Most Organisations’ AI Ethics Don’t Comply With ILO Standards
The ILO study found that of the 245 AI ethics guidelines studied, less than 20% at least mentioned ILO standards or aligned with it.
For most companies, AI ethics guidelines fail to reference the International Labour Organization (ILO) or its standards, even when they address workplace issues, according to a new working paper published in October 2026.
The latest ILO AI study reviewed 245 AI ethics guidelines. More than 60% discussed AI in the context of work. However, fewer than 20% mentioned the ILO or its international labour standards.
The authors are Jordi Agustí-Panareda, a socio-legal researcher and ethics officer at the ILO in Geneva, and Daniel Samaan, a senior economist in the ILO’s Research and Statistics Department. They argue that the omission leaves an important gap in AI governance.
“The gap is particularly striking given that the governance of labour has long been shaped by international labour law with its well-developed normative system under the auspices of the ILO,” they wrote.
The underlying review, led by Samaan and co-authors, is due to be published in the European Management Journal. It examined AI ethics guidelines issued by a range of organisations. The researchers used natural language processing and large language models for the analysis.
The review found that labour markets rarely feature as a distinct topic in these guidelines. Many documents discuss employment, working conditions and labour relations. Yet few explicitly refer to the ILO or its International Labour Standards.
Per an HRD US report, the authors wrote, “Much of the ethics discourse proceeds in isolation from the century-long normative architecture developed by the ILO.”
The paper also compares 5 widely cited AI ethics principles with the foundations of the ILO’s framework. These principles are justice, beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy and explicability.
The authors found common ground on justice, beneficence and non-maleficence. However, they identified a gap in how AI ethics frameworks address collective rights.
AI ethics guidelines tend to focus on individuals. International labour standards also recognise collective representation and workers’ rights to organise.
“For the right of collective bargaining, however, we do not see a clear ethical equivalent in existing AI ethics frameworks,” the authors wrote.
The paper argues that the ILO’s framework offers a more established basis for workplace AI governance. Its principles have been agreed internationally and are supported by supervisory mechanisms. The authors say this gives the framework greater clarity, legitimacy and durability than many current AI ethics guidelines.
The authors also call for greater transparency when AI systems influence hiring, performance evaluations or dismissal decisions. According to them, employers need to explain the data and reasoning behind these decisions. This would help assess whether they comply with legal requirements.
“AI ethics in the world of work should be developed not in isolation, but in closer dialogue with the ILO’s normative framework, its tripartite governance, and its supervisory institutions,” the authors concluded.