How AI is reshaping shareholder activism

The most successful shareholder activists have historically enjoyed an advantage by identifying opportunities, analyzing companies, and building compelling investment theses faster and more effectively than competitors.

From uncovering conglomerate discounts and capital allocation failures to exposing governance weaknesses and operational inefficiencies, the activist playbook has traditionally relied on intensive research and analysis.

Artificial intelligence may be about to change that equation.

While much of the corporate world’s attention has focused on how companies are adopting AI, a potentially more significant development for investors is how AI could transform shareholder activism itself.

By dramatically reducing the cost of research, accelerating the identification of targets, and enabling more sophisticated analysis at scale, AI has the potential to reshape how activist campaigns are run.

At the same time, AI is emerging as a new activist issue in its own right, with boards increasingly facing questions about AI strategy, governance, disclosure, and capital allocation.

The implications extend into how activist opportunities are identified, campaigns are conducted, and voting decisions are ultimately made.

The new economics of shareholder activism

Launching an activist campaign has traditionally required significant resources.

Research teams spend months reviewing regulatory filings, earnings transcripts, investor presentations, and industry data. Analysts benchmark performance against peers, evaluate capital allocation decisions, identify governance concerns, and construct detailed arguments for change.

With large language models already capable of doing much of this heavy lifting, AI could dramatically reduce the time and cost associated.

As billionaire hedge fund manager Paul Tudor Jones reportedly told his team at Tudor Investment, “no man is better than a machine, and no machine is better than a man with a machine.”

If AI lowers the barriers to entry for activism in this way, it could open the playing field to smaller funds to conduct the kind of analysis that previously required significantly larger teams.

The broader investment industry is already experimenting with AI-driven investment processes.

Earlier this year, Instacard co-founder Apoorva Mehta launched Abundance, a hedge fund that uses thousands of AI agents to identify opportunities, conduct research, and make investment decisions.

Explaining the rationale behind the fund, Mehta argued that human investors “can only track so many opportunities at once, process them only so deeply, make only so many high-quality decisions.”

“Even for the exceptional investor, the process is locked inside their mind. AI changes that entirely,” he added.

While shareholder activism involves a different set of challenges than traditional investing, the underlying principle is similar. If AI can help investors identify opportunities, analyze businesses, and develop investment theses faster than human teams alone, it could significantly lower the barrier to launching activist campaigns.

In many respects, the technology could democratize activism in much the same way that electronic trading and online brokerage platforms democratized investing.

The likely outcome is not necessarily fewer activist campaigns, but potentially more of them.

The companies most exposed to AI-driven activism

As AI becomes more deeply integrated into corporate operations, certain categories of companies may become particularly susceptible to activist scrutiny.

The risks of being an AI laggard

One obvious group includes businesses that appear to be lagging peers in AI adoption, particularly in more automation-friendly areas like financial and legal services, customer support, and business process outsourcing.

If a company is achieving fewer productivity gains relative to peers, activists could argue that leadership is failing to capitalize on technologies capable of improving margins, reducing costs, or enhancing competitiveness.

Indeed, activist investor Irenic Capital Management launched a campaign earlier this year at Snap Inc., arguing that the social media company could triple its valuation to $35 billion through better deployment of AI, among other measures.

Separately, fellow activist Starboard Value criticized Tripadvisor’s approach to AI, arguing that the company had been slow to develop AI-enabled products despite travel planning emerging as one of the technology’s most promising use cases.

The common thread is that activists are increasingly treating AI as a value-creation issue rather than a purely technological one.

The AI capital allocation question

As corporate AI spending grows, investors will also likely demand clear accountability frameworks as well as evidence that the investments are generating acceptable returns. Such demands are already frequently levelled at companies’ M&A spending, ESG investments, and strategic initiatives.

While most activist campaigns to date have focused on companies failing to capitalize on AI opportunities, the next phase of AI activism is likely to involve scrutiny of the billions of dollars being committed to the technology.

Investors may increasingly ask whether AI investments are generating measurable returns, whether management’s assumptions are realistic, and whether alternative uses of capital could deliver better value for shareholders.

As with any major capital allocation decision, activists are likely to demand clear milestones, performance metrics, and evidence that spending is translating into revenue growth, margin expansion, or other tangible benefits.

The growing demand for AI oversight

According to a survey from proxy advisor Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS), only 15% of S&P 500 companies disclosed board or committee oversight of AI-related risks, including directors with AI expertise or an AI ethics board, in their proxy statements from September 2022 to September 2023.

Since then, investors have been increasingly using shareholder proposals to demand greater transparency, with 23 AI-related proposals filed at 16 U.S. companies in 2025.

Many proposals requested reports on companies’ use of AI, its anticipated impacts, and the board’s oversight of associated risks. Others sought amendments to board committee charters to formally assign responsibility for AI oversight.

These issues will also likely become even more important as regulators around the world continue developing AI-related frameworks and disclosure expectations.

The European Union's AI Act, for example, imposes extensive requirements on certain AI systems relating to risk management, transparency, human oversight, and compliance.

At the same time, companies face growing litigation and reputational risks associated with AI deployment, ranging from intellectual property disputes and privacy concerns to allegations that AI systems have caused consumer harm.

In one closely watched case, Florida-based plaintiffs sued OpenAI, alleging that ChatGPT contributed to the death of a teenager after the chatbot allegedly encouraged emotional dependency and self-harm. While the claims remain contested, the case highlights the novel legal and reputational risks that companies developing or deploying AI technologies may face.

For shareholders, these developments reinforce the importance of board oversight and clear disclosure around how AI-related risks are being identified, monitored, and managed.

Will AI become the new proxy advisor?

One of the more intriguing questions is whether AI could eventually disrupt the influence of proxy advisory firms.

Institutional investors frequently rely on recommendations from proxy advisors such as ISS and Glass Lewis when evaluating director elections, executive compensation proposals, shareholder resolutions, and governance matters.

Rather than relying on standardized recommendations, institutions could use AI to generate bespoke assessments tailored to their own investment philosophy and voting preferences.

The idea is no longer purely theoretical. Earlier this year, JPMorgan Asset Management announced that it would replace external proxy advisors in its U.S. voting process with an internally developed AI platform.

However, a 2026 study by communications advisory firm Kekst CNC found that major large language models were significantly more likely to support activist campaigns (63%) than either ISS, Glass Lewis, or the ultimate outcomes of proxy contests.

This would not necessarily eliminate the role of proxy advisors. Their expertise, institutional knowledge, and engagement experience remain valuable. However, AI could commoditize certain aspects of proxy analysis and reduce the barriers to conducting independent evaluations.

If that occurs, one of the most influential gatekeepers in corporate governance could face meaningful competitive pressure.

Risks and unintended consequences

While AI may make activism more efficient, it may not always improve quality.

Lower barriers to entry could lead to a proliferation of campaigns, some of which may be based on incomplete analysis or short-term assumptions. AI-generated research is only as reliable as the data and methodologies underlying it. Investors remain responsible for validating conclusions and exercising judgment.

There is also the possibility that boards will face a growing volume of automated critiques and shareholder proposals generated at unprecedented speed and scale.

The same technology that empowers activists could also contribute to information overload, making it more difficult for companies and investors to distinguish high-quality analysis from noise.

Regulatory risk is also likely to be a key concern as the U.S. follows Europe with its own AI framework, particularly if AI-generated proxy recommendations begin influencing voting outcomes or investment decisions on a large scale.

A new force in shareholder activism

Shareholder activism has always been an information business. The investors best able to identify opportunities, analyze companies, and communicate their investment theses have traditionally enjoyed a significant advantage over their peers.

By reducing the cost of research and accelerating the identification of targets, AI could lower barriers to entry for activist investors, intensifying competition, and increasing the number of activist campaigns brought to market.

At the same time, AI itself is becoming a new focus of shareholder scrutiny. Activists are already pressuring companies they believe are moving too slowly to capitalize on AI opportunities, while growing investment in the technology is likely to raise fresh questions around capital allocation, governance, disclosure, and board oversight.

The implications may extend beyond activists and issuers. As institutions increasingly experiment with AI-generated voting analysis, the technology could also reshape the role of proxy advisors and influence how proxy contests are fought and won.

Whether these developments ultimately lead to better governance and stronger shareholder returns remains to be seen. What is already clear, however, is that AI is no longer simply another issue for activists to pursue. It is increasingly becoming a force that could reshape the mechanics of shareholder activism itself.

Like this article? Sign up for our free newsletter.