AI Corporate Governance and Ben & Jerry's Risk
A recent analysis examines the governance issues faced by AI firms OpenAI and Anthropic, highlighting the inherent conflicts in their corporate structures. The study draws parallels with Ben & Jerry's, where self-appointed mission guardians caused significant harm to investors and undermined the company's mission. This phenomenon, termed 'Ben & Jerry's risk,' raises concerns about the effectiveness of such governance models in balancing profit and social responsibility.
- ▪OpenAI and Anthropic have governance structures that allow self-appointed individuals to override investor interests.
- ▪The analysis compares these firms to Ben & Jerry's, which faced a similar governance failure that harmed both investors and its mission.
- ▪The term 'Ben & Jerry's risk' refers to the potential for self-appointed guardians to create conflicts that can lead to disastrous outcomes for both the firm and its stakeholders.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
In a recent paper, AI Corporate Governance and Ben & Jerry’s Risk, we critically analyze the governance arrangements of OpenAI and Anthropic. We show that these firms share an unusual built-in conflict. Each raises billions of dollars from profit-seeking investors, and then lets self-appointed individuals override investors and decide, directly or indirectly, whether and how much profit to sacrifice to ensure the firm’s AI benefits humanity. A deep and potentially unmanageable tension is hard-wired into these firms’ corporate DNA. Such “self-appointed mission guardians” have been used only once before, at Unilever subsidiary Ben & Jerry’s.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance.
Discussion
0 comments
