Meeting held: 11 June 2026
The AIGAS Advisory Board held its founding meeting on 11 June 2026, bringing together expertise from accounting technology, governance, operational risk, AI, cyber security and financial systems.
The meeting marked an important step in the development of the AI Governance Assurance Standard.
AIGAS was established to provide accounting firms with a practical and proportionate way to govern the AI they are already using. But a credible standard cannot develop from one perspective alone.
The role of the Advisory Board is therefore not simply to endorse AIGAS. It is to question it, challenge its assumptions and help ensure that the Standard remains practical, proportionate and capable of evolving alongside the technology and the profession.
Governance should enable AI, not prevent it
One of the central themes of the meeting was the positioning of AI governance itself.
AIGAS is based on the principle that good governance should enable firms to use AI with greater confidence rather than become another layer of compliance preventing innovation.
For many smaller accounting firms, words such as governance, assurance and risk management can sound disproportionately complex.
The Board discussed the importance of maintaining a practical approach built around visibility, professional responsibility and good “AI hygiene”.
The starting point remains simple: firms cannot govern AI effectively if they do not know where it is being used.
This principle is reflected in the free AIGAS AI Tool Register, which provides firms with a starting point for identifying the AI tools and AI-enabled software already present within their organisation.
Governance needs to reflect the reality of accounting firms
The Board considered the very different levels of governance maturity that exist between firms.
Some organisations already have established policies, risk frameworks and documented controls. Others — particularly smaller firms — may operate effectively but have significantly less formal documentation.
This reinforces an important design principle within AIGAS: governance must be proportionate.
The Standard should build on controls and processes firms already have wherever possible rather than require unnecessary new layers of administration.
The discussion also highlighted the difference between traditional compliance obligations and AI adoption.
AI is not simply another regulatory requirement being imposed upon firms. It is increasingly becoming part of the tools accountants use to deliver their work.
The challenge is therefore to help firms adopt AI safely while retaining professional judgement, accountability and appropriate human oversight.
Looking beyond risk to operational resilience
The Board also discussed the importance of considering operational resilience alongside traditional risk management.
Identifying an AI-related risk is only part of good governance. Firms also need to consider what happens when a system fails, produces an incorrect result, becomes unavailable, or operates in a way that was not expected.
As AI becomes increasingly integrated into accounting software and business processes, resilience and contingency planning are likely to become increasingly important parts of effective AI governance.
This is an area that AIGAS will continue to consider as the Standard develops.
AI literacy and training
Training and AI literacy were another important area of discussion.
Governance controls alone are unlikely to be effective if the people using AI do not understand the risks, limitations and responsibilities associated with it.
The Board considered the growing importance of AI literacy, professional education and structured learning as AI adoption increases.
AIGAS is developing training alongside the Standard so that governance is not simply documented within policies, but understood by the people expected to apply it.
Protecting independence as AIGAS grows
The Board also considered the longer-term governance structure of AIGAS itself.
An assurance standard must be capable of demonstrating appropriate independence and managing potential conflicts between standard-setting, assessment and commercial implementation services.
The meeting therefore considered how the organisational structure surrounding AIGAS should develop as adoption grows.
Different models for increasing structural independence were discussed, alongside the importance of maintaining clear separation between the Standard and organisations providing implementation or consulting services.
This is an area AIGAS will continue to develop as part of its wider governance model.
Just as AIGAS asks firms to demonstrate good governance, AIGAS must be capable of demonstrating good governance itself.
Reviewing Version 1 of the Standard
The Board began its review of the first published version of the AIGAS Standard and discussed its scope, structure, practicality and evidence requirements.
There was support for the principle of a progressive governance pathway rather than expecting firms to move immediately to a complex enterprise-level framework.
The pathway starts with visibility through the AI Tool Register, progresses through AIGAS Bronze and Silver, and provides firms with a foundation from which they can consider standards such as ISO/IEC 42001 where appropriate.
The Board also considered how the Standard may need to evolve as different forms of AI become more distinct.
Generative AI tools, AI embedded within accounting software and increasingly autonomous or agentic systems may ultimately require different types of control and assurance.
The current approach remains intentionally broad and proportionate, but this distinction will continue to be considered as both the technology and the Standard mature.
Clear language matters
A surprisingly important area of discussion was terminology.
AI governance brings together language from technology, information security, risk management, compliance, data protection and increasingly AI-specific regulation.
Without consistent definitions, the same term can mean different things to different organisations.
The Board therefore identified the need for clearer and more consistent terminology across AIGAS and for a formal AIGAS glossary.
That work will help firms, service providers and software vendors use a common language when discussing AI governance.
Connecting the Standard to a working platform
The Board was also shown development work on the AIGAS platform.
The aim is for AIGAS to be more than a document that sits on a website.
Firms should be able to identify their AI tools, assess their governance position, record evidence, understand gaps and progressively improve their governance within a living system.
The free AI Tool Register forms the starting point, while the platform is being developed to support the Bronze and Silver assurance pathways.
This connection between the Standard, evidence and practical implementation remains an important part of the AIGAS approach.
What happens next
The founding meeting identified a number of areas for continued development.
These include further review of the Standard by Advisory Board members, refinement of terminology and definitions, continued development of the AIGAS governance and independence model, development of AI literacy and training, and continued evolution of the platform supporting the Standard.
The Advisory Board will meet periodically to review progress, consider proposed changes and challenge the direction of the Standard.
As AIGAS develops, we intend to publish summaries of these meetings and significant changes to the Standard so that firms, service providers, vendors and other stakeholders can see how the framework is evolving.
AIGAS is intended to be a living standard.
AI will change. The risks will change. Accounting firms will change.
The governance framework needs to evolve with them.
Learn more about the AIGAS Advisory Board →