All industries
In this episode of the Tech Tomorrow podcast, David Elliman sits down with Lord Clement-Jones to explore what responsible AI looks like in practice, and why good governance is fast becoming the real competitive advantage.
AI has entered the boardroom. But as businesses race to harness its power, one question looms large: can innovation and responsibility truly coexist?
In this episode of the Tech Tomorrow podcast, David Elliman speaks with Lord Clement-Jones, Liberal Democrat peer, former Chair of the House of Lords AI Select Committee, and co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on AI. Together, they explore how business leaders can align technological progress with human values and why doing so is not just ethical but essential for sustainable innovation.
A seasoned policymaker and lawyer, Lord Clement-Jones has spent the past decade shaping the UK’s approach to technology and ethics. He co-founded the All-Party Parliamentary Group on AI and has advised international bodies from the OECD to the Council of Europe on digital governance.
He describes himself as a “techno-optimist”, but one who insists optimism must be grounded in accountability.
“Innovation doesn’t have merit all by itself. Progress implies human benefit. We need to make sure technology remains our servant, not our master”, he says.
In business circles, regulation is often seen as a brake on progress. But Lord Clement-Jones believes the opposite is true: “I’ve never seen regulation as the enemy of innovation, quite the reverse. Done well, it creates consistency and certainty. It gives businesses the confidence to adopt AI and customers the trust to embrace it”, he says.
This pragmatic stance frames regulation as infrastructure for trust and as essential for sustainable innovation.
In his book Living with the Algorithm: Servant or Master?, he warns that governments risk stifling growth not by overregulating, but by failing to define clear, ethical standards. “Certainty about standards stimulates innovation,” he argues. “Uncertainty destroys it.”
Boards that see AI purely as a cost-cutting or optimisation tool are missing the bigger picture. Responsibility isn’t just an ethical obligation; it is now a strategic necessity.
“If employees think AI is being used to surveil them, or customers feel they’re just the object of an algorithm, you lose trust. And once you lose trust, you lose your licence to operate.”
Trust is the real currency of the AI era. Organisations that deploy AI transparently — explaining how it works, where its data comes from, and how it’s governed — will be the ones that retain both talent and customers.
As David Elliman notes, “The best AI architecture means nothing if people reject it.”
The discussion moves beyond principles to the mechanics of AI governance. Both agree that successful adoption starts with clear, board-level ownership.
Every board needs a baseline understanding of AI; not just its potential, but its risks, biases, and limits. At least one director should have genuine technical credentials, supported by independent experts when needed.
Ethics, Lord Clement-Jones argues, doesn’t need to be abstract. It’s a practical framework grounded in established principles — transparency, accountability, fairness, and non-discrimination — much like the ESG movement before it.
“If people are allergic to the word ‘ethics’, call them operational principles,” he says. “They’re the same thing, and they’re good for your reputation.”
David Elliman echoes this operational mindset:
“Purpose, proportionality, and accountability — that’s the triad of responsible AI. It’s not about slowing down innovation, it’s about ensuring it scales safely.”
One of Lord Clement-Jones’s biggest concerns is how few boards truly understand AI’s implications.
“How many boards really have people who understand what’s going on?” he asks. “SMEs in particular risk plunging into something they don’t understand, without knowing the unintended consequences.”
He calls for AI literacy training for directors, so they can interrogate technical claims and align AI adoption with corporate purpose. For him, purpose is the key word:
“Every business needs to define what it’s for, what it’s trying to do. AI is a chance to re-examine that and to use technology to make work better, not to replace it.”
For both guests, the idea of “balancing” innovation with responsibility is a false choice.
“Irresponsible innovation isn’t innovation at all,” David Elliman concludes. “It’s just technical debt waiting to come due.”
When done right, responsibility accelerates innovation. Ethical design avoids costly rework, reputational damage, and regulatory penalties. Companies that earn trust through responsible AI gain the permission to innovate faster.
Despite political uncertainty and global disparities in regulation, Lord Clement-Jones remains hopeful.
“I’m a techno-optimist — conditionally. We must bring regulation and transparency forward now, before AI outpaces our control. If we can harness it for benefit, not detriment, we’ll create genuine progress: innovation with purpose.”
