CEOs Don’t Need to Pick a Side on AI. They Need to Explain Their Choices.
Should CEOs speak out about the big-picture controversies and anticipated consequences of AI? Corporate leaders and advisors who haven’t asked themselves this question should consider it now.
Polling, ballot measures and campaign messaging in the recent US midterm elections all pointed to voter concern about the effects of the AI technology and the infrastructure behind it. Leaders should plan for an environment in which scrutiny of their organization’s role in AI’s economic and social costs and impacts will increase.
You may be thinking, if we aren’t building frontier models or data centers, why should we even get near this topic? However, across industries, companies are investing billions in AI tools and services and putting them to work in their operations. A CEO who has approved a major investment in AI has already made a consequential choice and contributed directly to the growth of the technology and its effects.
In a company, those choices can affect jobs, energy use, product development and customer experience, business growth, and many other outcomes. Their consequences, cumulatively across thousands of companies, reach into the economy, society, and according to some experts, the future of humanity. Millions of people—and policy makers who represent their interests— are paying attention. CEOs who are making consequential decisions about AI cannot credibly treat those consequences as “not my concern.”
So, the question is not simply whether to enter the AI debate. It is how to explain what the company is doing, why it is doing it and acknowledging who may benefit or be affected, and how.
That does not mean every CEO must take a public position on AI’s ultimate future—or weigh in on every argument about its risks and benefits. But leaders who are making significant AI decisions, or commenting to investors about AI’s benefits, or who have attributed layoffs to the impact of AI, should be prepared to engage further. The scale of the decisions and the impact on people who are affected should help determine whether a leader’s further discussion about AI belongs in a public setting, an employee discussion, a customer conversation, or an investor meeting.
Engagement on this topic, like many others, is not risk free. CEOs have good reason to be careful about entering contested, evolving debates. A position detached from business objectives, operating conditions, company values or stakeholder interests can create more heat than light. Yet silence on a company’s own consequential decisions can also look like evasion. Accountability does not guarantee agreement, but it does give a leader a defensible reason to speak. A leader who speaks up before being forced to do so will be more credible than one who only answers questions reactively, on defense.
What should leaders be ready to address? Five subjects offer a practical starting point:
The business case. What value does the company expect AI to create? What investments, costs and uncertainties accompany it? Separate expected benefits from demonstrated results.
The operating footprint. How might AI affect supply chains, infrastructure, energy needs and reliance on vendors? These are corporate choices with broader economic implications.
Employees and work. Which tasks and roles may change? How will the company approach training, consultation and transitions? Productivity claims deserve candor about who experiences disruption and who shares the gains.
Customers and products. Where might AI shape products, services or decisions affecting customers? What boundaries and human oversight will apply? If an AI-supported outcome is wrong, how can it be challenged and corrected?
Oversight and safety. Who is accountable for deployment? How are systems monitored, and who can pause them? What remains uncertain, and how will the company respond if harm occurs?
Human judgment is an important element across all five subjects and every leader should address it. AI tools may help people be more productive, process more information, and generate more options. But leaders need to explain which decisions remain with people, who can override a system, and who is accountable when its outputs cause harm. Human expertise, creativity in unfamiliar conditions, relationships and resource decisions remain central to responsible deployment. The technology is a tool; people and the institutions they lead remain responsible for how it is used.
Before speaking, leaders need a clear view of what the company is doing, what it will not do, and who is accountable. Preparing to speak about AI may reveal choices the organization has not yet made and actions that need to be taken, before communicating. In that case, the first job is not to find reassuring language. It is to resolve the underlying issue—or accurately explain what remains unresolved.
No CEO needs a complete answer to every broad question about AI. When an answer is not yet known, it is appropriate to explain how the company is organizing to find out: who is leading the effort, what evidence is being gathered, what guidelines are in force, and when the company expects to report back. Leaders can also choose how broadly to speak and whether to act individually or through an industry group.
AI is not a debate happening somewhere else. Businesses are making significant investment and deployment decisions, with consequences for employees, customers, investors, and the wider economy. The more consequential those decisions—and the more a company has made claims about their benefits—the stronger the case for explaining them.
CEOs do not need to settle the debate about AI’s future. They do need to explain the choices they control, acknowledge the trade-offs, and accept responsibility for the results.
Peter Verrengia is a President and Senior Partner, advising clients worldwide on complex reputation and communications challenges, including crises, recovery, issue management and executive credibility. He helps multinational organizations in healthcare, technology, manufacturing, consumer products, financial and professional services protect reputations, navigate litigation and regulatory risks, and manage transactions, CEO transitions, transformation and market entry. He is a member of FleishmanHIllard’s Global Executive Advisory.
Jim Joseph is FleishmanHillard’s global head of brand impact, responsible for leading global brand business across B2B, B2C and B2G audiences, leveraging communications to enable commerce and business outcomes for the agency’s clients. He is a member of FleishmanHIllard’s 
Sarah DaVanzo is a global integrated marketing communications leader and head of FleishmanHillard’s Culture Foresight and Innovation capabilities, Sarah writes for Rolling Stone and Fast Co. and is the author of Exotic Thinking: A Code to Innovating in the Age of AI (Wiley, April 2027).
Ellie Tuck is the chief creative officer of the Americas based in New York. 
Alexander Lyall is a Senior Vice President and Partner, Americas Lead for Risk Management, AI and Innovation. A 2026 PR Week 40 Under 40 honoree, he brings more than 15 years of crisis communications and issues management experience across industries, with particular focus on AI integration, preparedness strategy, and talent development.
