Unlock the editor’s summary for free
Roula Khalaf, editor of the FT, selects her favorite stories in this weekly newsletter.
Upon his return to the White House in January, Donald Trump quickly dismantled the regulatory framework that his predecessor Joe Biden had established to address the risks of artificial intelligence.
The actions of the president of the United States included reverse an executive order of 2023 that required that the developers of IA would present results of security evidence to the federal authorities when the systems represented a “serious risk” for the security, economy or public health and the security of the nation. Trump order He characterized these railings as “Barriers for the innovation of American.”
This round trip in the AI regulation reflects a tension between public safety and economic growth that is also seen in the debates about regulation in areas such as SAFETY IN THE WORK PLACEMENT, Stability of the financial sector and environmental protection. When the regulations prioritize growth, should companies continue aligning their government with public interest, and what are the pros and cons of doing so?
In Openai, founded in 2015 by Sam Altman as a non -profit organization, this has been a significant debate issue between investors and co -founders, including Elon Musk, particularly since it guarantees that AI operates safely, ethically, ethical and for the benefit of humanity has been a concern since the first days of technology.
As a result, many companies have Adopted novel corporate structures That objective is to balance their economic interests with broader social concerns. For example, in 2021, seven former OpenAI employees founded Anthrope and incorporated it as a benefit corporation, a structure through which a company legally undertakes to offer social benefits together with profits. In its incorporation documents, Anthrope affirms that its purpose is to develop and maintain the advanced AI for the long -term benefit of humanity.
Test
This is part of a series of regular studies of teaching cases of the Business School dedicated to commercial dilemmas. Read the text and articles of the FT and in other places suggested at the end (and linked inside the piece) before considering the questions raised. The series is part of a wide collection of ‘Instant Teaching Case Studies’ of FT that explore commercial challenges.
First introduced by Maryland in 2010, the structures of the Benefit Corporation have been adopted by more than 40 US states, Washington DC, Puerto Rico and countries, including Italy, Colombia, Ecuador, France, Peru, Rwanda, Uruguay and the Canadian province of British Columbia.
However, they have also been adopted by companies whose objectives are not specifically aligned with the environmental and social impact. The XAI of Musk, incorporated as a corporation of benefits in Nevada, has a declared corporate purpose to create “a positive material impact on society and the environment, taken as a whole.”
Critics argue that the benefit corporation model lacks teeth. While most include transparency provisions, associated reports requirements may not be a significant responsibility for whether the company is achieving its legal purpose.
All this raises the possibility that the model opens the door to “governance washing.” After the wave of demands against the manufacturer of opioid Purdue Pharma, its owner the The Sackler family proposed to make the company a benefit corporationthat would focus on making drugs to address the opioid crisis. Final disposition of the multitude of cases Against the company is ongoing.
The OpenAi case illustrates the problems related to governance in the AI sector. In 2019, the company began a profit entity to assume billions of dollars in Microsoft investments and others. According to reports, several early employees were left due to security problems.
Musk sue Openai and Sam Altman In 2024, claiming that they had compromised the Mission of the start-up to build AI systems for the benefit of humanity.
In December 2024, Openai announced plans to restructure as a public benefit corporation already early 2025, according to reports, the company’s non -profit board worked for divided OpenAi in two entities: A public benefit corporation and a charitable arm valued at approximately $ 30 billion. Musk has opposed the move and this month made an undertaking of more than $ 97 billion for OpenAi.
The trajectory of OpenAI’s financing supports the argument presented by Musk and others that OpenAI prioritizes profits on public benefit. In October 2024, the company secured a historical investment round with an assessment of $ 157 billion. But it had not yet formalized its property structure and governance framework, giving investors a significant influence on the mission and execution of the company.
As the company ends its structure, should you adopt the vision of the articulated industry in Trump’s executive order and leave its focus on security and humanity? Or should that approach maintain, since other regions of the world or future US presidents can assume a different vision of the responsibility of AI companies?
And are the voluntary mechanisms such as the corporate structure and the sufficient government to create responsibility while maintaining the necessary agility for innovation? According Some legal experts, such structures are not necessary As the forms of traditional corporate incorporation allow companies to establish sustainability objectives if they are in the long -term interests of shareholders.
To increase responsibility, some benefits corporations have created monitoring advice of multiple stakeholders with representatives of affected sectors such as technology and civil society. In May 2024, Operai established a security committeeDirected by Altman (then resigned), although critics have indicated that such voluntary structures could be subordinated to the profits.
Other options include adopting the EU Corporate Sustainability Reports Directivethat it will govern companies such as OpenAI in the coming years, or link compensation options and actions with security -related objectives.
Alternative responsibility mechanisms may arise. Meanwhile, governance in AI and OpenAi companies raises important questions about the integration of ethical and security considerations in a mostly proven technology.
Discussion questions
How can corporations benefit in the AI sector to guarantee the responsibility of their social and environmental commitments?
How could volunteer corporate governance safeguards provide public confidence in an industry often criticized for opacity and potential damage?
What specific metrics and report requirements would make the status of the Corporation benefit significant for AI companies?
What mechanisms could the political leaders introduce to strengthen the effectiveness of the benefit corporation model in high -risk industries?
Can these models lead to a systemic change in corporate responsibility, or will these models continue to be niche solutions?
How can the beneficiary corporations address their global impact when operating under different national legal frameworks?
Christopher Marquis is Sinyi Chinese management professor at Cambridge Judge Business School