Why explicit risk appetites build trust faster than perfect safety
CDT analysis shows companies that articulate risk appetites explicitly could build competitive advantage through trust infrastructure rather than hiding decision-making behind vague safety commitments.
Earlier this year, the Center for Democracy and Technology published an analysis that identifies an unexpected opportunity in AI governance: companies that clearly articulate their risk appetites could build trust infrastructure faster than competitors hiding behind vague commitments.
The observation comes from tracking recent deployment decisions—Anthropic shipping Claude Opus 4 despite auditor concerns, OpenAI releasing systems with CEO safety warnings, and multiple companies skipping promised documentation. But Wang's insight goes beyond documenting problems. She maps how companies actually make decisions: internal risk (regulatory exposure, reputation, financial loss) gets balanced against public risk (discrimination, privacy harms, safety issues). Right now, that balance happens behind closed doors.
The business case for transparency is straightforward. Companies that publish explicit risk appetite statements and precise tolerances create accountability systems their competitors can't match. When you explain how you decided a risk was acceptable—the evidence threshold, the assumptions, the stakeholders consulted—you're not just checking compliance boxes. You're building the trust reserves that let you move faster when the next capability becomes available.
First movers here won't win by being perfectly safe. They'll win by showing their work, which paradoxically creates more room to take calculated risks because stakeholders understand the reasoning.