Global Index Score
57.69
Lithuania's index score lands +3.5 against the Europe average (54.2) and +5.6 against High income peers (52.1). It scores ahead of 85% of the 135 economies assessed this edition. The profile rests on 29 documented evidence items spanning policy frameworks, government initiatives and civil society activity.
GIRAI evaluates countries across five core dimensions that capture the social, ethical, and institutional impacts of artificial intelligence.
AI Policy
51.06
Avrg. Score
49.13
Enabling Conditions
85.86
Avrg. Score
76.57
Civil Society Engagement
12.96
Avrg. Score
30.01
67.83
Index Score
56.44
Avrg. Dimension score
Lithuania runs +11.4 against the regional average (56.4) on Inclusion and Diversity. Strongest indicators: Children's Rights (71.2), Gender Equality (63.4). Weakest: Cultural and Linguistic Diversity (57.6). This dimension ranks 15th globally — ahead of the country's overall position (21st). 7 evidence items on file, including "EU Digital Services Act" and 3 other documented items.
56.08
Index Score
54.81
Avrg. Dimension score
Lithuania runs +1.3 against the regional average (54.8) on Ethics and Sustainability. Strongest indicators: Transparency and Explainability (73.9), Fairness and Non-discrimination (64.8). Weakest: Environmental Impact (0.0), Human Oversight and Determination (64.8). This dimension ranks 25th globally — behind the country's overall position (21st). 4 evidence items on file, including "EU AI Act" and 1 other documented items.
60.91
Index Score
57.98
Avrg. Dimension score
Lithuania runs +2.9 against the regional average (58.0) on Labour and Skills. Strongest indicators: Reskilling/Upskilling Initiatives (74.6), Labour Protections (64.1). Weakest: AI Literacy (40.7). 6 evidence items on file, including "EU AI Act".
75.36
Index Score
63.43
Avrg. Dimension score
Lithuania runs +11.9 against the regional average (63.4) on Trust and Safety. Strongest indicators: Safety and Security (83.6), AI-facilitated Misinformation and Violence (79.5). Weakest: Impact Assessments (73.2), Access to Redress and Remedy (73.9). This dimension ranks 7th globally — ahead of the country's overall position (21st). 10 evidence items on file, including "EU Digital Services Act" and 3 other documented items.
28.28
Index Score
44.61
Avrg. Dimension score
Lithuania runs -16.3 against the regional average (44.6) on AI Use in Public Service. Strongest indicators: Public Sector Skills Development (9.1), Public Disclosure of Government Algorithmic Systems (0.0). Weakest: Public Procurement (0.0). This dimension ranks 61st globally — behind the country's overall position (21st). 2 evidence items on file, including "AI training platform for civil servants (VSSA)".
Explore how country performance, scores, and governance indicators have changed between GIRAI editions.
14 indicators
| Indicator | 2024 Edition | 2026 Edition |
|---|---|---|
| Gender Equality | No Framework | Binding Framework |
| Children's Rights | Binding Framework | Binding Framework |
| Cultural and Linguistic Diversity | Binding Framework | Non-Binding Framework |
| Fairness and Non-discrimination | No Framework | Binding Framework |
| Transparency and Explainability | No Framework | Binding Framework |
| Human Oversight and Determination | Binding Framework | Binding Framework |
| Labour Protections | No Framework | Binding Framework |
| Reskilling/Upskilling Initiatives | Non-Binding Framework | Non-Binding Framework |
| Safety and Security | Binding Framework | Binding Framework |
| Access to Redress and Remedy | Binding Framework | Binding Framework |
| Impact Assessments | Binding Framework | Binding Framework |
| Public Sector Skills Development | No Framework | No Framework |
| Public Procurement | No Framework | No Framework |
| Government Mechanisms for CSO Inclusion in AI Policy and Governance | Non-Binding Framework | Non-Binding Framework |
Indicator definitions changed between editions; this table compares evidence presence and status, not directly comparable scores. A — indicates the item is not applicable or was not assessed for that edition.
Explore how countries and regions perform across GIRAI's governance dimensions, scores, and structural indicators.
| Indicator | Lithuania | Europe |
|---|---|---|
| Inclusion and Diversity7 | ||
APGender Equality | 63.4 | 51.1 |
APChildren's Rights | 71.2 | 59.0 |
APCultural and Linguistic Diversity | 57.6 | 41.8 |
CSOCivil Society Engagement in Inclusion and Diversity | 30.8 | 21.4 |
ECEgalitarian Democracy | 80.9 | 67.6 |
ECSocioeconomic Inclusion in Connectivity | 87.3 | 76.1 |
ECGender Inclusion in Connectivity | 94.9 | 95.3 |
| Ethics and Sustainability6 | ||
APFairness and Non-discrimination | 64.8 | 60.1 |
APTransparency and Explainability | 73.9 | 64.5 |
APHuman Oversight and Determination | 64.8 | 57.8 |
APEnvironmental Impact | 0.0 | 28.5 |
CSOCivil Society Engagement in Ethics and Sustainability | 0.0 | 30.8 |
ECEnvironmental Performance | 84.3 | 64.7 |
| Labour and Skills6 | ||
APLabour Protections | 64.1 | 53.9 |
APReskilling/Upskilling Initiatives | 74.6 | 56.0 |
APAI Literacy | 40.7 | 52.3 |
CSOCivil Society Engagement in Labour and Skills | 10.3 | 30.1 |
ECLabour Rights | 72.5 | 62.9 |
ECPopulation Digital Readiness | 87.5 | 87.4 |
| Trust and Safety11 | ||
APSafety and Security | 83.6 | 60.7 |
APAccess to Redress and Remedy | 73.9 | 55.0 |
APImpact Assessments | 73.2 | 60.4 |
APAI-facilitated Misinformation and Violence | 79.5 | 58.4 |
CSOCivil Society Engagement in Trust and Safety | 8.8 | 24.0 |
ECData Protection and Privacy | 100.0 | 84.2 |
ECData Sharing and Access | 87.5 | 87.1 |
ECConsumer Protection | 99.6 | 91.6 |
ECCybersecurity | 92.4 | 88.6 |
ECRule of Law | 86.2 | 69.2 |
ECGlobal Peace | 86.3 | 79.4 |
| AI Use in Public Service7 | ||
APPublic Sector Skills Development | 9.1 | 42.0 |
APPublic Disclosure of Government Algorithmic Systems | 0.0 | 21.5 |
APPublic Procurement | 0.0 | 25.3 |
CSOGovernment Mechanisms for CSO Inclusion in AI Policy and Governance | 15.0 | 43.8 |
ECCivil Society Oversight | 82.8 | 75.5 |
ECPublic Service Delivery | 88.8 | 86.3 |
ECRight to Information | 78.1 | 62.9 |
| Score adjustment | ||
URAIUnacceptable Risk AI Systems | No penalty | ×0.98Regional average |
A breakdown of the structural factors shaping this country's score.
National AI strategies, laws, and oversight mechanisms that establish formal governance structures.
Contribution to overall score
53%
Participation of academia, advocacy groups, and non-state actors in shaping governance and ensuring accountability.
Contribution to overall score
2%
Institutional capacity, rule of law, digital readiness, and labour protections that enable effective governance.
Contribution to overall score
45%
19 pieces of evidence assessed across 29 indicator cases — laws, policies, strategies, and institutional actions in Lithuania.