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

Subscribe to Updates

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 Professionals

Industries

Technology

Locations

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

December 11, 2025
On December 10, 2025, the National Assembly of Vietnam passed a new Cybersecurity Law, which will take effect on July 1, 2026. The new Cybersecurity Law was developed based on the consolidation of the 2018 Cybersecurity Law and the 2015 Law on Network Information Security. While the final approved version of the new Cybersecurity Law has not yet been published, according to official reports, the following notable requirements are confirmed to be included: The new Cybersecurity Law dedicates a specific article to prohibited acts related to cybersecurity, under which it strictly prohibits posting or disseminating information online that propagandizes against the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. The law also prohibits, among other things, (i) the appropriation, trading, seizure, or intentional disclosure of information classified as state secrets, work secrets, business secrets, personal secrets, family secrets, and private life; (ii) intentionally eavesdropping, recording, or filming online conversations without authorization; and (iii) the use of artificial intelligence (AI) or new technologies to conduct prohibited acts. The Ministry of Public Security (MPS) has the authority to require enterprises providing telecommunications, internet, and online services, as well as system administrators, to remove information violating cybersecurity laws from systems under their management. The MPS is also assigned responsibility for ensuring information security in cyberspace and data security, establishing mechanisms for IP address identity management, verifying digital account registration information, and issuing warnings and sharing information on cybersecurity threats. Information systems are classified into five levels (similar to the 2015 Law on Network Information Security) based on the degree of harm to national security and social order if an incident occurs. The MPS is the lead agency assisting the government in state management of cybersecurity. The Ministry of National Defense is responsible for managing military information systems, and the Government Cipher Committee manages cryptographic and cipher
Read More
December 4, 2025
Thailand has expanded the circumstances under which state agencies may bypass competitive bidding procedures to address urgent security challenges. On November 28, 2025, Thailand’s Ministry of Finance published the Ministerial Regulation Determining Cases of Procurement by Specific Method (No. 6) B.E. 2568 in the Royal Gazette, introducing a new pathway for procuring supplies and services needed to address cyber and military threats that may affect the stability of government agencies or the nation. For technology vendors, cybersecurity firms, and defense contractors, this regulatory change creates immediate opportunities to engage directly with government buyers facing urgent security challenges. New Fast-Track Category for Security Threats The regulation amends Thailand’s Public Procurement and Supplies Management Act B.E. 2560 (2017) to add a new category of procurement that qualifies for the “specific method”—a noncompetitive, direct selection process. Previously, agencies could use this expedited method only in limited circumstances, such as emergencies, cases with proprietary technology requirements, or national security operations. The new provision explicitly covers procurement of supplies related to preventing or resolving cyber or military threats that could impact the stability of a state agency or the country. This addition recognizes the urgent nature of modern security challenges, where competitive bidding timelines may leave agencies vulnerable during critical threat windows. State agencies dealing with active cyberattacks, preparing defensive measures against anticipated threats, or responding to military security concerns can now move directly to negotiate with qualified vendors rather than conducting lengthy public tender processes. Vendor Considerations Vendors offering cybersecurity solutions now have a regulatory avenue to work directly with government clients when stability concerns are present. These solutions include threat detection systems, anti-ransomware tools, incident response services, firewalls, and security consulting. Similarly, defense contractors providing military equipment or specialized security supplies can pursue direct engagement channels where traditional procurement methods would create
Read More
December 3, 2025
Thailand’s Civil Court has issued a regulation targeting the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the preparation of pleadings and other documents submitted to the court. Effective November 17, 2025, the regulation aligns with September 2025 guidance from the president of the Supreme Court, and aims to safeguard accuracy, transparency, and public confidence in civil adjudication. The regulation applies to all parties submitting pleadings or any documents to the Civil Court that are prepared using AI tools or contain AI-generated content. It subjects AI used for these purposes to strict requirements on verification, disclosure, and accountability. Core Obligations The regulation imposes four principal obligations: Lawyers who use AI remain subject to duties of honesty, responsibility to the court, professional standards, and legal ethics, including the duty to assess the appropriateness of the AI tool for the work. Parties and lawyers must verify the accuracy and completeness of all facts, legal provisions, and citations in AI-generated content before submission. Parties and lawyers must disclose to the court any AI-generated content by clearly marking the beginning and end of the AI-generated portion with prescribed statements (see below). Additionally, a certification confirming the use of AI must be provided at the end of the pleading or document, stating that AI was used for certain portions and that the party has reviewed and certifies the accuracy of factual and legal content. Parties and lawyers bear the same full legal and ethical responsibility for AI-generated content as they do for personally authored documents; they cannot evade responsibility or avoid liability by citing AI-related errors. Likewise, parties must ensure that any AI-generated content is truthful, accurate, and unbiased. Prescribed Disclosure Language Each instance of AI-generated content must be preceded by the statement “[The following content was prepared using artificial intelligence]” and must end with “[End
Read More
November 24, 2025
A recent warning from the Central Bank of Myanmar (CBM) against cryptocurrency use upholds the country’s ongoing strategy of enforcing strict prohibitions on unauthorized cryptocurrency activities while also promoting the controlled development of a central bank digital currency (CBDC). The CBM’s warning, issued November 16, 2025, reminded the public of announcements in May 2019 and a notification in May 2020 confirming that all online and offline cryptocurrency transactions are strictly prohibited. The CBM also clarified that no financial institution in Myanmar is authorized to deal with digital currencies. The warning highlighted global risks, such as money laundering, scams, tax evasion, hacking, and severe financial losses caused by price volatility and insufficient regulation. The CBM urged the public to use only legitimate banking channels and avoid illegal cryptocurrency activities. The warning comes five months after the CBM issued a notification announcing the formation of the Central Committee for the Issuance of a Central Bank Digital Currency. This committee includes senior CBM officials, representatives from relevant ministries and the banking sector, and technology experts. Its main role is to research CBDC models, test secure digital payment systems, and ensure that any future implementation aligns with Myanmar’s monetary policy and financial stability objectives. Taken together, these two actions illustrate the CBM’s continued pursuit of its dual strategy to promote innovation through CBDC development while prohibiting cryptocurrency use. Businesses should note that while CBDC pilot programs may appear in the future, cryptocurrencies remain off-limits.
Read More