If you’ve ever watched a board discussion derail because the risk data didn’t answer the question the board was actually asking, you’re not alone. Most risk programs still produce risk information — but not always risk decisions. Spreadsheets and static heatmaps can tell you what’s “high” or “medium.” They rarely tell you:

: risk expressed as decisions in motion — in the language of money, time and outcomes. And AI is accelerating this shift fast. Research from the 

 shows the same pressure building at board level: directors want clearer risk narratives, faster insight and more strategic time — not more reporting.

CROs are increasingly expected to provide the golden thread: a connected view that ties strategy to risk, controls, audit and board oversight across the enterprise. The reality is that most organizations are still running GRC like a set of disconnected tools — risk here, audit there, third-party risk somewhere else, reporting stitched together in PowerPoint. AI changes what’s possible, but only if it’s applied to the right problem: turning fragmented risk signals into decision-ready narratives. Directors are already working this way: 

84% have strengthened their scenario planning

47% want more structured full‑board risk discussions

 — clear signals that fragmented risk data no longer meets the bar.

AI-native risk quantification and cyber in plain language

Boards don’t debate “likelihood scores.” They debate trade-offs:

Are we accepting exposure to move faster?

Are we over-controlling and slowing growth?

Which risk reduction actually changes outcomes?

That’s why AI-driven quantification is becoming table stakes. With native AI built into your 

, risk leaders can translate complex risk models into:

Financial impact (expected loss, downside ranges)

Time impact (operational delay, recovery windows)

Objective-based metrics (which strategic outcomes are threatened)

Cyber risk is a prime example. Attack surfaces are expanding, and AI-enabled threats are increasing both speed and sophistication. CROs and CISOs need to communicate cyber exposure as a business decision, not a technical briefing. 

AI helps bridge that gap: quantification and plain-language narratives that help boards make informed choices without oversimplifying. 

Third‑party risk is evolving fast. Yet with AI embedded into your systems, such as with 

, CROs get continuous third‑party intelligence instead of static questionnaires. Think dynamic scoring, AI‑driven due diligence and constant screening across ownership, sanctions and reputation. It’s a live view of exposure that plugs straight into enterprise risk and scales globally through a unified GRC portal.

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 

Audit is also changing from episodic checking to responsive, continuous assurance. 

Run next‑gen control assessments more continuously across second and third lines

Suggest key risk and control indicators and focus areas based on patterns and anomalies

Accelerate documentation and reporting narratives

That doesn’t remove the human from the process. It elevates the humans in the loop. Instead of spending cycles on manual evidence chasing, CROs, CAEs and their teams can spend time where it matters:

AI becomes the co-author of the program — and humans remain the editors, judges and decision-makers.

Building a risk “system of action” on a single platform

Here’s where the shift becomes structural.

The future of GRC isn’t better spreadsheets or prettier dashboards. It’s 

 — a platform where risk, audit, compliance and third-party signals inform each other in real time. That’s what “system of action” really means:

Narratives update as the risk landscape changes

Controls, tests and evidence stay connected to the decision they support

I-native capabilities in a unified GRC system

, CROs and auditors can move from describing risk to operationalizing risk management — continuously and credibly.

When boards receive quantified, AI-powered risk views — expressed in the material terms of the boardroom — directors shift from passive oversight to active participation in trade-offs. That shift reflects what directors themselves are asking for: 

40% say AI-powered technology would improve oversight, 47% want more structured risk discussions, and 42% want fewer presentations and more debate.

 plugs into the boardroom — flowing enterprise risk data, benchmarks and AI insights into a single, consistent board view. Consequently, the CRO helps shape board discussions with:

Clear “if we do X, we reduce Y” framing

That’s how risk becomes a strategic tool — not a quarterly presentation.

Turn every risk signal into a board‑ready decision

Quantification, scenarios, third‑party intelligence, continuous assurance — all in one connected system. See how leading CROs are operationalizing risk with 

How CROs are turning GRC into a system of action with AI

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?

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

How CROs are turning GRC into a system of action with AI

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

Your Data Matters