Responsible Use, Not Blind Adoption: Berkeley Law’s AI Ban

Preliminary results from our 2026 ESG and sustainability global corporate survey indicate that AI adoption will grow significantly across sustainability use cases over the next two years. However, a recent decision by UC Berkeley Law to restrict the use of artificial intelligence has sparked a broader and much-needed debate – not about whether AI should exist in professional environments, but about when and how AI should be used. This move serves as a critical reminder: just because AI tools are available, does not mean they are always appropriate.

What has Berkeley Law said?

Berkeley Law is not anti-AI; it offers courses dedicated to understanding AI and its societal implications, including its legal masters (LLM) in AI Law and Regulation. Yet the institution has opted to limit its use in core academic work, particularly where there is a focus on developing foundational skills. This reflects a deeper concern that overreliance on AI risks eroding essential capabilities. In a New York Times interview, Chris Hoofnagle – a professor at UC Berkeley School of Law – illustrated the point by comparing student use of AI to giving an eight-year-old a calculator. The message? Without first mastering the basics, relying on a tool provides the appropriate knowledge but not the wisdom of how to interpret it.

What does this mean for me?

This debate extends well beyond legal education. Sustainability professionals are already grappling with how AI can support tasks such as reporting, performance analysis, emissions factor mapping, scenario analysis and more. Yet these benefits must be balanced against concerns around data integrity, energy consumption and the risk of over-automation in decision-making processes that require human accountability.

In sustainability roles, where ethical reasoning and contextual analysis are paramount, the inappropriate use of AI could undermine the very outcomes firms seek to achieve. For example, relying on genAI to draft sustainability disclosures or risk assessments without critical human oversight risks introducing inaccuracies, bias or misinterpretations of regulatory frameworks – particularly in sectors where standards are evolving rapidly.

Why should I care?

What Berkeley Law’s decision ultimately highlights is the urgent need for robust AI governance. Organizations should not default to AI adoption simply because of efficiency gains or competitive pressure. Instead, they must establish clear policies defining where AI adds value, introduces risk and where it should be excluded altogether. This includes embedding principles such as transparency, traceability and human oversight into AI workflows.

As AI continues to reshape job roles, the real differentiator will not be whether professionals use these tools, but how thoughtfully they integrate them. Berkeley Law’s stance is not a rejection of innovation; it is a call for intentionality. In both legal education and sustainability practice, responsible – rather than ubiquitous – use should define the future of AI.

For more information on:

• how AI is reshaping sustainability teams and how your team should approach the opportunities and challenges of AI, read Verdantix Strategic Focus: How AI Is Reshaping Sustainability Teams.
• AI-augmented use cases, see Verdantix AI Applied Radar: AI Applied To Sustainability Management.

• AI governance frameworks, look out for the upcoming Strategic Focus report on governance models for effective AI risk management.

If you are interested in talking more about sustainability, AI or law, get in touch and schedule a call.