11 November 2026
As artificial intelligence becomes embedded across the UK economy, an important question is emerging: how do we establish genuine confidence that AI is being developed, deployed and used responsibly?
Answering that question requires more than technical testing or regulatory compliance. It requires trusted governance, professional accountability and a consistent approach to AI assurance across industries.
On 11 November 2026, Sal Nasser, Founder and Chair of the AIGAS Standard, participated in the second meeting of the AI Assurance Stakeholder Consortium’s Industry Advisory Group, led by techUK.
The meeting forms part of a wider national initiative to strengthen the UK’s AI assurance profession and establish the foundations for trustworthy AI adoption.
Following AIGAS’s participation in the inaugural Industry Advisory Group meeting in October, this continued engagement provides an opportunity to bring practical experience of AI governance into discussions extending far beyond the accountancy sector.
Helping shape a trusted AI assurance profession
The AI Assurance Stakeholder Consortium is led by BCS, The Chartered Institute for IT, as part of the UK Government’s Trusted Third-Party AI Assurance Roadmap.
techUK leads the Industry Advisory Group, bringing together expertise from organisations across the AI assurance ecosystem.
The initiative is concerned with establishing the foundations of a recognised profession, including professional competencies, ethical conduct, access to assurance evidence and greater consistency in how AI assurance is understood and delivered.
These are significant issues. As AI becomes more deeply integrated into business operations, organisations need to know not only whether an AI system performs as intended, but also whether those responsible for assessing it are competent, independent and accountable.
Effective assurance must provide meaningful confidence, rather than simply another certificate or compliance exercise.
Professional accountability must mean something
During the meeting, Sal raised an important question about the accountability mechanisms that should underpin a professional code of ethics.
Would professional registration simply involve agreeing to a code, or should there also be meaningful checks, complaints handling and disciplinary procedures?
It is an important distinction.
Professional ethics cannot rely entirely on statements of good intent. For assurance to command genuine trust, organisations and the public need confidence that practitioners are held to appropriate standards, that concerns can be raised and that accountability exists when those standards are not met.
This is particularly relevant to AI assurance, where assessments may influence consequential decisions about technology adoption, security, privacy and public safety.
The development of a trusted profession therefore needs to consider not just what practitioners know, but also how their competence and professional conduct are demonstrated.
This principle is also reflected in AIGAS’s own approach to developing its Certified Service Provider programme, which combines professional training, practical assessment and ongoing competency requirements.
Bringing real-world governance experience into the conversation
AIGAS was established to help organisations adopt and use AI responsibly, with an initial focus on accounting practices, bookkeepers and other professional-services firms.
Through the development of the AI Governance Assurance Standard, AIGAS has sought to translate governance principles into practical requirements that organisations can implement, evidence and maintain.
Our work includes helping firms understand which AI tools they use, assess the associated risks, establish accountability and demonstrate appropriate oversight.
The AIGAS governance framework and certification pathway provides a proportionate route from establishing visibility over AI usage to implementing structured governance and obtaining independent assurance.
These experiences highlight an important distinction that is relevant across industries.
An organisation can adopt an AI product that has undergone extensive technical testing and still introduce significant risks through the way it deploys or uses that product.
For example, a technically reliable AI system may still be used inappropriately, receive sensitive information without adequate safeguards, or generate outputs that are acted upon without sufficient human review.
Technical assurance and organisational governance are complementary. Neither replaces the other.
This distinction becomes increasingly important as businesses adopt AI systems developed by third parties, often with limited visibility of the underlying models or their development processes.
Through initiatives such as the AIGAS Verified Vendors programme, we are also working to improve transparency around AI capabilities and the information organisations need to make informed decisions about the products they use.
Although AIGAS began with accountancy, these governance challenges are shared across financial services, healthcare, education, manufacturing and the wider economy.
Bringing practical implementation experience into national discussions can help ensure that assurance approaches remain relevant to the organisations expected to apply them.
Building trust without creating unnecessary barriers
The UK’s ambition to strengthen AI assurance represents an important opportunity to support responsible innovation.
Trust and innovation should not be treated as opposing objectives. Well-designed governance provides organisations with the confidence to explore AI’s benefits while understanding and managing the associated risks.
But assurance must also be achievable.
Frameworks that are technically comprehensive but inaccessible to smaller organisations risk leaving significant parts of the economy behind.
At AIGAS, we believe effective governance should scale according to an organisation’s activities, risks and resources, while maintaining clear expectations for responsibility and accountability.
That philosophy also shapes our approach to helping firms put AI governance into practice: beginning with an understanding of existing AI usage, establishing appropriate controls and progressing towards stronger assurance as requirements develop.
A credible national approach to AI assurance should recognise that organisations vary considerably in size, technical expertise and the ways they use artificial intelligence.
The objective should be to make trustworthy AI achievable across the economy, not just within organisations that have substantial compliance budgets and dedicated technical teams.
AIGAS and the wider AI governance landscape
Our work with accounting practices provides a practical foundation, but our interest in responsible AI extends well beyond a single profession.
AI governance is becoming an increasingly important issue for every organisation adopting intelligent technologies. Building an effective assurance ecosystem will require collaboration between technical experts, professional bodies, policymakers, standards organisations and those working directly with businesses.
This collaborative approach is also reflected in the work of the AIGAS Advisory Board, whose most recent meeting focused on the practical experience of implementing and evidencing AI governance.
Participation in techUK’s Industry Advisory Group allows AIGAS to contribute to a wider national conversation, share experience from practical implementation and learn from expertise across the UK assurance community.
It also reinforces our commitment to ensuring that governance is not simply a theoretical exercise, but something organisations can understand, implement and demonstrate.
AIGAS welcomes the opportunity to play a constructive role in the ongoing development of a credible, effective and accessible AI assurance profession.
Because ultimately, trust in AI will not be achieved through principles alone. It must be supported by evidence, accountability and governance that works in practice.