Towards Responsible Digital Innovation in Emerging Markets: Exploring the Practices and Perceptions of Institutional and Economic Actors in the Moroccan Context

Abstract

Amid growing sustainability and ethical concerns, digital innovation increasingly requires integrating social, environmental, and governance responsibility into technological development. However, little is known about how organizations in emerging economies—particularly in North Africa—operationalize these principles in practice. This study addresses this gap by exploring how institutional and economic actors in Morocco incorporate responsibility principles into their digital innovation strategies. Adopting an exploratory qualitative design, we conducted 27 semi-structured interviews with digital managers from public organizations (ministries, institutions, and local authorities) and private firms (technology companies, start-ups, and large corporations). The central research question guiding this study is: How do Moroccan organizations perceive and implement the principles of responsible digital innovation (RDI)? Data were analyzed using NVivo 14 software through thematic coding and triangulated with policy documents to enhance validity. The results reveal growing awareness of digital sustainability issues—particularly energy efficiency, accessibility, and data protection—yet the degree of responsible practice varies by sector, firm size, and regulatory environment. Key obstacles include limited expertise, absence of ethical performance metrics, and competitive pressures constraining investment in RDI. Conversely, ethical charters, frugal design, and stakeholder engagement emerge as key drivers. The study concludes that embedding responsibility in digital innovation requires shared governance frameworks, supportive public policies, and cross-sector collaboration to promote inclusive and sustainable technological progress. While context-specific, this research opens avenues for comparative and quantitative studies on RDI across emerging economies.

1. Introduction

The rapid rise of digital technologies is profoundly transforming organizations and societies, but it is also generating significant negative externalities. Recent studies highlight major ethical and social abuses—algorithmic bias, discrimination, mass surveillance, disinformation, and the widening digital divide. Economically, automation and artificial intelligence (AI) are contributing to technological unemployment and growing income inequality, while environmentally, the digital sector accounts for nearly 4% of global greenhouse gas emissions and consumes around 10% of the world’s electricity according to the last report of the International Electricity Agency. These multidimensional challenges underscore the urgent need for a regulatory and strategic framework to ensure that digital innovation aligns with ethical and sustainable development objectives.

The concept of responsible digital innovation (RDI) has emerged as a response. It is defined as an approach that simultaneously integrates technological progress, social responsibility, and environmental preservation. RDI is not limited to the use of digital tools: it aims to steer technologies towards equitable and ethical development. From a regulatory perspective, RDI involves guiding technical choices through shared values (algorithm transparency, data protection, inclusion, combating bias). It is based on international frameworks (GDPR, the EU’s “Digital Decade” framework, etc.) and principles such as digital sobriety, “ethics by design,” and universal accessibility. In its strategic dimension, RDI is also seen as a performance lever: it strengthens stakeholder confidence and provides a sustainable competitive advantage. Concrete practices are emerging (eco-friendly software design, explainable AI, responsible digital labels, etc.) to translate this concept into reality.

In Morocco, digital transformation has been promoted through several national plans since 2005 (e-Morocco 2010, Digital Morocco 2013, Digital Morocco 2020, etc.). The most recent roadmap is the Digital Morocco 2030 strategy launched in 2024. This strategy aims in particular to accelerate the development of e-governance, make the country a major African technology hub, and boost the startup ecosystem. It relies on key levers and introduces laws facilitating digital administration and data protection (Law No. 54.19 on public services, Law No. 09.08 on the protection of personal data, etc.). According to the United Nations E-Government Development Index (EGDI), Morocco advanced from 140th place in 2008 to 100th in 2023, while internet penetration reached 88% and mobile broadband subscriptions over 47 million in 2024 according to the last report of the National Telecommunications Regulatory Agency. Despite this progress, challenges persist: uneven infrastructure in rural areas, fragmented regulations, limited digital literacy, and a still-nascent CSR culture. In short, Morocco combines a strong political will to digitize the economy and a growing awareness of digital responsibility issues with shortcomings in effective implementation [1].

This contrast between ambitions and concrete realities raises the following central question: How do Moroccan institutional and economic actors perceive and integrate the principles of RDI into their strategies? To answer this question, we adopt a qualitative exploratory approach deemed relevant for studying a complex and poorly documented phenomenon. Between March and June 2025, we conducted 27 semi-structured interviews with digital professionals selected through purposive sampling. The interviewees mainly included chief information officers (CIOs) and chief digital officers (CDOs), supplemented by administrative division heads, IT consultants, and faculty members specializing in digital technology and CSR. Each interview was guided by three main themes: (1) definition and meaning of RDI, (2) practices implemented in relation to RDI, and (3) obstacles and constraints encountered. All interviews were recorded and transcribed in full.

Data analysis was carried out using NVivo 14 software, combining inductive coding (emergence of themes from the discussions) and deductive coding (based on the interview topics). The emerging themes were grouped into categories (definitions of RDI, perceptions and attitudes, practices implemented, internal/external obstacles, etc.). Finally, the primary data is triangulated with secondary sources (public policy documents such as Digital Morocco 2030, official reports, ethical guidelines) to validate the findings and identify convergences or discrepancies between the discourse of the actors and formal standards.

The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. Section 2 reviews the theoretical foundations and is structured around three main components: the concept of digital innovation, the undesirable consequences associated with digital transformation, and the emergence of RDI as a corrective and integrative framework, emphasizing its normative and strategic dimensions. Section 3 details the research methodology, including the qualitative design, sampling strategy, and data analysis procedures. Section 4 presents and discusses the empirical findings, highlighting how Moroccan institutional and economic actors perceive and operationalize RDI principles. Section 5 concludes by summarizing the key results, outlining the theoretical and managerial implications, and proposing directions for future research on RDI in emerging markets.

2. Literature Review

This literature review aims to clarify the concept of digital innovation and analyze its potential pitfalls, before introducing the emerging notion of responsible digital innovation as a response to new contemporary challenges.

2.1. The Concept of Digital Innovation

Digital innovation encompasses the wide-ranging transformations driven by information and communication technologies across economic, social, and organizational domains. Ref. [2] describes it as the capacity of digital technologies to reshape how businesses, governments, and individuals produce, consume, and interact. The theoretical roots of this concept trace back to Schumpeter’s work in the 1930s, which introduced innovation as a process of “creative destruction.” This foundational idea takes on new intensity in the digital era, where technological advances accelerate and amplify the dynamics of transformation.

Ref. [3] (p. 224) perceives digital innovation as “The creation (and consequent modification) of market offerings, business processes, or models that result from the use of digital technology.” This definition highlights three aspects:

First, the multidimensional nature of digital innovation, which is not limited to products (e.g., connected objects) or services (e.g., mobile applications), but also extends to internal processes (e.g., automation or cloud computing) and even business models (e.g., freemium). This accurately reflects the reality of current digital transformations, which affect customer experience, internal operations, and organizational structures [4].

Next, the assumed technological causality, since the authors insist that innovation stems directly from the use of digital technologies. This is a techno-deterministic view (uses, social contexts, and strategic intentions also play a central role in innovation).

Finally, the dynamic process of creation and modification, which, according to [3], indicates that digital innovation is not only disruptive, but can also be incremental and adaptive. Such reasoning paves the way for a more fluid view of innovation, where existing technologies can generate transformative effects through recombination or adjustment.

For their part, ref. [5] emphasize that digital innovation is distinguished by four fundamental characteristics: convergence, generativity, widespread participation, and democratization. Convergence refers to the gradual integration of previously distinct technologies, promoting the emergence of hybrid solutions. Generativity, meanwhile, highlights the flexibility and scalability of digital technologies, which enable continuous and unpredictable recombination.

Furthermore, digital innovation follows a two-stage evolutionary path. In the first stage, organizations digitize their products, services, and internal processes. This stage is often followed by a more profound digital transformation, leading to structural changes in business models. Uber is a prime example: although it does not own any vehicles, this platform uses cloud and geolocation technologies to offer a global chauffeur-driven car service.

The strategic adoption of digital technologies enables organizations not only to design new products, but also to implement innovative organizational practices [6], giving them greater adaptability in the face of rapidly changing markets. In this perspective, ref. [7] show that digital innovation has a significant impact on companies’ operational, commercial, and stock market performance, while positively influencing analysts’ expectations. However, the transition to new socio-technical systems requires rethinking digital innovation through more systemic approaches, integrating the dimensions of responsibility and sustainability into the logic of organizational transformation.

2.2. The Undesirable Consequences of Digital Innovation

While the benefits of digital technology are widely recognized, recent research also highlights numerous negative externalities.

On the ethical and social front, authors such as [8,9] warn of algorithmic bias, the risks of discrimination, mass surveillance, and the loss of citizen control in the face of automated decisions. The digital divide also remains a major issue, both in terms of access to infrastructure and digital skills [10]. It should also be remembered that recent studies have shown that the proliferation of fake news is likely to mislead and trigger serious societal complications [11], especially in political and anti-scientific terms [12].

In terms of the economic dimension, a series of negative effects are causing considerable concern. One of the main issues is the gradual replacement of certain jobs by machines and automated systems, particularly in low-skilled or repetitive sectors. This dynamic is contributing to a restructuring of the labor market, generating forms of technological unemployment [2] and accentuating income inequalities between skilled digital workers and those excluded from this transformation [13].

Furthermore, SMEs are often the big losers in this transformation, due to their lack of human, financial, or technological resources to keep pace with large companies or digital platforms [14]. This asymmetry reinforces the concentration of market share in favor of tech giants, thereby accentuating competitive imbalances [15,16].

This also raises governance issues related to data sovereignty [17,18] dependence on global players, particularly GAFAM [19,20,21] and the lack of a stable regulatory framework to regulate rapid technological innovation [22].

Finally, the environmental impact of digital technology remains a concern. Ref. [23] highlights the growing energy consumption associated with data centers, streaming, and AI. Digital equipment also generates a large amount of electronic waste and contributes to the depletion of natural resources [24,25].

Table 1. Summary of the negative externalities of digital innovation.

Dimension	Negative Externalities of Digital Innovation	Authors
Ethical and social	Algorithmic bias; Risks of discrimination; Mass surveillance; increased dependence on digital technology; loss of citizen control over automated decisions; misinformation and manipulation; digital divide in terms of access to digital infrastructure and skills; effects on mental health; privacy concerns.	[8,9,10,11,12,26,27,28,29,30]
Economic	Technological unemployment; increased income inequality; increased competitive imbalances.	[2,13,15,16]
Governance	Data sovereignty; dependence on global players particularly GAFAM; lack of a stable regulatory framework to regulate rapid technological innovation.	[17,18,19,20,22,31,32]
Environmental	Increasing energy consumption linked to data centers, streaming, and AI; digital equipment generates huge amounts of electronic waste; depletion of natural resources.	[23,24,25,33,34,35,36,37]

Source: Compiled by the authors.

summarizes the main dimensions and indicators used to operationalize Responsible Digital Innovation, serving as the analytical framework for the empirical study.

A deeper examination of these negative externalities reveals strong interdependencies among ethical, economic, and environmental dimensions. Ethical risks—such as algorithmic opacity or misuse of personal data—often exacerbate economic imbalances by reducing trust and creating additional compliance costs [30]. Similarly, environmental externalities linked to increased energy consumption and electronic waste are reinforced by infrastructural constraints, including limited green data centers and insufficient recycling channels [32]. In Morocco, these dynamics are amplified by structural challenges such as fragmented regulation, uneven digital literacy, and significant disparities in technological infrastructure between major urban centers and peripheral regions. Recognizing these interconnected externalities is crucial for designing integrated RDI strategies that address not only technological risks but also the socio-economic vulnerabilities shaping the Moroccan digital ecosystem.

2.3. Towards Responsible Digital Innovation

In light of these potential abuses, the concept of responsible digital innovation has emerged as a normative and strategic response. This approach aims to integrate social, ethical, and environmental issues into digital projects from the outset. RDI refers to a proactive approach that seeks to integrate the principles of sustainable development, social justice, and digital ethics into the life cycle of digital technologies, from their design to their distribution [29].

Thus, in its normative dimension, RDI provides a reference framework that guides technological decisions based on shared values, such as algorithm transparency, personal data protection, respect for human dignity and fundamental rights, and the fight against discrimination and bias [9].

This approach is based on national standards such as Law No. 09-08 and Law No. 61-16 in Morocco, and international standards such as ISO 26000, the GDPR, and the frameworks proposed by the European Commission. The associated principles include digital sobriety, ethics by design, algorithmic transparency, universal accessibility, and stakeholder inclusion.

In its strategic dimension, RDI constitutes a lever for organizational performance and differentiation. Far from being a mere moral constraint, RDI can enhance corporate legitimacy, user trust, and sustainable competitiveness by embedding ethical and environmental criteria into the digital value proposition [25,26]. Concrete manifestations of RDI include eco-designed software, explainable and trustworthy AI, sovereign and green cloud computing, and the establishment of responsible digital labels (e.g., Label Numérique Responsable, Green IT Label) [24,37].

Several public and private organizations in Morocco, such as OCP and the ministries partnering with Digital Morocco 2030, are beginning this transition towards a more sustainable digital future.

Nevertheless, a critical reading of the literature shows that global debates on RDI remain largely anchored in perspectives from developed economies, giving limited consideration to the institutional, regulatory, and socio-economic specificities of MENA countries. While international scholarship highlights algorithmic transparency, energy-efficient infrastructures, and robust ethical governance, the Moroccan context is characterized by fragmented regulatory enforcement, regional disparities in digital maturity, and persistent gaps in digital literacy. These contextual particularities suggest that RDI principles cannot be directly transferred but are instead reinterpreted and adapted to local constraints. Furthermore, the scarcity of research examining how emerging economies conceptualize and implement RDI reveals a significant gap in the literature. Situating global debates within Morocco’s evolving institutional landscape therefore contributes to a more nuanced theoretical understanding of how RDI can be framed, contextualized, and potentially operationalized in such environments.

Furthermore, three potential trajectories for the evolution of RDI in Morocco can be outlined, offering a forward-looking perspective that enriches this conceptual framework. A first scenario, “Regulated Acceleration,” anticipates stronger alignment between national digital policies and international ethical frameworks, leading to broader adoption of transparent AI systems, eco-designed software, and formalized digital ethics committees. A second trajectory, “Fragmented Advancement,” reflects uneven sectoral progress, driven primarily by digitally mature organizations in the Casablanca-Rabat-Kenitra axis, while other regions and industries progress more slowly due to persistent skills and infrastructure gaps. A third pathway, “Innovation Under Constraints,” envisions gradual, limited integration of RDI principles, constrained by cost pressures, regulatory fragmentation, and low digital literacy. These exploratory scenarios do not aim to predict future outcomes; rather, they serve as heuristic tools to conceptualize the institutional, technological, and socio-economic conditions under which RDI may evolve in emerging economies such as Morocco.

These scenarios thus form a conceptual backdrop for the empirical component of the study, which seeks to explore how Moroccan organizations perceive, interpret, and operationalize these emerging future pathways.

3. Methodology

The study adopts an exploratory qualitative approach, which is considered relevant in the context of complex and still poorly documented phenomena, such as the integration of social and environmental responsibility into digital innovation strategies. It aims to explore how digital leaders operating in the public and private sectors in Morocco perceive and implement the principles of responsible digital innovation (RDI).

Before presenting the detailed characteristics of the participants, we must first clarify our methodological approach and the process that led to the development of the data collection system.

3.1. Description of the Methodological Approach

In order to meet our objective, a field survey was conducted between March and June 2025, based on semi-structured interviews. This data collection technique was chosen because of the flexibility it offers in exploring respondents’ views in depth while ensuring the comparability of responses [38]. Compared with structured or unstructured interviews, semi-structured interviews facilitate both comparability across cases and the emergence of new insights, which is essential when examining emerging concepts such as RDI.

The sample consisted of 27 participants, selected through purposive sampling based on theoretical relevance rather than representativeness [39]. The criteria used were the position held (digital transformation managers, CIOs, CDOs, CSR managers) and the nature of the organization (public institutions, private companies, technology start-ups, financial institutions, etc.). This choice allows for sectoral diversity while maintaining consistency with the subject of the study.

The interview guide was designed through a rigorous, multi-stage process to ensure both methodological robustness and thematic alignment with the research objectives.

First, the initial set of themes and questions was derived from the literature review, particularly from frameworks related to responsible innovation [3], digital ethics [17], and sustainable digital transformation [37]. These theoretical foundations guided the identification of three core dimensions of inquiry: (1) understanding and conceptualization of RDI, (2) practical applications and governance mechanisms, and (3) perceived barriers and ethical challenges in implementation.

Second, a preliminary version of the interview guide was submitted to two independent experts for validation—one specializing in digital transformation and innovation management, and another in corporate social responsibility and sustainability governance. Both experts were asked to assess the clarity, relevance, and theoretical coherence of the questions, as well as their capacity to elicit deep, reflective responses. Their feedback led to refinements in the phrasing of several questions to reduce ambiguity and enhance their contextual relevance to Moroccan organizations.

Third, a pilot test was carried out with two professionals working in the digital sector (a Chief Information Officer and a CSR manager). The aim was to evaluate the flow and sequencing of the questions, the duration of the interviews, and the participants’ understanding of key terms such as “responsible digital innovation” and “digital ethics.” The pilot interviews were followed by debriefing sessions, which provided valuable insights regarding question redundancy, language accessibility, and the balance between theoretical and practical dimensions. Based on this feedback, minor revisions were made—such as merging overlapping items and adding more probing sub-questions related to environmental responsibility and data governance.

The final version of the guide contained 12 open-ended questions, grouped into three thematic blocks (Definition and meaning of RDI, Perceptions and practices implemented in organizations, and Obstacles and constraints encountered in applying RDI principles), and was used consistently across all interviews while allowing for spontaneous follow-up questions when participants introduced new insights.

Most interviews were conducted at participants’ workplaces, while five took place in public venues (cafés) and two were held online via Google Meet. Each interview lasted between 35 and 60 min and was recorded—with explicit consent—before being fully transcribed.

The study primarily focused on Morocco’s main economic corridor—the Rabat–Casablanca–Kenitra region—which concentrates most national digital innovation initiatives. While this geographical concentration limits representativeness, it is justified by the principle of theoretical saturation, a recognized criterion in qualitative research that determines sample adequacy once no new insights emerge [40].

Most of the interviews took place at the participants’ workplaces. However, five interviews were conducted in a public place (cafés), and two remotely via video call (Google Meet).

The data collected was analyzed using NVivo 14 software, employing a thematic analysis method. Coding was carried out both inductively (based on the interviews) and deductively (based on the interview guide). Emerging themes were grouped into categories such as: Definition and understanding of RDI, different perceptions of RDI, and barriers to this responsible innovation.

The reliability of the analysis was reinforced by independent recoding of a subsample of interviews, resulting in a concordance rate of over 84%. In addition, the comments were anonymized, and each participant was coded according to their profile.

Finally, the results of the analysis were triangulated with secondary sources, including public policy documents (Digital Morocco 2030, reports from the Digital Development Agency, OGP commitments) and the reference frameworks used in organizations. This triangulation reinforced the validity of the results and highlighted the convergences and divergences between discourse and observed practices.

3.2. Characteristics of the Participants

According to [41], among the actors who can appreciate the place and role of the concept of responsible digital innovation are information systems managers and chief digital officers. This is why almost half of the interviewees belong to these two categories of actors.

However, it must be acknowledged that we encountered a certain reluctance on the part of many of them, even though we went through public relations channels. We were therefore forced to involve other categories of experts in the field (division heads, IT consultants, teacher-researchers, etc.).

In total, we conducted seven interviews with chief information officers (CIOs), six interviews with chief digital officers (CDOs), three interviews with heads of digital related divisions (various ministries), four interviews with heads of digital services (various ministries), three interviews with IT consultants, and three interviews with teach-er-researchers (two in the digital field and one in the CSR field).

Table 2. Breakdown of interviewees by job title.

Professional Category	Number of Individuals	Approximate %
Chief Information Officers (CIOs)	7	26%
Chief Digital Officers (CDOs)	6	22%
Division Heads (DHs)	3	11%
Department Heads (DHs)	4	15%
IT Consultant (ITC)	4	15%
Teacher-Researcher (TR)	3	11%

Source: Compiled by the authors based on field data, 2025.

below summarizes this breakdown by professional category:

All respondents work in the Casablanca–Rabat–Kenitra area, confirming the regional focus noted earlier. Despite the researchers’ efforts, some reluctance was encountered among potential participants, even via institutional communication channels. To maintain the necessary variety of viewpoints, other experts—such as IT consultants and academics—were included.

Table 3. Distribution of interviewees according to their level of education.

Level of Education	Number of Individuals
High school diploma + 8 years or equivalent	5
High school diploma + 5 years or equivalent	17
High school diploma + 4 years or equivalent	3
High school diploma + 3 years or equivalent	1
High school diploma + 2 years or equivalent	1

Source: Compiled by the authors based on field data, 2025.

below provides an overview of the educational background of these various professionals:

Thus, more than 80% of respondents have a bachelor’s degree or higher (a high concentration compared to this level of education) and only one person has a high school diploma.

In terms of professional experience, we were able to classify it as shown in

Table 4. Breakdown of interviewees according to their professional experience.

Work Experience	Number of Individuals
Between 1 and 5 years	2
Between 6 and 10 years	5
Between 11 and 15 years	8
More than 15 years	12

Source: Compiled by the authors based on field data, 2025.

below:

We can see that around three-quarters of the population interviewed has more than 10 years of professional experience. This wealth of experience is likely to impact their understanding, attitude, and implementation of responsible digital innovation. Indeed, the interviewees’ comments could be influenced by a strategic and structured vision of RDI. However, this seniority may also reflect a cautious stance, sometimes far removed from the more experimental practices adopted by newer or more agile profiles.

3.3. Ethical Considerations

To ensure the protection of participants’ rights, an informed consent form was provided and explained to each participant before their involvement. Participation was entirely voluntary, and all participants were required to read and sign the form, which guaranteed the confidentiality of their information and specified that the collected data would be used solely for research and publication purposes. Participants were informed of their right to withdraw from the study at any stage, and comprehensive measures were implemented to safeguard their privacy and data confidentiality.

Given the study’s focus on Responsible Digital Innovation and its qualitative design—based on semi-structured interviews with digital managers from public institutions and private sector—particular attention was paid to the responsible collection, processing, and storage of data. All identifying information was removed during transcription and analysis to ensure full confidentiality.

This study complied with the ethical standards defined by the Moroccan Charter of University Ethics according to Ministry of Higher Education and Law No. 09-08 on the protection of personal data. All participants took part voluntarily, and informed consent was obtained from each individual prior to participation.

4. Results and Discussion

At this stage, we present the main findings from the analysis of semi-structured interviews conducted with digital managers working in public and private organizations. The aim is to gain a better understanding of how these actors perceive responsible digital innovation, what practices they implement, and what obstacles or levers they have identified in their organizational context. The analysis was structured around three thematic areas: understanding RDI, effective practices, and obstacles encountered. The results are illustrated by excerpts from interviews, allowing us to identify both points of convergence and divergence depending on the profile of the respondents.

4.1. Definitions of Responsible Digital Innovation

The results of our analysis highlight a vision of responsible digital innovation as an approach that simultaneously integrates technological progress, social responsibility, and environmental preservation. RDI is not limited to the use of digital technologies; it aims to channel them towards more equitable, sustainable, and ethical development.

P1 stated that “ responsible digital innovation is above all about ensuring system security while reducing our energy footprint. ” It is a balance of positive internal and external effects, as specified by [42].

RDI is an intersection between digital innovation, ethics, and sustainability, based on the idea that technological potential must be used to serve collective goals. This concept reflects a desire to align digital uses with societal values, strengthen trust in technology, and think about innovation in relation to desired social transformations.

For P7 related to information systems within a public administration, RDI is “a comprehensive approach that aims to integrate ethical and sustainable principles into every digital project, starting from the design phase.”

The comments collected also emphasize that RDI is perceived as a strategic lever, capable of consolidating the legitimacy and differentiation of organizations in an increasingly demanding digital environment.

These definitions, gathered from various digital managers, provide a conceptual framework for a more detailed analysis of the structuring principles of RDI and the obstacles to its effective integration, which are analyzed in the following sections.

4.2. Perceptions of Responsible Digital Innovation

Analysis of the interviews revealed a diversity of perceptions and attitudes toward responsible digital innovation, depending on the sector of activity (public or private), the role held (CIO, CDO, etc.), and the level of digital maturity of the organizations.

Respondents articulated their understanding of RDI around four dimensions that reflect a desire to reconcile technological advances with growing ethical, societal, and environmental requirements.

4.2.1. Promoting a Positive Societal Impact

For a majority of those interviewed, RDI involves the conscious and purposeful use of technology for the common good. It is not just a question of innovating, but of doing so with a view to creating social and environmental value. This vision is consistent with sustainable development objectives, particularly with regard to reducing the ecological footprint of digital technology (storage, energy consumption, data processing) and improving environmental efficiency through more energy-efficient technologies. This is in line with the findings of the study by [43] in the context of the Moroccan administration.

It should be noted that P21, one of the IT consultants we interviewed, confirmed that “Digital innovation can only be considered responsible if it actually contributes to reducing our carbon footprint and improving the daily lives of citizens. This requires eco-designed solutions, the reduction of unnecessary data flows, and alignment with sustainable development goals.”

4.2.2. Strengthening Digital Trust

The concept of digital trust is a recurring theme in the interviews. The RDI is seen as a means of creating a trustworthy digital ecosystem for both citizens and organizations.

P15, the CIO of one of Morocco’s largest banks states that “We cannot talk about responsible innovation without talking about trust. Our users must be assured that their data is protected, that our algorithms are transparent, and that our system is secure. This is an essential condition for the social acceptability of digital technology. ”

This trust is based on several pillars, as [44] points out in his study: transparency, security, data confidentiality, and accountability of stakeholders. Some participants mention the need for a digital trust certificate, although its implementation faces technical and institutional obstacles.

In Morocco, Law No. 05-20 on cybersecurity, published in the Official Bulletin on 6 August 2020, establishes a comprehensive legal framework to protect the information systems of public entities, critical infrastructure, and a range of operators (platforms, service providers, etc.), thereby creating a reliable digital environment conducive to responsible innovation.

4.2.3. Anchoring Innovation in Shared Values

Responsible innovation is also conceived as a process based on fundamental ethical principles, often inspired by international frameworks. The most frequently cited values include justice, autonomy, beneficence, and non-maleficence [45,46], in line with the recommendations of the High-Level Expert Group on AI. However, as [30] points out, these principles are not sufficient to guarantee fully responsible innovation without their articulation with both national (Law No. 09-08, Law No. 61-16, Law No. 05-20) and international (GDPR, DSA, DMA) regulatory requirements and the principles of responsible management: anticipation, reflexivity, inclusion, and responsiveness.

This reasoning is corroborated by the comments of P11, who emphasizes that “In our approach, we rely on principles such as fairness, non-discrimination, and respect for autonomy. These are the values that guide our technological choices and development processes, especially when dealing with AI.”

4.2.4. Making RDI a Lever for Competitiveness

Finally, RDI is perceived by many respondents as a strategic driver of competitiveness, rather than a constraint. Participants emphasized that adopting responsible digital practices allows organizations to differentiate themselves in the marketplace [47], enhance their reputation, and anticipate regulatory and societal expectations related to ethics, data protection, and environmental sustainability [48,49].

This perception aligns with the Resource-Based View (RBV), which posits that competitive advantage stems from the development of unique and inimitable resources [50]. In this sense, RDI functions as a strategic intangible asset—combining ethical credibility, stakeholder trust, and innovation culture—to generate long-term value [51]. Beyond technical capabilities, the integration of ethical and environmental dimensions into digital processes strengthens the organization’s internal legitimacy and adaptability.

From the perspective of Dynamic Capabilities Theory [52], RDI can also be seen as a capability to sense, seize, and reconfigure technological and organizational resources in response to societal and regulatory changes. The capacity to align digital transformation with sustainability goals enhances organizational agility and resilience in an increasingly uncertain environment.

Moreover, through the lens of Stakeholder Theory [53], RDI is a mechanism for maintaining stakeholder engagement by addressing the ethical expectations of customers, employees, regulators, and investors. In a context where digital responsibility is becoming institutionalized, the proactive adoption of RDI principles serves as both a compliance mechanism and a source of legitimacy [54].

As [45] observes, a responsible digital policy enhances stakeholder confidence, strengthens corporate reputation, and contributes to sustained competitive advantage in a complex digital ecosystem. This interpretation is corroborated by several interviewees. For example, participant P13 stated: “Today, integrating responsibility principles into our digital projects is not only a moral obligation, it is also a strategy. It strengthens our image, reassures our customers, and opens up markets that are sensitive to CSR issues.”

This statement illustrates how RDI transforms ethical imperatives into strategic opportunities, positioning digital responsibility as both a differentiation factor and a long-term performance lever. By embedding ethical, environmental, and social considerations into their digital innovation models, Moroccan organizations enhance their competitiveness and contribute to sustainable value creation.

4.3. Barriers to Responsible Digital Innovation

Analysis of the interview results reveals the presence of both internal and external barriers.

4.3.1. Internal Barriers

One of the major internal barriers to the implementation of truly responsible digital innovation is the lack of specialized skills within organizations. Many organizations do not have the right profiles capable of articulating the technological, ethical, legal, and environmental dimensions necessary for such an approach. RDI requires hybrid expertise, drawing on know-how in data science, GDPR, digital eco-design, cybersecurity, and technological risk governance.

This skills gap manifests itself in the inability to address critical technical issues such as data anonymization, algorithmic explainability, the detection and correction of algorithmic bias, and proactive management of digital risks, among others. This is confirmed by P20, who stated “Most employees, even in organizations already engaged in digitalization, lack mastery of advanced anonymization concepts, algorithmic explainability methods, or bias management. At present, there is a strong need for enhanced AI literacy, including both ethical and technical competencies, to support a responsible digital innovation approach.”

In the absence of such specialized skills, organizations struggle to anticipate risks, design solutions that comply with emerging standards, or innovate in an ethical and sustainable way. This deficit thus hinders the transition toward a digital strategy aligned with social and environmental responsibility principles.

Moreover, financial constraints also play a significant role. An empirical study by [46], based on a sample of 40,000 innovative firms from eleven European countries, shows that companies lacking adequate financial resources are at risk of being excluded from the most high-performing innovation dynamics. The authors note that organizations facing financial constraints are 15–20% less likely to be among the top-performing innovators.

The feedback collected from our field study aligns with this finding. Several respondents pointed out that projects incorporating the principles of Responsible Digital Innovation—such as ethical or environmental audits, regulatory compliance, or the deployment of low-carbon and transparent digital solutions—require substantial additional investment. However, in many organizations, particularly SMEs and public institutions, IT budgets remain limited and are primarily directed towards maintaining existing systems or achieving short-term objectives. This reality restricts the adoption of responsible digital practices, which are often perceived as costly and non-essential in the absence of immediate returns on investment.

Another recurring internal barrier to implementing RDI lies in the lack of awareness and low cultural maturity of organizations regarding these issues. The interviews reveal that even when technical skills and financial resources are available, RDI is often misunderstood or underestimated, particularly by management teams. Many respondents reported a poor grasp of key concepts such as algorithmic fairness, digital inclusion, or the social and environmental impacts of technological innovation.

This lack of understanding is accompanied by an organizational culture primarily focused on short-term economic performance objectives, relegating RDI to a secondary concern often reduced to compliance requirements or a superficial extension of CSR. The absence of committed leadership or a strategic vision integrating digital responsibility further reinforces this inertia, limiting the internal appropriation of the principles of ethical and sustainable digital transformation. Thus, without strong managerial impetus or the mobilization of internal stakeholders, RDI struggles to emerge as a structuring axis of organizational strategy.

The final internal obstacle identified through these interviews is the lack of coordination and organizational transversality in implementing RDI. Participants indicated that responsibility for key domains such as ethics, data, or the environment is often divided among several departments or individuals within the organization, without real consultation or shared governance. This siloed approach hinders the emergence of an integrated vision of RDI and complicates the implementation of coherent strategies. P9 highlighted this issue: “In our organization, it’s still very fragmented. The environment is handled by the sustainability department. Data security is managed by IT. Digital ethics? Nobody is really in charge. As a result, we launch digital projects without having an overall view of their impacts. We lack transversal governance that unifies all these aspects.”

Such compartmentalization reduces the effectiveness of responsible initiatives, since RDI relies on close interactions between different functions: IT, compliance, CSR, HR, innovation, and security, among others. In the absence of centralized or cross-functional governance, initiatives remain isolated and fail to produce systemic effects. Moreover, participants emphasized that while digital technologies are well integrated into internal processes, their use does not necessarily involve ethical or sustainable reflection.

These findings are consistent with the literature [47,55], which underscores the structuring role of the digital workplace in organizational transformation. For RDI to be effective, the organization must be conceived as a responsible digital ecosystem, supported by mobilized human resources and strong leadership.

4.3.2. External Barriers

Regarding external barriers, the first identified issue is dependence on major digital platforms (GAFAM). Indeed, tech giants exert considerable power over markets and infrastructures, limiting the autonomy of local firms. Ref. [48] explains that GAFAM shape digital markets by imposing their standards (APIs, platforms, algorithms, data), thereby creating technological lock-in effects. This control reduces the scope for implementing local RDI practices, as companies must adapt to pre-existing architectures and platforms, often at the expense of their own responsible initiatives. As P4 (a CDO of a multinational company) stated “We are prisoners of Google and Amazon APIs—we can’t deploy ethical solutions if they don’t integrate into their ecosystem.”

The second external barrier revealed is regulatory uncertainty and fragmented normative frameworks. The absence of clear and proactive regulation hinders responsible innovation. Complex and slow digital regulations, particularly those concerning AI, delay investment decisions [56,57]. P18 explained “We never know when a new AI regulation will disrupt our ongoing projects.”

Overly rigid regulations (e.g., all-or-nothing approaches) can also discourage SMEs or startups from engaging in responsible innovation when there is no guaranteed short-term return.

The third external barrier identified in the interviews is the lack of support structures. Enhancing innovation frameworks requires mechanisms such as regulatory sandboxes, which provide controlled environments for experimentation and promote agile, intelligent governance. Refs. [58,59] emphasize their value for testing responsible AI applications. The limited diffusion—or even absence—of such support structures in the Moroccan context represents a major obstacle to the emergence of structured and secure RDI initiatives.

The final external constraint mentioned by participants is global competitive pressure. In a globalized environment, RDI is often perceived as costly and non-priority [60,61]. Companies tend to favor short-term optimization in response to competitors who face no responsibility constraints. P12 stated “Facing foreign competitors who take no such risks, we can’t always integrate RDI without losing competitiveness.”

Furthermore, the lack of solid international standards for digital responsibility encourages a race to the bottom in terms of cost and ethics.

5. Conclusions

The aim of this study was to gain a deeper understanding of how social and environmental responsibility is incorporated into digital innovation strategies within Moroccan organizations. Based on semi-structured interviews with 27 key digital actors (CIOs, CDOs, consultants, and academics), analyzed thematically using NVivo 14, the research provides a nuanced view of how RDI is perceived and practiced in the Moroccan context.

The findings reveal a conceptual richness but limited operationalization of RDI. While respondents broadly agree that RDI should align technological advancement with ethical, social, and environmental imperatives, its implementation remains fragmented. Emerging initiatives—such as software eco-design, AI explainability, and ethical digital charters—are promising yet often confined to pilot projects or symbolic commitments. This discrepancy illustrates a persistent gap between visionary discourse and tangible transformation.

At the organizational level, structural and cultural barriers dominate: a shortage of specialized expertise (ethical AI, data governance, green IT), financial constraints, and an entrenched performance-oriented mindset impede the diffusion of responsible innovation. Externally, regulatory uncertainty, dependence on global digital platforms, and competitive pressures further constrain local autonomy. Collectively, these dynamics underscore the challenge of embedding ethical responsibility into digital strategies in a developing economy under global technological dependency.

Thus, to ensure greater operational impact, we recommend a set of actionable pathways. In the short term (1–2 years), priority actions include the introduction of national training modules on digital ethics, the development of sector-specific RDI guidelines, and the integration of basic RDI principles into Digital Morocco 2030 initiatives. In the medium term (3–5 years), the establishment of an RDI Maturity Index is recommended, based on indicators such as energy efficiency of digital infrastructures, robustness of data governance, and transparency of algorithmic systems. This index could be implemented through coordination between the ANRT, the Digital Development Agency, and academic institutions. In the long term (5+ years), the creation of a national RDI Observatory would allow continuous monitoring of emerging risks, evaluation of policy impacts, and cross-sectoral coordination. Funding for these initiatives may rely on public–private partnerships, innovation grants, and sustainable digital transformation funds. These pathways aim to translate high-level recommendations into concrete, measurable, and scalable actions.

From a theoretical standpoint, this research contributes to the emerging literature on RDI by contextualizing it within an emerging-market framework, emphasizing the interaction between technological responsibility, institutional maturity, and governance structures. It bridges the gap between CSR and digital innovation theories by proposing a socio-technical reading of responsibility in digital transformation processes.

From a managerial perspective, the study highlights the need for integrated governance frameworks that bring together CSR and digital functions, the development of specialized training in ethical digital design, and the creation of incentive mechanisms encouraging responsible innovation. These findings can inform policymakers, regulators, and digital leaders in designing targeted capacity-building and regulatory frameworks to operationalize RDI in Morocco.

However, several methodological limitations should be acknowledged. First, the sample is geographically concentrated in the Casablanca–Rabat–Kenitra region, which—while representing the country’s primary digital and economic hub—does not capture the disparities in digital maturity observed in southern and eastern regions. Second, the sample over-represents large organizations and public institutions, whereas end-users, small startups, and peripheral industrial sectors remain underrepresented. This introduces a bias toward more structured and institutionalized viewpoints. Third, the study does not include performance indicators (financial, environmental, or operational), which limits the ability to compare the integration of RDI practices across organizations or to assess their evolution over time. These limitations do not undermine the exploratory value of the study, but they suggest caution when generalizing the findings and highlight the need for broader and more diversified samples in future research.

Furthermore, the study provides a valuable foundation for future research. Quantitative and longitudinal studies could extend these insights by examining the measurable impact of RDI on organizational performance and sustainability outcomes, or by comparing sectors and countries. Developing robust RDI indicators would also allow the tracking of responsible digital maturity over time.

Ultimately, this research calls for a systemic and collaborative approach—bridging public policy, corporate strategy, and academic inquiry—to advance a genuinely ethical and sustainable digital transformation in Morocco.