New data from the Thomson Reuters Foundation highlights a dangerous, widening gap between the speed of AI adoption and AI governance, underscoring the need for worker protections and ethical safeguards to ensure AI benefits the people it affects
Key highlights:
-
-
-
AI governance is hard to prove in practice — While our research shows that 44% of companies publish an AI strategy, 76% of those same companies show no evidence of having policies to evaluate the quality of data used to train AI systems.
-
Workers are being left under-prepared and under-protected — Only 14% of companies have policies to mitigate the negative impacts of AI on workers, and only 31% offer any reskilling or training programs around adapting to an AI-integrated workplace.
-
Human rights and ethics appear an afterthought in AI governance — Almost three-quarters (72%) of companies conduct no AI impact assessments, and less than 1 in 10 companies conduct ethical or human rights assessments.
-
-
There is a widening chasm at the heart of corporate AI governance, according to a new report, Responsible AI in Practice, published by the Thomson Reuters Foundation and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
The Foundation’s AI Company Data Initiative (AICDI) analyzed publicly available information from nearly 3,000 companies across 11 industry sectors, creating the most comprehensive picture yet of how organizations are managing AI.
Beneath the surface of corporate AI governance mechanisms, divergence between the speed of AI adoption and meaningful human oversight is growing. The report’s findings make clear that this is no longer a gap that organizations can afford to ignore, especially when backlash against AI data center construction is growing and negative views about AI are solidifying among consumers in the United States.
Data highlights the illusion of AI governance
Businesses of different sizes and across multiple sectors are adopting AI technology at a rapid pace. When governance exists only in the wording of a strategy or company vision, however, the people most affected by AI systems — workers, consumers, and communities — are left vulnerable. According to the report:
-
-
- 44% of companies publicly communicate having an AI strategy. However, a gap in AI governance is evident as more than three-quarters of those companies (76%) do not seem to have policies to evaluate the quality of data used to train AI systems.
- 40% of companies report board- or committee-level oversight of AI. At the same time, strategic signals do not necessarily indicate operational capacity or day-to-day governance. In fact, less than one-third of all sampled companies claim to have an additional team or resource dedicated to AI governance. Moreover, limited information is publicly disclosed on the teams, processes, and accountability mechanisms that translate intent into action.
-
Workers are being left behind
Research by the International Monetary Fund finds almost 40% of global employment is exposed to AI, highlighting the acute nature of concerns about job displacement and declining opportunities for some groups. Without sufficient oversight, AI can threaten workers’ rights, amplify bias, and increase surveillance and work intensity, which can enable inhumane decision-making at scale.
The TR Foundation/UNESCO report notes that many companies are adopting AI without the safeguards needed to support workers and help them to adapt to the changes this technology brings. Less than one-third of companies were shown to offer training and reskilling programs for employees who may be adapting to an AI-integrated workplace. Even within the 31% of organizations in which these training programs exist, there is a vast variation in the scope and depth of the training offered.
In fact, many company training programs are not enterprise-wide or structured. Instead, they are ad-hoc or limited to leadership roles. This lack of investment in talent risks undermining the significant investment that companies are making in AI.
Despite growing pressure from regulators, policymakers and social justice campaigners, the ethical impact of AI appears poorly governed, with companies sharing limited information publicly.
The picture on worker protections is equally concerning. Only 14% of companies have public policies in place to mitigate the negative impacts of AI systems on workers, the report shows. This means the majority of companies either have no policies in place or do not publicly communicate them.
What is more troubling is that when workers experience harm, there is almost nowhere for them to turn. Only 2% of companies indicated they had a complaints mechanism — a critical early warning system for potential concerns. The findings suggest many organizations lack a mechanism for AI-related internal complaints beyond the broad generic complaint channel, and this is compounded by low awareness of the areas in which AI systems may infringe employees’ rights and protections.
Ethics and human dignity as an afterthought
Despite growing pressure from regulators, policymakers and social justice campaigners, the ethical impact of AI appears poorly governed, with companies sharing limited information publicly.
Human rights and ethical use of AI are treated as secondary considerations to compliance, according to our research. The majority of companies (72%) do not conduct any impact assessment with regard to AI. Only 7% publicly communicate conducting a fundamental or human rights impact assessment, and just 5% report conducting an ethical impact assessment.
Among those companies conducting some form of impact assessment, the focus skews sharply toward compliance rather than people. The most prevalent assessments are privacy or compliance-focused, with 18% of those companies that conduct some form of impact assessment reporting that they conducted a data protection impact assessment, and 14% reporting they conducted a privacy impact assessment.
How to center people in AI governance
Closing this governance gap is essential for companies in order to adopt AI responsibly and avoid costly legal, ethical operational, talent-related risks.
To support companies in navigating this challenge, the TR Foundation’s AICDI offers a free survey to help companies map the areas in which AI is used across products, operations and services, and then benchmark those against peers their sector.
The report also contains case studies from companies that voluntarily shared their responsible practices with us. For example, German software company SAP intentionally designs and deploys its internal AI systems with a human-in-the-loop in which AI automates repetitive tasks and supports decision-making while final judgment and complex problem-solving remain firmly in the hands of employees.
As AI becomes part of core business infrastructure, companies must move beyond statements of intent and toward measurable AI governance.
In another example, BASF, a German chemical conglomerate, has jointly agreed with its workers’ councils on a general reskilling program that covers technical, hard, and soft skills. Finally, Canadian telecom company TELUS’ Indigenous Advisory Council provides guidance on AI ethics issues that directly affect indigenous communities.
Next steps for companies
The TR Foundation/UNESCO report highlights the most impactful concrete commitments that companies can take now to future proof against AI-related risk, including:
-
-
- investing in structured, enterprise-wide worker-reskilling programs that measure outcomes, not just participation;
- establishing enforceable human rights impact assessments as a standard part of AI deployment, not as an optional addition; and
- creating accessible, AI-specific internal grievance mechanisms so that workers and users have a genuine pathway to raise concerns and seek remedy.
-
As AI becomes part of core business infrastructure, companies must move beyond statements of intent and toward measurable AI governance. While this data demonstrates clear governance gaps, it also presents an opportunity for companies to take the lead on implementing responsible AI that operates openly in the public interest.
You can learn more about the work done by the Thomson Reuters Foundation here