Search results

In spite of the merits of artificial intelligence (AI) in marketing and social media, harm to consumers has prompted calls for AI auditing/certification. Understanding consumers’ approval of AI certification entities is vital for its effectiveness and companies’ choice of certification. This study aims to generate important insights into the consumer perspective of AI certifications and stimulate future research.

A literature and status-quo-driven search of the AI certification landscape identifies entities and related concepts. This study empirically explores consumer approval of the most discussed entities in four AI decision domains using an online experiment and outline a research agenda for AI certification in marketing/social media.

Trust in AI certification is complex. The empirical findings show that consumers seem to approve more of non-profit entities than for-profit entities, with the government approving the most.

The introduction of AI certification to marketing/social media contributes to work on consumer trust and AI acceptance and structures AI certification research from outside marketing to facilitate future research on AI certification for marketing/social media scholars.

For businesses, the authors provide a first insight into consumer preferences for AI-certifying entities, guiding the choice of which entity to use. For policymakers, this work guides their ongoing discussion on “who should certify AI” from a consumer perspective.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this work is the first to introduce the topic of AI certification to the marketing/social media literature, provide a novel guideline to scholars and offer the first set of empirical studies examining consumer approval of AI certifications.

To review the literature and identify research gaps in the role and influence boards of directors of companies have in occupational health and safety (OHS).

This was done in a scoping review built on a structured search in MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, PsycINFO, Sociological Abstracts, CCInfoWeb, EconLit, Web of Science, CINAHL and gray literature. Citations and reference lists were tracked. Inclusion criteria were publication in English. Exclusion criteria were studies covering companies using subcontractors to arrange OHS, or with <250 employees.

Forty-nine studies were included. The majority contained empirical data (n = 28; 57%), some were entirely normative (n = 16; 33%), and a few contained normative claims far beyond empirical data (n = 5; 10%). Empirical studies gave no insight into the scope of impact of board activities on OHS, and no studies assess the causal mechanisms by which board activities influence OHS outcomes. Most studies focused on both health and safety (n = 20; 41%) or only safety (n = 15; 31%). Context might explain the focus on safety rather than health, but is not clearly elucidated by the studies. Several studies are describing leadership behavior, although not framed as such. A narrative summary is presented to facilitate future research.

Future research should include: (1) which board activities influence OHS, (2) how board activities influence OHS, (3) the influence of context and (4) the leadership role of boards of directors.

This study identifies a total lack of research on the basic mechanics of the relationship between boards and OHS.