This is a Title 03

Soft skills should have a more prominent place in instruction, in order to increase adaptability

These soft skills should be developed early, in basic education, and then later refined at colleges and universities - as well as, ideally, during lifelong learning as an adult. By providing a strong base of soft skills, an educational system can serve as a catalyst not only for an increased adaptability to future jobs, but also for a generally improved quality of life. However, shifting demand for skills across industries will require that curricula be updated and adapted on a regular basis - because they are naturally informed by the evolution of labour markets.

Equal opportunity in life requires equal access to a basic education

Fewer than 10% of countries have laws that help ensure full inclusion in their education systems, according to a UNESCO report published in 2020 - and 40% of the poorest countries have failed to support “learners at risk”. While many countries are able to provide adequate primary education, many more struggle with quality and availability; this has been particularly concerning in sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, North Africa, and parts of Southeast Asia, according to the World Economic Forum’s Global Human Capital Report. According to UNICEF, more than 175 million children worldwide have not been receiving pre-primary education, and inequality in terms of access remains high particularly among the poor and disadvantaged.

Providing greater access to a basic education is essential for advancing the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals. One widely shared, persistent barrier to providing a broadly accessible, adequate basic education is cost. According to UNESCO’s review of the UN’s Millennium Development Goals (precursors to the SDGs targeted to 2015), an additional $22 billion would be needed every year in order to meet basic education targets for 2030. And, according to a UNESCO report published in 2020, 41% of countries were not conducting meaningful surveys on individual education characteristics such as disabilities - or making related data available. This underlines an acute need for new financing and data collection models, particularly in developing countries. Technological innovation is one means to help address the issue, especially when it comes to children in rural areas and those regularly migrating with their parents.

Education typically ends at an early stage of life, to the detriment of workers and employers

While nearly 84% of the world’s talent under the age of 25 is being “optimized” through education, that figure falls to 45% for those over 25, according to the World Economic Forum’s Global Human Capital Report. In order to better engage people over 25 in gaining new skills, the UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning has recommended the development of national qualifications frameworks, and providing lifelong learning through community centres. Skills decline when they are not used, as noted in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Survey of Adult Skills; accurately mapping the typical skills lifecycle is key for estimating the points at which people will likely have a need to refresh their competencies - whether with the aim of simply changing careers, re-entering the workforce after caring for a family member, or following an extended illness.

Better integrating literacy and basic skills programs into national education agendas can lead to an improved quality of life. Many developing countries have made significant progress in terms of increasing investment in education for young people, though education systems around the world continue to emphasize the front-loading of learning at an early stage of life - leaving older generations with educational attainment only as an increasingly faint memory. Ideally, education systems can thrive thanks to a fundamentally strong public sector. However, by working together with the private sector, governments and educators could potentially develop more necessary infrastructure for providing learning and training opportunities to workers at all stages of their careers.

The pandemic highlighted the need to be able to deliver instruction in new and more compelling ways

Even prior to the pandemic, technological innovation was changing the ways educational materials are generated, educational content is distributed, material is engaged with by learners, and educational outcomes are evaluated.

As the education sector is both highly sensitive to change and a central pillar in the economy, better data collection could help ensure effectiveness. In addition to the delivery of education, more innovation is also required in terms of school curricula. UNICEF has advocated for balancing hard skills such as reading, writing, and math with soft skills such as problem-solving and creativity; in addition, instruction should no longer necessarily take place through front-of-class teaching, according to recent research. Pedagogy is a field ripe for innovation, especially when it comes to personalized learning. However, research has also highlighted that new learning tools do not always enable engagement with hard-to-reach groups - and it is critical that the drive for related innovation is matched by the monitoring of its effectiveness. Funding needs to be be strategically allocated to trials, and any successes can be scaled up in the future. Greater public-private collaboration aimed at expanding this opportunity could also be beneficial - since governments cannot necessarily directly influence every classroom, they should instead focus on setting the right conditions for future-proof curricula and more innovative formats.

Technical and vocational training is often unjustly neglected by education systems

Employers have long been warning of widening gaps between the skills in demand and those that workers actually have - while governments have touted a need to foster more technical talent if countries want to be globally competitive. Closing gaps between the skills in demand and those that workers actually have promises to only become more complex, as skills requirements change at an accelerating pace - particularly in emerging technology fields. This calls for greater collaboration between the public and private sectors - in particular, more needs to be done to better balance the goals and desires of policy-makers, politicians, and educational institutions with those of entrepreneurs and investors. There is a need to better understand the linkages between these sometimes disparate interests, and ways they can be combined to serve people, the environment, and broader economies in healthier and more complementary ways.

Accurate, timely career guidance can help successfully transition young people from their school years to employment, by ensuring that they understand their true options based on real labour market data and demand. Proactive career guidance can also help circumvent the gender stereotyping and socio-economic opportunity gaps that often hold young people back from choosing certain occupations. In general, technical and vocational training is underutilized - and often unjustly neglected by education systems as a second-best option. Such training and education can be a key driver of economic growth, by providing many of the skills required for jobs that will have genuine staying power in future labour markets. Technical qualifications may be best designed through collaboration between employers and industry groups, and particular attention should be paid to fostering their evolution based on sets of mutually agreed-upon standards.

Digital skills are essential, but real digital fluency means applying ethical considerations to technical achievement

Technology has provided a crucial lifeline by linking people to loved ones and work - in ways that make it clearer just how digitized the near future will be. The hybrid forms of collaboration that have emerged as we move towards a new normal bring their own challenges, and may aggravate existing inequalities. To thrive in a contemporary workplace, young people need to develop digital fluency and science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) skills from an early age. Real fluency starts with basic digital literacy - and adds an ability to apply critical thought and ethical considerations to using and developing technology, or dealing with data. The ethical use of technology should be embedded throughout an education and lifelong learning, to prepare people of all ages to deal with the thorniest related issues.

Properly matching STEM skills with a solid ethical grounding requires investment, though the benefits in terms of increased digital fluency can clearly exceed related costs. That is certainly true for businesses hiring young people equipped with fluency who are less likely to build artificial intelligence and other systems that result in litigation or scandal. Girls and women are particularly underrepresented within STEM disciplines, and it is crucial to find ways to proactively increase their engagement during secondary and tertiary education.

EDUCATION

FUTURE OF THE ENVIRONMENT

Global energy investment is poised to rebound post-pandemic, but more must be directed at the clean energy transition

Amid growing political interest in infrastructure investment as a means to boost productivity and create jobs, the appeal of sustainable infrastructure has long seemed poised to grow. However, there have been troubling signs; a political shift in the US in recent years, for example, resulted in the withdrawal of money promised to the United Nations-backed Green Climate Fund (the US has since promised to make good on its funding pledges). The continued, healthy expansion of sustainable infrastructure will require a new architecture of public-private investment, supported by overseas development assistance, government spending, and sovereign wealth funds.

Much of the interest in green bond issuance has been driven by China, as the Bank of China and the Shanghai-based New Development Bank began issuing their first green bonds in 2016. However, investment in renewable energy technology has disappointed recently, according to the International Energy Agency. Policies and investments are not consistently moving in the right direction. While there were record renewable power capacity additions in 2022, the year also saw the highest levels of fossil fuel subsidies ever, as many governments sought to cushion the blow of high energy prices for consumers and businesses. Global investments across all energy transition technologies reached a record high of USD 1.3 trillion in 2022, yet fossil fuel capital investments were almost twice those of renewable energy investments. With renewables and energy efficiency best placed to meet climate commitments - as well as energy security and energy affordability objectives – governments need to redouble their efforts to ensure investments are on the right track.

The loss of natural habitats is a driver of zoonotic diseases like COVID-19

The world has reached a tipping point. Simply conserving nature and critical ecosystems will no longer be enough to avert catastrophic climate change and a mass extinction. Humanity needs to bring back what has been lost, by restoring degraded ecosystems - in order to achieve the goals outlined in the Paris Agreement. Restoring forests, peatlands, and mangroves (and other natural solutions) can provide more than a third of the greenhouse gas mitigation needed by 2030. And, by halting and reversing the degradation of land and the ocean, we can prevent the loss of one million endangered species. Scientists say restoring just 15% of ecosystems in priority areas and thereby improving habitats can cut extinctions by 60%. Restoration is also key to human prosperity and well-being; vibrant ecosystems provide the food, water, health, and security that a growing global population needs more of every day. Halting the decline of ecosystem services (such as climate control or oxygen production) could prevent the loss of $10 trillion in global income by 2050 - currently, some 2.3 billion people suffer from ecosystem degradation, which undercuts their access to safe food and water.

Restoring ecosystems is critical for global health. The loss of natural habitats is a key driver of zoonotic diseases such as COVID-19, for example, and forest restoration and better farm practices could reduce the pollution of water supplies in 81% of the world’s cities. Adding urban trees can blunt the impacts of pollution and excessive heat, while boosting mental and physical well-being. More than 115 countries have included ecosystem restoration as part of their commitments to the Paris Agreement and the Sustainable Development Goals, covering roughly one billion hectares - an area larger than China. However, the status of actual implementation is uncertain (ecosystem restoration must follow strict guidelines to avoid monocultures and invasive species, and to ensure that local communities benefit). The United Nations General Assembly has declared the years 2021 through 2030 the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. Led by the UN Environment Programme and the Food and Agriculture Organization, the UN Decade is designed to prevent, halt and reverse the degradation of ecosystems worldwide. It will draw together political support, scientific research and financial muscle to revive millions of hectares of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems.

Pesticides have threatened global food security, and ‘dead zones’ are being created in the ocean

Chemicals are an integral part of our lives. They can improve health, supply the food we need, and when managed well they can be truly invaluable. But when poorly managed, hazardous chemicals and waste threaten human health, biodiversity, and fragile ecosystems. The World Health Organization has estimated that contamination resulting from the use of even a relatively small group of chemicals claimed roughly 1.6 million lives in 2016 alone. In addition, research has shown that pesticides are contributing to the loss of pollinators such as bees, and in turn threatening global food security - while excessive agricultural use of phosphorous and nitrogen has created “dead zones” in the ocean. The resulting financial costs amount to tens of billions of dollars annually. According to the second edition of the Global Chemicals Outlook published by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the chemical industry will reach about $10 trillion in value by 2030 - the challenge will be ensuring this growth is a net positive for humanity and the planet. The good news is that governments, investors, retailers, and consumers are increasingly working to make it so.

Companies are advancing their standards beyond mere compliance and sustainable supply chain management, for example, while entrepreneurs are tapping into more sustainable innovation. Meanwhile consumers are driving demand for safer products and production, and adding to a growing realization that we have to rethink current business models. Hazardous substances generated from toxic chemicals have been banned from production and usage in several countries, which has in turn brightened the growth prospects of green chemicals as alternatives. Green and sustainable chemistry is being applied across the entire lifecycle of chemicals, including their design, manufacture, application, and disposal. The demand for green alternatives is particularly high in the textile industry, which is one of the major end-users of chemicals, and their continued evolution will be critical for a chemicals industry constantly in search of expanding markets and growth. Businesses, governments, and civil society organizations have all played important roles in exploring the full potential of sustainable chemistry, through initiatives such as the International Sustainable Chemistry Collaborative Centre (ISC3) and the European Technology Platform for Sustainable Chemistry (SusChem).

Science suggests breaking the destructive link between economic growth and natural resource use is possible

Natural resources underpin the global economy, as biomass, fossil fuels, metals, minerals, arable land, and water supply everything from the food we eat to the buildings we live in. These resources are also a bridge between economic activity and climate change, biodiversity loss, pollution, and poor health. As the global economy and population have expanded, the use of natural resources has more than tripled over the past five decades - with dire consequences for the environment and human health and well-being. According to the International Resource Panel’s report Global Resources Outlook 2019, the extraction and processing of materials including metals, minerals, fossil fuels and biomass are responsible for half of all global climate change, more than 80% of water stress and land-related biodiversity loss, and a third of all air pollution. According to IRP estimates, barring drastic change, global resource consumption will double by 2060. This rate of growth would not only be catastrophic for the climate and for biodiversity, it would also further undermine notions of fairness and equality - as these resources would be used up inordinately by high-income countries, while related negative impacts are primarily absorbed by the less fortunate.

The average person living in a high-income country consumes 60% more natural resources than their counterpart in an upper-middle-income country, and more than 13 times that of a counterpart in a low-income country. In every type of economy, the decoupling of natural-resource use (and related environmental impacts) from economic growth and human well-being is necessary to transition to a more sustainable future.

Some ‘planetary boundaries’ within which humanity can thrive have already been crossed

Human activity has placed the environment under extreme stress. In 2009, an international group of scientists proposed the concept of “planetary boundaries,” within which humanity can continue to thrive for generations. Already, four of the nine boundaries have been crossed - even though neglecting to remain within these limits, which are tied to factors like climate change, freshwater use, and chemical pollution, can result in irreversible environmental damage. Roughly 400 billion metric tonnes of carbon have been released into the atmosphere due to the consumption of fossil fuels since 1751, and half of these emissions have occurred since the late 1980s, according to the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center. Meanwhile water stress is exacting a heavy toll; the UN Food and Agriculture Organization estimated in 2020 that available freshwater resources had declined globally by more than 20% per person over the preceding two decades, and an estimated four billion people may live in countries with physical water scarcity by 2050. Barring significant change, the world could face a serious water deficit by 2030 affecting sanitation and health, energy generation, and agriculture.

Ocean acidification, a harmful process that increases as greater amounts of carbon dioxide are absorbed from the atmosphere, is a mounting concern for the tourism and fishing industries - and is poised to accelerate as the ocean’s ability to absorb carbon dioxide declines. Overfishing is also a concern; according to figures published by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization in 2016, nearly a third of global fish stocks had already been overfished, and illegal fishing was removing about 26 million metric tonnes of seafood - valued at nearly $23 billion - per year. According to figures published subsequently by the FAO, the percentage of global fish stocks deemed within biologically sustainable levels fell from 90% in 1974, to just 65.8% by 2017. The stresses that have accumulated on the environment and on natural resource security have become so great - with most of the resulting impact yet to fully play out - that many academics now report that human activity, mass extinctions, and extensive pollution have demarcated a wholly new epoch for Earth, dubbed the “Anthropocene.”

Environmental dangers threaten economic growth and viability, and can trigger violent conflict

The World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report has underlined a series of interconnected environmental risks, related to extreme weather events, climate change, and water crises. These are all closely tied to other categories of risk; changing weather patterns or water crises, for example, can trigger or exacerbate geopolitical and social issues like domestic or regional conflict, not to mention involuntary migration - particularly in politically-fragile areas. A lack of effective management of the ocean, the atmosphere, and climate systems generally can therefore have local as well as global consequences, which extend well beyond the environment. While non-environmental risks have typically flared and then subsided as conditions have varied, or as the international community has mobilized to contain them, environmental issues consistently remain among the top global risks from year to year. This points to a systemic problem, and responding effectively has proven to be a challenge. While the Paris Agreement on climate change was ratified in 2017, for example, as of 2021 countries were still generally considered to be falling short on related commitments.

Even if countries do deliver on their Paris Agreement commitments, the United Nations Environment Programme has estimated that the world will still warm by as much as 3.2°C compared with pre-industrial levels - far above the targeted ceiling of 2°C. Meanwhile the impacts are spreading. According to the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre, an annual average of 25.3 million people were displaced by climate- or weather-related events between 2008 and 2016, and the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters has estimated that 96 million people were affected by natural disasters in 2017 alone. Entire communities have already had to be relocated or plan to relocate amid rising sea levels. A World Bank report suggested that water stress may trigger extreme societal problems in regions such as the Middle East and the Sahel - where water scarcity could affect as much as 6% of local GDP by 2050. The same report projected that water availability in cities could decline by as much as two-thirds between 2015 and 2050, due to climate change and increased competition within the energy and agriculture sectors.

The International Court of Justice and regional bodies are meant to provide necessary legal frameworks and mechanisms

Justice is often understood as a multidimensional concept encompassing redistribution, recognition, and representation. Within the realm of redistribution, for example, the concept is often invoked in the context of both economic need, and demands for the equitable sharing of resources. Unfair or inefficient distribution and injustice in such a context are often seen as being rooted in the political economy - and frequently associated with class inequality. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), drafted in 1948, provides a fundamental global governance framework to both voice and address demands related to maldistribution, misrecognition, and misrepresentation. Leading multilateral institutions such as the International Court of Justice, and regional bodies such as the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union, provide the legal frameworks, space, and mechanisms to address justice demands. Historically, these demands have been enacted through both global governance institutions (such as the UDHR) and social activism campaigns. The combined use of both social activism and institutional frameworks, to voice social justice claims and force related government action, is known as the “boomerang effect.”

This occurs when domestic activists enlist international actors and organizations to pressure their own governments to adhere to - and uphold - international protocols and treaty obligations. Such tactics have succeeded in fighting apartheid in South Africa, upholding women’s rights in Latin America, and voicing environmental concerns in Europe and Asia. However, there have also been challenges; some governments have simply banned international NGOs, precluding local activists from gaining international visibility. On other occasions, international NGO campaigns have not always represented or addressed the concerns of domestic constituents. In addition to ongoing demands for recognition, redistribution, and representation, there are two other pressing global challenges in the realm of justice. The first stems from the disproportionate impacts of climate change not only on vulnerable communities, but also on non-humans and on future generations. The second stems from rapid technological advancement, the increasing use of data, and the ways in which artificial intelligence can shape discourse and the redress of grievances. These twin challenges have exposed the limitations of existing international legal frameworks, and point to an urgent need to develop necessary mechanisms for oversight and more avenues for expression and redress.

The selectivity of global powers and limited financial resources inevitably impact the performance of international institutions

There are many factors impacting the ability of global governance to deliver public goods, to make a difference, and to matter in political decision-making processes. Many are external, such as geopolitical competition or technological interdependence. Others pertain to institutional set-up, decision-making processes, and the resources and power of individual institutions. The US has been a dominant actor in the global system established at the end of World War II. Its leadership, or lack thereof, has greatly influenced the ability of international institutions to function. This does not mean institutions cannot work in the absence of US engagement, as has been the case with the International Criminal Court, the Kyoto Protocol, and the convention on banning anti-personnel landmines. But the engagement of major powers generally is essential for effectiveness and legitimacy. As US influence has declined in recent years, countries like Brazil, China, India, and Russia have shown similar selectivity in supporting international institutions and law. This is evident at the UN Security Council, where a single veto among members can obstruct efforts to respond to crises. Russia’s vetoes of affirmations of Ukraine’s sovereignty in 2014 and 2022 are just one example.

A second issue influencing the institutional capacity of global governance is access to financial resources. Considering their scope and the complexity of issues, international institutions tend to have very limited budgets. For example, the 2022 UN regular budget of $3.12 billion (20% of which covers special political missions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Libya, Colombia, Yemen, and other countries) is $1.6 billion less than the 2022 operating budget of the US state of Delaware. The UN peacekeeping budget, at just over $6.5 billion per year, funds 10 missions with 85,000 personnel across three continents - but comprises just over 0.3% of annual global military spending. There is also the issue of enforcement capacity. No enforcement power is generally given to international organizations, even for decisions considered legally binding. In recent decades, international non-governmental organizations (IGOs) have gained influence on certain issues, like disarmament and refugees. However, global governance institutions continue to exist because states create them and instil in them the power, authority, and resources to perform certain tasks and serve certain needs and interests. It would be naïve to assume that this trend will change, even as US influence decreases and others take centre stage.

Events over the past decade have laid bare the weaknesses and grievances that a globalized system has produced

Technological interdependence is a fundamental driver of global integration. Artificial intelligence, 5G, semiconductors, and the necessary cybersecurity accompanying the spread of the Fourth Industrial Revolution require cross-border cooperation and global governance. Both the public and private sectors must regularly deal with issues like encryption, data privacy standards, and the regulation of digital content. At the same time, supply chain risks - aggravated by the COVID-19 pandemic and geopolitical competition - are pushing governments to claim digital sovereignty; that is, to develop policies and actions controlling how the internet works within their borders, and how data and digital assets are treated. Global governance institutions lag behind on developing common frameworks and standards, due to differing views and interests among member states. So, it can be assumed that two conflicting trends will impact global governance for the foreseeable future. One is that efforts will continue to increase cross-border cooperation in order to leverage the benefits of a digital economy, especially at regional level. The EU General Data Protection Regulation, for example, has been viewed as a possible template for other regions.

The other trend is that what has been branded “techno-nationalism” will continue to guide certain countries towards greater self-reliance, as they link their technological development to national security, economic prosperity, and social stability. Unfortunately, innovation has not exactly resulted in greater levels of trust and stronger political relations. The mounting mistrust between the US and China, for example, threatens to further upend global supply chains, alienate large parts of the world, and complicate international cooperation. Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, meanwhile, is just the latest reminder that economic interdependence and energy links do not necessarily eliminate the risk of violent conflict. Globalization promised to bring the world together through trade, financial flows, and technology. Instead, events over the past decade have laid bare the web of weaknesses and grievances that a globalized system has produced. While technological interdependence can play an important role in fostering greater cooperation, in the absence of effective global governance systems, both governments and companies will continue to make decisions based on their own realities and short-term interests - thereby undermining attempts to solve common challenges and ensure collective prosperity.

Global governance institutions serve as a prime platform for both voicing and addressing competing viewpoints

Competing understandings of the value and impacts of globalization have existed for decades, as have geopolitical rivalries. But friction has escalated to a level that undermines the functioning of the international system; there is a growing divergence of expectations for what global governance should deliver. Polarized narratives affect both domestic and international institutions and actors. They create stress and imbalances at a domestic level, and can stall multilateral negotiations - even to the point of hindering the operation of international institutions. Such tensions are particularly visible at the UN Security Council, where different views of what represents a violation of international law have prevented decision-making on violent conflicts in countries such as Iraq, Myanmar, and Ukraine. Polarizing narratives and perspectives similarly mar international climate change negotiations. The majority of high-income countries tend to focus on reducing emissions, but have also contributed the bulk of harmful emissions during more than a century of fossil fuel-driven industrialization. Low-income countries, on the other hand, emphasize adaptation measures and demand compensation for the climate-related damage they have suffered. Global governance institutions are tasked with bringing all of these parties to the negotiating table to reconcile their differing priorities.

Polarizing narratives can also impact the ways in which global issues are understood and dealt with. Poverty alleviation is an example. On one hand, there are those who emphasize the power of globalization-driven economic development to lift millions of people out of poverty. On the other, some see globalization as a weapon used by certain actors only to benefit themselves, exacerbating both inequality and poverty. Proponents of the first view expect global governance to facilitate globalization - and to help developing countries join international markets, attract foreign investors, and become part of global supply chains. Proponents of the latter view, on the contrary, challenge this role of global governance and demand that institutions address exploitation and other adverse effects of globalization on the poor, on low-wage workers, and the environment. Such competing views continue to shape global governance outcomes, including global labour norms and environmental standards, guiding principles for business and human rights, and alliances such as the UN Global Compact. As a prime platform for voicing competing viewpoints, global governance institutions are a critical mechanism for balancing polarized narratives on an array of global issues - including poverty and migration, global pandemics, climate change, and security threats.

Competition can result from contested access to resources, control of territory, and ideology

Geopolitical competition is often associated with armed conflict, but it can manifest in other ways that are equally disruptive - related to access to resources, control over territory, or ideology. Global geopolitical competition has been at an all-time high, driven by worsened US-China relations and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Another major factor has been the production and supply of energy - in the form of both fossil fuels and renewables. The disruption of ties between many European capitals and Moscow, and the subsequent loss of access to critical sources of energy needed for heat, mean that even cold winters can now have major geopolitical implications. It has been argued that the US is primarily competing to maintain influence over the existing international system (including its institutions, rules, norms, and values) after fundamentally contributing to its creation, while China and other countries are seeking to reshape it in accordance with their own interests and values. The formation of geostrategic alliances, meant to guarantee security as well as economic and political interests, can be understood through this lens. While an alliance can be a response to a threat, it can also create the perception of a threat among those being excluded.

Because geopolitical claims to control, access, and influence invariably exceed the boundaries of singular states, the intricacies of geopolitical competition impact the effectiveness of global governance institutions. Geopolitical competition places severe stress on these institutions, which must rely on a certain degree of domestic, national consensus to effectively serve as a means of governance. This is especially true at a time when the institutions must win broad favourable consensus among nations with diverse interests and incompatible agendas in order to make impactful decisions. Still, there are also many examples of the ways global governance conventions and agreements can successfully steer collective efforts away from self-defeating competition. This was evidenced by the endorsement of the Declaration on Forests and Land Use during the COP26 meeting in Glasgow in 2021, for example. With more than 100 signatories representing 85% of the forested land in the world, the agreement has been seen as an important step in curbing deforestation, particularly in critically important rainforests in Brazil and Indonesia. Another example is the agreement among 136 countries on a global minimum corporate tax of 15%, endorsed during the G20 summit in Rome in 2021.

GLOBAL GOVERNANCE

Public outrage over a broken system has forced policy-makers to try to come up with fairer solutions

The multinational enterprise is on the rise. While this reflects general growth in international trade, the tax “optimization” employed by these firms both hastens their global expansion and creates increasingly complex webs of owned subsidiaries. Multinationals use a number of techniques to shift their profits from high-tax to low-tax jurisdictions. As multinationals realized the potential in exploiting such loopholes, countries came under pressure to reduce their corporate tax rates in order to retain what revenue they could. In Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, nominal corporate tax rates fell from an average of 50% in 1975 to an average of 23.2% by 2021.

While most of these activities are not illegal, they represent blatant manipulation. Multinationals use the infrastructure, human capital, and public institutions in high-tax countries, but they refuse to pay their fair share towards financing these assets. Research suggests that 40% of all multinational profits are shifted to tax havens every year, causing a collective loss of $200 billion in global tax revenue. Investigative journalism as well as research have contributed to bringing more of these activities into the light, predictably causing public outrage. The OECD has sought to introduce a global minimum tax rate - thereby minimizing the disparity between rates, and reducing the incentive to shift profits. However, it is too early to tell whether the ongoing effort will be effective. Ratification in some countries is still pending, and the tax avoidance industry is working on identifying and exploiting loopholes. Further adjustments might be needed in the future to achieve a true paradigm shift in the international taxation of multinationals.

If taxing carbon is such an obviously effective means to curb emissions, why aren’t we implementing it?

From an economist’s point of view, the solution to the climate crisis can seem pretty straightforward: carbon taxes. By putting a price on carbon emissions with a tax, producers would increase prices on emission-heavy products, and consumers would respond by shifting to lower-emission consumption. In a world of carbon pricing, everyone would be as climate aware as they are aware of what they need to pay for the things they want. A holiday, for example, would become far less attractive if the price of the airplane trip quadruples due to carbon taxes - no additional moral imperative required. Carbon taxes are not only an effective tool in the fight against climate change, but they also correct for a glaring market inefficiency - the failure to price in the negative externalities of transactions. The most prominent examples of this are the social and environmental costs of emissions, pollution, reduced biodiversity, and negative health associated with fossil fuel use. If these result from inefficiently high extraction and use of fossil fuels, an appropriately-set carbon tax would correct for this inefficiency.

So, if economists can generally agree on the effectiveness of this solution, why isn’t it being implemented? The short answer is that transitions are both painful and politically difficult. Precisely because a carbon tax is effective, it means that people will actually have to adjust their emission-heavy consumption by doing things like using less private transportation, or eating less meat (meat and dairy account for an estimated 14.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to the UN’s Food and Agricultural Organization). Over time, low-emission alternatives to these things will increasingly appear, though there will still be a period of transition. In addition, people with low incomes would pay the highest price, as they spend a larger part of their income on consumption - making the carbon-tax solution seem unfair to many. To limit this inequality effect, solutions have been proposed including progressive climate taxation (which would imply low-emission taxes for those who consume less), or green dividends that transfer carbon-tax revenue back to low-income individuals. Ultimately, such efforts to fight inequality may be a prerequisite for a carbon tax to become politically viable.

The idea that taxation takes something people are entitled to rests on a misunderstanding of how markets work

Some have argued that direct forms of taxation in particular represent a violation of individual freedom. By taxing their income or wealth, the government “takes away” something that individuals are entitled to, the thinking goes. For this view to make sense, however, it would have to be the case that markets - where in some form most people make their income - follow a logic where people have an inherent right to what they are being paid via those markets. Yet, no one has successfully defended this idea. Take the concept of “economic contribution,” for example. Does market-based pay in any way reflect the value of someone’s economic contribution? The answer is “no,” for at least two reasons. First, as a counterexample, consider how markets systematically undervalue the contributions of so many essential workers such as nurses, those employed in long-term care homes, or people working in waste removal - a fact of life in many places that was powerfully brought home during the thick of the COVID-19 crisis, when so many workers were exposed to inordinate risks albeit without proper recognition.

Second, and more fundamentally, market-based pay does not reflect a person’s actual economic contribution because everyone’s contribution in a cooperative scheme depends on the work of others - in ways that markets are insensitive to. Therefore, while a case can be made that markets under certain circumstances function as efficient institutions for social coordination, the market-based distribution of incomes has no real claim to justice. Instead, the question of how the collective tax burden of any society should be distributed among different members of that society inevitably forms part of the social contract. The “why” of taxation, for instance to finance public goods like schools, or to reduce inherently unjust income inequalities; “what” we tax, for instance incomes, consumption, or emissions; and “who” does the taxing, for instance cities, national governments, or supranational entities, are all inevitably political questions - the answers to which will be informed by our sense of justice. As a result, people can only be said to have real entitlement to their income after tax, not before tax.

The view that governments should only spend as much as they generate in tax revenue long-term is simplistic

Many people think that when it comes to finances, governments are like households - meaning that their sound financial management requires a strict balancing of the books. While this analogy has intuitive appeal, it is quite misleading. When people or companies are unable to make the interest payments on their debts, or to roll over their loans, they go bankrupt. Countries, by contrast, sit atop the financial hierarchy. Provided they manage their own currency, they can simply create new money to serve their debts. Does this mean that they can or should create money without limits? No, it decidedly does not. All it means is that the simple observation that a state’s spending is higher than its tax revenue, or that its level of public debt has reached a certain level, are not particularly helpful in terms of assessing whether the finances of this state are sound. So what substantive constraints, if any, are there on governments running up a significant amount of public deficit? The short answer is that the principal constraint is inflation.

Since inflation arises from an imbalance between the amount of goods and services in the economy on the one hand, and the amount of money in circulation on the other, we need more information to decide whether a particular public deficit it likely to become problematic or not. All things being equal, a deficit resulting from a tax cut is more likely to be inflationary than a deficit due to increased spending on infrastructure or public goods. Still, further complications can arise.

As the wealthy pay a smaller share, the poor pay more

A primary objective of taxation is to collect from the rich and distribute to the poor. This is how societies adjust for unjust inequalities. However, research has cast doubt on the progressiveness of the global tax system; while the public transfer system is progressive, the overall fiscal system is becoming less so. The global erosion of capital taxes and the rise of consumption taxes (like sales tax and VAT) in the last 50 years mean the tax burden has shifted from those who own assets to those who tend to own no assets and consume most of their income. This is in part a result of globalization, which pressures capital taxation as people and corporations shift earnings to tax havens. In addition, the progressivity of income and estate taxes has declined dramatically; the top marginal tax rate in the US, for example, was cut from close to 90% in the 1960’s to about 40% by 2018, and few countries now have significant estate or inheritance taxes. The rationale for this has been a perceived need to lessen the incentives for tax avoidance and evasion (and the now-out-of-fashion theory of “trickle-down” economics).

The consequences of these developments are remarkable. Since the 1930s, the overall effective tax rate for the bottom 50% of American earners has doubled, while the effective rate for the top 0.01% has fallen by more than 50%. In 2018, for the first time on record, the richest 400 Americans paid a lower effective tax rate than everyone else. Such developments are not unique to the US - around the world, regressive consumption taxes have increased as capital taxes fall, and the progressivity of systems has eroded. This has stirred debate about the fundamental fairness of the global tax system; some economists say it does not need progressivity as long as the transfer system disproportionately benefits the poor, but others argue that a lack of progressivity will lead to an accumulation of wealth among the richest that undermines the social contract. Some believe corporate tax is actually partly paid by the poor, through low wages and high consumer prices - so low corporate taxes benefit the poor. Still others argue that corporate taxes are borne by shareholders. Almost everyone, however, agrees that documenting effective tax rates across all income levels is necessary to drive an informed discussion.

Bolstering tax revenue will be essential for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals

The establishment of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals in 2015 laid out 17 key ways to set the global economy on a more sustainable path by eradicating poverty, providing clean water and sanitation, and much more. But in order to deliver on these goals, everyone agrees that sufficient tax revenue is necessary and should, to a large extent, be collected in those countries that are a particular focus of many of the goals. SDG 17, in particular, targets an increase in domestic resource mobilization - explicitly measured by the ratio of tax-to-GDP. Tax collection is generally thought to be more difficult in developing countries, which tend to have large informal sectors (gray economies) and relatively little third-party reporting of income. Added to this is the difficulty tax authorities in many of these countries face in terms of resource constraints, limiting their ability to audit taxpayers. In light of these constraints, governments and development organizations such as the International Centre for Tax and Development, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank are trying to implement solutions that can raise tax compliance even with limited resources.

Now, a combination of new data sources (such as satellite images, digitized tax records, and automated information about bank transfers) and relatively low-cost, automated algorithms means that both the efficiency and efficacy of tax enforcement can increase dramatically. Early results of missions undertaken by the OECD, IMF, and World Bank suggest that wider rollout of big-data analytics can increase tax revenue, and at limited cost. Other low-cost compliance measures include behavioural “nudging” through taxpayer communication, and the simplification of tax codes. One way to increase tax revenue would be to limit the losses that result from illicit financial flows (flows related to illegal gains), or from flows intended to avoid taxation (such as hidden payments to entities that are based in tax havens). In fact, the taxation of international illicit financial flows related to corporations and individuals is thought to be so important that it has its own designated target outlined in the Sustainable Development Goals: significantly reducing illicit financial and arms flows by 2030. This greater focus on illicit financial flows is based on a growing awareness that they undermine both the credibility of institutions and the fairness of tax systems.

Globalization and the tax avoidance industry have increasingly enabled illicit behavior

A series of public disclosures has cast new light to the old saying, “the poor evade, the rich avoid.” By using information on the wealth hidden in tax havens by the 0.01% wealthiest individuals in the world (uncovered thanks to the Panama Papers and Swiss Leaks disclosures, and via various tax-amnesty programs), economists at the University of California, Berkeley, were able to estimate the total amount of taxes that go unpaid globally by the ultra-rich - and the findings are astounding. One quarter of all taxes owed by the wealthiest 0.01% are never paid, in contrast to tax evasion rates that are as low as 3% among taxpayers in the bottom 90% of the wealth distribution. It seems that the old saying should be updated to, “the poor evade, the rich avoid a lot.” The sharp increase in tax avoidance and evasion at the very top of the wealth pyramid is a relatively new phenomenon. In the 1950’s, when the world was less globalized, it was harder to move assets to tax havens; as a result, a negligible amount of wealth was stashed offshore.

Following the advent of globalization and the concurrent rise of an entire tax avoidance industry starting in earnest in the 1980’s, there has been a sharp increase in the share of wealth that is hidden offshore. Already by the 2000’s, the wealthiest 0.01% were hiding an estimated 30% to 40% of their wealth offshore. The total estimated tax loss resulting from this behaviour amounted to $200 billion in 2012 (an amount roughly equivalent to the current GDP of Greece). In order to curb this phenomenon, tax authorities need access to more information about foreign bank accounts, ideally through automatic exchange-of-information agreements (recent developments such as the US’s Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act are evidence that this has started to happen). Above and beyond the simple exchange of information, one potentially effective solution to the problem would be the creation of a global wealth registry that records the beneficial owners of the world’s assets. This would enable governments to not only curb tax evasion, but also to impede the ability to stash the proceeds of criminal activity abroad.

Conventional wisdom holds that higher taxes hinder growth, but the truth may not be so simple

A traditional part of the standard curriculum for students of economics has been that there is a trade-off between economic growth and equality. As the theory goes, higher taxes discourage people from working, and as a result any redistribution of resources to the poor via higher tax revenue comes at the cost of lower economic activity. This theory has now been tested empirically for generations, and as it turns out the story is a bit more complicated than the textbooks make it seem. If we compare across countries around the world, a clear relationship between inequality and economic growth simply does not appear. In fact, the cross-sectional relationship between tax rates and labour participation rates goes in a direction opposite of what standard theory predicts - that is, countries with higher tax rates have higher labour participation rates. The reason is that tax revenue is (generally) not poured into the gutter, but is instead often used in ways that support economic activity through the building of infrastructure, generally improving institutions, and lowering the ultimate cost of work by providing things like child care.

The effect of tax hikes must therefore be measured not only in relation to how they lower the incentive to work, but also how newly-enabled government spending resulting from a hike can foster economic growth. Natural experiments tend to show that people enduring a tax increase work fewer hours in its immediate aftermath. One example was a tax holiday implemented in Switzerland in the late 1990s, which led to increases in labour supply. However, similar natural experiments have shown that improved access to childcare made possible via greater tax revenue and spending can boost growth. An example of this is access to public childcare in Germany, which has been shown to increase the maternal labour supply because women find themselves with more options. The right level of taxation is therefore a function of not only how people respond to higher taxes, but also how well governments spend tax revenue. The impact of increases also depends on the existence of loopholes; in a system with many evasion and avoidance opportunities, a tax hike is more likely to backfire. However, the lesson to draw from this is not to refrain from raising taxes, but rather to close loopholes.

TAXES

Women around the world are being paid less than men for work of equal value

The global gender pay gap is stuck at 16%, and women in some countries are paid as much as 35% less than men, according to a report published by UN Women in 2020. Still, even these figures do not capture the full extent of pay inequality - particularly in developing countries where informal work or self-employment is rampant. Women in these places often take low-paid jobs that do not provide protection under local labour laws or social benefits. In most places, gender pay gaps are rooted in systemic inequality. Prevailing stereotypes tend to push women away from traditionally male-dominated occupations, and pull them towards poorly-compensated care work. Meanwhile discrimination prevents many women from winning prestigious leadership roles, as notions of traditional gender roles create and sustain pay inequities. Women are often hit with a motherhood-wage penalty, for example, which increases alongside the number of children they have. This can manifest in the form of working fewer paid hours, choosing relatively family-friendly jobs with lower salaries, hiring and promotion decisions that (consciously or not) penalize mothers, and the absence of programmes that support women’s re-entry into the workforce.

Gender pay gaps are also wider for women of colour, and for women who progress to higher levels of responsibility and authority. According to the #BlackWomenomics report published by Goldman Sachs in 2021, Black women earn 15% less than white women on average, and 35% less than white men. The report estimated that reducing that racial gender pay gap in the US could create as many as 1.7 million jobs, and raise annual GDP by as much as 2.1% (equivalent to about $450 billion) annually. Gaps also tend to be starker in certain industries; a sample of reported pay at 10 large UK banks, for example, showed a 44.5% difference between male and female hourly wages as of April 2020 - meaning that a woman there has been earning about 56 pence for every pound earned by a man. At the current pace, the World Economic Forum has suggested that achieving gender parity in economic participation and opportunity will take 257 years. Some potential ways to speed up related progress include pay-equity laws requiring employers to eliminate pay gaps, greater transparency, and enabling employees to organize and bargain collectively.

They tend to play limited roles in peace and security efforts, despite research showing their participation improves outcomes

Conflict affects women and girls differently than men and boys. Women and girls face heightened risks from displacement and breakdowns of protection services, for example, and up to 70% are liable to experience gender-based violence in crisis settings. Child marriage is more likely in such situations, as well - in Syria, rates are now four times higher than before the outbreak of war there. Humanitarian emergencies also increase the risk of unwanted pregnancy, STDs, and maternal mortality - and create more care-related tasks like providing food and water or caring for the sick. This can preclude women and girls from paid work or education, while straining their physical and mental health. Disasters such as droughts, floods, and storms kill more women than men due to structural inequalities, though in the aftermath of disasters the specific humanitarian needs of women and girls are often inadequately identified and addressed. Assessments conducted by UN Women in dozens of countries revealed that women were less likely than men to receive pandemic-related cash relief, were half as likely as men to have unemployment insurance, and were less likely to receive support from NGOs.

In addition, research shows that men constitute the vast majority of humanitarian actors, while women tend to have only symbolic positions. Women’s representation is even lower when it comes to peace and security specifically; they accounted for a mere 6.6% of all uniformed military, police, and justice and corrections personnel in ¬UN field missions in 2020, and for just 13% of negotiators, 6% of mediators, and 6% of signatories in major peace processes worldwide. This is true despite research showing that involving women in crisis response and prevention improves outcomes and lowers risks. To address this, women and girls must participate both as beneficiaries of humanitarian action and as contributors (to both planning and implementation) - with a focus on rights, needs, and agency. Emergency response plans and strategies must address the immediate needs of women and girls and their protection, help restore their livelihoods, and promote their leadership and resilience. The presence and influence of women in peacekeeping should be increased, gender experts should be included in humanitarian teams responding to crises, and gender should be integrated into monitoring tools as well as assessments of vulnerability, risk, and capacity.

The pandemic meant women around the world were suddenly tasked with a disproportionate amount of unpaid domestic work

In much of the world traditional gender roles continue to define unpaid, care-related and domestic work as “women’s.” Studies conducted by UN Women prior to the pandemic found that women were doing three times as much unpaid care and domestic work as men, on a global basis. This includes household tasks like cooking, cleaning, and fetching firewood and water - and caring for children, the sick, and the elderly. For many women, this time spent on unpaid work increases their odds of poverty, and leaves them little time for training or for themselves. There is no country where men spend the same amount of time on unpaid work as women - even where the ratio is lowest, women are still doing twice as much. Although the care work they are tasked with is essential for families, communities, and entire economies to thrive, it goes uncounted and undervalued. If women’s unpaid work were assigned a value, in some countries it would account for as much as 39% of GDP. To share the workload more evenly, many organizations have called for the three Rs: recognition, reduction, and redistribution.

COVID-19 has only worsened the situation. Assessments conducted by UN Women in 45 countries reveal that women have been more likely than men to report an increase in domestic work. They were 1.7 times as likely as men to report increased time cooking, 1.3 times as likely to report increased time playing with children, and 1.2 times as likely to increase time spent instructing children, cleaning, or collecting water and wood. In addition, partnered women with children who took on additional unpaid care and domestic work were more likely than their male counterparts to lose their jobs. In the US, four times as many women as men had dropped out of the labour force as of September 2020, and one in four who lost a job said it was because of a lack of childcare. With schools, nurseries and daycare facilities shuttered, women suddenly had more people at home to care for, creating physical and mental health effects and stretching household resources. However, women in countries that adopted policies to directly support unpaid care during the pandemic were less likely to report an increase in their domestic work.

The pandemic made women around the world more vulnerable to violence at home

About one in every three women in the world aged 15 and older have experienced physical and/or sexual violence at least once in their life, according to the World Health Organization. And, for 16% of those aged between 15 and 24, it has happened within the past 12 months. Gender-based violence is a human rights violation with devastating immediate and long-term physical, sexual, and mental consequences - which can prevent women from fully participating in society. Rates of depression, anxiety, unplanned pregnancy, sexually-transmitted disease, and HIV are relatively higher among women who have experienced violence. This can strain health care systems, and undermine productivity; the estimated annual cost to the global economy of discriminatory social institutions and violence against women is roughly $12 trillion. At least 155 countries have passed domestic violence laws, and 140 have legislation on sexual harassment in the workplace - though enforcing these laws remains a challenge, and women and girls are frequently denied access to safety and justice. Not enough is being done to prevent violence, or to mete out punishment when it occurs.

Gender-based violence has only been exacerbated by the pandemic. Calls to helplines increased five-fold in some countries as movement was restricted in response to the health crisis, causing both social isolation and increased economic insecurity in ways that made women more vulnerable to violence at home. According to the UN Women-UNDP COVID-19 Global Gender Response Tracker, as of March 2021, 52 countries had integrated prevention and response to violence against women and girls within their pandemic response plans, and 136 had adopted measures to strengthen services for female survivors of violence during pandemic. Still, more action is urgently needed. Potential solutions include laws and policies to promote gender equality and punish perpetrators, comprehensive and accessible survivor-centred services for women and their children, greater prevention and more coordinated responses to gender-based violence from health, judicial, educational, and social service-providers, greater efforts to challenge norms and attitudes that harm women and girls, strengthened collection, measurement, reporting, and use of related data in decision-making, and increased support for community-based organizations’ advocacy and action to end gender-based violence.

Relatively low participation in labour markets and legal discrimination have condemned many women to hardship

In 72 countries, women are still barred from opening bank accounts or obtaining credit. According to UN Women calculations made prior to the pandemic, women (at 55%) were also participating far less in the global labor force than men (94%). Now, the situation has only worsened. An analysis conducted by UN Women in dozens of countries confirmed that employed women were more likely than employed men to lose their jobs due to the pandemic’s impact, because they are over-represented in the relatively hard-hit service sector. In addition, 82% of self-employed women workers were likely to face reduced paid work hours, compared with just 65% of men. Prime working-aged women (between 24 and 44) with children were more likely than their male counterparts to lose their job, while younger women (18 to 24) with children were far more likely than their male counterparts to see reduced paid work hours. The International Labor Organization has predicted that women’s job recovery will be slower than men’s - with 13 million fewer women employed in 2021 than in 2019, even as the number of employed men remains the same.

Their relatively low labor market participation impacts women’s economic status, as does their inability to own or inherit land or assets in several countries. In fact, it condemns many to a life of poverty. An analysis commissioned by UN Women and the UN Development Programme estimates that by the end of 2021, 435 million women and girls will be living on less than $1.90 a day - and 47 million will be pushed into poverty as a direct result of COVID-19. This translates into 118 women in poverty for every 100 men, a ratio that could increase to 121 per 100 by 2030 (the ratio will be worse in regions like sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia). However, more than 100 million women and girls could be lifted out of poverty if governments implement comprehensive strategies to improve access to education and family planning, pay fair and equal wages, and expand social transfers. Any measures aimed at increasing women’s economic empowerment and entrepreneurship must be coupled with efforts to ensure gender parity across occupations and professional levels - to spur greater economic equality and reduce poverty for women and girls everywhere.

Countries where women are in charge have reported lower COVID-19-related death tolls

Women must be included in decision-making that has a direct impact on their lives. When they aren’t, those decisions may be ineffective and even harmful. Despite women’s increased engagement in public life, equality is still far off - women account for about 45% of all civil servants, but only 34% of the decision-making positions in public administrations. One analysis of COVID-19 taskforces in 87 countries found that only 3.5% had gender parity. According to the “Women in Politics: 2021” map created by UN Women and the Inter-Parliamentary Union, women held just 25.6% of parliamentary seats, 21.9% of ministerial positions, and accounted for 5.9% of Heads of State. Women’s participation in local politics is somewhat higher; data from 133 countries show that they comprise 36% of elected members of local bodies, though that is still far from parity. While progress has been made, according to World Economic Forum calculations it will take 95 years to close the gender gap in terms of political representation. Men with power often resist women’s leadership in decision-making bodies and within political parties, and enduring norms compound this challenge.

Across five different regions, 82% of women parliamentarians report having experienced some form of psychological violence while serving their terms - and nearly half (44%) reported receiving death, rape, assault, or abduction threats directed at them or their families. In order to attain equality in terms of participation in executive, legislative, judicial, and public administration decision-making, action must be taken on international and national commitments - including through temporary special measures. This is necessary to reduce violence against women in political life, and to strengthen their voices. In countries with legislated quotas, women are on average elected to 26% of seats in parliament, compared with 21% in countries without such legislation. Political empowerment for women tends to increase in tandem with the number of women in senior roles in the labour market, and the quality and effectiveness of policy-making and policy implementation increases when power is shared. In countries with women at the helm, confirmed deaths from COVID-19 have been six times lower, for example, due in part to faster leadership response and a greater emphasis on social and environmental well-being.

GENDER INEQUALITY

The vast amounts of user data generated daily for media industry consumption create regulatory challenges

There are hundreds of millions of photos and videos published on Instagram, a significantly higher number of published tweets, and an even far greater number of YouTube video views on a daily basis. Governing this content only becomes more difficult as the ease with which anyone can create and share it increases. While trending hashtags and engaging content might enable users to reach a wide audience, they can also spur calls for closer regulation - the inflammatory misinformation posted online prior to the riot at the US Capitol on 6 January 2021 is a case in point. Despite repeated urgent requests for the removal of such content prior to the riot, it has only relatively recently received greater scrutiny on mainstream platforms. Live video streaming has also exposed wrongdoing - such as when Philando Castile was shot by a policeman in the US in 2016 as his girlfriend filmed. Facebook has used artificial intelligence as well as human moderators to try to combat the spread of violent content and fake news, and its efforts (along with those of other online platforms) will be crucial as people increasingly go to the internet for their news and information.

Governments have taken varied approaches to regulating content. After bombings in Sri Lanka in April 2019 left nearly 300 people dead in churches and hotels, that country’s government moved swiftly to temporarily ban social media sites and services including Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, WhatsApp, Snapchat and Viber - in an effort to curb the spread of inflammatory misinformation. In China, the country’s roughly 1,900 newspapers, 2,600 radio stations and 9,000 magazines are all owned by the government, and operate under the watchful eyes of 2 million people employed as censors. Whether regulation is applied by governments or popular platforms themselves, a respect for legitimate free speech is critical. Net neutrality, the principle that any lawful content should be made readily available online without bias or interference from an internet service provider, has become a hotly-debated topic - as governments could theoretically allow service providers to inhibit content presenting controversial viewpoints, while content providers could start paying for preferential treatment for their own sites and services. While efforts to restrict net neutrality gained traction in the US during the Trump administration, India approved regulations in 2018 that support net neutrality and bar any type of online data restriction.

It is crucial to be able to assign accountability for the accuracy of online content during crises

Inaccurate or misleading online content can be deadly. According to the 2021 Edelman Trust Barometer, 70% of respondents with “good" information hygiene said they would take a COVID-19 vaccine within a year’s time, compared with just 59% of those with "poor" information hygiene. By enabling just about anyone to create and widely distribute content, it has made it increasingly difficult for social media companies to balance the need to fact-check with the need to preserve freedom of speech. These companies must try to distinguish between people mistakenly sharing misinformation and those being maliciously deceptive. More than half of the respondents surveyed for a report published by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism and the University of Oxford in 2018 said they were concerned about what is real on the internet - with the highest percentage registered in Brazil (85%), and the lowest in the Netherlands (30%). As the COVID-19 pandemic persists, and new and troubling variants are discovered, people everywhere are relying as much as possible on credible news outlets for helpful information.

Journalists have a particular responsibility to adapt to this new era of communication. Not least, because their work is at risk of being drowned out by cacophony - and because they themselves are at risk of being manipulated into spreading disinformation, according to a report published by UNESCO in 2018. Journalism must distance itself from information that might interest the public, but is not in the public interest. For many industries the road to rebuilding trust will be long, however, due to the growing potential to abuse technology and a lack of clarity on how best to regulate technology companies. For example, while some celebrated Google’s announcement that it would acquire wearable device maker Fitbit, serious concerns were also raised about Google’s new access to significant amounts of personal health data - which could theoretically be linked to personal search data for advertising purposes. Advancements in artificial intelligence and “deepfakes” - manipulated video representations of people produced by sophisticated AI - have only created additional challenges as the public struggles to separate truth from fiction.

Tension is mounting between the need to improve media quality and the responsibility to protect privacy

The increased ability to generate and analyse massive amounts of data has triggered a need to pay closer attention to principles governing its use. There have been several high-profile cases highlighting the need to be more cognizant of responsible data use; the Facebook-Cambridge Analytica scandal, for example, involved millions of personal data points being harvested for targeted political advertising and showcased the need for transparency with users about who has access to their data - and how it is being used. In 2019, Twitter had to apologize for using personal information including phone numbers and email addresses for tailored advertisements, and Amazon came under pressure that same year, when it was revealed that thousands of company employees were listening in on the voice requests people regularly make to Amazon’s Alexa home assistant devices, in order to help train artificial intelligence algorithms as part of a process dubbed “data annotation.” While this technique is commonly used by other technology giants, most customers have no idea that it is occurring - and they are liable to provide personally identifiable information during the process that could be misused.

A number of different international institutions and agencies have attempted to articulate best practices for responsible data use. In 2018, representatives of the European Council and European Parliament agreed on implementing the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) as the bloc’s primary law governing how companies must protect data collected from European Union citizens. Some of the key related principles include requiring peoples’ consent to process their personal data, anonymizing data collection for the purposes of privacy protection, providing notification in case of a data breach, putting in place security safeguards when transferring data across borders, and appointing data protection officers to oversee GDPR compliance. Meanwhile in the US, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) went into effect in 2020 as a means to increase consumer privacy rights. The legislation grants people the right to know about all of the data collected on them by businesses, the right to deny the sale of that information, to delete any of that data they have posted, and to take legal action against businesses that were careless in protecting the data.

The pandemic impacted business models based on live events, and boosted demand for online diversion and education

COVID-19 forced live entertainment events of all types to rethink the design of gathering spaces for crowds - and to endure postponements and cancellations that for the US sport industry alone were resulting in losses of as much as $93,000 per minute by May 2020, according to economic modelling firm Emsi. However, the pandemic has also spurred higher demand for streaming entertainment, and for more educational services delivered via the internet; the online learning service Coursera has seen increased demand from businesses and universities in virtual courses, and has made many free for the significant portion of the global population forced to stay home due to social-distancing restrictions. Even in normal periods, the digital democratization of content creation and distribution has the potential to improve many aspects of life - if properly curated. For some people, opportunities to monetize content shared on social media have increased, giving rise to “influencer marketing.” According to research firm IDC, digital advertising spending on social media channels is expected to increase by 129% between 2017 and 2022, to $231 billion, as more companies try to tap influencers.

Despite loosened restrictions that have enabled some live sporting events to take place, questions remain about the pandemic’s long-term impact on the industry. For example, Major League Baseball’s 2020 World Series, which took place in the US in October 2020, drew 30% fewer TV viewers over the course of six nights than the prior year’s event. Some organizations, such as the Chinese Basketball Association, are increasingly looking to virtual reality as a means to maintain and monetize fan engagement - a trend that may well outlast the pandemic. Digital content of every type can deliver value that goes beyond the monetary, by serving as a social glue. Cancer patients and survivors, for example, have formed online support groups, and research published in the journal New Media & Society found that playing video games frequently as a family promotes closeness. Web search queries and social media posts can also serve as leading indicators to forecast disease outbreaks, by combining them with traditional public health data sources. In terms of disaster and crisis-response management, organizations can use of content posted by people affected by disasters to identify where best to deploy resources.

Entertainers and athletes can play a significant role in addressing inequality and other social ills

The media spotlight provides a significant means to pursue social activism. Athletes in particular have taken advantage of their visibility to raise awareness of issues including racial injustice; for example, 2020 US Open winner Naomi Osaka received extensive coverage for her decision to wear face masks throughout the tennis competition that bore the names of unarmed black people killed by police (Osaka said her intention was to spark a conversation). Notably, Osaka’s corporate sponsors continued to support her - and to support in turn the broader racial justice movement. As more athletes leverage their media reach for similar purposes, fewer sport franchises and sponsors will be able to remain neutral (Washington, D.C.’s National Football League franchise, for example, finally yielded to pressure to change its racially insensitive name in 2020). The need to foster greater social cohesion has perhaps never been greater, as the world struggles to emerge from a devastating pandemic that has laid bare many inequalities and shortcomings. The extent to which media personalities and platforms choose to play a constructive role in this could have lasting consequences.

A decentralization and democratization of media has enabled people to more freely create and distribute content to inform, or to misinform. This content plays a pivotal role in shaping the social fabric, as media outlets both facilitate healthy discussion about issues and spread dangerous lies. Ultimately, social media has the potential to further awaken our collective conscious about inequality related to race, gender, and wealth - and to foster a more active dialogue about mental health that could pave the way to increased acceptance and understanding. The impact of media on mental health in particular has been a source of growing concern. An experiment conducted by neuroscientists from the University of Southern California and Southwest University in Chongqing, China found that Facebook stimulates the same section of the brain activated by gambling and substance abuse, and overuse of social media has been linked to feelings of anxiety, depression, and social isolation. While COVID-19 has increased the use of social media, it has also, thankfully, boosted general interest in outdoors activity. For many people, physical activity including sport can be a means of forming social bonds and boosting self-esteem.

Media, entertainment, and sport businesses are trying to harness the benefits of the technology, but adoption requires careful evaluation

In many ways the media industry has been at the forefront of artificial intelligence adoption. In addition to using AI algorithms to analyse viewing habits and recommend content, the technology is now increasingly finding its way into the production of content; journalists are using it to more efficiently generate things like headline alternatives and summaries, particularly for data-driven items like financial earnings stories and sporting event results. For advertisers, AI can be used to optimize placement and targeting at scale. However, AI has also democratized content production and distribution in ways that increase the risk of spreading mis- and disinformation at unprecedented speed and scale. According to the results of a survey conducted by Ipsos in 29 countries in 2023, anxiety about being unable to distinguish between real and AI-generated content, and about what people might do to exploit that uncertainty, has increased. 64% of respondents in Germany said they think AI is making it easier to generate very realistic fake news, and more than half in the US think AI will make mis- and disinformation worse.

The entertainment industry has utilized AI to create more realistic (and potentially cost-effective) visual effects for films and television, to assist in music creation, and to create more intelligent and realistic non-player characters and voices for videogames. The industry’s adoption of the technology has not been devoid of controversy, however. AI’s burgeoning capacity helped to make it a primary point of contention between striking Hollywood writers and producers in 2023, and the agreement ultimately reached between the two sides put AI in the hands of writers to assist them and augment their creativity - rather than in the hands of studios, which will not be able to generate entire scripts using AI before having a human polish them for final use, or treat AI-generated content as source material for a film adaptation. The sports industry is also finding its way forward with greater use of AI - for everything from analysing athlete performance and honing training regimens to help prevent injury, to creating more personalized content for fans including highlight reels and statistical analyses. AI can also be used to help with crowd management at sporting events, in ways that improve safety.

People have demonstrated a desire for more online content, and for branding that aligns with a social conscience

Athlete and celebrity activism has clearly impacted consumer behaviour. Former National Football League quarterback Colin Kaepernick, for example, drew international attention for kneeling during the national anthem to protest police brutality and for his views on systemic racism - and then saw his value to corporate sponsor Nike surge. Nike’s CEO was quoted in the media describing the company’s decision to proactively align with Kaepernick and his social causes as an acknowledgement of the value of empowering athletes’ expression. Ice cream giant Ben & Jerry’s has also partnered with Kaepernick on a non-dairy dessert, with a portion of proceeds going to Kaepernick’s Know Your Rights Camp initiative (which has a stated mission of “advancing the liberation and well-being of Black and Brown communities”). The allure of Kaepernick-related branding underlines a broader shift in consumer behaviour, as people increasingly favour companies with a social conscience. One related challenge, however, is ensuring that corporations are not merely posturing - and are demonstrating meaningful support. People are also increasingly embracing a more transient media identity. They no longer necessarily consider themselves mere audience members - and no longer want one-size-fits-all experiences decided upon by corporations.

The growth in demand for tailor-made content means distributors must constantly vie for attention, and users now often find themselves overloaded with subscriptions. People all over the world now subscribe to paid streaming services, and there will likely be a growing interest among these users in seeing manifestations and representations of themselves in content - which could be aided by responsibly leveraging user data. COVID-19 and related mobility restrictions have triggered a sharp increase in online media consumption, as customers in relative isolation look to stay informed and entertained via gaming and streaming services, news, and educational content. More than half of the global population is now using the internet, according to the International Telecommunication Union, and increasingly ubiquitous connectivity promises to continue to shape consumer habits (a good deal of content is now being digested in abbreviated form on mobile social-networking apps, for example). Increasing investment in network technology such as 5G should enable even greater access to content, increasingly via smartphone and often on platforms like Facebook. Greater demand requires greater investment, however; Netflix is expected to spend nearly $20 billion on content in 2021.

Technology’s impact on the media industry has been amplified by the pandemic

The entertainment industry was overwhelmed as COVID-19 spread, and live concerts, comedy clubs, theatres, and other entertainment venues around the world progressively went dark. However, the pandemic also boosted demand for internet-based alternatives. Streaming services in the US added tens of millions of new users within the first few months of 2020, according to estimates, and the decision by entertainment giant Warner Bros. to premiere its 2021 films on streaming service HBO Max as well as in theatres underscored the transformation of entertainment consumption. The music industry has also sought to adapt, with virtual live concerts; Songkick, for example, offers people the ability to purchase live-streamed virtual concert tickets. In addition, eGaming and eSports each saw sharp growth in 2020, with eSports expected to become at least a $1.5 billion global industry by 2023, according to reports. Even prior to the pandemic, artificial intelligence and augmented and virtual reality were affecting the ways we communicate, behave, learn, and work - and the digital portion of the global media and entertainment industry’s income had already been projected to easily surpass 50% by 2022, up from less than 37% in 2013, according to PwC.

Blockchain has also played a role in transforming media, by enabling companies to more accurately monitor content assets and measure the impact of digital advertising. However, AI may promise the most serious industry disruption thanks to pattern recognition and predictive analytics. As users produce increasing amounts of data related both to content they consume and the time they spend consuming it, marketers are using that data to try to automatically point to what they might want next; the algorithms deployed by Spotify and Netflix to suggest songs or shows are prominent examples. AI is also impacting digital print media - where content increasingly sits behind a paywall - by enabling flexible paywalls and tools to evaluate the likelihood that a reader allowed inside of a paywall for free will convert to a paid subscriber. Automated content is also increasingly common; The Los Angeles Times, for example, uses a tool to report nearly in real time on earthquakes, while the Associated Press automates short articles about corporate earnings. Sophisticated algorithms have also given us “deepfakes,” or videos designed to mislead an audience into believing a high-profile person said or did something.

MEDIA ENT. & SPORT

Some of the world’s biggest companies are finding ways to address the world’s biggest challenges

Society faces major challenges, including a lack of access to education and healthcare, income inequality, widespread unemployment, and environmental problems like climate change and ocean pollution. Experience shows that solutions cannot be found solely in government policies, and instead require collaboration with businesses - which have the power to create and distribute across borders in order to have real impact. Business leaders no longer focus solely on financial results; they increasingly face expectations from shareholders, customers, the media, their employees, and others to consider the broader impact they are having on society and the environment, and whether or not they are creating meaningful jobs. Corporate engagement has evolved from philanthropy, to corporate social responsibility, to social innovation. Unlike more traditional initiatives, corporate social innovation is embedded in corporate strategy, R&D, employee development, and partnerships. Rather than one-off projects, the focus is on sustainable social change, and developing long-term strategies to address social problems. It is a strategic direction, rather than an isolated initiative. And, instead of a top-down approach, it relies on a participatory, collaborative model that takes into account feedback from customers and employees.

Examples of corporate social innovation include Unilever’s Sustainable Living Plan, which is designed to double the size of the consumer goods company’s business over ten years while at the same time reducing its environmental impact; the company’s Sustainable Living-branded products have actually seen sales increase 50% faster than the rest of its products. Meanwhile General Electric’s (through GE Healthcare) “Healthymagination” program develops affordable products designed to address global health issues - in one case, the program worked with a social enterprise to develop and distribute low-cost incubators that address India’s high infant mortality rate. Other examples: IBM established “Corporate Service Corp,” a volunteer initiative that sends 500 young leaders a year on team assignments in more than 30 developing countries; and Danone’s Nutriplanet group analyses socioeconomic and cultural data in order to better understand health issues in developing countries. The Danone group reformulated a best-selling cheese in Brazil, for example, to improve health outcomes by reducing sugar and adding vitamins. The group also developed a nutrient-rich yogurt targeted at children in Bangladesh. As more demands are made of companies for greater transparency, accountability, and impact measurement, these types of initiatives will become increasingly common.

A smart, well-run public sector can help facilitate social innovation

Due to government spending cuts, growing investor interest, and a new generation of social entrepreneurs, more governments are experimenting with ways to harness private enterprise for the public good. This is increasingly seen as essential for achieving large-scale, systemic change while reforming public services. However, as neither a conventional business nor a traditional charity, social enterprises blur policy boundaries. Traditional corporate legal structures do not support the dual-purpose business models of social enterprises, and tax systems rarely distinguish between companies that benefit society and the environment and those that harm them. And, while traditional regulation is designed to protect investors from excessive financial risk, it does not recognize that risk can also stem from a desire to create a positive impact. A more innovative public sector could better enable social innovation, by supplying well-designed policy and incentives; governments can also invest directly in social enterprises, act as intermediaries for private investors backing social enterprises, and provide resources and technical assistance (in some countries, issues such as political upheaval and a lack of budgetary support create related obstacles).

One example of positive government support for social innovation is the social impact bond, a financing tool where creditors fund improved social outcomes for underserved communities - which in turn can result in public sector savings. These bonds are contracts signed by local governments, banks, and foundations to do things like help the homeless find shelters, or rehabilitate young criminal offenders. The repayment of related financing depends on how successful a program has been in achieving defined targets, and backers often recycle that repayment back into other projects. The bonds enable governments to partner with innovative service providers and private investors that are willing to assume the upfront costs and risk. Other policy instruments benefitting social innovation include Benefit Corporation and “B Corp” legal statuses, which help for-profit corporations create a public benefit, generate sustainable value, and more carefully measure their impact on society and the environment. Companies operating under these statuses must report to shareholders on how they are balancing interests. Benefit corporation legislation has been passed in more than 30 jurisdictions in the US, while Italy has also adopted related provisions; examples of the thousands of registered benefit corporations include Patagonia and Kickstarter.

Entrepreneurs are finding many ways to inject a social mission into their business

Social enterprises can be non-profits (like Goodwill thrift shops in the US), for-profits (like Ethiopia-based fair trade footwear maker Oliberté), or a hybrid of both. They are entrepreneurial organizations designed to solve problems in innovative ways, and produce benefits that blend positive social and environmental impacts with financial returns. They also try to provide innovative solutions for big problems in a self-sufficient way by using market-based mechanisms - and tend to maximize resources for the greatest possible impact, while placing a social mission at the core of their business. Much like traditional entrepreneurs, social entrepreneurs often have a unique ability to sense and act on opportunities by applying creative thinking, and they can benefit from a tireless determination to create new products, services, and markets. What distinguishes a social entrepreneur is his or her targeting of underserved populations, and their commitment to disrupting the status quo by generating social impact at a grand scale.

Social enterprises deploy a diverse range of models and focus on a variety of different areas. In their 2008 book The Power of Unreasonable People, John Elkington and Pamela Hartigan, founding partners of the consultancy Volans Ventures and leading figures in the field of social innovation, defined several possible models for social enterprises: a Leveraged Non-Profit makes innovative use of financial and other resources in order to respond to social needs; a Hybrid Non-Profit is willing to use profits generated by some activities to sustain other operations that have a social purpose; and a Social Business Venture is set up as a for-profit business designed to spur social change. Because the public sector is the primary provider of social services to the poor, many social entrepreneurs partner with governments in roles such as service providers, providers of technical assistance to public employees while teaching them new skills, and as advocates that help craft new laws and policies. While the field is growing, social entrepreneurs still face significant challenges. They are often plagued by a lack of funding, a shortage of business skills, problems with scalability, and a dearth of supportive regulation. Because their business ideas include bold, novel concepts, investors often assign them a high-risk profile.

In order to have the broadest possible impact, social entrepreneurs must focus on connections

Social entrepreneurs have posted a string of successes, whether it has been through VisionSpring’s provision of eyeglasses to millions of poor people in developing countries, or the more than 160 million books and other essentials provided to educators of children in need by First Book. Yet, the social innovation sector is coming to terms with the limits of incremental growth, according to Beyond Organizational Scale: How Social Entrepreneurs Create Systems Change, a report published by the World Economic Forum in 2017. Society’s needs are significant, and models for scaling up in size to meet them are still too narrow, or take too long to implement. While simply replicating private sector service delivery models is often ineffective, some forward-thinking social innovators are moving towards a model of systems change - meaning, transformation on a broad scale that even small organizations can help facilitate. True systems change requires an inclusive approach that focuses on the connections that link an ecosystem together, rather than focusing on delivering a predefined solution to intended beneficiaries. Social innovation has helped transform beneficiaries into actors who can help expand a business, as clients or employees.

Social innovators need to adapt to the local environment. A continuous flow of data and evidence is necessary in order to create feedback mechanisms in systems, according to the Forum’s report; the monitoring and evaluation enabled by this flow can serve as tools for continuous improvement and reassessment, potentially enabling social entrepreneurs to alter course as needed. Systems change also requires developing a shared understanding of problems facing a multitude of different stakeholders, with differing motivations. For systems change to occur, social innovators must convene these disparate players, who are often from sectors that may not have worked together previously. Governments, in particular, can be a crucial partner for achieving large-scale, systemic change. Social innovators therefore need to develop skills such as coalition building, and negotiating legislative reform - and organizations need to either create new roles for people who have these skill sets, or invest in educating existing employees.

Thanks to growing interest and innovation, investing in the greater good is now more feasible

Finance is an essential force for systemic change, and must find its way to projects and innovation that can actually improve lives. The United Nations estimates that $2.5 trillion in funding is needed to achieve the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals - the 17 goals established in 2015 to guide global development until 2030. They encompass a broad range of targets, including reducing the portion of the population living in poverty by at least half, ending hunger and all forms of malnutrition, and achieving the sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources. Recent financial innovation has helped to better harness investment to fund social innovation, and a deeper pool of capital is available than what had been established previously through philanthropy alone in order to support organizations aiming to have a social impact. For example, “blended finance” is an increasingly popular way to fund impact investing by tailoring risk for individual investors within a group - including those from the private sector.

Impact investing is distinct from the growing trend of “ESG” investing, which involves funding publicly traded companies already demonstrating good environmental, social and governance practices. Impact investing focuses on creating measurable, positive impact, and several related, significant funds have been formed such as Vital Capital Fund, which is primarily focused on sub-Saharan Africa. A set of tools and resources has evolved to help impact investors measure the social and environmental benefits of their investments, such as the IRIS metrics developed by the Global Impact Investing Network, and GIIRS Ratings. However, a single, standard set of metrics has yet to be adopted by the impact investment industry as a whole. That means that investors use a combination of approaches to measure the impact of their investments, including qualitative and anecdotal evidence in addition to standardized tools. The greatest challenge to the growth of impact investing is a lingering lack of high-quality investment opportunities with measurable impact. In addition, social entrepreneurs, especially in the so-called “valley of death period” prior to realizing the initial revenue generated by a venture, often require additional training and support in order to gain a deeper understanding of their investment needs.

SOCIAL INNOVATION

Failing to address root problems like a lack of security and disease undermines the rule of law

Generations of idealists have sought to establish a global system of governance that creates the conditions necessary for peace, security and prosperity to prevail. The work of the United Nations, a manifestation of this idealism, is replicated in regional arrangements that seek collective security, and in other institutions (like customs unions) that work towards greater global cooperation through trade. Conflict is the unfortunate backdrop for many such attempts throughout history; decolonization, achieved progressively since the end of World War II, has yielded many independent countries still configured along lines drawn on maps centuries ago to delineate spheres of interest among competing colonial powers. International law has deemed these boundaries sacrosanct, despite their often random nature - which has frequently placed many different ethnic, linguistic, and religious groups under a single flag. Successful states have been able to bring communities together to create stability, while in others ethnic tensions and historic antagonisms boost the odds of violent extremism, and war, both within and beyond national boundaries. Vulnerability and a lack of security continue to undermine aspirations for peace and security.

The global arms trade and the proliferation of weapons often hasten the breakdown of the rule of law - but failures to address root problems, like disease, food and water insecurity, and a lack of meaningful employment and education, are also factors. Entrenched poverty and the competition for scarce resources create existential tension, enabling conflict to fester. Climate injustice, long suffered most acutely by those farthest from power, has boosted migratory flows - as have armed conflicts. Humanitarian actors have struggled to meet growing needs, and to engender a spirit of cooperation and collaboration, while policy-makers, activists and experts have toiled to draw sufficient attention to the climate catastrophe and the need to help ensure a better future for the planet. The UN’s Sustainable Development Goals - and specifically the related “Leave No One Behind” principle - have generated a vision of a more peaceful world; not necessarily through avoiding war or better arranging for collective security, but based on addressing basic human vulnerability alongside planetary concerns, and by redesigning underlying systems in ways most likely to yield greater stability.

The values that have underpinned commercial activity require an update

Humanity has managed to bring the planet to the brink of destruction, with devastating implications. Colonialism and an unquenchable thirst for natural resources played key roles in the now-unfolding environmental crisis, as extraction and exploitation became the norm in many parts of the world. These activities undermined indigenous cultures, and subjugated indigenous peoples - relegating them to footnotes in a supply chain. They also triggered over-consumption in wealthy countries, elevated profits over ethics, marginalized efforts to replenish resources, and curbed necessary climate action. Configuring a more just relationship between the planet and people, and between the people who have benefited from resource exploitation and those who have been marginalized as a result, is now urgently necessary. Related efforts call for effective prioritization - and a recognition of the fundamental role played by indigenous peoples as traditional environmental custodians. Assumptions that modern technology alone can solve problems like the climate crisis erroneously overlook the value of traditional knowledge, which has been progressively depleted and dismissed during the era of exploitation that brought us to this crucial juncture.

The areas of the planet that tend to most conscientiously practice sustainability are managed by indigenous custodians using traditional practices. Evicting them from their lands in the name of economic development or to form “Protected Areas” is therefore a result of deeply flawed logic. Instead, there should be more mainstreaming of their approaches, acceptance of their sovereignty, and more of an effort to seek out their advice when it comes to stemming environmental damage. Ultimately, there is a need for fundamental, systemic change in terms of demand and consumption - including the manufacturing of more durable goods, and the reduction of disposable products that contribute waste. For businesses this calls for more sustainable, less expansive supply chains. The very values underpinning commercial activity require dramatic change. A greater emphasis on environmental protection is required, and greater returns must accrue to people by way of meaningful employment and just pay levels. The effort to achieve greater equality and sustainability is a key test for humanity, and one that it cannot afford to fail.

Whether based on race, caste, religion, or gender, discrimination is rampant

Entrenched structural shortcomings have made inequality a reality in just about every part of the world. While Apartheid in South Africa was easily recognized as abhorrent, similar types of systemic bias continue to sustain patriarchy and privilege - and are either not-well-understood or wilfully ignored. These systems are often presented as meritocratic and fair, while in fact they serve to keep certain groups of people far from power and influence. Despite the aspirations of human rights activists and policy-makers, humanity still has not realized its collective talent potential - as significant parts of the population remain effectively excluded from obtaining a quality education. Structural discrimination rests on the twin pillars of prejudice and failure to prioritise systemic change. Some of the many factors at play include race in the US, caste and religion in India, sexual orientation in Uganda, gender in Saudi Arabia, immigration status in Europe, and statelessness in Haiti. Societies constructed on explicit or implicit bias require a retracing of the steps that got them there, a recalibration of historical attitudes, and more forward-looking approaches.

Prejudice is born of insecurity, and ensures that particular groups dominate. It is perpetuated by people (usually men) from dominant ethnic, racial, religious, or linguistic communities, with any departure from their “norm” treated as deviant and harmful, In previous centuries this fuelled colonization and false notions of the value of one civilization over others. This legacy is deep-seated, and continues to enable the subjugation of native populations, making their ancestral territories and resources subservient to dominant political powers. The general exclusion of women and others deemed “deviant,” such as the LGBTI community, has continued - though modernizing social norms are steadily outstripping ancient prejudices. Women’s voices are coming to the fore, as seen in the #MeToo movement, racial intermixing and immigration are reshaping societies, and widespread support exists for the types of systemic change called for by Black Lives Matter and other movements. The scale and complexity of global problems requires tapping the broadest talent pool to find solutions; relying only on a relatively small portion of the population based on its privileged identity would be foolhardy.

Festering injustice as a legacy of a poorly-understood past can act as a brake on development

Talent is measured through achievement, though achievement itself is often a result of opportunity - which is unavailable to many people. The potential economic rewards for limiting social injustice are many. Increasingly diverse societies are a reality in many parts of the world, especially in relatively wealthy countries where colonization and trade drew waves of newcomers over the years. Yet, rather than seeing this as a natural advantage (and natural consequence of historical choices based on greed and resource exploitation), many places have seen a negative, identity-based politics that encourages xenophobic tendencies emerge in response. The ostensible justification for this is often that “outsiders” pose a threat. However, this view is based sentiment instead of science. It undermines social cohesion and, in turn, shared prosperity. The intermixing of cultures and peoples over the centuries has expanded economies, buttressed international relations, facilitated commerce, and directly contributed to improving the quality of life. Festering injustice as a legacy of a poorly-understood past can act as a brake on development - and a failure to confront it can allow it to linger for generations, nurturing resentment and sowing conflict.

Better ensuring that everyone has access to a quality education can disrupt these exclusionary patterns. It can help mend fragmented societies, prevent fracturing along identity fault-lines, and boost a more diverse mix of entrepreneurs. Policies that take into account historical social injustices can knit disparate communities together, and encourage them to pursue common goals - and work towards achieving more peaceful and prosperous societies. Under revamped paradigms, success will accrue on the basis of ability, not identity. A wider range of role models will become available to inspire more diverse communities, and more energy will be harnessed to find the solutions needed for contemporary problems - whether it is a global health crisis, or a geopolitical conflagration. Ensuring such harmony could boost tax revenues, purchasing power, educational and health outcomes, and general levels of confidence in ways that spark innovation and commerce. Diverse communities will feel increasingly welcomed, and their increased engagement, commerce and trade will aid economic growth and prosperity. Sustainable development for all can ultimately overcome the fractious politics of distraction, which is based on identity and engineered to benefit the few.

The Global Goals for Sustainable Development provide clear targets for eradicating discrimination

Designing a world that both draws on energy resources in a more sustainable manner by 2030, and fosters the fairer treatment of traditionally marginalized people, would constitute a major step forward for humanity. The United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals, established in 2015 as a series of targets to hit by the year 2030, include a number of people-oriented goals including eradicating poverty, ending hunger, facilitating the creation of universal health and education access, and eliminating gender-based discrimination and inequality. These provide a framework for potentially strengthening social justice, and pointing systems in a more positive direction for the long-term. Goal 16 may be the marquee goal in terms of social justice, as it calls for providing access to justice for all and for the building of effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions. However, the UN has noted that while the global homicide rate declined between 2015 and 2018, and nearly 130 countries have adopted right-to-information or freedom-of-information laws, the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic has posed a serious threat to global peace and security.

Ultimately, it is the “Leave No One Behind” principle that ties the goals in their entirety to a social justice agenda. According to the UN, the principle represents an unequivocal commitment among all member states to eradicate poverty, end discrimination and exclusion, and reduce inequalities and vulnerabilities. The potential value in putting this principle into practice is obvious: it means recognizing the people who have traditionally been ignored. Related efforts can be augmented by other goals targeting greater energy innovation, more sustainable cities, and decent wages and employment. Enhancing social justice by re-imagining urban areas - expected to be home to nearly 70% of the global population by the year 2050 - is crucial. Similarly, ensuring that fair work conditions are available to everyone, and not just individuals from dominant socio-economic classes, is key. The goals also provide a means to better recognize the role of indigenous people as traditional environmental custodians - and to draw inspiration from their traditional knowledge to generate innovative solutions for climate change impact mitigation, sustainable energy, maintaining biodiversity, and establishing genuinely circular economies.

The same platforms that can bring us together are often used to foment division and violence

Technology can be harnessed to better promote human rights and sustainability. The growth of the Black Lives Matter and Fridays for Future movements have demonstrated this - though it also requires new ways of thinking. Digital rights need to become as much of a priority as more traditional civil and political rights, and to be built on the same process of restructuring institutions to create greater inclusion. The post-World War II vision of systemic, change-oriented responses to the deprivation of rights has become a cornerstone of legal systems, and the idea that the state should uphold these rights is relatively uncontested - though for the most vulnerable populations this remains purely aspirational. Every quest for social justice essentially constitutes a push for greater recognition, and access to protections for cultural and educational rights. For much of the 20th century, human rights efforts were focused on devising rules to reign in the power wielded by governments and courts. Now, corporations have come into much sharper focus - due to the significant influence they wield, not least in terms of dictating how people gain access to information (or misinformation).

COVID-19 has increased our reliance on technology for work, school, communication and creating a sense of community even during isolation. There are also plenty of examples of technology enabling the collection of personal data that is then misused, and of technology seemingly designed to foster cohesion instead pitting some groups against others while sowing hate, fear and mistrust. Future peace, prosperity and respect for individuals and communities will rely at least in part on the extent to which such technology can be responsibly harnessed and used for good, while users are protected from those who seek to exploit it solely for their own benefit. The use of such platforms to generate alternative realities, propagate violence (such as in Myanmar or the US) and undermine institutions and individuals potentially negates earnest efforts to foster unity across sometimes great distances through a shared interface and digital environment. In addition, the extent to which artificial intelligence can be used to undermine human rights and perpetuate systemic racism has is alarming; it can have a significant negative impact on people while fostering misinformation, increasing fragmentation, and risking violence.

The potential rewards for ending the mistreatment of those deemed ‘different’ are many

Power differentials based on gender, tribe, colour, ethnicity, religion, language, ability (or disability), sexual orientation, age, and nationality have all been the cause of serious injustice. While patriarchal systems continue to treat women as lesser human beings, ethnic strife remains easily stoked. Discrimination can cause considerable hardship at an individual level, by silencing and denigrating those affected. But collective discrimination that effectively targets an entire category of people can be the cause of systemic, ingrained social injustice. The formation of the United Nations stemmed directly from the Holocaust and other deadly injustices committed in the name of collective discrimination during World War II. Yet, inequality reinforced by injustice continues to be a global reality, pushing people to the margins and predetermining their life’s trajectory - whether it is laborers from South Asia toiling in the Middle East, Muslims in East Asia being subjected to inhumane treatment, or Black Americans being systematically denied the right to vote. Such destructive identity markers have and will continue to be leveled at people simply for being “different.”

The legacy of slavery and incomplete efforts to address lingering systemic racism in the US helped spawn the Black Lives Matter movement - which has in turn galvanized people around the world to confront the marginalization and persecution they face at home. While legal systems may have been constructed with equal rights in mind, the actual realization of these rights requires considerable policy support - including affirmative action measures designed to redress historic injustices and check the continued marginalization of people in public life based on perceived differences. In terms of rhetoric, at least, progress has been made towards greater inclusion. Yet, social justice will only be achieved if carefully designed safeguards are constructed to protect against the episodic use of identity markers - especially in the political sphere - to encourage majorities to stoke the politics of fear. The potential rewards of ending persecution and marginalization are many - enabling, for example, societies to benefit from the entire spectrum of human talent, and to not have to rely solely on those who happened to have been born with the “right” identity markers.

SOCIAL JUSTICE

Protecting free speech and access to information is key for advancing human rights

Everyone should have the right to seek, receive, and impart sincere and credible ideas and information through any form of media, and across any border. Such freedom of expression and information exchange can enable the realization of other human rights. Ideally, the platforms used to convey this information are accessible to anyone and can be used to their genuine benefit. Yet, platforms have frequently been exploited and manipulated, and governments and other powerful actors have actively sought to obstruct their positive potential. People can only speak up and share opinions in a climate free of fear, yet free expression and the ability to inform the public are often curtailed on grounds of national security - inflaming tension, aiding the spread of lies, impinging on religious freedom, unfairly damaging reputations, and inciting hatred. While international law permits restricting communication in well-defined circumstances for limited periods, to deal with specific emergencies, that power has been misused and the result has been increased repression in some instances. Those voices deemed inconvenient to the powers that be can be - and have been frequently - simply removed from social media platforms.

Social media platforms are mostly privately-owned, and often apply their own rules inconsistently - perhaps with the intention of preventing the spread of misinformation, but often in ways that result in vulnerable groups being denied access. This can reinforce local cultural biases or sensitivities when it comes to matters like LGBTI rights in countries where same-sex relationships are criminalized, for example. The proliferation of lies and propaganda online calls for a clearer understanding of how to sift truth from falsehoods, and of the ways that hateful rhetoric can be truly dangerous due to its potential to incite violence. Understanding the difference between genuine free expression that should be safeguarded and other types that merit closer scrutiny is crucial. It is necessary to expand opportunities for everyone to speak up without fear, and to develop restrictions that can only be applied when there is a clear incitement to violence. This will require eradicating the barriers to social media access for peaceful views, and safeguarding the fundamental right to expression in ways that enable people around the world to realize their many other rights.

Rapid innovation can have a profound effect on rights both for better and worse

Most peoples’ lives have been fundamentally transformed by dramatic technological advances. But as technology continues to evolve at an exponential rate, so will its implications for human rights. There can of course be exceptionally beneficial impacts, for example the satellite data now available that can assist in monitoring human rights situations in areas of conflict or high-risk zones. Innovation has also helped improve transparency when it comes to labour conditions throughout traditionally-opaque global supply chains. And social media platforms are now a staple for organizing advocacy movements, giving a louder voice to activists, and holding brands and other powerful actors to account. But technology’s impact on human rights can also be extremely detrimental. Developments in automation, robotics, and gig work are upending hundreds of thousands of jobs in traditional industries where there are no adequate social safety nets. Surveillance technology has aided authoritarian leaders targeting dissenting voices. Personal data being collected and manipulated, often without detection or oversight, is affecting behavior, consumption, and political outcomes. And artificial intelligence threatens to reinforce and deepen discrimination through the biases of its human developers.

Many of the potential human rights impacts linked to technology put businesses in a primary position to actively help safeguard rights, rather than governments. Businesses invent and evolve technologies so rapidly that governments are often far behind in terms of mitigating consequences. So, while the human rights movement has historically focused on the role of states in protection and delivering justice, more recently the most pressing related questions have focused on the private sector’s role. Some of the related challenges include the fact that technology is often protected by strong intellectual property rights to incentivize research and development - leaving human rights experts to frequently operate in the dark, and effectively work backwards to investigate alleged misuse. Meanwhile technology developers are too often focused on what comes next, while convincing themselves of the positive overall impact of current tools and platforms, and diminishing the threat of abuse. The key to positive human rights outcomes from technology, and preventing and remedying negative impacts, is fostering the ability of the technology and human rights communities to learn from each other, share information, and more deeply collaborate.

The multilateral system is both under threat and still badly needed

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1948 following the horrors of World War II, was the first international affirmation of the inherent dignity and equal rights of all people. The Declaration spells out the basic civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights that everyone is entitled to - and should respect and protect. It was followed by nations adopting legally-binding “Covenants” - on Civil and Political Rights, and on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights - that together with the Declaration form the International Bill of Rights. Nine core international human rights instruments spell out in detail states’ obligations with respect to rights and freedoms, like a convention on eliminating all forms of racial discrimination, a convention to eliminate discrimination against women, and a convention against torture. There are also protections of children’s rights, migrants’ rights, and rights of people with disabilities - as well as rights relating to education and standards of health. By ratifying these (and other legal instruments), states accept obligations to respect, protect, and fulfill the rights enshrined.

The UN has established mechanisms to monitor states’ compliance with their human rights-related treaty obligations. These Treaty Bodies can raise awareness of violations through country visits and investigations, monitoring reports, dialogues and recommendations, and by taking up individual complaints. But, because they have no independent enforcement provisions, this system has been less-than-able to hold states accountable for gross and systematic abuses. More broadly, multilateral efforts to uphold internationally-agreed-upon standards and norms have faced mounting challenges in recent years - driven by growing discontent with globalization and structural inequalities firmly embedded within economies. This restlessness has created openings for a new generation of authoritarian and protectionist governments, which aim to undermine rights, freedoms, and democratic norms (a dynamic that has only been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic around the world). Initiatives to strengthen the international human rights architecture are therefore critical, as systemic, existential challenges continue to mount for humanity - whether in the form of a pandemic, the climate crisis, or due to profound technological change - requiring renewed international solidarity and unprecedented, collective sacrifice.

Climate justice means focusing on equitably sharing burdens

The burdens of climate change should be shared equally - between the rich and poor, women and men, and young and old. Yet, in reality the impacts are felt most acutely by those who have contributed least to the problem. In addition to recognizing that different groups are affected in different ways by the climate crisis, more attention should be paid to the fact that climate impacts can exacerbate already inequitable social conditions. For example, extreme heat affects the elderly, those with disabilities, or people suffering from chronic illness more severely, while people already struggling with food insecurity are impacted inordinately by diminished food supplies due to drought and flooding, and communities of colour are often subjected to relatively poor air quality, urban heat islands, and other problems that become more acute as the planet warms. Efforts to achieve climate justice are gaining greater acceptance and prominence; the global Fridays For Future youth strikes have injected new energy into the movement, and illustrated the need to embrace the next generation as facilitators and creators of fresh opportunity - and not merely as passive beneficiaries of climate action.

Climate justice means being clearly focused on equitably sharing the burdens of climate change. There is also a need to focus on the practical means to achieve the new, green economy. Just as the effects of climate change often have different social, economic, and public-health implications for marginalized and vulnerable groups, the actions undertaken to fight climate change can adversely impact certain people if not properly conceived and pursued. There is a growing awareness of the need for a “just transition” that not only creates jobs to those who lose theirs to climate progress, but also recognizes that efforts to achieve a low-carbon economy must be implemented in ways that respect the rights of the workers and communities most impacted by changing industries, economies, technologies, and societies. Underpinning this concept is the core human rights principle of participation - to involve those affected by a potential action in the decision-making process. Businesses and governments must find new ways to involve young people, community groups, and workers in efforts to slash emissions and move economies away from extraction-based growth and consumption, and towards more regenerative models.

It has been roughly a decade since the role of the businesses in upholding human rights was ‘clarified’

Businesses have a significant role to play in respecting and promoting human rights. In 2005 the International Relations scholar and former UN Assistant Secretary General for Strategic Planning John Ruggie was appointed by the UN Secretary General to “clarify” this role - which had for decades been the subject of divisive debate. He spent the next six years consulting governments, businesses, and affected communities around the world, and drafted the “Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights” (UNGPs), which were unanimously endorsed in 2011 by the UN Human Rights Council. The UNGPs lay out three interconnected pillars: states must actively protect against human rights abuses involving businesses and take steps to prevent, investigate, punish, and redress them; businesses of all sizes, sectors, location, ownership, and structure must actively respect human rights, avoid causing or contributing to adverse impacts through their activities, and prevent or mitigate impacts linked to them via business relationships; and both states and businesses must be accountable for any harm they are involved in, meaning states must ensure access to effective remedies through judicial, administrative, legislative, or other means, and businesses should create and use grievance mechanisms to ensure issues are addressed early and directly.

Since they were endorsed the UN Guiding Principles have been widely embraced, and major international and domestic entities have aligned their own standards accordingly. Hundreds of companies have now established human rights policies, alongside systems designed for their implementation. And, significant judicial decisions regarding related corporate conduct have drawn international attention. Despite this progress, however, the UNGPs are only a tool. Companies continue to commit human rights abuses, and thousands of businesses large and small remain either ignorant or in denial of their related responsibilities. Relatively few legal cases have resulted in a meaningful remedy for those harmed by corporate misdeeds or inaction, and systemic risks continue to be unaddressed. This has prompted a push at the UN for a new international legal instrument to mandate the regulation of corporate conduct as it relates to human rights. Processes to draft treaties at the UN usually consume a considerable amount of time, with no clear end in sight, and the experience with this treaty has been no different. In the meantime, an increasing number of national and regional proposals for mandatory human rights due diligence have gained momentum, as have initiatives by investors to use their leverage with corporations.

Identity is multifaceted, and so is discrimination

The many different factors that can make up a person’s identity - race, gender, age, physical ability, or cultural background, for example - shape their experiences throughout life. When it comes to confronting discrimination based on identity, there is a growing movement within and beyond the human rights community to draw wider attention to these multiple dimensions, and to the social, economic, and historical contexts in which discrimination takes place. This method of examining the multiple forms of discrimination that different individuals may face in a holistic way is known as “intersectionality”; fundamentally, it is a recognition that discrimination is experienced in complex ways, which can often have compounding impacts on one another. Merely focusing on only one form of discrimination, such as racial identity, without considering other factors like a person’s gender or economic status, means that other, simultaneous rights violations can easily be overlooked or ignored. This can lead to a failure to address the totality of problems and structural disadvantages experienced by groups such as minority women, older people with disabilities, or LGBTI minorities.

Our understanding of intersectionality is still in its infancy. Most institutions with a responsibility to prevent or remedy discrimination - like courts, government institutions, schools, and businesses - need more training and tools to incorporate it into their policies and practices. Focusing on intersectionality brings advantages; it acknowledges the complexity of peoples’ experiences, and takes into account their unique social and historical context. For example, unemployment, poverty, and homelessness are all contributors to disadvantage for vulnerable populations, so including them in any contextual analysis enriches our ability to understand these populations. Intersectional approaches focus on society’s response to an individual’s multifaceted identity, rather than slotting that person into rigid categories. It also acknowledges that discrimination may be less overt now than in the past, and more multi-layered, systemic, and institutionalized. Responses must therefore be more sophisticated, and greater effort is necessary to elevate sensitivity to the connections between race, gender, and social class. That in turn could modernize our understanding of and responses to discrimination - moving beyond the compartmentalization that has characterized most approaches to date.

It may be relatively easy to define but it is far more difficult to achieve

The principle of a living wage is not new. It was reflected in the International Labour Organization’s constitution established in 1919, and in the right of workers to “just and favourable remuneration” ensuring “an existence worthy of human dignity” included in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The principle has been reinforced in many of the other labour and human rights standards that have emerged since then. The level at which the living wage is set is context-driven, varying between nations and within them. There is no single definition, though it is generally understood to mean a level that provides households with a minimum acceptable standard of living, including essentials such as water, food, housing, education, healthcare, clothing, and transportation. Making a living wage a reality for everyone, however, has proved far more difficult than defining it. For many businesses and governments in developing economies, low wages are viewed as a competitive advantage. But at a time when trust in governments is at a low, and economic inequality has widened in much of the world, this approach should be reconsidered.

A growing number of companies are committing to paying a living wage, but relatively few have extended this to their global supply chains. According to the Corporate Human Rights Benchmark, just 10% of the world’s largest companies, in sectors like agriculture, mining, apparel, and information and communication technology, have applied living wage commitments to either their own operations or their supply chains (the percentage is even lower in the automotive sector). In an environment where investors are increasingly scrutinizing corporate ESG (environmental, social and governance) commitments and performance, however, companies will have to explain why poverty wages in global supply chains are permissible. Efforts like the Action, Collaboration, Transformation initiative (ACT), which brings together international brands, retailers, manufacturers, and unions to address wages in textile and garment supply chains, tend to focus on the role of collective bargaining. A living wage is not a privilege; it is enabled by workers, for workers, to claim their rights. In the near future, more governments, investors, and companies will likely have to respond to demands from unions and civil society groups for a living wage.

HUMAN RIGHTS

The average citizen is being given more decision-making power, though that may not always be a good thing

Traditionally, people in power have been cautious about participatory processes they cannot control. But the tide is turning. Decision-makers around the world, both in the public and private sectors, are becoming increasingly open to hearing public voices. Granting more decision-making power to the average person can sometimes be viewed as a less-than-optimal course of action; in some situations, it might even damage economic and political stability. One example might be public support in the US for taking a more aggressive stance on trade with China - which ended up causing problems in the same regions of the country where tariffs on Chinese goods were ultimately imposed. While giving the public more say might have drawbacks, like economic instability or misuse (the Brexit vote in the United Kingdom is another example), there is growing acknowledgment that participatory tools spread knowledge and enhance legitimacy. Opening up the political sphere is a complex, delicate process, particularly during unrest. In democracies, using executive power to impose stability can hinder progress, and simply informing the citizenry is no longer enough. Ursula von der Leyen, the European Commission President, has stressed that democracy is “more than voting in elections.”

Social media influencers have considerable sway in terms of shaping public perception, and social media companies themselves, and their executives, impact public discourse through content-moderation policies and the spread of information (and disinformation). This impact resonates most notably during elections, raising the question: who should hold dominion over digital tools? The answer depends on who is doing the influencing, and on which platforms. Leading tech companies and startups in places like Silicon Valley and China are at the forefront of developing cutting-edge technologies like artificial intelligence - and their decisions related to research, development, and investment in these areas can shape public discourse. They can also command authority over user data. The private sector therefore wields considerable influence over the framing of global communication, alongside powerful nations, sometimes guided by self-interest. However, the bulk of decision-making when it comes to technology platforms should rest with those most directly impacted by resulting outcomes. It is imperative to consider the perspectives of those most affected, and amplify both effectiveness and equity. The ascent of AI-driven decision-making has only introduced more unpredictability into the equation, potentially impacting our choices in ways that are yet to be fully comprehended.

The core identity of the 21st-century citizen is intertwined with the digital landscape

Perception of the relevance of the trappings of the 21st century to the average person's daily life is far from uniform - and it is imperative to acknowledge that the concept of a “21st-century citizen” resonates more with some demographic groups than others. The current century has witnessed a hastening of the rhythm of everyday existence, and a simultaneous rise in inequality. That has occurred despite significant improvements in terms of education access and internet availability in many places, which has substantially lowered hurdles for participating in the digital public arena. For many people this arena has become essential to access information; they have not only become more willing to publicly speak up there in ways that go well beyond the mere act of voting, they also now have the capacity to do so through tailored social media channels. It is no surprise that social media platforms played pivotal roles in events like the Arab Spring that roiled politics across the Middle East more than a decade ago, the massive street protests that blanketed Hong Kong in 2019, and the gilets jaunes (“yellow vests”) demonstrations that crippled parts of France in 2020.

Social media was also crucial to the success of the “Fridays for Future” school strikes originated by Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg, which managed to get millions of people out onto the streets in 2019. The belief that citizens, including those susceptible to misinformation, deserve to wield an ever-present voice is commonly held. These people have expectations not just for political leaders but also for businesses and civil society organizations. This has inspired new ways of sharing information that empower them to influence entire industries, as they grapple with the complexities of the global economy. Artificial intelligence is playing a key role in shaping the relationship between the 21st century citizen and the digital landscape; It is increasingly integral to accessing news, knowledge, and entertainment. AI algorithms determine what information is presented, impacting worldviews and the understanding of current events. And while it is a striking facet of 21st-century citizenship, the increasingly vibrant online identity of the LGBTQI+ community may not manifest universally across all countries - though it does manage to serve as an emblem of 21st-century citizenry in places where greater diversity, inclusion, and social progress are era-defining.

As trust in traditional institutions declines, unconventional entities are reshaping the power landscape

Trust in government and traditional institutions like political parties, trade unions, and organized religion has been declining in much of the world - and alternatives are filling in the resulting gaps. Global corporations have gained greater power and influence, in particular technology companies proactively inserting themselves into political and policy-related discussions. One example of this is the series of campaigns and activities launched by Microsoft on the idea of Digital Peace, and the concept of a Digital Geneva Convention to help protect people from nation-state attacks in cyberspace. Broader corporate participation in public life is becoming increasingly mainstream, as was made clear by a statement issued in 2019 by the Business Roundtable (an organization that includes CEOs of the biggest US companies) - which advocated for the “stakeholder capitalism” concept that holds that corporations should not only aim to maximize shareholder value, but should also prioritize the interests of customers, communities, and the natural environment. Meanwhile native and indigenous communities are exerting their own, more profound influence on these shifting power dynamics, by reclaiming their cultural heritage and asserting their social and environmental rights.

By challenging dominant narratives in this way, these communities are shifting power away from corporations and governments to local communities. Decolonization is therefore an ongoing process, aimed at increasing the recognition of the multiplicity of voices and narratives long marginalized by historical colonial powers. Citizen journalists and alternative media outlets are increasingly providing digital platforms for such previously-marginalized sources, to help them share their stories and perspectives; their counter-narratives can challenge prevailing versions while bringing attention to underreported issues. Technology has other contributions to make: advanced algorithms and computing power have converged to enable artificial intelligence to understand, learn, and perform tasks with a level of sophistication previously thought to be out of reach, helping to quickly and dispassionately analyse huge amounts of data, predict trends, and make fairer decisions. Some emerging technologies, like blockchain, may further enable decentralized governance, and potentially eliminate the need for intermediaries - in terms of both financial transactions and decision-making. This is changing how authority is distributed, and making decisions more information-driven and potentially less biased. However, it also raises questions about accountability and fairness that need to be addressed.

Legacy institutions are adapting to the complexities of the modern world

Traditional institutions are grappling with modern complexities aggravated by rising inequality, the lingering impacts of COVID-19, climate change-related catastrophes, and volatile migration patterns. Conventional governance structures inherited from past centuries, like political parties and inter-governmental negotiations, are increasingly being questioned as their efficacy seems to diminish. The bedrock of decision-making - voting - is meanwhile undermined by declining turnout, polarization, and external manipulation. The pandemic's impact catalyzed global tensions and strained the multilateral framework crafted after World War II. This underscored an imperative to reassess established paradigms, and explore more inclusive and effective modes of governance. Central to this evolution is a recognition of the importance of multi-stakeholder approaches; these not only accommodate a more diverse array of voices and perspectives in decision-making processes, but also cultivate a greater sense of collective ownership and shared responsibility. By harnessing the insights of governments, civil society groups, corporations, and the broader public, modes of governance can become more comprehensive - and result in holistic solutions that resonate with all segments of society, as decision-making processes themselves add new dimensions of inclusivity and collective responsibility.

Emerging avenues of global collaboration, exemplified by initiatives like the Internet Governance Forum, and endeavors aligned with UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, indicate a will and a need to reshape traditional power dynamics. Through extensive digital coordination, civic-participation movements can become more inclusive - exemplified by the French Citizens’ Convention for the Climate, which inspired similar processes elsewhere. Other countries taking inspiration from the French model organized their own citizens' conventions (or assemblies) on climate change; the United Kingdom, for example, launched a Citizens' Assembly on Climate Change in 2020. At the European level, the Conference on the Future of Europe, a groundbreaking participatory process, was institutionalized by the European Commission. More recently, the commission adopted the EU's initiative related to Web 4.0 and virtual worlds, largely inspired by direct follow-up to proposals originated by that conference. Such examples showcase the power of deliberative governance; as particular platforms such as Avaaz and Change.org progressively bridge the gap between informed citizens and decision-makers. This gradual yet steady integration of deliberative governance signals an evolving paradigm in decision-making at all levels.

From fake news to political incivility to a lack of representation, there is a vicious cycle of mistrust

The exclusion of particular populations from decision-making has become a pivotal factor in the erosion of trust. This denial of representation and voice fosters a deep-seated skepticism of authority - and among traditionally marginalized groups like young people and women, there's now a palpable sense of political disengagement that points to an urgent need for more inclusive governance taking into account diverse perspectives and experiences. Meanwhile a perception of political incivility - of elected representatives defying the very laws they are in office to uphold - is further eroding trust. An apparent disregard for established norms engenders disillusionment, contributing further to the trust deficit. The media's role in shaping related perceptions cannot be understated; negative, divisive portrayals of certain social groups have a cascading effect that contributes to a climate of suspicion and unease. That in turn perpetuates a distancing of communities from the institutions meant to serve them. COVID-19 only amplified these challenges, by demonstrating the potentially deadly impact of false information, and by further weakening social cohesion in many parts of the world to the point of making traditional representative democracy appear to have reached its limits.

The major factors driving this breakdown include the mismanagement of the pandemic, related economic crises, and political instability. Growing global inequality, coupled with the emergence of a large middle class in the Global South that has mounting consumer and lifestyle expectations, have further stressed social cohesion. All of this contributes to a breakdown of trust in political systems and politicians, in Western democracies and authoritarian regimes alike. One way to tackle this problem is to try to come up with new and creative ways of making decisions. In many places, for example, people would like to have more opportunity to vote directly on issues through initiatives and referendums. Another approach involves "deliberative democracy," where people affected the most by a decision come together in an organized way to talk about it. Instead of simply more people participating, it's about having meaningful conversations among those most directly impacted. While people might have once been (mostly) satisfied with being represented by elected legislative representatives and administration officials who are (at least theoretically) working on their behalf, they now place more trust in their peers and in themselves - rather than in institutions.

Technology can increase public engagement, but it has an ugly side to it

The isolation caused by COVID-19 underlined our collective need to ensure digital participation is a core element of modern education. By empowering learners with digital skills both during health crises and in relatively stable periods, societies can nurture more informed and engaged dialogue. But digitalization can also disrupt deliberative decision-making - and open new avenues for populism and manipulation. “Civic techs,” or technologies that enable constructive political engagement, are maturing. Even if they do not enable the same kind of dialogue as a live assembly, they benefit from substantial public input. For example, France’s three-month-long “Great National Debate,” commenced in 2019 in response to widespread protests, garnered nearly two million online contributions. The Multilingual Digital Platform of the Conference on the Future of Europe is another example; it gave every European Union citizen a chance to participate in any of the bloc’s 24 official languages. Citizens could both put forward their own ideas, and endorse other people’s ideas while commenting on them. Some governments have deemed digital transformation to be a key asset, as they seek to make their societies more inclusive. Estonia in particular has distinguished itself in this regard.

On the other hand, a growing reliance on online tools can aggravate inequality between the connected and the non-connected. That means holding online participatory processes can further exclude, rather than include, by widening the gap between those who can easily get online and those who cannot. COVID-19 underlined this divide - while many people were able to rely on the internet to stay informed, provide remote schooling for their children, and continue to work while maintaining social distancing, many more were not - in ways that perpetuated inequalities in decision-making. The pandemic also highlighted the basic human need for in-person meetings and social contact. Protests were perhaps the ultimate expression of this need, and though they could be potential sources of infection - and were therefore limited or banned in many instances - people around the world nonetheless took to the streets to demonstrate, and much of their surge in civic participation was due to greater access to information (both accurate and less so). One consideration stemming from this flourishing of online information is intellectual property protection. Safeguarding the rights of creators helps to foster a fair and equitable environment where participation can thrive.

CIVIC PARTICIPATION

Racial differences mean unequal access to jobs, wealth and housing

Systemic racism dramatically skews access to employment, income, and wealth. As of May 2020, the unemployment rate for black Americans was 16.8%, compared with 12.4% for white Americans. Statistics outside of the US tell a similar story. In the United Kingdom, the unemployment rate for black people declined from 17% in 2012 to 9% in 2018 - though that was still more than twice the 4% rate for white people. Racial disparities have also been glaring in terms of income. In South Africa, for example, government data published in 2019 showed that white people in the country were earning three times as much as black Africans on average, two decades after the end of apartheid. In the US, where nearly one in five black families have debts exceeding their assets, and just 30% of African American households own stocks (compared with 60% of white families), Black Lives Matter activists have pressed for a restructuring of the tax code that could more fairly redistribute wealth. More equitable access to credit is also a priority; data published by the Federal Reserve show that black-owned firms are turned down for loans twice as often as their white-owned counterparts.

Systemic racism has long resulted in disparate infrastructure considerations and housing opportunities. Across the US, African American communities were decimated by the construction of highways designed with little regard for their impact on once-cohesive neighborhoods. In Minneapolis, where the killing of George Floyd in May 2020 triggered global protests for racial justice, demonstrators peacefully occupied the Interstate 94 highway in a move freighted with symbolism. In terms of housing, the historical practice of “redlining” US cities involved outlining areas with black populations so they would receive a fewer public and financial services. The impact of redlining has lingered; some 2020 US presidential candidates proposed using old redlining maps to identify areas still in need of increased investment. Similar patterns have developed elsewhere. In Europe, the increased privatization of housing in the 1970s and 1980s increased the segregation of people based on racial background, according to a report published by the Council of Europe Development Bank. And in Brazil, 2019 data showed whites earning 74% more than black and brown people - who, while representing more than half of the population, had the worst indicators in terms of housing conditions in the country.

Film, music and social media have been used to perpetuate stereotypes and shape perception

The arts can help perpetuate systemic racism through the ways that people are dramatically portrayed, and the ways that certain art forms are - or are not - showcased. In France, for example, the official music industry body in charge of distributing royalty payments has dismissed the popularity of rap music, even though 16 of the 19 number one singles in the country during 2019 were of the genre. No black or Arab rappers in the country were nominated for best album, artist or song at the 2020 Victoires de la Musique, in what some critics saw as a sign of a lingering racial divide. When it comes to film, casting decisions can expose what might otherwise be hidden racial bias. After rumors began circulating that black actor Idris Elba might be considered to take the role of James Bond, for example, it unleashed an ugly wave of racist push back online. Historically, white actors would simply take the roles of black people while wearing black face (a practice that has unfortunately recurred up to the present), or the roles of Asian people with cosmetic tweaks - such as in Charlie Chan films.

Meanwhile real black and Asian actors have often been relegated to roles as domestic help or sidekicks, and people of color in Hollywood have generally struggled to receive the same recognition as their white peers. While ethnic minorities make up more than 40% of the US population, they accounted for 33% of mainstream film roles in 2019, and just 17% of Oscar nominees between 2016 and 2020. One reason cited for this is the predominantly white membership of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences. There have been a number of efforts to belatedly curate arts and entertainment in order to address racism, which have in turn been widely debated. In June 2020, HBO Max pulled the 1939 film Gone With the Wind from its offerings, triggering both praise (it glorifies the pre-Civil War South in the US) and criticism (it is also still popular and resulted in the first Oscar for a black actor). Ultimately, media and the arts could be an important means to seek racial justice in the wake of the killing of George Floyd - which was exposed to the world via video on social media.

Efforts to combat systemic racism have advanced thanks to heroic leadership and responsive governance

There have been many remarkable efforts around the world to confront systemic racism, albeit with mixed results. A number of advances have been made in terms of forward-looking rules and regulations. In Australia, for example, the country began implementing a series of “anti-vilification” laws in the late 20th century, which have a simple but powerful aim: to embrace diversity by forbidding the denigration of someone based on who they are (as opposed to what they have done). In Europe, the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1997 introduced the power within the European Union to combat discrimination based on factors including race and ethnicity. At the international level, in 1993 the United Nations Commission on Human Rights created the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism - intended to intensify international efforts to combat racism, racial discrimination, antisemitism, and xenophobia. These scourges not only persist, they are continually assuming new forms, the UN has said. In the US, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was signed into law roughly a century after the end of the Civil War, in a bid to finally guarantee the equality of all races in the country.

A series of remarkable individuals have succeeded at mobilizing people to seek racial justice, and have often effected enduring change. In the US, Martin Luther King Jr. persevered through arrests, the bombing of his home, and other personal abuse to lead successful, non-violent efforts to desegregate public facilities, register black people to vote, and create a “coalition of conscience” before he was murdered in 1968. Meanwhile Malcolm X provided a combative balance to Dr. King’s work by mobilizing black Americans to more actively question and confront systemic racism. In South Africa, Nelson Mandela organized efforts to dismantle the racist apartheid system before being imprisoned for 27 years; in 1993, Mandela was jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for laying the foundations for a new, democratic South Africa. More recently, a new generation of leaders and organizers has come to the fore. The three women who founded Black Lives Matter, for example, have developed a largely community-centered, collective leadership model that has helped transform the movement into something that a majority of American voters supported by a 28-point margin as of June 2020, according to the research firm Civiqs.

COVID-19 has magnified the systemic racism undermining healthcare systems

In June 2020, the United Kingdom’s Equality and Human Rights Commission announced it would probe the “deep rooted inequality” faced by people from black, Asian, and minority ethnic communities that has come into sharper focus amid the COVID-19 pandemic. The announcement came after a report found that death rates associated with the disease were highest among people from black and Asian ethnic groups; people of Bangladeshi ethnicity were found to have roughly twice the risk of death as white British people, while people of Chinese, Indian, Pakistani, “Other Asian,” Caribbean and “Other Black” ethnicity had between a 10% and 50% higher risk. The UK is not an isolated example - other countries have also been confronted with graphic evidence that their healthcare systems have left people of colour disproportionately exposed to risk during times of crisis. In the US, many individual states began collecting race-related data as the pandemic spread, and the results were often revealing. In several states, the percentage of reported COVID-19 deaths attributed to African Americans was not only greater than their share of the overall population, but was more than double that percentage.

The causes cited for this disparity include the fact that underlying health conditions putting people at higher risk in the face of the coronavirus - including diabetes and chronic lung disease - are more common among African Americans. For example, the rate of diabetes is estimated to be 66% higher for black Americans than for white Americans, according to the Centers for Disease Control. By several measures, health outcomes for black Americans have historically been similar to those for people from less-wealthy countries with less sophisticated medical systems and technology. Racism is, at least in part, responsible for the fact African Americans, since arriving as slaves, have had the worst health care, the worst health status, and the worst health outcomes of any racial or ethnic group in the country - according to a report published by the Journal of the National Medical Association in 2001. In the UK, efforts have been made to address disparate health outcomes based on race since the 1960s, according to a report published by Social Science & Medicine in 2016 - but inequitable access, experiences, and outcomes continue to be documented.

Systemic racism pervades just about every country on Earth, but in distinct ways

While virtually no place in the world has been spared from systemic racism, it can take different forms - and have varying negative impacts - depending on location. In parts of the Middle East, for example, the anti-racism protests sparked by the killing of George Floyd in the US in May 2020 focused in part on the “kafala” system that has long bound an estimated 23 million migrants, often from less-wealthy Asian and African countries, to a single employer. The system has been described as a racist form of exploitation that makes these workers vulnerable to abuse - and is rooted in Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and other Gulf states. In India, meanwhile, racism can manifest in the form of an obsession with a light skin complexion. Negative feelings about dark skin in the country have informed advertising for cosmetics, fuelled racist attacks on African residents, and led to the public ridicule of an actress on a popular TV show in 2016. In Myanmar, intolerance and bigotry have taken more sinister form in an ethnology-nationalism that led to violent attacks on the Rohingya and other Muslim communities.

In some places, people of colour are encouraged to believe that race is a secondary to other forms of identity - and that racism therefore does not (or should not) exist. In 2018, the French ambassador to the US wrote a letter to the comedian Trevor Noah, who had joked that the French soccer team’s World Cup win was a victory for Africa due to the ancestry of many of its members. The letter informed Noah that unlike in the US, France does not refer to its citizens based on their race, religion, or origin - and that referring to players as African denies their “Frenchness.” This notion of colour-blind civic assimilation is generally not well understood elsewhere. In the US, for example, racism was a fundamental element of the nation’s politics and economy from the beginning - when its founders inserted a clause in the Constitution making slaves equal to three-fifths of free people for the purposes of congressional representation, as a compromise aimed at encouraging southern states that had built their economies on the buying and selling of black people to join the union.

People of color remain woefully under-represented in top political and business leadership positions

In Canada, the reaction to the killing of George Floyd in US police custody in May 2020 included a bid to track the number of black people who have attained senior leadership positions - and to draft related targets. The founder of the effort, the Canadian Council of Business Leaders Against Anti-Black Systemic Racism, suggested publicly that when it comes to black people in executive positions and on boards in the country, there would be “a lot more zeroes than numbers.” That would not be unique. In many countries there is a dearth of leadership positions in both the private and public sectors occupied by people of colour. In 2019, Harvard Business Review and Deloitte interviewed members of 47 corporate boards in the US, and found that many cited progress in terms of gender diversity but not on other forms of diversity including race. According to data published by the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance, as of 2018 just 19.5% of board seats at Fortune 100 companies were held by African Americans, Asian-Pacific Islanders, Hispanic-Latinos, and “Others.” For the Fortune 500 as a whole the figure was just 16.1%.

A lack of racial diversity at the top can rob organizations of valuable perspectives. This applies not just to businesses but to political organizations and government institutions as well. It was not until 2012 that a major political party in France tapped a person of color as a leader, and while an estimated 10% of the European Union’s population is made up of ethnic and racial minorities just 3% of EU MEPs were people of color as of mid-2020 (that figure declined following Brexit and the departure of several British parliamentarians). In a letter addressed to European Commission President Ursula Von Der Leyen in June 2020, 120 members of the EU assembly asked that she acknowledge and condemn racism in the EU, including police brutality, and that she publicly condemn any denial of racism in the bloc. In 2019, US voters elected the most diverse Congress ever, as 22% of the incoming members of the House of Representatives and Senators identified as racial or ethnic minorities. Still, that figure remains short of the 39% of the country’s population that is non-white - and Hispanic representation in the House has been particularly lacking.

Demands for racial justice include calls to re-direct funding from police to health and education services

In May 2020, the death of George Floyd at the hands of police in Minneapolis triggered outrage and demands for racial justice around the world. The killing was only the latest of a black person either in direct confrontation with US law enforcement, or effectively condoned by authorities. A few months prior to Floyd’s death Ahmaud Arbery, another unarmed black man, was murdered in Georgia by two white men who were not arrested until video of the crime was made public months later. These tragedies and the many that preceded (and continue to follow) them have had a devastating psychological impact on communities of color. They have also prompted calls to fundamentally reform police departments, and to re-direct funding from police to social services like mental health care and education. These efforts come after black people accounted for 24% of those killed by police in the US in 2019 despite being 13% of the overall population, according to data published by Mapping Police Violence, and as inordinate amounts of city budgets across the country have been directed towards police rather than programs that may better serve people of color.

More than a quarter of all the people in prison in England and Wales are from a minority ethnic group, according to the Prison Reform Trust, and the economic cost of black, Asian and minority over-representation in the system is estimated to be £234 million a year. In addition, black men are 26% more likely than white men in England and Wales to be remanded into custody, according to the organization. Meanwhile in Brazil, the advocacy group Conectas estimated in 2017 that 64% of the prisoners in the country were black or mixed-race, though this group represented 53% of the country’s overall population. And in the US, the incarceration rate for black people was 2,306 per 100,000 as of 2010, compared with 831 per 100,000 for Latinx people, and 450 per 100,000 for whites, according to the Prison Policy Initiative. Around the world, racial injustice has led to disproportionate numbers of black and brown people being imprisoned. That in turn has had a corrosive effect. In the US, for example, a “coercive mobility” that returns convicted felons with limited social mobility to poor communities of color is believed to increase crime in these places.

SYSTEMIC RACISM

Recent crises have underlined the need to redesign the ways food is produced and distributed

Millions of people around the world go to bed hungry every night - and this has only worsened due to disruptions to global supply chains caused by climate change, the pandemic, conflict, and related food-price spikes. Rising temperatures, declining water supplies, and more frequent extreme weather events like floods and drought are impacting food supplies, making more sustainable food production more necessary every day. As defined by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, a sustainable food system “delivers food security and nutrition for all in a manner that the economic, social, and environmental bases to generate food security and nutrition for future generations are not compromised.” Truly sustainable food systems are able to transform the way we consume calories, and to help build healthier communities. Following a “One Health” approach that recognizes human, animal, and environmental health as interconnected can help bolster sustainable food system efforts - which will be key for achieving greater food security and achieving the first United Nations Sustainable Development Goal, “Zero Hunger.” However, the necessary transformation of food systems requires both short- and long-term strategies.

In the short-term, existing food insecurity need to be addressed, particularly for the most vulnerable. In the medium- to long-term, greater focus should be placed on building resilient food systems - through regenerative farming, crop diversification, fewer environmental burdens, better water management, reduced chemical fertilizer use, and less waste. Digital technology can be used to better monitor processes from production to distribution; collaboration with the private sector entities could help develop smart systems capable of accurately assessing supply and demand. In Indonesia, for example, the online platform Sayurbox has enabled more people to buy fresh produce directly from farmers. Government support in the form of environmentally-friendly policies and nutritional goals is also needed. In Bhutan, the government has connected some 2,000 farmers with nearly 100 schools across the country to provide students with nutritious, locally produced food. This provides additional income for farmers, improves children’s eating habits, empowers women-led farming groups, and helps bring communities together. Taking immediate action will be necessary to aid food security - the consequences of not doing so will be dire, and the poor and vulnerable will bear the brunt of the burden.

Small businesses suffered disproportionately during the pandemic, in ways that hindered progress on the SDGs

Achieving the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals will rely on successfully sustaining small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) - and fostering their contributions to the healthy economic growth. SMEs will play an integral role in achieving SDG 2, for example, which aims to create a world free of hunger, to SDG 11, which aims to make cities resilient and sustainable, and to the general SDG agenda of leaving no one behind. SMEs are economic growth engines for both developing and developed countries, and serve as bridgeheads between the formal and informal economies in these places. They tend to provide relatively low-cost employment (the unit cost of labour employed in SMEs is comparatively low), they aid local and regional development while creating rural-urban links, they help to equitably distribute wealth by dispersing economic activity, and they promote resilience in the face of economic upheaval. In South Asia, for example, home to an expansive informal economy, SMEs are key to employment and income distribution - and crucial for the local achievement of the SDGs (80% of the region’s workers are employed informally, and 90% of the businesses are small and informal).

Even before and (to a greater extent) during the pandemic, economies suffered from a worsening of conditions for businesses generally, and for small businesses particularly. Pre-existing gaps were exacerbated by greater financial, social, and technological exclusion of workers traditionally employed by SMEs - and research suggests there will be persistent, negative related effects on achieving SDG 8 (“decent work”), SDG 1 (ending poverty in all forms), and SDG 5 (gender equality). A greater focus must be placed on helping SMEs fulfil their role as substantial sources of gainful employment, poverty alleviation, and overall sustained economic growth. This can be done by developing holistic databases of SMEs to enable more evidence-based and informed policies for the sector. Governments must also provide better support by enacting much-needed policies that address the disproportionate damage done to small businesses during the pandemic; these must be part of broader, macro development frameworks. In order to facilitate truly fair and inclusive recoveries, the Global South especially must focus on supporting job creation and sustaining businesses. Ultimately, it may be necessary to enlist innovators from other sectors of an economy, not least social entrepreneurs, in focused efforts to strengthen SMEs.

It is a fundamental element of sustainable development, but elusive in too many places

The critical role of energy in achieving sustainable development has been widely acknowledged for decades; truly sustainable development cannot be achieved without providing people with affordable, dependable, and clean energy services. This was underlined in 2015, when universal access to inexpensive, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy was formalized by the UN as one of its Sustainable Development Goals (SDG 7). Yet, the situation has not significantly improved since then, and billions of people - mostly residing on the outskirts of cities or in rural areas of sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia - lack access to electricity and suffer from low quality service. In addition, more than 2.5 billion people have no clean cooking energy; they rely mainly on biomass fuels burned in inefficient appliances in poorly-ventilated cooking spaces (meanwhile in the Global North energy access is generally not a constraint, though the use of high-polluting fossil fuels has damaged the environment). Women and children bear the physical burden of fuel collection in places lacking adequate energy access. It puts them at risk while undermining their education, professional prospects, and quality of life.

Around the world, the release of man-made emissions into the atmosphere has resulted in increasingly-prevalent climate change impacts and pollution, affecting both agriculture productivity and human health and welfare. Unreliable access to electricity has aggravated the situation, for example by making it more difficult to operate medical facilities and maintain vaccine refrigeration. This creates a serious public health issue - particularly in rural parts of the Global South. Sustainable development means satisfying the needs of the present population without endangering the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. If we apply this concept to energy-related issues specifically, then it is clear that the present state of energy use and its impact on lives and resources, in tandem with the finite ability of the planet to absorb this impact, is inevitably limiting economic development and hindering both environmental protection and social inclusion - two pillars of sustainable development. In order to better foster social and economic development, we must expand access to sustainable energy - primarily through renewable energy systems that do not harm the environment, livelihoods, and health.

As the pandemic wanes, now is the time to extend support to students most in need

Access to education is a basic human right and essential for economic growth, yet it remains unattainable for many children in the Global South. Efforts to address this have had mixed results. While there is improvement in terms of enrolment and retention rate at the primary level, completion of a full 12 years of schooling is still a distant dream for many. An estimated 258 million children around the world are not in school; 97 million of them are in sub-Saharan Africa, and another 94 million in central and South Asia (COVID-19 may have sharply increased these figures). These children are largely disadvantaged; many have disabilities, are members of religious minorities, or are migrants. Girls are particularly vulnerable. While the pandemic has made clearer pre-existing fault lines in the public provisioning of education, it also has created opportunities to build stronger, more inclusive and equitable education systems. There is a need to broaden the understanding of what inclusive education means, particularly in countries where related efforts are only being applied to children with disabilities. Governments should carry out vulnerability mappings on at regular intervals.

Reasons vary widely for the lack of access to education - so one-size-fits-all approaches to policy interventions in the sector have largely failed to translate good public-sector intentions into effective outcomes. It is therefore clear that the entire population of out-of-school children cannot be viewed as a single, homogeneous group. To achieve effective outcomes, it will be necessary to implement needs-based, targeted interventions - especially for those children left furthest behind. It is the right time for administrators to try to draw up inclusive fiscal plans looking ahead for the next five years, and to ramp up investment in a manner that more comprehensively addresses the requirements of vulnerable children. As the pandemic wanes, one immediate policy measure that can be implemented is to support more students using both monetary and non-monetary incentives, especially for those in dire need, to keep them in the system. Ultimately, it must be acknowledged that inclusion is not only an outcome but also a process; for truly inclusive education, the participation of many different stakeholders in this process is imperative.

Constructively following global guidelines relies on the efforts of both the private sector and civil society

In a globalized world, governance through treaties and international organizations is crucial for success. Each sovereign country may have its own laws, but international rules and norms help regulate their relations with one another. They can also foster global common goods like the natural environment, the ocean, and space, alongside global communication and international trade. The United Nations has been the at the centre of the global agenda since World War II. Its agreements, conventions, and treaties apply to human rights, climate change, and many other topics, and it can propose development policies for member states; the UN system can help build technical and financial capacity to implement these proposals. In 2015, the UN’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development was approved alongside 17 related goals, or SDGs. This approach requires accounting for different perspectives and sectoral agendas - and creates a need to shift from a governance structure of distinct agendas to a more integrated approach. One related change was the reform of the UN development system and designation of Resident Coordinators in many countries. This position, based in the UN Development Programme (UNDP), is central to promoting the fulfilment of the 2030 Agenda.

The High-Level Political Forum for Sustainable Development is a UN subsidiary body responsible for monitoring policies and making recommendations to member states. And the UN Sustainable Development Cooperation Framework (formerly UN Development Assistance Framework), is implemented in member states through specific agreements; it is meant to enable a more comprehensive approach to the development agenda in each location, through consultation with a broad set of stakeholders (including the private sector). Specific related initiatives include the UNDP Accelerator Labs, established in more than 90 countries to incubate innovative approaches to making progress on the 2030 Agenda, and the Joint Sustainable Development Goals Fund - an instrument for strategic investment in activities deemed necessary to achieve the SDGs. Like many other international agreements, the UN General Assembly resolution that approved the 2030 Agenda is not binding on countries. Its effectiveness therefore depends on the willingness of each member state to factor recommendations and decisions into local policies. As a result, the private sector and civil society can play key roles as advocates at the national level. Also playing a significant role: international cooperation instruments (technical and financial), and the transparency of mechanisms for measuring progress.

Resilience must be built into both infrastructure and social and political systems

We must now deal with a mounting climate crisis, which is already having serious, tangible impacts. Unchecked greenhouse gas emissions, the widespread destruction of biodiversity, and unsustainable natural-resource exploitation have pushed our biosphere to the point where the experts on the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change have declared a “code red” for humanity. Every year, we seem to break another weather-related record, with “hottest temperature,” “unprecedented drought,” “wettest monsoon” and other such superlatives becoming a mainstay of headlines. Hypothetically, even if the entire world could completely cut emissions to zero immediately, we would still have to endure climate change impacts caused by historical emissions - as the atmosphere retains emitted carbon for as many as 1,000 years. This means that a greater capacity to recover from, adapt to, and cope with climate impacts including floods, heatwaves, and droughts needs to be ingrained in the built environment and ecological systems. This capacity must also be a prominent part of economic, social, and political systems - including in the form of a political will to fund and facilitate climate action.

Though climate change manifests in physical ways, its social impacts are substantial. That means climate policies, especially in the Global South, should be multi-dimensional. Any climate policy should concurrently enhance environmental and socio-economic resilience. In India, for example, the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, a massive public works programme, focuses on livelihood generation while dedicating 65% of its budget to natural-resource conservation. The programme helps build adaptive capacities for beneficiaries by increasing incomes, especially for women and in marginalized communities. It relies on sustainable local natural resources, and creating livelihood-specific assets. Any development programme can foster climate adaptation and mitigation benefits; it must also, however, feature self-reflection and system assessments. The renowned ecologist C.S. Holling, who brought resilient thinking to the forefront of socio-ecological studies, asserted that systems must evolve while they build resilience. If the baseline system itself is fundamentally unjust and unsustainable, then evolving to a new system is preferable to belatedly attempting to add resilience. Cultivating flexibility therefore requires a manifold approach engaging multiple stakeholders, and solutions that account for the individual characteristics of specific systems.

Vaccine hoarding during the pandemic limited the impact of efforts to reduce North-South inequity

Two highlights from the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals: Decent Work and Economic Growth (SDG 8), which hinges on Good Health and Wellbeing (SDG 3). To date, a lack of clean drinking water, adequate food, proper housing, energy access, and healthcare services including vaccination has impeded the attainment of SDG 3 in the developing world. Though efforts have been made to reduce inequalities between the Global North and South, vaccine hoarding during the pandemic and a reluctance to subsidize the cost of healthcare has limited their impact. More recently, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has triggered rising food and fuel prices and raised production and transportation costs globally - constraining fiscal capacity in developing countries, alongside their ability to provide vaccines and healthcare services. This has been compounded where violent conflict within some countries is further hindering access. In addition, climate change has caused more frequent droughts, floods, and wildfires globally, and the Global South has had to deal with a disproportionate share of these extreme events - which have their own, cumulative impact on access to healthcare, particularly in places where people are most in need.

Increased investment in research and development related to the manufacturing of vaccines and essential health products, in addition to the improvement of medical facilities, could help reduce inequality and accelerate progress on SDG 3 in the Global South. The US International Development Finance Corporation (DFC), the World Bank, Germany, and France are collaborating on a joint investment expected to enhance vaccine manufacturing and close the vaccine gap, and the International Financial Corporation (IFC), in partnership with equipment manufacturers and financial institutions, has launched an effort to make health systems more resilient in parts of the Global South. Such collaboration and partnership between hemispheres are necessary to bolster the distribution of vaccines and healthcare products. Meanwhile greater cooperation within the Global South, and the dedication of larger proportions of GDP to healthcare, is urgently needed to ensure greater local resources and to develop economies of scale when it comes to production. There is also a need for more training of healthcare professionals, more concerted staff retention efforts, more product R&D investment, and better equipping of facilities in marginalized and rural communities.

Sustainable development and women´s empowerment go hand in hand

Women´s economic empowerment is key to inclusive economic development and poverty reduction. That fact is recognized explicitly in the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals - in SDG 5, which calls for achieving gender equality and empowering all women and girls, and in gender-specific benchmarks included in other goals. However, the 2022 SDG Gender Index cited scant progress made on gender equality since the goals were outlined in 2015; more than 25% of the indicators were “far or very far” from 2030 targets. COVID-19 disproportionately impacted women, and even reversed some progress. According to the World Economic Forum’s 2022 Gender Gap Report, it will take 132 years to close the global gender gap. While labor inclusion has increased in recent decades, women still make 77 cents for every dollar men earn, according to UN Women. This has several causes, many arising from social norms that push women into some jobs and away from others. There are more men in STEM-related fields that provide higher incomes, for example. In addition, women disproportionately work in the informal economy, and are more liable to take part-time work (due to domestic obligations).

A disproportionate number of women take care work that brings them in and out of labor markets, making it more difficult to attain senior-level positions. This is just one way in which unequal participation contributes to income inequality, and to greater numbers of women retiring into poverty. Understanding what is behind such gaps requires quality data analyzed in enough granular detail to measure lived experiences and real needs. It is essential to look beyond averages to empower all women and girls, by accurately tracking their progress. Significant gaps even within different groups of women arise from intersectionality, or the overlapping of different characteristics that create disadvantages - such as ethnicity, race, disability, or class. However, related data is currently insufficient. Governments and international, national, and civil society organizations around the world, alongside the private sector, have increasingly recognized the need to collect and use dis-aggregated data - and there are now data coalitions, platforms, and portals to compile and make available more and better information. However, as UN Women has emphasized, despite such efforts much data about women and girls remains incomplete or missing - and where it is missing, women and girls are invisible.

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT