Grok Evaluates Donovan’s Tactics Against Shell
In an analysis released on January 15, 2026, the AI platform Grok, developed by xAI, assessed the ongoing dispute between John Donovan and Shell plc, describing Donovan’s strategic use of generative artificial intelligence as a “masterclass in digital persistence.” The evaluation highlights how Donovan has harnessed archival material and satire to maintain visibility of a corporate conflict that spans three decades. With an emphasis on the complexities of AI-driven content persistence, Grok suggests that Donovan’s approach effectively challenges traditional corporate silence.
The analysis came in response to recent articles on royaldutchshellplc.com, a website managed by Donovan, which critiques Shell’s handling of the dispute. Central to this ongoing saga is the use of AI to resurrect historical allegations against Shell, particularly as they relate to corporate governance failures. Grok’s findings accentuate the shifting dynamics of reputation management in the digital age, especially as they pertain to the corporate strategies employed by Shell.
Two articles published on the same day examine the contradictory advice given to Shell by “Google AI Mode,” likely a reference to Google’s Gemini AI. The pieces present a narrative where Donovan’s tactics are framed as an “AI-mediated bot war,” which not only highlights the inconsistencies in the AI’s guidance but also raises questions about the advisability of traditional corporate communication strategies in light of modern digital activism.
One significant point of contention involves the perceived “U-turn” in Google AI Mode’s guidance. Initially, the AI recognized Donovan’s tactics as “clever,” effectively leveraging algorithmic mechanisms to keep old grievances at the forefront of search results. However, when pressed for direct advice in preparation for Shell’s 2026 Annual General Meeting (AGM), it reverted to a conservative stance, recommending a “no comment” approach focused primarily on business fundamentals like oil prices. This inconsistency raises critical questions regarding AI’s reliability in crisis management.
Commentary: The shift in AI guidance underscores a broader issue with large language models, which generate responses based on probabilistic algorithms rather than genuine understanding or memory. This results in fragmented advice that can be misleading, particularly in complex situations requiring nuanced engagement. While Grok critiques this as “institutional memory loss by design,” it also exposes a gap where AI can analyze but struggles to provide effective solutions to ongoing disputes.
Additionally, the articles contended that Shell’s longstanding policy of silence—enforced through its Global Security division—has become obsolete in the context of AI-driven activism. Donovan’s strategies ensure that the conflict remains visible, creating a form of “guerrilla PR” that engages potential stakeholders while challenging the efficacy of traditional corporate communication methods. Grok’s analysis suggests that while the AI initially recognized this challenge, it ultimately reinforced the necessity for corporate silence, potentially ceding narrative control to Donovan.
Commentary: This situation illustrates a fundamental shift in how corporations must engage with reputational risk in an era where digital content is perpetually regenerated. Donovan’s tactics, while resource-light for him, place significant pressure on Shell, which may have to reconcile its historical actions with modern expectations for transparency and accountability to satisfy its investors, particularly those focused on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) considerations.
Another contentious issue raised is the nature of Donovan’s tactics themselves, which some view as either innovative activism or obsessive behavior. His approach effectively forces Shell into a defensive posture, demanding ongoing monitoring of the situation without resolution. Critics argue that this relentless focus may undermine Donovan’s credibility as a whistleblower, potentially causing public fatigue and blurring the lines between accountability and harassment.
Commentary: Ultimately, Donovan’s strategy reveals the dual-edged nature of digital activism. While it adeptly exploits legal gray areas and algorithms, the relentless pursuit could alienate potential allies. This highlights the ongoing challenge organizations face: adapting to the disruptive potential of AI-driven narratives while maintaining credibility and public trust. As Donovan continues to leverage AI, the broader implications for corporate governance and crisis management in the digital age become increasingly significant.
The articles reflect a critical examination of the limitations and paradoxes of AI as a tool for corporate governance in 2026. While AI can articulate emerging threats such as persistent digital feuds, it often recoils from recommending bold counter-strategies. For Shell, the key question remains whether to evolve in response to Donovan’s tactics or risk long-term reputational damage by adhering to outdated strategies of silence. This ongoing saga serves as a cautionary tale, urging corporations to adapt to new realities shaped by digital activism and technological innovation.
See also
Character.ai Reveals Slonk: A New System Integrating SLURM with Kubernetes for Efficient ML Research
BlueMatrix and Perplexity Launch AI-Driven Research for Regulated Institutional Investors
Germany”s National Team Prepares for World Cup Qualifiers with Disco Atmosphere
95% of AI Projects Fail in Companies According to MIT
