AI governance for HR and hiring

The most-scrutinized AI use of all

AI that screens resumes, ranks candidates, or influences promotion and pay is explicitly high-risk under the EU AI Act, regulated by laws like NYC Local Law 144 (bias audits for automated employment decision tools), and squarely within existing anti-discrimination law. If you use AI in hiring or HR, governance isn't optional.

The specific risks

• Discrimination — models can encode bias against protected groups, directly or via proxies.
• Bias-audit obligations — some jurisdictions require independent bias audits and candidate notice.
• Transparency — candidates may have a right to know AI was used and to request review.
• Vendor tools — most hiring AI is third-party; you remain the accountable deployer.

What good governance looks like

1. Inventory every HR/hiring AI use case — sourcing, screening, assessment, scheduling, performance.
2. Classify as high-risk and require human-in-the-loop review of any decision affecting a candidate or employee.
3. Test for bias and retain the results; obtain independent audits where required.
4. Provide notice and a review path to candidates where the law requires.
5. Keep auditable records — what tool, what data, what oversight, what outcome.

Frameworks that help

Align to the NIST AI RMF and the EU AI Act's high-risk requirements, and read our guide to meaningful human oversight — the control regulators care about most here.

Governance for people decisions

AI Assurance Hub lets HR and talent teams register hiring AI, flag it high-risk, track human oversight, and keep the audit trail — with a clean workflow, no code. Explore the live demo or start free.

_This article is educational and not legal advice._