Early use cases included filtering board materials and generating report drafts. The interviews we conducted during our latest comprehensive external board review period reveal a shift. Most of the directors we spoke to realise that the true value lies not in automation, but in interpretation. You need to know what to ask – and how to make sense of the answers.

So, boards are moving from passive reporting to active decision-making. From information overload to insights that support decisions. As businesses across Europe digitise, automate and scale, their boards are rushing to close the digital fluency gap. Many describe a new form of literacy taking shape – governance for impact. That means using data and AI not just to inform, but to steer and prioritise clarity, speed and outcomes over process.

Data frustration

One of the clearest signals from our interviews? Frustration. Many directors struggle to get their hands on the right data, at the right time, in the right format. Efficiency – or more accurately, effectiveness – was a dominant theme. Leaders are asking: how can we streamline decision-making without sacrificing depth? How can we use AI to sharpen organisational focus, not just automate reporting? Contributors pointed to everything from smarter dashboards to leaner data workflows. The idea that underpins this ambition hasn’t changed: better insight, fewer hands.

Thin expertise

Yet while AI is high on most agendas, boardroom expertise remains low. Very few directors can claim hands-on experience. Instead, they increasingly turn to outside advisors. This raises important questions about composition. Respondents flagged diversity of thought, background and tenure as critical to AI readiness. Long-term thinking and varied perspectives are key to challenging assumptions and building resilience.

Expectations are higher in more digitised industries and the gap between sectors is significant. Everyone recognises AI as a top priority for 2025, but adoption varies sharply by sector. Some are still experimenting. Others are already restructuring. One senior director described the shock of moving from a fast-paced digital business to a major financial institution and hitting a wall when trying to retrieve basic performance data.

The common thread across all our responses is the fundamental question about impact. If every process becomes more efficient, what does that mean for the organisation? For the people within it? What roles will be reshaped, redefined or replaced? Boards are now expected to think beyond systems to start steering towards answers that safeguard culture, performance and purpose.

How do the interview responses stack up against our quantitative platform data?

When we compare the two, clear patterns emerge.

The signal from the interviews about growing frustration with data access maps directly to the platform statement: “I feel confident that the board makes the best use of the data generated within the company.”

This addresses whether directors believe they’re turning raw data into useful insight, effectively managing volume and distilling what matters. The data shows a steady rise in confidence.

In 2024, 88.9% of board members agreed they make the best use of company-generated data – up from 84.2% in 2022. Neutral responses dropped from 9.5% to 6.4%, suggesting directors are becoming more decisive and self-assured.

This upward trend tracks with the rise of AI in boardrooms and the growing pressure to translate complexity into clarity.

Another platform statement asks if “the board’s decisions are always based on facts and relevant data.”

In 2024, 88.5% agreed – a stable result compared to previous years, but disagreement dropped slightly, showing marginal gains in conviction.

A litmus test for data maturity

Still, some inherent tension may exist between these two quantitative platform statements: too much data versus too little clarity. Strong reporting versus insight that drives real decisions.

• A board that scores highly on data usage but falls short on data-based decisions may have the tools, but not the discipline.
  
  

• A board that believes it makes fact-based decisions but lacks confidence in its data may be building decisions on shaky ground.

The goal is balance. Fluency in the inputs. Confidence in the outputs. And a governance model that turns information into impact.

Insight or instinct?

If your board’s dashboards went dark tomorrow and all you had were narrative briefings, discussions and your sound judgement would you still make the same decisions?

If not, it’s worth asking: are you using data and AI to drive clarity – or simply to keep the lights on?

About this research

Our data is extracted from nearly 2,000 board reviews conducted on the BoardClic platform. The platform includes feedback from 7,000 chairs and board members across 600 organisations in 50 countries worldwide.

This specific dataset, which focuses on data usage and fact-based decision-making, is drawn from board performance reviews conducted on the platform between January 1, 2022, and December 31, 2024. It reflects the opinions and attitudes of chairs and board members across Europe. In total, 2,651 individuals responded to the question about data usage, and 392 individuals responded to the question about fact-based decision-making.