Can the Pope’s concerns about AI be reconciled with commercial reality?

The Pope’s recent and timely Encyclical (Magnifica Humanitas) makes the moral case for how we should think about AI. As the Encyclical is some 42,000 words long, I’ve had to rely on trusted sources and, naturally, on AI to provide a summary. While the Pope is definitively not against advances in technology, he poses the following questions if we push ahead with AI:

·       Is it going to lead to better jobs?

·       Is it going to lead to mass unemployment?

·       Is it going to improve the dignity of human life?

·       Is it going to lead to better education?

·       Is it going to lead to a more peaceful world?

·       Is it going to lead to a richer sense of humanity?

·       Is it going to lead to a more truthful world?

The Pope’s contention is that work isn’t just about making money – it’s about how you feel you contribute to society; it’s a place where you make friendships; it’s where you can find purpose; and it’s where you develop your skills and vocation. He concludes that mass unemployment is one of the most devastating potential consequences of AI.

The question is whether the Pope’s desire for society to flourish in this new age can ever be fully reconciled with commercial reality. If not, what responsibility do leaders have to ensure that the gap between the two remains as narrow as humanly possible.

The commercial case for adoption of AI is compelling.  A recent McKinsey podcast¹ references the following benefits - quantifiable savings; improved efficiencies; better margins; and increased market share. Organisations will need to choose how to apply those savings given competing demands - improving returns to shareholders; reducing costs for consumers to capture market share; investing in upskilling employees; etc.

McKinsey’s view is that cost savings will be significant for organisations that focus on areas where AI can provide disproportionate value. As the most obvious source of cost savings will be in headcount reduction, AI will inevitably lead to job losses across all parts of the workforce. Initial warnings referenced the Industrial Revolution where it took approximately 70-80 years for the labour market to stabilise and for workers’ quality of employment to genuinely recover. A critical difference now may be that AI is moving at a pace that could compress the adjustment period to less than a decade. Still little comfort for those concerned about losing their current jobs.

Big tech’s response to the fear of large-scale unemployment (given they are currently laying off employees in their thousands) is that employees will simply reinvent themselves and find different jobs and/or that countries with growing economies due to AI will introduce universal basic incomes. The first response is, I believe, incredibly flippant and the second flies in the face of the Pope’s contention that human dignity is tied to being productively employed.

Assuming short-term commercial imperatives will weigh more heavily on business leaders than the Pope’s views, I don’t believe they can or should ignore their social and ethical responsibilities. I’ve happily never worked with any leader who enjoys the prospect of making people redundant before doing everything in their gift to ensure their continued employment. Leaders need to remain authentic when communicating business plans and no leader will be able to credibly claim that headcount reduction won’t be one of the planned consequences of AI. Failure to be transparent in that regard will only increase employee anxiety and lead to early loss of talent.

Employees at all levels will equally need to respond to the challenge of acquiring the skills required in a new environment by committing to continual learning and self-development. They will only be incentivised to do so if leaders demonstrate their commitment to reinvesting a good proportion of the savings generated by AI in their people. Employees who don’t rise to the challenge will end up adding to rising numbers of the under- and unemployed. 

Commercial reality will inevitably shape how AI is adopted. But it should not be the only force shaping the decisions leaders make. Coaches and mentors have a role in helping leaders consider the wider consequences - the impact on trust, work, dignity, capability and culture. That may not resolve the tension between commercial pressure and human consequence, but it can help leaders narrow the gap.

Richard Spilg

June 2026

 https://www.linkedin.com/in/richardspilg/

References

1.  Move fast or fall behind: How AI is re-writing the rules of banking (28 May 2026)