Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence as Continuous Proportionalization: Fashion Image Generation at OTTO

Inhaltsverzeichnis

Bibliographische Infos

Cover der Ausgabe: Swiss Journal of Business Jahrgang 80 (2026), Heft 1
Open Access Vollzugriff

Swiss Journal of Business

Jahrgang 80 (2026), Heft 1

Autor:innen:
Verlag
Nomos, Baden-Baden
Copyrightjahr
2026
ISSN-Online
2944-3741
ISSN-Print
2944-3741

Kapitelinformationen

Open Access Vollzugriff

Jahrgang 80 (2026), Heft 1

Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence as Continuous Proportionalization: Fashion Image Generation at OTTO

Autor:innen:
ISSN-Print
2944-3741
ISSN-Online
2944-3741
Kapitelvorschau:

Die inhärente Ambivalenz und die zunehmende Nutzung künstlicher Intelligenz (KI) werfen drängende normative Fragen auf. Die Literatur ist sich einig, dass verantwortungsvolle KI-Nutzung Governance auf der organisationalen Ebene erfordert. Uneinigkeit besteht jedoch darüber, was verantwortungsvolle KI-Nutzung ist und wie sie entsteht. Dieser Artikel betrachtet verantwortungsvolle KI-Nutzung als Prozess und Ergebnis sozialer Evaluation. Er entwickelt ein konzeptionelles Modell („kontinuierliche Proportionalisierung“), das erklärt, wie Organisationen kollektive Interpretationen verantwortungsvoller KI-Nutzung entlang der Dimensionen Legitimität, Geeignetheit, Notwendigkeit und Verhältnismässigkeit konstruieren. Zur Veranschaulichung wird das Modell auf KI-basierte Fashion-Bildgenerierung bei Deutschlands führendem E-Commerce-Unternehmen OTTO angewendet.

Literaturverzeichnis

  1. Bach, T. A., Kaarstad, M., Solberg, E., & Babic, A. (2025). Insights into suggested Responsible AI (RAI) practices in real-world settings: a systematic literature review. AI and Ethics, 5(3), 3185–3232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-024-00648-7 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  2. Bitektine, A., & Haack, P. (2015). The “macro” and the “micro” of legitimacy: Toward a multilevel theory of the legitimacy process. Academy of Management Review, 40(1), 49–75. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2013.0318 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  3. Bughin, J. (2025a). Doing versus saying: responsible AI among large firms. AI & Society, 40(4), 2751–2763. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-024-02014-x Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  4. Bughin, J. (2025b). The role of AI assets and capabilities in shaping responsible AI deepening: a random forest machine learning view. AI and Ethics, 5(6), 6313–6327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-025-00802-9 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  5. Christophersen, T., & Pärn, J. (2021). Data Science bei OTTO. In P. Buxmann & H. Schmidt (Eds.), Künstliche Intelligenz (pp. 101–115). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-61794-6_6 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  6. Cihon, P., Schuett, J., & Baum, S. D. (2021). Corporate governance of artificial intelligence in the public interest. Information (Basel), 12(7), 275. https://doi.org/10.3390/info12070275 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  7. Coeckelbergh, M. (2020). AI Ethics. MIT Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  8. Coeckelbergh, M. (2024). Artificial intelligence, the common good, and the democratic deficit in AI governance. AI and Ethics, 5(2), 1491–1497. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-024-00492-9 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  9. Cohen-Eliya, M., & Porat, I. (2010). American balancing and German proportionality: The historical origins. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 8(2), 263–286. https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/moq004 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  10. de-Lima-Santos, M.-F., Yeung, W. N., & Dodds, T. (2025). Guiding the way: a comprehensive examination of AI guidelines in global media. AI & Society, 40(4), 2585–2603. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-024-01973-5 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  11. Elia, M., Ziethmann, P., Krumme, J., Schlögl-Flierl, K., & Bauer, B. (2025). Responsible AI, ethics, and the AI lifecycle: how to consider the human influence? AI and Ethics, 5(4), 4011–4028. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-025-00666-z Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  12. Floridi, L., Cowls, J., Beltrametti, M., Chatila, R., Chazerand, P., Dignum, V., Luetge, C., Madelin, R., Pagallo, U., Rossi, F., Schafer, B., Valcke, P., & Vayena, E. (2018). AI4People-An Ethical Framework for a Good AI Society: Opportunities, Risks, Principles, and Recommendations. Minds and Machines, 28(4), 689–707. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-018-9482-5 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  13. Garibay, O. O., Winslow, B., Andolina, S., Antona, M., Bodenschatz, A., Coursaris, C., Falco, G., Fiore, S. M., Garibay, I., Grieman, K., Havens, J. C., Jirotka, M., Kacorri, H., Karwowski, W., Kider, J., Konstan, J., Koon, S., Lopez-Gonzalez, M., Maifeld-Carucci, I., … Xu, W. (2023). Six Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence Grand Challenges. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 39(3), 391–437. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2022.2153320 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  14. Gerken, T. (2024, December 11). Chatbot “encouraged teen to kill parents over screen time limit.” BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd605e48q1vo Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  15. Gogoll, J., Zuber, N., Kacianka, S., Greger, T., Pretschner, A., & Nida-Rümelin, J. (2021). Ethics in the Software Development Process: from Codes of Conduct to Ethical Deliberation. Philosophy & Technology, 34(4), 1085–1108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-021-00451-w Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  16. Hagendorff, T. (2022). A virtue-based framework to support putting AI ethics into practice. Philosophy & Technology, 35(3), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-022-00553-z Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  17. Heger, A. K., Passi, S., Dhanorkar, S., Kahn, Z., Wang, R., & Vorvoreanu, M. (2025). Towards a Responsible AI Organizational Maturity model. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 9(7), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1145/3757514 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  18. Horneber, D. (2025). Understanding the implementation of responsible artificial intelligence in organizations: A Neo-institutional theory perspective. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 57, 8. https://doi.org/10.17705/1cais.05708 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  19. 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 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  20. Kallina, E., & Singh, J. (2024). Stakeholder involvement for responsible AI development: A process framework. Proceedings of the 4th ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3689904.3694698 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  21. Karliuk, M. (2023). Proportionality principle for the ethics of artificial intelligence. AI and Ethics, 3(3), 985–990. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-022-00220-1 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  22. Katirai, A., Garcia, N., Ide, K., Nakashima, Y., & Kishimoto, A. (2024). Situating the social issues of image generation models in the model life cycle: a sociotechnical approach. AI and Ethics, 5(2), 1769–1786. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-024-00517-3 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  23. Krijger, J., Thuis, T., de Ruiter, M., Ligthart, E., & Broekman, I. (2023). The AI ethics maturity model: a holistic approach to advancing ethical data science in organizations. AI and Ethics, 3(2), 355–367. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-022-00228-7 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  24. Kuznia, R., Gordon, A., & Lavandera, E. (2025, November 6). “You”re not rushing. You’re just ready:’ Parents say ChatGPT encouraged son to kill himself. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/06/us/openai-chatgpt-suicide-lawsuit-invs-vis Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  25. Mikalef, P., Conboy, K., Lundström, J. E., & Popovič, A. (2022). Thinking responsibly about responsible AI and “the dark side” of AI. European Journal of Information Systems: An Official Journal of the Operational Research Society, 31(3), 257–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085x.2022.2026621 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  26. Minkkinen, M., Zimmer, M. P., & Mäntymäki, M. (2023). Co-shaping an ecosystem for responsible AI: Five types of expectation work in response to a technological frame. Information Systems Frontiers: A Journal of Research and Innovation, 25(1), 103–121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-022-10269-2 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  27. 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 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  28. Otto. (2021, September 16). Ethik vs. Wirtschaftlichkeit, können wir KI vertrauen? | MAIN Session – OTTO [Ethics vs. economics, can we trust AI?]. Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiay2hfDiOg Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  29. Polanyi, M. (1962). The Republic of science: Its political and economic theory. Minerva, 1(1), 54–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01101453 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  30. Radford, A., Kim, J. W., Xu, T., Brockman, G., McLeavey, C., & Sutskever, I. (2022). Robust Speech Recognition via Large-Scale Weak Supervision. In arXiv [eess.AS]. arXiv. http://arxiv.org/abs/2212.04356 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  31. Rufo, Y. (2025, July 27). What Guess’s AI model in Vogue means for beauty standards. BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgeqe084nn4o Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  32. Ryan, M., & Stahl, B. C. (2021). Artificial intelligence ethics guidelines for developers and users: clarifying their content and normative implications. Journal of Information Communication and Ethics in Society, 19(1), 61–86. https://doi.org/10.1108/jices-12-2019-0138 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  33. Saharia, C., Chan, W., Saxena, S., Li, L., Whang, J., Denton, E. L., Ghasemipour, S. K. S., Ayan, B. K., Mahdavi, S. S., Lopes, R. G., Salimans, T., Ho, J., Fleet, D. J., & Norouzi, M. (2022). Photorealistic text-to-image diffusion models with deep language understanding. Neural Information Processing Systems, abs/2205.11487, 36479–36494. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2205.11487 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  34. Sobek, T., & Montag, J. (2018). Proportionality Test. In Encyclopedia of Law and Economics (pp. 1–5). Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7883-6_721-1 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  35. Stahl, B. C. (2012). Responsible research and innovation in information systems. European Journal of Information Systems: An Official Journal of the Operational Research Society, 21(3), 207–211. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2012.19 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  36. Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571. https://doi.org/10.2307/258788 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  37. Suddaby, R., Bitektine, A., & Haack, P. (2017). Legitimacy. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 451–478. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2015.0101 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  38. Taddeo, M., & Floridi, L. (2018). How AI can be a force for good. Science, 361(6404), 751–752. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat5991 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  39. Watson, D. S., Mökander, J., & Floridi, L. (2025). Competing narratives in AI ethics: a defense of sociotechnical pragmatism. AI & Society, 40(5), 3163–3185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-024-02128-2 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  40. Yilma, K. (2025). From principles to process: the principlist approach to AI ethics and lessons from Internet bills of rights. AI and Ethics, 5(4), 4279–4291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-025-00719-3 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  41. Yin, R. K. (1981). The Case Study Crisis: Some Answers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(1), 58–65. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392599 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  42. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. SAGE Publications. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7
  43. Zhang, Z., & Wang, J. (2024). Can AI replace psychotherapists? Exploring the future of mental health care. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 15, 1444382. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1444382 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-7

Zitation

Download RIS Download BibTex

Downloads

Download Kapitel (PDF) Download kompl. Werk (PDF)

Hinweis

Dieses Werk ist urheberrechtlich geschützt und darf nur nach den Vorgaben der Nutzungs- und Lizenzvereinbarung genutzt werden. Jede darüber hinaus gehende Nutzung des Werkes ist ausdrücklich untersagt und wird verfolgt.

Per E-Mail teilen

Medien