pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.03547 · v1 · pith:56KHQALUnew · submitted 2026-06-02 · 💻 cs.CY

Pushing the Limits: A Framework to Reform Institutional Ethics Review of Environmentally-Impactful Computing Research

Nicolas Gold , Ross Purves This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 08:06 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CY
keywords research ethicsenvironmental impactcomputationally intensive researchinstitutional reviewAI ethicsplanetary limitsethics policycomputing sustainability
0
0 comments X

The pith

Institutional ethics policies should explicitly include computationally intensive research on the basis of its environmental impact.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper claims that much computationally intensive research produces significant environmental effects yet often escapes ethics review because policies do not address planetary limits on their own. It offers three concrete tools: scoping criteria that bring such research inside review policy, evidential criteria that give reviewers a basis for assessment, and a structured reflection method that lets researchers weigh their projects against resource constraints. A sympathetic reader would see this as a practical way to make environmental costs visible and discussable inside existing institutional processes rather than leaving them unexamined.

Core claim

By defining scoping criteria that place CIR within ethics review on environmental grounds alone, supplying evidential criteria for legitimate reviewer critique, and giving researchers a method to reflect on their work in relation to planetary limits, the paper supplies the missing policy language and procedures that currently leave environmental impacts of computing research outside formal oversight.

What carries the argument

A three-part framework of scoping criteria for policy inclusion, evidential criteria for reviewers, and a researcher reflection method that connects proposed work to planetary resource limits.

If this is right

  • Ethics review bodies will begin requiring environmental impact statements for CIR proposals.
  • Researchers will routinely assess their computing projects against planetary resource budgets before submission.
  • Institutional policies will be revised to list environmental factors as standalone grounds for review.
  • Review decisions will start to weigh the environmental cost of training runs or large-scale simulations directly.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Departments may need to add environmental scientists or data on energy and carbon accounting to their ethics panels.
  • The same scoping approach could later be applied to other resource-intensive fields such as experimental physics or materials science.
  • Funding agencies might adopt similar environmental thresholds as a precondition for grant eligibility.

Load-bearing premise

Institutional ethics review bodies already have or can readily obtain the expertise and formal authority to evaluate and constrain research projects solely on the basis of environmental impact.

What would settle it

An ethics committee that receives a CIR proposal, applies the proposed criteria, and either approves or rejects it with an explicit environmental rationale that stands up to institutional or legal challenge.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.03547 by Nicolas Gold, Ross Purves.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Table showing the first stage of the method: Cause to Impact Mapping. Columns are the causes, rows are the impact. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Table showing the second stage of the method: Reflexive Mapping of Controlled Impact to Design. Impacts (rows) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Table showing the third stage of the method: The Present as the Future of the Past. Additional sub-columns are added [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Computationally-intensive research (CIR) takes place on a wide variety of topics including AI. Its environmental impact is potentially significant yet it does not always fall clearly within the scope of organisational ethics review policy on its own merits. Many academic institutions have ethics oversight bodies (e.g. Research Ethics Committees or Institutional Review Boards) that occupy a potentially powerful position to encourage recognition of these issues and seek reflexive practice in researchers. However, policies are often poorly-defined in respect of environmental issues and thus research is not reviewed, reviewers have little guidance for legitimate critique, and researchers are not challenged to consider planetary limits on computing resources and the interaction of these with their research. This paper aims to address these problems by proposing scoping criteria for institutional ethics policy to bring CIR within the scope of ethics review on its own merits, framing evidential criteria for reviewers to apply in ethics review, and presenting a method by which CIR researchers can reflect on their proposed research in relation to environmental factors, and assess its potential value in the light of planetary limits.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper claims that computationally-intensive research (CIR), including AI, has potentially significant environmental impacts that often fall outside the scope of institutional ethics review policies. It proposes three elements to address this: scoping criteria to bring CIR within ethics review on its own merits, evidential criteria for reviewers to apply during review, and a reflection method for researchers to assess their work against planetary limits and environmental factors.

Significance. If the framework can be operationalized, it would address a documented gap in ethics policies that are poorly defined for environmental issues, potentially encouraging reflexive practice among CIR researchers. The proposal is normative rather than empirical and does not include machine-checked proofs or reproducible code, but its value would lie in providing concrete policy language and a structured reflection process where none currently exists.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and Proposed Framework] The central claim requires that RECs/IRBs can legitimately apply the proposed scoping and evidential criteria to constrain CIR on environmental grounds. However, the manuscript provides no mechanism, training provisions, external-expert mandates, or validation steps for these bodies to acquire or demonstrate the necessary domain knowledge in computing energy models, carbon accounting, and planetary-boundary thresholds (distinct from their existing human-subjects expertise). This assumption is load-bearing and remains unaddressed even though the abstract itself notes that reviewers currently have 'little guidance.'
  2. [Abstract] No worked examples, pilot applications, or test cases are supplied to demonstrate how the scoping criteria, evidential criteria, or researcher reflection method would function in practice or produce consistent outcomes across different CIR projects.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments, which highlight important considerations for operationalizing our proposed framework. We address each major comment below and indicate planned revisions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and Proposed Framework] The central claim requires that RECs/IRBs can legitimately apply the proposed scoping and evidential criteria to constrain CIR on environmental grounds. However, the manuscript provides no mechanism, training provisions, external-expert mandates, or validation steps for these bodies to acquire or demonstrate the necessary domain knowledge in computing energy models, carbon accounting, and planetary-boundary thresholds (distinct from their existing human-subjects expertise). This assumption is load-bearing and remains unaddressed even though the abstract itself notes that reviewers currently have 'little guidance.'

    Authors: We agree this is a substantive gap in the current manuscript. While the core contribution is the definition of scoping criteria, evidential criteria, and the reflection method, successful application does depend on REC capacity. In revision we will add an explicit 'Implementation Considerations' subsection that outlines recommended mechanisms, including: (1) institution-level training requirements on carbon accounting and planetary-boundary metrics for REC members; (2) a mandate for external expert consultation on energy models when internal expertise is insufficient; and (3) a phased rollout with initial validation through a small number of pilot reviews. These additions directly respond to the abstract's observation about limited guidance. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] No worked examples, pilot applications, or test cases are supplied to demonstrate how the scoping criteria, evidential criteria, or researcher reflection method would function in practice or produce consistent outcomes across different CIR projects.

    Authors: The manuscript is intentionally normative and framework-oriented rather than empirical. Nevertheless, the absence of illustrative cases does limit readers' ability to assess practical application and consistency. We will therefore add a dedicated 'Illustrative Applications' section containing three concise hypothetical worked examples (one large-scale language-model training run, one high-performance computing simulation for climate modelling, and one distributed sensor-network study) that walk through the scoping criteria, evidential thresholds, and researcher reflection steps. These examples will be clearly labelled as illustrative to avoid any implication of empirical validation. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: normative policy proposal without derivations or self-referential reductions

full rationale

The paper advances a normative framework consisting of scoping criteria for ethics policy, evidential criteria for reviewers, and a researcher reflection method. No equations, fitted parameters, predictions, or uniqueness theorems appear in the provided text. The central claims do not reduce by construction to inputs via self-definition, fitted data renamed as prediction, or load-bearing self-citations. The proposal is self-contained as an argument for institutional change and does not invoke prior author work to justify its own premises. This matches the default expectation of no significant circularity for non-mathematical policy papers.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper is a normative framework proposal. It rests on the domain assumption that environmental impact constitutes a legitimate domain for ethics review and that ethics bodies can meaningfully assess it.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Environmental impact of computing research is a legitimate and reviewable concern for institutional ethics bodies.
    Invoked to justify expanding scope of ethics review to CIR on its own merits.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5709 in / 1167 out tokens · 21507 ms · 2026-06-28T08:06:52.906331+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Baumer and M

    Eric P.S. Baumer and M. Six Silberman. 2011. When the Implication Is Not to Design (Technology). InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2271–2274. doi:10.1145/1978942.1979275

    work page doi:10.1145/1978942.1979275 2011

  2. [2]

    Christoph Becker, Ruzanna Chitchyan, Leticia Duboc, Steve Easterbrook, Martin Mahaux, Birgit Penzenstadler, Guillermo Rodriguez-Navas, Camille Salinesi, Norbert Seyff, Colin Venters, Coral Calero, Sedef Akinli Kocak, and Stefanie Betz

  3. [3]

    The Karlskrona manifesto for sustainability design

    The Karlskrona Manifesto for Sustainability Design. arXiv:1410.6968 [cs] doi:10.48550/arXiv.1410.6968

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1410.6968

  4. [4]

    Eli Blevis. 2007. Sustainable Interaction Design: Invention & Disposal, Renewal & Reuse. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’07). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 503–512. doi:10.1145/1240624.1240705

    work page doi:10.1145/1240624.1240705 2007

  5. [5]

    Anastasi

    Bernadette Capili and Joyce K. Anastasi. 2024. Ethical Research and the Institu- tional Review Board: An Introduction.AJN The American Journal of Nursing124, 3 (March 2024), 50. doi:10.1097/01.NAJ.0001008420.28033.e8

    work page doi:10.1097/01.naj.0001008420.28033.e8 2024

  6. [6]

    2020.The Assessment List for Trustworthy Artificial Intel- ligence (ALTAI) for self assessment

    European Commission, Content Directorate-General for Communications Net- works, and Technology. 2020.The Assessment List for Trustworthy Artificial Intel- ligence (ALTAI) for self assessment. Publications Office. doi:doi/10.2759/002360

    work page doi:10.2759/002360 2020

  7. [7]

    sztucznej inteligencji

    European Commission, Content Directorate-General for Communications Net- works, Technology, and Grupa ekspertów wysokiego szczebla ds. sztucznej inteligencji. 2019.Ethics guidelines for trustworthy AI. Publications Office. doi:doi/10.2759/346720

    work page doi:10.2759/346720 2019

  8. [8]

    Data Hazards Contributors. 2026. About — Data Hazards v1.0 Documentation - https://datahazards.com/about.html. https://datahazards.com/about.html. Visited 25 March 2026

    2026

  9. [9]

    Danny Cullenward, Grayson Badgley, and Freya Chay. 2023. Carbon Offsets Are Incompatible with the Paris Agreement.One Earth6, 9 (Sept. 2023), 1085–1088. doi:10.1016/j.oneear.2023.08.014

    work page doi:10.1016/j.oneear.2023.08.014 2023

  10. [10]

    Samuel Dodson and Jane Bartley. 2024. (Disrupting) Continuities between Eu- genics and Statistics: A Critical Study of Regression Analysis.Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology61, 1 (2024), 892–895. doi:10.1002/pra2.1131

    work page doi:10.1002/pra2.1131 2024

  11. [11]

    Olivia Doggett, Jen Liu, Ufuoma Ovienmhada, Samar Sabie, Sarah Gram, Laura J Perovich, Matt Ratto, and Robert Soden. 2023. Environmental and Climate Justice in Computing. InCompanion Publication of the 2023 Conference on Com- puter Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (CSCW ’23 Compan- ion). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, US...

    work page doi:10.1145/3584931.3611296 2023

  12. [12]

    Sarah JL Edwards. 2009. The Role, Remit and Function of the Research Ethics Committee — 1. The Rationale for Ethics Review of Research by Committee. Research Ethics5, 4 (Dec. 2009), 147–150. doi:10.1177/174701610900500405

    work page doi:10.1177/174701610900500405 2009

  13. [13]

    Dove, Bobbie Farsides, Phoebe Friesen, Jeff Kahn, Walter Karlen, Peter Kleist, S

    Agata Ferretti, Marcello Ienca, Mark Sheehan, Alessandro Blasimme, Edward S. Dove, Bobbie Farsides, Phoebe Friesen, Jeff Kahn, Walter Karlen, Peter Kleist, S. Matthew Liao, Camille Nebeker, Gabrielle Samuel, Mahsa Shabani, Minerva Rivas Velarde, and Effy Vayena. 2021. Ethics Review of Big Data Research: What Should Stay and What Should Be Reformed?BMC Med...

    2021

  14. [14]

    doi:10.1186/s12910-021-00616-4

    work page doi:10.1186/s12910-021-00616-4

  15. [15]

    Luciano Floridi, Josh Cowls, Monica Beltrametti, Raja Chatila, Patrice Chazerand, Virginia Dignum, Christoph Luetge, Robert Madelin, Ugo Pagallo, Francesca Rossi, Burkhard Schafer, Peggy Valcke, and Effy Vayena. 2018. AI4People—An Ethical Framework for a Good AI Society: Opportunities, Risks, Principles, and Recommendations.Minds and Machines28, 4 (Dec. 2...

    2018

  16. [16]

    Environmental Association for Universities and Colleges (EUAC) (on behalf of the sector). 2024. Concordat for the Environmental Sustainability of Research and Innovation Practice. https://cms.wellcome.org/sites/default/files/2024- 04/Concordat%20for%20the%20Environmental%20Sustainability%20of%20RI% 20Practice.pdf. Visited 1 April 2026

    2024

  17. [17]

    Di Cara, David C

    Susana Román García, Ceilidh Welsh, Nina H. Di Cara, David C. Sterratt, Nicola Romanò, and Melanie I. Stefan. 2025. Data Hazards as An Ethical Toolkit for Neuroscience.Neuroethics18, 1 (Feb. 2025), 15. doi:10.1007/s12152-024-09580-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s12152-024-09580-3 2025

  18. [18]

    Jochen Gläser. 2024. How Can We Make ‘Research Quality’ a Theoretical Concept? Research Evaluation33 (Jan. 2024), rvae038. doi:10.1093/reseval/rvae038

    work page doi:10.1093/reseval/rvae038 2024

  19. [19]

    Nicolas E Gold, Raul Masu, Cécile Chevalier, and Fabio Morreale. 2022. Share Your Values! Community-Driven Embedding of Ethics in Research. InExtended Abstracts of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New Orleans, LA, USA)(CHI EA ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 12, 7 pages. doi:10.1145/349110...

    work page doi:10.1145/3491101.3516389 2022

  20. [20]

    HM Government. 2023. Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023. https: //www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/16. Visited 31 March 2026

    2023

  21. [21]

    Government Digital Service. 2026. Data and AI Ethics Framework. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/data-ethics-framework/data- and-ai-ethics-framework. Visited 25 March 2026

    2026

  22. [22]

    Jason Grealey, Loïc Lannelongue, Woei-Yuh Saw, Jonathan Marten, Guillaume Méric, Sergio Ruiz-Carmona, and Michael Inouye. 2022. The Carbon Footprint of Bioinformatics.Molecular Biology and Evolution39, 3 (March 2022). doi:10. 1093/molbev/msac034

    2022

  23. [23]

    Russell Group. 2026. Our Universities. https://www.russellgroup.ac.uk/our- universities. Visited 1 April 2026

    2026

  24. [24]

    Bob Hudson, David Hunter, and Stephen Peckham. 2019. Policy Failure and the Policy-Implementation Gap: Can Policy Support Programs Help?Policy Design and Practice2, 1 (Jan. 2019), 1–14. doi:10.1080/25741292.2018.1540378

    work page doi:10.1080/25741292.2018.1540378 2019

  25. [25]

    Kaufmann, Tim West, and Sue P

    Jeffrey B. Kaufmann, Tim West, and Sue P. Ravenscroft. 2005. Ethical Distancing: Rationalizing Violations of Organizational Norms.Business and Professional Ethics Journal24, 3 (Nov. 2005), 101–134. doi:10.5840/bpej200524328

    work page doi:10.5840/bpej200524328 2005

  26. [26]

    Climate Change: What is Computing’s Responsibility? (Dagstuhl Per- spectives Workshop 25122)

    Bran Knowles, Vicki L. Hanson, Christoph Becker, Mike Berners-Lee, Andrew A. Chien, Benoit Combemale, Vlad Coroamă, Koen De Bosschere, Yi Ding, Adrian Fri- day, Boris Gamazaychikov, Lynda Hardman, Simon Hinterholzer, Mattias Höjer, Lynn Kaack, Lenneke Kuijer, Anne-Laure Ligozat, Jan Tobias Muehlberg, Yun- mook Nah, Thomas Olsson, Anne-Cécile Orgerie, Dani...

    work page doi:10.4230/dagman.11.1.1 2025

  27. [27]

    Bran Knowles, Kelly Widdicks, Gordon Blair, Mike Berners-Lee, and Adrian Friday. 2022. Our House Is on Fire: The Climate Emergency and Computing’s Responsibility.Commun. ACM65, 6 (May 2022), 38–40. doi:10.1145/3503916

    work page doi:10.1145/3503916 2022

  28. [28]

    Kreindler

    Sara A. Kreindler. 2016. What If Implementation Is Not the Problem? Exploring the Missing Links between Knowledge and Action.The International Journal of Health Planning and Management31, 2 (2016), 208–226. doi:10.1002/hpm.2277

    work page doi:10.1002/hpm.2277 2016

  29. [29]

    Lambert, Elisa Sobo, and Valerie L

    Michael C. Lambert, Elisa Sobo, and Valerie L. Lambert. 2021. Rethinking Land Acknowledgments.Anthropology News website(20 Dec. 2021). https://www. anthropology-news.org/articles/rethinking-land-acknowledgments/. Visited 1 April 2026

    2021

  30. [30]

    David Leslie. 2023. The Ethics of Computational Social Science. InHandbook of Computational Social Science for Policy, Eleonora Bertoni, Matteo Fontana, Lorenzo Gabrielli, Serena Signorelli, and Michele Vespe (Eds.). Springer Interna- tional Publishing, Cham, 57–104. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-16624-2_4

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-16624-2_4 2023

  31. [31]

    David Leslie, Cami Rincón, Morgan Briggs, Antonella Perini, Smera Jayadeva, Ann Borda, SJ Bennett, Christopher Burr, Mhairi Aitken, Michael Katell, Claudia Fischer, Janis Wong, and Kherroubi Garcia Ismael. 2023. AI Sustainability in Practice Part Two: Sustainability Throughout the AI Workflow

    2023

  32. [32]

    University College London. 2026. LEAF - Laboratory Efficiency Assessment Framework. https://www.ucl.ac.uk/sustainable/take-action/staff-action/leaf- laboratory-efficiency-assessment-framework. Visited 1 April 2026

    2026

  33. [33]

    Alessandro Margherita, Gianluca Elia, and Claudio Petti. 2022. What Is Quality in Research? Building a Framework of Design, Process and Impact Attributes LIMITS ’26, June 23–25, 2026, Online Gold and Purves and Evaluation Perspectives.Sustainability14, 5 (Jan. 2022), 3034. doi:10.3390/ su14053034

    2022

  34. [34]

    Annette Markham. 2006. Ethic as Method, Method as Ethic: A Case for Reflexivity in Qualitative ICT Research.Journal of Information Ethics15, 2 (Nov. 2006), 37–54. doi:10/fc4nn9

    2006

  35. [35]

    Annette N. Markham. 2018. Afterword: Ethics as Impact—Moving From Error- Avoidance and Concept-Driven Models to a Future-Oriented Approach.Social Media + Society4, 3 (July 2018), 2056305118784504. doi:10.1177/2056305118784504

    work page doi:10.1177/2056305118784504 2018

  36. [36]

    Pär Mårtensson, Uno Fors, Sven-Bertil Wallin, Udo Zander, and Gunnar H Nilsson

  37. [37]

    Why do many resource-rich countries have negative genuine saving? Anticipation of better times or rapacious rent seeking.Resource and Energy Economics, 32(1):28–44, 2010

    Evaluating Research: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Assessing Research Practice and Quality.Research Policy45, 3 (April 2016), 593–603. doi:10.1016/j. respol.2015.11.009

    work page doi:10.1016/j 2016

  38. [38]

    Patterson, Jay Chen, Daniel Pargman, Barath Raghavan, and Birgit Penzenstadler

    Bonnie Nardi, Bill Tomlinson, Donald J. Patterson, Jay Chen, Daniel Pargman, Barath Raghavan, and Birgit Penzenstadler. 2018. Computing Within Limits. Commun. ACM61, 10 (Oct. 2018), 86–93. doi:10.1145/3183582

    work page doi:10.1145/3183582 2018

  39. [39]

    2022.Fostering Re- sponsible Computing Research: Foundations and Practices

    National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022.Fostering Re- sponsible Computing Research: Foundations and Practices. The National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/26507

    work page doi:10.17226/26507 2022

  40. [40]

    2011.Slow Violence and the Environmentalism of the Poor

    Rob Nixon. 2011.Slow Violence and the Environmentalism of the Poor. Harvard University Press

    2011

  41. [41]

    Office for Students. 2025. Regulatory Advice 24: Guidance Related to Freedom of Speech (OfS 2025.35). https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/publications/ regulatory-advice-24-guidance-related-to-freedom-of-speech/ Visited 20 March 2026

    2025

  42. [42]

    UK Committee on Research Integrity (on behalf of the sector). 2025. The Concor- dat to Support Research Integrity 2025. https://ukcori.org/wp-content/uploads/ 2025/12/The-Concordat-to-Support-Research-Integrity-2025.pdf. Visited 1 April 2026

    2025

  43. [43]

    European Parliament and Council of the European Union. 2024. Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act), ” Official Journal of the European Union, L 2024/1689, Jul. 12,

    2024

  44. [44]

    https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj/eng

    [Online]. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj/eng. Visited 1 April 2026

    2024

  45. [45]

    Peter V. Paul. 2018. Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: The Springboard for Creativity and Wisdom.American Annals of the Deaf163, 3 (2018), 289–293. jstor:26484299 doi:10.1353/aad.2018.0020

    work page doi:10.1353/aad.2018.0020 2018

  46. [46]

    Chiara De Poli and Jan Oyebode. 2023. Research Ethics and Collaborative Re- search in Health and Social Care: Analysis of UK Research Ethics Policies, Scoping Review of the Literature, and Focus Group Study.PLOS ONE18, 12 (Dec. 2023), e0296223. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0296223

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0296223 2023

  47. [47]

    Barbara Potrata. 2010. Rethinking the Ethical Boundaries of a Grounded Theory Approach.Research Ethics6, 4 (Dec. 2010), 154–158. doi:10.1177/ 174701611000600408

    2010

  48. [48]

    Chris Preist, Daniel Schien, and Eli Blevis. 2016. Understanding and Mitigating the Effects of Device and Cloud Service Design Decisions on the Environmental Footprint of Digital Infrastructure. InProceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1324–1337. doi:1...

    work page doi:10.1145/2858036.2858378 2016

  49. [49]

    Paul Ralph, Nauman bin Ali, Sebastian Baltes, Domenico Bianculli, Jessica Diaz, Yvonne Dittrich, Neil Ernst, Michael Felderer, Robert Feldt, Antonio Filieri, Breno Bernard Nicolau de França, Carlo Alberto Furia, Greg Gay, Nicolas Gold, Daniel Graziotin, Pinjia He, Rashina Hoda, Natalia Juristo, Barbara Kitchen- ham, Valentina Lenarduzzi, Jorge Martínez, J...

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2010.03525 2021

  50. [50]

    Kristy Revell. 2013. Promoting Sustainability and Pro-Environmental Behaviour through Local Government Programmes: Examples from London, UK.Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences10, 3-4 (Dec. 2013), 199–218. doi:10.1080/ 1943815X.2013.858752

    arXiv 2013

  51. [51]

    Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce. 2019. Democratising Decisions about Technology: A Toolkit. https://www.thersa.org/ wp-content/uploads/2025/06/democratising-decisions-tech-report.pdf Visited 24 March 2026

    2019

  52. [52]

    Daniel Russo, Sebastian Baltes, Niels van Berkel, Paris Avgeriou, Fabio Calefato, Beatriz Cabrero-Daniel, Gemma Catolino, Jürgen Cito, Neil Ernst, Thomas Fritz, Hideaki Hata, Reid Holmes, Maliheh Izadi, Foutse Khomh, Mikkel Baun Kjærgaard, Grischa Liebel, Alberto Lluch Lafuente, Stefano Lambiase, Walid Maalej, Gail Murphy, Nils Brede Moe, Gabrielle O’Brie...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jss.2024.112115 2024

  53. [53]

    Gabrielle Samuel and Cristina Richie. 2023. Reimagining Research Ethics to Include Environmental Sustainability: A Principled Approach, Including a Case Study of Data-Driven Health Research.Journal of Medical Ethics49, 6 (June 2023), 428–433. doi:10.1136/jme-2022-108489

    work page doi:10.1136/jme-2022-108489 2023

  54. [54]

    Lee Shepski. 2013. Going the (Ethical) Distance.Journal of Business Ethics116, 2 (Aug. 2013), 393–402. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1477-1

    work page doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1477-1 2013

  55. [55]

    Six Silberman

    M. Six Silberman. 2023. Information Systems Practice for the Age of Conse- quences. InComputing within Limits. LIMITS. doi:10.21428/bf6fb269.e48629e9

    work page doi:10.21428/bf6fb269.e48629e9 2023

  56. [56]

    Six Silberman, Lisa Nathan, Bran Knowles, Roy Bendor, Adrian Clear, Maria Håkansson, Tawanna Dillahunt, and Jennifer Mankoff

    M. Six Silberman, Lisa Nathan, Bran Knowles, Roy Bendor, Adrian Clear, Maria Håkansson, Tawanna Dillahunt, and Jennifer Mankoff. 2014. Next Steps for Sustainable HCI.Interactions21, 5 (2014)

    2014

  57. [57]

    Fiona A Stevenson, William Gibson, Caroline Pelletier, Vasiliki Chrysikou, and Sophie Park. 2015. Reconsidering ‘Ethics’ and ‘Quality’ in Healthcare Research: The Case for an Iterative Ethical Paradigm.BMC Medical Ethics16 (May 2015),

    2015

  58. [58]

    doi:10.1186/s12910-015-0004-1

    work page doi:10.1186/s12910-015-0004-1

  59. [59]

    Gabriel Velez. 2025. Ensuring Research Quality Throughout the Research Pro- cess. doi:10.4135/9781036221553 https://methods.sagepub.com/case/ensuring- research-quality-throughout-the-research-process Visited 20 March 2026

    work page doi:10.4135/9781036221553 2025

  60. [60]

    Carolina Villegas-Galaviz and Kirsten Martin. 2024. Moral Distance, AI, and the Ethics of Care.AI & SOCIETY39, 4 (Aug. 2024), 1695–1706. doi:10.1007/s00146- 023-01642-z

    work page doi:10.1007/s00146- 2024

  61. [61]

    Di Cara, Euan Bennet, Phil Clatworthy, Huw Day, Ismael Kherroubi Garcia, Susana Roman Garcia, Vanessa Aisyahsari Hanschke, and Emma Siân Kuwertz

    Natalie Zelenka, Nina H. Di Cara, Euan Bennet, Phil Clatworthy, Huw Day, Ismael Kherroubi Garcia, Susana Roman Garcia, Vanessa Aisyahsari Hanschke, and Emma Siân Kuwertz. 2025. Data Hazards: An Open-Source Vocabulary of Ethical Hazards for Data-Intensive Projects.Journal of Responsible Technology21 (March 2025), 100110. doi:10.1016/j.jrt.2025.100110

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jrt.2025.100110 2025

  62. [62]

    Natalie R Zelenka, Nina Di Cara, Kieren Sharma, Seeralan Sarvaharman, Jasdeep S Ghataora, Fabio Parmeggiani, Jeff Nivala, Zahraa S Abdallah, Lucia Marucci, and Thomas E Gorochowski. 2024. Data Hazards in Synthetic Biology.Synthetic Biology9, 1 (July 2024), ysae010. doi:10.1093/synbio/ysae010

    work page doi:10.1093/synbio/ysae010 2024