Abstract
Advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) are moving faster than the State’s ability to fully govern it, resulting in a need for innovative approaches that also involve non-state actors, or “co-governance” mechanisms. But the question remains as to exactly how co-governance mechanisms can be incorporated into AI governance in the EU. While governing the use of AI presents certain challenges to traditional modes of governance, these challenges are not unique to AI. This chapter provides an in-depth case study of co-governance mechanisms used in relation to services and supply chains that have similar governance challenges to AI in order to map a spectrum of co-governance mechanisms that may be useful for governing AI. After analyzing the applicability of various co-governance mechanisms to the AI governing space, the chapter offers recommendations for how and where these approaches may be most worthwhile. Effective AI governance will require a combination of approaches. Key to success will be State support, cooperation or buy-in in order to maintain legitimacy, while capitalizing upon non-state capacity and distributed implementation. Specifically, first, States, educational institutions and companies should make a major push to integrate responsible AI practices in education curriculums, setting the foundation for effective accreditation and professionalization mechanisms that employers recognize and value. Second, for lower-risk applications, EU Governments should support or compliment multi-stakeholder initiatives to assess and label products. Finally, for higher-risk AI systems, legislative points of control that include the use of co-governance mechanisms for implementation should be put in place.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
In the EU context, co-regulation has been defined as a ‘mechanism whereby an [EU] legislative act entrusts the attainment of the objectives defined by the legislative authority to parties which are recognized in the field (such as economic operators, the social partners, non-governmental organizations, or associations)’ (2003 Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making, (n 43) para 18.) (Finck, 2017).
- 2.
This includes minerals (mainly tin, tungsten, tantalum and gold) that were mined using child labor, or where the revenue from that mining funds war and unrest.
- 3.
- 4.
It represents 82 countries and 99.8% of the rough diamond market (The Kimberley Process, n.d.).
- 5.
Founded in 1993 by the WWF, environmental NGOs, timber traders, indigenous peoples’ groups and forest worker organizations, the FSC sets standards for members and is comprised of environmental, social and economic chambers that balance and represent interests of the various stakeholders (Auld et al., 2008; FSC International, 2020).
- 6.
- 7.
The medical profession for instance, something we now automatically consider as highly governed throughout Europe, existed for centuries without proper oversight. Only in the mid-nineteenth century did medical professionals and educational institutions begin to institutionalize membership and set common training/education and practice standards (Waddington, 1990).
- 8.
This could also be considered in the ever increasing amount of computer science oriented classes in secondary schools.
- 9.
As the examples above displayed, State support for mechanism improves their legitimacy and, therefore, effectiveness. Thus, getting State buy-in to support higher-education requirements is key.
- 10.
Or what the proposed EU regulation terms “non-high-risk”(Artificial Intelligence Act, 2021, pp. 8, 10), for which they suggests building independent codes of conduct.
- 11.
According to the EU proposed regulation, “this requires keeping records and the availability of a technical documentation, containing information which is necessary to assess the compliance of the AI system with the relevant requirements. Such information should include the general characteristics, capabilities and limitations of the system, algorithms, data, training, testing and validation processes used as well as documentation on the relevant risk management system. The technical documentation should be kept up to date” (Artificial Intelligence Act, 2021, p. 31)
References
Ananny, M., & Crawford, K. (2018). Seeing without knowing: Limitations of the transparency ideal and its application to algorithmic accountability. New Media & Society, 20(3), 973–989. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816676645
Arnold, N., Bennett, E., Blendin, M., Brochard, M., Carimentrand, A., Coulibaly, M., De Ferran, F., Durochat, É., Gautrey, G., Geffner, D., Leyssene, C., Lorenz, J., Maisonhaute, J., Paulsen, O., Ripoll, J., Sirdey, N., & Stoll, J. (2020). International guide to fair trade labels—Edition 2020. Commerce Équitable France; Fair World Project; FairNESS; Forum Fairer Handel.
Auld, G., Gulbrandsen, L. H., & McDermott, C. L. (2008). Certification schemes and the impacts on forests and forestry. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 33, 187–211. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.environ.33.013007.103754
Bennett, R. J. (2000). The logic of membership of sectoral business associations. Review of Social Economy, LVIII(1), 19–42.
Bennett, E. A. (2017). Who governs socially-oriented voluntary sustainability standards? Not the producers of certified products. World Development, 91, 53–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.10.010
Bieri, F. (2010). The roles of NGOs in the Kimberley process. Global Studies Journal, 20.
British Medical Association. (2021). What we do. https://www.bma.org.uk/what-we-do
Buhmann, A., Paßmann, J., & Fieseler, C. (2020). Managing algorithmic accountability: Balancing reputational concerns, engagement strategies, and the potential of rational discourse. Journal of Business Ethics, 163(2), 265–280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04226-4
Bundesärztekammer. (2021). About the German Medical Association. https://www.bundesaerztekammer.de/weitere-sprachen/english/german-medical-association/
Burrell, J. (2016). How the machine ‘thinks’: Understanding opacity in machine learning algorithms. Big Data & Society, 3(1), 205395171562251. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951715622512
Cammett, M. C., & MacLean, L. M. (2014). Introduction. In I. Gough, L. M. MacLean, & M. C. Cammett (Eds.), The politics of non-state social welfare (pp. 1–15). Cornell Universtiy Press.
Castka, P., & Corbett, C. J. (2016). Governance of eco-labels: Expert opinion and media coverage. Journal of Business Ethics, 135(2), 309–326. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2474-3
Cook, K. S., Hardin, R., & Levi, M. (2005). Cooperation without trust. Russel Sage Foundation.
Corrigan, C. C. (2016). The politics of privatizing governance: The political and institutional determinants of corporate social responsibility in Africa. University of Pittsburgh.
Crouch, D. (2019, January 8). Fair trade food schemes battle to promote better standards. Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/content/83247fda-e0f1-11e8-a8a0-99b2e340ffeb
Danish Institute for Human Rights (DIHR). (2017). National Action Plans on Business and Human Rights—Supply Chains. https://globalnaps.org/issue/supply-chains/
Daten Ethik Kommission (DEK). (2019). Opinion of the Data Ethics Commission. Data Ethics Commission of the Federal Government.
Diakopoulos, N. (2016). Accountability in algorithmic decision-making. Communications of the ACM, 59(2), 56–62.
Diakopoulos, N., & Koliska, M. (2017). Algorithmic transparency in the news media. Digital Journalism, 5(7), 809–828. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2016.1208053
Draude, A., Börzel, T. A., & Risse, T. (Eds.). (2018). The Oxford handbook of governance and limited statehood. Oxford University Press. https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198797203.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780198797203
Driven Data. (n.d.). An ethics checklist for data scientists. https://deon.drivendata.org/
Educause. (2014). 7 things you should know about badging for professional development. 2.
Etzioni, O. (2018, March 14). A Hippocratic Oath for artificial intelligence practitioners. Tech Crunch. https://techcrunch.com/2018/03/14/a-hippocratic-oath-for-artificial-intelligence-practitioners
European Commission. (n.d.). Conflict Minerals—The Regulation Explained. Retrieved October 30, 2020, from https://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/conflict-minerals-regulation/regulation-explained/
Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ). (2020). Federal Ministers Heil and Müller: “Now the Coalition Agreement will come into play for a supply chain law. The aim is finalisation before the end of this legislative term.” http://www.bmz.de/en/press/aktuelleMeldungen/2020/juli/200714_pm_21_Federal-Ministers-Heil-and-Mueller-Now-the-Coalition-Agreement-will-come-into-play-for-a-supply-chain-law-The-aim-is-finalisation-before-the-end-of-this-legislative-term/index.html
Filipović, A., Koska, C., & Paganini, C. (2018). Developing a professional ethics for algorithmists: Learning from the examples of established ethics. Bertelsmann Stiftung Working Paper, 9, doi:10.11586/2018034.
Finck, M. (2017). Digital regulation: Designing a supranational legal framework for the platform economy. LSE Law, Society and Economy Working Papers, 15. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2990043
Finck, M. (2018). Blockchain regulation and governance in Europe (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108609708
FSC International. (2020). Forest Stewardship Council. https://www.fsc.org/
Gebru, T., Morgenstern, J., Vecchione, B., Vaughan, J. W., Wallach, H., Daumé III, H., & Crawford, K. (2020). Datasheets for datasets. ArXiv:1803.09010 [Cs]. http://arxiv.org/abs/1803.09010
General Medical Council. (2021). Who we are. https://www.gmc-uk.org/about/who-we-are
Global Witness. (2017, November 15). Section 1502 of the US Dodd Frank Act: The landmark US law requiring responsible minerals sourcing. BRIEFING: US Conflict Minerals Law. https://www.globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/conflict-minerals/dodd-frank-act-section-1502/
Grant, S. L. (2014). What counts as learning: Open digital badges for new opportunities. Digitial Media and Learning Research Hub. https://public.ebookcentral.proquest.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=5869977
Haufler, V. (2010). The Kimberley process certification scheme: An innovation in global governance and conflict prevention. Journal of Business Ethics, 89, 403–416. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0401-9
Herbert Smith Freehills. (2020). Supply chain law in Germany: Current steps towards a mandatory human rights due diligence law [legal briefing]. https://www.herbertsmithfreehills.com/latest-thinking/supply-chain-law-in-germany-current-steps-towards-a-mandatory-human-rights-due.
Herron, M. C., & Quinn, K. M. (2016). A careful look at modern case selection methods. Sociological Methods & Research, 45(3), 458–492.
Hönke, J., & Thomas, E. (2012). Governance for whom?: Capturing the inclusiveness and unintended effects of governance. SFB-Governance Working Paper Series, 31(May).
IEEE SA. (n.d.). The Ethics Certification Program for Autonomous and Intelligent Systems (ECPAIS). Retrieved November 23, 2020, from https://standards.ieee.org/industry-connections/ecpais.html
Jones-Luong, P. (2014). Empowering local communities and enervating the state?: Foreign oil companies as public goods providers in Azerbaijan and Kazhstan. In I. Gough, L. M. MacLean, & M. C. Cammett (Eds.), The politics of non-state social welfare (pp. 57–76). Cornell University Press.
Markowitz, T. (2018, September 16). The seven deadly sins of digital badging in education. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/troymarkowitz/2018/09/16/the-seven-deadly-sins-of-digital-badging-in-education-making-badges-student-centered/
Marsden, C. T. (2011). Internet co-regulation: European law, regulatory governance and legitimacy in cyberspace. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511763410
Martin, M., & Webb, K. (2020). Water quality protection of the Canada-US Great Lakes: Examining the emerging state/nonstate governance approach. International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, 14(102–124) https://www.inderscienceonline.com/doi/abs/10.1504/IJISD.2020.104245
Martinez, M. G., Verbruggen, P., & Fearne, A. (2013). Risk-based approaches to food safety regulation: What role for co-regulation? Journal of Risk Research, 16(9), 1101–1121. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2012.743157
Milward, H. B., & Provan, K. G. (2000). Governing the hollow state. Journal of Pulic Adminstration Research and Theory, 10(2), 359–379.
Peters, B. G. (1994). Managing the hollow state. International Journal of Public Adminstration, 17(3–4), 739–756.
Regierung von Oberbayern. (2021). Arzt/Ärztin; Beantragung einer Approbation. https://www.regierung.oberbayern.bayern.de/aufgaben/37198/244210/leistung/leistung_12109/index.html
Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council Laying Down Harmonised Rules on Artificial Intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act) and Amending Certain Union Legislative Acts, 2021/0106 (COD) (2021).
Ruggie, J. G. (2004). Reconstituting the global public domain—Issues, actors, and practices. European Journal of International Relations, 10(4), 499–531. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066104047847
Saucedo, A. (2018). Awesome AI Guidelines. GitHub. https://github.com/EthicalML/awesome-artificial-intelligence-guidelines
Seaver, N. (2014). Knowing algorithms. Media in Transition, 8.
Seawright, J., & Gerring, J. (2008). Case selection techniques in case study research: A menu of qualitative and quantitative options. Political Research Quarterly, 61(2), 294–308. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912907313077
Sen, D., & Majumder, S. (2011). Fair trade and fair trade certification of food and agricultural commodities: Promises, pitfalls, and possibilities. Environment and Society: Advances in Research, 2(1), 29–47.
Smith, C. (2019). Designing ethical AI experiences: Checklist and agreement. Canegie Mellon University - Software Engineering Institute.
The General Council of the Bar. (2021). About Us and the Bar. https://www.barcouncil.org.uk/about.html.
The Kimberley Process. (n.d.). What is the Kimberley Process? Retrieved October 30, 2020, from https://www.kimberleyprocess.com/en/what-kp
Tsamados, A., Aggarwal, N., Cowls, J., Morley, J., Roberts, H., Taddeo, M., & Floridi, L. (2021). The ethics of algorithms: Key problems and solutions. AI & SOCIETY. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-021-01154-8
Waddington, I. (1990). The movement towards the professionalisation of medicine. British Medical Journal, 301, 3.
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Sage.
Young, O. R. (2017). Beyond regulation: Innovative strategies for governing large complex systems. Sustainability, 9(6), 938. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9060938
Zweig, K. A. (2018). Wo Maschinen irren können: Verantwortlichkeiten und Fehlerquellen in Prozessen algorithmischer Entscheidungsfindung. Impuls Algorithmenethik - Bertelsmann Stiftung, 4. https://doi.org/10.11586/2018006
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Corrigan, C.C. (2022). Lessons Learned from Co-governance Approaches – Developing Effective AI Policy in Europe. In: Mökander, J., Ziosi, M. (eds) The 2021 Yearbook of the Digital Ethics Lab. Digital Ethics Lab Yearbook. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-09846-8_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-09846-8_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-09845-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-09846-8
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)