A systematic literature review of artificial intelligence (AI) transparency laws in the European Union (EU) and United Kingdom (UK): a socio-legal approach to AI transparency governance

Joshua Krook, Peter Winter, John Downer, Jan Blockx
{"title":"A systematic literature review of artificial intelligence (AI) transparency laws in the European Union (EU) and United Kingdom (UK): a socio-legal approach to AI transparency governance","authors":"Joshua Krook,&nbsp;Peter Winter,&nbsp;John Downer,&nbsp;Jan Blockx","doi":"10.1007/s43681-025-00674-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This systematic literature review examines AI transparency laws and governance in the European Union (EU) and the United Kingdom (UK) through a socio-legal lens. The study highlights the importance of transparency in AI systems as a key regulatory focus globally, driven by the need to address the risks posed by opaque, ‘black box’ algorithms that can lead to unfair outcomes, privacy violations, and a lack of accountability. It identifies significant differences between the EU and UK approaches to AI regulation post-Brexit, with the EU's tiered, risk-based framework and the UK's more flexible, sector-specific strategy. The review categorises the literature into five themes: <i>the necessity of AI transparency</i>, <i>challenges in achieving transparency</i>, <i>techniques for governing transparency</i>, <i>laws governing AI transparency</i>, and <i>soft law governance toolkits</i>. The findings suggest that while technical solutions like eXplainable AI (XAI) and counterfactual methodologies are widely discussed, there is a critical need for a comprehensive, whole-of-organisation approach to embedding AI transparency within the cultural and operational fabric of organisations. This approach is argued to be more effective than top-down mandates, fostering an internal culture where transparency is valued and sustained. The study concludes by advocating for the development of AI transparency toolkits, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), to address sociotechnical barriers and ensure that transparency in AI systems is practically implemented across various organisational contexts. These toolkits would serve as practical guides for companies to adopt best practices in AI transparency, aligning with both legal requirements and broader sociocultural considerations.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":72137,"journal":{"name":"AI and ethics","volume":"5 4","pages":"4069 - 4090"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AI and ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43681-025-00674-z","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This systematic literature review examines AI transparency laws and governance in the European Union (EU) and the United Kingdom (UK) through a socio-legal lens. The study highlights the importance of transparency in AI systems as a key regulatory focus globally, driven by the need to address the risks posed by opaque, ‘black box’ algorithms that can lead to unfair outcomes, privacy violations, and a lack of accountability. It identifies significant differences between the EU and UK approaches to AI regulation post-Brexit, with the EU's tiered, risk-based framework and the UK's more flexible, sector-specific strategy. The review categorises the literature into five themes: the necessity of AI transparency, challenges in achieving transparency, techniques for governing transparency, laws governing AI transparency, and soft law governance toolkits. The findings suggest that while technical solutions like eXplainable AI (XAI) and counterfactual methodologies are widely discussed, there is a critical need for a comprehensive, whole-of-organisation approach to embedding AI transparency within the cultural and operational fabric of organisations. This approach is argued to be more effective than top-down mandates, fostering an internal culture where transparency is valued and sustained. The study concludes by advocating for the development of AI transparency toolkits, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), to address sociotechnical barriers and ensure that transparency in AI systems is practically implemented across various organisational contexts. These toolkits would serve as practical guides for companies to adopt best practices in AI transparency, aligning with both legal requirements and broader sociocultural considerations.

对欧盟(EU)和英国(UK)人工智能(AI)透明度法律的系统文献综述:人工智能透明度治理的社会-法律方法
本系统的文献综述通过社会法律视角考察了欧盟(EU)和英国(UK)的人工智能透明度法律和治理。该研究强调了人工智能系统透明度作为全球监管重点的重要性,因为需要解决不透明的“黑箱”算法带来的风险,这些算法可能导致不公平的结果、侵犯隐私和缺乏问责制。报告指出,英国脱欧后,欧盟和英国在人工智能监管方面的做法存在重大差异,欧盟采用分层的、基于风险的框架,而英国采用更灵活的、针对特定行业的战略。该综述将文献分为五个主题:人工智能透明度的必要性、实现透明度的挑战、治理透明度的技术、治理人工智能透明度的法律以及软法律治理工具包。研究结果表明,虽然可解释人工智能(XAI)和反事实方法等技术解决方案被广泛讨论,但迫切需要一种全面的、全组织的方法,将人工智能透明度嵌入组织的文化和运营结构中。这种方法被认为比自上而下的授权更有效,可以培养一种重视和维持透明度的内部文化。该研究的结论是倡导开发人工智能透明度工具包,特别是针对中小型企业(sme),以解决社会技术障碍,并确保人工智能系统的透明度在各种组织环境中得到实际实施。这些工具包将成为企业在人工智能透明度方面采用最佳实践的实用指南,与法律要求和更广泛的社会文化考虑保持一致。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信