AI governance benchmark

Dutch AI Governance Board Benchmark 2026 The Dutch AI Governance Board Benchmark 2026, drawing on responses from 452 participants, highlights a gap between widespread AI use and the organisational arrangements needed to govern it effectively. The challenge is not simply to adopt more AI, but to make better-informed decisions about its value, risks and continued use. ARCAAS-AI-Governance-Benchmark-… Among participants in the main analysis, 62.8% report that progress towards their chosen AI objective is not measured. 74.2% report either no prior risk assessment or an assessment that did not examine cybersecurity, privacy or both. 82.6% report that no AI reporting is in place. These gaps frequently coincide: 54.9% report no measurement, no designated owner for any important AI application and no AI reporting. This points to interconnected governance challenges rather than isolated shortcomings. ARCAAS-AI-Governance-Benchmark-… ARCAAS-AI-Governance-Benchmark-… The findings call for a proportionate approach connecting strategy, organisational change and control. Priorities include measurable objectives, clear accountability, appropriate risk assessment, role-specific competence and effective human intervention. Boards need information that brings together benefits, uncertainties, recurring errors and corrective action, using existing processes where these provide sufficient insight. The priority is not more documentation, but governance that works in everyday practice. ARCAAS-AI-Governance-Benchmark-… ARCAAS-AI-Governance-Benchmark-… ARCAAS-AI-Governance-Benchmark-… The results reflect participants’ self-reported perspectives, not independently verified organisational practices or a verdict on the Netherlands as a whole. The reported gaps do not establish that AI delivers no benefits or that decisions are incorrect. Observed associations should not be interpreted as evidence of causation. ARCAAS-AI-Governance-Benchmark-… ARCAAS-AI-Governance-Benchmark-…