Neurodata-based headsets for the (digital) employee well-being – responsibilities between benefit and harm

• Date: 11 October 2024
• Pages: 64-87
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOES-02-2024-0044
• Published date: 11 October 2024
• Subject Matter: Economics,Social economics
• Author: Silvia Traunwieser

Neurodata-based headsets for

the (digital) employee well-being –

responsibilities between

benef‌it and harm

Silvia Traunwieser

Department of Legal Theory, International and European Law, Faculty of Law,

Business and Economics, University of Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria

Abstract

Purpose –This study aims to demonstrate the importance of recognizing stress in the workplace.Accurate novel

objective methods that use electroencephalogram (EEG) to measure brainwavescan promote employee well-being.

However,using these devices can be positive and potentially harmful as manipulative practices undermine autonomy.

Design/methodology/approach –Emphasis is placed on businessethics as it relates to the ethics of action

in terms of positive and negative responsibility, autonomous decision-making and self-determined work

through a literature review.The concept of relational autonomy provides an orientationtoward heteronomous

employmentrelationships.

Findings –First, using digital devices to recognize stress and promote health can be a positive outcome,

expanding the def‌inition of digital well-beingas opposed to dependency, non-use or reduction. Second, the

transfer of socio-relational autonomy, according to Oshana, enables criteria for self-determined work in

heteronomous employment relationships. Finally, the deployment and use of such EEG-based devices for

stress detectioncan lead to coercion and manipulation, not onlyin interpersonal relationships, but alsodirectly

and more subtlythrough the technology itself, interfering withself-determined work.

Originality/value –Stress at work and EEG-based devices measuring stress have been discussed in

numerous articles. This paper is one of the f‌irst to explore ethicalconsiderations using these brain–computer

interfacesfrom an employee perspective.

Keywords Workplacestress detection, Digital well-being, Brain–computer interfaces, EEG,

Autonomous decision, Self-determined work, Manipulation

Paper type Research paper

Abbreviations

BCI = Brain–computer interface;

BVP = Blood volume pulse;

ECG = Electrocardiogram;

© Silvia Traunwieser. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the

Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and

create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to

full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at

http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode

The author would like to thank my reviewers for their constructive feedback, valuable suggestions

and insightful comments.

IJOES

41,1

64

Received9 February 2024

Revised1 July 2024

Accepted10 September 2024

InternationalJournal of Ethics and

Systems

Vol.41 No. 1, 2025

pp. 64-87

EmeraldPublishing Limited

2514-9369

DOI 10.1108/IJOES-02-2024-0044

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2514-9369.htm

EDA = Electrodermal activity;

EEG = Electroencephalogram;

GSR = Galvanic skin response;

HR = Heart rate; and

PPG = Photoplethysmography.

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to not only a huge increase in digitalization (Amankwah-

Amoah et al.,2021) but also a stronger focus on stress and health due to huge changes in

everyday (working) life (Kaushik and Guleria, 2020;Zhang et al.,2022). The uncertainties and

dangers, especially at the onset of the pandemic (protecting vulnerable groups, lack of

protective equipment, testing procedures, adequate drugs and efforts to make health-care

systems operational and eff‌icient), have justif‌ied massive and stressful restrictions on liberty

from a legal and ethical perspective, at least in the short term (Forman and Kohler, 2020;

Joseph, 2020;Sun et al.,2022).Business es, schools, kindergartens and universities were closed;

night curfews were partly imposed; and remote working was initiated, depending on the

profession. The abrupt switch to remote working, changing work demands, lack of space, caring

responsibilities, intensif‌ication of work, lack of off‌ice and work equipment, feeling of constant

availability, blurring of boundaries between personal and professional life and technological

changes can be seen as COVID-related stressors (Bathini and Kandathil, 2019;Rodríguez-

Modroño, 2022;Tavares, 2017;Wöhrmann and Ebner, 2021). The pandemic can be described

as a universal and chronic stressor, according to Pfeifer et al. (2021), and as a normal reaction to

such an extraordinary situation, it cannot be completely detached from workplace stress and

technostress (Gamonal-Limcaoco et al.,2022;Pfeifer et al.,2021;Tarafdar et al.,2007;

Teasdale, 2006). Greater focus and attention to employee health, particularly mental health, is a

major concern for companies (Masri et al., 2023;Page and Vella-Brodrick, 2009;Rigó et al.,

2021). Detecting, managing and reducing stress are key factors in employee well-being (Burke

and Page, 2017;Elzeiny and Qaraqe, 2018;Teasdale, 2006). Neurotechnologies designed to

promote employee well-being can help improve physical and mental health (Coates McCall

et al.,2019;Masri et al.,2023). These brain–computer interfaces are based on EEG and use

algorithms to capture stress, workload, fatigue, engagement, relaxation, interest or e.g. focus

(Hou et al.,2015;Ijjada et al.,2015;Purnamasari and Fernandya, 2019). The use and

deployment of neurodata-based headsets can lead to improvements as well as deteriorations

(Widdicks, 2020;Monge Roffarello and De Russis, 2019). A critical assessment from an ethical

perspective is not only necessary but also helpful for organizations.

This paper starts with a clarif‌ication of the term stress and proceeds to focus on stress in

the workplace. The negative effects of chronic stress on companies and employees as well as the

biased, incomplete and subjective nature of conventional stress detection highlight the importance

of EEG-based detection methods. Using these brain–computer interfaces, Section 2 brief‌ly

explains the concept of well-being and adds a positive aspect of digital well-being to its one-sided

negative def‌inition. In the following ethical considerations, responsibility is f‌irst explained. In

addition to economic and legal responsibilities, contractual and self-chosen responsibilities are

relevant in the context of employment relationships. The often-synonymous use of duty and

responsibility requires closer attention, as weaker and positive duties without enforceability (as

self-chosen responsibilities) play a crucial role in employee well-being. Identifying stress is a

weaker positive duty as a self-chosen responsibility. Deterioration in the context of autonomy is

the focus of the following ethical considerations. Ref‌lecting on the nature of labor relations as

asymmetrical and heteronomous relationships, criteria for personal autonomy are needed from a

philosophical standpoint. Oshana’s considerations and external criteria are used as starting points.

International

Journal of Ethics

and Systems

65