Skip to content

International · Report

OECD — Agentic AI in Organisations: Early Insights from Practitioner Interviews

Published16 September 2026Added 9 November 2026

Issued by Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Summary

This OECD working paper examines how agentic AI is being developed, deployed and governed in practice. Based on interviews with organisations across regions and sectors, it documents emerging applications, expected benefits, operational challenges and governance approaches. Its value lies in grounding policy discussion in practitioner evidence rather than treating agentic systems only as a conceptual category. The paper identifies gaps between rapidly developing organisational use and the maturity of governance arrangements, providing a useful soft-law reference for future policy and research.

Why it matters

Empirical evidence from practitioner interviews; emerging organisational applications of agentic AI; benefits and operational challenges; current governance approaches; gaps requiring further policy and research attention.

Governance themes

Topics

Record metadata

Region
Global
Governance themes
AI governance, Risk management, Accountability, International cooperation
Document type
Report
Status
Published
Publication date
16 September 2026
Added to archive
9 November 2026
Archive record last updated
9 November 2026
Language
English
Original source
View original source

Citation export

Plain citation

OECD, Agentic AI in Organisations: Early Insights from Practitioner Interviews, OECD Artificial Intelligence Papers, 16 September 2026, DOI 10.1787/1257a26f-en. Global AI Governance Archive. https://archive.reitaw.com/documents/oecd-agentic-ai-organisations-practitioner-interviews.

BibTeX

@misc{oecd_agentic_ai_organisations_practitioner_interviews,
  title        = {OECD — Agentic AI in Organisations: Early Insights from Practitioner Interviews},
  author       = {Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {Global AI Governance Archive},
  url          = {https://doi.org/10.1787/1257a26f-en},
  note         = {Archive record: https://archive.reitaw.com/documents/oecd-agentic-ai-organisations-practitioner-interviews},
}

See the citation guide for style-specific examples.

Recorded cross-references

  • OECD Principles on Artificial Intelligence
  • Singapore — Model AI Governance Framework for Agentic AI

Related Entries

  • InternationalStandardUndated

    ISO 10218 — Safety Requirements for Industrial Robots

    ISO 10218-1 and ISO 10218-2 are international safety standards for industrial robots and robot system integration. They are central to embodied AI governance because AI-driven vision, pathfinding, and adaptive control ca…

  • GlobalFramework1 November 2021

    UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence

    The UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence established a global soft-law framework for AI ethics. Adopted in 2021, it placed particular emphasis on human rights, inclusion, digital inequality, gen…

  • OECDFramework1 May 2019

    OECD Principles on Artificial Intelligence

    The OECD Principles on Artificial Intelligence were the first intergovernmental agreement on AI policy. Adopted in May 2019, they set out value-based principles for responsible stewardship of trustworthy AI. The principl…

  • GlobalFramework1 January 2017

    Asilomar AI Principles

    The Asilomar AI Principles were an early cross-disciplinary framework for beneficial artificial intelligence. Developed through the Future of Life Institute, the principles were signed by more than 1,500 AI researchers a…

  • SingaporeFramework22 January 2026

    Singapore — Model AI Governance Framework for Agentic AI

    Singapore’s Model AI Governance Framework for Agentic AI provides organisational guidance for deploying AI agents responsibly. It centres on four dimensions: selecting and bounding appropriate use cases, making humans me…

This archive is provided for research and informational purposes. It should not be interpreted as legal or regulatory advice.