ABBYY Study Finds Australian Business Leaders Disagree on Who Has Ultimate Responsibility When AI Goes Wrong
Research reveals strong human oversight, yet governance struggles to keep pace with AI adoption
New global research commissioned by ABBYY reveals that AI is delivering value across Australian organizations, but business leaders remain divided over who should ultimately answer when AI systems produce harmful or incorrect outputs.
The ABBYY Who Answers for AI: The Governance Gap report surveyed 1,200 senior managers in businesses of 100+ employees across the US, UK, France, Germany, Australia, and Singapore, and Opinium conducted the study. In Australia, views on responsibility spread evenly: 27% believe the organization using AI should bear responsibility, another 27% think it should be shared between the organization and the vendor, 17% point to the AI vendor alone, 15% name the individual or end user, and 14% look to policymakers and regulators.
Trust gaps reveal why accountability matters
Australian leaders show reasonable confidence in AI accuracy, with a net trust of 68% that AI produces accurate outputs. Confidence drops sharply around risk, however. Only 17% completely trust AI systems to operate without introducing unacceptable risks, and net trust for that question sits at 60%. With so many leaders uncertain that AI can operate safely, defining who answers for those risks becomes critical.
Concerns about output reliability reinforce this point. More than a quarter (28%) of Australian organizations flagged hallucinations leading to incorrect business decisions as an AI-related security risk, and 45% identified confidential data leakage as their top security concern.
Human oversight leads the way in Australia
Australia sets the global benchmark for human involvement, with 61% of business leaders saying humans review all important AI decisions before action is taken, the highest of any market surveyed. Yet gaps remain: 23% say human review happens only after AI decisions have been implemented, and 13% report no formal approach at all, meaning 26% of organizations using AI operate without meaningful human oversight.
Governance drives better outcomes
Effective governance is helping Australian organizations realize greater value from AI. More than three quarters (76%) have a formal AI governance framework in place, 75% say governance has made their AI initiatives more successful, and just 5% say it made them less successful. Among organizations with governance frameworks, 45% report that their AI initiatives exceeded expectations, and 64% found it easier to scale AI beyond the pilot stage.
Data quality remains the leading obstacle to stronger returns, with 22% of Australian leaders citing it as the biggest barrier to achieving greater ROI from AI.
Businesses are embracing AI, but our research shows that many are still struggling with key questions around accountability, governance and ROI. Senior management need to do a better job of communicating what their responsible AI policies are companywide. In addition, AI requires organizations to know where data comes from, whether it can be trusted, how it can be used, and where it is stored and processed. As data sovereignty grows in importance, a shift toward machine-readable controls that govern data throughout its lifecycle is required to ensure consistent compliance.
Roman Kilun, Chief Compliance Officer at ABBYY
Organizations we work with are moving beyond pilots and proofs of concept into execution, and clear frameworks and a shared understanding of responsibility are critical to building confidence in AI. At ABBYY, we’re committed to being transparent about our own governance approach and supporting customers on that journey.
Roman Kilun, Chief Compliance Officer at ABBYY
Access the full 2026 ABBYY report, Who Answers for AI: The Governance Gap, here for more information.
Find more information about how ABBYY improves data governance through the document AI standard DocLang, and its commitment to secure, transparent and resilient cloud services through its AI risk management policy and BSI C5 initiatives.
Methodology
Opinium research of 200 senior managers or above in companies of 100+ employees in the UK. Part of wider survey of 1,200 senior managers or above in companies of 100+ employees in the US, UK, France, Germany, Australia and Singapore. Research undertaken between 15 July – 3 August 2026.
