The Collective insights

With tech leaders publicly urging a slowdown in AI development until adequate safety guardrails are in place, the question is no longer whether artificial intelligence needs governing - but how, and how to do it well.

Good AI governance may not be glamorous, but it could determine which organisations make the most of AI. That was one of the key messages from Kate Jones, CEO of the Digital Regulation Cooperation Forum (DRCF), in her keynote speech at our recent AI Agenda conference.

In September, we hosted AI Agenda 2026, bringing together senior leaders, legal experts and innovators to explore what it takes to adopt AI safely, strategically and at scale. The conversation has moved beyond what AI might do to how organisations are actually using it, and this edition reflects the themes and discussions that emerged throughout the day.

Despite its reputation for softness, a particular kind of optimism is the most useful thing a leader can bring to bear in times of uncertainty. 

As organisations move from AI experimentation to implementation, the questions they face are equally changing: decisions about which tools to test or where AI might create efficiencies quickly become questions about how work should be organised, who should make decisions, where accountability sits and how people experience the change. At the same time, the longer-term impact of AI on jobs, skills and organisational structures remains uncertain, leaving leaders with important choices about how that transformation should unfold.

Much of the debate about AI and work has traditionally focused on capability: what the technology can do, which tasks it can automate and how quickly organisations can adopt it. But as organisations move from adoption to embedding, and from pilots to integration, the most important questions are shifting from what AI can do to what organisations choose to do with it. 

A new state-backed fund promises capital, supercomputing power, and fast-tracked visas for AI start-ups. Here is what leaders need to know.

Until now, corporate criminal liability in England and Wales has been notoriously hard to pin on a company itself. Prosecutors had the tough job of proving that the individuals representing the “directing mind and will” of the company intended the wrongdoing. If anything, that meant blame often “rolled downhill”: an individual got charged, the company walked away, and the corporate culture that produced the conduct was never on trial.

Intellectual property has long been recognised as a critical business asset, but the way organisations think about IP, and the expectations placed on those responsible for it, are changing. For many businesses, IP strategy is no longer something that sits quietly in the background until a filing deadline, dispute or transaction arises. Instead, it is becoming a visible part of how leadership teams think about growth, brand investment and risk.

For many years, the gender gap has been discussed primarily through the language of equality, representation and fairness. While these remain essential values, they no longer capture the full scale of what is at stake.