GIRAI logo
Netherlands flag

Global Index Score

69.51

Global: 5thRegional: 5thIncome Group: 5th

Netherlands's index score lands +15.3 against the Europe average (54.2) and +17.4 against High income peers (52.1). It scores ahead of 97% of the 135 economies assessed this edition. Published score 69.5 reflects a URAI adjustment from 77.2 (4 government-misuse evidence items on file). The profile rests on 82 documented evidence items spanning policy frameworks, government initiatives and civil society activity.

How Netherlands Performs Across the Five Dimensions

GIRAI evaluates countries across five core dimensions that capture the social, ethical, and institutional impacts of artificial intelligence.

AI Policy

76.50

Avrg. Score

49.13

Global: 1stRegional: 1st

Enabling Conditions

85.15

Avrg. Score

76.57

Global: 11thRegional: 10th

Civil Society Engagement

57.89

Avrg. Score

30.01

Global: 3rdRegional: 2nd
1

Inclusion and Diversity

81.60

Index Score

56.44

Avrg. Dimension score

Global: 2ndRegional: 2nd

Netherlands runs +25.2 against the regional average (56.4) on Inclusion and Diversity. Strongest indicators: Children's Rights (98.5), Cultural and Linguistic Diversity (79.2). Weakest: Gender Equality (72.5). This dimension ranks 2nd globally — ahead of the country's overall position (5th). 14 evidence items on file, including "EU Digital Services Act" and 4 other documented items.

2

Ethics and Sustainability

80.51

Index Score

54.81

Avrg. Dimension score

Global: 1stRegional: 1st

Netherlands runs +25.7 against the regional average (54.8) on Ethics and Sustainability. Strongest indicators: Fairness and Non-discrimination (92.0), Transparency and Explainability (92.0). Weakest: Environmental Impact (76.9), Human Oversight and Determination (92.0). This dimension ranks 1st globally — ahead of the country's overall position (5th). 19 evidence items on file, including "The Government-wide vision on generative AI of the Netherlands" and 4 other documented items.

3

Labour and Skills

72.25

Index Score

57.98

Avrg. Dimension score

Global: 10thRegional: 8th

Netherlands runs +14.3 against the regional average (58.0) on Labour and Skills. Strongest indicators: Reskilling/Upskilling Initiatives (78.4), Labour Protections (73.2). Weakest: AI Literacy (47.4). This dimension ranks 10th globally — behind the country's overall position (5th). 13 evidence items on file, including "EU AI Act" and 3 other documented items.

4

Trust and Safety

83.67

Index Score

63.43

Avrg. Dimension score

Global: 1stRegional: 1st

Netherlands runs +20.2 against the regional average (63.4) on Trust and Safety. Strongest indicators: AI-facilitated Misinformation and Violence (97.7), Safety and Security (92.7). Weakest: Impact Assessments (73.2), Access to Redress and Remedy (73.9). This dimension ranks 1st globally — ahead of the country's overall position (5th). 18 evidence items on file, including "EU Digital Services Act" and 4 other documented items.

5

AI Use in Public Service

68.14

Index Score

44.61

Avrg. Dimension score

Global: 6thRegional: 4th

Netherlands runs +23.5 against the regional average (44.6) on AI Use in Public Service. Strongest indicators: Public Disclosure of Government Algorithmic Systems (83.0), Public Sector Skills Development (79.4). Weakest: Public Procurement (18.2). This dimension ranks 6th globally — behind the country's overall position (5th). 18 evidence items on file, including "The Netherlands' Digitalisation Strategy" and 3 other documented items.

Comparing Results Across Editions

Explore how country performance, scores, and governance indicators have changed between GIRAI editions.

14 indicators

Indicator2024 Edition2026 Edition
Gender EqualityNon-Binding FrameworkBinding Framework
Children's RightsBinding FrameworkBinding Framework
Cultural and Linguistic DiversityNo FrameworkNon-Binding Framework
Fairness and Non-discriminationNon-Binding FrameworkBinding Framework
Transparency and ExplainabilityNon-Binding FrameworkBinding Framework
Human Oversight and DeterminationBinding FrameworkBinding Framework
Labour ProtectionsNon-Binding FrameworkBinding Framework
Reskilling/Upskilling InitiativesNon-Binding FrameworkNon-Binding Framework
Safety and SecurityNon-Binding FrameworkBinding Framework
Access to Redress and RemedyBinding FrameworkBinding Framework
Impact AssessmentsBinding FrameworkBinding Framework
Public Sector Skills DevelopmentNon-Binding FrameworkNon-Binding Framework
Public ProcurementNo FrameworkNo Framework
Government Mechanisms for CSO Inclusion in AI Policy and GovernanceNon-Binding FrameworkNon-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.

Compare responsible AI performance

Explore how countries and regions perform across GIRAI's governance dimensions, scores, and structural indicators.

Compare
🇳🇱Netherlands

69.51

Global 5thRegional 5th
Europe

54.23

Regional average

Dimension scores

Inclusion and Diversity
Netherlands
81.6
Europe
56.4
Ethics and Sustainability
Netherlands
80.5
Europe
54.8
Labour and Skills
Netherlands
72.3
Europe
58.0
Trust and Safety
Netherlands
83.7
Europe
63.4
AI Use in Public Service
Netherlands
68.1
Europe
44.6

Indicators

37 of 37
IndicatorNetherlandsEurope
Inclusion and Diversity7
APGender Equality
72.551.1
APChildren's Rights
98.559.0
APCultural and Linguistic Diversity
79.241.8
CSOCivil Society Engagement in Inclusion and Diversity
49.221.4
ECEgalitarian Democracy
87.367.6
ECSocioeconomic Inclusion in Connectivity
83.376.1
ECGender Inclusion in Connectivity
95.895.3
Ethics and Sustainability6
APFairness and Non-discrimination
92.060.1
APTransparency and Explainability
92.064.5
APHuman Oversight and Determination
92.057.8
APEnvironmental Impact
76.928.5
CSOCivil Society Engagement in Ethics and Sustainability
53.930.8
ECEnvironmental Performance
53.764.7
Labour and Skills6
APLabour Protections
73.253.9
APReskilling/Upskilling Initiatives
78.456.0
APAI Literacy
47.452.3
CSOCivil Society Engagement in Labour and Skills
57.430.1
ECLabour Rights
80.562.9
ECPopulation Digital Readiness
97.687.4
Trust and Safety11
APSafety and Security
92.760.7
APAccess to Redress and Remedy
73.955.0
APImpact Assessments
73.260.4
APAI-facilitated Misinformation and Violence
97.758.4
CSOCivil Society Engagement in Trust and Safety
44.024.0
ECData Protection and Privacy
100.084.2
ECData Sharing and Access
93.887.1
ECConsumer Protection
95.191.6
ECCybersecurity
99.288.6
ECRule of Law
94.269.2
ECGlobal Peace
89.479.4
AI Use in Public Service7
APPublic Sector Skills Development
79.442.0
APPublic Disclosure of Government Algorithmic Systems
83.021.5
APPublic Procurement
18.225.3
CSOGovernment Mechanisms for CSO Inclusion in AI Policy and Governance
85.043.8
ECCivil Society Oversight
81.775.5
ECPublic Service Delivery
70.386.3
ECRight to Information
83.462.9
Score adjustment
URAIUnacceptable Risk AI Systems
×0.904 government-misuse items×0.98Regional average
APAI Policy
CSOCSO Engagement
ECEnabling Conditions
Misuse Of AI

Unacceptable Risk AI Systems

Evidence related to government use of AI systems associated with unacceptable-risk categories.

Contact GIRAI
  • Mass Biometric Surveillance

    Preselect Recidivism algorithm

    This poses an unacceptable risk due to discriminatory profiling and lack of oversight. First raised by FTM article summary here https://web.archive.org/web/20260301115253/https://cybernews.com/news/police-algorithm-labels-kids-future-criminals/. In its official response (attached doc) the govt confirmed that the algorithm calculates risk using immutable traits such as gender and inputs like the police history of “housemates” (pp. 2 8) creating a risk of “derivative guilt.” Used since 2013 relying on an outdated model with acknowledged “decreased predictive power” was omitted from the public Algorithm Register blocking necessary transparency (pp. 3–46). Families were never informed and the government confirmed no way to object.

    View Trusted Source
  • Criminal Justice & Law Enforcement

    Camera Surveillance at Peaceful Protests in the Netherlands

    Amnesty International published a research that reported drones and video-surveillance cars with facial-recognition capability were used to monitor peaceful protests in the Netherlands(p.8) . It causes a 'chilling effect' discouraging protest through fears of ID logging and databases like 'Catch Aliens' (P. 4 26). This violates privacy by collecting data on political beliefs (P. 11 18). Risks for migrants are severe fearing impacts on residence status or future jobs (P. 26-27). The government published a policy response addressing Amnesty’s recommendations(https://web.archive.org/web/20251208153911/https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/rapporten/2025/01/20/bijlage-6-beleidsreactie-rapport-camerasurveillance-bij-vreedzaam-protest)

    View Trusted Source
  • Discriminatory Public Service Systems

    The Child Benefits Agency (Dienst Toeslagen)

    The childcare allowance is a govt benefit to reimburse parents for childcare costs. https://www.rekenkamer.nl/actueel/nieuws/2025/05/21/privacyproblemen-bij-algoritmes-dienst-toeslagen-en-belastingdien; in the scandal risk-classification algorithms were used to detect alleged fraud and reclaim payments. The Court of Audit in its 2024 accountability report found that the algorithm used to identify parents for support does not comply with the GDPR (p.56) sensitive data of a vulnerable group aren’t properly protected and privacy risks are insufficiently managed . It is also concerned that data from assistance could later be used for surveillance or fraud checks risking discrimination loss of privacy and trust and unequal treatment.(p.58).

    View Trusted Source
  • Social Scoring

    DUO's approach to fraud found to be discriminatory and illegal

    The DUO case qualifies as an unacceptable risk because it functioned as a discriminatory public service system directly violating the fundamental right to non-discrimination. The Dutch Data Protection Authority (AP) ruled the system illegal because the algorithm used 'risk indicators' such as education type and distance to parents that lacked objective justification and served as proxies for migration background. Consequently students with a non-Western background were disproportionately targeted for invasive fraud inspections. This undermined democratic processes by automating bias without scientific evidence subjecting vulnerable citizens to unjustified state surveillance based on a flawed 'risk score'.

    View Trusted Source

What Drives This Performance?

A breakdown of the structural factors shaping this country's score.

AI Policy

National AI strategies, laws, and oversight mechanisms that establish formal governance structures.

Contribution to overall score

59%

Civil society engagement

Participation of academia, advocacy groups, and non-state actors in shaping governance and ensuring accountability.

Contribution to overall score

7%

Enabling conditions

Institutional capacity, rule of law, digital readiness, and labour protections that enable effective governance.

Contribution to overall score

33%

  • Strongest context signal: Data Protection and Privacy (100.0)
  • Cybersecurity (99.2)
  • Population Digital Readiness (97.6)

Evidence for Netherlands

Loading evidence explorer…