IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/vrs/jecman/v44y2022i1p446-494n8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stakeholder-accountability model for artificial intelligence projects

Author

Listed:
  • Miller Gloria J.

    (Maxmetrics, Heidelberg, Germany)

Abstract

Aim/purpose – This research presents a conceptual stakeholder accountability model for mapping the project actors to the conduct for which they should be held accountable in artificial intelligence (AI) projects. AI projects differ from other projects in important ways, including in their capacity to inflict harm and impact human and civil rights on a global scale. The in-project decisions are high stakes, and it is critical who decides the system’s features. Even well-designed AI systems can be deployed in ways that harm individuals, local communities, and society. Design/methodology/approach – The present study uses a systematic literature review, accountability theory, and AI success factors to elaborate on the relationships between AI project actors and stakeholders. The literature review follows the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement process. Bovens’ accountability model and AI success factors are employed as a basis for the coding framework in the thematic analysis. The study uses a web-based survey to collect data from respondents in the United States and Germany employing statistical analysis to assess public opinion on AI fairness, sustainability, and accountability. Findings – The AI stakeholder accountability model specifies the complex relationships between 16 actors and 22 stakeholder forums using 78 AI success factors to define the conduct and the obligations and consequences that characterize those relationships. The survey analysis suggests that more than 80% of the public thinks AI development should be fair and sustainable, and it sees the government and development organizations as most accountable in this regard. There are some differences between the United States and Germany regarding fairness, sustainability, and accountability. Research implications/limitations – The results should benefit project managers and project sponsors in stakeholder identification and resource assignment. The definitions offer policy advisors insights for updating AI governance practices. The model presented here is conceptual and has not been validated using real-world projects. Originality/value/contribution – The study adds context-specific information on AI to the project management literature. It defines project actors as moral agents and provides a model for mapping the accountability of project actors to stakeholder expectations and system impacts.

Suggested Citation

  • Miller Gloria J., 2022. "Stakeholder-accountability model for artificial intelligence projects," Journal of Economics and Management, Sciendo, vol. 44(1), pages 446-494, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:vrs:jecman:v:44:y:2022:i:1:p:446-494:n:8
    DOI: 10.22367/jem.2022.44.18
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.22367/jem.2022.44.18
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22367/jem.2022.44.18?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Irene Unceta & Jordi Nin & Oriol Pujol, 2020. "Risk mitigation in algorithmic accountability: The role of machine learning copies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-26, November.
    2. Ivy Munoko & Helen L. Brown-Liburd & Miklos Vasarhelyi, 2020. "The Ethical Implications of Using Artificial Intelligence in Auditing," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 167(2), pages 209-234, November.
    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. Chen, Pengyu & Chu, Zhongzhu & Zhao, Miao, 2024. "The Road to corporate sustainability: The importance of artificial intelligence," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    2. Adrian GROȘANU & Melinda-Timea FÜLÖP & Nicolae MĂGDAȘ, 2024. "Ethical Dilemmas in Digital Accounting: A Comprehensive Literature Review," CECCAR Business Review, Body of Expert and Licensed Accountants of Romania (CECCAR), vol. 5(4), pages 56-67, April.
    3. Zhang, Chanyuan (Abigail) & Cho, Soohyun & Vasarhelyi, Miklos, 2022. "Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) in auditing," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    4. Bonsón, Enrique & Lavorato, Domenica & Lamboglia, Rita & Mancini, Daniela, 2021. "Artificial intelligence activities and ethical approaches in leading listed companies in the European Union," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    5. Radu USZKAI & Cristina VOINEA & Toni GIBEA, 2021. "Responsibility Attribution Problems In Companies: Could An Artificial Moral Advisor Solve This?," Proceedings of the INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE, Faculty of Management, Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 15(1), pages 951-959, November.
    6. Khowanas Saeed Qader & Kemal Cek, 2023. "Analysis of the Impact of External Auditors’ Autonomy on Financial Accounting Information Quality Case Study Commercial Banks in Northern Iraq," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-21, June.
    7. Manis, K.T. & Madhavaram, Sreedhar, 2023. "AI-Enabled marketing capabilities and the hierarchy of capabilities: Conceptualization, proposition development, and research avenues," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    8. TANASE, George Cosmin, 2024. "The Integration of Emotional Intelligence into AI Marketing: Connecting Brands with Consumers," Romanian Distribution Committee Magazine, Romanian Distribution Committee, vol. 15(1), pages 29-37, March.
    9. Nourallah, Mustafa, 2023. "One size does not fit all: Young retail investors’ initial trust in financial robo-advisors," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    10. Han, Hongdan & Shiwakoti, Radha K. & Jarvis, Robin & Mordi, Chima & Botchie, David, 2023. "Accounting and auditing with blockchain technology and artificial Intelligence: A literature review," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 48(C).
    11. Zhang, Chao & Zhu, Weidong & Dai, Jun & Wu, Yong & Chen, Xulong, 2023. "Ethical impact of artificial intelligence in managerial accounting," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    12. Serge P. da Motta Veiga & Maria Figueroa-Armijos & Brent B. Clark, 2023. "Seeming Ethical Makes You Attractive: Unraveling How Ethical Perceptions of AI in Hiring Impacts Organizational Innovativeness and Attractiveness," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 186(1), pages 199-216, August.
    13. Kirsten Martin & Ari Waldman, 2023. "Are Algorithmic Decisions Legitimate? The Effect of Process and Outcomes on Perceptions of Legitimacy of AI Decisions," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 183(3), pages 653-670, March.
    14. Shengxing Yang, 2022. "A systematic literature review on the disruptions of artificial intelligence within the business world: in terms of the evolution of competences [Une revue systématique de la littérature sur les bo," Post-Print hal-03694170, HAL.
    15. Arianna Pinello & Ara Volkan & Adam McCord, 2023. "Statement On Auditing Standards 145: Was Stakeholder Feedback Incorporated In The Final Standard?," Accounting & Taxation, The Institute for Business and Finance Research, vol. 15(2), pages 15-29.
    16. Faozi A. Almaqtari, 2024. "The Role of IT Governance in the Integration of AI in Accounting and Auditing Operations," Economies, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-24, August.
    17. Andrea Cardoni & Evgeniia Kiseleva & Francesco De Luca, 2020. "Continuous auditing and data mining for strategic risk control and anticorruption: Creating “fair” value in the digital age," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(8), pages 3072-3085, December.
    18. Di Vaio, Assunta & Hassan, Rohail & Alavoine, Claude, 2022. "Data intelligence and analytics: A bibliometric analysis of human–Artificial intelligence in public sector decision-making effectiveness," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    19. Karim, Mohammed Shamsul & Nahar, Sharmin & Demirbag, Mehmet, 2022. "Resource-Based Perspective on ICT Use and Firm Performance: A Meta-analysis Investigating the Moderating Role of Cross-Country ICT Development Status," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    20. Jake B. Telkamp & Marc H. Anderson, 2022. "The Implications of Diverse Human Moral Foundations for Assessing the Ethicality of Artificial Intelligence," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 178(4), pages 961-976, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    accountability; artificial intelligence; algorithms; project management; ethics;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C33 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables - - - Models with Panel Data; Spatio-temporal Models
    • M15 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Business Administration - - - IT Management
    • O3 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights
    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes
    • Q55 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Technological Innovation

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:vrs:jecman:v:44:y:2022:i:1:p:446-494:n:8. 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: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.sciendo.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.