R:ETRO webinars - Reputation: Ethics, Trust, and Relationships at Oxford
Information about upcoming R:ETRO webinars and links to recordings and abstracts from past webinars. To be added to the mailing list, email reputation@sbs.ox.ac.uk.
Michaelmas term 2024
The ethics of explainability in human and AI decision-making
Carlo Cordasco, Lecturer in Management and Organisation Studies at the University of Manchester
Abstract: A key issue with machine learning techniques is the lack of explainability, that is the ability to provide sound explanations for how a machine makes its decisions/predictions, also known as the black-box problem. Such concerns are prompting theorists and regulators to support a Right to Explanation, which would underpin a set of correlative duties for organisations developing and/or adopting AI. In this paper, I argue against such a right and illustrate that a meaningful approach to the Right to Explanation requires a commitment to ex-ante and rules-based decision-making procedures which entail large costs in terms of accuracy, both in human and AI decision-making. I conclude by suggesting that a Right to Explanation is warranted for Public Administration decisions, as explainability is a key component of predictability which, in turn, shapes adherence to the Rule of Law.
Order as a value in corporate governance: or, corporate governance for turbulent times
Matthew Caulfield, Assistant Professor of Business Ethics at the Gabelli School of Business, Fordham University
Abstract: Socially-oriented models of corporate governance often prize the dynamic and unmediated influence of different stakeholder groups on governance schemes. That is, they not only understand stakeholder influence as a descriptive phenomenon, but also value it as a mode of informal stakeholder participation in the governance of the firm that can punish or reward firms, inculcating pro-stakeholder incentives accordingly. In this paper, I argue a core value has been overlooked in these and other models of corporate governance: order. Where order, as a concept, is a near-unifying touchstone value in liberal political philosophy (across Locke, Rawls, Hayek, etc.), it has appeared rarely (and when it has, only implicitly) in primary discussions of good or just corporate governance. I develop a normatively thin conception of ‘order’ fit for application to the business firm, and argue for its free-standing moral importance with reference to organizational and stakeholder autonomy. I argue the costs of disordered corporate governance have become most evident as firms navigate capricious socio-political winds; that the worst institutional responses to these events can be characterized as an antithesis of ordered corporate governance (or, ‘mob rule corporate governance’); and that further development of the concept and value of order may contribute to righting the ships. Beyond informing firms’ own governance, the acknowledgement of order as a value also suggests fundamental changes in widely-shared ideals of how corporations should be socially controlled.
5 December 4-5pm (GMT)
Higher ground: stakeholder trust and the limits of reputational risk management
Alison Taylor, Clinical Associate Professor at the New York University Stern School of Business
Abstract: Corporations are powerful actors in society, their decisions matter profoundly, and we all want to work for and buy from ethical companies whose values align with our own. But what are we really asking of business? While demanding that they address poverty, pollution, and human rights abuses in their supply chains, we still want the stuff we ordered, right now. In this discussion, Alison Taylor will explore key themes from her book, Higher Ground, on how common frames in responsible business, and particularly reputational risk and social license to operate, have trapped corporations into unconvincing overpromising, worsened polarization, and prevented us from learning about more effective practices. Alison will make the case that stakeholder trust is distinct from reputational risk management, and argue that we can only advance the responsible business agenda if we let go of some of its most entrenched and pervasive myths.