Corporate Governance Practices in Ai-Powered Technologies: A Perspective of Engineering Students
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.67903/ijroms0424Keywords:
AI Ethics, Artificial Intelligence Governance, Corporate AI Responsibility, Engineering Education, Student PerceptionsAbstract
Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become increasingly integrated into educational, professional, and technological environments, creating opportunities for innovation while raising concerns regarding transparency, accountability, ethical responsibility, privacy, and governance. Despite the growing use of AI-powered technologies among university students, limited research has examined how engineering students perceive corporate governance practices associated with these technologies. This study explored the perceptions of undergraduate engineering students regarding corporate governance in AI-powered technologies. A descriptive quantitative research design employing a cross-sectional survey approach was utilized. Data were collected from ninety-two (92) undergraduate engineering students at Cebu Institute of Technology–University (CIT-University) using a structured questionnaire. Frequency counts, percentages, weighted means, and ranking procedures were used to analyze the data. The findings revealed that respondents demonstrated positive awareness of corporate governance principles in AI systems, particularly regarding ethical responsibility, accountability, transparency, and data governance. The respondents also expressed a generally favorable level of trust in organizations utilizing AI-powered technologies, although concerns regarding privacy protection, data security, and responsible AI implementation remained evident. Among the governance dimensions examined, accountability received the highest rating, followed by ethical governance and transparency. Furthermore, the results showed that engineering students generally practiced responsible AI use, particularly in avoiding technologies that violate ethical and privacy standards. Large Language Models (LLMs), such as Gemini, ChatGPT, and Claude, were identified as the most commonly used AI-powered technologies among the respondents. The study concludes that engineering students recognize the importance of responsible AI governance and view accountability, ethical responsibility, and transparency as essential components of trustworthy AI systems. These findings may contribute to the development of governance policies, educational initiatives, and responsible AI practices within academic and technological environments.
Downloads
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Akerlof, G. A. (1970). The market for “lemons”: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(3), 488–500. https://doi.org/10.2307/1879431
Arrieta, A. B., Díaz-Rodríguez, N., Del Ser, J., Bennetot, A., Tabik, S., Barbado, A., García, S., Gil-López, S., Molina, D., Benjamins, R., Chatila, R., & Herrera, F. (2020). Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI): Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible AI. Information Fusion, 58, 82–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2019.12.012
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice Hall.
Basu, S., Bose, I., Brooks, L., Buhalis, D., & Wright, R. (2023). So what if ChatGPT wrote it? Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy. International Journal of Information Management, 71, Article 102642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102642
Bertalanffy, L. von. (1968). General system theory: Foundations, development, applications. George Braziller.
Bovens, M. (2007). Analysing and assessing accountability: A conceptual framework. European Law Journal, 13(4), 447–468. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2007.00378.x
Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/0007- 6813(91)90005-G
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2023). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
Davis, J. H., Schoorman, F. D., & Donaldson, L. (1997). Toward a stewardship theory of management. Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 20–47. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1997.9707180258
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
Dwivedi, Y. K., Kshetri, N., Hughes, L., Slade, E. L., Jeyaraj, A., Kar, A. K., Baabdullah, A. M., Koohang, A., Raghavan, V., Ahuja, M., Albanna, H., Albashrawi, M., Al-Busaidi, A. S., Balakrishnan, J., Barlette, Y., et al. (2023). Opinion paper: So what if ChatGPT wrote it? Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy. International Journal of Information Management, 71, Article 102642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102642
Floridi, L., & Cowls, J. (2019). A unified framework of five principles for AI in society. Harvard Data Science Review, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.1162/99608f92.8cd550d1
Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2019). How to design and evaluate research in education (10th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman.
Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304- 405X(76)90026-X
Jobin, A., Ienca, M., & Vayena, E. (2019). The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(9), 389–399. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2
Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., Krusche, S., Kutyniok, G., Michaeli, T., Nerdel, C., Pfeiffer, F., et al. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103, Article 102274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080335
Norberg, P. A., Horne, D. R., & Horne, D. A. (2007). The privacy paradox: Personal information disclosure intentions versus behaviors. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 41(1), 100–126. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6606.2006.00070.x
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2019). OECD principles on artificial intelligence. https://oecd.ai/en/ai-principles
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2024). Governing with artificial intelligence: Are governments ready? OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/26324bc2-en
Poquet, O., Sailer, M., Schmidt, A., Seidel, T., & Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? Opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103, Article 102274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.
Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080331
Taherdoost, H. (2016). Sampling methods in research methodology: How to choose a sampling technique for research. International Journal of Academic Research in Management, 5(2), 18–27.
Trist, E. (1981). The evolution of socio-technical systems. Ontario Quality of Working Life Centre.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2021). Recommendation on the ethics of artificial intelligence. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 International Journal of Research on Multidisciplinary Studies
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
