Search

Begin New Search Topic Regulation Political Geography Global Focus

21. The Future of Standardized Sustainability Reporting

Author:
Tia Rebecca Driver, Amr ElAlfy, and Olaf Weber
Publication Date:
05-2023
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI)
Abstract:
Regulators and stakeholders demand reliable, valid and comparable information about a company’s operations — and increasingly, not only its financial performance, but its non-financial impacts on society and the natural environment. Accordingly, regulators and reporting entities have developed sustainability reporting standards, but these are grounded in different reporting goals and sometimes in conflict. In this paper, Tia Rebecca Driver, Amr ElAlfy and Olaf Weber contribute to the current discussion of standardized sustainability reporting by analyzing the landscape of reporting frameworks and their governance bodies, which oversee and work on the standardization of sustainability reporting. They provide contextual background on the governance of sustainability reporting by comparing the prominent reporting frameworks to understand how they complement or conflict with one another. They then investigate the impact of mandatory reporting and materiality to understand how these concepts could influence the application and extensiveness of a composite reporting standard. Finally, the authors provide policy makers with recommendations that facilitate a standardized reporting approach that centres on sustainable development.
Topic:
Governance, Regulation, Sustainability, Standards, and Reporting
Political Geography:
Global Focus

22. Addressing the Liability Gap in AI Accidents

Author:
Amrita Vasudevan
Publication Date:
07-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI)
Abstract:
When a device controlled by artificial intelligence (AI) is involved in an accident causing bodily harm, who is at fault? The manufacturer, software developer or the user? With so many people involved in the design and production of AI-controlled technology (known as the “problem of many hands”), liability can be difficult to attribute, leaving victims and their families without recourse. As AI becomes increasingly entrenched in our daily lives, mishaps will become more common. This policy brief looks at the challenges in determining who is at fault when AI goes awry and how to address the liability gap.
Topic:
Regulation, Artificial Intelligence, Digital Policy, Emerging Technology, and Liability
Political Geography:
Global Focus

23. AI-Related Risk: The Merits of an ESG-Based Approach to Oversight

Author:
Mardi Witzel and Niraj Bhargava
Publication Date:
08-2023
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI)
Abstract:
Artificial intelligence (AI) technology has been found to generate value for many firms; however, it also has unintended and undesirable consequences. The reality of AI-related risk has led to the development of AI governance frameworks and calls for greater oversight of the use of AI. The merits of an ESG (environmental, social, governance)-based approach to oversight of AI-related risk are considered in this paper, with a focus on the current trajectory of international sustainability standards development. Despite their differences, AI governance and ESG reporting both seek to address risk in the broadest sense, with proactive and transparent approaches to its management and mitigation. A preliminary set of recommendations for incorporating material AI-related risk into ESG reporting, covering both general or context-setting disclosures and industry-specific disclosures, is provided.
Topic:
Regulation, Artificial Intelligence, Industry, Oversight, and Emerging Technology
Political Geography:
Global Focus

24. CBDCs and Their Implications for the International Monetary System

Author:
Robert Fay and Angelo Federico Arcelli
Publication Date:
11-2023
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI)
Abstract:
Central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) promise to revolutionize the way the world uses money, but there are questions around the impacts on monetary regulation and financial markets that still need to be answered. Unlike other types of digital currencies, such as cryptocurrencies and stablecoins, CBDCs are considered more trustworthy as a national currency because they are issued by national banks. But moving from traditional paper- and coin-based currencies to a digital platform raises many questions around monetary and financial stability, as well as governance (for example, related to privacy, competition, consumer protection and so on) that are currently being explored. Co-hosted by the Centre for International Governance Innovation, the Fondazione Mario Arcelli ETS, Istituto di Studi per l’Economia Applicata and UniCredit Group, the conference on “Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDC) and Their Implications for the International Monetary System” looked at the possible implications of CBDCs on monetary policy and financial markets.
Topic:
Markets, Monetary Policy, Regulation, and Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs)
Political Geography:
Global Focus

25. The Economics of Reduced-Risk Products: Global policy landscape and principles for policy treatment

Author:
Oxford Economics
Publication Date:
11-2023
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Oxford Economics
Abstract:
Heated Tobacco Products (HTPs) and vapour products (e.g., e-cigarettes) are new categories of Reduced-Risk Products (RRPs) in the tobacco market that have gained in popularity in recent years, with global sales of approximately US $20 billion each in 2020. In response, the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) has generally advocated a precautionary stance. For HTPs that can mean imposing equivalent fiscal and non-fiscal rules that are applied to combustible tobacco products. For e-cigarettes, it can mean strict controls on usage, with a focus on protecting vulnerable groups. However, pursuing a harsh stance towards RRPs could potentially limit policymakers’ options for mitigating health risks, and puts at risk the positive economic footprint supported by the RRP industry, in terms of the GDP, jobs, wages, and large R&D investments it supports. Against this backdrop, we propose three key principles that regulating authorities should adhere to for optimal outcomes in their approach to RRPs: tailor restrictions on RRP usage to different groups; differentiate the treatment of RRPs from combustible tobacco products; and incentivise innovation in industry to achieve better health outcomes at the population level.
Topic:
Economics, Health, Regulation, Innovation, Tobacco, and Reduced-Risk Products
Political Geography:
Global Focus

26. Mind the Gap: The Challenges of Assurance for Artificial Intelligence

Author:
Isaac Gazendam and Philip Dawson
Publication Date:
11-2023
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC), Stanford University
Abstract:
Artificial intelligence (AI) capabilities have progressed rapidly since defeating human players at board games. From voice assistants to chatbots, image filters to multi-modal content generation, AI is accelerating individual, commercial, and scientific purposes. The development of increasingly advanced AI systems, each with unique strengths and vulnerabilities, has also made assessing and managing AI risk a daunting prospect. Controls do exist. A variety of stakeholders have made strides in proposing tools and methods to govern AI systems. A common approach applied across these attempts is based on assurance, a collection of approaches and techniques that aim to measure the quality, reliability, and trustworthiness of AI products, services, organizations, or professionals. To some extent, governments are relying on assurance-based approaches to govern AI – from assessments and audit to certification – regardless of whether they have plans to develop AI regulations. Yet the AI assurance ecosystem remains nascent. Frameworks for AI assessments and audits are still evolving, as are supporting standards and accreditation criteria for third-party auditors, reviewers and evaluators. In some cases, it is now possible to apply certain assurance mechanisms to the governance of narrower applications of AI and related organizational processes. However, assurance-based approaches to more advanced systems based on large language models (LLMs) or generative models remain in their infancy.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Governance, Regulation, Artificial Intelligence, and Large Language Models (LLMs)
Political Geography:
Global Focus

27. Large-Scale Land Deals and Social Conflict: Evidence and Policy Implications

Author:
Alexander De Juan, Daniel Geissel, Jann Lay, and Rebecca Lohmann
Publication Date:
05-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
German Institute of Global and Area Studies
Abstract:
How do large-scale land acquisitions (LSLAs) increase the risk of conflict, and what kind of policies can mitigate this effect? We address these questions with a systematic and poli-cy-oriented synthesis of prior research. First, we suggest a simple conceptual framework linking LSLAs to social conflict through relative deprivation. Second, we present empirical evidence on the associations between land investments and social conflict, drawing on pre-existing quantitative and qualitative studies as well as on own descriptive analyses and case studies. Taken together, this evidence suggests that conflicts accompany a sub-stantive share of LSLAs (10 to 20 percent). Specifically, contentious dynamics often start with violations of community interests, which spur largely peaceful community protests that trigger coercion and violence at the hands of armed actors associated with national governments and investors. Third, we develop a set of policy recommendations in high-lighting the need for thorough regulatory frameworks, meaningful consultation, and full transparency.
Topic:
Reform, Regulation, Conflict, Transparency, Land, and Community
Political Geography:
Global Focus

28. AI Audit-Washing and Accountability

Author:
Ellen P. Goodman
Publication Date:
11-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMFUS)
Abstract:
We are still some distance from a worldwide robot takeover, but artificial intelligence (AI)—the training of computer systems with large data sets to make decisions and solve problems—is revolutionizing the way governments and societies function. AI has enormous potential: accelerating innovation, unlocking new value from data, and increasing productivity by freeing us from mundane tasks. AI can draw new inferences from health data to foster breakthroughs in cancer screening or improve climate modeling and early-warning systems for extreme weather or emergency situations. As we seek solutions to today’s vexing problems—climate disruption, social inequality, health crises—AI will be central. Its centrality requires that stakeholders exercise greater governance over AI and hold AI systems accountable for their potential harms, including discriminatory impact, opacity, error, insecurity, privacy violations, and disempowerment. In this context, calls for audits to assess the impact of algorithmic decision-making systems and expose and mitigate related harms are proliferating1 , accompanied by the rise of an algorithmic auditing industry and legal codification. These are welcome developments. Audits can provide a flexible co-regulatory solution, allowing necessary innovation in AI while increasing transparency and accountability. AI is a crucial element of the growing tech competition between authoritarian and democratic states—and ensuring that AI is accountable and trusted is a key part of ensuring democratic advantage. Clear standards for trustworthy AI will help the United States remain a center of innovation and shape technology to democratic values. The “algorithmic audit” nevertheless remains ill-defined and inexact, whether concerning social media platforms or AI systems generally. The risk is significant that inadequate audits will obscure problems with algorithmic systems and create a permission structure around poorly designed or implemented AI. A poorly designed or executed audit is at best meaningless and at worst even excuses harms that the audits claim to mitigate. Inadequate audits or those without clear standards provide false assurance of compliance with norms and laws, “audit-washing” problematic or illegal practices. Like green-washing and ethics-washing before, the audited entity can claim credit without doing the work. To address these risks, this paper identifies the core questions that need answering to make algorithmic audits a reliable AI accountability mechanism. The “who” of audits includes the person or organization conducting the audit, with clearly defined qualifications, conditions for data access, and guardrails for internal audits. The “what” includes the type and scope of audit, including its position within a larger sociotechnical system. The “why” covers audit objectives, whether narrow legal standards or broader ethical goals, essential for audit comparison. Finally, the “how” includes a clear articulation of audit standards, an important baseline for the development of audit certification mechanisms and to guard against audit-washing. Algorithmic audits have the potential to transform the way technology works in the 21st century, much as financial audits transformed the way businesses operated in the 20th century. They will take different forms, either within a sector or across sectors, especially for systems which pose the highest risk. But as algorithmic audits are encoded into law or adopted voluntarily as part of corporate social responsibility, the audit industry must arrive at shared understandings and expectations of audit goals and procedures. This paper provides such an outline so that truly meaningful algorithmic audits can take their deserved place in AI governance frameworks.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Cybersecurity, Democracy, Regulation, Accountability, and Artificial Intelligence
Political Geography:
Global Focus

29. Jawboning against Speech: How Government Bullying Shapes the Rules of Social Media

Author:
Will Duffield
Publication Date:
09-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Cato Institute
Abstract:
Over the past two decades, social media has drastically reduced the cost of speaking, allowing users the world over to publish with the push of a button. This amazing capability is limited by the fact that speakers do not own the platforms they increasingly rely on. If access to the platforms is withdrawn, speakers lose the reach that social media grants. In America, government censorship is limited by the First Amendment. Nevertheless, seizing upon the relationship between platforms and speakers, government officials increasingly demand that platforms refrain from publishing disfavored speech. They threaten platforms with punitive legislation, antitrust investigations, and prosecution. Government officials can use informal pressure — bullying, threatening, and cajoling — to sway the decisions of private platforms and limit the publication of disfavored speech. The use of this informal pressure, known as jawboning, is growing. Left unchecked, it threatens to become normalized as an extraconstitutional method of speech regulation. While courts have censured jawboning in other contexts, existing judicial remedies struggle to address social media jawboning. Amid the opacity and scale of social media moderation, government influence is difficult to detect or prevent. Ultimately, congressional rulemaking and the people’s selection of liberal, temperate officials remain the only reliable checks on this novel threat to free speech.
Topic:
Government, Regulation, Social Media, Censorship, and Free Speech
Political Geography:
Global Focus and United States of America

30. Regulating the International Digital Economy, with Trade and Innovation in Mind

Author:
Douglas Lippoldt
Publication Date:
06-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI)
Abstract:
The international digital economy is growing rapidly, and the fragmented governance framework is struggling to keep pace. Global entities such as the World Trade Organization and regional trade agreements offer a patchwork approach to governance. This paper illustrates the importance of governance in relation to private-sector innovation and recommends next steps to enhance governance, close gaps and promote further innovation. Better definition and international alignment of the framework for governance of digital trade and data could lead to greater privacy, trust and security.
Topic:
International Cooperation, International Trade and Finance, Regulation, Digital Economy, and Innovation
Political Geography:
Global Focus