• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Core Principles of Responsible AI
    • Accountability
    • Fairness
    • Privacy
    • Safety and Security
    • Sustainability
    • Transparency
  • Special Topics
    • AI in Industry
    • Ethical Implications
    • Human-Centered Design
    • Regulatory Landscape
    • Technical Methods
  • Living Dictionary
  • State of AI Ethics
  • AI Ethics Brief
  • 🇫🇷
Montreal AI Ethics Institute

Montreal AI Ethics Institute

Democratizing AI ethics literacy

Corporate Governance of Artificial Intelligence in the Public Interest

August 10, 2021

🔬 Research summary by Jonas Schuett, Policy Research Intern at DeepMind | Research Fellow at the Legal Priorities Project | PhD Candidate in Law at Goethe University Frankfurt

[Original paper by Peter Cihon, Jonas Schuett, Seth D. Baum]


Overview:

How can different actors improve the corporate governance of AI in the public interest? This paper offers a broad introduction to the topic. It surveys opportunities of nine types of actors inside and outside the corporation. In many cases, the best results will accrue when multiple types of actors work together.


Introduction

Private industry is at the forefront of AI research and development. AI is a major focus of the technology industry, which includes some of the largest corporations in the world. As AI research and development has an increasingly outsized impact on the world, it is essential to ensure that the governance of the field’s leading companies supports the public interest.

Key Insights

Opportunities to improve the corporate governance of AI

The opportunities to improve AI corporate governance are diverse. The paper surveys opportunities for nine different types of actors:

  • Management can establish policies, translate policies into practice, and create structures such as oversight committees.
  • Workers can directly affect the design and use of AI systems, and can have indirect effects by influencing management.
  • Investors can voice concerns to management, vote in shareholder resolutions, replace a corporation’s board of directors, sell off their investments to signal disapproval, and file lawsuits against the corporation.
  • Corporate partners can use their business-to-business market power and relations to influence companies, while corporate competitors can push each other in pursuit of market share and reputation.
  • Industry consortia can identify and promote best practices, formalize best practices as standards, and pool resources to advance industry interests, such as by lobbying governments.
  • Nonprofit organizations can conduct research, advocate for change, organize coalitions, and raise awareness.
  • The public can select which corporate AI products and services to use, and also support specific AI public policies.
  • The media can research, document, analyze, and generate attention to corporate governance activities and related matters.

Coordination and collaboration

In many cases, the best results will accrue when multiple types of actors work together. The paper shows this via extended discussion of three running examples:

  • First, workers and the media collaborated to influence managers at Google to leave Project Maven, a drone video classification project of the US Department of Defense. Workers initially leaked information about Maven to the media, and then signed an open letter against Maven following media reports.
  • Second, nonprofit research and advocacy on law enforcement use of facial recognition technology fueled worker and investor activism and public pressure (especially the 2020 protests against racism and police brutality) that ultimately pushed multiple competing AI corporations to change their practices.
  • Third, workers, management, and industry consortia have interacted to develop and promote best practices concerning the publication of potentially harmful research.

Between the lines

The paper will be of use to researchers looking for an overview of corporate governance at leading AI companies, levers of influence in corporate AI development, and opportunities to improve corporate governance with an eye towards long-term AI development.

Want quick summaries of the latest research & reporting in AI ethics delivered to your inbox? Subscribe to the AI Ethics Brief. We publish bi-weekly.

Primary Sidebar

🔍 SEARCH

Spotlight

Canada’s Minister of AI and Digital Innovation is a Historic First. Here’s What We Recommend.

Am I Literate? Redefining Literacy in the Age of Artificial Intelligence

AI Policy Corner: The Texas Responsible AI Governance Act

AI Policy Corner: Singapore’s National AI Strategy 2.0

AI Governance in a Competitive World: Balancing Innovation, Regulation and Ethics | Point Zero Forum 2025

related posts

  • An Empirical Study of Modular Bias Mitigators and Ensembles

    An Empirical Study of Modular Bias Mitigators and Ensembles

  • Open and Linked Data Model for Carbon Footprint Scenarios

    Open and Linked Data Model for Carbon Footprint Scenarios

  • The social dilemma in artificial intelligence development and why we have to solve it

    The social dilemma in artificial intelligence development and why we have to solve it

  • Never trust, always verify: a roadmap for Trustworthy AI?

    Never trust, always verify: a roadmap for Trustworthy AI?

  • Beyond Empirical Windowing: An Attention-Based Approach for Trust Prediction in Autonomous Vehicles

    Beyond Empirical Windowing: An Attention-Based Approach for Trust Prediction in Autonomous Vehicles

  • AI Framework for Healthy Built Environments

    AI Framework for Healthy Built Environments

  • Unpacking Invisible Work Practices, Constraints, and Latent Power Relationships in Child Welfare thr...

    Unpacking Invisible Work Practices, Constraints, and Latent Power Relationships in Child Welfare thr...

  • Theorizing Femininity in AI: a Framework for Undoing Technology’s Gender Troubles (Research Summary)

    Theorizing Femininity in AI: a Framework for Undoing Technology’s Gender Troubles (Research Summary)

  • Research summary: What does it mean for ML to be trustworthy?

    Research summary: What does it mean for ML to be trustworthy?

  • Supporting Human-LLM collaboration in Auditing LLMs with LLMs

    Supporting Human-LLM collaboration in Auditing LLMs with LLMs

Partners

  •  
    U.S. Artificial Intelligence Safety Institute Consortium (AISIC) at NIST

  • Partnership on AI

  • The LF AI & Data Foundation

  • The AI Alliance

Footer

Categories


• Blog
• Research Summaries
• Columns
• Core Principles of Responsible AI
• Special Topics

Signature Content


• The State Of AI Ethics

• The Living Dictionary

• The AI Ethics Brief

Learn More


• About

• Open Access Policy

• Contributions Policy

• Editorial Stance on AI Tools

• Press

• Donate

• Contact

The AI Ethics Brief (bi-weekly newsletter)

About Us


Founded in 2018, the Montreal AI Ethics Institute (MAIEI) is an international non-profit organization equipping citizens concerned about artificial intelligence and its impact on society to take action.


Archive

  • © MONTREAL AI ETHICS INSTITUTE. All rights reserved 2024.
  • This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
  • Learn more about our open access policy here.
  • Creative Commons License

    Save hours of work and stay on top of Responsible AI research and reporting with our bi-weekly email newsletter.