Collaborative Governance and Algorithmic Accountability: Regulating Risks and Restructuring Organizations for AI Integration

Main Article Content

Xiaoran Ma

Keywords

artificial intelligence, collaborative governance, algorithmic accountability, EU AI act, socio-technical systems, procedural justice

Abstract

The widespread application of artificial intelligence (AI) in corporate resource planning and public decision-making has provided impetus for improving management efficiency and creating social value. However, the complex structure and opacity of algorithms have led to a crisis of trust, posing challenges to traditional public management accountability mechanisms. Drawing on socio-technical systems theory, this paper provides a normative analysis of thirteen recent studies on the challenges of technology implementation, ethical trust, and legal regulation. The findings suggest that the current governance dilemma stems not only from technological limitations but also from institutional neglect, which enables accountability avoidance. Although the EU AI Act proposes a preliminary form of collaborative governance, it still has shortcomings in terms of procedural justice and the feasibility of human oversight. The governance logic should shift from individual oversight to an organization-in-the-loop approach, to achieve sustainable and responsible AI governance through the construction of a procedural justice framework.

Abstract 24 | PDF Downloads 8

References

  • [1]Enholm, I. M., Papagiannidis, E., Mikalef, P., & Krogstie, J. (2022). Artificial intelligence and business value: A literature review. Information systems frontiers, 24(5), 1709-1734.
  • [2]Giuggioli, G., & Pellegrini, M. M. (2023). Artificial intelligence as an enabler for entrepreneurs: a systematic literature review and an agenda for future research. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 29(4), 816-837.
  • [3]Kronblad, C., Essén, A., & Mähring, M. (2024). When justice is blind to algorithms: Multilayered blackboxing of algorithmic decision-making in the public sector. MIS Quarterly, 48(4), 1637-1662.
  • [4]Schelble, B. G., Lopez, J., Textor, C., Zhang, R., McNeese, N. J., Pak, R., & Freeman, G. (2024). Towards ethical AI: Empirically investigating dimensions of AI ethics, trust repair, and performance in human-AI teaming. Human Factors, 66(4), 1037-1055.
  • [5]Cancela-Outeda, C. (2024). The EU's AI act: A framework for collaborative governance. Internet of Things, 27, 101291.
  • [6]Oldemeyer, L., Jede, A., & Teuteberg, F. (2025). Investigation of artificial intelligence in SMEs: a systematic review of the state of the art and the main implementation challenges. Management Review Quarterly, 75(2), 1185-1227.
  • [7]Holzinger, A., Zatloukal, K., & Müller, H. (2025). Is human oversight to AI systems still possible?. New Biotechnology, 85, 59-62.
  • [8]Kusche, I. (2024). Possible harms of artificial intelligence and the EU AI act: fundamental rights and risk. Journal of Risk Research, 1-14.
  • [9]Golia Jr, A. (2024). Critique of digital constitutionalism: Deconstruction and reconstruction from a societal perspective. GlobCon, 13, 488.
  • [10]Thomas, A. (2024). Digitally transforming the organization through knowledge management: a socio-technical system (STS) perspective. European Journal of Innovation Management, 27(9), 437-460.
  • [11]de Fine Licht, K. (2025). Resolving value conflicts in public AI governance: A procedural justice framework. Government Information Quarterly, 42(2), 102033.
  • [12]Herrmann, T., & Pfeiffer, S. (2023). Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence. Ai & Society, 38(4), 1523-1542.
  • [13]Van Wynsberghe, A. (2021). Sustainable AI: AI for sustainability and the sustainability of AI. AI and Ethics, 1(3), 213-218.
  • [14]Enholm, I. M., Papagiannidis, E., Mikalef, P., & Krogstie, J. (2022). Artificial intelligence and business value: A literature review. Information systems frontiers, 24(5), 1709-1734.