Ethics Suppression in AI Development: A Comparative Case Study of Responsible AI Under Competitive Pressure
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51137/wrp.ijarbm.869Keywords:
Ethics Suppression, Responsible AI, AI Governance, Ethical Oversight, Competitive Pressure, AI Safety, Organisational Ethics, Governance AuthorityAbstract
This study explores the governance tensions among Google, OpenAI, Meta, and Microsoft, focusing on how competitive AI development can lead to the ethics suppression. The study aims to examine how ethical oversight loses practical influence even when responsible AI structures are formally in place, especially during rapid technological competition. Despite the rapid growth of responsible AI frameworks and ethical principles in the tech sector, there has been less focus on how these concerns are actually applied when pressure to deploy increases. This paper introduces the concept of ethics suppression in AI development, highlighting that while ethical oversight may exist on paper, its practical authority can diminish during decision-making. Using a comparative qualitative case study examining corporate governance documents, public statements, and reports on governance issues, we identify common issues such as reduced authority, a weakened ability to escalate concerns, urgency in deployment, and fragmented governance. Our findings indicate that heightened competition can weaken the influence of ethical oversight, even in organisations with established responsible AI practices. By differentiating ethics suppression from ethics washing, it offers a framework for organisations and policymakers to evaluate the effectiveness of ethical oversight in competitive AI development
References
Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 610–623. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922
Bietti, E. (2020). From ethics washing to ethics bashing. Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 210–219. (FAccT ’20) https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3372860
Bird, F.G., & Waters, J.A. (1989). The moral muteness of managers. California Management Review, 32, 73-88.
Bommasani, R., Hudson, D. A., Adeli, E., Altman, R., Arora, S., von Arx, S., et al. (2021). On the opportunities and risks of foundation models. Stanford Center for Research on Foundation Models. https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.07258
Christensen, C. (1997). The innovator’s dilemma. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Corrêa, N. K., Galvão, C., Santos, J. W., Del Pino, C., Pinto, E. P., Barbosa, C., Massmann, D., Mambrini, R., Galvão, L., Terem, E., & De Oliveira, N. (2023). Worldwide AI ethics: A review of 200 guidelines and recommendations for AI governance. Patterns, 4(10), 100857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2023.100857
D’Onfro, J. (2019, April 4). Google scraps its AI ethics board less than two weeks after launch in the wake of employee protest. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jilliandonfro/2019/04/04/google-cancels-its-ai-ethics-board-less-than-two-weeks-after-launch-in-the-wake-of-employee-protest/
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4308385
Gillespie, T. (2018). Custodians of the internet: platforms, content moderation, and the hidden decisions that shape social media. Yale University Press. https://doi.org/10.12987/9780300235029
Google. (2018). AI principles. Google. https://ai.google/principles/
Greene, D., Hoffmann, A. L., & Stark, L. (2019). Better, nicer, clearer, fairer: a critical assessment of the movement for ethical artificial intelligence and machine learning. Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. https://doi.org/10.24251/hicss.2019.258
Hao, K. (2020, December 4). We read the paper that forced Timnit Gebru out of Google. Here’s what it says. MIT Technology Review. https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/12/04/1013294/google-ai-ethics-research-paper-forced-out-timnit-gebru/
Harvard Law Review (2025, April 10). Amoral drift in AI corporate governance - Harvard Law Review. Harvard Law Review. https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-138/amoral-drift-in-ai-corporate-governance/
Jobin, A., Ienca, M., & Vayena, E. (2019). The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(9), 389–399. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2
Levy, M. G. (2021). Timnit Gebru says artificial intelligence needs to slow down. Wired. Retrieved February 1, 2024, from https://www.wired.com/story/rewired-2021-timnit-gebru/
Meta. (2023). Responsible AI at Meta. Meta AI. https://ai.meta.com/responsible-ai/
Metcalf, J., Moss, E., & boyd, danah. (2019). Owning ethics: corporate logics, silicon valley, and the institutionalisation of ethics. Social Research: An International Quarterly, 86(2), 449–476. https://doi.org/10.1353/sor.2019.0022
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalised organisations: formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363. https://doi.org/10.1086/226550
Mickle, T., Metz, C., Isaac, M., & Weise, K. (2023, December 9). Inside OpenAI’s crisis over the future of artificial intelligence. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/09/technology/openai-altman-inside-crisis.html
Microsoft. (2024). Responsible AI principles and approach | Microsoft AI. Www.microsoft.com. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/ai/principles-and-approach
Mittelstadt, B. (2019). Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(11), 501–507. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0114-4
Morley, J., Floridi, L., Kinsey, L., & Elhalal, A. (2020). From what to how: an initial review of publicly available AI ethics tools, methods and research to translate principles into practices. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26, 2141–2168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00165-5
NIST. (2023). National Institute of Standards and Technology. Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0). U.S. Department of Commerce. https://www.nist.gov/itl/ai-risk-management-framework
OECD. (2019). OECD principles on artificial intelligence. OECD Publishing. https://oecd.ai/en/ai-principles
OpenAI. (2023). OpenAI preparedness framework. OpenAI. https://openai.com/
Papagiannidis, E., Mikalef, P., & Conboy, K. (2025). Responsible artificial intelligence governance: A review and research framework. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 34(2). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2024.101885
Raji, I. D., Smart, A., White, R. N., Mitchell, M., Gebru, T., Hutchinson, B., Smith-Loud, J., Theron, D., & Barnes, P. (2020). Closing the AI accountability gap: defining an end-to-end framework for internal algorithmic auditing. Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 33–44. https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3372873
Ropek, L. (2026, February 11). OpenAI disbands mission alignment team | TechCrunch. TechCrunch. https://techcrunch.com/2026/02/11/openai-disbands-mission-alignment-team-which-focused-on-safe-and-trustworthy-ai-development/
Stake, R. E. (1995). The Art of Case Study Research. Sage Publications
Tan K. W. K. (2024, August 28). OpenAI has lost nearly half of its AGI safety team, says ex-researcher. Business Insider. https://www.businessinsider.com/openai-lost-nearly-half-agi-safety-team-ex-researcher-2024-8
Tenbrunsel, A. E., & Messick, D. M. (2004). Ethical fading: the role of self-deception in unethical behaviour. Social Justice Research, 17(2), 223–236. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:sore.0000027411.35832.53
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Victor Frimpong (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
