Experts Matter. Find Yours.
Connect for media, speaking, professional opportunities & more.
Charities spend big to defend their board’s corporate agendas, new study reveals
Charities with corporate leaders on their boards spend an average of $130,000 a year lobbying on behalf of their connected companies. That’s according to a first-of-its-kind study that shows how companies benefit from their charitable work — and how charities may be all-too-happy to support their powerful board members in return for lucrative connections. The researchers behind the study say the findings could help policymakers and charity stakeholders keep tabs on a previously hidden form of political influence, but that such arrangements are perfectly legal for now. “Charities stand to gain something by behaving in this way. It doesn’t always have to be corporations pushing charities to behave in a way they don’t want to,” said Sehoon Kim, Ph.D., a professor of finance at the University of Florida and senior author of the new study. “It’s a natural quid pro quo arrangement that arises from the incentives corporations and charities have.” The American Medical Association shows one example of these incentives in action. In the 2010s, they actively lobbied against efforts by federal agencies to curb opioid prescriptions. This benefited companies like Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin widely blamed for exacerbating the opioid epidemic in the U.S. It turned out that Richard Sackler, the former president of the company, sat on the board of AMA Foundation, a relationship viewed by many as controversial at the time. But Sackler had arranged for millions in donations to the foundation, and other charities are likely looking to corporate board members to help engineer large donations for their charitable work by connecting charities to other companies and leaders with deep pockets. Lobbying on behalf of their new friends, then, may simply be the most efficient way to ensure those donations keep flowing. Kim collaborated with UF Professor Joel Houston, Ph.D., and Changhyun Ahn, Ph.D., of the Chinese University of Hong Kong to conduct the analysis, which is forthcoming in the journal Management Science. They painstakingly hand collected data covering more than 400 charities and over 1,000 corporations that identified board connections, donations and lobbying activities that fell both within and outside of the charities’ typical political activity. The researchers focused on larger charities that already engage in some lobbying on their own behalf. These lobbying charities are three times larger than smaller nonprofits that never lobby. After a new corporate board member joined, these charities changed their behavior. They were far more likely to lobby outside of their own interests and to even work to support or defeat legislation that affected their new board member’s company, even when that legislation had nothing to do with their charitable mission. It worked out to about a 14% increase in the charity’s lobbying expenditures. “These were the smoking guns that there’s something going on that’s not supposed to be happening,” Kim said. Because lobbying is such an efficient use of resources, and because charities may lend their friendly brand to these lobbying efforts, this help from charities could significantly benefit these connected corporations. “These are previously unrecognized channels at play in terms of corporate political influence that policymakers need to be mindful of when assessing how influential corporations are likely to be,” Kim said.
AI as IP™: A Framework for Boards, Executives, and Investors
Under current corporate accounting practices, artificial intelligence (AI) companies’ most valuable resources – large language models, training datasets, and algorithms – remain “off the books” or uncapitalized. As the importance of AI continues to grow in the global knowledge-based economy, financial statements are becoming less representative of a company’s true worth, creating a recognition gap. In this article, James E. Malackowski, Eric Carnick, and David Ngo present several conceptual frameworks to bridge this gap. They explain how the triangulation of three valuation approaches can reveal both the tangible investment base and the intangible, strategic upside of AI assets. In turn, these approaches provide board-level visibility into where AI capital resides and how it contributes to enterprise value. James E. Malackowski is the Chief Intellectual Property Officer (CIPO) of J.S. Held and Co-founder of Ocean Tomo, a part of J.S. Held. Mr. Malackowski has served as an expert on over one hundred occasions on intellectual property economics, including valuation, royalty, lost profits, price erosion, licensing terms, venture financing, copyright fair use, and injunction equities. He has substantial experience as a Board Director for leading technology corporations, research organizations, and companies with critical brand management issues. This article is the second installment in our three-part series, Artificial Intelligence as Intellectual Property or “AI as IP™”, which explores how artificial intelligence assets should be treated as a form of intellectual property and enterprise capital. The first article, “A Strategic Framework for the Legal Profession”, explored the legal foundations for recognizing and protecting AI assets. The upcoming third article, “Guide for SMEs to Classify, Protect, and Monetize AI Assets”, will provide practical steps for small and mid-sized enterprises to turn AI into measurable economic value. To explore the topic further, simply connect with James through his icon below.
Confused About the Economy? We can Help!
In a recent piece on CNN ... eyebrows were raised about the state of America's economy. The article describes a growing disconnect in the U.S. economy: strong growth and rising corporate productivity driven by artificial intelligence, but weak job creation. Companies are investing heavily in AI and automation, which allows them to increase output without hiring more workers — especially in roles involving routine or administrative tasks. This dynamic has produced what economists call a “jobless boom”: profits and productivity rise, while new jobs lag behind. The Federal Reserve is increasingly concerned because this trend creates risks for both workers and the broader economy. Lower-skilled and entry-level workers face displacement, wage inequality may widen, and traditional unemployment metrics may understate how difficult it has become for people to re-enter the job market. Policymakers now face a harder balancing act as AI reshapes labor demand, raising questions about retraining, social supports, and how to manage an economy where growth no longer guarantees broad-based job creation. If you're confused - don't feel bad. In fact, if you're a journalist covering this topic - let us help. Dr. Jared Pincin is a nationally respected expert on economic issues facing the United States of America. He's available to speak with media - simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.
As sustainability moves from niche topic to boardroom central, companies face an increasingly complex global environment of regulatory divergence, disclosure demands and reputational risk. A recent article by J.S. Held's John Peiserich examines how multinational firms can respond effectively to the “crosscurrents” of ESG compliance, litigation exposure and evolving definitions of corporate responsibility. John Peiserich specializes in environmental risk and compliance. With over 30 years of experience, John provides consulting and expert services for heavy industry and law firms throughout the country with a focus on Oil & Gas, Energy, and Public Utilities, including serving as an expert witness in arbitration proceedings and in state and federal courts. View his profile here Key Insights: Sustainability now touches every major business function — environmental, social, and governance — and must be embedded in strategy rather than treated as an add-on. Regulatory landscapes are diverging: while the U.S. federal approach remains fragmented, individual states like California are moving ahead with mandatory climate and emissions-related corporate disclosures. In contrast, the European Union’s Green Deal and related frameworks promote a more unified regulatory model, creating operational tension for multinational corporations. Litigation and disclosure risk are increasing, with “greenwashing” (overstating sustainability achievements) and “greenhushing” (avoiding or under-reporting ESG performance) emerging as major board-level concerns. Effective risk management now requires scalable data systems, transparent communication, strong governance, and agility to adapt across multiple regulatory regimes. Why this matters: The widening divide between jurisdictions — and intensifying scrutiny of corporate sustainability claims — means ESG compliance can no longer be treated as a checkbox exercise. Organizations that fail to anticipate regulatory expectations or align ESG strategy with business goals risk legal exposure, reputational harm, and missed opportunities for value creation. Strategic Insights for Corporate Leadership on Sustainability Boards and executives must adjust their mindset, seeing sustainability not as a burden but as a catalyst for growth and differentiation. Proactive investment in research, development, and stakeholder engagement will help organizations seize new opportunities and maintain credibility in a fast-changing world. Documentation and transparency are vital defenses against legal challenges, while ongoing monitoring of policy and market trends ensures adaptability. Ultimately, the most successful companies will treat sustainability as an essential tenet of strategy—aligning profit, purpose, and governance to secure their position in the global marketplace. Navigating the crosscurrents of sustainability requires courage, judgment, and a commitment to continuous learning. By embracing these principles, corporations can build a future that is not only profitable but also just, resilient, and worthy of the trust placed in them by shareholders and society alike. Looking to know more or connect with John Peiserich about this important topic? Simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.
Aston University’s approach to a global challenge Across industries, companies face mounting pressure to cut carbon, improve resource efficiency, and contribute to the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Yet many firms still struggle to move from vision statements to measurable action. At Aston Business School, Dr Breno Nunes, reader in sustainable operations management, is developing practical frameworks that help organisations embed sustainability at their core. His concept of 'sustainability fitness' captures how firms can build the capabilities they need to adapt, compete, and thrive in the transition to a net zero economy. “Many organisations want to be sustainable but struggle to operationalise what that means. My work is about bridging that gap — helping businesses translate strategies into practice.” — Dr Breno Nunes The sustainability fitness concept involves both meeting human needs and respecting environmental limits. While it can also be applied at the societal and individual level, Dr Nunes focuses on organisations, where capability building delivers the fastest, measurable change. Corporate sustainability fitness examines how a firm is able to survive and meet its own needs, while aligning itself to wider essential needs of society and operating within limits imposed by its surrounding natural environment. From research to real-world action Dr Nunes’ research examines how organisations design, implement, and monitor sustainability strategies across operations, supply chains, facilities, and product development. He is the main author of the book Sustainable Operations Management: Key practices and cases, which applies the issues of sustainability to all strategic decisions of operations. His work is already making a tangible difference, including international partnerships in Brazil, Canada, and the US, bringing cross-cultural insights into organisational transformation, as well as for various companies and organisations. In an Innovate UK Knowledge Transfer Partnership (KTP) with automotive supplier Metal Assemblies, Dr Nunes and Professor Alexeis Garcia Perez, professor of digital business and society at Aston University, are working to calculate and report the carbon cost of metal components used in car production, tackling one of the industry’s biggest sustainability challenges. The digitalisation of processes will allow Metal Assemblies to meet customers' requirements and position itself as a trusted and transparent supplier of low-carbon components. In another KTP with Brockhouse Group, a forging manufacturer in the West Midlands, Dr Nunes worked with Aston colleague Dr Muhammad Imran, reader in mechanical, biomedical and design engineering. Together they developed a sustainable manufacturing strategy centred on carbon reduction and process improvement. The work involved the development of an energy dashboard, allowing analysis of data on gas and electricity consumption. The project also included analysis of alternatives for energy recovery systems, and development of routines and procedures to improve the manufacturing process. As a result, Brockhouse group is more competitive to supply in non-captive markets. Dr Nunes has also been involved with a collaboration with Birmingham Botanical Gardens to integrate sustainability into policy and practice, expanding the use of business sustainability theories to nonprofit sectors. Sustainability can be embedded across different areas of organisations while seeking financial stability. As an environmental education charity, it is important to for Birmingham Botanical Gardens to 'practise what it preaches'. It was recently awarded almost £20m from various grants (including Heritage Lottery) in a capital project, thanks to having sustainability at the core of renovation plans. These projects highlight Aston University’s role in bridging academia, industry, and policy — ensuring research findings reach the boardroom as well as the factory floor. Key insights from the research Dr Nunes’ studies highlight several critical factors for turning sustainability from intention into measurable results: • Organisational capabilities are central to embedding sustainability. These include empowering sustainability “champions” (institutional entrepreneurs), supportive structures, superior technologies, and the ability to learn and balance economic, environmental, and social performance. • The tensions in implementing sustainability vary not just by function (supply chains, governance, innovation) but also by an organisation’s maturity level. • Start with the low-hanging fruit: tools like self-assessments, capability diagnostics, and learning games allow firms to act at lower cost before committing to full environmental impact assessments or formal reporting. • Collaboration between academia, industry, and policymakers accelerates real-world impact. Why this matters The stakes are high. Businesses worldwide are expected to reduce carbon emissions, demonstrate social responsibility, and remain competitive in a rapidly changing global economy. Aston University’s research shows that strengthening sustainability capabilities not only improves environmental outcomes but also boosts resilience and cost savings. In pilot projects, teams working with Dr Nunes have achieved up to 30% reductions in both cost and carbon emissions — proof that sustainability can drive operational performance as well as compliance. Looking ahead: expanding the Sustainable Growth Hub The next phase of Dr Nunes’ work centres on Aston’s Sustainable Growth Hub, which is being developed as a reference point for SMEs seeking sustainability solutions. In 2025, the Hub will: • Launch its first industry club cohort and expand its team. • Roll out new self-assessment tools to size sustainability needs and decarbonisation goals. • Introduce new learning formats and follow-up courses to Aston’s Green Advantage programme, alongside sessions to play a new corporate sustainability game. • Host events to bring together businesses, policymakers, and the wider sustainability management community. • Attract new research grants and publish results to share knowledge across both academic and practitioner circles. These initiatives aim to equip organisations not only to meet today’s challenges, but to anticipate tomorrow’s. Get involved Follow Dr Nunes via his profile below, and soon through the Sustainability Fitness website. Businesses can also attend Aston Business School events to explore workshops, tools, and courses first-hand. About Dr Breno Nunes Dr Breno Nunes is reader in sustainable operations management at Aston Business School and president of the International Association for Management of Technology (IAMOT). He serves as associate editor of the IEEE Engineering Management Review and has published widely on sustainability strategy execution and innovation. Aston University’s work in sustainable operations — shaped by researchers like Dr Nunes — is helping organisations worldwide move from ambition to action, building the 'sustainability fitness' needed for a net zero future.
Everyone from farmers to Fortune 500 companies are now feeling the impact of Trump administration tariffs aimed primarily at reducing the trade deficit and reviving domestic manufacturing. University of Delaware experts offer insight into the economic, political and social impacts of these tariffs and what the future of U.S. trade policy may hold. Experts available: Alice Ba, associate professor, International Relations and Comparative Politics – Topic: Economic implications of tariffs on domestic industries and global supply chains. Dan Green, associate professor, International Relations and Political Theory – Topic: Political dynamics of U.S. trade policy and congressional responses. Dan Kinderman, professor, Comparative Politics and International Relations – Topic: Impacts on international business relationships and corporate strategy. Robert Denemark, professor, International Relations – Global geopolitical implications and international relations perspectives. Stuart Kaufman, professor, Political Science and International Relations – Historical context and comparative analysis of past U.S. trade policies. Journalists who would like to speak with these experts can click on their profiles or email mediarelations@udel.edu.
#Expert Perspective: When AI Follows the Rules but Misses the Point
When a team of researchers asked an artificial intelligence system to design a railway network that minimized the risk of train collisions, the AI delivered a surprising solution: Halt all trains entirely. No motion, no crashes. A perfect safety record, technically speaking, but also a total failure of purpose. The system did exactly what it was told, not what was meant. This anecdote, while amusing on the surface, encapsulates a deeper issue confronting corporations, regulators, and courts: What happens when AI faithfully executes an objective but completely misjudges the broader context? In corporate finance and governance, where intentions, responsibilities, and human judgment underpin virtually every action, AI introduces a new kind of agency problem, one not grounded in selfishness, greed, or negligence, but in misalignment. From Human Intent to Machine Misalignment Traditionally, agency problems arise when an agent (say, a CEO or investment manager) pursues goals that deviate from those of the principal (like shareholders or clients). The law provides remedies: fiduciary duties, compensation incentives, oversight mechanisms, disclosure rules. These tools presume that the agent has motives—whether noble or self-serving—that can be influenced, deterred, or punished. But AI systems, especially those that make decisions autonomously, have no inherent intent, no self-interest in the traditional sense, and no capacity to feel gratification or remorse. They are designed to optimize, and they do, often with breathtaking speed, precision, and, occasionally, unintended consequences. This new configuration, where AI acting on behalf of a principal (still human!), gives rise to a contemporary agency dilemma. Known as the alignment problem, it describes situations in which AI follows its assigned objective to the letter but fails to appreciate the principal’s actual intent or broader values. The AI doesn’t resist instructions; it obeys them too well. It doesn’t “cheat,” but sometimes it wins in ways we wish it wouldn’t. When Obedience Becomes a Liability In corporate settings, such problems are more than philosophical. Imagine a firm deploying AI to execute stock buybacks based on a mix of market data, price signals, and sentiment analysis. The AI might identify ideal moments to repurchase shares, saving the company money and boosting share value. But in the process, it may mimic patterns that look indistinguishable from insider trading. Not because anyone programmed it to cheat, but because it found that those actions maximized returns under the constraints it was given. The firm may find itself facing regulatory scrutiny, public backlash, or unintended market disruption, again not because of any individual’s intent, but because the system exploited gaps in its design. This is particularly troubling in areas of law where intent is foundational. In securities regulation, fraud, market manipulation, and other violations typically require a showing of mental state: scienter, mens rea, or at least recklessness. Take spoofing, where an agent places bids or offers with the intent to cancel them to manipulate market prices or to create an illusion of liquidity. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, this is a crime if done with intent to deceive. But AI, especially those using reinforcement learning (RL), can arrive at similar strategies independently. In simulation studies, RL agents have learned that placing and quickly canceling orders can move prices in a favorable direction. They weren’t instructed to deceive; they simply learned that it worked. The Challenge of AI Accountability What makes this even more vexing is the opacity of modern AI systems. Many of them, especially deep learning models, operate as black boxes. Their decisions are statistically derived from vast quantities of data and millions of parameters, but they lack interpretable logic. When an AI system recommends laying off staff, reallocating capital, or delaying payments to suppliers, it may be impossible to trace precisely how it arrived at that recommendation, or whether it considered all factors. Traditional accountability tools—audits, testimony, discovery—are ill-suited to black box decision-making. In corporate governance, where transparency and justification are central to legitimacy, this raises the stakes. Executives, boards, and regulators are accustomed to probing not just what decision was made, but also why. Did the compensation plan reward long-term growth or short-term accounting games? Did the investment reflect prudent risk management or reckless speculation? These inquiries depend on narrative, evidence, and ultimately the ability to assign or deny responsibility. AI short-circuits that process by operating without human-like deliberation. The challenge isn’t just about finding someone to blame. It’s about whether we can design systems that embed accountability before things go wrong. One emerging approach is to shift from intent-based to outcome-based liability. If an AI system causes harm that could arise with certain probability, even without malicious design, the firm or developer might still be held responsible. This mirrors concepts from product liability law, where strict liability can attach regardless of intent if a product is unreasonably dangerous. In the AI context, such a framework would encourage companies to stress-test their models, simulate edge cases, and incorporate safety buffers, not unlike how banks test their balance sheets under hypothetical economic shocks. There is also a growing consensus that we need mandatory interpretability standards for certain high-stakes AI systems, including those used in corporate finance. Developers should be required to document reward functions, decision constraints, and training environments. These document trails would not only assist regulators and courts in assigning responsibility after the fact, but also enable internal compliance and risk teams to anticipate potential failures. Moreover, behavioral “stress tests” that are analogous to those used in financial regulation could be used to simulate how AI systems behave under varied scenarios, including those involving regulatory ambiguity or data anomalies. Smarter Systems Need Smarter Oversight Still, technical fixes alone will not suffice. Corporate governance must evolve toward hybrid decision-making models that blend AI’s analytical power with human judgment and ethical oversight. AI can flag risks, detect anomalies, and optimize processes, but it cannot weigh tradeoffs involving reputation, fairness, or long-term strategy. In moments of crisis or ambiguity, human intervention remains indispensable. For example, an AI agent might recommend renegotiating thousands of contracts to reduce costs during a recession. But only humans can assess whether such actions would erode long-term supplier relationships, trigger litigation, or harm the company’s brand. There’s also a need for clearer regulatory definitions to reduce ambiguity in how AI-driven behaviors are assessed. For example, what precisely constitutes spoofing when the actor is an algorithm with no subjective intent? How do we distinguish aggressive but legal arbitrage from manipulative behavior? If multiple AI systems, trained on similar data, converge on strategies that resemble collusion without ever “agreeing” or “coordination,” do antitrust laws apply? Policymakers face a delicate balance: Overly rigid rules may stifle innovation, while lax standards may open the door to abuse. One promising direction is to standardize governance practices across jurisdictions and sectors, especially where AI deployment crosses borders. A global AI system could affect markets in dozens of countries simultaneously. Without coordination, firms will gravitate toward jurisdictions with the least oversight, creating a regulatory race to the bottom. Several international efforts are already underway to address this. The 2025 International Scientific Report on the Safety of Advanced AI called for harmonized rules around interpretability, accountability, and human oversight in critical applications. While much work remains, such frameworks represent an important step toward embedding legal responsibility into the design and deployment of AI systems. The future of corporate governance will depend not just on aligning incentives, but also on aligning machines with human values. That means redesigning contracts, liability frameworks, and oversight mechanisms to reflect this new reality. And above all, it means accepting that doing exactly what we say is not always the same as doing what we mean Looking to know more or connect with Wei Jiang, Goizueta Business School’s vice dean for faculty and research and Charles Howard Candler Professor of Finance. Simply click on her icon now to arrange an interview or time to talk today.
President Turns Up the Heat on Corporate America
NPR interviewed Dr. Meena Bose for its report: “Trump is tightening the screws on corporate America — and CEOs are staying mum.” President Trump recently demanded the resignation of Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan, which Dr. Bose called “one of the most aggressive public statements the president has made.” She added, “So much of President Trump’s second term is really charting an independent path, with very little attention to precedent — or in some ways, almost a rejection of precedent.” Dr. Bose is Hofstra University professor of political science, executive dean of the Public Policy and Public Service program, and director of the Kalikow Center for the Study of the American Presidency.
Intangible assets now make up more than 90% of S&P 500 market value — yet many organizations still lack a dedicated executive role to manage them strategically. This is where the Chief Intellectual Property Officer (CIPO) comes in. In this expert-backed piece, J.S. Held's Chief Intellectual Property Officer James E. Malackowski, CPA, CLP, and his colleague David Ngo unpack the economic forces shaping this role, the skills CIPOs bring to the table, and why forward-thinking companies are making IP leadership a boardroom priority. What you’ll learn: • The economic forces driving the rise of CIPO leadership • How CIPOs bridge legal, technical, and commercial priorities to unlock value • The growing relevance of CIPOs in consulting, insurance, and AI-driven industries • Practical strategies for integrating IP leadership into portfolio and risk management • Why the next decade will define the CIPO’s role in corporate success With deep expertise in IP strategy, valuation, and litigation, Malackowski and Ngo offer a clear, compelling case for elevating IP leadership to the C-suite. Looking to connect with the experts? Click on their profiles to arrange an interview or gain deeper insights into intellectual property strategy, risk, and valuation. James E. Malackowski, CPA, CLP Chief Intellectual Property Officer, J.S. Held | Co-founder and Senior Managing Director, Ocean Tomo Global leader in intellectual property valuation, strategic advisory, and expert testimony. Recognized among IAM’s “World’s Leading IP Strategists” and a pioneer in IP exchange models. David Ngo Senior Analyst, Intellectual Property Disputes Financial Expert Testimony, Ocean Tomo, a part of J.S. Held Specialist in quantifying economic damages in IP disputes and valuing intangible assets, with expertise in applying economic and financial analysis to complex litigation. For any other media inquiries, contact : Kristi L. Stathis, J.S. Held +1 786 833 4864 Kristi.Stathis@JSHeld.com.
Disaster Reduction: Key Insights for Risk Managers & Corporate Executives
The need for comprehensive disaster risk management has never been more evident. In recent years, major storms, earthquakes, wildfires, tornados, derechos, and other destructive large-scale events have been significant. According to the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) 2025 Global Assessment Report, disaster costs now exceed over $2.3 trillion annually when cascading and ecosystem costs are taken into account. What can be done to minimize both the damaging effects and significant costs associated with these types of events? In this article, J.S. Held EHS experts John Dulude and Bill Zoeller examine the critical components of disaster resilience – preparedness, mitigation, and resilience – and delve into the insights that can empower risk managers and corporate executives to safeguard their organizations. What’s covered : • Proactive Disaster Planning and Preparedness • Case Study: Hurricane Hilary 2023 | Western United States • Tailoring Resilience to Geographic Risks • Learning from Disaster for Continuous Improvement The insights shared in this article underscore the critical importance of proactive planning, meticulous preparation, and resilience in the face of inevitable disasters. For media inquiries, contact : Kristi L. Stathis, J.S. Held +1 786 833 4864 Kristi.Stathis@JSHeld.com
