# Ethics in the Metaverse: responsible innovation as a pathway for policy and industry

Kalli Giannelos

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Kalli Giannelos. Ethics in the Metaverse: responsible innovation as a pathway for policy and industry. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 2026, 13 (1), 10.1080/23299460.2025.2597075. hal-05479739

HAL Id: hal-05479739

https://sciencespo.hal.science/hal-05479739v1

Submitted on 27 Jan 2026

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

# Ethics in the Metaverse: responsible innovation as a pathway for policy and industry

Kalli Giannelos

**To cite this article:** Kalli Giannelos (2026) Ethics in the Metaverse: responsible innovation as a pathway for policy and industry, Journal of Responsible Innovation, 13:1, 2597075, DOI: 10.1080/23299460.2025.2597075

**To link to this article:** https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2025.2597075

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

© 2025 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

Published online: 02 Jan 2026.

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

Submit your article to this journal

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

Article views: 327

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>

View related articles

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /></figure>

View Crossmark data

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>

CrossMark
<figure><img src="image_13.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_15.png" /></figure>

# Ethics in the Metaverse: responsible innovation as a pathway for policy and industry

Kalli Giannelos

<figure><img src="image_16.png" /></figure>

## ABSTRACT

A responsible Metaverse requires governance frameworks grounded in responsible innovation. Drawing on an interdisciplinary literature review, this paper examines the ethical challenges and governance dilemmas surrounding its development. It identifies three priorities for ethical intervention: (i) scrutinizing Metaverse narratives to assess their real contribution to digital transformation; (ii) addressing ethical risks, boundaries, and uncertainties through a precautionary yet innovation-supportive approach; and (iii) establishing guidelines to steer its evolution toward democratic and socially beneficial outcomes. To operationalize these principles, the paper proposes a framework of six policy and industry actions that align Metaverse governance with ethical, societal, and human-centered values. This framework presents responsible innovation as central to sustainable digital transformation and aligns with recent reviews of immersive and intelligent virtual environments highlighting technological and psychological concerns. Without robust safeguards, the Metaverse risks becoming a Trojan horse that disrupts digital ecosystems without regard for societal well-being.

## ARTICLE HISTORY

Received 12 November 2023
Accepted 25 November 2025

## KEYWORDS

Metaverse; responsible
innovation; immersive
technologies; digital ethics;
digital transformation

## Introduction

Among its many definitions, the Metaverse¹ is shaped by strategic communication narratives that capitalize on its innovative facade. The 4th industrial revolution has driven continuous digital transformation, impacting markets. Whether the Metaverse becomes the next phase in digital evolution or remains a niche application, establishing a responsible innovation framework is essential for guiding its ethical and sustainable development. Unlike corporate uses of ethical discourse to legitimize technological progress, responsible innovation requires defining ethical boundaries, addressing societal concerns, engaging affected communities, and evaluating both desirability and risks. The governance of the Metaverse intersects with existing digital ecosystem challenges, immersive technology development, and broader uncertainties in digital transformation. Given its unpredictable trajectory, the Metaverse illustrates the complexities of responsible innovation in emerging technologies. While the hype surrounding the Metaverse appears to be subsiding, the adoption of immersive technologies across various sectors continues to expand. This paper explores how to ethically guide this expansion, regardless of which vision of the Metaverse may ultimately emerge.

As a concept, the Metaverse is defined in multiple ways. Mystakidis (2022) describes it as ‘the post-reality universe, a perpetual and persistent multiuser environment merging physical reality with digital virtuality’, while Park and Kim (2022) define it as ‘a three-dimensional virtual world where avatars engage in political, economic, social, and cultural activities’ (4211). At its core, the Metaverse relies on Extended Reality (XR) technologies – comprising Virtual Reality (VR), Augmented Reality (AR), and Mixed Reality (MR)–to enable multisensory interactions with digital environments, objects, and people (Mystakidis 2022). VR immerses users in entirely digital spaces, isolating them from the physical world via head-mounted displays and sensory feedback systems. AR, in contrast, overlays digital elements onto real-world settings, enhancing

<figure><img src="image_17.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_18.png" /></figure>

<footnote>ªTélécom Paris – Institut Polytechnique de Paris, Palaiseau, France; ᵇCentre for Political Research (CEVIPOF), Paris, France</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_19.png" /></figure>

them with interactive virtual objects. MR further integrates both realities, enabling real-time interactions between physical and digital elements. These technologies form the foundation of the Metaverse, shaping its ethical and governance challenges.

Current ethical inquiries in digital transformation primarily focus on privacy and data protection (Roša 2021), with limited frameworks to guide private actors toward ethical digital strategies. Defining the ethical parameters for the Metaverse faces three challenges: (i) corporate discourse on 'responsible innovation' often serves rhetorical rather than substantive purposes; (ii) legal frameworks predominantly take a risk-oriented approach; and (iii) the distinction between genuine sectoral applications of the Metaverse and those leveraging its branding for market positioning remains ambiguous. These limitations contribute to conceptual and ethical uncertainties, complicating discussions on responsible innovation.

This paper proposes a responsible innovation framework to support ethical governance in the Metaverse, integrating principles from normative ethical theories with anticipatory governance mechanisms. By addressing issues such as ethical uncertainty, inclusivity, and rapid technological change, this framework offers a structured approach for policymakers and industry stakeholders seeking to foster sustainable and ethically robust Metaverse ecosystems. Although ethics frequently dominates discussions on the Metaverse, a fully realized vision of an ethical Metaverse remains elusive. Given the diversity of perspectives, an ethical framework must establish guidelines for positive societal impacts while avoiding polarizing narratives of excessive optimism or fear (ANSES 2021). Beyond its technological implications, the Metaverse raises philosophical questions similar to those posed by other digital technologies, including the redefinition of identity and interaction in virtual spaces (Floridi 2014, 166).

Addressing these challenges requires a structured ethical foundation. This paper incorporates normative ethical theories to critically evaluate governance and industry responsibilities. Deontological ethics emphasizes user rights and privacy, consequentialism weighs innovation against harm, and virtue ethics fosters moral responsibility in digital environments. These perspectives collectively provide a principled basis for assessing responsible innovation in immersive technologies.

Building on the premise that responsible innovation is essential for governing the Metaverse ethically, this paper advances a framework for its ethical and sustainable development. Ethical considerations extend beyond regulatory compliance, necessitating a broader examination of the Metaverse's societal impacts. A meaningful ethical approach must integrate technology with human autonomy, contributing to democratic discourse. This study explores the intersection of ethics and market dynamics, defining ethical risks, boundaries, and guiding principles for digital society's evolution. It critically assesses whether responsible innovation can effectively ensure an ethical Metaverse and examines how it can be managed at both policy and industry levels.

Rather than offering a systematic or scoping review, this paper uses the existing body of literature as a foundation for a normative and conceptual framework that advances responsible innovation in the context of the Metaverse. Through an interdisciplinary review of the literature, this research analyzes immersive technologies and Metaverse-related developments, distinguishing between industry-driven narratives, policy perspectives, and scientific analyses. The review incorporates responsible innovation and digital ethics literature to provide a nuanced understanding of the Metaverse's challenges and opportunities, which remain underexplored in existing discourse.

Complementary to our approach, Shanley and Meacham (2024) review ethical debates around intelligent virtual environments (IVEs), i.e. AI-infused, VR-based spaces such as social VR platforms, and highlight that current concerns cluster around technological feasibility and psychological impacts, while calling for deeper philosophical analysis. Our study differs in scope and aim: we address the broader Metaverse (XR more generally) and focus on responsible innovation governance (policy and industry actions), translating ethical commitments into anticipatory oversight and design practices.

This paper methodically examines the ethical implications of the Metaverse, first identifying current ethical and policy issues and the risks associated with immersive technologies. It then evaluates the challenges of implementing responsible innovation and proposes a structured framework comprising six targeted actions for policy and industry stakeholders. These actions, rooted in responsible innovation literature, reinforce the framework's originality and its potential to bridge gaps in digital ethics. The discussion includes practical strategies for overcoming obstacles, ensuring the theoretical rigor of the framework aligns with real-world feasibility.
<figure><img src="image_20.png" /></figure>

## Approach to the literature

This study employs an interdisciplinary review of the literature to examine the ethical and governance challenges of the Metaverse through the lens of responsible innovation. In developing this review, we also consulted adjacent efforts (e.g. Shanley and Meacham 2024) to ensure coverage of IVEs-specific debates relevant to immersive environments. Given the evolving and contested nature of the Metaverse, this review faced methodological challenges, including the lack of a universal definition and fragmented literature across disciplines such as computer science, digital ethics, law, policy studies, and media and communication studies. Another challenge was the disparity between academic research and industry-driven narratives. While peer-reviewed literature explores conceptual and normative ethics, industry publications emphasize market potential and technological feasibility over deeper ethical critiques.

To address these complexities, we adopted a broad, literature-informed approach that allowed for the integration of key ethical and governance concerns while accommodating diverse disciplinary perspectives. This approach enables the incorporation of empirical, theoretical, and policy insights, providing a structured yet adaptable foundation for understanding the ethical dimensions of Metaverse governance.

The review drew from multiple academic databases, including Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and IEEE Xplore, along with policy reports from governmental organizations and think tank publications. The search strategy was designed to capture literature at the intersection of immersive technologies, responsible innovation, and ethical governance. The search process targeted ‘Metaverse ethics’, ‘responsible innovation in XR’, ‘policy and governance of immersive technologies’, ‘digital ethics and virtual environments’, and related terms. Given the field’s rapid development, peer-reviewed journal articles, books, and policy documents published between 2012 and 2024 were prioritized, alongside foundational texts on responsible innovation.

The selection process was conducted in multiple stages. Initially, over 200 sources were identified. These were then screened for relevance, excluding studies that focused solely on commercial aspects. Studies with strong empirical or conceptual grounding were prioritized over speculative or industry-driven narratives. Ultimately, 70 sources were selected for in-depth analysis based on their relevance to ethical, governance, and policy challenges in the Metaverse.

To systematically analyze the selected literature, a manual qualitative coding process was employed to identify recurring themes related to ethical risks, governance models, and responsible innovation principles. This involved an iterative thematic analysis, where sources were first reviewed for key ethical concerns, governance strategies, and regulatory discussions. Concepts were then categorized into broader thematic clusters, including privacy risks, industry compliance challenges, and policy interventions. The manual coding approach allowed for in-depth engagement with the texts, facilitating a nuanced synthesis of interdisciplin ary insights across academic, policy, and industry sources. To enhance reliability and minimize bias, mul tiple rounds of coding refined emerging themes. Recurring themes were compared across sources to ensure findings were not disproportionately influenced by any single study.

Given that the Metaverse is a rapidly evolving field where industry and policy discussions play a signifi cant role, this review also incorporated industry reports, white papers, and think tank publications. How ever, these sources were critically assessed to ensure academic credibility. Industry sources were evaluated based on institutional credibility, methodological transparency, and alignment with peer-reviewed research to avoid uncritical adoption of corporate narratives.

A critical aspect of this approach was differentiating between distinct types of literature to account for potential biases. The selected literature was analyzed thematically, focusing on recurring ethical concerns, governance models, and responsible innovation principles. Key themes were categorized into three main areas: (i) theoretical perspectives on responsible innovation and digital ethics, (ii) empirical studies on XR-related risks, governance challenges, and ethical concerns, and (iii) policy and regulatory frameworks addressing digital transformation.

While this literature-informed review provides an interdisciplinary synthesis, certain limitations exist. Findings depend on available literature, and the absence of quantitative meta-analysis limits statistical generalizability. However, given the exploratory nature of this research, the approach is well-suited to identifying key ethical challenges and governance needs. By synthesizing diverse disciplinary insights, this study presents a broad yet critical understanding of the ethical and governance implications of the Metaverse.
<figure><img src="image_21.png" /></figure>

The proposed responsible innovation framework is both theoretically grounded and practically relevant, offering a balanced perspective incorporating academia, industry, and policymaking.

# Policy and ethical challenges of immersive technologies

## Individual and societal risks of immersive technologies

Individual and societal risks associated with the Metaverse form the ground of a first level of ethical challenges. The literature on the Metaverse distinguishes different risk dimensions that could be categorized as ‘safety’, encompassing individual-reflexive risks, and ‘security’, referring to harm from others. Extended reality (XR), a pivotal Metaverse technology, has shown effects on both dimensions. More specifically, the IEEE has addressed XR’s ethical concerns and requirements in terms of privacy (McGill 2021), diversity (Fox and Thornton 2022), inclusion, accessibility, education (Mangina 2021), medicine (Evans 2022), and finance (Middleton 2022). Regarding security, privacy risks related to immersive devices are primarily linked to biometric identifiers, exacerbating concerns about attention capture, personal data collection, and mental activity tracking due to full-body monitoring (Basdevant, François, and Ronfard 2022). This can result in a loss of control over the use of one’s bodily features by others, leading to human datafication (Maciejewski 2023). Main ethical questions related to privacy are the types and quantities of data that might be generated, who will have access to them, and who will know about their existence and inferences from them (Stahl, Timmermans, and Flick 2017). Intentional misuse and breaches of privacy, such as doxxing, pose further threats. Regarding privacy, besides reducing it to utility or framing it as an individual right, Floridi (2014) introduces privacy as a self-constituting value: this view deems breaching informational privacy as an aggression against personal identity (119). This perspective intertwines an individual’s informational realm with their identity, making identity construction integral to privacy. When privacy is seen intrinsically, not externally, such violations in the Metaverse equate to harm.

Other ethical concerns may be listed as part of the individual ethical risks associated with the Metaverse, such as concerns regarding personal autonomy, treatment of humans, and identity can be raised. Personal autonomy will be affected by the Metaverse, since this is already an issue in ICTs, as they may enable monitoring and controlling of people’s behaviors, thoughts, actions, and favor delegation of tasks and decisions (shifting control from individuals to the ICTs) (Stahl, Timmermans, and Flick 2017). Other ethical questions relate to what extent Metaverse applications improve independence and autonomy, to what extent the infrastructure monitors or controls individual behavior, emotions, thoughts, moods and actions, and if decisions are delegated to these smart applications (Stahl, Timmermans, and Flick 2017). The treatment of humans refers to the possibility of informed consent in the human-machine interactions, with ethical concerns related to the impact of daily life, the impact on vulnerable people, the systematic request of informed consent, and real-life impacts (Stahl, Timmermans, and Flick 2017). Lastly, personal identity aggregates other ethical concerns, as the Metaverse might alter human dignity and traditional human functions, in terms of capabilities, or self-perception (Stahl, Timmermans, and Flick 2017).

Security risks resulting from external actions often encompass deviant and privacy-related concerns, violating individuals’ freedom, safety, and physical well-being through illegal or violent actions (ANSES 2021). Behavioral risks encompass cyber abuse and harassment, which can be particularly intense in VR due to the strong sense of presence (Wiederhold 2022), and especially in social VR environments involving avatar interactions (Cortese and Outlaw 2021). In the Metaverse, where existing social media issues are amplified, incidents of cyberbullying affect three out of ten users, as threats become more personal and physical (Monsanto et al. 2022), exacerbated by the blending of virtual and real worlds, heightening the risks of antisocial behavior (Benjamins, Rubio Viñuela, and Alonso 2023). This complex landscape can lead to various security risks, potentially resulting in legal actions among users, between users and VR/AR operators, or involving external parties like copyright holders (Lemley and Volokh 2018).

In terms of safety, inherent risks in VR/AR encompass documented physical health concerns (e.g. cyberkinetosis, altered coordination, eye damage), and potential neurological, developmental, and psychological effects (ANSES 2021). These immersive settings also present risks like altered perception and ergonomic issues (Fernandez and Hui 2023; Lécuyer 2023), along with emotional, cognitive, and behavioral changes, particularly affecting vulnerable groups (Benjamins, Rubio Viñuela, and Alonso 2023; Slater et al. 2020).
<figure><img src="image_22.png" /></figure>

Extensive XR usage amplifies risks, necessitating further study into musculoskeletal disorders, psychological effects, self-representation impact, and more (ANSES 2021). Notably, the exposure of minors to inappropriate VR content requires safeguards like age verification (Maciejewski 2023). Mental health risks include disengagement, addiction, altered self-representation, and post-VR emotional effects (Anderson and Rainie 2022; Benjamins, Rubio Viñuela, and Alonso 2023; Bojic 2022). Also, immersive environments can alter behavior due to disinhibition, affecting users differently (ANSES 2021).

At the societal level, the Metaverse may generate digital divides (Stahl, Timmermans, and Flick 2017), while it also raises concerns about potential economic dominance and the need for inclusivity (Maciejewski 2023; Schöbel and Tingelhoff 2023). Immersion is expected to drive significant societal change across various aspects, including work, play, ownership, consumption, socialization, and creation (Elmasry et al. 2022). Documented potential issues include the following: pressure on social values, distorted social interactions, gamified culture, healthcare inequalities, and potential misuse of VR/AR devices by health professionals for profit (ANSES 2021). Access, equity, diversity, and representation concerns in the Metaverse can either democratize or reinforce biases, polarizing society (Anderson and Rainie 2022). Such risks resonate with broader critiques of AI imaginaries, such as Cave and Dihal's (2020) analysis of the 'Whiteness of AI,' which demonstrates how cultural narratives embedded in technology can marginalize certain groups. Addressing these risks in the Metaverse therefore requires proactive attention to inclusivity in design, governance, and representation. Furthermore, misinformation, deep fakes, and inequalities pose democratic risks (Benjamins, Rubio Viñuela, and Alonso 2023), as the Metaverse might foster inclusivity or amplify Web 2.0 issues like content moderation and privacy (Bitkom 2022; Zhu 2022). Additionally, other concerns arise, as the environmental impact, which can be mitigated through renewable energy adoption and net-zero emissions commitments (Meta 2023). Also, economic concerns involve targeted advertising and the attention economy.

In addition to individual studies, recent reviews have also mapped ethical concerns in immersive technologies. For example, Shanley and Meacham (2024) focus on intelligent virtual environments (IVEs) – VR spaces augmented by AI capabilities – and show that debates often cluster around (i) technological feasibility and (ii) psychological impacts, while calling for more sustained philosophical engagement with these environments as active mediators of experience. Our contribution is complementary but distinct: we take the wider Metaverse/XR landscape and build a responsible-innovation governance framework that operationalizes ethics, articulating fixed ethical red lines, adaptive oversight (anticipatory governance), and industry design/transparency actions (ethics-by-design, value-sensitive design). In doing so, we move from mapping ethical concerns to offering a governance framework that translates normative commitments into concrete strategies for policy and industry practice.

## The uncertain added value of Metaverse developments

Policy and industry challenges associated with the development of the Metaverse can be identified in terms of its uncertain added value, where limited visibility in sector-specific applications obscures the landscape and creates confusion between mere speculation and genuine potential. Decoding the specific added value of Metaverse applications could involve outlining taxonomies based on use cases, albeit with potential overlaps and uncertainties. The current and future use cases of the Metaverse span across various sectors, at the intersection of diverging typologies and visions, affecting both leading sectors and sectors that have avoided digital disruption (Elmasry et al. 2022).

The added value of the Metaverse across sectors is often blurred by an industrial strategy that seeks to assimilate every possible sector and use case, with high speculation and performative effects. Leading sectors of the Metaverse vary in the literature, although four main application sectors could be outlined: commercial, industrial, military, and e-government (public services) (Maciejewski 2023). In a simplified version, the use cases could be reduced to a dichotomy between the 'industrial metaverse' and the 'consumer metaverse' (Deloitte China 2022, 6). These typologies show that there is no consensus in the assessment of the dominant sectors, let alone their categorization.

More elaborate taxonomies outline up to thirteen sectors (CB Insights 2022), with converging sectors being: gaming (CB Insights 2022; Fuchs 2023; Park and Kim 2022); professional activities (Basdevant, François, and Ronfard 2022; CB Insights 2022; Fuchs 2023; Park and Kim 2022); education (Basdevant, François,
<figure><img src="image_23.png" /></figure>

and Ronfard 2022; CB Insights 2022; Park and Kim (2022); and social activities including events and shows (Basdevant, François, and Ronfard 2022; CB Insights 2022; Fuchs 2023; Park and Kim 2022). Differences worth noting are the delineations between (i) fitness (CB Insights 2022) and health (Basdevant, François, and Ronfard 2022); (ii) between work and professional activities (Basdevant, François, and Ronfard 2022; CB Insights 2022; Fuchs 2023; Park and Kim 2022) and more precise professional applications as industry (Basdevant, François, and Ronfard 2022), digital twins (Fuchs 2023), marketing (Park and Kim 2022) and advertising (CB Insights 2022). Other use cases outlined include marketing, retail, banking services, human resource management (Koohang et al. 2023), or creative economy, advertising, social, commerce, public service (Citi 2022). Orange (2022) integrates the cultural sector in tourism; and considers media and entertainment as a separate category. Elmasry et al. (2022) offer a taxonomy with technology as a separate sector, as well as another with fashion and luxury, and a separation between apparel and retail. Some typologies choose a more granular typology for certain use cases, while others regroup them. These differences in the literature derive from the definitional ambiguity of the Metaverse, its uncertain evolution and complexity, and the diverging views on the technical and functional level.

While not all sectors may benefit equally from immersive technologies, the differences across sectors from a functional level are unclear. The Metaverse's core value lies in enabling collaborative human activities, fostering multisensory social interactions surpassing 2D Internet equivalents (Hennig-Thurau et al. 2023). Although various typologies of sectoral applications are present in the literature, we propose a tentative classification that restructures them into comprehensive categories delineating similar aims, across six categories (see Figure 1): (i) gaming; (ii) events, tourism and culture; (iii) sports, fitness and well-being; (iv) retail, fashion and advertising; (v) professional activities and remote work; and (vi) immersive EdTech.

The gaming sector, a Metaverse pioneer, stands out due to its high level of gamification and strong immersion value, even as it progressively integrates non-gaming experiences such as social gatherings (CB Insights 2022; Parcu, Innocenti, and Carrozza 2023). The tourism, culture, entertainment, and social events categories share similarities, considering objectives and experiences (CB Insights 2022). In the sports, fitness, and well-being segment, the focus is on mental and physical health, overshadowing gameplay (CB Insights 2022). Retail, luxury, and advertising form a distinct category driven by commercial and marketing goals, fostering innovations like mixed real-virtual shopping and headless commerce (CB Insights 2022; Parcu, Innocenti, and Carrozza 2023). Professional activities encompass remote work, recruitment, onboarding, and digital twins (industry and manufacturing) with a shared purpose of transforming work practices and experiences (Monsanto et al. 2022). Financial services, though sometimes separate, can also be part of this category through Metaverse-specific offerings (e.g. virtual real estate financing). Education – i.e. the immersive EdTech sphere – covers e-learning, vocational training, and lifelong learning, employing gamification and social aspects for engaging, diverse, and competency-based learning (Kaddoura and Al Husseiny 2023). Possible use cases of the Metaverse could also be categorized across social groups with

<figure><img src="image_24.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1.** (Opposite): tentative taxonomy of main sectors of Metaverse developments.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_25.png" /></figure>

distinct interests, exhibiting varied characteristics, interactions, and societal impacts: producers (Big tech, non-commercial providers, game producers), users (individual users, retail and entertainment), advocates (crypto-investors, affirmative and agnostic governments), and bystanders (skeptics, critics) (Dolata and Schwabe 2023).

Metaverse adoption shows discrepancies in added value, particularly for high-risk activities, reenactments, and cost-effective experiences impractical in the physical world (Mystakidis 2022). Despite its perceived potential, limited consumer adoption and management commitment hinder widespread implementation (Monsanto et al. 2022). Immersive technologies offer utility in retail, education, training, and life sciences, with social interaction and commerce as key focuses (Monsanto et al. 2022). Yet, scalability remains restricted across sectors (Monsanto et al. 2022). Challenges include connectivity issues, participant limits, language barriers, cultural adaptation, spatial constraints, ergonomic concerns, immersion believability, and a tendency to replicate real-world experiences (Basdevant, François, and Ronfard 2022). Overall, the Metaverse provides an intimate, culturally exclusive experience often absent in modern physical environments (McIntosh 2008, 207). However, early-adopters prioritize business value over societal impact, accelerating technological development across sectors, without fully assessing its broader societal significance. Overcoming the assumption that emerging technologies inherently drive economic growth and quality of life (Maynard, Grobe, and Renn 2012, 168) may be necessary to critically evaluate the Metaverse's true sectoral value. This analysis highlights the discrepancies between potential applications and visions of the Metaverse that may emerge. In the remainder of this study, we will use the term 'Metaverse' as a broad, loosely defined category encompassing immersive technologies, while acknowledging that its definition remains uncertain and its evolution unpredictable.

# Weaknesses in implementing an ethical Metaverse

## Deadlocks of responsible innovation in the Metaverse

Building an ethical Metaverse is contingent on the capacity to effectively implement a responsible innovation approach. As ‘we have moved inside the infosphere’ (Floridi 2014, 218), ‘the task is to formulate an ethical framework that can treat the infosphere as a new environment worthy of the moral attention and care of the human inforgs inhabiting it’ (219). Achieving an ethical digital public sphere necessitates a shift from consumer-centricity to citizen-centricity (Giannelos 2023). However, in the context of immersive technologies, trying to operationalize responsible innovation stumbles upon several difficulties.

Dreyer et al. (2017) have highlighted the difficulty of operationalizing responsible innovation concepts, tools, and methodologies, emphasizing the fact that this discourse emanating from academia and governmental bodies does not match the needs of practitioners, as it is disconnected from industry practices and real-world challenges. Additionally, the often-unclear meanings of responsible innovation, as for instance the definition of societal desirability, have led to different interpretations – especially between policymakers and academics – and uses of responsible innovation as an ideological tool more than an actionable concept (Loureiro and Conceição 2019). While an ethical governance could be defined through responsible innovation, its implementation is a context-specific path that remains to be clarified. In the context of the Metaverse, it could be argued that applying responsible innovation implies to embrace open standards and a pluralistic approach to stakeholder inclusion (Hemphill 2023), although we here argue that a broader contribution of responsible innovation could be outlined.

We identify three major deadlocks in the implementation of responsible innovation in the context of the Metaverse. The first obstacle in implementing an ethical Metaverse is how to promote a genuine ethical governance that is not too focused on legal compliance and ‘box ticking’ (Dempsey 2017, 174), as often is the case with corporate responsibility schemes. Responsible governance is subject to different interpretations, and the related international frameworks (e.g. the United Nations Global Compact) present significant shortcomings, while ethics-oriented approaches may lack the certainty and consistency of law and regulation (Dempsey 2017). Ethics operates as a meta-regulatory framework for governance, an overarching structure that can guide the governance of business (Dempsey 2017). To make companies more ethical, essential components are: codes of conduct, developed either at firm or industry level; whistleblowing procedures; ethical or compliance programs; support from professional associations.
<figure><img src="image_26.png" /></figure>

A second deadlock for the Metaverse might be a superficial interpretation of responsible innovation that may lead to a detachment from ethical principles and justification. The Metaverse development might fall into two of the deadlocks that Von Schomberg (2013) identifies as part of irresponsible innovation: ‘technology push’ and ‘lack of precautionary foresight’ (60). The Metaverse market is indeed characterized by a technology push, as industrial actors are taking the lead over a policy process lagging behind. Additionally, the Metaverse might suffer from a lack of precautionary measures and technology foresight, which can occur as industries proceed in their technological developments in the context of uncertainty and scientific ignorance (Von Schomberg 2013). The underexplored risks of the Metaverse could typically be considered as part of this gray area.

A third obstacle is that focusing solely on ethical principles carries the risk of overshadowing tangible strategies and impeding progress beyond mere declarative intentions. Addressing this tendency towards superficial ethics would require two fundamental actions: (i) cultivating unrestricted public debate and discourse concerning the societal direction, impact, and desirable changes that the digital transformation introduces to society, and their limitations or undesirable consequences; and (ii) guiding the market towards responsible innovation through government incentives and guidance. Ethical interventions for a responsible Metaverse could be designed both at policy and industry level, in close complementarity.

These three deadlocks are illustrated in corporate communication strategies on responsible innovation, which often present a schematic interpretation. Indeed, such strategies frequently blur the line between genuine responsible innovation and the mere legitimization of industry developments. Meta (2020), for instance, promotes responsible innovation in its Metaverse-related products (via Facebook Reality Labs) through four pillars: privacy, transparency, inclusion, and communication. While these principles are important, they do not fully capture responsible innovation's broader ethical scope. Statements like ‘put people first’ (Meta 2020) emphasize legal compliance rather than addressing deeper ethical concerns. Similarly, ‘provide controls that matter’ focuses on user privacy settings but stops short of human-centered design and ethical nudging. The statement ‘consider everyone’ highlights feature accessibility but overlooks structural inclusivity, such as accommodations for vulnerable users. Finally, the statement ‘never surprise people’ refers to informing users about privacy violations, framing responsibility in terms of legal compliance rather than proactive ethical commitments. Meta’s approach, centered on privacy and misuse, aligns with corporate liability requirements but represents a narrow interpretation of responsible innovation.

Responsible innovation involves key dimensions for governance to address societal concerns: anticipation, reflexivity, inclusion and responsiveness (Stilgoe, Owen, and Macnaghten 2013). We will here focus on the dimensions of upstream engagement, anticipation, and responsiveness, in their contribution to an ethical Metaverse. Ethical governance relies on stakeholder engagement as a crucial mechanism aligned with responsible innovation principles. Beyond effectiveness, private actors must consider broader moral and socioeconomic implications (Dempsey 2013). Recognizing stakeholders as normative influences on corporate governance standards (AA1000 Stakeholder Engagement Standard 2015; Dempsey 2017) can promote responsible business practices. To ensure responsiveness, early stakeholder engagement through participatory activities helps integrate diverse perspectives, clarify claims, and spark debate (Guston and Sarewitz 2002; Torgersen and Fuchs 2017). In this respect, participatory practices are justified by their potential in providing alternative views and debunking myths (Torgersen and Fuchs 2017). From a governance perspective, Metaverse development should involve industry, civil society, and research stakeholders to align with responsible innovation and shift governance from a risk-oriented to an innovation-oriented approach (Von Schomberg 2013).

## Ethical red lines and blind spots of a responsible Metaverse

Beyond the documented risks posed by immersive technologies, additional ethical concerns arise with the uncertain evolution of the Metaverse, an issue that is also to be found in emerging ICTs. Ethical issues related to the development of emerging ICTs are also meaningful in the case of the Metaverse, which as a convergence of the latter, concentrates several ethical concerns. Such ethical concerns are: perceptions of technology (anthropomorphism misleading users; autonomy of the system; change in social dynamics); the role of humans (new capabilities; proximity of the technology with the user, e.g. implants) (Stahl,
<figure><img src="image_27.png" /></figure>

Timmermans, and Flick 2017). The individual and societal risks posed by the Metaverse, in addition to the uncertainties in terms of technological development and the role of humans in the Metaverse over the long-term call for an awareness and education of stakeholders in regard with these ethical issues (Stahl, Timmermans, and Flick 2017).

In an immersive world, ethical tensions can arise when a user follows rules that differ from or conflict with the ethics of everyday life (ANSES 2021). Conflicting values can lead to a situation qualified by Van den Hoven (2013) as moral overload. This is typically the case with the tension between freedom of expression and the prevention of harm (Boni 2023), which in specific scenarios – e.g. Web3 – might translate as the tension between anonymity and liability. Additionally, the attribution of responsibility, a larger issue in digital ecosystems, is magnified in the Metaverse, where it is more difficult to assign responsibility for unethical behavior to users, affected individuals, or society at large. Responsible innovation typically involves the distribution of risks and benefits, and the identification of who is in control or accountable, whether motivations are transparent and serve the public interest (Stilgoe, Owen, and Macnaghten 2013). The main Metaverse's stakeholders include designers, funders, distributors, prescribers, and users (ANSES 2021), all of whom influence ethical boundaries.

Instead of reinventing ethical boundaries, the Metaverse should extend and reinforce existing legal and ethical frameworks. Privacy, digital safety, and fairness principles already underpin regulations like GDPR, anti-harassment laws, and consumer protections, but their application in immersive environments presents regulatory complexities. Some ethical boundaries, such as bans on biometric surveillance without consent or child exploitation, must remain absolute. Others, including AI moderation, virtual property rights, and decentralized governance, require continuous reassessment to balance innovation and accountability. A multi-stakeholder approach – involving governments, industry leaders, and civil society – will be essential for maintaining regulatory responsiveness to emerging risks.

Innovation and the precautionary principle must be balanced (Dreyer et al. 2017). In Europe, the precautionary principle functions as a political and ethical meta-norm, advocating for scientific inquiry alongside ethical and political responsibility (Reber 2018, 53). It applies when there is a risk of unacceptable adverse effects, when scientific assessment is needed (hazard identification, exposure, risk characterization), or in cases of scientific uncertainty due to insufficient or contested data (Reber 2018). In extreme cases, it could lead to a ‘no data, no market’ approach, limiting exposure until uncertainties are resolved (Von Schomberg 2012). The Metaverse also raises questions about responsibility, particularly regarding avatars, who could be assigned legal personality depending on whether the Metaverse is seen as an alternative or hybrid world (Boni 2023). Its uncertainties fall under ‘radical uncertainty’, where ‘probabilities are unknown, or decision-makers face ignorance (Pellizzoni 2004, 544).

A rush to innovate in areas of uncertainty can lead to a replication of the problems associated with Web 2.0. If we consider that there is no neutral technology as it implicitly favors or hinders a specific conception (Van den Hoven 2013), the different interests surrounding the Metaverse would require an ethics framework aligned with responsible innovation, in addition to any regulatory attempts. Implementing responsible innovation in this context could be fostered by both industry actors and governance structures. Responsible innovation in the Metaverse involves ‘taking care of the future through collective stewardship of science and innovation in the present’ (Stilgoe, Owen, and Macnaghten 2013, 1570). Responsible innovation could be considered as the convergence of value-sensitive design, ethics, social desirability, social acceptability and governance (Owen, Macnaghten, and Stilgoe 2012). The academic realm around responsible innovation builds on decades of study in technology assessment, anticipatory governance, socio-technical integration, public and stakeholder engagement (Owen, Macnaghten, and Stilgoe 2012).

Taking responsibility means taking action to prevent or avoid undesirable consequences and to correct them (Dreyer et al. 2017). The responsibility that is envisioned in responsible innovation can be at odds with the usual backward-looking orientation imputing ex-post causal responsibility, as opposed to a future-looking approach applying to decisions to be made, in accordance with care and responsiveness (Grinbaum and Groves 2013; Stilgoe, Owen, and Macnaghten 2013). This future-looking approach also offers a shared political co-responsibility (Stilgoe, Owen, and Macnaghten 2013). The consequentialist post-hoc approach relying on accountability or liability fails to provide guidance for the future and is inherently constrained by the Collingridge dilemma (Collingridge 1980). Balancing excessive precaution with laissez-faire is of essence and the challenge is to effectively reach the balance between benefits and risks, by taking
<figure><img src="image_28.png" /></figure>

responsibility in a collectively political manner, while considering the broader social and political consequences (Grinbaum and Groves 2013).

# A responsible innovation framework for the Metaverse

## Framework for a responsible Metaverse: policy actions

Considering the previously explored shortcomings of responsible innovation in the context of the Metaverse, we propose a new framework informed by interdisciplinary insights from responsible innovation literature, digital ethics, technology assessment, and immersive technology studies. This framework consists of six actions, spanning policy and industry initiatives, for constructing an ethical Metaverse (see Table 1 below). Our approach integrates digital ethics and responsible innovation principles while accounting for the Metaverse's dynamic nature and user engagement needs. Designed to promote proactive, inclusive, and forward-looking governance, the framework addresses the unique challenges of this rapidly evolving digital space. We will explain why these actions should be adopted and how the framework advances, challenges, and contributes to scholarly discussions on responsible innovation frameworks and their implementation.

The first policy action, 'defining ethical limits', refers to the identification of acceptable ethical boundaries for Metaverse development. Risk identification and management should be iterative, leveraging frameworks like the Risk Governance Framework (IRGC 2005). Ethical boundaries must be dynamically classified based on evolving knowledge and industry changes, ensuring adaptability to emerging risks. This action enhances traditional responsible research and innovation (RRI) frameworks by introducing flexible, continuously updated ethical standards (Stilgoe, Owen, and Macnaghten 2013), addressing the limitations of static models. Unlike conventional approaches that rely on fixed ethical guidelines, this framework incorporates iterative processes to swiftly adapt to new ethical dilemmas in the fast-evolving Metaverse landscape. This first action, establishing ethical boundaries, aligns with deontological ethics, emphasizing user autonomy, privacy, and data protection as moral imperatives rather than mere regulatory obligations (Madary and Metzinger 2016). In practice, this means defining non-negotiable safeguards such as prohibitions on biometric surveillance without consent, strict protection of minors, and guarantees of informed consent for data use. These ethical 'red lines' set limits that cannot be overridden by economic incentives or technological feasibility, thereby treating digital rights as duties owed to individuals rather than as optional features or compliance check-boxes.

The second policy action, 'bridging knowledge gaps', addresses the lack of research on the Metaverse's impact. While scientific knowledge informs decision-making, it does not prescribe socially accepted actions,

<table><caption>**Table 1.** Framework for an ethical Metaverse.</caption><thead><tr><td>Level of intervention</td><td>Action number</td><td>Title of intervention</td><td>Description</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="4">Policy level</td><td>1</td><td>Defining ethical limits for responsible Metaverse development</td><td>Defining ethical boundaries based on social acceptability, setting limits to mitigate risks and prevent exploitative practices, while ensuring adaptability to emerging ethical concerns.</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Closing knowledge gaps for evidence-based governance</td><td>Conducting targeted research on underexplored individual and societal risks, fostering a data-driven approach to Metaverse governance, and prioritizing studies on privacy, psychological effects, and vulnerable user groups.</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Promoting public debate (upstream engagement)</td><td>Encouraging inclusive decision-making by integrating diverse stakeholders, including the public, researchers, and marginalized communities, and establishing iterative feedback mechanisms for ethical oversight.</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Strengthening accountability and oversight</td><td>Implementing anticipatory governance frameworks to ensure responsible innovation, promoting industry cooperation on best practices, interoperability, and ethical standardization.</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Industry/firm level</td><td>5</td><td>Embedding ethics in Metaverse design and transparency (value-sensitive design)</td><td>Incorporating ethical principles into Metaverse product and service development, emphasizing user autonomy, transparency, and ethical safeguards in design choices, and involving ethicists in development when needed.</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>Ensuring transparency and public awareness</td><td>Requiring clear and accessible disclosure of Metaverse risks, including physical, psychological, and data-related concerns, while providing specific safeguards and guidance for vulnerable users.</td></tr></tbody></table>
<figure><img src="image_29.png" /></figure>

posing challenges in risk assessment and governance (Büscher and Jahnel 2015). Ethical Metaverse guidelines must tackle underexplored risks and uncertainties to ensure sustainable innovation (Von Schomberg 2013). Key initiatives include further research on health effects from virtual and augmented reality exposure (ANSES 2021), dissemination of existing studies with identified gaps, and targeted investigations into lesser-known impacts, particularly on vulnerable groups. This action responds to calls for focused research on emerging technologies (Büscher and Jahnel 2015) and addresses a critical gap in existing frameworks, which often overlook the long-term psychological and physiological effects of immersive environments. By prioritizing directed research, this approach strengthens governance with a robust, evidence-based foundation. This second policy action reflects a consequentialist approach, advocating for evidence-based policymaking to balance risks and benefits. The precautionary principle must be weighed against technological advancement, justifying harm mitigation strategies, such as content moderation and AI-driven bias detection, while avoiding undue restrictions on innovation.

The third policy action, 'promoting public debate and engagement', emphasizes end-user participation in Metaverse development. Early engagement is essential for responsible innovation (Torgersen and Fuchs 2017), requiring iterative deliberation and co-responsibility among stakeholders to prevent market competition from undermining sustainability (Von Schomberg 2013, 71). Participatory technology assessment allows real-time evaluation of societal impacts, aligning science and innovation with democratic values and public trust (Winickoff 2018). Expanding participation recognizes the global and far-reaching effects of the Metaverse, where 'people and non-humans distant in time and space become our moral neighbors' (Grinbaum and Groves 2013, 126). Unlike traditional frameworks, this action formalizes structured, ongoing public engagement tailored to the Metaverse's diversity, ensuring a broader range of stakeholder voices contribute to shaping its governance (Von Schomberg 2013). It addresses gaps in RRI frameworks, which often lack mechanisms for continuous, scalable interaction, making technology governance more inclusive and democratic. The third action, ensuring equitable access, integrates justice principles from deontological and virtue ethics. Digital equity is a fundamental right, and inclusivity fosters a diverse, representative Metaverse that prioritizes fairness over economic or geographic privilege.

The fourth policy action, 'strengthening accountability and oversight through anticipatory governance', integrates responsible innovation principles with government-driven foresight mechanisms. Anticipation modes – predictivist, strategic, exploratory, and critical-hermeneutic – shape future scenarios and power dynamics (Urueña 2022). Responsible innovation relies on prediction, which solidifies specific futures, and participation, which keeps them open, preventing technological determinism (Stilgoe, Owen, and Macnaghten 2013). In governance, anticipation enhances resilience, identifies innovation opportunities, and shapes socially robust risk research agendas (Stilgoe, Owen, and Macnaghten 2013, 1570). It requires assessing what is known, likely, plausible, and possible to address social, ethical, and political implications (Stilgoe, Owen, and Macnaghten 2013, 1570). This policy action expands governance frameworks by integrating diverse foresight and predictive methods (Guston 2014), moving beyond static foresight models. By incorporating strategic and critical-hermeneutic approaches, it ensures governance remains adaptable to the Metaverse's uncertainties. Unlike traditional frameworks, which often apply foresight in a rigid manner, this approach enables dynamic responses to emerging technological challenges. Yet as Hagendorff (2020) demonstrates in his analysis of AI ethics guidelines, many frameworks remain limited to high-level values without mechanisms for implementation. This underscores the importance of embedding accountability and oversight into enforceable structures. This fourth action combines consequentialist and virtue ethics perspectives. Independent oversight, grievance processes, and ethical auditing promote corporate integrity, ensuring ethical failures lead to corrective actions rather than mere compliance.

## Framework for a responsible Metaverse: industry actions

Two additional actions can be suggested, at industry level. The fifth action of the framework, 'embedding ethics in Metaverse design (value-sensitive design)', integrates ethical concerns into technology design while ensuring transparent public information. Ethics-by-design approaches embed moral considerations alongside functional requirements, supported by best practices as incentives (Carlsson and Rönnblom 2022; Van den Hoven 2013). Implementing ethics by design in the Metaverse can provide technically grounded ethical safeguards (Boni 2023). Value-sensitive design (VSD) incorporates social and moral values into new
<figure><img src="image_30.png" /></figure>

technology development (Van den Hoven 2013). De Reuver et al. (2020) recommend multiple VSD iterations throughout the lifecycle, including moral sandboxing. This is especially pertinent in Metaverse development, where moral prototyping would involve testing new features for ethical and societal issues before public release to mitigate real-life risks, thanks to ‘dynamic adjustment and surveillance’ (De Reuver et al. 2020, 262). Floridi (2014) advocates for ‘pro-ethical design’, encouraging ethical reflection rather than imposing choices (190), while his concept of ‘infraethics’ highlights the implicit societal norms that facilitate moral behavior (192). At the user level, industry can reinforce ethics through civility guidelines. VSD is essential for Metaverse development as it ensures ethical alignment from inception, supporting responsible innovation in a systematic and proactive manner (Van den Hoven 2013). Unlike traditional RRI, which inconsistently applies ethical design, this action mandates ethical considerations at every development stage, fostering a proactive rather than reactive approach – critical in fast-paced digital environments.

The sixth industry-level action, ‘ensuring transparency and public information’, focuses on clear and accessible disclosure of Metaverse risks to support citizen-centered development. International standards and interoperability efforts (e.g. IEEE, ISO, W3C) are essential for responsible innovation, ensuring ethical consistency across platforms. User empowerment tools (e.g. data control, AI explainability, informed consent) and transparent industrial design assessments further enhance public trust. This action operationalizes RRI transparency principles, specifying clear, accessible communication channels (Anshari et al. 2022). While existing frameworks support transparency, they often lack guidance on implementation. Our framework prioritizes structured, detailed public information, enabling informed user engagement. The fifth and sixth actions reflect virtue ethics because they emphasize the cultivation of organizational character and responsibility beyond minimal compliance. Embedding ethics in Metaverse design (Action 5) requires developers to integrate values such as fairness, transparency, and inclusivity into their design choices, thereby exercising moral responsibility throughout the innovation process. Ensuring transparency and public information (Action 6) likewise signals a commitment to honesty, trustworthiness, and integrity in corporate practice. These actions do not merely prevent harm through rules; they encourage companies to embody ethical virtues in how they design, communicate, and govern their platforms, fostering a culture of responsible innovation. Ethics-by-design should guide corporate values, integrating ethical safeguards into business models and governance. By integrating deontological safeguards, consequentialist risk assessments, and virtue-based industry commitments, this framework ensures the Metaverse evolves ethically. Deontology enforces digital rights, consequentialism evaluates risks and benefits, and virtue ethics fosters responsible leadership, ensuring long-term accountability and social responsibility.

## Implementing the framework: policy, industry, and user governance

This framework bridges prior research on responsible innovation and immersive technologies, adapting these principles to the Metaverse's unique ethical challenges. Aligning with key responsible innovation principles – anticipation, reflexivity, inclusion, and responsiveness (Owen et al. 2013; Stilgoe, Owen, and Macnaghten 2013) – our framework integrates these at the policy level. Reflexivity is embedded in the establishment of ethical boundaries (action 1), anticipation is addressed through efforts to bridge knowledge gaps (action 2), inclusion is promoted by fostering public participation (action 3), and responsiveness is reinforced by strengthening accountability and oversight (action 4).

The framework's first dimension requires clear ethical boundaries, ensuring a distinction between fixed ethical safeguards that are non-negotiable, and adaptive governance mechanisms that evolve with technology and societal needs (see Table 2). Fixed safeguards should typically include the prohibition of biometric tracking without consent, child exploitation, deepfake abuse, and identity-based discrimination, while ensuring data ownership rights. Privacy concerns in immersive environments remain particularly pressing, since VR headsets collect biometric data (McGill 2021). The risks of virtual harassment, such as those reported in Horizon Worlds, demonstrate the urgent need for age verification and AI-driven content moderation (Wiederhold 2022). Similarly, the potential for discrimination in avatar-based employment and virtual real estate underscores the necessity of bias audits and accessibility standards (Benjamins, Rubio Viñuela, and Alonso 2023).

Some ethical concerns require adaptive governance strategies. Moderation policies must balance free expression with the mitigation of hate speech and cyberbullying, an issue particularly relevant to
<figure><img src="image_31.png" /><figcaption>**Table 2. Ethical boundaries in the Metaverse.**</figcaption></figure>

<table><thead><tr><td></td><td>Fixed ethical boundaries (non-negotiable)</td><td>Flexible ethical boundaries (context-dependent)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Privacy protection</td><td>No biometric data collection without consent</td><td>AI-based tracking for behavioral insights with user control</td></tr><tr><td>Child safety</td><td>Mandatory age verification, AI-based content moderation, and legal accountability</td><td>Parental control mechanisms and real-time safety tools</td></tr><tr><td>Discrimination and accessibility</td><td>Bias audits for AI-driven interactions and universal accessibility standards</td><td>Customizable avatar representation without reinforcing stereotypes</td></tr><tr><td>Content moderation</td><td>Prohibition of illegal activities, such as child exploitation and hate speech</td><td>User-driven moderation councils and AI-assisted content filtering</td></tr><tr><td>Monetization models</td><td>Regulation of exploitative gambling and financial models</td><td>Algorithmic transparency and ethical monetization strategies</td></tr><tr><td>Legal accountability</td><td>International legal standards for virtual crime enforcement</td><td>Platform self-regulation, hybrid governance, and jurisdictional adaptation for global legal variations</td></tr></tbody></table>

decentralized Metaverse environments (Cortese and Outlaw 2021). Ethical monetization models also require scrutiny, especially concerning exploitative gambling mechanics in Metaverse casinos, which mimic gaming's problematic loot box systems (Oberdörfer, Schraudt, and Latoschik 2022). Similarly, legal accountability remains ambiguous, as demonstrated by cases of sexual harassment and identity theft within virtual spaces. Addressing these concerns requires international legal standards and hybrid governance models that incorporate both platform responsibility and regulatory oversight.

The second action in the framework is essential to identifying these evolving ethical risks and knowledge gaps. The third action calls for public engagement to ensure feedback mechanisms that evaluate how these risks affect users. The fourth action facilitates the transition from policy-level interventions to industry-level implementation. Ethical incentives should be embedded in self-regulation mechanisms that encourage companies to integrate ethics-by-design principles. This process enables industry actors to take the lead in implementing the final two actions of the framework: embedding ethics in Metaverse design and ensuring transparency.

These four policy actions serve as foundational pillars for the ethical development of the Metaverse, shaping the stage for industry-oriented actions. The two industry-level interventions build upon the groundwork set by public governance, ensuring that firms align their innovations with responsible principles. The major challenge in implementation resides in operationalizing these industry-led actions. Establishing ethical certification programs, tax benefits, and corporate incentives will support compliance with these principles, forming an incentivized self-regulation model that balances ethical Metaverse development with market flexibility.

While responsible innovation offers a strong foundation, its impact depends on clear interventions that ensure ethical commitments lead to action rather than symbolic gestures. An integrated governance framework (combining policy enforcement, industry accountability, and user-driven oversight) is essential for an ethical Metaverse. Industry must move beyond compliance to embed responsible practices, while governments should balance regulation with strategic incentives like ethical certification, tax benefits, and transparency labeling to enhance accountability. User participation is also key to ethical governance. Participatory oversight mechanisms such as digital town halls, advisory boards, and public referendums can provide direct feedback on platform policies. Decentralized governance models, including DAO-based decision-making, could enable community-led voting on ethical guidelines, ensuring transparency and inclusivity. Ethical design feedback loops should be institutionalized, allowing governance structures to evolve based on real-world user experiences.

By integrating policy and industry actions, this framework ensures that responsible innovation is not merely a compliance obligation but a strategic business imperative. The proposed responsible innovation framework ensures that social acceptability, sustainability, and societal desirability (Von Schomberg 2013, 64) guide Metaverse governance across both product dimension and process dimensions. Given the Metaverse's rapid evolution and immersive nature, governance must be dynamic and responsive. Traditional RRI frameworks, while effective for slower-evolving technologies, struggle to keep pace with emerging digital environments. This framework addresses that gap by incorporating real-time adaptation to unique Metaverse risks and challenges.

By tailoring RRI principles to the Metaverse's complexities, this framework enhances traditional models with necessary adaptations for governing emerging digital spaces. It offers a comprehensive, agile, and
<figure><img src="image_32.png" /></figure>

inclusive governance model, setting a new standard for ethical oversight in fast-evolving technological landscapes. By fostering ethical leadership, transparency, and accountability, it ensures that the Metaverse evolves responsibly, safeguarding digital rights and promoting sustainable development. Thus, responsible innovation serves as an enabler of ethical digital transformation rather than a reactive response to crises. Through the integration of enforceable policies, structured industry incentives, and active user participation, this framework transforms responsible innovation from a conceptual ideal into an actionable governance model.

## Conclusion

This paper has examined the uncertain evolution of immersive technologies and the potential emergence of a fully-realized Metaverse. We proposed a framework for fostering an ethical Metaverse, emphasizing the application of responsible innovation principles to effectively navigate its unique challenges. Our approach addresses the rapid technological advancements shaping the Metaverse and the broad spectrum of stakeholders it impacts: these are factors that traditional responsible innovation frameworks often overlook due to their slower adaptability.

Our framework goes beyond theory by providing specific, actionable strategies tailored to the Metaverse's dynamic nature. It emphasizes adaptive ethical boundaries, targeted research to bridge knowledge gaps, and inclusive stakeholder engagement, ensuring sustained ethical governance. Also, this framework confronts the often-superficial approaches to responsible innovation seen in industry practices, which tend to prioritize compliance over genuine ethical engagement. By highlighting these shortcomings, we advocate for a more substantive application of ethical principles that goes beyond mere rhetoric to ensure meaningful and responsible technological integration.

The necessity for an ethical Metaverse is underscored by the significant societal and individual risks associated with immersive technologies, which can profoundly impact human behavior and societal norms. Our proposed actions are designed to mitigate these risks by fostering a Metaverse that not only advances technological innovation but also prioritizes human values and ethical considerations.

Regulatory interventions are essential for privacy, biometric data, and AI transparency, but industry-driven mechanisms also play a key role. Market incentives, such as consumer demand for ethically designed platforms, competitive advantages from trust-based branding, and the reputational risks of ethical failures, may naturally encourage responsible innovation. Ethical certification programs, such as those seen in AI ethics, sustainable tech, and cybersecurity, could be adapted to the Metaverse, fostering self-regulation while ensuring industry accountability.

At the same time, government intervention should be adaptive rather than rigid. Instead of imposing static regulatory requirements, policymakers can leverage public-private partnerships, and dynamic compliance models to balance innovation with ethical oversight. These mechanisms allow for real-time ethical assessments and industry cooperation, ensuring that companies remain agile while adhering to fundamental ethical principles.

Our contribution to the literature is twofold: first, by advancing the practical application of responsible innovation in the context of rapid digital transformation; and second, by critically engaging with prevailing industry practices to argue for a more genuinely ethical approach to technology development. This paper has drawn on a wide body of interdisciplinary scholarship and policy debate to inform a conceptual framework for responsible governance. In doing so, it not only fills a gap in current discussions on digital ethics but also sets a new benchmark for guiding the Metaverse's evolution in ways that are sustainable, inclusive, and just for all members of society.

This contribution should also be understood in dialogue with recent debates in digital ethics and immersive technologies. Prior reviews of intelligent virtual environments have highlighted recurring concerns such as technological feasibility and psychological impacts. Foundational proposals for ethical conduct in virtual reality stress non-negotiable duties like privacy and informed consent. Broader evaluations of AI ethics have shown that many guidelines remain at the level of aspirational principles without mechanisms for implementation, underscoring the importance of enforceable oversight. Critical work on cultural narratives of AI likewise draws attention to issues of representation and inclusivity. Building on these insights, our framework adds a practical orientation that translates ethical imperatives
<figure><img src="image_33.png" /></figure>

into policy levers and corporate practices to guide the sustainable and equitable evolution of the
Metaverse.

Note

1. To avoid any confusion between the different versions and visions of Metaverses (as different instantiations of the idea of the Metaverse) and this latter as a concept, we will systematically refer to the ‘Metaverse’ in the singular form, at conceptual level.

Author contributions

CRediT: **Kalli Giannelos:** Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Funding

This research received no external funding.

ORCID

Kalli Giannelos ID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8704-4484

References

AccountAbility. 2015. AA1000 Stakeholder Engagement Standard (AA1000SES). London: AccountAbility. [Online] Accessed September 2025. https://www accountability org standards aa1000-stakeholder-engagement-standard/.

Anderson, J., and L. Rainie. 2022. The Metaverse in 2040. Pew Research Center. Accessed September 2025. https://www pewresearch org internet/2022/06/30/the-metaverse-in-2040/.

ANSES (Agence Nationale de Sécurité Sanitaire). 2021. Expositions aux technologies de réalité virtuelle et/ou augmentée. Avis de l'ANSES [saisine n° 2017-SA-0076]. Rapport d'expertise collective. Maisons-Alfort: ANSES.

Anshari, M., M. Syafrudin, N. Latif Fitriyani, and A. Razzaq. 2022. “Ethical Responsibility and Sustainability (ERS) Development in a Metaverse Business Model.” *Sustainability* 14 (23): 15805. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142315805.

Basdevant, A., C. François, and R. Ronfard. 2022. Mission exploratoire sur les Métavers. Rapport interministériel. Accessed September 2025. https://www.economie gouv fr/files/files/2022/Rapport-interministeriel-metavers pdf.

Benjamins, R., Y. Rubio Viñuela, and C. Alonso. 2023. “Social and Ethical Challenges of the Metaverse.” *AI Ethics* 3:689–697. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-023-00278-5.

Bitkom. 2022. A guidebook to the metaverse. Technological and legal basics, potential for business, relevance to society. Berlin: Bitkom e. V. Accessed September 2025. https://www bitkom org sites main files/2023-01/230105LFMetaverse EN pdf.

Bojic, L. 2022. “Metaverse through the Prism of Power and Addiction: What Will Happen When the Virtual World Becomes More Attractive than Reality?” *European Journal of Futures Research* 10:22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40309-022-00208-4.

Boni, M. 2023. Ethical Challenges Related to the Metaverse Development: First Hypotheses. Ethics – Scientific Research, Ethical Issues, Artificial Intelligence and Education. IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.1001112.

Büscher, C., and J. Jahnel. 2015. “Crossing the Line – “Science” and “Decisions” Facing Emerging Technologies.” *Nanoethics* 9:255–260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-015-0244-z.

Carlsson, V., and M. Rönnblom. 2022. “From Politics to Ethics: Transformations in EU Policies on Digital Technology.” *Technology in Society* 71:102145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.102145.

Cave, S., and K. Dihal. 2020. “The Whiteness of AI.” *Philosophy & Technology* 3:685–703. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-020-00415-6.

CB Insights. 2022. Metaverse of Madness: 13 Big Industries the Rise of Virtual Worlds could Disrupt. Accessed September 2025. https://www.cbinsights com/research/report/industries-disrupted-metaverse/.

Citi. 2022. Metaverse and Money. Decrypting the Future. Accessed September 2025. https://icg.citi.com/icghome/what-we-think/citigps/insights/metaverse-and-money_20220330.
<figure><img src="image_34.png" /></figure>

Collingridge, D. 1980. *The Social Control of Technology*. London: Pinter.

Cortese, M., and J. Outlaw. 2021. *Social and Multi-user spaces in VR: Trolling, harassment, and online safety*. The IEEE Global Initiative on Ethics of Extended Reality (XR) Report. New York: IEEE.

Deloitte China. 2022. Metaverse report – Future is here. Accessed September 2025. https://www2.deloitte.com/cn/en/pages/technology-media-and-telecommunications/articles/metaverse-whitepaper.html.

Dempsey, A. L. 2013. *Evolutions in Corporate Governance: Towards an Ethical Framework for Business Conduct*. 1st ed. Oxford: Routledge.

Dempsey, A. L. 2017. *Evolutions in Corporate Governance: Towards an Ethical Framework for Business Conduct*. [First Edition. London: Taylor and Francis]. New York: Routledge.

De Reuver, M., A. van Wynsberghe, M. Janssen, and I. van de Poel. 2020. "Digital Platforms and Responsible Innovation: Expanding Value Sensitive Design to Overcome Ontological Uncertainty." *Ethics and Information Technology* 22:257-267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-020-09537-z.

Dolata, M., and G. Schwabe. 2023. "What is the Metaverse and Who Seeks to Define It? Mapping the Site of Social Construction." *Journal of Information Technology* 38 (3): 239-266. https://doi.org/10.1177/02683962231159927.

Dreyer, M., L. Chefneux, A. Goldberg, J. von Heimburg, N. Patrignani, M. Schofield, and C. Shilling. 2017. "Responsible Innovation: A Complementary View from Industry with Proposals for Bridging Different Perspectives." *Sustainability* 9 (10): 1719. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9101719.

Elmasry, T., E. Hazan, H. Khan, G. Kelly, S. Srivastava, L. Yee, and R. W. Zemmel. 2022. Value creation in the metaverse. The real business of the virtual world. McKinsey & Company. Accessed September 2025. https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/business%20functions/marketing%20and%20sales/our%20insights/value%20creation%20in%20the%20metaverse/Value-creation-in-the-metaverse.pdf.

Evans, J. 2022. *Extended Reality (XR): Ethics in Medicine*. The IEEE Global Initiative on Ethics of Extended Reality (XR) Report. New York: IEEE.

Fernandez, C. B., and P. Hui. 2023. Life, the Metaverse and Everything: An Overview of Privacy, Ethics, and Governance in Metaverse. 2022 IEEE 42nd International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems Workshops (ICDCSW), Bologna, Italy, 2022: 272-77.

Floridi, L. 2014. *The Fourth Revolution: How the Infosphere is Reshaping Human Reality*. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fox, D., and G. Thornton. 2022. *Extended Reality (XR) Ethics and Diversity, Inclusion, and Accessibility*. The IEEE Global Initiative on Ethics of Extended Reality (XR) Report. New York: IEEE.

Fuchs, P. 2023. "De la réalité virtuelle aux métavers." *Techniques de l'ingénieur* 5:973.

Giannelos, K. 2023. "Recommendations for a Healthy Digital Public Sphere." *Journal of Media Ethics* 38 (2): 80-92. https://doi.org/10.1080/23736992.2023.2193970.

Grinbaum, A., and C. Groves. 2013. "What Is "Responsible" about Responsible Innovation? Understanding the Ethical Issues." In *Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society*, edited by R. Owen, M. Heintz, and J. R. Bessant, 119-142. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Guston, D. H. 2014. "Understanding 'Anticipatory Governance'." *Social Studies of Science* 44 (2): 218-242. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312713508669.

Guston, D. H., and D. Sarewitz. 2002. "Real-time Technology Assessment." *Technology in Society* 24 (1-2): 93-109. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-791X(01)00047-1.

Hagendorff, T. 2020. "The Ethics of AI Ethics: An Evaluation of Guidelines." *Minds & Machines* 30:99-120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-020-09517-8.

Hemphill, T. A. 2023. "The 'Metaverse' and the Challenge of Responsible Standards Development." *Journal of Responsible Innovation* 10 (1): 2243121. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2023.2243121.

Hennig-Thurau, T., D. N. Aliman, A. M. Herting, G. P. Cziehso, M. Linder, and R. V. Kübler. 2023. "Social Interactions in the Metaverse: Framework, Initial Evidence, and Research Roadmap." *Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science* 51:889-913. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-022-00908-0.

International Risk Governance Council. 2005. *Risk Governance: Towards an Integrative Approach* (White Paper). Geneva: IRGC. Accessed September 2025. https://irgc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/IRGC_WP_No_1_Risk_Governance__reprinted_version_3.pdf.

Kaddoura, S., and F. Al Husseiny. 2023. "The Rising Trend of Metaverse in Education: Challenges, Opportunities, and Ethical Considerations." *Peer Journal of Computer Science* 9:e1252. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.1252.

Koohang, A., J. H. Nord, K. B. Ooi, G. W. Tan, M. Al-Emran, E. C. Aw, A. M. Baabdullah, et al. 2023. "Shaping the Metaverse into Reality: A Holistic Multidisciplinary Understanding of Opportunities, Challenges, and Avenues for Future Investigation." *Journal of Computer Information Systems* 63 (3): 735-765. https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2023.2165197.

Lemley, M. A., and E. Volokh. 2018. Law, Virtual Reality, and Augmented Reality. 166 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1051, Stanford Public Law Working Paper No 2933867, UCLA School of Law, Public Law Research Paper No 17-13, Accessed September 2025. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2933867.

Lécuyer, A. 2023. *Comprendre le Métavers: les Technologies Immersives et leurs effets sur votre cerveau*. Paris: Alpha / Humensis.
<figure><img src="image_35.png" /></figure>

Loureiro, P. M., and C. P. Conceição. 2019. "Emerging Patterns in the Academic Literature on Responsible Research and Innovation." *Technology in Society* 58:101148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2019.101148.

Maciejewski, M. 2023. Metaverse. Study requested by the JURI Committee (European Parliament). Accessed September 2025. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2023/751222/IPOL_STU(2023)751222_EN.pdf.

Madary, M., and T. Metzinger. 2016. "Real Virtuality: A Code of Ethical Conduct. Recommendations for Good Scientific Practice and the Consumers of VR-Technology." *Frontiers in Robotics and AI* 3:1–23. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2016.00003.

Mangina, E. 2021. *Extended Reality (XR). Ethics in Education*. The IEEE Global Initiative on Ethics of Extended Reality (XR) Report. New York: IEEE.

Maynard, A. D., A. Grobe, and O. Renn. 2012. "Responsible Innovation, Global Governance, and Emerging Technologies." In *Can Emerging Technologies Make a Difference in Development?*, edited by R. A. Parker and R. P. Appelbaum, 168–187. New York: Routledge.

McGill, M. 2021. *Extended Reality (XR) and the Erosion of Anonymity and Privacy*. The IEEE Global Initiative on Ethics of Extended Reality (XR) Report. New York: IEEE.

McIntosh, K. 2008. "The Social Construction of Virtual Space." *Michigan Sociological Review* 22:196–214. JSTOR, Accessed September 2025. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40969145.

Meta. 2020. Responsible Innovation Principles. Accessed September 2025. https://about.meta.com/metaverse/responsible-innovation/.

Meta. 2023. The metaverse and the opportunity for the European Union. Accessed September 2025. https://research.facebook.com/quantifying-the-potential-economic-impact-of-the-metaverse/.

Middleton, M. 2022. *Business, Finance, and Economics*. The IEEE Global Initiative on Ethics of Extended Reality (XR) Report. New York: IEEE.

Monsanto, C., A. Embry, D. Shankavaram, A. Smith-Bingham, J. Zhang, C. Rolley, N. Huestegge, A. Denaro, and J. Buvat. 2022. *Total Immersion: How Immersive Experiences and the Metaverse Benefit Customer Experience and Operations*. Paris: Capgemini Research Institute. Accessed September 2025. https://prod.ucwe.capgemini.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/CRI_Immersive-Experience_Web-1.pdf.

Mystakidis, S. 2022. "Metaverse." *Encyclopedia 2* (1): 486–497. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia2010031.

Oberdörfer, S., D. Schraudt, and M. E. Latoschik. 2022. "Embodied Gambling – Investigating the Influence Level of Embodiment, Avatar Appearance, and Virtual Environment Design on an Online VR Slot Machine." *Frontiers in Virtual Reality* 10 (3): 828553. https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2022.828553.

Orange. 2022. Les technologies immersives au service des entreprises. (Livre blanc). Accessed September 2025. https://www.orange-business.com/fr/mediatheque/livre-blanc/technologies-immersives-service-entreprises.

Owen, R., P. Macnaghten, and J. Stilgoe. 2012. "Responsible Research and Innovation: From Science in Society, to Science for Science, with Society." *Science and Public Policy* 39 (6): 751–760. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scs093.

Owen, R., R. Stilgoe, P. Macnaghten, M. Gorman, E. Fisher, and D. Guston. 2013. "A Framework for Responsible Innovation." In *Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society*, edited by R. Owen, M. Heintz, and J. R. Bessant, 27–50. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Parcu, L., N. Innocenti, and C. Carrozza. 2023. The Metaverse: technology, financing and economics [Working paper 2023/16]. European University Institute, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, Centre for a Digital Society. Accessed September 2025. https://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/75369/WP_2023_16.pdf?sequence=1.

Park, S.-M., and Y.-G. Kim. 2022. "A Metaverse: Taxonomy, Components, Applications, and Open Challenges." *IEEE Access* 10:4209–4251. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3140175.

Pellizzoni, L. 2004. "Responsibility and Environmental Governance." *Environmental Politics* 13 (3): 541–565. https://doi.org/10.1080/0964401042000229034.

Reber, B. 2018. "RRI as the Inheritor of Deliberative Democracy and the Precautionary Principle." *Journal of Responsible Innovation* 5 (1): 38–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2017.1331097.

Roša, A. 2021. "Exploring the Role of Ethical Issues in the Context of Digital Transformation." *Trends Economics and Management* 15 (38): 23–33. https://doi.org/10.13164/trends.2021.38.23.

Schöbel, S. M., and F. Tingelhoff. 2023. "Overcoming Challenges to Enable the Potential of Metaverse Platforms: A Qualitative Approach to Understand Value Creation." *AIS Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction* 15 (1): 1–21. https://doi.org/10.17705/1thci.00181.

Shanley, D., and D. Meacham. 2024. "A Place Where "You Can Be Who You've Always Wanted to Be ..." Examining the Ethics of Intelligent Virtual Environments." *Journal of Responsible Technology* 18:100085. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrt.2024.100085.

Slater, M., C. Gonzalez-Lienpres, P. Haggard, C. Vinkers, R. Gregory-Clarke, S. Jelley, Z. Watson, et al. 2020. "The Ethics of Realism in Virtual and Augmented Reality." *Frontiers in Virtual Reality* 1:1. https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2020.00001.

Stahl, B. C., J. Timmermans, and C. Flick. 2017. "Ethics of Emerging Information and Communication Technologies: On the Implementation of Responsible Research and Innovation." *Science and Public Policy* 44 (3): 369–381. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scw069.
<figure><img src="image_36.png" /></figure>

Stilgoe, J., R. Owen, and P. Macnaghten. 2013. "Developing a Framework for Responsible Innovation." *Research Policy* 42 (9): 1568-1580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008.

Torgersen, H., and D. Fuchs. 2017. "Technology Assessment as a Myth Buster: Deconstructing Myths around Emerging Technologies." *Journal of Responsible Innovation* 4 (2): 118-137. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2017.1320157.

Urueña, S. 2022. "Responsibility through Anticipation? The ‘Future Talk’ and the Quest for Plausibility in the Governance of Emerging Technologies." *Nanoethics* 15:271-302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-021-00408-5.

Van den Hoven, J. 2013. "Value Sensitive Design and Responsible Innovation." In *Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society*, edited by R. J. Owen, J. R. Bessant, and M. Heintz, 75-83. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

Von Schomberg, R. 2012. "The Precautionary Principle: Its Use within Hard and Soft Law." *European Journal of Risk Regulation* 3 (2): 147-156. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1867299X00001987.

Von Schomberg, R. 2013. "A Vision of Responsible Research and Innovation." In *Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society*, edited by R. Owen, M. Heintz, and J. R. Bessant, 51-74. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Wiederhold, B. K. 2022. "Sexual Harassment in the Metaverse." *Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking* 25 (8): 479-480. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2022.29253.editorial.

Winickoff, D. 2018. "Adhésion du public et technologies de production émergentes." In *La prochaine révolution de la production: Conséquences pour les pouvoirs publics et les entreprises*, 305-329. Paris: Éditions OCDE.

Zhu, L. 2022. The Metaverse: Concepts and Issues for Congress. [Congress Report on the Metaverse]. Congressional Research Service. Accessed September 2025. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=R47224.