An AI Ethics Committee (or AI Governance Board) is a senior, cross-functional organizational body mandated to provide strategic oversight, review high-stakes AI projects, resolve ethical dilemmas, and ensure that the development and deployment of AI align with the organization’s ethical principles, legal obligations, and societal commitments.

This committee acts as the highest internal governance authority for AI, sitting at the intersection of technology, ethics, law, and business strategy. Its role is not to make every operational decision but to set policy, review exceptions, and provide authoritative guidance on complex trade-offs that standard compliance processes cannot resolve. Typically composed of senior leaders from legal, compliance, technology, risk, business units, and often including external independent experts, it ensures diverse perspectives inform critical AI decisions. Its existence signals that AI ethics is a C-suite and board-level priority, integrated into the core of corporate governance.

The mandate and activities of an effective AI Ethics Committee typically include:

Policy & Standard Setting: Approving the organization’s AI ethics charter, code of conduct, and core governance policies that operationalize high-level principles.

Project Review & Approval: Serving as a final review gate for AI projects classified as high-risk or high-impact, assessing their alignment with ethical and legal standards before they proceed to deployment.

Dilemma Resolution: Acting as an arbiter for complex ethical challenges raised by teams (e.g., conflicts between business objectives and fairness, or use cases in sensitive domains), providing binding guidance.

Oversight & Reporting: Regularly reviewing reports on the organization’s AI portfolio, incident trends, audit findings, and the overall health of the AI Management System (AIMS), reporting directly to the executive board or audit committee.

External Engagement & Transparency: Shaping the organization’s public stance on AI ethics, engaging with stakeholders, and in some cases, publishing redacted summaries of its reviews to build external trust.

Regulatory Context: While not explicitly mandated by the EU AI Act, the creation of such a body is strongly implied as a best practice for implementing the required Quality Management System (Article 17) and fostering a "culture of security and ethics-first" (Recital 5). It is a concrete manifestation of top-management commitment, which is a core requirement of management system standards like ISO/IEC 42001. For regulated sectors like finance or healthcare, such governance bodies are becoming a regulatory expectation.

Strategic Foresight & Risk Mitigation: The committee provides a vital strategic function by looking beyond immediate compliance to the long-term societal and reputational implications of AI use. It acts as a crucial risk mitigation layer, preventing ethical missteps that could lead to catastrophic brand damage, loss of public trust, and regulatory backlash, thereby safeguarding the organization’s license to innovate.