You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

June 25, 2025

Setting the Ground Rules: The Importance of Implementing Internal GenAI Policies

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is no longer a distant innovation confined to science fiction and research labs; it has become an integral part of daily business operations worldwide. Employees across industries are adopting GenAI tools at a remarkable pace—including in Southeast Asia, where a tech-savvy workforce and widespread internet and mobile access have driven early adoption.

The reality facing organizations today is clear: employees are integrating GenAI into their daily work, often without official approval or clear policies. This phenomenon, often called “Bring Your Own AI,” comes out of a disconnect between organizational governance and employee behavior and reveals the urgent need for proactive AI policies and oversight.

For business leaders and legal teams, GenAI is both an opportunity and a challenge. On one hand, these tools can deliver real business value and boost efficiency. On the other, the unsanctioned and unmonitored use of GenAI introduces substantial legal risks, such as data privacy violations, confidentiality breaches, and intellectual property issues.

The widespread adoption of GenAI tools by employees, regardless of official organizational stance or guidelines, demonstrates that prohibition is neither practical nor effective. A more strategic approach involves establishing comprehensive governance policies that encourage responsible AI use while managing the risks.

Organizations that take the lead in developing GenAI governance policies are better positioned to benefit from its transformative potential. The question isn’t whether GenAI will change how we work, but how quickly organizations can put the right safeguards in place to manage this change successfully.

Risks of GenAI Use

The use of GenAI in business operations, whether sanctioned or not, exposes organizations to a unique set of risks. The following are particularly relevant:

  • Data security and confidentiality: General GenAI tools in the market may transmit data to external servers, retain conversation histories, and use inputs for model training. Further, employees may share confidential organization or client information without realizing the implications, increasing the risk of unintentional data leakage and unauthorized disclosure—especially since it can be difficult for organizations to know which GenAI tools employees are using and what types of information they are sharing.
  • Data protection and regulatory compliance: The evolving legal landscape regulating AI creates compliance challenges across multiple jurisdictions. Organizations must navigate complex data protection laws like Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) and Vietnam’s Personal Data Protection Decree (PDPD), each with different compliance requirements. In the absence of AI-specific legislation, sector-specific regulations also add additional complexity, while unclear regulatory guidance often leaves organizations operating in legal uncertainty, particularly when using AI for decision-making that impacts individuals or when deploying AI systems that interact directly with customers.
  • Intellectual property risks: AI-generated content raises yet-to-be-answered questions about ownership, originality, and copyright infringement. Additionally, proprietary information shared with GenAI tools can be inadvertently incorporated into model training data, potentially compromising trade secrets or violating confidentiality agreements.
  • Governance and accountability: Disjointed and unregulated or inadequately governed GenAI adoption creates oversight gaps, making it difficult to track usage, assign responsibility for outputs, or respond to incidents. In addition, traditional approval processes may not account for AI-assisted work, creating quality control issues.

Developing an Internal GenAI Policy

Forward-thinking organizations across Southeast Asia are establishing internal policies that provide clear direction for both approved and unapproved AI use. These policies form the cornerstone of responsible AI adoption in these organizations by balancing innovation with effective risk management.

An effective AI policy functions as both a protective framework and an enablement tool. Rather than simply listing restrictions, the most effective policies provide practical guidance that empowers employees to leverage AI capabilities while maintaining organizational standards. This approach requires addressing several critical components when developing an AI policy, including, among others:

  • Policy scope: Effective AI policies begin with a clear articulation of their purpose, defining exactly which AI tools and use cases are governed by the policy, including distinguishing between enterprise-approved solutions and general AI tools in the market.
  • Access and authorization: Organizations should define user tiers and access levels, specifying which roles are permitted to use specific AI tools and under what circumstances. This includes establishing approval processes for new AI tool adoption and creating exceptions for specialized use cases.
  • Data governance and privacy protection: As GenAI tools may process personal information, policies must establish strict protocols for data handling. This encompasses defining what types of data can be shared with AI systems and ensuring compliance with regional privacy regulations such as Thailand’s PDPA or Vietnam’s PDPD.
  • Accountability and verification: Policies should also assign internal accountability for AI-generated content and outputs. It is important to establish appropriate review protocols based on the type of AI-assisted work, along with guidelines for transparently disclosing when and how AI was used, especially in client-facing materials or critical decision-making, which may require human validation.
  • Monitoring and incident response: Effective policies establish clear procedures for tracking AI usage, identifying potential misuse or unacceptable output, and responding to security incidents, policy violations, and AI-related incidents such as hallucinations or biased outputs. This includes defining escalation procedures and reporting mechanisms.
  • Vendor management: As organizations increasingly rely on third-party AI services, policies must address vendor evaluation criteria, contract requirements, and ongoing performance monitoring to ensure external AI providers meet legal obligations, data protection requirements, and operational expectations related to security, accountability, and transparency.

Given the rapid pace of AI development, policies should include review cycles, update mechanisms, and processes for incorporating new regulatory requirements or technological capabilities. They should also provide a framework for assessing emerging technologies and adapting policy coverage to reflect evolving risks and capabilities.

Finally, organizations should hold comprehensive education and training sessions to ensure that employees understand both the capabilities and limitations of AI tools, recognize potential risks, and follow organizational policies when using AI in their work.

Proactive Implementation

The GenAI revolution isn’t waiting for businesses to catch up—it’s already here, integrated into daily workflows. Organizations can either proactively implement robust governance frameworks to safely harness AI’s immense potential or risk falling behind in an increasingly complex and fast-moving landscape.

By establishing clear guidelines, accountability structures, and effective risk management protocols, organizations can confidently leverage AI capabilities to encourage innovation while maintaining oversight and minimizing risks. This approach not only builds stakeholder trust and ensures regulatory compliance but also encourages greater AI adoption and transparency among employees. With well-designed guardrails in place, employees can confidently and responsibly integrate GenAI into their work.

Ultimately, organizations that strike the right balance between innovation and responsibility will be best positioned to lead in the GenAI era.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 2, 2025
Thailand’s National Space Policy Committee (NSPC) has proposed new regulations that would permit foreign satellite operators to provide services within the country. The draft announcement responds to rapid advancements in digital and space technologies that have led to new global satellite operators expanding their services worldwide, including into Thailand. These include low-Earth-orbit (LEO) satellite constellations offering high-speed internet, nonterrestrial network (NTN) technologies that integrate terrestrial and satellite communications, and direct-to-device (D2D) technologies that transmit signals directly from satellites to mobile devices without relying on terrestrial networks. The draft aims to replace the existing announcement, which was issued in 2021, to better align with current national policies on foreign satellite usage. The draft announcement was published for public consultation on August 20, 2025, with the comment period concluding on September 3, 2025. Applying for Authorization Two types of operators may apply for authorization: Thai operators who intend to use foreign satellites owned by World Trade Organization (WTO) member countries to provide satellite communication services to third parties; and Foreign operators of satellites owned by WTO member countries who intend to operate a business providing satellite communication services within Thailand. Applications for approval must be submitted to the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC) according to the NBTC’s established procedures. In considering whether to permit foreign satellites to provide services within Thailand, the relevant authority will take into account technical justifications, economic benefits, social benefits, and national security considerations. Determining Satellite Ownership The determination of which country qualifies as the owner of a satellite is based primarily on the country that holds the satellite network filing rights registered with the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). The satellite network filing includes details regarding frequency usage, orbital positions, and technical specifications of the satellite operations. It serves as a regulatory tool used by the
August 25, 2025
Artificial intelligence (AI), semiconductors, and digital assets are considered critical drivers of Vietnam’s future economic growth and are fundamental to the nation’s digital transformation targets. These sectors form the core of Vietnam’s strategy to build a robust, globally competitive digital economy. This strategic direction gained substantial momentum with the issuance of the Law on Digital Technology Industry (DTI Law) on June 14, 2025. The DTI Law was designed to attract investment, stimulate innovation, cultivate high-quality human resources, and ensure the responsible, secure, and sustainable growth of digital technologies like AI and digital assets, harmonizing Vietnam’s digital industry with international standards while safeguarding public interests and national security. Several key provisions of the DTI Law took effect on July 1, 2025, and the law will become fully effective on January 1, 2026. The government is delegated to provide further necessary guidelines and details for implementation of the law. Artificial Intelligence (AI): Principle-Driven and Risk-Based Regulations Under the DTI Law, there are seven core principles guiding the development, provision, and use of AI which are applicable to AI developers, providers and deployers. These principles favor values-based governance over purely technical prescriptions, and include the following: Taking a human-centered approach that upholds ethical values, inclusivity, flexibility, equality, and non-discrimination. Ensuring transparency, accountability, and explainability, with AI systems remaining under human control. Maintaining cybersecurity and system safety. Adherence to data protection and privacy regulations. Having the ability to control AI algorithms and models. Effective risk management throughout the entire lifecycle of AI systems. Compliance with consumer protection laws and other relevant legal frameworks. AI system management follows a risk-based approach, with the law categorizing systems into high-risk, high-impact, and other groups. High-risk AI systems are those that, in certain applications, may pose significant threats or harm to individuals or the public interest while
August 21, 2025
On August 19, 2025, the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) released its draft Guidelines on the Consideration of Unfair Trade Practices and Conduct Constituting Monopoly, Reducing Competition, or Restricting Competition in Multi-Sided Platform Businesses in the Category of Digital Platforms for the Sale of Goods or Services (E-commerce). A public comment period on the guidelines is open until September 18. The draft provides the first detailed framework for how the TCCT will interpret and enforce the substantive provisions under the Trade Competition Act against digital platforms, which have a unique network effect and require complex competition analysis. This development will profoundly impact the operations of e-commerce platforms, sellers, and associated service providers in Thailand. The guidelines primarily target e-commerce digital platform business operators, which are defined as follows: E-commerce digital platform: A medium facilitating the sale, purchase, or exchange of goods or services, including any operations to create transactions or interactions between business operators via an electronic transaction system, regardless of whether service fees are charged. E-commerce digital platform business operator: A service provider of a digital platform for the sale of goods or services who acts as an intermediary facilitating the sale of goods or services, including any operations to create transactions or interactions through an electronic transaction system by receiving orders for goods or services transacted via an electronic system, whether in the form of an e-marketplace, a social marketplace, or any other form that connects purchase orders for goods or services with business operators through an electronic system. Prohibited Conduct The guidelines classify potentially anticompetitive conduct and unfair trade practices into two categories: price-related and non-price-related conduct. 1. Price-related conduct The TCCT is targeting pricing strategies that can harm competition. Key prohibited behaviors include: Price below cost: Setting prices below the average total cost without