Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Figures
Introduction
Privacy and Data Protection Impact Assessment
Methodology
Technical and Design Tools
Document Analysis
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
References
All Topics
Philosophy
Ethics

Putting AI ethics to work: are the tools fit for purpose?

Profile image of Jacqui AylingJacqui Ayling

AI and Ethics

https://doi.org/10.1007/S43681-021-00084-X
visibility

…

description

25 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

Bias, unfairness and lack of transparency and accountability in Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems, and the potential for the misuse of predictive models for decision-making have raised concerns about the ethical impact and unintended consequences of new technologies for society across every sector where data-driven innovation is taking place. This paper reviews the landscape of suggested ethical frameworks with a focus on those which go beyond high-level statements of principles and offer practical tools for application of these principles in the production and deployment of systems. This work provides an assessment of these practical frameworks with the lens of known best practices for impact assessment and audit of technology. We review other historical uses of risk assessments and audits and create a typology that allows us to compare current AI ethics tools to Best Practices found in previous methodologies from technology, environment, privacy, finance and engineering. We ana...

Figures (22)
Table 1 Key terms and background literature
Table 1 Key terms and background literature
Table 2 Criteria for sample identification
Table 2 Criteria for sample identification
Table 3 Typology of stakeholders
Table 3 Typology of stakeholders
Table 5 Typology of audit methods
Table 5 Typology of audit methods
Table 3 (continued) Table 4 Typology of impact assessment methods
Table 3 (continued) Table 4 Typology of impact assessment methods
Table 6 Typology of internal vs external process 3.6 Production and deployment process for Al Systems
Table 6 Typology of internal vs external process 3.6 Production and deployment process for Al Systems
Table 8 Typology of when tool used and if applied to data and/or model 3.7 Document analysis define ‘impact assessment’ as an ex ante process which was predicting possible impacts, with audit being an ex-post- process for examining ongoing activities. This is not neces- sarily reflected in the language of the documents themselves, depending on the author and field or discipline from which they originated. A total of n= 169 items were identified under the broad cat- egory of AI-related ethics frameworks, which after applica- tion of the exclusion criteria resulted in a final list of n= 39 ethics tools see Appendix 1. The documents were analysed using qualitative content analysis [97], through the devel- opment of a codebook of variables to identify key features (see Table 9 below). This was an iterative process where the codes were refined during the process of reading and coding the material. The coding pro ing the documents cess was consisted of reading and re-read- and coding them against the typologies to create the results (see Table 10). The research methodology used is a reflexive and adaptive [85], creating a robust pro- cess for relating the document data to their context as shown in the diagram in team analysing an tion in that often v; to be justified by t Fig. 3. Despite this, the limited size of the d coding the documents presents a limita- alidity of qualitative analysis is considered he process of recurrent iterations with dif- ferent coders [100]. Despite this limitation, we believe we have made every effort, from the conception and planning of the project, throug h to development of typologies and coding of results, to consider where bias and omission could occur in the process [10 ]. We believe we have developed catego- ries for assessing AI ethics tools that reliably surface salient features which can be used to compare across disparate types of tool or procedure. Table 7 Typology of technical and design tools Technical and design tools
Table 8 Typology of when tool used and if applied to data and/or model 3.7 Document analysis define ‘impact assessment’ as an ex ante process which was predicting possible impacts, with audit being an ex-post- process for examining ongoing activities. This is not neces- sarily reflected in the language of the documents themselves, depending on the author and field or discipline from which they originated. A total of n= 169 items were identified under the broad cat- egory of AI-related ethics frameworks, which after applica- tion of the exclusion criteria resulted in a final list of n= 39 ethics tools see Appendix 1. The documents were analysed using qualitative content analysis [97], through the devel- opment of a codebook of variables to identify key features (see Table 9 below). This was an iterative process where the codes were refined during the process of reading and coding the material. The coding pro ing the documents cess was consisted of reading and re-read- and coding them against the typologies to create the results (see Table 10). The research methodology used is a reflexive and adaptive [85], creating a robust pro- cess for relating the document data to their context as shown in the diagram in team analysing an tion in that often v; to be justified by t Fig. 3. Despite this, the limited size of the d coding the documents presents a limita- alidity of qualitative analysis is considered he process of recurrent iterations with dif- ferent coders [100]. Despite this limitation, we believe we have made every effort, from the conception and planning of the project, throug h to development of typologies and coding of results, to consider where bias and omission could occur in the process [10 ]. We believe we have developed catego- ries for assessing AI ethics tools that reliably surface salient features which can be used to compare across disparate types of tool or procedure. Table 7 Typology of technical and design tools Technical and design tools
Key findings:
Key findings:
Fig. 3 Sector produced by/for use by
Fig. 3 Sector produced by/for use by
Fig.5 Impact assessment tools
Fig.5 Impact assessment tools
Fig.6 Audit tools
Fig.6 Audit tools
Fig.8 Technical and design tools
Fig.8 Technical and design tools
Fig.9 Stage in process tool applied
Fig.9 Stage in process tool applied
Addressing ethical issues systematically requires resource and time, familiarity with assessment/audit regimes and the ability to use the outputs of these tools to make judgements. Even with the aid of procedures and processes to surface ethical risks, there are still difficult judgements to be made in the real world. Competing claims between different actors, balancing protection and benefits and differing ethical view- points mean that even the most rigorously applied tools will still require complex human judgements. As Floridi [106] observes ‘there is no ethics without choices, responsibilities, and moral evaluations, all of which need a lot of relevant and reliable information and quite a good management of it.’ Ethical tools can though, provide a reliable evidence base on which to make decisions, but without robust oversight may result in procedures that produce a checklist mentality and performative gestures that constitute ‘ethics washing’ [13, 107, 108].
Addressing ethical issues systematically requires resource and time, familiarity with assessment/audit regimes and the ability to use the outputs of these tools to make judgements. Even with the aid of procedures and processes to surface ethical risks, there are still difficult judgements to be made in the real world. Competing claims between different actors, balancing protection and benefits and differing ethical view- points mean that even the most rigorously applied tools will still require complex human judgements. As Floridi [106] observes ‘there is no ethics without choices, responsibilities, and moral evaluations, all of which need a lot of relevant and reliable information and quite a good management of it.’ Ethical tools can though, provide a reliable evidence base on which to make decisions, but without robust oversight may result in procedures that produce a checklist mentality and performative gestures that constitute ‘ethics washing’ [13, 107, 108].
Appendix 1: Source documents
Appendix 1: Source documents
Appendix 2: Abbreviations Funding Supported by EPSRC funding via Web Science CDT.
Appendix 2: Abbreviations Funding Supported by EPSRC funding via Web Science CDT.

Related papers

Ethical Implications of AI: Balancing Innovation and Responsibility
Tonye Al Onyanabo

The proliferation of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies in various sectors has raised profound ethical concerns regarding bias, privacy, and accountability. This paper examines these ethical implications, explores current regulatory and ethical frameworks, and proposes strategies to foster responsible AI development. Through a comprehensive literature review and analysis of case studies, the study identifies critical ethical challenges and emphasizes the importance of proactive ethical guidelines to mitigate risks. The findings underscore the need for interdisciplinary collaboration and regulatory oversight to ensure AI innovations are ethically sound and beneficial to society.

View PDFchevron_right
Navigating Ethics And Risk In Artificial Intelligence Applications Within Information Technology: A Systematic Review
Ishtiaque Ahmed

American Journal of Advanced Technology and Engineering Solutions, 2025

Advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) have profoundly transformed a wide array of sectors, with Information Technology (IT) standing at the forefront of this revolution. AI technologies have reshaped IT operations by introducing new levels of automation, predictive capabilities, decision-making precision, and efficiency, resulting in sweeping changes across organizational infrastructures and service delivery models. However, alongside these technological breakthroughs, the integration of AI has surfaced numerous ethical concerns and associated risks that warrant critical and comprehensive exploration. Issues such as algorithmic bias, privacy breaches, lack of transparency, accountability dilemmas, and cybersecurity vulnerabilities remain pervasive, posing significant challenges for organizations seeking to deploy AI responsibly. Recognizing these complexities, this study focuses on examining the ethical challenges, risk factors, and essential considerations surrounding the deployment of AI within IT environments. This research addresses the urgent and growing necessity for organizations to adopt robust ethical frameworks and effective risk management strategies to ensure that AI integration promotes fairness, transparency, and accountability. A comprehensive synthesis of existing literature further enriches this foundation by offering diverse perspectives on the ethical and risk-related challenges posed by AI, highlighting both the transformative potential and the vulnerabilities associated with its integration into IT systems. Through this review, key gaps in the current body of knowledge are identified, particularly regarding the practical implementation of ethical standards and risk mitigation strategies across varied organizational contexts. Adopting a qualitative research methodology, the study employs a case study approach to explore the intricate, multifaceted issues involved in AI integration within IT operations. This methodological choice allows for a nuanced understanding of real-world scenarios, organizational behaviors, and stakeholder dynamics related to AI deployment. Data collection is meticulously based on trustworthy sources, including peer-reviewed academic journals, authoritative industry reports, regulatory and governmental publications, and credible news articles, ensuring the comprehensiveness and reliability of insights gathered. By triangulating data across multiple domains, the study captures a holistic view of the ethical landscape surrounding AI in IT. Finally, the research culminates with an in-depth interpretation of findings, accompanied by practical recommendations and implications. These outcomes aim to contribute to the development of ethical, sustainable, and responsible AI integration practices within the IT industry, supporting organizations in navigating the complex interplay between technological innovation and ethical accountability.

View PDFchevron_right
Ethical Considerations in AI Developments
Ayisha Tabbassum

2024

The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies has brought about significant ethical considerations that warrant thorough examination. This paper discusses the ethical challenges associated with AI developments, focusing on issues such as bias in AI algorithms, the impact of AI on employment, privacy concerns, and the need for transparency and accountability in AI systems. The discussion emphasizes the importance of developing AI technologies that are not only technically proficient but also ethically sound, highlighting the role of ethical guidelines and frameworks in guiding the responsible development and deployment of AI technologies. Through a qualitative analysis, this study aims to shed light on the implications of AI for society and suggests ways to mitigate potential ethical pitfalls. Privacy Bias Data Collection: Ethical AI development should consider minimizing the collection of personal data to only what is necessary for the intended purpose. Data Bias: Addressing biases in training data that can lead to AI systems making unfair or discriminatory decisions.

View PDFchevron_right
Ethical Implications of Artificial Intelligence: Challenges, Risks, and Regulatory Perspectives
Essam Serry

ResearchGate, 2025

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is transforming modern society, offering significant advancements while raising profound ethical concerns. This paper examines key ethical issues, including algorithmic bias, privacy violations, accountability in autonomous systems, and economic disruptions due to automation. By analysing existing literature, case studies, and regulatory frameworks, we highlight critical risks such as algorithmic discrimination, data exploitation, and the socioeconomic impact of AI-driven job displacement. Furthermore, global regulatory efforts, including the European Union's AI Act, the UK's AI Strategy, and the fragmented policies in the United States, are assessed. The study argues that mitigating AI's ethical risks requires transparent algorithms, interdisciplinary governance approaches, and proactive policy interventions. Future considerations include AI's role in warfare, misinformation, environmental sustainability, healthcare, and human rights.

View PDFchevron_right
Applying the ethics of AI: a systematic review of tools for developing and assessing AI-based systems
Ricardo Ortega-Bolaños, Reinel Tabares-Soto, Mariana Ortíz, Joshua Bernal Salcedo

Artificial intelligence review, 2024

Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based systems and their increasingly common use have made it a ubiquitous technology; Machine Learning algorithms are present in streaming services, social networks, and in the health sector. However, implementing this emerging technology carries significant social and ethical risks and implications. Without ethical development of such systems, there is the potential for this technology to undermine people's autonomy, privacy, and equity, even affecting human rights. Considering the approaches necessary for ethical development and effective governance of AI, such as ethical principles, guidelines, and technical tools, the question arises regarding the limitations of implementing these measures by the highly technical personnel involved in the process. In this context, we propose the creation of a typology that distinguishes the different stages of the AI life-cycle, the high-level ethical principles that should govern their implementation, and the tools with the potential to foster compliance with these principles, encompassing both technical and conceptual resources. In addition, this typology will include relevant information such as developmental level, related tasks, sectors, and language. Our research is based on a systematic review in which we identified 352 resources and tools. We expect this contribution to be valuable in promoting ethical AI development for developers and leaders who manage these initiatives. The complete typology and the comprehensive list of resources are available for consultation at https:// ricar do-ob. github. io/ tools 4resp onsib leai.

View PDFchevron_right
From Principles to Practice - An interdisciplinary framework to operationalise AI ethics (for all authors cf. abstract)
Wulf Loh

VDE / Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2020

Artificial intelligence (AI) increasingly pervades all areas of life. To seize the opportunities this technology offers society, while limiting its risks and ensuring citizen protection, different stakeholders have presented guidelines for AI ethics. Nearly all of them consider similar values to be crucial and a minimum requirement for “ethically sound” AI applications – including privacy, reliability and transparency. However, how organisations that develop and deploy AI systems should implement these precepts remains unclear. This lack of specific and verifiable principles endangers the effectiveness and enforceability of ethics guidelines. To bridge this gap, this paper proposes a framework specifically designed to bring ethical principles into actionable practice when designing, implementing and evaluating AI systems. List of Authors: Dr Sebastian Hallensleben Carla Hustedt Lajla Fetic Torsten Fleischer Paul Grünke Dr Thilo Hagendorff Marc Hauer Andreas Hauschke PD Dr Jessica Heesen Michael Herrmann Prof. Dr Rafaela Hillerbrand Prof. Emeritus Christoph Hubig Dr Andreas Kaminski Tobias Krafft Dr Wulf Loh Philipp Otto Michael Puntschuh

View PDFchevron_right
From What to How- An Overview of AI Ethics Tools, Methods and Research to Translate Principles into Practices
Luciano Floridi

The debate about the ethical implications of Artificial Intelligence dates from the 1960s . However, in recent years symbolic AI has been complemented and sometimes replaced by (Deep) Neural Networks and Machine Learning (ML) techniques. This has vastly increased its potential utility and impact on society, with the consequence that the ethical debate has gone mainstream. Such a debate has primarily focused on principles-the 'what' of AI ethics (beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, justice and explicability)-rather than on practices, the 'how.' Awareness of the potential issues is increasing at a fast rate, but the AI community's ability to take action to mitigate the associated risks is still at its infancy. Therefore, our intention in presenting this research is to contribute to closing the gap between principles and practices by constructing a typology that may help practically-minded developers 'apply ethics' at each stage of the pipeline, and to signal to researchers where further work is needed. The focus is exclusively on Machine Learning, but it is hoped that the results of this research may be easily applicable to other branches of AI. The article outlines the research method for creating this typology, the initial findings, and provides a summary of future research needs.

View PDFchevron_right
AI Ethics: An Empirical Study on the Views of Practitioners and Lawmakers
Dr. Mahdi Fahmideh

Cornell University - arXiv, 2022

Artificial Intelligence (AI) solutions and technologies are being increasingly adopted in smart systems context, however, such technologies are continuously concerned with ethical uncertainties. Various guidelines, principles, and regulatory frameworks are designed to ensure that AI technologies bring ethical well-being. However, the implications of AI ethics principles and guidelines are still being debated. To further explore the significance of AI ethics principles and relevant challenges, we conducted a survey of 99 representative AI practitioners and lawmakers (e.g., AI engineers, lawyers) from twenty countries across five continents. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first empirical study that encapsulates the perceptions of two different types of population (AI practitioners and lawmakers) and the study findings confirm that transparency, accountability, and privacy are the most critical AI ethics principles. On the other hand, lack of ethical knowledge, no legal frameworks, and lacking monitoring bodies are found the most common AI ethics challenges. The impact analysis of the challenges across AI ethics principles reveals that conflict in practice is a highly severe challenge. Moreover, the perceptions of practitioners and lawmakers are statistically correlated with significant differences for particular principles (e.g. fairness, freedom) and challenges (e.g. lacking monitoring bodies, machine distortion). Our findings stimulate further research, especially empowering existing capability maturity models to support the development and quality assessment of ethics-aware AI systems.

View PDFchevron_right
Ethical Challenges in Artificial Intelligence: A Review of Issues and Frameworks
editor ijircst

International Journal of Innovative Research in Computer Science and Technology (IJIRCST), 2025

The emergence of new technologies similar as Artificial Intelligence[AI] has the implicit to disrupt sectors, diligence, governance, and day- to- day life conditioning. Rather than easing societal progress, the advancement of AI comes with increased innovative openings, challenges, and efficiencies to be employed. This systematic research is dedicated to the profound AI ethical dilemmas that touch every and, human values across society. This paper systematically reviews possible ethical dilemmas caused during the development and/or deployment of AI with respect to bias and fairness, transparency and explainability, accountability and responsibility, privacy and surveillance, and human autonomy. Using algorithm-based systems comes with the danger of “black box” opaque decision making. These gaps are particularly problematic in autonomous systems where the traditional concepts of legal and moral liability become incredibly difficult to assign which includes critical domains like healthcare and transportation. This paper analyzes the OECD [Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development] AI Principles, EU (European Union) Ethics guidelines for trustworthy AI and also the uses of GDPR where AI Ethic Governance models of Right to Explanations.It critically analyzes the strengths and limitations of these approaches, relating significant gaps in perpetration, enforcement, and global adjustment. The exploration highlights the pressure between invention and regulation, demonstrating how current tone-nonsupervisory measures frequently fall suddenly of addressing systemic pitfalls.

View PDFchevron_right
Navigating AI Ethics Frameworks and Guidelines
Asghar A L I Mahar

2023

View PDFchevron_right

References (134)

  1. Assessment List for Trustworthy Arti- ficial Intelligence (ALTAI) for self- assessment 2020 EU HLEG AI European Commission https:// futur ium. ec. europa. eu/ en/ europ ean-ai-allia nce/ pages/ altai-asses sment-list-trust worthy- artifi cial-intel ligen ce 30/08/2020 25 Closing the AI Accountability Gap: Defining an End-to- End Framework for Internal Algorithmic Auditing 2020 Raji, Inioluwa Deborah; Smart, Andrew; White, Rebecca N; Mitchell, Marga- ret; Gebru, Tim- nit; Hutchinson, Ben; Smith-Loud, Jamila; Theron, Daniel; Barnes, Parker FAT*'20 Barcelona https:// dl. acm. org/ doi/ pdf/ 10. 1145/ 33510 95. 33728 73 16/11/2020
  2. Co-Designing Check- lists to Understand Organizational Challenges and Opportunities around Fairness in AI 2020 Madaio, Michael A.; Stark, Luke; Wortman Vaughan, Jen- nifer; Wallach, Hanna Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Com- puting Systems https:// doi. org/ 10. 1145/ 33138 31. 33764 45 08/10/2020 27 Corporate Digital Responsibility 2020 Lobschat, Lara; Mueller, Ben- jamin; Eggers, Felix; Brandima- rte, Laura; Die- fenbach, Sarah; Kroschke, Mirja; Wirtz, Jochen 29 Datasheets for Data- sets 2020 Gebru, Timnit; Morgenstern, Jamie; Vecchione, Briana; Vaughan, Jennifer Wortman; Wallach, Hanna;
  3. Daumé III, Hal;
  4. Crawford, Kate arXiv:1803.09010 [cs] arXiv:1803.09010 [cs] 12/06/2020
  5. Empowering AI Lead- ership 2020 World Economic Forum World Economic Forum https:// spark. adobe. com/ page/ RsXNk ZANwM LEf/ 30/09/2020
  6. 31 Fairlearn: A toolkit for assessing and improving fairness in AI 2020 Bird, Sarah; Dudík, Miroslav; Edgar, Richard; Horn, Brandon; Lutz, Roman; Milan, Vanessa; Sameki, Mehrnoosh; Wallach, Hanna;
  7. Walker, Kathleen; Design, Allovus IBM https:// www. micro soft. com/ en-us/ resea rch/ uploa ds/ prod/ 2020/ 05/ Fairl earn_ White Paper-2020-09-22. pdf 13/10/2020 32 IEEE Draft Model Process for Address- ing Ethical Concerns During System Design P7000/D3 2020 IEEE Standards Association IEEE https:// stand ards. ieee. org/ proje ct/ 7000. html 04/06/2020 33 IEEE Recommended Practice for Assess- ing the Impact of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems on Human Well- Being Std 7010 2020 IEEE Standards Association IEEE https:// stand ards. ieee. org/ indus try-conne ctions/ ec/ auton omous-syste ms. html 30/08/2020 34 Responsible AI 2020 TensorFlow Tensorflow.org https:// inter- ventions for algorith- mic equity: lessons from the field 2020 Katell, Michael;
  8. Young, Meg; Dailey, Dharma;
  9. Herman, Berne- ase; Guetler, Viv- ian; Tam, Aaron;
  10. Binz, Corinne; Raz, Daniella;
  11. Krafft, P. M Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Trans- parency https:// doi. org/ 10. 1145/ 33510 95. 33728 74 28/01/2020 37 Value-based Engineer- ing for Ethics by Design 2020 Spiekermann, Sarah; Winkler, Till IEEE pre-print arXiv:2004.13676 [cs] 06/10/2020 38 Welcome to the Arti- ficial Intelligence Incident Database 2020 Partnership on AI The Partnership on AI https:// incid entda tabase. ai/ 21/11/2020
  12. 39 White Paper on Data Ethics in Public Procurement of AI- based Services and Solutions 2020 Hasselbalch, Gry;
  13. Olsen, B; Tran- berg, P DataEthics.eu https:// datae thics. eu/ wp- conte nt/ uploa ds/ datae thics-white paper-april- 2020. pdf 25/08/2020
  14. Diakopoulos, N.: Accountability in algorithmic decision making. Commun. ACM 59(2), 56-62 (2016). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1145/ 28441 10
  15. Eubanks, V.: Automating inequality: how high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. St. Martin's Publishing Group (2018)
  16. Council regulation (EU) 2016/679: On the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/ EC (General Data Protection Regulation). Off. J. L119/1 (2016) Available http:// eur-lex. europa. eu/ legal-conte nt/ EN/ TXT/? uri= urise rv: OJ. L_. 2016. 119. 01. 0001. 01. ENG& toc= OJ:L: 2016: 119: TOC. Accessed 23 Sep. 2017. (Online).
  17. Hagendorff, T.: The ethics of AI ethics-an evaluation of guide- lines. Minds Mach. 30(1), 99-120 (2020). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11023-020-09517-8
  18. Jobin, A., Ienca, M., Vayena, E.: The global landscape of AI eth- ics guidelines. Nat. Mach. Intell. 1(9), 389-399 (2019). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/ s42256-019-0088-2
  19. Fjeld, J., Achten, N., Hilligoss, H., Nagy, A., Srikumar, M.: Prin- cipled artificial intelligence: mapping consensus in ethical and rights-based approaches to principles for AI. In: Social Science Research Network, Rochester, NY, SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 3518482 (2020). Available https:// papers. ssrn. com/ abstr act= 35184 82. Accessed 27 Jan. 2020. (Online)
  20. Morley, J., Floridi, L., Kinsey, L., Elhalal, A.: From what to how: an initial review of publicly available AI ethics tools, methods and research to translate principles into practices. Sci. Eng. Eth- ics (2019). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11948-019-00165-5
  21. Solove, D.J.: A taxonomy of privacy. Univ. Pa Law Rev. 154(3), 477 (2006). https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 40041 279
  22. Citron. D.K., Solove, D.J.: Privacy harms. In: Social Science Research Network, Rochester, NY, SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 3782222 (2021). https:// doi. org/ 10. 2139/ ssrn. 37822 22.
  23. Mittelstadt, B.D., Allo, P., Taddeo, M., Wachter, S., Floridi, L.: The ethics of algorithms: mapping the debate. Big Data Soc. 3(2), 2053951716679679 (2016). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 20539 51716 679679
  24. Hirsch, D., Bartley, T., Chandrasekaran, A., Norris, D., Par- thasarathy, S., Turner, P. N.: Business data ethics: emerging trends in the governance of advanced analytics and AI. In: The Ohio State University, Ohio State Legal Studies Research Paper No. 628, 2020. Available https:// cpb-us-w2. wpmuc dn. com/u. osu. edu/ dist/3/ 96132/ files/ 2020/ 10/ Final-Report-1. pdf. (Online)
  25. Solove, D.J.: Privacy and power: computer databases and meta- phors for information privacy. Stanford Law Rev. 53, 71 (2001)
  26. Raab, C.D.: Information privacy, impact assessment, and the place of ethics. Comput. Law Secur. Rev. 37, 105404 (2020). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. clsr. 2020. 105404
  27. Greene, D., Hoffmann, A.L., Stark, L.: Better, nicer, clearer, fairer: a critical assessment of the movement for ethical artificial intelligence and machine learning. In: Presented at the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (2019). https:// doi. org/ 10. 24251/ HICSS. 2019. 258.
  28. Kazim, E., Koshiyama, A.: AI assurance processes. In: Social Science Research Network, Rochester, SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 3685087 (2020). https:// doi. org/ 10. 2139/ ssrn. 36850 87.
  29. Kind, C.: The term 'ethical AI' is finally starting to mean some- thing. VentureBeat (2020). https:// ventu rebeat. com/ 2020/ 08/ 23/ the-term-ethic al-ai-is-final ly-start ing-to-mean-somet hing/. Accessed 23 Aug. 2020
  30. Ryan, M., Stahl, B.C.: Artificial intelligence ethics guidelines for developers and users: clarifying their content and normative implications. J. Inf. Commun. Ethics Soc. (2020). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ JICES-12-2019-0138
  31. AlgorithmWatch: "AI Ethics Guidelines Global Inventory by AlgorithmWatch," AI Ethics Guidelines Global Inventory (2020). https:// inven tory. algor ithmw atch. org. Accessed 11 Aug. 2020.
  32. Schiff, D., Borenstein, J., Biddle, J., Laas, K.: AI ethics in the public, private, and NGO sectors: a review of a global document collection. IEEE Trans. Technol. Soc. (2021). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1109/ TTS. 2021. 30521 27
  33. Bird, S., et al.: Fairlearn: a toolkit for assessing and improving fairness in AI. Microsoft (2020). Available https:// www. micro soft. com/ en-us/ resea rch/ uploa ds/ prod/ 2020/ 05/ Fairl earn_ White Paper-2020-09-22. pdf. Accessed 13 Oct. 2020. (Online)
  34. Mitchell, M., et al.: Model cards for model reporting. Proc. Conf. Fairness Account. Transpar. FAT 19, 220-229 (2019). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1145/ 32875 60. 32875 96
  35. Gebru, T., et al.: "Datasheets for Datasets" (2020). Avail- able http:// arxiv. org/ abs/ 1803. 09010. Accessed 03 Dec. 2020. (Online)
  36. Crawford, K.: Atlas of AI: power, politics, and the planetary costs of artificial intelligence. Yale University Press, New Haven (2021)
  37. Morgan, R.K.: Environmental impact assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 30(1), 5-14 (2012). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 14615 517. 2012. 661557
  38. Clarke, R.: Privacy impact assessment: Its origins and develop- ment. Comput. Law Secur. Rev. 25(2), 123-135 (2009). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. clsr. 2009. 02. 002
  39. Information Commissioner's Office: Data protection impact assessments (2018). https:// ico. org. uk/ for-organ isati ons/ guide- to-the-gener al-data-prote ction-regul ation-gdpr/ accou ntabi lity- and-gover nance/ data-prote ction-impact-asses sments/. Accessed 07 Jun. 2018
  40. The Danish Institute for Human Rights: Human rights impact assessment guidance and toolbox -road-testing version. The Danish Institute for Human Rights (2016). https:// www. human rights. dk/ busin ess/ tools/ human-rights-impact-asses sment-guida nce-and-toolb ox. Accessed 03 Feb. 2020
  41. Renn, O.: Risk Governance: Coping with Uncertainty in a Com- plex World. Earthscan (2008)
  42. Coates, J.F.: Some methods and techniques for comprehensive impact assessment. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 6, 341-357 (1974). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ 0040-1625(74) 90035-3
  43. IAIA: Technology Assessment (2009). https:// www. iaia. org/ wiki-detai ls. php? ID= 26. Accessed 26 Jan. 2021
  44. Palm, E., Hansson, S.O.: The case for ethical technology assess- ment (eTA). Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 73(5), 543-558 (2006). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. techf ore. 2005. 06. 002
  45. STOA: Centre for AI | Panel for the Future of Science and Tech- nology (STOA) | European Parliament (2021). https:// www. europ arl. europa. eu/ stoa/ en/ centre-for-AI. Accessed 11 Feb. 2021
  46. Hennen, L.: Why do we still need participatory technology assessment? Poiesis Prax. 9, 27-41 (2012). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10202-012-0122-5
  47. CSPO: Participatory Technology Assessment | CSPO, Consor- tium for Science and Policy Outcomes (2021). https:// cspo. org/ areas-of-focus/ pta/. Accessed 12 Feb. 2021
  48. Kiran, A., Oudshoorn, N.E.J., Verbeek, P.P.C.C.: Beyond check- lists: toward an ethical-constructive technology assessment. J. Respons Innov. 2(1), 5-19 (2015). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 23299 460. 2014. 992769
  49. Suter, G.W., Barnthouse, L.W., O'Neill, R.V.: Treatment of risk in environmental impact assessment. Environ. Manage. 11(3), 295-303 (1987). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ BF018 67157
  50. UN Environment: "Assessing Environmental Impacts A Global Review Of Legislation-UNEP-WCMC," In: UNEP-WCMC's official website-Assessing Environmental Impacts A Global Review Of Legislation (2018). https:// www. unep-wcmc. org/ asses sing-envir onmen tal-impac ts--a-global-review-of-legis lation. Accessed 12 Feb. 2021.
  51. Glucker, A.N., Driessen, P.P.J., Kolhoff, A., Runhaar, H.A.C.: Public participation in environmental impact assessment: why, who and how? Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 43, 104-111 (2013). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. eiar. 2013. 06. 003
  52. IMA Europe: "Life Cycle Assessment | IMA Europe," In: Industrial Mineral Association-Europe (2020). https:// www. ima-europe. eu/ eu-policy/ envir onment/ life-cycle-asses sment. Accessed 06 May 2021
  53. Aven, T.: Risk assessment and risk management: review of recent advances on their foundation. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 253(1), 1-13 (2016). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ejor. 2015. 12. 023
  54. Edwards, M.M., Huddleston, J.R.: Prospects and perils of fis- cal impact analysis. J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 76(1), 25-41 (2009). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 01944 36090 33104 77
  55. Pearce, D.W.: Cost-Benefit Analysis, 2nd edn. Macmillan Inter- national Higher Education (2016)
  56. Kemp, D., Vanclay, F.: Human rights and impact assessment: clarifying the connections in practice. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 31(2), 86-96 (2013). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 14615 517. 2013. 782978
  57. Kende-Robbe, C.: Poverty and social impact analysis : linking macroeconomic policies to poverty outcomes: summary of early experiences. IMF (2003). https:// www. imf. org/ en/ Publi catio ns/ WP/ Issues/ 2016/ 12/ 30/ Pover ty-and-Social-Impact-Analy sis- Linki ng-Macro econo mic-Polic ies-to-Pover ty-Outco mes-16248. Accessed 12 Feb. 2021
  58. Roessler, B.: New ways of thinking about privacy. (2008). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ oxfor dhb/ 97801 99548 439. 003. 0038.
  59. Westin, A.F.: Privacy and Freedom. Ig Publishing (1967)
  60. Westin, A.F.: Information Technology in a Democracy. Harvard University Press (1971)
  61. Stewart, B.: Privacy impact assessments. Priv. Law Policy Rep. 39(4), 1996 (2021). Available http:// www. austl ii. edu. au/ au/ journ als/ PLPR/ 1996/ 39. html Accessed: Feb. 17, 2021. [Online]
  62. Financial Reporting Council: Auditors I Audit and Assurance I Standards and Guidance for Auditors I Financial Reporting Council (2020). https:// www. frc. org. uk/ audit ors/ audit-assur ance/ stand ards-and-guida nce. Accessed 26 Apr. 2021
  63. Rusby, R.: The interpretation and evaluation of assurance cases. In: Computer Science Laboratory, SRI International, Menlo Park CA 94025, USA, Technical Report SRI-CSL-15-01 (2015)
  64. Bloomfield, R., Khlaaf, H., Conmy, P.R., Fletcher, G.: Disruptive innovations and disruptive assurance: assuring machine learning and autonomy. Computer 52(9), 82-89 (2019). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1109/ MC. 2019. 29147 75
  65. International Organization for Standardization: "ISO-Standards," ISO (2021). https:// www. iso. org/ stand ards. html. Accessed 15
  66. International Organization for Standardization: "ISO-Certi- fication," ISO (2021). https:// www. iso. org/ certi ficat ion. html. Accessed 15 Jul. 2021
  67. PwC UK: "Understanding a financial statement audit," Price- waterhouseCooper, UK, (2013). Available https:// www. pwc. com/ gx/ en/ audit-servi ces/ publi catio ns/ assets/ pwc-under stand ing-finan cial-state ment-audit. pdf. (Online)
  68. Brundage, M., et al.: Toward trustworthy AI development: mech- anisms for supporting verifiable claims (2020). Available http:// arxiv. org/ abs/ 2004. 07213. Accessed 16 Nov. 2020. (Online).
  69. Mökander, J., Floridi, L.: Ethics-based auditing to develop trustworthy AI. Minds Mach. (2021). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11023-021-09557-8
  70. Starr, C.: Social benefit versus technological risk. Science 165(3899), 1232-1238 (1969)
  71. Thompson, K.M., Deisler, P.F., Schwing, R.C.: Interdisciplinary vision: the first 25 years of the society for risk analysis (SRA), 1980-2005. Risk Anal. 25(6), 1333-1386 (2005). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1539-6924. 2005. 00702.x
  72. Beck, P.U.: Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. SAGE (1992)
  73. Moses, K., Malone, R.: Development of risk assessment matrix for NASA Engineering and safety center NASA technical reports server (NTRS). In: NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS) (2004). https:// ntrs. nasa. gov/ citat ions/ 20050 123548. Accessed
  74. Hayne, C., Free, C.: Hybridized professional groups and institu- tional work: COSO and the rise of enterprise risk management. Account. Organ. Soc. 39(5), 309-330 (2014). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. aos. 2014. 05. 002
  75. Lauterbach, A., Bonime, A.: Environmental risk social risk gov- ernance risk. Risk Manage, 3 (2018).
  76. Floridi, L., et al.: AI4People-an ethical framework for a good AI society: opportunities, risks, principles, and recommenda- tions. Minds Mach. 28(4), 689-707 (2018). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11023-018-9482-5
  77. High Level Expert Group on AI: "Ethics guidelines for trustwor- thy AI," European Commission, Brussels, Text (2019). Available https:// ec. europa. eu/ digit al-single-market/ en/ news/ ethics-guide lines-trust worthy-ai. Accessed 23 May 2019. (Online)
  78. Freeman, R.E.: Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Cambridge University Press (2010)
  79. Donaldson, T., Preston, L.E.: The stakeholder theory of the cor- poration: concepts, evidence, and implications. Acad. Manage. Rev. 20(1), 65 (1995). https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 258887
  80. Business Roundtable: "Our Commitment," Business Roundta- ble-Opportunity Agenda (2020). https:// oppor tunity. busin essro undta ble. org/ ourco mmitm ent/. Accessed 05 Feb. 2021
  81. TensorFlow: "Responsible AI," TensorFlow (2020). https:// www. tenso rflow. org/ resou rces/ respo nsible-ai. Accessed 02 Nov. 2020
  82. Bantilan, N.: Themis-ml: a fairness-aware machine learning interface for end-to-end discrimination discovery and mitigation. (2017). Available http:// arxiv. org/ abs/ 1710. 06921. Accessed 13 Nov. 2020. (Online)
  83. Bellamy, R. K. E., et al.: AI Fairness 360: an extensible toolkit for detecting, understanding, and mitigating unwanted algorith- mic bias. (2018). Available http:// arxiv. org/ abs/ 1810. 01943. Accessed 27 May 2021. (Online)
  84. Lee, M.S.A., Floridi, L., Singh, J.: Formalising trade-offs beyond algorithmic fairness: lessons from ethical philosophy and wel- fare economics. AI Ethics (2021). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s43681-021-00067-y
  85. Hutchinson, B., Mitchell, M.: 50 years of test (Un)fairness: les- sons for machine learning. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, New York, pp. 49-58 (2019). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1145/ 32875 60. 32876 00.
  86. Veale, M., Van Kleek, M., Binns, R.: Fairness and accountability design needs for algorithmic support in high-stakes public sec- tor decision-making. In: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Confer- ence on Human Factors in Computing Systems, New York, p. 440:1-440:14 (2018). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1145/ 31735 74. 31740 14.
  87. Hoffmann, A.L.: Where fairness fails: data, algorithms, and the limits of antidiscrimination discourse. Inf. Commun. Soc. 22(7), 900-915 (2019). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13691 18X. 2019. 15739 12
  88. Radford, J., Joseph, K.: Theory in theory out: the uses of social theory in machine learning for social science. Front. Big Data. (2020). https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fdata. 2020. 00018
  89. Institute for the Future and Omidyar Network, "Ethical OS," (2018). https:// ethic alos. org/. Accessed 21 Jun. 2019
  90. Doteveryone, Consequence Scanning-doteveryone (2019). https:// dotev eryone. org. uk/ proje ct/ conse quence-scann ing/. Accessed 18 Jun 2019
  91. Madaio, M. A., Stark, L., Wortman Vaughan, J., Wallach, H.: Co-designing checklists to understand organizational challenges and opportunities around fairness in AI. In: Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Honolulu, pp. 1-14 (2020). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1145/ 33138 31. 33764 45.
  92. Stephanidis, C., et al.: Seven HCI grand challenges. Int. J. Hum Comput Interact. 35(14), 1229-1269 (2019). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10447 318. 2019. 16192 59
  93. Krippendorff, K.: Content analysis. In: International encyclo- pedia of communication, vol. 1. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 8 (1989). Available http:// repos itory. upenn. edu/ asc_ papers/ 22. Accessed 08 Jul 2020 (Online)
  94. Smith, K.B.: Typologies, taxonomies, and the benefits of policy classification. Policy Stud. J. 30(3), 379-395 (2002). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1541-0072. 2002. tb021 53.x
  95. Singh, A., et al.: PriMP visualization-principled artificial intel- ligence project. In: Harvard Law School, Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society (2018). https:// ai-hr. cyber. harva rd. edu/ primp-viz. html. Accessed 24 Jun. 2019
  96. Birhane, A., Kalluri, P., Card, D., Agnew, W., Dotan, R., Bao, M.: The values encoded in machine learning research (2021). Available http://arxiv.org/abs/2106.15590. Accessed 25 Jul. 2021 (Online)
  97. International Standardization Organisation: "ISO 14001:2015,". ISO (2021). https:// www. iso. org/ cms/ render/ live/ en/ sites/ isoorg/ conte nts/ data/ stand ard/ 06/ 08/ 60857. html. Accessed 26 Jul. 2021
  98. Bengtsson, M.: How to plan and perform a qualitative study using content analysis. NursingPlus Open 2, 8-14 (2016). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. npls. 2016. 01. 001
  99. Whittlestone, J., Nyrup, R., Alexandrova, A., Cave, S.: The role and limits of principles in AI ethics: towards a focus on tensions. In: Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Eth- ics, and Society, Honolulu, pp. 195-200 (2019). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1145/ 33066 18. 33142 89.
  100. Clarke, T.: Accounting for Enron: shareholder value and stake- holder interests. Corp. Gov. Int. Rev. 13(5), 598-612 (2005). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1467-8683. 2005. 00454.x
  101. du Plessis, J.J., Hargovan, A., Harris, J.: Principles of Contempo- rary Corporate Governance. Cambridge University Press (2018)
  102. Freeman, R. E.: Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Pitman (1984)
  103. Foden, C.: Our structure. City of Lincoln Council (2019). https:// www. linco ln. gov. uk/ counc il/ struc ture. Accessed 10 Jan. 2021
  104. Stanley, M.: UK Civil Service-Grades and Roles. In: Under- standing Government (2020). https:// www. civil serva nt. org. uk/ infor mation-grades_ and_ roles. html. Accessed 10 Jan. 2021
  105. National Crime Agency: Our leadership. In: National Crime Agency (2021). https:// www. natio nalcr imeag ency. gov. uk/ who- we-are/ our-leade rship. Accessed 10 Jan. 2021
  106. Badr, W.: Evaluating machine learning models fairness and bias. Medium (2019). https:// towar dsdat ascie nce. com/ evalu ating-machi ne-learn ing-models-fairn ess-and-bias-4ec82 512f7 c3. Accessed 13 Nov. 2020
  107. Kaissis, G.A., Makowski, M.R., Rückert, D., Braren, R.F.: Secure, privacy-preserving and federated machine learning in medical imaging. Mach. Intell Nat. (2020). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/ s42256-020-0186-1
  108. Chapman, A., Missier, P., Simonelli, G., Torlone, R.: Capturing and querying fine-grained provenance of preprocessing pipelines in data science. Proc. VLDB Endow. 14(4), 507-520 (2020). https:// doi. org/ 10. 14778/ 34369 05. 34369 11
  109. Information Commissioner's Office: Guidance on the AI auditing framework Draft guidance for consultation p. 105 (2020)
  110. Mayring, P.: Qualitative content analysis: demarcation, varieties, developments. Forum Qual. Sozialforschung Forum Qual. Soc. Res. (2019). https:// doi. org/ 10. 17169/ fqs-20.3. 3343
  111. Carrier, R., Brown, S.: Taxonomy: AI Audit, Assurance, and Assessment. For Humanity (2021). https:// forhu manity. center/ blog/ taxon omy-ai-audit-assur ance-and-asses sment. Accessed 26
  112. Ada Lovelace Institute and Data Kind UK: Examining the black box: tools for assessing algorithmic systems (2020). https:// www. adalo velac einst itute. org/ report/ exami ning-the-black-box-tools- for-asses sing-algor ithmic-syste ms/. Accessed 23 Feb. 2021
  113. Patton, M.Q.: Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods: Integrating Theory and Practice. SAGE Publications (2014)
  114. Krippendorff, K.: Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Meth- odology. SAGE (2013)
  115. Lee, M. S. A., Singh, J.: The landscape and gaps in open source fairness toolkits. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, New York, pp. 1-13 (2021) https:// doi. org/ 10. 1145/ 34117 64. 34452 61.
  116. Mehrabi, N., Morstatter, F., Saxena, N., Lerman, K., Galstyan, A.: A survey on bias and fairness in machine learning. ACM Comput. Surv. 54(6), 115:1-115:35 (2021). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1145/ 34576 07
  117. Vakkuri, V., Kemell, K.-K., Kultanen, J., Siponen, M., Abra- hamsson, P.: Ethically aligned design of autonomous systems: industry viewpoint and an empirical study, p. 18 (2019)
  118. Mulgan, G.: AI ethics and the limits of code(s). In: nesta (2019). https:// www. nesta. org. uk/ blog/ ai-ethics-and-limits-codes/. Accessed 16 Sep. 2019
  119. Floridi, L.: Why Information Matters. In: The New Atlantis (2017). http:// www. thene watla ntis. com/ publi catio ns/ why-infor mation-matte rs. Accessed 14 Oct 2020
  120. Kitchin, R.: The ethics of smart cities (2019). Available https:// www. rte. ie/ brain storm/ 2019/ 0425/ 10456 02-the-ethics-of-smart- cities/. Accessed 07 May 2019 (Online)
  121. Bietti, E.: From ethics washing to ethics bashing: a view on tech ethics from within moral philosophy. In: Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, Bar- celona, Spain, pp 210-219 (2020) https:// doi. org/ 10. 1145/ 33510 95. 33728 60.
  122. Metcalf, J., Moss, E., Watkins, E. A., Singh, R., Elish, M. C.: Algorithmic impact assessments and accountability: the co- construction of impacts, p 19 (2021)
  123. European Commission: Proposal for a Regulation laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence | Shaping Europe's digital future. In: European Commission, Brussels, Proposal (2021). Available https:// digit al-strat egy. ec. europa. eu/ en/ libra ry/ propo sal-regul ation-laying-down-harmo nised-rules-artifi cial- intel ligen ce. Accessed 21 May 2021 (Online)
  124. Webster, G.: Translation: personal information protection law of the People's Republic of China (Draft) (Second Review Draft)
  125. | DigiChina. In: Stanford DigiChina Cyber Policy Unit (2021). https:// digic hina. stanf ord. edu/ news/ trans lation-perso nal-infor mation-prote ction-law-peopl es-repub lic-china-draft-second- review. Accessed 21 May 2021
  126. Lee, A., Sacks, S., Creemers, R., Shi, M., Webster, G.: China's draft privacy law adds platform self-governance, solidifies CAC's Role | DigiChina. In: Stanford DigiChina Cyber Policy Unit (2021). https:// digic hina. stanf ord. edu/ news/ chinas-draft- priva cy-law-adds-platf orm-self-gover nance-solid ifies-cacs-role. Accessed 21 May 2021
  127. Jillson, E.: Aiming for truth, fairness, and equity in your com- pany's use of AI. In: Federal Trade Commission (2021). https:// www. ftc. gov/ news-events/ blogs/ busin ess-blog/ 2021/ 04/ aiming- truth-fairn ess-equity-your-compa nys-use-ai. Accessed 20 Apr. 2021
  128. Bryson, J.J.: The artificial intelligence of the ethics of artificial intelligence: an introductory overview for law and regulation. In: Dubber, M.D., Pasquale, F., Das, S. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Ethics of AI, pp. 1-25. Oxford University Press (2020)
  129. CDEI: Types of assurance in AI and the role of standards. In: Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation Blog (2021). https:// cdei. blog. gov. uk/ 2021/ 04/ 17/ 134/. Accessed 26 May 2021
  130. European Parliament: The adequate protection of personal data by the United Kingdom (2021) https:// www. europ arl. europa. eu/ doceo/ docum ent/ TA-9-2021-0262_ EN. html. Accessed 26 May 2021.
  131. Simonsen, J., Robertson, T.: Routledge International Handbook of Participatory Design. Routledge, London (2012)
  132. Beck, E.: P for Political: Participation is not enough. Scand. J. Inf. Syst. 14(1) (2002). Available at https:// aisel. aisnet. org/ sjis/ vol14/ iss1/1. (Online)
  133. Thuermer, G., Walker, J., Simperl, E., Carr, L.: When data meets citizens: an investigation of citizen engagement in data-driven innovation programmes. In: Presented at the 2nd Data Justice Conference, Cardiff University Online (2021)
  134. Sloane, M., Moss, E., Awomolo, O., Forlano, L.: Participation is not a design fix for machine learning (2020). Available http:// arxiv. org/ abs/ 2007. 02423. Accessed 26 May 2021. (Online)

Related papers

Creating a Tool to Reproducibly Estimate the Ethical Impact of Artificial Intelligence
Craig Shank

2019

Author(s): Jordan, Sara; Fazelpour, Sina; Koshiyama, Adriano; Kueper, Jaky; DeChant, Chad; Leong, Brenda; Marchant, Gary; Shank, Craig | Abstract: How can an organization systematically and reproducibly measure the ethical impact of its AI-enabled platforms? Organizations that create applications enhanced by artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) are increasingly asked to review the ethical impact of their work. Governance and oversight organizations are increasingly asked to provide documentation to guide the conduct of ethical impact assessments. This document outlines a draft procedure for organizations to evaluate the ethical impacts of their work. We propose that ethical impact can be evaluated via a principles-based approach when the effects of platforms’ probable uses are interrogated through informative questions, with answers scaled and weighted to produce a multi-layered score. We initially assess ethical impact as the summed score of a project’s potential to...

View PDFchevron_right
Ethical AI in practice: Balancing technological advancements with human values
Ajoke Farayola

International Journal of Science and Research Archive, 2024

In an era where artificial intelligence (AI) increasingly intersects with every facet of human life, the imperative for ethical AI has never been more pronounced. This paper delves into the complex interplay between technological advancements in AI and the overarching human values that guide societal norms. The background of the study establishes the urgency of addressing ethical challenges inherent in AI, such as privacy, bias, and accountability, within the broader context of regulatory and policy frameworks. Aiming to critically evaluate the integration and effectiveness of ethical principles in AI applications, the paper navigates through a qualitative analysis, employing theoretical frameworks to dissect the ethical dimensions of AI. The scope encompasses a diverse range of topics, including global trends in ethical AI development, the impact of AI on human rights and personal freedoms, and the analysis of bias and fairness in AI algorithms. Real-world case studies provide insights into the successes and failures of ethical AI implementation, while the role of public perception and trust in AI adoption is scrutinized. The main conclusions reveal a dynamic global landscape of ethical AI, emphasizing the need for robust ethical frameworks and proactive strategies to mitigate biases and ensure equitable outcomes. Recommendations advocate for clear ethical guidelines, integration of ethics in AI development, transparency, accountability, multi-stakeholder collaboration, public engagement, and continuous ethical evaluation. The study concludes that balancing technological innovation with ethical constraints is crucial for the responsible development of AI. It underscores the importance of ethical vigilance, ensuring AI aligns with societal values and individual rights.

View PDFchevron_right
Reviewing the Ethical Implications of Ai in Decision Making Processes
Ajoke Farayola

International journal of management & entrepreneurship research, 2024

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has rapidly become an integral part of decision-making processes across various industries, revolutionizing the way choices are made. This Review delves into the ethical considerations associated with the use of AI in decision-making, exploring the implications of algorithms, automation, and machine learning. The incorporation of AI in decision-making introduces a myriad of ethical concerns that demand careful scrutiny. The opacity of algorithms raises questions about transparency, accountability, and bias. Decisionmaking processes driven by AI can be complex and difficult to interpret, leading to challenges in understanding how and why specific choices are made. As a result, ethical concerns emerge regarding the potential lack of transparency and accountability, especially when these decisions impact individuals or societal groups. Bias in AI algorithms poses a critical ethical challenge. Machine learning models learn from historical data, and if that data is biased, the AI system may perpetuate and even exacerbate existing biases. Addressing this challenge requires

View PDFchevron_right
Principles Governing Ethical Development and Deployment of AI
IJAERS Journal

The ethical development and deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) is a rapidly evolving field with significant implications for society. This paper delves into the multifaceted ethical considerations surrounding AI, emphasising the importance of transparency, accountability, and privacy. By conducting a comprehensive review of existing literature and case studies, it highlights key ethical issues such as bias in AI algorithms, privacy concerns, and the societal impact of AI technologies. The study underscores the necessity for robust governance frameworks and international collaboration to address these ethical challenges effectively. It explores the need for ongoing ethical evaluation as AI technologies advance, particularly in autonomous systems. The paper emphasises the importance of integrating ethical principles into AI design from the outset, fostering sustainable practices, and raising awareness through education. Furthermore, the paper examines current regulatory frameworks across various regions, comparing their effectiveness in promoting ethical AI practices. The findings suggest a global consensus on key ethical principles, though their implementation varies widely. By proposing strategies to ensure responsible AI innovation and mitigate risks, this research contributes to the ongoing discourse on the future of AI ethics, aiming to guide the development of AI technologies that uphold human dignity and contribute to the common good. Research the ethical considerations and societal impacts of AI, focusing on issues like bias in AI algorithms, privacy concerns, or the effect on employment. This can involve a comprehensive review of existing literature and case studies.

View PDFchevron_right
From What to How: An Initial Review of Publicly Available AI Ethics Tools, Methods and Research to Translate Principles into Practices
Jessica Morley, Luciano Floridi, Anat Elhalal

The debate about the ethical implications of Artificial Intelligence dates from the 1960s (Wiener, 1960) (Samuel, 1960). However, in recent years symbolic AI has been complemented and sometimes replaced by (Deep) Neural Networks and Machine Learning (ML) techniques. This has vastly increased its potential utility and impact on society, with the consequence that the ethical debate has gone mainstream. Such a debate has primarily focused on principles-the 'what' of AI ethics (beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, justice and explicability)-rather than on practices, the 'how.' Awareness of the potential issues is increasing at a fast rate, but the AI community's ability to take action to mitigate the associated risks is still at its infancy. Therefore, our intention in presenting this research is to contribute to closing the gap between principles and practices by constructing a typology that may help practically-minded developers 'apply ethics' at each stage of the pipeline, and to signal to researchers where further work is needed. The focus is exclusively on Machine Learning, but it is hoped that the results of this research may be easily applicable to other branches of AI. The article outlines the research method for creating this typology, the initial findings, and provides a summary of future research needs. 2

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • AI Ethics

    • Cited by

    An AI ethics ‘David and Goliath’: value conflicts between large tech companies and their employees
    Kalypso Iordanou

    AI & SOCIETY, 2022

    Artificial intelligence ethics requires a united approach from policymakers, AI companies, and individuals, in the development, deployment, and use of these technologies. However, sometimes discussions can become fragmented because of the different levels of governance (Schmitt in AI Ethics 1–12, 2021) or because of different values, stakeholders, and actors involved (Ryan and Stahl in J Inf Commun Ethics Soc 19:61–86, 2021). Recently, these conflicts became very visible, with such examples as the dismissal of AI ethics researcher Dr. Timnit Gebru from Google and the resignation of whistle-blower Frances Haugen from Facebook. Underpinning each debacle was a conflict between the organisation’s economic and business interests and the morals of their employees. This paper will examine tensions between the ethics of AI organisations and the values of their employees, by providing an exploration of the AI ethics literature in this area, and a qualitative analysis of three workshops with ...

    View PDFchevron_right
    Operationalising AI governance through ethics-based auditing: an industry case study
    Luciano Floridi

    AI and Ethics

    Ethics-based auditing (EBA) is a structured process whereby an entity’s past or present behaviour is assessed for consistency with moral principles or norms. Recently, EBA has attracted much attention as a governance mechanism that may help to bridge the gap between principles and practice in AI ethics. However, important aspects of EBA—such as the feasibility and effectiveness of different auditing procedures—have yet to be substantiated by empirical research. In this article, we address this knowledge gap by providing insights from a longitudinal industry case study. Over 12 months, we observed and analysed the internal activities of AstraZeneca, a biopharmaceutical company, as it prepared for and underwent an ethics-based AI audit. While previous literature concerning EBA has focussed on proposing or analysing evaluation metrics or visualisation techniques, our findings suggest that the main difficulties large multinational organisations face when conducting EBA mirror classical ...

    View PDFchevron_right
    Seeing Like a Toolkit: How Toolkits Envision the Work of AI Ethics
    Nick Merrill

    Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction

    Numerous toolkits have been developed to support ethical AI development. However, toolkits, like all tools, encode assumptions in their design about what work should be done and how. In this paper, we conduct a qualitative analysis of 27 AI ethics toolkits to critically examine how the work of ethics is imagined and how it is supported by these toolkits. Specifically, we examine the discourses toolkits rely on when talking about ethical issues, who they imagine should do the work of ethics, and how they envision the work practices involved in addressing ethics. Among the toolkits, we identify a mismatch between the imagined work of ethics and the support the toolkits provide for doing that work. In particular, we identify a lack of guidance around how to navigate labor, organizational, and institutional power dynamics as they relate to performing ethical work. We use these omissions to chart future work for researchers and designers of AI ethics toolkits.

    View PDFchevron_right
    580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved