IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/telpol/v44y2020i6s0308596120300537.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Societal and ethical impacts of artificial intelligence: Critical notes on European policy frameworks

Author

Listed:
  • Vesnic-Alujevic, Lucia
  • Nascimento, Susana
  • Pólvora, Alexandre

Abstract

This paper offers a critical review on conditions and impacts of AI/ML in society, with a dedicated overview of the European AI policy framework. Through the analysis of policy papers produced by European institutions, European national governments and other organisations situated between research and policy-making, we bring an overarching outlook of key ethical and societal issues currently under discussion at the intersection of European policy agendas and recent literature on the topic. Our findings show that 21 analysed documents look both at individual and societal impacts, with their understanding generally aligned in calls for more responsibility, accountability, transparency, safety or trust. Furthermore, our findings also point to the necessity of more integrated approaches between governments, industry and academia stakeholders, and above all, to the need of applied multidisciplinary frameworks, supported by both anticipatory outlooks and public engagement exercises able to tackle the often excessive technicality of the debate.

Suggested Citation

  • Vesnic-Alujevic, Lucia & Nascimento, Susana & Pólvora, Alexandre, 2020. "Societal and ethical impacts of artificial intelligence: Critical notes on European policy frameworks," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(6).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:telpol:v:44:y:2020:i:6:s0308596120300537
    DOI: 10.1016/j.telpol.2020.101961
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308596120300537
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.telpol.2020.101961?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. K. Matthias Weber & Jennifer Cassingena Harper & Totti Könnölä & Vicente Carabias Barceló, 2012. "Coping with a fast-changing world: Towards new systems of future-oriented technology analysis," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 39(2), pages 153-165, February.
    2. Richard Owen & Phil Macnaghten & Jack Stilgoe, 2012. "Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 39(6), pages 751-760, December.
    3. Bernd Carsten Stahl & Job Timmermans & Catherine Flick, 2017. "Ethics of Emerging Information and Communication Technologies," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 44(3), pages 369-381.
    4. Edwards, Lilian & Veale, Michael, 2017. "Slave to the Algorithm? Why a 'right to an explanation' is probably not the remedy you are looking for," LawArXiv 97upg, Center for Open Science.
    5. Rachel Courtland, 2018. "Bias detectives: the researchers striving to make algorithms fair," Nature, Nature, vol. 558(7710), pages 357-360, June.
    6. Alessandro Annoni & Peter Benczur & Paolo Bertoldi & Blagoj Delipetrev & Giuditta De Prato & Claudio Feijoo & Enrique Fernandez Macias & Emilia Gomez Gutierrez & Maria Iglesias Portela & Henrik Junkle, 2018. "Artificial Intelligence: A European Perspective," JRC Research Reports JRC113826, Joint Research Centre.
    7. Coeckelbergh, Mark, 2018. "Technology and the good society: A polemical essay on social ontology, political principles, and responsibility for technology," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 4-9.
    8. Stilgoe, Jack & Owen, Richard & Macnaghten, Phil, 2013. "Developing a framework for responsible innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1568-1580.
    9. Veale, Michael & Van Kleek, Max & Binns, Reuben, 2018. "Fairness and Accountability Design Needs for Algorithmic Support in High-Stakes Public Sector Decision-Making," SocArXiv 8kvf4, Center for Open Science.
    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. Lucia Vesnic‐Alujevic, 2021. "Imagining democratic societies of the future: Insights from a foresight study," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(1), March.
    2. Wilson, Christopher & van der Velden, Maja, 2022. "Sustainable AI: An integrated model to guide public sector decision-making," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    3. Gregor Wolbring, 2022. "Auditing the ‘Social’ of Quantum Technologies: A Scoping Review," Societies, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-38, March.
    4. Mochen Liao & Kai Lan & Yuan Yao, 2022. "Sustainability implications of artificial intelligence in the chemical industry: A conceptual framework," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 26(1), pages 164-182, February.
    5. Mukherjee, Abheek Anjan & Raj, Alok & Aggarwal, Shikha, 2023. "Identification of barriers and their mitigation strategies for industry 5.0 implementation in emerging economies," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 257(C).
    6. Inga Ulnicane & William Knight & Tonii Leach & Bernd Carsten Stahl & Winter-Gladys Wanjiku, 2021. "Framing governance for a contested emerging technology:insights from AI policy [The next space race is Artificial Intelligence]," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 40(2), pages 158-177.
    7. Vasiliki Koniakou, 2023. "From the “rush to ethics” to the “race for governance” in Artificial Intelligence," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 71-102, February.

    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. Buhmann, Alexander & Fieseler, Christian, 2021. "Towards a deliberative framework for responsible innovation in artificial intelligence," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    2. Paredes-Frigolett, Harold, 2016. "Modeling the effect of responsible research and innovation in quadruple helix innovation systems," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 126-133.
    3. Anja Salzmann & Frode Guribye & Astrid Gynnild, 2021. "Mobile Journalists as Traceable Data Objects: Surveillance Capitalism and Responsible Innovation in Mobile Journalism," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9(2), pages 130-139.
    4. Reichelt, Nicole & Nettle, Ruth, 2023. "Practice insights for the responsible adoption of smart farming technologies using a participatory technology assessment approach: The case of virtual herding technology in Australia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 206(C).
    5. Genus, Audley & Iskandarova, Marfuga, 2018. "Responsible innovation: its institutionalisation and a critique," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 1-9.
    6. Timotijevic, Lada & Khan, Shumaisa S. & Raats, Monique & Braun, Susanne, 2019. "Research priority setting in food and health domain: European stakeholder beliefs about legitimacy criteria and processes," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 116-124.
    7. Sophie Bacq & Ruth V. Aguilera, 2022. "Stakeholder Governance for Responsible Innovation: A Theory of Value Creation, Appropriation, and Distribution," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(1), pages 29-60, January.
    8. van Geenhuizen, Marina & Ye, Qing, 2014. "Responsible innovators: open networks on the way to sustainability transitions," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 28-40.
    9. Jakob Edler & Jan Fagerberg, 2017. "Innovation policy: what, why, and how," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 33(1), pages 2-23.
    10. Glover, Dominic & Poole, Nigel, 2019. "Principles of innovation to build nutrition-sensitive food systems in South Asia," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 63-73.
    11. Sara H. Wilford, 2018. "First Line Steps in Requirements Identification for Guidelines Development in Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI)," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 31(5), pages 539-556, October.
    12. Kwon, Seokbeom & Liu, Xiaoyu & Porter, Alan L. & Youtie, Jan, 2019. "Research addressing emerging technological ideas has greater scientific impact," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    13. Carbajo, Ruth & Cabeza, Luisa F., 2018. "Renewable energy research and technologies through responsible research and innovation looking glass: Reflexions, theoretical approaches and contemporary discourses," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 792-808.
    14. Sophie Pellé & Bernard Reber, 2015. "Responsible Innovation in the Light of Moral Responsibility," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) hal-01418017, HAL.
    15. Fisher, Erik, 2019. "Governing with ambivalence: The tentative origins of socio-technical integration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(5), pages 1138-1149.
    16. Bernd Carsten Stahl & Job Timmermans & Catherine Flick, 2017. "Ethics of Emerging Information and Communication Technologies," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 44(3), pages 369-381.
    17. Miklós Lukovics & Beáta Udvari & Nikoletta Nádas & Erik Fisher, 2019. "Raising Awareness of Researchers-in-the-Making Toward Responsible Research and Innovation," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 10(4), pages 1558-1577, December.
    18. Buzás, Norbert & Lukovics, Miklós, 2015. "A felelősségteljes innovációról [On responsible innovation]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(4), pages 438-456.
    19. Yang, Kun & Wang, Wan & Xiong, Wan, 2021. "Promoting the sustainable development of infrastructure projects through responsible innovation: An evolutionary game analysis," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    20. Carbajo, Ruth & Cabeza, Luisa F., 2021. "Researchers perception regarding socio-technical approaches implementation in their own research. Thermal energy storage researchers as example," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).

    More about this item

    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:eee:telpol:v:44:y:2020:i:6:s0308596120300537. 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/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/30471/description#description .

    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.