Skip to content

Global Index on Responsible AI: 2026 Report

Jul 2026 · arXiv.org · Vol abs/2607.14782 · 0 citations
Computer Science

TL;DR

Findings show that responsible AI governance must move beyond framework adoption toward enforceable rights-based protections, resourced oversight institutions, and accessible redress, and that while responsible AI governance is expanding, this does not often translate into meaningful protection.

Abstract

Grounded in human rights-based frameworks such as the UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of AI, the Global Index on Responsible AI (GIRAI) examines how countries translate responsible AI commitments into enforceable protections, institutional capacity, and redress mechanisms. GIRAI 2026 assesses these across five dimensions: Inclusion and Diversity, Ethics and Sustainability, Labour and Skills, Trust and Safety, and AI Use in Public Service. A global network of 135 country-level researchers collected and assessed 68,138 data points on 38 indicators organised across three pillars: government AI policy and implementation (17 indicators), civil society engagement (5), enabling conditions (15), and documented cases of government deployment of unacceptable-risk AI systems. The data covers November 2023 to September 2025. A score of 100 is derived from the indicators to rank all countries. Findings show that while responsible AI governance is expanding, with 126 of 135 countries having at least one government policy or initiative across the 17 AI Policy indicators, this does not often translate into meaningful protection. For instance, Global South countries account for 203 of 306 new cases of indicators with frameworks since the first edition, yet 78% of their frameworks remain non-binding compared with 42% in the Global North. Government commitment to AI governance also does not extend to their own algorithms: whereas Transparency and Explainability is one of the strongest performing indicators, with 58% of countries having some framework, only 18% require Public Disclosure of Government Algorithms. Credible evidence of government deployment of unacceptable-risk AI systems was also found in 35 countries. These findings show that responsible AI governance must move beyond framework adoption toward enforceable rights-based protections, resourced oversight institutions, and accessible redress.

View source

Similar papers

Conference Aug 2026

Repositioning Human Agency: An Analysis of Governance Capabilities in Responsible Human-GenAI Collaboration

This study examines the gaps that still exist between technology adoption, the responsible use of AI, and information system governance, particularly in the use of Generative AI. To address these issues, this study proposes a multi-layered Human Oversight Architecture grounded in the Human-Centered AI (HCAI) approach....

Zahra Salsabilla, S. Sasmoko, Davy Ronald Hermanus · 0 citations
Open access 2026

Examining the Risks and Ethical Challenges of Nume as the World’s First AI CFO in Financial Accounting

Nume, the world's first AI-powered Chief Financial Officer (AI CFO), represents a transformative shift in financial accounting, challenging traditional assumptions about executive leadership, financial stewardship, and organizational accountability. While this innovation promises improved efficiency, speed, and data-dr...

Lilian Mbatha · 0 citations
Review Sep 2026

From hidden use to accountable governance: an ethical maturity model for shadow AI in organizations

This article contends that Shadow AI is more than just a Cybersecurity or compliance issue; it is also an ethical governance problem because hidden use obscures accountability, reduces transparency, shifts responsibility onto individual workers, and gives rise to concerns regarding privacy, fairness, and the need for h...

Alfredo Gavito Romero, V. López-Morales, A. Franco-Árcega et al. · 0 citations

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.