The ICT and electronics industry is a competitive and litigious sector [See e.g.: Apple v. Samsung, Apple v. HTC, Apple v. Motorola, Microsoft v. Motorola]. On the one hand, it has tremendous potential for creating positive human rights impacts by offering solutions that, for example, enable remote access to learning, mobile banking and real-time information, which is crucial e.g. in emergency situations, such as in identifying the early onset of drought, enabling response efforts to be mobilised before a situation reaches a crisis point. As a result, ICT can contribute to protecting and realising several human rights (including right to life, health, food and right to water), and help achieve the vision laid out of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development [See e.g. a selection of projects from Global e-Sustainability Initiative (GeSI) member companies that illustrate the potential impact of digital solutions on the Sustainable Development Goals]. Additionally, social media platforms have contributed to greater transparency, participation, freedom of expression as well as development and coordination of democratic movements worldwide (see e.g. Why are ICTs important for Civil Society Organizations?, UN).
On the other hand, with 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 “an unsustainable cycle of low wages, human rights abuse, use of hazardous materials and ineffective and unsustainable recycling practices”, [M. van der Velden, Why the most sustainable mobile is the one you own, SMART Project, 2017], ICT is one of the most unsustainable and high-risk sectors [See e.g. ICT Sector Guide on Implementing the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, Shift & IHRB for European Commission, 2013, p. 9]. The rapid evolution of ICT technologies, 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 [See e.g. M. van der Velden, 2017; SBC e-Waste Africa Project, Ghana e-Waste Country Assessment, 2011, p. 78]. This trend is encouraged by the national mobile network providers and retail sectors, which offer consumers incentives to buy a new phone. [See e.g. M. van der Velden, 2017]. New products demand more natural resources, many of which are “conflict minerals” sourced from conflict-affected areas, with revenues often fuelling armed conflict [See, for example, Frank Poulsen’s documentary “Blood in your mobile”].+ Read more
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, 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].
Other adverse human rights impacts associated to ICT include threats against the right to privacy [e.g. Microsoft case] and freedom of expression, with some states imposing various, non-justified 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 whether their phones geolocations [ See e.g. Ch. Williams, How Egypt shut down the internet, The Telegraph, 28.1.2011]. There is a whole section of the industry that actively serves autocratic governments by making products that enable “the filtering and blocking online content” and providing “tools that help governments spy on their citizens”[Human Rights and Technology Sales, p. 2].
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 cyberarms dealer, NSO Group. The Pegasus software sold to the Mexican government is capable of infiltrating smartphones to monitor calls, texts, email, contacts and calendars. Pegasus is also able to use the microphone and camera on phones for surveillance purposes. 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. The aim of the soda tax was to reduce consumption of sugary drinks in Mexico, where weight-related deaths outnumber deaths related violent crime.
A more recent phenomenon is the use of psychometrics to analyse big data collected through various media platforms, including Facebook and Twitter, in order 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. SCL is the parent of a group of companies, some of which have been involved in elections in Ukraine and Nigeria. 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.
Increased governmental attacks on the freedom of speech and increased surveillance have led several ICT companies to form initiatives like the Global Network Initiative, Responsible Business Alliance and Global e-Sustainability Initiative to develop common approaches, tools and standards, share good practices and lessons on dealing with various demanding situations. With pressure from consumers, NGOs and investors [See e.g. SMART Project that looks into supply chain of mobiles], who increasingly start to question the supply chain and production methods, various initiatives and organizations, like European Association of Electrical and Electronic Waste Take Back Systems (WEEE Forum) or Electronics Watch, aimed to support companies in tackling various aspects of their supply, and more broadly, value chain, are multiplying.
Governments are also undertaking efforts that aim to improve sustainability and transparency of the ICT and electronics value chains and prevent human rights abuses. Very noticeable is the trend to regulate this sphere, with some 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 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, aimed at stopping the financing of armed groups through trade in conflict minerals. Also freedom of expression, including in the internet, has a group of defenders, who form initiatives of voluntary nature such as Freedom Online Coalition, a partnership of 30 governments, working to advance Internet freedom including through coordination of the diplomatic efforts and engaging with civil society and the private sector to support Internet freedom – free expression, association, assembly, and privacy online – worldwide (For details see here).
- 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