Jul 2026· Human Capital Leadership Review· Vol 36· 0 citations
TL;DR
Drawing on organizational governance research, technical fairness literature, and regulatory frameworks, the article maps seven critical intervention stages and assigns explicit accountability at each stage, and embeds structural mechanisms that address role ambiguity, siloed decision-making, and deployment pressure.
Abstract
Organizations deploying artificial intelligence systems in high-stakes domains—employment screening, credit underwriting, healthcare allocation, criminal justice—confront a critical governance challenge: how to operationalize bias mitigation across the full system lifecycle when accountability diffuses across technical, legal, and operational teams. Despite growing regulatory pressure from the EU AI Act and U.S. anti-discrimination statutes, most organizations lack integrated frameworks that translate fairness principles into daily practice. Technical research offers debiasing algorithms but assumes centralized control that rarely exists; regulatory guidance defines compliance endpoints without implementation pathways; organizational studies document failure patterns without producing adoptable solutions. This article synthesizes cross-disciplinary evidence to present a practitioner-oriented approach to lifecycle-based AI bias mitigation. Drawing on organizational governance research, technical fairness literature, and regulatory frameworks, the article maps seven critical intervention stages—from problem formulation through continuous monitoring—assigns explicit accountability at each stage, and embeds structural mechanisms that address role ambiguity, siloed decision-making, and deployment pressure. The approach provides Chief AI Officers, compliance teams, and technical leaders with concrete governance architecture grounded in real organizational constraints and regulatory obligations.
Artificial intelligence is increasingly embedded in critical digital infrastructure across emerging markets, supporting applications in telecommunications, financial inclusion, healthcare, agriculture, fraud detection and public service delivery. While global responsible AI frameworks have established widely accepted p...
Derick Ohmar, Adil· 2026 ITU Kaleidoscope - AI a...· 0 citations
This article examines three interconnected dimensions of responsible AI for enterprise modernization: governance infrastructure for accountable AI deployment, algorithmic equity in high-impact decision environments, and the evolving international regulatory landscape shaping enterprise AI governance.
M. Modi· International Journal of Eng...· 0 citations
A normative analysis of thirteen recent studies on the challenges of technology implementation, ethical trust, and legal regulation suggests that the current governance dilemma stems not only from technological limitations but also from institutional neglect, which enables accountability avoidance.
The findings support risk-calibrated pre-deployment oversight while highlighting comparatively less consistent public disclosure of lifecycle monitoring after deployment.
Umme Aimen Khan· Journal of Economics, Financ...· 0 citations
It is concluded that a holistic AI compliance framework integrating data governance, bias mitigation strategies, legal oversight, cybersecurity, and ethical accountability is essential for ensuring responsible and trustworthy AI deployment in high-stakes environments.
Joy Oluchi Nwachukwu, Thaddaeuse Odhiambo, Dorcas Akorkor Apaflo et al.· Journal of Economic, Finance...· 0 citations
This paper advances a layered ethics-stack perspective and argues that AI governance should be evaluated not only by the presence of principles, but also by the distribution of operational controls, positive commitments, and enforceable constraints across institutional layers.
Marianne Najm· AI and Ethics· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.