Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Journal of Business Ethics
Erschienen in: Journal of Business Ethics 2/2020

12.06.2019 | Original Paper

Managing Algorithmic Accountability: Balancing Reputational Concerns, Engagement Strategies, and the Potential of Rational Discourse

verfasst von: Alexander Buhmann, Johannes Paßmann, Christian Fieseler

Erschienen in: Journal of Business Ethics | Ausgabe 2/2020

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

While organizations today make extensive use of complex algorithms, the notion of algorithmic accountability remains an elusive ideal due to the opacity and fluidity of algorithms. In this article, we develop a framework for managing algorithmic accountability that highlights three interrelated dimensions: reputational concerns, engagement strategies, and discourse principles. The framework clarifies (a) that accountability processes for algorithms are driven by reputational concerns about the epistemic setup, opacity, and outcomes of algorithms; (b) that the way in which organizations practically engage with emergent expectations about algorithms may be manipulative, adaptive, or moral; and (c) that when accountability relationships are heavily burdened by the opacity and fluidity of complex algorithmic systems, the emphasis of engagement should shift to a rational communication process through which a continuous and tentative assessment of the development, workings, and consequences of algorithms can be achieved over time. The degree to which such engagement is, in fact, rational can be assessed based on four discourse-ethical principles of participation, comprehension, multivocality, and responsiveness. We conclude that the framework may help organizations and their environments to jointly work toward greater accountability for complex algorithms. It may further help organizations in reputational positioning surrounding accountability issues. The discourse-ethical principles introduced in this article are meant to elevate these positioning contests to extend beyond mere adaption or compliance and help guide organizations to find moral and forward-looking solutions to accountability issues.
Vorheriger Artikel Changes in Firms’ Political Investment Opportunities, Managerial Accountability, and Reputational Risk
Nächster Artikel How the Design of CEO Equity-Based Compensation can Lead to Lower Audit Fees: Evidence from Australia

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Fußnoten
2
See, for example, their documentation of a machine learning model for their recipe database: https://​open.​nytimes.​com/​our-tagged-ingredients-data-is-now-on-github-f96e42abaa1c.
 
Literatur
Ananny, M. (2016). Toward an ethics of algorithms: Convening, observation, probability, and timeliness. Science, Technology and Human Values,41(1), 93–117.
Ananny, M., & Crawford, K. (2016). Seeing without knowing: Limitations of the transparency ideal and its application to algorithmic accountability. New Media & Society,3(2), 1–17.
Bachmann, P. (2017). Medienunternehmen und der strategische Umgang mit Media Responsibility und Corporate Social Responsibility. Wiesbaden: Springer.
Barnet, B. A. (2009). Idiomedia: The rise of personalized, aggregated content. Continuum,23(1), 93–99.
Bartlett, J. L., Pallas, J., & Frostenson, M. (2013). Reputation and legitimacy: Accreditation and rankings to assess organizations. In C. E. Carroll (Ed.), The handbook of communication and corporate reputation (pp. 530–544). Malden, MA: Wiley.
Beck, M. (2016). Can a death-predicting algorithm improve care? Wall Street Journal, 2. December 2016.
Beer, D. (2009). Power through the algorithm? Participatory web cultures and the technological unconscious. New Media & Society,11(6), 985–1002.
Borgman, C. L. (2015). Big data, little data, no data: Scholarship in the networked world. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bovens, M. (2007). Analysing and assessing accountability: A conceptual framework. European Law Journal,13(4), 447–468.
Bovens, M. (2010). Two concepts of accountability: Accountability as a virtue and as a mechanism. West European Politics,33(5), 946–967.
Burrell, J. (2016). How the machine ‘thinks’: Understanding opacity in machine learning algorithms. Big Data & Society,3(1), 1–17.
Busuioc, M. (2013). European agencies: Law and practices of accountability. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Busuioc, M., & Lodge, M. (2017). Reputation and accountability relationships: Managing accountability expectation through reputation. Public Administration Review,77(1), 99–100.
Carlson, M. (2015). The robotic reporter. Digital Journalism,3(3), 416–431.
Colquitt, J., & George, G. (2011). Publishing in AMJ. Part one: topic choice. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 432–435.
Coombs, T. W. (2013). Situational theory of crisis: Situational crisis communication theory and corporate reputation. In C. E. Carroll (Ed.), The handbook of communication and corporate reputation (pp. 262–278). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Crawford, K. (2016). Can an algorithm be agonistic? Ten scenes from life in calculated publics. Science, Technology and Human Values,41(1), 77–92.
Danna, A., & Gandy, O. H. (2002). All that glitters is not gold: Digging beneath the surface of data mining. Journal of Business Ethics,40(4), 373–386.
Datta, A., Sen, S., & Zick, Y. (2016, May). Algorithmic transparency via quantitative input influence: Theory and experiments with learning systems. In 2016 IEEE symposium on security and privacy (SP) (pp. 598–617). IEEE.
Desmarais, S. L., & Singh, J. P. (2013). Risk assessment instruments validated and implemented in correctional settings in the United States. Council of State Governments: Lexington.
Diakopoulos. N. (2013). Algorithmic defamation: The case of the shameless autocomplete. Tow Center.
Diakopoulos, N. (2015). Algorithmic accountability. Digital Journalism,3(3), 398–415.
Diakopoulos, N., & Koliska, M. (2017). Algorithmic transparency in the news media. Digital Journalism,5(7), 809–828.
Dörr, K. N., & Hollnbuchner, K. (2017). Ethical challenges of algorithmic journalism. Digital Journalism,5(4), 404–419.
Doshi-Velez, F., & Kortz, M. (2017). Accountability of AI under the law: The role of explanation. Berkman Klein Center Working Group on explanation and the law, Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society working paper.
Eisenegger, M., & Imhof, K. (2008). The true, the good and the beautiful: Reputation management in the media society. In A. Zerfaß, B. V. Ruler, & K. Sriramesh (Eds.), Public relations research: European and international perspectives and innovations (pp. 125–146). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.
Ferraro, F., Etzion, D., & Gehman, J. (2015). Tackling grand challenges pragmatically: robust action revisited. Organization Studies, 36(3), 363–390.
Floridi, L. (2012). Big data and their epistemological challenge. Philosophy & Technology,25(4), 435–437.
French, W., Zeiss, H., & Scherer, A. G. (2001). Intercultural discourse ethics: Testing Trompenaars’ and Hampden-Turner’s conclusions about Americans and the French. Journal of Business Ethics,34(3–4), 145–159.
Garber, M. (2016). When algorithms take the stand. The Atlantic. June 30, 2016.
Gilbert, D. U., & Rasche, A. (2007). Discourse ethics and social accountability: The ethics of SA 8000. Business Ethics Quarterly,17(2), 187–216.
Gillespie, T. (2014). The relevance of algorithms. In T. Gillespie, P. J. Boczkowski, & K. A. Foot (Eds.), Media technologies. Essays on communication, materiality, and society (pp. 167–194). Cambrdige/MA: MIT Press.
Glenn, T., & Monteith, S. (2014). Privacy in the digital world: Medical and health data outside of HIPAA protections. Current Psychiatry Reports, 16(11), 494, 1–11.
Graham, S. D. N. (2016). Software-sorted geographies. Progress in Human Geography, 29(5), 562–580.
Greenwood, M. (2007). Stakeholder engagement: Beyond the myth of corporate responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics,74(4), 315–327.
Habermas, J. (1999). Moral consciousness and communicative action (C. Lenhardt & S. W. Nicholsen, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Habermas, J. (2006). Political communication in media society: Does democracy still enjoy an epistemic dimension? The impact of normative theory on empirical research. Communication Theory,16(4), 411–426.
Hildebrandt, M. (2008). Profiling and the rule of law. Identity in the Information Society,1(1), 55–70.
Karpoff, J. M. (2012). Does reputation work to discipline corporate conduct? In M. L. Barnett & T. G. Pollock (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of corporate reputation (pp. 361–382). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kim, M., Bergman, L., Lau, T., & Notkin, D. (2004). An ethnographic study of copy and paste programming practices in OOPL. In 2004 international symposium on empirical software engineering, 2004. ISESE’04. Proceedings (pp. 83–92). IEEE.
Kim, H., Giacomin, J., & Macredie, R. (2014). A qualitative study of stakeholders’ perspectives on the social network service environment. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction,30(12), 965–976.
Leese, M. (2014). The new profiling: Algorithms, black boxes, and the failure of anti-discriminatory safeguards in the European Union. Security Dialogue,45(5), 494–511.
Marr, D. (1982). Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman & Company.
Mingers, J., & Walsham, G. (2010). Toward ethical information systems: The contribution of discourse ethics. MIS Quarterly,34(4), 833–885.
Minsky, M. (1967). Why programming is a good medium for expressing poorly understood and sloppily formulated ideas. In M. Krampen & P. Seitz (Eds.), Design and planning II-computers in design and communication (pp. 120–125). New York: Hastings House Publishers.
Mittelstadt, B. (2016). Auditing for transparency in content personalization systems. International Journal of Communication,10, 4991–5002.
Montal, T., & Reich, Z. (2017). I, Robot. You, Journalist. Who is the Author? Authorship, bylines and full disclosure in automated journalism. Digital Journalism,5(7), 829–849.
Nanz, P., & Steffek, J. (2005). Assessing the democratic quality of deliberation in international governance: Criteria and research strategies. Acta Politica,40, 368–383.
Naughton, J. (2016). Opinion, even algorithms are biased against black men. The Guardian. June 26, 2016.
Niemi, J. I. (2008). The foundations of Jürgen Habermas’s discourse ethics. The Journal of Value Inquiry,42(2), 255–268.
Nissenbaum, H. (2011). A contextual approach to privacy online. Dædalus, the Journal of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences,140(4), 32–48.
Norris, P. (2014). Watchdog journalism. In M. Bovens, R. E. Goodin, & T. Schillemans (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public accountability. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Paßmann, J., & Boersma, A. (2017). Unknowing algorithms. On transparency of un-openable black boxes. In K. van Es & M. T. Schäfer (Eds.), The Datafied Society. Studying Culture through Data (pp. 139–146). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Palazzo, G., & Scherer, A. G. (2006). Corporate legitimacy as deliberation: A communicative framework. Journal of Business Ethics,66(1), 71–88.
Pasquale, F. (2010). Beyond innovation and competition: The need for qualified transparency in internet intermediaries. Northwestern University Law Review,104, 105.
Pasquale, F. (2015). The black box society: The secret algorithms that control money and information. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Passig, K. (2017). Fünfzig Jahre black box. Merkur. Gegründet 1947 als Deutsche Zeitschrift für europäisches Denken,823(12), 16–30.
Posner, L., & Shahan, A. (2014). Audit institutions. In M. Bovens, R. E. Goodin, & T. Schillemans (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public accountability. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rasche, A., & Esser, D. (2006). From stakeholder management to stakeholder accountability applying habermasian discourse ethics to accountability research. Journal of Business Ethics,65(3), 251–267.
Romenti, S. (2010). Reputation and stakeholder engagement: An Italian case study. Journal of Communication Management,14(4), 306–318.
Sandvig, C., Hamilton, K., Karahalios, K., & Langbort, C. (2014a). An algorithm audit. In S. P. Gangadharan (Ed.), Data and discrimination: Collected essays (pp. 6–10). Washington, DC: New America Foundation.
Sandvig, C., Hamilton, K., Karahalios, K., & Langbort, C. (2014b). Auditing algorithms: Research methods for detecting discrimination on internet platforms. Paper presented to “Data and discrimination: Converting critical concerns into productive inquiry”, a preconference at the 64th annual meeting of the international communication association. May 22, 2014, Seattle, WA, USA.
Scurich, N., & Monahan, J. (2016). Evidence-based sentencing: Public openness and opposition to using gender, age, and race as risk factors for recidivism. Law and Human Behavior,40(1), 36.
Seele, P., & Lock, I. (2015). Instrumental and/or deliberative? A typology of CSR communication tools. Journal of Business Ethics,131(2), 401–414.
Smith, M. (2016). In Wisconsin, a backlash against using data to foretell defendants’ Futures. NY Times. June 22, 2016.
Stalder, F. (2016). Kultur der Digitalität. Berlin: Suhrkamp.
Stark, M., & Fins, J. J. (2013). What’s not being shared in shared decision making? Hastings Center Report,43(4), 13–16.
Steenbergen, M. R., Bachtiger, A., Sporndli, M., & Steiner, J. (2003). Measuring political deliberation: A discourse quality index. Comparative European Politics,1(1), 21–48.
Swift, T. (2001). Trust, reputation and corporate accountability to stakeholders. Business Ethics, a European Review,10(1), 16–26.
Van Buren, H. J. (2001). If fairness is the problem, is consent the solution? Integrating ISCT and stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly,11(3), 481–499.CrossRef
Van de Walle, S., & Cornelissen, F. (2014). Performance reporting. In M. Bovens, R. E. Goodin, & T. Schillemans (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public accountability. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Van Otterlo, M. (2013). A machine learning view on profiling. In M. Hildebrant & K. de Vries (Eds.), Privacy, due process and the computational turn: Philosophers of law meet philosophers of technology (pp. 46–64). London, UK: Routledge.
Wiener, N. (1960). Some moral and technical consequences of automation. Science,131, 1355–1358.
Wojciechowski, B. (2010). Discourse ethics as a basis of the application of law. In J. Jemielniak & P. Miklaszewicz (Eds.), Interpretation of law in the global world: From particularism to a universal approach (pp. 53–69). Berlin: Springer.
Zarsky, T. (2016). The trouble with algorithmic decisions an analytic road map to examine efficiency and fairness in automated and opaque decision making. Science, Technology and Human Values,41(1), 118–132.
Metadaten
Titel
Managing Algorithmic Accountability: Balancing Reputational Concerns, Engagement Strategies, and the Potential of Rational Discourse
verfasst von
Alexander Buhmann
Johannes Paßmann
Christian Fieseler
Publikationsdatum
12.06.2019
Verlag
Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in
Journal of Business Ethics / Ausgabe 2/2020
Print ISSN: 0167-4544
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-0697
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04226-4

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2020

Journal of Business Ethics 2/2020 Zur Ausgabe

Editorial Essay

Pathways to Corporate Accountability: Corporate Reputation and Its Alternatives

Original Paper

How the Design of CEO Equity-Based Compensation can Lead to Lower Audit Fees: Evidence from Australia

Original Paper

Investor-Paid Ratings and Conflicts of Interest

Original Paper

Is Corporate Tax Aggressiveness a Reputation Threat? Corporate Accountability, Corporate Social Responsibility, and Corporate Tax Behavior

Original Paper

Changes in Firms’ Political Investment Opportunities, Managerial Accountability, and Reputational Risk

Original Paper

Orientation Toward Key Non-family Stakeholders and Economic Performance in Family Firms: The Role of Family Identification with the Firm