IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jbuset/v163y2020i2d10.1007_s10551-019-04226-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Alexander Buhmann

    (BI Norwegian Business School)

  • Johannes Paßmann

    (University of Siegen)

  • Christian Fieseler

    (BI Norwegian Business School)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Alexander Buhmann & Johannes Paßmann & Christian Fieseler, 2020. "Managing Algorithmic Accountability: Balancing Reputational Concerns, Engagement Strategies, and the Potential of Rational Discourse," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 163(2), pages 265-280, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:jbuset:v:163:y:2020:i:2:d:10.1007_s10551-019-04226-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s10551-019-04226-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10551-019-04226-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10551-019-04226-4?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. Gilbert, Dirk Ulrich & Rasche, Andreas, 2007. "Discourse Ethics and Social Accountability: The Ethics of SA 8000," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 17(2), pages 187-216, April.
    2. Andreas Georg Scherer & Guido Palazzo & David Seidl, 2013. "Managing Legitimacy in Complex and Heterogeneous Environments: Sustainable Development in a Globalized World," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(2), pages 259-284, March.
    3. Michelle Greenwood, 2007. "Stakeholder Engagement: Beyond the Myth of Corporate Responsibility," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 74(4), pages 315-327, September.
    4. Van Buren, Harry J., 2001. "If Fairness is the Problem, Is Consent the Solution? Integrating ISCT and Stakeholder Theory," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(3), pages 481-499, July.
    5. Busuioc, E. M. & Lodge, Martin, 2017. "Reputation and accountability relationships: managing accountability expectations through reputation," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 67152, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    6. David L. Deephouse & Suzanne M. Carter, 2005. "An Examination of Differences Between Organizational Legitimacy and Organizational Reputation," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(2), pages 329-360, March.
    7. Andreas Rasche & Daniel Esser, 2006. "From Stakeholder Management to Stakeholder Accountability," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 65(3), pages 251-267, May.
    8. 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.
    9. Nadia Bernaz, 2013. "Enhancing Corporate Accountability for Human Rights Violations: Is Extraterritoriality the Magic Potion?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 117(3), pages 493-511, October.
    10. Peter Seele & Irina Lock, 2015. "Instrumental and/or Deliberative? A Typology of CSR Communication Tools," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 131(2), pages 401-414, October.
    11. David Owen & Tracey Swift & Christopher Humphrey & Mary Bowerman, 2000. "The new social audits: accountability, managerial capture or the agenda of social champions?," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(1), pages 81-98.
    12. Guido Palazzo & Andreas Scherer, 2006. "Corporate Legitimacy as Deliberation: A Communicative Framework," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 66(1), pages 71-88, June.
    13. Salvador Carmona & Rafael Donoso & Philip Reckers, 2013. "Timing in Accountability and Trust Relationships," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 112(3), pages 481-495, February.
    14. Gray, Rob, 2002. "The social accounting project and Accounting Organizations and Society Privileging engagement, imaginings, new accountings and pragmatism over critique?," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 27(7), pages 687-708, October.
    15. Suurmond, Guido & Swank, Otto H. & Visser, Bauke, 2004. "On the bad reputation of reputational concerns," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(12), pages 2817-2838, December.
    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. Peter Seele & Mario D. Schultz, 2022. "From Greenwashing to Machinewashing: A Model and Future Directions Derived from Reasoning by Analogy," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 178(4), pages 1063-1089, July.
    2. Florian Pethig & Julia Kroenung, 2023. "Biased Humans, (Un)Biased Algorithms?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 183(3), pages 637-652, March.
    3. Buhmann, Alexander & Fieseler, Christian, 2021. "Towards a deliberative framework for responsible innovation in artificial intelligence," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    4. Pizzi, Gabriele & Vannucci, Virginia & Shukla, Yupal & Aiello, Gaetano, 2022. "Privacy concerns and justice perceptions with the disclosure of biometric versus behavioral data for personalized pricing tell me who you are, I’ll tell you how much you pay. Consumers’ fairness and p," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 420-432.

    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. Dirk Gilbert & Michael Behnam, 2009. "Advancing Integrative Social Contracts Theory: A Habermasian Perspective," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 89(2), pages 215-234, October.
    2. Gordon Liu & Catherine Liston-Heyes & Wai-Wai Ko, 2010. "Employee Participation in Cause-Related Marketing Strategies: A Study of Management Perceptions from British Consumer Service Industries," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 92(2), pages 195-210, March.
    3. Giorgia Miotto & Marc Polo López & Josep Rom Rodríguez, 2019. "Gender Equality and UN Sustainable Development Goals: Priorities and Correlations in the Top Business Schools’ Communication and Legitimation Strategies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-18, January.
    4. Craig Carroll & Rowena Olegario, 2020. "Pathways to Corporate Accountability: Corporate Reputation and Its Alternatives," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 163(2), pages 173-181, May.
    5. Assunta Di Vaio & Luisa Varriale & Angelo Di Gregorio & Samuel Adomako, 2022. "Corporate social performance and non‐financial reporting in the cruise industry: Paving the way towards UN Agenda 2030," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(6), pages 1931-1953, November.
    6. Buhmann, Alexander & Fieseler, Christian, 2021. "Towards a deliberative framework for responsible innovation in artificial intelligence," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    7. Thomas Johansen, 2008. "Employees and the Operation of Accountability," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 83(2), pages 247-263, December.
    8. Maria Giovanna Confetto & Maddalena Della Volpe & Claudia Covucci, 2018. "Dual marketers and sustainability communication. Empirical evidence from corporate websites," MERCATI & COMPETITIVIT?, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2018(3), pages 41-68.
    9. Andreas Rasche & Dorothea Baur & Mariëtte Huijstee & Stephen Ladek & Jayanthi Naidu & Cecilia Perla & Esther Schouten & Michael Valente & Mingrui Zhang, 2008. "Corporations as Political Actors – A Report on the First Swiss Master Class in Corporate Social Responsibility," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 80(2), pages 151-173, June.
    10. Salla Laasonen & Martin Fougère & Arno Kourula, 2012. "Dominant Articulations in Academic Business and Society Discourse on NGO–Business Relations: A Critical Assessment," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 109(4), pages 521-545, September.
    11. Xiaojun Du & Fei Feng & Wei Lv, 2022. "Bibliometric Overview of Organizational Legitimacy Research," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(2), pages 21582440221, May.
    12. Andreas Rasche, 2009. "Toward a model to compare and analyze accountability standards – the case of the UN Global Compact," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(4), pages 192-205, July.
    13. Miotto, Giorgia & Del-Castillo-Feito, Cristina & Blanco-González, Alicia, 2020. "Reputation and legitimacy: Key factors for Higher Education Institutions’ sustained competitive advantage," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 342-353.
    14. Saravanamuthu, Kala & Lehman, Cheryl, 2013. "Enhancing stakeholder interaction through environmental risk accounts," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 24(6), pages 410-437.
    15. Karen Maas & Kellie Liket, 2011. "Talk the Walk: Measuring the Impact of Strategic Philanthropy," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 100(3), pages 445-464, May.
    16. Jia Xu & Jiuchang Wei & Liangdong Lu, 2019. "Strategic stakeholder management, environmental corporate social responsibility engagement, and financial performance of stigmatized firms derived from Chinese special environmental policy," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(6), pages 1027-1044, September.
    17. Samantha Miles, 2017. "Stakeholder Theory Classification: A Theoretical and Empirical Evaluation of Definitions," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 142(3), pages 437-459, May.
    18. Colin Dey, 2007. "Social accounting at Traidcraft plc," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 20(3), pages 423-445, June.
    19. Hadi Al-Abrrow & Jaber Ali & Alhamzah Alnoor, 2022. "Multilevel Influence of Routine Redesigning, Legitimacy and Functional Affordance on Sustainability Accounting: Mediating Role of Organizational Sense-making," Global Business Review, International Management Institute, vol. 23(2), pages 287-312, April.
    20. Zhou, Dan & Kautonen, Mika & Dai, Weiqi & Zhang, Hui, 2021. "Exploring how digitalization influences incumbents in financial services: The role of entrepreneurial orientation, firm assets, and organizational legitimacy," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).

    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:kap:jbuset:v:163:y:2020:i:2:d:10.1007_s10551-019-04226-4. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.