Developing the core principles of responsible knowledge management (rKM): Section 1.2 – Margins of the current understanding of KM

This article is Section 1.2 of a series featuring my Master’s thesis The Emerging Concept of Responsible Knowledge Management (rKM): Identifying and Formulating the Core Principles of rKM.

In such a context, the traditional assumptions underpinning knowledge management (KM) are no longer sufficient. BANI accentuates the urgency of rethinking why knowledge is created, shared, and utilised. Historically, knowledge has been managed primarily as an asset¹ or resource to drive competitive advantage within inter-organisational frameworks. While effective in fostering innovation and economic growth, this approach often neglects broader social and ecological considerations. The imperative to shift towards rKM reflects a nascent recognition that endless productivity growth, as a supreme ideology, offers neither a universal nor a sufficient solution to humanity’s most pressing challenges.

Central to rKM is the adoption of systems thinking, which acknowledges the interconnectedness of social, economic, and environmental ecologies. This perspective challenges the reductionist view of knowledge as merely a resource to be possessed, an approach that tends to concentrate power and benefits among a privileged few. Instead, rKM advocates for inclusive and collaborative practices that harness knowledge as a shared, dynamic, and evolving process². By fostering transparency, ethical considerations, and equitable access to information, rKM can serve as a catalyst for addressing global challenges jointly³.

The pressing need for sustainability further amplifies the relevance of rKM today. The Earth’s ecosystem is teetering at the edge of extinction, with climate scientists warning of irreversible consequences if collective action is not taken. In this context, KM must transcend organisational interests and contribute to transformative efforts that balance economic development with ecological preservation and social justice⁴. This shift demands the re-drafting of an understanding of a collaborative ethos for the field of KM. By going beyond the organisational or national boundaries, including diverse stakeholders, embracing knowledge creation, sharing and retention for the greater good and promoting sustainability, KM can contribute to making a positive impact on a global scale⁵.

The days of KM functioning under the premise of optimised organisational performance via rational, instrumental logic aligned with the VUCA world of strategic planning and resource allocation are outnumbered. It is time to pause and reconsider what knowledge management means when knowledge itself is incomplete, unstable, contested, or beyond full comprehension.

The contemporary relevance of rKM lies precisely here. In a BANI world, knowledge is not simply an organisational asset to be exploited but part of a fragile, ethical, and collective responsibility. The common good becomes central, not as a symptom of compliance or reputation management, but as a foundational compass for navigating this profound uncertainty. Responsibility in KM is no longer reducible to competitive advantage; it becomes a matter of sustaining viable knowledge ecosystems, cultivating ethical reflexivity, and recognising the moral weight of decisions made amid partial understanding.

The question driving this research is thus not how to manage knowledge more efficiently, but to what end we manage knowledge at all – and what kinds of responsibility we assume when navigating an incomprehensible world.

Next part: Section 1.3 – Objectives of this research.

Article source: Koskinen, H. M. (2025). The Emerging Concept of Responsible Knowledge Management (rKM): Identifying and Formulating the Core Principles of rKM. (Master’s Thesis, LUT University).

Header image source: Created by Hanna M. Koskinen using ChatGPT.

References: