zowghi, D., & Bano, M. (2025). AI governance: A systematic literature review. AI and Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-024-00653-w Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-50
  86. Berretta, S., Tausch, A., Ontrup, G., Gilles, B., Peifer, C., & Kluge, A. (2023). Defining human-AI teaming the human-centered way: A scoping review and network analysis. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 6, 1250725. https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2023.1250725 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-50
  87. Birkstedt, T., Minkkinen, M., Tandon, A., & Mäntymäki, M. (2023). AI governance: Themes, knowledge gaps and future agendas. Internet Research, 33(7), 133–167. https://doi.org/10.1108/INTR-01-2022-0042 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-50
  88. Brynjolfsson, E., Li, D., & Raymond, L. (2025). Generative AI at Work. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 140(2), 889–942. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjae044 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-50
  89. Cabiddu, F., Lauro, S. D., Samaan, D., & Tursunbayeva, A. (o. J.). Governing AI in the World of Work: An International Review of 245 Ethics Guidelines. Available at SSRN. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5397353 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-50
  90. Camilleri, M. A. (2024). Artificial intelligence governance: Ethical considerations and implications for social responsibility. Expert Systems, 41(7), Article 7. https://doi.org/10.1111/exsy.13406 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-50
  91. Corrêa, N. K., Galvão, C., Santos, J. W., Del Pino, C., Pinto, E. P., Barbosa, C., Massmann, D., Mambrini, R., Galvão, L., Terem, E., & De Oliveira, N. (2023). Worldwide AI ethics: A review of 200 guidelines and recommendations for AI governance. Patterns, 4(10), 100857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2023.100857 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-50
  92. Di Vito, J., & Trottier, K. (2022). A Literature Review on Corporate Governance Mechanisms: Past, Present, and Future*. Accounting Perspectives, 21(2), 207–235. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3838.12279 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-50
  93. European Partliament (2024). Artificial Intelligence Act (Regulation (EU), 2024/1689) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-50
  94. Floridi, L., Cowls, J., Beltrametti, M., Chatila, R., Chazerand, P., Dignum, V., Luetge, C., Madelin, R., Pagallo, U., Rossi, F., Schafer, B., Valcke, P., & Vayena, E. (2018). AI4People—An Ethical Framework for a Good AI Society: Opportunities, Risks, Principles, and Recommendations. Minds and Machines, 28(4), 689–707. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-018-9482-5 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-50
  95. Hagendorff, T. (2020). The Ethics of AI Ethics: An Evaluation of Guidelines. Minds and Machines, 30(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-020-09517-8 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-50
  96. Herrmann, T., & Pfeiffer, S. (2023). Keeping the organization in the loop: A socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence. AI & SOCIETY, 38(4), 1523–1542. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01391-5 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-50
  97. Hickman, E., & Petrin, M. (2021). Trustworthy AI and Corporate Governance: The EU’s Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence from a Company Law Perspective. European Business Organization Law Review, 22(4), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40804-021-00224-0 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-50
  98. Hickok, M. (2021). Lessons learned from AI ethics principles for future actions. AI and Ethics, 1(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-020-00008-1 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-50
  99. Jarzabkowski, P., & Paul Spee, A. (2009). Strategy‐as‐practice: A review and future directions for the field. International Journal of Management Reviews, 11(1), 69–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2008.00250.x Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-50
  100. Jobin, A., Ienca, M., & Vayena, E. (2019). The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(9), Article 9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-50
  101. Leonardi, P. M., & Treem, J. W. (2020). Behavioral Visibility: A new paradigm for organization studies in the age of digitization, digitalization, and datafication. Organization Studies, 41(12), 1601–1625. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840620970728 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-50
  102. Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J., & Bracken, C. C. (2002). Content Analysis in Mass Communication: Assessment and Reporting of Intercoder Reliability. Human Communication Research, 28(4), 587–604. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00826.x Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-50
  103. Maman, L., & Feldman, Y. (2025). Compliance and Effectiveness of Industry Self-Regulation: A Systematic Literature Review. Available at SSRN. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5233166 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-50
  104. Mäntymäki, M., Minkkinen, M., Birkstedt, T., & Viljanen, M. (2022a). Putting AI Ethics into Practice: The Hourglass Model of Organizational AI Governance (No. arXiv:2206.00335; Nummer arXiv:2206.00335). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2206.00335 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-50
  105. Mäntymäki, M., Minkkinen, M., Birkstedt, T., & Viljanen, M. (2022b). Defining organizational AI governance. AI and Ethics, 2(4), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-022-00143-x Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-50
  106. Mayring, P., & Fenzl, T. (2014). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. In N. Baur & J. Blasius (Eds.), Handbuch Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung (pp. 543–556). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-18939-0_38 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-50
  107. Mayring, P. (2019). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse – Abgrenzungen, Spielarten, Weiterentwicklungen. Forum Qualitative Social Research, 20(3), 15. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-20.3.3343 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-50
  108. Meske, C., Bunde, E., Schneider, J., & Gersch, M. (2022). Explainable Artificial Intelligence: Objectives, Stakeholders, and Future Research Opportunities. Information Systems Management, 39(1), 53–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/10580530.2020.1849465 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-50
  109. Mueller, B. (2022). Corporate Digital Responsibility. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 64(5), 689–700. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-022-00760-0 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-50
  110. Nitsch, V., Rick, V., Kluge, A., & Wilkens, U. (2024). Human-centered approaches to AI-assisted work: The future of work? Zeitschrift Für Arbeitswissenschaft, 78(3), 261–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41449-024-00437-2 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-50
  111. Orlikowski, W. J., & Scott, S. V. (2008). 10 Sociomateriality: Challenging the Separation of Technology, Work and Organization. Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 433–474. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520802211644 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-50
  112. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-50
  113. Papagiannidis, E., Mikalef, P., & Conboy, K. (2025). Responsible artificial intelligence governance: A review and research framework. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 34(2), 101885. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2024.101885 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-50
  114. Parker, S. K., & Grote, G. (2022). Automation, Algorithms, and Beyond: Why Work Design Matters More Than Ever in a Digital World. Applied Psychology, 71(4), 1171–1204. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12241 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-50
  115. Prem, E. (2023). From ethical AI frameworks to tools: A review of approaches. AI and Ethics, 3(3), 699–716. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-023-00258-9 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-50
  116. Prem, E. (2024). Approaches to Ethical AI. In H. Werthner, C. Ghezzi, J. Kramer, J. Nida-Rümelin, B. Nuseibeh, E. Prem, & A. Stanger (Hrsg.), Introduction to Digital Humanism (S. 225–239). Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-45304-5_15 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-50
  117. Schneider, J., Abraham, R., Meske, C., & Vom Brocke, J. (2023). Artificial Intelligence Governance For Businesses. Information Systems Management, 40(3), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.1080/10580530.2022.2085825 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-50
  118. Schneider, J., Abraham, R., & Meske, C. (2024). Governance of generative artificial intelligence for companies. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.08802. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2403.08802 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-50
  119. Seidl, D., Ma, S., & Splitter, V. (2024). What makes activities strategic: Toward a new framework for strategy‐as‐practice research. Strategic Management Journal, 45(12), 2395–2419. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3668 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-50
  120. Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-50
  121. Stahl, B. C., Antoniou, J., Ryan, M., Macnish, K., & Jiya, T. (2022). Organisational responses to the ethical issues of artificial intelligence. AI & SOCIETY, 37(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-021-01148-6 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-50
  122. Viljanen, M., & Parviainen, H. (2022). AI Applications and Regulation: Mapping the Regulatory Strata. Frontiers in Computer Science, 3, 779957. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomp.2021.779957 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-50
  123. Von Krogh, G. (2018). Artificial Intelligence in Organizations: New Opportunities for Phenomenon-Based Theorizing. Academy of Management Discoveries, 4(4), 404–409. https://doi.org/10.5465/amd.2018.0084 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-50
  124. Whittington, R. (2006). Completing the Practice Turn in Strategy Research. Organization Studies, 27(5), 613–634. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840606064101 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-50
  125. Widder, D. G., & Nafus, D. (2023). Dislocated accountabilities in the “AI supply chain”: Modularity and developers’ notions of responsibility. Big Data & Society, 10(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517231177620 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-50
  126. Wilkens, U., Lupp, D., & Langholf, V. (2023). Configurations of human-centered AI at work: Seven actor-structure engagements in organizations. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 6, 1272159. https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2023.1272159 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-50
  127. Wirtz, B. W., Weyerer, J. C., & Kehl, I. (2022). Governance of artificial intelligence: A risk and guideline-based integrative framework. Government Information Quarterly, 39(4), 101685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2022.101685 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-50
  128. European Union. (2024). Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act). Official Journal of the European Union. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-72
  129. Floridi, L., Cowls, J., Beltrametti, M., Chatila, R., Chazerand, P., Dignum, V., Luetge, C., Madelin, R., Pagallo, U., Rossi, F., Schafer, B., Valcke, P., & Vayena, E. (2018). AI4People – An ethical framework for a good AI society: Opportunities and risks. Minds and Machines, 28(4), 689-707. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-018-9482-5 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-72
  130. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709-734. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080335 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-72
  131. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2019). OECD AI principles. Adopted May 2019; updated May 2024. OECD. https://oecd.ai/en/ai-principles Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-72
  132. UNESCO. (2021). Recommendation on the ethics of artificial intelligence. Adopted 23 November 2021. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-72
  133. VanderWeele, T. J. (2017). On the promotion of human flourishing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114(31), 8148-8156. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1702996114 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-72
  134. Heikkilae, M. (2022, December 12). The viral AI avatar app Lensa undressed me – without my consent. MIT Technology Review. https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/12/12/1064751/the-viral-ai-avatar-app-lensa-undressed-me-without-my-consent Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-77
  135. IDA. (2025). International Data-Based Systems Agency IDA at the UN: Supporters of IDA. IDA. Retrieved October 9, 2025, from https://idaonline.ch/supporters-of-ida/ Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-77
  136. Johnson, D. G. (2006). Computer systems: Moral entities but not moral agents. Ethics and Information Technology, 8(4), 195-204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-006-9111-5 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-77
  137. Kirchschlaeger, P. G. (2021). Digital Transformation and Ethics. Ethical Considerations on the robotization and automation of society and the economy and the use of Artificial Intelligence. Nomos. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-77
  138. Kirchschlaeger, P. G. (2022). Ethische KI? Datenbasierte Systeme (DS) mit Ethik. HMD-Praxis der Wirtschaftsinformatik, 59(2), 482-494. https://doi.org/10.1365/s40702-022-00843-2 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-77
  139. Kirchschlaeger, P. G. (2023). Ethical Decision-Making. Nomos. https://doi.org/10.5771/9783748918684 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-77
  140. Kirchschlaeger, P. G. (2024a, April 11). In an era of digital disruptions, ethics can’t be an afterthought – Part 1. Business and Human Rights Journal Blog. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-77
  141. https://www.cambridge.org/core/blog/2024/04/11/in-an-era-of-digital-disruptions-ethics-cant-be-an-afterthought/ Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-77
  142. Kirchschlaeger, P. G. (2024b, April 12). In an era of digital disruptions, ethics can’t be an afterthought – Part 2. Business and Human Rights Journal Blog. https://www.cambridge.org/core/blog/2024/04/12/in-an-era-of-digital-disruptions-ethics-cant-be-an-afterthought-part-2/ Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-77
  143. Kirchschlaeger, P. G. (2024c). Artificial intelligence and the complexity of ethics. Asian Horizons, 14(3), 375-389. https://dvkjournals.in/index.php/ah/article/view/4590/3752 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-77
  144. Kirchschlaeger, P. G. (2024d, December 3). Protecting children from Anti-Social media. Project Syndicate. https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/australia-ban-on-children-using-social-media-should-be-emulated-by-peter-g-kirchschlager-2024-12 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-77
  145. Kirchschlaeger, P. G. (2024e). The need for an International Data-Based Systems Agency (IDA) at the UN: governing “AI” globally by keeping the planet sustainably and protecting the weaker from the powerful. Journal of AI Humanities, 18, 213-248. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-77
  146. Kirchschlaeger, P. G. (2024f). An International Data-Based Systems Agency IDA: striving for a peaceful, sustainable, and Human Rights-Based future. Philosophies, 9(3), 73. https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies9030073 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-77
  147. Kirchschlaeger, P. G. (2024g). Securing a peaceful, sustainable, and humane future through an International Data-based Systems Agency (IDA) at the UN. Data & Policy, 6(78). https://doi.org/10.1017/dap.2024.38 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-77
  148. Kirchschlaeger, P.G. (2025). Artificial Intelligence – an Analysis from the Rights of the Child Perspective. Berkley Journal of International Law. https://www.berkeleyjournalofinternationallaw.com/post/artificial-intelligence-an-analysis-from-the-rights-of-the-child-perspective Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-77
  149. Lensa. (2025). Lensa AI: Influencers’ best kept secret. Lensa App. Retrieved October 9, 2025, from https://lensa.app/ Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-77
  150. Misselhorn, C. (2018). Grundfragen der Maschinenethik. Reclam. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-77
  151. Snow, O. (2022, December 7). ‘Magic Avatar’ app Lensa generated nudes from my childhood photos. The dreamy picture-editing AI is a nightmare waiting to happen. Wired. https://www.wired.com/story/lensa-artificial-intelligence-csem/?bxid=5cc9e15efc942d13eb203f10 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-77
  152. Yampolskiy, R.V. (2013). Artificial Intelligence Safety Engineering: Why Machine Ethics Is a Wrong Approach. In V. Müller (Ed), Philosophy and Theory of Artificial Intelligence. Studies in Applied Philosophy, Epistemology and Rational Ethics (pp. 389-396). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31674-6_2 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-77
  153. Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Review: Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107–136. https://doi.org/10.2307/3250961 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-83
  154. Caddy, I. (2000). Intellectual capital: recognizing both assets and liabilities. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 1(2), 129-146. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-83
  155. Carayannis, E. G., & Morawska-Jancelewicz, J. (2022). The Futures of Europe: Society 5.0 and Industry 5.0 as Driving Forces of Future Universities. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 13(4), 3445-3471. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-021-00854-2 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-83
  156. Dalkir, K. (2025). Handbook of inclusive knowledge management. CRC Press, Abingdon, Oxon. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-83
  157. Davenport, T. H. (1994). Saving IT's Soul: Human Centered Information Management. Harvard Business Review, March-April, 72(2), 119-131. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-83
  158. Davenport, T., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know. Ubiquity 2000, August, Article 6 (August 1 - August 31, 2000). https://doi.org/10.1145/347634.348775 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-83
  159. de Holan, P. M., & Phillips, N. (2004). Organizational forgetting as strategy. Strategic Organization, 2(4), 423-433. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127004047620 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-83
  160. Du Plessis, M. (2007). The role of knowledge management in innovation. Journal of knowledge management, 11(4), 20-29. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-83
  161. Durst, S. (2024). A plea for responsible and inclusive knowledge management at the world level. VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems; 54(1), 211–219. https://doi.org/10.1108/VJIKMS-09-2021-0204 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-83
  162. Durst, S., & Foli, S. (2024). Responsible and inclusive knowledge management made concrete. In Handbook of Inclusive Knowledge Management: Ensuring Inclusivity, Diversity, and Equity in Knowledge Processing Activities (pp. 1-12). CRC Press. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-83
  163. Durst, S., & Khadir, Y. (2025). Towards Responsible Knowledge Management. In S. Durst and Y. Khadir (eds) Knowledge Management at the Crossroads. Navigating Risks and Benefits (pp. 79-88). Springer, Cham. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-83
  164. Durst, S., & Zieba, M. (2018). Mapping knowledge risks: towards a better understanding of knowledge management. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 17(1), 1-13, https://doi.org/10.1080/14778238.2018.1538603 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-83
  165. Dyllick, T., & Muff, K. (2016). Clarifying the Meaning of Sustainable Business: Introducing a Typology From Business-as-Usual to True Business Sustainability. Organization & Environment, 29(2), 156-174. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026615575176 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-83
  166. Ferreira, J., Mueller, J., & Papa, A. (2020). Strategic knowledge management: theory, practice and future challenges. Journal of Knowledge Management, 24 (2), 121–126. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-07-2018-0461 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-83
  167. McGill, M. E., & Slocum, J. W. (1993). Unlearning the organization. Organizational Dynamics, 22(2), 67–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(93)90054-5 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-83
  168. Merhi, M. I. (2023). An evaluation of the critical success factors impacting artificial intelligence implementation. International Journal of Information Management, 69, 102545. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-83
  169. Mökander, J., Sheth, M., Gersbro-Sundler, M., Blomgren, P., & Floridi, L. (2022). Challenges and best practices in corporate AI governance: Lessons from the biopharmaceutical industry. Frontiers in Computer Science, 4, 1068361. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomp.2022.1068361 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-83
  170. Ng, D. T. K., Leung, J. K. L., Chu, S. K. W., & Qiao, M. S. (2021). Conceptualizing AI literacy: An exploratory review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2, 100041. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-83
  171. Schneider, J., Abraham, R., Meske, C., & Vom Brocke, J. (2023). Artificial Intelligence Governance For Businesses. Information Systems Management, 40(3), 229–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/10580530.2022.2085825 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-83
  172. Williams, C., & Durst, S. (2019). Exploring the transition phase in offshore outsourcing: Decision making amidst knowledge at risk. Journal of Business Research, 103, 460-471. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-83
  173. Zack, M.H. (2002). Developing a knowledge strategy. California Management Review, 41(3), 125-223. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-83
  174. Baudrillard, J. (1981). Simulacra and simulation. University of Michigan Press. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-89
  175. California Legislature. (2025). Senate Bill No. 243: Companion chatbots. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB243 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-89
  176. Chandra Kruse, L., Bergener, K., Conboy, K., Lundström, J. E., Maedche, A., Sarker, S., Seeber, I., Stein, A., & Tømte, C. E. (2023). Understanding the Digital Companions of Our Future Generation. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 52, 465-479. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-89
  177. European Parliament. (2025, October 16). New EU measures needed to make online services safer for minors. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20251013IPR30892/new-eu-measures-needed-to-make-online-services-safer-for-minors Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-89
  178. Huang, S., Lai, X., Ke, L., Li, Y., Wang, H., Zhao, X., ... & Wang, Y. (2024). AI technology panic—is AI dependence bad for mental health? A cross-lagged panel model and the mediating roles of motivations for AI use among adolescents. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 1087-1102. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-89
  179. Langhof, J. G., & Güldenberg, S. (2022). The rise of the robot servant-leaders? Next generation leadership. The International Journal of Servant-Leadership, 16(1), 381–424. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-89
  180. McKinsey (2025). Superagency in the workplace: Empowering people to unlock AI’s full potential (AI in the workplace: A report for 2025). https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/tech-and-ai/our-insights/superagency-in-the-workplace-empowering-people-to-unlock-ais-full-potential-at-work Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-89
  181. Naddaf, M. (2025). AI chatbots are sycophants – and it's harming science. Nature, 647, 13-14. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-89
  182. Papagiannidis, E., Mikalef, P., & Conboy, K. (2025). Responsible artificial intelligence governance: A review and research framework. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 34(2), 101885. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-89
  183. Richet, J. L. (2025). AI companionship or digital entrapment? Investigating the impact of anthropomorphic AI-based chatbots. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 10(6), 100835. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-89
  184. Zao-Sanders, M. (2025, April 9) How People Are Really Using Gen AI in 2025, Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2025/04/how-people-are-really-using-gen-ai-in-2025 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-89

Zitation

Download RIS Download BibTex

Downloads

Download Kapitel (PDF) Download kompl. Werk (PDF)

Hinweis

Dieses Werk ist urheberrechtlich geschützt und darf nur nach den Vorgaben der Nutzungs- und Lizenzvereinbarung genutzt werden. Jede darüber hinaus gehende Nutzung des Werkes ist ausdrücklich untersagt und wird verfolgt.

Per E-Mail teilen

Medien