International Journal of Computational and Electronic Aspects in Engineering
Volume 7 · Issue 3 · July 2026 · pp. 95-101
Special Issue of National Conference on Emerging Innovative Trends in Computer Applications
Research Article · Peer Reviewed
Received: June 10, 2026 · Accepted: July 20, 2026 · Published: 31 July 2026
DOI: 10.26706/ijceae.7.4.20260714
Open Access · CC BY 4.0

Managing Societal Risks of Artificial Intelligence through Governance Frameworks

Sejal N. Waghe*, Anam J. Sayyad, Shweta S. Pandey, Gulnaj R. Pathan
MCA, Suryodaya College of Engineering & Technology, Nagpur, India.

*Corresponding author: sejalwaghe2201@gmail.com
Download PDF Cite this article Certificate Volume 7 Issue 3

Abstract

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become an essential part of modern society, influencing sectors such as healthcare, finance, education and public administration. While it improves efficiency and supports large-scale decision-making, it also introduces significant societal risks, including algorithmic bias, lack of transparency, weak accountability and data privacy concerns. This paper examines these risks and highlights the importance of governance frameworks in managing them effectively. The study is based on a systematic review of existing literature, research articles and policy guidelines. The findings indicate that many AI-related challenges arise not only from technical limitations but also from gaps in governance and regulatory mechanisms. The paper concludes that strong, flexible and well-defined governance frameworks are essential for ensuring responsible AI use. Such frameworks should integrate ethical principles, regulatory compliance and technical safeguards to reduce risks and build trust in AI systems.

Keywords

Artificial Intelligence Societal Risks AI Governance Governance Frameworks Ethical Challenges Algorithmic Bias Transparency Accountability Data Privacy Responsible AI

References

  1. 1. A. Batool et al. , “AI governance: A systematic review,” AI Ethics, 2025.
  2. 2. L. Floridi et al. , “Ethical foundations for AI,” Minds and Machines, 2018.
  3. 3. A. Jobin et al. , “Global AI ethics guidelines,” Nature Machine Intelligence, 2019.
  4. 4. B. Mittelstadt , “AI ethics limitations,” Nature Machine Intelligence, 2019.
  5. 5. OECD , “AI principles,” 2019.
  6. 6. UNESCO , “AI ethics recommendations,” 2021.
  7. 7. K. Rajasekaran , “Enterprise AI governance,” IJCESE, 2024.
  8. 8. M. Al Bagiro et al. , “AI in cybersecurity,” IJCESE, 2025.
  9. 9. Y. Kumar , “Data governance in AI,” IJCESE, 2026.
  10. 10. A. Kelkar , “AI and corporate governance,” IJCESE, 2025.
  11. 11. A. Kumar et al. , “AI cryptographic governance,” IJISAE, 2024.
  12. 12. European Commission , “Trustworthy AI,” 2019.
  13. 13. N. Corrêa et al. , “AI governance survey,” 2022.
  14. 14. B. Christian , The Alignment Problem. 2020.
  15. 15. J. Birch , “AI risk ethics,” 2024.
  16. 16. OECD , “OECD report on AI governance,” Tech. Rep., 2020.
  17. 17. IEEE , “Ethically aligned design,” 2019.
  18. 18. Google , “Google AI principles report,” 2020.
  19. 19. Microsoft , “Microsoft responsible AI report,” 2021.
  20. 20. IBM , “IBM AI Ethics Board report,” 2022.
  21. 21. World Bank , “World Bank AI governance report,” 2021.
  22. 22. MIT , “MIT AI policy study,” 2022.
  23. 23. Stanford University , “Stanford AI Index report,” 2023.
  24. 24. Harvard University , “Harvard AI governance study,” 2022.
  25. 25. NITI Aayog , “NITI Aayog AI strategy,” India, 2021.
  26. 26. ACM , “ACM AI ethics guidelines,” 2018.
  27. 27. European Union , “EU AI Act proposal,” 2021.
  28. 28. UK Government , “UK AI regulation policy,” 2022.
  29. 29. National Governance Committee for the New Generation Artificial Intelligence , “China AI governance principles,” 2021.
  30. 30. World Economic Forum , “World Economic Forum AI report,” 2022.
  31. 31. R. Raji et al. , “Closing the AI accountability gap: Defining an end-to-end framework for internal algorithmic auditing,” in Proc. ACM Conf. Fairness, Accountability, Transpar. (FAccT), 2020, pp. 33–44.
  32. 32. S. Wachter, B. Mittelstadt, and L. Floridi , “Why a right to explanation of automated decision-making does not exist in the General Data Protection Regulation,” International Data Privacy Law, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 76–99, 2017.
  33. 33. V. Dignum , “Responsible artificial intelligence: Designing AI for human values,” IT Professional, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 78–82, 2019.
  34. 34. T. Hagendorff , “The ethics of AI ethics: An evaluation of guidelines,” Minds and Machines, vol. 30, pp. 99–120, 2020.
  35. 35. B. Kim, R. Khanna, and O. Koyejo , “Examples are not enough, learn to criticize! Criticism for interpretability,” in Proc. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. (NeurIPS), 2016.