IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v281y2020i3p491-501.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploring the ethical implications of business analytics with a business ethics canvas

Author

Listed:
  • Vidgen, Richard
  • Hindle, Giles
  • Randolph, Ian

Abstract

The ethical aspects of data science and artificial intelligence have become a major issue. Organisations that deploy data scientists and operational researchers (OR) must address the ethical implications of their use of data and algorithms. We review the OR and data science literature on ethics and find that this work is pitched at the level of guiding principles and frameworks and fails to provide a practical and grounded approach that can be used by practitioners as part of the analytics development process. Further, given the advent of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) an ethical dimension is likely to become an increasingly important aspect of analytics development. Drawing on the business analytics methodology (BAM) developed by Hindle and Vidgen (2018) we tackle this challenge through action research with a pseudonymous online travel company, EuroTravel. The method that emerges uses an opportunity canvas and a business ethics canvas to explore value creation and ethical aspects jointly. The business ethics canvas draws on the Markkula Center's five ethical principles (utility, rights, justice, common good, and virtue) to which explicit consideration of stakeholders is added. A contribution of the paper is to show how an ethical dimension can be embedded in the everyday exploration of analytics development opportunities, as distinct from a stand-alone ethical decision-making tool or as an overlay of a general set of guiding principles. We also propose that value and ethics should not be viewed as separate entities, rather they should be seen as inseparable and intertwined.

Suggested Citation

  • Vidgen, Richard & Hindle, Giles & Randolph, Ian, 2020. "Exploring the ethical implications of business analytics with a business ethics canvas," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 281(3), pages 491-501.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:281:y:2020:i:3:p:491-501
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2019.04.036
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037722171930373X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ejor.2019.04.036?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. Wang, Wei & Liu, Wenbin & Mingers, John, 2015. "A systemic method for organisational stakeholder identification and analysis using Soft Systems Methodology (SSM)," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 246(2), pages 562-574.
    2. W Ulrich, 2007. "Philosophy for professionals: towards critical pragmatism," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 58(8), pages 1109-1113, August.
    3. Ralph L. Keeney, 1994. "Using Values in Operations Research," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 42(5), pages 793-813, October.
    4. Ormerod, Richard J. & Ulrich, Werner, 2013. "Operational research and ethics: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(2), pages 291-307.
    5. Mitroff, Ian I. & Linstone, Harold A., 1993. "The unbounded mind: Breaking the chains of traditional business thinking," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 88-89.
    6. Hindle, Giles A. & Vidgen, Richard, 2018. "Developing a business analytics methodology: A case study in the foodbank sector," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 268(3), pages 836-851.
    7. Rouwette, Etiënne & van Kranenburg, Hans & Freeman, Edward, 2017. "Reviewing the role of stakeholders in Operational Research: A stakeholder theory perspectiveAuthor-Name: de Gooyert, Vincent," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 262(2), pages 402-410.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Koen W. de Bock & Kristof Coussement & Arno De Caigny & Roman Slowiński & Bart Baesens & Robert N Boute & Tsan-Ming Choi & Dursun Delen & Mathias Kraus & Stefan Lessmann & Sebastián Maldonado & David , 2023. "Explainable AI for Operational Research: A Defining Framework, Methods, Applications, and a Research Agenda," Post-Print hal-04219546, HAL.
    2. Xueling Li & Yujie Long & Meixi Fan & Yong Chen, 2022. "Drilling down artificial intelligence in entrepreneurial management: A bibliometric perspective," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(3), pages 379-396, May.
    3. Bonsón, Enrique & Bednárová, Michaela & Perea, David, 2023. "Disclosures about algorithmic decision making in the corporate reports of Western European companies," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 48(C).
    4. Tarcia Camily Cavalcante Quezado & Nuno Fortes & William Quezado Figueiredo Cavalcante, 2022. "The Influence of Corporate Social Responsibility and Business Ethics on Brand Fidelity: The Importance of Brand Love and Brand Attitude," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-20, March.
    5. Wullianallur Raghupathi & Viju Raghupathi, 2021. "Contemporary Business Analytics: An Overview," Data, MDPI, vol. 6(8), pages 1-11, August.
    6. Colak, Ozlem & Enoch, Marcus & Morton, Craig, 2023. "Airport business models and the COVID-19 pandemic: An exploration of the UK case study," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    7. Akter, Shahriar & Motamarri, Saradhi & Hani, Umme & Shams, Riad & Fernando, Mario & Mohiuddin Babu, Mujahid & Ning Shen, Kathy, 2020. "Building dynamic service analytics capabilities for the digital marketplace," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 177-188.

    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. Johnson, Michael P. & Midgley, Gerald & Chichirau, George, 2018. "Emerging trends and new frontiers in community operational research," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 268(3), pages 1178-1191.
    2. Ormerod, Richard J. & Ulrich, Werner, 2013. "Operational research and ethics: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(2), pages 291-307.
    3. Meinard, Y. & Cailloux, O., 2020. "On justifying the norms underlying decision support," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 285(3), pages 1002-1010.
    4. Richard John Ormerod, 2021. "Pragmatism in professional practice," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(6), pages 797-816, November.
    5. Mingers, John, 2015. "Helping business schools engage with real problems: The contribution of critical realism and systems thinking," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 242(1), pages 316-331.
    6. Hugo Herrera & Nuno Videira & Hubert P.L.M. Korzilius & Kathya Lorena Cordova‐Pozo & Marleen H.F. McCardle‐Keurentjes, 2022. "Reflecting on factors influencing long‐lasting organisational effects of group model‐building interventions," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 38(2), pages 190-209, April.
    7. Francis Marleau Donais & Irène Abi-Zeid & E. Owen D. Waygood & Roxane Lavoie, 2021. "A Framework for Post-Project Evaluation of Multicriteria Decision Aiding Processes from the Stakeholders’ Perspective: Design and Application," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(5), pages 1161-1191, October.
    8. Ormerod, R.J., 2014. "Critical rationalism in practice: Strategies to manage subjectivity in OR investigations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 235(3), pages 784-797.
    9. Ulrike Reisach, 2016. "The creation of meaning and critical ethical reflection in operational research," EURO Journal on Decision Processes, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 4(1), pages 5-32, June.
    10. Giat, Yahel & Manes, Eran, 2023. "Firm response to ethically motivated boycotts," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 305(1), pages 300-311.
    11. Schembri, Joe & Tang, Yee Kwan & Fletcher, Margaret & Dimitratos, Pavlos, 2019. "How do European trade promotion organisations manage their stakeholders?," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 1-1.
    12. Dimitrios Gouglas & Kendall Hoyt & Elizabeth Peacocke & Aristidis Kaloudis & Trygve Ottersen & John-Arne Røttingen, 2019. "Setting Strategic Objectives for the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations: An Exploratory Decision Analysis Process," Service Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(6), pages 430-446, November.
    13. Georgios K. Vasios & Andreas Y. Troumbis & Yiannis Zevgolis & Maria N. Hatziantoniou & Marios F. Balis, 2019. "Environmental choices in the era of ecological modernization: siting of common interest facilities as a multi-alternative decision field problem in insular setups," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 49-64, March.
    14. Elena Bakhanova & Jaime A. Garcia & William L. Raffe & Alexey Voinov, 2023. "Gamification Framework for Participatory Modeling: A Proposal," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 32(5), pages 1167-1182, October.
    15. Steven Way & Yufei Yuan, 2014. "Transitioning From Dynamic Decision Support to Context-Aware Multi-Party Coordination: A Case for Emergency Response," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 649-672, July.
    16. Meinard, Y. & Tsoukiàs, A., 2019. "On the rationality of decision aiding processes," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 273(3), pages 1074-1084.
    17. Carayannis, Elias G. & Grigoroudis, Evangelos & Wurth, Bernd, 2022. "OR for entrepreneurial ecosystems: A problem-oriented review and agenda," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 300(3), pages 791-808.
    18. Søren H. Wenstøp & Fred Wenstøp, 2016. "Operational research virtues in the face of climate change," EURO Journal on Decision Processes, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 4(1), pages 53-72, June.
    19. Daniel, S. E. & Diakoulaki, D. C. & Pappis, C. P., 1997. "Operations research and environmental planning," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 248-263, October.
    20. Calabrese, Armando & Costa, Roberta & Levialdi, Nathan & Menichini, Tamara, 2019. "Integrating sustainability into strategic decision-making: A fuzzy AHP method for the selection of relevant sustainability issues," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 155-168.

    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:eee:ejores:v:281:y:2020:i:3:p:491-501. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    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.