=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-3069/longpaper07
|storemode=property
|title=Policies, Principles and Technology: Ethics and Standardization through the Ethic of Systematic Coherence.
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3069/FP_07.pdf
|volume=Vol-3069
|authors=Thando Nkohla-Ramunenyiwa
}}
==Policies, Principles and Technology: Ethics and Standardization through the Ethic of Systematic Coherence.==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3069/FP_07.pdf
Proceedings of the Conference on Technology Ethics 2021 - Tethics 2021
Policies, Principles and Technology: Ethics and
Standardization through the Ethic of Systematic
Coherence.
Long paper
Thando Nkohla-Ramunenyiwa
Carnegie Funded Research Fellow University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa
thandonkohla@yahoo.com
Abstract. The importance of policies in the workplace is that they are intended
to assist with governance. With the introduction and development of technology
in the workplace, policies are used as guidelines in governance. Policies have
become more crucial because technology introduces unique working conditions,
such as employees attending staff meetings online in the comfort of their homes
during the COVID-19 pandemic. These policies also act as a communication tool
between employers and employees, where the expected conduct within the
workplace is established. When these very policies are drafted by a small number
of executives in the company, with the use of concepts which are not effective
for this governance, then policy vacuums become evident. Consequently, this not
only causes exclusion in the policies formation process, but in addition creates a
rift between the drafters of the policies and the employees whom the policies are
created for. As a result, the conceptual vacuum speaks to the policy vacuum, as
articulated by James H Moor (1985). Through the use of a particular corporation
in South Africa, the purpose of this paper is to address these vacuums, with the
aim of identifying a perspective that serves as a tool for ethics and standardization
in the workplace.
Keywords: Technology, Principles, policies
1 Introduction
Technology forms a huge part of modernity that humanity cannot escape, to the point
that it is entrenched into the day to day life of human beings. This entrenched nature of
technology in society is fed by how, in its development, is an enabler in human tasks,
such as travelling, communicating, and executing tasks in a more efficient manner.
Maley (2004:72) adds that the rate of development of technology surpasses human
being’s ability to use it. In fact, Maley continues to argue that technology is advancing
Copyright © 2021 for this paper by its authors. 97
Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
Proceedings of the Conference on Technology Ethics 2021 - Tethics 2021
so much that human beings end up knowing less about how technology really works.
In the context of this research, technology will be observed in the workplace. The
introduction of technology such as Information Communication Technology (ICT) in
the workspace must not come at the cost of ethical conduct. Policies serve as one of the
means through which the technological development in the workplace does not leave
behind the ethics which need to be integrated with the technology in the workplace.
To address this, it is important to revisit the discourse by James H Moor about
technology and policies [in the workplace]. Moor argues that the predicament of
[computer] technology is that its policy vacuum feeds its conceptual vacuum,
(1985:266). In other words, technology presents the quagmire that the more humans
beings familiarise themselves with technology, the more they have the responsibility to
understand the concepts which come with this familiarisation. In the context of the
workplace, it could be the case that employers and employees working with technology
are grappling with this phenomenon. In essence, both conceptual and policy vacuums
become bigger and bigger. What makes this worth paying attention to is that the
creation of policy can be informed by the understanding of concepts, and with these
vacuums it becomes quite problematic to formulate policies. It would then be
challenging for employers to enforce policies that will guide the productivity and
behaviour of employees in the midst of both the conceptual and policy vacuum, and
also the development of technology in the workplace. To explore this practically, an
ethnographic1 study accompanied predominately by desktop research was undertaken
at a popular corporation in Africa by a researcher.
This corporation, which has its headquarters based in Johannesburg South Africa,
has asked to remain anonymous, so it will be addressed with the pseudonym GauPeak
financial corporation. Further, pseudonyms’ will also be used to protect the identities
of the executives that the researcher had conversations with at the premises of the
location, which adds to the content of this paper. The aim of the paper is to analyse
how GauPeak is addressing the policy and conceptual vacuums observed by Moore,
especially in light of the integration of technology in the workplace. Further, this paper
will most importantly address how this corporation aims to apply ethics and
standardisation in this regard with the rest of its branches all over Africa. For this to be
realised, this paper will commence with the context of technology in the workplace
during this current era of the COVID-19 pandemic. This will be followed by King IV,
which anchors the study, as well as some points drawn from the conversation the
researcher had with the executives as GauPeak. An ethical perspective will follow,
which will be introduced as a way of standardising ethics for corporations not only in
Africa but also beyond. Lastly, a conclusion will close the paper.
1 This ethnographic study was undertaken before the COVID-19 Pandemic, between the 8th to the 16th of
October 2019 in Johannesburg South Africa. It was planned for it to continue in early 2020 for interviews
with employees at different levels of the corporate structure, but the COVID-19 pandemic changed plans.
Consequently, the post-doctoral researcher decided to make use of the little data captured in that space of
time as well as desktop research about the corporation.
Copyright © 2021 for this paper by its authors. 98
Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
Proceedings of the Conference on Technology Ethics 2021 - Tethics 2021
2 The context in the workplace: the era of COVID-19 pandemic
Technology in the workplace is growing in leaps and bounds, to the point that
employees may have to re-think their agency. Stein et al (2013:168) mention how the
societal changes created by technology have influenced how [employees] are
constructing their identities [as employees]. As a result, a construction which may ask
for an agency that is evolving with technology surfaces. This has been more realised
with the COVID-19 pandemic, which has put to the foreground the use of technology
as a means to continue with work productivity even though the employee is not
geographically stationed in the office. Herath and Herath (2020:277) highlight the
importance of the function of technology in this regard by means of elaborating on the
kind of pressure that workplace Information Technology teams had/have. The COVID-
19 pandemic has quickly introduced the need for companies to strengthen technological
support, technological education, and technological accessibility for employers and
employees. These mentioned needs necessitate a permanent adaption of digital
technologies which can enable employers and employees to work remotely, (Herath
and Herath 2020, 277). The importance of this change is that it consequently informs
the agency of the individual as a worker. The agency is now subjected to a changing
workspace, working from home has introduced a new dynamic of space and time for
the employee. With GauPeak as a financial service provider, this dynamic has been
practical throughout the COVID-19 as they provide an essential service, where some
workers were working from home and some at work throughout lockdown.
The productivity of the corporation as a whole, circumstantially faced by the space
and time dynamic, has attracted a lot of attention and work. This space and time
dynamic challenges the work/home boundary. With ICT’s, and especially through the
times of COVID-19 pandemic, this boundary has become a very blurred line. Adkins
and Premeaux (2014: 85) state that the unique nature of ICT can easily make
employee’s work from home or make them have access of work from home. For
instance, during working hours replying an email from a child’s school regarding a
school concert. The blurred line between the two spaces can often be crossed. Although
Adkins and Premeaux (2014:86) highlight that there are workplace policies which
encourage employees to work from the office and to be visible at the workplace, there
are times where implementing policies may be challenging when it comes to dictating
how and when an employee should be working when they are at home. This is
especially worth thinking about when considering that workplace policies were not
intended for the home, they were intended for the workplace itself.
This space and time [ of COVID-19 pandemic where people are working from home]
is also one where the socio-economics of the employee informed by their backgrounds
at home, identity and purchasing power is more evident as it becomes a means of access.
The importance of this access is that it not only affects the employees understanding
and use of technology, but can also influence how they do their work. Han et al confirm
this by stating that access of internet for the worker goes a long way in terms of what
the worker can produce in the workplace, (2011:58). If this access is integral in the
workplace itself, how much more at home when the COVID-19 pandemic has turned
home space into workspace.
Copyright © 2021 for this paper by its authors. 99
Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
Proceedings of the Conference on Technology Ethics 2021 - Tethics 2021
Having policies in the workplace concerning technology should ultimately have the
ability to be relatable and inclusive even with regards to the socio-economic dimension
of the employee. To elaborate on this, Reuschke and Felstead (2020:209) mention how
the state of a society before COVID-19 pandemic is telling of the readiness of that
society when it comes to remote working and technological development and
accessibility during the COVID-19 pandemic. Further, this elaboration is seen in the
policies that a country has with regards to flexible work and issues of equality in the
workplace (whether it be gender or class based), (Reuschke and Felstead, 2020:209).
The existence or non-existence, implementation or lack thereof have been exposed by
the COVID-19 pandemic. Essentially, the fibre of society with regard to its
functionality and progression lies in the kind of policies adopted by that society
(especially in the time of crisis).
In light of the disparities aggravated by the COVID-19 pandemic, such as those on
the socio-economic front, it becomes necessary to introduce inclusivity when it comes
to the concepts used to draft policies. Concepts and policies about ICT in the workplace
are largely dependent on the employees literacy about everything concerning
[computer] technology. With employees, the literacy they have about technology has
an impact on their communication and experience of it. Hunter (2018:56) defines digital
literacy as the manner through which an individual engages with information pertaining
to technology.
The backdrop of this definition provided by Hunter is based on an important element
stemming from the views provided by Peremingo and Pieterson (2018:33). These
scholars argue that digital literacy feeds off the ill of inequality, where the “haves” tend
to have better access to technology than the “have nots”. The executives at GauPeak
that the researcher had a conversation with regarding the policies and concepts used by
GauPeak will have a different understanding of the policies in that workplace compared
to the cleaners and administrators at GauPeak. Further, Peremingo and Pieterson
(2018:33) indicate that even within the “haves” there is a further digital divide that is
based on skills, knowledge [and interest]. As the perceived gatekeepers and custodians
of policy drafters, this could be one of the contributors of the policy and conceptual
vacuums in the workplace, where the “haves” are drafting policies which they can relate
to be but not always relatable to the “have nots.” This divide informed by differing
access, knowledge, skills and class can make bigger the policy and conceptual vacuums
in the workplace. A conversation that the researcher had with the executives as
GauPeak revealed that there is discourse within their workplace, coupled with King IV,
which serves as a starting point to address the policy and conceptual vacuums,
especially with regard to technology and its use.
Copyright © 2021 for this paper by its authors. 100
Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
Proceedings of the Conference on Technology Ethics 2021 - Tethics 2021
3 King IV and the Gaupeak Executives: from policies to
principles
The discussion about the King IV must be proceeded by a description of what King IV
is and its context in South Africa. Founded by a retired South African Supreme Court
judge, Nateson (2020: 155) tells of the King (report) as a report which educates South
African companies about governance in the context of a free economy. In South Africa,
this free economy concept became a reality around the same time as South African
democracy in 1994. It started with King I, which served as a guideline for the “standards
of conduct” which should be followed by directors and boards of companies and banks,
with the aim of promoting ethical governance of such institutions. Over the years, from
1993 to 2016 it evolved from King I right through to King IV, with the intent of
becoming more radical, reaching a wider audience, such as Johannesburg Stock
Exchange listed companies, non-profit organizations and more, considering both local
and international developments in the sphere of governance within organizations,
(Nateson, 2020: 158). This radical take should also grasp the introduction of
technology in governance, because as technology develops it continues to inform more
and more spheres in society, including governance in the workplace. As a Johannesburg
Stock Exchange company, GauPeak complies with the King IV report, which is why in
this paper, King IV has been integrated in its principles and execution thereof.
Khan introduces an important premise relating to the technology in the workplaces
of developing countries, such as GauPeak which will be further discussed in this
section. Khan states that structurally, attention is needed regarding the “organizational
and technological capabilities” in emerging economy workplaces. One of the most
important processes upon which this concern lies is the acquisition and exertion of tacit
knowledge. Further, the nature of this knowledge is quite complex to manage and
maintain. With concerning capabilities on the organizational and technology fronts,
governance becomes compromised, (2013:1). In the context of an advancing
technological world, governance is further strained in emerging economies as they still
lag behind when it comes to development. For this reason, it becomes necessary for
corporations [in this case emerging economies], to abide by the King IV Report. The
premise of King IV is based on the leadership that is not only ethical but is also effective
in its governance. In addition, this governance should be measured by the following
outcomes: “ethical culture, good performance, effective control and legitimacy,”
(Institute of Directors South Africa, 2016:37).
For the purpose of this paper, there will not be a thorough engagement about these
outcomes of governance. These outcomes are mentioned for the sake of stating that
they are reliant on the underlying principles as well as the practices of the corporation.
For ethical governance to occur, King IV provides a strategy of leadership which is
premised on the “apply and explain” approach. This approach firstly states that there
should be principles established which will serve as a moral compass of the corporation.
These principles serve as an explanation of how ethical governance can be achieved.
Moreover, the corporation must also be able to indicate how these principles can be
practically realised for a corporation to govern ethically and effectively, (Institute of
Copyright © 2021 for this paper by its authors. 101
Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
Proceedings of the Conference on Technology Ethics 2021 - Tethics 2021
Directors South Africa, 2016:37). Hence, the “apply and explain” strategy literally
translates to applying the principles created in the workplace and later explaining how
these principles will be practised.
In light of the “apply and explain” strategy, the executives at GauPeak revealed in
their conversation with the researcher that they, as the Johannesburg branch, have kick
started a transition in their governance which will assist with ethical and effective
governance. Executives Greg and Jada highlighted an integral move by the corporation,
the conceptual move from “policies” to “principles.” In their PowerPoint presentation,
they highlighted that the term “policy” is heavily laden with excessive rules which
employees struggled to recall because of how many they were, etc. In addition, this
comes with constraints attached to policies, (Executives notes at GauPeak Financial
corporation: 2019:7). To illustrate this, defining “policies” and “principles” will further
reveal the logic and intension of such a move, and how it serves as means of how
GauPeak addresses the conceptual (and policy) vacuums.
Starting with the former, Wies (1994:64) states that the word “policy” is
synonymous to terms such as “procedure”, “guideline” and “plan” to name a few.
Consequently, this has led to defining policy as a “procedure”, “guideline” or “plan”
used by management to achieve a desired positive outcome. This can in turn create a
particular culture within that working environment, influencing the behavior of the
people who work within that environment. What is important to note about this
definition provided by Wies is that a policy is not internal, it is an instrument that lies
outside of the employee as a moral agent. This then challenges the notion of an agent,
creating a particular work culture. Secondly, in the context of working from home, it is
challenging to use policies to create a particular work environment when most
employees are working from home during the COVID-19 pandemic. Technological
advancements require policies which are not confined to space, when contrary the
human beings using the policies employees are now able to extend themselves beyond
the confines of their geographic location. In the same way, policies should therefore be
able to extend themselves.
Moving on to the latter definition of “principles” is a definition provided by
Schumann. Schumann (2001:96) provides a definition of moral principle which states
that a principle must fit the condition that is must be carried out by an individual who
has the freedom to make an ethical decision. Their act must have an outcome that
positively affects themselves and the next person, and must be an act which is good in
itself. Unlike the definition of “policy” provided earlier, “principle” comes from within
the employee as a moral agent and allows them the freedom to create or contribute to
their[working] environment. This is what is required when employees work from home,
they require an ethical culture that comes from within themselves and create that for
themselves in their personal home spaces from which they are now able to work. In
fact, the importance of an internal “principle” mentioned by the GauPeak executives is
highlighted in a very important phrase they mentioned in their engagement with the
researcher. The phrase is “principles come with empowerment and accountability,
however, policies come with disempowerment and lack of accountability,” (Greg and
Jada, 2019).
Copyright © 2021 for this paper by its authors. 102
Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
Proceedings of the Conference on Technology Ethics 2021 - Tethics 2021
This phrase is worth unpacking, as it is overloaded with philosophical insight.
Firstly, empowerment acknowledges that the employee as a moral agent is not passive
but active in their moral agency. To empower means to strengthen or enhance that
internal “active” disposition to act in a manner that is beneficial not only for the agent
in question but also for the betterment of others in the corporation as well. Secondly,
Greg and Jada (2019) mention that this empowerment is also essential for the employee
to contribute to the culture of the workplace. By being empowered and accountable as
an individual, the employee is also empowered to contribute to the culture of
empowerment and accountability in the workplace. The importance of this during the
COVID-19 pandemic when working from home is that a principle that is internal to the
employee enhances the empowerment which is also internal. Internal dispositions can
be applicable wherever the employee is, whether they are working from home or work,
and all employees as individuals have access to it, which leads to the third point. A
moral agent is responsible for what they freely decide to engage in as opposed to that
which they were coerced to do.
Even in their use of technology, whether they are working from work or home, their
internal, active power is what their workplace principles speak to. They have equal
access to this inner power and freedom to access it, compared to policies which are
formed exclusively, with concepts that only a few can understand. This is why the
“apply and explain” strategy is so relevant as it addresses this, where everyone has
access to a principle which can empower them, enable them to be accountable with
regard to the outcome of a chosen act or practice. Even within COVID-19 pandemic,
access is not limited to the socio-economic background but taps into that which all
employees have access to, empowering the agency of all employees. Further, Greg and
Jada (2019) state that the mention of principles, which are internal and inclusive, do not
mean that the employee has to do whatever they want in an anarchical sense. It means
that the employee has the moral agency where they have “empowerment within rails.”
For instance, they have principles which are based on space and context. This kind of
moral agency and action can be rooted in what Nussbaum (1997:3) highlights about the
Kantian ethics being based on “reason [and freedom], being active, reformist,
universal.”
The mention of universality is integral for the context of GauPeak, as it has a number
of branches extended across Africa. All these branches would have to be uniform and
universal [all being on the same page] when it comes to their governance. The
mentioned notions of “principles being empowering and embracing accountability”, as
well as a governance structure operating on the rationale of “applying and explaining”
embody a fundamental premise of Kantian ethics. This premise is understanding that
moral agency requires reason and freedom to choose. In principle, this implies a
universally accessible starting point for moral agency [and hence governance] by virtue
of being a human being.
Universality encourages the use of the term standardization. Standardization is
defined by Spivak and Brenner (2001:2) as a process which unifies and rationalizes
diverse standards in the forms of documents, practices, tests or methods, etc, which
exist across national, regional and international boundaries. The application of King IV
in all GauPeak branches as well as the notion of principles adopted by these branches
Copyright © 2021 for this paper by its authors. 103
Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
Proceedings of the Conference on Technology Ethics 2021 - Tethics 2021
are steps in the right direction when it comes to standardization in governance
strategies.
Further, this conversation of standardization persists even on an international front,
outside of Africa, where the need for standardization in the governance of organization
is important. This importance of standardization is ushered in by the reality of
globalization, where organizations are essentially existing in spaces that are part of a
bigger global picture. The current need for corporation to be technologically equipped
to not only exist in the global sense, but to stay visible in the digital sense. COVID-19
has highlighted the digital presence and competence as an important avenue for
companies to be sustainable, digital and inclusive. Hence, the need for a standard form
of governance will one day become a necessity which will be difficult to avoid.
Accordingly, this speaks to the necessity for an ethical standardization in governance
in the midst of technological development in corporations. The suggested perspective
that could assist with addressing this is the ethic of systematic coherence derived from
a PhD study by Nkohla-Ramunenyiwa (2017).
4 Way forward: The Ethic of Systematic Coherence
The ethic of systematic coherence is an ethical perspective which is based on the
principles and values of a [system/structure/corporation]. This value system starts from
individual entities such as individual moral agents, families (who are the nucleus of
society), and permeates to bigger structures and systems. If the individual parts of a
whole function within the same values, principles and frequency of the bigger system,
then holistically the system is coherent. Equally, if the individual employees and
employers at GauPeak have the same principles and values, it will permeate nationally
and continentally with the other GauPeak branches as well. This can be illustrated with
the analogy of a mechanical clock, all these systems submit to the same rhythm initiated
by the suspended pendulum, (Nkohla-Ramunenyiwa 2017: 168). This captures the
radical nature which King IV aims to attain, by addressing each level or society to make
a holistic, coherent impact. A radical, and yet ethical perspective in the workplace
would need to start with the individual as an employee.
Each employee as an individual moral agent, living in the times of a constantly
technologically evolving society is an agent that has the freedom and reason to choose
how they want to behave. This is accompanied by the internal disposition of being an
active human being that has the ability to discern how they should use technology. In
addition, being an employee, the principles which the workspace formulates should
speak to the already existing internal, moral compass of the employee as a moral agent.
Further, when the GauPeak term “empowered and accountable” is used, it
acknowledges there is already a moral agent which needs to be empowered to continue
being accountable for their actions. This inherent quality is something that the modern
employee carries with them in whichever space that technology may present to them.
In addition, this can be a moral compass for the modern employee using technology,
complementing the feature of principles which are also drawn from within and
Copyright © 2021 for this paper by its authors. 104
Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
Proceedings of the Conference on Technology Ethics 2021 - Tethics 2021
portrayed outward, unlike policies which are external of the moral agent and expected
to be internalized.
The internal feature of principles that the Ethics of Systematic Coherence taps into
is a feature that employees all over the world possess. This is a necessary step towards
standardizing this ethical perspective. Bearing in mind the fact that employees all over
the world live within different cultures and traditions upon which their workplaces are
based. The constant factor is that the moral compass informed by the principles of their
workplace is inherent wherever an employee is in any part of the world, whether they
work from home or from the office. The standard is to not silence that inherent principle
informed by values but should be allowed to guide the employee as a moral agent. The
culture and tradition would then act as a verifier. Even Kant articulates that moral
principles are associated with the rational human being [moral agent], which is a
concept of universal appeal, (Tolley, 2006:371).
Further, with regard to the conceptual change from the term “policies” to
“principles” as a means of addressing the policy and conceptual vacuums, as well as
standardization in this regard, there is a further essential standardization that needs to
take place to address the digital divide within the workplace, and inclusivity when
drafting policies (principles). The key here is inclusivity, which will need to address
both the divide as well as the process of policy “principle” drafting. Once again, the
Ethic of Systematic Coherence becomes essential as a tool of standardization. To
illustrate this is the reference that Nkohla- Ramunenyiwa presents in her articulation of
the theory. She highlights the united rhythm and order that the mechanical clock
represents in the functioning of the smaller parts that are a part of it to create a functional
whole, (Nkohla-Ramunenyiwa, 2017:168). These smaller parts functioning
individually and contributing to the bigger picture provide an illustration of inclusivity
as a means of standardization. The involvement of diverse employees in the process of
formulating work principles indicates that is takes a united diversity to create an all-
inclusive standard. That is what ethical standardization is all about. All the employees
who will be affected by the formulated principles should be part of the process of
creating them, and not be hindered by the digital divide and or exclusion in drafting of
policies.
5 Conclusion
The current COVID-19 pandemic has circumstantially presented unique working
conditions for employees all over the world, which without technology would not have
been realized. This places technology at the fore front of modern society, as its
development stretches many years ahead of human conceptualization and experience.
This nature of technology puts pressure on workplace policies to also move with the
times and not lag behind technological development in the workplace. Amongst other
things, this contributes to the policy and conceptual vacuums. In this paper, the
instigator for policy vacuums lies in the conceptual vacuums. This is why the transition
taken by GauPeak from policies to principles was a conceptual turning point which
addressed both the conceptual and policy vacuums.
Copyright © 2021 for this paper by its authors. 105
Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
Proceedings of the Conference on Technology Ethics 2021 - Tethics 2021
Knowing that the concept “principle” creates an awareness for the employee to look
inward for their moral compass and not outward, as the concept “policy” implies. This
realization affirms the statement by the GauPeak executives, that principles bring about
“empowerment and accountability”, which is how the employee as a moral agent
should be perceived and identified. This change of concept “policy” to “principle” is
also an indication of the addressing of a conceptual and policy vacuum. King IV is also
essential in incorporating governance in the equation, and serves as a sound reference
point for corporations which thrive to govern ethically and to ethically govern. To
standardize, the Ethic of Systematic Coherence assisted to make this applicable
internationally.
References
Adkins, C. L., & Premeaux, S. A. (2014). The use of communication technology to manage work-
home boundaries. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 15(2), 82-100.
Executives at “GauPeak” Financial Corporation. (2019). PowerPoint Presentation, 12th October
2019, Johannesburg South Africa
Greg, T and Jada, M. (2019). Conversation with the executives at GauPeak. 12th October
Han et al. (2011). Information Technology Investment and Manifacturing Workers Productivity.
Journal of Computer Information Systems, 52 (2), 51-60.
Herath, T and Herath,H.S.B. (2020). Coping with the New Normal Imposed by the COVID-19
Pandemic: Lessons for Technology Management and Governance. Information
Systems Management, 37 (4), 277-283
Hunter, I. (2018). Digital literacy in the workplace: A view from the legal sector. Business
Information Review, 35(2), 56–59.
Institute of Directors South Africa. (2016). King IV on Corporate Governance in South Africa.
Khan, M.H. (2013). Technology Policies and Learning Imperfect Governance (in Stiglitz,
Josephand Justin Yifi Lin (eds)The Industrial Policy Revolution I. The Role of
Government Beyond Ideology, 79-115
Leeper, R.V. (1996). Moral objectivity, Jurgen Habermas’s discourse ethics, and public relations.
Public Relations Review, 22 (2), 133-150
Maley, T. (2004). Max Weber and the Iron Cage of Technology. Bulletin of Science, Technology
& Society, 24 (1), 69-86
Moor, J.H. (1985). What Is Computer Ethics? Metaphilosophy. 16 (4), 266-275
Nateson, P. (2020). The evolution and significance of the “apply and explain” regime in King
IV. Journal of Global Resbonsibility, 11 (2), 155-160
Nkohla-Ramunenyiwa, T. (2017). Virtual ontology, moral responsibility and agency: The ethical
implications of mobile communication technology use on parenting style in
Pietermaritzburg, South Africa. University of KwaZulu Natal. PhD thesis.
Copyright © 2021 for this paper by its authors. 106
Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
Proceedings of the Conference on Technology Ethics 2021 - Tethics 2021
Nussbaum, M.C. (1997). Kant and Stoic Cosmopolitanism. The Journal of Political Philosophy:
5 (1), 1-25.
Peromongo, M and Pieterson, W. (2018). The new world of work and the need for digital
empowerment. Economies, Forced Migration Review, 58, 32-33
Reuschke, D and Felstead, A. (2020). Changing workplace geographies in the COVID-19 crisis.
Dialogues in Human Geography, 10 (2), 208-212
Spivak, S.M and Brenner, F.C. (2001). Standardization Essentials: Principles and Practice. New
York: Marcel Dekker.
Stein et al. (2013). Towards an understanding of identity and technology in the workplace.
Journal of Information Technology, 28(3), 167-182.
Tolley, C. (2006). Kant on the Nature of Logical Laws. Philosophical Topics, 34 (1/2), 371-407.
Wies, R. (1994). Policies in network and systems management—Formal definition and
architecture. Journal of Network and Systems Management, 2(1), 63-83.
Copyright © 2021 for this paper by its authors. 107
Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)