Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) introduces governance questions that increasingly affect labour markets, yet current debates rarely engage with the century-long normative tradition of the International Labour Organisation (ILO). This paper conducts an exploratory comparative analysis between five widely cited AI ethics principles and the ethical foundations underlying the ILO’s normative framework. The mapping identifies significant areas of convergence, especially regarding justice, beneficence, and non-maleficence. Conversely, it reveals divergences in focus concerning privacy, autonomy, and collective dimensions of representation. The report argues that the ILO’s framework provides a coherent reference point for applying ethical AI principles in labour settings, while AI ethics sheds light on emerging issues such as data governance and algorithmic management.

Introduction

As AI reshapes economies and workplaces, policymakers have begun pursuing regulatory responses. Contrasting approaches exist, such as the EU AI Act’s risk-based model versus the United States’ more innovation-led stance. In many jurisdictions, comprehensive legislation is absent, with governance relying on “soft law” instruments like voluntary guidelines or national strategies. Current AI ethics debates often focus on broad social implications rather than specific labour market impacts. A study by Samaan et al. reviewed 245 documents issued by a wide range of actors, finding that while work-related concerns are raised, labour markets do not appear as a distinct thematic cluster across most guidelines.

Methodology

This article examines synergies between common AI ethics principles and the ILO’s normative system. For the analysis, an “AI ethics framework” was synthesised from recurring principles, specifically the five core principles identified by Floridi and Cowls (2019): beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, justice, and explicability. On the ILO side, the paper interprets foundational materials to identify implicit ethical foundations, drawing on the Constitution, the Declaration of Philadelphia, and the Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work (FPRW). The paper notes that AI ethics literature is overwhelmingly principle-based, as seen in a review of 84 guidelines from the public and private sectors.

AI ethics and the world of work

The volume of AI ethics guidelines has expanded rapidly, with Algorithm Watch reporting more than 170 guidelines in its Global Inventory by 2021. Reviews have identified various principles, such as transparency, accountability, and fairness, across 27 studies. Despite this growth, AI ethics is discussed in the context of the world of work in more than 60 percent of reviewed guidelines, but the ILO and its standards are mentioned in less the 20 percent of them. This gap is striking given that labour governance has long been shaped by international labour law and the ILO’s normative system, which is anchored on a Constitution ratified by 186 states.

Ethical foundations of the ILO’s normative framework

The ILO was established in 1919 to advance social justice as a precondition for universal peace. Its framework ranges from general values to specific rights and obligations, such as those set out in international labour Conventions. Member states are obligated to respect five fundamental principles and rights at work: (a) freedom of association and collective bargaining; (b) the elimination of forced labour; (c) the abolition of child labour; (d) the elimination of discrimination; and (e) a safe and healthy working environment. This axiological framework is grounded on a human-centred pursuit of social justice and spiritual development.

Exploring the relationship between AI ethics principles and ILO’s ethical framework

Significant convergences exist between the two frameworks. Both seek to ensure technological transformations have a positive impact on human life. The principle of justice overlaps strongly with the ILO mandate for social justice. Beneficence resonates with the right of all human beings to pursue material well-being and spiritual development in conditions of freedom and dignity. Regarding autonomy, the ILO framework safeguards individual agency while emphasising a collective dimension through freedom of association and collective bargaining. Non-maleficence aligns with the protection of the life and health of all workers, though AI ethics places greater emphasis on informational privacy.

General differences also exist. AI ethics principles are highly general, while ILO principles are context-specific and operationalised through a coherent legal corpus. A specific divergence concerns autonomy; AI ethics focuses predominantly on individual digital autonomy, whereas the ILO system prioritises collective autonomy through institutionalised social dialogue. Furthermore, AI ethics identifies specific harms relating to privacy and data-driven technologies that have historically been less central to the ILO’s FPRW framework.

Positioning AI ethics in the context of international labour standards

The ILO’s rights-based and tripartite framework can provide orientation for emerging approaches to AI governance. Existing ILO norms offer a level of clarity and legitimacy that contemporary AI ethics frameworks often lack. Conversely, AI ethics principles can inform the application of international labour standards (ILS) by highlighting themes such as algorithmic transparency, explicability, and prediction asymmetries. For instance, the principles of explicability and justice are crucial for addressing unfair biases in AI systems used for talent recruitment or performance monitoring. A real-world example involves a recruitment platform that allegedly used third-party data to generate “match scores” without allowing applicants to review or contest the outcomes, illustrating the need for transparency to ensure equality of opportunity.

Conclusion

The comparison reveals that while both frameworks share concerns for human dignity and fairness, they differ in institutional grounding and orientation. AI ethics is primarily individual-centred, while the ILO corpus is collectively oriented and legally grounded. The paper suggests that AI ethics in the world of work should be developed in closer dialogue with the ILO’s normative framework and tripartite governance to ensure longstanding labour rights remain effective under new technological conditions.