More than a third of compliance professionals see themselves heading toward having a role in company strategy, according to a survey by MCO (MyComplianceOffice). This evolving landscape signifies a pivotal shift in the perceived value and operational scope of the Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) role, moving beyond traditional regulatory interpretation and engagement towards a more proactive, strategic influence within organizations.
The survey, which polled 370 director-level or C-suite compliance leaders, revealed that 37% anticipate an expansion of the CCO role into strategic advisory functions. This projection underscores a growing recognition among leadership that robust compliance frameworks are not merely a defensive measure but a critical component of sound business strategy and sustainable growth. Currently, approximately 42% of respondents indicated that the CCO role is primarily focused on regulator engagement and policy interpretation. However, the anticipated evolution extends beyond strategic advice, with 36% expecting their roles to become more data-driven, leveraging analytics to inform compliance decisions and risk mitigation. Furthermore, 32% forecast a greater integration of technology into compliance processes, signaling a move towards more efficient and sophisticated operational models.
This strategic pivot is being fueled by significant investment in compliance technology. A substantial majority of those surveyed (93%) expect compliance budgets to increase, with 89% anticipating greater investment in compliance technology. Among the key areas slated for investment, Know Your Customer (KYC) and Anti-Money Laundering (AML) initiatives lead the pack at 44%, reflecting the ongoing global focus on financial crime prevention and customer due diligence. Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools are also a significant area of investment, with 39% of respondents planning to allocate resources towards them, followed by data management solutions at 35%. This emphasis on technology, particularly AI and data management, suggests a forward-looking approach to compliance, aiming to enhance accuracy, efficiency, and predictive capabilities.
The current operational reality for many organizations involves a complex ecosystem of compliance systems. The survey found that organizations are utilizing an average of 13.8 compliance systems, a blend of vendor-provided technology, in-house developed solutions, and often, manual processes. This fragmentation can present challenges in terms of integration, data consistency, and overall efficiency, further underscoring the need for strategic investment in unified technology solutions. The move towards data-driven compliance and increased technology adoption is therefore not just an aspiration but a practical necessity for many organizations navigating an increasingly complex regulatory and business environment.
The implications of this shift are far-reaching. As compliance leaders increasingly engage in strategic discussions, they can offer invaluable insights into risk appetite, ethical considerations, and long-term sustainability. This integration can help organizations avoid costly regulatory penalties, reputational damage, and operational disruptions, thereby contributing directly to shareholder value and organizational resilience. The investment in technology, especially AI and advanced data analytics, promises to transform compliance from a reactive function to a proactive engine for informed decision-making.
The Ascent of AI in Boardroom Operations
Concurrent with the evolving role of compliance leaders, the adoption of Artificial Intelligence (AI) by boards of directors has witnessed a dramatic surge. A survey conducted by OnBoard indicates that the use of AI by directors has climbed to over 90%, representing a nearly 30% increase year-over-year. This remarkable growth highlights the accelerating integration of AI into the core functions of corporate governance.
The OnBoard survey, which surveyed 531 directors, administrators, and enterprise leaders, found that a staggering 92% of directors are now employing AI in relation to their board meetings. This figure marks a significant leap from 69% in the previous year (2025), indicating a rapid embrace of AI’s potential to streamline and enhance boardroom activities. The most common applications of AI among directors include summarizing extensive board books, reports, and other critical documents, a task undertaken by 54% of respondents. Following closely, 53% of directors are leveraging AI to assist with writing or refining meeting minutes, a typically time-consuming and detail-oriented process.
Furthermore, nearly half of the respondents (49%) are utilizing AI to draft or format meeting agendas, a crucial element in setting the strategic direction and focus of board discussions. Another 40% rely on AI for research and data analysis related to agenda items, enabling more informed decision-making. Other reported applications include the creation of presentations and executive reports (35%) and, intriguingly, anticipating board questions and preparing responses (33%), showcasing AI’s nascent ability to support strategic foresight.
Despite the widespread adoption of AI by directors, a notable gap persists in formal policy development and enforcement. The survey revealed that almost two in five organizations (38%) do not have a formal AI use policy specifically for their directors. An additional 25% are currently in the process of developing such guidelines, while 27% have basic or shared formal rules in place. Only a small fraction, 6%, actively enforce AI policies on directors. This lack of robust governance around AI usage presents potential risks, especially concerning data security and ethical considerations.
The widespread adoption of AI, however, has coincided with a concerning decline in security confidence. Confidence in board security dropped by 15 percentage points, from 61% in 2025 to 46% in 2026. This figure is even lower than the 54% recorded in 2024, suggesting that the rapid integration of AI may be outpacing organizations’ ability to adequately secure their digital environments. Among the identified negative impacts of AI, data privacy, confidentiality, and data usage concerns were cited by 38% of respondents as significant issues. This highlights a critical tension between the drive for AI-driven efficiency and the imperative to safeguard sensitive corporate information.
Adding to the insights on board effectiveness, the survey also found that 87% of respondents believe their board has at least one ineffective member. While not directly linked to AI adoption, this finding suggests underlying challenges in board composition and performance that AI might potentially address or exacerbate. The dual trends of increasing AI adoption and decreasing security confidence underscore the urgent need for organizations to establish comprehensive AI governance frameworks that prioritize both innovation and robust security measures.
Mission-Driven Organizations Grapple with Financial Risks
Beyond the corporate and governance sectors, mission-driven organizations, including nonprofits and public sector entities, are facing significant financial pressures. A survey conducted by Diligent indicates that more than half of these organizations identify their financial outlook as their top organizational risk. This widespread concern reflects a challenging economic climate and increasing reliance on funding streams that are susceptible to fluctuations.
The Diligent survey, which polled 230 board members, secretaries, executive directors, and other stakeholders within nonprofit and public sector organizations, found that 53% of respondents cited an economic or funding downturn as their primary organizational risk. This highlights a significant vulnerability, particularly for organizations that depend on grants, donations, and government funding. The implications of such downturns can range from reduced program delivery to operational instability, potentially impacting their ability to fulfill their core missions.
Beyond financial concerns, legislative and regulatory changes were identified as a foremost risk by 34% of respondents. This points to the dynamic and often unpredictable nature of the regulatory landscape, which can necessitate significant adjustments in operations, compliance, and strategic planning. Large-scale cybersecurity breaches were also a significant concern, flagged by 21% of respondents, underscoring the growing threat of cyberattacks across all sectors.
Further down the list of top risks, a breakdown in culture, ethics, or staff voice was noted by 18% of respondents. This indicates an awareness of the importance of internal organizational health and ethical conduct in mitigating broader risks. Disruption from AI or new technologies, as well as misinformation and disinformation affecting stakeholder perception, were each identified as top risks by 17% of respondents. This reflects a growing apprehension about the pace of technological change and its potential to disrupt established operations and public trust. Notably, just over one in ten (11%) expressed concern about confidential information being leaked from unsanctioned AI events, highlighting a specific anxiety related to the emerging use of AI within these organizations.
In an effort to improve risk oversight, respondents believe that more frequent and structured risk discussions at the full board level would be beneficial, as stated by 38% of participants. Other suggestions for enhancing board risk oversight included clearer linkages between risk and strategy (28%), a clearer definition of roles and responsibilities (24%), deeper integration of risk into committee agendas (20%), and improved management reporting (20%). These insights suggest a desire for more systematic and integrated approaches to risk management within these organizations.
The survey also illuminated a desire for changes in board meeting formats and content. Almost half of the respondents (49%) called for more dedicated time for strategic planning during board meetings, indicating a need to shift focus from operational details to long-term vision. Additionally, 37% desired better tools and processes for managing agendas and board materials, pointing to a need for greater efficiency and organization. A significant 31% expressed a desire for fewer presentation-heavy meetings, suggesting a preference for more interactive and discussion-oriented sessions. These findings collectively point to a strong emphasis on improving the effectiveness and strategic impact of board governance within mission-driven organizations, particularly in the face of evolving economic and technological challenges.
Cyber Threats Dominate Top Risks for 2027
As organizations cast their gaze towards 2027, cyber threats have emerged as the most pressing concern, according to a joint survey by Protiviti and North Carolina State University’s Enterprise Risk Management Initiative. This finding underscores the persistent and escalating nature of digital risks in an increasingly interconnected world.
The survey, which polled 1,330 global board members and C-suite executives, asked participants to rate potential risks on a scale of one (no impact at all) to five (extensive impact). Cybersecurity threats received the highest average score, indicating their significant perceived impact, at 3.58. This places cyber risks at the forefront of executive concerns for the upcoming year, reflecting ongoing vulnerabilities and the evolving sophistication of threat actors.
Hot on the heels of cybersecurity concerns, the emergence of new risks arising from the implementation of Artificial Intelligence (AI) was identified as the second-greatest concern, with a score of 3.45. This close ranking highlights the dual-edged nature of AI: while it offers immense potential for innovation and efficiency, it also introduces novel vulnerabilities and complexities that organizations are still learning to navigate. The rapid integration of AI across industries necessitates a proactive approach to understanding and mitigating the unique risks it presents.
Economic conditions and regulatory concerns followed closely, ranking third and fourth respectively, with scores of 3.41 and 3.37. These traditional risk categories remain significant, reflecting the ongoing volatility in global markets and the ever-present challenge of adapting to evolving regulatory frameworks. The fifth highest concern, with a score of 3.36, was the rapid speed of disruptive innovations enabled by emerging technologies or other market forces. This points to the challenge of maintaining competitive advantage and operational agility in the face of constant technological advancement and market shifts.
These sentiments are further echoed in the long-term challenges reported by respondents. More than two in five (41%) identified security and privacy as a long-term challenge, reinforcing the enduring nature of these concerns. AI deployment was cited as a long-term challenge by 40% of respondents, indicating that the strategic and operational implications of AI are expected to persist and evolve for years to come. Markets and economies were reported as long-term challenges by 38% of respondents, underscoring the cyclical and often unpredictable nature of global economic forces.
The data from this survey paints a clear picture of an organizationally landscape dominated by digital and economic uncertainties. The high ranking of both cyber threats and AI-related risks suggests a growing awareness of the interconnectedness of these domains and the need for integrated risk management strategies. As organizations look ahead, the ability to effectively manage cybersecurity, harness AI responsibly, and navigate economic volatility will be critical determinants of success and resilience.
Banking Professionals Express Caution on AI in Lending
In the financial services sector, a significant portion of banking professionals are expressing reservations about the deployment of agentic AI in lending and underwriting workflows. A survey conducted by Wolters Kluwer reveals that one in three financial services professionals view the risks associated with agentic AI in these critical areas as a primary concern.
The survey, which polled 230 bank professionals, found that 33% cited the use of agentic AI in lending and underwriting as a top risk. This indicates a palpable unease regarding the potential for algorithmic bias, errors, or unintended consequences in decision-making processes that have direct financial implications for individuals and businesses. Agentic AI refers to AI systems that can act autonomously to achieve specific goals, and their application in high-stakes financial decisions warrants careful consideration.
An almost equal proportion of respondents (30%) identified collections and recovery as another area where agentic AI is poised to introduce significant risk. This concern likely stems from the potential for AI-driven collection strategies to be perceived as overly aggressive, impersonal, or to inadvertently violate consumer protection regulations. The ethical implications of AI in sensitive customer interactions are clearly a point of attention for banking professionals.
Beyond specific applications, the survey also highlighted concerns related to the operational and regulatory preparedness for AI failures. Nearly 38% of respondents indicated they are least prepared for the regulatory reporting of an AI failure, suggesting a gap in understanding and implementing the necessary procedures for compliance in such scenarios. Furthermore, 34% reported that model kill-switch protocols, designed to safely shut down AI systems in case of malfunction or unexpected behavior, are not yet in place. This lack of robust safety mechanisms is a critical vulnerability, especially given the autonomous nature of agentic AI.
The survey further delved into specific risks within AI safety frameworks. A notable 34% of respondents identified automation bias—the tendency for humans to over-rely on automated systems—as the greatest risk to their AI safety framework. This suggests that even with advanced AI, human oversight and critical judgment remain paramount to prevent errors. Another 27% identified misalignment of incentives as the top risk for AI safety, pointing to potential conflicts between the goals of the AI system, its developers, and the organization’s broader objectives.
The findings from Wolters Kluwer underscore a nuanced perspective on AI within the banking industry. While the potential benefits of AI are acknowledged, there is a clear recognition of the substantial risks that need to be proactively managed. The focus on lending, collections, regulatory reporting, and human-AI interaction highlights critical areas where robust governance, ethical considerations, and fail-safe mechanisms are essential to ensure responsible AI deployment and maintain trust within the financial ecosystem. The proactive engagement of financial services professionals in identifying these risks is a positive sign, laying the groundwork for more secure and ethical AI integration in the future.
