Archive for category: Public Affairs

The classic adage from the board game Risk is never to fight a ground war in Asia—adversaries will attack from all sides and your small plastic armies will fall quickly. Your companies may not be sending troops (real or plastic) into battle, but the spirit of this time-tested board game (and real life) rule still rings eerily true: Don’t get surrounded by your adversaries.

The bad news for most CEOs is that it’s too late. Every company and industry today is increasingly encircled by a line-up of challenges more diverse and fast-changing than public affairs professionals have ever encountered: A stakeholder economy where corporate decisions are inspected under the TikTok microscope and viral boycotts are just a hashtag away. A polarized political environment where the twin tides of populism and progressivism make every commercial decision political and where companies must adapt to both the red state and blue state versions of reality. Geopolitics where many are rethinking globalized trade and key power centers are contemplating divorce.

The good news for CEOs is you can still deploy the public affairs equivalent of Special Operations Command to save the operation. As our CEO recently argued in Forbes, to protect its interests and advance its objectives against pressures from all sides, your company should hire a Chief Political Risk Officer, or CPRO. Here’s what you need to know to make the case for a CPRO in your organization.

Why you need a Chief Political Risk Officer

Don’t we already have people for political risk? Maybe, but too few companies have someone like this. As our CEO explained, the CPRO is “a senior executive position that owns political and reputational risk management and has a seat at the C-suite table.” That’s different than the people you may have for geopolitical advice (as many companies increasingly do), who zero-in on country-to-country relations, because the political uncertainty today is deeper than that. You may also have government relations staff. But as our CEO explained, too few companies “empower these professionals to ensure their business strategy is proactive, resilient and adept at managing the intricacies of today’s politically charged business environment.”

A CPRO is different because they have a seat in the C-Suite where they can “dissect and interpret the political landscape” and hold real sway in business decisions as they help their company “anticipate shifts, mitigate risks and capitalize on opportunities” before the damage is done.

Can’t my firm fly beneath the political storm clouds? Not anymore. As state and local politics and government grow more heated and complex, and as stakeholders increasingly scrutinize every business large or small, political risk is no longer “just the province of multinational corporations.” Nor is it a one-and-done deal. Camilla Cavendish, who was policy director for U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron, calls the state of affairs today one of “rolling crises” that means “government relations is no longer a backwater department,” particularly since, at every level, “governments are becoming more interventionist” across a broadening range of industry sectors.

Is political risk really that big of a deal? Absolutely. While political risk can be hard for companies to quantify on their balance sheet, studies provide a stark reminder that it’s a huge part of the bottom line. One study found up to 30% of earnings are at risk “from government and regulatory intervention.” Another determined effective government relations reduces the misallocation of company resources by 22%. If close to a third of your firm’s earnings are on the line, why wouldn’t you place a seasoned team member in a senior executive position to ensure your organization navigates political and reputational risks smartly?

Add these skills to your CPRO job listing

Gets ahead of policymaking before it’s too late. Government can have a profound impact on a company’s ability to operate. Today’s politics are increasingly swept up in the twin tides of populism and progressivism, neither of which has sympathy for business but both of which are shaping policy across a number of industry sectors and business interests. An effective CPRO has an acute awareness of how the political and policy landscape impacts operations, supply chains, and market opportunities and ensures your voice is heard in policy debates before it’s too late.

Steers the company clear of reputational hazards. With today’s heightened consumer activism, the CPRO’s role in decision-making is crucial, as brand equity—a valuable and hard-to-rebuild resource—can be easily damaged, with real and lasting financial costs. A good CPRO understands we are living in a post-Bud Light era in which anyone can be a Target, so having his or her counsel from the beginning can safeguard your company’s brand and reputation.

Leverages government policy objectives for the firm’s best interest. Government and industry are becoming more and more intertwined. From green infrastructure investments to rebuilding strategic manufacturing capacity to revitalizing downtown areas, a sharp CPRO can make crucial connections between policymakers’ objectives and your business interests, resulting in valuable incentives like tax abatements, loan guarantees, and other financial and reputational boosts.

Those who are ahead of the curve get to shape it

As the wise sage Vizzini warned, don’t fall “victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous of which is, ‘never get involved in a land war in Asia,’” but a close contender of which is don’t navigate a complex political landscape without the acumen of a seasoned public affairs professional. Avoiding this blunder means your business can not only hold its position but gain ground even as you face pressure from all sides.

Positioning the CPRO at the forefront of decision-making, equipped with the necessary resources, is as necessary as having a CFO for financial stewardship or a COO for operational excellence. No business would operate without the latter two in place. In today’s operating environment, the same should be said for a Chief Political Risk Officer.

Here’s What You Need To Know
Washington was shaken in mid-December by billionaire Ted Leonis’ announcement that his Monumental Sports will move two major sports franchises – the Washington Wizards and the Capitals – to a new $2 billion taxpayer-backed arena and entertainment complex in northern Virginia. The announcement came amidst rampant crime and waning office occupancy dampening the allure of the teams’ current home in downtown DC, an all too familiar concern across the country.

Facing higher crime, lower foot traffic from office workers, and progressive policies increasing labor and other costs of doing business, major retailers and other businesses are increasingly voting with their feet when it comes to urban investments. While corporations voting with their feet is not new, as our CEO noted in a recent Forbes column, the decision is more fraught for companies when today’s “political climate is fraught with chaos, polarization and unprecedented geopolitical uncertainties” even as “the ease of digital activism empowers stakeholders to voice their concerns and apply pressure more swiftly than ever before.”

In this new reality of the stakeholder economy, companies must consider the extent to which should they just pull up stakes for a better environment versus staying and fighting to improve the one they’re in. What do companies owe communities versus their shareholders and employees, and if the answer is just to leave bad business environments, how long until there’s no place left to go?

These are the questions facing public affairs professionals as we enter 2024, where many of these issues – crime, racial justice, worker treatment, and the economic future of urban cores – could enter the campaign debate. Here’s what you need to know to navigate these pressures effectively.

How Downtown Booms Went Bust

In the two decades leading up to the pandemic, downtowns boomed as young professionals were attracted by the proximity to numerous amenities like entertainment venues, restaurants, bars, and gyms, which allowed them to live, work, and play within a few blocks. In fact, this migration led to a population increase in nearly 80% of America’s major downtown districts in the 20 years before Covid hit, causing a widespread urban revival.

Then the Covid-19 pandemic changed downtown realities, shifting workers from office to home and emboldening progressive efforts to reshape relationships between employers and employees. These efforts dramatically increased minimum wages, added burdensome rules regarding employment practices, and made it more difficult to start and run a business in many cities even as Covid cleared out offices and drove the rise in remote and hybrid work, emptying many downtowns of office worker foot traffic critical for maintaining stores and restaurants.

At the same time, a post-George Floyd racial reckoning led to what now appears to be an overcorrection in criminal justice practices. Emptier downtowns, social unrest, and lax practices by progressive prosecutors and undermanned law enforcement have led to increased violence and emboldened organized retail crime. That’s left major retailers and other businesses finding it harder and harder to remain in urban centers as costs rise along with the danger to their property and employees.

Should Businesses Stay Or Should They Go?

It was in this context that Monumental Sports decided to move to northern Virginia, and the company is far from alone. Across the country, numerous retailers and other businesses are closing stores or shifting headquarters due to worsening business climates.

While these moves might be the correct immediate business decision, they may come with longer-term costs. Just as some Wizards and Capitals fans feel betrayed, so too do consumers, community stakeholders, and others who are left behind when retailers close stores and businesses leave for friendlier climes. They and the elected officials who represent them could have long memories, hindering potential returns or re-openings.

It also remains to be seen if voters recognize elected officials’ role in these business exits if companies do not speak out. Indeed, while political engagement can be complicated for businesses, if they do not speak out about the impact of policymakers’ decisions and actions, who will? And if no one does, how long will it take for urban centers to return as hubs of economic opportunity?

The Right Playbook For Stakeholder Engagement

Companies cannot afford to wait for the economic, social, and political debates regarding urban centers to play out. They should shape them with active engagement of both policymakers and stakeholders to ensure the policies and practices benefit businesses and the communities in which they operate. Successful engagement requires getting smart first by:

• Thoroughly understanding the political and reputational risks and opportunities the business faces within or across jurisdictions, and what external factors like policy changes, societal trends, and geopolitical developments may be driving or influencing those risks and opportunities;
• Comprehensively mapping the companies’ internal and external stakeholders, analyzing their interests, intentions, and influence levels to deeply understand the individuals and groups with a vested interest in the company’s activities, from customers to advocacy groups;
• Connecting these external factors with the company’s core values, purpose, and mission, because companies are most effective at stakeholder engagement when they connect their principles with stakeholder and societal interests and communicate them transparently and consistently.

With the 2024 elections revving up, companies will face unprecedented scrutiny from policymakers and stakeholders. Companies who leverage the right insights will be able to not just anticipate but shape the debates that impact their interests in urban centers and beyond. Here at Delve, think of us as your compass, helping you build the information advantage you need to protect your interests and advance your business and policy objectives.

Here’s What You Need To Know
83 elections in 54 countries. That’s how many campaigns public affairs professionals will have to navigate in 2024. In the U.S., that will include at least 6,477 elections for everything from President, Congress, Governors, and other state-level positions, plus tens of thousands of county, municipal, and special district positions (fun fact: America has more than 500,000 elected officials). Even though they get far less notice, these down-ballot races – from statewide constitutional offices to local officials and even more obscure regulatory commissions – hold significant power over a wide range of industry sectors and policy areas.

Despite this major impact, the media will focus on polling in marquee races and political dynamics driving the parties’ efforts to turn out voters, which often have little to do with how newly elected officials will approach business policies or industry regulation. That leaves public affairs professionals scrambling to properly assess the candidates and anticipate the policy debates to come. Here’s what you need to know to avoid the scramble.

Down Ballot Doesn’t Mean Off the Radar

Down-ballot races are crucial to shaping everything from antitrust litigation to investment climates to environment regulations and beyond. Take state Attorneys General, like Ohio’s Dave Yost who is suing pharmacy benefits managers, or state Treasurers, such as West Virginia’s Riley Moore or Utah’s Marlo Oaks who are pressuring asset managers and banks over ESG commitments. As we noted last year, these officials’ policy activity has made campaigns for these offices far more robust.

Similarly, local and county governmental bodies directly impact a diverse array of business operations. County and municipal officials are placing moratoriums on solar or wind projects, restricting AI use in hiring, hiking minimum wages for restaurant workers, banning single-use plastics, and much more. As a result, even previously obscure bodies like state public utility commissions are seeing an uptick in campaign action as more stakeholders seek to shape the work of these bodies.

For businesses and the public affairs professionals who guide them, a deep understanding of who is running for these offices as well as who and what shapes candidates’ views on your issue set is crucial. Even if you do not have immediate matters before them, their campaign rhetoric and actions once in office will impact the policy landscape when you do.

What Happens in Primaries Doesn’t Stay in Primaries

As we’ve highlighted previously, the marketplace of ideas does not strictly adhere to candidates’ win-loss records. Primary candidates’ influence in particularly can surpass their electoral outcomes. Their policy proposals, whether innovative or disruptive, can shift the political landscape and resonate with voters and politicians, irrespective of election results. As the twin tides of populism and progressivism shape each party’s policy agenda, the country’s direction in turn is being molded by these two extreme ends of the political spectrum. This ripple effect of primary contenders’ ideas, coupled with the potential for candidates who come up short at the polls to secure appointments to influential government roles, shows why it is important for public affairs professionals to closely monitor and understand the ideological currents shaping campaigns early in the election cycle.

Ballot Battle Royale Goes Beyond Candidates

Ballot initiatives and referenda are key yet often overlooked elements of elections. Both parties use them strategically to mobilize their voter base and influence the electorate on contentious issues. Earlier this month in Ohio, Democrats got a test run of a ballot measure to enshrine reproductive rights into the state constitution, and its success quickly prompted activists to set their sights on other states to help boost Democratic turnout in 2024. Republicans have leveraged this strategy as well.

Yet initiatives are not just about leveraging social and cultural issues to spike turnout. They can directly impact businesses on major issues like environmental and labor regulations. Activists and industry advocate alike use them to bypass  or overturn polarized legislatures. While early in the cycle, already initiatives have been filed on critical issues like healthcare, taxation, and energy. Businesses need proactive engagement on which initiatives or referenda may reach next November’s ballot – and who is fueling interest in them.

The Media Is More Heat and Noise than Light or Insight

The mainstream media’s penchant for “horse race” journalism, which concentrates on poll standings and campaign strategies, poses a significant challenge for public affairs professionals. The emphasis on political rivalries and the dynamic of who’s leading or lagging comes at the expense of substantive policy discussions and simplifies complex political landscapes. Reporting that sidelines nuanced policy impacts and long-term consequences of election outcomes leaves public affairs professionals in a media environment rich in speculation and punditry yet lacking in the analysis they need to thoroughly assess candidates and their plans to govern.

Likewise, most of today’s media have aligned along ideological lines to cater to particular audiences, with biased reporters driving narratives that resonate with their selected news consumers while omitting or misrepresenting contrary information. Just as many deride politicians of leveraging redistricting to “choose their voters,” media companies leverage agenda-driven worldviews to cultivate their reader- or viewership, creating echo chambers where complex issues are reduced to binary debates. This environment makes it difficult for public affairs professionals to obtain facts and meaningful analysis.

Now Is the Time to Find Your Friends and Understand Your Opponents

Right now, many public affairs professionals are in the midst of annual budgeting processes to ensure they have the necessary resources to protect and advance their organization’s interests as the 2024 campaign unfolds. At Delve, our well-honed playbook helps you identify and secure the resources you need for public affairs success, starting with a risk assessment on which issues and jurisdictions are likely to pose the greatest challenges (or opportunities) and stakeholder mapping that surfaces potential allies and likely opponents among candidates as well as other groups and individuals shaping the campaign debate and the policymaking that follows.

Putting your public affairs operation at an information advantage in 2024 requires a focus that extends beyond top-tier races, recognizing the significant influence of down-ballot positions on policy and regulation and digging deep to remain attuned to the evolving political landscape. To cut through the noise of “horse race” journalism and partisan narratives, public affairs experts need reliable, in-depth analysis from a trusted partner. As you prepare for the coming election cycle, Delve is here to give you a decisive edge and empower you to not just anticipate the future but shape it.

Here’s What You Need To Know
The barbaric and brutal terrorist attacks in Israel leave us deeply shaken. Our hearts ache for the families, friends, and loved ones who are bearing the brunt of this senseless violence. This post includes resources to help at this difficult time.

At the same time, as risk advisors, we must consider the broader implications of these attacks on Israel, the Jewish community, and those who stand in solidarity with the Jewish people. It is time for many to face hard truths.

Delve has always been at the forefront of supporting organizations combatting anti-Semitism. While the focus is rightly on the humanitarian and security aspects of these attacks, every modern conflict has a public affairs dimension. As Israel appropriately responds to these unprovoked atrocities, public affairs professionals need be well-informed about the complex conflict and its impact on corporate public affairs. Here’s what you need to know.

Social Impact Collides With Geopolitics

In recent years, companies have increasingly integrated social issues and causes into their corporate identities. Whether this alignment with progressive politics was intended or not, many of the same groups that applauded corporate stances on racial inequality, LGBT+ rights, and similar issues are not taking a similar stance on the horrific violence in Israel. Many are inexplicably remaining silent, or worse, excusing or justifying the attacks.

While more recent geopolitical clashes like Putin’s invasion of Ukraine proved easy messaging for most companies across the Western world, they now face a critical juncture where these progressive values collide with the complexities of geopolitics. Companies supporting Ukraine were not expected to show concern for the impact of Putin’s war on Russian citizens, and standing in solidarity with Israel against Hamas will test companies’ willingness to reject false narratives. Nor will it be the last test of how companies handle fraught international conflicts.

Corporate leaders who have been outspoken in past social and geopolitical debates now find themselves under the microscope. After setting a precedent for speaking out, many leaders were caught unprepared this past week. Their silence could have consequences: 35 U.S. states have laws restricting investments and state business with companies that do not support Israel, and nearly as many states have similar restrictions on companies doing business with Iran, which is widely seen as aiding the recent attacks.

Our Civil Institutions Can’t Handle Today’s Challenges

Current events serve as a poignant reminder of the challenges stemming from the fragility of governmental and civil institutions. This year, after five elections in three years, Israel saw the greatest civil unrest in its history as it debated judicial reforms, and in the wake of the violence questions remain about how Israel’s security apparatus missed the threat. In the U.S., the attacks came just days after the U.S. House of Representatives removed a sitting Speaker for the first time in history, putting American aid to Israel in jeopardy. House Foreign Relations Committee Chair Michael McCaul (R-TX) called the dysfunction “a dangerous game.”

As we have noted for some time, “Private businesses have become the most trusted institutions in the United States as Americans have become increasingly divided by politics.” That means increased pressure to speak out on a broader range of issues. As trust in civil institutions keeps falling and basic tasks of government become more difficult, that pressure to fill the gap will only grow.

Media’s Misinformation Campaign

The ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict has brought into sharp focus the critical issue of mis- and dis-information in today’s media landscape. While governments and commentators have focused on its spread on social media, for too many journalists it has become an easy excuse to reject uncomfortable truths about the conflict and the nature of the attack. A Los Angeles Times investigative reporter, for example, persistently questioned incidents of rape and beheadings attributed to Hamas, and both CBS News and New York Times changed headlines in ways that downplay Hamas’ atrocities. As documented by Newsbusters, those outlets are far from alone in setting a media narrative defensive of, if not sympathetic to, Hamas terrorists in their coverage of the conflict. The biased coverage and agenda-driven narratives of the media serve as a reminder for public affairs professionals: while viral misrepresentations or deepfakes are dangerous, more frequently “the real challenge is not how widespread the fake news is, but rather how fake the real news can be.”

America Awakes To Its Rotting Academia

Student activists expressing support for Palestine and Hamas have surprised many Americans, and many colleges and universities failed to respond appropriately. Most conspicuous was a statement by more than 30 Harvard student organizations blaming the Israeli government “entirely” for the violence. Harvard’s president struggled to respond even as prominent voices like former Clinton Treasury Secretary Larry Summers expressed disappointment. Hedge fund manager Bill Ackman, who spoke for a number of CEOs, demanded names of the signatories “to insure that none of us inadvertently hire” them. Other elite institutions faced similar predicaments and similar opprobrium, a potential watershed moment for corporate concern over higher education’s progressive shift.

While many of these institutions readily condemned various social and political issues, their silence on this matter is notable. Those tracking how anti-Semitism masquerades as progressive inclusivity on campus were not surprised. Still, prominent higher education institutions’ deafening silence implicitly endorses a hateful ideology amidst disturbing student activism in solidarity with Hamas’ attacks. Similarly, corporate executives spoke out about racial injustice, LGBT+ rights, and other social and political issues in recent years, but many have remained silent or neutral in the current conflict.

DEI’s Blindspot

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives intended to address discrimination and foster inclusivity  have a concerning blind spot. Too many DEI efforts perpetuate anti-Semitic attitudes and mistreatment of Jews. The weaponization of DEI measures to unfairly portray Jewish students and Israel as oppressors undermine the very ideals DEI initiatives claim to promote. Instances like Derron Borders, the diversity and inclusion director at Cornell University’s Johnson School of Management, referring to Hamas terror attacks as ‘the resistance’ underscore DEI leaders’ failure to eschew hateful rhetoric and violence-inciting speech.

DEI initiatives are at an inflection point in which they must address this blind spot to preserve their principles of inclusivity and free expression. Failing to do so not only endangers the well-being of Jewish students but calls into question the effectiveness of DEI initiatives. This challenge extends beyond campus to companies that embraced DEI initiatives following George Floyd’s murder but now face scrutiny from conservatives. As public awareness of how DEI programs and practitioners treat Jews increases, that scrutiny may transcend partisan divides.

Despite This Past Week’s Clarity, Support For Israel Is Already Evaporating

Last Sunday’s news programs, traditionally influential in Washington discourse, focused questions on civilians in Gaza, neglecting Hamas’ devastating atrocities, Israel’s right to safeguard its citizens, or the anxieties of Jews near and far from Israel. The gruesome and unprecedented attacks cannot fade from memories and allow the conflict to shift into its typical narrative.

As Natan Sharansky, the Soviet Jewish political prisoner who reached freedom in Israel, wrote, “In dictatorships you need courage to fight evil; in the free world you need courage to see evil.” Today, companies and institutions in democratic nations must have courage to see beyond comfortable narratives and support Israel as it confronts the evil exposed by these attacks.

How You Can Help

The situation in the Middle East is complex and impacts the entire global Jewish community. Delve can assist you in better understanding and addressing this issue. To start, we encourage you to join us in supporting these organizations addressing critical needs in Israel and beyond:

• United Hatzalah is a volunteer EMS organization aiding Israel’s medical and humanitarian needs.
• Magen David Adom supports frontline medical responders in Israel – and Michael Bloomberg is currently matching donations.
• Friends of the Israel Defense Forces directly supports the men and women defending Israel from further attack – with Haim and Cheryl Saban matching donations.
• Israel on Campus Coalition coordinates efforts to combat anti-Semitism on U.S. campuses to ensure they remain safe for Jews.

Here’s What You Need To Know
If the rulebook for artificial intelligence (AI) is a movie franchise, get ready for more spin-offs than even a Marvel executive could dream up. That’s because policymakers around the globe each want to be their own superhero in the race to restrain what many believe is a runaway new technology. As a result, public affairs professionals across every industry sector find themselves standing before a multiplex of policy theaters, each screening its own version of the guardrails needed for AI.

Today, we are launching DelveInto.AI, a new offering specifically designed for those who need more than a seat in the AI regulatory debate theater, but a role in writing the screenplay. In the race to develop and utilize AI, firms and investors must be keyed in to the emerging policy landscape, and Delve’s new offering will help them and the public affairs advisors they rely on to do just that, because waiting until this movie is streaming will cause a lot more than FOMO. Here’s what you need to know to secure your AI information advantage.

“Techlash” = Payback

Policymakers Regret “Mistakes Of The Past.” Policymakers took a hands-off approach to regulation of the internet in the 1990s and the spread of mobile apps and social media platforms in the 2010s. After many years of allowing industry to “move fast and break things,” policymakers and many in the public want to avoid what Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) called “the mistakes of the past.” From concerns about the impact of social media on children to content moderation to what some claim are anticompetitive practices in Big Tech, policymakers and their constituents are nursing wounds from their ongoing tussles with Big Tech. This “techlash” could fuel a hasty policymaking process that decommissions AI innovators before their products see the light of day.

The Curtain Is Rising on AI Regulation Across the U.S.

No State of Waiting. On one screen in the multiplex of AI policy theaters are state-level policymakers who show no interest in waiting for Washington to act. Years of experience bringing Big Tech to court and pushing through laws on issues like data privacy have battle-hardened state officials for this moment. States like Colorado, Connecticut, and Illinois have already passed legislation to address AI issues such as algorithmic discrimination. Other states, including California, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island have seen bills introduced that would broadly regulate generative AI. Expect this early trickle of bills to turn into a tidal wave in next year’s legislative sessions with policymakers, stakeholders, and industry scrambling to add their own voice to the debate.

In Delve’s U.S. Nationwide Risk Assessment, we identified eight key factors driving which states are likely to advance AI policies in the coming year, and what issues are top of mind for state policymakers to address.

Washington’s Whole Of Government Approach. Another screening of AI rules is happening at the federal level, where policymakers at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue are crafting regulations and coordinating closely with big industry players to set standards that are shaping the terms of the debate. The Biden Administration is bringing to bear on AI the same aggressive, whole-of-government approach it has taken to tackle climate, crypto, and other hot button issues. As a result, numerous federal agencies are enforcing restrictions on the use of AI under their existing authority and are taking additional rulemaking action based on Biden’s forthcoming executive orders. This summer, Biden scored voluntary commitments from leading AI companies to self-regulate, which the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) plans to enforce. This past week, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) hosted a who’s who of AI executives and labor and civil rights advocates in the first of a series of Capitol Hill briefings to help lawmakers craft an AI policy framework. If founders and funders of AI projects haven’t yet found a seat at the table in Washington, they’ll be left out in the cold or, worse, on the menu.

Delve’s U.S. Federal Risk Assessment highlights who the key policymakers are and what issues are shaping the debate inside the Beltway.

Global Forces Are Also at Play

Beware the Brussels Effect. The rush to regulate AI isn’t only an American phenomenon, but a global one. The European Union has raced ahead with its nearly complete AI Act, which would ban certain uses of AI and mandate that companies producing high-risk AI tools comply with a range of safety requirements. The EU has a history of winning the first-mover award on major policy reforms, leading to what some call the Brussels effect. By setting the most stringent rules on data privacy in 2018 under the General Data Protection Regulation and more recently content moderation under the Digital Services Act, industry players may face increasing pressure to re-orient their entire global offering to comply with Europe’s demands.

Neither London nor Beijing are keen to let Brussels steal the show. China has new rules that include requiring generative AI providers to register with the government and ensure their systems “adhere to core values of socialism” and London is looking to coordinate global policy as well, with plans to “host the first major global summit on AI safety” later this year. The decisions made today by international players and policymakers will ripple across borders and influence the future of AI innovation, meaning firms with international aspirations must pay careful attention and ensure they can build and leverage the right relationships to shape the debate.

Delve’s Transatlantic Risk Package helps you understand the action at home and abroad, diving into the actions in Brussels, London, and other key European capitals.

Traditional Policymakers Aren’t The Only Actors In the AI Regulatory Theater

Policy Discussions Don’t Happen In A Vacuum. Outside the formal processes, a diverse range of stakeholders are shaping public and policymaker perceptions. There are those who want to stop or at least pause AI development, plus activists concerned about issues like algorithmic discrimination, intellectual property, or other issues. Then there are industry leaders and investors who want AI innovation to continue, though nothing suggests the interests of the major industry players, which already have a seat at the policymaking table in many capitals, will align with the interests of everyone else building or using AI tech.

DelveInto.AI Will Keep You Ahead of the Debate. The AI policy landscape is shaping up to be one of the most complicated and complex in recent memory. Just like the technology itself, the debate is moving faster every day, making it impossible to stay ahead without the right tools in place. That’s where DelveInto.ai gives your public affairs operation an advantage.

In addition to Risk Assessments providing in-depth analysis of the policy landscape in key jurisdictions, our team of analysts is tracking policy and stakeholder activity on a daily basis. This tracking will be available to DelveInto.ai subscribers in the coming weeks, and those who purchase one or more risk assessments will receive a free trial to the tracking service.

If You Don’t Shape The AI Debate, It Will Shape Your Interests. It’s quickly becoming an adage that AI won’t replace you, but someone using AI will. Likewise, you may not be focused on the AI policy debate, but those who are focused on the debate will shape it, and how those rules are written will determine AI rules of the road for every industry sector. To ensure you can focus on this fast-moving debate smartly, you will need DelveInto.AI.