CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 1Digitalization, Law, and RegulationEthics and Social Impacts of AIRegulation and Compliance Studies

Between Innovation and Oversight: A Cross-Regional Study of AI Risk Management Frameworks in the EU, U.S., UK, and China

Open access
Al-Maamari, Amir·2025·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2503.05773arXiv 2503.05773
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

As artificial intelligence (AI) technologies increasingly enter important sectors like healthcare, transportation, and finance, the development of effective governance frameworks is crucial for dealing with ethical, security, and societal risks. This paper conducts a comparative analysis of AI risk management strategies across the European Union (EU), United States (U.S.), United Kingdom (UK), and China. A multi-method qualitative approach, including comparative policy analysis, thematic analysis, and case studies, investigates how these regions classify AI risks, implement compliance measures, structure oversight, prioritize transparency, and respond to emerging innovations. Examples from high-risk contexts like healthcare diagnostics, autonomous vehicles, fintech, and facial recognition demonstrate the advantages and limitations of different regulatory models. The findings show that the EU implements a structured, risk-based framework that prioritizes transparency and conformity assessments, while the U.S. uses decentralized, sector-specific regulations that promote innovation but may lead to fragmented enforcement. The flexible, sector-specific strategy of the UK facilitates agile responses but may lead to inconsistent coverage across domains. China's centralized directives allow rapid large-scale implementation while constraining public transparency and external oversight. These insights show the necessity for AI regulation that is globally informed yet context-sensitive, aiming to balance effective risk management with technological progress. The paper concludes with policy recommendations and suggestions for future research aimed at enhancing effective, adaptive, and inclusive AI governance globally.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2503.05773

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The absence of a common regulatory architecture makes it difficult to standardize best practices for responsible AI use for persuasive purposes, including social marketing.

    “Al-Maamari (2025) profundiza en esta comparación al analizar los marcos de gestión de riesgo de la IA en la Unión Europea, Estados Unidos, el Reino Unido y China, evidenciando que la ausencia de una arquitectura regulatoria común dificulta la estandarización de buenas prácticas en el uso responsable de la IA con fines persuasivos, incluido el marketing social.”

    From El Reto del Marketing Social ante la Inteligencia Artificial: un análisis comparado en distintos contextos geográficos y sistemas políticos (2026) · cites this paper as Al-Maamari (2025)

    The Introduction (p. 2) compares distinct AI governance approaches in the EU, U.S., UK, and China, and §6.2 (p. 17) says their divergent priorities make full harmonization of AI standards unlikely in the near future. The paper does not extend that finding to responsible AI use for persuasion or social marketing, so the application-specific part of the claim is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 32

  1. [2][2] Luciano Floridi and Josh Cowls. A unified framework of five principles for ai in society. Machine learning and the city: Applications in architecture and urban design , pages 535-545, 2022. -
  2. [4][4] Virginia Dignum. Ethics in artificial intelligence: introduction to the special issue. Ethics and Information Technology , 20(1):1-3, 2018. -
  3. [5][5] Bernd Blobel, Pekka Ruotsalainen, Mathias Brochhausen, Frank Oemig, and Gustavo A Uribe. Autonomous systems and artificial intelligence in healthcare transformation to 5p medicine-ethical challenges. In Digital personalized health and medicine , pages 1089-1093. IOS Press, 2020. -
  4. [6][6] B Pratt, M Parker, and S Bull. Equitable design and use of digital surveillance technologies during covid-19: Norms and concerns. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics , 17(5):573-586, Dec 2022. Epub 2022 Sep 7. -
  5. [7][7] Amna Batool, Didar Zowghi, and Muneera Bano. Responsible ai governance: a systematic literature review. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.10896 , 2023. - · arXiv
  6. [11][11] Jessica Morley, Libby Kinsey, Anat Elhalal, Francesca Garcia, Marta Ziosi, and Luciano Floridi. Operationalising ai ethics: barriers, enablers and next steps. AI & SOCIETY , pages 1-13, 2023. -
  7. [15][15] Virginia Eubanks. Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor . St. Martin's Press, 2018. -
  8. [19][19] Zhisheng Chen. Ethics and discrimination in artificial intelligence-enabled recruitment practices. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications , 10(1):1-12, 2023. -
  9. [22][22] Paul Voigt and Axel Von dem Bussche. The eu general data protection regulation (gdpr). A Practical Guide, 1st Ed., Cham: Springer International Publishing , 10(3152676):10-5555, 2017. -
  10. [26][26] Jonas Schuett. Risk management in the artificial intelligence act. European Journal of Risk Regulation , 15(2):367-385, 2024. -
  11. [33][33] Charanjit Singh. Artificial intelligence and deep learning: considerations for financial institutions for compliance with the regulatory burden in the united kingdom. Journal of Financial Crime , 31(2):259-266, 2024. -
  12. [38][38] Jing Cheng and Jinghan Zeng. Shaping ai's future? china in global ai governance. Journal of Contemporary China , 32(143):794-810, 2023. -
  13. [39][39] Meng Chen. Developing china's approaches to regulate cross-border data transfer: Relaxation and integration. Computer Law & Security Review , 54:105997, 2024. -
  14. [40][40] Rogier Creemers. China's emerging data protection framework. Journal of Cybersecurity , 8(1):tyac011, 08 2022. -
  15. [41][41] Xiongbiao Ye, Yuhong Yan, Jia Li, and Bo Jiang. Privacy and personal data risk governance for generative artificial intelligence: A chinese perspective. Telecommunications Policy , 48(10):102851, 2024. -
  16. [42][42] Jose Luna, Ivan Tan, Xiaofei Xie, and Lingxiao Jiang. Navigating governance paradigms: A cross-regional comparative study of generative ai governance processes & principles. In Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society , volume 7, pages 917-931, 2024. -
  17. [43][43] Anna Schmitz, Michael Mock, Rebekka Görge, Armin B Cremers, and Maximilian Poretschkin. A global scale comparison of risk aggregation in ai assessment frameworks. AI and Ethics , pages 1-26, 2024. -
  18. [44][44] Amna Batool, Didar Zowghi, and Muneera Bano. Ai governance: a systematic literature review. AI and Ethics , pages 1-15, 2025. -
  19. [45][45] Linda Hantrais. International comparative research: Theory, methods and practice . Bloomsbury Publishing, 2008. -
  20. [46][46] Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology , 3(2):77-101, 2006. -
  21. [47][47] Robert Stake. Case study research . Springer, 1995. -
  22. [49][49] Weiyue Wu and Shaoshan Liu. A comprehensive review and systematic analysis of artificial intelligence regulation policies. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.12218 , 2023. - · arXiv
  23. [57][57] Genia Kostka. China's social credit systems and public opinion: Explaining high levels of approval. New Media &Society , 21(7):1565-1593, 2019. -
  24. [66][66] Jessica Morley, Luciano Floridi, Libby Kinsey, and Anat Elhalal. From what to how: an initial review of publicly available ai ethics tools, methods and research to translate principles into practices. Science and engineering ethics , 26(4):2141-2168, 2020. -
  25. [74][74] Julia Schwaeke, Anna Peters, Dominik K. Kanbach, Sascha Kraus, and Paul Jones. The new normal: The status quo of ai adoption in smes. Journal of Small Business Management , 0(0):1-35, 2024. -
  26. [75][75] Timothée Schmude, Laura Koesten, Torsten Möller, and Sebastian Tschiatschek. Information that matters: Exploring information needs of people affected by algorithmic decisions. International Journal of HumanComputer Studies , 193:103380, 2025. -
  27. [82][82] Huw Roberts, Alexander Babuta, Jessica Morley, Christopher Thomas, Mariarosaria Taddeo, and Luciano Floridi. Artificial intelligence regulation in the united kingdom: a path to good governance and global leadership? Internet Policy Review , 2023. -
  28. [84][84] Wang Menglu. Regulation of algorithmic decision-making in china: Development, problems and implications. Singapore Journal of Legal Studies , 1:276-305, 2024. -
  29. [85][85] David Fernández Llorca, Ronan Hamon, Henrik Junklewitz, Kathrin Grosse, Lars Kunze, Patrick Seiniger, Robert Swaim, Nick Reed, Alexandre Alahi, Emilia Gómez, et al. Testing autonomous vehicles and ai: perspectives and challenges from cybersecurity, transparency, robustness and fairness. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.14641 , 2024. - · arXiv
  30. [90][90] Angela Huyue Zhang. The promise and perils of china's regulation of artificial intelligence. Available at SSRN , 2024. -
  31. [95][95] Jinseo Jeong, Sohyun Kim, Lian Pan, Daye Hwang, Dongseop Kim, Jeongwon Choi, Yeongkyo Kwon, Pyeongro Yi, Jisoo Jeong, and Seok-Ju Yoo. Reducing the workload of medical diagnosis through artificial intelligence: A narrative review. Medicine (Baltimore) , 104(6):e41470, February 2025. -
  32. [96][96] Pascal Yves Schroeder, Catharina Glugla, Alex Shandro, Catherine Di Lorenzo, Sarah De Wulf, Filip Van Elsen, David Wakeling, Jane Finlayson-Brown, Justyna Ostrowska, Laur Badin, Laurie-Anne Ancenys, Nicole Wolters Ruckert, Paul Wagner, Peter Van Dyck, Robert Dickens, Ross Phillipson, and Steve Wood. Zooming in on ai #10: Eu ai act - what are the obligations for high-risk ai systems?, October 2024. -

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Al-Maamari, A.
Corresponding author
Al-Maamari, Amir
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2503.05773
arXiv
2503.05773
OpenAlex
W6891918357
Cited by
1
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Regulation and Compliance Studies
Keywords
AI risk management, AI governance, AI regulation, regional comparison, EU AI Act, UK AI policy, China AI policy, risk-based regulation, sector-specific regulation, regulatory compliance, transparency, human oversight of AI, healthcare diagnostics, autonomous vehicles, fintech, face recognition

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review