The Reality of Ethics-Washing: Deception in Research Funding and Academia's Response
While governments and corporations hire AI ethics experts, they often ignore or manipulate their input—a practice known as "ethics-washing." Researchers from the University of Amsterdam and others highlight real-world cases and call for structural reforms in academia.
The increasing trend of technology companies and government agencies seeking advice from philosophers and legal scholars on the ethics of AI and digital surveillance technologies is marred by a troubling practice: “ethics-washing.” This term refers to the superficial or manipulative involvement of ethics experts. European researchers have raised alarms about this issue.
In a guest article titled “When There’s no Fun in Funding,” published on June 16, 2026, by the philosophy news site Daily Nous, five scholars—Lisa Herzog (University of Groningen), Marijn Hoijtink (University of Antwerp), Gijs van Maanen (Tilburg University), Ann-Katrien Oimann (KU Leuven), and Linnet Taylor (Tilburg University)—shared detailed insights based on their experiences and observations regarding ethics-washing in academia and research funding.
Real-World Examples of Ethics-Washing
The article highlights two typical scenarios based on real-life events.
In the first case, Sarah, an associate professor of law, was invited to serve as an ethics advisor for an international research project concerning digital surveillance technologies. Upon reviewing the project, she found its goals and methodologies to conflict with legal norms and human rights principles, as well as her decade of research. She declined the invitation and explained her reasons. Months later, she discovered that the project had been approved, and to her shock, her name was listed as an ethics advisor in the approval documents. Despite contacting the funding agency to clarify her rejection and express her concerns, Sarah received no response, and the project proceeded as planned.
The second case involved Adam, a PhD student researching the responsible use of AI. He joined an interdisciplinary team that included university researchers, representatives from a large private tech company, and government officials. Initially assured that his ethical recommendations would be directly implemented, Adam soon found his ethical arguments consistently challenged, ignored, or dismissed by other team members.
Dysfunction of Ethics Experts
The authors of the article point out that in large research consortia or commercial projects, it is common for researchers to be employed as chairs of ethics advisory boards. However, these boards often exist solely to fulfill regulatory or internal compliance requirements, with little actual influence on project design or product development.
The role of ethics experts becomes “tokenized,” enabling companies or governments to claim the appearance of ethical processes. This, the authors argue, is the essence of ethics-washing. A key issue is that ethics experts themselves may not realize they are being manipulated. The complexity of external funding and project structures often makes it difficult for individual researchers to grasp the full picture.
Structural Challenges in Academia
With much of research funding concentrated in large technology-related projects, scholars in ethics and law often feel compelled to participate for career advancement. As the article’s title “When There’s no Fun in Funding” suggests, ethicists are caught between the demands of securing funding and upholding academic freedom.
The authors argue that addressing this issue requires structural reforms at the academic level, rather than relying on individual actions. Specific recommendations include demanding greater transparency from funding providers, establishing mechanisms to ensure the independence of ethical advisory boards, and creating networks to identify and report cases of ethics-washing.
Importance in the Context of AI Regulation
This issue is closely linked to ongoing global efforts to regulate AI. As countries develop ethical principles for AI, such as the EU’s AI Act and Japan’s AI guidelines, the risk of companies and governments prioritizing appearances over actual ethical practices in product development and policymaking cannot be ignored.
The tech industry often claims to promote AI transparency and fairness but has frequently been found prioritizing profit-driven designs. In this context, the concept of ethics-washing transcends academic discourse and holds significant practical implications for the regulation of technology.
Editorial Opinion
In the short term, the issues raised in this article are likely to have a significant impact, particularly in Europe as AI regulation progresses. With the implementation of the EU AI Act, there is a growing risk of “box-ticking” ethics advisory processes aimed purely at achieving compliance. While companies may quickly establish ethics teams, these teams often lack mechanisms to ensure their input is integrated into product design. Recognizing this, regulatory bodies and funding agencies are likely to introduce standards to evaluate the efficacy of ethical advisory processes.
From a longer-term perspective, this issue calls into question the very nature of the relationship between academia and industry. The current reliance on funding from large technology companies and governments is gradually eroding academic independence. In ethically sensitive fields like AI and surveillance technology, ethics experts face the risk of being excluded from projects if their conclusions do not align with the funders’ interests. Unless this structural vulnerability is addressed, there is a real danger of ethics research devolving into mere “rubber-stamping.” Universities and research institutions need to strengthen internal governance mechanisms to ensure independence from funding entities.
As an editorial team, we believe that preventing ethics-washing requires at least three key measures: giving ethics advisory boards decision-making authority, mandating transparency of outcomes, and establishing independent reporting channels separate from funding entities. Particularly in AI product development, granting ethics teams the authority to halt product launches could be a crucial step in combating ethics-washing. However, such authority currently exists in very few cases. Both academia and industry must urgently redesign systems to ensure that ethics functions as a “guardrail” rather than merely a “checkbox.”
References
Frequently Asked Questions
- What exactly is ethics-washing?
- Ethics-washing refers to the practice where companies or governments formally involve ethics experts or establish ethics advisory boards but fail to incorporate their opinions into actual product design or policy decisions. It also includes situations where committees are set up merely to rubber-stamp pre-determined, ethically questionable outcomes, creating a false appearance of ethical integrity.
- What can researchers do to avoid contributing to ethics-washing?
- At an individual level, researchers can thoroughly investigate the intentions of funding providers and the true nature of projects before participating, clearly document their ethical positions, and demand guarantees of independence as a condition for involvement. However, the authors argue that individual actions are insufficient. They advocate for guidelines at the university and academic association levels, as well as mechanisms for reporting and addressing ethics-washing cases.
Comments