Why Trustworthiness is the Cornerstone of Digitalization - Prof. Dr. Norbert Pohlmann

Why Trustworthiness is the Cornerstone of Digitalization

U. Coester, Prof. Norbert Pohlmann (Institut für Internet-Sicherheit):
“Why Trustworthiness is the Cornerstone of Digitalization”.
In the Book “New Digital Work II – Digital Sovereignty of Companies and Organizations””,
Editors: U. Schmuntzsch,
A. Shajek, E. A. Hartmann, Springer-Verlag Germany, 2025

Abstract
The importance of trust is generally recognized. Yet the principle of “everything in moderation” also applies, meaning, in short: trust is good, but control is better. This insight has wide-ranging implications, especially in the current discussion surrounding digitalization. But what happens when it is no longer possible to control an IT or AI solution due to its complexity? At first glance, there are only two options: either refrain from using the technology altogether or simply trust the provider. But neither alternative is suited to the task of advancing digitalization in a meaningful way. On the contrary, providers and users must cooperate on equal terms in order to shape the digital transformation together in a responsible manner. This requires users to trust the technology and the provider. Due to the strong interdependence between trust and trustworthiness, trustworthiness is the cornerstone of the digital transformation.

Keywords Trust
Trustworthiness, Digitalization, Complexity

1 Building Trust in Digitalization

1.1 Building Trust: Reducing Complexity
In the context of digitalization, a new form of interdependency has arisen between manufacturers or provider and users and also user companies due to the increasing complexity intrinsic to the use of new technologies. This results in consequences for both parties: On the one hand, it affects the users’ competence in decision-making, and on the other, it limits the options available to the providers. Neither of the two parties has full sovereignty in the sense of freedom of action, because every action of the respective party has consequences. In practical terms, this means that users may be required to disclose more data when using services, even if they do not want to, and their data may be used in ways they cannot control. Conversely, users now have more opportunities to monitor activities of providers.
Efforts to improve the quality of this interrelationship are therefore essential, especially those focused on the acceptance of innovative technologies in general and AI solutions in particular. The necessity of such efforts becomes particularly clear in light of the fact that innovative technologies—and thus the entire internet/IT infrastructure—have not only become more and more complex but also increasingly opaque. This results in a serious dilemma: Increasing use is enforced—whether intended or involuntary—while knowledge about the background of and interrelationships within these structures is decreasing. This dilemma has the potential to produce behavioral dichotomy in users: either disproportionate rejection of the technology and corresponding services or blind trust. Both behaviors are counterproductive in terms of value-creating digitalization. Although the latter does not preclude use in general, it prevents meaningful use of new applications or innovative services, since use is neither based on a high level of decision-making competence nor on the sovereignty, or autonomy, of the user.
However, since trust has fundamentally positive connotations—according to sociologist Niklas Luhmann, trust is a mechanism for reducing complexity (Luhmann 1968), i.e., it makes life easier—providers should direct their activities toward building a relationship of trust with their users. At first glance, this idea might seem trivial. Yet while trust may reduce complexity, the construct of “trust” is in itself complex, since the collective conditions under which it manifests are highly exacting. Thus, it is necessary to examine this concept in more detail.

1.2 Building Trust: The User’s Perspective
According to Luhmann (Luhmann 2000), trust enables an optimistic view of the future, although individuals possess neither sufficient information nor the necessary control to justify this optimism. Trust can therefore be described as an adaptive strategy that helps individuals retain their capacity for action in a world characterized by uncertainty. Put simply, according to Luhmann (Luhmann 2000), trust is a mechanism for reducing complexity. Generally, human beings possess varying capacities for trust, but this capacity differs among individuals. In principle, there are various concepts that can be used to explain the emergence of trust, such as “trust based on routine” (Pohlmann 2022). In the context of digitalization, the model of “trust based on reason” is particularly pertinent. Establishing this type of trust depends on the one hand, on a person’s benefit, interests, and preferences and, on the other hand, on their ability to process information and to recognize trustworthy interaction partners based on certain criteria. According to a widely used model (Möllering 2006), these criteria include, for example, competence, benevolence, and integrity of the trusted party. Rational trust thus constitutes a person’s attribution of reasons for trustworthiness to, for example, a particular provider. In the context of digitalization, this concept could be applied as follows: The user must receive reliable signals of trustworthiness regarding the provider’s competence, goodwill, and integrity.

…

kostenlos downloaden