ESG initiatives go beyond investment banks to include Biden initiatives, digital content

Though well known by now that Environmental, Social and Governance metrics have become integral to U.S. business operations, the World Economic Forum is also advocating for ESG principles, but in a distinctive manner.

The international non-governmental organization, think tank, and lobbying organization based in Geneva recently released a white paper titled “Making a Difference: How to Measure Digital Safety Effectively to Reduce Risks Online.”

The document highlights the potential of ESG metrics in assessing digital safety, stressing the importance of mitigating risks associated with disinformation, hate speech and abusive material online – all of which the WEF regards as online harms that necessitate measurement and correction.

The WEF effort and the broader use of ESG metric in investment, corporate and other private sector industries appears to be an effort to encourage them to adopt sustainable practices and maintain ethical governance.

Under the Biden administration, there has been an apparent robust push to integrate ESG principles into the fabric of corporate America.

One significant initiative is the recent release of the “Voluntary Carbon Markets Joint Policy Statement and Principles.”

Announced last month, this policy aims to bolster the market for carbon credits by establishing a framework to ensure the integrity of voluntary carbon markets.

As businesses strive to meet net-zero emissions targets, the demand for carbon offset projects and related credits is expected to surge. This framework is designed to facilitate this transition, enabling companies to use offsets as a bridge to their absolute emissions reduction efforts or to counterbalance emissions that are challenging to eliminate.

However, the attempt to lump everything together under the broad, blanket term of digital safety raises some concerns.

According to the WEF white paper, “Digital safety metrics reinforce accountability, empowering NGOs and regulators to oversee service providers effectively. They also serve as benchmarks for compliance monitoring, enhancing user trust in platforms, provided they are balanced with privacy considerations and take into account differentiation among services.”

The categorization of disinformation, hate speech, and abusive material as equivalent forms of online harm introduces a number of challenges. Integrating ESG principles into digital safety metrics could potentially lead to unintended consequences, including the stifling of legitimate dissent and the restriction of free speech under the guise of combating online harm.

As investigative journalist Tim Hinchcliffe pointed out, the most recent WEF white paper, which focuses solely on misinformation, hate speech, and abuse material, is based on another Davos-endorsed insight report from August 2023.

Aptly titled "Toolkit for Digital Safety Design Interventions and Innovations: Typology of Online Harms,” this report broadens the definition of online harm to encompass a variety of categories, including threats to personal and community safety, harm to health and well-being, hate and discrimination, violation of dignity, invasion of privacy, and deception and manipulation.

Although many of the harms listed in last year’s report highlight despicable acts against people of all ages and identities, the WEF also highlights misinformation and disinformation without giving an example of either.

The report warns that misinformation and disinformation can manipulate public opinion, disrupt democratic processes like elections, and cause individual harm, especially through false health information. The authors acknowledge the difficulty in defining or categorizing common types of harm due to regional differences and a lack of international consensus. 

By not offering precise definitions, the concept of “online harm” becomes very vague, leaving it open to various interpretations. 

One realistic scenario that illustrates these possible threats involves the use of digital safety metrics to monitor and control online discourse.

Imagine a situation where an algorithm designed to identify and suppress harmful content begins to flag posts critical of government policies or corporate practices. This automated system, driven by ESG-aligned digital safety metrics, could inadvertently silence voices that challenge the status quo, curbing healthy debate and the exchange of ideas.

Furthermore, empowering unelected global entities, such as the WEF, to influence regulatory compliance frameworks could centralize control over digital content.

This scenario presents a real threat to the democratic process, where freedom of expression is a fundamental right. If the power to define and enforce digital safety standards is concentrated in the hands of a few global organizations, it may lead to biased enforcement, with certain viewpoints being systematically marginalized.

To address these concerns, several critical questions need to be asked:

Who defines harmful content? The criteria for what constitutes disinformation, hate speech, and abusive material must be transparent and subject to public scrutiny. Without clear definitions, there is a risk of overreach and arbitrary enforcement.

What safeguards exist to protect free speech? It is essential to establish robust mechanisms to ensure that efforts to promote digital safety do not infringe on the right to free speech. This includes independent oversight and avenues for redress.

How will enforcement be balanced? Ensuring that digital safety measures are applied evenly across different platforms and viewpoints is crucial. Bias in enforcement could undermine trust in these systems and exacerbate existing societal divides.

What is the role of global entities in national regulation? The influence of organizations like the WEF on national regulatory frameworks must be carefully examined. National sovereignty and democratic processes should not be compromised by external pressures.

How are algorithms and AI systems monitored? As digital safety initiatives increasingly rely on automated systems, it is vital to have transparency in how these algorithms are developed and deployed. Regular audits and updates are necessary to prevent misuse and ensure fairness.

What measures are in place to prevent misuse? Ensuring that digital safety metrics are not exploited for political or commercial gain is paramount. Clear policies and accountability frameworks can help mitigate this risk.

The Biden administration's promotion of ESG principles through initiatives like the Voluntary Carbon Markets Joint Policy Statement appears designed to address environmental challenges, the broader application of ESG metrics, particularly in the digital domain, as advocated by the WEF, raises numerous, valid concerns.