Parenting Journal · Volume 1 · Issue 3 · Licensed source edition
Applying ethics to AI in the workplace: the design of a scorecard for Australian workplace health and safety
Originally published 2022-05-13 · Ai & Society
Springer Science and Business Media LLC · DOI 10.1007/s00146-022-01460-9 ↗
AI / system type
AI work-health-and-safety scorecard for ideation, design and implementation
Workplace evidenceExamines workers, organizations or AI at work. Participants are not necessarily parents; family benefits are not established by this evidence alone.
The AI connection
System or context examined: AI work-health-and-safety scorecard for ideation, design and implementation. The source-specific system and study design determine what can be inferred.
Why this reading matters
The reading brings making workplace AI health and safety risks inspectable into a concrete discussion of humane work during technological change. It offers conceptual scorecard development using qualitative risk mapping evidence or analysis, not a promise of organizational or family benefit.
Workplace evidence
Work, care and the whole person.
The workplace lens is making workplace AI health and safety risks inspectable. Source setting or population: Australian AI ethics and good-work-design principles applied to workplace AI use. Parenting and child-development outcomes are not inferred from the workplace evidence.
Examines workers, organizations or AI at work. Participants are not necessarily parents; family benefits are not established by this evidence alone.
Editorial reading guide · Trust
What should an employer be able to show before calling a workplace AI system safe?
This conceptual scorecard development using qualitative risk mapping examines making workplace AI health and safety risks inspectable. Its TRICK home is Trust, an editorial reading path rather than a claim that the paper tests the full framework.
Study context
Australian AI ethics and good-work-design principles applied to workplace AI use
Age / stage: Workplace literature or conceptual analysis; no single child age range
Read with three questions
- What should an employer be able to show before calling a workplace AI system safe?
- What do this study’s design and population — Australian AI ethics and good-work-design principles applied to workplace AI use — allow you to infer about another workplace?
- When considering making workplace AI health and safety risks inspectable, which decisions would need employee input before applying this reading to a working family’s circumstances?
Keep the limits in view
A conceptual scorecard organizes risk assessment; it is not a validated guarantee of safety or a legal compliance determination.
The text below is the original article’s licensed repository edition. Its wording is not rewritten. Use the Paper Agent beside the text to locate evidence; open the source for figures, tables and complete context.
Opening the verified paper and agent…
Checking the article identity, license record, and saved source text.
Open the repository recordAttribution & reuse
Follow the original.
Original authorship, publication date, journal and DOI are preserved. This issue’s TRICK placement and reading questions are editorial additions, not claims made by the original authors.
Andreas Cebulla; Zygmunt Szpak; Catherine Howell; Genevieve Knight; Sazzad Hussain (2022). Applying ethics to AI in the workplace: the design of a scorecard for Australian workplace health and safety Ai & Society. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01460-9
Permissions checked against the saved article notice; repository publication notices screened 2026-11-05. This is not a new peer-review decision. The source authors and publishers are not represented as endorsing this issue.