Abstract. This paper focuses on the relationship between information systems and ethics, and in particular, on the complexity of implementing ethics in information systems. Both fields are subject to various presuppositions that have consequences for how they manage the relationship of ethics implementation. Those presuppositions are related to the problem of "the construction of the norm" and the relationship -or absence of it in most governance theories -between norms and context. Ethicists seem to be reluctant to take into account the field of application of the norms created by the procedure it constructs. This is due mainly to a certain closure to elements other than rational argumentation in procedural ethics. Information systems' professionals, as we have seen in a study undertaken for the IDEGOV 1 project, also have a narrow vision of what is ethics. They often reduce ethics to a constraint that has to be fulfilled. They also have a very stereotypical vision of what are the issues present in the field of information systems -privacy, surveillance, and security -and how to answer these questions, mainly through more information. We will show that these presuppositions on both sides have a huge impact on the manner in which ethics is "done" in technical projects, and more importantly, we will give hints on how to improve the relationship. The term implementation is itself inappropriate, because it supposes that ethics is something external to information systems. This presupposition is shared to some extent by both fields i.e., ethics and information systems: it is the central point where we see the problem, but also the solution. Working on the framings of both ethical and technical communities is for us the way to overcome ethical problems in information system, and to reach appropriate ethical technology development.

The concept of innovation is making a successful comeback in philosophy, particularly with the qualifier "responsible" attached. This attachment of the qualification "responsible" reflects the idea that the concept of innovation has to be opened to new considerations, namely social, political and ethical concerns. Since the 18th century, innovation has been the object of economics and science of business and growth. This paper aims at testing the legitimacy of these attempts to open the concept and redefine it in terms other than those of economics. We start with a contextualization of the use of the term innovation, to see why it has been so strongly associated with the market, growth and business then we see what is at stake in opening it up to other considerations. We consider the limits of this opening and look at possible ways to attach other meanings to the concept, without losing significance by too much inclusion. The solution proposed is that instead of imposing new parameters and trying to shift the concept, we could keep the economic bias of the term, but challenge it with concerns expressed by people coming from the field of economics who are trying to propose an alternative framework for economics that would take into account other concerns, and in which responsible innovation could find a place.

This paper describes the evolution of the discipline of governance study through a focus on the evolution of proceduralism. From a lecture and a critique of Maesschalck and Lenoble “contextual proceduralism” and their reconstruction of the evolution of the field, the authors aim at creating a more open theory (“comprehensive proceduralism”) that would avoid some of the reduction of previous school of procedural governance, notably the reduction to argumentation, by opening the scope of governance to the different register of discourse. This paper aims at introducing the EGAIS book, and thus will introduce the theoretical (and critical) emergence of comprehensive proceduralism, leaving some of the consequences and application area to further investigation in the book.