The Digital Divide
As society's dependency on technology increases, so the risk
increases
of creating both dangerous systems and
restrictive
systems. Technological dependency has a tendency to limit choice implicitly or explicitly as resource availability
reduces
for maintaining non-technological facilities. There is an increasing need within society to be computer literate. However, it will be several generations before the digital solution is widely accepted as the traditional and obvious solution. Acceptance is affected by whether a sense of ownership of systems exists within the using community. Such challenges point to the need on the part of planners and developers of systems to accept their social responsibility and act in a way that addresses the digital divide. Lack of education, poverty, and technology aversion all play their part in
sustaining
the digital divide.
People's perception of IT is an important factor in
realizing
the huge societal benefit that IT offers. In an international survey by British Telecommunications (1998), people were asked whether they felt advances in information and communication technologies would have a positive or negative effect on aspects of their lives. More than 40% of people globally felt there would be a positive effect on the amount of leisure time available, but interestingly more than 40% of people globally felt it would have a negative effect on the amount of human contact. This feeling was particularly strong in the U.S. (67%) and South Africa (84%). More than 70% of people globally felt it would have positive effect on flexible working. Such perceptions of ICT,
causing
major changes in work, leisure, and the way people interact, need to be
borne
in mind by all involved in providing systems. As part of their social responsibility, providers need to be sensitive of such perceptions and work with those directly and indirectly affected to allay their fears concerning, for example, redundancy and becoming disenfranchised.
Stakeholders in the Information Society
As mentioned earlier social responsibility should be a proactive action rather than a reactive action. Those involved must consider and act upon the interests of all stakeholders. The identification of stakeholders is therefore an essential element of proactive social responsibility. Many would argue that shareholders or
owners
or investors are the primary stakeholders in a business and that their welfare should be maximized, but at what cost and to whom? The traditional view of stakeholders is not sufficient, as consideration tends to be restricted to primary users, developers, decision
makers
, financiers, and legal experts. It is essential to adopt a wider perspective that includes those directly and indirectly affected by the move to the Information Society. This broadening is essential as it includes not only traditional stakeholders
viewed
from the widely accepted business perspective, but also social actors who Schot (2001) defines as "those who experience the effects of evolving technologies but [traditionally] are not actively involved in the development of technologies. They can be consumers,
citizens
,
employees
, companies, social groups, etc." This broader stakeholder consideration encourages IT professionals to be more sensitive about the systems they design and implement.
However, it is not just IT professionals who have a role to play in promoting social responsibility in the Information Society. It must include all those with some responsibility for IT systems. Johnson (2000) suggests responsibility for technology must start with those who created it, but that users of the technology have a shared responsibility for the consequences. This remains true for information technology. However, there is a wider
group
of people responsible for IT systems. These can be subdivided into people who commission the systems, people who develop the systems, people who
operate
the systems, people who use the systems, people who make overall policies under which the systems are developed and operated, and people who actively promote the systems. Each of these subgroups has a role to play in ensuring that systems are beneficial to society.
Participation of Senior Executives
The strategic vision of an organization is driven by its senior executives. This is true of all types and all sizes of organization. It is therefore imperative that senior executives are actively supportive of social responsibility within all areas of operation. There is concerning evidence that this might not be so for IT.
In April 2001, Synstar International, a leading pan-European provider of IT and business availability services, published a survey titled, "Information Technology: Does the Board Understand the Importance of IT Yet?" The survey investigated the changing role of the IT manager in the UK, Germany, and Benelux across the retail, banking, insurance, and automotive market sectors. Three questions in this survey of IT managers and directors are relevant to the issue of social responsibility.
-
Question 4b: The board makes decisions without considering the IT implications—agree or
disagree
?
-
Questions 5: What is the average IT
literacy
of your company's board of directors?
-
Question 7: What are the reasons why IT managers/directors are rarely on the board?
Responses to these questions are shown in Table 1.
Table 1:
Percentage of IT Managers and Directors Agreeing
|
|
Q4b—Board not consider IT
|
Q5—Board has poor or very poor IT literacy
|
Q7—Main reason: Board thinks IT peripheral to business
|
Q7—Main reason: Board does not value or understand IT
|
|
Overall
|
37%
|
23%
|
22%
|
22%
|
|
UK
|
42%
|
19%
|
12%
|
28%
|
|
Germany
|
36%
|
28%
|
28%
|
8%
|
|
Benelux
|
28%
|
18%
|
32%
|
38%
|
|
Retail
|
39%
|
25%
|
23%
|
29%
|
|
Banking
|
34%
|
17%
|
24%
|
20%
|
|
Insurance
|
36%
|
21%
|
23%
|
16%
|
|
Automotive
|
40%
|
28%
|
18%
|
20%
|
Overall, 37% of IT managers and directors
reported
that the board makes decisions without considering the IT implications. The UK (42%) and the automotive sector (40%) were the worst. This,
coupled
with the belief of about a quarter that their
boards
had poor or very poor IT literacy, is very concerning. Even more so when 22% responded that the reason why there is not an IT representative on the board is because either the board considers IT peripheral to its business, or the board does not value or understand IT.
These findings suggest that the private sector has some fundamental issues to address if social responsibility
related
to IT is going to be realized. DeHann (2000) points out, "When social responsibility is a strategic initiative, it is embedded in all aspects of the company's operations." It is therefore concerning that IT companies have little strategic focus on social responsibility. For example, Foley and Jayawardhena (2001) report, "Interviewees
acknowledged
the growing impact of the Internet on society, but for most (72%) this had little impact on their corporate social responsibility strategies. Indeed, only 15% of IT businesses are currently involved in Internet access projects with local community groups and only four are supporting projects to help households or individuals to have Internet access from home." Without due consideration and support at the board level, responsible computing within organizations is
unlikely
to become an accepted common value. It will mean that critical events will always
dictate
action based upon efficient and effective expediency rather than social benefit. This seems unacceptable.