Information and communications technology (ICT) and electronics sector

The digital technology and electronics sector can contribute to realising several human rights and help achieve the vision laid out in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, as highlighted in a selection of projects from Global e-Sustainability Initiative (GeSI) member companies. The sector has been noted for positive human rights impacts by offering hardware and software solutions that, for example, enable remote access to learning, mobile banking and real-time information which can be crucial in emergency situations, including identifying the early onset of drought, enabling the mobilisation of response efforts before a situation reaches a crisis point. Social media platforms can contribute to transparency, participation, freedom of expression as well as the development and coordination of democratic movements worldwide.

However, the digital technology and electronics sector also pose risks to human rights. For the electronics sector, the production of short lifespan electronic goods with supply chains that are plagued by occupational safety and health concerns and other adverse labour-related impacts, including low wages, long working hours, poor working conditions, and use of hazardous materials and ineffective and unsustainable recycling practices. Moreover, certain applications of digital technologies have been shown to pose serious risks to human rights. For example, the activities of companies such as social media platforms, search engines and internet services providers have been linked to adverse impacts on the rights to privacy, freedom of expression, freedom of association, non-discrimination and even the right to life. The features of the large-scale use of digital technologies raise unique challenges for the protection and respect of human rights given the far-reaching scope of impacts and the relative lack of transparency in the development of certain technologies such as automated decision-making and artificial intelligence.

The UNGPs provide a strong normative basis to assess human rights impacts in these sectors and develop concrete policy actions and measures to close protection gaps, as demonstrated in the Tech Sector and National Action Plans of Business and Human Rights developed by the Danish Institute for Human Rights and Global Partners Digital focusing on digital technologies.

The rapid evolution of the electronics sector, supported by strong marketing and promotion campaigns linked to business strategies that aim to launch new high-end product every year, results in still fully functional products becoming prematurely obsolete, rapidly disposed of by consumers, and often subjected to informal recycling. New products demand more natural resources, many of which are “conflict minerals” sourced from conflict-affected areas, with revenues often fuelling armed conflict, as highlighted in Frank Poulsen’s documentary “Blood in your mobile”.

The high-tech electronics sector is characterised by a complex, non-transparent global value chain, which often begins in developing countries like the Democratic Republic of Congo, where raw materials are sourced. These are later processed in other developing countries, such as Malaysia [M. van der Velden, 2017]. The final products are then manufactured in countries like China and Vietnam, and subsequently sold across the globe. Recycling of products is also done in developing countries, such as Ghana or Nigeria (according to ILO, The global impact of e-waste: Addressing the challenge, 2012), 80% of e-waste ends up, often illegally, in developing countries), where unsustainable disposal and recycling of e-waste results in serious environmental, health and social impacts. [M. van der Velden, 2017].

According to the UN Guiding Principles, companies have a responsibility to respect human rights by conducting human rights due diligence to ensure they do not cause, contribute or are linked to potential or actual adverse human rights impacts. The OHCHR Business and Technology Project provides authoritative guidance and resources for implementing the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human rights (UNGPs) in the technology space.

Other adverse human rights impacts associated to the digital technology sector include threats against the right to privacy [e.g. Microsoft case] and freedom of expression, with some states imposing unjustified restrictions on the Internet or social media accounts. In certain extremes, states have been known to enforce network shutdowns during public protests, or track protesters based on their phones geolocations [see e.g. #KeepItOn: fighting internet shutdowns around the world – Access Now ].

Direct or indirect discrimination by algorithms using big data is increasingly considered as one of the most pressing challenges of the use of new technologies. In addition to the problematic use of data in reinforcing bias against groups, low quality data is leading to poor predictions and discrimination. [Privacy International]. Research shows Artificial Intelligence (AI) algorithms allegedly recreate racial & gender bias, and systems that are used for targeted online advertising often discriminate based on race and gender. [Business and Human Rights Resource Centre].

Coupled with automated decision-making, profiling is being used to make or inform on decisions involving credit scoring, hiring, policing and national security. In 2016, IBM launched a tool that would help governments separate “real asylum seekers” from potential terrorists by assigning each refugee a score that would assess their likelihood to be an imposter. Through profiling, highly sensitive details can be inferred or predicted from seemingly uninteresting data, leading to detailed and comprehensive profiles that may or may not be accurate or fair. [Data is Power: Profiling and Automated Decision-Making in GDPR, pp.3-4].

Governments have also been accused of using malware to spy on journalists and human rights defenders. In 2017, the New York Times reported that some of Mexico’s most prominent human rights defenders, journalists and anti-corruption activists were targeted by spyware created by the Israeli cyber arms dealer, NSO Group. The Pegasus software sold to the Mexican government is capable of infiltrating smartphones to monitor calls, texts, email, contacts and calendars. The use of this spyware has also been reportedly used to advance business interests in Mexico, where vocal proponents of Mexico’s 2014 soda tax were also targeted.

A more recent phenomenon is the use of psychometrics to analyse big data collected through various media platforms, including Facebook and Twitter, to influence the behaviour of voters and the outcome of elections. For example, the mission of the Strategic Communication Laboratories (SCL) company is to influence elections by providing marketing based on psychological modelling. In 2013, SCL created a new company, Cambridge Analytica, to influence the Brexit vote and US elections. The misuse of big data to shape the outcome of elections not only has adverse impacts on civil and political rights, but also on a broad range of economic, social and cultural rights, which may be affected by the decisions of elected officials.

To address some of these issues, digital technology and electronics companies have joined efforts within initiatives like the Global Network Initiative, Responsible Business Alliance and Global e-Sustainability Initiative to develop common approaches, tools and standards and share good practices and lessons. Given the pressure from consumers, NGOs and investors [See e.g. SMART Project that looks into supply chain of mobiles], various initiatives and organizations, e.g. European Association of Electrical and Electronic Waste Take Back Systems (WEEE Forum) or Electronics Watch, now support companies in the electronics sector tackling various aspects of their supply and value chains. KnowTheChain has benchmarked 20 companies in the electronics sector on their efforts to eradicate forced labour from their global supply chains.

Governments are also undertaking efforts that aim to improve sustainability and transparency of the ICT and electronics value chains and prevent human rights abuses. One of the best known regulatory efforts including the 2010 US Dodd-Frank Act, Section 1502, “which aims to disrupt the trade in conflict minerals from Congo with a law that requires companies publicly listed in US to determine whether their purchases of 3TGs were inadvertently funding armed groups in the DRC” [Ethical Consumer, Conflict Minerals, October 2016], and the EU Conflict Minerals regulation from 2017 which is aimed at addressing human rights abuses linked to the sourcing of “3TG” minerals, (Tin, Tantalum, Tungsten, and Gold). Further, the EU has undertaken a number of specific steps towards addressing fundamental rights risks in the digital ecosystem. These actions come after a series of policy frameworks, research, and reports that have reviewed the different aspects of the current and future digital ecosystem in Europe. The regulations have been focused on specific activities (e.g., data processing), specific technologies (e.g., AI systems), and specific actors (e.g., intermediary services providers). The four main developments in this area are the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the forthcoming Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act, as well as the proposed Artificial Intelligence Liability Directive. All four regulations include a range of obligations placed on tech companies and activities in the digital sphere that aim to address significant, systematic, or severe risks to fundamental rights and freedoms.

Finally, the Freedom Online Coalition is a partnership of 30 governments working to advance Internet freedom including through coordination of diplomatic efforts and engaging with civil society and the private sector to support Internet freedom – free expression, association, assembly, and privacy online – worldwide.

4) Quality Education

5) Gender Equality

9) Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure

17) Partnerships For The Goals

References

Council of Europe, Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data, ETS No.108
Council of Europe, Guidelines for cooperation between law enforcement and internet service providers against cybercrime, 2008
Electronics Industry Citizenship Coalition, (EICC Code of Conduct / Guidance Documents)
European Union: Directive 2012/19/EU of The European Parliament and of The Council of 4 July 2012 on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE)
Regulation 2017/821 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2017 laying down supply chain due diligence obligations for Union importers of tin, tantalum and tungsten, their ores, and gold originating from conflict-affected and high-risk areas,
OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas
ILO: The global impact of e-waste: Addressing the challenge, 2012
The Conflict-Free Sourcing Initiative
The Global Network Initiative
The Global e-Sustainability Initiative
UN Global Compact Dilemmas Forum, Freedom of opinion, speech and expression
ICT Sector Guide on Implementing the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, Shift & IHRB for European Commission, 2013
Children’s Rights and the Internet: From Guidelines to Practice. A series of articles from Guardian Sustainable Business showcasing debate, opinions and good practices on children’s rights and the Internet. English, Spanish
UNICEF, Children’s Rights and the ICT Sector
UNESCO, “Freedom of connection, freedom of expression: the changing legal and regulatory ecology shaping the Internet, 1 June 2011
UNESCO Series on Internet Freedom
Frank La Rue Special Report on the right to freedom of opinion and expression, 16 May 2011
Joint Declaration on Freedom of Expression and the Internet issued by the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, the Organization for Security and Co-operation (OSCE) Representative on Freedom of the Media, and the Organization of American States (OAS) Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights (ACHPR) Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information.
OHCHR, Principles for Responsible Contracting
The Global Network Initiative, Report: The Economic Impact of Disruptions to Internet Connectivity, 2016
Transparency Reporting Index
Electronics Watch
Human Rights Watch – Internet Freedom
Human Rights Watch, Will technology transform the human rights movement?, 26 March, 2014
Microsoft Corp.: Microsoft Security Intelligence Report; Corporate Citizenship Report
Websense Policy on Government-Imposed Censorship
Google Inc. – Transparency Report
Good Electronics, Electronics multinationals and labour rights in Mexico, 2007
Project SURVEILLE, Surveillance: Ethical Issues, Legal Limitations, and Efficiency, 2012- 2015
International Telecommunication Union, Report- Fast forward progress: leveraging tech to achieve the global goals, 2017
GeSI Report: “#SystemTransformation: How digital solutions will drive progress towards the sustainable development goals”, 2016
M.van der Velden, Why the most sustainable mobile is the one you own, SMART Project, 24 April 2017
The Institute for Human Rights and Business – ICT section
The SMART Project: Life Cycle of Mobile Phones
Risk Catalogue for Mobile Phones
Cohn, T. Timm, & J. York, Human Rights and Technology Sales: How Corporations Can Avoid Assisting Repressive Regimes, April 2012
Lundgren, The global impact of e-waste: Addressing the challenge, ILO, 20 December 2012
Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Forum (The WEEE Forum)
Ethical Consumer, Conflict Minerals, October 2016
Global Witness, Conflict Minerals; Dodd Frank Act Briefing

What National Action Plans say on Information and communications technology (ICT) and electronics sector

Belgium (2017 - open)

The Belgian NAP does not contain a direct reference to ICT & electronics sector.

VIII. FUNDAMENTAL PILLARS

i. Fundamental Pillar 2: The duty of business to respect human rights

Strand 1[Eje nº 1]: Provide companies with the tools to fulfil their responsibility to respect human rights

(…)

The Ministry of Telecommunications [Mintic] will elaborate the “Guide on Human Rights and Business: A document on the application of human rights and business principles” for the specific context of the Information and Telecommunications Technologies (ICT) sector.

iii. Fundamental Pillar 3: Access to remedy mechanisms

(…)

Strand 2 [Eje nº 2]: Access to non-judicial remedy mechanisms

(…)

The SIC [Superintendencia de Industria y Comercio] will identify in telecommunications companies in Colombia which mechanisms are in place to guarantee due process in relation to the rights of petition presented by customers or citizens, within the operational framework.
The SIC [Superintendencia de Industria y Comercio] will identify the actions or strategies of telecommunications companies in Colombia to address or remedy the actual and potential negative consequences of their operation.

Accessibility of the courts [page 48-49]

“Sensitively and coherently used technology could play a major role in freeing the hands of the courts. Just like any other area of human activity, the judiciary could benefit from the advantages delivered by advanced technology. Numerous countries around the world are conducting studies and drawing up strategies on how to use such technology efficiently in the work of the judiciary. [For example, in 2017 the UK Ministry of Justice organised a competition for innovators and programmers to develop tools that would support the online judiciary.] These are tools that could be put to good use in the process of adjudication on the one hand (facilitating the taking of evidence, enabling hearings to be held without the physical presence of all persons) and in the paperwork and state administration of the courts on the other (file computerisation and automation). The technology must be used in such a way that it does not place an extra burden on the courts, and must be accompanied by the thorough induction training of court staff. Likewise, it must not reduce in any way the availability of or access to the courts and judicial protection.”

2 The state and companies

2.2 The State and the protection of privacy [page 23]

“As a follow-up measure, the working group proposes that

a roundtable discussion be organised on how to ensure the protection of privacy in Finland with the authorities, ICT companies and the civil society.
Principal responsible party: Ministry of Transport and Communications, autumn 2014.”

I- The State’s Obligation to Protect Human Rights

Examples of Responsible Practices Abroad [page 36]

Switzerland

The Swiss Federal Council has introduced a major amendment to its export licensing legislation in order to ensure surveillance technologies that might be used for human rights abuses are not exported from Switzerland. Following this amendment, Swiss authorities must reject companies’ requests to export surveillance technologies if there “are reasonable grounds to believe” that the items could be used for repression in the country of destination: https://www.privacyinternational.org/node/589

II- Businesses’ Responsibility to Respect Human Rights

3. Risk Analysis and Impact Assessment

Practical Tools Addressing Specific Issues

At the European Level [page 42]

The European Commission’s guides for three economic activities: … information and communications technologies.

Section 2: Current legislative and Regulatory Framework

Data Protection [page 14]

“Owing to the significant number of multinational tech companies based in Ireland, Ireland’s Data Protection Commissioner has responsibility for oversight of a large amount of data and has been involved in some high profile cases. The Government is committed to supporting the Data Commissioner in their role and, over recent years, has provided a fourfold increase in the funding for the work of the Commission.”

I. Guidelines and general principles

“(…) the second Italian NAP-BHR intends to strengthen the application of the UNGPs through a series of complementary measures, referring in particular to the following guidelines:

(…)

– the need to study in depth innovative issues related to technological development and artificial intelligence – also in relation to the Declaration of Rights in the Internet adopted by the Italian Parliament on 31 July 2015, in order to highlight their possible impact on the enjoyment of human rights, as well as an adequate action of corporate Due Diligence, and further innovative issues related to activities promoted by cultural companies with an important impact on the promotion of human rights” (p. 7)

II. Premises

c) National Priorities

“4. A collective awareness of the impact that new technologies, especially artificial intelligence, could have on the enjoyment of human rights, while paying attention to the promotion of corporate due diligence processes on human rights within the activities of those companies involved in research and development of new technologies” (p. 11)

IV. Italian ongoing activities and future commitments

Gender dimension

“Regarding gender leadership issues, the Task Force “Women for a New Renaissance”, established by the Ministry of Equal Opportunities and Family in 2020 to address the impact of Covid-19 on gender issues has produced a Final Report, based on quantitative data and qualitative scientific information on the impact of the pandemic in different sectors. Among the Task Force’s multiple proposals there are those ones targeted to:

(…)

– overcoming barriers to advancement in career paths, particularly in the fastest growing fields (STEM, computer science, cloud computing, data and artificial intelligence)” (p. 29)

ANNEX 1 – Accountability Grid and Assessment Tools for the Implementation of the NAP

“23. Monitor the application of artificial intelligence in the workplace (e.g. recruitment mechanisms) for the purpose of assessing impact on human rights in terms of inclusion and non-discrimination.” (p. 65)

“48. Disseminate principles adopted in relation to emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence for human rights compliance with a Due Diligence approach.” (p. 68)

Objective 2: promoting corporate responsibility and respect in the field of business and human rights

A. Implemented and on-going measures for the development of CSR in Lithuania [page 6]

3. “The application of CRS principles to the state-owned enterprises … To this end, since 2010, actions were taken to restructure SOEs with a particular focus on corporate transparency and social responsibility. SOEs provide important public services as regards energy, water supply, public transport, electronic communications, health, education, social services and others.”

Objectively verifiable indicators	× GDPR
Verification sources	× European legislation and institutions × CNPD [Commission nationale pour la protection des données] – UEL [Union des Entreprises Luxembourgeoises] / INDR [Institut National pour le Développement durat et la Responsabilité sociale des entreprises]
Expected results	× Regular consultations with the CNPD [Commission nationale pour la protection des données] × Increased understanding and awareness of the link between human rights and ICT, including AI
Implementation timeline	Duration of NAP 2
Means of implementation	× CNPD [Commission nationale pour la protection des données] × UEL [Union des Entreprises Luxembourgeoises] / INDR [Institut National pour le Développement durat et la Responsabilité sociale des entreprises] × Civil Society, including ALNU [Association Luxembourgeoise Pour les Nations Unies]