
Same question asked in good humour to multiple AI platforms, and in the context of board governance and reputation management. AI-generated responses shown for comparison only; not statements of fact or opinion.
Q: If a corporate feud involving a long-standing critic persists long enough to be debated by multiple AI systems, does it become a governance issue — and if so, should the Shell board respond, or simply let the algorithms argue it out?
Reply by Grok
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.

Shell vs Donovan: The AI Cross-Examination Begins










Promotion & Incentives Magazine June 1998: Page 35
EBOOK TITLE: “SIR HENRI DETERDING AND THE NAZI HISTORY OF ROYAL DUTCH SHELL” – AVAILABLE ON AMAZON
EBOOK TITLE: “JOHN DONOVAN, SHELL’S NIGHTMARE: MY EPIC FEUD WITH THE UNSCRUPULOUS OIL GIANT ROYAL DUTCH SHELL” – AVAILABLE ON AMAZON.
EBOOK TITLE: “TOXIC FACTS ABOUT SHELL REMOVED FROM WIKIPEDIA: HOW SHELL BECAME THE MOST HATED BRAND IN THE WORLD” – AVAILABLE ON AMAZON.



















