Governance of High-Risk AI Systems in Healthcare and Credit Scoring

MotivationGovernance of artificial intelligence (AI) systems is an evolving field focused on establishing the frameworks, policies, and practices necessary to ensure the responsible use of AI systems across various sectors (Ma ntyma ki et al. 2022).The need for AI governance stems from growing awareness of the significant challenges these technologies pose.Research and real-world examples highlight that AI systems can lead to unintended consequences, including biases, discrimination, inaccuracies, and opaque decision-making processes (Schneider et al. 2023).This raises questions in terms of algorithmic accountability, as it is necessary to determine who holds responsibility for algorithmic actions when systems operate in a harmful or unethical manner (Horneber and Laumer 2023).Algorithmic accountability involves identifying the parties liable for design flaws, operational errors, or misuse of AI systems, while also ensuring that mechanisms are in place to correct biases, address inaccuracies, and enforce transparency in decision-making.Defining these accountabilities is an important task in a governance framework for AI as many parties in the organization will be involved in setting up and running AI systems (e.g., data provision, decision on data sources, defining policies).Furthermore, these and other examples also show that AI systems can have far-reaching consequences for work, labor processes, employees (in terms of, e.g., technology acceptance, productivity, autonomy, identity) and organizations (e.g., structures, culture, leadership) as a whole.They therefore always (should) raise questions about the humane shape of work and organization in the context of digital governance (e.g.,

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Business & Information Systems Engineering
Published
2025-05-08
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-025-00944-4
Citations
7
Primary Topic
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
16.56

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Governance of High-Risk AI Systems in Healthcare and Credit Scoring

Roger Brownsword, Michael Leyer, Marcus Düwell, Alexander Richter et al.
7 citations
Business & Information Systems Engineering
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
16.56
article

Governance of High-Risk AI Systems in Healthcare and Credit Scoring

Roger Brownsword, Michael Leyer, Marcus Düwell, Alexander Richter, Marc Jungtäubl, Alexander Benlian, Sebastian Bartsch, Oliver Behn, Jan-Hendrik Schmidt, Mascha Will-Zocholl, Sebastian Bücker, Nico Formánek
article en
7 citations

Abstract

MotivationGovernance of artificial intelligence (AI) systems is an evolving field focused on establishing the frameworks, policies, and practices necessary to ensure the responsible use of AI systems across various sectors (Ma ntyma ki et al. 2022).The need for AI governance stems from growing awareness of the significant challenges these technologies pose.Research and real-world examples highlight that AI systems can lead to unintended consequences, including biases, discrimination, inaccuracies, and opaque decision-making processes (Schneider et al. 2023).This raises questions in terms of algorithmic accountability, as it is necessary to determine who holds responsibility for algorithmic actions when systems operate in a harmful or unethical manner (Horneber and Laumer 2023).Algorithmic accountability involves identifying the parties liable for design flaws, operational errors, or misuse of AI systems, while also ensuring that mechanisms are in place to correct biases, address inaccuracies, and enforce transparency in decision-making.Defining these accountabilities is an important task in a governance framework for AI as many parties in the organization will be involved in setting up and running AI systems (e.g., data provision, decision on data sources, defining policies).Furthermore, these and other examples also show that AI systems can have far-reaching consequences for work, labor processes, employees (in terms of, e.g., technology acceptance, productivity, autonomy, identity) and organizations (e.g., structures, culture, leadership) as a whole.They therefore always (should) raise questions about the humane shape of work and organization in the context of digital governance (e.g.,

Business & Information Systems EngineeringVol. 67(4)
University of Stuttgart (DE), Queensland University of Technology (AU), Philipps University of Marburg (DE), King's College London (GB), Technische Universität Darmstadt (DE), Stuttgart Technical University of Applied Sciences (DE), Victoria University of Wellington (NZ), Hessische Hochschule für Polizei und Verwaltung (DE)
Philipps-Universität Marburg
Decent work and economic growth
Openalex Percentile: Top 1%
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
16.56
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.