Directors' Duties and AI Regulation peer-reviewed authority for AU director duties on AI

Why it matters for NETEVO

Brand (2024) is the most direct AU peer-reviewed treatment of the question the AICD/HTI Director's Guide addresses from the boardroom side. Where the practitioner guide names the eight elements of safe and responsible AI governance, Brand supplies the academic account of why those elements bind under the existing director-duty regime.

The director-duty argument rests on existing law. Brand's central claim is that the existing Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss 180–183 framework already binds directors on AI governance — a claim that now carries peer-reviewed AU academic authority rather than practitioner commentary alone. In a board paper, the difference between "industry guidance suggests" and "peer-reviewed AU scholarship establishes" is the difference between a recommendation and a duty.

Standards, scholarship, and practice align. Brand reads alongside ISO/IEC 38507:2022 (governance implications of AI) and the AICD/HTI Director's Guide as a three-way alignment on board accountability: 38507 specifies what governing bodies should do, Brand explains why AU director duties already require it, and the Director's Guide supplies the practitioner framework boards actually work with.

Where it sits in the literature. Brand was published in the Griffith Law Review, within that journal's concentration of AU scholarship on AI and corporate governance; readers seeking the surrounding academic debate will find it in the same venue.