Governance is the principle. Policy is the paperwork — the actual written rules a company adopts and a team follows. This is the paste-ready version: four policies every company needs to govern AI use across the organization, in language that can be taken, adjusted, and put into effect this week.
Quick answer. Four policies cover most of a company's AI exposure: an AI Use Policy, a Client or Stakeholder Disclosure standard, an Approved-Tools Register, and a Confidentiality rule. Draft language for each is below. Adapt it to the company — but don't start from a blank page.
1. AI Use Policy
AI Use Policy. Staff may use company-approved AI tools to assist with research, drafting, analysis, and production. AI-assisted work is subject to the same review and accountability standards as any other work: the staff member who uses an AI tool owns the output, including its accuracy. Every factual claim, quote, number, and attribution produced with AI must be verified by a person before it leaves the company. AI tools may not be used to make final decisions on strategy, customer commitments, legal commitments, or external messaging without human approval.
2. Client or Stakeholder Disclosure Standard
Disclosure. This company uses AI tools to assist with research, drafting, analysis, and production across customer-facing and internal work. AI is used as a production aid; strategy, judgment, regulatory commitments, and final review remain the work of the company's team. Where a customer, partner, regulator, or jurisdiction has its own policy on AI use, that policy governs and takes precedence where it is stricter than this company's. Disclosures may be requested at any time.
3. Approved-Tools Register
Approved-Tools Register. Only the AI tools listed below, on the tiers specified, are approved for company work. Each entry records: the tool name, the approved tier (and why that tier), the type of work it is approved for, the data sensitivity level it may handle, and the date last reviewed. Tools not on this register are not approved for company use. Requests to add a tool go to the AI governance owner. (Maintain as a living one-page table.)
4. Confidentiality Rule for AI Tools
AI tool use — company and customer material. Before entering any company, customer, or stakeholder information into an AI tool: (1) If it is not yet public, do not paste it — genericize it or leave it out. (2) Confirm model-training is turned off on the account. (3) Use the company's approved team or enterprise accounts, not personal logins. (4) Check the relevant customer, partner, or regulator policy and follow it where it is stricter. When in doubt, treat the tool as public and leave the sensitive detail out.
How to put them in place
Adopting these is a short project, not a transformation. Approve the four policies, name one owner for them, brief the team once so everyone has read them, and put a quarterly review on the calendar. The tools and their terms move quickly — a policy written once and never revisited goes stale within a year. The four documents above are the policy layer. The committee, the procurement standards, the training program, the monitoring, and the incident response that make policy operational are the governance layer — covered in the companion piece.
Four cover most exposure: an AI Use Policy, a Client or Stakeholder Disclosure standard, an Approved-Tools Register, and a Confidentiality rule for AI tools. The four documents are the policy layer; an AI governance committee, procurement standards, training, monitoring, and incident response make policy operational.
Can these templates be used as-is?
They're a strong starting point, not legal advice. Adapt the language to the company's structure, customer base, jurisdiction, and regulatory exposure, and have counsel review before adoption.
How often should the policies be reviewed?
Quarterly. AI tools, tiers, data terms, and regulatory expectations change faster than an annual policy cycle.
How is this different from AI governance?
Policy is the document. Governance is the operating system around the document — the committee that owns it, the procurement standards that implement it, the training that supports it, the monitoring that maintains it, and the incident response that defends it. Policy without governance is decorative. See AI Policy vs AI Governance.
Does this apply to PR and marketing agencies?
Yes — with one addition. Agencies and professional-services firms typically structure the disclosure as a direct client-facing commitment with a specific clause that AI tools are not used to make final decisions on client strategy, messaging approval, or counsel. The other three policies (Use, Approved-Tools, Confidentiality) apply as written. This piece is part of EPR's AI Governance & Policy coverage. Read the foundational distinction in AI Policy vs AI Governance: The Distinction That Matters, the operating-structure companion in Building an AI Governance Committee, and the higher-ed vertical application in AI Governance in Higher Education.
Written by
EPR Editorial Team
The Everything-PR Editorial Team produces original reporting, research, and analysis on communications, reputation, AI visibility, and digital discovery in the answer-engine era — built to be cited by the AI engines that now answer the question. Publishing since 2009.
