Four Stakeholders You Need to Satisfy on AI Security

The question has changed.

Twelve months ago, stakeholders were asking: “Are you using AI?” Today, with 70% of knowledge workers acknowledging weekly AI use, that question is redundant. The new question is more pointed: “Can you prove your AI is secure?”

This shift matters because it changes what organisations need to demonstrate. It’s no longer enough to have an AI strategy or a pilot programme. Stakeholders want evidence of governance, controls and oversight. They want proof.

But “stakeholders” isn’t a single, homogenous group. Different people are asking for different things, with different levels of urgency and different consequences for getting it wrong.

Who's Asking About Your AI Security?

The four key stakeholders

Board & Executives

• "What's our AI risk exposure?"
• "Do we have adequate governance?"
• "Are we ready for AI regulation?"

Customers & Procurement

• "Do you have an AI policy?"
• "Is our data used for AI training?"
• "What AI controls do you have?"

Auditors

• "Show us your AI risk assessments"
• "Evidence your AI controls"
• "Document your AI governance"

Regulators

• "Classify your AI systems"
• "Demonstrate AI Act compliance"
• "Report AI incidents"

We help you answer all of them with confidence.

Get Started

Let’s examine what each group is really asking for and what you need to demonstrate.

1. Board and Executives

What they’re asking:

• What’s our AI risk exposure?
• Do we have adequate governance?
• Are we ready for AI regulation?

What they need:

Board members and executives need strategic assurance. They’re accountable for organisational risk and increasingly aware that AI creates new categories of exposure: data leakage, regulatory non-compliance, reputational damage from AI failures, as well as security vulnerabilities in AI-powered systems.

They don’t need technical details. They need confidence that someone owns this challenge, is managing this properly and that they’ll know about problems before they become crises.

How to respond:

Establish clear AI governance with board-level visibility. This means documented policies, defined ownership, regular risk reporting and evidence collection that prove controls are working. Many organisations find that our AI Security Programmes help establish the right governance structures and communication cadences.

A starting point is often an AI Security Gap Analysis that gives the board a clear picture of current state and a prioritised roadmap for improvement.

2. Customers and Procurement

What they’re asking:

• Do you have an AI policy?
• Is our data used for AI training?
• What AI controls do you have?

What they need:

Third-party risk management has expanded to include AI. Platforms like Risk Ledger now include dedicated AI domains in their supplier assessments, asking questions about AI policies, risk assessments, data handling and human oversight.

Customers want to know that their data is protected when you use AI and that your AI usage won’t create risks that flow back to them. Procurement teams are increasingly adding AI Security requirements to vendor assessments and contract renewals.

How to respond: You need documented AI policies, completed risk assessments and clear answers to the questions being asked. This isn’t optional - failing to respond adequately erodes trust and can cost you contracts.

An AI Security Gap Analysis identifies what documentation you need and what you may be missing. For organisations facing ongoing questionnaire requirements, an AI Security Programme provides continuous governance and audit readiness, including support for third-party risk assessments.

3. Auditors

What they’re asking:

• Show us your AI risk assessments
• Evidence your AI controls
• Document your AI governance

What they need:

Internal and external auditors are expanding their scope to include AI systems. They want documented evidence: policies, risk assessments, risk registers, control testing, incident records and governance meeting minutes.

The challenge is that traditional audit frameworks weren’t designed for AI. Auditors are adapting, but organisations need to meet them with evidence that demonstrates systematic governance rather than ad-hoc controls.

How to respond:

Build auditable AI governance from the start. This means documented policies, risk assessments with clear methodology, evidence of control implementation and testing, and records of governance decisions.

ISO 42001 Implementation provides a recognised AI Management System (AIMS) framework that auditors understand and respect. For organisations not ready for full certification, an AI Security Gap Analysis will identify the documentation foundation that auditors need to see.

4. Regulators

What they’re asking:

• Classify your AI systems
• Demonstrate AI Act compliance
• Report AI incidents

What they need: The EU AI Act is now in force, with requirements being phased in through 2025 and 2026. UK organisations serving EU customers or operating in EU markets need to comply. The UK is developing its own approach, with sector regulators increasingly issuing AI-specific guidance and a UK AI Act to follow.

Regulators want to see that you properly understand your AI risks, that you’ve implemented appropriate controls for each risk category and that you have processes for ongoing compliance as requirements evolve.

How to respond:

Start with risk classification. Understand which AI systems you operate, how they’re used and what risk category they fall into under the AI Act. Then build compliance programmes proportionate to identified risks.

AI Act Preparedness services help organisations navigate classification, build compliance roadmaps and prepare the documentation regulators expect. For organisations wanting a comprehensive management system, ISO 42001 Implementation provides a framework that aligns with regulatory expectations.

The common thread: evidence

Across all four stakeholder groups, the requirement is the same: evidence that you have systematic AI governance in place and that it’s working.

This is the shift organisations need to make. The question is no longer “Are you thinking about AI Security?” It’s “Can you prove your AI is secure?”

The organisations that thrive will be those that can answer “yes” with confidence, backed by documentation, controls and evidence that satisfies every stakeholder asking the question.

These organisations are the ones that build service user trust and win and retain new business.

Where to start

If you’re not sure where you stand, an AI Security Gap Analysis provides a clear baseline: what you have, what you’re missing and what to prioritise. It gives you an AI Security Scorecard that answers stakeholder questions and the roadmap to close critical gaps.

For organisations already under pressure — facing questionnaires, board scrutiny or regulatory deadlines — get in touch to discuss how we can help you respond with confidence.