When the Algorithm Becomes the Brand Crisis: A Sociotechnical Theory of Distributed Responsibility and Accountable Transparency

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2609.00510v1
• Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2026 00:21:39 GMT
• Title: When the Algorithm Becomes the Brand Crisis: A Sociotechnical Theory of Distributed Responsibility and Accountable Transparency
• Abstract summary: How do stakeholders assign responsibility when technical causation, customer-facing control, and governance duties are distributed across an AI system?<n>This conceptual paper develops a sociotechnical process theory from a structured, federated scoping synthesis of verified academic and primary sources.<n>It distinguishes an AI/algorithmic incident from an AI-related organisational crisis and, in turn, from an AI-related organisational scandal.
• Score: 0.2864713389096699
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Artificial intelligence systems increasingly enact market-facing promises through chatbots, recommendation systems, automated decisions, and generative interfaces. Their failures, misuse, and misrepresentation raise a question that conventional brand-crisis models do not fully specify: how do stakeholders assign responsibility when technical causation, customer-facing control, and governance duties are distributed across an AI system, developer, deployer, vendor, and user? This conceptual paper develops a sociotechnical process theory from a structured, federated scoping synthesis of verified academic and primary sources. It distinguishes an AI/algorithmic incident from an AI-related organisational crisis and, in turn, from an AI-related organisational scandal. The framework proposes that incident configuration shapes actor-specific attribution; attribution informs capability, integrity, fairness, and relationship appraisals; and public moralisation may, but need not, escalate an incident into scandal. The theory offers a reconciliation of findings that algorithm involvement can buffer negative brand reactions in some settings while robot and chatbot failures can redirect responsibility to an associated firm in others. It introduces accountable transparency as a proposed response configuration that combines timely notice, an intelligible account, role-responsibility acknowledgement, remedy, evidence of correction, and recourse. The evidence supports conditional, proximal inferences about blame, trust, satisfaction, firm evaluation, and communication credibility more strongly than claims about durable reputation, brand equity, or market performance.

Related papers

• FLARE-AI: Flaw Reporting for AI [51.64618567247884]
  Flaw reporting for deployed AI systems is fundamental to identifying system failures and improving AI safety.<n>Yet the AI reporting ecosystem is fragmented: researchers who identify flaws often do not know what to report, and groups who receive reports rarely share them with other relevant stakeholders.<n>We audit 12 reporting systems published by AI developers, cybersecurity groups, and AI flaw aggregators.<n>We introduce FLARE-AI, an open-source AI flaw reporting system designed for interoperability with existing systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-30T12:27:09Z)
• Trustworthy AI Suffers from Invariance Conflicts and Causality is The Solution [80.98492754957466]
  Core trustworthy AI objectives, such as fairness, robustness, privacy, and explainability, are hard to achieve simultaneously.<n>This paper argues that causality is necessary to understand and balance trade-offs in performance and multiple objectives of trustworthy AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-04T14:26:28Z)
• AgentReputation: A Decentralized Agentic AI Reputation Framework [3.6704226968275253]
  We propose textbfAgentReputation, a decentralized, three-layer reputation framework for agentic AI systems.<n>The framework separates task execution, reputation services, and tamper-proof persistence to both leverage their respective strengths and enable independent evolution.<n>In quantifying, AgentReputation provides a decision-facing policy engine that supports resource allocation, access control, and adaptive verification escalation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-30T12:33:39Z)
• FAccT-Checked: A Narrative Review of Authority Reconfigurations and Retention in AI-Mediated Journalism [3.9613087041271573]
  We provide a comprehensive theoretical framework for addressing how concerns on fairness, accountability and transparency emerge.<n>We identify and describe two concurrent authority reconfigurations driven by AI adoption.<n>We examine participatory approaches to AI design and deployment in journalism as potential mechanisms for retaining or reclaiming editorial authority.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-23T17:00:15Z)
• Operational Agency: A Permeable Legal Fiction for Tracing Culpability in AI Systems [0.31061678033205636]
  This Article introduces Operational Agency (OA)-a permeable legal fiction structured as an ex post evidentiary framework-and Operational Agency Graph (OAG)<n>OA evaluates an AI's observable operational characteristics.<n>OAG operationalizes that analysis by embedding these characteristics in a causal graph to trace and apportion culpability among developers, fine-tuners, deployers, and users.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-20T01:49:03Z)
• When Life Gives You AI, Will You Turn It Into A Market for Lemons? Understanding How Information Asymmetries About AI System Capabilities Affect Market Outcomes and Adoption [45.10829096284761]
  Complex AI systems can appear highly accurate while making costly errors or embedding hidden defects.<n>This paper provides the first experimental evidence on the role of information asymmetries and disclosure designs in shaping user adoption of AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-29T12:49:28Z)
• Making LLMs Reliable When It Matters Most: A Five-Layer Architecture for High-Stakes Decisions [51.56484100374058]
  Current large language models (LLMs) excel in verifiable domains where outputs can be checked before action but prove less reliable for high-stakes strategic decisions with uncertain outcomes.<n>This gap, driven by mutually cognitive biases in both humans and artificial intelligence (AI) systems, threatens the defensibility of valuations and sustainability of investments in the sector.<n>This report describes a framework emerging from systematic qualitative assessment across 7 frontier-grade LLMs and 3 market-facing venture vignettes under time pressure.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-10T22:24:21Z)
• Never Compromise to Vulnerabilities: A Comprehensive Survey on AI Governance [211.5823259429128]
  We propose a comprehensive framework integrating technical and societal dimensions, structured around three interconnected pillars: Intrinsic Security, Derivative Security, and Social Ethics.<n>We identify three core challenges: (1) the generalization gap, where defenses fail against evolving threats; (2) inadequate evaluation protocols that overlook real-world risks; and (3) fragmented regulations leading to inconsistent oversight.<n>Our framework offers actionable guidance for researchers, engineers, and policymakers to develop AI systems that are not only robust and secure but also ethically aligned and publicly trustworthy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-12T09:42:56Z)
• Agentic AI: Autonomy, Accountability, and the Algorithmic Society [0.2209921757303168]
  Agentic Artificial Intelligence (AI) can autonomously pursue long-term goals, make decisions, and execute complex, multi-turn.<n>This transition from advisory roles to proactive execution challenges established legal, economic, and creative frameworks.<n>We explore challenges in three interrelated domains: creativity and intellectual property, legal and ethical considerations, and competitive effects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-01T03:14:59Z)
• Causal Responsibility Attribution for Human-AI Collaboration [62.474732677086855]
  This paper presents a causal framework using Structural Causal Models (SCMs) to systematically attribute responsibility in human-AI systems. Two case studies illustrate the framework's adaptability in diverse human-AI collaboration scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-05T17:17:45Z)
• Unravelling Responsibility for AI [0.8472029664133528]
  It is widely acknowledged that we need to establish where responsibility lies for the outputs and impacts of AI-enabled systems.<n>This paper presents a conceptual framework of responsibility, accompanied with a graphical notation and general methodology.<n>It unravels the concept of responsibility to clarify that there are different possibilities of who is responsible for AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-04T13:12:17Z)
• Accountability in AI: From Principles to Industry-specific Accreditation [4.033641609534416]
  Recent AI-related scandals have shed a spotlight on accountability in AI. This paper draws on literature from public policy and governance to make two contributions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-08T16:37:11Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.