Connect with us

Opinion

Can AI Save a Company’s Soul?

Published

on

There’s a particular kind of corporate self-delusion that arrives gift-wrapped in a press release. The language is always the same: commitment to responsible innovation, our values-driven approach, AI as a force for good. And then, six months later, the ethics board resigns.

That cycle has accelerated dramatically. In 2024 and 2025, multiple senior safety leads departed OpenAI in succession. A University of Zurich experiment secretly used AI to alter users’ political opinions without consent. In early 2026, ElonUsk’s Grok generated an estimated 3 million sexualized images of real people — including private citizens — in just 11 days, according to researchers at the Centre for Countering Digital Hate. These weren’t fringe incidents. They were the predictable outcomes of organisations that treated ethics as a compliance checkbox rather than a governing principle. Crescendo

The question isn’t whether AI is reshaping corporate culture. It is. The question is whether it’s reshaping it toward anything resembling integrity — or whether the technology is simply amplifying whoever was already in charge.

The Corporate Soul Has Always Been a Contested Asset

Before examining what AI does to organisational ethics, it’s worth acknowledging what corporate culture actually is: not a mission statement, not a values wall in the lobby, but the aggregate of a thousand small decisions made under pressure. Culture is what happens when no one senior is watching.

In 2025, organisational culture placed greater emphasis on authenticity, trust, fairness, and psychological safety — rather than abstract ideals and surface-level values — as companies grappled with rapid AI adoption, economic uncertainty, and heightened workforce anxiety. That shift wasn’t voluntary. It was forced by employees who stopped believing the official line. Yardi Kube

AI entered this environment not as a neutral tool but as an amplifier. The EU AI Act, which comes fully into force in 2026, represents the first comprehensive regulatory regime for AI ethics. Elsewhere, the landscape remains patchy. In the absence of binding rules, corporations made their own. And predictably, their own rules tended to serve their own interests. Darden Report

By 2030, AI will be so embedded in business and government infrastructure that retrofitting ethical standards may be nearly impossible, according to researchers at the University of Virginia’s Darden School of Business. The window for course correction is now. And most organisations are still debating whether to open it. Darden Report

AI Corporate Ethics: The Gap Between Pledge and Practice

The first principle of AI corporate ethics — the phrase that every CTO and chief compliance officer now deploys with confidence — is that ethics must be proactive, not reactive. Too often, AI ethics have been treated as an afterthought rather than a core design principle. When ethics is left until the end, it is always the weakest link. Companies find themselves reacting to scandals instead of building trust and resilience. Darden Report

See also  Foreign Central Banks Are Dumping US Treasuries in the Wake of the Iran War

That observation, from Darden’s LaCross Institute, is not particularly surprising. What’s striking is how consistently it describes the actual behaviour of organisations that publicly claim otherwise.

A 2025 McKinsey Digital report found that fewer than half of C-suite leaders involve nontechnical employees in the early stages of AI tool design — despite the same report emphasising the need for diverse perspectives and transparent communication about AI’s impact on jobs. The gap between stated values and operational reality is, in itself, an ethical failure. It signals to the workforce that participation is performative. Cerkl Broadcast

The consequences are measurable. Multiple senior safety leads departed OpenAI during 2024 and 2025, a pattern that has since been documented across other major AI firms. A Harvard Law Review analysis described this pattern as “amoral drift” — a gradual erosion of ethical commitments as equity valuations and competitive pressures crowd out principled dissent. When the people hired specifically to raise alarms keep leaving, it’s no longer a personnel problem. It’s a governance failure. Aicerts NewsHarvard Law Review

Still, the picture is more complicated than simple cynicism allows. Some companies are building ethics into their infrastructure in ways that are costly, unglamorous, and — crucially — not immediately profitable.

What Does Responsible AI Actually Look Like Inside an Organisation?

Can AI improve a company’s ethical culture? The short answer: yes, but only when the culture already has something to work with.

AI can surface bias in hiring algorithms, flag anomalous decision patterns in financial approvals, and create audit trails that make accountability visible where it was previously invisible. Businesses that implement bias audits, establish clear accountability for AI-driven decisions, and communicate openly about the uses and impacts of AI earn trust and differentiate themselves in a competitive market — because ethics is not just a compliance issue but a strategic advantage that strengthens relationships and reinforces brand credibility. McLane Middleton

That framing is becoming increasingly material rather than rhetorical. Under the EU AI Act, non-compliance with high-risk AI obligations can trigger fines of up to €35 million or 7% of worldwide turnover — a figure that concentrates the board’s attention in ways that a values statement never will. The Act elevates AI governance to board-level responsibility, shifting European AI governance from voluntary ethical guidelines to mandatory legal requirements. For multinational corporations, that shift isn’t confined to Brussels. It sets a de facto global standard. LegalNodesSecure Privacy

What follows, however, is a crucial distinction: compliance and ethics are not the same thing. A company can satisfy every regulatory requirement and still build an AI system that corrodes its own culture from within. Algorithmic management tools that track employee keystrokes, sentiment-analysis systems that flag dissent before it reaches a manager, performance models that optimise for measurable output while punishing everything human beings value about work — all of these can be technically compliant and culturally corrosive simultaneously.

See also  Pakistan Economic Outlook 2026: Teetering on the Edge of Reform or Decline

In 2026, organisations that will win are those that lean into both AI and human strengths — treating “cognitive capital,” meaning uniquely human capabilities like ethical reasoning, creative synthesis, and stakeholder empathy, as measurable assets rather than soft intangibles. That’s a useful frame. It’s also, at the moment, more aspiration than practice. Senior Executive

The Second-Order Effects No One Is Pricing In

The downstream consequences of getting AI corporate ethics wrong are not primarily regulatory. They’re cultural, and culture moves slowly enough that organisations rarely recognise the damage until it’s structural.

Consider what happens to employee trust when AI systems make consequential decisions — about promotions, performance ratings, credit approvals — without meaningful human review. Studies show that employees are more likely to trust AI systems when organisations are transparent about their AI use and incorporate ethical guidelines into AI deployment, per KPMG research cited in peer-reviewed analysis. Remove that transparency, and trust doesn’t remain neutral — it actively degrades. Gapinterdisciplinarities

Key challenges with AI adoption in 2025 included unclear policies for data use leading to confusion and ethical concerns, job security fears, and significant changes in how employees work, make decisions, and interact. These aren’t abstract concerns. They translate into attrition, disengagement, and the quiet exit of the kind of employees who have enough self-respect to leave when they’re not trusted. Yardi Kube

Then there’s the reputational dimension. A Berkeley Haas analysis found that ninety percent of public criticisms toward AI touch on social norms and values — not technical performance. When an AI system fails ethically, it fails publicly. Single events have the potential to cause lasting damage to organisational reputation, and most companies remain strategically unprepared to respond. The Grok image scandal of early 2026 wasn’t a technical glitch. It was a cultural statement about what its developers believed was acceptable — and the market heard it clearly. berkeley

For investors, the calculus is shifting. A 2026 study examining 449 corporations across China and Europe found that corporate AI ethics practices significantly influence sustainable development outcomes and ESG performance, with the relationship moderated by international innovation capacity. In plain English: ethical AI deployment is becoming a predictor of long-term business value, not merely a cost centre. Wiley Online Library

The Counterargument: Ethics as Competitive Disadvantage

There’s a dissenting view worth taking seriously — not because it’s right, but because it’s prevalent enough to shape real decisions.

See also  The Decline and Fall of the Roman Currency Empire: What Ancient Aurei Reveal About Dollar Dominance in 2026

The argument runs roughly as follows: companies that impose rigorous ethical guardrails on their AI systems will be outcompeted by those that don’t. If a US firm restricts its models from certain military applications while a Chinese competitor does not, the US firm loses the contract. If a European fintech builds extensive bias audits into its credit model while a less scrupulous rival skips them, the rival processes applications faster and cheaper. Ethics, in this framing, is a luxury that market structure doesn’t permit.

It’s a coherent argument. It also describes exactly how industries create the conditions for their own eventual regulation — or collapse.

Speed may provide a temporary competitive edge, but it often backfires. Flawed launches damage consumer trust, attract lawsuits, and invite regulatory crackdowns. This creates reputational harm that outweighs early gains. The pharmaceutical industry learned this through thalidomide. The financial industry learned it through 2008. AI appears determined to learn it through a series of smaller, faster, harder-to-attribute disasters — the kind that don’t produce a single dramatic reckoning but accumulate into systemic distrust. Darden Report

There’s also a labour market dimension that the move-fast advocates consistently underweight. The engineers most capable of building responsible AI systems are also the most mobile and the most ethically discerning. They leave organisations whose stated values don’t match operational behaviour. And they talk.

What Remains When the Slide Deck Is Gone

The honest answer to whether AI can save a company’s soul is this: it can’t. Not on its own.

AI can enforce the values an organisation already holds. It can make ethical behaviour cheaper to maintain and easier to audit. It can surface the gap between what a company says it believes and what its systems actually do — which, if the leadership has the appetite to close it, is genuinely useful. But a technology cannot generate integrity in an organisation that has chosen not to have any. It can only scale what’s already there.

The companies that will navigate the next decade without a major ethical rupture aren’t the ones with the most sophisticated models. They’re the ones that show how accountability works — including who makes decisions, how ethical issues are escalated, and what remediation paths exist when things go wrong — as a matter of operational transparency rather than periodic disclosure. UNESCO

That’s not a technology problem. It never was.

The soul of a company, if it exists at all, is a daily political negotiation between power and principle. AI just makes the outcome arrive faster.


Discover more from The Economy

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Digital

UK Digital Identity Framework 2026: The £5bn Plan to Reshape Financial Verification

Published

on

The City of London Corporation has proposed a digital identity framework it says could unlock more than £5 billion for the UK economy, reshaping how consumers verify themselves across financial services, according to CPA’s UK business news briefing for July 1, 2026.

How the Digital Verification Orchestrator Would Work

The proposed Digital Verification Orchestrator would allow consumers to reuse verified identity information across multiple financial-services providers, eliminating the need to repeat identity checks each time a customer opens a new account, applies for credit, or switches providers. The framework has been developed jointly with EY and Hogan Lovells, with input from the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), positioning it as a industry-government collaboration rather than a purely private initiative.

The Numbers Behind the Pitch

Proponents estimate the model could generate £1.8 billion in direct economic value while reducing fraud losses by £3 billion over five years — a combined benefit that would help offset the broader £5 billion opportunity cited by the City of London Corporation. The fraud-reduction component is particularly significant given that identity-related fraud has become one of the fastest-growing categories of financial crime across UK banking, insurance, and lending sectors, driven partly by increasingly sophisticated synthetic-identity schemes.

Timing Against a Weakening Consumer Backdrop

The proposal lands at a moment when UK consumer financial stress is rising on other fronts. A Bank of England credit survey found the balance of lenders reporting higher unsecured-loan default rates jumped to 34 percentage points in the second quarter of 2026, up from 18 points in Q1 — the highest reading since 2009, according to CPA’s July 3, 2026 briefing. Lenders expect unsecured defaults to climb further, a trend regulators attribute to rising unemployment, elevated borrowing costs, and inflation that remains above the Bank of England’s 2% target. Reducing friction and fraud in identity verification is being framed by proponents as one lever — among several needed — to help lenders manage credit risk more efficiently during this period of rising defaults.

See also  Kevin Warsh Fed Chair Nominee: Will Trump's Pick Dash Rate-Cut Dreams and Spark Powell-Level Clashes?

A Parallel Push on Late Payments

The digital-identity proposal is emerging alongside a separate push to reform commercial payment practices. A study from the Enterprise Research Centre found that a proposed Commercial Payments Bill would introduce the strictest late-payment laws of any major economy, including a 60-day payment cap, mandatory interest on overdue invoices, and expanded powers for the Small Business Commissioner, targeting an estimated £26 billion in overdue invoices currently affecting UK small businesses, according to the same CPA reporting. Together, the two initiatives reflect a broader UK policy push to modernize financial-services infrastructure at a moment when both consumer credit stress and small-business cash-flow pressure are intensifying.

What Comes Next

Neither the digital-identity framework nor the Commercial Payments Bill has a confirmed legislative timetable, but both are being positioned as flagship reforms for whoever occupies 11 Downing Street heading into the next fiscal cycle. For UK fintechs, banks, and insurers, the Digital Verification Orchestrator in particular represents a potentially significant shift in customer-acquisition economics if adopted at scale, reducing onboarding costs that currently fall disproportionately on smaller financial-services entrants competing against incumbent banks with established verification infrastructure.


Discover more from The Economy

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Continue Reading

Growth

Indonesia GDP Growth 2026: 5.61% Expansion Marks Fastest Pace in Three Years

Published

on

Indonesia’s economy expanded 5.61% in the first quarter of 2026, its fastest pace in more than three years, driven by a surge in government spending and household consumption during the Eid festive period, according to McKinsey’s Southeast Asia quarterly economic review.

Consumption Does the Heavy Lifting

Household consumption, which accounts for just over half of Indonesia’s total economic activity, recorded its fastest growth since 2022. The strength came even as export growth continued to moderate, with external demand weakening under the drag of the Middle East conflict. The Indonesian government expects growth to accelerate further in the coming quarters to reach 5.4% for full-year 2026, while Bank Indonesia forecasts a wider range of 4.9% to 5.7%.

A Central Bank Playing Defense on the Currency

Bank Indonesia has held its benchmark policy rate steady at 4.75% for a seventh consecutive meeting through April 2026, prioritizing rupiah stability over further easing amid external volatility. The central bank has signaled readiness to step up both onshore and offshore foreign-exchange intervention to curb currency weakness and keep inflation within its 2026–2027 target range, according to reporting cited in McKinsey’s Q1 2026 review. The central bank anticipates inflation will remain manageable despite rising global costs, suggesting policymakers see room to hold their current stance through the rest of the year.

Foreign Investment Keeps Flowing

Foreign direct investment into Indonesia grew for a second consecutive quarter, rising 8.1% to 249.9 trillion rupiah (approximately $14.5 billion) in the first quarter of 2026. Singapore remained the largest single source of that capital at $4.6 billion, followed by China, Japan, Hong Kong, and the United States — a distribution that underscores Indonesia’s continued pull for regional and global manufacturing and services investment even as global capital allocation grows more selective.

See also  North Sea Oil Prices Hit Record High as Iran Keeps Hold Over Hormuz.

Tourism’s Volume-Versus-Value Problem

Indonesia’s tourism sector, anchored by Bali, illustrates a structural tension playing out across the archipelago’s growth story. Bali continues to draw strong visitor volumes, but its tourism economy remains heavily dependent on mass-market travel, which caps per-visitor spending and strains infrastructure and accommodation capacity. Official Indonesian tourism frameworks are now pushing for value-based restructuring, according to Travel and Tour World’s ASEAN tourism analysis, as Bali seeks to close the premium-segmentation gap with rivals such as Singapore and Bangkok.

Regional Context: A Leader, Not an Outlier

Indonesia’s growth places it among the strongest performers in the ASEAN bloc for early 2026, alongside Singapore and Vietnam, while Malaysia and Thailand expand at a steadier pace and the Philippines lags on domestic challenges. The Asia House Annual Outlook projects broader Asian growth moderating slightly in 2026 but still outperforming the global average, with strong consumer demand across Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam supported by accommodative fiscal and monetary policy, rising wages, and increasing remittance flows, according to Asia House’s 2026 outlook. For a country of Indonesia’s scale — Southeast Asia’s largest economy — sustaining this consumption-led momentum through 2026 will be critical to the region’s overall growth trajectory.


Discover more from The Economy

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Continue Reading

Singapore

Singapore Makes Its Move to Become Asia’s Precious-Metals Capital

Published

on

Singapore is launching a gold clearing system in a bid to establish itself as a regional hub for precious-metals trading, a move that positions the city-state to compete directly with established centers in London, Zurich, and Shanghai, according to Wikipedia’s economy of Singapore overview.

Why Gold, and Why Now

The timing is not accidental. Gold has drawn heightened investor interest throughout 2026 as a hedge against both the Middle East conflict’s disruption to energy and shipping markets and the broader uncertainty introduced by shifting US trade policy and tariff escalation. Singapore’s move to build institutional clearing infrastructure for gold — and potentially silver, palladium, platinum, and diamonds — reflects an attempt to capture a larger share of the safe-haven capital flows that have historically routed through London and Zurich vaults.

Building on an Existing Trade Powerhouse

The gold initiative extends a trading base that is already substantial. Singapore’s principal exports include electronic components, refined petroleum, gold, computers, and packaged medications, with China standing as its largest trading partner — bilateral trade totaled roughly 175 billion Singapore dollars as of the most recent full-year data. Singapore has run an export surplus with China since 2009, while maintaining an import surplus in its trade relationship with the United States since 2006, a dual-facing trade structure that has long underpinned its role as a regional entrepôt.

A Regional Growth Leader Facing New Competition

Singapore is among the strongest-performing economies in Southeast Asia this year. McKinsey’s Southeast Asia quarterly economic review places Singapore alongside Indonesia and Vietnam as the region’s growth leaders in early 2026, even as momentum has softened somewhat from the late-2025 peak, according to McKinsey’s Q1 2026 regional review. Singapore was also the largest single foreign investor into Indonesia in the first quarter of 2026, contributing $4.6 billion of the $14.5 billion in total foreign direct investment Indonesia received.

See also  Ares Limits Withdrawals from $10.7bn Private Credit Fund

Tourism Rivalry Adds a Second Front

Singapore’s broader economic positioning is also being tested in tourism, where it is locked in what one industry analysis calls a “brutal regional rivalry” with Bangkok, Bali, and Kuala Lumpur for high-value visitor spending. Singapore continues to show strong inbound recovery driven by business travel and premium tourism demand, even as spending patterns soften in mid-market segments across the wider region, according to Travel and Tour World’s ASEAN tourism analysis. Industry data frames the 2026 competitive dynamic as one where revenue efficiency per visitor, rather than raw arrival numbers, increasingly determines which regional hub captures the most value.

The Strategic Logic

Both moves — the gold clearing system and the defense of premium-tourism positioning — reflect a consistent Singaporean strategy: compete on institutional quality and value density rather than volume. As global capital searches for safe-haven assets and premium services amid elevated geopolitical risk, Singapore’s bet is that deep, trusted financial infrastructure will continue to draw disproportionate flows regardless of which way regional growth cycles turn.


Discover more from The Economy

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2026 The Economy, Inc . All rights reserved .

Discover more from The Economy

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading