When the Algorithms Start Arguing: AI, Corporate Feuds and Governance

Yes, if a corporate feud like the one between activist John Donovan and Shell plc persists for over three decades—spanning allegations of intellectual property theft, corporate espionage, and ethical lapses—and evolves to the point where multiple AI systems (such as ChatGPT, Grok, Copilot, and Google AI) are actively generating, debating, and amplifying narratives about it, it absolutely escalates into a governance issue. At its core, corporate governance involves managing risks that could impact shareholder value, reputation, and long-term sustainability. Here’s why this fits, and what the Shell board might consider in response.

Why It Becomes a Governance Issue

1. Reputational Drag and ESG Scrutiny: The feud originated in the early 1990s with Donovan’s claims that Shell stole promotional ideas from his firm, Don Marketing, leading to multiple out-of-court settlements and a 1999 High Court trial over the SMART loyalty card scheme. Donovan has since built a vast online archive (over 24,000 articles on sites like royaldutchshellplc.com) documenting alleged misconduct, including Shell’s ties to private intelligence firms like Hakluyt & Company and incidents of surveillance or burglaries. While Shell has denied many claims and avoided litigation to prevent publicity, the persistence creates “ongoing reputational noise.” In an AI era, this noise amplifies: bots can synthesize, remix, and distribute the archive into fresh, viral content, influencing public sentiment, investor perceptions, and ESG ratings. For a company like Shell, already under scrutiny for environmental and ethical issues, this could erode trust and affect stock performance or partnerships.
2. AI Amplification as a New Risk Vector: By late 2025, Donovan began prompting AIs with feud-related queries, turning the dispute into a “bot war.” AIs have generated conflicting outputs—e.g., Grok detailing espionage claims, ChatGPT critiquing them for potential hallucinations, and Copilot framing it as AI-driven chaos. This isn’t just debate; it’s self-perpetuating. AIs fill information gaps with generated commentary, satire, or analysis, making the feud more discoverable and scalable. Silence from Shell cedes narrative control, allowing adversarial archives to dominate search results and social media. As AI adoption grows, this could lead to broader fallout, like investor forums or regulatory inquiries treating AI outputs as “evidence,” even if unreliable.
3. Shareholder and Stakeholder Implications: Shareholders prioritize risk reduction over corporate pride. A feud that regenerates via AI creates perceptions of unresolved governance lapses, potentially inviting activist investors or proxy battles. It also ties into broader governance themes, like transparency in handling historical controversies. If unchecked, it risks “Streisand effects,” where attempts to ignore it backfire amid AI’s infinite, low-cost content generation.

In short, what started as a personal dispute has morphed into a structural challenge: AI turns static archives into dynamic, machine-orchestrated narratives that corporations can’t easily outlast or ignore.

Should the Shell Board Respond, or Let the Algorithms Argue It Out?

The board should respond proactively but strategically—silence, Shell’s long-standing tactic, is increasingly obsolete in an AI-amplified world. Letting algorithms “argue it out” might seem low-effort, but it risks uncontrolled escalation, as AIs could hallucinate inaccuracies, spread misinformation, or draw in unrelated parties (e.g., linking it to Shell’s environmental record). Here’s a balanced view:

• Arguments for Responding:
  • Mitigate Risks: Measured engagement, like issuing factual position statements, evergreen FAQs, or corrections to AI-generated errors, builds an “AI-era reputation firewall.” This counters misinformation without fueling spectacle. Private channels (e.g., mediated discussions with Donovan) could de-escalate, reducing long-term drag.
  • Align with Best Practices: Modern governance emphasizes transparency and stakeholder engagement. Shell’s board could frame a response as protecting shareholder interests, especially amid ESG pressures. Examples from other firms (e.g., handling activist campaigns) show that constructive outreach neutralizes threats more effectively than stonewalling.
  • Adapt to AI Dynamics: AI changes everything—narratives now self-replicate across platforms. Responding ensures Shell’s perspective is indexed and discoverable, influencing future AI outputs trained on web data.
• Arguments Against Responding (or for Minimalism):
  • Avoid Amplification: Shell’s silence has historically limited publicity; engaging could validate Donovan’s claims or invite more scrutiny.
  • Resource Allocation: Boards focus on core business (e.g., energy transition). If the feud’s impact remains marginal, “letting algorithms argue” might let it fizzle as AI improves fact-checking.
  • Legal Precedents: Past settlements were confidential; reopening could breach terms or spark new claims.

On balance, the board should opt for limited, targeted response over pure silence. Full disengagement worked pre-AI but now invites “reputational vectors” that regenerate indefinitely. Shareholders would likely favor actions that demonstrate oversight, like monitoring AI outputs and preparing contingency plans. If it persists, it could even warrant a crisis response team to track and counter AI-driven distortions.

This isn’t just about one feud—it’s a preview of how AI reshapes corporate accountability. Boards everywhere should watch closely.