Work

The Accuracy-Explainability Trade-off, the Right to Explanation, and the Implications for Organisations

Year: 2026

Type: article

Abstract: Algorithms increasingly shape access to employment, credit, healthcare, and justice, yet the basis on which they do so is often opaque. A growing literature argues that affected individuals have a right to explanation, grounded in their interest in informed self-advocacy: the ability to understand and respond to decisions that bear on their life prospects. We examine whether this interest can sustain such a right. Explanations that serve self-advocacy must be reliable (truth-tracking) and verifiable (open to independent check). We show that in open-ended decision environments, where evaluative criteria must be discovered rather than stipulated in advance, reliability and verifiability conflict with accuracy. This trade-off arises in human decision-making and has a structural analogue in AI systems. Because requiring thick explanation would systematically reduce the quality of decisions, the self-advocacy interest cannot by itself ground a general right. Where thick explanation is nonetheless owed, it is justified by different grounds: legality, fairness, and trust. We draw out implications for how organisations should structure their obligations.

Source: Journal of Business Ethics

DOI: 10.1007/s10551-026-06305-9

Authors: Carlo Ludovico Cordasco, Carissa Véliz

Institutions: University of Manchester, University of Oxford

Language: English

Topic: Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)

Subfield: Artificial Intelligence

Field: Computer Science

Domain: Physical Sciences

SDG: Peace, justice, and strong institutions

Open Access status: hybrid

Estimated APC paid: $3,790