Company AI Risk Explorer
Loading the data…
Welcome to the Company AI Risk Explorer

This tool maps what large global companies say in public about AI risk. We reviewed public documents from roughly 200 of the world's largest companies. We coded every risk they acknowledge against the AI Risk Repository taxonomy.

Filter by company, sector, AI role, or risk. Compare what companies acknowledge against expert ratings of severity, sector vulnerability, and role responsibility.

← Back to the overview Company AI Risk Explorer

Companies × risks

Governance failure

Inadequate regulatory frameworks and oversight mechanisms that fail to keep pace with AI development, leading to ineffective governance and the inability to manage AI risks appropriately.

9 of the world's largest companies we reviewed acknowledge the AI risk "Governance failure", including IBM, Microsoft and Cisco.

Which companies acknowledge this risk?

  • IBM: “If the metrics do not measure the risk as intended, then the understanding of that risk will be incorrect and mitigations may not be appropriately applied. If the model's output is consequential, this may result in societal, reputational, or financial harm.” (Foundation models: Opportunities, risks and mitigations)
  • Microsoft: “As the science of AI evaluations is still developing, there are numerous limitations to current approaches to evaluations... there are gaps in how to systematize, operationalize, and measure relevant theoretical constructs needed to perform reliable testing.” (Microsoft: G7 Hiroshima AI Process (HAIP) Transparency Report)
  • Cisco: “we may be unsuccessful in identifying or resolving issues and risks before they arise.” (Cisco 10-K 2025 Annual Report)
  • Mastercard: “Our implementation of robust AI governance and risk management frameworks... may not be sufficient protection against these emerging risks.” (Mastercard 2024 Annual report (10-K))
  • Palantir: “accountability mechanisms are likely to be insufficient or even counter-productive unless there is clarity about who is ultimately responsible for the actions of an AI system... it can be unclear who is ultimately accountable for the negative implications or potential harms of AI system use” (Palantir Australia Response to Supporting Responsible AI ...)
  • Abbott Laboratories: “we recognize the potential ethical exposures that could arise... where a regulatory framework does not yet exist. The lack of appropriate regulation could lead to technologies that inadvertently perpetuate biases...” (Abbott 2024 Global Sustainability Report June 2025)
  • Kenvue: “ineffective or inadequate artificial intelligence governance, development, use, or deployment practices by us or third parties could result in unintended consequences.” (Kenvue Annual Report 2024)
  • Nomura Research Institute: “the pace of AI development has outstripped the evolution of governance frameworks” (NRI - ESG Databook 2025)
  • Salesforce: “Inadequate or ineffective AI development, deployment, content labeling or governance by us or others that result in controversy could also impair the acceptance of AI solutions or result in unintended performance of the services.” (2025 Annual Report)