Following the surge of documents laying out organizations' ethical principles for their use of artificial intelligence (AI), there is a growing demand for translating ethical principles to practice through AI governance (AIG). AIG has emerged as a rapidly growing, yet fragmented, research area. This paper synthesizes the organizational AIG literature by outlining research themes and knowledge gaps as well as putting forward future agendas.

Personal autonomy is at the core of liberal societies, and its preservation has been a focus of European Union (EU) consumer and data protection law. Professionals increasingly use artificial intelligence in consumer markets to shape user preferences and influence their behaviours. This paper focuses on the long-term impact of artificial intelligence on consumer autonomy by studying three specific commercial practices: (1) dark patterns in user interfaces; (2) behavioural advertising; and (3) personalisation through recommender systems. It explores whether and to what extent EU regulation addresses the risks to consumer autonomy of using artificial intelligence in markets in the long term. It finds that new EU regulation does bring novelties to protect consumer autonomy in this context but fails to sufficiently consider the long-term consequences of autonomy capture by professionals. Finally, the paper makes several proposals to integrate the long-term risks affecting consumer autonomy in EU consumer and data protection regulation. It does so through an interdisciplinary approach, drawing from legal research and findings in the study of long-term thinking, philosophy and ethics and computer science.

This article explores the cooperation of government and the private sector to tackle the ethical dimension of artificial intelligence (AI). The argument draws on the institutionalist approach in philosophy and business ethics defending a ‘division of moral labor’ between governments and the private sector (Rawls 2001; Scheffler and Munoz-Dardé 2005). The goal and main contribution of this article is to explain how this approach can provide ethical guidelines to the AI industry and to highlight the limits of self-regulation. In what follows, I discuss three institutionalist claims. First, principles of AI ethics should be validated through legitimate democratic processes. Second, compliance with these principles should be secured in a stable way. Third, their implementation in practice should be as efficient as possible. If we accept these claims, there are good reasons to conclude that, in many cases, governments implementing hard regulation are in principle (if not yet in practice) the best instruments to secure an ethical development of AI systems. Where adequate regulation exists, firms should respect the law. But when regulation does not yet exist, helping governments build adequate regulation should be businesses’ ethical priority, not self-regulation.

Artificial intelligence (AI) research and regulation seek to balance the benefits of innovation against any potential harms and disruption. However, one unintended consequence of the recent surge in AI research is the potential re-orientation of AI technologies to facilitate criminal acts, term in this article AI-Crime (AIC). AIC is theoretically feasible thanks to published experiments in automating fraud targeted at social media users, as well as demonstrations of AI-driven manipulation of simulated markets. However, because AIC is still a relatively young and inherently interdisciplinary area-spanning socio-legal studies to formal science-there is little certainty of what an AIC future might look like. This article offers the first systematic, interdisciplinary literature analysis of the foreseeable threats of AIC, providing ethicists, policy-makers, and law enforcement organisations with a synthesis of the current problems, and a possible solution space.

In times of organizational change leaders often tell stories that justify publicly the directions in which organizations move. Such stories are always political in nature and often reflect the motives of the storyteller. We observe how leaders in high‐tech organizations use the story of technological determinism in organizational settings as a discursive practice through which they invoke the “inevitability” of technology to justify managerial decisions to the public. Rather than taking ownership of certain actions, managers are able to use this story to claim that certain organizational changes are inevitable, and to eliminate alternative stories. We examine this strategy as it appears in the public discourse produced during two mergers in the high‐tech and telecommunications industries occurring from 1998 to 2002: US West and Qwest, and AOL and TimeWarner. Finally, we demonstrate that the story of technological determinism performs discursive closure around each merger.

Visions of the future are omnipresent in current debates about the digital transformation. This introductory article and the full special issue are concerned with the function, power, and performativity of future visions and how they relate to the making and governing of digital technology. Revisiting existing concepts, we particularly discuss and advance the concept of sociotechnical imaginaries. In difference to ephemeral visions and partisan ideas, imaginaries are collectively held and institutionally stabilized. Nonetheless, we hold that they are multiple, contested, and commodified rather than monolithic, linear visions of future trajectories enacted by state actors. Introducing and summarizing the articles of the special issue, we conclude that imaginaries are increasingly dominated by technology companies that not only take over the imaginative power of shaping future society, but also partly absorb public institutions’ ability to govern these very futures with their rhetoric, technologies, and business models.

Over 3 years, researchers, artists, and activists collaborated on eight public engagement experiments in five countries. All focused on building critical consciousness about digital futures. The interventions worked: Once participants broke through the seamlessness of interface surfaces, they immediately thought more critically about how digital platforms actually operate. Yet even as participants reached into these black boxes, they did not imagine alternatives. This article offers a critical theory reading of the theme of inevitability, using the concept of discursive closure, whereby we can see how particular values and (infra)structures are naturalized, neutralized, and legitimated, closing off discussion of alternatives that might counter current hegemonic power. This article highlights the importance of considering iterative formats for speculative interventions, whereby facilitators can focus not only on imagining new or different digital futures, but find creative ways to identify and help overcome the current resignation to the inevitable.

The Proposal for an Artificial Intelligence Act, published by the European Commission in April 2021, marks a major step in the governance of artificial intelligence (AI). This paper examines the significance of this Act for the electricity sector, specifically investigating to what extent the current European Union Bill addresses the societal and governance challenges posed by the use of AI that affects the tasks of system operators. For this we identify various options for the use of AI by system operators, as well as associated risks. AI has the potential to facilitate grid management, flexibility asset management and electricity market activities. Associated risks include lack of transparency, decline of human autonomy, cybersecurity, market dominance, and price manipulation on the electricity market. We determine to what extent the current bill pays attention to these identified risks and how the European Union intends to govern these risks. The proposed AI Act addresses well the issue of transparency and clarifying responsibilities, but pays too little attention to risks related to human autonomy, cybersecurity, market dominance and price manipulation. We make some governance suggestions to address those gaps.

This article is an analytic register of recent European efforts in the making of ‘autonomous’ robots to address what is imagined as Europe’s societal challenges. The paper describes how an emerging techno-epistemic network stretches across industry, science, policy and law to legitimize and enact a robotics innovation agenda. Roadmap is the main metaphor and organizing tool in working across the disciplines and sectors, and in aligning these heterogeneous actors with a machine-centric vision along a path to make way for ‘new kinds’ of robots. We describe what happens as this industry-dominated project docks in a public–private partnership with pan-European institutions and a legislative initiative on robolaw. Emphasizing the co-production of robotics and European innovation politics, we observe how well-known uncertainties and scholarly debates about machine capabilities and human–machine configurations, are unexpectedly played out in legal scholarship and institutions as a controversy and a significant problem for human-centered legal frameworks. European robotics are indeed driving an increase in speculative ethics and a new-found weight of possible futures in legislative practice.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is critical to harnessing value from exponentially growing health and healthcare data. Expectations are high for AI solutions to effectively address current health challenges. However, there have been prior periods of enthusiasm for AI followed by periods of disillusionment, reduced investments, and progress, known as “AI Winters.” We are now at risk of another AI Winter in health/healthcare due to increasing publicity of AI solutions that are not representing touted breakthroughs, and thereby decreasing trust of users in AI. In this article, we first highlight recently published literature on AI risks and mitigation strategies that would be relevant for groups considering designing, implementing, and promoting self-governance. We then describe a process for how a diverse group of stakeholders could develop and define standards for promoting trust, as well as AI risk-mitigating practices through greater industry self-governance. We also describe how adherence to such standards could be verified, specifically through certification/accreditation. Self-governance could be encouraged by governments to complement existing regulatory schema or legislative efforts to mitigate AI risks. Greater adoption of industry self-governance could fill a critical gap to construct a more comprehensive approach to the governance of AI solutions than US legislation/regulations currently encompass. In this more comprehensive approach, AI developers, AI users, and government/legislators all have critical roles to play to advance practices that maintain trust in AI and prevent another AI Winter.

While the need and general direction of the energy transition are widely accepted, the implementation has different dynamics throughout the world. Sociotechnical imaginaries concept, bridging the science, policy, and society, seems promising in understanding and explaining the global differences. The present paper analyses 135 abstracts that contain the topic keywords, sociotechnical imaginaries, published in international, peer-reviewed scientific journals during the last 11 years. Further on, the author conducted a qualitative and quantitative analysis of 43 energy-related articles to offer a panoramic overview of sociotechnical imaginaries in energy research out of the more extensive background. The paper aims to present a critical overview of the concept usage in energy studies to identify incoherences and blind spots in concept usage. What is more, this research intents to show the promising direction of using sociotechnical imaginaries. It also proposes new operationalisation and theoretical frame as well as potentially contributes to policymaking.

Big data and citizens are inseparable: from smartphones, meters, fridges and cars to internet platforms, the data of most digital technologies is the data of citizens. In addition to raising political and ethical issues of privacy, confidentiality and data protection, the repurposing of big data calls for rethinking relations to citizens in the production of official statistics if they are to be trusted. I argue for relations that involve co-producing data – or ‘citizen data’ – where citizens are engaged in statistical production, from the design of a data production platform to the interpretation and analysis of data. While raising issues such as data quality, I suggest that in a time of ‘alternative facts’, what constitutes legitimate knowledge and expertise are major political sites of contention and struggle and require going beyond defending existing practices towards inventing new ones. In this light, the future of official statistics not only depends on inventing new data sources and methods but also mobilizing the possibilities of digital technologies to establish new relations with citizens.

That policymakers adopt technoscientific viewpoints and lack reflexivity is a common criticism of scientific decision-making, particularly in response to moves to democratize science. Drawing on interviews with UK-based national policymakers, I argue that an elite sociotechnical imaginary of 'science to the rescue' shapes how public perspectives are heard and distinguishes what is considered to be legitimate expertise. The machinery of policy-making has become shaped around this imaginary - particularly its focus on science as a problem-solver and on social and ethical issues as 'nothing to do with the science' - and this gives this viewpoint its power, persistence and endurance. With this imaginary at the heart of policy-making machinery, regardless of the perspectives of the policymakers, alternative views of science are either forced to take the form of the elite imaginary in order to be processed, or they simply cannot be accounted for within the policy-making processes. In this way, the elite sociotechnical imaginary (and technoscientific viewpoint) is enacted, but also elicited and perpetuated, without the need for policymakers to engage with or even be aware of the imaginary underpinning their actions.

What theories or concepts are most useful at explaining socio technical change? How can - or cannot - these be integrated? To provide an answer, this study presents the results from 35 semi-structured research interviews with social science experts who also shared more than two hundred articles, reports and books on the topic of the acceptance, adoption, use, or diffusion of technology. This material led to the identification of 96 theories and conceptual approaches spanning 22 identified disciplines. The article begins by explaining its research terms and methods before honing in on a combination of fourteen theories deemed most relevant and useful by the material. These are: Sociotechnical Transitions, Social Practice Theory, Discourse Theory, Domestication Theory, Large Technical Systems, Social Construction of Technology, Sociotechnical Imaginaries, Actor-Network Theory, Social Justice Theory, Sociology of Expectations, Sustainable Development, Values Beliefs Norms Theory, Lifestyle Theory, and the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology. It then positions these theories in terms of two distinct typologies. Theories can be placed into five general categories of being centered on agency, structure, meaning, relations or norms. They can also be classified based on their assumptions and goals rooted in functionalism, interpretivism, humanism or conflict. The article lays out tips for research methodology before concluding with insights about technology itself, analytical processes associated with technology, and the framing and communication of results. An interdisciplinary theoretical and conceptual inventory has much to offer students, analysts and scholars wanting to study technological change and society.

In recent years, a Fourth Industrial Revolution emerged in public discourse as a narrative of exceptional societal disruption. At the core of this conceptual construct, led by the World Economic Forum, rests a sociotechnical imaginary of future essentialism, based on the revolutionary potential of digital, biological and physical innovations. This article addresses the lack of studies assessing the dynamics between the institutionalisation and the public performance of the Fourth Industrial Revolution concept through news media. We present the results of a quantitative content analysis of how the topic has been covered (frames, sources, tone) by the Portuguese national circulation press (2013–2020). This exploratory case study informs a proposal for an epistemic and methodological articulation between the theoretical frameworks of sociotechnical imaginaries and of media framing.