CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 62Ethics and Social Impacts of AIInnovation, Sustainability, Human-Machine SystemsInnovation, Technology, and Society

IEEE 7010: A New Standard for Assessing the Well-being Implications of Artificial Intelligence

Open access
Schiff, Daniel, Ayesh, Aladdin, Musikanski, Laura, Havens, John C.·2020·2020 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC)
DOI 10.1109/smc42975.2020.9283454
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) enabled products and services are becoming a staple of everyday life. While governments and businesses are eager to enjoy the benefits of AI innovations, the mixed impact of these autonomous and intelligent systems on human well-being has become a pressing issue. The purpose of this article is to review one of the first international standards focused on the social and ethical implications of AI: The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineering's (IEEE) Standard (Std) 7010-2020 Recommended Practice for Assessing the Impact of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems on Human Well-being. Incorporating well-being factors throughout the lifecycle of AI is both challenging and urgent and IEEE 7010 aims to provide guidance for those who design, deploy, and procure these technologies. Before introducing IEEE 7010, we consider possible benefits of an approach for AI centered around well-being and the measurement of well-being data. Next, we critically examine how the standard relates to approaches and perspectives in place in the AI community. Finally, we indicate where future efforts are needed for IEEE 7010 to better achieve its ambitions.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/smc42975.2020.9283454

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • If handled appropriately, AI can offer well-being benefits, including building well-being awareness, measuring well-being and the impact of interventions and changes, managing AI risk on well-being, supporting positive well-being initiatives, and providing employers insight into employee work-life-balance.

    “If handled appropriately, AI can offer a number of well-being benefits.For example, building well-being awareness, measuring well-being and the impact of interventions and changes, managing any AI risk on well-being, supporting positive well-being initiatives and providing employers insight into employee work-life-balance (Schiff et al, 2020.”

    From Unlocking the value of artificial intelligence in human resource management through AI capability framework (2023) · cites this paper as Schiff et al, 2020

    Section C, “Benefits of a well-being orientation” (page unavailable), supports building awareness, measuring impacts, managing AI-related risks, and improving well-being through AI design. It describes these as benefits of adopting a well-being orientation to AI, rather than benefits AI itself provides, and does not say that AI gives employers insight into employees’ work-life balance. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 66

  1. K.-H. Yu, A. L. Beam, and I. S. Kohane, "Artificial intelligence in healthcare," Nature Biomedical Engineering, vol. 2, no. 10, pp. 719- 731, 2018, number: 10 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group.
  2. A. Bahrammirzaee, "A comparative survey of artificial intelligence applications in finance: artificial neural networks, expert system and hybrid intelligent systems," Neural Computing and Applications, vol. 19, no. 8, pp. 1165-1195, 2010.
  3. D. J. Fagnant and K. Kockelman, "Preparing a nation for autonomous vehicles: opportunities, barriers and policy recommendations," Trans- portation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, vol. 77, pp. 167-181, 2015.
  4. J. C. Augusto, "Ambient Intelligence: The Confluence of Ubiqui- tous/Pervasive Computing and Artificial Intelligence," in Intelligent Computing Everywhere, A. J. Schuster, Ed. London: Springer London, 2007, pp. 213-234.
  5. E. Diener, "Subjective well-being," Psychological Bulletin, vol. 95, no. 3, pp. 542-575, 1984.
  6. F. A. Huppert and T. T. C. So, "Flourishing Across Europe: Application of a New Conceptual Framework for Defining Well-Being," Social Indicators Research, vol. 110, no. 3, pp. 837-1246, 2013, publisher: Springer.
  7. E. Diener, E. M. Suh, R. E. Lucas, and H. L. Smith, "Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress," Psychological Bulletin, vol. 125, no. 2, pp. 276-302, 1999, publisher: American Psychological Association Inc.
  8. L. Musikanski, B. Rakova, J. Bradbury, R. Phillips, and M. Manson, "Artificial Intelligence and Community Well-being: A Proposal for an Emerging Area of Research," International Journal of Community Well- Being, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 39-55, Mar. 2020.
  9. A. Chouldechova, D. Benavides-Prado, O. Fialko, and R. Vaithianathan, "A case study of algorithm-assisted decision making in child maltreatment hotline screening decisions," in Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency, 2018, pp. 134-148. [Online]. Available: http://proceedings.mlr.press/v81/chouldechova18a.html
  10. J. Buolamwini and T. Gebru, "Gender Shades: Intersectional Accuracy Disparities in Commercial Gender Classification," in Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency, 2018, pp. 77-91.
  11. A. T. Little, "Fake News, Propaganda, and Lies Can Be Pervasive Even If They Aren't Persuasive," Critique, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 21-34, 2018.
  12. R. Chesney and D. Citron, "Deepfakes and the New Disinformation War: The Coming Age of Post-Truth Geopolitics," Foreign Affairs, vol. 98, p. 147, 2019.
  13. O. Tene and J. Polonetsky, "Big data for all: Privacy and user control in the age of analytics," Nw. J. Tech. & Intell. Prop., vol. 11, p. xxvii, 2012.
  14. T. Piketty and A. Goldhammer, Capital in the twenty-first century. Cambridge Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2014.
  15. D. M. West, The Future of Work: Robots, AI, and Automation. Brook- ings Institution Press, 2018.
  16. D. Schiff, J. Biddle, J. Borenstein, and K. Laas, "What's next for ai ethics, policy, and governance? a global overview," in Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, ser. AIES'20. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2020, pp. 153-158.
  17. L. Musikanski, J. Havens, and G. Gunsch, "IEEE P7010 Well-being Metrics Standard for Autonomous and Intelligent Systems™," IEEE, New York, NY, Tech. Rep., 2018.
  18. R. Chatila and J. C. Havens, "The IEEE Global Initiative on Ethics of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems," in Robotics and Well-Being, ser. Intelligent Systems, Control and Automation: Science and Engineering, M. I. Aldinhas Ferreira, J. Silva Sequeira, G. Singh Virk, M. O. Tokhi, and E. E. Kadar, Eds. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2019, pp. 11-16.
  19. A. Koene, A. L. Smith, T. Egawa, S. Mandalh, and Y. Hatada, "IEEE P70xx, Establishing Standards for Ethical Technology," in Proceedings of the KDD, ExCel, 2019, p. 2.
  20. R. A. Easterlin, "Income and Happiness: Towards a Unified Theory," The Economic Journal, vol. 111, p. 20, 2001.
  21. J. E. Stiglitz, J.-P. Fitoussi, and M. Durand, Measuring what counts: the global movement for well-being. New York: The New Press, 2019.
  22. C. D. Fisher, "Conceptualizing and Measuring Wellbeing at Work," in Wellbeing. American Cancer Society, 2014, pp. 1-25.
  23. E. Alatartseva and G. Barysheva, "Well-being: Subjective and Objective Aspects," Procedia -Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 166, pp. 36- 42, 2015.
  24. B. Dale, "Subjective and objective social indicators in studies of regional social well-being," Regional Studies, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 503-515, 1980, publisher: Routledge.
  25. P. Bansal and T. Hunter, "Strategic Explanations for the Early Adoption of ISO 14001," Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 289-299, 2003.
  26. J. L. Campbell, "Why Would Corporations Behave in Socially Respon- sible Ways? An Institutional Theory of Corporate Social Responsibility," The Academy of Management Review, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 946-967, 2007.
  27. D. S. Ruder, "Public Obligations of Private Corporations," University of Pennsylvania Law Review, vol. 114, no. 2, pp. 209-229, 1965, publisher: The University of Pennsylvania Law Review.
  28. R. Wilkinson, The Inner Level: How more equal societies reduce stress, restore sanity and improve everyone's well-being. S.l.: Penguin Books, 2020, oCLC: 1140462934.
  29. R. Wilkinson and K. Pickett, Spirit Level. New York: Bloomsbury Press, 2009.
  30. P. Hawken, A. B. Lovins, and L. H. Lovins, Natural Capitalism: The Next Industrial Revolution. Routledge, 2013.
  31. J. Tepper and D. Hearn, The Myth of Capitalism: Monopolies and the Death of Competition. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley, 2018.
  32. M. Miles and J. Covin, "Environmental marketing: A source of reputa- tional, competitive, and financial advantage," JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 299-311, 2000.
  33. J. S. Armstrong and K. C. Green, "Effects of corporate social re- sponsibility and irresponsibility policies," Journal of Business Research, vol. 66, no. 10, pp. 1922-1927, 2013.
  34. H. S. Brown, M. d. Jong, and T. Lessidrenska, "The rise of the Global Reporting Initiative: a case of institutional entrepreneurship," Environmental Politics, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 182-200, 2009.
  35. I. Kubiszewski, R. Costanza, C. Franco, P. Lawn, J. Talberth, T. Jackson, and C. Aylmer, "Beyond GDP: Measuring and achieving global genuine progress," Ecological Economics, vol. 93, pp. 57-68, 2013.
  36. R. Dart, "The legitimacy of social enterprise," Nonprofit Manage- ment and Leadership, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 411-424, 2004, eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/nml.43. · DOI
  37. W. Stubbs, "Sustainable Entrepreneurship and B Corps," Business Strat- egy and the Environment, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 331-344, 2017, eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/bse.1920. · DOI
  38. J. S. Hiller, "The Benefit Corporation and Corporate Social Responsi- bility," Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 118, no. 2, pp. 287-301, 2013.
  39. L. Iriarte and L. Musikanski, "Bridging the Gap between the Sustainable Development Goals and Happiness Metrics," International Journal of Community Well-Being, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 115-135, Feb. 2019.
  40. "World Happiness Report: Chapter 6, Sustainable Development and Human Well-Being," New york, Tech. Rep.
  41. L. Musikanski, "Happiness In Public Policy," Journal of Social Change, p. 31, 2014.
  42. E. Diener, R. Lucas, U. Schimmack, and J. Helliwell, Eds., Well-being for public policy, ser. Series in positive psychology. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press, 2009, oCLC: ocn244566759.
  43. R. v. Schomberg, "A Vision of Responsible Research and Innovation," in Responsible Innovation. Wiley-Blackwell, 2013, pp. 51-74.
  44. V. Dignum, "Ethics in artificial intelligence: introduction to the special issue," Ethics and Information Technology, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 1-3, 2018.
  45. R. Chesney and D. K. Citron, "Deep Fakes: A Looming Challenge for Privacy, Democracy, and National Security," Social Science Research Network, Rochester, NY, SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 3213954, 2018.
  46. G. E. Marchant, B. Allenby, R. C. Arkin, J. Borenstein, L. M. Gaudet, O. Kittrie, P. Lin, G. R. Lucas, R. O'Meara, and J. Silberman, "Inter- national Governance of Autonomous Military Robots," in Handbook of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, K. P. Valavanis and G. J. Vachtsevanos, Eds. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 2015, pp. 2879-2910.
  47. V. C. Müller and N. Bostrom, "Future Progress in Artificial Intelligence: A Survey of Expert Opinion," in Fundamental Issues of Artificial Intelligence, ser. Synthese Library. Springer, Cham, 2016, pp. 555- 572.
  48. M. Nanni, G. Andrienko, C. Boldrini, F. Bonchi, C. Cattuto, F. Chiaromonte, G. Comandé, M. Conti, M. Coté, F. Dignum, V. Dignum, J. Domingo-Ferrer, F. Giannotti, R. Guidotti, D. Helbing, J. Kertesz, S. Lehmann, B. Lepri, P. Lukowicz, A. Monreale, K. Morik, N. Oliver, A. Passarella, A. Passerini, D. Pedreschi, A. Pentland, F. Pratesi, S. Rinzivillo, S. Ruggieri, A. Siebes, R. Trasarti, J. v. d. Hoven, and A. Vespignani, "Give more data, awareness and control to individual citizens, and they will help COVID-19 containment," arXiv:2004.05222 [cs], 2020, arXiv: 2004.05222 version: 1. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2004.05222 · arXiv
  49. K. Schwab, The fourth industrial revolution, first edition ed. New York: Crown Business, 2016.
  50. A. D. Selbst, D. Boyd, S. Friedler, S. Venkatasubramanian, and J. Vertesi, "Fairness and Abstraction in Sociotechnical Systems," Social Science Research Network, Rochester, NY, SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 3265913, 2018.
  51. K. Renaud and P. Gray, "Making sense of low-level usage data to understand user activities," in Proceedings of the 2004 annual research conference of the South African institute of computer scientists and information technologists on IT research in developing countries, ser. SAICSIT '04. Stellenbosch, Western Cape, South Africa: South African Institute for Computer Scientists and Information Technologists, 2004, pp. 115-124.
  52. M. Saneiro, O. C. Santos, S. Salmeron-Majadas, and J. G. Boticario, "Towards Emotion Detection in Educational Scenarios from Facial Ex- pressions and Body Movements through Multimodal Approaches," 2014, iSSN: 2356-6140 Library Catalog: www.hindawi.com Pages: e484873 Publisher: Hindawi Volume: 2014.
  53. A. Ayesh, M. Arevalillo-Herráez, and F. J. Ferri, "Towards Psychologically based Personalised Modelling of Emotions Using Associative Classifiers:," International Journal of Cognitive Informatics and Natural Intelligence, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 52-64, Apr. 2016. [Online]. Available: http://services.igi-global.com/resolvedoi/resolve. aspx?doi=10.4018/IJCINI.2016040103 · DOI
  54. C. J. Bennett and C. D. Raab, The Governance of Privacy: Policy Instruments in Global Perspective. The MIT Press, 2017, oCLC: 1012163985.
  55. A. Chander, M. E. Kaminski, and W. McGeveran, "Catalyzing Privacy Law," Social Science Research Network, Rochester, NY, SSRN Schol- arly Paper ID 3433922, 2019.
  56. P. Voigt and A. von dem Bussche, The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2017.
  57. The IEEE Global Initiative on Ethics of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems, "Ethically Aligned Design: A Vision for Prioritizing Human Well-being with Autonomous and Intelligent Systems, First Edition," IEEE, Piscataway, New Jersey, Tech. Rep., 2019.
  58. C. Cath, M. Latonero, V. Marda, and R. Pakzad, "Leap of FATE: human rights as a complementary framework for AI policy and practice," in Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 2020, pp. 702-702.
  59. B. Mittelstadt, C. Russell, and S. Wachter, "Explaining explanations in AI," in Proceedings of the conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency, 2019, pp. 279-288.
  60. B. Rakova, R. Chowdhury, and J. Yang, "Assessing the intersection of organizational structure and FAT* efforts within industry: implications tutorial," in Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Account- ability, and Transparency, 2020, pp. 697-697.
  61. R. A. Calvo, D. Peters, and S. Cave, "Advancing impact assessment for intelligent systems," Nature Machine Intelligence, vol. 2, no. 22, p. 89-91, Feb 2020.
  62. M. E. Kaminski and G. Malgieri, "Algorithmic Impact Assessments under the GDPR: Producing Multi-layered Explanations," Social Science Research Network, Rochester, NY, SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 3456224, 2019.
  63. S. Bernstein and B. Cashore, "Can non-state global governance be le- gitimate? An analytical framework," REGULATION & GOVERNANCE, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 347-371, 2007.
  64. A. Kolk and R. van Tulder, "The Effectiveness of Self-regulation:: Corporate Codes of Conduct and Child Labour," European Management Journal, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 260-271, 2002.
  65. C. Y. Laporte, S. Alexandre, and R. V. O'Connor, "A Software Engineer- ing Lifecycle Standard for Very Small Enterprises," in Software Process Improvement, ser. Communications in Computer and Information Sci- ence, R. V. O'Connor, N. Baddoo, K. Smolander, and R. Messnarz, Eds. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2008, pp. 129-141.
  66. M. A. Madaio, L. Stark, J. W. Vaughan, and H. Wallach, "Co-Designing Checklists to Understand Organizational Challenges and Opportunities around Fairness in AI," CHI, p. 20, 2020.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schiff, D., Ayesh, A., Musikanski, L., & Havens, J. C.
Affiliations
  • Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
  • De Montfort University (GB)
  • Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (US)
ORCID
Venue
2020 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2020-10-11
Pages
2746-2753
ISSN
1062-922X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1109/smc42975.2020.9283454
OpenAlex
W3025936724
Cited by
62
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 3
FWCI
7.84
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Conference proceedings/Conference proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Innovation, Sustainability, Human-Machine Systems
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Innovation, Technology, and Society
Keywords
human well-being, AI ethics, societal impact of AI, AI lifecycle, well-being measurement, AI standards, AI governance

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review