good business nutrition
| | | |

[Good Business] The AI nutrition label: Why we need to know what’s inside before we trust it

Whenever a new artificial intelligence (AI) application is introduced, the first questions are usually practical: What can it do? Will it make work faster? Can it improve productivity, reduce costs, or help us make better decisions?

These questions matter as AI becomes increasingly integrated into our workplaces, schools, businesses, and everyday lives. But before we ask what AI can do for us, perhaps we should first ask a more fundamental question:

Can we trust it?

This question lies at the heart of Transparency and Explainability, one of the eight guiding principles in the Association of Analytics and AI of the Philippines (AAP) Code of Ethics for AI Professionals. It belongs to the pillar of Trustworthy AI, which challenges us to ask a simple but powerful Filipino question:

“Mapagkakatiwalaan ba ito?” (Can this be trusted?)

The question is familiar because we ask it in many areas of life. When we buy food, we read the label to understand its ingredients, nutritional value, and expiration date. When a doctor prescribes medicine, we ask what it is for, how much to take, and what side effects it may have. (READ: Warning labels on food? How a new bill could change Filipino diets)

We do not consume something simply because it is available or because someone says it works. We seek clarity because trust is built on understanding.

We should apply the same principle to AI.

Today, AI helps determine what appears in our social media feeds, what products are recommended to us, and what content we consume. Organizations use it to screen job applicants, assess employees, forecast outcomes, detect fraud, and support decisions. In healthcare, finance, education, and government, AI is increasingly becoming an adviser.

Yet unlike a food label or medicine leaflet, many AI systems remain difficult for ordinary people to understand.

Transparency means being open about when AI is being used, what data it relies on, and its capabilities and limitations. Explainability means that when an AI system makes a recommendation or influences a decision, people can understand the reasoning behind it in language that makes sense.

Simply put:

If AI affects people, people deserve an explanation.

This becomes especially important when AI influences decisions about jobs, promotions, loans, insurance, healthcare, education, or access to opportunities.

Imagine applying for a job and receiving an automated rejection without knowing why. Imagine being denied a loan because of a risk score no one can explain. Or imagine an employee being classified as a low performer by an algorithm, yet neither the employee nor the manager understands how the assessment was made.

The issue is not simply whether AI was used.

The issue is whether people can understand and trust the process behind the decision.

As someone who has spent much of my professional life in human resources, talent analytics, and digital transformation, I find this especially important in the workplace. Organizations are rapidly adopting AI in recruitment, workforce planning, performance management, and talent development. These technologies can improve efficiency and help leaders process information at a scale that would otherwise be impossible.

But efficiency alone should never define success.

People are not data points. Careers are not algorithms. Human potential cannot be fully captured by a score generated by a machine.

When technology begins influencing livelihoods and futures, transparency becomes more than a technical feature. It becomes an ethical responsibility.

Must Read

Limit AI now or humanity will lose its agency, says Nobel laureate Maria Ressa


Limit AI now or humanity will lose its agency, says Nobel laureate Maria Ressa

Trust is not created by sophisticated algorithms alone. It grows when people understand how decisions are made, when organizations are willing to explain their systems, and when individuals can question outcomes that affect them.

Transparency also benefits organizations. Employees are more likely to accept AI-assisted processes when they understand them. Customers are more willing to engage with AI-powered services when they know how their information is being used. Regulators, investors, and stakeholders gain confidence when organizations can explain and justify the technologies they deploy.

In this sense, transparency is not merely an ethical requirement. It is also a business advantage.

This is why responsibility belongs to everyone in the AI ecosystem.

For users, it means asking questions instead of accepting every AI-generated recommendation at face value. We need to understand when AI is being used, recognize its limitations, and verify important outputs.

For developers and designers, it means building understandable systems, documenting how they work, testing for unintended consequences, and communicating limitations honestly. Innovation should never come at the expense of clarity.

For leaders, it means establishing governance, ensuring meaningful human oversight, and creating environments where AI recommendations can be challenged. Most importantly, leaders must remember:

Accountability cannot be delegated to a machine.

When an AI-assisted decision causes harm, responsibility ultimately rests with the humans who designed, approved, deployed, and relied on the technology.

Ultimately, the future of AI will not be determined only by how powerful the technology becomes. It will also be determined by how responsibly we choose to use it.

The question before us, therefore, is not simply whether AI is intelligent enough.

The more important question is:

Is it trustworthy enough?

Whenever AI influences our decisions, organizations, or communities, we would do well to return to the challenge posed by the AAP Code of Ethics:

“Mapagkakatiwalaan ba ito?” (Can this be trusted?)

If we cannot understand it, explain it, or question it, perhaps we should not trust it just yet.

Because trustworthy AI is ultimately not about machines. It is about people—and our commitment to ensuring that technology remains transparent, accountable, and worthy of the trust we place in it. – Rappler.com

Liza Manalo-Mapagu is the CEO of ASEAMETRICS, Program Chair of the Psychology Department at Asia Pacific College, and a member of the Responsible AI and Analytics Council (RAAIC) of the Association of Analytics and AI of the Philippines (AAP). She advocates for Trustworthy and Human-Centric AI that advances both organizational performance and human dignity.

Below are some related Good Business columns on AI you may have missed:

ALSO ON RAPPLER

Similar Posts

  • | | | |

    At Eurovision Asia, Carmelle steps onto her biggest stage yet

    ‘Gusto ko na makilala ako as someone na galing ng Pilipinas na magaling. Kahit papano, siguro mag-open din ‘yun ng door na mas makilala ‘yung ibang artist din na magagaling dito sa Pilipinas,’ says Carmelle, the country’s representative to Eurovision Asia

  • |

    Oil prices rise as Hormuz tensions escalate

    Oil prices climbed on Monday as uncertainty over a possible diplomatic breakthrough between the United States and Iran increased, while a sharp slowdown in tanker movements through the Strait of Hormuz heightened concerns about disruptions to global crude supplies. Brent crude futures gained as much as 1% during early trading to reach $89.40 per barrel. The benchmark was later up 72 cents, or about 0.8%, at $89.20 a barrel by 0229 GMT. US West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude also moved higher, rising 44 cents to $82.83 per barrel. Both international benchmarks posted gains of more than 5% last week after a series of attacks involving energy and shipping assets in and around the strategically important Strait of Hormuz. The incidents have intensified fears that further escalation could affect one of the world’s most important oil transit routes. Market sentiment was further affected by developments over the weekend, when Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said Tehran had yet to decide whether it would resume negotiations with Washington. US President Donald Trump, meanwhile, told Americans to prepare for somewhat higher gasoline prices as the conflict continues. Analysts said the renewed uncertainty had brought geopolitical risk back into crude markets after oil prices had previously come under pressure on expectations that diplomatic efforts could ease tensions. “Oil prices have now rebounded almost completely from the lows seen in early August, as hopes for a more permanent resolution between the US and Iran have faded and geopolitical risk premiums have returned to the market,” said Priyanka Sachdeva, head of market insights at Phillip Nova in Singapore. Sachdeva cautioned, however, that the rally could lose momentum unless there is evidence of a further deterioration in the situation. She said the market would need to see renewed aggression in the Strait of Hormuz, particularly significant damage to oil tankers or energy infrastructure, before prices were likely to move substantially higher. Hormuz shipping activity slows Concerns over physical supply disruptions increased after ship-tracking data showed a marked decline in vessel traffic through the Strait of Hormuz over the weekend. According to data from Kpler, only five commodity vessels crossed the strategic waterway on Saturday, while no such transits were recorded on Sunday. This compared with 31 commodity vessel crossings during the previous weekend. The slowdown is significant because the Strait of Hormuz is a critical route for international energy shipments. Any prolonged disruption could increase transportation risks, raise insurance costs and place additional upward pressure on crude prices. The United Arab Emirates also accused Iran of attacking another vessel operated by Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC) while it was passing through the strait on Friday, according to the Emirati state news agency WAM. The UAE had earlier blamed Iran for two separate incidents involving ADNOC-operated vessels on Thursday evening. The latest incidents have added to concerns among traders that the conflict could increasingly affect commercial shipping and energy infrastructure, rather than remaining confined to military and diplomatic confrontation. Markets remain focused on escalation risks The Strait of Hormuz remains particularly important to global oil markets because a substantial volume of crude and petroleum products moves through the waterway. Any sustained interruption could therefore have consequences well beyond the region. For now, traders are closely monitoring developments involving US-Iran diplomatic contacts, attacks on shipping and the movement of tankers through the strait. While the latest price gains reflect a higher geopolitical risk premium, analysts remain cautious about predicting a prolonged rally. If shipping activity resumes and diplomatic channels reopen, some of the premium built into crude prices could quickly unwind. Conversely, additional attacks on tankers, oil facilities or other critical infrastructure could trigger a stronger market reaction and push prices higher as traders reassess the security of regional supplies.

  • |

    Oil prices tumble to three-week low as Trump delays Iran strike

    LONDON: Global oil prices recorded their sharpest single-day decline in weeks on Monday, falling to a three-week low after US President Donald Trump stepped back from plans for a military strike against Iran, raising hopes that diplomatic efforts could ease tensions and prevent disruptions to energy supplies from the Gulf. International benchmark Brent crude dropped 7 percent, or $6.35, to settle at $83.77 per barrel, while US West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude fell 5.1 percent, losing $4.33 to close at $80.34 per barrel. The decline marked Brent’s weakest closing level since mid-July. Market analysts said the drop was also influenced by the expiry of the higher-priced September Brent contract, with the less expensive October contract becoming the new front-month benchmark. Investor sentiment shifted sharply after Trump announced that he had postponed military action against Iran, saying he wanted to allow time for diplomacy aimed at reaching an agreement that could reduce regional tensions and potentially increase Iranian oil exports. The possibility of additional crude entering global markets eased concerns over supply shortages, prompting traders to sell oil futures and pushing prices lower. However, Tehran quickly dismissed suggestions that negotiations with Washington were underway. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said there were no talks taking place with the United States and no meetings had been scheduled. He added that Iran had no plans to host foreign delegations or send negotiators abroad in the coming days. Trump, meanwhile, maintained that discussions with Iran were in progress and warned Tehran of serious consequences if it failed to reach an agreement aimed at ending the ongoing confrontation. Analysts call market reaction excessive Energy analysts said oil markets appeared to react strongly to political rhetoric rather than confirmed developments. According to analysts at energy consultancy Ritterbusch and Associates, the steep decline in crude prices reflected what they described as an overreaction by investors to Trump’s comments suggesting that an agreement with Iran could be imminent. They noted that the US president has repeatedly made strong statements regarding Iran before later softening his position, creating significant volatility in energy markets. Analysts also observed that Trump’s public calls for lower fuel prices in the United States have frequently weighed on oil markets by reducing expectations of sustained price increases. During Monday’s trading session, US gasoline and diesel futures also declined by nearly 5 percent, reflecting broader weakness across the energy sector. Shipping routes remain under pressure Despite hopes for diplomacy, concerns over maritime security in the Middle East continued to influence market sentiment. Shipping data showed that six Saudi-flagged supertankers altered their routes in recent days, avoiding the Gulf of Aden and instead sailing around southern Africa after Yemen’s Iran-backed Houthi movement threatened to target Saudi vessels. At the same time, some oil tankers continued to transit the region. Two Saudi oil tankers successfully crossed the Bab el-Mandeb Strait over the weekend, while vessel movements through the Strait of Hormuz slowed following reports of attacks on commercial shipping. The Strait of Hormuz remains one of the world’s most strategically important energy chokepoints, carrying roughly one-fifth of global oil trade before hostilities between the United States, Israel and Iran escalated earlier this year. A Panama-flagged tanker transporting Russian naphtha also reportedly abandoned plans to pass through the Bab el-Mandeb, choosing the longer route around Africa due to security concerns. Russia boosts maritime security Russia announced on Monday that it was strengthening security measures for commercial shipping in the Azov-Black Sea region while working to expand alternative export routes, following increased attacks on vessels linked to the conflict in Ukraine. As one of the world’s largest crude producers and a leading member of the OPEC+ alliance, Russia remains a key player in global energy markets. Disruptions to exports from the Gulf, Russia and Kazakhstan have continued to limit global oil supplies throughout the year, preventing previously announced OPEC+ production increases from fully reaching international markets. In a separate development, OPEC+ approved a production quota increase of approximately 188,000 barrels per day beginning in September. Although the move is intended to gradually raise output, analysts believe geopolitical risks and transportation disruptions could continue to limit the actual flow of additional crude to global buyers.

  • |

    Power sector circular debt rises by Rs364 billion in FY2025-26

    ISLAMABAD: Pakistan’s power sector circular debt increased by Rs364 billion during fiscal year 2025-26, highlighting persistent weaknesses in the electricity supply chain despite substantial government subsidies and efforts to contain the buildup of unpaid liabilities. According to the circular debt report for June 2026, the increase was significantly higher than the previous year, when the debt had risen by around Rs45 billion. The latest increase represents a surge of roughly 709% year-on-year in the annual flow of circular debt. The Power Division has not yet formally uploaded the one-page circular debt report for June 2026 on its official website. The latest figures indicate that structural problems, including distribution company inefficiencies, weak bill recovery, payment disputes and delays in tariff adjustments, continue to generate fresh liabilities in the power sector. The development comes despite the government’s efforts to contain the debt through budgetary support and subsidies. IMF target and government commitments The International Monetary Fund (IMF) had permitted Pakistan to record up to Rs400 billion in circular debt flow during the year, while simultaneously requiring the government to take measures to prevent the accumulation of new liabilities and eventually bring the flow down to zero. Under the IMF programme, the government has been relying on tariff adjustments, subsidy rationalisation and other reforms to improve the financial health of the electricity sector. However, the latest increase suggests that governance and operational problems remain a major obstacle to achieving a sustainable reduction in circular debt. The government provided approximately Rs302 billion in subsidies aimed at supporting the power sector and reducing the debt burden. However, the amount was insufficient to maintain the circular debt stock at the level of Rs1.614 trillion recorded at the end of June 2025. As a result, the debt stock recorded a net increase of around Rs61 billion during the year. The Power Division had earlier stated that the federal government allocated Rs893 billion for the power sector in the FY2025-26 budget. However, around Rs98 billion of the allocated amount was not released, affecting the government’s ability to reduce the outstanding liabilities. A Power Division spokesperson said that if the entire budgeted allocation had been released, the circular debt stock could have fallen further to around Rs1.577 trillion. The funding shortfall, according to the official, contributed to the Rs61 billion increase recorded during the year. Distribution companies remain a major source of losses Inefficiencies within power distribution companies continued to be one of the biggest contributors to the accumulation of circular debt. The government incurred approximately Rs262 billion in losses during FY2025-26 because of inefficiencies in distribution companies. The amount was only around Rs3 billion lower than the previous year, indicating that little progress has been made in addressing operational weaknesses. Another Rs64 billion was added to the circular debt because of lower electricity bill recoveries. Although significant, this amount was around 51% lower than the corresponding figure recorded in the preceding year. The figures underline the financial pressure created by electricity theft, transmission and distribution losses, weak collection systems and inadequate enforcement against non-paying consumers. Privatisation of distribution companies The government has initiated the process of privatising three relatively profitable distribution companies — Faisalabad Electric Supply Company, Gujranwala Electric Power Company and Islamabad Electric Supply Company. However, the proposed privatisation is not expected to immediately resolve the broader circular debt problem because a substantial portion of sector losses originates from other distribution entities. Earlier, the government had considered a model under which profitable distribution companies would be combined with loss-making entities before privatisation. The plan, however, was subsequently abandoned in favour of offering comparatively stronger companies separately. Experts have repeatedly argued that privatisation alone cannot eliminate circular debt unless the underlying issues of electricity theft, poor recoveries, governance and operational losses are addressed across the entire distribution network. K-Electric dispute adds to debt Payment disputes with K-Electric also contributed substantially to the increase. According to the report, approximately Rs194 billion was added to the circular debt because of non-payments by K-Electric. The company’s outstanding payments are linked to a dispute concerning the delayed finalisation of its multi-year tariff by the National Electric Power Regulatory Authority. The prolonged disagreement has created financial pressure throughout the power supply chain, adding to the accumulation of unpaid liabilities. In addition, around Rs75 billion was added to the circular debt because of delays in tariff adjustments. The government, meanwhile, made payments of approximately Rs129 billion against principal loans of the power sector. Without these payments, the annual circular debt flow could have exceeded Rs600 billion, according to the figures. The Power Division also benefited from a reduction of around Rs98 billion in the circular debt flow because of subsidy payments. Interest payments add further pressure Interest charges also contributed to the accumulation of liabilities, adding around Rs14 billion to the circular debt during the fiscal year. These financing costs ultimately increase the burden on consumers because the cost of servicing the sector’s outstanding liabilities is recovered through electricity bills. Consumer groups have frequently criticised the practice, arguing that households and businesses that regularly pay their electricity bills are effectively being charged for inefficiencies, theft and non-payment elsewhere in the system. Subsidies and burden on consumers The government’s continued reliance on subsidies has helped prevent an even larger accumulation of circular debt, but it has also placed pressure on the national budget. The power sector received hundreds of billions of rupees in subsidies during the year, while the government simultaneously pursued tariff increases and other measures intended to improve cost recovery. The contrast has raised questions about whether existing policies are addressing the underlying causes of circular debt or merely shifting the burden between consumers, the federal budget and power-sector entities. The government has also been under pressure to address similar financial problems in the gas sector. Although no comparable subsidy was provided for the gas sector, the authorities were expected to prevent a further increase in its circular debt. The government reportedly refrained from passing the full reduction in gas prices on

  • | | | | |

    On day one, rush for GCash IPO shares briefly trips up trading systems

    ‘I heard some platforms went down because of the traffic. That’s a good problem for all of us, right?’ Mynt president and CEO Martha Sazon tells a room full of potential GCash investors hours after the public offer formally opened

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *