Nonprofits Could Lead on AI Governance. Here's Why They Should.
This piece was originally written as an op-ed in response to SFU research published in the Vancouver Sun in March 2026.
The public has stopped trusting governments and tech companies to govern AI. The one group that still holds public trust, and that has spent decades earning it, is the nonprofit sector. That makes this a rare moment: nonprofits could lead on AI governance instead of following. Most have no framework in place.
Here's where that comes from. Researchers at Simon Fraser University surveyed BC residents about AI in late 2024, then again in early 2026. The tech industry tends to assume that familiarity breeds acceptance. The opposite happened. The more people learned about AI, the more concerned they got, even as they reported using it more and knowing more about it than the year before.
Most BC residents believe governments should regulate AI. More than half don't trust government to do it in the public's interest. Trust in tech companies is lower still. The only institutions that still hold broad public confidence are universities and researchers.
Look at what those trusted institutions share with the nonprofit sector. They aren't profit-driven. They answer to communities, not shareholders. They hold values that predate AI and won't be traded away for competitive advantage. Nonprofits have spent decades building exactly the kind of trust that is now in shortest supply.
And most of them have no AI governance framework at all. That is both the risk and the opening.
The sector has a long history of getting left behind when new technology arrives. Resources flow to corporate adoption, tools get built for sectors with budgets, and nonprofits catch up years later without the infrastructure or guidance they need. AI is following that same pattern right now, and I understand why many nonprofit leaders are watching from the sidelines. The technology moves faster than anyone's capacity to keep up. The stakes feel high and the guidance feels thin.
But this time, watching from the sidelines means missing the thing that makes the sector's position rare. The public has already withdrawn its trust from the institutions that would normally step in. What people are asking for instead is transparency, human oversight, protection of their data, and accountability for automated decisions. That is the language the nonprofit sector already lives in. Those are its foundational values.
A nonprofit that develops strong AI governance is doing more than protecting its own organization. It is showing every sector watching what responsible adoption actually looks like.
That is a different kind of leadership than the sector is used to. Leadership by setting and example. By building governance that reflects your values, owning AI policy as an expression of what your organization stands for rather than a compliance exercise, and being open about how you are doing it. The visible action is the leadership.
It takes clarity about values, honesty about risk, and someone willing to make decisions before a crisis forces them. Boards are already asking about AI. Funders are starting to. Communities have been asking all along.
British Columbians are paying attention. They are learning, using the technology, and thinking seriously about what it means. They want guardrails, and they want institutions they can trust to hold them.
The nonprofit sector can be that institution, but only if it shows up, and showing up means something specific. It means writing real AI governance, not a compliance checkbox. It means making your policy public, sharing it with other organizations, and being willing to say out loud how you made your choices. That visibility is the leadership. It's also the opportunity, and it won't stay open long.
Sarah Downey is a Canada-based consultant who helps nonprofits adopt AI ethically through governance clarity, training, and AI policy development.
Comments