The International Labour Organization (ILO) has highlighted how international labour standards can guide the fair and responsible use of artificial intelligence (AI) in workplaces, as the technology raises concerns about workers’ rights, privacy, surveillance and employment decisions. A new working paper examines how existing labour standards can help address these challenges and ensure that AI is used responsibly at work.
The paper, titled AI Ethics and the ILO’s International Labour Standards System: Exploring Synergies, was written by ILO researchers Jordi Agustí-Panareda and Daniel Samaan. It examines how established international labour standards relate to AI ethics principles and how they can guide the use of AI in specific workplace situations, where broad and voluntary AI guidelines may offer limited guidance.
The researchers compare five widely recognised AI ethics principles, justice, beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy and explicability with the values, principles and rights underpinning the ILO’s international labour standards system.
The study identifies common ground between the two frameworks, particularly in their emphasis on fairness, human dignity, well-being and the prevention of harm.
However, the analysis also identifies differences in their approaches. While AI ethics frameworks often focus on individual autonomy, privacy and transparency, the ILO’s labour standards framework also emphasises collective rights, including freedom of association, collective bargaining and social dialogue.
The paper notes that these collective rights are often missing from mainstream discussions of AI ethics, despite their importance in determining how new technologies are introduced and governed in workplaces.
The researchers also examine how the growing use of AI raises questions about the application of international labour standards, particularly in the collection and use of workers’ personal data, algorithmic management, workplace surveillance and transparency in AI-assisted employment decisions.
For example, when AI systems are used to screen job applicants or evaluate workers’ performance, understanding how decisions are made and what data are used is essential to ensuring accountability and fair processes in line with international labour standards.
The authors suggest that AI ethics and international labour standards can reinforce each other. Established labour rights can help shape discussions about AI governance in workplaces, while emerging AI ethics principles and the concerns surrounding them can inform how labour standards are applied as technology evolves.
The findings also highlight the potential contribution of the ILO’s international labour standards system and its tripartite structure to ongoing discussions about AI governance.
By bringing together governments, employers and workers, the ILO provides a framework for examining not only the technical and individual aspects of ethical AI but also its implications for working conditions, collective representation and social justice.
The authors call for further research and dialogue on how AI ethics and international labour standards can work together to support a human-centred approach to technological change in the workplace.
