Journal of Business Ethics:1-18 (forthcoming)

Firms use algorithms to make important business decisions. To date, the algorithmic accountability literature has elided a fundamentally empirical question important to business ethics and management: Under what circumstances, if any, are algorithmic decision-making systems considered legitimate? The present study begins to answer this question. Using factorial vignette survey methodology, we explore the impact of decision importance, governance, outcomes, and data inputs on perceptions of the legitimacy of algorithmic decisions made by firms. We find that many of the procedural governance mechanisms in practice today, such as notices and impact statements, do not lead to algorithmic decisions being perceived as more legitimate in general, and, consistent with legitimacy theory, that algorithmic decisions with good outcomes are perceived as more legitimate than bad outcomes. Yet, robust governance, such as offering an appeal process, can create a legitimacy dividend for decisions with bad outcomes. However, when arbitrary or morally dubious factors are used to make decisions, most legitimacy dividends are erased. In other words, companies cannot overcome the legitimacy penalty of using arbitrary or morally dubious factors, such as race or the day of the week, with a good outcome or an appeal process for individuals. These findings add new perspectives to both the literature on legitimacy and policy discussions on algorithmic decision-making in firms.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s10551-021-05032-7
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Translate to english
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 72,607
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Anarchy, State, and Utopia.Robert Nozick - 1974 - New York: Basic Books.
Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality.Michael Walzer - 1983 - Journal of Business Ethics 4 (1):63-64.

View all 41 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Rawls’s Original Position and Algorithmic Fairness.Ulrik Franke - 2021 - Philosophy and Technology 34 (4):1803-1817.
Democratizing Algorithmic Fairness.Pak-Hang Wong - 2020 - Philosophy and Technology 33 (2):225-244.
Pluralising Political Legitimacy.Duncan Ivison - 2018 - Postcolonial Studies 20 (1):118-130.
Appropriate Allocation of Authority in Diverse Democracies.Corsin Bisaz - 2015 - Archiv für Rechts- Und Sozialphilosophie 101 (1):60-74.


Added to PP index

Total views
4 ( #1,286,609 of 2,533,629 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #389,998 of 2,533,629 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes