As the United Arab Emirates continues to lead in the rapid integration of artificial intelligence across its public and private sectors, a new report from International SOS—the Risk Outlook 2026 Pulse Check—highlights a complex duality in how organizations perceive this technological shift. While AI is being embraced as a transformative tool for navigating increasingly volatile global landscapes, it simultaneously introduces unprecedented vulnerabilities. The survey reveals that 60% of risk professionals view AI’s primary utility as a mechanism for verifying and validating information from disparate sources, positioning it as a cornerstone for modern risk management strategies in a data-saturated world.
Despite the prevailing optimism surrounding AI’s analytical potential, the research exposes a significant “reliability gap” that keeps corporate leaders on edge. More than 40% of organizations surveyed reported that they have either been directly impacted by false or misleading information—spanning health, safety, and security domains—or lack the visibility to assess the extent of the damage. This concern is particularly acute in the UAE, where cybersecurity experts have identified AI-driven disinformation and synthetic media as existential threats. The ability of deepfakes and impersonation tools to disrupt operational continuity and erode organizational trust has become a focal point for security planners.
Experts emphasize that the promise of AI must be tempered by a cautious, human-centric approach. Cvete Koneska, Global Security Director at International SOS, notes that while AI excels at synthesizing vast datasets, it cannot replace human intuition and verification. Over-reliance on automated systems without human oversight risks amplifying misinformation, potentially delaying or distorting high-stakes decision-making. The report warns that blindly trusting AI-generated insights could leave organizations vulnerable to deception, underscoring that human expertise remains the essential final filter in any sophisticated risk management protocol.
The stakes are further heightened by the emergence of “digital biowarfare,” a term used by Global Medical Director Irene Lai to describe the malicious use of deepfakes in the healthcare sector. During disease outbreaks, AI-generated videos featuring fake medical professionals can spread dangerous health misinformation at scale. This phenomenon represents a new frontier in public safety threats, where information itself becomes a weapon capable of undermining emergency responses and public health efforts without the need for traditional physical agents.
Beyond the specific threats posed by AI, the study identifies a broader systemic struggle regarding organizational agility. The findings indicate that while companies are generally aware of potential risks, their internal governance structures remain insufficient. Only 10% of organizations surveyed feel capable of responding “very quickly” to emerging crises, while one in five admit to having no rapid response capability at all. This lack of agility often stems from outdated organizational designs that prioritize stability over the flexibility required to manage the volatility of the modern operating environment.
Finally, the report highlights significant structural deficiencies in risk governance that hinder effective action. A substantial portion of organizations lack clarity regarding escalation triggers and the synchronization between global and local response strategies. This ambiguity often results in duplicated efforts, inconsistent communication, and heightened employee burnout during critical incidents. As James Wood, Security Director for Northern Europe, points out, the challenge is no longer identifying threats, but executing timely, decisive action. For organizations to thrive, they must pivot away from rigid legacy structures and embrace more responsive, human-led frameworks that prioritize speed and clarity.