GRF · AI and Digital Governance
AI and Digital Governance
Institutional governance of AI and digital systems, including rights, accountability and public technology. AI and Digital Governance is an established platform of The Global Risks Forum.
- STEM methods
- 4
- Canonical methods this field applies
- Topics
- 8
- Subject pages in the field
- Counterparts
- 10
- Platforms in shared fields across the network
- Report series
- 2
- Reports series it contributes to
The workspace for AI and Digital Governance.
Public algorithm register
Algorithm register · Quarter 4 · Example interface, not a record
Registered systems
| Benefit fraud flagging | Social agency | High | Missing | Partial |
| Permit triage | Planning | Limited | Done | Yes |
| School placement | Education | High | Done | Yes |
| Chat assistant | Tax office | Minimal | Done | n/a |
Oversight action
- System
- Benefit fraud flagging
- Required
- impact assessment, appeal route
- Deadline
- 34 days
- Authority
- Oversight body
Complaints about automated decisions
AI and Digital Governance · Public algorithm register. Public algorithm register: example names and illustrative values, not a record.
What the work is read against.
The platform does not set standards. It reads its evidence against the frameworks that competent bodies have adopted, so a finding can be placed where a decision-maker already works.
| Framework or standard | Body | What it sets |
|---|---|---|
| EU Artificial Intelligence Act | European Union | Risk-based obligations for AI systems and general-purpose AI models, with prohibited practices, high-risk requirements and conformity assessment applying in stages |
| OECD AI Principles | Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, endorsed by the G20 | Values-based principles for trustworthy AI and recommendations to governments, updated by the OECD Council |
| Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law | Council of Europe | The first binding international treaty on AI, open to non-member states, covering the full lifecycle of AI systems |
| Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence | UNESCO | Values, principles and policy areas for ethical AI adopted by UNESCO member states, with readiness assessments |
| AI Risk Management Framework | US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) | Voluntary functions for governing, mapping, measuring and managing AI risk, with profiles including one for generative AI |
| ISO/IEC 42001 Artificial intelligence management system | ISO and IEC Joint Technical Committee 1, Subcommittee 42 | Requirements for an organisation’s management system for developing or using AI responsibly |
| General Data Protection Regulation and Convention 108+ | European Union; Council of Europe | Rules on lawful processing of personal data, rights of data subjects and safeguards on automated decisions |
| NIS2 Directive | European Union | Cybersecurity risk management and incident reporting obligations for essential and important entities, including public administration |
| Global Digital Compact | United Nations General Assembly | Commitments on digital inclusion, data governance, human rights online and international AI governance, including a scientific panel and global dialogue |
Compare instruments: rules, incentives and information.
Three families of instruments side by side against the baseline, each with its own lag and adoption speed, under the coverage and compliance you set; effect sizes are teaching values to replace with evidence. Scenario: named assumptions about the future, not a forecast.
Controls
- Baseline trend of the outcome
- 2.0% a year
- Coverage of the instrument
- 70%
- Compliance
- 75%
- Effect size, against the teaching value
- 100%
- Years ahead
- 20 years
Readouts
- Largest reduction at the horizon
- Regulation
- Its reduction against the baseline
- 21%
Numbers, methods and sources
| Year | Baseline | Regulation | Economic incentive | Information and capacity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 100.0 | 99.5 | 98.8 | 99.1 |
| 1 | 102.0 | 101.2 | 100.1 | 99.8 |
| 2 | 104.0 | 102.5 | 101.1 | 99.9 |
| 3 | 106.1 | 103.5 | 101.6 | 100.0 |
| 4 | 108.2 | 103.7 | 101.8 | 100.7 |
| 5 | 110.4 | 103.2 | 101.7 | 102.1 |
| 6 | 112.6 | 102.0 | 101.6 | 103.9 |
| 7 | 114.9 | 100.4 | 101.6 | 105.9 |
| 8 | 117.2 | 99.2 | 102.1 | 108.0 |
| 9 | 119.5 | 98.6 | 102.9 | 110.1 |
| 10 | 121.9 | 98.9 | 104.2 | 112.3 |
| 11 | 124.3 | 99.7 | 105.7 | 114.5 |
| 12 | 126.8 | 101.1 | 107.4 | 116.8 |
| 13 | 129.4 | 102.7 | 109.4 | 119.2 |
| 14 | 131.9 | 104.5 | 111.4 | 121.6 |
| 15 | 134.6 | 106.5 | 113.5 | 124.0 |
| 16 | 137.3 | 108.5 | 115.7 | 126.5 |
| 17 | 140.0 | 110.7 | 118.0 | 129.0 |
| 18 | 142.8 | 112.9 | 120.4 | 131.6 |
| 19 | 145.7 | 115.1 | 122.8 | 134.2 |
| 20 | 148.6 | 117.4 | 125.2 | 136.9 |
Methods
- Tools of government Hood (1983), The Tools of Government, Macmillan
- Carrots, sticks and sermons Bemelmans-Videc, Rist and Vedung (1998), Transaction
- Diffusion of innovations Rogers (2003), Diffusion of Innovations, Free Press
- Uncertainty fan (parameter Monte Carlo) Spiegelhalter, Pearson and Short (2011), Visualising uncertainty about the future, Science 333
- One-at-a-time sensitivity (tornado) Saltelli and others (2008), Global Sensitivity Analysis: The Primer, Wiley
Data
The model runs on the teaching values set by the controls. To calibrate it for a place, read it against these admitted layers and series, which this page’s map can draw:
- Borders Natural Earth
- Cities Natural Earth
Across the six pillars, led by Nexus Consortium
- Experiments Labs
- Built in AI and Digital Governance in Foundry
- Tested at AI and Digital Governance in Universe
- Codified in Digital, Cyber and AI in Standards
- Published in AI and Digital Governance in Reports
- Taught in Faculty of Technology and Digital Systems in Academy
The questions this field works on.
AI oversight and accountability
Roles, validation and human review.
TopicAlgorithmic public decisions
Contestability and transparency.
TopicDigital rights and privacy
Rights and public digital infrastructure.
TopicData governance and sharing
Institutional and cross-border data policy.
TopicAutonomous agents and liability
Action boundaries and accountability.
TopicCyber and public infrastructure
Governance of digital dependencies.
TopicTechnology procurement and standards
Public acquisition and assurances.
TopicInternational AI cooperation
Comparative policy and interoperability.
From mandate to evaluation, by pillar.
The steps an instrument takes from mandate to evaluation, each with the pillar that runs it, and the decisions that stay with the authority. Teaching model with stated illustrative values, not a prediction.
- Mandate and problem framing Competent authority (outside the programme)
A competent authority frames the problem and the mandate under its own rules. Howlett, Ramesh and Perl (2009) - Evidence and system model Foundry
The system is modelled with its feedbacks, data and stated limits. OECD (2014), principle 2 - Options appraised with scenarios Foundry
Instruments are compared under scenarios, with uncertainty shown. Hood (1983) - Exercise with stakeholders Universe
The options are tested in an exercise with those who would implement and bear them. OECD (2014), principle 3 - Standard or guidance drafted Nexus Standards
What works is codified as a standard or guidance, open to comment. Nexus Standards process - Decision by the authority Competent authority (outside the programme)
The authority decides, outside the programme, with the evidence on record. Howlett, Ramesh and Perl (2009) - Capacity and training Risk Academy
Those who implement are trained on the decided instrument and its data. Sendai Framework (2015), priority 2 - Monitoring and public report Reports
Indicators are published with sources, limits and corrections. OECD (2014), principle 5 - Evaluation and revision Nexus Standards
Results return to the standard and the model: the cycle closes. Howlett, Ramesh and Perl (2009)
Methods
- Policy cycle Howlett, Ramesh and Perl (2009), Studying Public Policy, Oxford University Press
- Governance of critical risks OECD (2014), Recommendation of the Council on the Governance of Critical Risks
- Layered drawing of directed graphs Sugiyama, Tagawa and Toda (1981), IEEE SMC 11
Across the six pillars, led by Nexus Consortium
- Experiments Labs
- Built in AI and Digital Governance in Foundry
- Tested at AI and Digital Governance in Universe
- Codified in Digital, Cyber and AI in Standards
- Published in AI and Digital Governance in Reports
- Taught in Faculty of Technology and Digital Systems in Academy
The areas of artificial intelligence this platform takes on.
AI and Digital Governance studies how public institutions oversee artificial intelligence and digital systems: who is accountable for an automated decision, how rights and data are protected, who is liable when an autonomous agent causes harm, how governments buy and set standards for technology, and how countries cooperate. Its pages set out the mechanisms that make oversight hold or fail, the records that show it, the methods that test it and the office holders who decide. Global Risks Forum convenes the dialogue; it does not certify systems or give legal advice.
Oversight and accountability
Regulators, audit bodies, boards and courts that hold AI developers and deployers to account, and the records they rely on.
Algorithmic public decisions
Automated and assisted decisions in welfare, tax, policing, migration and justice, and the safeguards around them.
Rights and privacy
Data protection, non-discrimination, freedom of expression and the remedies available when digital systems affect them.
Data governance
Rules and institutions for collecting, sharing and reusing data, including data spaces, trusts and public data infrastructure.
Agents and liability
Autonomous and agentic systems that act with limited human input, and who answers when they cause harm.
Cyber and public infrastructure
Security obligations for public digital services and critical infrastructure, and incident reporting duties.
Procurement and standards
How governments buy AI and digital systems, and the standards bodies whose specifications become rules.
International cooperation
Treaties, principles, safety institutes and standard-setting forums through which countries coordinate AI governance.
How AI and Digital Governance is governed: instruments, mandates and commitments.
The instruments, mandates, actors and accountability arrangements a policymaker, diplomat or development agency works with, citing the agreements that set them. Structures follow the frameworks named. Any state or progress drawn is illustrative, not a record.
Policy instrument matrix
The kinds of instrument available on AI and Digital Governance, by level of government and cooperation.
| Instrument type | Local | National | Regional | Global |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Regulatory | Zoning, building codes | Laws, standards, licensing | Harmonised rules | Conventions and treaties |
| Economic | Local levies, grants | Budget lines, taxes, insurance schemes | Risk pools, regional funds | Financing mechanisms |
| Information | Local warnings | Disclosure, early warning, statistics | Data sharing arrangements | Global monitoring and reporting |
| Institutional | Local committees | Lead agencies, coordination councils | Regional bodies and secretariats | Multilateral mandates |
| Cooperative | Community agreements | Partnership compacts | Memoranda and joint programmes | Agreements and joint commitments |
Accountability cycle
How commitments on AI and Digital Governance are held to account, from commitment to correction.
- CommitGovernmentA commitment with a mandate and a legal basis.
- PlanLead agencyA national plan with owners and milestones.
- ResourceMinistry of financeA budget line or financing on record.
- ImplementAgencies and local governmentDelivery against the plan.
- ReportStatistics officeIndicators reported in agreed definitions.
- ReviewLegislature, audit, civil societyIndependent review of results and gaps.
- CorrectGovernmentChanges to the plan, published with reasons.
What AI and Digital Governance does.
AI governance is the system of laws, regulators, standards, contracts and international agreements through which institutions oversee artificial intelligence and digital systems. Global Risks Forum’s platform compares oversight, public algorithms, rights, data sharing, agent liability, cyber security, procurement and cooperation, and names who decides. It does not certify systems.
Its community
AI governance researchers; public authorities; digital rights specialists; public-sector technologists.
Its methods
AI governance comparison; lifecycle controls; rights mapping.
Its outputs
AI governance guides; digital rights briefs; public technology policy reviews.
Institutions are adopting AI faster than they can govern it.
Public authorities use automated systems to assess benefit claims, prioritise inspections, triage emergency calls, detect fraud and allocate services. Digital identity, payments and data exchange are becoming public infrastructure. The governance arrangements that should keep these systems accountable are often still being written.
AI systems learn patterns from data rather than following rules written by people. That makes them powerful and also hard to inspect: their behaviour can change when data changes, they can reproduce biases present in historical records, and they can fail in ways their designers did not anticipate. General-purpose models add a further layer, because the same model may be adapted by many organisations for uses its developer never considered. When such systems inform decisions about people, questions of explanation, contestation and responsibility become central.
Digital public infrastructure concentrates both benefit and risk. A national identity or payments system can widen access to services dramatically, and it can also exclude people who cannot use it, expose personal data at scale or become a single point of failure for the services that depend on it. Cyber incidents against public systems can halt hospitals, councils and utilities. Dependence on a few technology providers raises questions of continuity, jurisdiction and bargaining power.
Failures cascade institutionally as well as technically. A flawed algorithm in a benefits system can wrongly penalise thousands of people before it is detected, erode trust in the agency and expose the state to legal challenge. Governance is the set of roles, rules, checks and remedies that catches such failures early and corrects them fairly.
Why now: the European Union AI Act (2024) is being phased in, the Council of Europe Framework Convention on AI opened for signature in 2024, and the UN established a scientific panel and a global dialogue on AI governance in 2025. The platform is designed to convene public authorities on oversight and accountability, exercise oversight arrangements in Universe, and propose common practice to the Nexus Standards, without assessing or approving any system.
Comparing governance, mapping rights, convening institutions.
The platform works through AI governance comparison, lifecycle controls and rights mapping. Its outputs are designed to help institutions learn from each other without prescribing what any of them must do.
AI governance guides
Comparative accounts of how institutions assign roles, test systems, oversee use and provide remedies across the AI lifecycle.
Digital rights briefs
Maps of the rights at stake in specific digital systems, from privacy and non-discrimination to due process.
Public technology policy reviews
Reviews of how public bodies procure, deploy and retire technology, and with what safeguards.
GRF convenes and governs programmes. It does not regulate, finance, procure or certify, and hosting or sponsorship confers no authority over findings. AI and Digital Governance does not build or evaluate AI models and is not a financial or data protection regulator.
Grounded in science at GCRI, linked to finance at GRA.
The platform draws on artificial intelligence and machine learning, AI evaluation and assurance engineering, digital identity and public digital systems and policy, institutional and decision science, each with a canonical page in the STEM Commons. The Foundry system NXS-NSF (trust, authorisation and assurance) supports policy, rights and assurance decisions.
At The Global Centre for Risk and Innovation (GCRI), Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Systems, Digital Public Infrastructure and Cybersecurity and Digital Resilience do the science. At Global Risks Alliance (GRA), AI and Financial Model Risk and Financial Cyber and Operational Resilience build shared industry understanding. See all counterparts.
Built on named science, technology, engineering and mathematics.
Every claim on AI and Digital Governance rests on methods with a canonical page in the STEM Commons, so readers can see what a finding depends on and where its limits lie.
How work moves in this field.
A question becomes evidence, a governed build, an organised community, a controlled test, a reviewed publication and, finally, a decision taken by the competent authority under its own rules.
- Question Universe National, regional or institutional priority. Question in AI and Digital Governance
- Evidence Foundry STEM foundation of the platform. Evidence in AI and Digital Governance
- Build Foundry Foundry. Build in AI and Digital Governance
- Organise Universe Nexus ecosystem. Organise in AI and Digital Governance
- Test Universe Universe (independent site). Test in AI and Digital Governance
- Publish Reports Reports. Publish in AI and Digital Governance
- Decide Competent authority Competent authorities and institutions, through NXS-RLS (participants, agreements and handoffs). Decide in AI and Digital Governance
- Renew Universe Corrections and the next annual agenda. Renew in AI and Digital Governance
Each step of the cycle in the pillar it runs in; the decision stays with the competent authority, outside the programme.
- Labs
- Foundry
- Universe
- Nexus Standards
- Reports
- Risk Academy
- Competent authority (outside the programme)
How this works across the six pillars.
AI and Digital Governance works through six pillars of one annual programme, led by the Nexus Consortium, with GCRI, GRF and GRA each contributing in its role: explore, experiment and prototype in Labs, build, simulate and prepare in Foundry, convene and test in Universe, codify, correct and apply in Nexus Standards, publish in every format in Reports, teach in the open in Risk Academy.
handoff in playrecorded handoffno direct handoff
Programme yearAll phases
Route
The whole programme
Every pillar hands its work to another; together they close the year’s feedback loops.
L · F · U · S · R · A
- Pillars
- 6 of 6
- Handoffs
- 18 of 18
- Loops
- 17 closed
Handoffs in play
- F01Universe → Foundry · Admitted mission becomes a cycle project with a decision caseReadiness preparation
- F02Foundry → Universe · Core Build Report and go or no-go evidenceControlled build
- F03Foundry → Reports · Sealed observations and indicator series behind a profileCloseout
- F04Universe → Reports · After-action and scenario findings for chapters 10 and 13After-action review
and 14 more
- LabsWhere questions become experiments and prototypes: new methods, data and tools are tried in the open, with their limits on record, before the Foundry builds them, under the Nexus Consortium.Labs
- FoundryWhere the evidence behind a mandate or commitment is built, with its owner and limits on record.AI and Digital Governance in FoundryFoundry
- UniverseWhere mandates become missions: GRF records each gate, convenes the parties and keeps implementation accountable.AI and Digital Governance in Universeuniverse.nexus
- Nexus StandardsWhere shared rules are agreed in the open; each jurisdiction decides adoption, and no global body holds a veto.Digital, Cyber and AI in Standardsnexustandards.com
- ReportsWhere governance analysis and the year’s results are published, so commitments can be followed and checked.AI and Digital Governance in ReportsReports
- Risk AcademyWhere policymakers, diplomats and agency staff learn the programme roles and decision-making on the record, on Risk Academy.Faculty of Technology and Digital Systems in Academyrisksacademy.com
The same field, seen three ways.
GCRI studies a field as science, GRF governs it and GRA builds shared financial understanding of it. AI and Digital Governance links to its counterparts so that work on one side is visible on the others.
- Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous SystemsInstitutionGCRIShared fieldArtificial intelligence
- Cybersecurity and Digital ResilienceInstitutionGCRIShared fieldCyber and digital resilience
- Quantum TechnologiesInstitutionGCRIShared fieldCyber and digital resilience
- Future of Work and SkillsInstitutionGCRIShared fieldArtificial intelligence
- Digital Public InfrastructureInstitutionGCRIShared fieldDigital public infrastructure, Cyber and digital resilience
- Fintech NexusInstitutionGRAShared fieldCyber and digital resilience, Digital public infrastructure
- Payments and Market InfrastructureInstitutionGRAShared fieldCyber and digital resilience, Digital public infrastructure
- Financial Cyber and Operational ResilienceInstitutionGRAShared fieldCyber and digital resilience
Pages in AI and Digital Governance.
Mandate, publisher and status
PageDiscipline and institutional issues
PageResearch and institutional knowledge
PageProfessional practice
PageDialogues and cooperation
PageProgrammes and projects
PageAnnual programme contribution
PageSpecialist and institutional community
PageLeadership and skills
PageConvenings and dialogues
PagePublished findings
PageParticipate
PageInstitutional contact
PageTransparency, rights and safeguards
PageSTEM foundation of AI and Digital Governance
PageChapters
PageHow work moves in this field
PageBuild in Foundry
PageTest in Universe
PagePublish in Reports
PageThe same field across the Consortium
PageTopics
Where this page leads across the Consortium.
Questions and answers.
Who publishes AI and Digital Governance?
Is AI and Digital Governance active?
How can I contribute?
Where are findings published?
Which values on this platform are real?
How do I report an error?
Does the platform evaluate or approve AI systems?
Does it lobby for particular AI laws?
Contribute evidence from this page.
Reports is the Consortium’s quarterly publication. What you know about this subject can become evidence, a case or a correction in the next edition, credited to you and published under CC BY 4.0 where it is your own work.
- EmailGateway GW-GRFSend it from this pageEvidence, a correction, a case, a method, a review, a translation or profile input. It arrives tagged with this page, so the editor who owns it receives it.
- ZenodoOpen depositDeposit it and submit to the communityPublish your own record on Zenodo with your ORCID iD, then submit it to the Reports community there. Curators review it; the DOI stays yours.
- ReportsGlobal Risks ForumSee every way to contributeThe contribution types, how each is reviewed, what credit you receive, the licence and what is never accepted.
Never send personal data, sensitive infrastructure detail or anything you have no right to share. A contribution is reviewed before use; sending it confers no authorship or editorial rights, and sponsorship never buys a finding.
How AI and Digital Governance works.
Choose a view and press Play to follow the platform’s process, its programme year, the standards it applies and how its findings are published. The outline shows how the work is designed to run, not the status of any decision.
AI and Digital Governance
How AI and Digital Governance works
Platforms · Programme year · Standards · Reports
A platform joins a field to named methods, labelled evidence and the outputs it publishes, without becoming the authority it serves.
01 Scope
- 01Field and familiesStart · The platform leadThe home states the field, its families and who it serves.
- 02Topic dossiersRecord · Platform authorsTopics explain the subject with labelled evidence.
02 Evidence
- 03Evidence labelsRecord · GCRIEach value is labelled: observed, published statistics, estimated, modelled, scenario or unknown.
- 04MethodsStep · Method ownersMethods come from the STEM Commons, each with one canonical page.
03 Work
- 05Scenarios on the systemsModel · Foundry pillarScenarios run on the Nexus systems, labelled as scenario.
- 06Standards that applyRecord · Nexus StandardsThe platform names the standards that apply. A validator report is evidence for review.
04 Publish
- 07EditionsRecord · ReportsFindings are published through Reports with their limits.
- 08Authority decidesOutcome · The competent authorityDecisions and execution stay with the government, operator or licensed institution.
AI and Digital Governance home · Platforms · Shared methodsAn outline of how the work is designed to run; it does not report the status of any decision or record.
Take part in AI and Digital Governance.
Start from who you are. Answer an open call. Or form and lead a competence cell on the AI and Digital Governance platform.
National institutions
Ministries, statistics offices and agencies: a national desk and chapter, and a seat in the working groups. National chapters
Sectors and professions
Operators, regulators, banks, insurers and professional bodies whose work touches AI and Digital Governance. Participate
Learning
Courses and practice, with a record of every course completed. Free to study. Open learning
Standards
Draft, review and adopt the methods and data standards with the working groups. Working groups
Communities and research
Universities, civil society and individual experts: projects, data and review. Write to the team
| Open call | Seeks | Closes |
|---|---|---|
| Founding call for experts to the working groups CALL-FOUNDING-EXPERTS | expert, editor, chair | 2026-12-15 |
| Open nomination for the three independent expert seats of the Global Standards Council CALL-GSC-IND | council-member | 2026-12-01 |
| Nominations of interim regional members (applies only if the transitional provision is decided) CALL-GSC-REG | council-member | 2026-12-15 |
| Review of the wave-1 risk core outlines (C1, C2, C3, C4, C8, C10, C11) CALL-REVIEW-WAVE1 | contributor | 2027-01-31 |
| Experts for the core standards of risk science: uncertainty and evidence grading, scales, structured expert judgement, tolerability, extremes and compound events, catastrophic and existential risk, ethics and equity, units and measurement (NRS-C17 to NRS-C24) CALL-CORE-SCIENCE | expert, editor, chair | 2027-01-31 |
| Independent reviewers for the families of the hazard atlas, three from at least two regions for each family (NHS2-R19), priority families first CALL-ATLAS-REVIEW | expert | 2027-03-31 |
| Members of the interim Frontier Safety Review Panel and red-team reviewers (biosafety and biosecurity, AI safety and security, critical-infrastructure security); applications treated in confidence CALL-FRONTIER-SAFETY-REVIEW | expert | 2026-11-30 |
| Experts in ontology, metrology, software verification and conformity assessment for the requirement register, the NHS-2 machine representation, the conformance test suites and the conformity assessment scheme CALL-CONFORMANCE-ONTOLOGY | expert, editor | 2027-01-31 |
Calls past their closing date are hidden automatically. Every call, proposal and route: open areas and calls.
Gather the cell
Bring together three to seven people with complementary skills: data, field practice, policy and communication.
Register it
Write to the team with the cell’s name, members, area and region. You receive a reference and a contact. Write to the team
Choose a charter
Pick one focus: research and evidence, data and maps, standards review, or community preparedness.
Learn together
Follow shared study paths at Risk Academy, with practice and a record of every course completed. Hazards and resilience
Lead and report
Hold regular sessions. Publish what the cell learns through Reports. Bring findings to the working groups. Working groups
What a national team or a local community can do on The Global Risks Index (NXS-GRX) today.
Your country’s profile
Open risk profiles for 195 countries, with sources and licences on every value. Open the Index
Correct or reply
Correct a value or reply for your country. The change is logged with its effect. Open the Index
Offer data
Offer a dataset. It enters through the licence gate, with your credit. Open the Index
Every figure on this page is indexed: hazards, climate, conflict, the world.
The Index is the Consortium’s indexing system for risk data. Every indicator, hazard, series and country profile carries its Nexus Standards identifier, its source and its licence, so what this page shows can be traced, corrected and reused.
- 01 · Sources205 registered sourcesEvery value keeps its source and licence; withheld values are counted.Data and licences
- 02 · Nexus StandardsNIS-1 and NHS-1451 indicators, 905 hazards; every record carries a UNI.Nexus Standards
- 03 · The Index54 series, 195 country profilesComputed on the standards; no value is published until an edition is released.The Global Risks Index
- 04 · This pageAI and Digital GovernanceMaps, figures and feeds read the Index in the context of hazards, climate, conflict.Public API
Series in this context hazards, climate, conflict
- GLBGlobal SystemsThe state of interdependent global risk: the twenty domain indices aggregated to the world, the five core systems (water, energy, food, health, biodiversity) and their couplings, the global tail register and the gap…NXS-GRX-AR-000002Hazards · Climate · Conflict
- THDisaster Risk Intelligence (DRI)Signals, observations, event streams, geospatial layers and scenario packs turned into structured risk intelligence for preparedness and planning.NXS-GRX-AR-000111Hazards · Climate · Conflict
- GSGlobal CitiesUrban exposure, heat, flooding, informal settlement, service dependency and the economic weight of cities at risk.NXS-GRX-AR-000068Hazards · Infrastructure · Climate
- GSGlobal ClimateChronic and acute physical climate hazard, transition exposure, adaptation gaps and scenario pathways to 2030, 2050 and 2100.NXS-GRX-AR-000065Climate · Hazards · Finance
Country profiles the world
Every country profile carries the source and licence of each value. Correct a value or reply
Hazard domains NHS-1
- Atmosphere and weatherNXS-GRX-AR-000135
- Solid EarthNXS-GRX-AR-000138
- Systemic and compound eventsNXS-GRX-AR-000148
Geodata and API open
Open layers on an equal-area hexagon grid, shown as densities per km² or as symbols: People · GHSL 2025People · WorldPop 2025Built-up areaPortsAirportsRoadsRailwaysRivers and lake centrelines
/api/v1/public/grix · https://nexustandards.com/uni/{uni}
Developers · Data · Made with Natural Earth, Public domain; GHSL and WorldPop, CC BY 4.0
Snapshot of the Index registries pinned 2026-10-23 · 22c6eed. Research and risk-analytics information: not a rating, an official classification, a warning, a benchmark or advice.
Bring a governance question to the Forum.
Information and enquiries are open today. An enquiry receives a reference and names the next step; applications, payments, compute allocations and registrations open only when their team, terms and review capacity exist.
Legal documents.
Show all 18 legal documents
Maps, data and figures on this site are shown for context and general information. They are not advice, forecasts or warnings; the limits of the information are set out in the Disclaimers and Data Notices.