AI Governance Platforms & Ethical Tech Oversight
Keywords:
AI governance, ethical oversight, EU AI Act, doctrinal research, corporate complianceAbstract
As artificial intelligence (AI) systems increasingly influence critical aspects of society, the demand for robust governance and ethical oversight has intensified. This research paper explores the evolving landscape of AI governance platforms and ethical tech oversight through a dual-method approach combining doctrinal and non-doctrinal analysis. The doctrinal method reviews recent international regulations, including the European Union AI Act, the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention on AI, ISO/IEC standards, and U.S. state-level initiatives. Simultaneously, the non-doctrinal method examines recent corporate surveys, market trends, and academic studies to assess the practical uptake of governance tools and ethical protocols. Real-time data reveals a significant increase in corporate governance initiatives—77% of surveyed organizations report active governance programs—while the AI governance software market is projected to grow at a 49.2% CAGR by 2034. However, institutional capability gaps and regional regulatory fragmentation pose major challenges. The study concludes that a harmonized, capacity-driven, and lifecycle-sensitive governance model is essential for ensuring ethically aligned AI deployment. The findings serve as a foundation for policymakers, corporate leaders, and academic researchers aiming to design accountable and future-ready AI ecosystems.
Downloads
References
1. Veale, M., & Zuiderveen Borgesius, F. J. (2021). Demystifying the draft EU Artificial Intelligence Act. Computer Law Review International, 22, 97–112.
2. Crootof, R., & Casey, B. (2024). Whose responsibility is it anyway? AI, legal responsibility and moral accountability. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 34(1), 75–121.
3. Nalluri, S. K. & Bathini, V. T. (2023). Next-Gen Life Sciences Manufacturing: A Scalable Framework for AI-Augmented MES and RPA-Driven Precision Healthcare Solutions. International Journal of Engineering & Extended Technologies Research (IJEETR), 5(2), 6275-6281.
4. International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP), & Credo AI. (2025, April). 2025 AI governance report: Bridging the compliance gap. International Association of Privacy Professionals.
5. Binns, R., Veale, M., Van Kleek, M., & Shadbolt, N. (2019). Problem formulation and fairness. In Proceedings of the 2019 conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency (pp. 1–10). ACM.
6. European Commission. (2021). Proposal for a regulation laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act) (COM(2021) 206 final).
7. Council of Europe. (2024). Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence, Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law. Opened for signature in September.
8. California State Government. (2025, June). Final recommendations from the working group on the use of AI in government operations.
9. International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP), PwC, & Deloitte. (2024–2025). AI business survey 2024; AI governance in Asia-Pacific. Various Reports.
10. Exactitude Consultancy. (2024). AI governance market forecast 2024–2034.
Global Market Insights. (2025, March). AI governance tools industry report.
11. European Commission. (2021). Artificial Intelligence Act: Proposal for a regulation (COM(2021) 206 final).
12. Veale, M., & Edwards, L. (2021). Clarity, surprises, and further questions in the draft EU AI Act. European Law Blog. https://europeanlawblog.eu
13. Smuha, N. A. (2022). From ethics washing to ethics bashing: A critique of the EU AI regulation proposal. Minds and Machines, 32(1), 137–160.
14. Council of Europe. (2024). Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence. CoE Portal.
15. Mantelero, A. (2023). AI and human rights: From principles to practice. Computer Law & Security Review, 47, 105736.
16. Nalluri, S. K. (2022). Transforming Diagnostics Manufacturing at Cepheid: Migration from Paper-Based Processes to Digital Manufacturing using Opcenter MES. International Journal of Research and Applied Innovations, 5(1), 9451-9456
17. Wagner, B. (2024). Democratic oversight of AI: Institutional design and legislative frameworks. AI & Society, 39, 667–682.
18. United Nations. (2023, October). Governing AI for humanity: Report of the High-Level Advisory Body on AI.
19. Crootof, R. (2024). A UN agency for AI? Lessons from the IAEA. Yale Journal of International Law Online.
20. Kwet, M. (2019). Digital colonialism: US empire and the new imperialism in the Global South. Race & Class, 60(4), 3–26.
21. California State Government. (2025, June). Final recommendations from the AI policy working group.
22. Casey, B., & Lemley, M. A. (2024). You might be a robot. Minnesota Law Review, 103, 221–268.
23. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). (2023). ISO/IEC 42001: Artificial Intelligence management system standard.
24. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). (2023). ISO/IEC 5259-3: Data quality evaluation in AI systems.
25. International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP). (2025, March). AI governance standards adoption trends.
26. Microsoft. (2025, January). 2025 responsible AI transparency report. Microsoft Official Blog.
27. Raji, I. D., & Buolamwini, J. (2023). Actionable auditing: Investigating the impact of public AI audits. FAccT 2023 Proceedings.
28. Microsoft Azure. (2024). Responsible AI dashboard and content safety tools. Microsoft Documentation.
29. California State Government. (2025, June). Final report of the AI working group.
30. The Verge. (2025, June). California’s AI policy report calls for whistleblower laws and audit mechanisms. The Verge. https://www.theverge.com
31. Time Magazine. (2025, July). California sets a model for AI transparency. TIME. https://www.time.com
32. Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). (2023). Guidance on algorithmic trading compliance. FCA Report.
33. Brundage, M., Avin, S., Clark, J., et al. (2023). The malicious use of artificial intelligence: Forecasting, prevention, and mitigation. FCA Technical Paper.
34. European Banking Authority (EBA). (2024). AI and big data risk supervision guidelines. EBA Guidelines.
35. ING Group. (2024). Ethical use of AI in financial decision-making. Corporate Ethics Report.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 International Journal of Artificial Intelligence, Computer Science, Management and Technology
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.