Teaching digital ethics on a postgraduate module

Digital ethics can’t be an optional extra  

Artificial intelligence (AI) and data-driven technologies are transforming how businesses operate and how business schools teach. From algorithmic recruitment to predictive analytics, digital systems shape decisions once made entirely by humans. However, while many business schools are integrating digital transformation into their curricula, far fewer are equipping students to think ethically about these technologies.  

Digital ethics is often treated as a compliance topic, confined to governance, privacy, or data protection. Yet managers now face moral and organisational challenges that extend beyond legislation. How should managers respond when an algorithm produces unfair outcomes? What happens when a system designed for efficiency undermines trust or well-being? Addressing these questions requires critical reflection, empathy, and judgement. Teaching digital ethics in a dedicated postgraduate module can play a vital role in helping students explore these questions, model ethical reasoning, and demonstrate how it might be integrated more widely across business education.  

From compliance to critical reflection  

Not all students arrive with prior knowledge of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or corporate governance. My cohort comprises both home and international students with varied disciplinary backgrounds and levels of familiarity with digital policy. I have found that students engage most deeply when ethics is taught as a problem of design and leadership rather than a checklist of compliance.    

When discussing marketing analytics, for instance, students quickly realise that such systems are not neutral but reflect the priorities, values, and biases of their creators. Students recognise how predictive marketing can personalise experiences and improve performance but soon realise it can also raise concerns about manipulation and consent. Because the class includes students from multiple countries, discussions reveal contrasting perspectives on how much personal data should be used, what counts as genuine consent, and where the line lies between persuasion and manipulation. The discussion often shifts from compliance to questions about consent, influence, and respect for consumers. That shift from compliance to moral reasoning captures the essence of what teaching digital ethics aims to achieve.  

Building from foundations to application  

The module begins by introducing students to major ethical theories. Once this foundation is established, we turn to a series of digital themes including artificial intelligence, marketing, sustainability, surveillance, privacy, and legislation. Each week builds on the last, moving from abstract moral reasoning to the ethical dilemmas faced by organisations as they adopt technologies. This structure helps students connect theory to practice and view ethics as an active and ongoing consideration in digital business.  

How I teach: discussions, activities, and artefacts  

To make ethics meaningful, it needs to appear wherever technology is taught or applied. On my module, learning is driven by group discussions and activities, which help students connect global debates about technology with legitimate organisational challenges. Examples include:  

• Creating a code of conduct for responsible digital technology for a hypothetical organisation, articulating principles for fairness, transparency, and accountability.  

• Analysing how AI technologies could address societal problems, while mapping the harms they might simultaneously create.  

• Debating how AI may displace certain jobs while creating new ones, and what responsible transition planning looks like for employers and policymakers.  

• Comparing legal and regulatory differences across countries and discussing how these shape stakeholder protections.  

A sociotechnical approach to teaching ethics  

My research into surveillance highlights how both people and technology shape outcomes. Surveillance systems are not defined by technical features alone, but by leadership, managerial intent, and employee perceptions. This sociotechnical perspective offers a powerful teaching tool.  

When applied in the classroom, it helps students understand that ethical outcomes depend on how humans and systems interact. The same technology can support well-being or cause harm, depending on how it is implemented and used. For example, monitoring software used to promote safety in one organisation may feel intrusive in another if introduced without dialogue or consent.  

For a cohort of home and international postgraduate students, this approach also surfaces how ethics is culturally situated. What one organisation considers responsible may appear intrusive or inequitable elsewhere. A sociotechnical lens allows these global perspectives to coexist, encouraging students to appreciate the complexity of leading ethically in multicultural and digitally connected workplaces.  

Building future-ready graduates  

Employers increasingly seek graduates who can ethically navigate digital transformation. As AI and analytics become integral to businesses, future managers must balance digital innovation with accountability. Teaching digital ethics develops a blend of intellectual and transferable capabilities:   

• Digital literacy and risk awareness, by assessing the benefits and harms of technologies.  

• Leadership maturity, by aligning business goals with societal values.  

• Policy design, through the creation of digital ethics codes and governance principles.  

• Critical thinking, by challenging assumptions about technology and business.  

• Inclusivity, by evaluating how decisions affect diverse stakeholders.  

• Communication and persuasion, by explaining ethical arguments to both technical and managerial audiences.  

These capabilities equip students to approach digital transformation with confidence, responsibility, and a commitment to ethical considerations.  

Moving forward  

While teaching digital ethics can sit within a single module, the experience offers wider lessons for business education. It demonstrates that students engage most when ethics is treated as a living, social, and applied practice. Business schools can extend this approach by creating space for dialogue across disciplines, linking research to teaching, and framing technology as a moral and managerial challenge. This prepares graduates who can use digital technologies responsibly, think critically about digital innovation, and lead with integrity in an algorithmic world.  

Conclusion  

As AI reshapes the future of work, business schools have a responsibility to ensure that graduates can understand technology and how to use it responsibly. Whether delivered through a single module or across multiple subjects, teaching digital ethics is not about limiting innovation; it is about guiding it towards outcomes that build long-term value. When students learn to view every digital system as a human choice with moral implications, they gain the tools to lead responsibly. Digital ethics is thus not an optional extra in business education. It is the foundation for leadership in the digital age.