International SOS highlights AI’s double-edged role in security management

The Risk Outlook 2026 Pulse Check, itself a mid-year deep dive into the most pressing concerns identified by risk professionals, finds that nearly 60% of respondents view 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 every ten respondents (42%, in fact) report that their organisation has either been affected by – or lacks sufficient visibility to determine – the impact of false, misleading or unverified information related to health, well-being or security risks. Respondents cited fake signals creating operational uncertainty, synthetic content increasing credibility risks and targeted deception and impersonation.

Potential is real

“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 so when decisions can impact people’s health, safety and security.”

Koneska added: “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 that involves integrating AI into risk management.”  

Irene Lai, global medical director at International SOS, added: “AI-generated deepfakes of real health professionals stating false information on measures to contain a natural outbreak is the new frontier of biowarfare, weaponised from a computer screen, without the need for the introduction of a biological agent.”

Beyond AI

The research findings also point to broader structural challenges in organisational risk response, with clarity of responsibility and decision-making processes emerging as significant concerns.

Only 10% of organisations say they can respond ‘very quickly’ to new risks. While 68% believe they respond ‘fairly quickly’, this may not be sufficient in what’s now an increasingly volatile operating environment. One in every five organisations (20%) admit that they are ‘not quick to respond at all’.

Further, the research exposes uncertainty within risk governance structures: 

*17% of respondents are unclear about what happens next when new risks emerge 

*25% are unclear about escalation triggers 

*only around 20% report being very clear on how global and local responses align

These gaps can contribute towards duplicated effort, inconsistent action, increased pressure on teams and a greater risk of employee burnout occurring  when crisis situations arise.

“The biggest barriers are not about awareness of risk, but at the point of decision,” stated James Wood MSyI, security director for Northern Europe at International SOS. “Organisations are often structured for stability, not volatility. That serves to slow down action when speed matters most.”

*Access copies of the Risk Outlook Pulse Check