LONDON, Oct. 15, 2026 /PRNewswire/ -- New research by IBM (NYSE: IBM) finds that AI-related incidents are reaching boardrooms across Europe and the Middle East among the organizations surveyed, but governance capabilities and risk accountability are not keeping pace with adoption of the technology.

Eight in ten executives surveyed say an AI-related incident – including an agent failure, data exposure, AI-driven decision error, or AI security breach – reached their board or C-suite in the past year. Yet fewer than half (40%) of those organizations cite a change to AI governance policy or framework in response.
When the pace of deploying AI outstrips governance and compliance frameworks readiness, rather than pause while governance adapts, the majority (56%) of executives surveyed report pressing ahead within agreed risk limits. Just a third delay deployment entirely until their governance is ready.
The survey, of more than 3,200 senior executives at organizations across eight countries in Europe and the Middle East, suggests governance policies will be tested further as AI agents take on more autonomous work. Thirty-five percent of respondents say they are running agentic AI in production today, yet three-quarters expect AI agents to have some level of autonomy towards decisions by 2027. Only 37% say their current governance system is designed to scale with agentic AI deployment.
Ana Paula Assis, IBM Senior Vice President and Chair, EMEA and APAC, said: "The AI debate has moved from adoption to governance and accountability. As organizations progress from AI assistants to autonomous agents, governance can no longer be treated as a compliance exercise. It has become a business requirement and value enabler.
The enterprises that can scale AI with accountability and trust will be postitioned to realize business value. That means governance must be built into how agents operate, with clear boundaries on what they can do, clear ownership when things go wrong, and controls that work in real-time."
Accountability & liability gap
Nearly all executives (98%) surveyed have formally assigned responsibility for AI risk at board level, including 26% with a dedicated board-level AI committee. Yet the research found no clear consensus on accountability for adverse outcomes from AI agents. An organization's CIO or CTO was the most frequently cited role with assigned responsibility for adverse outcomes from AI agents, selected by just 17% of all respondents.
Respondents' views on legal liability when an AI system causes significant harm were also divided: 20% say it should be shared proportionally between deployer and vendor, 19% say there should be a regulatory framework that does not yet adequately exist, and 14% say it should sit with the AI vendor or technology provider.
To manage increasingly autonomous AI agents making decisions without human approval at each step by 2027, executives expect to need formal legal or contractual frameworks defining AI vendor liability for agent failures (33%), defined human escalation thresholds (32%), real-time monitoring and audit trails of agent decisions and actions (30%) and the ability to immediately halt agent activity across the enterprise (29%).
Other key findings include:
Study methodology
The research was conducted by Censuswide on behalf of IBM among 3,221 executive management respondents, including C-level, at organizations with 1,000 or more employees in the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. The data was collected between 14 and 24 September 2026.
About IBM
IBM is a leading provider of global hybrid cloud and AI, and consulting expertise. We help clients in more than 175 countries capitalize on insights from their data, streamline business processes, reduce costs and gain the competitive edge in their industries. Thousands of government and corporate entities in critical infrastructure areas such as financial services, telecommunications and healthcare rely on IBM's hybrid cloud platform and Red Hat OpenShift to affect their digital transformations quickly, efficiently and securely. IBM's breakthrough innovations in AI, quantum computing, industry-specific cloud solutions and consulting deliver open and flexible options to our clients. All of this is backed by IBM's long-standing commitment to trust, transparency, responsibility, inclusivity, and service. Visit www.ibm.com for more information.
Media contact:
Gregor Hastings
IBM EMEA Communications
gregor.hastings@ibm.com
Die Innenministerkonferenz (IMK) der Länder hat ihr seit 1954 praktiziertes Einstimmigkeitsprinzip aufgegeben und setzt künftig auf Mehrheitsentscheidungen. Beschlüsse gelten nun als gemeinsame Linie der Länder, wenn mindestens 13 der 16 Innenministerinnen und Innenminister zustimmen. Die Neuregelung wurde nach Angaben eines Sprechers des Gremiums im schriftlichen Umlaufverfahren beschlossen und gilt ab sofort.
Auslöser für den Kurswechsel ist die Möglichkeit, dass in kommenden Landesregierungen die AfD das Innenressort übernehmen könnte. In Sachsen-Anhalt hatte ihr Spitzenkandidat Ulrich Siegmund zuletzt erklärt, er wolle sich im Dezember zum Ministerpräsidenten wählen lassen – ein Schritt, der eine Regierungsbildung mit AfD-Beteiligung als realistische Option erscheinen lässt. Nach der bisherigen Praxis hätte ein Land mit einem AfD-Innenminister im Zweifel IMK-Beschlüsse blockieren können.
Mit der Abkehr von der Einstimmigkeit wollen die übrigen Länder nach übereinstimmenden Angaben verhindern, dass ein einzelnes Ressort – unabhängig von der parteipolitischen Farbe – zentrale Positionierungen in Fragen der inneren Sicherheit ausbremst. Bislang sollte die Einstimmigkeit sicherstellen, dass kein Land bei sensiblen Themen überstimmt wird; ein Veto oder auch eine Enthaltung konnten Beschlüsse stoppen, abweichende Positionen wurden im Protokoll dokumentiert. Künftig soll bereits eine breite, aber nicht mehr vollständige Zustimmung als ausreichend gelten, um einen länderübergreifenden Standpunkt zu formulieren.
Formal bleibt die IMK ein informelles Gremium ohne gesetzliche Grundlage. Sie ist weder im Grundgesetz noch in Bundes- oder Landesgesetzen verankert und verfügt über keine geschriebene Geschäftsordnung. Gleichwohl entfalten ihre Beschlüsse beträchtliche Wirkung, weil sie in den Ländern politisch aufgegriffen und umgesetzt werden. Mit der nun eingeführten Mehrheitsregel verschiebt sich das Machtgefüge innerhalb dieser Runde: Konsens bleibt möglich, ist aber nicht mehr Voraussetzung dafür, dass die Innenminister gemeinsam handeln.