Enterprise Regulation Prof Weblog


You may’t learn the enterprise press with out seeing some handwringing about ESG. It’s in all probability why I’ve been instructing, advising, and sitting on much more panels in regards to the subject currently. Prefer it or not, it’s right here to remain (no less than for now) so I made a decision to do a totally unscientific experiment on lawyer and legislation scholar perceptions of ESG utilizing a category simulation. Over the previous three months, I’ve used the subject of tech corporations and human rights obligations to exhibit how the “S” issue performs out in actual life. I used the identical simulation for international legal professionals in UM’s US Regulation in Motion program, faculty college students who participated in UM’s Summer season Authorized Academy, Latin American legal professionals finding out US Enterprise Entities, and my very own legislation college students in my Regulatory Compliance, Company Governance, and Sustainability class on the College of Miami.

Previous to the simulation, I required the scholars to observe The Social Dilemma,  the Netflix documentary in regards to the probably harmful results of social media on people and society at giant. I additionally lectured on the shareholder v. stakeholder debate; the function of traders, customers, NGOs, and governments in shaping the talk about ESG; and the fundamentals of enterprise and human rights. Inside enterprise and human rights, we checked out labor, surveillance, speech, and different human rights points that tech and social media corporations might impression.

Members accomplished a prioritization train based mostly on their assigned roles as both CEO, investor, authorities, NGO, shopper, or influencer. It’s not an apples-to-apples comparability as a result of some teams didn’t have a look at the entire points and a few had totally different stakeholders. On this put up, I’ll present the outcomes. In a future put up, I’ll present some ideas and evaluation.

The subjects for prioritization had been:

Labor– in advanced international provide chains that always make use of staff in growing nations, how a lot accountability ought to corporations bear for compelled labor notably for Uyghur labor in China and baby labor in international mining and provide chains? What in regards to the circumstances in factories and warehouses earlier than and throughout the COVID period? 

Surveillance– how a lot accountability do tech corporations bear for the (un)moral use of AI and surveillance of residents and staff?

Psychological Well being– how a lot ought to corporations care in regards to the impression of the “like” button and the function social media performs in bullying, vanity, anxiousness, melancholy, habit, and suicide, particularly amongst pre-teens and teenagers?

Pretend Information- ought to a social media firm enable info on platforms that’s demonstrably false? What if permitting faux information is worthwhile as a result of it retains extra eyeballs on the web page and thus raises ad income? Ought to Congress repeal Part 230?

Incitement to violence– what tasks do social media corporations have when content material results in violence? We particularly checked out among the points with Meta (Fb) and India, however we additionally examined this extra broadly.

Suppression of Speech– ought to a social media firm ever suppress speech? This was carefully associated to faux information and the incitement to violence immediate and a few teams mixed these.  

The Rankings

 

Worldwide Legal professionals (roughly 40 complete individuals)

The worldwide lawyer group consisted of individuals from Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Colombia, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Iran, Jamaica, Mexico, Nepal, Sweden, Switzerland, and Ukraine. The group was not assigned to rank psychological well being as a social difficulty.

CEO:

  1. Pretend information
  2. Labor
  3. Surveillance
  4. Incitement to violence
  5. Suppression of speech

Socially accountable traders:

  1. Incitement to violence
  2. Pretend information
  3. Labor
  4. Surveillance
  5. Suppression of speech

Institutional traders:

  1. Labor
  2. Incitement to violence
  3. Suppression of speech
  4. Pretend information
  5. Surveillance

NGO:

  1. Pretend information
  2. Labor
  3. Suppression of speech
  4. Incitement to violence
  5. Surveillance

Customers:

  1. Incitement to violence
  2. Suppression of speech
  3. Pretend information
  4. Labor
  5. Surveillance

Latin American Legal professionals (roughly 10 complete individuals)

The Latin American legal professionals mixed faux information and incitements to violence with suppression of speech.

 CEOs:

  1. Labor
  2. Surveillance
  3. Suppression of speech
  4. Psychological well being

Buyers (they selected socially accountable traders):

  1. Psychological well being
  2. Surveillance
  3. Labor
  4. Suppression of speech

NGO:

  1. Surveillance
  2. Suppression of speech
  3. Psychological well being
  4. Labor

Customers:

  1. Surveillance
  2. Suppression of speech
  3. Psychological well being
  4. Labor

 

Regulation College students (roughly 52 complete individuals)

The legislation college students thought-about six social points. A number of are LLMs or not from america, though they attend college at College of Miami.

CEOs:

  1. Labor
  2. Surveillance
  3. Psychological Well being
  4. Pretend Information
  5. Suppression of Speech
  6. Incitements to Violence

Buyers:

  1. Labor
  2. Incitements to violence
  3. Surveillance
  4. Suppression of speech
  5. Pretend information
  6. Psychological well being

NGO:

  1. Pretend information
  2. Incitement to violence
  3. Psychological well being
  4. Labor
  5. Surveillance
  6. Suppression of speech

Customers:

  1. Surveillance
  2. Psychological Well being
  3. Incitement to Violence
  4. Suppression of speech
  5. Pretend information
  6. Labor

Faculty College students

Given how little work expertise this group had, I divided them into teams of CEOs, traders (no cut up between institutional and socially accountable traders), members of Congress, social media influencers, and customers. In addition they mixed suppression of speech, faux information, and incitement to violence in a single class.

            CEOs:

  1. Speech
  2. Surveillance
  3. Labor points
  4. Psychological well being ramifications

            Buyers:

  1. Labor points
  2. Speech
  3. Surveillance
  4. Psychological Well being

            Congress:

  1. Speech
  2. Surveillance
  3. Labor
  4. Psychological Well being

     Customers:

  1. Psychological Well being
  2. Speech
  3. Labor
  4. Surveillance

            Influencers:

  1. Psychological Well being
  2. Speech
  3. Labor
  4. Surveillance

What does this all imply? To be trustworthy, however my refined, clickbait weblog title, I do not know. Additional, with two of the teams, English was not the primary language for many of the individuals. Clearly, the pattern sizes are too small to be statistically important. I’ve ideas, although, and can put up them subsequent week. When you’ve got theories based mostly on the demographics, I might love to listen to your feedback. 

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/business_law/2022/09/how-generation-nationality-and-expertise-influence-stakeholder-prioritization-of-esg-issues-pt-1.html

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *