Authors: Dalia Ali, Muneeb Ahmed, Hailan Wang, Arfa Khan, Naira Paola Arnez Jordan, Sunnie S. Y. Kim, Meet Dilip Muchhala, Anne Kathrin Merkle, +1 more
Organizations: Technical University of Munich Munich, Germany · Princeton University Princeton, New Jersey, USA · WWF Mumbai, India · WWF Berlin, Germany
Despite AI's promise, little is known about how mission-driven organizations (MDOs) adopt AI. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 15 experts and leaders within environmental, humanitarian, and development organizations across the Global North and South. We find that MDOs adopt AI selectively, with uses in content creation and data analysis, while maintaining human oversight for mission-critical applications. In case of conflicts between the organization's values and efficiency, participants consider sustainability, neutrality, and community trust as constraints that could limit or prevent AI adoption. Individual adoption of AI is not translated into organizational practice due to fragmented data infrastructure, lack of in-house expertise, inertia, ethical challenges, and dependency on vendors. Participants expected AI use in MDOs to involve institutional control over infrastructure, support for missions, and human-centered human-AI collaboration. We contribute an analysis on how MDOs manage AI adoption, identify barriers to responsible deployment, and provide recommendations for designing mission-aligned AI systems.
Figures & tables
Current AI Practices
Barriers in Adoption
Future Outlook
Goals
Analyzing how MDOs deploy AI across their operations
Identifying the organizational, ethical, and infrastructural barriers that constrain adoption
Exploring practitioners’ visions of AI’s role in strengthening missions while preserving values
Questions
In what application areas are MDOs currently adopting AI across their operations?
What mission- and context-specific barriers do MDOs face in adopting AI?
How do MDOs envision mission-aligned and values-consistent future uses of AI?
Analytical Focus
Inductive thematic coding of interview data to identify domains of AI use and practices
Inductive clustering of barrier-related data into higher-order categories through constant comparison
Narrative and thematic coding of future reflections, synthesized into organizational outlooks
Table 1. Our study framework: Goals, Questions, and Analytical Focus \new{ \parThe above table illustrates our study framework, which comprises four themes. These themes are Current AI Practices, Challenges in Adoption, Future Outlook, and Recommendations. As illustrated in the table, the rows represent our Goals, Questions, and Analytical Focus. Our Goals illustrate the objective of each theme, while the Questions represent the study questions for each theme. Analytical Focus, on the other hand, illustrates the analysis techniques applied. As demonstrated in the table, our study framework comprises four columns and three rows. \par}
ID
Position
Work Area
Organization Type
Region
P1
Chief Regional Advisor
Development
IGO
Middle East & North Africa (MENA)
P2
Global Head Data & AI
Environmental
International NGO
Europe (Switzerland)
P3
Head Digital Transformation & Data
Environmental
International NGO
Europe (Switzerland)
P4
Experiments Team Co-Lead
Environmental
International NGO
Europe (UK)
P5
Director of ICT
Environmental
International NGO
Europe (UK)
P6
Data & Technology Global Lead Scientist
Environmental
International NGO
North America (USA)
Table 2. Participant demographics and organizational context This table summarizes the demographic and organizational characteristics of the 15 participants interviewed. It lists each participant’s ID, their role or position, their primary work area, the type of organization they work for, and the global region in which they are based. Participants come from international NGOs, local NGOs, IGOs, and technology consortia, with work spanning environmental, development, and humanitarian domains. Regions represented include Europe, North America, South Asia, the Middle East and North Africa, and Asia-Pacific. The table contains 15 rows of participants and five columns describing their profiles.
Figure 1. AI adoption patterns across environmental, humanitarian, and development MDOs, showing reported patterns of use, organizational constraints, and future priorities for human–AI collaboration.
Themes
Sub-themes
Representative Codes
Current AI practices
Outreach and External Communication
AI for Donor Intelligence & Engagement; AI for Outreach & External Communication; AI for Data Accessibility & Open Information; AI Supporting Advocacy & Public Messaging
Organizational Efficiency and Planning
AI for HR & Administrative Processes; AI for Resource Management; AI for Daily Workflow & Knowledge Access; AI for Organizational Efficiency & Planning
Data-Driven Insight Generation
AI for Research, Text Analysis & Reporting; AI for Data Cleaning & Integration; AI for Pattern Recognition in Large Datasets
Mission-Critical Monitoring and Response
AI for Risk Monitoring & Anticipation; AI for Crisis Mapping & Humanitarian Response; AI for Combating Illegal Wildlife Trade; AI for Wildlife & Ecosystem Monitoring; AI for Sustainability & Green Transformation
Barriers in Adoption
Implementation Gap
Skills & Expertise Shortages; Struggling to Keep Pace with Rapid AI Development; Over-reliance on Basic Tools; Personal Anxiety & Job Security Concerns; Limited Collaboration Between Organizations
Institutional Inertia
Leadership Skepticism & Reluctance; Process & Organizational Alignment Barriers; Financial Constraints & Business Case Challenges; Difficulty Measuring Impact; Country & Context Alignment Challenges
Table 3. Thematic analysis results: Four main themes with sub-themes and representative codes This table presents the results of the thematic analysis, summarizing four main themes that structure the findings: Current AI Practices, Barriers in Adoption, Future Outlook, and Recommendations. Each theme is broken down into several sub-themes, and each sub-theme lists representative qualitative codes derived from interview data. The table is organized into three columns: the first column shows the major themes, the second lists related sub-themes, and the third provides example codes illustrating patterns observed in the data. In total, the table contains four themes, seventeen sub-themes, and multiple representative codes that reflect how participants described AI use, adoption challenges, anticipated futures, and practitioner-driven recommendations.
As AI systems gain agency in workplaces, workers increasingly interact with systems that do more than support tasks: they make decisions, allocate work, and shape how workers communicate with others. We interviewed 16 workers in healthcare, finance, and management about their daily interactions with workplace AI systems. Across these domains, AI occupied three agentic roles: \emph{assistant}, supporting worker decision-making; \emph{arbiter}, making consequential decisions that workers had to explain to downstream stakeholders; and \emph{manager}, directing work and displacing social structures through which work had been negotiated and learned. We find that worker needs depended on how decision authority and accountability were configured around the AI system. Explanation, control, accountability, and communication each took different meanings depending on whether AI supported, decided, or directed work. We contribute a role-based account of workplace human-agent interaction and identify accountability-authority asymmetry as a mechanism through which AI deployments can place responsibility on workers for outcomes whose authority has shifted to AI. We discuss implications for designing workplace AI around both the agent and its surrounding agency configuration.
Christine P. Lee, Min Kyung Lee, Bilge Mutlu
University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, WI, USA · University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA
We study how organizations use frontier generative AI by linking ChatGPT Enterprise account records to usage, worker roles, task classifications, and public-company financial data through March 2026. These linked data enable a privacy-preserving analysis of adoption, worker roles, and message-level tasks at scale: for instance, the worker-level sample we analyze at the six-month adoption horizon includes over 1,500 organizations and over 17 million messages. We document four facts about enterprise AI adoption and use. First, ChatGPT Enterprise usage has grown rapidly due to a combination of new firm adoption and growing intensity among existing adopters. Second, U.S.-based public company adoption is concentrated among larger, more valuable, and more R&D- and SG&A-intensive firms. Third, active use within adopting firms spans job functions and seniority levels, with especially high usage intensity among early-career workers. Fourth, ChatGPT Enterprise usage encompasses a broad range of knowledge work tasks, including writing, technical work, communication, and information synthesis. In aggregate, these results suggest that firms differ widely in the speed, breadth and purpose of their enterprise AI adoption, and that they are still actively learning how to integrate AI into organizational workflows.
Aaron Chatterji, David Holtz, Neel Rakholia +2
OpenAI · Columbia Business School · Wharton School, U. Pennsylvania
This study examines the integration of AI into Human Resource Management in German companies. We ask if and how AI-based technologies are \enquote{augmenting} human resource management. Organisations employ generative AI or predictive analytics to transform traditional human resource functions, to streamline routine tasks and to reallocate resources toward strategic, people-centred activities. Our findings from interviews and group discussions and a survey (N=410) reveal that while AI tools enhance HR analytics capabilities, their adoption mainly serves efficiency and rationalising goals. The introduction of AI tools is shaped by organisational transformation factors such as digital infrastructure, co-determination frameworks, and ethical implications. The research highlights both the strategic potential for improved talent development and the challenges posed by data governance and algorithmic transparency. Overall, this work contributes to understanding the ambiguous role of technological change in HR, which promises to augment predictive capabilities yet serves the ends of efficiency and rationalisation.