Consent is an organizational behavior issue
Vanessa K.Bohns, RachelSchlund
Research in Organizational Behavior, 18 August 2021
Abstract
Consent is central to many organizational interactions and obligations. Employees consent to various terms of employment, both formal (contractual obligations) and informal (extra-role responsibilities, interpersonal requests). Yet consent has traditionally been considered a legal matter, unrelated to organizational behavior. In this article, we make a case for why, and how, organizational behavior scholars should undertake the study of consent. We first review scholarship on the legal understanding of consent. We argue that the traditional legal understanding is an incomplete way to think about consent in organizations, and we call for a more nuanced understanding that incorporates psychological and philosophical insights about consent—particularly consent in employer-employee relationships. We then connect this understanding of consent to traditional organizational behavior topics (autonomy, fairness, and trust) and examine these connections within three organizational domains (employee surveillance, excessive work demands, and sexual harassment). We conclude with future directions for research on consent in organizations.

ICME: an informed consent management engine for conformance in smart building environments [CONFERENCE PAPER]
Chehara Pathmabandu, John Grundy, Mohan Baruwal Chhetri, Zubair Baig
ESEC/FSE 2021: Proceedings of the 29th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, August 2021; pp 1545–1549
Open Access
Abstract
Smart buildings can reveal highly sensitive insights about their inhabitants and expose them to new privacy threats and vulnerabilities. Yet, convenience overrides privacy concerns and most people remain ignorant about this issue. We propose a novel Informed Consent Management Engine (ICME) that aims to: (a) increase users’ awareness about privacy issues and data collection practices in their smart building environments, (b) provide fine-grained visibility into privacy conformance and infringement by these devices, (c) recommend and visualise corrective user actions through “digital nudging”, and (d) support the monitoring and management of personal data disclosure in a shared space. We present a reference architecture for ICME that can be used by software engineers to implement diverse end-user consent management solutions for smart buildings. We also provide a proof-of-concept prototype to demonstrate how the ICME approach works in a shared smart workplace. Demo: <a>https://youtu.be/5y6CdyWAdgY</a>

Communication and Libertarianism [BOOK]
Pavel Slutskiy
Springer, 3 August 2021
Editor’s note: In Communication and libertarianism, which covers a range of themes, the four chapters below were relevant to consent.

Communicating Consent
Abstract
The libertarian non-aggression principle rests on two concepts: the concept of property rights, which defines the borders of individual autonomy, and the concept of consent, which defines unwarranted intrusion. Both concepts depend on communication—borders of property need to be publicly manifested on the one hand, and consent needs to be expressed in order to exist in the reality of human action on the other. Unless consent is manifested, it remains hypothetical, and hypothetical consent is never valid. Even if an action based on hypothetical consent coincides with the preferences of the consent-giver, it happens to be so only by coincidence. Counting on such hypothetical consent is risky, and the actor who takes the risk bears full responsibility for potential mistakes which may lead to uninvited interference. Hypothetical consent needs to be separated from tacit and implied consent, both of which can be valid. Internal “mental” aspects of consent may be important felicity conditions for consent, but they are not enough for a successful performance of the act of consenting. It is “external” or expressive aspects of consenting which are crucial for making the preferences of the consent-giver identifiable to another agent, thus changing the status of his actions. Only communicated consent is capable of performing the “magic” of making actions permissible, and only communicated consent can be used by actors to defend against potential accusations in rights violation.

Communication Ethics: Consent as the Foundation of Non-aggression
Abstract
One of the major challenges for political philosophy is the postulated impossibility of building a sound theory without a solid foundation in ethics. Ethical questions of what is good and what is bad arise within the context of social interactions—in relation to actions unto other people. But judgements on what is good and what is bad are necessarily subjective. This, however, does not mean that this subjective judgement is not true. Man’s opinion about what is a bad action unto him is a correct evaluation of the action in question. For an acting agent, the opinion of the action’s recipient is thus the source of the correct ethical assessment of the action. This assessment can only become known to the acting agent by the means of communication. Communicating a subjective value judgement on what is good and what is bad gives the other agent knowledge about the ethical value of the intended action. Acting unto another man against his consent thus implies wrongdoing.

Manipulation of Consent
Abstract
This chapter examines several criticisms of non-fraudulent commercial speech. According to critics, even if business propaganda does not constitute fraud by intentionally misleading consumers, it still may be illegitimate for other reasons. Advertising is accused of coercion through manipulative persuasion, exaggeration and puffery. Other charges include accusations of promoting products and services that are harmful for consumers who therefore later regret purchasing them, and this regret invalidates the consent given at the moment of making the purchase. These accusations are examined from the property rights perspective as well from the communication perspective.

The Role of Property Rights in the Ethics of Consent
Abstract
Consent is what allows us to tell others whether their actions unto us are acceptable from our point of view. Proceeding with an action without our consent, or after consent has been refused, would constitute a moral wrongdoing. However, consent is only required for giving moral evaluation to actions that are directed towards other actors and affect them. An action can be considered as intended towards another person if it interferes with this person’s “zones of control”—borders of physical objects with which one creates a particular relationship. This relationship is ownership—it assumes that any hindrance to the use of the object without the consent of the owner is a wrongdoing. Ownership comes from the direct control of bodies, and original appropriation of external objects and voluntary transfers forms the foundation of property rights—violation against property is a violation against the owner. A legal system based on the idea that property rights violations constitute an offence recognises the validity of the non-aggression principle. The non-aggression principle prohibits the initiation of force, which is understood as an action of border crossing without the owner’s consent. The concept of consent and the concept of borders are ontologically based on communication, which means that communication is the basis of the non-aggression principle.

Informed Consent: A Monthly Review
___________________________

August 2021

This digest aggregates and distills key content addressing informed consent from a broad spectrum of peer-reviewed journals and grey literature, and from various practice domains and organization types including international agencies, INGOs, governments, academic and research institutions, consortiums and collaborations, foundations, and commercial organizations. We acknowledge that this scope yields an indicative and not an exhaustive digest product.

Informed Consent: A Monthly Review is a service of the Center for Informed Consent Integrity, a program of the GE2P2 Global Foundation. The Foundation is solely responsible for its content. Comments and suggestions should be directed to:

Editor
Paige Fitzsimmons, MA
Associate Director, Center for Informed Consent Integrity
GE2P2 Global Foundation
paige.fitzsimmons@ge2p2global.org
PDF Version: GE2P2 Global_Informed Consent – A Monthly Review_August 2021

Editor’s Note:

Informed Consent in the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) guidance on Clinical research in resource-limited settings, held on July 21^st 2021, was the latest webinar in the Center’s continuing series. David Curry opened the call with a high-level overview of the guidance. Paige Fitzsimmons followed with a brief summary of how informed consent is treated in the guidance. Getnet Yimer then provided observations and reflections on this guidance and associated challenges with implementation from a field research and ethics review board perspective. Dónal O’Mathúna closed the discussion by examining how community engagement is treated in the new guidance.