Board Technology & Innovation Oversight Benchmark Bhattacharya Consulting Group · Intercedent Asia

Edition 1 · 2026

Most boards govern technology as a risk. Who owns the upside?

Proxy statements, annual reports and committee charters for the 1,000 companies on Fortune's 2026 list, read from 2011 to 2026. Every score traces to a sentence in a filing.

The headline finding

What the study answers

Three questions, each answered from the public record.

AI in company filings, 2015 to 2025

Companies describe AI as a risk far more often than as part of their business.

Share of companies filing an annual report each year whose report mentions AI, by the section it appears in.

Annual reports mentioning AI, by section

Where technology oversight sits

Nearly two thirds of boards put technology under an audit or risk committee. Only 172 have a committee dedicated to it.

Every company on Fortune's 2026 list, by the board body its filings give technology oversight to, and what that committee is.

Source: each company's SEC filings; Figure 1 of the executive summary. 61 boards are not classified: 37 file no governance document with the SEC, and 24 name a body that is not a board committee. Every filing that names a board body could be placed.

The maturity scale

Maturity is how far a board's written oversight of technology reaches.

Every board is placed at one of four levels, from what its own filings commit it to. Levels 1 and 2 ask whether the board controls cyber and IT risk; levels 3 and 4 whether it helps decide the strategic impact of technology. The line between 2 and 3 is the study's dividing line.

Every board in the Fortune 1000, placed on the four-point scale

Who builds the most oversight

Size and sector predict who reaches level 3 or 4.

Share of boards in each group whose written mandate reaches strategy, innovation or investment. A quarter of the 200 largest companies; about one in ten across the other 800.

Source: proxy statements (DEF 14A), annual reports (10-K) and board committee charters of the 2026 Fortune 1000. Bands are counted out of every company in each band of 100; sectors out of every company in the sector.

Go further

Every finding, with its method, its limits and what it means for a board.

The full report is in preparation: the performance results with their uncertainty, what the boards at level 4 actually wrote, the questions a board should ask itself, and the full method. Request a copy and it is sent to you on publication. Or ask for a read of your own board: its placement, verified by hand, with the evidence behind it, shared only with the company itself.

Members sign in for the data, the reports and the full platform.

Research · the full study, from the executive summary

How Fortune 1000 boards govern technology and innovation

Every board on Fortune's 2026 list, read from its own filings: where technology oversight sits, what it is written to do, and how it is changing.

James Chase Baldwin and Ashis Bhattacharya · Bhattacharya Consulting Group · Intercedent Asia
…

Every share is a share of the 1,000 companies on Fortune's 2026 list unless a chart names a smaller group. The four-point scale is the study's measure: levels 1 and 2 oversee technology as a risk; levels 3 and 4 add a written say in strategy, innovation or investment. Time series count the companies filing that year.

Every topic is scored 0–3 on an anchor scale built from the company's own filings: 0 means no named board body carries a duty over the topic, 2 means a named board body carries a stated duty, 3 means that duty bites on a company-specific object. "Owned" means anchor 2 or 3. The oversight gap measures how much more closely a board governs technology's risks than its upside: its risk-oversight scores minus its value-creation scores, so every company is compared only against itself. Definitions with a dotted underline can be clicked or focused for detail.

The study

Three parts, and how it was measured

Part one

Where technology and cyber governance sit

When the SEC's 2023 cyber disclosure rules arrived, boards met them with the committees already in the room.

Where oversight sits · out of the full Fortune 1000

Nearly two thirds of boards put technology under an audit or risk committee. Only 172 have a committee dedicated to it.

638 of the 1,000 place technology oversight in a risk-management committee, and 549 of those use the audit committee. Of the 172 dedicated committees, 25 are named for cyber security against 9 for innovation.

63.8% of the 1,000 Fortune 1000 companies hold technology oversight in an audit, risk or similar risk-management committee

Figure 1, the full flow, is on the Overview →

Absorbed, not assigned

The audit committee took technology on without ever changing its name.

Cyber risk was absorbed into the committee that already managed risk, so the change shows only in what it is told to do. Where boards did restructure, they fused audit with risk (1.6% to 4.1%), not with technology.

Figure 2. The audit committee's name in 2011 and in 2026, and what its mandate now also covers.

Who briefs the board

The CTO is much less likely to brief the board on technological matters.

Boards hear regularly about the hazard, and rarely from the person who owns the opportunity: the chief technology officer is named as the board's briefer by only 12.4% of companies.

Figure 3. Share of the 1,000 whose annual-report cyber security disclosure names each officer as the board's briefer. 965 file the disclosure; one can name more than one officer.

Part two

Technology is framed as a risk, not an opportunity

Companies describe the hazard readily. What they rarely write down is anyone's authority to act on the upside.

Artificial intelligence

AI has reached boards as a word, not as an authority.

In 2023 the share of annual reports describing AI as a risk overtook the share describing it as part of the business, and the gap has widened every year since. 9 of the 856 boards whose 2026 proxy statement is on file have a committee with AI in its name, and none of the 45 charters that mention AI gives the committee approval authority over it.

Figure 4, AI in annual reports since 2015, is on the Overview →

Mandates without teeth

Boards write technology opportunity into their remit, but seldom give committees decision-making authority.

Mandates cover technology scouting (23.9%), partnerships (22.9%) and business-model evolution (18.8%), yet 81.8% of filings record no consequence if a technology oversight duty is not met.

Figure 5. Duties written into the 952 scored mandates, and whether the filing records any consequence if one is not met.

Structure enables ambition

Boards with dedicated technology committees are far more likely to have forward-looking mandates.

88.4% of boards at level 3 or above have a standing technology committee, 114 of the 129. Committees have charters, and charters are where forward-looking mandates are written.

Figure 6. The standing committee and the forward-looking mandate, three ways round; 949 scored boards.

Part three

How boards are adapting

One board in six has a standing committee dedicated to technology: who they are, how fast they arrived, and what is known about what they change.

Change since 2011 · out of proxy filers each year

Technology committees have more than tripled since 2011, and independent counts of the S&P 500 show the same climb.

From 4.4% of boards in 2011 to 15.1% in 2025, and from 6.0% to 20.2% among the largest 500 by revenue: about five new committees a year until 2019 and about thirteen a year since.

Figure 7. Boards with a dedicated technology committee, counted out of the companies filing a proxy statement each year (682 in 2011, 933 in 2025). 2026 is dashed: its filing season is not complete. Published counts: MIT CISR (March 2025); EY Center for Board Matters (October 2025).

Out of the full Fortune 1000

Oversight is concentrated at the top of the list, and is written more narrowly further down it.

Below the 200 largest the share settles at 7% to 18% of each band of 100 rather than falling away. What changes down the list is the mandate: the share written for risk-management topics alone rises from 27.0% in ranks 1 to 100 to the mid fifties and low sixties in the bottom three bands.

1 in 4of the 200 largest companies have a standing technology committee, 48 of 200; about one in seven across the other 800, 112 of 800

Figure 8, by rank and by sector, is on the Overview →

Who adopts

Bigger companies build more oversight, and founder-led companies build less.

Standing committees rise from 7.5% of boards in the smallest employee quintile to 24% in the largest, and are held by 9.0% of companies whose founder is the chief executive against 16.5% of the rest. Healthcare has twice the market rate; financial services adopts for risk management.

Figure 9. Five of about twenty company characteristics compared. With this many comparisons, read each gap as indicative, not as a pass or fail test.

Performance

No effect on performance has been shown, and in financial services the answer is a clear zero.

Profitability after formation runs about 0.9 points below sector peers, but the range includes zero and the gap cannot be told apart from chance. If a committee is a risk-management mechanism, there is no reason to expect it to move research or profit.

Figure 10. Change after formation relative to sector peers, with the range of uncertainty. Capital expenditure is recorded as unresolved, not as a finding.

How this compares with what others have published

Two published studies, and where this study goes further

The published counts agree on direction: roughly a doubling of S&P 500 boards with a technology committee since the late 2010s, and cyber security sitting primarily with the audit committee. This study covers the whole Fortune 1000, twice their universe, and alone reads the mandate, whether any consequence follows, whether approval authority exists and who briefs the board.

SourceUniverseBoards with a technology committeeWhere cyber oversight sits
This studyFortune 1000, by revenue4.4% in 2011 to 15.1% in 2025 (all); 6.0% to 20.2% (largest 500)54.9% audit committee; 63.8% any risk-management committee, of the 1,000
MIT CISR, Digitally Savvy Boards update, March 2025S&P 5008% in 2019, 12% in 2022, 15% in 2024not reported
EY Center for Board Matters, October 2025S&P 5007% in 2018, 13% in 2025 75% assign cyber security primarily to the audit committee

What the findings leave open

When a board writes growth into a technology committee's mandate, what comes first?

Is a growth or innovation mandate a response to a business already under pressure, or does the committee change what follows? Formation year and mandate text both sit in the roster, so the order can be tested.

Do the reasons boards give for forming a committee match what they then write?

Bank boards surveyed by their trade body say strategy oversight is the main reason they formed a technology committee; the written mandates of financial services boards here read almost entirely as risk management.

Are there generations of committee?

Science and research committees in pharmaceutical and industrial boards, cyber and technology-risk committees in financial services, technology-and-innovation committees more recently. The roster carries formation year and name, so the sequence can be dated.

Is the audit committee's workload rising as it absorbs technology?

Proxy statements record how often each committee meets and how much of the filing its work takes up. If topics keep being added while meeting time stays flat, the attention given to each topic is being diluted, and the filings make that dilution measurable.

The thesis

Technology reached the boardroom as a hazard. Regulation put cyber risk on the agenda and boards responded, almost universally. But the reason technology matters to a company is mostly upside: what it lets the firm build, enter, automate and pre-empt. This research asks whether boards have taken ownership of that upside, or only of the downside.

It is answerable from filings, because a board that owns something has to say which body owns it. So rather than ask directors what they believe they govern, the study reads what their companies have committed to in writing, in proxy statements, annual reports and committee charters, and places every board on one four-point scale from that evidence. Every placement traces to a quoted sentence in a filing.

It is answerable from filings, because a board that owns something has to say which body owns it. So rather than ask directors what they believe they govern, the study reads what their companies have committed to in writing: four domains and two mandate axes, twelve topics plus breadth and strength, scored the same way 952 times, every score traceable to a quoted sentence in a 10-K, proxy or committee charter.

The finding…

The maturity scale

Four levels, and one dividing line

Each board is placed at a single level from the structural evidence in its filings. The midpoint is the study's dividing line: the bottom half is a board overseeing technology as a risk, the top half is a board that also reaches decisions about what technology is supposed to create. Hover any level for its full rubric definition.

Topic scoring · members

The oversight cliff

Each bar is the share of boards that have taken documented ownership somewhere in that domain, at least one topic assigned to a named board body, or actively exercised through a stated cadence or named owner. Mentions without ownership are counted separately, in the lighter band.

Board ownership by domain

Highest anchor any company reaches within each of the four domains. Read the two darkest bands together as "this board owns some part of this domain"; everything to their right does not.

Anchor 3 · company-specific object Anchor 2 · duty attached to a board body Anchor 1 · named without a duty (rare by construction) Absent from the mandate clause set
Break the four domains into their twelve underlying topics
Change since 2011

Technology committees have more than tripled since 2011, and independent counts of the S&P 500 show the same climb

The four-point scale is a snapshot of one filing season. Over sixteen years of proxy statements, the share of boards with a dedicated technology committee rose steadily on every count that exists, including two made by other studies of the S&P 500, while the audit committee absorbed the rest of the subject without ever changing its name.

…

Finding · artificial intelligence

…

The shape of the finding

Where the scores actually sit

The headline means hide their own spread. These two views put it back: how far apart the four domains are, and how the oversight gap is distributed across individual boards rather than averaged into one number.

Risk oversight vs. value creation

Domain mean on the 0–3 topic-scoring scale, with the 90th percentile as the lighter bar. A high p90 against a low mean means a few boards do this and the rest do not.

Risk-oversight domain Value-creation domain 90th percentile

The oversight gap

How much more closely each board governs technology's risks than its upside: the company's mean across its risk-oversight scores minus its mean across its value-creation scores, on the same 0–3 scale. It is a within-company comparison, so it is not affected by a company simply disclosing less overall.

Cut 01

By sector

Sector is the cut a benchmark is actually for: it lets a board ask whether its own posture is normal for its industry. Sectors with fewer than five companies in the sample are not shown.

Which sectors have boards that reach beyond risk

Share of each sector's boards classified at level 3 or 4, where the written mandate reaches investment, research and strategy decisions rather than protection alone. Sorted highest first.

Cut 02

Structure enables ambition

Boards with a dedicated technology committee are far more likely to have a forward-looking mandate. Dedicated committees have charters, and charters are where forward-looking mandates are written.

Cut 02

By oversight structure

Whether a company runs a dedicated standing technology committee, folds technology into an existing committee such as Audit or Risk, or keeps it at the full board.

Breadth of ownership by structure

Mean number of the seven mandate-breadth topics owned at anchor 2 or 3.

Structure comparison

Confound, read before quoting this Standing-committee companies also have far higher charter coverage (… vs … for existing-committee companies), because a dedicated committee is the kind that publishes a charter. Part of the apparent advantage is document access, not governance. This comparison should not be published as causal until charter coverage is equalised.
Cut 03

By maturity band

This is the second of the two scales, a single company-level classification on the 1–4 rubric, assigned from structural evidence and entirely separate from the 0–3 topic scoring used everywhere else. It is shown here as a consistency check: if the two instruments measure the same underlying thing, breadth should rise with maturity.

Why level 4 is missing Maturity 4 (Leading) holds too few companies in this sample to report as a band, so it is dropped from this cut along with every other group under five. It is not absent from the scale.
Landscape

Who even has a technology committee

A structural pass over the same Fortune 1000 companies as every other tab, detecting which board body holds technology, and of what kind. A committee counts here only if it is a board committee: management committees with technology in the name are excluded, which is why this count is lower than a name-matching scan would produce. This layer answers "what structure exists"; the mandate layer answers "what that structure actually oversees".

Adoption by Fortune rank band

Share of scored companies with a confirmed dedicated technology or innovation committee, by Fortune rank band.

What these committees are called

Committee-name prevalence among confirmed adopters. Names matter: a "Science & Technology" committee and a "Cybersecurity" committee are not doing the same job.

Where the mandatory cybersecurity disclosure actually routes

Since the SEC cybersecurity disclosure rule took effect, every filer must name the board body overseeing cyber risk. That makes routing observable, including for companies that have a technology committee and still send cyber somewhere else.

Finding … This is the clearest evidence in the dataset that a technology committee is often a value or strategy body while risk oversight stays with Audit, or that the committee exists without the mandate following it.

Adopters routing cyber to their own technology committee, by sector

Share of each sector's adopters whose cyber oversight sits with the technology committee rather than Audit or the full board.

Method & limits

What this measures, and what it does not

The study reads what boards commit to in their filings; it cannot see what a board spends its meetings on, so every score is a floor. Nothing here is causal and no company is named. 2026 is never shown as a finished year: its filing season was incomplete when the study closed.

One denominator, stated once

The Fortune 1000. Every Fortune share of boards on this site is a share of the 1,000 companies on Fortune's 2026 list, ties included. A company that files no governance document with the SEC counts in the denominator and not in the numerator.
949 boards could be scored on the four-point scale; 51 could not, 37 because they file nothing and 14 because they disclose too little or are read for the kind of body only.
952 have a scored mandate. The consequence and mandate figures are shares of those, because they describe what a mandate says.
Time series are counted out of the companies filing that year, as each chart states.

Every score traces to a quoted sentence. A stratified sample of 250 of the 955 scored companies was re-read by one of the authors, with 93.9% agreement, and no company score is shared until it has been human-verified.

Proxy statements13,194

Every company, every year from 2011 to 2026: where oversight sits, the scale scores and the change over time.

Annual reports965

The disclosures that name who briefs the board on cyber security.

Committee charters162

Every charter that could be located, 115 of them read in full: the committee's mandate, its duties and its authority.

How a filing becomes a score

    Companies that file no governance document with the SEC, or that disclose too little, are counted in the denominator and recorded as unplaced. Source: proxy statements (DEF 14A), annual reports (10-K) and board committee charters of the 2026 Fortune 1000.

    The four-point scale is drawn on the Overview →

    The full method · every rule, source and check behind the figures

    01

    What is measured

    The unit of measurement is documented board ownership, not the quality of oversight, and not the company's technology performance. A board can govern technology superbly and score low here if it does not say so in a filing. The instrument is deliberately conservative: it scores only what a reader of the public record can verify.

    02

    How each topic is scored

    Scale A · 0–3

    A four-anchor ordinal scale, applied 12 times per company, once to each topic in the framework, from the company's mandate clause set: verbatim filing sentences whose subject is a named board body carrying a duty. Every bar and mean on the Findings and Sector tabs is built from it. "Owned" throughout this site means a topic reached anchor 2 or anchor 3.

    weaker evidencestronger
    Why anchor 3 is asymmetric For every topic, anchor 3 requires the duty to bite on a company-specific object: a named programme, plan, roadmap, policy, budget or transaction. Cyber alone has a second route, a named security framework (NIST, ISO 27001), admissible from the 10-K's mandatory cybersecurity disclosure (Item 1C), because that is where framework disclosure lives. Anchor 1 (named without a duty) rarely fires by construction, since the clause set itself requires a duty verb.
    03

    How each company is classified

    Scale B · 1–4

    A single placement for the whole board, made once per company from the evidence in its proxy statement, annual report and, where one could be found, its committee charter. It is not a score of how well a board governs; it records what the board has committed to in writing. Every headline figure on this site rests on it, and it is the part of the method that has been audited by hand.

    A separate instrument, and the one most often confused with the scoring ladder above. This is a single classification for the whole board, made once per company from structural evidence in the filing, not a score, not an average of the topic scores, and on a different range. It drives the "By maturity band" cut and the Oversight level spoke on every radar; it is the one human-adjudicated axis on those shapes.

    Telling the two apart Scale A runs 0–3 and fires 12 times per company, once per topic. Scale B runs 1–4 and fires once per company, for the board as a whole. A company classified at maturity 3 still carries 12 separate topic scores on scale A.
    Why the scale starts at "Assigned" An earlier draft of this scale included a lower "Ad hoc" level. It never fired: every company that files a proxy allocates cyber oversight somewhere, so the observed floor is always a board body with an assignment. The scale published here starts where the data starts.
    04

    Framework & sources

    The framework

    Four domains, 12 topics, plus two mandate axes (breadth, of 7 topics, and strength: decision verb, object specificity, consequence). One domain is risk oversight, protecting existing value; three are value creation, generating future value. The gap reported throughout is the difference between a company's mean across those two groups.

    Sources, in priority order

    Where a company appears in more than one source, the stronger evidence wins.

    The largest single gap Charters state a committee's actual remit, and are the documented fix for the value-creation floor. Coverage is …. Value-creation domains are systematically understated for every company without one.
    05

    Sample, exclusions & verification

    The sample

    …

    Not a population estimate A census of large-cap U.S. filers with machine-readable disclosure, not a random sample of American companies. Do not extrapolate to private companies, smaller filers, or non-U.S. issuers.

    Exclusions, disclosed

    …

    These are disclosure gaps, not governance findings: companies with no committee charter located, no proxy statement on file and no scoreable Item 1C text, mostly mutual insurers, cooperatives and other non-registrants. They count in every denominator on this site, so each headline is partly a statement about what is disclosed to the SEC; the count is stated here so a reader can see how much of any share that is.

    Human verification

    …

    What a charter changes

    Where a charter was located and read, the picture changes materially: the single biggest reason to treat the value-creation figures as a floor rather than an estimate.

    06

    Six things that would change these numbers

    Stated up front rather than in an appendix, because each one has a known direction and a known size.

    01 · Disclosure is a proxy for behaviour Absence of evidence in a filing is not evidence of absence of oversight. The bias is one-way and the direction is known: every score on this site is a floor.
    02 · Charter coverage Where a charter was read, mean value-creation score is … against … where none was. With coverage at …, the value-creation figures are the least settled numbers here.
    03 · Two anchors are the least tested Object specificity and consequence, two of the three strength sub-scores, are the least-exercised anchors in the instrument and were deliberately oversampled in the reliability test. Treat anchor-3 rates as softer than anchor-2 rates until the confirmation pass clears.
    …
    05 · The structure comparison is confounded Standing-committee companies have far higher charter coverage than existing-committee companies, so part of their apparent advantage is document access rather than governance. Flagged in place on the Sector & structure tab. Do not publish that comparison as causal until coverage is equalised.
    06 · Structure and maturity have different denominators (limitation L10) Since rubric v1.10 (18 September 2026) a company that files no proxy statement can be read for the kind of body that holds technology oversight from Part III of its 10-K, but never for a maturity level, because Part III rarely carries the mandate language the level needs. Fourteen companies therefore carry a structure and no score by design, not by omission. Every Fortune share on this site is nonetheless a share of the same 1,000 companies; where a table shows structure and maturity side by side, the two numerators rest on different coverage, and the method note says so.
    06b

    The accuracy audit

    …

    Error rate by stratum

    …

    07

    Reproducibility

    Every score traces to a quoted sentence and a filing URL. The company-level record, score, quoted mandate clause, source and grade for all 12 topics, is retained in full in the research record and is available to reviewers on request; it is not published on this site. Nothing on the public tabs is computed by hand; the page is generated from the scored dataset on each build, so the figures cannot drift from the underlying dataset without the build failing.

    The full report

    Every finding, with its method, its limits and what it means for a board

    The report is in preparation; request a copy and it is sent on publication. Or book a conversation about your own board's placement, verified by hand.

    Company-level detail is unverified

    The aggregate findings on this site are the published research. The per-company view behind this screen is an internal audit tool, kept so that any individual read can be checked against its source text. It is not a rating and is not intended for citation.

    • Scores are machine-drafted; only part of the sample carries a completed human review.
    • Known extraction failures are present and flagged inline rather than removed.
    • A low score frequently means thin disclosure, not weak governance.
    • …
    Unverified working data. Individual company scores must not be quoted or published.
    Anchors. 0 absent from the mandate clause set. 1 named in a bare enumeration with no duty (rare by construction). 2 a named board body carries a stated duty over the topic. 3 the duty bites on a company-specific object: a named programme, plan, roadmap, policy, budget or transaction; cyber also reaches this anchor via a named security framework, admissible from the 10-K's mandatory cybersecurity disclosure (Item 1C).

    Reading the sources. Every company record links to the filings it was scored from. Where a charter has not been retrieved the record says so, and the value-creation domains for that company should be read as a floor rather than a finding: charters carry the mandate language that proxies summarise away.

    …

    Explore the data

    How each sector and size band compares with the 1,000

    Compare

    Two groups side by side

    Set any two industries, or any two size bands, against each other and against the 1,000. Either group can come from the Fortune 1000 or from the Russell 3000 companies outside it (AI drafts, under review).

    against

    What boards write

    Ten things a committee mandate can say about technology

    For each, the share of boards whose committee mandate says it, and the share that says it about a specific object. Choose a group, from the Fortune 1000 or the Russell 3000 outside it, to set it against the 1,000.

    Written into a mandateWith a specific object All 1,000, written

    By company size

    From the largest 500 to the Russell 2000

    Four groups of companies, from the top of the Fortune list to the smaller companies of the Russell 2000, on the same measures. The Russell groups are the companies outside the Fortune 1000: AI drafts, under review.

    Company database · Full platform

    Every scored board, and the evidence behind its placement

    The 952 scored Fortune 1000 companies and the 1,554 Russell 3000 companies outside the 1,000, with their level and the six measures. Open any company for its spider diagram against its industry, the ten sub-themes, and the filing sentences each score rests on. Russell companies are AI drafts, under review.

    Full platform

    The company database and stat trackers are part of the Full platform

    • Search, filter and sort the Fortune 1000 and the Russell 3000 companies outside it
    • Each board's spider diagram against its industry, with Russell and Fortune averages side by side
    • The ten sub-themes, with the filing sentence each score rests on
    • Scan all: every board's shape on one page

    Maturity Dashboard

    Members: where every board in the benchmark sits on the four-level maturity scale, and how board structure relates to reaching the forward-looking levels.

    The maturity distribution

    Share of the 1,000 companies at each level. Levels 1 and 2 are risk oversight; levels 3 and 4 add a forward-looking mandate.

    Structure, and the Level 3 rate inside each

    Structure records which board body holds the technology mandate. The rate is the share of boards with that structure that reach Level 3 or higher, where the board goes beyond risk oversight and reaches decisions about future value.

    Sectors, ranked by committee adoption

    Sorted by the share of each sector's boards with a standing technology committee. Value-only mandates cover only value topics such as innovation, R&D and digital business; Healthcare is the one sector where they are common. Sectors with fewer than 23 classified boards are excluded. Click a row to see its companies.

    Where each sector sits: committee adoption against value mandates

    Each bubble is a sector; its area is the number of classified boards. Rightward, more boards have a standing technology committee; upward, more of the sector's mandates cover only value topics (blue side of the oversight gap). Dashed guides mark the all-company averages. Hover a bubble for its figures.

    Down the Fortune 1000, mandates narrow to risk assurance

    Topic mix of each board's coded technology mandate, by Fortune rank. The further down the list, the more completely oversight collapses into risk assurance: the pattern behind the oversight gap, seen as a gradient.

     

    Individual company reads are working drafts published so any figure can be audited against its source filings; the aggregate patterns above are the finding. Full source links for each company are on the research page's company explorer.

    Company-level detail is unverified

    The aggregate findings on this site are the published research. Per-company reads are an internal audit tool, kept so that any individual score can be checked against the filing text it came from. They are not a rating and are not intended for citation.

    • Scores are machine-drafted; only part of the sample carries a completed human review.
    • Known extraction failures are present and flagged inline rather than removed.
    • A low score frequently means thin disclosure, not weak governance.
    • …
    Unverified working data. Individual company scores must not be quoted or published.

    Access · the report, the data and the platform

    The full report, the data behind it and the full platform

    Request the full report, choose a level of access, or sign in if you already have one.

    The full report

    Every finding, with its method, its limits and what it means for a board

    The complete study: the performance results with their uncertainty, what the boards at level 4 actually wrote, the questions a board should ask itself, and the full method. The report is in preparation. Request a copy and it is sent to you on publication.

    Members

    Already have access? Sign in to the members area

    Downloads, reports, the full platform and company reads are in the members area, under the email address your access was set up with. Sign in with a one-time link; no password is needed. Invoices, payment details and cancellation are in the billing portal, linked from there.

    Sign in to the members area

    Access

    The data, the reports and the full platform, by the year

    Everything is delivered in the members area under the email address you buy with. Free to cite with attribution; a licence is needed for commercial reuse.

    Data

    $950 a year

    • Dataset exportsSector, size-band and structure cuts, the sixteen-year vocabulary panel and the committee roster, as CSV
    • ReportsExecutive summary, chart set, thesis document, one-page overview and the quarterly update
    • Full platformThe company explorer with every named record
    Buy Data
    Data and reports

    $2,500 a year

    • Dataset exportsSector, size-band and structure cuts, the sixteen-year vocabulary panel and the committee roster, as CSV
    • ReportsExecutive summary, chart set, thesis document, one-page overview and the quarterly update
    • Full platformThe company explorer with every named record
    Buy Data and reports
    Full platform

    $20,000 a year

    • Dataset exportsSector, size-band and structure cuts, the sixteen-year vocabulary panel and the committee roster, as CSV
    • ReportsExecutive summary, chart set, thesis document, one-page overview and the quarterly update
    • Full platformThe company explorer with every named record; unverified draft scores are flagged as such

    Prices exclude VAT where it applies. Data and Data and reports renew each year and can be cancelled at any time from the billing portal; access runs to the end of the year paid for. The full platform is licensed by quote and invoice. · Terms · Refunds

    Board self-check

    About

    Who made the benchmark, how to use it, and how to reach us

    The Board Technology & Innovation Oversight Benchmark reads what every company on Fortune's 2026 list has committed its board to in writing about technology. It is run jointly by Bhattacharya Consulting Group and Intercedent Asia.

    Who made this

    Ashis Bhattacharya

    Bhattacharya Consulting Group
    Strategic direction, review and board engagement

    Ashis Bhattacharya, of Bhattacharya Consulting Group, gives the study its strategic direction and reviews its findings. He leads its conversations with board directors, including the interviews for the study's next stage.

    Draft bio, to check

    James Chase Baldwin

    Intercedent Asia
    Dataset, scoring and platform

    James Chase Baldwin is a research analyst at Intercedent Asia, based in London. He built the benchmark's dataset, the scoring of every filing against the four-point scale, and this platform.

    Draft bio, to check

    Questions

    Frequently asked questions

    Contact

    Talk to the authors

    To ask about the study, request a correction or speak to the authors, use the form or write to …. We reply by email within two working days.

    General questions
    The study, its findings and the full report
    Press
    A chart pack and a short summary are available on request
    Corrections
    Name the filing concerned and we will check it against the method
    Your own board
    A hand-verified read of one company, shared only with that company
    Licensing and data
    The full platform, the dataset exports and commercial reuse

    We use these details only to reply to your message. The update is sent only if you tick the box. Privacy notice