This article originally appeared in our February 12th edition of the Diligent Minute Newsletter. For more insights like these, delivered straight to your inbox, subscribe

 produced with our partners at Corporate Board Member, and the signals on risk oversight are impossible to miss. More than 200 corporate directors shared how they see the year ahead; their views reveal where boards are strengthening oversight and where blind spots still linger.

Key risk trends boards can’t ignore in 2026

From a risk oversight perspective, the story starts in a familiar place: the macro environment. A majority of directors cite a sharp downturn in the U.S. economy as the single biggest risk over the next few years, with “black swan” events and large-scale cyber incidents close behind. Economic conditions and government policy shifts top the broader risk landscape too, even as directors see technological disruption and M\&A as some of 

Boards are not standing still. Over the past five years, 84% say they’ve changed their approach to scenario planning, expanding the scope of scenarios they consider, increasing the time devoted to planning and broadening the range of geopolitical, technological and social risks they examine.

Some risk-oversight trends that stood out

 of directors cite a sharp downturn in the U.S. economy as a top organizational risk, and 

 worry most about a black swan event they haven’t yet scenario planned.

 include cyber events or data breaches in crisis exercises, 

 test for technology-related disruption and 

 say more frequent, structured risk discussions at the full-board level would most improve risk oversight, and 

 want a clearer link between risk and strategy.

 point to better use of AI-powered data and technology tools as a key lever to strengthen risk oversight.

 of directors view cybersecurity as a top organizational risk, even though cyber incidents are modeled in crisis planning more than any other scenario.

 say strengthening cyber and data‑privacy defenses is a priority for 2026.

AI and technology‑related regulation is expected to demand the most compliance attention this year, yet 

 of directors say it remains the most underestimated area of compliance oversight.

Upgrading the board’s risk oversight toolkit

Boards still lean most heavily on management reporting and updates from internal audit or the risk committee, but many say that isn’t enough in a world of always-on risk. They point to AI monitoring tools, 

 into strategy discussions, and more frequent engagement with external experts as the upgrades they need most.

Digital infrastructure is improving — nearly half of directors now receive real-time or near-real-time operational data between meetings — but many wish board time were more forward-looking, noting that risk and performance data are often used to monitor the present rather than reframe the future.

What emerges is a picture of boards working hard to catch up with the velocity of risk, but still wrestling with misalignment between what they rehearse, what they prioritize and how they equip themselves. Directors in this year’s survey point to the same set of needs: more structured risk discussions, clearer links between risk and strategy, better tools and analytics and ongoing education on emerging threats.

Risk oversight has to become a continuous discipline, not a periodic exercise. That means pairing richer scenarios and better data with more disciplined boardroom processes, so directors can anticipate disruptions, challenge assumptions and guide management through whatever “unimagined” risks come next.

What Directors Think: Are today’s tools enough for tackling tomorrow’s risks?

The role is shifting, even if the org chart hasn’t caught up.

You sit close to the decisions that guide how the organization moves. You translate emerging risks into insight leaders can act on, keep responsibilities clear, and anchor discussions in the right context. You often see implications long before they reach the board.

And the scope for GCs and CoSecs is expanding fast.

 Decisions are accelerating, risks are evolving, and directors expect sharper insight with less prep time. Your role 

has evolved from coordination to orchestration

, from reporting what happened to guiding what needs to happen next.

 report, produced in partnership with Corporate Board Member and based on responses from 200+ public company directors, reinforces that shift. Most directors want less time spent presenting and more time focused on strategic planning. That change raises the bar on how quickly GCs and CoSecs must turn signals into clear, board-ready insight.

Governance has always required precision, but the dynamics around it have changed. Boards want faster visibility into the risks that matter and expect decisions to come with clear context, not just well‑prepared materials. At the same time, the work behind the scenes has become more cross‑functional. Few issues sit neatly inside one team or one entity anymore.

53% of directors say they still don’t receive real‑time data between meetings.

 That gap makes it harder to connect emerging signals to the decisions that can’t wait. 

Connected governance is how teams close that gap. It turns scattered data into usable context instead of disconnected updates. AI plays a role here, bringing operational value. For AI to support governance, it must save time, reduce exposure, and improve decision quality in ways leaders can stand behind. 

66% of directors already use AI in their board work,

 but only 22% say they have clear processes guiding how it’s used. Connected governance addresses that by creating a consistent, secure flow of information that supports both speed and accountability. It isn’t a philosophy. It’s a practical way to keep work aligned when the pace increases and the stakes rise.

From static board materials to connected governance

For years, digital transformation in the boardroom meant shifting from paper to digital files.

The shift happening now is even larger. Governance is moving away from static artifacts like packs, minutes, and registers, and toward 

 that continuously turn inputs into action‑ready outputs. Information doesn’t just get stored. It 

moves into the moments where decisions happen

, links itself to related context, and becomes easier to reuse without rework.

That’s the difference between passive GRC, where insights sit inside folders, and active, connected governance, where insight shows up when it’s needed. For the GC or CoSec, it’s also the difference between “We have the documents” and “We have the story.”

How boards are governing with AI right now

The most useful way to think about AI in the boardroom isn’t “chatbots in the meeting.” It’s secure intelligence wrapped around governance workflows so teams can work smarter without risking confidentiality.

Here are the capabilities governance teams are relying on now.

1. Directors can research with depth without leaving the secure environment

Directors don’t want to hunt for context. They want to 

 grounded in the record. AI can support that by searching years of board and committee materials in seconds, responding in plain language, and tying answers back to source documents. 

AI removes the resource-sapping searches like “Can you find that slide from last year?” and shifts time toward more meaningful debate. It also closes a major risk gap: When directors can get answers inside a secure environment, they have little reason to turn to public AI tools that don’t protect sensitive governance records.

2. Meetings get captured, clarified, and actioned in the CoSec’s format

reshaping what happens during and after meetings

 by supporting the workflows CoSecs already use. The most useful capabilities can:

Act as an AI meeting assistant that recalls relevant decisions and context when a topic resurfaces

Highlight follow-ups as discussion evolves

Turn the end-of-meeting scramble into a clean, trackable workflow

This doesn’t replace the corporate secretary’s judgment. It protects it by removing manual work that limits time for nuance, quality control, and defensibility. Curious how these workflows look in practice? See them in action with a 

3. Planning and diligence become intelligent instead of manual

When governance spans committees, entities, transactions, and multiple executive owners, coordination becomes a risk of its own. Deadlines slip, dependencies get missed, and critical work lands too late. 

 can map topics across the board year, optimize sequencing across committees, and balance availability so the right work reaches the right people at the right time.

In sensitive situations like transactions, investigations, or regulatory reviews, 

 can analyze documents, surface patterns, flag anomalies, and cut the manual effort behind complex evidence trails. This is where governance starts to feel less like document management and more like decision readiness. 

4. Subsidiary governance, connected to board workflows

 is where time disappears. Approvals bounce between inboxes, signatures stall, documents land in different places, signing authority knowledge resides in colleagues’ heads, and visibility breaks down. By the time an audit‑ready trail is assembled for regulators or external counsel, the business has already moved on.

 directly into the board workflow changes that experience. When both operate in the same flow, teams can:

Run approvals and resolutions through consistent templates

Route signatures cleanly with fewer follow-ups

Archive documents automatically in the right structure

Link decisions to accurate entity context without guesswork 

This is where the idea of a system of action, not just a system of record, becomes real. Entity data stops being a static registry and becomes a predictive governance engine that supports faster decisions, clearer accountability, and fewer compliance surprises.

Join the leaders shaping what’s next in GRC. Elevate 2026 gives you the insights, playbooks and AI know‑how to lead with confidence this year.

Lead with AI in 2026

The GC as conductor of risk and AI governance

One of the biggest structural shifts across organizations is that risk and compliance functions are increasingly rolling up into legal. That puts GCs in a unique position. They’re being asked to prove AI’s operational impact while also owning the enterprise risk narrative in board-ready language.

visibility, alignment, and a clean flow of information between teams.

 When risk insights can move directly into board planning and materials, it becomes easier to spot patterns early and coordinate cross-functional responses before issues escalate. Instead of stitching together competing updates, the GC can present a unified picture of what matters and what’s changing.

The result is a board that gets one story, not fragmented signals. And the GC becomes the connector who turns governance into forward momentum.

What leading GCs and CoSecs are doing now 

If you want to turn AI-enabled governance from interesting to measurable, start here.

Define acceptable use, guardrails and approved tools

Move directors away from ad hoc public AI usage toward secure, governance‑grade environments

Clarify accountability so AI supports judgment instead of replacing it

Boards, entities, risk, investigations — map where context gets lost and where teams re‑create work. Then:

Connect the flows that feed board decision‑making

Establish a single narrative for risk and performance, not competing dashboards

Reduce handoffs that introduce delay and ambiguity

3. Pilot one AI‑heavy workflow and measure it

Start where the administrative load is highest and the impact is easiest to prove:

Track cycle‑time reduction, rework eliminated, and improvements in risk visibility. Small pilots with clear metrics build momentum fast.

The real advantage: Cohesive intelligence beats scattered tools.

Most governance teams don’t need more AI experiments. They need fewer, better workflows that connect the work, protect confidentiality, and make outcomes easier to measure.

That’s where cohesive intelligence wins — not because it’s louder or more ambitious, but because it’s easier to operationalize across boards, entities and risk.

When governance inputs and board decisions 

, it becomes easier to see what matters early, reduce rework, and keep decisions grounded in reliable context.

And at the center of this shift is a simple truth: the GC and CoSec sit at the intersection of every meaningful signal. When governance, risk and compliance all move through the same connected flow, these leaders don’t just keep pace with change. They guide it — and they guide it better together.

Ready to turn connected governance into a concrete action plan? 

Download our AI-powered governance checklist for corporate secretaries

 and see the exact steps to modernize board, entity and risk workflows with AI.

Better together: The new era of connected governance for GCs and CoSecs

Consider what unfolded in a single fortnight in January: The United States signaled intensified interest in the Arctic, prompting Denmark to include a NATO ally in its threat assessment for the first time. China expanded military exercises in the South China Sea, testing regional supply chain assumptions. Ukraine's conflict entered a new phase as European leaders debated security guarantees independent of Washington. Venezuela's political crisis deepened, affecting energy markets and regional stability. At Davos, leaders from middle powers – Canada, the EU and others – called for renewed multilateral cooperation as traditional alliance structures showed strain. Meanwhile, trade policy announcements and reversals arrived within hours, not quarters.

For any corporate board still conducting quarterly geopolitical reviews, these two weeks should serve as a wake-up call. The world now moves faster than board calendars.

Directors recognize the problem - but haven't solved it

Diligent Institute and Corporate Board Member's 

 survey reveals that boards understand the risk landscape has fundamentally changed. Eighty-four percent of directors report strengthening their scenario planning approach in some way. Nearly half have increased time spent on scenario planning and 49% have expanded the scope of scenarios considered. These are meaningful investments in risk oversight.

Yet 71% of directors do not incorporate geopolitical conflicts into their crisis planning scenarios, a significant gap given current volatility. Meanwhile, less than a third of directors worry most about "a black swan event we have not scenario planned."

The problem isn't effort — it's rhythm. Boards are investing more time, but the cadence remains periodic rather than continuous. Most directors receive real-time data only "sometimes," "rarely," or "never" between meetings. That means many boards are reacting to last quarter's world rather than today's.

From periodic to continuous: The shift required

Directors themselves are signaling the need for change. According to the survey, 47% want more frequent and structured risk discussions at the full-board level, and 32% seek clearer linkage between risk oversight and strategy setting. The survey also found that directors want their agendas balanced toward forward-looking discussions, yet most meetings remain retrospective.

When tariffs can be announced – and reversed – within hours, when regional conflicts escalate overnight, when alliance structures shift in days, quarterly snapshots become dangerously stale. Geopolitical risk assessment must shift from a calendar-driven exercise to an "always-on" discipline.

I’m based in Silicon Valley, where we seemingly have an app for 

. I believe that technology can help close the gap between the speed of geopolitical change and the pace of board oversight. Indeed, a quarter of directors surveyed also think enhanced use of AI-powered data and technology tools would most improve risk oversight. Yet only 23% regularly use such tools to support strategic decision-making, and 40% don't use AI at all for this purpose.

Imagine a "Geopolitical Intelligence Brief" – a company could create a proprietary LLM with the last 10 years of quarterly and annual reports and press releases, updated weekly, and partner with an AI company to create an app that continuously monitors global headlines, generating an automated morning alert for the board and senior leadership. Each alert would identify two or three potential implications for the company's specific business lines, markets, or exposures. Not definitive answers, but prompted questions: "Given overnight developments in [region], consider reviewing [exposure], [contract], [supply chain node]." This horizon scanning exercise would then connect dots between macro events and micro business implications – and notify management for a further discussion if warranted. Or the app could be queried about the effects of a certain geopolitical scenario on revenues or supply. This isn't about replacing human judgment – it's about ensuring directors have current information in a timely fashion when judgment is required.

Identify a few discrete issues – maybe tariffs, maybe technology, maybe distribution – where advance preparation for some kind of asymmetry will create a market opportunity, and plan for that eventuality.

Establish a geopolitical monitoring cadence between meetings: 

Designate responsibility for weekly or bi-weekly briefings to the board – even a single-page summary keeps directors current.

In this era of polycrisis, build compound scenarios: 

Combine geopolitical shocks with cyber, supply chain or economic triggers – because in the real world, crises don't arrive one at a time.

The difference between boards that preserve value and those that destroy it will increasingly be decided before a geopolitical event occurs – not after. This January's rapid-fire developments compressed what would historically unfold over months into days. This year, the question isn't whether your company will be affected by geopolitical disruption. The question is whether your board will see it coming – and whether you'll have time to act. Quarterly reviews assess yesterday's risks while today's threats materialise in real-time. The boards that thrive will be those that treat geopolitics not as background noise, but as a continuous strategic variable requiring always-on attention.

Diligent

Blog

What Directors Think: Are today’s tools enough for tackling tomorrow’s risks?

Better together: The new era of connected governance for GCs and CoSecs

Your Data Matters