IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jbuset/v160y2019i4d10.1007_s10551-018-3921-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ethical Implications and Accountability of Algorithms

Author

Listed:
  • Kirsten Martin

    (George Washington University)

Abstract

Algorithms silently structure our lives. Algorithms can determine whether someone is hired, promoted, offered a loan, or provided housing as well as determine which political ads and news articles consumers see. Yet, the responsibility for algorithms in these important decisions is not clear. This article identifies whether developers have a responsibility for their algorithms later in use, what those firms are responsible for, and the normative grounding for that responsibility. I conceptualize algorithms as value-laden, rather than neutral, in that algorithms create moral consequences, reinforce or undercut ethical principles, and enable or diminish stakeholder rights and dignity. In addition, algorithms are an important actor in ethical decisions and influence the delegation of roles and responsibilities within these decisions. As such, firms should be responsible not only for the value-laden-ness of an algorithm but also for designing who-does-what within the algorithmic decision. As such, firms developing algorithms are accountable for designing how large a role individual will be permitted to take in the subsequent algorithmic decision. Counter to current arguments, I find that if an algorithm is designed to preclude individuals from taking responsibility within a decision, then the designer of the algorithm should be held accountable for the ethical implications of the algorithm in use.

Suggested Citation

  • Kirsten Martin, 2019. "Ethical Implications and Accountability of Algorithms," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 160(4), pages 835-850, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:jbuset:v:160:y:2019:i:4:d:10.1007_s10551-018-3921-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s10551-018-3921-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10551-018-3921-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10551-018-3921-3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniel Arce & Mary Gentile, 2015. "Giving Voice to Values as a Leverage Point in Business Ethics Education," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 131(3), pages 535-542, October.
    2. Sollars, Gordon G., 2003. "A Critique of Social Products Liability," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(3), pages 381-390, July.
    3. Brenkert, George G., 2000. "Social Products Liability: The Case of the Firearms Manufacturers," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(1), pages 21-32, January.
    4. Kirsten Martin & R. Freeman, 2004. "The Separation of Technology and Ethics in Business Ethics," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 53(4), pages 353-364, September.
    5. Edmund Byrne, 2007. "Assessing Arms Makers’ Corporate Social Responsibility," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 74(3), pages 201-217, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Benjamin Cole & Preeta Banerjee, 2013. "Morally Contentious Technology-Field Intersections: The Case of Biotechnology in the United States," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 115(3), pages 555-574, July.
    2. repec:zbw:bofrdp:2013_013 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Stephanie Kelley, 2022. "Employee Perceptions of the Effective Adoption of AI Principles," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 178(4), pages 871-893, July.
    4. Elanor Colleoni & Nuccio Ludovico & Illia Laura & Ravindran Kiron, 2021. "Does Sharing Economy Have a Moral Capital? Comparing Semantic Networks in Social Media and News Media," Journal of Management and Sustainability, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 11(2), pages 1-1, December.
    5. Luciano Floridi, 2009. "Network Ethics: Information and Business Ethics in a Networked Society," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 90(4), pages 649-659, December.
    6. G. Venkat Raman & Swapnil Garg & Sneha Thapliyal, 2019. "Integrative Live Case: A Contemporary Business Ethics Pedagogy," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 155(4), pages 1009-1032, April.
    7. Leventis, Stergios & Hasan, Iftekhar & Dedoulis, Emmanouil, 2013. "The cost of sin: The effect of social norms on audit pricing," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 152-165.
    8. Kirsten Martin, 2008. "Internet Technologies in China: Insights on the Morally Important Influence of Managers," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 83(3), pages 489-501, December.
    9. Jianzhong Xu & Song Zhang, 2020. "An Evaluation Study of the Capabilities of Civilian Manufacturing Enterprises Entering the Military Products Market under the Background of China’s Civil–Military Integration," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-23, March.
    10. Edmund Byrne, 2010. "The U.S. Military-Industrial Complex is Circumstantially Unethical," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 95(2), pages 153-165, August.
    11. Jon Reast & François Maon & Adam Lindgreen & Joëlle Vanhamme, 2013. "Legitimacy-Seeking Organizational Strategies in Controversial Industries: A Case Study Analysis and a Bidimensional Model," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 118(1), pages 139-153, November.
    12. Poonam Arora & Gwendolyn A. Tedeschi & Janet L. Rovenpor, 2018. "Broadening the Frame around Sustainability with Holistic Language: Mandela and Invictus," Humanistic Management Journal, Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 233-251, December.
    13. Mollie Painter-Morland & Rosa Slegers, 2018. "Strengthening “Giving Voice to Values” in Business Schools by Reconsidering the “Invisible Hand” Metaphor," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 147(4), pages 807-819, February.
    14. Edmund Byrne, 2007. "Assessing Arms Makers’ Corporate Social Responsibility," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 74(3), pages 201-217, September.
    15. Anandasivam Gopal & Brad N Greenwood, 2017. "Traders, guns, and money: The effects of mass shootings on stock prices of firearm manufacturers in the U.S," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(5), pages 1-29, May.
    16. Leventis, Stergios & Hasan, Iftekhar & Dedoulis, Emmanouil, 2013. "The cost of sin: The effect of social norms on audit pricing," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 152-165.
    17. Michael Etter & Christian Fieseler & Glen Whelan, 2019. "Sharing Economy, Sharing Responsibility? Corporate Social Responsibility in the Digital Age," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 159(4), pages 935-942, November.
    18. Ulrich Leicht-Deobald & Thorsten Busch & Christoph Schank & Antoinette Weibel & Simon Schafheitle & Isabelle Wildhaber & Gabriel Kasper, 2019. "The Challenges of Algorithm-Based HR Decision-Making for Personal Integrity," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 160(2), pages 377-392, December.
    19. Maria Figueroa-Armijos & Brent B. Clark & Serge P. da Motta Veiga, 2023. "Ethical Perceptions of AI in Hiring and Organizational Trust: The Role of Performance Expectancy and Social Influence," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 186(1), pages 179-197, August.
    20. Marilyn Giroux & Jungkeun Kim & Jacob C. Lee & Jongwon Park, 2022. "Artificial Intelligence and Declined Guilt: Retailing Morality Comparison Between Human and AI," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 178(4), pages 1027-1041, July.
    21. Okuthe Pelesiah, 2022. "Ethical Communication for Better Organization Management," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 6(7), pages 702-708, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:jbuset:v:160:y:2019:i:4:d:10.1007_s10551-018-3921-3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.