Industry Experts: What You Should Know About AI Governance in Recruitment

In the growing regulation of AI, RPOs face critical challenges complying with over 160 global AI laws, ensuring fairness, transparency, and responsible use. The strategic challenge lies in maintaining trusted relationships that are fundamental to recruitment process outsourcing (RPO) partnerships, where organizations delegate critical talent acquisition functions while deploying AI systems that clients struggle to evaluate and understand.

At the 2025 Annual RPOA Conference, the leading industry conference for recruitment process outsourcing (RPO) leaders and their industry partners, Guru Sethupathy, founder and CEO of Fair Now, and Emily Khan, Chief People Officer at Hueman RPO, demonstrated how systematic AI governance transforms perceived implementation barriers into competitive advantages. Sethupathy previously led AI initiatives at Capital One, while Khan oversees the implementation of AI governance for Hueman's healthcare RPO clients. This post examines how strategic governance frameworks empower RPOs to accelerate AI adoption by establishing transparent testing protocols, developing proactive documentation systems, and positioning RPOs as trusted advisors who guide clients through regulatory complexity.

Major takeaways for RPO executives and talent acquisition leaders:

• Governance accelerates innovation: Systematic AI governance frameworks reduce implementation friction by establishing transparent processes that build stakeholder trust, enabling faster deployment cycles than unstructured approaches.
• RPOs become strategic advisors: Organizations implementing comprehensive governance frameworks position themselves as AI experts guiding clients through regulatory complexity, expanding relationships beyond traditional recruitment outsourcing.
• Dual testing requirements protect partnerships: RPOs must conduct independent bias testing beyond vendor-provided reports because organizational data and use cases introduce unique risk profiles.

The Trust Imperative in High-Risk AI Deployment

RPOs operate in what regulators classify as high-risk AI territory. Organizations delegate fundamental business functions, talent acquisition decisions affecting careers and organizational culture, to external partners. Khan manages this dynamic across healthcare clients, where dual high-risk domains compound compliance requirements.

The EU AI Act categorizes HR applications as high-risk use cases requiring enhanced governance protocols. Four years ago, no AI-specific laws existed. Today, organizations navigate 160 global regulations with different requirements across jurisdictions.

Khan said trust represents a fundamental component of recruitment process outsourcing (RPO) partnerships. As RPOs deploy AI to enhance recruitment processes, that trust faces new challenges as customers question the technologies they bring to relationships.

From Compliance Barrier to Innovation Accelerator

Sethupathy said his experience at Capital One revealed how governance frameworks transform from perceived obstacles into enabling infrastructure. He initially viewed governance as checkbox compliance, which would slow innovation. Implementation velocity increased dramatically only after establishing formal governance processes and documentation systems.

Khan described similar dynamics across Hueman's client relationships, where governance frameworks accelerate sales cycles by preemptively addressing compliance questions that otherwise stall procurement processes.

Three Essential Components for Testing AI Tools for Bias

Sethupathy outlined how organizations should approach bias testing beyond vendor-provided documentation:

1. Request vendor testing documentation: Organizations should demand any bias testing results vendors have conducted, with strong preference for independent third-party audits. Absence of testing documentation represents a significant red flag.
2. Conduct independent testing with organizational data: Organizations must perform their own testing beyond vendor reports because organizational data might differ from vendor testing datasets. The same AI tool can produce dramatically different bias profiles when applied to different contexts.
3. Use synthetic demographic data for privacy-compliant testing: Sethupathy said Fair Now developed synthetic data specifically calibrated for the HR ecosystem that enables testing without exposing actual candidate demographic information.

Khan stressed the distinction between model bias and process bias. Organizations introduce bias through surrounding processes, job descriptions containing gendered language or Boolean search strings targeting specific demographic segments. A sourcing tool searching for candidates who played football surfaces different demographic profiles than searches for candidates who participated in debate or chess.

Model Cards and Trust Centers for Transparent Documentation

Sethupathy said model cards provide structured documentation explaining how AI systems function, what data they process, how they were trained, what outputs they generate and what risks they present. Comprehensive technical specifications operating as stakeholder communication tools deliver enhanced client trust and clearer liability boundaries.

Organizations implementing Trust Centers, dedicated website sections containing comprehensive AI governance documentation, transform reactive compliance responses into proactive transparency strategies. Trust Centers house compliance certifications, model cards, bias testing reports and governance frameworks accessible to stakeholders without requiring individual requests.

Khan emphasized that all governance documentation represents living systems requiring regular updates. She said the regulatory landscape evolves rapidly as governments refine AI legislation. Governance frameworks must include review cadences ensuring documentation remains current.

Four Core Elements of AI Governance Frameworks

Organizations seeking formal governance validation increasingly pursue International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 42001 certification or align with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) AI Risk Management Framework. Both approaches emphasize four core governance elements:

1. Risk assessment and triaging: Organizations conduct initial risk evaluations across all AI applications to focus governance resources on high-risk tools.
2. Bias testing for career-impacting systems: Organizations implement regular testing protocols especially for AI systems that select, score or rank candidates.
3. Human-in-the-loop oversight: Sethupathy said human review, human oversight and human accountability will continue playing important roles in AI governance.
4. Comprehensive documentation and audit trails: Organizations maintain transparency through model cards, testing reports and clear records of AI system usage.

Khan said clients often lack clarity about what questions they should ask RPOs about AI governance. Khan described how Hueman helps clients understand regulatory landscapes, evaluate appropriate risk tolerance levels, and create stakeholder education programs.

Strategic Governance Transforms RPO Competitive Positioning

The strategic imperative for recruitment process outsourcing (RPO) organizations lies in implementing governance frameworks that simultaneously accelerate innovation velocity while building the trust relationships essential to client partnerships. Organizations delaying AI adoption risk competitive disadvantage as peers capture efficiency gains and candidate experience improvements through systematic technology deployment.

Sethupathy and Khan demonstrated that governance frameworks operating through transparent testing protocols, proactive documentation systems, and structured compliance processes deliver three interconnected business outcomes. First, organizations reduce implementation friction by preemptively addressing stakeholder concerns across HR leadership, IT teams, and compliance groups. Second, RPOs expand their value proposition beyond traditional recruitment outsourcing into strategic technology advisory roles, guiding clients through regulatory complexity and vendor evaluation processes. Third, systematic governance approaches create sustainable competitive differentiation in markets where clients increasingly evaluate partners based on demonstrated AI risk management capabilities.

AI governance represents both regulatory compliance requirements and a strategic business opportunity. Organizations implementing comprehensive frameworks build client trust, accelerate the deployment of innovation, and position themselves as trusted advisors navigating the evolving intersection of artificial intelligence and talent acquisition.

Check out the RPOA calendar of events for the annual conference and more events from the RPOA.