{"id":165,"date":"2021-09-01T20:09:49","date_gmt":"2021-09-01T20:09:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lsi.asulaw.org\/softlaw\/?post_type=report&p=165"},"modified":"2021-10-18T16:20:58","modified_gmt":"2021-10-18T16:20:58","slug":"2-3-influence","status":"publish","type":"report","link":"https:\/\/lsi.asulaw.org\/softlaw\/report\/2-results\/2-3-influence\/","title":{"rendered":"2.3 Influence"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n \n
\n \n\n
\n \n\n

<\/p>\n\n

2.3 Influence<\/h1>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n<\/div>\n\n\n
\n
\n

In terms of organizational influence, programs are designed with one of two motivations. They are created solely to have an internal impact on the entity that adopted them or they are developed to affect both internal and external stakeholders. Based on our analysis, the vast majority (~82%) follow the latter pattern.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In these cases, parties develop their programs to inspire, encourage, and guide others through their work. This is the case of the AI principles developed by the OECD [29], all instruments developed by standards setting organizations, and government programs meant to encourage investment or participation in a particular sector [30], [31]. Conversely, ~18% of programs were conceived to be completely insular. This means that they are intended to be applicable only within the organization that created them. This is the case for Google\u2019s AI principles [32] and Deutsche Telekom\u2019s guidelines for implementing AI [33].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n