Implementing Responsible Artificial Intelligence in Marketing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ethical use of AI ensures equity and fairness for all stakeholders, leading to enhanced business performance. This conceptual paper explores the ethical implications of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in marketing through a literature synthesis grounded in ethical theory. Drawing on frameworks such as utilitarianism, deontology, virtue ethics, ethics of care, and contractarianism, the study identifies five key ethical challenges—monopolization, privacy, corporate social responsibility, human rights, and accountability. Real-world cases illustrate how these challenges manifest in practice. The paper proposes theory-driven solutions including data democratization, contextual data use, adherence to human rights protocols, and the establishment of AI governance mechanisms like ombudspersons. By offering a conceptual framework and ethical propositions, the study contributes to the development of responsible AI practices in marketing and outlines directions for future research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.036 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".