The economic crisis of 2009 had an indelible effect on the global financial system. For the ones who have seen the movie The Big Short, the last frames from the movie are very telling. “When the dust settled from the economic collapse, $5 trillion in savings had been wiped off. About 8 million lost their jobs and 6 million lost their homes and this was only in the US,” said the movie. What is more telling is that only one top banker went to jail. This then leads us to the question – who was responsible for the mess?

The earliest reference to the word "responsibility" was political in nature, which was used to describe the role of governments and the representatives of the government. The seventeen and the eighteenth century had proponents of the theory of responsibility, but the most notable thinker on the subject came from Max Weber, who at the end of the nineteenth century talked about the ethics of responsibility for the politician.

The word grew, both in usage and meaning, and became widely used where a person was meant to behave in a certain manner and a certain outcome was expected. As organizations have grown and their actions started having an impact on society, we tried to fix their responsibility. But, there was a problem.

It is easier to fix individual responsibility, but uncannily difficult to fix an organization's responsibility. With structures like the “corporate veil” to differentiate between owners, management and the corporate, it is difficult to draw a line on where responsibility begins and where it ends. Decisions and actions seem to hide behind the corporate wall and perhaps is one of the main reasons for the low level of prosecution for the economic crisis of 2009.

In the wake of such upheavals, it is only natural that people would want to fix responsibility for a nascent technology led innovation like peer-to-peer lending. P2P lending caught fancy during the financial crisis when a deep distrust for banks and near-term goal of mobilizing capital was deeply felt across the western world. Technology had the answer where it mobilized individual savings to help people who needed credit. P2P along with crowdfunding became an instant hit.

Technology is this case was in response to an unprecedented situation where the established financial order had collapsed. While it sought to address the immediate need of access to capital, people soon realized the need to develop an alternate arm of finance that was impervious to the deleterious actions of big banks. As long as it was a novelty on worked on the fringes, P2P was under everyone’s radar. However, as transactions picked up and people realized that P2P could actually make a difference, the question of responsibility surfaced.

As responsibility shifts from an individual level to a corporate level, the nature of the construct also changes. From someone being responsible, it quickly changes to who can be held responsible for the actions or the outcome of an action.

People have argued that P2P can be casual in its approach to responsibility as it does not have the skin in the game. Since it is merely an intermediary that connects the lender and the borrower, people think P2P platforms can afford to lose money. That is, however, not true. Like any other genuine business, a P2P platform is as good as its transaction record. Too many defaulters of loans and it quickly loses trust among its customers. In fact the responsibility of a P2P site is at times much more compared to other financial institutions.

Having said that, while a bank lends on their books, it does not stop them from being irresponsible. The problem stems from the fact that once an institution grown in size, starts dealing in complex products, it becomes easy to be reckless. Human greed for money often takes precedence over any sense of responsibility. After all, technology is intangible and responsibility for the outcome has to be on the person who wields it. In the case of P2P the responsibility for ensuring defaults do not occur finally lie with the people who operate the platform.

The caveat being that P2P platforms work like any other marketplace. While a good platform will always ensure safeguards are in place and both the lender and the borrower are vetted, the risk associated with P2P transactions is akin to any other investment products. For example, when you invest in shares or mutual funds, you are not guaranteed a return and may in fact lose your investment. Similarly, while a P2P platform is a safe bet, it does not guarantee returns and there are chances you may lose your investment. A good P2P platform will never shy away from this fact and makes it very clear in its communication with lenders about the risks associated. There are a set of fiduciary responsibilities that P2P platforms should adhere to and this may be enough to safeguard the interest of all stakeholders.

The character of Benjamin Parker or more commonly known as Uncle Ben in the movie Spider-Man has a famous quote, “With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility.” P2P has the power to do a lot of good and that is why it has become important to fix responsibility. The platform has a set of responsibilities, so do the lenders and the borrowers. In a system that looks to get everyone on board, every stakeholder shares the responsibility of ensuring it stays true to its promise.

P2P does not disregard its responsibility; in fact, it takes it very seriously. In a country like India, where millions live outside the formal financial structure, P2P and other related technologies have a huge role to play.