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​ 

April 28, 2025
In recent years, Vietnam has positioned itself among the leading countries in the world in terms of digital asset ownership and trading volume. This rapid adoption reflects the country’s growing digital economy and the increasing engagement of individuals and businesses in blockchain-based financial activities. Central to this growth are Resolution No. 57-NQ/TW of the Politburo dated December 22, 2024, on breakthroughs in science, technology, innovation, and national digital transformation with a vision to 2045 (“Resolution 57”) and Resolution No. 03/NQ-CP of the Government dated January 9, 2025, promulgating the Action Plan to Implement Resolution 57 (“Resolution 03”), which outline a flexible and innovative policy framework that embraces pilot programs for emerging technologies to lay the groundwork for Vietnam’s legislative framework concerning cryptocurrency and blockchain technologies. Regulatory clarity in terms of digital assets and blockchain technologies is now more critical than ever for businesses and investors. In light of this, Vietnam is currently in the process of introducing three key legal instruments, with drafts of the Law on Digital Technology Industry (“Draft DTI Law”), Resolution of the National Assembly on the Establishment of Regional and International Financial Centers in Vietnam (“Draft Financial Center Resolution”), and Resolution of the Government on the Pilot Implementation of Crypto Asset Markets in Vietnam (“Draft Crypto Pilot Resolution”) nearing promulgation. Current Regulatory Direction and Schedule Vietnam’s regulatory framework for crypto assets and blockchain has been in a developmental stage since 2017, focusing on directions, plans, and schedules rather than established regulations. In February 2024, under Decision No. 194/QD-TTg of the Prime Minister, the Ministry of Finance (MOF) was assigned to draft a legal framework to either prohibit or regulate virtual assets and service providers by May 2025, signaling a clearer regulatory direction. In March 2025, Directive No. 05/CT-TTg of the Prime Minister directed the MOF
April 18, 2025
On April 12, 2025, Thailand published an amendment to the Emergency Decree on Measures for the Prevention and Suppression of Technological Crimes in the Government Gazette, with the regulation taking effect the following day. Drafts of the amendment had been shared in recent months, and the final amendment of the decree contains some additional key revisions, such as narrowing the business operators subject to the decree’s requirements, reducing operators’ obligations, and establishing collaboration between relevant stakeholders to tackle technology crime. These key revisions to the amendment are detailed below. Business operators subject to the decree: The business operators covered under the decree now include only payment service providers under the Payment System Act and digital asset operators under the Royal Decree on Digital Asset Businesses. Digital platform services under the Royal Decree on Digital Platform Service Businesses That Are Subject to Prior Notification are no longer within the scope of the decree. Definition of technology crime: The final version of the amendment removed the expanded definition of technology crime that had been included in a previous draft, leaving the decree’s existing definition unchanged. Telecommunications provider obligations: Mobile and telecommunications service providers now have an obligation to monitor and screen for content that may be related to technology crime and suspend SIM cards when instructed to do so by the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC). Transaction and account suspension: The amendment removes the decree’s complex transaction suspension procedures and leaves room for business-specific regulators (e.g., Bank of Thailand, Securities and Exchange Commission, NBTC) to impose various technology crime suspension requirements on business operators under their supervision. The newly established Center for Prevention and Suppression of Technology Crimes can also notify financial institutions and business operators of names or digital asset wallet addresses that may be related to technology crime,
April 18, 2025
On April 12, 2025, Thailand issued an amended digital asset regulation that covers offshore digital asset businesses providing services on a cross-border basis to Thai users. These businesses will now be subject to the licensing requirements of the Royal Decree on Digital Asset Business Operations B.E. 2561 (2018), which is supervised by Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). A digital asset business will be deemed as providing services in Thailand—and therefore subject to requirements under the Royal Decree on Digital Asset Business Operations—if the business does any of the following: Displays content in Thai, either fully or partially; Is registered under a “.th,” or “.ไทย” domain, contains any name relating to Thailand, or uses a domain written in Thai characters; Allows or requires payments in Thai baht (THB) or receives payments through Thai bank accounts or e-wallets; Chooses Thai law to govern transactions or Thai courts to litigate any dispute; Pays online search engines to attract users in Thailand to its services; Has an office, establishment, or personnel in Thailand to support or assist users within the country; or Meets any other criteria specified by the SEC. To operate legally in Thailand, offshore operators meeting any of the above criteria will be required to incorporate a local company in Thailand in order to apply for a digital asset business license with the SEC.
April 11, 2025
Vietnam’s draft Personal Data Protection Law (PDPL) continues to evolve, with significant implications for businesses operating in the region. The latest draft, released to the public in March 2025, contains several noteworthy changes from the previous draft that businesses with operations in Vietnam should be aware of when developing their data protection strategies and compliance frameworks. The draft PDPL will be submitted to the vote of the National Assembly in May 2025 with a tentative entry into force on January 1, 2026. Key Changes in the Latest Draft PDPL 1. Redefined Categories of Personal Data The draft PDPL has made important revisions to personal data classifications: Basic personal data: An individual’s image is no longer classified as basic personal data. Sensitive personal data: Bank account information has been removed from this classification (and is now considered basic personal data), but two new categories have been added: (i) salary, allowances, and other income sources, and (ii) information on land users and information on land containing such information. Organizations should review their data classification schemes and update protection measures accordingly, particularly for salary and compensation information. 2. Data Encryption Requirements The draft PDPL explicitly states that encrypted data remains classified as personal data. Additionally, it mandates that sensitive personal data must be encrypted when stored, transmitted, received, or shared in cyberspace. Organizations and individuals can freely opt for one or more encryption solutions and encryption/decryption processes suitable for their personal data management and administration activities. 3. Biometric Data Processing The latest draft PDPL adds new protection requirements for biometric data. Organizations processing biometric data (such as fingerprints) must: Implement physical security measures for devices storing and transmitting biometric data. Use strong encryption methods during transmission and storage. Restrict access to biometric data. Have early-detection monitoring systems to detect violations of biometric