Junior Enterprises Global

A successful first Global Dialogue on AI Governance should produce outcomes that are concrete, inclusive and implementation-oriented. From the perspective of Junior Enterprises Global, success would mean that the Dialogue does not remain limited to high-level principles, but defines how responsible AI governance can create real capacity, opportunity and trust across societies. First, the Dialogue should recognise young people as active builders and implementers of responsible AI, not only as users, future workers or vulnerable groups. It should create structured channels for youth, student entrepreneurs, universities, SMEs and youth-led organisations to contribute to AI governance and implementation. Second, the Dialogue should establish a strong commitment to AI capacity-building. This should include access to AI skills, responsible AI literacy, open educational resources, practical guidance for smaller organisations, and support for youth-led innovation, particularly in developing and emerging economies. Third, it should affirm that trustworthy AI and innovation are mutually reinforcing. Human rights, transparency, accountability, data protection, non-discrimination and meaningful human oversight must be central, especially in education, employment, public services and access to economic opportunity. At the same time, governance frameworks should be proportionate and understandable enough for SMEs, start-ups and civil society actors to apply them in practice. Fourth, the Dialogue should emerge as a platform for showcasing successful AI governance initiatives that stakeholders are co-creating with Member States, or implementing within national and local ecosystems. Such a platform could identify and share best-practice concepts, youth-led implementation models, responsible AI sandboxes, capacity-building programmes and public-private-youth partnerships that demonstrate how AI governance principles can be turned into practice. Finally, the Dialogue should result in a clear follow-up mechanism. Success should be measured not only by political agreement, but by whether AI governance improves access, skills and participation. Relevant indicators should include youth access to AI training, youth participation in governance processes, support for youth-led AI projects, SME access to responsible AI tools, and inclusion of youth organisations from developing countries.

• Transparency, accountability, and human oversight
• Protection and promotion of human rights
• Social, economic, ethical, cultural, linguistic and technical implications of AI
• AI capacity-building

We selected these four priorities because they are the areas where global AI governance most directly affects young people, student entrepreneurs, volunteers, SMEs and local innovation ecosystems. AI capacity-building is our foremost priority. Responsible AI governance will only be meaningful if young people and smaller actors have the skills, tools and institutional support to understand, use and challenge AI systems where needed. This includes applied AI literacy, responsible AI training, access to educational resources, and practical guidance for universities, youth-led organisations, start-ups and SMEs, especially in developing and emerging economies. The social, economic, ethical, cultural, linguistic and technical implications of AI are equally central. AI will shape education, employment, entrepreneurship, public services and local development. Its effects will not be uniform across regions, languages or communities. The Dialogue must therefore address not only technical governance, but also whether AI expands opportunity, strengthens local innovation ecosystems and respects cultural and linguistic diversity, given AI is a strong inequalities accelerator. The protection and promotion of human rights must remain a foundation of AI governance. Young people are directly affected by AI systems in education, recruitment, access to finance, digital platforms and public decision-making. Safeguards against discrimination, exclusion, privacy violations and unequal access are essential to ensure that AI serves human development. Finally, transparency, accountability and human oversight are necessary to build trust and enable responsible adoption. Students, SMEs and civil society actors need AI systems and governance frameworks that are understandable and usable in practice. These principles are also essential for ensuring that AI-enabled decisions can be explained, challenged and corrected.

One cross-cutting issue that deserves stronger attention is the implementation gap between global AI governance principles and the capacity of local actors to apply them. Many AI governance discussions produce valuable principles, but these often remain difficult to translate into practice for students, youth-led organisations, SMEs, universities, civil society organisations and local public institutions. The Dialogue should therefore address not only what responsible AI means, but how different actors can operationalise it in real environments. A second emerging issue is the role of young people as co-creators of AI governance. Youth are often considered as users, learners or future workers, but less often as active implementers, entrepreneurs, researchers and civic actors. The Dialogue should recognise youth-led organisations as partners that can test, adapt and disseminate responsible AI practices across local ecosystems. A third issue is the need for governance approaches that are accessible to smaller actors. If AI governance becomes too complex or resource-intensive, it may unintentionally favour large institutions and technology companies with the capacity to comply, while excluding SMEs, start-ups and student-led organisations. Practical guidance, model policies, open learning tools and proportionate compliance pathways are therefore essential. Finally, the Dialogue should give greater attention to success cases and applied best practices. It could become a platform for showcasing AI governance initiatives that stakeholders are co-creating with Member States, or implementing within national and local ecosystems. These examples would help demonstrate how principles such as transparency, accountability, human oversight and rights protection can be applied in practice.

In the youth entrepreneurship and student-led innovation sector, the main governance gap is the distance between high-level AI principles and the practical capacity of young people, universities, SMEs and youth-led organisations to apply them. AI is already changing how students learn, how young entrepreneurs build services, how SMEs access expertise, and how organisations communicate, analyse data and make decisions. However, many smaller actors lack clear guidance, training and resources to adopt AI responsibly. The most significant challenge is unequal capacity. Young people in well-resourced environments can access AI tools, training and networks, while others face barriers related to cost, infrastructure, language, institutional support and digital literacy. This risks widening existing inequalities between regions, universities and entrepreneurial ecosystems. A second challenge is trust. In areas such as education, recruitment, access to finance, public services and business development, young people may be affected by AI-enabled decisions without sufficient transparency, accountability or human oversight. Weak safeguards can reinforce discrimination, exclusion and loss of agency. A third challenge is disproportionate complexity. If AI governance frameworks are designed mainly for large institutions, SMEs, start-ups, student-led organisations and civil society actors may struggle to understand or implement them. This could reduce responsible innovation precisely among actors that need guidance most. At the same time, the opportunities are significant. AI can help young people acquire skills faster, support SMEs more effectively, build new ventures, improve access to knowledge, and deliver local solutions for sustainable development. Student-led organisations such as Junior Enterprises can become practical bridges between global governance principles and local implementation by supporting AI literacy, responsible experimentation and SME-level adoption.

The AI Dialogue can play a crucial role by becoming the global space where AI governance moves from fragmented discussion to coordinated implementation. At present, many countries, regions, companies and civil society actors are developing their own approaches to AI governance. This diversity is valuable, but without structured cooperation it can also create fragmentation, unequal standards and limited access for smaller actors. The Dialogue should therefore serve three functions. First, it should create a trusted multistakeholder platform where Member States, international organisations, civil society, youth organisations, academia, the private sector and technical communities can exchange approaches, identify common principles and understand practical governance challenges. This is especially important for actors from developing and emerging economies that may otherwise have limited access to global AI governance processes. Second, the Dialogue should support convergence without imposing uniformity. AI governance must respect different legal systems, cultural contexts and development priorities, but certain foundations should be shared globally: human rights, transparency, accountability, non-discrimination, data protection, safety and meaningful human oversight. The Dialogue can help identify where interoperability is needed and where local adaptation should be preserved. Third, the Dialogue should become a platform for implementation and best-practice exchange. It should showcase AI governance initiatives that stakeholders are co-creating with Member States, or implementing within national and local ecosystems. These success cases can help translate global principles into practical models for capacity-building, youth participation, responsible AI adoption, SME support and public-interest innovation. For Junior Enterprises Global, the Dialogue's value lies in connecting global policy with local capacity. International cooperation on AI governance should not only align rules, but also ensure that young people, universities, SMEs and youth-led organisations can participate in and benefit from responsible AI adoption. In this sense, the Dialogue can help make AI governance more inclusive, practical and development-oriented.

The AI Dialogue should build on existing international initiatives rather than duplicate them. The Global Digital Compact provides the political foundation for inclusive digital cooperation and AI governance, while the Independent International Scientific Panel on AI can contribute evidence on risks, opportunities and policy trade-offs. The Dialogue should serve as the space where this evidence is translated into multistakeholder cooperation and practical follow-up. The UN frames the Dialogue as a platform to ensure AI governance reflects the priorities of all nations, not only technologically advanced countries. It should also connect with UNESCO's Recommendation on the Ethics of AI, the OECD AI Principles, and ITU's AI for Good platform. UNESCO offers a globally adopted ethical framework, the OECD Principles provide widely used standards for trustworthy and human-centred AI, and AI for Good already connects skills, standards, policy and practical solutions across the UN system. Beyond intergovernmental mechanisms, the Dialogue should build bridges with universities, youth entrepreneurship networks, SME support structures, civil society organisations and responsible innovation programmes. These actors are essential for translating AI governance into practice, especially in local economies and developing or emerging contexts. The Dialogue's added value should be coherence, inclusion and implementation. It can connect fragmented governance initiatives, identify where interoperability is needed, and give stakeholders from less-resourced ecosystems a meaningful entry point into global AI governance. Its distinctive contribution should be to showcase success cases co-created with Member States or implemented within national and local ecosystems, including responsible AI sandboxes, AI literacy programmes, youth-led projects and SME adoption models. For Junior Enterprises Global, the Dialogue should become the platform that connects global principles with practical capacity-building, enabling young people and student-led organisations to help implement responsible AI governance on the ground.

Different stakeholders should contribute according to their practical role in the AI ecosystem. Member States can provide policy direction, identify national governance gaps and support capacity-building. International organisations can connect the Dialogue to existing standards, research and development programmes. Academia and technical experts can provide evidence on risks, opportunities and emerging developments. The private sector can share implementation experience and responsible innovation practices. Civil society can represent rights-based concerns, affected communities and public-interest perspectives. Youth organisations, universities, SMEs and student-led initiatives should contribute practical insights on skills, employability, local innovation and barriers to responsible AI adoption. The Dialogue should be structured as an implementation-oriented multistakeholder process, not only as a sequence of speeches. Plenary sessions can set the political direction, but they should be complemented by thematic working sessions on capacity-building, human rights safeguards, transparency and accountability, youth participation, SME adoption and responsible innovation. The Dialogue should also include a best-practice platform where stakeholders can showcase AI governance initiatives co-created with Member States or implemented within national and local ecosystems. These could include AI literacy programmes, youth-led responsible AI sandboxes, public-private-youth partnerships, governance toolkits, and models for supporting SMEs and civil society organisations. To ensure inclusion, the format should combine in-person participation with accessible online channels, written submissions, regional consultations and youth-focused sessions. Special attention should be given to stakeholders from developing and emerging economies, smaller organisations and non-technical communities that are often underrepresented in AI governance discussions. Finally, the Dialogue should include a clear follow-up structure. This could involve annual progress tracking, stakeholder commitments, implementation case studies and indicators measuring whether AI governance is improving access, skills, participation and trust. In this way, the Dialogue can become a practical mechanism for cooperation rather than a one-off policy discussion.

Several voices remain underrepresented in global discussions on AI governance, particularly those closest to the practical effects of AI adoption. These include young people, students, youth-led organisations, SMEs, start-ups, educators, local civil society organisations, and communities from developing and emerging economies. Too often, AI governance is shaped primarily by governments, large technology companies, technical experts and well-resourced institutions, while smaller actors are expected to adapt afterwards. Young people are especially underrepresented as co-creators. They are often discussed as users, learners, future workers or vulnerable groups, but less often recognised as entrepreneurs, researchers, innovators and civic actors who can help implement responsible AI in local ecosystems. Student-led organisations and youth entrepreneurship networks can provide direct insights into how AI is changing education, employment, business creation and access to opportunity. Communities from developing and emerging economies also need stronger representation. Their perspectives are essential because AI divides are not only technical. They relate to infrastructure, language, affordability, skills, local relevance, data access and institutional capacity. Without these voices, global AI governance risks reflecting the priorities of the most technologically advanced ecosystems. These groups could be included through structured participation mechanisms rather than ad hoc consultation. The Dialogue should create dedicated youth and SME tracks, regional consultations, multilingual submission channels, online participation options, and supported participation for under-resourced organisations. It should also invite practical case studies from local ecosystems, including youth-led AI literacy projects, responsible AI sandboxes and SME adoption models. Inclusion should not be limited to speaking opportunities. Underrepresented groups should be involved in agenda-setting, working sessions, follow-up mechanisms and implementation partnerships. This would help ensure that global AI governance is not only technically sound, but socially relevant, development-oriented and usable by the people and organisations expected to apply it.

The AI Dialogue should use engagement formats that move beyond formal statements and allow stakeholders to work on practical governance challenges together. Plenary sessions remain useful for political direction, but meaningful engagement requires more interactive and implementation-oriented formats. One effective format would be AI governance labs. These would bring together Member States, youth organisations, SMEs, academia, civil society, technical experts and private-sector actors to work on concrete governance questions, such as responsible AI adoption in education, employment, public services or SME support. The outcome should be practical guidance, model policies or implementation concepts rather than general discussion. A second format would be a best-practice marketplace. Stakeholders could showcase AI governance initiatives co-created with Member States or implemented within national and local ecosystems, including AI literacy programmes, youth-led responsible AI sandboxes, public-private-youth partnerships, compliance toolkits and local capacity-building models. This would help the Dialogue become a platform for scalable success cases. Third, the Dialogue should include youth and emerging innovator roundtables. These should not be symbolic side sessions, but structured spaces feeding directly into the main conclusions. Young people, student entrepreneurs and youth-led organisations can provide practical insights into how AI affects education, employability, entrepreneurship and local development. Fourth, scenario-based policy exercises could help stakeholders test governance approaches against real-world situations, such as biased recruitment algorithms, AI use in public administration, or barriers faced by SMEs adopting AI responsibly. This would make discussions more grounded and solution-oriented. Finally, the Dialogue should include hybrid participation tools, regional pre-dialogues, multilingual digital consultations and an open repository of contributions and case studies. These formats would make participation more accessible for underrepresented stakeholders and ensure that the Dialogue is not limited to those able to attend physically.

Examples the AI Dialogue could build upon include both normative frameworks and practical implementation tools. UNESCO's Recommendation on the Ethics of AI is a strong global reference because it places human rights, dignity, fairness, transparency and human oversight at the centre of AI governance, and applies to all UNESCO Member States. Its Readiness Assessment Methodology is particularly useful because it helps countries identify institutional and regulatory gaps and translate ethical principles into national action. The OECD AI Principles also offer a practical foundation. They provide values-based principles and policy recommendations for trustworthy, human-centred AI, and were updated in 2024 to reflect developments such as general-purpose and generative AI. The NIST AI Risk Management Framework is a useful operational model because it helps organisations manage risks to individuals, organisations and society, and is designed for voluntary use across sectors. It could inspire accessible risk-management toolkits for SMEs, universities, youth-led organisations and civil society actors. The EU AI Act provides an important example of a risk-based regulatory approach, seeking to address AI risks while creating legal certainty. Its structure can inform discussions on proportionality, especially how safeguards can be strong without making responsible AI adoption impossible for smaller actors. Beyond these frameworks, the Dialogue should promote applied mechanisms: responsible AI sandboxes, AI literacy programmes, model policies for small organisations, open learning resources, public-interest datasets, and platforms showcasing successful AI governance projects co-created with Member States. For Junior Enterprises Global, the most promising approaches are those that connect rights-based governance with capacity-building, youth participation, SME support and local implementation.