How Supply Chain Dependencies Complicate Bias Measurement and Accountability Attribution in AI Hiring Applications

TL;DR

This paper argues that AI hiring systems are assembled through multi-vendor supply chains, so bias emerges from component interactions and accountability fragments across actors who each lack end-to-end visibility. It proposes coordinated technical, regulatory, and organizational interventions such as system-level audits, vendor fairness disclosure, continuous monitoring, and dependency-chain documentation.

Key findings

• Supply chain dependencies create four “convolutions”: evaluation convolution (components cannot be assessed in isolation), attribution convolution (no party can identify the causal component), remediation convolution (legal responsibility and technical control sit with different actors), and accountability convolution (no single actor has both visibility and control to ensure fairness).
• Regulatory frameworks assign responsibility in ways that do not match multi-vendor pipelines: NYC Local Law 144 places all obligations on employers and produced “null compliance,” with only 5% of employers posting required reports; analysis of 116 filed audits found under-reporting through missing demographic data, opaque methods, and misaligned metrics.
• Bias can arise even when each component appears compliant: a resume parser, ranking algorithm, and employer threshold may each satisfy different fairness definitions, yet the integrated system discriminates. The paper cites the fairness impossibility theorem and notes that over 250 commercial HR AI tools span the hiring pipeline.
• The paper proposes multi-layered interventions: system-level audits of integrated deployments, vendor guidelines requiring fairness approach disclosure, continuous monitoring, contractual responsibility allocation, and detailed documentation across dependency chains.

Methods

• Structured literature review across Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, and SSRN, combining search terms for AI hiring systems, bias/fairness, and accountability; limited to English-language publications with no date restriction, screened by title and abstract, plus references from highly relevant works.
• Regulatory analysis of three frameworks: the EU AI Act, New York City Local Law 144, and Colorado’s Artificial Intelligence Act, focused on how each assigns responsibility across supply chain actors and where gaps arise in multi-vendor deployment.
• Practitioner and policy literature on AI governance in hiring, including regulatory impact assessments, audit reports, and industry analyses, was also reviewed.

Limitations

• The paper states it focuses primarily on AI hiring systems in the United States and European Union, so accountability dynamics may differ in other regulatory contexts.
• The paper states its emphasis on resume screening reflects where algorithmic hiring has received the most scrutiny, though other hiring stages pose their own challenges.
• The paper states its proposed interventions are overarching normative mechanisms, not empirically validated recommendations, and more specific guidance would require access to proprietary contracts, system architectures, and deployment data.
• Evident from the text: the illustrative example in Section 5.6 is explicitly fictional, and the analysis is based on literature and regulatory review rather than original empirical testing.