Interrogating Technology‐led Experiments in Sustainability Governance

Abstract

Solutions to global sustainability challenges are increasingly technology-intensive. Yet, technologies are neither developed nor applied to governance problems in a socio-political vacuum. Despite aspirations to provide novel solutions to current sustainability governance challenges, many technology-centred projects, pilots and plans remain implicated in longer-standing global governance trends shaping the possibilities for success in often under-recognized ways. This article identifies three overlapping contexts within which technology-led efforts to address sustainability challenges are evolving, highlighting the growing roles of: (1) private actors; (2) experimentalism; and (3) informality. The confluence of these interconnected trends illuminates an important yet often under-recognized paradox: that the use of technology in multi-stakeholder initiatives tends to reduce rather than expand the set of actors, enhancing instead of reducing challenges to participation and transparency, and reinforcing rather than transforming existing forms of power relations. Without recognizing and attempting to address these limits, technology-led multi-stakeholder initiatives will remain less effective in addressing the complexity and uncertainty surrounding global sustainability governance. We provide pathways for interrogating the ways that novel technologies are being harnessed to address long-standing global sustainability issues in manners that foreground key ethical, social and political considerations and the contexts in which they are evolving.

The causes, impacts and countermeasures of COVID-19 “Infodemic”: A systematic review using narrative synthesis

“…For organizations, they are responsible to provide accurate and up-to-date information for decision-making, consultation, and rumor refutation since they are the professional organizations fighting against the pandemic ( JCIH Editorial Team 2020 ; Allahverdipour, 2020 ; Kulkarni et al., 2020 ; Sasidharan et al., 2020 ; Chou et al., 2021 ; Bastani and Bahrami, 2020 ; Casigliani et al., 2020 ; Lima et al., 2020 ; Looi et al., 2020 ; Hui et al., 2020 ; Khan et al., 2020 ; Erku et al., 2021 ; Marwitz, 2021 ; Tangcharoensathien et al., 2020 ; Kikuchi et al., 2020 ). For example, The WHO was reported to apply block chain technologies to addressing the surge of misinformation and Launching the EPI-WIN platform for rumor refuting ( Kulkarni et al., 2020 ; Patel et al., 2020 ; Bernards et al., 2020 ). Also, medical professionals from these organizations are encouraged to make more presence on social media platforms to amplify their influence ( Mheidly and Fares, 2020 ; Jindal and Anand, 2020 ; Hauer and Sood, 2020 ; Cuartas-Arias, 2020 ; Ingraham and Tignanelli, 2020 ; O' connor and Murphy, 2020 ; Caulfield, 2020 ; Tomes, 2020 ; O'Connor and Murphy, 2020 ; Quadri et al., 2020 ).…”

Scrutinizing environmental governance in a digital age: New ways of seeing, participating, and intervening

“…A notable development here is the use of digital technologies in transnational private governance initiatives, including certification and labeling initiatives and corporate social responsibility programs. 13,76 For example, digitalized seafood traceability initiatives, such as through blockchain technologies, showcase the growing importance of companies, software developers, banks, and other investors in both company-led and NGO-led projects. 77,78 The use of advanced technologies in these initiatives is often problematic from the viewpoint of inclusivity.…”

“…78 This may sustain or even expand the existing power position of these private actors and limit the scope for participation of small-scale producers and local communities. 13,79,80 Furthermore, when participating, small-scale producers such as fishers might face new informational demands, such as record keeping of their catch, as additional burden, particularly if these new demands do not fit well with existing practices. 81 What is more, by developing or using digital technologies in global supply chains, corporate actors, such as multinational food companies or supermarkets, can promote their own understanding of what sustainability is and how it should be assessed and certified.…”

“…In summary, from the micro-scale of everyday consumption practices up to the level of global environmental governance, the use of digital technologies opens up possibilities for participation and engagement to a wide range of actors, including citizens and private actors. Yet, it also appears that technology companies and digital conglomerates as ''novel intermediaries and brokers'' 13 come to play a key role in such initiatives (Figure 3). By providing the digital infrastructure and tools for steering sustainable behavior and (everyday) environmental monitoring, these private actors shape how citizens can engage with sustainability and how they can voice their concerns.…”

“…Critical scholarship on how digital technologies are reconfiguring the ways in which data about environmental issues are collected, made sense of, and used to inform or even automate decision-making is growing. [12][13][14][15][16][17][18] We draw on this emerging field, as well as insights from science and technology studies, to explore how the use of digital technologies is engendering a number of key shifts in environmental governance. These shifts are discernible in three dimensions of governance: seeing and knowing, participation and engagement, and interventions and actions (Figure 1).…”