=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-3669/paper16
|storemode=property
|title=Gamifying responsibly: Sustainable HCI for the future
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3669/paper16.pdf
|volume=Vol-3669
|authors=Georgina Guillén Mandujano,Nevena Sicevic,Juho Hamari
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/gamifin/MandujanoSH24
}}
==Gamifying responsibly: Sustainable HCI for the future==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3669/paper16.pdf
Gamifying responsibly: Sustainable HCI for the future
Georgina Guillén Mandujano1, Nevena Sicevic1 and Juho Hamari1
1 Gamification Group. Tampere University, Kalevantie 4, 33100 Tampere, Finland
Abstract
With the ever-rising consideration for holistic sustainability in contemporary technology, there is a
dearth of knowledge of how pursuits among design can and have been responsibly re-configured
towards these ends. Therefore, in this paper, we explore the potential of responsibly implementing
gamification as an innovation in sustainable consumption apps (SCAs) to deepen the understanding and
knowledge about the development process of sustainable human-computer interaction (SHCI). We
utilize gamification design practice as our contextual case as it both imbues sustainability in the design
ethos and as the modus operandi of the technology itself while simultaneously being susceptible to
several moral hazards. This qualitative study employs the prism of responsible research and innovation
(RRI) dimensions as the kaleidoscopic lens for analyzing the data gathered through key-informant,
semi-structured interviews among 21 SCA creators. Moreover, the study links the SCA creators’
perceptions of risks for the users with a series of app users’ needs to highlight areas of concern to gamify
SCAs responsibly. The overview of all findings is presented as recommendations for HCI practitioners
and interested stakeholders to use RRI dimensions as a guideline to make informed decisions for the
responsible development of SCA. These recommendations include considering sustainability values and
ethics as a prerequisite for decision-making from the conceptualization phase onwards, implementing
multi-stakeholder, participatory design processes, cross-cultural cooperation to enable socially
desirable outcomes, and developing and implementing responsive accountability practices to nurture a
sense of shared responsibility.
Keywords
Sustainable human-computer interaction, responsible research and innovation, gamification,
sustainable consumption, mobile apps 1
discipline through two categories: sustainability in
1. Introduction design and sustainability through design [[3], [4], [5],
We are contemporarily living in a global culture where [6]]. The former concerns itself with efficiency and
sustainability is emphasized as the “development that digital services, like enabling circularity through the
meets the needs of the present without compromising products’ physical attributes. The latter relates to
the ability of future generations to meet their own applying HCI to support decision-making processes to
needs” ([1] n.p.), applied to all spheres of human lead more sustainable lifestyles. Due to the rapidly
activities, calling for collaborations between social and evolving nature of HCI, it is necessary to find
natural sciences to understand their interactions [2]. frameworks that help operationalizing sustainability
Part of these processes rely on technological solutions [7] and help evaluating the usability aspects of the
to make everyday choices, from increasing an efficient approaches related to it; thus, SCHI calls for a critical,
use of natural resources to facilitating the yet all-encompassing approach to innovation,
advancement of interconnected, digital societies in particularly in the technological front [8].
ways that reduce inequality and wellbeing gaps, both There are several HCI/technological developments
for people and the environment. where the solution creators try to act more
The people behind these technologies have a responsibly and orient their efforts towards tackling
twofold challenge: develop solutions that enable users sustainability grand challenges holistically [6],
to act sustainably; and, behave themselves more identifying appropriate appraisal methods for SHCI
responsibly when creating these solutions. Hence, today and in the future, including ways to
Sustainable Human-Computer Interaction (SHCI) has communicate sustainability solutions [5]. Among
been gaining relevance for over a decade as a research these approaches, there is an increased reliance on the
application of persuasive systems, which in most
8th International GamiFIN Conference 2024 (GamiFIN 2024), April 2-
5, 2024, Ruka, Finland
georgina.guillen@tuni.fi (G. Guillén Mandujano);
nevena.sicevic@tuni.fi (N. Sicevic); juho.hamari@tuni.fi (J. Hamari)
0000-0002-2462-0082 (G. Guillén Mandujano); 0000-0002-0579-
8977 (N. Sicevic); 0000-0002-6571-588X (J. Hamari)
© 2024 Copyright for this paper by its authors. The use permitted under
Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
CEUR Workshop Proceedings (CEUR-WS.org)
CEUR
ceur-ws.org
Workshop ISSN 1613-0073
Proceedings
170
instances are called eco-feedback systems [[5], [7], [9]] elaborates on the theoretical frameworks used for our
or “technology that provides feedback on individual or research.
group behaviors with a goal of reducing environmental
impact” ([10], p. 1999). Given their characteristics, 2.1. Gamification as an innovation
these eco-feedback systems can be considered an
environmentally focused representation of The eco-feedback activities described in existing SHCI
gamification – an intentional process designed to research usually present a skewed understanding of
afford positive experiences, skills, and practices sustainability; this is a focus on environmental impacts
similar to those of games through any activity, system, and it is usually applied to energy-related activities
service, product, or organizational structure [11]. [[4], [7]]. However, the literature shows a myriad of
However, due to their potential to affect human formalized principles for the application of persuasive
behavior, social and mental wellbeing, gamification approaches as part of the design [4]. Considering eco-
feedback systems as an expression of gamification
and other similar approaches are often questioned as
opens a multidimensional and synergistic approach to
a responsible practice [[12], [13]]. SCHI research innovation processes for SHCI since gamification can
shows that eco-feedback as a persuasive system seems be applied through all its phases (search/ideation,
to reduce the understanding of sustainability as a selection, implementation and capture) [18].
matter of negotiations rather than informed-based Specifically, the existing literature on the subject
change [7], and the consideration of long-term or portrays gamification as an innovation through three
negative impacts are largely overlooked. Therefore, in processes: i) investigation – gamification that reveals
the context of SHCI, the design and implementation problems; ii) induction – gamification to stimulate
approaches of gamification as innovation should novel behavior; and, iii) intervention – gamification
consider potential harmful impacts and call for that transforms processes for improved effectiveness
and engagement [19].
inclusion of responsible practices to address the
The first type, investigation, is mainly based in co-
challenges inherent to bringing together different creative processes, such as crowdsourcing, to capture
stakeholder interests. information and transform it into a desired goal, for
To this end, the present study concerns itself with example improved health systems, or the development
the value-based considerations for creating gamified of more resource-efficient technologies [19].
sustainable consumption apps according to the Gamification as an induction process is meant to
dimensions of responsible research and innovation stimulate innovative behaviors, usually introducing
(RRI) endorsed by the European Union. Beckoning the fantasy elements and challenges of collaborative
sustainable consumption app (SCA) creators to behavior, and it is applied to animate scientific
consider their apps' intended and unintended impacts, teaching or embedding critical thinking into curricula,
we hypothesize that including gamification as an for example [19]. With the third type, intervention,
innovation under RRI dimensions into the app design gamification acts as a facilitator to enhance an existing
process can contribute to a value-based design of SCA function and it is largely applied in education and
and more sustainable human-computer interaction organizational change activities to motivate
practices. Thus, our research question is: How can SCA participants to engage in actions of change [19].
creators responsibly integrate value-driven Regardless of their type, the gamification as
gamification as an innovation into their design and innovation implementation processes often convey
implementation processes? many layers, from correctly identifying the problem to
gamify (e.g. climate change), to the capabilities of
implementing a gamified strategy (e.g. having enough
2. Theoretical background knowledge of gamification to design a long-term
strategy). These nuances may curtail the innovation
The current HSCI literature, while calling for processes, posing a challenge to understanding
multidisciplinary, intersectoral participatory gamification as innovation perspective, its integration
processes, tends to focus on the user perspective, the potential, and overall applicability throughout the
functionality of the designs, and their expected innovation process [[18], [19]]. Moreover, whether
impacts [[4], [5], [6], [8], [9], [14], [15]]; hardly presented as eco-feedback, or as gamification, there is
addressing the mindsets of the creators or a constant concern about the extent that applying
acknowledging their individual motivations to become persuasive technologies can lead to unsustainable
sustainability activists through HCI solutions. behaviors [7], a risk that SHCI practitioners should
Therefore, in this study we investigated how SHCI always bear in mind. Therefore, recognizing
practitioners, represented by the creators of gamification as an innovation demands examining
sustainable consumption apps deal, and understand gamification design frameworks that enable
their responsibility to implement gamification as an responsible, value-driven and practice-based
innovation, addressing the call for practical considerations. To make this possible, [20] encourage
approaches to translate responsible research and the creators of gamified approaches to only use
innovation from a conceptual aspiration to an systems they would be willing to be persuaded with
implementable strategy, pointing at the need to share themselves, and action that attains SCHI practitioners
the reasons and methodological decisions from the to acknowledge their responsibility towards the users
early design stages [[16], [17]]. Hence, this section whose lifestyles they intend to change [5].
171
2.2. Responsible Research and value is also prone to be affected by situations or issues
that destroy them, for example, when using
Innovation (RRI) gamification as a persuasion tool, which conveys
several moral and ethical challenges. To address these
RRI elaborates on the notion of trust building between challenges, [29] proposed the Sustainable
individuals and technological innovations, as it places Gamification Design (SGD) framework, a conceptual
societal needs at the core of research and innovation, model that introduces a frame of values and ethics to
highlighting the responsibility factors and their manage the potential negative impacts of
alignment with society's values. RRI intends to secure gamification’s value destroyers. Although originally
societal acceptance of new technologies and trust in developed to support the design of gamification
science [21] through multi-stakeholder collaboration strategies for organizations, the SGD is a human-based
under principles of transparency and mutual approach to gamification design that reflects the call
responsiveness [22]. Moreover, RRI seeks to present for the ethical and responsible design of mobile apps.
innovation beyond mere technological development [30] bring a more detailed account of the users’
[23], acknowledging the existence of uncertainties and needs and wishes for sustainably developing apps,
unintended consequences, which all involved bearing in mind some of the risks that concern users
stakeholders should be aware of and prepared to the most. The requirements for a sustainable design of
respond to. Although the European Union has been apps proposed by [30] include attractiveness,
endorsing programs and formulating policies efficiency, accuracy, and value for money, and strongly
addressing technology-knowledge concerns for over a emphasize security and privacy, both as a safety
decade, the implementation of RRI in other spheres, concern and a risk area for using any app. These
such as non-for-profits, business, and corporate concerns are reflected in each of the gamification value
responsibility practices, is still in a very early stage destroyers distinguished by [29], which are noted as
[[24], [25]]. This situation calls for value-conscious gamification leading to coercion, data leaking,
frameworks to facilitate the integration of RRI channeling, norming, disempowering, misrepresenting,
dimensions into the design and development practices and providing inauthentic and shallow accounts. These
of technological innovations such as mobile apps. value destroyers also stand against everything RRI
In their seminal work about ethical implications for represents, posing a challenge to its implementation.
RRI in the information and technologies field, [26] For example, in the case of gamified mobile apps
categorize RRI as a “meta-responsibility” that aligns enabling sustainable consumption practices (SCA)
the existing network of responsibilities in the there is no evidence of a long-term behavioral change;
Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) however, there is an overriding focus on
sector “defining socially desirable consequences that environmental issues and plenty of gamification
existing responsibilities can work toward and develop practices with unclear purposes [31]. Nonetheless, the
responsibility relationships that ensure that the benefits of applying gamification to motivate more
achievement of such desired aims is possible” ([26], p. responsible consumption practices are exemplified by
202). RRI frameworks are built on the dimensions of improved wellbeing conditions facilitated by mobile
anticipation, reflexivity, inclusion, responsiveness, and apps purposefully designed to this end [[14], [15]].
care [[23], [27]], elements that this study proposes to However, they come with many cautionary tales about
integrate into the design processes of sustainable unintended impacts and behaviors, which attain
consumption apps, thus contributing to the field of directly to the need of implementing practices of
sustainable human computer interaction. responsibility and trust-building in the development of
[26] propose the “4P” approach to identify and these apps.
engage with the ethical implications of ICT. These Ps
are product, process, purpose, and people, and to fully
integrate RRI into each of these, it is crucial to facilitate 3. Methods
processes and indicators to monitor awareness,
implementation, and assessment, based on RRI values
and norms to facilitate their integration along the 3.1. Approach
value chain [28]. On the basis thereof, value-conscious
approaches to gamification design and When assessed against the framework of the United
implementation are paramount for enabling the Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the
contexts where RRI actions can take place, like in the global agenda for acting today toward a sustainable
case of mobile apps designed to help their users live future [32], most of the research about HCI and
more sustainably. sustainability happens in the field of Responsible
Consumption and Production (SDG 12), mainly
addressing the management and efficient use of
2.3. The Sustainable Gamification natural resources, and reducing waste generation [7];
Design (SGD) framework and thus, promoting more environmentally-friendly and,
app users’ needs potentially, more sustainable consumption choices.
Moreover, mobile applications are the most used yet
emergent HCI interface to promote sustainable
The integration of gamification into the design process,
consumption at the individual level [[33], [34]] as they
is a value-driven endeavor as these values take the
are known for functions such as marketing,
shape of engagement, learning, and collaboration,
entertainment, information provision, socialization,
shaping behaviors, empowerment, transformation,
and even intellectual stimulation [[35], [36]].
provision of analytics, and fun [29]. As such, every
172
Based on the definition of sustainable consumption People SCA creators presenting their accounts of
behaviors as "individual acts of satisfying needs in identified societal consequences beyond the
different areas of life by acquiring, using and disposing use of their app (interview results)
goods and services that do not compromise the Input from app users’ perceived risks and
ecological and socio-economic conditions of all people requirements as presented by [30].
(currently living or in the future) to satisfy their own
needs" ([2], p. 5), this study considers sustainable
consumption apps (SCA) as the mobile applications
created to enable individual choices that satisfy needs 3.2. Data collection and analysis
through different consumption stages without
compromising the living conditions of people and other To initiate the process of identifying the SCA creators’
species today and in the future. Despite their future accounts of gamification-led value destruction and
orientation, SCAs often present some gamified comparing their concerns with the app users’ requests
features, ranging from badge collection and and risk perceptions, the first step was to select the
leaderboards to in-app and external rewards, and they pool of apps whose creators’ opinions will be
tend to disappear five years or less after their launch examined. The app database from an earlier study [31]
to the market [31]. The changing landscape of apps for allowed the selection of the product: 52 apps
sustainability leads to questioning the values and representing different stages of popularity and
motivations behind the existence of such apps and the gamification features. The sample consisted of apps
challenges their creators face to make them meet their marketed in Google Play and App Store under the
objectives. Some of these challenges include issues labels of sustainable consumption, sustainability,
such as how researchers and practitioners choose sustainable living, sustainable lifestyles, green
their sustainable consumption narratives and lifestyles and eco-friendly living. Other keywords
gamification elements, leaving open the opportunity to related to lifestyles, such as “mindfulness” or
refine their design strategies and deliver more “wellbeing” were not used as they might not relate
comprehensive, systemic (cause-effect) directly to consumption practices.
understandings of sustainable consumption via To enable diversity in perspectives, and fulfill the
gamification. purpose of this study – contribute to the
This study considers sustainable consumption implementation of value-oriented, innovative design
apps (SCA) as mobile applications created with the practices to advance SHCI – a pool of apps was created
intention of enabling behaviors resulting from the with the following categories, with 13 apps selected for
awareness of the impact of today’s consumption each: i) highly downloaded and rated (most popular)
activities and the future wellbeing of societies and the gamified apps; ii) apps that disappeared through the
environment; in other words, what [2] define as 2021 analysis; iii) apps that had more gamification
sustainable consumption behaviors. Understanding elements than the average of apps analyzed in 2021;
RRI “as an attempt to give a procedural answer to the iv) new apps that appeared in the market after the
question of how to deal with the uncertainties around 2021 review, and apps that were not analyzed in 2021
innovation” ([26], p. 203), to answer its research because they were not gamified. The last group (non-
question, the research is framed according to [26]’s gamified apps) was included to learn about the
“4P’s” of RRI, a framework created to highlight the considerations for not implementing gamification. The
purpose and the people behind the innovation and not 21 interviewees represent 2 apps from group 1; 6 of
only the product and the process, (Table 1) to identify group 2; 6 of group 3; and 7 of group 4, three of which
and engage with the ethical implications of ICT in the are not gamified.
context of gamification as an innovation. The participants are considered key informants
Table 1 due to their close relationship to the research subject
This study according to the 4P’s of RRI [37]. The process to contact the interviewees consisted
of a) reviewing the app information available on the
Product Gamified sustainable consumption apps (SCA),
online platform, the app’s website (if applicable) or the
one of the many approaches to enable SHCI
app itself. These channels contain the name of an
that can have unforeseeable consequences.
organization or a person behind the app. 24 of the 27
Process Identify SCA creators’ accounts of
people who replied to the invitation to join the study
gamification-led value destruction, exploring
were contacted via their Linked-in profiles or personal
how these can be overcome through the
integration of RRI considerations, and compare email address (two of them have it as part of the apps’
these concerns with the app users’ requests and information), two replied to the “info”-general email
risk perceptions [30]. address, and only one contacted us after we submitted
a meeting request through their online contact form.
Purpose Most of the studies about SCA creation have a
user-centered point of view. With this study, All participants were provided with a description of
we provide a creator perspective about the the research project, the data management guidelines,
main issues of concern when implementing and an informed consent form. In the end, 21 app
gamification to SCA, thus consolidating a user- creators – the people behind the conceptualization,
creator landscape toward the responsible implementation, and maintenance of the app, who
design of gamified SCA. could also be the technical developers but not
necessarily – were interviewed via Zoom and MS
Teams during April and August 2022. Regardless of
their role in the organization behind the app, the 21
creators interviewed are decision-makers for the app’s
173
survival, meaning they are directly responsible for its sustainable human-computer interaction as a research
maintenance and online presence. The questionnaire field. The resulting analysis intended to emphasize the
for the semi-structured interviews was reviewed and SCA creators’ responsibility when choosing to
validated by four topic experts, from China, Finland, implement gamification in their apps. This section
Mexico, and the Netherlands, respectively. The showcases the findings of the interviews with 21 SCA
interview guideline comprised 4 parts. The first creators, highlighting both their main concerns
focused on the creators’ background, their regarding implementing gamification and approaches
understanding of sustainability and the reason for to act according to the RRI dimensions to tackle these
creating an app to act upon this understanding. The value destroyers.
second part zoomed into the expected sustainability
impacts of the apps and the role gamification played
within, including elaborating on the notions of ethics 4.1. Identification of SCA creators’
and responsibility as a creator of a sustainability- concerns of gamification as
oriented solution. The questions of the third section innovation through the SGD
provided insights into the tensions and dilemmas of
managing a mobile app in a highly competitive market; framework
while the fourth section offered the opportunity to
reflect on their overall learning journeys. The full The question about approaches to persuade people
interview guideline is available in [38]. to use their apps and meet their ultimate objectives
After the interviews, the answers were helped the interviewees elaborate on why applying
anonymized and coded which allowed us to identify gamification and their choices to it related. Figure 2
the areas of concern according to the SGD value provides an overview of the answers. Analyzing their
destroyers [29]. The diverse understandings of accounts through the value destroyers of the SGD
responsibility and risks presented by the creators, showed that the main concern about using
compared with the user requests from [30]], also shed gamification in SCA is related to the potential human
light on the most and least explored RRI dimensions, agency loss, a value destroyer related to how human-
helping to draft what now can be used as a design computer interactions attribute agency to the
guideline for SCA creators. Figure 1 summarizes the computer rather than to the person, hence reducing
process followed for this study. the individual’s enjoyment and autonomy, depriving
the user of their freedom to make decisions. This
finding is consistent with what [39] note as inhibitors
of rational self-reflection that undermine the users’
autonomy that lead to considering gamification as a
manipulative strategy. Considering that 16 of the 21
creators indicated their apps intend to support
individual choice-making, it is not surprising that their
primary concern is designing apps that make people
realize they have the power to choose. Nonetheless,
the issue of why the app facilitated individual agency
presented polarized arguments. Five creators declared
their apps intend to provide information in a way that
people do not feel judged or preached to, that users
were willing to act and only need some guidance for
their efforts; “People don’t want to feel they are being
told what to do or being talked down to or lectured”
(creator 1). On the other hand, five creators declared
that the apps were needed because users would not do
anything on their own even if having information, so
the app gave them an easy way to be active; “Most
people are lazy, they need to be told what to do so they
realize changing is not that difficult” (creator 2).
Figure 1: Research process.
4. Results
This study is framed according to the 4P approach for
responsibly identifying and engaging with the ethical
implications of sustainability through design via
gamification as a threefold innovation; it analyzes the
ethical considerations behind mobile apps created to Figure 2: Gamification value destroyers from the
encourage sustainable consumption practices and creators’ perspective
contribute to the growth of innovative design practices
in sustainable human-computer interaction and
174
Current studies addressing the ethical aspects of verifiable and fairer to all. There are certain
gamification tend to highlight issues of data limitations, and this is an area we are working on
management and privacy as factors that may inhibit because we need to improve it” (creator 6). In some
the uptake of gamified SHCI solutions [[40], [41]] cases, the creators justified the use of gamification as
therefore, it is not surprising that leaky containers was the best way to visualize the change; “We decided to
the second issue of high concern. Most creators had put fun first because the impact comes after people
data management and privacy-control mechanisms in play the game […] it can happen without the app, true,
place, although they varied greatly. For example, two but it may not be half as fun” (creator 7).
apps do not require signing up or registration of any In a similar vein, the value destroyer of coercive
sort. In contrast, others allowed registration via social participation was noted as a risk for people using the
media accounts, which means that the users abide by apps as part of an employee engagement strategy, as
the privacy rules of these providers and not the apps. they may feel forced to join the program even though
Eighteen creators claimed not to collect any personal participation must be completely voluntary with no
data, having only anonymized user statistics; “We only other incentive from the app than making things more
want to see how often the app is used and where. We entertaining and useful. In the workplace context, this
have a feedback form, and our users contact us risk also attains to the potential exploitation of
constantly; sometimes they sign with their names, but employees [[44], [45]]. Also, two creators noted close
we don’t store these” (creator 4). Privacy was a cooperation with their partners to design the app as a
priority focus for the apps targeting underaged users part of their unique value proposition; this is because,
(2 apps) or involving in-app transactions (6 apps); it is for them, understanding the context and wishes of the
also part of the value proposition for the apps partner helps to prevent implementing features that
partnering with companies: no individual employee could be perceived as coercive; “We have to be very,
data is collected, the information is all anonymized and very context sensitive. I develop apps for social causes,
only the company, not even the app’s team, have access you can’t be patronizing, and you can’t just force
to it; “We provide the technical and content support, people to play and like your app just because you’ve
we do not collect personal information of any sort” got the funding for it” (creator 8). Consistent with the
(creator 5). warnings for implementing gamification presented by
Two value destroyers were deemed equally [[42], [44]], of four creators who steered clear of
worrisome (8 creators each); one was the gamification altogether two were highly concerned
homogenization of the workforce and the other, about gamification providing a shallow and
creating an illusion of change. The former is related to unauthentic understanding of the apps and the
data collection and mining, and it is an area of primary problems they try to address. These creators noted
concern for apps dealing with business partners as how the “dopamine rush” provided by gamification
there is a risk that employees will be treated as having would distract the users from the real issue and create
the same level of knowledge or interest in the topic, the sensation that things were an easy fix, and even
obliterating their individual motivations and lead to behaviors like cheating for the sake of getting
experiences in the area of sustainable consumption. the rewards rather than shifting consumption
Moreover, this concern reiterates the notion of patterns; “The rewarding system […] may induce
separate virtual and real lives, as human actions people to start cheating just to keep competing, totally
become the result of data-driven dictations [42]. missing the point of the app” (creator 9). The creators
However, only one app provides its partners with of the other 2 non-gamified apps noted not knowing
anonymized data about the “green consumers” so they enough about the subject, nor having the resources to
can tailor their sustainability campaigns. While this consider gamification as relevant for their apps. Lastly,
may be a foray into the user homogenization territory, the technological whip was the value destroyer SCA
the creator noted that the app’s appeal is to provide creators are less concerned with, as this is a risk
accurate data regarding time, length of actions, and related to using gamification to maintain
location, cross-referencing it with non-identifiable organizational social constructs, which does not apply
information such as gender and age. The illusion of to the apps not operating in an organizational
change was one of the main arguments for not environment. The creators of the seven apps involved
applying gamification or doing so very lightly so as not in engagement programs declared their apps are used
to convey the idea that using the app was enough to for corporate responsibility activities or educational
drive change. This concern reflects what [43] warned programs, all of voluntary participation, presenting
about the risks of using gamification as a hook that can concerns similar to those identified by [[44], [45]].
eventually lead to deception, or even develop addictive The analysis of the SCA creators’ concerns about
behaviors [[39], [42], [43]]. Eight creators highlighted implementing gamification through the SGD lens
the relevance to clarify to the users that the real impact helped to outline some of the strategies and
happens outside the app and that gamification is just opportunities for contributing to RRI practices and the
to assist them in adopting new habits. Another reason overall SHCI development field.
for concern is that gamification may simplify the
magnitude of the problem, so users should be made
aware that the small gratifications provided by the app 4.2. Alignment with RRI
are a recognition for their efforts to achieve a more dimensions
significant, real-life goal. “A lot of apps out there have
a self-declaration mechanism whereby you can sit on The systematic analysis of gamified SCA of 2022 [31]
the sofa and say ‘OK I took a 3min shower and I did called for the need to integrate socio-ethical issues into
great’ […] with our app we are trying to make actions the development of SCA, expanding collaborative
175
Table 2
Overview of RRI integration into the app design process according to the 4P’s
RRI dimension Product Process Purpose People
Widening their
Creators to educate
understanding of
Market and themselves on the topics of
sustainable consumption
stakeholder analyses gamification and
to provide more systemic Target the app to
sustainable consumption.
narratives and solutions. specific user groups,
Anticipation recognizing their needs,
Risk identification and Revisit the app’s value (Re)consider if level of knowledge, and
management plans. proposition. gamification is an reaction to gamification
approach that would
Reviewed value Identify potential risk areas work for their app and its
proposition plans for all stakeholders users.
Strategy-review
meetings with
Keep updated with Involve users in
management and
regulatory frameworks prototyping stages.
extended teams (i.e.,
Consider unexpected
subcontractors)
Reflexivity impacts and risks related
to launching an app
Request input from
Incorporate user and
subcontracted partners
Feedback loops partners’ feedback through
according to their
several test rounds.
expertise.
For individual creators,
Collect and act upon the
Open presentation of these activities are about
user feedback. All team
values, vision, and publishing their
members should be part
mission of the app motivations and work
of this enterprise.
principles. Create a continuous flow
of information between
Inclusion
Public Code of Pairs and teams need to SCA creators and their
Present the app’s
Conduct co-create these visions and stakeholders
identity to partners and
codes of conduct, also
sub-contracted parties,
Consultation rounds discussing the
inviting them to find
beyond users’ ratings stakeholders’ feedback and
affinity areas.
in app stores incorporating it.
Establish clear Constant communication
Communication communication with the user and
If possible, involve a
channels mechanisms and answer adaptation to their
third party to certify the
them. needs.
content of reports. If
Responsiveness
the costs are too high,
Set up reporting processes
consider user-based
Reporting to keep all stakeholders Establish clear indicators
validation as an option.
mechanisms informed about issues of and times for reporting.
their concern.
Besides visiting the store Keep an open channel
ratings and users’ and reply / act within a Acknowledge and thank
comments, the app can reasonable time, even if all the feedback provided
Care Feedback loops
include an email address to it’s to note that acting – even when irrelevant
contact or even an in-app will take longer than to the app.
experience rating sheet. expected.
176
efforts among societal stakeholders and distributing
both the agency and responsibility to enable
5. Discussion
sustainable consumption practices. To align with the
dimension of anticipation or envisioning future This study set to explore the main concerns of SCA
research or design from current dynamics [23] SCA creators when implementing gamification as an
creators should consider their apps’ unintended and innovation that investigates, induces, and intervenes
potentially harmful results. The SGD fully embraces in consumption practices, depicting how RRI
this dimension at the beginning of the process, asking dimensions could be integrated into the design and
designers to review their values and ethics as their implementation processes of these apps; thus,
first step, thus directing the visioning and exploration contributing to innovation in SHCI and SCHI as a
of technological platforms according to the creators’ research field in general. To this end, the analysis
values and the users’ needs. Although some creators departed from the higher understanding that ICT is
already have risk management plans in place, some “any high-level socio-technical system that has the
struggle to identify these risk areas when it comes to potential to significantly affect the way humans
implementing gamification; in many instances, this is interact with the world” ([26], p. 204); therefore, the
due to their limited knowledge about gamification. creators of ICT solutions should be able to understand
The dimension of reflexivity relates to the values the capabilities and constraints of technologies as they
and beliefs of the actors involved in science, public emerge, as this helps to foresee what could be done
collaboration, and dialogue [23]; it is needed for today to ensure that the social and ethical
creative problem-solving and engaging other consequences of technologies are not detrimental to
stakeholders in the design process. Almost all humans or the environment. Part of this
interviewees claimed their apps were inspired by their understanding conveys knowledge of what their users
own needs and those of their immediate circles, consider a risk besides what they need. While the apps
involving their users in the prototyping stages – one may have very specific target users (e.g. the
app was even developed in a living lab environment – communities where they operate, or the employees of
incorporating their feedback and creating learning their corporate partners) in general, they all aim at
loops to meet their users’ needs besides keeping engaging users willing to live more sustainably,
consistent with their values and objectives. Besides supporting their efforts to do so. Therefore, we used
being a practice of reflexivity, creating these feedback the results of [30] to align the creators’ considerations
loops is also a contribution to the inclusion dimension, and users’ requests to guide the discussion about the
which is about identifying socially desirable outcomes elements of concern to gamify SCA responsibly
from the perspective of all stakeholders involved. An through the RRI dimensions.
all-encompassing take on this dimension may help SCA
creators to strengthen their apps not only through 5.1. Users’ requests and perceived
feedback but also with codes of conduct clearly
presented to their users and partners, overcoming
risks
mismatching expectations, such as expecting apps to
be entirely free of use even though the sustenance of Users’ request 1 – Monetary aspects
the creator may depend on the app. This dimension Price and value for money. This area represents the
also attains collaboration with experts and individuals widest gap between the users’ requests and the
from other industries and sectors. All RRI dimensions creators’ concerns. [30] elaborate on how the cost of
are interconnected, and responsiveness is a natural an app influences its perception and attractiveness for
companion to inclusion. While mainly related to the downloading. In the case of SCA, the creators
mid and long-term risks of new technologies, this expressed the presence of a pervasive notion that
dimension is also about transparency and accessibility sustainability-related apps for individual use should
so that all stakeholders are aware that gamification is be free, leaving the creators needing other income-
a long-term investment that requires maintenance and generation means to keep the app working and
updates. Reporting on the app’s performance and relevant. While gamified apps seem to be more
presenting the creators’ code of ethics encourage users attractive and last longer than their non-gamified
and potential partners to see their affinity with the app counterparts [31], gamification comes with a higher
and their eventual uptake. [23] also elaborate on the price tag, as the creators need to keep up with the costs
dimension of care, or the human capacity to decide and behind the strategy and its implementation, as well as
judge where individuals take responsibility for come up with coherent gamification strategies,
decisions and actions carried out on their behalf. Care hopefully steering clear from physical rewards that
is differentiated from inclusion because it looks into convey additional charges. In general, balancing the
the human as an inner decider who does not want to costs with the users’ expectations attains all the value
be judged yet needs support to act, as noted by some destroyers, as a botched gamification strategy might as
of the SCA. well lead to the app's disappearance. Enabling
Error! Reference source not found. presents an o inclusion and responsiveness practices in the design
verview of how SCA creators can embed RRI process has helped the creators to identify their users’
dimensions into their design and management needs, and it should also be a channel for the users to
processes. The products enlisted are part of the ICT understand the creators’ plights for maintaining the
creation ecosystem facilitating RRI practices. apps and delivering the value they are looking for. All
the accounts of the five app creators whose apps
disappeared pointed to financial woes as one of the
main reasons. The creators behind the five apps that
177
switched business models from servicing individual sessions to consolidate their risk assessment and
consumers to partnering with businesses expressed a management plans, keeping them flexible enough to
similar situation for their choices to keep their app adapt to the development of technology, changes in
alive, even if that entailed curtailing their work for the regulations, and changes in the market, thus enhancing
free versions of their apps and reaching narrower the dimension of anticipation too.
audiences. Thus, enabling user awareness about the
actual costs of the apps should be part of the creators’ User perceived risks 2, 3 and 4 - user-friendliness,
pleasure of using the app and accuracy
responsibility, instilling the dimension of care and
Here, the value destroyers illusion of change and
advancing RRI awareness and implementation
shallowness indicate a dangerous zone for the app
processes. It should also be part of the users’
creators if they do not manage to provide gamification
responsibility. Part of this narrative should emphasize
elements consistent and coherent with what the app
how shifting consumption practices today may seem
stands for. As the app analysis [31] revealed, many
costly, but the price to pay tomorrow is even higher if
apps with high volumes of downloads and reviews rely
remaining inactive.
on out-of-app rewards in the shape of discount
Users’ request 2 – Ease of use vouchers that can be used for more consumption.
This rubric comprises notions related to the apps’ While this mechanism is presented as a “win-win”
efficiency, attractiveness, usability, learnability, and situation for the user and the planet, this gamification
comprehensibility. Elements that gamification can system leads to using the app for immediate, personal
contribute to bringing forward if adequately gratification instead of adopting sustainable
implemented. For the creators, these notions are the consumption habits. Such situations directly confront
core of their value proposition and, sometimes, the the RRI dimension of care, as the users’ trust in
reason not to team up with third-party advertisers, for someone making decisions for them, in this case, the
example. Recognizing that their apps are mainly used app is misleading the intention to consume better with
on phones with limited screen space, seven creators fewer resources.
elaborated on the importance of maximizing the The perceived risk of accuracy is also a milestone
screen space with relevant information and features for the design of SCA. 12 creators noted how much of
rather than adding unnecessary noise that may deter their resources were invested in research and the
users from exploring the app or staying loyal to it. provision of reliable data. The apps created to provide
Considering the users’ experience is an example of information for choice-making have several guidelines
both anticipation and reflexivity, as the creators find a for acquiring and curating information before it is
way to communicate the intention of their apps in a made available in the app. The creators are well aware
more straightforward and transparent manner than of the damage that providing false information would
under layers of text or hidden functions. The value convey and often rely on the feedback of their users to
destroyers of human agency loss and homogenization improve their content. This activity is part of the RRI
are the ones most likely to emerge if the app creators domain of inclusion and reflexivity; as the creators
do not pay the same attention to these user requests. check if the data is correct, reliable, and relevant to
There is no one-fits-all approach to gamifying SCA; what the app stands for before including it as part of
thus, the creators should take enough time to plan the their content. Thus, the gamification elements should
gamification project before proceeding with the rest of be able to reinforce the understanding that the
the design process [46], mainly if they will involve information presented is accurate.
other stakeholders as the RRI dimensions of inclusion Although the germinal processes, resources, and
and reflexivity require. motivations to embark on an SCA creative journey
vary, the people behind these apps can consider the
Users’ request 3 and number 1 perceivable risk –
recommendations below as an opportunity to
Safety aspects: privacy and security
contribute to practices of sustainable human-
The leaky containers and coercive participation value
computer interaction responsibly.
destroyers are the most likely to emerge if the creators
do not have clear guidelines for safely collecting and 1. Define their sustainability values and
managing their users’ data. The RRI responsiveness ethical stances as a prerequisite for topical,
dimension suggests creating a transparent code of marketing research, and decision-making by:
conduct and enabling transparent accountability • Developing a unified description of their
mechanisms. These practices attain RRI awareness sustainability values and using it for envisioning
and implementation and to the assessment activities, risks to create strategies to manage these (e.g.,
as all stakeholders have access to the app’s creators' coming up with potential unintended negative
code of conduct, not only to their visions and value impacts they can mitigate). Reaching out to
statements as organized entities. The convergence of potential users and investors can help define their
risk perception and requests from the users’ side is a sustainability stances and draft solid risk
clear indicator for the creators about what areas management plans;
should be prioritized and clearly communicated. • Educating themselves on sustainability and
Moreover, developing performance indicators in this gamification topics to find suitable strategies and
regard can help strengthen their presence and include relevant in-app content (e.g., learning
confidence among potential partners. While some of about the true costs of developing gamified apps;
the interviewed creators had comprehensive risk and avoiding rebound effects based on physical
plans, the reliance on the app store’s safeguards may rewards);
not be enough guarantee for users; therefore, the
creative teams behind the apps should plan strategic
178
• Conducting appropriate market and user 5.2. Contributions and way
analysis (e.g., for tailoring gamification aspects and
in-app content to the right audience).
forward
2. Enable creative problem-solving through The above discussion points illustrate how this study
participatory design: contributes to sustainable human-computer
• Involving users and all other relevant interaction by providing SCA creators with
stakeholders throughout the development process recommendations to support their apps’ objectives
(e.g., including diverse perspectives for improved while bearing unintended consequences in mind,
app usability); particularly if applying gamification. As most of the
• Considering the users’ opinions and creators provided accounts highlighting their focus on
experience by asking and addressing feedback in the care dimension, since their apps are enablers of
all stages of the development and use (e.g., for personal change, they need to reflect on the messages
providing relevant and accurate content only, for they are conveying through their apps, and the
transparent and straightforward communication responsibility of offering a tool for individual behavior
of app intention). change brings about. This paper contributes to the
studies of SHCI through design, presenting how
3. Implement holistic approaches and cross-
integrating RRI dimensions into the design of gamified
cultural cooperation for socially desirable
sustainable consumption apps may help advancing
outcomes:
digital societies from a value-based approach to
• Elaborating a code of conduct based on the innovation. The postulates of this study also entail
defined sustainability values and ethical stances; many limitations, like the size of the sample. Though
• Deploying cross-sectoral collaboration and sustainable consumption apps are a very specific
involving experts of different sectors adhering to niche, the results presented are based on the
the code of conduct, for a better and more relevant qualitative analysis of the accounts of 21 individuals.
representation of the topic; for enhanced adoption Also, none of the analytical frameworks used was
of sustainable consumption behaviors; and, for purposely designed for mobile apps, although both
developing a holistic approach yielding relate to the study’s subject; the 4P’s are
generalizable socially desirable outcomes; considerations for RRI in the ICT sector, while the SGD
• Creating and managing realistic expectations is about value-based gamification design. Perhaps
of all parties (e.g., financial management of the developing our own framework with the themes that
app); emerged from the data, or using other frameworks
• Enabling transparency in processes and specifically created for SCA would yield additional
safety guidelines/codes of conduct (e.g., results; these options were not explored due to the size
transparent communication that delivers value; of the sample and the time restrictions inherent to this
public information about app’s values; and study. Another existing issue is the applicability of the
transparency in data privacy and security). recommendations hereby presented. Although on
4. Develop and maintain responsiveness paper, they seem straightforward, in practice, SCA
strategies for transparent communication and creators may encounter many obstacles to
accessible solutions: implementing them, from the time available to carry
• Elaborating practical and accessible out these processes to the costs of maintaining any
communication channels (e.g., for making the additional features or involving more people in
process of leaving feedback appealing to the user, activities beyond their job descriptions. These
thus contributing to a more desirable app); recommendations intend to add value to the SCA, and
• Implementing effective reporting the creators are invited to consider the ones that
mechanisms, including report validation (e.g., for represent a low-hanging fruit according to their
establishing and nurturing regular and transparent current reality. Another limitation comes in the shape
communication with the stakeholders; for of the users’ requests and perceived risks, as the
ensuring correct and digestible reports); analysis was done referring to existing academic
research instead of interviews with the users of the
• Considering and addressing user feedback in
apps, which could help depicting more specific request
a prompt manner (e.g., for maintaining users’
for the creators to heed. After reviewing similar
engagement and development of user-friendly and
studies, the chosen one represented the most
accessible solutions).
comprehensive and updated overview of users’ needs.
5. Nurturing a sense of shared responsibility Including other similar studies may help to provide
between app creators and users: more robust findings. Nonetheless, the novelty of this
• Make the code of conduct, sustainability research lies in its value-based approach to identify
values, and ethical stances public to the users; and embed the app creators’ considerations for
• Building and maintaining relationships with ethically applying gamification within the RRI
users and other stakeholders through shared dimensions, helping to narrow the gap between
efforts (e.g. for long-lasting partnerships; for studies focusing on app design from the user
avoiding human agency loss among users; and for experience and those seeking examples of RRI in
achieving common sustainability goals). practice.
179
M. Kurosu (Eds) Human-Computer Interaction.
6. Conclusion Applications and Services, HCI 2014, Lecture
Notes in Computer Science, vol 8512, Springer,
As the use of apps for everyday activities keeps Cham, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
growing, so does the studying of how apps function 319-07227-2_71.
and what users require so that app creators can [5] C. Remy, O. Bates, V. Thomas, E. Huang, The
operate and survive in an increasingly competitive Limits of Evaluating Sustainability, in:
field. When it comes to sustainability by and through Proceedings of the 2017 Workshop on
design, ICT solutions have a strong orientation toward Computing Within Limits (LIMITS '17),
consumption and production practices. This study Association for Computing Machinery, New York,
focuses on the consumption aspect, as the narratives NY, USA, 2017, pp. 103–110.
related to it vary enormously, and so do the apps https://doi.org/10.1145/3080556.3080567.
created with the intention of enabling behaviors that [6] S. Scuri, M. Ferreira, N. Nunes, V. Nisi, C. Mulligan,
contribute to it. While existing research corroborates Hitting the Triple Bottom Line: Widening the HCI
the inclusion of gamification as a part of the design Approach to Sustainability, in: Proceedings of the
efforts to promote the efficient use of resources and 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in
positively impact the environment, there is less Computing Systems (CHI '22), Association for
information about what considerations the creators Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA,
have about the unintended effects that their apps may Article 332, 2022, pp. 1–19.
have. This study emphasizes sustainability through https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3517518.
design by proposing a values-based approach to [7] L. Hansson, T. Cerratto Pargman, D. Pargman, A
designing sustainable consumption apps, recognizing Decade of Sustainable HCI: Connecting SHCI to
gamification as an innovation that reveals problems, the Sustainable Development Goals, in:
stimulates novel behaviors, and aims at transforming Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on
processes for improved effectiveness and engagement. Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '21),
In addition, this study highlights that utilizing Association for Computing Machinery, New York,
gamification as an innovation strategy in SHCI, not NY, USA, Article 300, 2021, pp. 1–19.
only helps to address many of the shortcomings of eco- https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445069.
feedback systems but could result in both socially [8] C. Remy, O. Bates, A. Dix, V. Thomas, M. Hazas, A.
desirable and undesirable consequences, drawing Friday, E. M. Huang. Evaluation Beyond Usability:
attention of SCA creators to potential risks and calling Validating Sustainable HCI Research, in:
for their preparedness to prevent or mitigate them as Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on
part of their apps' value propositions. Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '18),
Association for Computing Machinery, New York,
Acknowledgements NY, USA, 2018, Paper 216, pp. 1–14,
https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173790.
[9] F. Cellina, D. Bucher, J. Veiga Simão, R. Rudel, and
The authors would like to wholeheartedly thank the 21
M. Raubal, Beyond Limitations of Current
app creators that shared their journeys with us. This
Behaviour Change Apps for Sustainable Mobility:
study was supported by the Foundation for Economic
Insights from a User-Centered Design and
Education [Grant No. 210301 - GAMETH]; the
Evaluation Process, Sustainability, 11.8 (2019)
Academy of Finland Flagship Program [Grant No.
2281. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11082281.
337653 - Forest-Human-Machine Interplay (UNITE)];
[10] J. Froehlich, L. Findlater, J. Landay, The design of
and the Fortum and Neste Foundation [grant
eco-feedback technology, in: Proceedings of the
20200029].
SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems (CHI '10), Association for
References Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2010,
pp. 1999–2008.
https://doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753629.
[1] G. Brundtland, Report of the World Commission
[11] J. Hamari, Gamification, in: G. Ritzer, C. Rojek
on Environment and Development: Our Common
(Eds.), The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology,
Future, United Nations General Assembly
John Wiley & Sons, 2019.
document A/42/427, 1987.
[12] A. Shahri, M. Hosseini, K. Phalp, J. Taylor, R. Ali,
[2] S. M. Geiger, D. Fischer, U. Schrader, Measuring
Towards a Code of Ethics for Gamification at
What Matters in Sustainable Consumption: An
Enterprise, in: U. Frank, P. Loucopoulos, Ó.
Integrative Framework for the Selection of
Pastor, I. Petrounias (Eds.) The Practice of
Relevant Behaviors, Sustainable Development,
Enterprise Modeling, PoEM 2014, Lecture Notes
26.1 (2018) 18–33.
in Business Information Processing, vol 197,
[3] J. Mankoff, E. Blevis, A. Borning, B. Friedman, S.
Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2014.
R. Fussell, J. Hasbrouck, P. Sengers, A. Woodruff,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-45501-
Environmental sustainability and interaction,
2_17.
CHI '07 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in
[13] D. Stroud, C. Evans, M. Weinel, Innovating for
Computing Systems, 2007.
energy efficiency: Digital gamification in the
[4] V. P. De Almeida Neris, K. da Hora Rodrigues, R.
European steel industry, European Journal of
F. Lima, A Systematic Review of Sustainability
Industrial Relations, 26.4 (2020) 419–437.
and Aspects of Human-Computer Interaction, in:
https://doi.org/10.1177/0959680120951707.
180
[14] R. Mulcahy, R. Russell-Bennett, D. Iacobucci, Smith-Doerr (Eds.), The Handbook of Science
Designing gamified apps for sustainable and Technology Studies, fourth edition, MIT
consumption: A field study, Journal of Business Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 2016.
Research, 106 (2020) 377–387. [28] E. Yaghmaei, Responsible research and
[15] B. D. Douglas, M. Brauer, Gamification to prevent innovation key performance indicators in
climate change: a review of games and apps for industry: A case study in the ICT domain, Journal
sustainability, Current Opinion in Psychology, 42 of Information, Communication and Ethics in
(2021) 89–94. Society, 16.2 (2018) 214-234.
[16] M. Jirotka, B. Grimpe, B. Stahl, G. Eden, M. [29] M. Raftopoulos, Towards gamification
Hartswood, Responsible research and transparency: A conceptual framework for the
innovation in the digital age, in: Communications development of responsible gamified enterprise
of the ACM, 60.5 (2017) 2–68. systems, Journal of Gaming & Virtual Worlds, 6.2
https://doi.org/10.1145/3064940. (2014) 159–178.
[17] M. Schuijff, A. M. Dijkstra, Practices of [30] T. Hunger, M. Arnold, R. Pestinger, Risks and
Responsible Research and Innovation: A Review, Requirements in Sustainable App Development –
Science and engineering ethics, 26.2 (2020) 533– A Review, Sustainability, 15.8 (2023) 7018.
574. [31] G. Guillen Mandujano, D. Fernandez Galeote, N.
[18] A. Shpakova, V. Dörfler, J. MacBryde, Gamifying Sicevic, J. Hamari, J. Quist, Gamified apps for
Innovation and Innovating Through sustainable consumption: a systematic review,
Gamification, in: V. Ratten, P. Jones, V. Braga, C.S. in: Proceedings of the 6th International GamiFIN
Marques (Eds.) Subsistence Entrepreneurship, Conference, v. 3147, 2022, pp. 135-145.
Contributions to Management Science, Springer, [32] United Nations, Transforming our world: The
Cham, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3- 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,
030-11542-5_10. 2015. URL: https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda.
[19] F. M. AlSaad, C. M. Durugbo, Gamification-as Last accessed: November 17, 2023.
Innovation: A Review, International Journal of [33] T. P. L. Nghiem, L. R. Carrasco, Mobile
Innovation and Technology Management, 18.5 Applications to Link Sustainable Consumption
(2021). with Impacts on the Environment and
[20] D. Berdichevsky, E. Neuenschwander, Toward an Biodiversity, BioScience, 66.5 (2016) 384–392.
ethics of persuasive technology, in: https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biw016.
Communications of the ACM, 42.5 (1999) 51–58. [34] G. M. Guillen, J. Hamari, J. Quist, Gamification of
https://doi.org/10.1145/301353.301410. sustainable consumption: A systematic literature
[21] R. Owen, R. von Schomberg, P. Macnaghten, An review, in: Proceedings of the 54th Hawaii
unfinished journey? Reflections on a decade of International Conference on System Sciences,
responsible research and innovation, Journal of 2021, pp. 1345-1354.
Responsible Innovation, 8.2 (2021) 217–233. [35] P. S. Shukla, P. V. Nigam, E-shopping using mobile
[22] R. von Schomberg, A vision of responsible apps and the emerging consumer in the digital
innovation. In: R. Owen, M. Heintz and J. Bessant age of retail hyper personalization: An insight,
(Eds.) Responsible Innovation, John Wiley, 2013. Pacific Business Review International, 10.10
[23] M. Burget, E. Bardone, M. Pedaste, Definitions (2018) pp. 131-139.
and Conceptual Dimensions of Responsible [36] N. Arambepola, L. Munasinghe, A way forward
Research and Innovation: A Literature Review, for Sustainable Human-Computer Interaction, in:
Science and Engineering Ethics, 23.1 (2016) 1– Proceedings of the International Conference on
19. Applied and Pure Sciences (ICAPS 2021-
[24] I. van de Poel, L. Asveld, S. Flipse, P. Klaassen, V. Kelaniya), vol. 2, 2022, p. 45.
Scholten, E. Yaghmaei, Company Strategies for [37] M. A. Tremblay, The Key Informant Technique: A
Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI): A Non-Ethnographic Application, in: R. G. Burgess
Conceptual Model, Sustainability, 9.11 (2017) (Ed.), Field Research, first published 1982,
2045. Routledge, 2003.
[25] A. Porcari, D. Pimponi, E. Borsella, P. Klaassen, M. [38] G. Guillen Mandujano, Key informant semi-
J. Maia, E. Mantovani, Supporting RRI uptake in structured interview guideline, 2024.
industry: A qualitative and multi-criteria https://osf.io/nhw7a
approach to analysing the costs and benefits of [39] T. W. Kim, K. Werbach, More than just a game:
implementation, in E. Yaghmaei, I. van de Poel ethical issues in gamification, Ethics and
(Eds.) Assessment of Responsible Innovation, Information Technology, 18 (2016) 157–173.
Routledge, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-016-9401-5.
[26] B. C. Stahl, G. Eden, M. Jirotka, Responsible [40] R. Mulcahy, K. Letheren, R. McAndrew, C. Glavas,
Research and Innovation in Information and R. Russell-Bennett, Are households ready to
Communication Technology: Identifying and engage with smart home technology?, Journal of
Engaging with the Ethical Implications of ICTs, Marketing Management, 35.15-16 (2019) 1370–
in: R. Owen, J. Bessant, M. Heintz (Eds.) 1400. Doi: 10.1080/0267257X.2019.1680568.
Responsible Innovation: Managing the [41] N. Shevchuk, K. Degirmenci, H. Oinas-Kukkonen,
Responsible Emergence of Science and Adoption of gamified persuasive systems to
Innovation in Society, John Wiley & Sons, 2013. encourage sustainable behaviors: interplay
[27] J. Stilgoe, D. Guston, Responsible research and between perceived persuasiveness and cognitive
innovation, in: U. Felt, R. Fouche, C. A. Miller, L. absorption, in: ICIS 2019 Proceedings, 3, 2019.
181
https://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2019/behavior_is/b
ehavior_is/3
[42] M. Tiessen, Gamed agencies: affectively
modulating our screen- and app-based digital
futures, in: M. Fuchs, N. Schrape, S. Fizek and P.
Ruffino (Eds.) Rethinking Gamification. The
Gamification Lab and the Hybrid Publishing Lab
at the Centre for Digital Cultures, Meson Press,
Lüneburg, Germany, 2014.
[43] A. Thorpe, S. Roper, The ethics of gamification in
a marketing context, Journal of Business Ethics
155.9 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-
017-3501-y.
[44] T. Nyströ m, Exploring the darkness of
gamification: You want it darker?, in Intelligent
Computing: Proceedings of the 2021 Computing
Conference, v. 3, 2021, pp. 491–506.
[45] T. W. Kim, Gamification of labor and the charge of
exploitation, Journal of Business Ethics, Journal
of Business Ethics 152.1 (2018) 27–39.
[46] B. Morschheuser, L. Hassan, K. Werder, J. Hamari,
How to design gamification? A method for
engineering gamified software, Information and
Software Technology, 95 (2018) 219–237.
182