A note on

RESC References

Intellectual roots, scientific foundations and institutional resources

About RESC References

RESC – Responsibility Culture is an interdisciplinary and intercultural research and action framework that investigates responsibility as a conscious, relational and culturally situated capacity connecting power, choice, action and human consequences. Its development draws on philosophy, ethics, sociology, psychology, organisational studies, governance, gender studies, communication, education, artificial intelligence ethics and human-centred technology.

This page brings together three complementary layers of reference: (1) the intellectual roots that have inspired the vision of RESC; (2) selected scientific literature that supports, challenges or helps refine its evolving research questions and conceptual propositions; and (3) institutional and regulatory sources relevant to the fields in which RESC operates.

RESC References is a living research resource. It is continuously reviewed and expanded as the RESC framework develops, new research questions emerge, new RESC articles and papers are published, and relevant scientific evidence becomes available. Inclusion of a source does not imply that the source validates the RESC framework as a whole; it identifies literature that informs a specific dimension of the ongoing research.

1. Intellectual Roots of RESC

The following authors and works represent intellectual influences on RESC. They are not presented as an exhaustive academic bibliography or as evidence validating the framework. Rather, they map traditions and ideas that have shaped its understanding of responsibility, freedom, power, complexity, human agency, language and social transformation.

Philosophy, Ethics & Human Responsibility

Hannah Arendt
The Human Condition (1958)

Human action, plurality, public life and the relationship between action and responsibility.

Hans Jonas
The Imperative of Responsibility (1979/1984)

Responsibility toward future generations in conditions of expanding technological power.

Paul Ricœur
Oneself as Another (1990/1992)

The capable and responsible subject, identity, action and ethical selfhood.

Martha C. Nussbaum
Creating Capabilities (2011)

Human dignity, agency and the substantive conditions that enable people to act and flourish.

Marcus Aurelius
Meditations (2nd century CE)

Self-governance, conscious choice, duty and responsibility toward a wider human community.

Complexity & Systems Thinking

Edgar Morin
Introduction à la pensée complexe (1990)

Complexity, interdependence and the need to resist reductive explanations of human and social systems.

Piero Dominici
Work on complexity, communication and social systems

Complexity, digital transformation, education and the human responsibilities created by interconnected systems.

Governance, Democracy & Public Responsibility

Jürgen Habermas
The Theory of Communicative Action (1981)

Communication, deliberation, legitimacy and the conditions of democratic public reasoning.

Luigi Ferrajoli
Principia Iuris (2007)

Fundamental rights, constitutional democracy and institutional guarantees as constraints on power.

AI, Technology & Human Agency

Luciano Floridi
Work on information ethics and AI ethics

Ethical analysis of digital technologies and the responsibilities surrounding their design, governance and use.

Kate Crawford
Atlas of AI (2021)

The material, social, political and environmental infrastructures behind artificial intelligence.

Sociology, Gender & Social Transformation

Franco Ferrarotti
Il pensiero sociologico

The human and historical dimensions of sociological inquiry.

Elisabetta Ruspini
L'identità di genere (2003)

Gender identities and the social construction of gender relations.

Ilaria Riccioni
Il confine: prospettive sociologiche teoriche e di ricerca

Borders and boundaries as social, cultural and relational spaces.

Cecilia Romana Costa
Work on social complexity, cultural pluralism and religion

Pluralism and complexity in contemporary social life.

Psychology, Awareness & Human Development

Carl Gustav Jung
The Undiscovered Self (1957)

Self-knowledge, individuation and the relationship between individual consciousness and collective pressures.

Ken Robinson
Out of Our Minds (2001)

Human creativity, learning and the responsibility of educational environments to cultivate human potential.

Language, Meaning & Democratic Clarity

Gianrico Carofiglio
La manomissione delle parole (2010)

The ethical and democratic importance of restoring precision and meaning to language.

George Orwell
Politics and the English Language (1946)

The relationship between political language, obscurity, power and responsibility.

Umberto Eco
Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language (1984)

Meaning, interpretation and the social power of signs and language.

Consciousness & Inner Transformation

Rudolf Steiner
The Philosophy of Freedom (1894)

Freedom, conscious thinking and ethical individualism.

Federico Faggin
Silicio (2019)

Reflection on consciousness, human experience and the limits of technological reductionism.

AI, Responsibility & Human–AI Relationship

Rossi, F., Greene, J., Tasioulas, J., Venable, K. B., & Williams, B.
Embedding Ethical Principles in Collective Decision Support Systems. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 30(2026)
Dignum, V.
Responsible Artificial Intelligence: How to Develop and Use AI in a Responsible Way. Springer (2019)
Russell, S.
Human Compatible: Artificial Intelligence and the Problem of Control. Viking (2019)
Rahwan, I., et al.
Machine Behaviour. Nature, 568, 477–486 (2019)
Loreggia, A., Mattei, N., Rossi, F., & Venable, K. B.
Modeling and Reasoning with Preferences and Ethical Priorities in AI Systems. In The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. Oxford University Press (2020)

Cooperation, Competition & Education

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T.
An Educational Psychology Success Story: Social Interdependence Theory and Cooperative Learning. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 365–379 (2009)
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T.
Learning Together and Alone: Cooperative, Competitive, and Individualistic Learning. Allyn & Bacon (1999)
Kohn, A.
No Contest: The Case Against Competition. Houghton Mifflin (1992)

2. Scientific Foundations of RESC

This section contains a selected, evolving scientific bibliography organised around RESC research areas. The purpose is not to claim a closed theoretical canon, but to make the evidence base visible and traceable. Where a RESC concept is still being developed, the references identify adjacent or foundational research rather than claiming prior validation of the RESC concept itself.

2.1 Responsibility, Accountability & Organisational Culture

Schlenker, B. R., Britt, T. W., Pennington, J., Murphy, R., & Doherty, K. (1994). The triangle model of responsibility. Psychological Review, 101(4), 632–652. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.101.4.632.
Lerner, J. S., & Tetlock, P. E. (1999). Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 255–275. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.255.
Frink, D. D., & Klimoski, R. J. (1998). Toward a theory of accountability in organizations and human resource management. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 16, 1–51.
Gelfand, M. J., Lim, B.-C., & Raver, J. L. (2004). Culture and accountability in organizations: Variations in forms of social control across cultures. Human Resource Management Review, 14(1), 135–160. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2004.02.007.
Lindkvist, L., & Llewellyn, S. (2003). Accountability, responsibility and organization. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 19(2), 251–273. doi:10.1016/S0956-5221(02)00027-1.
Bovens, M. (2007). Analysing and assessing accountability: A conceptual framework. European Law Journal, 13(4), 447–468. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0386.2007.00378.x.

2.2 Influence, Manipulation, Autonomy & Choice Architecture

Susser, D., Roessler, B., & Nissenbaum, H. (2019). Technology, autonomy, and manipulation. Internet Policy Review, 8(2). doi:10.14763/2019.2.1410.
Luguri, J., & Strahilevitz, L. J. (2021). Shining a light on dark patterns. Journal of Legal Analysis, 13(1), 43–109. doi:10.1093/jla/laaa006.
Mathur, A., Acar, G., Friedman, M. J., Lucherini, E., Mayer, J., Chetty, M., & Narayanan, A. (2019). Dark patterns at scale: Findings from a crawl of 11K shopping websites. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 3(CSCW), Article 81. doi:10.1145/3359183.
Bauer, J. M., Bergstrøm, R., & Foss-Madsen, R. (2021). Are you sure, you want a cookie? The effects of choice architecture on users' decisions about sharing private online data. Computers in Human Behavior, 120, 106729. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2021.106729.
Mills, S. (2024). Deceptive choice architecture and behavioral audits: A principles-based approach. Regulation & Governance, 18, 1426–1441. doi:10.1111/rego.12590.
Trzaskowski, J. (2024). Manipulation by design. Electronic Markets, 34, Article 14. doi:10.1007/s12525-024-00699-y.
Helberger, N., Sax, M., Strycharz, J., & Micklitz, H.-W. (2022). Choice architectures in the digital economy: Towards a new understanding of digital vulnerability. Journal of Consumer Policy, 45, 175–200. doi:10.1007/s10603-021-09500-5.

2.3 AI, Human Agency, Responsibility & Meaningful Human Control

Matthias, A. (2004). The responsibility gap: Ascribing responsibility for the actions of learning automata. Ethics and Information Technology, 6, 175–183. doi:10.1007/s10676-004-3422-1.
Santoni de Sio, F., & van den Hoven, J. (2018). Meaningful human control over autonomous systems: A philosophical account. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 5, 15. doi:10.3389/frobt.2018.00015.
Siebert, L. C., Lupetti, M. L., Aizenberg, E., et al. (2023). Meaningful human control: Actionable properties for AI system development. AI and Ethics, 3, 241–255. doi:10.1007/s43681-022-00167-3.
Christen, M., Burri, T., Kandul, S., & Vörös, P. (2023). Who is controlling whom? Reframing meaningful human control of AI systems in security. Ethics and Information Technology, 25. doi:10.1007/s10676-023-09686-x.
Legaspi, R., Xu, W., Konishi, T., et al. (2024). The sense of agency in human–AI interactions. Knowledge-Based Systems, 286, 111298. doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2023.111298.
Zhu, L., Lu, Q., Ding, M., Lee, S. U., Wang, C., et al. (2026). Designing meaningful human oversight in AI. AI and Ethics, 6, Article 286. doi:10.1007/s43681-026-01147-7.
Josifović, S., & Noller, J. (2026). Agency and alignment: Toward a normative architecture for human–AI interaction. AI & Society, 41, 5561–5571. doi:10.1007/s00146-026-02950-w.

2.4 Responsible AI, Ethics & Governance

Floridi, L., & Cowls, J. (2019). A unified framework of five principles for AI in society. Harvard Data Science Review, 1(1). doi:10.1162/99608f92.8cd550d1.
Jobin, A., Ienca, M., & Vayena, E. (2019). The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1, 389–399. doi:10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2.
Mittelstadt, B. (2019). Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1, 501–507. doi:10.1038/s42256-019-0114-4.
Shneiderman, B. (2020). Human-centered artificial intelligence: Reliable, safe & trustworthy. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 36(6), 495–504. doi:10.1080/10447318.2020.1741118.

2.5 Cognitive Delegation, Cognitive Offloading & Human Capability

Risko, E. F., & Gilbert, S. J. (2016). Cognitive offloading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(9), 676–688. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2016.07.002.
Sparrow, B., Liu, J., & Wegner, D. M. (2011). Google effects on memory: Cognitive consequences of having information at our fingertips. Science, 333(6043), 776–778. doi:10.1126/science.1207745.
Fisher, M., Goddu, M. K., & Keil, F. C. (2015). Searching for explanations: How the Internet inflates estimates of internal knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(3), 674–687. doi:10.1037/xge0000070.
Parasuraman, R., & Riley, V. (1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors, 39(2), 230–253. doi:10.1518/001872097778543886.
Bainbridge, L. (1983). Ironies of automation. Automatica, 19(6), 775–779. doi:10.1016/0005-1098(83)90046-8.

2.6 Ethical Leadership, Power, Trust & Responsibility

Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97(2), 117–134. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.03.002.
Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 595–616. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.004.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734. doi:10.2307/258792.
Schnackenberg, A. K., & Tomlinson, E. C. (2016). Organizational transparency: A new perspective on managing trust in organization–stakeholder relationships. Journal of Management, 42(7), 1784–1810. doi:10.1177/0149206314525202.

2.7 Gender, Equality & Responsible Leadership

Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2003). The female leadership advantage: An evaluation of the evidence. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(6), 807–834. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.09.004.
Ely, R. J., Ibarra, H., & Kolb, D. M. (2011). Taking gender into account: Theory and design for women's leadership development programs. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10(3), 474–493. doi:10.5465/amle.2010.0046.
Joshi, A., Son, J., & Roh, H. (2015). When can women close the gap? A meta-analytic test of sex differences in performance and rewards. Academy of Management Journal, 58(5), 1516–1545. doi:10.5465/amj.2013.0721.

2.8 Communication, Transparency, Clarity & Democratic Responsibility

Habermas, J. (1984/1987). The Theory of Communicative Action, Vols. 1–2. Beacon Press.
Schnackenberg, A. K., & Tomlinson, E. C. (2016). Organizational transparency: A new perspective on managing trust in organization–stakeholder relationships. Journal of Management, 42(7), 1784–1810. doi:10.1177/0149206314525202.
van der Bles, A. M., van der Linden, S., Freeman, A. L. J., Mitchell, J., Galvao, A. B., Zaval, L., & Spiegelhalter, D. J. (2020). Communicating uncertainty about facts, numbers and science. Royal Society Open Science, 7, 181870. doi:10.1098/rsos.181870.

3. Institutional & Regulatory References

European Union. Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act).
European Union. Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 on a Single Market for Digital Services (Digital Services Act).
European Union. Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation).
European Commission. Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI (High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence, 2019).
UNESCO. Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence (2021).
OECD. OECD Principles on Artificial Intelligence (2019; subsequently updated).
Council of Europe. Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law (2024).

4. RESC Research Areas: Reference Map

To keep the bibliography connected to the actual development of RESC, new sources should be added according to the research question they support. The current reference map is:

Responsibility & Accountability
Responsibility Culture & Organisational Behaviour
Influence, Manipulation & Human Autonomy
AI, Human Agency & Responsible Decision-Making
Cognitive Delegation & Cognitive Sustainability
Leadership, Power, Trust & Responsibility
Gender, Equality & Responsible Leadership
Language, Communication & Democratic Responsibility
Democracy, Participation & Institutional Responsibility
Responsible Innovation, Sustainability & Future Generations

5. From RESC Articles to the Evidence Base

RESC articles and research notes are part of an evolving research process. Relevant scientific sources are consolidated in this RESC References section so that the conceptual development of the initiative remains transparent, cumulative and open to revision.

6. Editorial & Research Transparency

RESC distinguishes between intellectual inspiration, scientific evidence and institutional or regulatory sources. References are selected for relevance to the research questions under examination and are reviewed as the framework evolves. The presence of a reference does not imply endorsement of every position advanced by its author.

Artificial intelligence tools may be used in RESC activities as working tools for research support, language assistance, drafting, comparison and editorial development. Conceptual responsibility, source selection, interpretation and final editorial decisions remain human responsibilities. Where appropriate, specific research outputs may provide additional disclosure concerning the use of AI tools.

7. Updating Principle

This bibliography is intentionally open. It will be expanded in parallel with RESC publications, blog articles, research protocols, conference contributions and peer-reviewed outputs. New references should be added only when they contribute directly to a RESC research question, strengthen or challenge a proposition, or provide relevant empirical, theoretical or regulatory evidence.