Search results

Artificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing businesses and daily life, with AI-powered technologies like personal assistants and medical diagnostic systems transforming how we interact and make decisions. However, the ethical implications of these technologies cannot be ignored. AI systems can produce biased results and decisions if not designed to be fair and unbiased. Corporate digital responsibility (CDR) provides a valuable framework for addressing these ethical dilemmas. Service organizations need to navigate CDR issues across the data and technology life-cycle stages (e.g., their creation, operation, refinement, and retention) and across its digital service ecosystem (including its external business partners). Despite the risks associated with poor CDR practices, companies may adopt them to benefit from data monetization, enhanced customer experience, and productivity improvement. To mitigate these risks and build a strong CDR culture, organizations need to establish ethical norms, prioritize customer privacy, and ensure equitable power dynamics with business partners. The emergence of generative AI poses enhanced CDR challenges, such as AI complexity, monitoring, accountability, and workforce changes. Going forward, CDR is a crucial framework for firms to address the needs of their multiple stakeholders and to ensure sustainable business practices in the increasingly digital service world.

Humans care about things. The truth of this claim is obvious, yet scholars who have evaluated student interventions and outcomes in higher education have largely neglected how student values might inform their experience with those interventions and outcomes. This chapter will rely on a philosophical conceptualization of a particular type of value known as “caring” to explore what students value as they weigh various collegiate decisions. Elaborating on findings from a qualitative study of 143 college students from eight American universities, I will summarize previous findings related to what students cared about, how those cares were structured, and what the cares and structures meant for students' pathways through college. The categorical and theoretical patterns I share demonstrate how students approached values in ways that have not typically been considered by scholars or institutional administrators. After summarizing my previous findings, I offer a conceptual argument for a “dialectical” approach that considers the mutually formative interaction between student and institutional values. The practical result of naming and understanding the dialectic realities of values in higher education is the opportunity for institutions to use their relatively greater agency to help individual students pursue what is worth pursuing without reducing the agency of those students. Thus, the dialectic places necessary boundary lines on both the institution and the student while also clarifying the opportunity to help students develop moral expertise and navigate their collegiate pathways successfully.