فصلنامه تخصصی آرمان پردازش
فصلنامه تخصصی فناوری اطلاعات و ارتباطات

تأثیر هوش مصنوعی بر حاکمیت شرکتی با تمرکز بر سه خلأ حیاتی پاسخگویی و راهکارهای تقویت نظارت هیئت مدیره

نوع مقاله : مقاله مروری

نویسندگان

مازیار قاسمی
محمد جعفرپور جلالی

گروه مدیریت، موسسه آموزش عالی ادیبان گرمسار ، سمنان، ایران

10.22034/apj.2026.2090422.1066
چکیده
هوش مصنوعی با ورود به فرآیندهای تصمیم‌گیری راهبردی، دقت، سرعت و کارایی را افزایش داده اما در عین حال نظام سنتی پاسخگویی در حاکمیت شرکتی را با چالش‌های بی‌سابقه‌ای مواجه ساخته است. این مقاله با روش تحلیل انتقادی و با بهره‌گیری از یافته‌های پژوهش‌های معتبر در حوزه هوش مصنوعی و حاکمیت شرکتی، استدلال می‌کند که نظام حقوقی و اخلاقی موجود برای پاسخگویی به سه خلأ ساختاری ناشی از تصمیم‌گیری الگوریتمی در سطح هیئت مدیره آماده نیست.
پاسخگویی به عنوان رابطه‌ای میان عامل، هیئت مدیره، و مجمع عمومی سهامداران تعریف می‌شود که در آن عامل موظف به توجیه و تشریح رفتار خود است و مجمع اختیار پرسش، قضاوت، داوری عملکرد، تصمیم‌گیری درباره تداوم همکاری و اقدام قانونی در صورت لزوم را دارد. نخستین خلأ، نبود قاعده روشن برای تعیین مسئول در هنگام بروز خطای سامانه‌های هوش مصنوعی است زیرا که مفهوم مسئولیت خود اصطلاحی بسته‌ای با مؤلفه‌های متعدد است که صرفاً نسبت دادن آن نمی‌تواند مسائل اخلاقی را حل کند. این خلأ در سطوح هوش افزایشی و هوش تقویتی به شدت خود را نشان می‌دهد. دومین خلأ، فقدان سازوکاری برای نظارت بر خود هیئت مدیره در مقام ناظر بر سامانه‌های هوش مصنوعی بوده که از آن با عنوان معمای ناظر بر ناظر یاد می‌شود. سومین خلأ، ناهمگونی بازه‌های زمانی تصمیم‌گیری میان هیئت مدیره و سامانه‌های هوش مصنوعی بوده که امکان نظارت مؤثر و پاسخگویی به موقع را از میان می‌برد. در پژوهش حاضر سه راهکار سیاستی پیشنهاد می‌گردد: قاعده تفویض ناپذیری مسئولیت نهایی انسانی، ایجاد کمیته تخصصی هوش مصنوعی در هیئت مدیره با اختیارات حسابرسی مستمر و بازتعریف وظیفه امانتداری به گونه‌ای که سواد الگوریتمی و نظارت بر چرخه حیات مدل‌های هوش مصنوعی بخشی از مسئولیت قانونی مدیران محسوب شود. این سه راهکار در چهارچوب چهار هدف پاسخگویی یعنی انطباق، گزارش، نظارت و اجرا تحلیل می‌شوند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

هوش مصنوعی
حاکمیت شرکتی
هیئت مدیره
خلأ پاسخگویی
تصمیم‌گیری الگوریتمی

عنوان مقاله English

The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Corporate Governance: Focusing on Three Critical Accountability Gaps and Strategies to Strengthen Board Oversight

نویسندگان English

Maziar Ghasemi
Mohammad Jafarpour Jalali
Department of Management, Adiban Garmsar Institute of Higher Education, Garmsar, Semnan, Iran
چکیده English

The integration of artificial intelligence into strategic decision-making processes enhances accuracy, speed, and efficiency; however, it simultaneously introduces unprecedented challenges to the traditional accountability framework within corporate governance. Employing a critical analytical approach and drawing upon findings from authoritative research in the fields of artificial intelligence and corporate governance, this article argues that existing legal and ethical systems are ill-prepared to address three structural gaps arising from algorithmic decision-making at the board level.
Accountability is defined as a tripartite relationship among an agent, the board of directors, and the general assembly of shareholders, wherein the agent is obligated to justify and explain their conduct, while the assembly holds the authority to question, judge, evaluate performance, decide on the continuation of cooperation, and take legal action if necessary. The first gap concerns the absence of a clear rule for determining responsibility when AI systems make errors, as responsibility is a "bundle" concept comprising multiple components, and merely attributing it cannot resolve ethical dilemmas. This gap manifests acutely in augmented intelligence and reinforcement learning contexts. The second gap involves the lack of a mechanism to monitor the board itself in its capacity as the overseer of AI systems—referred to herein as the "monitor of the monitor" dilemma. The third gap stems from the temporal misalignment between board decision-making cycles and AI system processing speeds, which undermines effective oversight and timely accountability.
This study proposes three policy-oriented solutions: the non-delegable rule of ultimate human responsibility; the establishment of a specialized AI committee within the board, endowed with continuous auditing authority; and the redefinition of fiduciary duty such that algorithmic literacy and oversight over the lifecycle of AI models become integral components of directors' legal responsibilities. These three solutions are analyzed within the framework of accountability's four objectives: compliance, reporting, monitoring, and enforcement.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Artificial Intelligence
Corporate Governance
Board of Directors
Accountability Gap
Algorithmic Decision-Making
 
[1] National Association of Corporate Directors. AI Oversight Activities Conducted by the Board: 2025 Public Company Board Practices Oversight Survey. 2025.
[2] Heidrick & Struggles. AI focus: How boards find expertise to chart the unknown [#Internet#] . 2025 [#cited 2026 Jun 2#]. Available from: https://www.heidrick.com/en/insights/frontier-tech/ai-focus_how-boards-find-expertise
[3] Bayat, Z. (2023). The Functions of Artificial Intelligence in the Field of Education and Electronic Knowledge Transfer. Arman Process Journal (APJ), 3(4), 43-49
[4] MIT Sloan Management Review. Successful companies now have AI-savvy boards [#Internet#]. 2025 [#cited 2026 Jun 2#]. Available from: https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/successful-companies-now-have-ai-savvy-boards
[5] OECD. Artificial Intelligence in Corporate Governance: Risks and Opportunities. OECD Publishing, Paris, 2025.
[6] Novelli C, Taddeo M, Floridi L. Accountability in artificial intelligence: what it is and how it works. Ai & Society. 2024 Aug;39(4):1871-82.
[7] Heinrichs JH. Responsibility assignment won’t solve the moral issues of artificial intelligence. AI and Ethics. 2022 Nov;2(4):727-36.
[8] Santoni de Sio F, Mecacci G. Four responsibility gaps with artificial intelligence: Why they matter and how to address them. Philosophy & technology. 2021 Dec;34(4):1057-84.
[9] Rahim M, Dey P. Directors in Artificial Intelligence-Based Corporate Governance-An Australian Perspective. Corporate Governance and Artificial Intelligence–a Conflicting or Complementary Approach. 2022 Jan 1.
[10] Wang L, Chen T, Wang X, Cheng M. The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Corporate Strategic Decision-Making: Convergence or Differentiation? In Proceedings of the 2025 International Conference on Digital Economy and Intelligent Computing 2025 May 23 (pp. 187-191).
[11] Gan, K. C. J., Wilczek-Stronczek, B., & Papasava, A. (2026). Governing the algorithm: a conceptual review of strategic AI oversight in global corporations. AI & SOCIETY, 1-24.
[12] Amarna AH, Venkateswarlu P, Venkateswarlu P. Investigating the Moderating Role of AI in the Relationship Between Corporate Governance and Financial Performance: Evidence from Palestine. An-Najah University Journal for Research-B (Humanities). 2026 Mar 24;9999(9999): None-.
[13] Petrin M. Corporate Management in the Age of AI. Colum. Bus. L. Rev. 2019:965.
[14] Hilb M. Toward artificial governance? The role of artificial intelligence in shaping the future of corporate governance: M. Hilb. Journal of Management and Governance. 2020 Dec;24(4):851-70.
[15] UNESCO. Who governs AI in the EU? A breakdown of authorities in the EU AI Act [#Internet#]. 2025 [#cited 2026 Jun 2#]. Available from: https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/who-governs-ai-eu-breakdown-authorities-eu-ai-act
[16] Riahi M., hashangholipoor thyasory T., Divandari A., Kalantari A. Strategic Decision-Making in the Age of Artificial Intelligence. SSQ, 2025; 27(4): 177-186. doi:10.22034/srq.2024.474465.4192
[17] Pasban, M., Toosi, A., Mazaheri, M. Using Artificial Intelligence as a Corporate Director. Private Law Research,
[18] Hosseini S. A., Hashemizade, S. A. Study on the Granting of Legal Personality (Corporate) to Artificial Intelligence. MTL, 2025; 6(12): 147-167. doi: 10.22133/mtlj.2025.441446.1297 [#۱۵#] 
[19] Kalkan G. The impact of artificial intelligence on corporate governance. Корпоративные финансы. 2024;18(2):17-25.
[20] Chaudhry FA. AI-Powered Decision-Making: Balancing Automation and Human Oversight in Corporate Governance. International Journal of Business & Computational Science. 2024;1(1).
[21] Humberd BK, Latham SF. When AI becomes an agent of the firm: Examining the evolution of AI in organizations through an agency theory lens. Journal of Management Studies. 2026 Mar;63(2):668-94.
[22] Sithipolvanichgul J. Board of directors’ effectiveness and enterprise risk management: Do effective boards improve risk oversight? Thammasat Review. 2021 Apr 27;24(1):133-67.
[23] Nurzianti R, Rahmaddian T, Hadi MY. The Impact of Corporate Governance Mechanisms on Strategic Risk Management and Firm Performance. Journal Management & Economics Review (JUMPER). 2026;3(7):367-82.
[24] Selbst AD, Boyd D, Friedler SA, et al. Fairness and Abstraction in Sociotechnical Systems. In Proceedings of FAT 2019: 59-68.
[25] O’Malley, P. J., & Underwood, P. (2026). Reimagining corporate governance in the AI era: Law, legitimacy and algorithmic power. Cambridge Forum on AI: Law and Governance, 2(e2), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1017/cfl.2026.10051
[26] Mökander, J. (2023). Auditing of AI: Legal, ethical and technical approaches. DISO 2, 49.
[27] Minkkinen M, Laine J, Mäntymäki M. Continuous auditing of artificial intelligence: a conceptualization and assessment of tools and frameworks. Digital Society. 2022 Dec;1(3):21.
[28] Ahdadou, M., Ahdadou, A., Aajly, A., & Tahrouch, M. (2025). Artificial intelligence in corporate boards: a dual-dimensional framework for integration across autonomy and structural levels. Data Science and Management.
[29] Coglianese C, Lehr D. Regulating by robot: Administrative decision making in the machine-learning era. Georgetown Law Journal. 2019; 105:1147-1223.
[30] Chinnaraju A. When AI Agents Act: Governance, Accountability, and Strategic Risk in Autonomous Organizations. International Journal of Research and Scientific Innovation. 2026; 12:12.
[31] Aktürk EB. Strategic Decision-Making and Artificial Intelligence: Exploring the Impact of AI Applications on Decision Precision and Risk Mitigation. OPUS Journal of Society Research. 2025 Apr 8;22(4):580-92.
[32] Bollu VK. Responsible AI governance in Enterprise Systems: A Risk and Compliance Framework. Acta Sci. 2026; 27:1.
[33] Bank for International Settlements (BIS). AI and financial stability: governance challenges for boards. BIS Working Papers, No 1215, 2025.
[34] Li, Z. (2024). Artificial fiduciaries. Washington and Lee Law Review, 81(4), 1299
[35] Ahmed FA, Gul S, Shahzad S. Ensuring accountability and transparency in AI-driven corporate governance. International Journal of Social Sciences Bulletin. 2025 May 10;3(5):330-41.
[36] Möslein F. Robots in the boardroom: artificial intelligence and corporate law. In Research handbook on the law of artificial intelligence 2025 Jun 19 (pp. 614-635). Edward Elgar Publishing.
[37] Mittelstadt B. Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI. Nature Machine Intelligence. 2019; 1:501-507.
[38] Mohammadi. (2023). Business Intelligence and Industry 4.0: Opportunities & Challenges. (e1-7). Arman Process Journal (APJ), 4(1), e1-7 doi: 10.22034/apj.2023.706756
[39] Arrieta AB, Díaz-Rodríguez N, Del Ser J, et al. Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible AI. Information Fusion. 2020; 58:82-115.
[40] Pittz, T. G. (2026). The new accountability frontier: AI governance, ESG assurance, and the future of an accountability infrastructure. Cogent Business & Management, 13(1), 2685990.
[41] Floridi L, Cowls J, Beltrametti M, et al. AI4People—An Ethical Framework for a Good AI Society. Minds & Machines. 2018; 28:689-707.
 
 
 
 
 
 

صفحه اصلی

ارسال مقاله

داوران

تماس با ما