Responsible innovation in artificial intelligence calls for public deliberation: well-informed “deep democratic” debate that involves actors from the public, private, and civil society sectors in joint efforts to critically address the goals and means of AI. Adopting such an approach constitutes a challenge, however, due to the opacity of AI and strong knowledge boundaries between experts and citizens. This undermines trust in AI and undercuts key conditions for deliberation. We approach this challenge as a problem of situating the knowledge of (...) actors from the AI industry within a deliberative system. We develop a new framework of responsibilities for AI innovation as well as a deliberative governance approach for enacting these responsibilities. In elucidating this approach, we show how actors from the AI industry can most effectively engage with experts and nonexperts in different social venues to facilitate well-informed judgments on opaque AI systems and thus effectuate their democratic governance. (shrink)

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 that accountability processes for algorithms are driven by reputational concerns about the epistemic setup, opacity, and outcomes of algorithms; that the way in which organizations practically engage with emergent (...) expectations about algorithms may be manipulative, adaptive, or moral; and 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. (shrink)

Governments are particularly salient stakeholders for business ethics. They act on societal needs and social expectations, and have the political and legal powers to restrict or expand the economic freedoms of business as well as the legitimacy and often urgency to do so. We draw on two examples: the Business & Human Rights regime from a UN Global Compact perspective; and mandatory CSR reporting. Supplying integrated teaching notes and generalising on the examples, we explain how legal method may help students (...) of business ethics, organisation and management – future managers – in their analysis of governments as stakeholders and their interests that drive expectations on firms. With a focus on analysis for responding adequately to stakeholder concerns,this article contributes to the emerging literature recognising the relevance of public regulation for CSR. More specifically, we contribute to the business ethics literature by explaining how legal method complements stakeholder theory for organisational practice. (shrink)

The social licence to operate concept is little developed in the academic literature so far. Deployment of the term was made by the United National Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the UN ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy’ Framework, which apply SLO as an argument for responsible business conduct, connecting to social expectations and bridging to public regulation. This UN guidance has had a significant bearing on how public regulators seek to influence business conduct beyond Human Rights to broader (...) Corporate Social Responsibility concerns. Drawing on examples of such public regulatory governance, this article explores and explains developments towards a juridification of CSR entailing efforts by public regulators to reach beyond jurisdictional and territorial limitations of conventional public law to address adverse effects of transnational economic activity. Through analysis of an expansion of law into the normative framing of what constitutes responsible business conduct, we demonstrate a process of juridification entailing a legal framing of social expectations of companies, a proliferation of law into the field of business ethics, and an increased regulation by law of social actors or processes. (shrink)

In 2011 it emerged that to induce the death penalty, United States authorities had begun giving injections of pentobarbital, a substance provided by Danish pharmaceutical company Lundbeck. Lundbeck's product pentobarbital is licensed for treatment of refractory forms of epilepsy and for usage as an anaesthetic, thus for a very different purpose. The Lundbeck case offers a difficult, but also interesting Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) dilemma between choices facing a pharmaceutical company to stop the distribution of a medical substance in order (...) to avoid complicity in human rights violations, or to retain distribution of the substance in order not to impede access to the medicine for those patients who need it. The dilemma arose at a time when the United Nations (UN) Secretary General's Special Representative on Business and Human Rights, Professor John Ruggie, was finalizing a set of Guiding Principles to operationalize recommendations on business and human rights that he had presented to the UN Human Rights Council in 2008. The article discusses the dilemma in which Lundbeck was placed in from the perspective of the Guiding Principles on business and human rights and the 2008 Protect, Respect, Remedy UN Framework. The analysis seeks to assess what guidance may be gauged from the Guiding Principles in relation to the dilemma at hand and discusses the adequacy the Guiding Principles for dealing with acute human rights dilemmas of conflicting requirements in which a decision to avoid one type of violation risks causing violation of another human right. The article concludes by drawing up perspectives for further development of guidance on implementation of the UN Framework that could be considered by the newly established Working Group on Business and Human Rights and related UN bodies. (shrink)

In early 2011, news emerged that United States authorities had begun to apply injections of pentobarbital, a substance provided by Danish pharmaceutical company Lundbeck, when executing capital punishments. Lundbeck reported to be appalled by such unintended usage of pentobarbital, which is licensed for treatment of refractory forms of epilepsy and for usage as an anaesthetic.The human rights NGOs Reprieve and Amnesty International urged Lundbeck to ensure that pentobarbital was not made available to U.S. authorities for use in capital punishments. Lundbeck (...) argued that complete halting of provision of pentobarbital would be detrimental to patients suffering from conditions of severe epilepsy for whom the substance was developed and intended for treatment for life-threatening epileptic seizures. Lundbeck’s Danish headquarters also argued that controlling the provision of pentobarbital was out of Danish Lundbeck’s hands because the substance is produced at Lundbeck’s plant in the United States. Eventually, after talks with Amnesty International and Reprieve, Lundbeck in July 2011 announced that it would seek to put a stop to using pentobarbital in capital punishment through the introduction of a “drop-ship” program. (shrink)

In Gennany politicians, scholars of education and joumalists plead for a new attention to values. Butthereis no comrnon sense, that theology should refer to values at all. The author argues, that christian freedorn should be transfonned to ethical values, that rneans to goods, duties and virtues in order to become a »wertvolle Freiheit«. Looking back to the history of educational science, one of the fundamental dirnensions of education always was ethical education. Today such ethical education should concentrate at the practice (...) of the different aspects of christian freedorn: Beginning with the experiences of the gift of freedorn and Iove, freedom needs promising visions of God's kingdom and justice and rnust be trained as cornrnunicating and cooperative freedorn in responsibility for each other. The rnethods of religious education in school and parish should consider all those dirnensions of freedorn. But first of all, the structures of educational institutions have tobe in accordance to those visions of freedorn. (shrink)

In this study we empirically map the field of media and communication studies by focusing on relationships between cognitive dimensions on the one hand and material dimensions on the other. Our analysis, which focuses on the field of MCS in Switzerland, identifies two clusters of research institutions representing distinct strands of research in the field. Results show how these two strands differ in terms of their resource base, institutional positioning and recognition, teaching and transfer activities, as well as activities of (...) scientific production. Similarities and differences in these dimensions serve to explain the general evolution of the field. (shrink)