ReframingCorporateResponsibilityintheAgeofArtificialIntelligence:Advancing Human Relevance as a New CSR Principle

Prakash Gagan

doi:10.37022/tjmdr.v6i2.955

Gagan Prakash Associate Professor, IPS Academy, Institute of Business Management & Research Sanwer, Indore.

DOI https://doi.org/10.37022/tjmdr.v6i2.955

Abstract

Purpose: This paper seeks to reframe the ongoing scholarly and policy discussions surrounding the societal obligations associated with artificial intelligence (AI). While governments, regulatory bodies, researchers, media institutions, and end-users have been repeatedly examined as responsible actors in the AI ecosystem, the corporate sector has received comparatively limited conceptual attention. This study, therefore, advances a rearticulated understanding of corporate responsibility by proposing a dedicated principle that anchors how businesses ought to confront the ethical and societal implications of AI technologies.

Design/methodology/approach:The paper develops a conceptual argument structured around two analytical moves. First, it positions AI governance concerns within the broader evolution of corporate social responsibility (CSR), arguing that established CSR frameworks are no longer sufficient in the AI-driven business landscape. Second, it theorizes what an updated CSR principle-one explicitly oriented toward the development and use of AI—should encompass, drawing on emerging ethical norms, socio-technical debates, and global policy trends.

Findings: CSR principles have historically been shaped by prevailing ethical priorities and societal expectations. As AI systems increasingly mediate decision-making, operations, and stakeholder relationships, corporations must account for the preservation of meaningful human participation and value in AI-infused environments. This paper conceptualizes this obligation as the principle of human relevance, a more pragmatic and future-oriented alternative to the frequently invoked-but often impractical-ideal of human centrality. Similar to other CSR norms (e.g., integrity initiatives, anti-corruption measures, and transparency commitments), this AI-related principle may begin as a voluntary corporate standard but could crystallize into firmer regulatory expectations as societal demands evolve.

Originality/value: This study is among the first to argue systematically for the expansion of CSR principles to explicitly address AI. The formulation of human relevance as the normative core of such a principle offers a fresh intellectual lens, challenging existing assumptions and providing a more actionable orientation for corporate AI responsibility.

Keywords: Artificial intelligence, Corporate governance, AI ethics, Corporate social responsibility, Socio-technical risk, Human relevance, Responsible AI

References

1. Kaas MHL. The perfect technological storm: artificial intelligence and moral complacency. Ethics Inf Technol. 2024; 26:49. doi:10.1007/s10676-024-09788-0. (Springer)
2. Krkač K. Corporate social irresponsibility: humans vs artificial intelligence. Soc Response J. 2019;15(6):786–802. doi:10.1108/SRJ-09-2018-0219.
3. Saheb T, Saheb T. Topical review of artificial intelligence national policies: a mixed method analysis. Technol Soc. 2023; 74:102316. doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2023.102316. (ScienceDirect)
4. Bednar K, Spiekermann S. Eliciting values for technology design with moral philosophy: an empirical exploration of effects and shortcomings. Sci Technol Human Values. 2024;49(3):611–645. doi:10.1177/01622439221122595. (Sage Journals)
5. Bareis J, Katzenbach C. Talking AI into being: the narratives and imaginaries of national AI strategies and their performative politics. Sci Technol Human Values. 2022;47(5):855–881. doi:10.1177/01622439211030007.
6. Koniakou V. From the "rush to ethics" to the "race for governance" in artificial intelligence. Inf Syst Front. 2023;25(1):71–102. doi:10.1007/s10796-022-10300-6.
7. Floridi L, Cowls J. A unified framework of five principles for AI in society. Harv Data Sci Rev. 2019;1(1). doi:10.1162/99608f92.8cd550d1.

8. Rendtorff JD. Outline of ethical issues concerning government, business and information technologies. In: Lütge C, Uhl M, Kriebitz A, Max R, editors. Business Ethics and Digitization. Cham: J.B. Metzler; 2022. p. 133–154.
9. Diamantis ME. The extended corporate mind: when corporations use AI to break the law. N C Law Rev. 2020;98(4):893–932.
10. Dignum V. Responsible Artificial Intelligence: How to Develop and Use AI in a Responsible Way. Cham: Springer; 2019.
11. Šucha V, Gammel J. Humans and societies in the age of artificial intelligence. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2021. doi:10.2760/61164.
12. Sartori L, Theodorou A. A sociotechnical perspective for the future of AI: narratives, inequalities, and human control. Ethics Inf Technol. 2022;24(1):4. doi:10.1007/s10676-022-09624-3.
13. Barrat J. Our Final Invention: Artificial Intelligence and the End of the Human Era. New York: St Martin's Press; 2013.
14. Bostrom N. Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2014.
15. Tegmark M. Life 3.0: Being Human in the Age of Artificial Intelligence. New York: Alfred A Knopf; 2017.
16. Nahavandi S. Industry 5.0—a human-centric solution. Sustainability. 2019;11(16):4371. doi:10.3390/su11164371.
17. Dietz E, Kakas A, Michael L. Argumentation: a calculus for human-centric AI. Front ArtifIntell. 2022; 5:955579. doi:10.3389/frai.2022.955579.
18. Frankel MS. An empirical exploration of scientists' social responsibilities. J Responsible Innov. 2015;2(3):301–310. doi:10.1080/23299460.2015.1096737.
19. Knott A, Wilson C, Furlanello T, et al. AI content detection in the emerging information ecosystem: new obligations for media and tech companies. Ethics Inf Technol. 2024;26(4):63. doi:10.1007/s10676-024-09795-1.
20. Flyverbom M, Deibert R, Matten D. The governance of digital technology, big data, and the internet: new roles and responsibilities for business. Bus Soc. 2019;58(1):3–19. doi:10.1177/0007650317727540.
21. Maas MM. Aligning AI regulation to sociotechnical change. In: Bullock J, Chen Y-C, Himmelreich J, Hudson V, Korinek A, Young MM, Zhang B, editors. The Oxford Handbook of AI Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2022.
22. Saheb T, Saheb T. AI policies towards the AGI challenge: an international assessment. Working paper; 2023.
23. Crane A, Matten D, Spence LJ. Corporate Social Responsibility: Readings and Cases in a Global Context. 2nd ed. London: Routledge; 2014.
24. Dahlsrud A. How corporate social responsibility is defined: an analysis of 37 definitions. Corp Soc Respons Environ Manag. 2008;15(1):1–13. doi:10.1002/csr.132.
25. Kerr M, Janda R, Pitts C. Corporate Social Responsibility: A Legal Analysis. Markham (ON): LexisNexis Canada; 2009.
26. Wickert C, Risi D. Corporate Social Responsibility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2019.
27. Frederick WC. The moral authority of transnational corporate codes. J Bus Ethics. 1991;10(3):165–177. doi:10.1007/BF00383154.
28. Renieris, E. M., Kiron, D., & Mills, S. (2022). Should organizations link responsible AI and corporate social responsibility? It's complicated. MIT Sloan Management Review, 63(3), 1–6.
29. Kaplow L. General characteristics of rules. In: Bouckaert B, De Geest G, editors. Encyclopedia of Law and Economics. Vol. 5. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar; 2000. doi:10.4337/9781782540519.00008.
30. Sama LM, Shoaf V. Reconciling rules and principles: an ethics-based approach to corporate governance. J Bus Ethics. 2005;58(1–3):177–185. doi:10.1007/s10551-005-1402-y.
31. Latonero M. Governing Artificial Intelligence: Upholding Human Rights and Dignity. New York: Data & Society Research Institute; 2018.
32. Risse M. Human rights and artificial intelligence: an urgently needed agenda. Hum Rights Q. 2019;41(1):1–16. doi:10.1353/hrq.2019.0000.
33. Ulgen, O. (2022). AI and the crisis of the self: Protecting human dignity as status and respectful treatment. In A. J. Hampton & J. A. DeFalco (Eds.), The Frontlines of Artificial Intelligence Ethics: Human-Centric Perspectives on Technology's Advance (pp. 37–58). Routledge. doi.org [1]33.
34. European Commission. Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2019. doi:10.2759/346720.
35. Bryson JJ, Theodorou A. How society can maintain human-centric artificial intelligence. In: Toivonen M, Saari E, editors. Human-Centered Digitalization and Services. Singapore: Springer; 2019. p. 305–323.
36. Amariles DR, Baquero M. Promises and limits of law for a human-centric artificial intelligence. Comput Law Secur Rev. 2023; 48:105795. doi: 10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105795.
37. Floridi L. The European legislation on AI: a brief analysis of its philosophical approach. Philos Technol. 2021;34(2):215-222.
38. Floridi L. The European legislation on AI: a brief analysis of its philosophical approach. Philos Technol. 2021;34(2):215–222. doi:10.1007/s13347-021-00460-9.
39. Taylor RR, O'Dell B, Murphy JW. Human-centric AI: philosophical and community-centric considerations. AI Soc. 2024;39(5):2417–2424. doi:10.1007/s00146-023-01694-1.
40. Mhlambi S. From rationality to relationality: Ubuntu as an ethical and human rights framework for artificial intelligence governance. Carr Center for Human Rights Policy Discussion Paper Series. 2020;9.
41. Ford M. Rise of the Robots: Technology and the Threat of a Jobless Future. New York: Basic Books; 2015.
42. West DM. The Future of Work: Robots, AI, and Automation. Washington (DC): Brookings Institution Press; 2018.
43. Dorsey S. Upper Hand: The Future of Work for the Rest of Us. Hoboken (NJ): Wiley; 2022.
44. Susskind R, Susskind D. The Future of the Professions: How Technology Will Transform the Work of Human Experts. Updated ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2022.
45. Delfanti A, Frey B. Humanly extended automation or the future of work seen through Amazon patents. Sci Technol Human Values. 2021;46(3):655–682. doi:10.1177/0162243920943665.
46. Danaher J. In defence of the post-work future: withdrawal and the ludic life. In: Cholbi M, Weber M, editors. The Future of Work, Technology, and Basic Income. New York: Routledge; 2020. p. 113–129.
47. Classen TJ, Dunn RA. The effect of job loss and unemployment duration on suicide risk in the United States: a new look using mass layoffs and unemployment duration. Health Econ. 2012;21(3):338–350. doi:10.1002/hec.1719.
48. Ratner J, editor. Intelligence in the Modern World: John Dewey's Philosophy. New York: Modern Library; 1939.
49. Den Hond F, Moser C. Useful servant or dangerous master? Technology in business and society debates. Bus Soc. 2023;62(1):87–116. doi:10.1177/00076503211068029.
50. Stockinger E, Maas J, Talvitie C, Dignum V. Trustworthiness of voting advice applications in Europe. Ethics Inf Technol. 2024;26(3):55. doi:10.1007/s10676-024-09790-6.
51. Koering D. Exploring the human-AI nexus: a friendly dispute between second-order cybernetical ethical thinking and questions of AI ethics. Enacting Cybern. 2023;1(1):5. doi:10.58695/ec.4.
52. Harari YN. Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow. London: Vintage; 2017.
53. Van den Eede Y. Where is the human? Beyond the enhancement debate. Sci Technol Human Values. 2015;40(1):149–162. doi:10.1177/0162243914551284.
54. Van der Maarel S, Verweij D, Kramer EH, Molendijk T. "This is not what I signed up for": sociotechnical imaginaries, expectations, and disillusionment in a Dutch military innovation hub. Sci Technol Human Values. 2025;50(4):1030–1054. doi:10.1177/01622439231211032.