The "Who", "What", and "How" of Responsible AI Governance: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of (Actor, Stage)-Specific Tools
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
The implementation of responsible AI in an organization is inherently complex due to the involvement of multiple stakeholders, each with their unique set of goals and responsibilities across the entire AI lifecycle. These responsibilities are often ambiguously defined and assigned, leading to confusion, miscommunication, and inefficiencies. Even when responsibilities are clearly defined and assigned to specific roles, the corresponding AI actors lack effective tools to support their execution. Toward closing these gaps, we present a systematic review and comprehensive meta-analysis of the current state of responsible AI tools, focusing on their alignment with specific stakeholder roles and their responsibilities in various AI lifecycle stages. We categorize over 220 tools according to AI actors and stages they address. Our findings reveal significant imbalances across the stakeholder roles and lifecycle stages addressed. The vast majority of available tools have been created to support AI designers and developers specifically during data-centric and statistical modeling stages while neglecting other roles such as institutional leadership, deployers, end-users, and impacted communities, and stages such as value proposition and deployment. The uneven distribution we describe here highlights critical gaps that currently exist in responsible AI governance research and practice. Our analysis reveals that despite the myriad of frameworks and tools for responsible AI, it remains unclear who within an organization and when in the AI lifecycle a tool applies. Furthermore, existing tools are rarely validated, leaving critical gaps in their usability and effectiveness. These gaps provide a starting point for researchers and practitioners to create more effective and holistic approaches to responsible AI development and governance.
Key facts. Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 18 Feb 2025.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 2; 2026: 4.
6 papers.
- 2025Privy: Envisioning and Mitigating Privacy Risks for Consumer-facing AI Product Conceptscited by 4
- 2025XABPs: Towards eXplainable Autonomous Business Processescited by 3
- 2026Engaged AI Governance: Addressing the Last Mile Challenge Through Internal Expert Collaborationcited by 2
- 2026Bureaucratic Silences: What the Canadian AI Register Reveals, Omits, and Obscurescited by 0
- 2026Metacognition Should Be the Scientific Framework for Bounded and Effective Self-Governance in Generative AIcited by 0
- 2026A Global Comparison of Schemas, Transparency, and Interoperability in Public-Sector AI Registers and Inventoriescited by 0
- 2026A Global Comparison of Schemas, Transparency, and Interoperability in Public-Sector AI Registers and Inventories21 Sep 2026
- 2026Metacognition Should Be the Scientific Framework for Bounded and Effective Self-Governance in Generative AI13 May 2026
- 2026Engaged AI Governance: Addressing the Last Mile Challenge Through Internal Expert Collaboration23 Apr 2026
- 2026Bureaucratic Silences: What the Canadian AI Register Reveals, Omits, and Obscures16 Apr 2026
- 2025Privy: Envisioning and Mitigating Privacy Risks for Consumer-facing AI Product Concepts27 Sep 2025
- 2025XABPs: Towards eXplainable Autonomous Business Processes31 Jul 2025