A few years ago, Naomi Jacobs, a PhD candidate at Eindhoven University of Technology, sat down in a small office to argue that the way Europe creates its well-being platforms, persuasive apps, and fitness trackers is subtly flawed. not ruined in a dramatic, attention-grabbing manner. Broken in the gradual, mounting perception that moral issues were being handled as afterthoughts, added after the code had been shipped. In September 2021, she defended her thesis, which presented a straightforward but unyielding argument. She contended that designers could address this sooner. Much earlier. prior to drawing a single wireframe.
That argument is no longer limited to a Dutch dissertation five years later. It is seeping into Horizon program protocols, AI4People reports, and guidance documents from the European Commission. Even though there is disagreement over what “ethics by design” actually means, there is a feeling that it has become the standard vocabulary when navigating the halls of European tech policy.
Martha Nussbaum’s capability theory was grafted onto the more traditional Value Sensitive Design methodology to create Jacobs’s framework, which she named Capability Sensitive Design. It sounds like an academic combination, and it is. However, after sitting with it for a minute, the practical concept behind it becomes clear. When developing a glucose-tracking app for a diabetic, there are more factors to consider than just the app’s functionality. It’s whether the app respects their autonomy, whether it takes into consideration their real needs rather than presumptions, and whether the interface’s built-in nudges treat them like competent adults or like a problem that needs to be solved.
It’s difficult to ignore how infrequently that question is raised during product meetings. The majority of behavior modification tools, such as those that track steps, encourage meditation, and reprimand users for excessive screen time, were created by non-vulnerable people for vulnerable people. The details exhibit the asymmetry. For someone dealing with depression, a push notification that inspires a marathon runner may feel punishing.
About two months after Jacobs defended her thesis, the European Commission released a guidance document on Ethics by Design for AI in November 2021, but it did not specifically reference her work. However, anyone who reads both can see the conceptual lineage. For many years, Philip Brey of the University of Twente has been working in related fields. The Commission did adopt his own ethics-by-design research. The Dutch academic community, which is small and well-connected, has successfully developed into an export center for ethical design thinking.
It remains to be seen if the framework will withstand contact with industry. European ethical standards have long been assimilated, diluted, and then trotted out in promotional materials. Anyone who witnessed the implementation of GDPR is familiar with the cookie banner industrial complex that ensued. Ethics by design could turn into a checkbox. It might also develop into something more.
The Ethics of Behavior Change Technologies: Beyond Nudging and Persuasion, a new book edited by Eindhoven researchers and published by Bloomsbury in October 2025, indicates that the scholarly discourse is expanding. autonomy, responsibility, social justice, privacy, and trust. The list of issues continues to expand. The list of technologies that affect them also does.
Observing this from a distance, it’s interesting to note how much of the change is being spearheaded by individuals who have been advocating for it for years without much support. The audience is there now. The European Commission is paying attention. The MDPI documents are piling up. Design-thinking approaches that align with Jacobs’s concerns are being cited by mHealth developers in Innsbruck and Brussels. It’s still unclear whether any of it alters the apps on people’s phones.
