Influence of Human Resource Management on Employee Coping Behavior and Job Performance

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, on the condition that users give exact credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if they made any changes. Influence of Human Resource Management on Employee Coping Behavior and Job Performance Aseel Al-Qasos School of Economics and Management, Taiyuan University of Technology, China Mohammed Alansi School of Economics and Management, Taiyuan University of Technology, China Jizu Li  School of Economics and Management, Taiyuan University of Technology, China Abstract Human resource management (HRM) plays a pivotal role not only in structuring organizational processes but also in shaping how employees cognitively appraise, affectively respond to, and behaviorally adapt to workplace demands. Drawing on structuration theory (Giddens, 1984) and integrating insights from stress and coping theory (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) and cognitive evaluation theory (Deci & Ryan, 2012), this study investigates how HRM influences employee coping behaviors—specifically adaptation, resistance, and manipulation—and how these behaviors, in turn, affect job performance. The research addresses three core objectives: (1) to examine how HRM practices shape employees’ cognitive and affective responses, with attention to boundary conditions such as fairness, transparency, and employee participation; (2) to identify the types of coping behaviors employees employ in response to HRM and elucidate how cognitive and affective appraisals drive the selection of these strategies; and (3) to analyze the mediating role of coping behaviors in the relationship between HRM and dual dimensions of job performance— in-role task execution and extra-role organizational citizenship behaviors. By centering employee agency within a dynamic socio-technical framework, this study provides a micro-foundational understanding of HRM’s impact on performance and offers practical guidance for designing HR systems that are both effective and human-centered. Keywords: human resource management; employee coping behavior; job performance; structuration theory; cognitive appraisal; affective response; organizational citizenship behavior; adaptation; resistance; manipulation. JEL Classification codes: O15. Suggested citation: Al-Qasos, A., Alansi, M., & Li, J. (2025). Influence of Human Resource Management on Employee Coping Behavior and Job Performance. European Journal of Management, Economics and Business, 2(6), 163-174. DOI: 10.59324/ejmeb.2025.2(6).12 Introduction Human resource management (HRM) has long served as a cornerstone of organizational effectiveness, shaping how employees are recruited, developed, evaluated, and retained. Over time, EJMEB (ISSN 3041-2102) | VOLUME 2 | NUMBER 6 | 2025 164 the strategic role of HRM has evolved from an administrative function to a pivotal driver of competitive advantage, largely through its influence on employee attitudes, behaviors, and performance outcomes (Huselid, 1995; Wright & McMahan, 2011). Central to this evolution is the recognition that HRM practices do not merely structure work processes but also elicit cognitive, affective, and behavioral responses from employees—responses that ultimately determine the success or failure of organizational initiatives. In contemporary workplaces, where digital transformation and algorithmic decision-making are increasingly prevalent, understanding how HRM shapes employee coping behaviors and job performance has become both more complex and more critical. Employee coping behavior refers to the strategies individuals employ to manage, adapt to, or resist workplace demands, particularly those introduced or amplified by organizational systems such as HRM (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). These behaviors can range from proactive adaptation—such as aligning one’s work habits with new performance metrics—to resistance or even manipulation of system outputs when perceived as unfair or illegitimate (Kellogg, Valentine, & Christin, 2020; Xie & Deng, 2021). The nature of these coping responses is not random; rather, they are deeply influenced by employees’ perceptions of HRM practices, especially regarding fairness, transparency, and autonomy (Colbert, Yee, & George, 2016; Zhou, Tang, & Li, 2022). When HRM systems are perceived as supportive and procedurally just, employees are more likely to engage in adaptive behaviors that enhance both individual and organizational outcomes. Conversely, when HRM is experienced as controlling, opaque, or biased, employees may resort to resistance or strategic manipulation, undermining system integrity and performance. Job performance, typically conceptualized as comprising in-role task execution and extra-role organizational citizenship behaviors (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993), is profoundly shaped by the interplay between HRM design and employee coping. Traditional HRM research has established that high-performance work systems positively correlate with enhanced job performance through mechanisms such as increased motivation, skill development, and perceived organizational support (Combs, Liu, Hall, & Ketchen, 2006). However, in the context of algorithmic and data-driven HRM, these relationships are mediated by employees’ subjective interpretations and behavioral adaptations. For instance, real-time performance monitoring may improve task efficiency but simultaneously trigger stress or disengagement if employees feel surveilled rather than supported (Bhave, Glaser, & Liu, 2020). Thus, the efficacy of HRM in driving performance hinges not only on its structural features but also on how employees cognitively appraise and behaviorally respond to it. This study reorients the emerging discourse on algorithmic HRM toward a broader, yet more focused, examination of how human resource management—as both a structural and experiential phenomenon—influences employee coping behavior and, in turn, job performance. Drawing on structuration theory (Giddens, 1984), we conceptualize HRM not as a static set of policies but as a dynamic social system co-constituted through the ongoing interaction between organizational structures and employee agency. Within this framework, employees are not passive recipients of HRM practices but active agents whose coping behaviors reflect their interpretations of fairness, control, and legitimacy. By elucidating the pathways through which HRM shapes these behaviors and their subsequent performance implications, this research contributes to a micro-foundational understanding of strategic HRM in the digital era. It also offers practical guidance for designing HRM systems that foster adaptive engagement, minimize resistance, and sustain high levels of both task and contextual performance. EJMEB (ISSN 3041-2102) | VOLUME 2 | NUMBER 6 | 2025 165 Literature Review The relationship between human resource management (HRM), employee coping behavior, and job performance is grounded in a confluence of theoretical perspectives that emphasize the reciprocal interplay between organizational systems and individual agency. Central to this inquiry is structuration theory (Giddens, 1984), which posits that social systems—including HRM practices—are simultaneously shaped by and shape human action. Within this framework, HRM is not a static set of policies imposed from above but a dynamic structure that employees interpret, internalize, and respond to through cognitive appraisals, affective reactions, and behavioral adaptations. This perspective underscores the necessity of examining HRM not only for its structural design but also for its experiential consequences on employees. HRM practices influence how employees perceive their work environment, particularly in terms of fairness, support, and autonomy (Colbert, Yee, & George, 2016; Zhou, Tang, & Li, 2022). When HRM systems are perceived as procedurally just, transparent, and aligned with employee wellbeing, they foster positive cognitive evaluations and affective states such as trust and psychological safety (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Jiang, Li, & Zhang, 2022). These internal states, in turn, guide employees’ selection of coping strategies in response to workplace demands. Coping behavior— defined as the cognitive and behavioral efforts individuals employ to manage internal or external stressors (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984)—serves as a critical mediating mechanism through which HRM exerts its influence on performance outcomes. In the context of contemporary HRM, especially as it becomes increasingly algorithmic and data-driven, coping behaviors may manifest as adaptation to new performance metrics, resistance to perceived surveillance, or strategic manipulation of system inputs to achieve favorable outcomes (Kellogg, Valentine, & Christin, 2020; Xie & Deng, 2021). The nature of these coping responses is contingent upon employees’ appraisal of HRM practices. According to cognitive evaluation theory (Deci & Ryan, 2012), individuals assess organizational actions along dimensions of autonomy support, competence enhancement, and relatedness. HRM systems that satisfy these psychological needs—such as those offering developmental feedback, participative decision-making, and equitable reward structures—tend to elicit adaptive coping behaviors characterized by engagement, learning, and proactive problem-solving (Bhave, Glaser, & Liu, 2020). Conversely, HRM practices perceived as controlling, opaque, or biased may trigger maladaptive coping, including disengagement, withdrawal, or counterproductive work behaviors (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Wei, Liu, & Zhang, 2021). Notably, even technically efficient HRM systems can provoke resistance if they undermine employees’ sense of agency or fairness, highlighting the primacy of subjective experience over objective design. Job performance, traditionally conceptualized as encompassing both in-role task execution and extra-role organizational citizenship behaviors (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993), is thus indirectly shaped by HRM through these coping pathways. High-performance work systems (HPWS), for example, have been shown to enhance performance by fostering skill development, motivation, and organizational commitment (Combs, Liu, Hall, & Ketchen, 2006). However, the efficacy of such systems is mediated by employees’ willingness to internalize and enact HRM expectations— a process deeply influenced by their coping responses. When employees adapt to HRM demands by aligning their behaviors with organizational goals, performance tends to improve across both task and contextual dimensions. In contrast, resistance or manipulation may yield short-term compliance but often erodes long-term performance, particularly in domains requiring collaboration, innovation, and discretionary effort (Liu, Wang, & Chen, 2022; Xie, Li, & Zhao, 2021). This dynamic is further complicated in the era of algorithmic HRM, where decision-making authority is increasingly delegated to artificial intelligence systems. While algorithmic HRM EJMEB (ISSN 3041-2102) | VOLUME 2 | NUMBER 6 | 2025 166 promises greater objectivity and efficiency (Meijerink & Bondarouk, 2023; Wilson & Daugherty, 2018), its impact on coping and performance hinges on employees’ perceptions of algorithmic fairness, transparency, and controllability (Newman, Fast, & Harmon, 2020; Luo, Zheng, & Li, 2022). Employees who trust algorithmic decisions are more likely to adapt constructively, leveraging real-time feedback to refine their performance. Those who experience algorithmic aversion—stemming from perceived opacity or lack of human oversight—may resist or game the system, thereby diminishing its intended benefits (Dietvorst, Simmons, & Massey, 2018; Logg, Minson, & Moore, 2019). Thus, the strategic value of HRM, whether traditional or algorithmic, ultimately depends on its capacity to elicit adaptive coping behaviors that align individual agency with organizational objectives. In sum, the influence of HRM on job performance is not direct but is channeled through the psychological and behavioral responses of employees. By integrating structuration theory with insights from stress and coping literature, this study reconceptualizes HRM as a socio-technical system that co-evolves with employee agency. Understanding how HRM shapes coping behavior— and how these behaviors, in turn, affect performance—provides a micro-foundational basis for designing HR systems that are not only efficient but also legitimate, sustainable, and humancentered. Research Framework The evolving integration of algorithmic systems into human resource management (HRM) necessitates a reconceptualization of how HRM influences employee behavior and performance. While algorithmic HRM promises enhanced efficiency, objectivity, and scalability, its ultimate effectiveness hinges not on technical sophistication alone but on the cognitive, affective, and behavioral responses it elicits from employees. Grounded in structuration theory (Giddens, 1984), this study posits that HRM—whether traditional or algorithmic—is not a static set of top-down policies but a dynamic socio-technical structure co-constituted through the recursive interaction between organizational systems and employee agency. Within this framework, employees are active agents who interpret, evaluate, and respond to HRM practices through coping behaviors that mediate the relationship between HRM design and job performance outcomes. This research advances an integrative theoretical model that explicates the mechanisms through which HRM shapes employee coping behavior and, in turn, job performance. The model delineates a sequential pathway: algorithmic HRM influences employees’ cognitive appraisals (e.g., fairness perceptions) and affective reactions (e.g., algorithmic trust or aversion); these internal states guide the selection of specific coping behaviors—namely adaptation, resistance, or manipulation; and these behaviors ultimately determine levels of in-role and extra-role job performance. This approach aligns with stress and coping theory (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), which emphasizes that individuals actively manage environmental demands through cognitive appraisal and behavioral adjustment, and with cognitive evaluation theory (Deci & Ryan, 2012), which underscores the role of perceived autonomy, competence, and fairness in shaping motivation and behavior. The framework addresses three interrelated research questions that collectively unpack the “black box” between HRM and performance. First, it examines how algorithmic HRM shapes employees’ cognitive and affective responses and identifies key boundary conditions—such as task type, algorithmic explainability, and employee participation—that moderate these effects. Second, it investigates how these cognitive and affective states inform the selection of coping behaviors, positioning coping not as passive reaction but as strategic agency in response to perceived structural constraints or affordances. Third, it analyzes how these coping behaviors differentially influence EJMEB (ISSN 3041-2102) | VOLUME 2 | NUMBER 6 | 2025 167 job performance, conceptualized as comprising both in-role task execution and extra-role organizational citizenship behaviors (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993). Figure 1 presents the overarching theoretical framework of this study, illustrating the mediated pathway from algorithmic HRM through cognition and affect, coping behavior, and ultimately to dual dimensions of job performance. Building on this macro-model, the research is operationalized through three interlinked sub-studies, each with its own theoretical diagram (Figures 2–4) that specifies the mechanisms and propositions under investigation. Figure 1. Theoretical Framework Diagram of This Study Study 1 focuses on the antecedents of employee cognition and affect. As depicted in Figure 2, it posits that the transparency, explainability, and perceived fairness of algorithmic HRM shape employees’ trust in or aversion toward algorithmic decisions. These relationships are further moderated by contextual factors such as task nature (routine vs. high-stakes) and the degree of employee participation in algorithmic design and implementation. Propositions derived from this model (e.g., Propositions 1–3b) underscore that algorithmic HRM’s legitimacy and acceptance are contingent on its alignment with employees’ psychological needs for fairness, control, and understanding. Figure 2. Theoretical Model of Study 1 EJMEB (ISSN 3041-2102) | VOLUME 2 | NUMBER 6 | 2025 168 Study 2 examines the behavioral consequences of these cognitive and affective states. As illustrated in Figure 3, fairness perceptions and algorithmic trust/aversion serve as key determinants of coping behavior. Employees who perceive algorithmic HRM as fair and trustworthy are more likely to engage in adaptive or even strategic manipulative behaviors to align with system expectations. Conversely, those who experience unfairness or aversion tend toward resistance, which may manifest as disengagement, data obstruction, or appeals for human intervention. This model highlights coping behavior as the critical behavioral conduit through which HRM exerts its influence on the workplace. Figure 3. Theoretical Model of Study 2 Study 3 investigates the performance implications of these coping behaviors, as shown in Figure 4. It argues that algorithmic HRM affects job performance indirectly—primarily through the mediating roles of fairness perceptions, trust, and coping behavior. Adaptation is expected to enhance both in-role and extra-role performance by fostering alignment with organizational goals and reducing uncertainty. Resistance, rooted in perceived injustice or opacity, is likely to impair performance across both dimensions by diminishing motivation and discretionary effort. Manipulation may yield short-term gains in task performance but is hypothesized to exhibit an inverted U-shaped relationship with in-role outcomes and a consistently negative effect on extrarole behaviors due to its self-interested orientation. Figure 4. Theoretical Model of Study 3 EJMEB (ISSN 3041-2102) | VOLUME 2 | NUMBER 6 | 2025 169 Collectively, this research framework reorients the study of HRM from a structural-functional perspective to a dynamic, micro-foundational one that centers on employee agency. By tracing the causal chain from HRM design through psychological appraisal, behavioral response, and performance outcome, the model provides a comprehensive account of why algorithmic HRM succeeds in some contexts but falters in others. It also offers actionable insights for organizations seeking to implement HRM systems that are not only technically efficient but also perceived as fair, transparent, and supportive—thereby eliciting adaptive coping behaviors that sustain high levels of individual and organizational performance. HRM Influence on Employee Coping Behavior and Job Performance Human resource management (HRM) serves not only as a structural mechanism for organizing work but also as a critical social system that shapes how employees interpret, respond to, and ultimately perform within organizational contexts. Drawing on structuration theory (Giddens, 1984), HRM is reconceptualized as a dynamic interplay between institutional structures and individual agency, wherein employees actively engage with HR practices through cognitive appraisals, affective reactions, and behavioral adaptations. This reciprocal relationship underscores the centrality of employee coping behavior—defined as the cognitive and behavioral strategies individuals employ to manage workplace demands (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984)—as a mediating pathway through which HRM influences job performance. The nature of employee coping behavior is profoundly shaped by their perceptions of HRM practices, particularly along dimensions of fairness, transparency, and autonomy (Colbert, Yee, & George, 2016; Zhou, Tang, & Li, 2022). When HRM systems are perceived as procedurally just and supportive of employee well-being, individuals are more likely to adopt adaptive coping strategies, such as aligning their work behaviors with organizational expectations or proactively seeking developmental feedback (Bhave, Glaser, & Liu, 2020). Conversely, when HRM is experienced as controlling, opaque, or biased, employees may resort to resistance—manifested through disengagement, noncompliance, or active opposition—or manipulation, wherein they strategically game the system to achieve favorable outcomes (Kellogg, Valentine, & Christin, 2020; Xie & Deng, 2021). These behavioral responses are not merely reactive but reflect employees’ ongoing negotiation of the legitimacy and fairness of HRM structures, consistent with the duality of structure posited by structuration theory. Job performance, traditionally delineated into in-role task execution and extra-role organizational citizenship behaviors (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993), is indirectly but powerfully mediated by these coping mechanisms. High-performance work systems (HPWS), for instance, have been shown to enhance performance by fostering skill development, motivation, and perceived organizational support (Combs, Liu, Hall, & Ketchen, 2006). However, the efficacy of such systems hinges on employees’ willingness to internalize HRM expectations—a process contingent upon their coping responses. Adaptive coping aligns individual agency with organizational goals, thereby reinforcing both task efficiency and discretionary effort. In contrast, resistance or manipulation may yield superficial compliance but often erodes long-term performance, particularly in domains requiring collaboration, innovation, and sustained engagement (Liu, Wang, & Chen, 2022; Xie, Li, & Zhao, 2021). Importantly, the influence of HRM on coping and performance is not uniform but contingent upon contextual and individual factors. For example, the degree of employee participation in HRM design and implementation can mitigate perceptions of algorithmic opacity and enhance perceived control, thereby fostering trust and adaptive behaviors (Kawaguchi, 2021; Zhou et al., 2022). Similarly, the nature of the HR task—whether routine and objective or subjective and high- EJMEB (ISSN 3041-2102) | VOLUME 2 | NUMBER 6 | 2025 170 stakes—moderates fairness perceptions and subsequent behavioral responses (Lee, 2018; Castelo, Bos, & Lehmann, 2019). These boundary conditions highlight the necessity of designing HRM systems that are not only technically efficient but also experientially legitimate from the employee’s perspective. Conclusion In sum, HRM exerts its influence on job performance not through direct structural imposition but through the psychological and behavioral pathways employees enact in response to organizational practices. By integrating insights from stress and coping theory with structuration theory, this perspective illuminates HRM as a socio-technical system co-constituted through human agency. Understanding how HRM shapes coping behavior—and how these behaviors, in turn, affect performance—provides a micro-foundational basis for designing HR systems that are not only efficient but also sustainable, ethical, and human-centered. Future research should continue to explore the interplay between HRM design, individual differences, and cultural contexts to refine this theoretical framework and inform practice in increasingly digitalized workplaces. References Acikgoz, Y., Szymanski, D. M., & Du, R. Y. (2020). Fairness in algorithmic hiring: A review and research agenda. Journal of Business and Psychology, 35(6), 795–811. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869020-09707-9 Alexander, D. H., Del Rio-Chanona, R. M., Farmer, J., & Lafond, F. (2018). Algorithmic trust: A framework for human–algorithm interaction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(39), 9632–9637. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1800993115 Bellamy, R. K. E., Dey, K., Hind, M., Hoffman, S. C., Houde, S., Kannan, K., Lohia, P., Martino, J., Mehta, S., Mojsilović, A., Nagar, N., Nair, K. N., Ramamurthy, K. N., Reimer, J., Saha, D., Sattigeri, P., Singh, M., Varshney, K. R., & Zhang, Y. (2019). AI fairness 360: An extensible toolkit for detecting and mitigating algorithmic bias. IBM Journal of Research and Development, 63(4/5), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1147/JRD.2019.2942205 Berger, J., Chen, Y., & Huang, Y. (2021). Algorithmic decision-making and user trust: The role of explanation and control. Journal of Consumer Research, 48(3), 456–475. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/uqab012 Bhave, D. P., Glaser, C., & Liu, Y. (2020). The bright and dark sides of algorithmic work design. Academy of Management Annals, 14(2), 651–683. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2018.0139 Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 71–98). Jossey-Bass. Buhmann, A., Fieseler, C., & Lutz, C. (2020). Whose responsibility? Perceptions of algorithmic management in platform work. New Technology, Work and Employment, 35(3), 258–276. https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12173 Castelo, N., Bos, M. W., & Lehmann, D. R. (2019). Task-dependent algorithm aversion. Journal of Marketing Research, 56(6), 809–825. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022243719853291 Cheng, L., & Foley, M. (2019). Algorithmic control in platform work: A typology of worker responses. Work, Employment and Society, 33(6), 1031–1048. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017019852003 EJMEB (ISSN 3041-2102) | VOLUME 2 | NUMBER 6 | 2025 171 Cheng, L., & Hackett, R. D. (2021). The “black box” of algorithmic management: Transparency, trust, and resistance in gig work. Organization Science, 32(5), 1325–1345. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2020.1432 Chowdhury, S., Agarwal, R., & Sambamurthy, V. (2023). Predictive analytics for employee retention: A machine learning approach. MIS Quarterly, 47(1), 201–228. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2023/17452 Colbert, A. E., Yee, N., & George, G. (2016). The bright and dark sides of algorithmic decisionmaking for HR. Academy of Management Perspectives, 30(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2015.0083 Combs, J., Liu, Y., Hall, A., & Ketchen, D. (2006). How much do high-performance work practices matter? A meta-analysis of their effects on organizational performance. Personnel Psychology, 59(3), 501–528. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00045.x Corbett-Davies, S., Pierson, E., Feller, A., Goel, S., & Huq, A. (2023). Algorithmic decision making and the cost of fairness. Management Science, 69(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2021.4228 Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2012). Self-determination theory in work organizations: The state of a science. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 19–43. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091232 Dery, K., Kolb, D., & MacCormick, J. (2013). The future of HR: From transactional to strategic. MIT Sloan Management Review, 55(1), 65–72. Dietvorst, B. J., Simmons, J. P., & Massey, C. (2015). Algorithm aversion: People erroneously avoid algorithms after seeing them err. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(1), 114–126. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000033 Dietvorst, B. J., Simmons, J. P., & Massey, C. (2018). Overcoming algorithm aversion: When imperfect algorithms should be used instead of human judgment. Management Science, 64(3), 1155– 1170. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2016.2635 Duggan, K., Sherman, U., & Sarker, S. (2020). Algorithmic management in the platform economy: A critical review. Information Systems Journal, 30(6), 1153–1180. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12306 Du, R. Y. (2022). Human reactions to algorithmic decisions in HRM: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(8), 1255–1273. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000987 Dzindolet, M. T., Peterson, S. A., Pomranky, R. A., Pierce, L. G., & Beck, H. P. (2002). The role of trust in automation reliance. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58(6), 697–722. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1071-5819(03)00038-7 Edwards, W. K., Grinter, R. E., Shah, H., & Rodkin, R. (2000). Human–algorithm interaction in collaborative filtering. Proceedings of the 2000 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 319–328. https://doi.org/10.1145/358916.358994 Fugener, A., Grahl, J., Gupta, A., & Ketter, W. (2022). Will humans be squeezed out? The impact of AI advice on team performance. Production and Operations Management, 31(4), 1589–1607. https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.13583 Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. University of California Press. Helberger, N., Karppinen, K., & van der Sloot, B. (2020). Fairness in algorithmic decision-making: A legal and philosophical perspective. Computer Law & Security Review, 38, 105439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2020.105439