Global Index on Responsible AI: 2026 Report

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.14782v2
• Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2026 21:24:15 GMT
• Title: Global Index on Responsible AI: 2026 Report
• Abstract summary: The Global Index on Responsible AI examines how countries translate responsible AI commitments into enforceable protections, institutional capacity, and redress mechanisms.<n>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.<n>A score of 100 is derived from the indicators to rank all countries.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• 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.

Related papers

• Mapping General-Purpose AI Governance in Twenty AI Middle-Power Jurisdictions [0.0]
  General-purpose AI (GPAI) models are mostly built in the U.S. and China.<n>But advanced economies hosting no frontier developer are writing their own rules to govern GPAI.<n>This paper investigates which GPAI-relevant provisions these AI middle-powers have enacted.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-18T23:28:57Z)
• Global Index on Responsible AI 2026 : Conceptual Framework and Methodology [0.0]
  Report presents the methodology of the Global Index on Responsible AI (GIRAI), 2nd Edition.<n>This edition refines the 1st Edition by strengthening the distinction between framework existence and implementation.<n>An independent statistical pre-audit was conducted to assess the coherence and robustness of the framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-16T11:26:21Z)
• Prioritization of Risks from Artificial Intelligence: A Delphi Study of 272 International Experts [115.34779081791287]
  We report results from a three-round Delphi study conducted late 2025 with 272 international AI experts.<n>Experts rated 24 AI risks on harm probability and severity, sector and actor vulnerability, actor responsibility, and overall concern.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-03T06:14:41Z)
• AI TIPS 2.0: A Comprehensive Framework for Operationalizing AI Governance [0.0]
  Organizations struggle with inadequate risk assessment at the use case level.<n>Existing frameworks like ISO 42001 and NIST AI RMF remain at high conceptual levels.<n>No systematic approach to embed AI practices throughout the development lifecycle.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-09T20:57:22Z)
• International AI Safety Report 2025: Second Key Update: Technical Safeguards and Risk Management [115.92752850425272]
  Second update to the 2025 International AI Safety Report assesses new developments in general-purpose AI risk management over the past year.<n> examines how researchers, public institutions, and AI developers are approaching risk management for general-purpose AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-25T03:12:56Z)
• Never Compromise to Vulnerabilities: A Comprehensive Survey on AI Governance [211.5823259429128]
  We propose a comprehensive framework integrating technical and societal dimensions, structured around three interconnected pillars: Intrinsic Security, Derivative Security, and Social Ethics.<n>We identify three core challenges: (1) the generalization gap, where defenses fail against evolving threats; (2) inadequate evaluation protocols that overlook real-world risks; and (3) fragmented regulations leading to inconsistent oversight.<n>Our framework offers actionable guidance for researchers, engineers, and policymakers to develop AI systems that are not only robust and secure but also ethically aligned and publicly trustworthy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-12T09:42:56Z)
• AI Governance InternationaL Evaluation Index (AGILE Index) 2025 [13.374492753616067]
  AI Governance InternationaL Evaluation Index (AGILE Index) project launched in 2023.<n>AGILE Index 2025 incorporates systematic refinements to better balance scientific rigor with practical adaptability.<n>AGILE Index 2025 evaluates 40 countries across income levels, regions, and technological development stages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-10T04:28:27Z)
• Artificial Intelligence in Government: Why People Feel They Lose Control [44.99833362998488]
  The use of Artificial Intelligence in public administration is expanding rapidly.<n>While AI promises greater efficiency and responsiveness, its integration into government functions raises concerns about fairness, transparency, and accountability.<n>This article applies principal-agent theory to AI adoption as a special case of delegation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-02T07:46:41Z)
• AI Governance InternationaL Evaluation Index (AGILE Index) 2024 [15.589972522113754]
  The rapid advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology is profoundly transforming human society.<n>Since 2022, the extensive deployment of generative AI, particularly large language models, marked a new phase in AI governance.<n>As consensus on international governance continues to be established and put into action, the practical importance of conducting a global assessment of the state of AI governance is progressively coming to light.<n>The inaugural evaluation of the AGILE Index commences with an exploration of four foundational pillars: the development level of AI, the AI governance environment, the AI governance instruments, and the AI governance effectiveness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-21T10:16:56Z)
• Using AI Alignment Theory to understand the potential pitfalls of regulatory frameworks [55.2480439325792]
  This paper critically examines the European Union's Artificial Intelligence Act (EU AI Act) Uses insights from Alignment Theory (AT) research, which focuses on the potential pitfalls of technical alignment in Artificial Intelligence. As we apply these concepts to the EU AI Act, we uncover potential vulnerabilities and areas for improvement in the regulation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-10T17:38:38Z)
• Computing Power and the Governance of Artificial Intelligence [51.967584623262674]
  Governments and companies have started to leverage compute as a means to govern AI. compute-based policies and technologies have the potential to assist in these areas, but there is significant variation in their readiness for implementation. naive or poorly scoped approaches to compute governance carry significant risks in areas like privacy, economic impacts, and centralization of power.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-13T21:10:21Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.