Organizations are increasingly considering AI as a leading tool for verifying risk information, as incidents involving false or misleading content continue to impact operations, according to new research from International SOS.
The Risk Outlook 2026 Pulse Check, a mid-year consideration of the most pressing concerns identified by risk professionals, found that nearly 60% of respondents believe the greatest potential for AI is in verifying or validating information across multiple sources.
However, the findings also highlight growing concerns around misinformation and deception. More than four in ten respondents (42%) report that their organization has either been affected by, or lacks sufficient visibility to determine the impact of, false, misleading, or unverified information related to health, wellbeing, or security risks. Respondents cited fake signals creating operational uncertainty, synthetic content increasing credibility risks, and targeted deception and impersonation.
“The potential is real, but so too is the risk of overestimating the maturity of current tools,” commented Cvete Koneska, Global Security Director at International SOS. “While AI can help surface, synthesise, and prioritise information at speed, verification remains a high-stakes task where careful human judgement remains indispensable, particularly when decisions can impact people’s health, safety, and security. Misplaced reliance on AI at this stage can amplify misinformation risks and delay critical decisions rather than improve them. The most prudent approach is a human-led model of integrating AI into risk management.”
The findings also point to broader structural challenges in organizational risk response, with clarity of responsibility and decision-making processes emerging as significant concerns.
Only ten% of organizations say they can respond ‘very quickly’ to new risks. While 68% believe that they respond ‘fairly quickly’, this may not be sufficient in an increasingly volatile operating environment. One in five organizations (20%) admit they are ‘not quick to respond at all’.
The research also exposes uncertainty within risk governance structures:
- 17% are unclear about what happens next when new risks emerge.
- One-quarter (25%) are unclear about escalation triggers.
- Only around 20% report being very clear on how global and local responses align.
These gaps can contribute to duplicated effort, inconsistent action, increased pressure on teams, and a greater risk of employee burnout during crisis situations.
“The biggest barriers are not about awareness of risk, but at the point of decision,” said James Wood, Security Director, Northern Europe at International SOS. “Organizations are often structured for stability, not volatility. That slows action when speed matters most.”
